Wednesday, 24 June 2020

WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 2020

WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 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: Does she agree with Auckland University School of Medicine Professor Des Gorman that not all of the 2,159 people who left managed isolation between June 9 and 16 will probably be tracked down, and “we have to make the assumption these people have re-seeded the infection in the community”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I understand Professor Gorman is an expert in occupational health at Auckland University rather than an epidemiologist. However, of course, I acknowledge the role that he has played in the medical community. I note, though, that Auckland University infectious disease specialist Dr Siouxsie Wiles says the chances of—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’d like to hear the answer to this, and I will say to people who are barracking from my left that this question was corrected to make it accurate by me.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I note Auckland University infectious disease specialist Dr Siouxsie Wiles said the chances of someone leading to community infection after leaving an isolation facility are “very low” and that “If people had gone on to develop symptoms, the testing and the isolation of those around them would have kicked in as well. So we’re very unlikely to see anything happen from those, and if we do it’ll be very, very minor.”

Todd Muller: How can she say that when, in the absence of testing, she can’t know that none of those people had COVID-19 when they left managed isolation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because, as most countries around the world have implemented, the 14-day isolation period is the most important thing that any country can do to manage cases coming in at the border. That is why, when you pan around the world, most countries are opting for isolation and quarantine as opposed to a simple testing regime, with the reason for that being, of course, that because of the different time periods at which COVID can manifest, the early stage is the most likely stage when you shed infection, and the high rate of false negatives can be produced. As Dr Siouxsie Wiles says, “That two-week isolation is the really important bit, not really the testing—the isolation.”

Todd Muller: If she is so confident Professor Gorman is incorrect, why did her Minister of Health announce a ramped-up testing regime yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would dispute that I would consider that ramped-up. We did that on 9 June—9 June was when we absolutely had a very clear expectation, at the time of moving into level 1, that the foundation principles continued to be quarantine, but that we wanted the added reassurance of testing. I say again in this House, we were the ones that set that expectation, wanted it to be met, were assured that it had, and moved decisively when it wasn’t. But I would note in this House, we are one of the few, if not the only country in the world that has both quarantine and isolation and mandatory testing.

Todd Muller: Is Otago University Professor Michael Baker correct that National’s criticism of her Government’s health response is justified because this is—and I quote—“a matter of life and death.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is an issue we, of course, take very seriously. This is why we moved to bring in the defence force to ensure that our expectation of testing twice during quarantine was being met, and of course that is the reason we have some of the most stringent border controls in the world. Only Australia, that I can see, practises the same method of using Government-approved facilities, but we are the ones that are mandating testing as well.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister believe that adherence to the testing regime would be more or less reliable if management of quarantine and isolation facilities was devolved to tertiary education providers—who don’t believe the border should’ve been closed in the first place—as proposed by the Opposition?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member does make a good point. Our regime demonstrates our view that this has to be very tightly controlled and managed. I have seen proposals suggesting that we, essentially, contract out quarantine and isolation to providers who wish to operate international education opportunities and manage their own isolation. We are concerned that such suggestions at this point would be irresponsible—and I make that point to the member who seemed to support that.

David Seymour: If such a suggestion would be irresponsible, did the Prime Minister ever ask Ashley Bloomfield, “Those people being released early from quarantine—you’re testing them, right?”

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was the stated policy.

David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable that one of my constituents, advised by Healthline to be tested, had to wait four hours at the St Lukes community-based assessment centre in her electorate of Mt Albert?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, but I would point out that yesterday we had a record of more than 9,000 individuals tested—9,000—and the positives, of course, that we had were at the border. So that does demonstrate that at that raft of testing, we may have some congestion. I don’t consider that to be an acceptable wait. I am happy to follow up on the member’s concern, but it does demonstrate the suggestion from the member that we have an issue with community transmission to date, and our testing is not bearing that out.

Todd Muller: Why do we repeatedly see examples of what she says is happening in the border response on the ground actually not happening?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I refute the broad premise of that question.

Todd Muller: Why does the Ministry of Health still not know how many of the 2,159 people who left managed isolation—whether they have received a test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The director-general did share data that he had available today in his 1.30 press conference.

Todd Muller: How many people have left managed isolation without a test?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The director-general would’ve talked today about the fact that 2,159 left from 9 June to 16 June. They were all in quarantine or managed isolation for 14 days. They all had a medical check. None of them had symptoms at departure. The majority—1,249—had been tested.

Todd Muller: When she said of New Zealand’s contact tracing capability on 28 April—and I quote—“You’ll remember, of course, the Director-General pointed to his view that we have reached a gold standard.”, have the events of the past week proved that this was probably nonsense?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No, I wouldn’t say that that would be the case. Again, we’re actually talking about individuals who have completed—and the member would do well to reflect on this. Every single person that that member is talking about has spent 14 days in quarantine or managed isolation. As one of the few countries in the world who mandates it at our border, and now one of the only countries in the world I can find that requires every single person coming into the country not only to isolate but to have a test, that makes us the strictest.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Prime Minister confirm that over the last 14 days there have been more than 50,000 tests undertaken in New Zealand and that there have been no reports of community transmission?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes; in fact, Professor Michael Baker actually points out his view that the reporting of our results should differentiate between those cases that are at our border, because that is very, very different than what the member across the aisle is trying to imply is happening in New Zealand.

Todd Muller: Can the Prime Minister confirm for the House: was it her expectation that those 2,159 people who left managed isolation would have had a test before they left?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely—which is why I brought in the defence force.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. TODD MULLER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is it correct that on 20 May, daily COVID-19 situation reports, including the New Zealand border response, sent to Ministers, ended; if so, why?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): No.

Todd Muller: After 20 May, did she ask to regularly receive the sort of detailed information about the border, quarantine, and managed isolation which she had been receiving prior to that date?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To the best of my knowledge, the daily reporting the member is referring to is the Ministry of Health daily situation report, which was circulated to a wide range of recipients. To assume that that was the only information received by the Government and Ministers is wrong. We received daily isolation reports that included information around individuals in quarantine and isolation. The COVID daily case reports—so, obviously, the cases that we had in New Zealand and testing numbers—I note for the member that that is also made publicly available each day, and of course Cabinet received weekly COVID dashboards reporting on things like lab capacity, testing results, PPE, and cases in New Zealand and the number of people in managed isolation and quarantine.

Todd Muller: Did her regular reporting include how many tests were being carried out and how many tests needed to be carried out to ensure full coverage of those in quarantine and managed isolation facilities?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: There was daily reporting on testing numbers. At one point, we did directly query the fact that our testing numbers were declining. You’ll recall yesterday in this House, for the member’s edification, I talked about our office seeking information of testing at at-risk places. That prompted the Ministry of Health to reconfirm to my office on 5 June that daily testing was occurring for day three and day 12 of those at the border—including everyone at facilities—starting from 8 June.

Todd Muller: Did her regular reporting include confirmation of people who are leaving managed isolation with testing, as per her requirements of 8 June?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, we queried directly from the Ministry of Health what was being undertaken at the border. I note for the member that we did that before the protocol was even meant to be in place. They reconfirmed that it was occurring. If the member is trying to suggest that somehow we knew something was not happening, that is patently and factually incorrect.

Todd Muller: Was it a fact of the information being provided by her officials to her request for information that was incorrect?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I say, we were advised that the testing was happening twice during the period of quarantine, that anyone that came in after or before 8 June would be tested before leaving the facility, and, of course, the director-general confirmed that in public statements made, from my recollection, on 9 June as well.

Todd Muller: Is she saying she has been misled by her officials—essentially, they reported to her things that were happening that simply weren’t happening on the ground?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is not a revelation or new information. We’ve consistently identified that there was a failure to act in practice on what was an expectation of Cabinet. But our responsibility is to fix that problem, which we have.

Todd Muller: Is she essentially saying that from her perspective, the Government’s instructions were clear: officials had a job to do and they were left to do it without Ministers asking any regular questions or receiving regular reports?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I again reject the premise of the question. As he will have heard me say in the House yesterday, we directly, again, queried with the Ministry of Health the testing regime to be in place—and that of course included the border—and received a response confirming the testing we had an expectation would be happening starting from 8 June. I think this is an opportunity for me to mention to the House, though, that since that time, we’ve had over 5,000 tests happening across our quarantines and managed isolation.

Todd Muller: Does she accept that this comes down to two scenarios: either her officials misled her, or she and her Ministers haven’t been doing their job and haven’t been asking the right questions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This comes down to a scenario of the fact that we still have—still have—some of the most stringent requirements in the world. We still have cases contained at the border, and in a world where we have record COVID cases being reported daily—record cases—we are still in a position where New Zealanders should feel rightly proud of the work they did to get us here.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on Government initiatives to support businesses through COVID-19? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Grant Robertson—and I’d just say that just because one member makes an unfortunate noise, it doesn’t have to be repeated from the other side.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a huge number of reports from affected business owners who have contacted the Government to emphasise the difference the support measures have made to their businesses over these difficult past few months. One woman wrote to say, “The wage subsidy has been a huge help to us. My husband is a self-employed builder and we would have been in serious trouble financially without it and the mortgage holiday which we had to access as we have not long taken on a mortgage for our new house. It would have been a very worrying time for us without this help. My work has also accessed the fund and hopes to make it through, and so far there have been no job losses for us.” Just one other example: a business owner said, “Twelve weeks ago today, we received the wage subsidy to help us maintain our staffing during the tough times. I have to admit I had a lump in my throat when I explained the prospects to our staff at the end of March. You all know how the last 12 weeks have played out, so I thought it prudent to offer my sincere thanks. We are now back on our feet, and have even taken on a staff member laid off from a related business.”

Dr Deborah Russell: What other reports has he seen on the impact of Government initiatives to support businesses through COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: One Canterbury business owner wrote to the Government saying, “I just wanted to say a heartfelt thankyou for not only offering New Zealand businesses the wage subsidy package but also for the ease of applying and prompt payment. As a small business, without these financial assistance packages I doubt we would have survived, and up to 17 people may have lost their jobs.” A Waikato business owner said, “Without the Government support provided, the business would not have survived the lockdown, and 36 staff would have lost their jobs. We’re not out of the woods yet, and with a tough May we will be relying on the wage subsidy extension to pull us through, but we are hopeful and optimistic that the company will survive. The remainder of the year will be tough but we believe we can do it, but only thanks to the Government support we received.”

Dr Deborah Russell: As of today, how significant has the Government’s investment to support COVID-affected businesses been?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We continue to provide a wide range of support initiatives for businesses dealing with the fallout of COVID-19. The original wage subsidy scheme provided over $11 billion to support 1.7 million jobs. As of yesterday, the extended wage subsidy has provided just over $1 billion to 80,591 businesses, supporting 251,000 employees. In addition, the Government has lent nearly $1.4 billion to 83,392 businesses under the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. We have always been clear that the road ahead will not be easy, but that is why we are continuing to provide the support for businesses across New Zealand as they work hard to recover and rebuild over the coming months.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has the Minister seen Hamish Rutherford’s report that New Zealand First have pulled their support for the COVID commercial rent legislation regime, and two months after he announced that help was going to be on the way soon for small businesses struggling with rental costs, nothing has arrived?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I have read that report.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received, if any, on the number of jobs that could be lost over the next three months or 12 months if New Zealand fails to create “the world’s most intelligent border” that he spoke about on 4 June?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member is referring to a hypothetical scenario that includes a number of assumptions that could lead to a range of outcomes. The advice I have received through the main forecast in Budget 2020 assumes border restrictions are not fully lifted until April 2021. Of course the Government is continuing to work to be able to safely and progressively lift border restrictions as and when it is safe to do so. In terms of the impact on the number of jobs, as I said yesterday, advice on job losses and creation is continuing to evolve. The advice I have received in Treasury’s main Budget forecast is for the number of people in employment to, in fact, rise by 14,000 over the next three months—that being between the second and third quarters of 2020.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury advised him that failing to test people before being released from quarantine does not in any way, shape, or form represent the world’s most intelligent border?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of specific advice, no.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that opening up our borders safely to get Kiwis trading again and to import skilled migrants, tourists, and international students is critical to saving jobs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that ensuring that our border works well and that our border restrictions are put in place are incredibly important, and I invite the member to remind his leader of that as he makes promises to various sectors to open the border up.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how will Kiwis working in the tourism, hospitality, and international education sector keep their jobs if their fellow Kiwis aren’t confident that this Government can be trusted to open the border safely?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that, actually, the New Zealand public have a lot of confidence in the way this Government has managed and handled COVID-19, and I remind the member that on this side of the House we’ve taken these decisions seriously and carefully. We haven’t undertaken knee-jerk reactions and we haven’t done things that would have seen us in a situation that we see across the Tasman, where we see infections rising again and actual community transmission—not the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has anyone advised him that while his Government’s ambition is for the world’s most intelligent border, the reality, sadly, resembles much more KiwiBuild and the light rail down Dominion Road?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The advice that I continue to receive is that New Zealand, compared to most countries in the world, finds itself in an incredibly privileged position where our economy is largely back operating, where we’re able to move freely around, and where we do not have community transmission—those are the actual facts of the situation.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Housing: What examples, if any, is she aware of where people in managed isolation have mixed with other guests at the facility during their 14-day stay?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Like that member, I’ve seen media reports of returnees mixing with other returnees. Returnees are given clear guidance about the rules for keeping 2 metres’ distance from other guests, and prominent signage reaffirms this throughout facilities. There is an element of personal responsibility expected from returnees to adhere to those rules. We’ve introduced an additional layer of assurance with day three and day 12 testing, as well as lockdown procedures when a case is confirmed, which includes reviewing CCTV footage. It’s important to remember that during alert level 4, when COVID-19 was in the community, many of us continued to go grocery shopping, where we came near other people, so it’s important that we don’t fearmonger regarding this. Putting that aside, what we’ve seen hasn’t been good enough, and that’s why we have brought in the New Zealand Defence Force to manage these operations. I take any concerns about mixing in these facilities seriously, and I’ll continue to relay my clear expectations that there is strict adherence to the rules. If any member has credible information about mixing, they should supply it and it will be followed up.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, why is it that when a COVID-positive test occurs in a managed isolation facility, the whole facility goes into lockdown?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are a number of things that need to happen, including cleaning, for example. Very, very strict protocols have been put in place to ensure that where there is a positive test, the appropriate steps are taken to ensure that it doesn’t spread to anybody else.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has she been made aware of a birthday party that took place in a managed isolation facility, bringing multiple people together who should have been isolating separately?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did see that report on the media. I can confirm that there were no homeless people at that event.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that question and answer, can the Minister provide any examples, or, in fact, has he been provided with any evidence of homeless people mingling with others in managed isolation?

SPEAKER: Yeah, “she”—but other than that, yes.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have seen allegations that a homeless person was housed in quarantine for two weeks. That report has been rigorously followed up, devoting a significant amount of officials’ time, and it’s thus far proven to be nothing more than an urban myth.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of that answer, if it was such an urban myth, why did the Government spend “hundreds of thousands of dollars” investigating it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because, on this side of the House, we believe members of Parliament should be taken at their word.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: No, you don’t.

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has she been made aware that the Chief Ombudsman had to cancel a prison inspection because the staff doing it found out they were mixing with people supposed to be in managed isolation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the Chief Ombudsman’s comments on this are of public record. Those comments were made at least a week ago.

Hon Grant Robertson: Has she received a response to the letter that she wrote to the Hon Michael Woodhouse asking him for evidence of his claim of a homeless man joining a managed isolation group?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: On behalf of the Minister, I’m advised that no such evidence has been forthcoming.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason that testing is now so important because she has no confidence that people are isolating effectively within the isolation facilities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No. Testing is important because it gives everybody confidence that people leaving managed isolation will not have COVID-19.

Question No. 6—Health

6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding for our health and disability system?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): This coalition Government is lifting the support available to New Zealanders with disabilities with the largest funding boost for disability support services ever. As part of Budget 2020, the Government is investing an additional $833 million over five years to ensure people with disabilities are part of an inclusive recovery for our team of 5 million. This Government is committed to the wellbeing of all New Zealanders, and this follows on from the funding increase for disability support services in Budget 2018 of $211 million and an increase of $348 million in 2019. I’m proud to be part of a Government that puts people at the heart of its decisions.

Angie Warren-Clark: What support will the additional funding provide to disabled New Zealanders?

Hon JENNY SALESA: This funding will ensure we keep up with the rightful expectations of the disabled community to live good lives as other New Zealanders do. Disability support services provide access to much-needed support for personal care. This increased funding is to ensure better access to support for showering and hands-on care, and it includes accommodation for disabled people with high needs, equipment for mobility and access, and respite for whānau carers, as well as rehabilitation for people following a serious illness. We’ve also invested an additional $12 million towards transforming the disability support system so that disabled people and families have greater choice and better control over the services that they access.

Angie Warren-Clark: What feedback has the Government received on this boost in funding?

Hon JENNY SALESA: This funding boost has been well received by the community, who agree that it is well overdue. Dr Garth Bennie, chief executive of the Disability Support Network, said—and I quote—“The Budget has lifted support for the disability community to record levels. This will make a real difference in people’s lives after years of funding falling behind the cost of delivering disability support services.” We know there are many outstanding issues in the disability sector to address. However, this is a monumental step forward in the right direction in terms of the services and support for disabled New Zealanders.

Question No. 7—Economic Development

7. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in the House, “construction projects are an important part of the Government’s response to the recession caused by COVID-19”; if so, when will projects identified by the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group that he announced with the Minister of Infrastructure, be announced?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development): To the first part of the question, yes, and, as the member identified in her question, the announcement she referred to was made with the Minister for Infrastructure, who, along with the Minister of Finance, are the Ministers responsible. These Ministers will make announcements in due course.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he agree with Auckland mayor, Phil Goff, when he said, “We want and expect the Government to decide as soon as possible the projects that will be included in the ‘shovel-ready’ programme.”; if so, when will the Government announce them?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I don’t think it’s a matter of agreeing with the Mayor of Auckland on that statement that he made. He made the statement; it’s up to him to stand by it.

Hon Judith Collins: Then how does he rationalise publicly urging Waikato councils to invest in infrastructure alongside the Government in order to develop the economy, when he has yet to publicly commit to any of the projects identified by the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, as I’ve explained to the member now multiple times, it’s not for me to agree with projects that were identified by the industry reference group. That’s a matter for the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Infrastructure.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why did the Minister have his name on their press release?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because I and the Minister for Infrastructure were tasked with commissioning the industry reference group to solicit those projects. That’s why the press statement was released.

Hon Judith Collins: Is he saying that despite announcing, as Minister for Economic Development, the process to select infrastructure projects, he now has no say in those decisions?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: As I’ve said repeatedly, the decisions on those projects are being made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Infrastructure.

Question No. 8—Agriculture

8. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: What action has the Government taken to support jobs in the dairy sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): This Government recognises how important our dairy sector is to our economic wellbeing, and we’re backing it for the long term. We want to connect people with a rewarding life in the dairy sector and, more broadly, the primary industries. Today, we’ve announced that we’ve joined with DairyNZ to give a $3.5 million boost to their GoDairy initiative. This is a programme that has successfully recruited and supported people into careers for the past 15 years. We are happy to support DairyNZ and this initiative.

Kiritapu Allan: How does this work fit in with the wider Government employment strategy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: This complements the work being done to place 10,000 New Zealanders into primary sector jobs by rapid retraining and absorbing workers displaced from other sectors. We’ve committed $19.3 million as part of the $1.6 billion Trades and Apprenticeships Training Package. We’ve also got as part of our $1.1 billion commitment to create 11,000 jobs in the regions—that will help many of the farmers across dairy and other sectors. We’ve got a $100 million worker redeployment package that will create other opportunities. The primary sector is a wonderful place to have a career, and we’re helping New Zealanders move into that space.

Kiritapu Allan: How has the Government worked with the sector to inform this support?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have regularly engaged with industry groups at both agency and ministerial level. I know that many good MPs on this side of the House have been out talking to farmers to get feedback. Part of the process has been to reassess how we currently approach attracting people into the sector and ensuring that our training programmes are fit for purpose in the current environment. It has included a collaborative consultation process. We have made some adjustments to ensure that, firstly, we have focused marketing to get to the right people, effective training to lift their skills, and rewarding career opportunities.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement, “one of my first actions as Minister will be to have officials advised on how quickly we can start, and how soon we can get it built. I would expect Queen Street to Mount Roskill within four years as a minimum. If we can do it faster, we will”, and when does he expect construction to begin on Auckland light rail?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, in the context it was made. I expect a time line for the start of construction will be outlined by the Government after the election, after it considers options developed by Treasury and the Ministry of Transport.

Chris Bishop: What are the reasons for Auckland light rail not progressing until, allegedly, after the election?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because the three parties in Government were unable to agree on the way forward.

Chris Bishop: Has he seen the statement from the Green Party this morning “Green Party welcomes new approach to delivering light rail”, and does he agree with it?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I have seen the statement, and I agree that Cabinet’s move to delegate the progress of the project to the Ministry of Transport and Treasury will allow a public sector - led approach. It will allow more engagement and collaboration with stakeholders like Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member comes in, I know that Nicola Willis has recently moved closer to my hearing, but I do want to warn her that she’s not allowed to make noises while her colleague is asking questions.

Chris Bishop: What were the estimated costs of the NZ Infra and New Zealand Transport Agency proposals for Auckland light rail?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Those costs are still subject to commercial probity, so I’m unable to release that information at this time.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that Auckland light rail, city centre to Māngere, is a priority confirmed by all parties in this Government, in both the Government policy statement on transport funding and the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, and that that work will now be continued by the Public Service, including the local authorities in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I can confirm all parts of that question.

Chris Bishop: Has he received advice about whether the Crown will have to pay compensation to NZ Infra as a result of today’s announcement on light rail?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, I have.

Chris Bishop: What does that advice say?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: We do not.

Question No. 10—Health

10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent action has the Government taken to strengthen our COVID-19 testing and protect New Zealanders from the virus?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This week, on behalf of the Government, I announced a renewed COVID-19 testing strategy. Under this Government’s leadership, the Ministry of Health, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, DHBs, front-line health staff, scientists, and lab workers stood up a COVID-19 testing programme in short order that has served us well to date. It was a key tool in eliminating community transmission of the virus, and with over 350,000 tests done to date, we have the highest rate of tests per confirmed COVID-19 case in the world. But the COVID-19 pandemic is getting worse elsewhere in the world. Clearly, the greatest risk for us now is the thousands of New Zealanders coming home from global hotspots, so our new testing strategy will focus on our border, while maintaining surveillance of our communities for any sign of the virus.

Dr Liz Craig: How will this new strategy keep New Zealanders safe?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Most of the international travellers arriving on our shores right now are New Zealanders returning home. The vast majority of them will be COVID-19 - free. Nevertheless, we need to be able to welcome them back confident they won’t inadvertently reintroduce the virus into our communities. That’s why we’ll continue to test new arrivals on around days three and 12 of their stay in managed isolation and quarantine, and a negative result is required from the day 12 test before people are allowed to leave. We also need to minimise the risk that those who come into contact with them during their travel and their arrival and during their managed isolation or quarantine do not contract the virus, and, if they do, that we quickly detect the infection and take appropriate action. Our new testing strategy features regular health checks and asymptomatic testing of all border-facing workers, and regular testing of quarantine-exempt people such as New Zealand - based aircrew.

Dr Liz Craig: So does the focus on our border mean we’re scaling back testing in the wider community?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Absolutely not. Today, a record 9,174 tests were carried out. Across the wider community we will continue to test all close contacts of confirmed or probable cases. Testing will continue to be available for anyone presenting to primary or secondary care with any type of COVID-19 symptom. To ensure our surveillance testing is appropriate and equitable for New Zealanders, no matter who they are or where they live, DHBs are now required to regularly review and take action to increase testing in population groups if there is significant variation to the national average in their region. This Government is prioritising the safety of New Zealanders with our testing approach. We are adapting this testing strategy, where required, and we are making sure it has the resources to do the job, with an additional $89 million in funding for the next six months.

Question No. 11—Defence

11. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Defence: What recent announcements has he made regarding the replacement of the C-130 Hercules fleet?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): On 5 June, I was proud to announce that the coalition Government had approved the long-overdue purchase of five new Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft. Generations of New Zealanders have grown up and, in my case, grown old with the 1960s-era Hercules. They know these aircraft have always been an essential first line of response at home and in the Pacific during natural disasters, times of crisis, and in support of our—

Hon Grant Robertson: Thanks to the Minister of Finance.

Hon RON MARK: —military operations around the world. The new aircraft will fly further, faster, and with a greater payload—I say to the Minister of Finance—than the current Hercs. The $1.5 billion project will also deliver a flight simulator and supporting infrastructure.

Jenny Marcroft: How do our new Super Hercules compare to others in service around the world?

Hon RON MARK: They compare very well, actually. Each aircraft will be fitted with additional specialist capabilities outside of their standard build, including wide bandwidth, high-speed satellite communication systems, and electro-optical infrared cameras. This equipment will make our new Super Hercs amongst the most capable in the world. The satellite communication systems will allow imagery, video, and data to be streamed in real time, and the camera allows for the conduct of aerial surveillance operations at the same time that the aircraft is undertaking transport missions, which will be particularly useful in humanitarian aid disaster assessment and relief, and search and rescue operations.

Jenny Marcroft: How does this decision complement other air force capability decisions made by the coalition Government this term?

Hon RON MARK: Some people in the defence force are now describing this period as the golden years for defence procurement, stating that in one short term we have, effectively, revamped the major capabilities of the entire New Zealand Air Force. In addition to the Super Hercs, this Government has procured four new P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft; purchased a new simulator for the NH90 helicopter—it’s being installed right now—signed a contract for the lease of four new King Air 350-Bs for about $150 million, with two fitted specifically for maritime surveillance—

SPEAKER: All right. Order! Order!

Hon RON MARK: There’s a lot more, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, none of which is a recent announcement. Even 5 June hardly qualified.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister what possible excuse has he got that we’ve had to wait all these years to modernise essential military and humanitarian equipment?

Hon RON MARK: Mr Speaker—[Speaker gestures for Minister to resume his seat]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s wrong with that?

SPEAKER: It’s not his responsibility.

Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer that I have given to question No. 10 today.

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

Hon Dr David Clark: A colleague has drawn attention to the fact that I said in my answer that today a record 9,174 tests had been carried out. In fact, that was yesterday that a record was set. Today we do not have the results in yet.

Question No. 11—Defence

SPEAKER: Going back to the point of order, because I cut him off.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that Mr Mark could have explained that it’s taken him 2½ years to get to the point where he wanted to get to, or he could just plainly say that his useless predecessors didn’t do their job, but either way—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is the most experienced member of the House, and he knows that donkey drops to bash the Opposition with are not allowed by way of supplementary question.

Question No. 12—Customs

12. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Customs: What steps has she taken, if any, to ensure Customs staff are prepared for the increase of New Zealanders returning home?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister of Customs): That’s a really good question from the member, and I can confirm that I have worked constantly with the Customs Service to ensure they have adequate resources in place, which enables them to facilitate any increasing numbers of international passengers arriving at the border while continuing to perform their important border protection functions. I’ve also sought assurance that customs is continuing with its best-practice health and safety measures to ensure New Zealand customs staff are protected while working at the border. I believe the results speak for themselves. Since 3 February, when the first border restriction measures were implemented, 521,381 people have returned from overseas to New Zealand. To date, there has not been one single confirmed case of COVID-19 with any of our customs staff. However, if any issues are brought to light, they will be investigated and addressed immediately.

Simon O’Connor: How can she share all of that with confidence, when, little under five days ago, an Official Information Act response obtained from her office has revealed that staff in customs have undertaken absolutely no new training to prepare for these changes?

Hon JENNY SALESA: What I can say is that from the very beginning, we’ve had public health officials actually walk through and ensure that our customs staff know how to actually wear personal protective equipment (PPE). Customs maintains physical distancing, and the use of masks and gloves is something that customs do. As I say, the result speaks for itself. None of the customs staff have been tested as COVID-19 - positive; they have been tested, though. There’s also been high participation of customs officers for volunteering for testing. One of the things that customs has done is it’s redeployed a lot of its staff to ensure that they also help out with contact tracing. As I say, the result of customs not having had any COVID-19 cases is one thing that we can look to in terms of their adherence with PPE and with health and safety measures.

Simon O’Connor: Does the Minister not appreciate that training of customs staff is not simply for their health and safety but for the health and safety of the thousands coming through our border and the 5 million New Zealanders here already?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I absolutely appreciate that for customs staff, one of their first and foremost tasks is to ensure that the borders are secure. They actually have done that. In terms of how they—customs staff—work at the moment, as soon as international passengers get off the international planes, they are escorted by customs staff and police right through, now, to eight places where there are health officials. Now, health officials ask all of these detailed questions for all of the symptoms, and if there are any folks, as they come through, that exhibit symptoms, they are then referred to public health nurses. There is actually a really rigorous process at the international airport, and then what happens is there are two places. So for those that actually have any symptoms, they go through one place, where they do not mix with other passengers, and then they go out a different door, straight to a shuttle and straight to quarantine. I say this because I myself, as the Minister of Customs, visited—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m getting cries of “Enough” from my left, so I think we’ll leave it there.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This is a Government that has failed at every level to deliver for our country, whether it is light rail, whether it is KiwiBuild, or whether it is keeping New Zealanders safe. Five million New Zealanders did their job to keep our country safe, and what we found out is that managed isolation, quarantine, testing, and tracing are all an epic failure. We know this. I stood outside the Stamford Plaza as I spoke to residents who hadn’t been told that they were going to have their facility as managed isolation. Dr Ashley Bloomfield goes on television and says it’s already an isolation facility. Well, it’s not. We then find out that they claim, and the Government claims, that there wasn’t ever any plan for Stamford Plaza. Meanwhile a group of people are landing at Auckland Airport and are diverted to Rotorua. The reality is that whether it’s isolation or quarantine, this is a Government that has failed.

We also know, and we heard from the Prime Minister, that world-leading border security involves border management, testing, and tracing. When it comes to testing, the Prime Minister did a dance when she claimed that we were COVID-free, but when it comes to testing we’ve found out that 51 out of 55 people who left for a special exemption haven’t even been tested. And then in question time today we have found out that only 1,200 out of 2,000 people have been tested in our managed isolation.

The reality is this is a Government that has failed in terms of COVID. We accepted and applauded the flattening of the curve, but at every world-leading response you need to have testing, you need to have traceability, and you need to have decent managed isolation. This Government cannot be trusted to keep New Zealanders safe on border security and they can’t be trusted when it comes to 19 September.

If we look at their other failures—KiwiBuild. They promised us affordable housing. The reality is they promised 100,000 houses. How many were delivered? Three hundred and ninety-three. When it comes to light rail, they promised us that we’d have light rail in Auckland. The reality is the project’s been cancelled as of today. When it comes to infrastructure, they promised us shovel-ready projects, they promised us roading, and what’s happened? Eleven out of 1,900 shovel-ready projects have been agreed by the Government.

This is a Government, as Todd Muller has said, that has 17 empty seats. The reality is that the Prime Minister can have the best public relations campaign in the world, but if her Ministers can’t deliver, then nothing happens. Whether it is our health system and David Clark who should have been sacked, whether it is Phil Twyford, the Minister for Auckland issues prior to the election, who has failed on light rail, whether it is Phil Twyford on KiwiBuild, New Zealanders have got nothing from this Government. The best PR campaign in the world doesn’t ensure delivery.

So it is only a National Government that will be able to deliver on housing. It will only be a National Government that will be able to deliver on transport. And it is only a National Government that can keep New Zealanders safe, because we have a policy which is around testing, tracing, and decent managed isolation. We’ve got an economic plan that will see the country with 150,000 people in jobs. The reality is we are facing the largest economic crisis in a generation and even in the good times Labour couldn’t deliver anything. So why would we leave them in charge of our country in the bad times? They haven’t been able to deliver, with the most significant amount of funding ever anything in housing, transport, infrastructure, or border security.

We will campaign at this election on smart policies that will enable us to recover. That means ensuring that we do some things to keep our small businesses afloat but it also means on border security that we do some basic things well. That means testing. It means traceability. It means managing isolation better. It means quarantine. It actually means that Ministers do their job. This is a party that has a team of people that will be able to deliver on September 19, compared to a row of empty seats, a party that came in with huge aspiration but has ended up not delivering on every single major area. Light rail is a fail, KiwiBuild is a fail, border security is a fail, and ultimately the Prime Minister needs to take responsibility for the fact that her group of people have not delivered for New Zealand in border security, housing, transport, or infrastructure. Bring on a National Government.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): There have been a lot of firsts lately, but I never thought I would find myself sitting here thinking, “Actually, Paula Bennett was quite good.” But I did during that contribution from Nikki Kaye.

In New Zealand right now, as humanity around the world finds itself in a very difficult time, it is a fantastic time to be a New Zealander, because our team of 5 million has done something truly remarkable. Through a collective team effort, we managed to squash COVID-19, we managed to stop community transmission in this country, and we are one of the best places to be in the world right now.

I am very proud to be part of the Government that led New Zealand through that process with clear, decisive leadership and with good communication, and managed to get New Zealanders to the point where we understood the risk of COVID-19 and where we made the sacrifices we needed to make voluntarily because we knew that that was the right thing to do. We need to now bring that same focus, that same resolute leadership, to the recovery effort that we brought to fighting the virus in the first place, and that is exactly what the members on this side of the House have to offer, because there is no rulebook here. This is new territory for New Zealand, and the leadership that this Government has shown has brought us this far. We have a plan to see New Zealand through recovery, and we have one of the best-positioned countries in the world to do that.

Let’s compare our Government’s response to COVID-19 with the previous National Government’s response to the global financial crisis. This Government has boosted Government capital spending so that we can keep our economy moving, versus the National Government, who cut capital spending in a time of an economic downturn and made that downturn worse as a result. This Government has boosted apprenticeships and put extra money into keeping apprentices on the job, versus the last Government, who saw thousands and thousands of apprentices lose their jobs during the global financial crisis, and that slowed down the recovery afterwards.

We will not repeat the mistakes that they made after the global financial crisis. This Government is focused on building assets for New Zealand. The last Government sold assets when New Zealand last had an economic downturn. The sound judgment that this Government has shown will help to get us through this very difficult period of time.

Let’s contrast that with what’s on offer on the other side of the House. The new Leader of the Opposition—

Hon Grant Robertson: Who?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —Todd Muller; I know. Todd Muller: if you haven’t heard of him, one of his first declarations as Leader of the Opposition was that he would move with urgency to reopen the border between New Zealand and Australia, and between New Zealand and China. Those were among his first promises as Leader of the Opposition.

He’s then gone on to argue that we should devolve the management of the quarantine of international students coming back to New Zealand to the universities—bear in mind that the universities don’t think the border should be closed in the first place, and they’ve actually put that in writing. The stated position of the universities is that there was no justification for closing the border, and the Opposition wants to hand over management of quarantine to them. They are willing to play Russian roulette at the border and put all of the gains that we have made through the sacrifices of 5 million New Zealanders at risk, and that is not something that this Government is willing to do.

They have flip-flopped around all over the show. First, they wanted more compassion when it came to compassionate leave to go to funerals and tangi and weddings and other things, and then they said, “Oh no, we were too generous, and there shouldn’t have been that.” They cannot make their minds up on anything. They argued that shops, building and construction, and a whole lot of industries should have stayed open during alert level 4 when we know that in the countries that did that, they have not been anywhere near as successful at stamping out COVID-19 as we have been here in New Zealand. And let’s not get on to the ACT Party, National’s junior coalition partner, who want us to be like Sweden, where thousands and thousands of people have died as a result of COVID-19.

New Zealanders have done a remarkable thing in recent months. The hard work and sacrifice of New Zealanders has been worth it. Its position does well for recovery. It came about because New Zealand was incredibly well led during that process, and that’s the sort of leadership that we will bring to the recovery.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, whether it be in the community, the nation, or the world, the women and the men of the New Zealand Defence Force are proving to be, once again, our greatest asset, and continue to demonstrate their value as they support our people here at home and our friends and neighbours abroad, whenever and wherever it matters. It doesn’t matter whether it’s floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions—here at home or abroad—humanitarian assistance, disaster relief operations, search and rescues, they are there 24/7, at the drop of a hat, when necessary. They never go on strike, they never ask for more; they simply focus on delivering loyally and faithfully to the people of New Zealand. I’m proud that this coalition Government has recognised that.

I’m proud that this coalition Government has done something that no other Government has done in the last—crikey—I think we’ve got to go back 40-odd years, and that is invested so heavily in the women and men of our Defence Force who contribute so much in areas people don’t think about. Whether it’s air dropping supplies to Department of Conservation staff in the Kermadecs, whether it’s patrolling the Southern Ocean, keeping an eye on things like whaling operations, keeping an eye on what is happening in our environmentally protected area, keeping an eye on the illegal fisheries operations, or providing surveillance and information and data that enables successful international prosecutions of poachers, that work is done by the women and the men of the New Zealand Defence Force—army, navy, and air force—working collaboratively together.

But these things do not happen by accident; they happen because they’re planned. They happen because people train to the highest levels of professionalism that they possibly can. The only thing they ever ask of a Government is that they be supported—they be supported with the appropriate training, they be supported with the appropriate equipment and platforms that enable them to compete in the international environment with what are proven to be some quite innovative tactics and strategies by those who would deplete our resources, and attack our environment. It is those people who we are the first to deploy when things like tropical cyclone Harold hit and ravage the Pacific Island nations, who are already suffering the effects of climate change on a size and scale that many countries around this world are still not recognising. But there is a group of people who do recognise it, and they are the women and the men in the New Zealand Defence Force. They are the people who deploy, whether it’s a tsunami or a cyclone, and help put people’s lives back together—be it our pilots, be it our engineers, be it our medics, be it any of them.

That’s one of the things that I’m so proud of—the way in which at the same time they’ve been doing all this, the Defence Force has leaned in to support all Government agencies through COVID. Special recognition to Air Commodore Digby Webb, who was already in there providing such amazing assistance and planning, along with a broader team—and I’m thinking of Tony Miller right now—who have been providing the planning and logistics support and advice to other Government agencies. I’m pleased now that that advice and professionalism has been recognised and that Defence has been given a greater role and command and authority, particularly on our borders. I know—I know—that their professionalism will enhance the safety and security of every New Zealander right now and will make sure that the gains that the team of 5 million made are not undermined or destroyed.

There is so much that we could talk about on our Defence Force people, in the 57 seconds that I’ve got left. Where do I start? I’m just going to finish by saying this: the Hercules are often challenged, but people need to remember that our biggest military deployment is Antarctica, and it’s the Hercules that provide the donkey work. They are the heavy lifters that make it possible for our scientists, for our engineers, and for our people who work in Antarctica, who do such valuable work studying climate change and studying the environment. None of that is possible without the women and the men of our Defence Force.

A big thankyou also to those people who have been heavily engaged in repatriating the thousand-odd people back just recently into Vanuatu—job well done, loyally and faithfully serving the people of New Zealand. I congratulate all of the women and men of our Defence Force and thank them very much. And, don’t worry, we’ve got more positive announcements on the way.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Well, National might have changed its leadership, but it hasn’t changed its negative rant, its negative questioning. Instead of celebrating what this team of 5 million has achieved with the COVID pandemic, instead of celebrating the leadership that our Prime Minister and this Government has shown, it keeps harping on and being negative—undermining the confidence this country has in our recovery. That is typical, because how did National respond to the global financial crisis? It slashed investment. In conservation, it slashed funding. It cut hundreds of jobs. How is this Government responding? With a nature-based recovery—investing in nature; investing so that $1.1 billion can provide 11,000 jobs over the next three to four years. We have an investment in our environment because we recognise that our people won’t survive, our people won’t be healthy, unless we have healthy nature.

I was very proud to stand alongside fisheries Minister Stuart Nash today and announce new measures to protect Hector’s and Māui dolphin—unlike National. When they were in Government, you had a Clayton’s sanctuary. You had Simon Bridges opening up the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary to oil and gas exploration and seismic surveying.

In this Government, we are doubling the area of our marine mammal sanctuaries, extending the west coast North Island sanctuary up to Northland, down to Wellington; the Bank’s Peninsula sanctuary south to Timaru, up to Kaikōura. We are putting in place over 1,300 square kilometres extra of exclusions from set-netting, both recreational and commercial, to better protect this taonga species—to better protect the Māui dolphin, which are down to the last 63 adult dolphins. We are proposing to ban seismic surveying and seabed mining within these sanctuaries so that they are real protection for these dolphins—not like National.

It stood by even when the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee, Dr Jane Goodall, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature called for greater protection for dolphins. National ignored that. It has taken a Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government to respond to the 15,000 submissions from New Zealanders and the 78,000 people who signed a petition to put in place real measures to protect the dolphins. I pay tribute to all of the school children around Aotearoa who have written in and said that they support better protection for dolphins.

So it’s this Government that is delivering that, in the same way that our response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been to ensure that we eliminate the virus in New Zealand, that we work really hard on that, and that we take measures to ensure that businesses across Aotearoa are supported through the $11 billion that has gone into the wage subsidy, through the major investment that we’re seeing though the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, and the Ministry for Primary Industries in projects like wilding conifer control. This Government is serious about controlling pests and weeds: $100 million is being invested through Budget 2020 and the COVID recovery package to provide people with jobs, to ensure that people who are guiding in Franz Josef—whose jobs have gone, through no fault of their own, through the redundancies that have been associated with the closure of our borders to protect our country and the drop-off in tourism—can work. They’ve moved from Franz to Springfield, Arthur’s Pass and are working now on protecting the landscapes, protecting our tussock grasslands. It is a sign of this Government’s commitment to investing in people, investing in Papatūānuku, so that we have a healthy future.

National should look out, in terms of 19 September. The Hon Nikki Kaye can give a rant in this House. Chlöe Swarbrick is going to give her a run for her money in Central Auckland. She looks forward to ensuring that all those voters in Central Auckland can vote for a member who will represent them to advance people and planet—to ensure that the Greens are a heart of the next Government, continuing to strengthen the protection for our native species and continuing to respond to New Zealanders who want us to care for species like Hector’s and Māui dolphin. This Government is going to be re-elected in September and come back with stronger measures to invest in the environment, to invest in people and planet.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Do you know, the member who’s resumed her seat, Eugenie Sage—she and her party are always consistent. They’re consistently getting done over by New Zealand First, day in, day out, and I see the member from New Zealand First having a quiet smile, enjoying that one, and it’s absolutely true. Light rail, cameras on fishing boats, waka-jumping legislation, commercial leases, the Kermadecs—and Ihumātao is the latest thing I heard. I’ve heard there was a big fight last night about it and an early election was threatened.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Three strikes.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oh, yes, and three strikes too. But they did the right thing, in that case, New Zealand First, and they supported us on that one.

Out in the electorates, people who are our constituents are wondering why it is that the Government has been so good at putting out press releases and so bad at actually delivering on those. We’ve seen today in the House that the Hon Phil Twyford yet again has a press release in his name, announcing infrastructure projects, but unfortunately, apparently, he’s not responsible for those projects being delivered—or even announced. Come the end of September, what we’re going to be left with, when we take over in Government, is a whole lot of press releases from the previous Government and nothing much else. We’ve got transport, we’ve got light rail, we’ve got roads that have been stopped, roads that have been started again, and then stopped again. We’ve had the East-West Link stopped in Auckland. We’ve had Mill Road stopped, now starting again. We’ve got safety and security around the border. What we know is that, despite the fact that hardly anyone’s coming in across the border, we still can’t keep track of them—or at least the Government can’t.

We have a Prime Minister who loves to talk about kindness, and on our side of the House, we’d actually just like to see some competency. We’d like to see a competent Prime Minister, not one who wants to be kind all the time and talk about “Let’s just be kind.”—being kind and letting people leave their quarantine or managed isolation without being tested for COVID-19, or being tested and not having the results back as they’re put on a road trip to Wellington. We have a Prime Minister who’s OK with people not performing on these very crucial tasks of keeping our border safe, of keeping New Zealanders safe. We have a Prime Minister who is very good at talking about what she’s doing but very bad at getting the jobs for people that they need, and the best way of keeping jobs for people is not just a wage subsidy—which is a good thing but it’s not enough—but actually creating an environment where businesses can survive, businesses can stay in work, not just setting up new businesses but keeping the businesses we have already.

And what I’m hearing in the community is a tremendous amount of anger. People feel that they have not been told the truth about what was happening in those quarantine facilities. They feel that they have not been told that was actually happening to people who have COVID-19 or who could have it coming into New Zealand. People heard about the Prime Minister wanting to have a little dance about this wonderful COVID-19 situation in New Zealand. Well, I don’t see her dancing now. I don’t see her dancing now, and I don’t see the Minister of Health in charge of an issue that he was in charge of. Instead, what I see are 17 empty chairs in Cabinet—17 empty chairs of people who are incapable of doing their jobs, whether it is in immigration or whether it is in health. We’ve got a health Minister ranked No. 20 in Cabinet. That tells the health ministry staff that their Minister is the least influential member of that Cabinet. That tells them they don’t have a Minister. They’ve got someone in the job who is simply keeping the seat warm for Michael Woodhouse when he takes over. That’s what we’ve got at the moment.

People are angry that their Government has been very keen to talk up what they’re going to deliver and then deliver actually nothing. Where are the roads? Where’s the light rail? Where have the jobs gone? Where is the commitment to New Zealanders that we were told was coming? What we’ve seen is a commitment to photo opportunities, a commitment to press releases, and a commitment to nobody—other than staying in power.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. One of the unusual experiences of alert level 4—the lockdown, as we all called it—was queueing up outside the supermarket. I imagine most members of the House would have had to have done it over some point in time, being sent out to do the grocery shopping, bring supplies home, and it was actually—whilst it was an unusual experience—a very good opportunity to catch up with constituents and see what was on their minds. Almost every single time I queued up outside the supermarket, people would just want to say “Thank you”, they’d want to say “Please tell Jacinda how much we appreciate how hard the Government is working to protect us, to save lives, and to make sure that New Zealand gets through this.” What I suppose I’ve found a little bit surprising is that that’s exactly the same sentiment that’s out there right now. You go to the supermarket now and I’m having exactly the same conversations with people—they just want to say how much they appreciate the work that’s being done.

I think every one of us, especially Ministers in the Government, would really appreciate that sentiment, knowing the long hours, the hard work—the effort that’s being put in by public sector officials to produce all the policy papers, to help us make the difficult decisions to get New Zealand through this—is appreciated. But what I always say to every single one of those people who want to express that thanks and gratitude to the Government is that we need to thank the people of New Zealand, the team of 5 million who came together and, through our collective action, have supressed COVID-19 here in New Zealand.

It is easy to forget, given the privileged position that we have all created for ourselves—that everybody working together has created—that when you look around the rest of the world we are seeing 100,000 new cases of COVID-19 every single day; every single day, 100,000 new cases, and people, tragically, are continuing to die with the virus all around the world. It’s no wonder that the number of people wanting to return to New Zealand, or to just come here for the first time, continues to increase. We have to manage and support and facilitate people being able to come to New Zealand, because they see us as a safe, progressive nation where they have the opportunity to thrive—because of the work that the team of 5 million have done.

What they tell me they don’t want to see is a rush to open the borders. They don’t want a bubble with China. They can certainly see the advantages of a bubble with Australia, but only if we get there carefully and cautiously. They certainly don’t want to see universities running quarantine facilities for students—because what people want above everything else is for us to be able to maintain that privileged position, we can move freely around the country, we can socialise with our friends and our family, where our economy is getting moving again and we’re actually creating new jobs.

I had a marvellous opportunity, just on Friday, to go and visit an employer in Palmerston North, my constituency, where they are working with the Ministry of Social Development to employ people who have recently lost their jobs because of COVID-19. I got the opportunity to speak to two people, in particular, who had been in long-term employment and had lost their jobs because of the lockdown—because of the impact of this global pandemic that we are facing. They had to go to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—Work and Income—for the first time. And they were not people who were used to having to go to a Government agency and ask for support. And, frankly, they both said that they were nervous about having to do that. But then, they also said how wonderful the staff at MSD were, how supportive and thoughtful they were, and how quick they were to help them redeploy into new work that was available and fitted the skills, and experience, and attributes that they had. I got to go and see them whilst they were in induction in their first week at a new job, still in their hometown of Palmerston North.

That’s the kind of work that people expect from the Government, and that’s what we are delivering—whether it be through support for apprentices; not only providing the apprenticeship for free but also subsidising the employer to take on that apprentice and to pay them as an employee in that role the opportunity to create skills for the future, and that’s what this Government is dedicated to doing. We’ve got through the initial health crisis. Now we have to make sure that people are able to thrive with an economic recovery.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a difference a week makes. It was only this time last week when I revealed that the story of the two women who travelled non-stop from Auckland to Wellington may not have been all that we had been told. The Minister was in denial and the ministry denied it, and then several hours later, on the evening of last Wednesday, came the admission: it was true. And even then they spun it. Even then, they were going, “Oh, yes, there was contact, but the contact was brief. It wasn’t a cuddle; it was just an arm around the shoulder.”—I’m not quite sure what the difference is. Then they started throwing people under a bus, and the first person they threw under the bus was the member for Hutt South, my good friend Chris Bishop, when the Hon Chris Hipkins scurrilously accused and inferred—or implied; I’m sure the Speaker will—

SPEAKER: He implied; you inferred.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: He implied—I inferred—that he had something to do with the fact that these two were released from isolation without a test. That is an outrageous slur on Mr Bishop’s character. Eugenie Sage says to this House that the Opposition have been playing dirty pool. Mr Hipkins should shake his head in shame. That was a terrible accusation.

But he was only the first of many that had been thrown under the bus.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Tell us about the homeless person.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member—I will get to that, Mr Hipkins, don’t worry—for Palmerston North speaks so effusively of the officials, only it’s those officials, who have worked so hard in difficult circumstances because this Government hasn’t given them the appropriate rules of engagement at managed isolation facilities, that went under the bus as well—it wasn’t the Minister’s fault. I’m not even sure which Minister Winston Peters was talking about last Thursday. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Housing, the Prime Minister—doesn’t matter. It wasn’t their fault; it was the officials’ fault. It was the staff’s fault. It was the security’s fault. It was the hotel staff’s fault. That is an unacceptable slur on the effort that not only the team of 5 million have put in but their public sector staff have as well.

The big question is: what’s been happening to testing? The media asked the director-general how many people let out of self-isolation between 8 June and 16 June did not have a test—he couldn’t say. The following day: couldn’t say. Nobody could say, and this afternoon the Prime Minister now tells us that of the 2,200 people who were let out of isolation, nearly a thousand of them had no test—none whatsoever. Nearly a thousand, by my maths, and that’s not the worst of it, because of the 55 people who were let out early—the people who were probably most at risk—51 of them didn’t have a test. How do we know that right now? Not because they had any great data-matching service—they had to get Healthline to pick up the phone and call them and say, “Here, it’s Healthline. Did you have a test?”, because they have no knowledge of what testing has been going on.

Now, managed isolation started on, I think, 8 April, and so any positive tests from people in quarantine and managed isolation would’ve been caught up in the case numbers that were announced daily until we got to zero in the third week of May. So what we have is people in isolation being tested, testing positive. From the third week of May to 16 June, nobody tested positive in managed isolation, and then in the last seven days, 12 positive cases, and the public, the team of 5 million, are saying that is completely implausible. That’s why Professor Des Gorman, who is another loyal public servant under the bus today, said the likelihood of community transmission is much higher as a consequence of that failure.

Now, the director-general talked about COVID definitely coming up like weeds on the lawn. What he would not have in his wildest dreams imagined was that the Government was going to throw those weed seeds on the lawn themselves, by their inactions. So we had the Auckland to Wellington incident, we had the Wiri Prison woman who was released after a test was made but before it was confirmed as positive—and by that time, she had got to Palmerston North—and we had an anecdote of a homeless person. And do you know what? Rather than go and find out how many tests were done, this Government spends an inordinate amount of time checking CCTV—

Hon Louise Upston: Witch hunt.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —1,706 records, on a witch hunt; that’s right, Ms Upston. They’re running down rabbit holes before they’re actually doing the right thing, which is keeping New Zealanders safe. It’s scandalous.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m proud of our country. I’m proud that our team of 5 million banded together. We rallied and we broke the chain of community transmission. We all made those sacrifices, living through the different restriction levels, and we stopped the virus.

I’m proud of our country and I’m proud of our coalition Government. I’m proud of the actions that we have taken, and I’m especially proud of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, with her world-leading leadership that has guided our country through this one-in-100-year global pandemic that is causing havoc right around the globe. I’m proud of the actions that we have taken as a Government to ensure that our people are safe.

Now, the other side, the venom and the vitriol that they’re flinging about—it’s so negative and it’s so desperate. Desperate to try and—I don’t know. They’re trying to fling whatever they can to try and discredit the work that we’ve been doing, but they’re disrespecting the people of Aotearoa—the team of 5 million—that have worked so hard and that have been all committed to ensuring that we beat this virus.

So I want to acknowledge all the people around New Zealand and thank them and acknowledge the sacrifice and the commitment that they’ve all had, as we have been in this united team. I’m proud to be part of that team.

I’m also proud to be a member of this Government with outstanding Ministers. I want to speak as the member for Te Tai Tonga, the largest electorate in Aotearoa—the whole of the South Island, all of Wellington, and many other islands that are flung far and wide—and say that I have been across my electorate and I have heard the acknowledgment and the kudos that we are getting as a Government and the appreciation from the many whānau out there for what we have achieved, not only in terms of the public health response in dealing with COVID but also our response in Budget 2020 in ensuring that we have that springboard for growth.

We have cushioned the blow that has hit our businesses, particularly in affected sectors like tourism and hospitality. Over $11 billion has been paid out in wage subsidies to protect those jobs and to protect those businesses and to ensure that they have those resources in place. We’ve coupled that with our Budget to ensure that not only do we have those supports; we have other small-business measures, and, most importantly, as we are transitioning now, we are wanting to do more emphasis on training, on skills, and on apprenticeships. I’m looking forward to seeing the roll-out of what we have heard today in terms of redeployment of those Kiwis that may have lost their jobs into the much-needed jobs that are required in the dairy sector, right across the rural communities of New Zealand—plenty of jobs going there.

In fact, while the Opposition tries to talk down everything to do with our country, the good news is that our primary sector exports, which are the backbone of our economy, compared to last year, are up—we’re up. In the face of all of this COVID that we have been dealing with, primary sector exports are up across the board by 4 percent. I’m sure Mr McAnulty is very pleased with that, and I acknowledge the great people of the Wairarapa—those real heartland people.

So whilst our Opposition might be all venomous and nasty, the good people of New Zealand are going about their business. Our farmers, our horticulturalists, and our people working right across our service industries, they’re going to work, they’re working hard, and they’re making sure that they’re selling our great products, goods, and services and earning foreign exchange, which is powering our economy. But we know there’s further work to be done, and that’s why our Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, and our wider team are ensuring that we have the supports there and that we will be able to cushion the blow and smoothen the road for the many businesses that are affected.

A case in point is the tourism industry. I’m very proud of the support that the Hon Kelvin Davis has given to our iconic Whale Watch Kaikōura business. That business, which actually was started by my uncles and relations of mine, transformed that small town into a global tourism destination, and not one job has been lost at Whale Watch Kaikōura in the face of COVID. Thanks to the support of our wage subsidies and our tourism recovery package, not one job has been lost. There is joy and absolute elation right across that community that they will be reopening their doors come 4 July, and that’s what will be seeing right across our country.

Thank you, sir. I’m proud of our Government and our country.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Well, today, the country learnt what we in the National Party have known for weeks and what has been an open secret around this Parliament: light rail is dead. This is an utter humiliation for Phil Twyford and the Government. Let’s be very clear about the significance of this. In 2017, in her first act as Labour Party leader, the putative Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said, “We will build light rail to the airport and we will build it from the Auckland CBD to Mount Roskill by 2021.” We’re now in mid-June 2020, 80-odd days out from the election, and where are we? Absolutely nowhere.

In fact, you can mount a plausible argument that light rail has actually gone backwards from where it was in 2017 when the Government changed. This is KiwiBuild 2.0. This is a failure, it is a broken promise, and Government members over the next few days and in the lead-up to the election are going to have to reflect on what they say on the campaign trail about light rail and why it has failed. And they are going to have to explain to Aucklanders why Aucklanders have paid an extra 10c a litre in fuel tax and why the whole country has paid an extra 12c or more a litre in fuel tax to fund a project that doesn’t exist, that in fact has gone absolutely backwards in the last three years.

Let’s also be very clear about whose responsibility this is. It is not the fault of New Zealand First. It is not the fault of the Green Party. It is the responsibility of Phil Twyford as the Minister of Transport. No one forced the Government to take the existing Auckland transport proposal off them and give it to the New Zealand Transport Agency. That was one of the first things they did—February 2018. No one forced them to do that; that was their decision. No one forced the Government to take the proposal from the New Zealand Transport Agency and then put it into this weird twin-track process against the quixotic unsolicited bid from what’s called NZ Infra, which is the Canadian pension fund, and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. No one forced them to do that. No one forced them to be bedazzled by the six PowerPoint slides that got presented and that attracted so much apparent love and adoration from the Government. No one forced them to do that. This is on the Government. The train wreck of the last three years is the responsibility of the Government.

Right from the start, there’s been a lack of clarity about the objectives. What is the purpose of Auckland light rail? Where does it go? Right from the start there has been an uncertainty about what exactly the Government has been trying to achieve. We know that even as late as nine months ago, officials were saying to Ministers, “You actually need to be clear about what you’re trying to achieve.” Just an extraordinary situation.

Questions have abounded the whole way through. What’s the cost? How much is it? Two billion dollars is in the Auckland transport alignment programme, but the latest estimate that’s been made public by the Deputy Prime Minister is that it’s somewhere between $6 billion and $8 billion. There’s no idea about the route. Does it go to the airport or does it not? How many stops are there? Is it a mass transit system in which there are lots of stops along the road or is a rapid one in which there are very few? What even is the rail? Is it heavy rail or is it light rail or is it a combination of the two? Does it go underground? Does it go over ground? We don’t know.

It’s just extraordinary that almost three years into this Government’s time in office, we don’t have any clarity around those questions. Let’s remember, Aucklanders have paid for this. They’re paying for it right now. Every time they top up at the pump, every time they put more petrol into their car, they’re paying extra for a rapid transit system and for a light rail system that they’re not going to get and that the Government says they’re going to take to the election.

Phil Twyford said in October 2017, “If we can do it faster, we will.” If we can do it faster, we will! Well, if this is fast, I’d like to know what slow means. It’s just extraordinary. This is the new KiwiBuild. This is a totemic, emblematic policy for the Government. This is something they campaigned on as their first election promise. And it will be consigned to the history books and emblematic of this Government’s utter ineptitude and total failure to deliver on their promises and in particular, their transport commitments to this country. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JO LUXTON (Labour): This is my first opportunity to speak in a general debate this year, and can I say I’m immensely proud to be able to speak in this debate on the other side of the COVID-19 health crisis that we have seen the country guided through under the strong, decisive leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. I want to also acknowledge the team of 5 million New Zealanders who all made sacrifices in one way or another, who banded together and knuckled down, hunkered down in their homes in isolation to help fight COVID-19. And we have been successful in that, if not the most successful country in the world to date. I want to push back on some of the comments that the Hon Nikki, um—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Kaye.

JO LUXTON: —Kaye said. She talked about the fact that this Government has failed in terms of COVID. She said isolation and quarantine has been an epic failure. I’m not quite sure she understands what an epic failure is. I’m sorry, but when we can have our businesses reopening, our schools reopening, we can socialise more with our families and our friends, when we’ve got the economy back up and running, that is not an epic failure. An epic failure is sewage in our hospital walls. An epic failure is children living and having to do their homework from a car. An epic failure is people living under a bridge. An epic failure is selling off our State houses when our most vulnerable people need them. So we have been hugely successful. This country of ours, we went hard and we went early and we are seeing the fruits of that and the fruits of the sacrifices that every New Zealander has made in one way or another.

We must remember, as the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and the Hon Chris Hipkins have mentioned, there is no playbook for this. We have not seen anything the likes of this before. What is most important is, whilst there are bound to be things that crop up from time to time, because there is no playbook—[Interruption] Jacqui Dean, there is no playbook, there is no rulebook, and we are going to see things crop up from time to time. And what is most important about that is how we react to those things that crop up from time to time. We have seen decisive and swift action from this Government to deal with the issues that have cropped up in the last few days.

What we know is that this COVID-19 disease is getting worse overseas, and we are bound to see more cases at our border as Kiwis come home. And why wouldn’t they want to come home? New Zealand is the envy of the world in the face of this disease, absolutely. In fact, I do recall seeing an article recently from—I can’t think where I saw it. I read it online, that we had actors here in New Zealand; I think Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst. They said that they felt very lucky to be in Aotearoa during the COVID-19 pandemic. So we are absolutely the envy of the world.

I just wanted to make mention also of the wage subsidy. That has been a lifesaver. We’ve had members opposite saying, “Oh, you know, the wage subsidy is for the employees, not the employers, not the business owners.” Well, actually, that has allowed the business owners to continue to keep people employed so when we got to the position to be able to get our businesses back open, they were able to have their staff come through those doors and carry on business as usual. There is no point in giving somebody $5,000 when they come to a job and then $5,000 when they stay on a bit longer if there are no jobs left. So by giving the wage subsidy to employers, we have ensured that there are still jobs available for those employees when we were able to come back to work from this crisis. So I commend the Government on its response.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a joy to follow a contribution by that member who has just resumed her seat, Jo Luxton, and her impassioned defence of the wage subsidy. Yes, we too did embrace the wage subsidy, but where we part company from that member and that Government is that we confirm our very strong belief that the wage subsidy certainly has allowed employees to stay in their jobs but it has done very little to support businesses. I invite that member to go down to Wānaka, to go down to Queenstown, to go up to Tekapō—go up there and talk to some of the businesses, particularly in hospitality and accommodation, and ask them how they feel about this Government’s support for business. Ask them how they feel about how this Government has responded to their needs post-COVID crisis.

You know, earlier on in this general debate, when the Hon Eugenie Sage got to her feet—the Minister of Conservation—I thought, great. Here is the time where a Minister of some integrity gets to her feet and addresses the burning issue of the day within her portfolio post-COVID. That burning issue has got to be support for concessionaires who undertake their business and their recreation and their commercial activities on the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate with a concession. Did we hear a single word from that Minister about support for business, about support for concessionaires, or about people at all? Not one comment came from that Minister.

Hon Member: Zero.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes, my colleague so very finely puts it: zero. Nothing from that Minister about people. I thought it was the people. I thought this was the Government of kindness and transparency. It’s not, because here we have a Green Minister of the Crown getting to her feet and talking about the very worthy issues of species protection and management. Yes, we all agree with that, Minister. But what about the people?

Well, I can tell you this Minister’s track record with the people. On 24 April of this year, the Minister said that there would be financial relief on the way for recreation and tourism businesses operating on public conservation land. What a welcome message that was. Eugenie Sage: “This is a difficult time for all businesses, and, in particular, for tourism businesses.” She went on to say, “I have asked DOC to explore what support can be provided to concessionaires. Officials are assessing a range of potential options, including refunds for concession fees which have been paid in advance, extension to payment terms,”—and so on. Well, what a breath of fresh air coming from this Minister at a time of great need to those people who are doing their business on Department of Conservation land.

Imagine my surprise when, in an answer to a question which I received on 23 June, eight weeks later, the Minister was forced to acknowledge that no concession fees have been waived to date. How is that caring for the people who operate on the DOC estate? How is that caring for the businesses who operate on the DOC estate? I have asked. She says in her answer to my question, the Department of Conservation to explore waiving concession charges for tourism related businesses operating on public conservation land affected by COVID-19—two months later. She’s asking two months later? This Minister has made the usual—the usual—Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government trick of announcing much and delivering nothing. Furthermore, and the most egregious part of this Minister’s behaviour, is that in a further question, answered on 23 June, eight weeks later, she concedes: “Any instances of financial hardship are considered on a case by case basis.”—well, in this case, none. No businesses have received any financial relief. “Concessionaires can request up to 90 days extension. After this, the department may consider writing off the debt, particularly if the concessionaire is insolvent or no longer operating their business concessions.” Big deal—big fail, this Government.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to be the 12th speaker in today’s general debate. My speech today is going to be full of gratefulness and full of thankfulness. But I want to ask one question: how did we get here? How did we get here that our team of 5 million is COVID-free? How did we get here that COVID-19 is only coming through our borders? How did we get here? I tell you this: the answer relies on leadership. When we’re talking about a Government that is compassionate and that is caring, well, the details of what demonstrates that is what the people receive.

I want to thank the leadership of our Prime Minister and of our Director-General of Health—that we are world leading, where it’s normal to go alert levels 1, 2, 3, and 4. Where did you get that from? I’ll tell you what: the people were at the centre of this health response. It was at the centre of this health response that we needed to go hard and we needed to go early. Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4, that’s so common now, but that came from somewhere. It derived from a place of caring.

In a time where to be informed can save lives, our communities needed to rise up and to recover. This year’s Budget provides our team of 5 million, our community, with opportunities; an opportunity to provide; an opportunity to care; an opportunity to empower our own; an opportunity to recover; and an opportunity to rebuild.

I heard the member for Papakura, the Hon Judith Collins, really giving up—defeat. It was her defeat that she was already commenting on what the next Cabinet would look like—what a Labour Cabinet would like. That is an indication of defeat already. What that side is already starting to say is, “We’ll lose” and they’re starting to say what the next Labour Government is going to look like. That was an indication of defeat. Not once did I hear the voices of the community.

I want to acknowledge that the wage subsidy is so important. To walk the mean streets, the caring streets, of Papakura, I want to acknowledge Alvin, the owner of Aoyama Sushi in Papakura. I like to dine out, supporting our local businesses. I asked him “What do you think of the wage subsidy, did that help?” Arms up, he jumped up and he said, “Tell Jacinda that I said thank you. It saved us.” That itself is a business. I think the member, who just sat down, Jacqui Dean, spoke about what we don’t do for business. Alvin said, “The wage subsidy saved us. The loan to small and medium enterprises saved us. Tell the Prime Minister thank you.” I also spoke to Bun at Satay Noodle House in Papakura, and I asked him about the wage subsidy. He said, “Thank you. Thank you to the Prime Minister. That helped us.” So these are the voices of businesses. When we are talking about businesses, please, the other side of the House, include small to medium enterprises, because they are the people who will make up the majority of what we call businesses in Aotearoa New Zealand.

I did say before that the time of information is important and saved lives in these times. I also want to thank the Hon Phil Twyford, because, in Papakura—nobody actually talked about what’s happening—we’re at full steam ahead with the Papakura to Drury State Highway 1 upgrading. Nobody said thank you. Thank you for that, Phil Twyford. We are full steam ahead with the Papakura to Pukekohe electrification of rail—nobody said that.

I’d like to end this by acknowledging the many thanks from the principal of Papakura High School, John Rohs, and also the principal of Ramarama School, Tania Campbell. The funding that they received for the school infrastructure improvement—there were things that they wanted to do but they couldn’t do, so they asked me to convey their thanks to the Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, for that, because with that they are able to provide a covered outdoor assembly area at Ramarama School and a covered walkway for the students in this time of winter; next year, they’ll be warm and dry. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the following rules be adopted as a sessional order:

COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE ACT 2020

1 Interpretation

In these rules,—

the Act is the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020

section 11 order is an order made under s 11 of the Act.

2 Examination of section 11 order

(1) The Regulations Review Committee must examine each section 11 order and report to the House no later than 12 working days after the day on which the section 11 order was presented to the House, unless the Business Committee determines otherwise.

(2) No motion under section 16 of the Act relating to a section 11 order may be moved until after the earlier of the following:

(a) the presentation of the Regulations Review Committee’s report on its examination of that section 11 order:

(b) the day fixed for the presentation of the Regulations Review Committee’s report on its examination of that section 11 order.

(3) If the Regulations Review Committee recommends that a section 11 order be amended, then paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an amendment to that order, or a further section 11 order, that is made only for the purpose of incorporating the committee’s recommendations.

(4) Standing Order 322 does not apply to a notice of motion under section 16 of the Act relating to a section 11 order.

3 Disallowance or amendment of section 11 order

(1) This rule applies to a notice of motion to disallow or amend a section 11 order only if that notice of motion is given by a member who, at the time the notice of motion is given, is a member of the Regulations Review Committee.

(2) After a notice of motion to disallow or amend a section 11 order is given,—

(a) that notice of motion must be dealt with by the House no later than the sixth sitting day after the day on which the notice of motion is given:

(b) if that notice of motion has not been dealt with by the House within five sitting days, it is set down on the Order Paper for the next sitting day as the first item of business after general business.

(3) If more than one notice of motion to disallow or amend a section 11 order is available for consideration on a sitting day, then those notices of motion are set down as a single order of the day and are debatable together, with their questions put separately.

(4) Standing Orders 67, 68, 71, 72, 76, 100, 321, and 323 are read accordingly.

4 Repeal or continuation of Act

No notice of motion under section 3 of the Act (relating to the repeal or continuation of the Act) may be moved until after the earlier of the following:

(a) the presentation of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the inquiry into the operation of the Act:

(b) the day fixed for the presentation of the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on the inquiry into the operation of the Act.

On 13 May, the House passed the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, which gives the Government some wide-ranging powers to react quickly to suppress COVID-19. The purpose of this motion is to ensure that the orders made under section 11 of that Act receive the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. These orders can be made by the Minister of Health or the Director-General of Health. They can control or limit travel, social distancing, social gatherings, isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, and other actions that have become very familiar to New Zealanders as we have been engaged in this fight against COVID-19. These powers are exceptional, and it’s important that processes are put in place to allow Parliament to exercise its responsibility to scrutinise the executive by putting in place a sessional order that describes the process that will take place as Parliament does that.

Section 14 of the Act provides that any section 11 order is revoked if it’s not approved by a motion of the House within a certain period. It’s proposed that each section 11 order must be examined by the Regulations Review Committee no later than 12 working days after it’s been presented to the House. This is a significantly shorter time frame than the one that members of the House will be used to as part of the regular regulations review process. It specifies that no motion approving an order may be moved until the Regulations Review Committee has reported back to the House. This is a much quicker process than laid down in the Standing Orders for an affirmative resolution procedure. For this reason, the sessional order will disapply Standing Order 322.

The motion also proposes a procedure to disallow or amend a section 11 order that’s considerably stronger than that that is currently laid down in the Standing Orders. It proposes that any notice of motion lodged by a member of the Regulations Review Committee to disallow or amend a section 11 order must be dealt with by the House no later than the sixth sitting day after it is lodged—so, in reality, within two sitting weeks. This is considerably shorter than the 21 sitting days specified as the period after which a regulation lapses if it’s not dealt with by the House. Section 3 of the Act specifies that the Act is repealed unless it’s continued by a resolution of the House within 90 days of its commencement. Rule 4 of the sessional order states that no motion relating to the continuation or repeal of the Act may be moved until the Finance and Expenditure Committee has reported on its inquiry into the operation of the Act.

This recognises that the urgent circumstances of the global spread of COVID-19 meant that a faster than normal process to pass the bill was necessary, but that the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s examination of the operation of the Act is a way of giving the Act scrutiny that it wasn’t able to receive before it was initially passed by the House. So this provision ensures that the House makes any decision about continuing the Act in the knowledge of the committee’s findings.

Our team of 5 million has done a magnificent job in fighting COVID-19. The provisions of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act have played a very important role in that battle. We’re privileged to be back to living a life that is a lot closer to normal than the vast majority of countries around the world, and all New Zealanders have played a part in helping us to get to that point. But the global threat that’s posed by the virus remains with us. It remains active around the rest of the world, and the powers given by the Act have to remain in place for the time being. So it’s important that this House has the ability to monitor and to scrutinise those powers for as long as that is the case. That is what this resolution will achieve.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a brief call to confirm that the National Opposition will be supporting this motion. I just want to make three or four points.

The first is to actually commend the work of the Regulations Review Committee, because it’s one of those ubiquitous organisations within Parliament that nevertheless does an extremely important job. Those who are appointed to that standing committee often get a bit teased—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Pinnacle of my parliamentary career!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —by their colleagues, certainly on my side of the House. That’s right. Mr Macindoe says it was the highlight of his career. He says it flippantly, but I bet there were things that were done pretty much behind the scenes that nevertheless were very good from a scrutiny perspective.

I would remind the House of the excellent opinion and letter that was written during the lockdown about the questions that were rightly asked about the section 70 notices under the Health Act that were issued and the question of both process and whether they were ultra vires, effectively. Now, that triggered an interesting sequence of events in the Epidemic Response Committee that doesn’t bear relitigating here. But, nevertheless, I found that a very thoughtful and important contribution to our thinking about the appropriate response which all parties wanted to support. But, as I have said in this House a couple of times, the rigour that we put to the executive’s regulation and lawmaking power is most important in these times of challenge and crisis, as they are in any other time.

The second point I would like to make is that of the time frame. As the Hon Chris Hipkins has pointed out, these are departures from the current Standing Orders for the reporting back, but they are appropriate. We have had very good examples of where a quite detailed scrutiny of things passed necessarily quickly can still nevertheless be done, and I have every confidence that the Regulations Review Committee will do that.

The third thing I would like to actually ask the committee just to check in their examination of the orders that are made is that it has been brought to my attention that it is possible that a couple of the orders made under section 11 might not have been consistent with the notice period and manner that is set out in the primary legislation. Now, I haven’t had a chance to go and check the veracity of that. So, as is my way when I make comments like that—I caveat them appropriately that the source is reliable, but at this stage it’s an anecdote. But it does, I think, behove the committee to just have a quick check, a belt and braces check, that, for example, the order that was signed by the Minister of Health on Saturday—interestingly, on a Saturday in Dunedin, and that’s the nature of these things; it’s often necessarily a swift process—nevertheless met the requirements for gazetting and publication that are set out on the principal Act. With that, we’re very pleased to support the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, the Racing Industry Bill, the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, the Resource Management Amendment Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill; the second readings of the Education and Training Bill, the Public Service Legislation Bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill, the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill, the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill, Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill, the Urban Development Bill, the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill; and the third readings of the Privacy Bill and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill; and the remaining stages of the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill.

The restrictions placed on the House while we were at COVID-19 alert levels 3 and 4 resulted in a very significant reduction in the number of hours available to the Government to progress its legislative programme, and that has caused delays to many of the bills that I have just mentioned. With the House soon to be out of action again for a couple of months during the campaign, there is a need to ensure that much of the legislation on the Order Paper is progressed without any delay.

The urgency motion includes 21 bills. Six of those will go through their committee stage and will immediately then receive a third reading. Two of these bills need to be enacted in the next few days if they are to take effect, as was intended prior to the COVID-19 lockdown. They include the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill and the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill.

It’s also essential, of course, to pass the Supplementary Estimates and the Imprest Supply legislation before the start of the new financial year. The other three bills in this category make important reforms in their areas. For example, the Racing Industry Bill has been awaited by the racing industry for many, many years, as members on the other side of the House have noted—potentially decades. Much of the bill was scheduled to commence on 1 July, and it deserves to be delayed no more than a few weeks.

The other bills that are part of the motion will pass through only one stage. For most of them, this will be the second reading and then there will be an interval where there is a need for any other amendments to be considered if they are required. It’s important to note that, for the vast majority of these bills that I have put forward for this urgency motion, the process is in no way being truncated. The effect of the urgency motion is simply to extend the number of hours that Parliament is sitting.

The areas of New Zealand life that are covered by these bills—

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member is required to give brief reasons; he’s done that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Fair enough then.

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

Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 23 June.

Clauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill. I remind members that in the committee stage of an Appropriation (Supplementary Estimates) Bill, only the Minister’s amendments and any amendments to them are considered. I also remind members that the House has agreed to the trial of the removal of the four-call limit in the committee stage. 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. We have the ability then to take short calls and have a series of questions and answers between members and the Minister. You can be confident you will get a number of short calls. When we were last debating the bill, we were considering the question that clauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 stand part.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair, and very useful that you just reminded us of this quick interaction between the Minister and ourselves. This time I’d just very much like to hear the views of the Minister around the media package that’s—it’s very significant, isn’t it, Minister? From what I can see there are two broad parts of it. There’s the COVID-19 transmission and other fees, on behalf of media organisations—$7.7 million; and then there’s another $11.4 million under the COVID-19 media sector response and recovery.

The first question I wish to ask is: is that it? Is that the full package—$20 million? That’s very significant. I suppose it does raise the issue of why such a large and specific allocation has been made to the media, and it would be useful to have a background on why the Minister has made this special provision, and also the types of organisations that it’s going to be applied to—that would be very useful.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member Andrew Bayly very much for his drawing the attention of the committee to this package. He may recall that during the midst of the COVID-19 lockdown period, there was a lot of concern about the future of the media sector in New Zealand. Media outlets were finding it extremely difficult to find advertising revenue, and obviously, I believe, to quote myself—briefly—this was a patient with pre-existing conditions as well, in the sense that the media sector did not come into this COVID-19 situation strong, in any way at all. In fact, it is a sector facing significant realignment.

So the Government worked on a package, and, in fact, we covered this material in some depth today in the Social Services Committee Estimates hearings with Minister Faafoi. We worked with the sector on a package; this is the first part of it. It’s a $50 million package—so because of the nature of what we’re doing, I don’t want to go back through what I had to with the member last night; we’re talking about the 2019-20 bit. There is of course more that will be spent in the 2020-21 year, but that was focused on ensuring that broadcasters in particular could have some cash flow. That was done by, in one case, in one part of this, remitting some of the fees that they need to pay both in terms of New Zealand On Air but also in terms of physical broadcasting through Kordia. So those were two parts of it.

The second part of the first part relates to Government advertising and ensuring that Government advertising both continued but also could be brought forward in terms of the payments for that in order to, again, supply cash flow for the media sector. Obviously, during this period of time, we saw some private media outlets not able to operate any more, others reducing staff, and, as we discussed this morning at the select committee, also even Television New Zealand as a public broadcaster having to do that as well. So this is one of the many sectors affected by COVID-19. This was the first portion of the $50 million that was announced for that.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I just want to return, Minister, to the short debate we were having last night around the small business cashflow scheme and, in particular, the ratio between the $5.2 billion capital expenditure, which is the loans—potentially up to $5.2 billion—and then the $3.44 billion initial write-down, which is to say it appears, on the surface of it, that the Government is saying that it’s going to lend out $5.2 billion to small businesses and expect that, ultimately, it will only get $1.5 billion or $1.6 billion back, because most of it will be written down. I just wanted to get a sense of how that’s arrived at. Obviously, there’s the cost of zero interest if people pay it back within one year, but there must be also a very significant expectation that the loans won’t be paid back in a significant set of circumstances. So I just want to get some clarity around that first.

And then I’m also keen to understand why—given the fact that he appears to be preparing to spend $3.4 billion, in effect, on that scheme—he didn’t give consideration to some simpler method of getting cash into the hands of those small businesses during the lockdown period to help with such costs such as rents and other overheads. I note that more than two months after he announced that he was going to do something to help those businesses, today we’ve heard that their final policy that they finally announced has fallen over as well, and so nothing has happened on that front.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair, thank you very much. In terms of sort of picking out the middle of those three points, we gave consideration to a number of options for how to provide support for fixed costs beyond wages. Obviously, you know, wages are the largest bill within those businesses, but we were acutely aware that there were other costs in front of us, so we actually did assess a range of options, including grants, alongside the possibility of loans. What we focused on was how we supported the vulnerable but viable businesses. So these are businesses that have a future but have particular issues around cash flow that were holding them back in terms of their fixed costs.

We came to the judgment that the best way of supporting that was through a loan scheme. It’s not any old loan scheme. It’s interest-free for the first 12 months. No repayments are required for the first two years. It has an interest rate at 3 percent for a five-year term, which is more generous than one would find any bank offering. So it is a different loan, which, in part, helps answer the member’s first question—which we covered last night—as to why the fair value write-down would be what it is.

As we have talked about in the student loan scheme, just as with this loan scheme, it actually appears as an asset on our books. It’s capital expenditure, but, of course, you have to have some kind of estimate. As we discussed last night, these are Estimates—it’s in the name.

Obviously, the proof is in the pudding. So far with the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, it is tracking at around $1.4 billion. I suspect it will continue to be drawn down upon as businesses understand more about the trading environment they now find themselves in at level 1.

In terms of the last point the member raised, those negotiations around that particular bit of legislation are not ones I am involved in directly. I can obviously, though, say that Cabinet took a decision to deal with those particular aspects of commercial leases that had not already been dealt with by the landlords and the tenants themselves. By and large, those arrangements have been made, but we, obviously, made a Cabinet decision that the final legislative outcomes of that are the responsibility of another Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I suppose the difficulty that I have is that the Minister is saying that the scheme is focused on vulnerable but viable businesses, and yet the scheme is, effectively, set up to write off two-thirds of the money that it loans out. Surely that can’t all be accounted for by one year of interest free? If it’s being lent out at the percentage that the Government’s able to borrow, I can’t see where the loss is coming from. So it must be based on the assumption that they’re expecting a lot of those loans not to be repaid. So how does that square with a scheme that’s supposed to be targeted at vulnerable but viable businesses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In addition to the question of interest-free and the normal write-off provisions that you would have with any loan scheme, there’s obviously also—and we can get a little bit more information to the member around this, around the use-of-money cost to the Government. So, when Treasury look at this, they always look at what else the money could be used for at a particular time and how that affects the Government’s overall expenditure. So I can get him more detail, but it is the nature of a loan scheme given out this way. We have to put into the books a fair-value write-down. It’s certainly not something that the Minister of Finance does; it’s something that Treasury do. It is their professional judgment, and the Inland Revenue Department—it is their professional judgment—that leads them to do this. I think what we can all say with some confidence now is it is highly unlikely that that will be the amount of money that is written down, because the uptake of the loan does not appear to go towards the levels that were projected. That’s the nature of putting a scheme such as this in place.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 513 in the name of the Hon Grant Robertson be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 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.

Clauses 4 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2019/20 Supplementary Estimates) 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

Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill

Third Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2020/21) Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is in committee on the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 Amendments relating to disqualification of sentenced prisoners for registration as electors

Hon Tim Macindoe: Madam Chair?

Simeon Brown: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): You guys work it out.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise to my colleague. There’s been a bit of a misunderstanding between myself and the whip. But I am pleased to take a call.

I sat on the select committee throughout the entire process of hearing the submissions on this particular bill. Subsequent to that, I have left the Justice Committee because I’ve had a change in my portfolio responsibilities within the National Party, and so I regret that I haven’t had a chance to do further work on it.

Hon Chris Hipkins: What brought that about?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: What brought that about? Well, I’m sure you’re well aware of that, Mr Hipkins. Given that it resulted in a small promotion for me, I’m very happy about it. But, anyway, thank you very much for his interest in the furtherance of my career. I’d like to get back to the bill, because I’m sure that’s what the Chair would like me to do.

I do want to draw attention to the fact that there were some very significant compelling submissions, both in favour and against the bill, and so I acknowledge those. I regret that I was unable to speak about those submissions last week in the second reading of the bill, and the reason for that was that the House was sitting under extended hours while my new select committee was sitting, and I was required to be in an Estimates hearing. So I didn’t get a chance to speak about those submissions, but I do want to acknowledge those who submitted both for and against the bill, because I think that they brought many compelling thoughts to bear. It was particularly interesting to hear from a number of those who have formerly been through our penal system. We don’t often hear from prisoners or former prisoners on bills and their implications, and I listened to them with particular interest and was glad that they took the time to submit. The interesting thing was they weren’t all unanimous in their views on this bill either.

But I do want to say how outraged I was—and I made a big noise about it during the time—that our select committee was required to do that work while the country was in lockdown, having been given an assurance by the Leader of the House, who is in the House, at the time, that there was no public interest in non-urgent matters being dealt with while the whole country was in lockdown and the House was adjourned. I for one would probably not have supported the motion to adjourn when we did had I known that the Government would renege on that very significant commitment that they made. So I did raise my objections, all the way up to the level of the Clerk of the House, and I wasn’t particularly satisfied with the way the whole matter was resolved. But I just put on record that I do not think that the average member of the public supported the fact that the select committee was dealing with that bill at that time.

In fact, we asked many people who were submitting whether they were aware of this opportunity long before they were given the chance to present via a Zoom meeting, and they said, no, they weren’t. Clearly, many of them had been contacted by members of the Labour or Green parties and urged to put in their submissions very quickly because they were getting caned in the early stages of the select committee’s hearings. The fact of the matter is, overwhelmingly, people I have spoken to said, surely, at a time when the country was focused on COVID matters—a very serious issue—Parliament was suspended, and the country was unable to operate as would normally occur, that was not the time to be dealing with any non-urgent matter. In particular, getting to the point where now, under urgency, we are rushing through a bill to give prisoners the vote suggests very warped priorities on the part of the Government.

It’s not so much, therefore, the principle of the bill that I object to but the practicalities of the way it has been managed. I feel that the Government misled the Parliament and misled the nation in moving the adjournment and suggesting that no non-urgent bills would be covered and then they did. I feel that members of the public are right to feel outraged about the fact that they didn’t know that it was happening, as a result of which many of them who would have submitted on this bill didn’t, because they were ignorant of it. Now, that’s outrageous in a democracy when you have people who really would have a strong interest in a bill not having the ability to know about it. We asked them whether it had received much media attention in their areas, and the vast majority of people asked that question said, “Absolutely not. We’ve heard nothing about it whatsoever.”

So I put on record my strong criticism of the Government for the way in which they are putting this bill through the House. I understand the reasons for it, and I certainly understand the reasons against it. In particular, I hope that the Government listen to the strong concerns of victims of crime who felt yet again that this was an insulting slap in the face for their concerns, particularly during the lockdown, because we heard many distressing stories from victims who felt deeply aggrieved and insulted by this bill’s consideration.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just before I call the next member, could I just remind the committee of the whole House of the resolution of the House to remove the four five-minute call limit on committee stage contributions. The idea behind that was to encourage an interaction with the Minister. So we would have shorter calls—not necessarily shorter, but there could be far more shorter calls and a conversation with the Minister. So, in order to encourage a conversation, you will really need to try and have a question in the contribution from the members.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the committee stage of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I just want to thank the Hon Tim Macindoe for the contribution that he made and the points that he outlined around the sham of the process that this bill has gone through. Yet again, here we are, under urgency debating this legislation. If you were to look back over the history of this legislation, it is chequered with a sham of a process on a significant piece of legislation going through Parliament.

I want to focus a couple of questions around clause 5, which amends section 80 of the Electoral Act, which includes the definitions of those who will be qualified to register under this piece of legislation. It says “a person who is detained under—(i) a sentence of imprisonment for life; or (ii) a sentence of preventive detention; or (iii) a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:”. I want to focus on the definition there: a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years or more. Those people remain disqualified for registration, but those who are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of less than three years will now be qualified. And I ask the question to the Minister as to how many people this will apply to, how many prisoners will be qualified under this legislation and what it intends to do? Then I ask the Minister also if he can outline a number, or give some examples potentially, of some of the offences that some of those people have committed in order to get those sentences. I’d like the Minister to potentially even answer this question, which is to tell the committee how many, on average, convictions are required by an offender to essentially end up in jail? What’s the average number of convictions? I guess this is the question: what is the average number of convictions that a sentenced prisoner has in our prisons in New Zealand? Because—

Darroch Ball: What’s that got to do with it?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, what does that have to do with it? Because, Mr Ball, and I know you’re supporting this, New Zealand First is not on the side of victims here, because this is a conversation around the victims of crime. Those people in prison, they go to prison and they lose some of their rights whilst they’re in prison, and that includes their right to be able to vote. That is one of the rights that they lose when they go to prison, and they break the social contract, and they have some of their rights taken away from them.

Darroch Ball: Why was it a member’s bill?

SIMEON BROWN: If Mr Ball wants to stand on the side of prisoners rather than victims, that’s his choice. But we won’t on this side, and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the spirit of the conversational exchange—which I think the current rules now promote—let me respond. I might just respond to Mr Macindoe’s points. I understand the passion and enthusiasm that he brings to the submissions that he makes, except to say that, while Parliament itself and the House did not operate during lockdown, select committees continued to meet and to do their business; it wasn’t a holiday for MPs. Every MP, as far as I know, the stories I’ve heard, continued to work, supported and engaged with their constituents, and supported and engaged on important topical issues, including this one. I do point out that the select committee received 2,578 written submissions on this bill, 78 percent of which supported the bill, and I think we should bear that in mind.

To Mr Brown’s points, and I know he repeated the issues about process and urgency and what have you, but to turn to clause 5 and the new section 80(1)(d), he asks how many would it apply to. Well, according to officials, between 1,800 and 1,900 prisoners currently. And I think, to put that into context, there are roughly 9,600 people in prison; 36 percent of them have the right to vote, because they’re remand prisoners—they’ve always had the right to vote, they’ll continue to have the right to vote, and under National, they did—and this will add between 1,800 and 1,900. And just to allay the fears that members of the National Party might have: if they are so concerned about 1,900 other people getting the vote, they are in worse shape in the polls than we have hitherto thought they were. So I wouldn’t get too concerned about that.

In terms of the other two questions that Mr Brown raised, the first of which was the examples of the offences it would apply to and how many, on average, convictions does it take to end up in prison, it is simply not possible to give a single answer to those questions. Because, in the end, sentencing is the job of judges, and they look at the offence, they look at the track record, they look at the circumstances of the offending, they look at how the particular offender has responded—have they pleaded guilty early, have they taken responsibility for their actions, has there been some sort of response in terms of the victim? All of those factors get taken into account. There are some offences that are eligible for a prison sentence but do not incur a prison sentence on the first conviction—there might be multiple convictions before it does; so that doesn’t help.

In the end, what this comes down to, as the National Party agreed in 1993, when they reinstated the right of prisoners with a sentence of less than three years the right to vote—they considered that somebody sentenced to less than three years is generally at the lower end of offending, they are going to come out, and the National Party then supported the principle, as this Government does now, that even if you are in prison at the time of one election but sentenced to less than three years, you are going to be released back into the community and the democratic principles suggest that you should have the right to have a say on who’s leading the country that you’re going to be released free into. This is not an open slather, every prisoner gets to vote; it is knowing that some prisoners would be out before the next election and they must have a right to have a say on who’s going to lead their country.

To the argument about victims, that this is anti-victim, well then, the members opposite will have to argue that, actually, once sentenced to prison, you should permanently lose your right to vote, even if you’re released on parole or you’ve finished your sentence. That’s the logical extension of that argument, and that is why the High Court, the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, and the Waitangi Tribunal have all rejected the National Party argument, and I might add this too: if they are so convinced that taking away the right of prisoners sentenced to a sentence of less than three years is somehow going to have some massive rehabilitative and ameliorative effect, why is it, since 2010, that the prison population went—under their Government—from 7,500 to nearly 11,000? This didn’t make a difference.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the Hon Mark Mitchell, can I apologise to both previous speakers; I pushed the button at one minute, forgetting I wasn’t to do that in committee stage. My apologies to members, and thank you for ignoring it.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, can I address one of the comments that the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, made in his response, when he said that the National Party must be concerned about the election result this year as we were trying to prevent 1,900 prisoners from voting. So I would assume by that statement that the Minister feels that those 1,900 prisoners are going to vote for Labour. But I think that’s very unfair—I think that’s extremely unfair, because Darroch Ball, he deserves his share; New Zealand First, they deserve a share of that 1,900 vote. So, Minister, I would say to you that if you’re making the assumption—and it would be fair to say that that’s the assumption—that the 1,900 prisoners that are going to get the vote at the general election this year are going to vote for Labour or for New Zealand First, I put it to you that it’s probably highly likely—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you put it to the Minister, please.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —that the victims are going to vote for—well—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you put it to the Minister, not to me.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Chair. I’d put it to you, Minister, that it’s highly likely that the victims—and, by the way, there are far more victims—are likely to be voting for the National Party this year, because we unashamedly stand up and always will speak on the right of the victims and we always put victims at the heart of any of our criminal justice policies. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to address that point, because it wasn’t strictly part of the bill.

The question that I’ve got for the Minister is this: if you truly stand by your values, if you truly stand by the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could you please address the Minister rather than the Chair. Break a habit of a lifetime.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: If the Minister truly stands by those values, why are they not passing a bill that gives every prisoner the right to vote? Why are they restricting it to prisoners with a term less than three years?

And, by the way, could the prisoner take—sorry, not the prisoner; could the Minister—ha, ha!—please stand and explain to me one thing: how are they going to apply this rule when you have a prisoner that may come in with a less than three years prison sentence, offends while in prison—which happens often—and he has a new sentence which extends him beyond that three-year period? What happens if a prisoner has got a five-year sentence and actually has it reduced because he completes his rehabilitation, training, and courses, and so he’s actually going to come out before the end of his sentence? How is the Minister going to deal with that? How is the system going to respond to that? Those situations are going to arise, and to me it appears that you’re going to immediately have inequity within a process and a system that you’re passing through this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to my good friend the Hon Mark Mitchell. Look, in relation to who prisoners might be voting for, I agree with him that they could be voting for anybody. I think, as my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins pointed out, many of them are entrepreneurs; they just happen to operate in the black market not in the legal market. They’re often self-directed and certainly self-interested, so many of them will be natural National Party supporters.

I just want to make this point, too, about who stands for victims. The party that stands for victims, or the Government that stands for victims, is the one that’s beefed up the police force and given the police the personnel, the numbers, and the tools to actually do the job of getting on top of gangs, getting on top of illegal firearms, and actually keeping the community safe. That’s what prevents more victims, not this sort of nonsense.

Anyway, to answer the question about why not extend it to every prisoner: for the very reasons I pointed out, this is about accepting the principle that there are some prisoners who we know between elections will be released—and it might be a month after the election, it might be six months after the election; they’re back in the community for 2½ years. They ought to have a say on who the Government is that is running the country that they’re going to be released into.

The member asked: what if the sentence is changed? That is catered for. If there is an appeal—if, for example, the Crown appeals a sentence on the grounds it’s too short and it is extended beyond three years—that prisoner comes back off the roll, has to come off the roll. If the sentence is originally longer than three years but the defendant appeals and their sentence is reduced, Corrections has to go to that prisoner and work on the process of getting them back on the roll. That’s the way it operates. So the system is able to accommodate changes in sentence even after initial sentencing.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to have the opportunity to participate in this discussion in the committee stage in relation to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I have a number of questions for the Minister that are clustered around the idea of inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I can do that probably in reasonably short order, but please bear with me. I’ll get all those out, sort of, in one hit, so to speak, before perhaps going on to other topics.

We heard from a number of submitters who made good, compelling submissions in favour of the bill but with a reservation around the fact that there appears to be inconsistency internally whereby prisoners being denied the right to vote are said to have had their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act curtailed. The argument was that there was somewhat of an arbitrary line between prisoners who had been sentenced for less than three years and three years or more. I acknowledge that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, has outlined an argument in respect of prisoners being able to vote, effectively, on—one step removed, but let’s say voting on the laws of the land that will apply to them after they’re released, the argument being that they’re voting for those who will in turn make the laws of the land.

But I think that it’s worth addressing, and I’d like to have on record the Minister’s thoughts about a situation where a prisoner is imprisoned for more than three years but doesn’t have the opportunity within their last three years prior to being released. I think that might be part of the intent underlying the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Green Party member who’s put one forward, and I look forward to hearing from her on that subject as well. I’m curious to know, in the first instance: is it the case that one of the bases for amending the law that the Minister has brought to the House is inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and, second, whether he intends therefore to support the SOP in the name of Ms Ghahraman, and, finally, on a related point, what he would anticipate his response would be when, inevitably, this matter is brought before the senior courts again, they again declare the law to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? Would he anticipate changing the law or seeking that Parliament change the law at that time? Thank you.

Golriz Ghahraman: Madam Chair.

Hon Andrew Little: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Andrew Little.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just thought we were trying to keep this conversation—because I have seen it working quite well, even in contentious legislation. So my apologies to my colleague Golriz Ghahraman.

To Mr Penk, he is right: one of the reasons this bill is here is because there is a slather of judicial findings that the legislation as it is currently is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I’d just point out that for someone sentenced to more than three years, the bill does still set up a requirement on the Department of Corrections to assist that prisoner at the point of release to enrol if they wish to do so—to proactively provide that assistance.

Now, the member asked will we be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Golriz Ghahraman. No, we won’t be. We made the decision on the principle I’ve pointed out, but also the fact that the law that had been in place since 1993—and, in fact, actually, it had been in place earlier, for a longer period of time—we thought struck the right balance in terms of our electoral law. We know that for those who commit offences and offend against society and social mores to the point where they are incarcerated and lose their freedom of movement and freedom of association and all those sorts of freedoms but where that is a short-term sentence and they’re going to be out before the next election, they ought to retain the right to vote.

We know it is an arguable point—and it is in communities around the world—as to how many citizens’ rights and civilian rights, or civil rights, you take off somebody sentenced to prison. You automatically lose your right to freedom of movement and your right to freedom of association and you have a huge curtailment of the right of freedom of speech. Should you lose other rights as well, and, look, that’s a fertile debate. But, actually, for New Zealand it was reasonably well settled until what I think was a pretty gratuitous political act in 2010. Under a member’s bill, no less, the law changed, and this Government does not think that that was a savoury thing to do. We think there is a principle underpinning this.

It may well be that in a subsequent hearing, the law as changed by this law change may also be found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I know there were submitters who said that. There is judicial reasoning from previous cases that actually upheld the 1993 law as being consistent with the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that remains an arguable point. I think the balance is struck well here, and it’s the right thing to do.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I relish the opportunity to enter this conversation at this point, I think, given that two members who have spoken previously have referenced my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 518 to amend this bill further to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. The reason for that is that New Zealand is a proud nation that upholds and protects basic human rights even when the absolute worst has happened. I think the criminal justice system is the absolute testing point of our willingness to adhere to basic human rights and, in particular, as lawmakers, to uphold those rights without prejudice.

We’ve been told—and other members have referenced this—by all the courts of the land, right up to the Supreme Court of New Zealand and the Waitangi Tribunal, that the ban on people in prisons from voting is a breach of those fundamental rights. That’s really important to notice, because human rights are universal. That is the core and essence of our basic rights. We don’t have human rights because we’re good but because we are human. It’s important to notice that, because it’s a slippery slope. If we are to take away human rights based on arbitrary moral judgments, what’s next? Do we take away the right to healthcare from our prisons? Do we take away the right to be free from torture?

And on that, in terms of balancing people’s human rights as against the restrictions that we can put upon them in a lawful society, I do a little bit have to disagree with the Minister respectfully, because I don’t think it is a live debate in terms of the right to vote, not in any legal sense. We heard from the Human Rights Commission in select committee, where they outlined it really clearly. We can take away people’s rights in the criminal justice system where there is a valid criminal justice purpose. So, in the Sentencing Act, for example, the purpose of sentencing someone to prison comes back to things like keeping the community safe, rehabilitation, successful reintegration back into the community, and none of those things are impacted by taking away that one vote that the prisoner has. The community is not kept more safe; victims are not restored. In fact, everybody noted—who had the expertise or experience to note—that the purposes of rehabilitation and successful reintegration back to the community are actually damaged by disconnecting prisoners from that community.

Now, to come back to who we’re actually talking about in terms of those impacted by this ban, by this breach of fundamental rights, we are a Government who has looked at the research and we acknowledge that our criminal justice system is racist. It disproportionately targets Māori, other communities of colour, and lower socio-economic communities. So who are we taking away from our democracy? Who are we banning? Who are we disenfranchising further and further when we ban prisoners from the vote? Because we already know that Māori, for committing the same act, are far, far more likely to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment than anybody else. The Waitangi Tribunal told us that that’s not OK.

Coming back to victims and the rights of victims—how are they impacted? Well, I fear that in this Chamber we often talk in terms of being tough on crime, with rhetoric that does nothing for victims. Instead, we could support victims and uphold fundamental human rights in our justice system. We could provide for mental healthcare. We can provide for a better healthcare system, for housing, for things that actually keep our communities connected and secure. While that side of the Chamber speaks about the rights and wellbeing of victims, victims of violent crime who went to hospital for the last nine years were lying in hospitals where the walls were rotting. That’s not what we are about. Let’s actually take care of victims and let’s uphold the integrity of our justice system by upholding fundamental rights. New Zealand should be a place where, proudly, universal suffrage happened. It should be a place where arbitrary moral lines aren’t drawn by a Government to disenfranchise communities—in particular, not Māori and our most vulnerable communities. So please vote for my SOP.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. You chose the much better of the two to take a call. I just wanted to reflect briefly on the fake news from the Green Party, where they talked about the walls of Middlemore Hospital. Well, that one has been debunked well and truly, and so it’s fake news. But let’s get back to what this bill is actually about.

The Green Party here is actually saying—and I must commend them; principled, principled—let’s give all prisoners the right to vote. That’s the essence of the Supplementary Order Paper and the argument getting put forward. I just want to acknowledge that that is a principled position to come from. It’s a principle that I don’t agree with, but at least it’s a principled position. Unlike the Minister’s position, which is to stand up in the House and say, “Well, at this stage, we’ll allow prisoners who have been sentenced to three years or less, but who knows what might happen in the future.” We might get a Human Rights Tribunal decision or something might get challenged in the courts. He’s passing other legislation around inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and all the rest. So we might just see what happens. Will we be having this conversation again, that we might extend it to six years or nine years or 10 years? So where does the line get drawn?

The Minister has said, “Well, three years is kind of around about where we think it’s right.” But I challenge the Minister: you can’t have it one way or the other; you’ve got to be principled about this, principled as to whether it’s all prisoners who have been sentenced—

Darroch Ball: National passed the Electoral Act in ’93! Where was your principle then?

SIMEON BROWN: —or whether it’s no prisoners who have been sentenced. And the National Party stands on the side of principle and says—

Darroch Ball: Answer the question, Mr Brown!

SIMEON BROWN: I’m asking questions here.

Darroch Ball: Answer the question!

SIMEON BROWN: This is the committee of the whole House stage, Mr Ball. If you’d like to take a call, feel free to ask the Minister a question. But I’m putting a question to the Minister around—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m happy to invite the member for a call when he stands and calls, but in the meantime, just carry on.

SIMEON BROWN: —thank you for your support, Madam Chair; it’s much appreciated—what the principle is around why it is three years. Because I’ve heard lots of reasons and lots of “We’ll see what happens.” But I have not seen a principled decision from the Minister as to why people who commit offences which get sentenced to up to three years are going to be given the right to vote but those convicted to a sentence of over three years will not be.

The question does come back down to victims of crime, because there will be many, many people—many thousands of people out there—who have had their rights taken away, who have been hurt, who have had criminal acts, assaults, a whole range of criminal offences taken against them. There are victims of crime who have had—whether it’s their livelihood or whether it’s other aspects of their human dignity destroyed or damaged by these criminals, and this piece of legislation has nothing for those people. This is by people who are sentenced to sentences of less than three years. There are people who have had criminal acts taken against them, where they’ve lost life, they’ve had personal injury, they’ve had assaults, they’ve had financial loss—a whole range of different things taken against them—and this bill has no recognition of them in it. So the question to the Minister is: where is the principle as to why it should be three years and less, and not all prisoners, or none?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’m just trying to tease out the contradiction in that member’s argument, and I’ll just put it there. So he wants the right for all prisoners to vote regardless of the length of sentence, but he thinks it’s an affront to the victims, and actually no one should have the right to vote if they’ve gone to prison. So if the member comes to the House with a story, it should be a straight story. Let’s be consistent.

Let me respond to some of the points he made. So he’s a bit worried, as I understand it, as I infer from his contribution, that if there is a future court ruling perhaps on this law that says it’s still inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, therefore, what are we going to do. I’d just make this point: the laws of this land are in the hands of this House. The laws of this land are in the hands of this House. This House will decide. And even under the declaration of an inconsistency with legislation that we’ve got going through the House at the moment, it is very clear. Courts may well declare laws to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it will come back to this House and this House will decide. And one of the decisions the House might make is it’s going to carry on, for the very good reason that at a political level we decide that inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is one that is tolerable. So there is no further risk there.

The member asked: why three years? I’ve laid that out. It is about the right of those sentenced to a short sentence who know that by the time of the next election they will be out and therefore they’re going to have a period of freedom and their right to have a say on who’s going to govern the country that they’re going to be released into.

I might just say this about victims of crime, because I know the National Party trots that out as if they’re somehow the champions of the victims of crime. They’re not. They ran down the police force. We saw a rise in crime, a massive increase in the prison population under their time, a lot of victims as a result. They did nothing about trying to improve the outcomes for prisoners to reduce their offending. They just carried on putting more and more back into prison. But I make this point too: actually, the majority of those in prison are also victims of crime. They’ve been victims of child abuse, child sexual abuse. They’ve been beaten and treated and also badly assaulted and harmed. Most of those people in prison are victims of crime. So when the members opposite are trying to trot this out as though they’re mutually exclusive; they’re not. And if we have a system that’s doing its job, it’s actually recognising that and working on stopping the criminal habits and the criminal attitudes to change those behaviours.

In any event, I go back to the point I made before: members who were in the previous Government voted for this. It might’ve been a member’s bill, but the National Party unanimously supported it when they were in Government, as a member’s bill, and in 2010, when the prison population was only 7,500, the law change at that time that they supported did nothing to stop the prison population rising to nearly 11,000. So taking away that this right to vote for this small proportion of prisoners does not make it better for victims, does not reduce the number of victims. So let’s not kid ourselves that that somehow is a magic answer to the problem of victims of crime.

There are other things that need to happen. What victims of crime most want is a strong voice in the system. They don’t want to be ignored any more, because they’ve been papered over for so long. So that’s where we’re looking. That’s the support that we’re providing. We’ve started in the last couple of Budgets and we will continue, if we’re given permission to do so, after 19 September.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): If the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, had actually listened to the voice of victims, he would’ve taken a very different perspective, because, at the select committee stage of this bill, we heard from numerous organisations representing victims saying, actually, part of our criminal justice system is about freedom. When you are locked up in a prison, you lose the freedom of association; you lose the freedom of movement; you lose the freedom to be able to have imparted information; and, equally so, you lose the right to vote. In the eyes of victims, actually, this Government is far more preoccupied with the rights of criminal offenders than it is with those that are the victims of crime.

Now, the Minister also made reference to the legislative principles around this bill. His problem is that this bill does not resolve the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues, that, actually—and the Labour Party, in submissions at the Justice Committee, argued that every offender, every person in prison, should be able to vote. In fact, a number of branches of the Labour Party appeared before the committee. You could take it to the logical extreme where the appalling offender who has subsequently pleaded guilty to the killing of 51 people in the grotesque act that occurred at the Christchurch mosques—and the puritans in the Labour Party argue that that man should be entitled to vote in our elections. We say no, that’s incorrect, that people who are in jail are in jail for a reason.

I also want to move away from the Minister’s sort of idealistic position that those in prison are somehow—they’ve committed one offence, you know, they made a bit of an error and we shouldn’t hold it against them. For goodness’ sake! We heard at the select committee that the average—

Brett Hudson: They’re not there for stealing a Moro bar.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right. I say to my colleague, our spokesperson for police—soon to be Minister of Police—that, actually, 24 offences, that’s the average number. It’s not like these people haven’t been given a second chance. In fact, the law, which this party agrees with, is that prison should be the last resort, not the first resort, for judges when they’re dealing with criminal offenders. The honest truth is those that are in jail are people that have committed multiple offences against the law of the land, and we heard evidence at the select committee that, in fact, 24 criminal offences is the average number for—

Rt Hon David Carter: The average?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s the average. We had one guy before the committee where it was over 120 offences—

Rt Hon David Carter: And they want to give them the vote—they want to give them the vote?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and they say that those people should be entitled to vote. I say to my good friend and colleague David Carter: they are desperate for votes. They have, for 2½ years, been chasing the votes of criminals. They don’t care about the rights of victims. They don’t care about the basic standards that we expect in our community. It is simply a crude grab for power, by which they think they can score a few thousand more votes. The political strategy is flawed.

I particularly want to refer to the New Zealand First Party. The New Zealand First Party—just go on Facebook; they are horrified. If they look in the mirror on 20 September and they want to know why they have been ejected from this place, they need look no further than their support for this bill. This is anathema to the hard law and order approach, and I invite those New Zealand First MPs opposite to talk to their party members about what they think about giving votes to prisoners. What it shows is not just with this part but an overall approach by this Government that is soft on crime.

The last bit I want to address in this part is the practical issues for our prisons in providing for the right to vote. I was privileged for a period to be the Minister of Corrections, and at that time it was actually really difficult, practically, to provide for prisoners to vote. For instance, only MPs are allowed within the premises of prisons. So is it fair in a democratic system that members of Parliament, the incumbents, can go into prisons and campaign for votes but not candidates who are seeking the support in those particular electorates? I think that’s a pretty fundamental right, that all candidates have a fair crack. I also believe that a really important part of the political process is being able to ask questions, to receive information, to have free access to the internet and read all the different ranges of political opinions, because what will flow from this bill is, next minute, you will have criminals appealing: “Well, I’ve got the right to vote; well, I should be able to on Facebook. I should be able to express views on laws. I should be able to impart freely information.” Well, look, I know—and you only need look at the mess that occurred when the man who’s pled guilty to the Christchurch mosques was able to freely write letters. It speaks volumes of the attitude of the current Government: all about the rights of criminals and not about the rights of victims and the important part that, actually, punishment plays in our criminal justice system.

I do raise a real question about the practicality of serving prisoners being able to vote given the degree to which we, logically and properly, extensively restrict the freedoms of those people. Now, there are jurisdictions around the world—the bulk of them in the United States—where, if you are convicted of a felony, you never get to vote again in your life. Now, National is absolutely of a view that that is wrong. We are of that old-fashioned perspective that says if you do the crime, you do the time; when you’ve done your time, you regain all your rights as a citizen. That is the proper, balanced position that this National Party has taken for many, many years on this issue.

Darroch Ball: How many years—how many years?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I reflect—well, I reflect on the vast bulk of New Zealand’s history, to New Zealand First. The bulk of New Zealand’s history—

Darroch Ball: In fact, that member was here in 1993 when the Electoral Act was voted for this legislation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’d love New Zealand First to take a call. I’ll make a bet with my mate David Carter: New Zealand First will not take a call on this bill, because this bill is a suicide note from the New Zealand First Party. I cannot find a New Zealand First supporter anywhere from Invercargill to Bluff who has said, “I like prisoners being able to vote. I want to be soft on crime. New Zealand First’s mandate is to be soft on crime and to vote for a bill that will give prisoners the vote.” I say to that New Zealand First member of Parliament: prepare for and enjoy your last few weeks in Parliament, because your support for this bill is one of the reasons that your party is so low in the polls and is going to be rejected by the people of New Zealand on 19 September.

You see, we do support prisoners, having done their time, being able to get easily back on the roll. I actually indicated at the select committee that there is a sort of an academic argument as to whether the practical mechanism is that you allow prisoners to stay on the roll but not be able to exercise that voting right while they are in prison, rather than this business of actually tossing them off the roll and then going through the bureaucratic process of putting them back on. I actually think the practical provisions of our electoral law would actually have them remaining on the roll but, while they are serving time in prison, for those practical and principal reasons that I’ve set out, not being able to cast a vote. That’s the law in the mother of all parliaments, in the UK; that is the case in many jurisdictions around the world; and we actually think it is the practical, balanced perspective, that if you offend the laws of the land and you can’t respect them, you surrender your right, for your term of prison, to actually be able to practically participate in the enormous privilege we have to be part of this democracy in New Zealand. That is why National opposes Part 1 of this bill.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I know that that member who has just resumed is struggling to come to terms with the new spirit of the committee of the whole House stage, where it is more conversational and questions are posed; that’s why the limit on the number of calls has been completely removed. In any event, let me assist the member, if only to assist him with history, because I know that member also struggles with history. He certainly struggles with facts, but he definitely struggles with history. And here is the point: the law changed in 1993, under a National Government. The National Government in 1993, of which he was a part, changed the law to allow prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years to vote. That member voted for it. He might have forgotten, but he voted for it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would the member yield to explain that very point?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No, I’ve taken my call. The member had eight minutes—that member had eight minutes to make his point. I know he’s full of excuses; next to his slim grasp on facts are his excuses for what he has and hasn’t done. And I know he brings considerable experience to this debate, not only because he voted for this very law change himself in 1993 but because he’s been through the criminal justice system, because he has a conviction for contempt of court. So we know all that. So he brings that experienced insight; we know that. But here’s the thing here: when he says that National has stood by this principle for many years, it’s actually not that many years, because in 1993 they voted for this very thing. They allowed this. If he was so concerned that maybe they shouldn’t be taken off the roll, they should be just denied the right to vote. He, by 2010, was a very, very experienced MP, a Minister, and he did not make that change. He did not propose that. They just let it go through because it was expedient, because they thought there were a few points in it, dare I say a few votes in it. That’s why they did it.

Here’s the other point. He did make an interesting point, but, unfortunately, so devoid of evidence, which is that there’s a practical question for Corrections. And I say to that member: no, there isn’t. Because, of the roughly 9,700-odd prisoners at the moment, 3,400 have the right to vote—3,400 have the right to vote. The Electoral Commission has to work with corrections to make sure those 3,400 prisoners get to exercise their right to vote, and this bill will affect between 1,800 and 1,900 extra prisoners. Nil extra effort required from the Electoral Commission, nil extra effort required from the Department of Corrections. The member is simply wrong.

Now, he quite correctly pointed out the right of sitting MPs to have access to prisons, and they do that; it’s one of the checks and balances on what is happening in prisons, and so they do that. But the member has never raised any issue for candidates talking to the 3,400 remand prisoners before. I mean, the last election was about 3,100. It’s gone up since then, but the member’s never raised that before. The reality is: remand prisoners in the last election, the election before that, and no doubt the one before that exercised their right to vote; they got access to information, they’ll continue to get access to information, and that will continue under this bill. But it is not correct to say that, without this bill, no one in prison gets the right to vote—36 percent of the prison population now currently has the right to vote. This will make a sensible adjustment, as it was made in 1993, on a principled point that those who are in prison now who will be released into the community before the next election must have a right to have a say on who is leading the country that they’re being released into. That is the principle.

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

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to resume on that subject of the practical aspects of the bill, more particularly the administration that is involved not only in the campaigning side of things, which has been the subject of a little bit of discussion so far, but also the mechanics of voting and the practical challenges that are faced for those who are detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure and soon to be given, in the case of those who are there for up to three years, the ability to vote. The implication, I would hope, for all members of this House, and indeed all candidates across the land, is that there is a deep and obvious connection between the right, which we could also phrase as the “responsibility”, to vote and the right—and, again, responsibility—to be informed such that a vote can be meaningful.

So I have a couple of specific questions in that regard, but also I’m just interested in assurances that the Minister of Justice can give about the way that he would envisage the law being given effect to. I do want to acknowledge that I’m not asking the Minister to say anything that would be inappropriate from the point of view of directing the Electoral Commission. We’ve got an important constitutional point that legislators don’t direct the specific operations of that body. It’s quite right that they be able to conduct their important role in a way that’s free from interference. But, having said that, of course it’s the responsibility of this House, and of course the Minister in whose name this bill appears before us, to consider whether it will be possible for them to carry out the role that they already have, which I would like to acknowledge as being done by them in an exceptional manner, as compared with, of course, the provisions of the bill.

So one of the issues that I’ve become aware of is exercising my right—and, again, responsibility—as a member of Parliament to visit prisons. I have Auckland prison within my electorate, commonly known as “Pare” colloquially in the area—the maximum security prison. I was aware, visiting that establishment, that there are very serious demands for security, which relate not only to the desire—the understandable desire—of many prisoners to escape their confines but also in relation to issues such as the potential for self-harm; so that the material that comes through the wire, so to speak, is severely restricted, even to the point where flakes of paint need to be restricted.

So I wonder how the Minister would envisage campaigning by candidates, MPs or otherwise, in a context where the literature that they might produce, pamphlets or collateral, however you might describe it—whether that would be made available to prisoners; noting the difficulties of them receiving, basically, anything physical at all. Of course, as others have pointed out, and I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith asked the question about the ability to communicate the other way, so to speak—prisoners to communicate with candidates—and, of course, how that interacts with the restrictions that are quite rightly placed on prisoners in terms of interacting with the outside world.

So that’s sort of a broad set of questions. But I did want to specifically—please, Madam Chair, if you could invite the Minister to answer that particular point about the physical material that’s associated with campaigning. I also would be interested to know, and I ask this probably foolishly, but I ask this question because I don’t know the answer; and I know that might sound a bit silly to be making it a novel point, but my question to the Minister is quite simply: is it the case that, under our electoral law, that qualification for being a candidate for election includes the basis that one is on the electoral roll, and, therefore, is it the case that by virtue of this legislation, a prisoner who is incarcerated for less than three years will be able to be a candidate at the election as a result of this legislation? Now, I appreciate the answer might be no, or it also might be yes, but in any case, I would genuinely be interested to know that point from the Minister. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’ll try and deal with the latter point first. It is correct that, in order to be a candidate, you have to be enrolled and to meet the citizenship and residency requirements. Whether that means you could be a candidate—if that is the case, it is the case now. A remand prisoner—if the law is correct that you are enrolled and you have a right to vote and it is correct that you can also be a candidate, remand prisoners can be candidates now. So this wouldn’t change that if that is correct.

Brett Hudson: They didn’t put that on the tin, though.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That’s a saving grace for Mr Hudson, obviously. He’s obviously planning his future that he can do it from prison.

On the first question—and I know Mr Penk drew from his experience of Pāremoremo—I’m not sure how many inmates in Pāremoremo have been sentenced to sentences of less than three years. My hunch would be not many, because it’s a maximum security prison. But, in any event, the substantial question is: can election material go into the prisons? I guess I would talk to candidates of the last few elections and see what steps they took to get their advertising material into prisons, trying to secure the prisoner vote.

MICHAEL WOOD (Senior 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 57

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

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 518 in the name of Golriz Ghahraman to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 512 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 8

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 112

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments to the amendments not 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 Amendments relating to registration of sentenced prisoners as electors

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I don’t intend to speak for long, just to introduce this part of the bill. So this is very much the mechanics of the changes here. It allows the gathering of information by Corrections from prisoners and the conveying of that information to the Electoral Commission.

There is one part that has changed compared to the bill that was introduced and went to the Justice Committee, and that is in relation to prisoners who are seeking to go on to the unpublished roll. The original draft of the bill suggested or implied or made it pretty clear that that would be an automated process; it was never intended to be. This has changed that so that any prisoner applying to go on to the unpublished roll stands in the same position as any other citizen applying to go on the unpublished roll, but the Department of Corrections will have a role in assisting the prisoner to fill out the application. But, in the end, the decision on whether or not a prisoner goes on to the unpublished roll once they’re released is a question entirely for the Electoral Commission, applying the test and standards that they apply to any other citizen.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 2 of this bill specifically provides for provisions around prisoners being able, and prison officers being required to ensure those serving sentences be able, to go on to the electoral roll. I want to respond a little bit to the history and the debate which I have had with the Minister of Justice in order to clear that history up. As is so common with Mr Little, the moment anybody challenges him, he reverts to sort of attacking the integrity of members, rather than dealing with the issues.

So let me set out very clearly the history. Up until 1975, New Zealand electoral law did not provide for prisoners being able to vote. The Labour Government of 1972 to 1975 amended the law and provided for all prisoners being able to vote in 1975. It was a law that was promised to be repealed by the incoming National Government, and that was done in 1976.

The Minister made reference to the issues that occurred in 1993, which was when the distinction was made about the issue of the three years—where prisoners were serving a sentence of less than three years, they would be entitled to vote—and I want to inform the Minister in the chair as to how that occurred. I did serve on the select committee at the time. It was the will of the National Government under Prime Minister Jim Bolger at the time of the massive MMP reform and the writing of the 1993 Electoral Act to, as much as possible, build consensus around electoral law. It is a remarkable achievement, Andrew Little, and something that you should reflect on that with both that Government and the subsequent Key-English Government, every amendment to the electoral law was advanced with cross-party support.

So while Andrew Little has prosecuted the argument and said that somehow—

Michael Wood: Except when they abolished voting in Canterbury.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —I was unprincipled in 1993, it was a compromise. I know that Michael Wood, who’s chirping in—who moves closure votes, but hasn’t taken a single call—would not understand the constitutional significance of electoral law. Mr Michael Wood thinks it’s OK for the Government of the day to screw the electoral scrum to make it easier to win re-election. Now, we don’t think that’s right. So in 1993, when the complete Electoral Act was rewritten, there was a genuine compromise between Labour’s position, which is that all prisoners should vote, and National’s position. I voted for that compromise, and I’m proud of it—absolutely.

Darroch Ball: So you voted for it. Where’s your principle?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: New Zealand First says, yes, I voted for it, and let me tell you what the principle is: electoral law should not be being advanced on simple, narrow majorities. I said to the Minister of Justice in the chair at the beginning of this parliamentary term that my door was always open to working on a cross-party basis.

There were seven electoral amendment bills advanced during the period of the English-Key Government. Every one of those bills under Simon Power, under Judith Collins, under Amy Adams—every previous Minister sitting where Andrew Little is sitting went to huge effort to consult with Opposition parties and try and build a consensus around electoral law. This is the fifth electoral bill that the Minister in the chair has done without any discussion at all with the Opposition. In fact, he’s had the appalling approach of introducing legislation and passing it on the same day without any sort of consultation, and that shows a disrespect for New Zealand’s constitutional norms and for the need in that area.

The second area I want to pursue under Part 2 of this bill is the issues around the unpublished roll. These issues are important, and when the Minister introduced the bill to the House, supported by New Zealand First, the bill had criminals able to have access to the unpublished roll more easily than law-abiding citizens or victims of crime. That’s what the original legislation said, and I raised that issue in the first reading. The Minister said that it was untrue and that I was wrong. His officials came in at the select committee and said, indeed, that that’s exactly what the bill, unamended, says. It says that there is no legal threshold. In new section 115 in clause 8, what it says is that a criminal has an absolute right to be on the unpublished roll, but if you are a victim of crime, you have to apply and you have to meet statutory tests.

Now, what is it about the Labour, Green, and New Zealand First parties that somehow they think it’s OK that convicted criminals have more legal rights than those who are victims of crime or those who are law-abiding citizens? I’d love the New Zealand First member, who hasn’t taken a single call on this bill, to explain to me why he voted at first reading for new section 115 in this bill, which says that if you are a convicted rapist or murderer, you’d get more legal rights to be on the unpublished roll than if you were the victim of a murder or rape. Would the New Zealand First member care to explain that?

Well, the member for New Zealand First has been asked to explain why his party supported the rights of people who have criminal convictions to be on the unpublished roll to be greater than law-abiding citizens or victims. It was something extraordinary. We’ve pointed it out at first reading. The Government said that no such thing existed. The officials came to the select committee and said that we were absolutely right, and thank goodness there is a Supplementary Order Paper to fix that abhorrent provision in this bill, which members of National will support. We will never ever support laws that give rights to criminals that are greater than those of victims or law-abiding citizens. You could not send a worse signal than that provision, as introduced by this Minister and by this Government.

The final point I’d like to make is this, and maybe New Zealand First—maybe this is the explanation for their support of this bill. But what this part does is allow a person in prison to stand for Parliament. Maybe it’s the “Clayton Mitchell provision”, given where the Serious Fraud Office—maybe Jami-Lee Ross has a great interest in Part 2—

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would put it to you that that was an improper reflection on the motivations of members who may be voting for this bill and also an improper reflection on a member of this House, and that is out of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. Yeah, I kind of agree, actually. The member has through his contributions through this debate been very close to there, as I’ve commented on previous contributions. The member should not do that, and I actually think the member should withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. New section 86A in clause 7 of this bill and in this part allows a person with criminal convictions serving time in prison to stand for Parliament. Now, do we really think that that is sensible?

Hamish Walker: Soft on crime.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, soft on crime, and I do note that there are members of Parliament facing serious criminal charges under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office and maybe they do have an interest. Maybe that is why they are so enthusiastic.

I would love the member from New Zealand First to take a call and explain why a person who is serving a sentence in prison—why it should be reasonable or practicable for them to be able to stand for Parliament. We think—

Hon Poto Williams: Repetition—repetition.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member says it’s repetition. I think it’s because she doesn’t like it. I’d love the member who’s interjecting to get to her feet and explain why it is sensible law to allow a person who a judge has decided to send to prison—that that person should be able to stand for Parliament.

Here’s the bit I’d love them to explain. I’d love them to explain how does a member of Parliament fulfil their constitutional duties if they are simultaneously serving a sentence in prison. I would love to reflect on the change in the Standing Orders that it would require, and the former Speaker of the House—his mind is boggling around how we might be able to have a—

Rt Hon David Carter: He or she could Zoom in on a regular occasion.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, they could Zoom in. They would be able to Zoom in from Pāremoremo prison as the member of Parliament for, probably, the Green Party or the Labour Party or, more likely, the New Zealand First Party—

Rt Hon David Carter: I think that’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —I think it’s in there; it’s the New Zealand First Party—and I say, man, we need to be a little bit practical. Is it sensible, I would ask the Minister, for us to amend the law and to allow a person who is serving a criminal sentence in prison to be able to stand for Parliament?

Darroch Ball: This is ridiculous.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member says it’s ridiculous. Can the Minister in the chair confirm it’s true? Can the Minister in the chair confirm that new section 86A, which we’re currently debating, would allow a person to stand for Parliament?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The member who has just resumed his seat, Dr Nick Smith, has made some interesting points. He did point out that his door was open, but, of course, we all know that it’s not just your door that has to be open, it’s your mind as well, and we know that his mind isn’t. I acknowledge his criticism of me as someone who made some comments that were personal about others, and he’s demonstrated how to address the Parliament in a way that doesn’t personalise issues. I make this point: I know that member lives in a weird world—in a weird, strange world that is divorced from reality. But here’s the point: if the member looked at the Electoral Act, all of it, he would see that the law as it is at the moment, as passed and approved by this Parliament under his Government, allows remand prisoners to be candidates in the general election. In that nine years they did nothing about it. They passed the law in 2010 allowing remand prisoners to be candidates—did nothing about it. He has no moral stance to take on this.

But here’s the other point: if somebody, under this bill, if it is passed, nominates to be a candidate, there’s a few hurdles they have to get through. They’ve got to get nominations, they have to pay a deposit—all difficult when you’re behind bars. But here’s the other thing: they then, in the most unlikely event that that would happen, and, secondly, that they’d get elected, have to be able to take up their seat in Parliament, and if, by a certain time they don’t, they vacate that seat. Those are the practical implications. Now, most of us—possibly all but one of us in this Chamber—live in the real world. We understand how the world works. We take a practical approach to the world. We look at rules; we see how they apply in the real world. Not Dr Nick Smith. He lives in a fantasy world—in a fantasy land—which informs his arguments, which makes it entertaining, but doesn’t help us to understand the law in front of the committee that we’re trying to debate at the moment.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to make the point from a previous speaker Dr Nick Smith, a very hard-working and logical MP from Nelson—who’s going to take the seat this year with a record-winning majority—new section 86A. And we heard from the Minister. The Minister said he lives in the real world—“You’ve got to have the door open. You’ve got to have your mind open.” But, Minister, the real world Kiwis—do you think a Kiwi wants a convicted person, a prisoner, do you think they want a person that’s committed a serious act—take, for example, the lovely lady, I won’t mention her name, but she came and saw me in my electorate office two weeks ago. She was raped. They found the person that raped her. He was sentenced; 18 months’ jail time. But she described to me the horrible, horrific act that this person did to her. Minister, if we talk about the real world, this shows how out of touch this Government is when it’s more focused on giving prisoners the right to vote as opposed to the victims.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So I’ve given the member 1½ minutes to get to Part 2, and the member really needs to link his comments to what he’s saying and be relevant to Part 2, which he has not done yet.

HAMISH WALKER: So, if we just go to the enrolment process in new section 86A, that’s around remand prisoners and whether or not they have the right to vote. I was fortunate enough, when I was 18 years of age, to work two years as a police jailer—a humble temporary constable. In that role, you get to know some of the prisoners, and talking to them they want consequences for their actions. When we’re talking about new section 86A, around enrolment, what sort of consequence is it if you commit rape and you then get the right to vote? That’s not right. And I look at the other side and they’re all looking at the ground; they know it’s not right. Jan Logie knows it’s not right. You’ve been doing some wonderful work lately, Jan Logie. I acknowledge you and I look forward to seeing you taking a call on this. Darroch Ball knows it’s not up to play. He hasn’t taken a call.

If we want to live in the real world, why are we giving people like rapists the right to vote? It makes no sense at all. My colleague Simeon Brown, in his contribution before around enrolment, made a very good point that, during lockdown, 130 hours of prisoners’ probation time was cut off while we were in lockdown. But I’d like the Minister to answer: why should someone who’s committed an act like rape have the right to vote?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’m happy to answer that question. First of all, somebody convicted of rape, described in the terms that that member described them, does not get 18 months; they get a sentence way longer than three years. So I do not believe the member when he said that. Here’s the point: this is about people sentenced to sentences of less than three years.

One of the things that judges have to do when they’re sentencing an offender is look at levels of culpability. So, as we know, there can be two people who are convicted of the same crime. Differences in culpability and differences in track record can lead to completely different outcomes. Somebody might not be sentenced to prison at all; somebody might be sentenced to prison; somebody might be sentenced to prison for less than three years; somebody might be sentenced to prison for more than three years—and all will have a different result. It will look quite arbitrary in terms of those kinds of civil rights.

But this law is the same law that the National Party supported in 1993. In my view, and this Government’s view, it strikes the right balance between ensuring that those whose offending is at the lower end of the scale—not those who commit rape or cause serious harm, because they get much longer sentences than that, much longer sentences than that. No one convicted of rape is getting 18 months; it’s just totally wrong. This strikes a balance between those whose offending is at the lower end of the scale, those whose culpability is at the lower end of the scale but sufficient to justify going to prison, but knowing that they will be out in the free world before the next election, having the right to have a say on those who’re governing the country that they’re going to be released into. That’s the principle. It is a correct principle; it is not an open slather to any prisoner allowed to vote.

There are some prisoners whose conduct is so evil, so wrong, so egregious that they are sentenced to long periods in prison, and I maintain the view that it is an arguable proposition about how much of your rights you lose when you go to prison. But for those who offend most seriously, there is a justifiable contention that they lose the right to vote. There are judges who have made determinations to that effect in the last 20 years. That is a live debate, but this bill draws the balance, I think, at the right point.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to take up, if I could, some points or the principle that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith raised about there being under this bill greater or different rights afforded to prisoners than to victims and other law-abiding citizens—actually, the point he raised about the ability to have one’s details kept from the public electoral roll. I’d just sort of make this point that I understand there’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) here that will change that. But until that SOP is actually voted on, we have no idea whether or not it will in fact be accepted, but the bill before us does have those provisions that do allow that prisoner to have their name kept off the public record. Presumably the Government, the Minister would have been happy for the bill to have passed without amendment had that not been raised as a matter in the select committee.

So my question to him is: on what basis does he think it is appropriate that a prisoner might be able to more easily—in fact, with no justification, really—have their details kept from the public roll when there are actually very tight conditions applied to non-prisoners seeking to have their details not on that roll? That could still be what passes through this Parliament, and so I think he should justify that. [Interruption] I’m not finished yet, Minister.

The other thing I’ve noticed, though, on the point of different rights is my understanding—and, look, we can all be wrong in some things in our life. My understanding is that an eligible voter has a legal obligation to enrol. We’re not required to vote, but there is a legal obligation on those eligible to vote to enrol. This bill does not apply that obligation. This bill gives the prisoner the right to decide whether or not he or she wants to go on the roll, because the prison officer has to ask them if they want the prison officer to forward their details on to the Electoral Commission. The only deduction that can be made for that, because there is no other provision, even inferring something different in this bill, is that if the prisoner decides they don’t want the prison officer to pass their information on, then they won’t be on the roll. How, in fact, will that then sit with other electoral legislation? Because the overarching legislation is if you’re eligible—and this creates eligibility—then you must enrol. But this bill says you have eligibility, but you don’t have to enrol if you don’t really want to.

Look, I can see officials looking, so I’ll do the courtesy of just pointing out that we’re here in Part 2, where that is—obviously, in clause 7, inserting new section 86A(2) and then it’s repeated in new section 86B(2) as well. Yeah, that’s correct; so those two. So if the prisoner then doesn’t want their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission, they won’t go. So we have a situation under this bill where a prisoner has the right, despite being eligible to vote, to not actually go on the roll, and I’d like the Minister to respond and justify why that is acceptable, because while we’re not going to argue it’s a greater right than other law-abiding New Zealanders have, it is a different obligation. And I think that warrants some scrutiny and some response from the Minister. So I look forward to that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Just turning to the first bit, I know the member Brett Hudson and his colleagues are desperate to create a picture of something that doesn’t exist. So the bill, when it came to the House, had a provision that on the face of it allowed prisoners to elect whether or not to go on to the unpublished roll without meeting the same tests and standards that every other citizen has done. That was wrong, it shouldn’t have happened, submitters made that point, and it has been changed by me—the Minister. So I know it’s good sport for the member to dredge that up because they’ve lost that argument and they want to beat the Government over the head with that big sort of stick, but it just doesn’t exist—the thing doesn’t exist. It is what they call a “straw person”.

I know it makes the member feel good because he hasn’t got much else to feel good about, but, actually, the law’s very clear now in the Supplementary Order Paper: if a prisoner wants to apply to go on the unpublished roll, the Department of Corrections can assist them to make the application, but they stand alongside any other citizen making the same application with the same standards and tests that must apply.

In relation to the obligation to enrol, the member has to read that in context. So if he has a look at clause 7, new section 86A(1)(b), having, under paragraph (a) advised the prison they’re entitled to enrol and all the rest of it, then they ask the prisoner whether they want their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission to facilitate their registration, and then under subsection (2), if the prisoner wants their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission to facilitate their registration as an elector, then a subsequent section applies. It may well be that the prisoner does not want the Department of Corrections officer to do that. A prisoner might want a family member to do that. A prisoner might want somebody else to take over that role of doing that. Just because the Department of Corrections has a duty to inform prisoners if they can be on the roll, to assist in facilitating that doesn’t mean to say that it is the Department of Corrections that has to physically provide the information to the Electoral Commission.

The bill gives the power for the Department of Corrections to do that and for the Electoral Commission to receive that information from the Department of Corrections, because, if it wasn’t in the bill, the Electoral Commission could not receive that information from the Department of Corrections. But the prisoner has another option. They can ask a family member or a friend to convey an enrolment form to the Electoral Commission on their behalf.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on Part 2. I just want to refute a piece that the Minister said before, where he was responding to Hamish Walker’s comment about a constituent of his who’d been raped and the offender had been convicted to a sentence of only 18 months. The Minister stood up and said “I don’t believe the member.”, well, I suggest that the Minister have a chat to the member before saying he’s going to just simply reject—reject—something which he comes into the Chamber in good faith and says here in the Chamber.

I do want to just ask some questions here around clause 7, new section 86C, and the process that prison managers are to go through to collect and send enrolment information to the Electoral Commission. The Minister’s just talked about the process and how Corrections can send the forms, or a family member, essentially, or a friend who, I guess, is visiting can collect those documents.

I do want to just ask around Supplementary Order Paper 512, clause 7, new subsection 2A, which is in regards to whether a prisoner wishes to apply for a direction under section 115, which is the unpublished roll, and the prison manager there must “assist the prisoner to prepare an application accompanied by supporting information”. I’d like to ask the Minister to explain to the committee what involvement is required on behalf of Corrections or the prison manager to assist the prisoner in making that application. And I’d like to ask him in regards to what the process is they would go through. Is that in regards to finding supporting information, preparing it, putting it together for the prisoner in question? Is it around advising them around what they should be writing? Because there is, I believe, an application process; they have to give good reasons. So what would be involved in that process? Would it be obtaining any files that the prisoner doesn’t have on hand and providing that so that it can be part of the information and part of the reasoning that goes into that?

Because, I guess, the question here—and I acknowledge that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 512 essentially removes the sort of automatic right to go on the unpublished roll and restricts that to simply being an application which the prisoner is able to apply for. But I do want to understand what the Minister envisages by this process around how much time will be involved, how much involvement will the prison manager have in this process, and how much assistance will be given. Because, you know, I do bring this discussion back to the point that when I or any other member of the public goes to request to be put on the unpublished roll, you’d be given a form, told to go away and fill it out, and send it in. I’m not sure how much assistance is given to those.

And then I do want to make the point on top of that: what about the victims of crime? What assistance are they given if they’re wanting to have their names put on an unpublished roll to protect themselves, potentially, from someone who’s been sentenced to prison for less than three years? Are they also given some form of assistance? Because I don’t see that in this piece of legislation—to assist them in the process of preparing an application. I think that’s something which should be considered—actually giving victims of crime that assistance. If it’s going to be given to those who have offended, broken the law of the land, convicted of serious offences worthy of imprisonment, then surely there should be some sort of assistance given to people who are victims of crime, who have had harm done to them by someone who’s now in jail. I ask the Minister to explain that to the committee.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): On the point about the role of the prison manager to assist the prisoner, bearing in mind that for some prisoners, or I might say for many prisoners, they are illiterate—at least, they’re not functionally literate—they struggle with filling out forms. So assistance will be expected to be provided for that. There may be some assistance in reading the requirements that a prisoner has to meet in order to get on the unpublished roll. What a prisoner has to do to acquire support and information will be up to the prisoner. But, obviously, you’d expect a prison manager or their delegates to ensure that letters requesting information are facilitated in and out of the prison.

I would ask the member and members opposite to bear in mind this. There are some prisoners who are in prison who, notwithstanding their offending, do provide assistance to the authorities, to the police, to Corrections, and put themselves at risk in doing so. One of the reasons to get on the unpublished roll is because your safety is at risk, and you don’t want to prevent them from making that application when actually some whose safety is at risk do so in order to assist the authorities. So there is that.

In terms of the member’s second point, which I didn’t note down—he’s going to quickly shout it out to me.

Simeon Brown: It’s in regards to the victims of crime.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The victims of crime. So the victims are given assistance and certainly victims of serious crime whose safety is at risk. They meet, on the face of it, the criteria to go on the unpublished roll. Victim Support, sometimes victims’ court advisers, and that network of advisers support victims to make those applications, and I’ve met people who have been assisted to do so. There are people who live in fear of their lives and they need to be given assistance, and Victim Support services does that.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll take a very brief call on this and speak to the Green Party’s support for this legislation. I do, in the context of that, need to respond—this is around enrolment to vote—to the comments that were made by a previous member, bringing in a case where I was asked to stand and speak in response to the experience of rape victims. I am just noting that I’ve had a message from Louise Nicholas herself, who’s been watching this debate and is absolutely appalled at that member’s contribution and the misrepresentation of a situation of a rape case. There are sentencing guidelines in four bands, and the minimum for rape is six to eight years and goes up to 20. That was a mischaracterisation for political purposes. That is exactly what we do not need when it comes to sexual violence in this country.

This is also one of the reasons that the Greens support this piece of legislation. We are continually hearing from survivors that what they want is for people to be held to account. They want people to be supported to change. Often, in the majority of cases, these are people that are close to them. It does not serve them to vilify rapists as monsters out there who deserve the absolute worst. We have to restore their connections to our society to help them rehabilitate. Hold them to account, keep victims safe, make sure victims are heard, but provide a pathway to rehabilitation. This piece of legislation is actually—surprisingly for some people, perhaps—part of doing that.

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

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn’t planning on taking a call, but I just wanted to follow up on a question that my colleague Brett Hudson asked earlier, which I don’t think the Minister of Justice perhaps quite understood, or, at least, if he did, then his answer created more questions for me than it did answers. It comes back to Part 2, clause 7, new section 86A, in relation to the requirement of a prison manager to inform the Electoral Commission of a prisoner’s intention to enrol to vote. My concern, I suppose, comes to the Electoral Act 1993, off the top of my head, which has in there fines or punishments for people who choose not to enrol, because, of course, we do have compulsory enrolment in New Zealand. My recollection is that the fine is $100 in the first instance and then $200 for subsequent offences. My question to the Minister is: if a prisoner does not give that instruction to their prison manager, what other feasible way does a prisoner have to enrol; and, if they don’t give that instruction, would that be sufficient for them to be fined under the Electoral Act if they are subsequently not enrolled and given a fine of $100 or, as I’ve said, a fine of $200 for a subsequent offence? I don’t intend to take any more of the committee’s time. I just want an answer from the Minister on that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I’ll try and make it as clear as I possibly can, for the benefit of Mr Falloon. The obligation is on the prison manager to advise an eligible prisoner, so a prisoner who’s 18 years or older or will achieve the age of 18 in the foreseeable period, of their right to enrol—their obligation to enrol, in fact—and, where agreeable, to take information or assist in filling out a form.

The bill gives the power of the Department of Corrections to collect that information and pass it on to the Electoral Commission, because if the Department of Corrections does not have the statutory power to do so, they cannot do so. But using the Department of Corrections and its channels and its people is not the only way that somebody in prison on a sentence of less than three years can convey information to the Electoral Commission. They might hand it to a family member on a visit or to a friend on a visit to convey that information to the Electoral Commission. So this is permissive for the Department of Corrections and their managers and their personnel, but it is not exclusive to the Department of Corrections to assist a prisoner in enrolling to vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk—Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I apologise if I didn’t quite catch my name being said by you. Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to continue this discussion. My question was just to the Minister of Justice about the subject of remand versus other prisoners—versus sentenced prisoners—in the fact that the legislation before us, including in Part 2, talks about those who have been received into a prison to serve a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three years, and so forth. The significance of that is that a person who is merely a remand prisoner has not, in the case of remand prisoners awaiting trial, been determined to have committed any crime at all. So while I acknowledge that some of the issues that I’ve raised in practical terms relating to the difficulties of communication and the physical importation—if that’s the right word—of election material, some of those arguments or those questions, do apply to a prisoner whether he or she is remand or otherwise, in relation to the more fundamental question of whether it’s appropriate for a prisoner to be able to vote, I would submit—and be interested in the Minister’s response—that it makes all the difference in the world to whether a person is a remand prisoner awaiting trial or a prisoner who has indeed been sentenced to serve a sentence of imprisonment.

Of course, the fundamental basis for that proposition is that the New Zealand law—and, indeed, the criminal law of other jurisdictions with which we like to compare ourselves favourably and from which our own system has been derived—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, when we rose for the dinner break, we were considering Part 2. Chris Penk had the call and has three minutes, six seconds remaining should he wish to take it.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t know if I surprise and/or disappoint you, but I do indeed wish to take at least some of the remaining three minutes and six seconds that have been allocated to me.

I won’t repeat all that I was saying before the dinner break, obviously, but just briefly, by way of recap, I was just drawing to the attention of the committee the distinction between a remand prisoner and a sentenced prisoner for the purpose of Part 2 and, more particularly, the discussion that we’ve ended up in as a committee about the implication of the legislation, whereby we’re saying that it might be that if a person who is in prison for less than three years is able to be on the electoral roll and thereby qualify to be a candidate for office—if I’ve understood that point correctly, and I say openly that I’m not 100 percent confident that’s the case. But I think I’ve understood correctly that that might be the case. The Minister responded somewhat reasonably—I think genuinely wishing to point out that, potentially, if that is indeed a problem, there would be a problem also with the fact that a remand prisoner could also be a candidate for election. But I think it’s worthwhile distinguishing between remand prisoners who are awaiting trial and therefore should be presumed innocent in the absence of a trial in which to establish their guilt or otherwise and, of course, remand prisoners who have been found guilty at trial but not yet sentenced.

The case of a prisoner on remand is somewhat like Schrödinger’s box. They’re, in a funny way, potentially both guilty and not guilty, except that the law, of course, determines someone to be not guilty until such time as they’ve proven otherwise. But the case of a prisoner who has been found guilty but not yet sentenced might, in another distinction, be sentenced to a period of greater than three years or a period of less than three years. So the fact that the law treats those differently from sentenced prisoners in this bill is quite correct. I think it’s appropriate, for example, that new section 86A, in clause 7 of what is currently the bill, talks about prisoners who are serving a sentence of imprisonment for less than three years as opposed to those who are detained for a period of less than three years at the relevant time by virtue of them being on remand.

So I just wanted to bring that distinction to the attention of the House. I don’t know how clearly I’ve articulated it, but no doubt the Minister understands it. I don’t have a question so much as just seeking a response and acknowledgment from him, for the sake of the record, about that distinction that I think is worth highlighting in terms of the ability to become an elector and therefore to become a candidate in an election should such a person choose.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I know the member who just resumed his seat, Chris Penk, said he didn’t have a question, but I do have a response, and that is a couple of things. He draws a distinction between remand and sentenced prisoners, but he should be reminded, of course, that remand prisoners have been assessed as being a risk to the community. So in that respect, they don’t share a lot of difference in characteristic to sentenced prisoners.

In the end, this bill is about voting, and it doesn’t actually matter whether you are a remand prisoner or a sentenced prisoner sentenced to less than three years when it comes to voting. Remand prisoners have a right to vote right now, and there are processes set up to enable that right to be facilitated. This bill will extend the right, or restore the right, to those sentenced to less than three years.

The issue about standing as candidates in election: if the members can produce to me evidence of the last time either a remand prisoner or a sentenced prisoner was nominated to be a candidate in an election, let’s hear the evidence. But, otherwise, let’s not make up fantasies as somehow being a compelling argument about the bill before the House. The rest of us live in the real world. The rest of us live in the practical world—the world that everybody else lives in and makes their judgments by. The reality is there are not many prisoners sitting there thinking, “Right, how am I going to increase my voters in the next election? I’ll talk to members of the Labour Party because they’re so good at it.”—which is why we’re in the situation that we’re in at the moment. They’re not doing that. Most of them, as we know, are probably National Party voters, because we know they’re self-interested, greedy, and they do all those sorts of things. They’re probably going to look to the National Party for advice. But the reality is they are not lining up to be candidates in elections. This is about the right to vote—restoring the right to vote to a bunch of people who had it unceremoniously taken off them by the National Party in 2010. This is the right thing to do.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I, firstly, want to clarify the position of which the Minister of Justice challenged the National Party, the issue of principle in Part 2 of this bill around remand prisoners. National’s position is very, very simple and clear, and it’s both principled and practical. And that is that a person should not lose their right to vote while they are a remand prisoner and not convicted by a court of law. The argument that the Minister the Hon Andrew Little has made in the chair that somehow there’s some inconsistency—actually, that is an absolute principled position. We are a party that believes a person is innocent until proven guilty, and that it is entirely appropriate to treat a remand prisoner who a court of law has not found guilty differently to the prisoner who has been convicted by a court of law. As we heard in evidence to the Justice Committee, the average number of convictions for a person sentenced to prison in New Zealand is 24 convictions.

The member Greg O’Connor has talked about fantasy. I have felt that there has been some degree of fantasy from members opposite who pretend that people are going to lose their vote because they make a small mistake and end up in prison. The reality and the law in New Zealand is that you do not go to prison unless you have committed both a serious offence—and it is actually not the first sort of punishment. Our criminal justice laws make plain that the judges should view prison as a last resort and not a first resort for prisoners.

The second rebuttal we’ve had from the Minister is “Don’t worry about the fact that we are passing a law that enables prisoners to stand for Parliament. We shouldn’t worry about that because it’s just academic.” Well, we should remind ourselves that a pretty serious criminal Arthur Taylor, took issues of prisoner voting all the way through the system, all the way to the Supreme Court. The idea that we as legislators should not be considering robust law, and we shouldn’t actually be passing laws that have got holes in them—and if it is legally possible for a prisoner to stand for Parliament, I actually think we make a mockery of this institution and we make a mockery of our democracy, and that, actually, the right to vote is far more than just filling out a form.

A democracy is far more comprehensive than that. It’s about meeting candidates. It’s about watching leaders’ debates. It’s about imparting information on modern tools like social media and Facebook. It’s about receiving pamphlets and brochures and all those things that go with election cycles. It is just impractical for members of the Government to argue that somehow people serving a sentence in prison are practically able to fully participate in democracy. Just in the same way as we limit the rights of those that are serving sentences, we limit their rights to freedom. They don’t get freedom of movement. They don’t get freedom of association. They don’t get freedom of imparting information. It is perfectly legitimate and right that the British Parliament and so many other parliaments around the world say that if you’ve committed a serious enough crime to end up in prison, for that period that you are in prison, your rights to vote are suspended. When you’re done and you’ve finished your sentence, we are, as a political party, of the view that you’ve done your time, and at that point it is absolutely proper that you are re-enrolled and able to fully participate in society.

The last thing I’d want to draw to the attention of the committee on this part is somehow the sort of academic ivory tower view that the Government seems to have, that by prisoners having a right to vote, it will support their rehabilitation. Now, I have to say, I wish members opposite and the Minister had listened to a number of the submissions from real people—people who had spent time in prison who had committed offending. They literally laughed, as one of my colleagues just did, and just said, “That is ridiculous. The last thing that’s on the mind of a serving prisoner is that somehow the right to vote is an important part of their rehabilitation.” Lots of things are. We were disappointed the Government would not, for instance, make rehabilitation plans for prisoners compulsory. If we’re really serious about rehabilitation, we’d do something quite different. Let’s not be cute. This is simply a bill being rushed through under urgency, with a shortened select committee process, so that Labour thinks they can bag a few more votes on 19 September and save their bacon on election day. That’s wrong, and that’s why we oppose this part.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant 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.

The question was put that Golriz Ghahraman’s amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 512 to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 518 to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 64

New Zealand National 55; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; Ross.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the Minister’s amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 512 to Part 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 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 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1

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.

Clause 2

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.

Clause 3

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 Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m pleased that this bill will now very soon become law. This is long overdue. The law that this bill seeks to change is a law that should never have changed, in 2010, the way that it did. It was a nasty, insidious little thing. It does nothing about prisoner rehabilitation. It did nothing about reducing the numbers of victims of crime. It was just a silly, stupid, meaningless gesture. A member’s bill, admittedly, but which every member of the National Party at that time in Parliament—including some members opposite—voted for. It has done absolutely nothing for prisoners, or for victims. Whichever side of the debate you think the sort of mindless, dichotomous debate is, it does nothing for any of them.

This law will restore the right to vote of those sentenced to less than three years, because of a very simple principle. At the time of an election, for somebody sentenced to less than three years, they will be out before the next election. It might be in a month, it might be in 18 months, but they will be out before the next election, and they must have a right to have a say on those running the country that they are about to be released free into. It’s not an attack on victims, as some members have tried to argue. If they were really serious about victims, they would have done a way lot more than they actually did in Government. They would have had a Chief Victims Advisor that wasn’t working two half-days a week, but working full time, as she now is. They’d start putting together a package of reform for victims, strengthening their voice in the system, of which they are a bystander at the moment.

But they did none of that. They beat their chests, but they don’t mean it. But this is about restoring some integrity to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and to the idea that voting is important, and that when you are free—or going free into a country, being released free into country—you have a right to have a say on those who are running the country for you. There are members opposite, I know, whose track record on democracy and voting is absolutely atrocious. The Hon Dr Nick Smith introduced legislation—and saw it pass—that took away the right of Cantabrians to vote for their regional council. And he stands up here and lectures us on democracy. That is the outrage—that is the outrage.

But here is the important point. Here is the important point: people do wrong and they cause harm, and sometimes those who do wrong and cause harm wind up in prison. Now, judges make a judgment about the level of culpability, and there are those who wind up in a sentence of less than three years. There are some people who might commit the same act and are sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, but for doing the same thing. It’s a point that, actually, Andrew Geddis and Graeme Edgeler pointed to in their submission on this bill—the arbitrary nature of these sorts of judgment calls.

In any event, for many years, and at least certainly from 1993, when the then National Government—a way more progressive lot than the current bunch sitting in the Opposition benches—passed the law that gave prisoners sentenced to less than three years the right to vote, that was the settled position, for a long time—until the National Party backbencher in 2010 thought they’d try and score some points and earn their stripes. That person lasted one term, so it didn’t do them any good. They passed this law, and we are now changing the law back. The members—sorry, one member at least, says, “This is going to screw the scrum, it’s riding roughshod, and it’s going to give Labour extra numbers.” And I just repeat again: if the Hon Dr Nick Smith is so terrified of a potential 1,800 to 1,900 extra votes all going to the parties in Government, then they are in more serious trouble than we’ve given them credit for. I didn’t think their margins were that—I know Nick Smith’s margin is 600 or so, so he’s got something to worry about. But they won’t all be voting in Nelson—I think we can give them that reassurance—they won’t all be voting for Nelson. But it was never an argument. The reality is more than a third of the prison population have the right to vote now and a small number consistent with the principle established by the National Government in 1993 will now continue to get the right to vote.

The bill does a very important thing. It also allows the Department of Corrections through their prison managers and prison personnel to facilitate the right of those prisoners who will have restored to them the right to vote—the process to get on the roll. It will enable the Department of Corrections to convey the relevant information to the Electoral Commission. And for those who are seeking or apply to go on the unpublished roll, it will allow prison managers and their delegates to assist a prisoner to make that application. They’ve got to meet the same criteria as anybody else, but we know that there are some in prison who are subject to safety risks when they get out, and just like any other person in the community who fears for their safety by having their name published on a public roll, then that person can have that considered as well. So all of that is provided for in the bill and it will be a good thing that it passes and restores some integrity to the totality of our Electoral Act.

I was very pleased when I saw the number of submissions coming in on this bill. I know members opposite thought that, you know, because of the COVID-19 lockdown, nobody cared. Actually, they did. More than 2,500 people made submissions on this bill and 78 percent—78 percent—supported it. What an amazing number. What an amazing majority supported it. And when I get around the community and I talk to people about criminal justice, you know, the overwhelming message is—you know what: we know that most of the people in prison have something wrong with them. Why don’t we focus on fixing what’s wrong so we stop their offending so they can lead a better life and put something back into the community?

That’s how most New Zealanders think now. They’re not into the mindless chest beating of the National Party. They want to do something constructive and meaningful. And so I’m very pleased that this bill has got to the point where it has. I look forward to the remaining debate in the House, but this bill will be a very important measure. It will restore just a little bit more integrity to our Electoral Act, which is a very important piece of legislation. We’ve made a few changes to it, just like the party opposite when they were in Government making changes without any agreement with the Opposition, as they did when they passed the change that we are now reversing. No consensus there. I know Nick Smith tries to retell history, but that’s all right, because there are people around here to correct him—and to correct him and to tell the truth as it actually is. This bill will do very good things for New Zealand and restore that little bit more faith. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This bill is bad law, it’s bad process, and it’s bad principles. The Minister has made a complete hash of the law, and let me explain. What occurred during the committee stage is that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) got gutted. Let me explain what a nonsense of a law we are now debating on the third reading that just explains why we should not be passing electoral law in a mad rush under urgency.

Now, in Part 1 of this bill, we limit the right to vote to extending it to those that have been sentenced to a term of three years or less. Right-o! So we’ve established in Part 1 under this Government bill that if you are in prison for a sentence of less than three years, then you are entitled to vote. But in Part 2 of the bill, with the amendments that have been supported by the House, we now have—and I’ll read the provision very specifically. The prison manager must, as soon as reasonably practicable, advise the prisoner of his right to enrol and must ensure those enrolment details are passed on. Except in Part 2 of the bill, there is no distinction between those that have served more than three years than not. We now have a bill that requires a prison manager to act illegally.

Now, the Minister has understandably abandoned the House. The Green Party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member has been here long enough to know that he can’t refer to the—sit down, please. The member has been here long enough—even longer than me, for goodness’ sake—to know that he cannot refer to the absence of a member. He will withdraw and apologise and then recommence his speech.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. In the Minister’s speech of the third reading, the penny had not even dropped that half his SOP had been gutted by the Green Party and converted this law into a nonsense and into bad law. Can the next speaker in the Labour Party or Government please explain the shambles? We know we’ve got a shambles on light rail. We know we’ve got a shambles on the border. We know we’ve got a shambles in respect of KiwiBuild. And now we’ve got a shambles in our electoral law where this very bill says something in Part 1 and something very different in Part 2. I invite parties opposite to take responsibility for the shambles of a Government between the coalition partners that can’t even write decent electoral law.

Here’s what’s further: there was a provision in Part 2 of this bill. It said that if a prisoner had their sentence extended—let’s say someone’s doing time, a trial is held for a further crime, and the length of their sentence is extended beyond three years, they shouldn’t be voting under the Government’s policy, but now they will because the Green Party gutted that part of the bill as well. That is the extent of the mess that we now have from this bill. And that is why I say it is bad law.

But I also want to say it’s bad process. Let’s just go through how appalling the process has been around this jiggery-pokery by the Government parties with New Zealand’s precious democracy. The first thing that occurred is that we have a longstanding convention that Government bills are consulted in electoral law with other parties. That is a convention that applies to the 1993 Electoral Act, the MMP Act. That is a convention that was consistently applied by Minister of Justice, Simon Power, by Judith Collins, and by Amy Adams, and all credit to them for having the respect of New Zealand’s democracy that the governing party of the day does not get to screw the scrum on the next election and make it easier for their re-election. Zero consultation on this bill.

But here’s the second thing: why is it, only 11 weeks from the general election, under urgency, that we’re changing the electoral law to allow prisoners to vote? Why wasn’t it done in year one? Why wasn’t it done in year two? This is an issue that’s been around since Adam was a cowboy. If we go all the way back to 1974, Labour changed the law to allow its prisoner criminal mates to be able to vote, and that was repealed in 1976. This is not a new issue. There is no justification for the rush that has gone with this law.

Here’s the third thing: why was this bill rushed through by select committee chairman over there, Meka Whaitiri, and her mates from the Labour Party? Why was it rushed through when this country was in the biggest civil emergency in the lifetime of every parliamentarian? Why was it that the select committee delayed dealing with sexual violence legislation? I’m sorry, rape victims, you’re not important. We delayed legislation to provide greater protection for first responders—that’s our policemen, that’s our Corrections officers, that’s our ambulance officers. Hang on a moment, their rights aren’t important. Damn the ambulance officers, damn the cops, damn those people who every day put their life on the line to make our country decent. This Government is focused on the rights of criminals and rushing it through. I found it horribly offensive that not just one day, but 12 days of the lockdown, rather than helping my constituents with the dozens of problems that occurred through the COVID emergency, their attention, their needs, had to be put second-rate, because the Labour Party felt that the most important issue facing the country during the COVID emergency was giving the right to vote to prisoners. That was offensive and that was wrong.

But it was worse than that. The normal process for a bill is it goes to a select committee for six months. This bill spent less than half of that at select committee. And I draw this to the House’s attention: the Electoral Commission last year said that if there were to be any changes in electoral law for the 2020 election, they need to be passed by this Parliament at least six months before the election date. Here we are, under urgency, eleven weeks out from a general election, and this Government is playing jiggery-pokery for some small electoral advantage.

The last part I have to say is that it was insulting to New Zealanders—insulting to New Zealanders, victims of crimes, and others—that they had to make submissions on this bill while they were in lockdown. Where their very basic freedoms were being compromised, they were being forced to make submissions on this bill after the Government had given assurances to this Parliament that, for the period we were adjourned, for the period of the emergency, we’d only be dealing with urgent COVID-related legislation. How can any member look this Parliament in the eye and say that this legislation was in any way related to the COVID emergency?

The last bit I want to come to is the matter of principle. Members on this side of the House say that when you go to prison, you are there to lose your freedoms. You lose your freedom of association, you lose your freedom of movement, you lose your freedoms of access to information. It is absolutely proper that while somebody is serving their time in prison, they do not have the right to stand for this Parliament or to participate in our election. It’s actually more than just a matter of principle, it’s actually a matter of practice, of just practical reality. Only MPs are allowed in prisons. So what about the candidate who is not a member of Parliament? How do they campaign for the votes in prisons? I have spoken to so many prison officers, the practical people who work in our prison system, who strongly believe, as does the Corrections Association, that this is unprincipled, poor law.

I want to rebut two points that were made very cheaply by Minister Little. The first, he said, was: how could I talk about democracy when I had made a decision as a Minister to suspend Environment Canterbury? I remind you, Helen Clark suspended the Auckland Area Health Board. This Government has suspended local authorities when they have been in difficulty. It is a complete red herring, and my passion for democracy and good electoral law is as strong as anybody’s. Then the last thing the Minister said was: well, what would I know about elections with my own electoral record? I’ll compare my electoral record with Mr Little’s any time you like. Mr Little has stood for Parliament in a constituency seat three times and been rejected three times. I’ve stood in a constituency seat 10 times and won all 10 times and continue to have the mandate of my community. I’m not going to have a lecture from Mr Little about the principles of democracy.

This is bad, botched law. This is bad process. This is bad principles. This is nothing other than the Labour Party stitching up a cheat electoral law change that they think will give them a few more votes.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare. Otirā, e ngā mema katoa o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

I’m proud to belong to a coalition Government that, first and foremost, acknowledges the trauma of victims of crime. We’ve taken real action in terms of extra police. We’ve talked about modernising our court facilities up and down the country, and we’ve also put in place legislation that tries to avoid re-victimising victims of sexual crimes. It’ll be interesting to see which side that party votes when that particular legislation comes to this House.

I’m pleased to support the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. Essentially, it has rehabilitation at the heart of this bill. I want to acknowledge all those submitters that came before the Justice Committee. There have been statements in this House that the process was rushed within select committee and that we didn’t give due consideration. I would say 2,500 written submissions—just over 30 from organisations; so a majority of them were individuals. I would say 18½ hours of select committee hearing is not taking this piece of legislation lightly. So I do want to acknowledge those that came and presented their views in front of the select committee.

In the second reading of this bill, I actually wanted to acknowledge the number of young people—the young people—that appeared before the select committee and talked about the human rights challenges in this country and for us as a nation to preserve human rights, when submitting on this particular bill. Of course, they also drew reference to the recent Waitangi Tribunal report. The report was called He Aha I Pērā Ai? The Māori Prisoners’ Voting Report, where the tribunal found that the current disqualification of sentenced prisoners was a serious breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and disproportionately affected Māori. We’ve heard that the prior legislation on prisoner voting rights, that was changed under the last administration in 2010, actually increased Māori’s disproportionate participation in voting in this country by a whopping 11 percent. Prior to that, it was something like 2 percent. So as a Māori electoral MP, I’m pleased that this bill goes some way to addressing the disproportionate impact it has on Māori prisoners and the ability to vote.

I’m really pleased with the time that we gave to scrutinising this particular bill to ensure that it comes to the House with those views. Although the committee could not agree, that’s more a reflection on other members of the committee. I’ve got to say, I listened intently to the submitters. I also listened to members of our select committee from the National Party. Apart from regurgitating the victim mentality by giving prisoners voting rights, there wasn’t anything more substantive that members could actually articulate in the scrutiny of this bill. It, seriously, came down to: if we give prisoners the vote, we are re-victimising victims. There was absolutely no correlation whatsoever.

We had young people come to the select committee. I think the young gentleman’s name was Mr Harris, who talked about working in the UK and working with prisoners.

I want to also acknowledge prisoners themselves who came before our select committee, and I want to especially acknowledge Eugene Ryder, who’s a well-known individual through Wellington but through the nation. His view is that voting would actually help prisoners rehabilitate back into the community, back into their whānau, as they take on the responsibility to exercise their right to have a say on who should govern this country. I want to acknowledge people like Eugene, in their submission on this bill.

It is, like I said, a real sweet, simple, and sensible piece of legislation that is fair and that is based on retaining the human rights of prisoners that are sentenced and also ensuring that we are addressing the disproportionate impact on Māori prisoners. The Minister has outlaid the purpose of this bill. This side of this House, we completely support it, and I recommend it to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Firstly, I want to acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee, Meka Whaitiri. Secondly, I want to point to the fact that the first statements and comments she made were around the rights of victims. To me, I think there’s a high degree of sensitivity on the Government benches at the moment because they realise that they absolutely have ignored the wishes of victims on this bill. I can be very clear and tell you that, through the submission process, every victim that appeared in front of the select committee was very clear about the fact that they didn’t want prisoners to have the vote returned, they felt like there should be some consequences for their actions, and they feel like, actually, some rights are taken away, and one of those rights is the right to vote. We supported them on that wholeheartedly.

I want to come back to a little bit of the history behind the passage of this bill. It’s been well debated in this House, but as this will be my last call on this bill, I just want to do a quick recap on that. As we moved into level 4 of the COVID-19 response that this whole country has made a huge commitment to—and, largely, just about every Kiwi in New Zealand has tried to be as compliant as they could with the rules that the Government put down to try and flatten the curve with COVID-19—one of the commitments that was made to us as Opposition—because of course we wanted to support, of course we wanted to do the right thing, but we were clearly told, and made a commitment by the Government, that we would not sit on select committees and deal with any legislation that did not relate directly to COVID-19. We took them on their word. What happened within weeks of that is that we were told that we would be sitting on the select committee to hear submissions and to start advancing the prisoner voting legislation through the select committee process as quickly as we could.

The Minister of Justice, in the committee stage, said, “Oh, well, what’s the problem? MPs were just sitting around, doing nothing.” MPs on that side of the House might have been sitting around doing nothing; I can assure you that MPs on this side of the House certainly were not—they were responding to their constituents. I can tell you that in my own constituency of Rodney, we made sure that my staff—and I want to acknowledge them and the enormous effort that they put in through level 3 and level 4—were set up in their home to be able to respond to constituent inquiries, and they did that and I did that. Some of the things that we were having to deal with were the enormous stress on businesses not being able to get access to a wage subsidy; Kiwis caught overseas, and us having to make interventions on their behalf; massive confusion and stress around how parents that were co-parenting apart were going to be seeing their children; senior Kiwis locked down by themselves, and the issues and the support that they needed.

I had a woman—if I can give you one graphic example of me having to schedule a Zoom committee meeting when I was contacted by a lady that was in lockdown with a violent partner, who had had her arm broken 10 days previously. She had contacted me out of desperation. She had self-splintered. She’d been dragged around the house for 10 days. She said, “I know I can’t leave the house. What do I do?”—“What do I do?” I had to try and deal with that, get the police there, make an intervention, make sure that we got her safe because she was so fearful—she was more fearful of breaking the rules around the lockdown than she was of a partner that was being violent to her every day. Instead of dealing with that, I had to come on a Zoom call and a committee meeting to deal with giving prisoners the vote. To me, it was obscene and offensive. I take great offence at the Minister standing in this House and saying “Oh, you know what? MPs were sitting around, doing nothing.” Maybe on that side of the House; I assure you not on this side of the House.

Can I just highlight and say this: Golriz Ghahraman has come to this House as a member of the Green Party and she has stood by her principles—I’ll at least give them that. They have stuck by their principles, and their principles are quite simply this—and I agree with them—if you’re going to stand up here, and the Government’s going to make speeches in the House and your Minister’s going to make speeches in the House in terms of a Supreme Court ruling or a breach of bill of rights and say we’re going to give these poor prisoners the vote—oh, but by the way, we won’t give them all the vote, only those that have got a sentence of less than three years—why not stand by your principles? If you feel like they should have the vote, why not give every prisoner that’s in prison the vote? Quite simply, what Golriz has done is she’s come down to the House and she stood by her principles.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Use the member’s full name, please.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Golriz Ghahraman—sorry. She’s come down to the House and she’s actually just stood by her principles. It doesn’t mean that we agree with them, but, I tell you what, I respect her for doing that. She’s put a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) forward and the SOP’s been successful. So what that means now is that because the Government has engaged in a rushed process—

Dan Bidois: What does that mean, exactly?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, what it means now is that we’ve got a terrible, horrible, botched piece of legislation that is going to put our Corrections officers and our managers—and the interesting thing about this is that the chair didn’t address it; she didn’t mention one word about that SOP. She didn’t mention one word about the legislation. I’m hoping that there are other committee members that are going to take a call.

Greg O’Connor, whom I have a lot of respect for, he’s got a lot of experience in this area. I’m looking forward to Greg O’Connor standing up and taking a call, and I want him to talk to this. I want him to talk us through it and walk us through it and explain now what the implications are, because I tell you what: he’s stood in this House many times, as a past detective, and he’s explained that he knows the intricacies of the law, he understands how it’s applied, and he’s in the detail. Now he’s got a great opportunity to get up and talk us through this and explain to everyone just how poor this piece of legislation is, just how botched it is, and how embarrassing it is.

I feel sorry for Kiritapu Allan—another person I have a lot of respect for. She’s rushing around the House. She’s out there making calls. She’s talking to the Minister’s office. She’s trying to work out how to deal with this. She’s trying to work out what their lines are. They are scrambling. So it’s going to be very interesting to hear what the next speaker has got to say.

Well done—well done—to the Green Party. You stood by your principles, you’re a partner inside this coalition, and you’ve made a change to the bill on a principle that you believe in. But, actually, what’s happened is it’s botched it.

What are New Zealand First going to do? Poor Jenny Marcroft. Jenny Marcroft is like a possum in headlights. She will be on the phone. She will be working it out, because they have a deal. We’re in the third reading now. What an awful position to be in. Oh, the Hon Tracey Martin is here. The big guns have been called down to the House. Well, well, well. Let’s see who’s going to take the call. Let’s see who’s going to respond to this. They’re in an awful position now, aren’t they? What are they going to do? Are they going to support a terrible, botched piece of legislation that will be all over the media tomorrow?

Look, these guys are making so many mistakes that the media don’t even know which ones to go for now, right? So they’re going to have to figure out actually what they’re going to do with this. So let’s see who’s going to stand and take a—oh, James Shaw is in the House. It’s getting serious. Even the bigger guns are arriving to try and sort this out. So we’ll wait and see who’s going to take the call on this. There’s a huddle going on over there. They’re going to work it out.

It’s a terrible piece of legislation. It is now a botched piece of legislation—horribly botched piece of legislation. The reason for that is because we had a Government decide to rush this through—decided to rush it through when we were in COVID lockdown, when the whole country was doing the best that they could to flatten the curve and try and beat this. Instead, they had the Justice Committee meeting to advance a rubbish piece of legislation to give prisoners the vote back. We ignored legislation that would give additional protection to our first responders, the people that were out there during lockdown who were essential workers putting themselves at risk to help and protect the rest of us. We didn’t pick up the legislation that would give them more protection, did we? We didn’t pick up the piece of legislation that would provide more protection and make the court process easier for the victims of sexual crime. No. What did the Government decide to do? It decided to pick up a piece of legislation that would give 1,900 prisoners the vote.

Do you know what the most twisted thing about this is? It’s that in the committee of the whole House stage, we had the Minister stand up and say, “What’s the National Party worried about? Are you worried that you’re not going to win the election because we’re giving 1,900 prisoners the vote?” By making that statement, it was very clear that the Minister was making the assumption that those 1,900 prisoners were going to vote for Labour. So if anyone wants to sit down and look in the mirror and ask themselves what their motivation is for bringing a piece of legislation like this into a committee, when we’re supposed to be dealing with a national emergency and what was a national emergency, then, actually, it’s that side and it’s that Minister that should be looking in the mirror. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, and on this particular bill, the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. And it is, indeed, a pleasure to take this bill seriously, as we are doing on this side of the House, because that is our job. That is what we are in this House for, is to take care of legislation in a proper manner—not playing games, silly games, like the other side of the House is doing this evening with this particular piece of legislation. The mucking around that we are seeing from the other side of the House is unacceptable. We are parliamentarians, and it is our job to do what is right and proper.

This bill will overturn a silly rule, pre-2010, that the National Party bill removed the voting rights of all sentenced prisoners. So this bill will restore some dignity, it will restore some humanity, and it will uphold the ability for reintegration to society, engagement back into society, for those who are in prison with less than three years. I am proud to speak to this bill, because the Supreme Court takes this seriously, the Waitangi Tribunal takes this seriously, and the Government, on this side of the House, takes this seriously. Rehabilitation is at the very heart of this bill; so I’m very proud to stand and say New Zealand First supports this bill, and I commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a shocker of a speech by Jenny Marcroft, a member of the New Zealand First Party, who’s had to swallow a very, very, very big dead rat tonight. She stood up in the House and had the audacity to tell New Zealanders that this Government takes a proper manner and doesn’t play silly games when it comes to legislating. Well, why are we passing this bill through urgency? We wouldn’t have these sorts of amendments being passed without the Government scrambling to try and find ways to fix it up if we weren’t here in the middle of urgency. So there’s no proper manner in the decisions by members on the other side of the House.

What we’ve seen happen tonight with this prisoner voting, or the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill, is symbolic of the sham of a process that it has had right from day one. I just want to remind members on the other side and people viewing from home that the process is an absolute sham that this Government has pursued. They’ve had 2½ years to bring this piece of legislation to Parliament, 2½ years to consult with New Zealanders, and 2½ years to actually make sure it’s well-thought-through. But, no. The first reading was done during extended sitting hours of the House. The select committee process was rushed during lockdown. While New Zealanders were fighting for their lives and uniting to fight COVID-19, the Government was uniting to give prisoners the right to vote, trying to give the people in lockdown the right to have their right to vote. That’s what they were prioritising, and then, on top of that, they were letting all those people serving community service sentences time off on their community service sentences as well.

The second reading was done during extended sitting hours of this House, and here we are, at the third reading. The final debate on this legislation, and here we are in urgency, passing a piece of legislation in here around prisoner voting. Why are we doing this in such a rushed manner? Why are we doing this through urgency? Because the Government believes it needs these votes of 1,900 sentenced offenders on 19 September, and it will stop at nothing to pass this piece of legislation through the House.

Tonight, we’ve seen what happens when you rush legislation through Parliament without having due consideration and without following the procedures of the House, which would have allowed the Government to get its act together properly. We’ve seen a Supplementary Order Paper from the Green Party, essentially, white out half of the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister, and he didn’t even know it was happening. He just looked like a possum in the headlights, scrambling his pieces of paper. We’ve had members of Parliament running into the Chamber trying to fit things back together.

We’ve now been given a lecture on due process by the Government, and I just say to the New Zealand First members opposite that I hope you’re going to do another deal if you’re going to vote for this. There must be some other deal that you’ve struck in the last five minutes—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m not doing any deals with anyone, Mr Brown.

SIMEON BROWN: New Zealand First members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Please don’t find the Mark Mitchell habit contagious.

SIMEON BROWN: Oh, thank you. Well, look, you know, COVID-19’s very contagious, and I don’t want to catch everything. But I would say to New Zealand First members opposite that I expect you’ve done a deal, just outside, to secure your votes to get this legislation through, because that’s how—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Brown, would you mind having a seat. I haven’t done a deal and I’m not intending to do a deal, but I’m tempted. Please don’t bring me into the debate. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party is opposed to this piece of legislation, which gives prisoners who are sentenced up to three years in prison the right to vote. This piece of legislation does not put victims at the heart of criminal justice; this piece of legislation puts criminals at the heart. People who have committed offences, people who have broken the law, and people who have done crimes against other people are the ones who will be getting the privileges which, currently, they do not get under this piece of legislation.

We heard during the select committee process that an offender who is sentenced to prison, on average, will have committed 24 offences—24 offences. People convicted of sentences of up to three years aren’t convicted of petty crime. We’re talking about people who have committed serious assaults, people who have committed robberies, and people who have committed family violence and sexual offences. These are not light-hearted, petty crimes which have been committed; these are serious crimes, and on this side of the House, we believe that there are consequences for one’s actions and that when someone commits crimes worthy of being sentenced to prison, some of their rights are taken away. In New Zealand, when you go to prison, you lose some of your rights, and one of those rights is your right to be able to vote.

As we have been debating during the committee of the whole House, we have a piece of legislation here which gives prisoners the right to vote if they’ve been sentenced to less than three years. They’ve also got the right, it would seem, to stand for Parliament. They’ve got a right to be able to stand to be a representative in this House, and I think that would be something which New Zealanders would find even more shocking.

We have questions around how these prisoners who are going to now have this right to vote are going to be able to exercise their democratic right to seek information and to impart information in relation to their right to vote, to be able to hear from candidates, to hear from members of Parliament, to be able to watch the electoral debates, and to be able to engage in the democracy, because when they’re in prison, they have their freedoms curtailed. They don’t have the same freedom to information that we have. They don’t have the ability to simply tune in to a Facebook Live, and they don’t have the ability to ask a question of a candidate in their electorate. They don’t have the ability to turn up to a public meeting to be able to put across their view and ask a question. People in our prisons have had rights taken away—rights which would actually limit their ability to be able to fully engage in our democracy.

But I do want to finish by bringing this back to the point around victims of crime. Last year, according to statistics produced by the New Zealand Police, there was a 9.6 percent increase in victimisations in New Zealand—a 9.6 percent increase in victimisations. That is a sad and sorry statistic. As we know, behind each one of those numbers is a person, a family, and a community who have been affected by crime in our country, and this piece of legislation doesn’t say to those victims of crime that we’re there to support you. It doesn’t say to those victims of crime that we’re going to stand up for you and what has happened to you. It says that instead of addressing crime and instead of addressing the causes of crime and instead of ensuring that there are strong deterrents in place and that there is a corrective part of the sentence or the response to that crime, what we’re going to do is we’re going to give more rights to those people who committed the crimes. That’s the priority in this piece of legislation.

That’s the priority by members on the other side, and I say this particularly to the members of the New Zealand First Party. Their entire next three months will be spent travelling up and down the country, talking about how tough they’re going to be on crime, because that’s what they like to campaign on—how tough they’re going to be on crime. Well, I just want to remind everybody watching and New Zealanders who think that the New Zealand First Party is a tough-on-crime party that they are not. They are voting tonight to give prisoners the right to vote and to give them—

Hon Member: A party with heart—a party with heart

SIMEON BROWN: They’ve got no heart over there, on that side. They’re voting against victims and they’re voting for criminals.

I’m proud to be on the side of Parliament where we stand on the side of victims, and that’s where the real heart is in this issue: standing up for victims of crime and standing up for those who have been affected by crime. So I’m proud to oppose this bill. A shambolic process by this Government—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A shambolic law.

SIMEON BROWN: —a shambolic piece of legislation that—and thank you, Dr Nick Smith. It’s a very shambolic piece of legislation, and I am proud to oppose it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a proud moment, standing here in our House of Representatives tonight. New Zealand is a proud nation of universal suffrage. We stand for human rights, we stand for democracy, and we stand for equality—and tonight this House makes headway toward that. We stand here reversing a change to our law that was passed in the dead of night, under urgency, with no process at all, by a member’s bill, by a bare majority, taking away fundamental rights. We’ve been told that by the New Zealand High Court, by our Court of Appeal, by our Supreme Court—who almost never intervenes with the affairs of this House—by the Waitangi Tribunal, by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, the guardians of our human rights.

We, in this House, in the past Government, breached fundamental rights. We degraded New Zealand’s justice system. That’s not what we’re here for. That is why we’re restoring the right to vote. It’s not, I might remind that side of the House, extra rights. There’s no such thing as extra rights. We all have rights; they are universal, they are indivisible. That means you can’t have a democracy when some people don’t have the right to vote. We don’t have human rights because we are good but because we are human, and starting down the slippery road to taking away basic human rights based on arbitrary moral judgments by individual Governments is degrading to all New Zealanders.

Our system of justice is there to protect our communities. There is no punishment allowable in our system of justice that takes away basic human rights without a valid criminal justice purpose, without the purpose of protecting communities, rehabilitating prisoners, and reintegrating them successfully back into the community, and taking away the right to vote has none of those purposes. We’ve been told that by every juris, by every expert, by the community. We have no right in this House to do what breaches fundamental human rights without a valid purpose.

So tonight is a night of celebration for New Zealand, because we do stand for democracy, and we do need to talk about victims. So let’s protect victims. Let’s really protect victims. Let’s do what will rehabilitate prisoners; let’s do what will help them to reintegrate more successfully into our community. I’ve been in those parole hearings, and they always require the prisoner applying for parole to prove they remain connected with the community.

Now, why would we have law that disconnects prisoners from their community, that disenfranchises them, that tells them that they are less than human in this society, and then ask them to show that they’re connected with their community? The evidence shows that that is the only way that they will remain safe once they re-join our community, the only way that they will successfully get a job and successfully live in that community without resorting to crime. Why would we do something that undermines that in this House? For vengeance? We have no right to do that. We have no right as the representatives of that nation to take away basic human rights. It actually undermines the safety of our communities. Just to make ourselves look tough on crime? That doesn’t protect victims.

So let’s talk about victims. What about investing in mental healthcare for victims? In hospitals, in homes, in jobs—why not invest in victims? They didn’t do it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, we did. You took it away.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: They did not do it. They did not do it, and they did what would make them look good. It’s callous. We won’t be doing that.

Marama Davidson: It’s dangerous.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: It’s dangerous; that’s right. And let’s talk about who we are disenfranchising when we take away the right to vote from prisoners. Let’s talk about the fact that, on this side of the House, we look at the evidence, we look at what we know is the truth: that Māori are disproportionately targeted by our system of justice, that other communities of colour fare far worse in our system of justice, that poor people fare far worse in our system of justice for doing what anybody else has done. That we have a higher rate of Māori being spoken to by police, when spoken to by police of being charged, when charged of being convicted, and when convicted of being sentenced to imprisonment, than other people and—let’s not mince words—than Pākehā. So that’s who we’re disenfranchising. That’s why the Waitangi Tribunal stood up against this law. It is a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi; it is a breach of our work toward equality and decolonisation in this House.

So, when we talk about a Treaty, when we talk about shared sovereignty, when we talk about land and resource and language that was never ceded, and then we talk about who we imprison in a colonial system, and then on top of that we take away the right to vote, it is abhorrent, and it doesn’t help victims. It has always been Green Party kaupapa to stand for democracy and for fairness.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is that why you stood up for genocide?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: So we celebrate tonight. We celebrate tonight because we know that, in our system of justice, where everyone has a right to a defence—we’ve just heard from the Hon Nick Smith, by the way, that he opposes the right to defence in a justice system, because he equates defence counsel with those who stand for a crime. That is the danger; that is the slippery slope—he’s just demonstrated it. When they talk about taking away the right to vote, they also mean the next step is the right to a defence. They want to take away our justice system and our human rights altogether; isn’t that right, Mr Smith? Isn’t that abhorrent? Isn’t that backward? That’s not what New Zealand’s about; we’re a modern democracy, and almost no modern democracy abolishes the right to vote in their justice system. No modern democracy has members of Parliament opposing defence counsel acting legitimately in a trial. Can you imagine? I can’t imagine.

On this side of the House, we’re focused on fixing our system, on fixing our society and our communities, so that crime actually goes down, so that victims are taken care of. We are not concerned with making ourselves look tough on crime at the expense of New Zealanders and our fundamental human rights. So tonight we celebrate, because it is Green kaupapa that’s come to the House as part of my member’s bill on strengthening democracy that’s just been adopted in the House, and we’re not going to stop there. We will continue to strengthen our democracy because, come September, when that side of the House has shrunk to just a few seats, we won’t have to debate whether defence rights are even a thing. We won’t have to debate whether universal suffrage is a good thing or not, because we live in the 21st century, and we stand for human rights, we stand for inclusion and equality. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sometimes in this place, it’s hard to know if we’re in a parallel universe because things might have gone differently or if some members indeed are on another planet. The Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill has been a wild ride. Others have talked about the select committee submission process; I may have talked about it myself at the second reading speech, which was the appropriate place to do so. We heard from people who have been intimately involved in the justice system, including some who have served time behind bars, and they had interesting perspectives, on both sides of the argument, incidentally.

We also heard interesting discussion about the fundamental nature of democracy, which is the way that I would phrase it, in relation to who it is that writes law in this country and this constitution. I’ll get back to that a bit later in relation to our response to the senior courts and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but, roughly speaking—and spoiler alert—the good news is that MPs write the law. The bad news is also that MPs write the law, because we’ve seen something quite extraordinary tonight in relation to a law that has been affected by the passage, or, rather, half of the passage, of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—and, again, I’ll return to that.

The submitters to the Justice Committee ranged from the very young to the less young, and I thank them all for their contribution, as have other members of the select committee. The victims’ perspective was almost universally, or perhaps universally, that they were perplexed by the fact of this bill being passed, not only in the sense of the priority relative to the legislative programme of the Government but also in relation to the way that they felt that their place in the criminal justice system and society was adversely reflected by what this bill represents.

I do want to say that I think that the arguments that we heard in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal were well made by many submitters, and I think that we should take in this House very seriously the challenge that we face as a nation whereby there are adverse and disproportionate outcomes. But as I’ve said in previous stages of this bill, I believe that the appropriate place to address those very real and legitimate concerns is other than in the consequence for prisoners who have been sentenced according to the law of the land.

The starting point that one comes to this House with in relation to the bill makes all the difference to the way that one will view it and, ultimately, vote. From those who take the point of view that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the apparent inconsistency, the declared inconsistency, indeed, by the senior courts—if that is one’s starting point, then, inevitably, one says, well, then prisoners should be given the right to vote. We can have an interesting discussion, and in the next six minutes we will have a discussion—whether it’s interesting or not we will see—about the threshold of the three-year mark. But in any case, roughly speaking, in principle, the human rights perspective, as discussed specifically in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, would lead one to the conclusion that prisoners should be allowed to vote.

However, having said that the perspective is understandable when one starts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the whole affair is nevertheless inexplicable from the point of view of those who say—whether victims’ advocates, victims themselves, or others who share that point of view—that those who have repeatedly offended against the rule of law and, indeed, broken specific laws should not be given more opportunities than they currently enjoy to participate in that process, at least until such time as they have served their period of detention.

Let’s then pass to the detail in the bill—because, of course, as always, the detail matters—and the fact that a particular line in the sand has been drawn at the three-year mark indicates that the compromise that was reached even before tonight’s events was one that was political in nature rather than legal or, indeed, logical. The reason I say that is because we heard a number of very compelling submissions about the arbitrary nature of the three-year mark to determine whether someone should be able to vote or not. The argument from the Minister of Justice and others of that perspective was that a person would be able to vote on the basis that they would be affecting the law of the land by electing representatives in the three years before they were released, and therefore when they came out of incarceration, then they would be subject to those laws. Well, that’s all very well, except that a prisoner who is incarcerated for longer than three years isn’t given by this bill the right to vote in the last three years. So the logic of that is not internally consistent, and that’s a challenge to what it is that we’re expected to pass, or indeed being asked to pass, tonight by the Minister and the Government, even before we ask ourselves: what is the purpose of having a three-year time frame in the first place?

The principled position, surely, is that if voting is a human right—and I think on one level it is, or at least it’s a civil and political right—then it should apply to all and not those who have committed a particular degree of offence. As I say, I believe that a political compromise, as opposed to a legal or logical principle, has been at play there.

The discussion about the restrictions of rights has been pretty well thrashed out, actually, in different stages of the bill, and I think that there’s some merit in the perspective that, really, to be incarcerated in the first place is a restriction of rights. So it’s somewhat of a nonsense to say that we should not restrict people’s rights in not allowing them to vote because they are imprisoned, because it’s precisely because someone has done something worthy of imprisonment that we should at least consider curtailing various rights. So I think that sort of absolutist approach that we’ve heard from the Green Party member earlier tonight doesn’t particularly stack up.

The question then becomes, of course, well, what restrictions on rights do we place? How can we justify restricting some and not others? The answer, I think, must surely lie in the nature of the penalty. We lock people up so that they are no longer a danger to others for a certain period of time and also themselves. We also have the opportunity to rehabilitate them and so on. So what, then, is the justification, for restricting the ability of such a person to vote? The answer is surely that with, almost invariably, multiple offences against the criminal law, law to which they have to have offended at least to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt, with the onus being on the other side to have proved it and so on, we don’t lock people up lightly—that’s the short point. To have reached a point where, on average, a person who is incarcerated, perhaps incarcerated for three years—I forget the detail, but in any case, an average of 24 convictions before a person has got to the point of losing their right to vote shows that the social contract has readily enough been torn up by that person. Why it should be a matter of logic for the other side to say that they should be allowed to continue to participate in a process which they’ve already withdrawn from, to their own benefit, seems to me entirely baffling.

We also have talked about a number of different practical issues with the bill. The Hon Dr Nick Smith pointed out the illogicality of the fact that someone who is a member of Parliament has the right to visit a prison at any time, and a candidate, on the other hand, doesn’t have that ability. So an election campaign is naturally tilted towards incumbents. I’d perhaps even go a step further and say that if the member of Parliament is going to visit the prison as a member of Parliament, then he or she shouldn’t be visiting as a candidate, because the visit as a member of Parliament is to check on welfare and processes and so forth, as opposed to being there to campaign. So even for members of Parliament who are candidates, let alone other candidates, the situation does not make sense, because they shouldn’t be—and in other cases can’t be—in there actually actively campaigning.

Let’s finish on the bizarre situation that we faced tonight whereby an SOP from a Government member was partly successful, meaning that we’ve got a real anomaly in the law. Once upon a time, getting 50 percent was a pass mark, but you can’t be half right in these things without causing a lot of difficulty. So we’ve now got an absurd situation where prison officers, as defined, I believe—or I’d call them Corrections officers—are required to tell all prisoners that they are entitled to vote, but only some of those, those serving up to three years, will actually be entitled to do so. It’s an absolute shambles, so from a legal, moral, and practical point of view, we cannot support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call is a split call.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House, under Standing Order 74, for a motion to discharge the bill and for it to be referred back to the select committee. It is openly acknowledged now that this bill has an internal contradiction. It is unworkable law. It would require our prison officers to act illegally. The correct way for the House to ensure that we’re not passing law that puts our prison officers in that impossible position would be for us to discharge the bill and refer it back to the Justice Committee. The Standing Order would normally require for that motion to be moved earlier in the legislative process, but I am seeking leave of the House to be able to put that resolution, because the bill as it stands is now unworkable law.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): So I’m not trying to trick you on words; I’m just getting it clear: you’re seeking leave, which, in effect, is to leave aside the Standing Order, which deals with proper process.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct. The Standing Orders provide a process by which a motion can be put to the House. It’s a non-debatable motion. It requires the bill be discharged from the House and referred back to the Justice Committee, and that is the motion I am seeking leave to put to the House, given the pretty extraordinary situation we’re—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. The following call is a split call—Jo Luxton.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If it was up to the members opposite, we would see every single criminal thrown into jail—throw the key away, never to see the light of day again. Unfortunately for them, on this side of the House, we think that everybody deserves a second chance. If we want people to integrate back into society, we do need to give them some rights. One of those rights is the right to vote. But what we’ve seen from the National Party this evening has become symbolic of what we see from them all the time: flip-flop, can’t make their minds up, playing politics, playing games, and political point-scoring. We’re here as politicians to make sensible legislation, and what do we see? The Hon Nick Smith running around, laughing, playing games, making fun of the fact that they’re supposedly the party for victims, and all they’ve done is play games with the victims here tonight. So it’s very disappointing—somewhat disgusting—to see them behave in that way. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I’ve been listening to the debate in this House and I’ve heard not one justification—not one justification—for the inconsistency on the law that’s just been passed from Golriz Ghahraman’s amendment. That inconsistency, essentially, requires the prison managers to break the law. This law is a botched law; it is a shambles. It is a law that reflects poor process and it is a law that reflects poor priorities on this Government.

I’ve been part of the select committee on this process, and I must say that in the urgency of lockdown, when constituency MPs have faced extraordinary challenges in their own electorates with dealing with constituency issues, here I was and here were other members on this side of the House dealing with complex issues, but also having to deal with giving prisoners the right to vote—in lockdown. That reflects, I think, the poor priorities of this Government that we have such deep challenges going on in the community, and all that side of the House worries about is who has the right to vote in prison.

We do not support this law, but don’t take my word for it, take Chris from my own electorate of Northcote, who said, “The moment they decide to live outside the law of New Zealand, prisoners lose the right to vote.” That is the first principle on which we oppose this law. If you do the crime, you do the time, and that means having your rights as a free and fair system of democracy taken away—whether it’s the right to vote, the right to freedom of association, or liberty rights to go with that.

What about the role of our justice system? Well, we on this side of the House care about the victim—we do. Unfortunately, the bill that’s going forward has a lack of centeredness on the victim, and we heard about this in the select committee—victims who have had deep challenges with sexual violence, rape, and, unfortunately, that has been escaped from the process.

A third reason why we oppose this bill is around the role of rehabilitation and reintegration. Of course this plays an important role in making sure prisoners reintegrate into our society, but we can do that in prison in a safe way, and that is through educational means. And I’ve talked about previously, already, other complex skills training that’s provided for prisoners in New Zealand prisons.

But what I think typifies the law that we’re about to vote on today is the Supplementary Order Paper that was passed less than an hour ago, which, essentially, requires prison managers to break the law, and it’s a shame that that side of the House didn’t want to refer it back to select committee for deeper consultation.

This election is a stark contrast between Labour and National on the issue of crime and prisoners. On that side of the House, we’ve got a party that is soft on crime, a party that has poor priorities in Government, and a party that doesn’t care about the democratic process—

Simeon Brown: Or victims.

DAN BIDOIS: —or victims that we have in New Zealand. But on this side of the House, we are tough on crime. If you do the crime under a National Government, you will be put away. And we have very clear priorities—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope I won’t.

DAN BIDOIS: Madam Speaker, if the prisoner or the offender does the crime, they will do the time. We have very clear priorities: make our communities safer.

Lastly, we care about the proper democratic process of our parliamentary system, not a half-baked system to get it done for the next election. So we oppose this law in this House, and we hope that we have some justification for the changes that have been made today. This is a terrible law and we do not commend this bill in the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this shambles. You know, there was a great Chancellor called Otto von Bismarck, who said that people who love public policy or legislation and love sausages have one thing in common: neither of them should watch what they love being made. That’s very much the case here tonight. This is the biggest legislative screw-up by this Government under urgency for, oh, about four weeks since we accidentally passed the wrong law and unwittingly legislated a $2.5 billion business loan scheme because the Government couldn’t put the right bill on the Table.

So now we have a situation where prisoners are going to be enrolled regardless of how long they are sentenced. But it’s not clear whether being enrolled will actually allow them to vote or whether by enrolling them to vote means the prison warden will have actually committed a crime. You think about the difficulty of that. The prison wardens are supposed to look after the people that are committing the crime, but this Government is making the prison wardens criminals in themselves. This is the kind of mess that that we’re getting into with this kind of lawmaking. You know, Sir Geoffrey Palmer once said that New Zealand is the fastest lawmaker in the West, and this Government seems to have done a line of smack and decided to go even faster. I think that’s a real problem, because actually this is quite a serious issue. Before I discovered what had transpired earlier in the evening—because I’m a busy leader of a small but growing political party—I was coming down to record the ACT Party’s thoughts about this very serious matter.

First of all, we have a major problem in this country with recidivism. We don’t send more people to jail; we send the same people around and around and around. You know, half the people that get out of jail are back within four years—a disgrace. We have the fourth largest imprisonment rate in the OECD, behind countries like Czechoslovakia and Mexico and the United States. We need to do a lot better. We actually need to do a lot better with policies like ACT’s, that if you learn to read in prison and you get educated, we’ll reduce your sentence. That’s the kind of smart thing we need to do. But this Government’s trying to tell us that letting prisoners vote is going to substantially help to rehabilitate them. There’s no evidence for that. That’s the first area where it falls down.

The second area where we have a problem is this vexed issue of human rights, because notwithstanding the omnishambles of legislation tonight, the intent of the bill is that you have this human right of voting if you have been sentenced for three years or less. Well, if the Government had the courage of its convictions, it would say human rights are indivisible, and every prisoner should have the right to vote. Rapists and murderers are still human and should be able to vote. But oh no, no; it’s only people on sentences of less than three years. So it’s not even principled by its own standard. It actually says that those people are less than human because they don’t deserve human rights. Then Jo Luxton, the member for a place called “List”, which is apparently near Rangitata, said that the Government is playing—playing—with prisoners. Well, what’s playing with prisoners is this law that says you’re going to be enrolled by the warden, but you can’t actually vote. That’s playing with them. So it fails on a human rights basis.

We actually, to be serious, take away part of the bundle of rights New Zealanders have when we imprison them—freedom of association, freedom of movement. Very important rights in the Bill of Rights are withdrawn. On the other hand, the right to vote—well, I, like many people in this House, have lived overseas. I lived in Canada for five years. I couldn’t vote there. Why would you want to? Because there’s no ACT Party in Canada to vote for. But I didn’t feel that I’d lost all my rights. I don’t think it’s a serious human rights issue. That’s why the ACT Party is opposing this bill, aside from the fact that it’s an absolute shambles.

I’d also say that this Government’s priorities—the fact it’s been willing to put so much capital into this non - human rights issue—tells us that this Government is not thinking hard about the real needs of New Zealanders. If I had some more time, I’d give some better examples of what they should be thinking about. But for now, the ACT Party opposes this shambles.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): For anyone watching this that thinks that somehow this is about crime and soft on crime, as is being espoused by Nick Smith and his high-pitched little clone Simeon Brown, it is not. What this is is simply about entrenching some legislation. Actually, funnily enough, nobody on the other side has mentioned one of their finest members, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who was opposed to the legislation when it went through in 2010 and remains opposed to it. What this is about—in fact, as touched on by the previous speaker, David Seymour—is victims of crime. It’s about future victims of crime. As someone who, as an undercover police officer, lived among criminals, the one thing I’ll say is the common denominator among criminals is complete alienation from mainstream society. Voting is not going to be a panacea. It’s not a cure all. But, as the previous speaker said, it is going to be a stepping stone into becoming part of mainstream society.

Just before I finish, there’s a huge irony tonight that that party opposite, who opposed this legislation all the way through, tonight voted for an amendment that the public should know results in all prisoners now having the right to vote. Thank you, National Party, for all prisoners now having the right to vote. I commend this bill. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Goodness me.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was going to give quite a brief contribution tonight, but I can’t resist, actually, after hearing from the member opposite, Greg O’Connor. We’ve got a bit of a saying on this side of the House, and certainly amongst the class of ’17, which is, “Never go full Greg—never go full Greg.”, and we saw a little bit of that tonight in some of the observations he made. The first one, he started out—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Full names.

ANDREW FALLOON: Yep, sorry, Madam Speaker. He started out by referring to Nick Smith—our honourable colleague on this side of the House—and that Simeon Brown was his clone. Well, perhaps, Greg O’Connor, you might need a different prescription on your glasses, because they are in many ways similar, but in that way not. He then went on to say that Chris Finlayson opposed the change in 2010—that Chris Finlayson opposed the change in 2010. Well, of course, he didn’t. He voted for the bill; he voted for that piece of legislation. If the member opposite is seriously suggesting that if an Attorney-General comes up and says that something is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that means that they oppose it, well tell that to David Parker and all of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistencies that he’s come up with in this Government. If that member is seriously suggesting that David Parker, the Attorney-General, opposed those pieces of legislation, I suggest that he’s going to have a call from the Attorney-General David Parker later on tonight.

Now, I do want to move on to more of the substance of this bill, rather than just Greg O’Connor’s interesting contribution. I was here late this afternoon and into the evening when we had the committee of the whole House stage. I do want to make a few observations on that, because several questions during the committee stage were put to Andrew Little, the Minister in the chair, and I do want to congratulate him on taking many questions and answering most of them. But there were a number of questions in relation to the consistency of the bill as to why the Government have drawn the line at three years, where people who are imprisoned for a sentence of less than three years are able to vote, and those who are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than three years are unable to vote. Golriz Ghahraman and, prior to her, Chlöe Swarbrick have put forward what I think is a very consistent position that all prisoners should be allowed to vote.

Now, I have some sympathy to that argument. I don’t agree that all prisoners should be allowed to vote, because, as I’ve heard through numerous contributions on both sides of the House, when somebody is imprisoned, they give up a number of rights: the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association, and, as this Parliament has determined a number of times, the right to vote. I don’t think, actually, that the Green Party are suggesting otherwise, because I don’t think they do think that people should have the right to freedom of association or freedom of expression when they’re in prison, but, of course, they do think that people should have the right to vote. But at least that is consistent that we give prisoners—all prisoners—the right to vote rather than draw some arbitrary line at three years, which is exactly what this Government is doing.

Ms Swarbrick in an earlier contribution in, I think, the second reading debate made what I thought was a very valid contribution, which was: why do we draw the line where some prisoners are given the vote even though they might have committed the same offence as somebody who commits the same offence but receives a different sentence? Again, that is a position that I have some sympathy with, which is why I was so surprised to hear that the Greens are going to continue to vote for this bill tonight, because it does exactly what Ms Swarbrick railed so eloquently against in the second reading debate. It says that prisoners should be treated differently based on the sentence that they’re given. If someone’s given, let’s say, two years and 11 months in prison, they’ll be able to vote. But if someone’s given three years and one month for the same offence, they won’t be able to vote. So despite that inconsistent position, the Greens are going to vote for this bill anyway. I guess that is where their consistency ends.

Then we come to the issue that I struggle with even more, and that is that in an earlier contribution Clare Curran said that the threshold of a three-year jail sentence means that those prisoners will be able to vote on the Government that will be in power when they are released, and that’s true. That would be a very fair point if it weren’t for one thing: that it would be true for any prisoner who is given a sentence of more than three years, in the last three years of that sentence. But there’s been no amendment, there’s been no amendment from the Green Party, and there’s been no amendment from the Government to fix that issue.

Perhaps in recognition of that error that the Government’s made, we had Minister Andrew Little earlier in the committee of the whole House stage coming up with a brand new reason. We hadn’t heard it before; it was a brand new reason just for the committee of the whole House, where he said that people who he would like to see vote are those convicted of lesser crimes. That ignores that those convicted of lesser crimes on their first offence actually go to prison very rarely. To make it to prison on someone’s first offence, they actually need to do something pretty serious; not a lesser offence, as described by Andrew Little. Actually, all you need to do is pick up the court news of any provincial newspaper in the country and you’ll see exactly that. It can be very, very difficult to be sentenced to prison in this country.

But my biggest problem is the matter of priorities, because yesterday it’s been confirmed that we had more than 50 people released from mandatory isolation without being tested. We’ve got businesses up and down the country going out of business. In the last 24 hours in Ashburton and Timaru, more lay-offs have been announced, and, unfortunately, tens of thousands of Kiwis are now out of jobs. And yet tonight, in this Parliament, under urgency, the Government aren’t putting forward any remedy to that. They’re not putting forward anything that will create new jobs. Instead, they’re seeking, under urgency, a priority of theirs to give prisoners the vote.

The reason I say “under urgency” is that brings me to perhaps the most bizarre of points that we’ve seen this afternoon and this evening in this Parliament, where Golriz Ghahraman put up her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), her amendment to extend the vote to all prisoners, which, as I’ve said, is a perfectly valid and consistent position—something that the Government themselves don’t hold—and part of that SOP was passed. Nick Smith has laid out in a far better way than I could how bizarre that makes this piece of legislation. It makes a mockery of the fact that, under urgency, we’re passing electoral law, which I would argue is one of the most important pieces of legislation we can amend in this House—the Electoral Act—because it actually defines this Parliament as a democracy. And here we are, under urgency, passing a bill that makes a massive inconsistency in the law, where prison managers are required to advise and assist prisoners to enrol to vote, and yet it remains illegal to do so.

Now, Grant Robertson screws up his face across the House. I’m not allowed to say he wasn’t here, but perhaps if he talks to a neighbour and says—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don’t say it.

ANDREW FALLOON: Perhaps if he talks to a neighbour and asks what happened earlier in the debate, he’ll find out what happened. He’ll find out what this Parliament actually voted on, because half of Golriz Ghahraman’s SOP passed, it’s in the bill, and it will not be voted on in third reading, I presume it will be supported by members opposite; it will not be supported by us. But it does make a mockery of the urgency process when we have legislation that was rammed through select committee, where submitters were not able to present in Parliament their concerns and their views. We have in this Parliament now committee stages and third reading truncated into one evening, rammed through under urgency, and this is why we have such fundamental concerns with this legislation, because they’ve made a mistake. That is one of the perils of urgency. Urgency should only be used in extreme or rare circumstances.

I’m old enough to remember, actually, that the Green Party used to rail against the use of urgency, and here they are supporting changes to our electoral law—the fundamental basis on which we all sit here and of our democracy—a change to the law which makes a mockery by inserting an inconsistency into the Electoral Act. We will not support it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was in this House when the bill that was passed that is now—the effect of which—being overturned by this legislation was put up by Paul Quinn as a member’s bill. It was a mean, petty, and glib piece of legislation that was passed by a member who is best forgotten from this House, and supported by a party whose politicking on issues of electoral law is well known.

I have only two things to say in my contribution. The first of those is that, other than the Ministers of Corrections, I would venture to suggest that I’ve probably spent more time visiting prisons than any other member of this House; because, as is on the public record, my father spent time in prison. And one thing I can tell you—and Greg O’Connor mentioned this briefly in his contribution—we send people to prison in New Zealand as a punishment, not for punishment. When they’re in prison, what we attempt to do is support their rehabilitation back into our society. One element, albeit a small element of that, is for prisoners—in this case, for the proposed bill—who are serving a term of three years or less to be allowed to vote.

There has been a consensus on that across political parties over decades, until Mr Quinn’s glib, petty, mean piece of legislation was passed in this House. Those members opposite who think that maybe tonight they’ve had some great little politicking victory, I say this to them, and especially to Dr Smith: the greatest commitment you can show to democracy is when you uphold the rights of people that you despise, or people that you don’t like, or people who have done things that you don’t agree with. That’s when you show your commitment to democracy, Dr Smith, not some little political trick, not some glib bill, but when you uphold the rights of those who you may not agree with, that is a commitment to democracy, and that is what this bill does.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) 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

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Firstly, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Part 1 Early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch and termination of powers

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could start with some opening remarks, and then, enjoying this new committee process, I welcome taking questions from the floor.

This is a bill that seeks to amend the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. There are three main parts to it—the first, to revoke the powers given by section 71. Section 71 is a special part of the legislation which allows for amendments to be made to planning rules, which provide for streamlining or fast-tracking of particular processes. The second main amendment would be to disestablish Regenerate Christchurch from 30 June 2020. This is a year earlier than was originally anticipated, and I’m mindful of the fact that we are talking about a group of people for whom they’ve had the regeneration of our city at the heart of the work that they have been doing. So I do want to pay particular acknowledgment to them at this time. The third proposed amendment is to extend the powers for the reconfiguration of the land contained within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. That will allow Land Information New Zealand to continue the work in terms of the reconfiguration and the transfer of titles. And one other piece: it repeals the requirement to make annual reports with regards to the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act.

I want to thank the select committee, ably chaired by Dr Jian Yang, who brought the piece of work quite expeditiously back to the House. They did make a couple of amendments to the bill as it was introduced. The first, really, is with regard to the powers under section 71. Because of the shortening of the actual piece of legislation, the powers under section 71 were required to have a transitional provision within it in case a proposal was made under this particular section before the end of the bill on 30 June. The second was with regard to the description of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor, just to allow for appropriate reconfiguration to occur, and the inclusion of a map within the bill.

Just with those points, I do want to thank officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office and, again, the select committee—the Governance and Administration Committee—for bringing this back to the House in a timely way, and I’m happy to take questions.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. National supports this bill of course, but we do question the urgency of passing these amendments when there was a sunset clause in the original Act. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act expires in June 2021, and this bill just speeds the process up.

Part 1 of this bill is about disestablishing Regenerate Christchurch. Now, Regenerate Christchurch was the agency that was created to manage regeneration plans in the city, and for the past four years Regenerate Christchurch has developed those plans, working with the other stakeholders for various parts of the city. But the majority of their work has been done in the redevelopment of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This space will eventually become a fabulous people-friendly community space, and I believe it will be a real asset for our city, because it goes right from the centre of the city right down to the shore. So you’ll be able to bike, walk, and travel all the way from our city to our beaches. We’re all keenly awaiting the opening up of this area and we’re just hopeful that, with the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, the progress in this area doesn’t slow down.

So, for Part 1, we support Part 1. We support the disestablishment, but we are concerned that the work that they have been doing should not slow down. We need it completed as quickly as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): If I could just respond to that—thank you for that question—I think one of the overriding ambitions for Christchurch has been the restoration of local leadership, and this is what this bill provides: the ability for local leaders to make decisions that affect Christchurch. We’ve heard for a significant period of time from Christchurch leaders, particularly from Christchurch City Council, that they wanted the ability to make decisions that affected Christchurch going forward, and I think that Christchurch is ready for that.

I am mindful, though, that this does disestablish Regenerate Christchurch and it does mean that people who have worked in this space and done a great job, really, in identifying regeneration plans and the opportunities—particularly in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor—will be losing their jobs. I do want to send my really grateful thanks to them for the work that they do, but also acknowledge the fact that the work that they have completed in Christchurch and in Canterbury is forever within the DNA of that space. But the overriding concern, really, is that Christchurch now is able to conduct its own affairs and make its own decisions.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, National does support this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, but I do have a question for the Minister, if I may. It just seems that the local authority or authorities involved or captured in this bill don’t seem to have taken up the opportunity that was presented to them when this bill was enacted back in, I think, 2016, from memory. I might have that slightly wrong, but I think it was about 2016, 2017. While there was a great deal of cooperation across the House and a number of agencies in the development of this bill, the opportunities don’t seem to have been utilised. I understand there are a couple of plans, regeneration plans. But for a piece of legislation which tackles such a huge issue, I wonder if it has been underutilised. I am interested in the opinion of the Minister in charge, Hon Dr Megan Woods, about whether Christchurch City Council, for example, could have taken a more proactive approach to utilising the mechanisms in this bill for the good of Christchurch.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you—I thank the member for that. I just want to quote something that I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee said at the first reading of this, that the opportunity to use the legislation for regeneration plans perhaps wasn’t used as it was envisaged when the legislation was written. However, that is the decision for proponents of regeneration, and now I think it’s absolutely the time for any of those decisions to actually be returned to local councils. But, as I say, it’s easy to look back in hindsight and say perhaps we could’ve used the legislation—a bespoke piece of legislation for Christchurch—in a particular way, but it would’ve required people to propose plans. That didn’t happen; it’s no longer really a requirement. Those decisions are now able to be sheeted back to local leadership, and I think that’s entirely appropriate.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Now, Part 1 of the bill, the Governance and Administration Committee, actually, basically agreed to all the clauses. The key amendment in this part is the amendment to clause 10. Clause 10 amends section 121. Section 121 established Regenerate Christchurch and provides that it continues until it is disestablished on the close of 30 June 2021; the amendment changes that date to 30 June 2020—that’s one year ahead.

So other changes are largely inconsequential amendments. In terms of Part 1, we think that it is basically there. This particular bill itself, of course, made changes to the principal Act—that’s the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. The Act itself made some achievements. Now, there is a list here, according to officials, and that is that under this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, Regenerate Christchurch has developed the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan, and that, I think, is the key achievement. There are some other minor achievements, but, overall, it appeared that the Act itself did not really achieve a lot.

In 2017, there was a review, and the review found that the Act was in effect for a purpose but then, later on, it became clear that the Act started to become redundant. For that reason, particularly in the 2019 review, it was noticed that it was necessary to repeal the Act and move some clauses ahead, and that is why there is this particular bill. While we agree that it is necessary to move ahead, we still have some concerns regarding some implementation—for example, because this Act itself still involves a large sum of taxpayers’ money, we would still like to know some details, such as whether regeneration will take place in a timely fashion and when we will see the detail of what is going to occur within our own Ōtākaro River Corridor. These specific questions, we still need to really consider, while we agree, in principle, that Part 1 of the bill is largely fine. Thanks.

Matt Doocey: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call—Matt Doocey.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): That’s right! Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Late in the night—late in the night.

MATT DOOCEY: It’s very good—a great choice, I thought.

Hon Member: Who are you?

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much for—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s Todd Muller.

MATT DOOCEY: —for granting me permission to—just a shorter version, ha, ha! So to start off with the Minister in the chair, we are talking about the regeneration of Christchurch post-earthquakes, and we are building one of the best small cities in the world. And what we know about the city of Christchurch and the region of Canterbury—intrinsically linked is our rugby history. We do know we are one of the best rugby regions in the world. So I just want to start off by acknowledging the Crusaders’ win over the Hurricanes on the weekend—39:25—which was a historic win, beating the mighty Canes. So my first question is to the Minister. I’ll be interested in her view.

Ian McKelvie: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Surely that’s out of order. Ha, ha!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s certainly nothing to do with the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Back to the bill. As I was saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You haven’t got to it yet.

MATT DOOCEY: The regeneration of Christchurch is intrinsically linked to our rugby history. So my first question to the Minister was, with the Crusaders playing the Chiefs, our first home game of Super Rugby Aotearoa, this weekend, I’d be interested to know whether she had a view on who would be winning that game this weekend.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s nothing to do with the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: My second question to the Minister as well—we’ve talked about the regenerate entity being disbanded. And as the Minister will know, there’s real concerns in Christchurch of ensuring things carry on with pace. One of the responsibilities for Regenerate Christchurch was looking at the cathedral precinct and Cathedral Square. So I’d just be interested from the Minister in how we ensure that projects like that continue, because, of course, it’s all very good handing back responsibility and local decision-making. But equally I think, as we’ve seen in the House for almost decades since the earthquakes, Parliament has stood behind Canterbury and has served the people well from all parties, ensuring that there is legislation that ensures Christchurch rebuilds. I feel there is some concern with areas like the cathedral precinct, not necessarily the cathedral itself, but of course the land around it that Regenerate Christchurch were previously drawing up plans for. So that is my second question. The first one, the rugby score; the second about the issue of disbanding Regenerate Christchurch as an entity.

And then, just my third question, I’d be interested in the Minister’s view—you know, we are handing back responsibility to local decision-makers and I would be interested to know—I’m just noticing the Minister is seeking advice from the advisers, so we might be getting some sort of result on the score there; maybe not. But what I was interested in is also looking at the red zone area, because what we do know is that is an important area. The Minister will know it covers quite a bit of her electorate as well. How does disbanding Regenerate Christchurch ensure that, when we hand back the responsibility to local decision-makers, whether that be Christchurch City Council, Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and Ngāi Tahu, projects will carry on and progress well?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Minister is able to answer questions two and three, but question one is completely out of order—being a Chiefs supporter.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): It may be out of order, but I think the member will know that the Crusaders will be victorious on the day.

Thank you. I just want to reply to Dr Jian Yang that this is within the—and this also will speak to the question that the member has just posed—part of the council’s 30-year plan. We have confidence that the council now has got the plans in place to take this forward. We all know that, from the discussions that we’ve had over quite a few months now, the council’s view of this is that the Avon Ōtākaro—I always get it round the round the wrong way—the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is a huge opportunity for us in Christchurch in terms of the significant work that it will do, not just regenerating the red zone area itself, or what we have formerly known as the residential red zone, but the opportunity to really activate those suburbs that sit alongside the corridor, and also a particular favourite of mine, actually drawing people through right out to New Brighton.

The establishment of the advisory groups to look at transitional land uses, for example, has already sparked quite a bit of interest, and people are keen to submit ideas to that particular group about what may happen. But we already know that part of the corridor will be used for potential mitigation of sea level rise and climate change effects. There are some opportunities in terms of flood mitigation and the like, but the overriding opportunity for us in that area is to create great recreational space, opportunities for activity, and opportunities to really link up the city and the eastern suburbs of Christchurch.

Just in terms of the other question, the cathedral really doesn’t come within this piece of legislation; there is another piece of legislation that was shepherded through by the Hon Nicky Wagner that really takes care of that piece of work. But I do thank the member for raising that as a concern going forward.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Limited extension of powers for dealing with land

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 2, which is debate on clauses 19 to 30 and Schedules 1 to 2, which is the limited extension of powers for dealing with land.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you. If I could make just a couple of comments, this is really around the ability to reconfigure to assist Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), really, in the reconfiguration of the title—some 5,500 land titles for that particular precinct—and allow for the extension of time, should that be required in order to do that. I think the date is extended out to 2023—yes, here we go—just to allow for that work to be conducted by LINZ for the successful transfer of land. As I indicated in an earlier contribution, the Governance and Administration Committee were very useful in identifying that the reconfiguration required some wider definition to include some of the council land that bordered the area, and they were very helpful in providing a map for that particular function.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Part 2: this is the Part where we made some recommendations or amendments. I think these amendments are well considered—for example, this clarification of the area covered by the bill. We had a submission basically suggesting that the geographical area that the extended land powers were applied to—by now referring to the bill itself. In the beginning, the bill identified the geographical area the extended land powers were applied to by referencing the specific purpose—that is, the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. So it’s a specific purpose zone described in Appendix 1 of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. But then it was noted by a submitter that this could be a concern because the definition was not particularly clear. Also, it lacked certainty, and that it was undesirable to attach a definition in an Act through a reference to a plan. So then officials, of course, considered the submission—the committee considered the submission—and therefore made some changes. I will say this is a very good change or amendment, because we clearly defined the area with a very specific map so there would be no confusion. For that particular reason, I will say that this amendment is very, very useful.

Then, of course, the committee then added transitional provisions for section 71—powers and plan processes. There are some specific amendments, of course, here—particularly on page 7 of this particular bill—basically, saying that because of the changes to the bill itself, we need some other change to make sure that some powers will continue even after the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch. For example, if the city council received an amendment, or suggestion for amendment, to a Resource Management Act document and could not finish before deadline, the city council could continue their work as if that section were still in force—so, similar cases, not only to the city council but also to the Ministers. This would really improve the bill, and I believe these major amendments—some would say they were minor amendments, but I would say these are quite major amendments—would improve the bill. Thanks.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 1A agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): I move, That the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’ve made it very clear that I’m committed to this transition back to local leadership in regeneration in Greater Christchurch and, for that reason, I am so pleased to be standing here in this House today for this third reading of the bill. Early repeal of the section 71 power and earlier disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch are both key in returning regeneration matters to local leadership. They are important pou on our transition pathway to local leadership in my home, while the extension of a limited set of land powers to ensure there is a backstop, if required, for land title reconfiguration work in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor will help solidify Christchurch’s strong position from which to progress regeneration.

The bill illustrates the accumulation of a lot of hard work by central and local government politicians and officials. It has only been possible given the progress made on regeneration in recent years. I think, to many outsiders, these will sound like quite technical amendments. But for those who live in the areas of Greater Christchurch, they will see these as very important milestones. It is over a decade since the first of our earthquakes that we experienced in our region, and this is a very important occasion of returning back to a normality, where locals lead, where locals make the kinds of decisions that they do in other parts of the country.

I’d like to acknowledge, as we have this third reading of this important piece of legislation, the work of previous Ministers for Christchurch: the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the Hon Nicky Wagner. It was a long road after the 2011 earthquakes, but the dedication to the work and the vision shown has helped to get us to this point. I’d also like to acknowledge Christchurch’s and Canterbury’s local government leaders. The mayors and councillors of not only Christchurch City Council but of Environment Canterbury and Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts, and not forgetting the crucial role played by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in the progress made across all of Greater Christchurch.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge every member of this House who has represented the Greater Christchurch region over this decade. There’s actually not many left in the House who were there at the time of the first of those earthquakes. The Hon Ruth Dyson, of course, who will be retiring from this House at the end of the year, is the only one left on our side who was there at the time. Of course, on the other side of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and the Hon Amy Adams were all there at the time of those earthquakes, and it has been a long haul.

I want to make special mention of some colleagues who were there who have left. One who always springs to mind first to me is the Hon Jim Anderton and the work that he did representing people through that period in the early days after the earthquake. I, as the candidate for Wigram at the time, worked alongside Jim and saw the tireless work that he, like MPs right across Christchurch, did for the people that he represented. We’ve also had many other members who have left this House, one of whom has gone on to be the Mayor of Christchurch City, in the Hon Lianne Dalziel. But then, we also have those of us that have entered Parliament afterwards. I myself entered in that year, 2011. At the end of that year, Poto Williams came in, Matt Doocey came in, we’ve had a steady stream of new representatives of our region, and we’ve all played our part. And Duncan Webb has entered. I’d like to acknowledge all these people.

The early repeal of the provisions to be made through this bill is a clear sign of the success that all these people have made. The approval of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan and the signing of the global settlement agreement, both completed last year, signalled significant progress in reducing the Crown’s role in Christchurch. The approval of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan was also the final step in the biggest piece of work undertaken by Regenerate Christchurch. With this bill bringing about the early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch, I want to take the opportunity to also acknowledge the work it has undertaken in its four years of operation. Every project it undertook, reviewed, or contributed to has contributed to Christchurch being in its current position. So I’d like to thank all the board members and the staff who have contributed in all the ways they have to this work completed.

I note that there are still things to be done. Certainly, this bill does not signal that the Crown has finished its work, but it does show that local leadership is the best way forward on regeneration matters. I’d also like to note the organisations and members of the public who took the opportunity to make submissions on the bill and thank the chair and members of the Governance and Administration Committee for their consideration of this bill. The process is critical to ensuring the best outcomes are achieved through any piece of legislation. I appreciate that having to consider it within a truncated time frame and through the COVID-19 response restrictions complicated matters. However, getting this completed before the election was key to being able to give Christchurch that reassurance about the institutions and planning in place for regeneration in the longer term. None of this would have been possible without the committee completing its part of the process in good time and along multipartisan lines. So I thank all members of that committee. We are living in such uncertain times; being able to provide clarity of institutions and planning is highly valued. While the people in institutions of Greater Christchurch know resilience better than most, having lived through uncertainty, clarity is critical.

I know there is plenty more for us all, and for me, to get on with in Christchurch, but I do celebrate my home town. It is a wonderful city, and I think it has come a long way in the decade that we have been working towards this. I am proud and pleased to stand here and that this bill will provide the next steps towards the next steps in our journey and towards local leadership. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Any Act has its purpose, and this Act, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, had its purpose; it’s no exception. Passed in April 2016, the Act itself was trying to help resolve some long-term issues facing Christchurch after the earthquakes. The earthquakes happened a decade ago, they caused hugged damage to our Garden City, and after resolving some immediate issues, the long-term issues emerged—for example, in terms of land, some land was no longer deemed suitable for the purpose it had, and also it appeared that there was opportunity, basically, for development through amalgamation of titles or via amendments to originally zoned purposes. So, to do that, we would need some fast-track process, and the Act itself was supposed to do that and to achieve that particular purpose.

At the same time, of course, people would see some opportunities for urban renewal after the earthquakes. So, to do that, we would need some extraordinary measures to fast track the whole process. For that reason, it would need some alternative measures, or extraordinary measures, legislative or institutional arrangements, to make sure that this could happen. So the Act itself was trying to somehow help fast-track the process to rebuild Christchurch after the earthquakes. So the Act itself, the GCR Act, was trying to enable local and central government to deliver a focused and expedited regeneration process. Also it was a genuine cross-party effort in terms of designing the Act, and also it enjoyed cross-party support—what was unanimous support for this particular Act. So the Act itself did work well, to some extent, and, as I said earlier, there was the annual renewal process, and in 2017 it was noted that the Act worked reasonably well, it was fit for purpose, but gradually it became clear that the Act had started to become redundant, and that is why, in the 2019 review, it was noted that it was necessary to somehow simplify the coordination of agencies, and to do that we may need to somehow disestablish Regenerate Christchurch. So, basically, that is what we call—you know, the bill itself served some purposes but, as time goes on, of course, we would like to make some amendments.

Now, it was also noted that, while the Act itself makes some achievements, there was also some kind of reluctance in the local government, the Christchurch City Council, to work with central government in working on some plans. So, in the end, it is necessary for us to move ahead, to move on. Now, for this reason, I would thank all the officials for their work. I thank all the submitters and all committee members for their commitment. As the Hon Megan Woods mentioned, we did have committee meetings during the lockdown, and actually it was quite a long process, and also, in the end, we moved very fast to make sure that this bill could be reported to the House without going beyond the deadline. So also I would like to thank the committee staff for their efficient work, and also I thank other colleagues, like the Hon Gerry Brownlee, Nicky Wagner, and also Matt Doocey. They’re from Christchurch. They made their own contributions. So the committee all worked collaboratively. That’s why we say this bill itself really enjoys support from all parties, and also I would like to make sure that this bill itself will continue to be an example for cross-party work in various committees.

We made some amendments, as we mentioned earlier, that are largely to clarify the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor and also to add some transitional power to some sections. But, basically, we believed that these amendments have improved the bill itself. We do have some concerns regarding the bill, largely because implementation of the bill—we want to make sure that the taxpayers’ money is used wisely.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

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

WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 2020

(continued on Thursday, 25 June 2020)

Bills

Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): The National Party is supporting this bill, as we have supported Christchurch all the way since those early days, some years back now. The original legislation that was passed unanimously by this House provided an opportunity to set up a recovery process. When that recovery process was no longer required, the House, once again, unanimously decided to support a regeneration bill. That bill was constructed as a result of discussions across the Parliament, with representatives of every party and the Minister at the time—who happened to be me—putting together a bill that was designed to allow there to be a reasonable transition between the need to get things done quickly and to have a policy shop that was a little bigger than the Christchurch City Council or Waimak or Selwyn could provide themselves, and to create a framework that would allow a rapid approval for projects that would need to be completed to assist with that ongoing recovery of Christchurch.

The problem is that that original arrangement, I think, got somewhat captured—captured by an excessive degree of bureaucracy; captured by a degree of timid attitude toward using the provisions in the bill itself, and, I think, also a degree of uncertainty among the people who were inside Greater Christchurch, or the Greater Christchurch Regeneration organisation, and the Christchurch City Council particularly. So there was always going to be need to change. The bill itself had a provision for a transition over a period of years, but this bill that’s in front of us today brings that forward quite substantially, and I think it is the right thing to do. I’m pleased that some of the provisions that are in it will allow for the rapid approval, the rapid development and implementation, of things that would make a difference to the community in the Greater Christchurch area.

Where I am disappointed is that in the last three years, there has not been even one new project for Christchurch approved—not one. There are plenty that were under way that have been stalled or modified, but no one has come up in the last three years with anything new at all. So I’m hopeful that by getting this bill through today, the Christchurch City Council will grab up the extra tools that they’ve got available to them and get into some negotiation with the Government about what can be done to get more of the shovel-ready stuff in Christchurch under way.

In many parts of the country, there will be a reliance on a further Act of Parliament to allow some of those shovel-ready projects to go ahead. That won’t be the case in the Greater Christchurch area because of this bill. It will provide the opportunity for some of the fast-tracking that might be needed. What we don’t need is the inertia of the last three years, inertia that saw, for example, the Metro Sports Facility reduced in size, would anyone believe—reduced in size—only to end up costing more because of the time delays—quite extraordinary. Then there has been the long and torturous discussion about a stadium in Christchurch.

Those are just two of many things, I think, for me personally—massive disappointment that some of those people who had considerable responsibility put on their plate managed to completely, in my view, miss an opportunity to provide a water facility in the east of Christchurch. It would have been transformational for the east of Christchurch and provided New Zealand with a high-class facility that could have accommodated a large range of sports that are played or carried out on water, including triathlon or open-water swimming—any of those sort of individual-type sports, or, for that matter, the use of kayaks or rowing skiffs. That’s all gone because of the, sort of, general inertia and the desire to have every single little viewpoint accommodated somewhere. While I do, believe it or not, have a strong view that there should be community consultation about these things, sadly, in my view, in this case, the majority of people were ignored.

So I do hope that when the city council gets this law available or has it available to it, it’s able to recognise that in these straitened times, we don’t want to see massive rate rises for people to pay for some of this stuff, particularly when every shade of political engagement in this House knows that we are going to have to borrow for infrastructure to expand the domestic economy over the next few years. Christchurch needs to use this bill, use the provisions in it, to get a good deal out of all of that and to create employment in our city.

I want to, although it’s a little bit out of the bill, recognise that all MPs in Christchurch have worked constructively to get it through Parliament. That has been the case all the way through. But I want to particularly single out Dr Duncan Webb, who I think is the most honest politician in the Labour Party—no question about that. He’s come out and he’s said that he thinks the Christchurch City Council’s budget is one of austerity. So in an age where so many people have lost jobs, so many people have had income reduced, so many households no longer have income from casual work or part-time work, so many households are fearful that there may not be a job to start at next Monday, Dr Webb comes out and says the council should be putting the rates up by a considerable amount, loading huge extra expense on to households. Well, I congratulate him for being honest.

But I want to make it very clear that in supporting this bill, in wanting that infrastructure, we do not believe the Christchurch City Council should be running massive rate increases for their ratepayers—and I freely concede I’m one of them. But there are so many living on fixed incomes, so many living on incomes that are potentially compromised, and so many that are living in fear of not having an income that such a move advocated by Dr Webb should not be considered. But it is an honest position, and we know, eventually, that’s what the Labour Party will do. Should they be returned—and I doubt it—then taxes will go up, but it’s not something that we want to see happening at a local body level because of this bill.

I’ll say it again: the country is going to borrow considerably—$140 billion, according to the current Government, in order to boost or expand—and that’s the real question: the local economy. Is it expansion or is it just paying for what we’ve got? That is going to be some of the battleground in the months ahead towards 19 September.

But in the end, I say again, I hope that the Christchurch City Council recognises the goodwill of Parliament in giving them a tool that will be useful for the ongoing recovery of the city; that they recognise that there is going to be an opportunity to bid in much, much more strongly than they have so far for those shovel-ready projects, with the surety that the consenting process that will still be required for those projects can be facilitated through this piece of legislation.

I understand too that the period for which that provision is going to be in existence has been extended from the original bill as a result of select committee deliberations. So I want to add my thanks, as others, I’m sure have and will, to the Governance and Administration Committee for the work that’s been done, and once again make the commitment, as it’s always been there from the National Party, to Christchurch and to the support of this bill.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I stand to speak in favour of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, and in doing so, can I firstly acknowledge the work of the Minister, the Hon Megan Woods, in shepherding this legislation through the House; members of the Governance and Administration Committee; and members across the House, because it’s clear that this is a piece of legislation that enjoys wide support, which is born out of the widespread commitment across political lines to see the regeneration of Christchurch move forward.

What is significant and important about this bill is that it does move us into the next stage. The broader effect of this bill is to continue the transition back to Christchurch being able to make its own decisions about its regeneration and its future. It’s clear to everyone that in the wake of the devastating earthquakes there needed to be strong direction from central government, including strong direction in terms of the planning and infrastructure support. There were debates about whether the line should be drawn there, but that was clear as a matter of principle.

It’s clear that 10 years later, particularly under the investments that this Government has made, that there is good progress being made. It is time to let the people of Christchurch and their duly elected representatives really hold the mantle in terms of how Christchurch moves forward. I do just want to note some of the significant decisions that have been made by Regenerate Christchurch, which does, effectively, get wound down a little bit earlier under this bill as a result of the progress that’s been made under this Government in recent times. It’s approved the investment cases for the Canterbury multi-use arena, the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor red zone, and a big suite of roading projects. So there is good progress being made there.

This Government is going to keep making the investments, keep partnering with local people, and keep partnering with local government in Christchurch to make sure that that regeneration continues and that the great city of Christchurch gets the support that it needs. The people of Christchurch can be guaranteed that under this Government. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you hear, National supports this bill and it is the next and final step in the legislative response to the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. As we’ve heard from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who was the Minister at the time, the first Act was about recovery. That morphed into the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act, and this bill now amends that Act.

However, we would be remiss if we didn’t question the urgency of passing these amendments right now when there is a sunset clause in the original Act and parts of this new Act will be in force even longer than the original one. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act expires in June 2021. So there has been a lot of time and a lot of resource spent on these amendments merely to speed up parts of those provisions. I do find it ironic that the Governance and Administration Committee has added transitional provisions to the bill, provisions that will ensure that any planning proposals under section 71 of the Resource Management Act presently under way can continue under the existing planning mechanisms even beyond the 2021 deadline. I think it’s hardly efficient and, in fact, it’s a bit like two steps forward and one step back.

Just to recap, this bill has three main purposes. The first is that it repeals the fast-track resource management planning process that was provided under section 71 of the Resource Management Act. And that section 71 provision was important. It was a mechanism that was designed to support essential urban renewal and development after the Christchurch earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. It was designed to speed up regeneration. It was designed to ensure that that work could be done as quickly, as efficiently, and as cost-effectively as possible. It was all about the community having the tools to recover and to regenerate. Unfortunately, as we’ve heard discussed in this House, those tools were not fully appreciated and the development opportunities that could have come from those tools were not fully realised.

Secondly, the bill disestablishes Regenerate Christchurch. Now, Regenerate Christchurch is the agency that was created to manage regeneration plans for the city. In fact, although local stakeholders—and when I say local stakeholders, I mean the Christchurch City Council, the Waimakariri District Council, the Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and Ngāi Tahu—all had the power to develop and propose regeneration plans, very few were proposed.

So for the last four years, Regenerate Christchurch has worked with the community on a number of plans for various parts of the city, but the majority of their work has been in the redevelopment of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. Now, that space will eventually be a fabulous, people-friendly community asset in the centre of the city. But we are disappointed that some of the opportunities that that space provided have not been realised. And I say that it eventually will be a people-friendly space—I say “eventually” because it’s taken an enormous length of time, an enormous amount of resource and energy, and we still haven’t seen the progress that we want. There’s been lots of ideas, lots of promises, and we’re all keen to start using that space and enjoying that area. And I’m really hopeful that the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch doesn’t slow that progress down.

Finally, the bill provides for land powers for title reconfiguration and amalgamation of land parcels within that Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. That’s about combining Crown lands that were made available under previous Acts and adjacent city council land. And that power continues on to 2023, again, long after the original Act expires. The select committee looked at the bill and recommended that a geographical description of that reconfigured land should be clarified. They added a map and further detail to assist interpretation. Although the passing of this amendment bill still provides some special legislative powers, it returns most of the decision-making processes in greater Christchurch back to local government and back to pre-earthquake, business-as-usual governance.

Just before I finish, I’d like to echo the disappointment of the Hon Gerry Brownlee in terms of the lack of progress in the city over the last three years. Projects that were under way, such as the Metro Sports Facility, have stalled, and it is horrifying to see the increased costs of those projects because of the stalled timing and also that new projects, such as the multi-use arena or the stadium, depending what you want to call it, haven’t made any progress at all. So I’d like to say I support this bill, National supports this bill, and, after nearly 10 years of disasters and recovery management in our city and the ongoing redevelopment and regeneration in our community, this is a very welcome thing. We just need to do it faster. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I want to start by acknowledging the previous two speakers, Mr Brownlee and Nicky Wagner. I think, as I acknowledge those speakers on our side, or the members of Parliament from Christchurch, that it’s just about understanding—New Zealanders don’t seem to really quite understand just what the earthquakes did to Christchurch. It was brought home to me in my previous job. I had the police take of the earthquake actually happening, and the emotion and the reports coming in, and those different police officers and those reporting on the radio. I played that tape about a year later at a conference, and those people who were from Christchurch who heard that tape were emotionally and visibly upset.

It just brought it home to me, and I had been in Christchurch—I arrived in Christchurch within hours of the earthquake, the big earthquake in February, and spent three weeks in the red zone. Again, because I was so involved at that stage, it took me some time to realise—many people in Canterbury had never actually been inside the city for some time. And there was a whole series of milestones that they had to cross, and, again, I was probably there or thereabouts as those milestones were reached. So it gives me great pleasure to actually speak on this bill, because I see this as yet another milestone where those in Canterbury start to get control back of something that was a massive change and will continue for a whole generation to change the way in which Christchurch not only physically looks but in the way that life exists in Christchurch.

So it gives me great pleasure to be part of the final debate on this bill, and I believe that those people in Christchurch will look forward to knowing that this is another milestone, another step, on their road to recovery from an event which, as I said, will have an impact certainly on this generation and probably generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure, on behalf of the National Party, to rise in support of this bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill, but I do want to start by echoing my colleagues the Hon Gerry Brownlee and Hon Nicky Wagner. There was a lot more potential under this legislation that we are repealing today.

I want to reference an area in my electorate of Waimakariri—Silverstream. Now, that development didn’t exist before the earthquakes, but under the earthquake powers, the former National Government was able to free up town planning and bylaws to free up large tracts of land. And what we learnt with that experience is that when you free up land, it increases supply, which equals demand. Interestingly enough, with all the housing pressures in the last term, the region of Canterbury was one of the very few areas where we didn’t feel that housing pressure, and that was a result of that legislation.

It was disappointing that, in fact, the current Government couldn’t learn that formula. It wasn’t about the cost of the housing; it was about the ability to free up land. And now that development, Silverstream in my electorate, probably has 2,000 to 3,000 houses. But what’s even more important, in a time of one of the biggest economic recessions in our generation, is that development has now earmarked another $600 million for development—that’s much-needed housing, but also jobs and incomes. That’s what this legislation that we’re repealing now allowed for.

Something, I think, we don’t talk enough in this House about is the value of private capital in the earthquake rebuild. Yes, there was a big role for local government and central government, but equally, some of the biggest developments in greater Christchurch were led by private investors, because, of course, with the economic response needed in COVID-19, it is going to be largely driven out of the private sector. So we are disappointed on this side of the House—there was real potential to do more. There are huge tracts of land in the red zone in Christchurch City, where we want to see projects that will see this best new small city in the world forward.

So when we pass this ability back to our local leaders to make decisions, we want to know that they are going to make decisions that will drive the local economy forward, because the local economy, for us, is employing mums and dads in our communities. So by now passing the decision making back to our local leaders, what we don’t want to see is further delays. You could list the delays under this Government in Christchurch: the convention centre, the multi-use stadium, the Metro Sports Facility, the Christchurch Northern Corridor. So it’s incumbent on our local leaders to pick up the bill and run with it, not only Christchurch City Council, but Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, Environment Canterbury, and, of course, Ngāi Tahu as well—all major players that need to come together to drive our regeneration forward.

In a town, Kaiapoi in my electorate—in the first earthquakes; we’re coming up to a decade now since that first earthquake in September 2010—we have the only red zone outside of Christchurch. We lost over a thousand residential houses for a town that probably only has 5,000 or 6,000 houses. I’m proud of the way Parliament has stood behind the people of Kaiapoi, of Waimakariri, of Greater Christchurch and Canterbury during these challenging times.

This piece of legislation is no different to the other pieces of legislation that have come before this House over the last 10 years. It’s proudly being supported by Canterbury MPs across the House. I must say, whatever party our Canterbury MPs are from at the moment, I believe Canterbury has been well-served by their representation from all political parties in the recovery and the regeneration. But what we must ensure is that the progress of our regeneration continues. Christchurch and Greater Christchurch were facing some real challenges post-earthquake, and now that is compounded by this economic recession that we have not seen for a generation.

I too want to acknowledge Duncan Webb, because Duncan Webb has been very public with his views—he’s a socialist; he states that publicly. He believes in high taxes. In the end, he’s allowed his views and good on him for standing up and stating them. But, unfortunately, that sort of ideology will actually get in the way of the progress of Christchurch. So if we are going to devolve decision making back to local leadership, then I would question what role is it for an MP to go blindly into their decision-making processes and slam them for making decisions for their local ratepayers? Because, in the end, what local ratepayer wants to see increased rates, considering the amount of expenditure that they have covered over the last 10 years? So I would caution. Here we are repealing section 71, which will give decision making back to local leadership, but we’ve already seen Government MPs stray in and interfere in that, although I must say it was an interesting message with Duncan Webb at the start of his submission when he said he wasn’t there as a Government MP, but a Christchurch-centric MP.

Hon Nicky Wagner: He wore red.

MATT DOOCEY: Yes. To conclude: this is an important piece of legislation. I think the House wants to see local decision-making now. But if we are going to say that we are giving powers back, then maybe the Government needs to rethink their behaviour over the last week. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand to take a short call on what is a bill that’s supported across this House, and it’s always a pleasure when we all agree and it’s always special. I want to congratulate Minister Dr Megan Woods for shepherding this bill through this House with such great support, as well as the Governance and Administration Committee, who sound like they did work very hard on this. Also, I do want to acknowledge every member who has spoken and worked on this bill who is from the Canterbury region and is from Christchurch. As others have said, we all know that what Christchurch has been through over the last decade or so has been difficult and traumatising in a way that perhaps the rest of New Zealand—although we’ve felt that sense of empathy and aroha for that city, we can’t know what that community has been through. So it is special that we’re coming together in this House to support regeneration for Christchurch and for that community.

It’s also, I think, commendable and something to celebrate that democracy at that local level is being restored today and through this bill in terms of the decision making that will be made on what that regeneration might look like on the ground, because we know that that local democracy was suspended for some time and that, in turn, added to the trauma of that city as decisions were centralised and removed from that community level. So we do hope, I think, across this House, and others have said, that the council will take up its role and take up the new powers and the support that’s being given to hasten that recovery process.

It is always a welcome thing when we’re in consensus in this House, so I won’t go on any further, but only to say that it is a day to celebrate that regeneration will happen for Christchurch and that it will happen via local decision-making, which the Green Party has always supported. I commend the bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by all the speakers in this House, this is a bill which has got cross-party support. Christchurch is the second largest city of New Zealand. I had the opportunity to visit Christchurch after both earthquakes and saw the terrible damage that the earthquakes did to that city. Every member of this House was of the same view that we have to rebuild Christchurch, and that is why, from time to time, special powers were given by this Parliament so that as soon as possible we can bring the city back on to its feet. There was cross-party support, and I would like to acknowledge all the members of Parliament from Canterbury who stood and represented well their constituents in this Parliament.

I would like to particularly acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and the Hon Amy Adams, who were part of the team who finalised a lot of the programmes to build up Christchurch that have been seen from time to time. I have visited Christchurch on a number of occasions in recent times, and every time I go, I see that there is progress that has happened and people are living in a very safe atmosphere.

This bill repeals some of the provisions which were given, removing some of the extraordinary powers that were given which are not required any more. This bill will repeal those powers so that it can go back to the local council to make the decisions at the local level. It is very important that we involve the local council in making decisions, and it should not be the Parliament’s role to supervise some of the things which are to be done by the local council. So, with these words, I support this bill.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased and privileged to be able to speak on the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill in its third reading, and I think it’s a lovely way for me to say my farewells to the people of Christchurch, through this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the Hon Nicky Wagner, and the Hon Amy Adams for the work that they did in the original bill, the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, because it was a lot of work, and being in Christchurch East, we saw a number of families that were affected by the by the earthquake, and a lot of displaced families. I think we’re moving and turning the corner on the regeneration of Christchurch, and to be able to hand back to the council and to the people of Christchurch a project, a bill, that has actually helped to get the regeneration projects moving is great.

I, like my colleagues on this side of the House, have been quite disappointed with the, I suppose, inaction of the Government over the three years in terms of getting major projects sorted in Christchurch. There, to me, was really no excuse for that to not happen, actually, and to advance some of those big projects like the metro sports centre. The rugby grounds are always used each summer. That’s where, as Matt Doocey voiced yesterday in the committee stage, the Crusaders rule and will continue to rule in their patch—I won’t say any more than that. But anyway, I just want to say that the work that this side of the House has done to actually be able to prepare this and move it across into local hands has been amazing.

I just want to voice the regeneration project of the Ōtākaro/Avon, I suppose, strip, and I just want to voice a concern around regeneration of the Southshore area. You know, it’s a really lovely area for the people of the east and very picturesque. It has, you know, birds, very sacred birds, that come in there each year and nest there and then they fly out. People flock there to take photos, to row down that part and that stretch of the river out through the river mouth. I would’ve liked to have seen some of that Avon/Ōtākaro corridor go right through to the end of that spit and give it some emphasis, some kaha and some mana, down there.

So anyway, without any further ado, I think that having the regeneration office in Carnaby Lane during that whole period gave the people of the east some hope that there would be some extra projects, and so they were quite disappointed when nothing came of that. But anyway, as I said, I’m very privileged to speak on this bill alongside of my colleagues to support the bill and to wish everybody in the Christchurch-Canterbury area the very best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Racing Industry Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, I was going to ask the Minister in the chair a number of questions, but I see we’ve got a real gambler sitting there now so I won’t bother.

I just wanted to make a couple of points in the committee stage and particularly related to clauses 19 to 27. Those clauses relate to the ownership of racecourses in New Zealand. The original bill came into the House with some pretty, I guess, challenging commentary in those clauses, which effectively meant that the industry could all but confiscate property and transfer it around the country as they wished. Now, the comment I want to make is that I think we’ve got those clauses to a point now where those communities can protect those assets in those communities if they wish to do so.

I think that’s a critical point, because the original bill, effectively, meant that a track in Gore, for example, could be sold and the asset transferred to a track in Auckland. That certainly wasn’t a satisfactory arrangement, because communities of interest have built up—over hundreds of years almost, in some cases—because some of our racing clubs are 160-odd years old, and they’d built up to the point that those communities felt that they were theirs, even though they are, effectively, the property of the racing club, often.

So the intention of the changes to those clauses was to ensure that those assets could be retained in those communities for community use if that community had a desire to do so. The other point about that was that we also wanted to retain a tension in the bill which enabled the industry to rationalise itself in a manner that allowed it to progress and progress well.

I was going to ask the Minister in the chair a question about those tracks. I probably don’t need to do that. So I’ll get on to the second point I wanted to make, and that was about—[Interruption] I don’t want to embarrass the Minister.

Hon Shane Jones: Don’t tempt me.

IAN McKELVIE: I’m sure he’d be able to answer it, but I’m not going to ask him.

The second point I wanted to make, very quickly, was the appointment of the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) board, and there’s been a delay put in place to extend the RITA board’s term. I would have asked the Minister this as well, and I will ask him but he might not want to answer. I’d be very interested to know, if this bill gets through the House, how long it will take to reappoint or to appoint a new board to run the TAB, because I think that’s absolutely a critical appointment in this process. I think it needs to be dealt with urgently, because I think there’s an urgency to get people who understand the gaming industry on that board and get them there as quickly as we can. That’s no criticism of the current RITA board; it’s just, I think, a specific job and I think it urgently needs some attention.

So those were two points I wanted to make just related to the track because I want to be quite clear of our intentions around those tracks and how the Transport and Infrastructure Committee intended that they move forward. I think Parliament has probably accepted that and that’s the manner in which they should move forward. The other point was the reappointment of the RITA board. Thank you, Mr Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much. I would like to just highlight the issue around the process for selecting members to the board of the TAB. It’s covered in clause 46A, and what it says is that “The Minister must establish a selection panel for the purpose of making recommendations to the Minister [for] the appointment of members of the governing body” of the TAB. This is something that was substantially changed in the select committee stage, and so this is a new insertion into the bill that we are now, obviously, discussing here today.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just want to tell the member that that’s in Part 3, although the purpose of the bill is in Part 1. So you’re being really specific and you should bring that up in Part 3. I’ll hand back to you, and you can speak to this part of the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah. I’m sorry, but I’m just trying to be very specific because I’ve only got one point I really wanted to raise, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, that’s a point that should be made in Part 3, though—that’s what I’m saying.

ANDREW BAYLY: Can I—would you like me to continue or not?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, you could continue in terms of Part 1, which includes the purpose. So if you linked what you’re saying—

ANDREW BAYLY: OK, so just with the purpose, obviously, the purpose statement is around—the bill is about making sure that we’ve got the right process in place for the establishment of a credible board to the TAB and about making sure that we’ve got the right objectives for that organisation and the right level of accountability back to the industry itself through Racing New Zealand. I fully endorse those principles, and I think this bill actually helps to achieve that and get us to that point. So I’ll come back to the point I was just raising before in the next stage.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Racing

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 TAB New Zealand

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on Part 3—clauses 45 to 63 and Schedules 3 and 4.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. It’s nice that the Minister of Racing is in the chair, and I acknowledge him.

So the issue around new clause 46A, the selection panel which will be established by the Minister for the purpose of making recommendations to the Minister relating to the initial appointment of members to the governing body of the TAB—this is obviously something that was changed in the select committee stage and is obviously a new part of the bill. Having been part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, there was a strong desire that the selection panel that’s convened to do a recommendation of appointment of board members be one that is grounded with professional expertise, and with the ability and capability of identifying appropriate people and of selecting and making good recommendations around how a board such as the TAB should be established and should be run with the requisite skills. Could I just ask of the Minister, does he hold the view that that selection panel is most likely to be a professional human resources firm that is skilled in doing these types of board appointments, and if that’s his understanding of that appointment process?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): The reality is that we tried this, as close as we could, following the Messara report and verbal advice from Messara himself, and going back to Thaddeus McCarthy’s views all the way back to December 1970, which is a long, long time ago. We’ve tried to look at ensuring that we just didn’t get some appointment by way of being shoulder-tapped, whether there was excellency within that person’s skills or not. So we looked to try and have a committee criteria that would select a degree of, not just familiarity, but a degree of excellency of understanding and, dare I say it, business acumen to take the committee and the board forward in the future.

It was always very difficult because you’ve always got the problem where the Minister would be involved, and—without pointing any fingers—over a long period of time, it is very clear that racing Minister after racing Minister thought that this was a sort of boutique operation, which required them to turn up to the odd racecourse when they felt like it, and without owning regard to the health and the wealth and the substance of the industry. That’s why we’ve taken so long to begin to turn this industry back to a destiny which is far more profitable and far more substantial for this country’s GDP and, dare I say it, tens of thousands of jobs and export earnings that we have hitherto.

So the idea—and the member has rightly pointed to it—was to get a selection process to eliminate chaff and to get excellence, and I hope we get there.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Minister. It’s good to know that we’re going to get the right skills, and that involves making sure we’ve got the right selection panel to make sure they can identify the right skills.

Just related to that—and Mr McKelvie made a comment earlier—the process for appointment to the TAB is one of the crucial next steps. How long does the Minister think it’ll take before those appointment processes occur, and therefore the need for the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) board to be disestablished? I know the Minister has put up a Supplementary Order Paper to carry it forward during the transition stage, but does he have a view on how long it would take to put in place these new governance arrangements and, therefore, see the disestablishment of the RITA board?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I think, to answer the member’s question exactly, the reason why the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) board has had its time, or tenancy or term, extended is because of COVID-19 and the shutdown of the industry, and there was no desire on the part of any of the RITA board members to go on any longer—they thought they’d done their job. So I’m glad that the House has agreed that a further year is probably enough.

As to when those decisions are made, I can’t say, because it doesn’t lie within my provenance as a Minister. They’ve got to make them. We took the submitters’ view that we should listen to the codes, and the codes have put their best advice forward. So it’s over, now, for the industry to work that out, not me, because for me to do that would be the very level of oppression that all the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee thought wasn’t a good idea. Now, surely you’re not asking me to interpose myself now to make that decision, having reformed the operation for the first time for a long time.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 3 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Betting and TAB venues

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Offshore betting charges and other matters

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 4 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 5

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Racing Industry Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I move, That the Racing Industry Bill be now read a third time.

When this Government introduced this bill, we urged everybody in the industry to make submissions and said that if they did, we would seriously listen to them. As a result, we have an excellent piece of legislation, and for that reason we should like to thank the following people and the organisations who have been instrumental in the development and passage of this bill. First of all, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for its time and effort in taking the time to listen to submissions and the thoughtful way in which it approached the challenges it was presented with. Can I just say that it’s quite amazing to see a committee that actually decides that they’ll put partisan preferences and prejudices aside and make sure that they work with a whole industry right around the country to ensure that it worked. That’s the way that Parliament should operate. So, again, thank you to those members of the committee.

The 900-plus submitters that considered and then, subsequently, contributed to the strengthening of the bill have to be thanked as well. Those officials who provided advice throughout its development, we wish to thank them, and then RITA—the Racing Industry Transition Agency—for its work in guiding the development of this bill and for ensuring the industry is ready for such dramatic change.

We should also note our appreciation for the report written by Mr John Messara on the state of the New Zealand racing industry and, dare I say it, we could probably thank Thaddeus McCarthy. Justice Thaddeus McCarthy, way back in 1970, presented a report which got met with an ocean of parochialism, and thereafter not much happened to help the industry along. One could react with optimism or one could react with despair with respect to the parlous health of our racing industry that he identified. When John Messara made his report, it was actually sad to think that after all those decades of a similar report way back in 1970, nothing had been done. So one could react with despair or one could react with optimism that the Messara review established a pathway to save racing and allow it to reach its full potential, and the Government chose the latter. This bill is that catalyst for a better future for racing in New Zealand.

This bill empowers the industry to shape its own destiny. The TAB—that’s TAB NZ—will be the sole betting operator for racing and sports. The three racing codes will have greater responsibility for future growth of their respective areas. Racing New Zealand will be a forum for collaboration on behalf of the codes and other industry organisations, and an updated integrity system will be implemented by the new Racing Integrity Board—that’s the RIB—including responsibility for animal welfare but also, with respect to animal welfare, with the money going in every year to make racing and racing surfaces and the circumstances of racing safer and safer.

Then, the vexed issue of racetrack consolidation has a new process to follow, which gives due consideration for smaller venues and community interests. This bill enables the codes to reach agreements with offshore providers, allowing the use of their betting information, and, last, along with agreements with TAB NZ, the codes are now in a position to maximise the value of intellectual property.

The select committee work on this debate illustrates which members of Parliament, dare I say it, have a genuine knowledge of and interest in racing. Not all of us, but there’s some of us across the political divide who do have a genuine interest in and a love of racing, and share that, down through the millennium, with an association with horses. There’s something special about it, and I do admire those members who grasp it and those who just think when they go to the racecourse on a day when everybody is in their finery that somehow everything’s fantastic.

We understand what it’s like at 4 o’clock in the morning with a shovel, shovel-ready to make an industry work, and we also understand the tens of thousands of young men and women who just want a job working with horses. You can offer them everything else and every alternative, but that’s what they want—just to work with horses.

Those members who are generally from provincial areas understand and have a rapport with local clubs or have past business experience, and they all understand the contribution racing brings. Other members may not be, as I said, so personally invested in racing, but hold genuine views about small communities. Can we say the bill has never been designed to threaten their interests. It’s designed to protect what we have and to stop a spiral of decline, as well as creating options for a better future.

To all of those members who have been both recognised and acknowledged today and to those members who recognised and understood the submissions and who helped develop the bill, let us thank you for your contribution. You have lent us a hand to develop a seriously good piece of legislation.

This bill has arrived just in the nick of time. COVID-19 presented a seriously existential challenge to racing. Of course racing was in big trouble a long time before we ever saw COVID-19, and I must recognise, though, that the racing industry and RITA need to be acknowledged and thanked for their exemplary response, somewhat helped by the Government’s rescue package. Now, with the passage of this bill, the racing industry has every opportunity to be successful and grow this industry for the benefit of our regions, our communities, and our economy.

This was not going to be part of my speech, but I want to say this: we need to get people involved in racing to actually understand that it’s entertainment and it’s a business and that all the standards can be maintained, and when we do that in New Zealand—break the mould, so to speak—we’ll start to achieve the kind of performance you see, say, in Ireland, where the thoroughbred industry is worth about $3.2 billion. We’ve been sitting on $1.6 billion for a long, long time. We’ve got to turn that around and also, at the same time, turn our export futures around as well.

Having said that, it was so exciting to see the other day, in Seoul, a recent export package coming out of New Zealand of three horses that were in this one big race in Seoul in South Korea. One horse came first, the second horse—obviously—came second, and the fifth horse was also a New Zealand horse, and it’s also generated a terrible lot of excitement in South Korea about where these horses came from. What does it mean? Well, it means that if we’re going to come back from the COVID-19 devastation economically, we’ve got to take every export opportunity that we can, and the good news is that just overnight, we learnt how exciting that was, alongside, of course, the Lindsay family’s magnificent victory in the UK the other day. It’s so exciting to see a horse from this country do the unthinkable and beat the best in Britain.

Now, having said that, this bill has been a triumph for the way a select committee should work. It’s been a triumph for common sense and a triumph of reason. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s an old saying in racing, you know, that the only person making money at the races is the bloke following the horse with the shovel. The Minister just referred to that a minute ago and, actually, that’s probably true. But there’s also, when you think about life in my business that I came from to come to this place, the dog always followed the horse so the horse came first. That’s why this bill is framed in the manner it is, because the dog always does follow the horse in history, really.

But it’s a great pleasure to stand here and speak at the third reading of what’s, for the racing industry, the long awaited Racing Industry Bill, the second of the bills brought about to reform the governance, the overseas gaming operations, the ability of the TAB to operate in New Zealand, with the Racing Integrity Board and the three codes in New Zealand—thoroughbred, harness, and the greyhounds.

It comes through the House at a time when the industry is probably facing the greatest crisis in its history. Some of that crisis is brought about by the fact that for three months there was no work, no income, and many of the people in the industry had nothing to do. So an extraordinary time which put huge challenges on the industry and certainly put the industry, I guess, to the point of being basically in crisis. That crisis is not over. Hopefully, as a result of this bill, the industry will get itself back on its feet and get itself moving quickly, because there’s some urgency about the fact that it needs to get itself going and get going very quickly.

I want to commend the Minister for bringing these reforms to the House. As he said himself, there are a few of us that are passionate about racing. It’s a very, very old industry, of course, and I suppose a very, very old sport. In my part of the world the first races were held in the very early 1860s in New Zealand, and no doubt they’d been racing before that, but that was certainly the first records of racing in that part of the world.

I just want to talk about one or two things aside from the racing bill, because getting the racing industry back on its feet is very important. And one of the challenges that the industry’s got right now is around the sales process, because if we don’t have a strong horse breeding industry, we don’t have a racing industry, we don’t have an export industry, and it’s all hugely important to New Zealand.

It’s very important for our thoroughbred industry particularly—certainly, our harness horses as well—that we end up with a strong sales process. Those sales historically take place in January and February, and if we don’t get our borders secure and our country back operating by then, that industry is going to battle. And the reason they’re going to battle is because it’s all very well to go online, but for anyone who understands animals it’s very difficult to look at an animal online and think you’ve got what you’ve got coming. It would be a little bit like finding your partner online, I suppose. People do that these days, but I don’t know whether I would trust it. So that’s one of the challenges we’ve got.

The next challenge that the industry’s got to face, and face quickly, is the TAB and getting the TAB operating in a manner that we need to get it operating in New Zealand, and make it competitive internationally. The reason it’s got to be competitive internationally is because this is a huge international industry, the gaming industry. And for New Zealand to operate successfully, we have to attract overseas investment into New Zealand in the form of gaming, because we have a product that’s second to none in the world if we can get it right, and the world will support our product if we get it right, and that’s a critical thing about it.

To that extent the development of our tracks and the development of our racecourses and, as the Minister himself put it, the finery of racing are hugely important, because we’ve got to appeal to an international market. We’ve got to make this thing work. I think this bill and the work that’s been done in the last, I guess, six or eight months, certainly will help that, and the industry, I think, will take great heart from it. So it’s important that we get a TAB board appointed that works for the industry and works for New Zealand.

Racing New Zealand has been set up as part of this bill as well. Now, there’s been a Racing New Zealand, in effect, in the past. It was called, ironically, the RIB. And of course, we’ve now got an RIB in this bill, which is a different set-up altogether. This one is the Racing Integrity Board, which controls the integrity, the welfare of both gamblers and horses, and ensures that the industry has the integrity that can then be marketed internationally. So that’s very important.

But getting back to Racing New Zealand, it’s important that Racing New Zealand is established, set up, and operates from a unanimous and united perspective. And it’s very important, in my view, that those three industry bodies act collectively when they approach the Minister for anything they require and that they act collectively in their approach to the industry, because they’ll be much better off if they can do that, and I think they will have a much greater influence in the future of their industry if they can do that.

The other thing I want to talk about is the clauses in the bill, which, effectively, put some tension around the ownership of property that’s no longer being used for the racing industry. I think it’s important that we retain that tension—and the bill does retain that tension—so that there is a tension for racing clubs to act one way or another to resolve the property issues that have dogged the industry for, well, at least 50 years. I think the intention of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the intention of the bill is to put a tension on those clubs that are no longer racing to do something with their asset.

Now, our intention, I think, is that those assets are retained in the communities, and by that we mean a broader community—probably regionally—and that they’re retained for racing where possible or where practical. It’s not essential, however, and I think in some cases communities have a great interest in those assets and those assets should be used for the betterment of those communities. I think that’s the intention of the bill. If you look at the history of racing, almost all of the clubs and properties that have been rationalised have been centralised into other racing properties. So that’s practically happened in the industry, but it needs to continue to happen because of the great need to update, as I said earlier, those facilities and get those things working. So that was our intention around the clauses that dealt with racing clubs and their properties.

I don’t think I’ve got much more to add to that. I think it’s been a very good process. Yes, I do have a couple more things I want to add. I just wanted to acknowledge John Messara, because I think he came to New Zealand and did this work for nothing, and he did it out of the love of racing. Racing’s not a typical business. It’s a little different than the normal kind of business, and that’s one of the challenges it has, of course. So we’ve got to put that tension back into it as well. You’ll never turn it into a real business, but, none the less, gaming is a huge international business and it’s important that it’s done properly. So I think the work that John Messara did for us, whilst it created a few problems around some of the property issues for the select committee and for those of us in the industry, and certainly from a submission perspective—he did a great job for racing in New Zealand.

I think the other thing that really made a difference to this bill was the very large number of people in the industry who supported through submissions and, I guess, the encouragement of both the Minister and the select committee to get things right. I hate to say it, but this will probably be the best of the legislation that this Government passes. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): As peace and tranquillity breaks out across the House, I rise to commend this bill to the House. I sat in on a couple of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee hearings for this bill, and a couple of things were evident to me. The first was that this is an issue in an industry, the problems within which can no longer be kicked down the road; that it is absolutely imperative that appropriate changes are made to give this industry a sustainable future.

My electorate of Mt Roskill on the Auckland isthmus is actually surrounded by three different courses, between Ellerslie, Avondale, and Alexandra Park, covering both trots and gallops. Each of those courses is in a very different state, and each club is in a very different state. We heard from submitters not necessarily uniform views about what the future of the industry should be, but a clear recognition that something should change.

So I commend the Minister for taking up the mantle on this, for leading a good process which started off with the Messara report and substantial engagement across the industry. I also commend the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, because there were some really gnarly issues within this, none the least of which was the issue around property and around the fact that racing clubs, even if they’re not currently in a particularly viable financial state, are an important part of the social fabric of their communities. So the changes made by the select committee, which put a structured set of considerations around community needs and aspirations, I think will give some comfort to those organisations that we’ll have good processes that support the sustainability of the industry while also hearing about the needs of communities that have built up around clubs over many generations.

This is an excellent piece of legislation. It’s good that there’s widespread support, and it’s a strong indication that this is a Government which doesn’t kick issues down the road. We pick them up, we deal with them, and we work with our communities to make this a better place for everyone. I commend the bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to be talking on this racing bill for the final time. I don’t normally sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but I asked to go on it because I was lucky enough to be brought up in a family where my father and mother were extensively involved in racing. And for me, even as a child, I used to go to race meetings with my father and used to look after the horses, particularly the weanlings, and teach them how to lead and all those sort of things when they were still on their mothers. So to me, racing is a deeply personal issue, but the amazing thing watching over the many years is how the racing industry has gone into significant decline.

It’s a shame, because it is a wonderful industry. I was just down at Byerley Park in Karaka recently, in fact, the weekend before last. The people down there—and the Minister referred to this, the 4 a.m. start. The people down there, there were the trainers, the jockeys, the owners, there were all support people that look after the horses, the stable hands, but even the people just on the stopwatches, and you realise what a diverse industry it is. There’s one common thing that everyone has when they go to those early morning sessions, and I know my colleague Ian McKelvie and the Minister would have no doubt experienced this. There’s a camaraderie, particularly at dawn, watching horses going around the track. It’s deeply felt, and I know it’ll be no different with the greyhound industry as well and the trotting industry.

It is a great industry because the people who are associated with it are not necessarily all smart bankers and people who are highly skilled in many things; it actually draws wonderful people from a wide breadth of backgrounds, and I think that’s what makes up the racing industry. That’s why it is so important to New Zealand that we make sure that it retains and is sustainable going into the future, because, for some people, that is perhaps one of the only jobs that they are going to be able to do and do well. And I think recognising that and the people that are drawn to it is absolutely essential for New Zealand, and in a wonderful way, in terms of just trying to help many people in New Zealand.

So the bill that we’ve worked on, there were concerns with the bill when it was introduced. But I’m very grateful to the members of the committee and also to the Minister for working collegiately so we’ve now ended up with a bill which I think will hold the industry in a much better position going forward. Obviously, the changes around the governance arrangements of the TAB, being clear about its objectives, making sure it’s accountable to the industry, is one area. There is the formation of Racing New Zealand, which is an entity to represent the combined interests of greyhound racing, thoroughbred racing, and also trotting. Also, there is a lot more clarity around the judicial aspects of it, making sure the safety of horses is protected, and all those different aspects that have come together in this bill, I think, are excellent. Also, I think the vexed question around the intellectual property and the recognition that it is owned by all the codes and it doesn’t actually belong in one particularly entity, as it was originally proposed. I think that, as a package, provides a sort of a structural framework for the industry to be able to face a future with a certain amount of confidence.

I think we should acknowledge the 900 submitters. I think the most telling thing was the second submission we heard, actually, which was a combined submission from the thoroughbred industry, the trotting industry, the greyhound industry. The three chairs came together and made a very powerful submission to the select committee, and it was good to see that unified submission. And it was clear what the industry was asking for. It was clear, and I’m so glad the select committee responded to that challenge.

I think it’s also appropriate to acknowledge the Department of Internal Affairs officials. We’ve had long and difficult conversations, but we’ve hammered out a bill, which I think is a good bill, and I do want to acknowledge their input. It’s good to be challenged all the way through, and they certainly did that. The influence of John Messara, he was the last submitter—very powerful submission, too—and his intellect in terms of the racing industry, his insights, were very, very useful and actually helped clarify some of the aspects that we were still dealing with towards the end of this select committee process. I just hope that Mr Messara will have the opportunity to have a further involvement in the industry. I totally agree with my colleague Ian McKelvie, whilst we have got a structure now that is appropriate, the first thing that’s most important is to make sure we get the right people because if you get the right people, any structure will work. So that is why the selection process is absolutely fundamental, that we get the right mix of skills in the right places.

But the second big challenge for the industry going forward is the one around the future arrangements of the TAB and I just want to put it on record that if the TAB is to negotiate an arrangement with an international player who will be very skilled in betting and wagering, we need to make sure that we get the world’s best skills to help in that negotiation and not do what we normally do in New Zealand, which is rely on one or two people who think they know a lot. But we need wonderful skills around the negotiating table to make sure we get the best deal, because what we don’t want to be is back here in Parliament in seven years’ time with the industry back where it is right now, which is really in a difficult situation.

Finally, I just want to dedicate my interest to my father, Phil Bayly, who had a very extensive involvement in racing as some people have done. I’ve been to many racecourses, he had so much luck: second in the Melbourne Cup, two fifths in the Melbourne Cup, Auckland Cup, Sydney Cup. He won 14 Group One races. And I know if he was alive today, he’d be proud.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to actually take a call here in this third reading of the Racing Industry Bill, and I congratulate the Minister for Racing on this bill, for an industry that many people might be a bit surprised that I’m actually quite passionate about. I grew up in the heart of the harness racing area of Canterbury, in Templeton, and went to school with many of the industry leaders or names that people will know, and so spent many of my weekends around stables and going to courses. I really know the industry and have followed it inside out for a long time. I was fortunate enough to sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee once during that, and found that absolutely fascinating, and this bill is really timely for an industry that I’m delighted it will actually give some security to. So it has been said before me. I’m really delighted in this bill, and I commend this to the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think Mr McKelvie wants to sing “Camptown Races” by way of a waiata for the end of this bill.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Wellbeing objectives

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill is one of those bills that I gently describe as providing a warm glow of incompetence, because I’m not quite sure what this bill is seeking to achieve in terms of trying to drive better outcomes. Now, I know it talks about wellbeing, and I know it deals with the issue of the wellbeing framework, but, as I’ve said in this House before, when we have heard representations from experts on the notion of wellbeing and how it’s going to be framed up, and what are the key drivers behind it, and what are the specific drivers behind it that we should be trying to achieve as a result of a wellbeing Budget, that’s where the concept, whilst it sounds great in principle, starts to fall apart.

I know the Government’s very keen to introduce this as they have in other parts of the legislation, but the reality is, apart from sounding nice, the big issue that we have is that we do not understand exactly what it will achieve and what its purpose is and what the specific, key result areas are. Now, when we were in Government—and I talk about the National Party—we had a focus on goals, and they were very specific. Mr Steven Joyce was someone who was famous for pursuing those goals to make sure that they were measured and we were accountable for them. Unfortunately in this, this talks about an intent, but it doesn’t actually give the level of specifics that we need to see coming through so we can actually measure outcomes.

I think the most concerning thing has been the move by the current Government to actually remove a lot of targets, and measurable targets particularly—we’ve seen that in the health sector, but in a range of other areas where we’ve actually moved away from measuring. Yet we’ve got a bill here in front of us that talks about introducing the wellbeing notion into legislation. There, I think, we’ve got a disconnect in the discourse around intent and, actually, what should be happening on the ground.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too was kind of expecting that the Minister was going to take a call so I did hesitate there for a moment. My questions are more in terms of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, just asking some questions around specificity of why the objectives themselves haven’t been included and specified in any detail. We’ve seen in this term of Government the child poverty legislation, which clearly states targets in legislation, so it’s not that it couldn’t be achieved. I’m interested to know why that level of detail isn’t included in this part of the bill, what the considerations were, and why they’ve been excluded, and, if they’ve been excluded, how it is that the Government intends to be able to measure the very wellbeing they speak of.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. So, look, here we are and we’re sort of making comments around the wellbeing bill, and everybody sort of talks about the focus of wellbeing. Of course, the most essential indicator, if you follow the wellbeing economics, is a job and health. When we’ve seen, over the last week, the difficulties that we’re having on the border and the management of the border, which is causing great concern around the health of New Zealand but also delaying the opportunity for us to reopen our economy, and the impact that that’s having on jobs—and just overnight, we had statistics coming through from—

Michael Wood: Is this Part 1? Which clause is in Part 1 is this from?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m coming to that. So we just had, overnight, statistics from the IMF showing that New Zealand’s economy will be slowing at a faster rate than Australia—the equivalent of about $4,500 per household.

So we can have fine words in Part 1 of this bill about wellbeing—fine words—but what I think New Zealanders are seeing, and what I’d like to hear from the Minister, is how he can assure us that this won’t be another example of fine words and fine intentions and a description of an intention to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders, when the reality is just more of the same incompetence in delivery and a lack of attention to the reality of how you improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders, which is about providing jobs and opportunities. So what I’d like to hear from the Minister this morning is what’s different—what will be different after this bill comes through in terms of actually making a difference for the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you. I was just seeking some clarification. We are working under the new sessional order. The understanding of this side of the Chamber is we are taking shorter calls, asking questions for the Minister to answer. Are we now saying the Minister won’t answer questions?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. For the benefit of the committee and people watching, of course, we are under the new regime. We did finish the previous bill earlier than perhaps was expected, and the Minister responsible for this bill was then called urgently to the House. He’s now arrived. In defence of the previous Minister, he was just the duty Minister in the House, I think, and took the chair. So I will allow repetition of the questions from the members if they want to put those questions again to the Minister who has now joined us in the committee.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Speaking to that point of order, I was just wondering whether it would be helpful for the committee if the Government was better prepared and got their Ministers down on time.

Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order.

Michael Wood: Speaking to the point of order—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, no, no, no. Everybody sit down. Thank you. I don’t need any help. That’s not a point of order. I have explained the situation, and I am allowing repetition from the members of the Opposition if they wish to repeat their questions to the appropriate Minister.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: We need an effective Opposition.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s not helpful either.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): So let’s go into Groundhog Day. It is urgency, but we’re going backwards not forwards, which is reasonably interesting. In a bill that the Government professes to have as such a priority, given it speaks about wellbeing, I think it’s more of the same. It’s all about talk and not about delivery.

So in terms of going back to my questions, my questions were very clearly in terms of Part 1 of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. There is no dispute that any party in this House is here to serve the people of New Zealand and their wellbeing. What is at dispute is how simply inserting the words “and wellbeing” into the Public Finance Act actually does anything, because at the end of the day, if it’s the people we are serving in our communities, have they got a job? Have they got an income to put food on the table? Are their kids well enough to go to school? Have they been immunised? Are they safe in their own home? What’s happening in terms of crime? These are all very specific things. I’m curious as to why, when the Government talks about wellbeing, they’ve actually not put anything in detail in the legislation. They talk about objectives, but then actually don’t state anything—don’t state anything in terms of how it’s going to be measured, when very clearly the previous Government had better Public Service targets that were reported on publicly. And all of those elements that could be considered as elements of wellbeing were publicly reported on.

So in terms of this particular piece of legislation, it looks like another of these examples where wellbeing is a great word, but, actually, the New Zealand public wants of their Government delivery. They want results. They want to ensure that the fundamentals of wellbeing—i.e., being able to earn an income—are being taken care of. So my question, and I’m repeating it, given that the Minister—

Hon Grant Robertson: You can’t say that.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Not allowed to say that, but it’s actually on the record anyway, because the Chair of the committee has put that on the record. At the end of the day, why was an approach to the child poverty legislation not taken in here where the targets and the measures are specifically included in the bill?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Firstly, just to extend my apologies to the committee, I wasn’t aware that the National Party had decided not to take calls or play its role as the Opposition, and so I was engaged in a media phone call which I concluded as soon as I could, to make sure I could get down here and answer those questions.

For the benefit of the member Louise Upston, it’s worth just taking a step back and thinking about what the Public Finance Act is and the role that it plays in terms, particularly, of determining what happens at Budget time. So the specific reference in Part 1 is to the contents of the Fiscal Strategy Report. A number of the matters that the member raised as to what New Zealanders would be concerned about—you mentioned about safety in their own home. Arguably, at the moment, the Fiscal Strategy Report, which is the core element of the Budget for which the Government of the day is responsible, does not provide for talking about that very issue, and that’s the reason for expanding out what is required of a Government—to be able to reflect a wider set of objectives beyond a narrow fiscal set. And what the Government has said all along as we’ve gone through this process is that of course we’ll continue to report on those core fiscal objectives, and you will see that from Budget 2019 and Budget 2020, but that in addition to that, we want to broaden out the range of things a Government should be reporting back to the people of New Zealand to the very matters that the member is raising in her contribution.

Hon Louise Upston: Why did you scrap them all?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We didn’t scrap them all; we’re including them in the Budget. The Public Service targets—and if the member really wants to get into the Better Public Service targets, firstly, the previous Government didn’t put any reference to that within the Public Finance Act, so therefore there was no accountability in reality on that, which is why the previous Government kept changing those targets when they couldn’t meet them. So they’d change—

Hon Louise Upston: Making them harder because we achieved them.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, not making them harder; changing them because they couldn’t meet them. This provision in this bill which we’re debating here, as opposed to anything else, makes sure that every Government, no matter who that Government is, has a responsibility to report on wellbeing objectives.

To answer the second part of the member’s question as to why those objectives aren’t then prescriptively defined, it is because we want this to work for each Government. Now, we can, and in this Government we have said we have wellbeing objectives. They’re based on Treasury’s Living Standards Framework. We have accountabilities within that. We have a dashboard, and you can see how it works—we have chosen to use something called a wellbeing outlook to be able to measure ourselves against what is in that Living Standards Framework and the dashboard that is created of indicators for that. Another Government may choose to do that a different way, and what the Public Finance Act is now providing for is that you have to do it, but the way a Government chooses to do it has flexibility. So, to me, it’s the best of both worlds. We get a wider set of measures of success, but individual Governments get to decide how they want to do it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Madam Chair—excellent choice. I’ve been looking at this Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, and I looked for the definition of “wellbeing”, and I couldn’t find it very well. So I’ve looked up the dictionaries that I have on my phone—

Hon Louise Upston: Which one? Oxford or Collins?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Oxford. Collins is always the right choice, of course, but just occasionally I’ll move to the Oxford. In this particular case, “wellbeing” is “the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy”. And then I went through to another one here on how to define “wellbeing”, which is something called “Psychology Today”, which is probably appropriate, I would have thought. Wellbeing is “the experience of health, happiness, and prosperity. It includes having good mental health, high life satisfaction, a sense of meaning or purpose, and ability to manage stress. More generally, wellbeing is just feeling well.” OK; I’m just not quite sure if the Government should be the ones telling us whether or not we’re feeling wellbeing. Certainly, I think Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s not feeling it this morning after the way he was thrown under the bus by David Clark.

I think that most people expect their Governments just to produce the results that they’ve promised to produce. So if I’m looking at the state of wellbeing and how this is going to be measured, I’m fascinated by this—how this is going to be measured—because, as has been stated in the House this morning already, the previous National-led Government brought in Public Service targets and those were changed. They were made harder. We certainly saw that in the justice sector—they were made harder. They were made harder in education, because, after every one was achieved, when there was achievement, then we gave ourselves a bigger test to come up to. And that is because we were not worrying about our own personal wellbeing. We were trying to produce outcomes for New Zealanders. So to have a Government go to all this trouble and cloak itself in this loving sort of feeling that we’re all going to be happy together and be, I don’t know, just generally happy—I just don’t think it’s the role of Treasury. I think Treasury needs to be very focused on fiscal matters and let people choose whether or not they think that is actually being dealt with properly.

I don’t understand why a Fiscal Strategy Report must, under Part 1 of this bill, explain how wellbeing objectives have guided the Government’s Budget decisions. I would have thought those were pretty obvious if you’re looking at the Budget decisions. KiwiBuild would be one of those Budget decisions you might want to think about. Light rail might be one of those Budget decisions you might want to think about, and what people might want to say in terms of making New Zealanders feel more well—a general state of feeling well—is probably not. They’re probably feeling angry. It’s more likely going to increase the anger and the sense of frustration at the total incompetence that they’re seeing from some Ministers in this Government.

What is it with this Government that they want to tell us that they’re going to measure how well we feel, how happy, comfortable, or healthy we feel? Why do they need to measure that for us? Isn’t that for us to do? Isn’t this going to the state of a Government that inherited an excellent fiscal record from a National-led Government then having to try and change the parameters, change what they do, just to show that they’re doing something? Right now, New Zealanders would like to see some competence from the Government. They’d like to have a Minister of Health who actually is the Minister of Health. They’d like to have a Minister of Transport who can make transport decisions. This is what they’d like to see. This would achieve some good wellbeing for New Zealanders. They don’t need to have Treasury telling them how they’re going on that. They just want the Government to do its job properly, and when they see that, the people of New Zealand will be happier, healthier, and they’d have good wellbeing.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Little difficult to divine the question out of that. I have two or three comments for the member, Judith Collins. It’s quite clear to me that it would be difficult for the National Party to have an understanding of the concept of happiness. It’s not a happy caucus, not a happy place, so I can understand the member’s point in that regard.

Second point, though: I would refer the member to the speech given by her new leader just a couple of Sundays ago, which actually extolled the virtues of a wellbeing approach and suggested that, in fact to what the member’s just said—that Treasury should just be thinking about fiscal matters and the Fiscal Strategy Report should just be about fiscal matters—National, he explicitly stated, would include wellbeing objectives within their Budgets and that they would dictate how the Budgets are working. So, unfortunately, once again, mixed messages from the Opposition.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): My primary question for the Minister is: why should New Zealanders believe a Government will improve their wellbeing when this particular Government has made so many commitments and promises that it has abandoned already?

So to give you the two most dramatic examples—and I could give many more, but they promised 100,000 houses under KiwiBuild, and they’ve delivered—

Hon Members: 380.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —380. Fewer houses than this Government has stopped by bungling the Ihumātao development. So they’ve stopped more houses being built than they’ve actually caused to be built with the $2 billion KiwiBuild project. So, having demonstrated that, why should New Zealanders believe that this Government will deliver anything for all their fine words on wellbeing?

Second example: the slow tram down Dominion Road. People might say that that’s unkind, so we’ll call it the light rail. But we’re not clear whether it was supposed to be a rapid transit system to the airport, or a community building tram, or was it to go to the airport, or was it to go to Māngere, or where was it to start, or when was it to finish? The thing that really irritates people is that rather than actually getting on with the job of building the roads that they had inherited, they’ve spent 2½ years with all the officials and all the money being spent trying to come up with a scheme that has been abandoned—so big promise, no delivery. So why should New Zealanders trust this Government to achieve anything on wellbeing?

Another example is the promises made about getting loans to small businesses in trouble and sharing the risk between the Government and Treasury. They promised and announced $6.5 billion of loans will go to help those businesses, and I think we’re up to $83 million—another complete failure—

Andrew Bayly: 86.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Is it $86 million? Another example is that we were going to improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders by—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, OK. It’s all very well to mention the word “wellbeing”, but the member does really need to talk to Part 1.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I appreciate that point, Madam Chair, but the point is that this bill is pure fluff, and the fluff is the essence of the bill. So there is no substance to talk about, other than the fact that we’re talking about the word “wellbeing”. So that is the only substance of the bill. The entire point of the bill is fluff. So the primary point I’m asking is, given that, why should we believe that they’ll deliver even the fluff, because they’ve delivered nothing else. That’s the question that I have.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I wasn’t going to take a call, but I take exception to the intervention from the Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson, when he says the National caucus is not a happy place. I went to procedures this morning, and I’ve never seen so many happy faces, as we had such a selection of questions before the House at 2 p.m. today, all of which are examining the incompetence of this Government, the absolute shambles of this Government. So I take exception to Mr Robertson’s comment. The National caucus is a very happy place.

But I’ll tell you the office that’s not a happy place this morning—I feel sorry for these people who work in the office of the Hon Dr David Clark, because we know that man is a dead man walking, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually, could you make me happy and—

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I could definitely make you happy, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —speak to Part 1 of the bill.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I can make you happy by talking about wellbeing and the Government’s focus on wellbeing of these people who work in that office. I do want to refer particularly to the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Please.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —and the commentary on the bill from the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because I now feel sorry for the wellbeing of Treasury. I want to quote from the report: the provision in this legislation will “require … Treasury to produce a description of the state of wellbeing in New Zealand. It is intended that the Treasury would use its best professional judgement in determining the best indicators to describe wellbeing. The bill does not [describe] what those indicators are.” So I want the Minister to take a call and simply answer this question: how can he expect Treasury to do its job when this legislation doesn’t describe what wellbeing is? No one knows what wellbeing is. How can Treasury be happy to have this legislation thrust on it by the Minister when even the Minister can’t stand—

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The specific clause that the member is speaking to is in Part 2 of the bill.

Hon Member: Come on, be happy!

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Yeah, there’s an example of the wellbeing of the Labour caucus at the moment.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I have got a point of order, and I am going to direct the member to Part 1. We are on Part 1; the indicators are in Part 2.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: We’re talking about the public finance wellbeing and the wellbeing objectives, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, that’s fine—that’s Part 1.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: We’re talking about the wellbeing objectives, and in the commentary on the bill, we are saying we can’t as legislators define the objectives; we’re handing that to Treasury to do. So I’m asking the Minister to give the committee some assistance. Let him take a call and tell us what wellbeing means, because I don’t know; Treasury doesn’t know, as per the commentary; Michael Wood doesn’t have a clue what wellbeing objectives are, hence his pointless point of order. So let the Minister stand and tell us why we’re passing this legislation when no one knows what’s meant by wellbeing.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair, you did ask the member who’s just resumed his seat, David Carter, to make you happy, and once again his performance has failed to find satisfaction, certainly from me, in this particular instance. In many ways, it’s not a surprise. It’s a track record of failure to provide satisfaction from that member on the other side of the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That is going too far.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! What the member was asking for I’ve already answered in my very first contribution that I made in this debate; that is, the fact that the wellbeing objectives of this Government are clear. They were provided in the last Wellbeing Budget. What this does is put into the Public Finance Act exactly what we did in Budget 2019. There is a wellbeing outlook; the member can go and take a look at it. He can see the way in which we’ve used the Living Standards Framework objectives and taken them and put them inside the Budget. It will be up to future Governments to decide whether they want to take that approach or another approach in dealing with wellbeing.

From our perspective, using Treasury’s Living Standards Framework as the core actually does what Louise Upston asked: to make sure that New Zealanders can see the full range of things that matter to them in a Budget. I think Budget 2019 was welcomed in that regard and I repeat what I said in my last contribution: the leader of the National Party said just two Sundays ago that this is exactly what he wants to do as well.

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

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to say that I do declare that I am happy. I just want that on the record. They’re very unhappy over there, I can see that. Also, I think there’s a bit of personal responsibility about looking after your own wellbeing, but I do acknowledge it’s an important concept.

Clause 5 inserts new section 26KB, “Contents of fiscal strategy report: wellbeing objectives”, which states “The fiscal strategy report must—(a) explain how wellbeing objectives have guided the Government’s Budget decisions; and (b) if the wellbeing objectives that guided the Government’s Budget decisions differ from those indicated in the budget policy statement most recently prepared”. So the issue I’ve got—the Minister talked about this being a guiding framework, and it’s related back to this Living Standards Framework. So, actually, I went to the Wellbeing Budget, and this is the crux, right, because this is what you refer us to.

So the first thing here, in the Wellbeing Budget, the very first item: “A new frontline service for mental health with a $455m programme providing access for 325,000 people by 2023-24”. So the first thing I’ve got to say is that is a financial expression of a target about how much money we’re going to spend. In fact, if I go through all these targets, what it grandly promotes is how much money the Government is spending.

What it doesn’t talk about is what it’s trying to achieve. I know if I turn to my colleague here Mr Matt Doocey—who is a mental health expert, who I know has talked in this House about the so-called $1.9 billion that’s been allocated to mental health. We’ve spent $27 million so far as a Government—when I say “we”, I’m talking about the Government—a mere $27 million out of $1.9 billion. So here is a target that (a) is couched in financial terms—this is about how much money we can spend and “I can outspend you” as opposed to actually dealing with the issue of mental health and trying to give achieve a good outcome.

The next one I come to is around improving child wellbeing. So here we are. We’ve got the word “wellbeing” all through these, and what is the performance around improving the issue of child wellbeing in New Zealand? A critical issue—everyone in this House is absolutely focused on achieving it and making sure our kids are safer. If I talk to my esteemed colleague the Hon Louise Upston, and if she was to get up and start talking about the objectives—

Hon Louise Upston: Seven out of nine going backwards.

ANDREW BAYLY: Seven out of nine performance indicators—but, again, what’s put in here? Again, “Specialist services as part of a $320m package to address family and sexual violence”—there’s one, right—but, actually, nothing about the key result area that you want to achieve.

These are all about Government spending money and making us sound like we’re great stuff, but we are more interested—and when I say “we”, I’m saying that this side, the Opposition National Party—in actually measuring and achieving outcomes, with key result areas. That’s missing from the Wellbeing Budget. That, if anything, describes why we’re so implacably opposed to this this bill, because it doesn’t actually achieve anything. It is nice to have. It’s a wonderful concept, but as I’ve said before, it provides a warm glow of incompetence.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Madam Chair, I am, as you noted at the outset, here to answer questions, and I’m trying really hard and listening very hard to find questions within what the Opposition members are raising. I would invite him—and I know the member is reading off his phone—just to turn a couple more pages over and we come back to this concept of the wellbeing outlook. He’ll actually see in there a number of areas drawn from Treasury’s Living Standards Framework dashboard, a number of indicators of people’s wellbeing, be it through mental health or be it indeed through reducing rates of child and family violence. So that is the first problem with the member’s assertion.

The second issue—and the page he was looking at is a summary within the Budget documents of how the Government arrived at its priorities for Budget 2019, and that is when you look at the part that the member mentioned, new section 26KB. The priorities that we created in Budget 2019 were drawn from the evidence within Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, and then tested against the Government’s network of science advisers and external experts on what will make the biggest difference to dealing with the issues that have drawn out of that Living Standards Framework. That’s why mental health was identified as a priority. Now, we can have an argument about the amount of money that was spent, or anything—that’s fine—but in terms of what this clause is about, it’s about how we identified those priorities using this framework.

We did it because we wanted to do it. In the absence of this bill passing, future Governments will have no obligation to do that. So the issues that Mr Doocey thinks are important, or that Ms Upston thinks are important, won’t feature as a requirement of Governments to do it. So that’s what this bit of the bill is about. Getting into the specific elements of each individual area and each indicator will be up to each Government, but unless we have this change, there will be no obligation on Governments to do the very thing that members are asking us to do. That’s why new section 26KB is being put forward.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, the Minister said he was listening very carefully for questions to answer, and I gave him a very simple question, which he hasn’t answered yet, which is: why should New Zealanders believe a Government can deliver higher levels of wellbeing as a result of this piece of legislation when they haven’t delivered on all their other promises? And those promises were the KiwiBuild houses, the hundred thousand that haven’t turned up; there was light rail down Dominion Road, which is not rolling at all; and the promises made about the border, which haven’t been fulfilled.

Look, the greatest shock that I found, when sitting on the Epidemic Response Committee in the first week in lockdown, was when we had the Commissioner of Police, Mike Bush, come along on his final day. We’d heard all week the Prime Minister saying, very much focused on our wellbeing, that, rest assured, people coming in from overseas were going into self-isolation, but the police would visit them within three days—“You have no need to worry.” So we asked the Commissioner of Police, “Have you been and checked up on these people within three days?”, and the answer was “No, no we haven’t.”

So that gap between promise and delivery is something that Kiwis are getting more and more concerned about. So my simple question to the Minister is: why should Kiwis believe this Government will be focused effectively on wellbeing, when they have failed in so many other promises that they’ve made?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Again, I’m struggling to see the relevance to the bill and I’ve already answered the member’s question, which he’s obviously very focused on hearing! In answer to this question—in fact, I won’t bother.

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

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Chair—excellent decision. I’ve got a question for the Minister. Can he stand in the committee and just tell us which particular definition of wellbeing, in the objectives, we should be looking for or expecting when we see these wellbeings being measured?

Because I’ve been looking in the particular examples of what is wellbeing, and I’ve already listed a few of them, and I’ve found another set of definitions, which is it’s multidimensional, that it looks to physical wellbeing, which includes lifestyle choices that affect the functioning of our bodies—sounds dreadful, really, doesn’t it? What we eat and how active we are will affect our physical wellbeing. Emotional or psychological: that’s our ability to cope with everyday life. I guess that’s really resilience, isn’t it? Our social wellbeing: which is the extent to which we feel a sense of belonging and social inclusion; the way we communicate with others, our relationships and values; and beliefs, lifestyles and traditions. Then there’s the spiritual wellbeing. I shudder to think of Treasury worrying about the spiritual wellbeing of people, but, well, we never know. Then there’s the intellectual wellbeing, which is it’s important to gain and maintain intellectual wellness, to expand our knowledge and skills. And economic wellness: in short, it’s our ability to meet our basic needs and feel a sense of security.

So I’d like to know, are Treasury going to be reporting on all of those, or one of those, or a combination of those? Or is there something else that I’ve missed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This goes over ground that has been traversed many times, both in this House and in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which have had briefings from Treasury on exactly these matters over the last couple of years, as well as my own appearances at that committee, as well as the Budgets that we’ve produced. Our wellbeing objectives are based on the four capitals of Treasury’s Living Standards Framework. That means the financial capital, that is the prosperity and the financial health and wellbeing of New Zealanders; natural capital, the promotion and the importance of the environment in what we do; it is also on social capital, which is about the strength of our communities; and natural capital, which is about our individual wellbeing, in terms of our health, our skills, our sense of safety, and so on. All of these are outlined within Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, there is a dashboard of indicators for each of those areas of wellbeing. I note that the member mentions the question of spiritual wellbeing. That is not part of Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, but I do note that it might be of interest to the member that we’ve had representations from the Pacific community to say that spiritual wellbeing should be included within it—

Hon Judith Collins: And is it going to be?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it’s not. But this is to highlight to the member that I actually agree with her, and she can go back and check in a number of the speeches that I’ve given, that actually it is not the Government’s role or responsibility to determine an individual person’s wellbeing. It is, however, in the opinion of this House, and, it would appear, the leader, an important thing for the Government to set objectives around wellbeing and support our communities’ overall wellbeing. Mr Muller, obviously accepts that; we do; it seems other members of the National Party don’t.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (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 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Wellbeing report

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Part 2 of the bill deals with the responsibilities of Treasury with regard to wellbeing reporting. Part 1 was about the Government of the day dealing with the fiscal strategy report, that the Government of the day is responsible for. Part 2 deals with Treasury producing an independent analysis of wellbeing in New Zealand.

There was some debate as we prepared this legislation about how regularly that kind of report should be delivered. Obviously, the Government delivers a Budget each year. So, in Part 1, the fiscal strategy report would reflect wellbeing objectives each year. In order for Treasury being able to produce that report and to do it in such a way with a decent amount of data available, being able to draw on data that doesn’t necessarily update annually but updates over a longer period of time, we determined that four years was the appropriate length of time.

The other reason for that is that there are two other elements within the Public Finance Act, within the public finance reporting that is mentioned in the Public Finance Act; that is, the statement on the long-term fiscal position and the Government’s investment statement. They are also four-yearly reports; so we thought it was best to line the three of those reports up on the same time frame in order to be able to get some consistency within reporting that the Government does under the Public Finance Act.

It is important for the integrity of this process that Treasury is able to do this work independently of the Government of the day, just as they do on all the other aspects of their reporting within the Public Finance Act framework. So this is the partner to the activities of the Government of the day, and Treasury will be producing these reports in line with their other fiscal reporting.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is, of course, the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill, and we’re now on Part 2, which is the wellbeing report. We’ve traversed it at length, although I had wanted to question further this whole definition of wellbeing. If Treasury is then reporting on wellbeing, actually, every New Zealander should be able to understand what that means. I think, if you walked down Lambton Quay right now and asked 10 people what wellbeing is, you’d get 10 different answers. It’d be really interesting, actually, if you walk into the Treasury building, because you’d probably get 10 different answers as well.

So the questions I’ve got are around the work required to produce the wellbeing report, and, actually, what will Treasury stop doing, because, again, if you ask most people what Treasury’s role is, it is to provide economic advice to the Government of the day. As we saw, actually, in the Epidemic Response Committee, Treasury appeared on a number of occasions. One of the important things they did was to provide advice and forecasts, actually, on unemployment numbers. One of the key, probably indisputable, facts in terms of a component of wellbeing is has someone got a job, have they got the ability to earn an income and put food on the table?

So my questions are around Treasury’s role. How many people are employed in Treasury at the moment? How many people will be focused on the wellbeing report? What work that Treasury does now won’t be being done as a result of the change that the Government wants to put into this? As I said, Treasury’s role is really important in terms of independent, sound advice to the Government of the day. Actually, that’s what taxpayers want: taxpayers want to know that there is sound economic advice that’s being provided to the Government of the day, and that’s Treasury’s job.

So, with the change that this Government is proposing in adding in wellbeing to the Public Finance Act, it obviously provides quite a different focus for Treasury and where it should head. So my questions are around Treasury staff numbers—how many will be responsible for this wellbeing report? What are they not going to be doing? How much does this cost for the wellbeing report? It would be interesting to then know what decisions the Government made in terms of Treasury splitting its focus to focus on this wellbeing report instead of probably actually providing greater advice to the Government of the day, and actually improving their accuracy.

So, for example, the COVID-19 unemployment figures—the estimates have changed wildly in terms of unemployment numbers, but I think they’ve settled at about 9.8 percent as a peak. But the bit that is a bit concerning then is that it returns within a two- or three-year period to when, after the global financial crisis, it was 10 years. So we do want to know and we do want to be reassured that Treasury is focused on analysing Government spending, is focused on providing sound advice to the Government of the day into the effectiveness of Government spending, and obviously driving higher productivity in the public sector. So I’ve asked a series of questions and I’ll come back for some more.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): So the factual questions that the previous member, Louise Upston, asked are around 600 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff that were employed by Treasury. Of those who are specifically dedicated to working on wellbeing and the Living Standards Framework, there are three full-time equivalents in the Living Standards Framework implementation team and four to five FTEs in the office of the chief economic adviser working on these matters. Three work on the technical side of the development and maintenance of the Living Standards Framework and the Living Standards Framework dashboard, and around about 1.5 FTEs are currently dedicated to the broader legislative work around the Public Finance Act. That includes the work on wellbeing. So it’s a small but perfectly formed team within Treasury who are working on this.

I would note that—and I did say this, I believe, in my first reading speech on this bill—of course, the Living Standards Framework, which sits at the core of how Treasury is working on wellbeing, was, of course, actually worked on under the previous National Government. The big difference between what happened then and what’s happened now is that this Government has decided that this piece of work is genuinely world leading and provides us with a much richer picture of our overall success as a country in the more narrow fiscal measures that are, of course, still very much a part of the Budget. So we took on that work that Bill English began and carried it on and extended it into the work that you see in the bill that we see in front of us today, with regard to the Public Finance Act.

On the member’s wider set of questions, I do think she is at risk of contradicting her earlier contributions on Part 1 about what really matters to New Zealanders. It is absolutely clear that New Zealanders have an inbuilt sense of understanding of the fact that, yes, it’s important that we manage our finances carefully, that we save for the rainy day, as we’ve experienced in terms of COVID-19, but the very thing the member asked for—the impact of our spending—has to be seen in the context of those four capitals, on how we’re improving the experience of people’s individual lives, how we’re improving the strength and connection of our communities, and how we’re improving and supporting our environmental outcomes. All of those things matter, and now we have a framework that is world leading—regarded well all over the planet and being picked up by countries all over the world because it’s capturing a much wider sense of our success as a country.

So, actually, by giving, under Part 2, Treasury the responsibility of producing that report, it means that there is an independent source from the Government of the day, of measuring that success against that set of objectives. So I understand that the member feels a need in this particular environment we’re in now to raise questions that, you know, I think have already been answered, but I just reinforce the point that this is developing work that had already started. I think New Zealanders should be extremely proud of the fact that we are leading the world in genuinely measuring the value of our spending. We don’t just value our people as numbers on a spreadsheet; we value our people in terms of the outcomes, as a Government, that we are helping those people in their communities to achieve. Every four years, Treasury is going to now have the responsibility under Part 2 of this bill to report back to New Zealanders on that, and I think it’s a good thing.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s a great opportunity just to put on record, you know, the acknowledgment for the Rt Hon Bill English for instigating the framework with Treasury. I think it’s important at this point for the National Opposition to get a few things on record for those that are listening into the debate. This is not a debate about whether or not we think the Government should be supporting people’s wellbeing; that’s a no-brainer. Governments left, right, and every other colour had been doing that for generations.

I made that point in my first contribution, which, unfortunately, I think the Minister—so, you know, my point was actually that this is not a debate about wellbeing; this is a debate about whether wellbeing should be sitting in the Public Finance Act, both in terms of the objectives in Part 1 and, in this instance, the report and whether or not it is a core function for Treasury to be doing that and producing a wellbeing report, because actually there is a social wellbeing agency. It was previously the Social Investment Agency. So why is it that we have two different departments, two different agencies potentially doing the same work?

So this bill is all about the Public Finance Act and whether or not it should be changed to include the wellbeing objectives and the Treasury reporting back on progress. That’s this particular debate. The debate isn’t whether or not we believe as a party that there should be outcomes and there should be measurable progress towards the outcome, because that was the Better Public Services targets. That was not just a function for a few people sitting in Treasury writing a report; that was a whole-of-Government approach. It was a whole-of-Government approach, with Ministers taking accountability for the results being produced and the outcomes that my colleague Andrew Bayly was speaking about before, the very people collectively our Parliament serves—whether it was reducing the number of victims of crime, whether it was getting people into work, whether it was reducing family violence, whether it was increasing the rate of immunisation to keep children in greater health, whether it was increasing educational achievement. So this is a debate about the mechanism.

Actually, in terms of wellbeing, the architect of this, the Rt Hon Bill English, and the architect of social investment, was all about the previous Government’s focus on producing outcomes. So this is a debate about changing the Public Finance Act and saying actually, you know, most people would recognise Treasury’s role in providing sound economic advice. So my questions now are: why is it that this work is being shifted to Treasury when we have a social wellbeing agency that actually has a role already and actually, if anything, their responsibilities have been stripped back? So when you have an agency that is dedicated to wellbeing, why is it that you now have another agency that is writing the report?

It’s interesting, because if you look at social development, for example, I think there are 111 people in their insights team. So they’re measuring things all of the time. You now have—well, it was the Social Investment Agency; it’s now the Social Wellbeing Agency. So why is it that this change in legislation actually then means in this particular part that the wellbeing report sits with Treasury to measure the state of wellbeing in New Zealand? I’ve asked a series of questions there that I’d like the Minister to answer.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Effectively, the answers to the member’s questions come down to one very fundamental principle: how serious a Government is about holding itself accountable for the overall effects and outcomes of the programme of its work. At Budget time each year, the Minister of Finance, since 1989, has stood up and been held accountable for the fiscal outcomes of the Government. Our view is that that’s not good enough; that, actually, a Government should be responsible across the board for outcomes, not just in a narrow set of fiscal indicators. So it’s actually about how seriously our Government thinks it should be held accountable and how serious it is about the overall wellbeing objectives and outcomes for New Zealanders. We believe, on this side of the House, that we should be taken seriously and that we should have accountability for those things, and the Public Finance Act and Treasury’s role in both monitoring that Act but also in monitoring the overall outcomes means that they are well placed to produce this report.

In terms of the second set of questions, which are really around the role of the Social Wellbeing Board that used to be the Social Investment Agency, it does bring us back to the difference between the last Government’s approach to these issues and this Government’s approach. Yes, Treasury developed the Living Standards Framework under Sir Bill English’s tenure as finance Minister. He, however, didn’t see that it had a role clearly within the Budget process. The National Party have changed their position on that, because Todd Muller said two Sundays ago that he does see it having a role in the Budget process, but Bill English didn’t. Bill English allowed the work to continue and supported it, I’m sure, at a conceptual level, but he didn’t see it as being closely involved. The member is correct in saying that Mr English was very focused on the social investment approach. Personally, and from this Government’s point of view, that was a very narrow way of looking at wellbeing, because what it did was take an actuarial approach: put people, really, as numbers on a spreadsheet and move them around. This approach is much broader; this approach is clearly about making sure we look at a range of wellbeing objectives, not just fiscal ones, and I’ve been through the four capitals of the framework several times in my interventions.

So, from the member’s perspective, she’s asking, “Well, why Treasury? Why the Public Finance Act?” Because Treasury is responsible for the overall value for money of our spending, and that includes more than just dollars and cents; it includes the outcomes that we want for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I have three particular questions for the Minister. In his first contribution, he acknowledged that this approach by this Government was world leading and that “many other countries are now following this approach.” I wondered whether the Minister could give us a list of the many other countries that are following this approach.

The second point I want to ask questions to is the requirement for the Minister to, effectively, report and present to the House at least every four years.

Hon Grant Robertson: It’s not; it’s Treasury.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It’s for Treasury to report to the House at least every four years, and for the Minister then to present that report to the House of Representatives. My question is: why up to four years? Because it seems to me that’s completely inconsistent with the current regime we’ve established around the Public Finance Act and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, where annually we get very exact positioning of the financial structure of this country. What does surprise me is that we had all the fanfare in Budget 2019 around the Wellbeing Budget and leading the world, and then, effectively, no mention of it at all in Budget 2020. So I think comments on that from the Minister would be very helpful.

The third thing I want to know is how much resource and how much progress Treasury is making in developing its wellbeing report. And I think, if I heard the Minister right, there are 600 employees in total and three full-time equivalents working on this. I want him to comment on the Newshub story of April 2019, as to the accuracy of the story, that, apparently, Treasury officials were playing with wellbeing cards. I know this sounds incredible, and it might not be true, but it was certainly in the media and I didn’t see a comment from the Minister then denying it. But the Treasury officials were sitting down apparently playing with cards they’d devised—such cards as the “sun feeling card” and the “moon feeling card”, as they were busy trying to develop the criteria—

Hon Tim Macindoe: What was that about?

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, I think Treasury, to be fair, have been handed this bomb by the Minister when he now, for an hour or so, hasn’t been able to explain what wellbeing objectives mean, and now he’s handing the responsibility to Treasury and saying, “Well, it’s your job, Treasury. You’ve got four years to do it, but get on with the job.” So their first attempt, in April 2019, was, apparently, to develop a set of wellbeing cards. So I’d be very interested if the Minister could sort of tell us the progress that Treasury’s making. We’re struggling on this side of the House to understand the progress that Treasury’s making. They’ve not been able to do it. They’ve got up to four years to do it; I accept that. Now, they might have made tremendous progress; they could have been able to present it in association with Budget 2020—well, clearly they weren’t able to do that.

The final point that worries me greatly about this is that Treasury is respected for its independence and its expertise around financial and economic matters and the advice that it then gives to Government. It appears to me that it will almost be impossible, as they develop their report and their objectives, for Treasury not to be compromised and, effectively, be dragged into commenting on Government policy. I think, if that is where this heads, Minister, that will be a sad indictment of a Government then interfering with the independent role of Treasury. So a number of questions there; I’d be grateful for answers to all of them.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for his questions, some of which have already been asked; so I will repeat the answers for the benefit of the member, but they have already been asked. The ones that haven’t were around other countries, and it was interesting, actually—was it yesterday morning or the morning before—that I had a conference call with the Canadian Minister of—a fantastic name for her portfolio, I might say—Middle Class Prosperity. She is also an associate finance Minister in Canada and she specifically initiated the call to be able to learn about the experience that New Zealand had had when it came to our Wellbeing Budget. It was a very useful and interesting conversation. I find I learn a lot from those conversations as well, as different countries are embracing this approach of not just valuing the narrow numbers on a spreadsheet—

Rt Hon David Carter: Just one.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I was giving you the latest example, Mr Carter, and others include France, Italy, Spain, Wales, Scotland, the United Arab Emirates, and Costa Rica. These are all countries—and the member may be interested; in fact, I’ll invite him, given he’s so interested, to have a look at the network of countries that work on these issues. I know that when I delivered a speech about this at the London School of Economics in January last year, this is now a field of very serious endeavour within the study of economics and wellbeing economics, and so this is genuinely a topic. And I know the member was looking for ways of coming up with questions, but that is the answer to his question.

The matter of why it’s four years was answered in an earlier question. It’s to align it with the investment strategy and the long-term statement of fiscal position so that those are four-yearly reports, and so I have already answered that on the minute. On the member’s final matter, what I can say to him is that the two events, the wellbeing outlook and framework and the Treasury’s particular health and safety and operational matter, are utterly unrelated things. So the work on the wellbeing approach is not related at all to what was an internal operational matter around how—

Rt Hon David Carter: So they’re still playing cards.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —to support New Zealanders well. You’d have to ask the Secretary to the Treasury that, but not related in any way whatsoever, Mr Carter, to this bill.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity. I wanted to talk about two things. I don’t think the Minister’s answered David Carter’s question around the four years, and I just want to understand why four years, not just because other reports are done four-yearly, but I want to know why four years. David Carter sort of suggested annually—you know, quite short—or at least asked the questions. My question is why is it not five-yearly or six-yearly, because these “Titanics”, these targets, take a long time to turn to make a difference, and to me, at least, four years seems to be quite a short period of time. I understand that it’s good that it’s not a three-yearly political cycle—I get all that. But I want to know his thinking around why four years, and I don’t want to hear the answer “Well, just because there are other reports that are reported four-yearly.”

The second question I have is around the definition of “independent”, relating to Treasury’s report. David Carter also sort of hinted and got to part of my question, but, again, it wasn’t addressed by the Minister. The Minister talked about the Labour Government’s framework and targets being able to be slotted into this bill, and another National Government will be able to create their own framework or targets and it would neatly—but have to turn their mind to these certain things. So I get all that. So my question is: when Treasury is doing their report, when you talk about, Minister, “independent”, does Treasury consider the Government’s framework and targets and emphasis or not? Is Treasury purely independent and do they have absolutely no consideration of the Government’s emphasis, whether it’s a National Government or a Labour Government’s emphasis, and look to conduct their own independent surveys of what New Zealanders wish to focus on and want to define as “wellbeing”, and go out and survey globally what Australians, the UK, Canadians consider to be wellbeing?

Because it’s quite difficult—we’ve talked about the definition of “wellbeing” and we’re not going to go there again, but I want to understand what “independent” means as far as Treasury’s role in producing this report. Is Treasury going to be dragged in, as David Carter suggested, to comment on the political nature of the Government’s frameworks, the Government’s emphasis, you know, the pillar that that particular Government wants to focus on, or is Treasury absolutely not considering the Government of the day’s framework that is inserted into this bill?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I said in my answer to the Rt Hon David Carter, this is a matter I traversed in an earlier question, but I will repeat my material for the member Alastair Scott’s benefit. So not only is it to line up with the other long-term reporting obligations that are in the Public Finance Act which are four-yearly; it is also because of the way that data does arrive. We’re obliged to do a Budget every year, but, actually, a lot of the data that we rely on as a country in terms of wellbeing does not come annually. The General Social Survey is the core, actually, of a lot of the data that is part of Treasury’s Living Standards Framework. That is not produced in a way that can be updated every single year; so a four-yearly framework provides the ability to have the richest set of data. Four years is the judgment of where we can get that data and it will be meaningful and that it lines up with the other elements of Treasury’s reporting framework.

In terms of the member’s second question around their independence and what they will measure, I just refer him to section 26NA(4), inserted by clause 7, which includes with the amendment here that “The statement of responsibility must state that the investment statement has been prepared by Treasury using its best professional judgements.” So this is about Treasury’s judgment, and in actual fact, it’s in many ways a recognition of the fact that the annual wellbeing objectives and reporting will reflect the Government of the day’s view, the four-yearly one will actually reflect Treasury’s view, and to be very specific on the member’s question, they may well differ from what the Government of the day has said its wellbeing objectives are.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Part 2 stand part. All those in favour say Aye—

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has just moved that the question be now put. We need to vote on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, that’s right, and I did not accept that motion. No other member stood to take a call. If they had, they would have got the call. Therefore, I must put the question. I’ll repeat the question.

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.

Clause 1

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.

Clause 2

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.

Clause 3

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 Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

What a great day for New Zealand, that today we include in our public finance framework a world-leading approach to understanding, supporting, and being held accountable for the overall wellbeing of New Zealanders. While, on the other side of the House, we have a party stuck in the last century, unable to see what really matters to New Zealanders, on this side of the House we are passing progressive legislation that will mean that, from now on, Ministers of Finance will be obliged to report on the overall wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Now, we’ve done that as a Government in Budget 2019, and we did that because we believed it was the right thing to do. The framework that we have based that on is a robust analytical framework. Treasury’s Living Standards Framework is drawn from the OECD’s quality of life index. It covers four capitals. When we go out and we talk to New Zealanders about this, it’s better not to use the language of economists—with all due respect to economists. But that robust framework is there. So that is financial capital, that is natural capital, that is human capital, and that is social capital. If you want to translate that into people’s everyday lives, that is about the money, the environment, the people, and the community. It’s about the health of all of those. It’s about how they’re tracking in terms of your own health status, your educational status, how safe you feel. It’s about our environment—how clean our water is, how clean our air is. It’s about making sure our communities are connected to one another. It’s about trust in Government. It’s about making sure that we are a prosperous country that manages its finances prudently. It is all of the things that make up our success. Of course our Budget should report on that. The fact that it hasn’t is a gap, and the fact that it hasn’t and we are changing that today is something to celebrate.

But, in addition to that, what this bill does is uphold the principles of the Public Finance Act as passed through this House in 1989. That is a level of rigour and independence that you don’t see in many other countries. So the Public Finance Act, and this has been a cross-party view since the late 1980s, incorporated the Fiscal Responsibility Act. What that means is that we report more often as a country about the state of our finances, about the long-term plans for our finances and our fiscal position than almost any other country in the world. Here today, in Part 2 of the bill that we’re passing, we’re putting the responsibility on Treasury once every four years to take a broad sweep of wellbeing. So every year the Government of the day does it against its objectives—we’ve done that; all Governments will need to do that based on what they believe the wellbeing objectives should be. But then, every four years, Treasury takes a step back and it says, “How are we going as a country?” They may well measure differently than the Government of the day. And that’s important because that’s their job: to take that step back and say, “How is New Zealand doing against a wellbeing outlook?” This is an important piece of legislation in my view, because it takes New Zealand a step forward. Yes, we have to look after the dollars and the cents; it is essential. But we also have to value the other things that New Zealanders value.

I’ve told this story often. In the 2017 election campaign, when I was out there talking about this concept, I was in a room of lawyers in Auckland and we were discussing it and they had a look on their face similar to Andrew Bayly’s right now. So I stopped what I was talking about and I said, “What matters for you? What matters for you and your children?” And one of the lawyers said, “Well, it’s their health. I want to know that they’re going to be healthy.” And then another—an interesting comment—of the lawyers said, “I want to know that my children have friends.”, which I thought was an interesting response from a lawyer. And another person said, “I want to know that they’re going to get a good job so that they can look after me in their retirement.” All of these represent different things that people feel matter to them and matter to their families. So this is not something that’s well outside of the mainstream. It’s actually about reflecting back to New Zealanders how they feel about what is success. And so, for me, this is a piece of legislation that is actually something New Zealanders want to see us do when it comes to the way we measure success and the way we put our Budgets together.

I’d also just say that this concept around wellbeing is now being picked up by a number of people in the corporate sector. Two of our largest banks have embraced this. Westpac now runs a regional wellbeing series where they go around New Zealand using Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, looking at wellbeing on a regional basis. I’ve attended some of those; they’re fascinating. They bring people together and have conversations that have not been happening. Westpac understand that that matters. Now, they are a bank, they are fundamentally about the dollars and cents, but they know that the dollars and cents don’t mean anything if they’re not connected to the outcomes that people want in their communities. The Bank of New Zealand has established its own wellbeing index and they survey their customers on a regular basis. And that includes things like housing, like their physical safety, like the quality of the environment. So it’s now understood within the corporate sector that these things matter.

So this piece of legislation reflects where New Zealand is today. It’s what New Zealanders want. They don’t see success as just being in a financial balance sheet sense. Yes, that matters, but in addition to that, it’s about the success that we have as people in our communities protecting our environment. So I am proud of this piece of legislation, I am proud of the fact that this Government has put together wellbeing Budgets, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was very telling, indeed, that the Minister of Finance opened his contribution in the third reading of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill by saying and congratulating himself and his Government for the fact that this was a world-leading approach to wellbeing. Actually, what about a world-leading delivery of wellbeing to every single New Zealander?

The interesting thing is this overall fascination with being world leading. Actually, what New Zealanders—definitely in my electorate of Taupō right now—want to see is local results, local outcomes. They want to know they’ve got a Government that is focused on them, not some aspirational kind of world-leading approach—

Alastair Scott: Fluffy.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: “Fluffy”, as one of my colleagues says. They want to see that the Government is focused on them. They want to know the Government is focused on them and improving their quality of life. So yep, Treasury’s Living Standards Framework—no disagreement around how important that is. It was created under the Rt Hon Bill English’s leadership. There’s no argument about that, that it is the Government’s job to improve the quality of people’s lives and their standard of living and their wellbeing. To actually, though, put it in the Public Finance Act and then expect economic analysists at Treasury to measure it and report on it are two very, very different things. So, on this side of the House, we are more interested in delivery and more interested in the outcomes for New Zealanders than about the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance today seeking accolades on the world stage. That is not what a public finance piece of legislation for New Zealanders should be about.

We absolutely agree that the Government should have a broader focus than GDP and there are other measures of success. One of the measures of success for many people is how we get through a crisis as a country. So the people of New Zealand—taxpayers of New Zealand, families, children, seniors, retired people—actually want to know that the Government is focused on them and improving their quality of life. Fundamentally, what does that mean? Fundamentally, it means having a strong economy. Having a strong economy is about affording the things that New Zealanders want—whether it’s health, education, or infrastructure. Unfortunately, what we’ve got now is a Government that likes to talk big, talk about world-leading approaches, 100,000 KiwiBuild houses, and light rail in Auckland by 2021. What actually matters to the quality of people’s lives and their standard of living is the Government’s ability to deliver—whether it’s housing, whether it’s public transport, whether it’s public health, whether it’s making sure that every single person that leaves isolation is tested, because those are the things that make a difference to New Zealanders’ quality of life.

So National doesn’t support this bill. I’ve had colleagues who’ve said, “How do you define wellbeing?” and that this is a piece of fluff. Actually, we want legislation and we want the time of this House to be focused on things that make a difference to New Zealanders’ lives. To suggest that previous Governments haven’t focused on wellbeing is, quite frankly, unbelievable and outrageous. To suggest that former Labour Governments haven’t focused on wellbeing, that former National Governments haven’t focused on wellbeing is clearly, clearly untrue.

If you look at things like the Better Public Service targets that were introduced by the previous National Government, that was always about accountability. It was about a whole-of-Government approach, and it’s really sad to hear scoffs from the other side. They’re clearly not interested in lifting immunisation rates, lifting educational achievement. Educational achievement, particularly if you look at what we saw in the lifting of educational attainment for Māori and Pacific—because if there is one thing that improves somebody’s opportunity in life, it’s education. That is absolutely the leveller, no matter what your circumstances, no matter what your background. If we’re able to ensure that more of our young people leave school with a great education, it provides greater opportunities. That is a sort of tangible, measurable outcome that we want to see for New Zealanders.

What we don’t want to see is by merely dropping the word “wellbeing” and a “wellbeing approach” and putting “wellbeing” in front of your Budget and have a “wellbeing report” every four years doesn’t necessarily mean any change at all for New Zealanders and their quality of life. That’s why it’s just really unfortunate that we’re debating a piece of legislation in the House in urgency that, quite frankly, might make zero difference to New Zealanders. That’s why it is a bit of a tragedy.

We all know the significant impact that COVID-19 has had on families and business and communities. What we want to see is competence in shifting results and getting better outcomes for those most hard hit by this. We want to see that the Government is delivering the core elements of what they define as wellbeing: having a job, a place to live, getting a good education, having great health, having a healthy environment, but, actually, this bill doesn’t deliver any of that—none of it. Actually, if we look at the last week alone, whether it’s inability to build houses, whether it’s inability to get a public transport project off the ground that I know, in particular, the Greens were passionate about, or whether it’s about making sure that everybody in quarantine gets tested, this is a Government who’s proven time and time again they can’t deliver.

So it’s not about having legislation that’s world leading; it’s actually about having a country that is governed by Ministers who not only talk big but actually we want them to deliver big. Actually, every New Zealander, particularly now, wants to know that’s what the Government is doing. They want Treasury to be able to focus their efforts on ensuring the Government, based on good economic advice, is making good decisions about spending. It’s not just about—and that’s what one of my colleagues read out in terms of the Wellbeing Budget—“big dollars”. It’s actually not about being able to say, “We spent more than the other lot.” If the quality of the spend doesn’t deliver results and outcomes for New Zealanders, it ain’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

That’s why it’s quite sad, actually, when Governments gone by of each side of the House have focused on improving New Zealanders’ quality of life, to then have a word “wellbeing” stuck into the Public Finance Act, and the Minister of Finance thinks this is going to be the big life changer for all New Zealanders because wellbeing, as a word, is put into the Public Finance Act—it’s actually a bit tragic.

New Zealanders want to see that Treasury is focusing their efforts on good advice, on good forecasting so that the Government of the day has the best information on which to make decisions—so whether it is, in more recent times, Treasury’s forecasts on unemployment rates, which I think, based on the IMF’s recent projections, they’re going to have to go back and amend. And the OECD figures don’t agree with Treasury or the fact that Treasury thinks we’ll get back to pre-COVID levels of unemployment by 2023—I don’t think too many people would actually agree that that’s possible. But Treasury needs to be focused on ensuring Government spending is effective, on providing sound advice, and on making sure that there isn’t wasteful spending, that actually money that is spent—of which it is taxpayer’s money; it’s not the Government’s—is spent effectively and it delivers results. Our focus absolutely must be on ensuring a sound economic base of which our country is born, because it is that and that alone that improves the wellbeings and the living standards of all New Zealanders.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It was 31 years ago that this side of the House introduced the Public Finance Act. It’s been interesting over the course of the period that this Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill has been before us in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I want to acknowledge my colleagues over the other side of the committee. We’ve had the opportunity to hear from economists, from Treasury, and from a whole range of very interested stakeholders as to exactly how this bill, and particularly the measures that we are introducing—it is about how we measure wellbeing.

To take the point of my learned friend who just spoke prior, Louise Upston, she was concerned that we were introducing a bill that was a mere piece of fluff. Look, she didn’t sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee; so she didn’t have the opportunity to engage with some of the incredible minds that we did, and I look forward to some of the contributions from other colleagues that have been engaged in these discussions since last September. But the key task before us was: how do we measure; how do we ensure that we are measuring the right things when it comes to making sure that all of—the whole—person, all of the community, and all of the things that we value dear to us are being measured and attributed, tracked and, if I can say, traced? How can we ensure that we are doing that?

This bill is a simple bill, but it is something that’s taken a long time to get to this point. We were in a position to be able to implement a measurement, a yardstick, by which we can ensure that we are measuring the wellbeing of New Zealanders across multiple fora, not just the mere fiscal GDP measure, which we all know is a blunt tool, and there have been numerous speeches in this Chamber over the past 2½ years speaking to that extent—so I won’t go into those any more—but the key task here was, right, we know that there are other things beyond GDP that go towards the way that we as a nation need to feel well as an overarching society.

So Treasury developed the Living Standards Framework. They did that under the last lot. This bill—

Andrew Bayly: Last lot?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: The last, honourable Government—it was a long time ago now. So it’s good that we can implement and put into law actual yardsticks by which we can measure things that now require the finance Minister—they every year are going to have to come back to this Chamber and account to how we are tracking when it comes to these environmental wellbeings, how we are tracking when it comes to these cultural wellbeings, economic wellbeings, and the like.

Now, our friend who hasn’t been a part of these conversations—the honourable member for Taupō—seemed to get a little tied up and a bit concerned about how the rest of the world was seeing this. Well, a lot of people are looking towards New Zealand because they want to understand how we have implemented these measures, and rightly so, because people know that GDP has been a blunt measure. It’s not sufficient; it’s an insufficient tool to track how we can measure the things that we need to in our modern day society. So we are at the precipice and we have been, as we were when we introduced the Public Finance Bill back in the late 1980s—we, at that point too, were at a point which many other countries looked to because it was a radically new way of measuring and putting a yardstick to the public sector, effectively.

Well, now we’re doing this again. It’s been a long time between drinks, but rightly so. I am incredibly proud of our finance Minister, the Hon Grant Robertson. This has been something that he has championed since long before he was in the position that he is in now. He’s now in a position to give full credence to the aspirations of the Living Standards Framework, and he’s doing that by way of this Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. This is an absolutely incredible day for New Zealand and one we should all be proud of. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As has become evident, National will be opposing this bill. I just want to say at the outset that National is absolutely committed to improving the wellbeing of New Zealanders, and when I say that and use the word “wellbeing” in that context, that means a holistic, wide approach.

I acknowledge the previous speaker, Kiritapu Allan. There’s always been concern about GDP being an appropriate measure, and maybe we are preoccupied by it, and most indices used to measure countries around the world, obviously, revert to that. So the issue of how, as the Government, we best devise policies that make sure that all New Zealanders, and particularly vulnerable New Zealanders, are looked after, catered for, and have their situation improved over time is the conundrum of all Governments.

So, with that context, when National was in power, we were very, very focused on measuring—well, first of all, setting objectives, and then measuring them and being accountable for them. I know there have been some comments made about that. The only thing I would say to people is that, if anything, you might have accused National of being preoccupied about setting objectives and measuring them and trying to be accountable for them. I’ve never met anyone who said to me that National was soft and flabby and never sought to put in place good objectives and to actually make sure we were accountable. I’ve never heard anyone say that to me.

Some of the targets that we put in place, just to give an indication of the extent of them—and not just purely financial measures, but we had very specific measures around reducing welfare dependency, increasing participation in education and early childhood education, infant immunisation rates, reducing assaults on children, NCEA qualification rates, reducing total crime, reducing reoffending. So you can sort of see—that’s just some examples of some of the ones that we had. Underneath each of those areas, there was a whole raft of quite specific measures. The thing I would say to all members: the hardest thing about putting in this type of framework is actually having the intellectual grunt to work out what are the key drivers that, if you measure it, will actually result in change. It’s very easy to set easy targets, but they don’t actually drive particular outcomes.

When we were talking about the bill in the committee of the whole House before—there’s, obviously, a requirement under the bill for the contents of the Fiscal Strategy Report to, first, explain how the wellbeing objectives have guided the Government’s Budget decisions, and, secondly, if the wellbeing objectives that guided the Government’s Budget decisions differ from those indicated the Budget Policy Statement, to indicate those differences. So I went to the Wellbeing Budget, and the last one I could find was the 2019 one. As I indicated before, the thing that I find most alarming about this approach, and if the Government is set on adopting this—and, obviously, this bill will pass through today with Government support members all coming together on it. The targets that were specified in the Wellbeing Budget, I have a problem with them, because, as I have talked about before, the first one I come across is “A new frontline service [measure] for mental health with a $455m programme providing access for 325,000 people by 2023/24”. So that is a financial measure. That’s about how you spend money. That’s about saying “We’re going to spend lots of money”. It doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes.

I know that there’s a lot of argument that even though the Government has announced a $1.9 billion spend in mental health and has probably only spent $27 million, if you just subtract that from the moment, this as a target is meaningless. All that just says is “We’re going to spend lots of money.” It doesn’t measure the outcomes, and that is the thing that I find really, really concerning, because if that is the trend of how this is going to be used in future Budgets, whether by the Labour-led Government or by National, I think we will be making substantial changes, because I think everyone in this House wants to see improvement in the lifestyle, the life situations, of many of our most vulnerable, and that is not the type of thing that’s going to achieve that. I think, with that sort of background, I just can’t see how we can actually move forward with this.

The Living Standards Framework—the previous speaker spoke about this. I am a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I did listen carefully to the range of economists, and the thing that came through very clearly in their discussions with us, and they were well considered, was, essentially, we are at the bleeding edge of trying to develop this framework, and even they are not in a situation where it is defined enough. It’s an exciting concept, but it hasn’t reached the level of detail that is necessary to be able to put this into a Budget statement and use it. We talk about human capital, we talk about physical capital and all these different—there are actually four of them. But the lack of detail around it is a big issue.

If anything, I think this bill is probably premature, because if I look at how it’s been used previously, I don’t think it’s leading to better outcomes. Certainly, you couldn’t look at any of those measures and say how that will improve the mental health of people or child poverty rates, which are also specified in there. All I’ve seen is that, actually, rates are going the other way, unfortunately. I think we need to get to a situation where we can have a holistic conversation around how we’re going to achieve it. But the biggest thing and the biggest challenge is actually setting meaningful objectives and KPIs and delivering them, which is the ultimate outcome.

So the issue around delivery is actually crucial, and I know my caucus members are going to talk further on that, but as I’ve said before, this is one of those bills that makes you feel good and it provides a warm glow, but, unfortunately, it’s a warm glow of incompetence.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): New Zealand First rises to support this bill, because it does mean the Government will have to take in a broader suite of parameters in the construction of its Budget process, and there is more transparency in the accounting around that broader suite of measures, as has been acknowledged by the previous two speakers. GDP is a blunt tool, and even the gentleman that devised it and came up with the model warned against using it too prescriptively. And we’ve seen recently in the past, in terms of GDP, when we’ve had quite high GDP but we’ve had rising inequality, and when we had what was called a rock star economy, we had so many people falling out the bottom. So we have seen first-hand, in very recent times, where a myopic focus on GDP has not served us well as a country. So it does give more accountability on things like environmental outcomes, social outcomes, and cultural measures. We have seen in the past—not just the recent past but deep, dark in the past—that the Nordmeyer Budget, the Black Budget, of 1957, I think, was a famous Budget. I don’t think even Winston was in the House then, but it endures today as a—

SPEAKER: Order! One, the year is wrong, and, two, the member shouldn’t refer to his leader that way.

MARK PATTERSON: OK. The Rt Hon Winston Peters wasn’t in the House—that could’ve been a career-limiting slip. Thank you for pulling me up, Mr Speaker. And we saw, of course, Ruth Richardson’s “mother of all Budgets” in 1991, and I think that under these parameters it would be much more difficult for future Governments to take that short-term slash-and-burn type of mentality. And, of course, the Key Government also had a myopic focus on getting back to surplus that did see us sweat assets. We had a rising population and investment into our public services being either frozen or shrunk in many cases, or certainly not growing at the level the population was, and, as I said before, many people were falling behind. It’s a mess that we’ve had to clean up to a larger degree.

I think the environment is conducive to bringing this in because we are running up, in the response to COVID, a significant debt—by international standards still relatively moderate—from where we’ve come from. So the environment is there if a future Government takes a slash-and-burn approach, should they feel that was their priority at the time, and this overarching framework will put some checks and balance around that. It will make them report and take into account this wider suite of measures. As the Minister said, there’s been some criticism from the Opposition about not codifying what those specific targets might be, but it is up to future Governments to set their own targets. We’re going with the Living Standards Framework that was set up under the previous Government, and we’re evolving them and using them as a measure, and I think that’s appropriate, but future Governments may wish to move on that. But they will have to report on outcomes.

So this is modern and, in many cases, world-leading, as we’ve heard before—although, it’s not, really. I mean, I think Governments are lagging in this respect. If you look at the commercial world, it’s pretty standard for leading companies to report on a triple bottom line. So it is the way that the world is going, and it’s only right and proper that Governments that have such a wide-reaching effect on the health and living standards of a nation should do the same.

So I commend Minister Robertson. This will be an enduring measure that will be part of his legacy, and I know he has long championed this. I commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee for working through this, and New Zealand First will support it in the House. I think when this Government was formed, the Rt Hon Winston Peters talked about returning the human face of capitalism, and this bill takes us exactly in that direction. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and always a pleasure to follow the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson. I listened intently, in the hope that I might find out what wellbeing actually means.

I want to start by saying that, at a time of absolute economic crisis, at a time of absolute Government incompetency, this House is in urgency adjusting the Public Finance Act and putting in this notion of wellbeing. Throughout the committee stage, Opposition members asked the Minister Grant Robertson on many occasions what is meant by wellbeing. And the Minister himself is unable to tell this House what is meant by wellbeing. He did say Treasury’s working on it, and I actually feel very sorry for Treasury having to have this imposition put on it, and I want to talk later about the potential to politicise Treasury through this very piece of legislation.

Let’s start by dealing with the current crisis this Government finds itself in. It campaigned strongly three years ago to deliver three flagship policies. One was light rail in Auckland, the other was KiwiRail—and what has happened to light rail?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m just reminding the member we’re on the third reading of the bill.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: We are indeed, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What I’m attempting to do, Mr Speaker, is explain that, while we’re dealing with this legislation, which defines wellbeing into future Budgets, I’m talking about the lack of performance on the Budgets already set by this Government.

SPEAKER: And the member is out of order. We are discussing the bill as it has come out of the select committee; we’re not having a Budget debate.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Mr Speaker, I will accept your ruling, obviously.

With regards to the bill, Part 1 talks about the wellbeing objectives. We would expect the Government members, then, to be able to define the wellbeing objectives. So I’ve referred to Google: “Wellbeing is the experience of health, happiness and prosperity. It includes having good mental health, high life satisfaction, a sense of meaning or purpose and the ability to manage stress. More generally, wellbeing is just feeling well.” Well, if Mr Speaker is any the wiser now on what wellbeing means—and what Part 1 of this legislation, “Wellbeing objectives”, means—he’s a better man than I am. Whilst we note the definition of wellbeing then refers to having good mental health, that does give me the opportunity to refer to Budget 2019, and Grant Robertson used this as an example of the first ever wellbeing Budget, the $1.94 billion being directed by the Government last year to mental health. So the question was asked then, in the committee stage, how much of that money, in the very first wellbeing Budget, had ever been spent, and the answer was around $24 million.

What we’ve got is wellbeing objectives being incorporated into the Public Finance Act so that future Budgets presented by Governments must take into account this nebulous concept of wellbeing. We just cannot find a definition to wellbeing, and even the Minister himself, in Part 2 of the bill, points out that it will become a responsibility of the Minister to present the report to the House at least every four years—at least every four years—but that it’s the Treasury’s responsibility to write the report, with the concept of wellbeing being incorporated from the Living Standards Framework.

One of the questions I asked of the Minister is: if this is such world-leading legislation, the first Budget ever to be incorporating wellbeing, what other countries are following? And he said, “Well, there are numerous other countries.” Well, I can’t find another country anywhere in the world that’s now delivered a wellbeing Budget. He spoke about Canada. So I had a look at Canada, and, no, they haven’t produced a wellbeing Budget; what apparently the connection the Minister has with Canada is is that he received a phone call once from a junior Minister in the Canadian Government, and that Minister was interested in the fact that New Zealand was putting wellbeing into Budgets and wellbeing into the Public Finance Act. That doesn’t suggest to me for one minute that other countries are rushing to follow the New Zealand example.

If it was so important to put it into Budget 2019, where was the mention of wellbeing in Budget 2020? So is the Minister going to argue the reason it wasn’t in Budget 2020 was that he hadn’t had time to pass the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill? Well, he managed to put it into Budget 2019 without the legislation; so why couldn’t he put this wellbeing concept into Budget 2020? The answer is he could have if it was important enough. So what we’re seeing is an absolute incompetence here in the House today. He pushed the House into urgency to pass this piece of legislation, which, at best, can be described as fluffy nonsense. He pushed the House into urgency today to do this legislation when there are far more important issues that are facing the Government.

I want to conclude by saying that I have sat through many Budgets being presented by both Labour-led Governments and National-led Governments. There would not be any of those Budgets presented to this House that didn’t focus on what the particular Government of the day would deliver in terms of outcomes for New Zealanders that were appropriate. And while wellbeing, according to the definition, suggests that people should be happy with the Budget that’s presented, no Government will ever, and has ever, presented a Budget that makes everybody happy. That’s not the role of the Government; the Government’s job is to present a Budget that it thinks will deliver the best outcomes to New Zealanders—nothing about the fluffy nonsense of wellbeing.

So I say that Treasury has been handed something that will be difficult for them with this legislation. They have the responsibility now of developing the criteria around the definition of wellbeing. The Minister himself can’t give it to us; none of the Government members who have spoken in the debate so far have told us what wellbeing means. It hands the responsibility to Treasury, which I say is a respected organisation responsible for delivering independent fiscal and economic advice to the Government of the day. But what this potentially does is it will require that Treasury officials, effectively, start commenting on Government policy. I know that that was a concern raised throughout the select committee process as this legislation went through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think it’ll be a sad day indeed if this legislation passes today and the effect of the passing of that legislation is then to put Treasury in a position where it becomes politicised, and I think that is a very grave danger with this legislation.

So I want to conclude by saying that, at a time of crisis, at a time of total incompetency, at a time of complete unhappiness on the other side of the House at their own performance, here we are in urgency ramming through legislation that I don’t think will be able to deliver what the Minister suggests it will.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I am very pleased to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, Rt Hon David Carter, called it fluffy nonsense. I think that shows National’s very narrow approach to economic matters. It’s not really interested in economic policy that delivers a healthy environment. It’s not interested in economic policy that provides for people’s wellbeing. Economics 101 is that oil spills like the Rena in New Zealand and the Exxon Valdez lead to an increase in GDP because of the economic activity around cleaning up the oil spill. But do they enhance the wellbeing of people or the wellbeing of nature? No. This is why this bill is important, because it is going beyond the narrow gauge measure of GDP to look much more widely at how our economic policies benefit New Zealanders and benefit our cultural life and benefit the environment.

The bill has a long history in ecological economics. I recognise the work of Kennedy Graham, who, when he was a member of this House, drafted a member’s bill, the Public Finance (Sustainable Development Indicators) Amendment Bill. That then passed into the name of James Shaw. It was introduced and pulled from the ballot in 2016, but the former National Government voted that bill down because it prefers just to rely on measures like GDP. It wasn’t concerned that, under its economic policy, we saw the number of people who were homeless rise. We saw poverty amongst children rise. These are the sorts of measures that Treasury, as the Minister of Finance has noted, when it develops its report on indicators by 2022, can potentially include as measures of wellbeing.

Kennedy Graham, with the sustainable development indicators bill, had talked about measures like land-use indicators—the amount of land being used for farming, soil health, nitrogen and phosphorus content in the soil, levels of nutrient pollution in our waterways, what our emissions are. What this bill provides, by grounding the whole Budget process on wellbeing indicators, is enabling work that is done to measure the number of people who are homeless, children who are living in families below the poverty line, to measure the state of our environment through the work that Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry for the Environment do in providing environmental reporting, to look at how our economic policy delivers against those indicators. Is our economic and fiscal policy leading to an improvement in the wellbeing of New Zealanders?

The economy is a subset; it’s a tool for promoting human and environmental wellbeing. It is not having people in the service of the economy, as National proposes with its dismissal of this legislation as being “fluffy nonsense”. It shows that National is only concerned with the narrow economic indicators. It is not concerned with people’s wellbeing, which is why this Government has to be re-elected, because we care about New Zealanders, and because that has been the basis, a wellbeing response, to the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring that this Government’s investment in businesses, the economy, and in nature delivers for all New Zealanders, delivers for our economy, and delivers for people. National would dismiss that. They just want to go back to the numbers and not looking at how the economy serves people and Papatūānuku. The Green Party supports this bill, and I commend it to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to follow a Green MP. Some of the ridiculous comments that were made—I do have to comment on them, if I may. For a start, the suggestion that National Governments would like to see more oil spills because it creates an increased GDP is just absurd and just makes that member look more ridiculous than she already has been. And to suggest that either side, any side of the House, does not care for the people of New Zealand is again an absurd statement. To suggest that the National Government did not have targets for immunisations for kids; targets for hip operations, for example; concern about the number of jobs in the economy; the unemployment rate; all of these things, including GDP—to suggest that we didn’t care or weren’t concerned for ordinary, everyday New Zealanders is, quite frankly, offensive and just makes that member look stupid.

I’d like to turn to the bill specifically now. There are concerns, and I find it quite ironic that we’re talking about a bill that sets targets, talks about the Living Standards Framework, sets targets in financial, the natural environment, human and social—so that’s the money, as the Minister said—people and community; all those things that make up who we are and what we do in New Zealand. I find it ironic that these targets are being set today and have been set up by this Government, but then they remove a whole bunch of other targets and goals and ambitions that were in place. I’m talking about things like the number of hip replacements—I’m going to say that again—it’s not clear how many are being done and where they are being done; the number of people who are leaving New Zealand because they’re finding a better place to live is not clear, because that target has been removed by this Government. So there’s a bunch of targets that have been removed which would enable us to run this place better and measure ourselves from year to year in a more efficient way.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I’m going to remind the member of Speaker’s ruling 121/7, which indicates that the member cannot speak at length about what’s not in the bill.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: So what is in the bill is these targets, Living Standards Framework. The Minister talked about how this framework can be adapted from Government to Government. We on this side of the House could emphasise one or more of those pillars and subsequent goals and objectives. That’s fine; that’s a good thing. That gives flexibility, doesn’t tie every Government into performing the same, acting in the same way. But then we’ve got Treasury that comes in every four years and reports independently—completely independently, apparently. I have a concern that that’s going to be, I would say, impossible to do, because you can imagine the Government of the day has reported against their own framework—they’re going to report and set themselves goals which they think they can achieve. Some will be very soft targets. You know, what we like on this side of the House is hard targets, hard numbers that we can account to and take responsibility for.

The previous member suggested that we don’t care about the environment. But you will recall, if I may, we on this side talked about water standards and put in minimum water standards, under Nick Smith’s leadership. That is a hard number and it talks about water, and that is a target that I would like to see in the framework that deals with the environment, for example.

So, when we have Treasury coming along every four years, and they’re independent, what emphasis are they supposed to put on that target or that goal or that pillar even? Who’s to say that the environment is more important than the social community connectedness? How is Treasury supposed to say which level is more important than the other? The answer, and the Minister said it, is that they are to do it to their best professional ability—their best professional ability. But, as David Carter alluded to earlier, it’s going to be very difficult for Treasury not to be sucked into the Government of the day or of that period—and it might be two Governments—and to judge those Governments of the day because of the emphasis the Government of the day has put on various pillars. How is Treasury supposed to act completely independently? I didn’t get an answer from the Minister. Should there be surveys every two years, every year? And Treasury surveys the people of New Zealand—should they be surveying Australians, the UK, Canadians? Global wellbeing—how do we fit relative to other countries? Have we declined or improved in our wellbeing?

Well, that’s very difficult to establish when we don’t know what wellbeing means. It’s much easier to compare ourselves internationally, for example, with a GDP—GDP per capita, gross GDP, the unemployment rate, the number of people on benefits of certain types. These numbers are much harder—and easier to measure, obviously—to account for and to take responsibility for. So the problem with this bill is that it’s quite redundant. It’s unnecessary. All Governments on both sides are already, and have always been, concerned with the wellbeing—I talk about the standard of living—of New Zealanders.

You know, the previous Government talked about social investment, and that’s talking about the people who are at the bottom of the pile, the most vulnerable, having a strategy—a five-, 10-, 15-year strategy—to turn the tide for some of these people in our community. That is what we have been doing in the last Government, and I know that is what the current Government is also endeavouring to do and aiming for. So this bill is redundant in that regard.

They are what we are looking for and I’d like to highlight the difficulty that Treasury is going to face when they look from Government to Government over time, because these targets will move. So it’s very difficult to report on a target when it keeps moving. The goalposts will keep changing over time as Governments emphasise different aspects and, in fact, over time, as Treasury staff and the people within Treasury decide what is important in their independent view.

That’s a problem with this bill, in my view, because it doesn’t lock in a number and I could be criticised all day for talking about numbers and being accountable for numbers, but numbers, actually, do matter. Numbers do matter. GDP numbers do matter. That’s not the only number, absolutely. And if you looked at only GDP, it is a very blunt instrument; GDP per capita doesn’t do much better. Unemployment rates are indicative, but they’re not as hard as they could be. But numbers do matter, and we on this side of the House would like to see wellbeing defined in whatever way. It might be environmental numbers: let’s measure the water quality in this place, this place, and this place, and let’s see the improvement in that water quality over time. That’s an example of what should be in this bill and in the Act, and in the regulations that that might follow.

A redundant bill, vague, not hard enough for my liking, has some issues around the conflicts that Treasury will face every four years—that is why I cannot support this bill.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute shame that the Rt Hon David Carter, who spoke just before, dismissed the wellbeing concept as fluffy nonsense, and we also had the weak arguments that we heard from Alastair Scott, the previous speaker, who just took his seat.

What they may not know is that, back in 2009, the then French President Sarkozy commissioned a report by leading economists like Amartya Sen and like Joseph Stiglitz, whom many of us have a lot of faith in, and who said in their final report that we need to look beyond GDP as a measure of a nation’s progress and that we should put wellbeing at the heart of policy making. That’s now what we’re doing through this bill. What’s new is that our Government is actually doing it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in opposition to this bill. That was a very pathetic contribution by Priyanca Radhakrishnan, the previous speaker, who could not even last for a long time. The wellbeing report that she mentioned from the French Government in 2009—they did not take up that wellbeing concept in France, and so why are we thinking about taking it up in 2020 in New Zealand? So I think we deserve an answer from that speaker or from her party.

I am very pleased that the Rt Hon David Carter gave a very good definition of what wellbeing is. I would like to add to that that the word “well-being”, according to Dictionary.com, was first recorded in 1605, and since then, Governments and rulers have been trying to portray that the wellbeing of the people is very important. Every member in this Parliament comes to this House for the wellbeing of their constituents, and that’s what it means.

I was not part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee when that select committee went through this process, but looking at the report, Treasury is first going to report back in 2022 about the wellbeing measures and on how they are going to use these, and after that, every four years they will be reporting back to the Parliament. The intent of the wellbeing report may be combined with one or more documents that Treasury is required to produce under Part 2 of the bill, and such a statement will be on the long-term fiscal position and the investment statement.

What I want to emphasise over here is this four-year term that Treasury is going to come back and report back to the Parliament on how the wellbeing is going, and as I am part of that study group in Victoria University, it was mentioned that the policies from the Government officials and public servants do change with a change of the Government. So, for four years, there will be no report back on wellbeing, and there be a term of a three-year Government when their performance will not be measured by anyone on any aspect. So that will be a big challenge. For those three years, what that Government did—nobody is going to scrutinise the outcome of the Government. So these are the things which we need to understand.

There should be targets, as we did as a National Government, where public service targets were put in so that every year, we can look into those—[Speaker holds up bill] Yes, Mr Speaker, I am talking—I am comparing the wellbeing—

SPEAKER: Well, get there—get there quickly.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Four years for the report-back period is not a good sign. The Government of a three-year term will not be measured on any account, whereas those public service targets every year came up with what performance was being done by the particular department. So those are the things we need to understand, and that is why this bill is, I think, not appropriate in the way it has been drafted. I think it should be reconsidered and this should not be put into the legislation.

Overall, we also need to understand that it is not only that “well-being” word that will make any difference. We need to have a better economy. We need to have people who have got better jobs so that they can have more money in their pocket, so that they can look after their families in a better way. We need to have better infrastructure where we can provide better economic developments in the long term. A strong economy is fundamental to improving the wellbeing, or the living standards, of New Zealanders, and that is where this whole bill is lagging behind, without any targets set into the whole process.

The Government has systematically weakened our economy since coming into office and adding costs to the Kiwi businesses, and businesses are feeling that pinch. Every time I go out and meet businesses, they always talk about the additional cost.

Lastly, I would like to say that the taxes which have been introduced by this Government in the past three years are really hurting people. We have seen only yesterday that the light rail has been—

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

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): The Government’s vision for a public finance system that supports intergenerational wellbeing for New Zealanders is important, and I’m proud to see this bill in its final reading achieve that by reintroducing the Living Standards Framework and its four capitals: human, financial, natural, and social—important things for humans in New Zealand as well as for our economy. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to make a contribution in the third and final reading of the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. It’s a really important debate to have today, and at least on this side of the House, we’re having a good debate on that bill. Now, we’re not arguing about whether wellbeing is important or not. In fact, I was at the OECD for three years just after they released the Better Life Index that the Living Standards Framework is based on, and I think we all hailed the introduction of the OECD Better Life Index as a way to acknowledge the shortcomings with gross domestic product and the narrow nature that economic measures provides. But there were also limitations with the OECD Better Life Index: that it was subjective in nature, that what one country or one person places as important, in fact, is different to what another country or another person places as important. That’s why the OECD Better Life Index actually gave individuals the chance to weight the variables in the index so that they measure what’s important to them.

What we’re actually saying is that of course we acknowledge that wellbeing as a holistic measure is important, and that goes way back to the Aristotle days in ancient Greece, who actually debates the importance of not just money or finance but overall wellbeing for an economy. What we’re essentially debating, though, is the role of wellbeing in the Public Finance Act and the role of wellbeing in Treasury’s advice and the work that they do on behalf of the Government. I come from the business world, where, essentially, I’ve helped companies all over, helped them through assessing how they actually achieve their goals that they want to achieve, and what are the measures that they need to put in place in order to achieve that. I think what we’re getting at here in the Public Finance Act is that, while wellbeing is important, there are limitations to assessing wellbeing and the subjective nature of that. So we think, first and foremost, on this side of the House that the core function of the Public Finance Act is to set up a framework to scrutinise Government expenditure, Government assets, and Government liabilities.

I want to raise in the House an important quote from Peter Drucker, a management expert, who says you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Let’s just think of that statement in the House today as we’re about to pass this bill: you can’t manage what you can’t measure. If we want Treasury and all departments associated with Government to manage the Budget and manage the resource allocation that we give them as this House, they must be able to measure that. It’s pretty simple stuff. That is the subjective nature of what we’re getting at here, and we already saw that with the OECD framework. That is why very few countries have actually adopted that framework embedded into their public finance or budgetary nature. Now, it’s great that the Government wants to be first mover on this, but again, there are limitations in actually providing sound recommendations to our civil service as a result.

SPEAKER: Order!

DAN BIDOIS: I want to get back to the matters of the bill, which is that we think that what matters is the tangible outcomes—right?—stuff that you can measure. That is what our civil service and our Treasury should be focused on—

SPEAKER: Order! I just remind the member: we don’t have a civil service in New Zealand. They have one in the United Kingdom.

DAN BIDOIS: OK, thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon David Carter: Public Service—Public Service.

DAN BIDOIS: OK, Public Service—there we go. Public Service. On the—

Rt Hon David Carter: That’s your school lesson for the day over and done.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you. On those measures, can I say that this Government has made a terrible job of those tangible measures.

Hon Willie Jackson: Government—start again.

DAN BIDOIS: Let’s go through them. Child poverty is up. Housing—how many houses have we built, Willie Jackson? How many KiwiBuild?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I can see the member’s struggling for relevance, but I’m going to remind him to come back to the third reading of this bill.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I’m getting at here is that we need to focus right now on the stuff that we can measure. My colleagues have talked about the range of measures that come under wellbeing that are just subjective in nature, and that is why I raise the issue of housing, child poverty, incomes, jobs, the environment. We had the member from the Green Party get up and say that this is airy-fairy. Well, let me talk about a hard-and-fast measure for the environment, which is carbon dioxide emissions. If we want to measure carbon dioxide emissions, they’re going up under this Government, right? So that’s a hard measure right there. Work-life balance—if you want to talk about safety, crime victimisation is up in New Zealand. Workplace deaths are up in New Zealand. Those are the hard measures that we want Treasury and the Public Service of New Zealand to focus on, because those are the things that matter for New Zealanders—those are the things that matter.

Let me bring this back to my own electorate of Northcote. What are the things that matter to the people of Northcote right now? Well, I’ll tell you, Mr Speaker, and I’ll tell this House, that we’ve done a poll, and most recently, I’m happy to tell you, the most important issues in the area of Northcote: the economy, jobs, incomes, transport—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Second warning—I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 121/7. It’s a 1962 one from Algie, which means that the member has to refer to the main purpose and contents of the bill. The member may not refer to, at any length, matters not provided for in the bill. I think the member has spent about two-thirds of his speech so far referring to matters that are not in the bill.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you—

Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I hope the member’s not going to dispute my ruling.

Rt Hon David Carter: I’m going to ask for a bit of consistency, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, the member will resume his seat now, and I’ll call the member Dan Bidois before the member gets into trouble.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What the importance is here in this bill is that it empowers Treasury to embed the wellbeing framework into New Zealand, but what the issue is is how not a single member on that side of the House has been able to tell us what wellbeing is. If we want Treasury to be able to assess wellbeing, we’d better be able to articulate it for them. That is the issue: that we’ve talked about wellbeing in some cuddly, airy-fairy concept, but we’re not giving Treasury guidance on what is wellbeing. That is the essence of what we’re discussing today. National opposes this bill at a time like this, when we should be focused on the things that matter to wellbeing right now. We’ve talked about the things that matter: jobs, incomes. So National opposes this bill and does not commend it to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I just want to draw your attention to some of these Speakers’ rulings in relation to interjections—and we’ve heard a constant barrage of interjections from that side of the House.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The member hasn’t been in the House that long, but that is certainly not a point of order. Anything to do with excessive interjections is a matter for me to deal with and not for him.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I appreciate and accept your ruling, of course. It wasn’t quite the trajectory in which I was going. So I’d like to continue elaborating with what I was proposing to discuss under my point of order, which was in part the interjections, the volume of which is your decision to rule on, of course—and Speaker’s ruling 59/3 makes it clear what the expectation is around that barrage of interjections—but also the fact that the member was enticed by comments made on that side to comment on particular aspects and so engaged in that debate from that perspective.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to interrupt the member again and give him a final warning that he is trespassing into an area which is my responsibility. It is for me to call it and not for him, and it is certainly not for him to call it after the event.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Finance (Wellbeing) 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.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

SPEAKER: Members, we have taken a decision, I think, for the House to have questions at 2 o’clock. If that is the case, there would be a requirement, under urgency, for the House to report progress at 12.55 p.m. in order to head into the lunch break. Can I suggest that we, by leave, have a sensible solution, and I will seek the leave to take a slightly early lunch break at this point, to return at 2 o’clock for questions, and then, after questions, to put the House into committee on the next piece of legislation. All this will be done in order to, one, preserve the urgency and, two, ensure that the Opposition has the right to have questions. Is there any objection to that process being followed? There appears to be none. I declare the House suspended until 2 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Motions

Korean War—70th Anniversary

MELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the 70th anniversary of the Korean War outbreak taking place today, 25 June 2020.

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

MELISSA LEE: I move, That this House acknowledge and recognise the 70th anniversary of the Korean War outbreak and that this House further acknowledges 6,000 Kiwi service personnel who served in the course of Korea’s freedom, and the 47 who never returned home to their families, and thank our Korean War veterans for their valiant service.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member goes on, I’ll ask the members who are responsible for the—[Branded folder removed from lectern]

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Overnight, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) revised down its forecast for global growth, highlighting the risks facing the New Zealand economy from the global recession caused by COVID-19. The IMF cut its global growth forecast by 1.9 percentage points, to negative 4.9 percent in the calendar year 2020. For advanced economies, it also cut its forecast by 1.9 points, to negative 8 percent. The IMF also revised down its expectations for global growth in 2021 by 0.4 percentage points, to 5.4 percent. These revisions update forecasts made by the IMF in April, and they highlight how quickly the global economic situation is evolving as different countries take different approaches to dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kiritapu Allan: Why did the IMF revise down its global growth forecasts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF said its weaker global forecasts reflected lower consumption in most economies than previously expected. This was due to the disruption caused by continuing social distancing measures and lockdowns in countries that still require these measures to get on top of COVID-19. The IMF has also said that investment in these countries is expected to be subdued further as firms defer capital expenditure amid high uncertainty around the pandemic. The IMF also provided an alternative scenario of what might happen to global growth if there were a second wave of infections around the world—in this scenario, global growth in 2021 would be 4.9 percentage points lower than its new base scenario, essentially knocking off all of the global recovery for that year. This emphasises the advantage New Zealand has from coming into COVID-19 with a strong fiscal position, some of the lowest public debt in the world, historically low unemployment, and a growing economy.

Kiritapu Allan: How is New Zealand positioned to deal with the global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The IMF, overnight, forecast Government debt in advanced economies to rise above an average of 130 percent of GDP due to the fiscal stimulus and spending required to deal with the virus. The IMF measures debt on a gross level. In New Zealand, our gross debt is forecast to be less than 60 percent of GDP in 2024—so less than half of the average of advanced economies. This shows that New Zealand is well positioned to be able to invest to cushion the blow of COVID-19 on businesses and households while delivering our plan to recover and rebuild the economy. New Zealand also has one of the most open economies in the world due to the success of our lockdown and the sacrifices made by all New Zealanders. So, as the IMF warns of the continued impacts of social distancing and lockdowns in other parts of the world, it pays to reflect on the privileged position we have here in New Zealand due to our collective success in fighting this global pandemic.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon NIKKI KAYE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statements yesterday that Ministers “were advised that the testing was happening twice during the period of quarantine” and, in response to whether officials had misled her, “This is not a revelation or new information”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Nikki Kaye: On what occasions was she provided with information by officials that she considers is misleading?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s not rocket science, when you have cases of human fallibility and mistakes, to realise that, on those occasions, eventually the report will be made to the Prime Minister.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is there an inquiry or investigation under way to determine how Ministers could have been presented with false or misleading information about testing or managed isolation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At this point in time, the priority of this Government is to fix it from the top to the bottom. We, again, know that human error is always a possibility in any organisation, and one as grave as this was likely to happen. We said at the very beginning: there will be mistakes. We’ll learn from it and we will fix it.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she absolutely guarantee there will not be an inquiry or investigation into the failures that have occurred?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it would be wrong to actually guarantee against a future inquiry. We cannot see the purpose of making such a commitment when, in fact, transparency and openness is our middle name.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she believe it is acceptable for Dr David Clark to make Dr Ashley Bloomfield accept all responsibility for the failures of her Government in testing and managed isolation?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, unlike the member and her colleagues who are paragons of propriety and infallibility, Dr Bloomfield and Dr Clark are not infallible. But the response we have seen this far in this country, by international comparison, is seriously exemplary.

SPEAKER: I do want to warn the Prime Minister, in these circumstances, to be a little bit careful with the ironic language.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Is Dr Ashley Bloomfield the scapegoat for her Government’s failures?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this country is seriously indebted to Dr Ashley Bloomfield. He is a civil servant who has done his best to do his job.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Public—he’s a public servant.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Beg your pardon?

SPEAKER: He’s a public servant.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, OK; no longer civil, no longer servants? He is a public servant who has done his best to do his job, and, again, it’s a team effort. We are asking 5 million New Zealanders to be front-line officers in our battle against COVID-19. It includes the people over there. We’re all in this together. As we said, there will be mistakes—our job is to learn from them and fix them.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, does the Prime Minister consider it was an example of infallibility, or of acknowledging mistakes, for Michael Woodhouse to not provide evidence of his claim of a homeless man joining a hotel queue?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, that instance was breathtaking because there was a suggestion that someone had committed fraud against the New Zealand taxpayer without any evidence at all, and we still wait for some clarity from the person and member of Parliament who made the allegation. I also want to say, by way of comparison in terms of sound policy, that it was the original questioner today who said that we should be bringing in all these foreign students, without any idea as to where they’d be quarantined, or her leader who said we should be opening up the border right now with China. Again, this is hardly a springboard by way of comparison of action that the member—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where’s the Standing Orders about not attacking the Opposition?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —could be honestly proud of.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Are officials responsible—

SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Dr Nick Smith will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no; the member will withdraw and apologise properly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s a longstanding rule that the Government cannot use a question to simply attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I noticed you didn’t intervene.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That is a matter for me to deal with, not the member.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The problem is you don’t.

SPEAKER: Order! Who made that interjection?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Me.

SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Are officials responsible for all of the failures in testing in managed isolation, or does she accept her Minister of Health must take some responsibility?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we know that, at specific sites, there were examples of failure; at none of those sites was there the clear and present responsibility of Dr Ashley Bloomfield or the Minister of Health. That sort of logistical behaviour is impossible, and so, yes, the identified problems happened at certain sites, and our job is to fix them.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does she accept that, regardless of where failures occur—operationally or from a policy perspective—Ministers should be held accountable under the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, yes, held accountable, but to use the phrase of a famous American president—Roosevelt, in this case—there will be mistakes, we’ll learn from them, and we will fix them.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Would the officials working at the front line have more time to do the jobs that we desperately need them to do, if they weren’t having to investigate spurious and baseless claims being made by members of the Opposition?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely. To have an official having to behave like Sherlock Holmes to find a guilty party that doesn’t exist is preposterous behaviour, and Mr Woodhouse should be apologising to the country.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is the Prime Minister aware whether her Minister of Housing, as the Minister responsible for managed isolation and quarantine, has yet to receive any more information from Michael Woodhouse as to the claim around the homeless man?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No such position exists. There’s no delegation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the answer’s already come from the expert woodwork teacher from Christchurch. The reality is a serious allegation was made to create suspicion and concern in the public mind. That was made by a former Minister, a front-bencher of the National Party, and we are all waiting in this country, all 5 million of us, to know what are the facts behind that allegation. Mr Woodhouse, when are we going to hear it?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will she commit to telling the New Zealand public if and when the investigations being led by Dr Megan Woods reveals the veracity of the claim?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, most definitely. But this is how the real world works—this is how the real world works. When an allegation is made, especially from someone who’s educated and a member of Parliament and a former Minister, you expect that member to back it up. We do not want the old fungus or moss ad that used to go like this, “I just spray and walk away.” Spray and walk away won’t do, Mr Woodhouse.

Hon Nikki Kaye: In light of the people who absconded from managed isolation, and the failures in testing, when will she, or any of her Ministers, accept responsibility for the huge failures that have occurred?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, a question like that would surely require the questioner to have a rough idea of how the Cabinet Manual works and how responsibility works. There’s no way a general can be responsible for the actions of a soldier in the field, but his job is to find out and try to eliminate such repetitive behaviour. But the general is not responsible any more than the Minister was in these cases.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Will she absolutely guarantee that David Clark is no longer responsible for testing, managed isolation, or quarantine in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was a change made, and the Minister of Housing has been put in charge of that. In fact, to use the old newspaper ad, “Keep up.”

Question No. 3—Conservation

3. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What measures did she announce yesterday to help protect the Māui and Hector’s dolphins?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): I am delighted that yesterday the Minister of Fisheries Stuart Nash and I announced vastly strengthened measures to look after Māui and Hector’s dolphins as part of a stronger threat management plan. In terms of the non-fisheries measures, we’re doubling the size of marine mammal sanctuaries for Māui and Hector’s dolphins by significantly extending the West Coast, North Island, and the Banks Peninsula sanctuaries to cover 37,286 square kilometres—more than the area of land we have protected in national parks. We are ensuring that those sanctuaries are genuine by our plans to prohibit new permits for seismic surveying and seabed mining in those two expanded sanctuaries and another four sanctuaries. These measures are really important because Māui dolphin are critically endangered and these precious marine mammals, Māui and Hector’s, are only found in New Zealand waters.

Marama Davidson: What does the toxoplasmosis action plan involve and why is that important?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Toxoplasmosis is caused exclusively by cats. It’s spread through oocysts in their faeces, which storm-water runoff into rivers and streams carries into the sea. Toxoplasmosis has been confirmed as a cause of death in sexually mature females, which is a problem when you have only 63 adult Māui dolphins left. So the toxoplasmosis action plan will involve research to investigate the gaps in scientific knowledge and to investigate and trial solutions to reduce or eliminate the transfer of the parasite’s oocysts into waterways, such as riparian and estuarine planting.

Marama Davidson: What do you say to the thousands of people who submitted on the proposals to update the threat management plan and wanted it to go further?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question.

Marama Davidson: What do you say to the thousands—

Hon Grant Robertson: What does “she” say.

Marama Davidson: What does the Minister—

SPEAKER: I say nothing. I’m Sergeant Schultz—I see nothing; I say nothing.

Marama Davidson: What does she say to the thousands of people who submitted on the proposals to update the threat management plan and wanted it to go further?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: We know that New Zealanders care deeply about Māui and Hector’s dolphins. There were more than 15,000 submissions and a 78,000-signature petition on options for improving their protection as part of the review of the threat management plan. I received lots of letters from children, including a dolphin mobile. I think the measures which Minister Nash and I have come to, and the robust discussions between the Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation, mean we have a good, solid plan to protect the dolphins.

Marama Davidson: What does she say to the fishers who will be affected?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: As the Minister of Fisheries also has a question on the Order Paper, I know he will expand on these. But we know that no fisher wants to catch a dolphin, a sea lion, or a seabird. So that’s why I’m really pleased as Minister of Conservation that this Government is supporting fishers with a targeted support package to enable them to transition away to more sustainable methods or to move their fishing outside the known Māui range.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Why does he think New Zealand’s GDP growth forecasts for this year from both the IMF and the OECD are significantly worse than Australia’s?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I don’t agree with the assertion in the member’s question. I do acknowledge that the impact of COVID-19 has been felt differently across different countries due to the composition of their economies and the measures undertaken by Governments to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, and that this will play out in GDP forecasts.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he realise that if New Zealand’s growth had fallen only as far as Australia’s, New Zealanders would be around $4,500 richer per household?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member probably needs to be a little careful about the range of projections that are out there in terms of GDP growth or forecasts of declines in GDP. They range wildly about, and taking that and then extrapolating it to a particular dollar figure, I think, is probably taking that a little far.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why, then, did the New Zealand economy shrink by five times as much as Australia in the first quarter of this year—not a forecast but the reality—despite the fact that both countries shut their borders on the very same day?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might be interested to know that international tourism makes up about 20 percent of New Zealand’s export income compared with just 10 percent of Australia’s exports.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he saying that we just have to accept that we will fall further behind Australia?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not. That kind of pessimistic thinking might be the member’s way of going, but not on this side of the House. We’re very optimistic about the New Zealand economy. We know that there are sectors that are going to do it tough, such as tourism, but the Government is there working alongside them.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So rather than deflecting and attacking his critics, why doesn’t he take responsibility for the poor economic outcomes of his Government’s policies?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I reject the premise of that member’s question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Since he has said that tourism is so important, why has he not outlined a credible path to reassure New Zealanders about managing the borders effectively?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has done that on a number of occasions in recent times. On this side of the House, we know how important those border restrictions have been to our success, and that’s why you won’t hear members on this side of the House advocating for opening them up to China; opening them up for international students; or, if we go back over the last few months, the record of the National Opposition in making sure that they have changed their position at least once a week on what should happen at the borders. On this side of the House, we understand the importance of the border restrictions we have.

Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Government had moved with urgency to reopen the border to countries like Australia and China, with no quarantine arrangements, when we were urged to do so by the Opposition, would there be more COVID-19 in New Zealand or less?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Undoubtedly, there was the risk that there would be significantly more, and I invite members on the other side of the House to take a look around the rest of the world; take a look at Victoria, in Australia, that is seeing a growth in infections; take a look at the many countries in the world who are seeing some of the highest rates of infection; and recognise that our hard work as a whole country has left us in a privileged position, which we must continue to protect.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, you ruled against what you described as donkey drop questions against the Opposition. That would surely fall into that category, because the proposals put forward by the Opposition never called for what has been suggested but, further, like the rest of New Zealand, relied upon the Government actually knowing what it was doing at the border.

SPEAKER: And as the member knows, the question as to whether such a question is appropriate is one for me. While that might have been a slightly easier bowl than normal, I wouldn’t consider it totally a donkey drop, and it should also be taken in the context of the tone of the questions which preceded it.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does his responsibility as Minister of Health include oversight of the regime for testing individuals in New Zealand for the COVID-19 virus?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Ultimately, I have ministerial responsibility for the entire public health system, and that includes oversight of the testing regime which completed nearly 20,000 tests in the last two days and which has seen New Zealand complete 368,432 COVID-19 tests, meaning we have the highest testing rate per confirmed case in the world.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe that now is the right time to tighten COVID testing, as described in the COVID-19 criteria and case definitions guidelines released on 23 June 2020?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The case definition explicitly references the new testing strategy, which I announced on Tuesday, and the case definition states: “The Testing Strategy outlines additional testing being undertaken to support early detection of COVID-19 at the border, and surveillance testing of people with symptoms consistent with COVID-19 who present to primary and secondary care to ensure that there is no community transmission.” The case definition is entirely consistent with the testing strategy. Let me assure the public: if you have flu- or COVID-like symptoms, we will continue to test you.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: So if the criteria for testing has not been tightened, why did the Ministry of Health release updated criteria in case definitions?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Ultimately, changing the nuances in the case definition is a clinical decision and not a matter for politicians. What I would point out is that we are testing record numbers of people—more than 10,000 people yesterday alone; that is a record—and we continue to find no evidence of community transmission. If the public have flu- or COVID-like symptoms, we will continue to test them.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason he boasts that New Zealand has the highest rate of—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will start his question again.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the member asserts that New Zealand has the highest rate of testing relevant to positive cases, as he mentioned in this House earlier in the week, isn’t that because we actually rank No. 35 in the world for actual testing per capita?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the logic of the member’s question is questionable, but we have such a low case rate—I think that’s the point he’s making—and we rank ahead of countries like Taiwan and South Korea in terms of our performance, according to data that is readily available on the internet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to whether it’s a fact that since 28 April, which was the last case reported, 240,000 tests have been done in this country and not one has been a case of community transmission?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I don’t have that exact data in front of me, but I think the member’s absolutely right.

Jami-Lee Ross: Is he aware of the high volume of testing at the Botany Road testing site, that is resulting in long wait times for patients and traffic gridlock in surrounding streets; if so, what actions are being taken to better manage testing at this site?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have been advised by northern region DHBs that high demand for COVID-19 testing is leading to unprecedented queues at many of the community-based assessment centres—or CBACs—in metropolitan Auckland. The DHBs say they’re very aware of the impact on communities where these are situated, and they are working closely with community police and Auckland Transport to address these impacts.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he ensure the testing location for east Auckland is moved to a site with better access so testing wait times can be reduced and traffic can be more appropriately managed?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’m advised the three Auckland DHBs are urgently reviewing their testing capacity across the city, and the number and location of CBACs, to develop solutions to the issues arising from current high demand. The DHB chief executives are monitoring the situation closely and are receiving updates and advice several times per day.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he take responsibility for the fact that more than 1,000 returning Kiwis may have been released into New Zealand communities without having had a COVID test?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Ultimately, I have ministerial responsibility for the entire public health system. I would note that we are one of very few countries that have introduced managed isolation and that managed isolation has served us incredibly well. More than 20,000 people have been through these facilities and there is no evidence that anyone exiting managed isolation has gone on to spread COVID-19 into the community.

Question No. 6—Education

6. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to address long-term pay inequities for teacher aides?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’m very pleased to say that teacher-aides have now voted overwhelmingly to endorse their historic pay equity settlement, which was negotiated as part of this Government’s commitment to addressing pay equity. The settlement will see more than 22,000 teacher-aides—mostly women—being valued and paid fairly for the work that they do. It will acknowledge the value of the skills, responsibilities, and demands of teacher-aide work. The teacher-aide pay equity claim has had a long history, and I’m pleased that the agreement has now been reached. This is a milestone for teacher-aides and a significant step towards addressing pay equity for women in the education sector.

Jan Tinetti: Why has it been important to address these inequities for teacher-aides?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This Government recognises the vital role that teacher-aides play in schools, and we’ve been focused on making sure we recognise that in the way they are paid. Teacher-aides are front-line workers who work closely with some of our most vulnerable children. They’re playing an important role in our schools, and they have responded to the challenge of COVID-19 in helping to get the county back on to its feet. But, fundamentally, nobody should be paid less because of their gender.

Jan Tinetti: When will teacher-aides see the benefits of this settlement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Schools will receive the additional funds to pay their teacher-aides more in October 2020. The teacher-aides will receive the new pay equity rates from November, but they will be backdated until 12 February this year. The new pay rates will range from $21.20 to $34.68 per hour.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What is his best estimate of the cost incurred by his Government so far in relation to Auckland light rail, and will he undertake to release all Government documentation relating to Auckland light rail, including costings for the NZTA and NZ Infra proposals, before the election?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): The Ministry of Transport had a budget of $5 million to manage the parallel process and receive and evaluate the proposals from NZ Infra and Waka Kotahi. To the second part of the question, yes, I do hope to release as much information as I can while being consistent with the probity requirements of the process and upholding commercial sensitivity.

Chris Bishop: Does he consider the $5 million that he’s just mentioned, spent by the Government investigating light rail in Auckland, to be good value for money?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, because the Government was committed to thoroughly investigating what was an innovative and compelling proposal from NZ Infra as part of a competitive process. On top of that, the Government has learnt a great deal through a business case process that has fleshed out the options for delivering light rail in Auckland.

Chris Bishop: Can he give the House some explanation as to why the Ministry of Transport recommended the NZ Infra proposal over the New Zealand Transport Agency proposal, when it was not solicited by the Government and the wider international market was not tested?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it was a process that was conducted within the bounds of the Government procurement rules and guidelines. It was designed to rigorously and fairly assess an unsolicited proposal. I can’t give the member details about why the Secretary for Transport recommended the NZ Infra proposal, because of commercial probity, other than to say that the Secretary for Transport advised Cabinet that both options were credible and selectable, that there were important differences and trade-offs between them, and, on balance, the secretary judged that the NZ Infra proposal was, on balance, stronger.

Chris Bishop: Is he seriously telling the House and the public that he’s unable to disclose to the Parliament why the Secretary for Transport recommended to him and the Cabinet that one particular proposal was better than the other?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes, for the reasons I just gave.

Chris Bishop: Will he release the letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters to his office over light rail now that the cross-party consultation has finished and the issue has been considered by the Cabinet?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s not our Government’s practice—and I don’t believe it’s been any Government’s practice under MMP—to release communications that occur as part of inter-party, pre-Cabinet consultations.

Chris Bishop: Can he give the public a summary of the issues raised by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in his letter, as he did last year with the letter from the Hon Julie Anne Genter to him over the Mount Victoria Tunnel issue?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Question No. 8 to Minister

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We seem to have skipped immediately to question No. 9, from question No. 7.

SPEAKER: That’s right.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Speakers’ rulings on page 170/1 and 170/7, alongside Standing Order 384(2), would seem to show that it is possible for someone on behalf of Dr Nick Smith to ask that question.

SPEAKER: Happy to rule on the matter. It is not a matter of Speakers’ rulings; it’s a matter of the Standing Orders. The matter is absolutely clear under 89(1). I have no discretion to allow the transfer of that question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not a transfer of a question. The questions belong to the National Party. They are lodged in the name of a member—

SPEAKER: Has the member read the Standing Order? Can I recommend he read it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, your attempt to belittle my attempt to speak to you does not do you very much credit at all. This is a democracy, this is question time, when the Government is put on the mat and should not be—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Standing Order 89(1) is absolutely clear: there is no discretion for another member to ask the question. And I would expect that members, when I refer to a Standing Order, before challenging my view, would do the House the courtesy of reading it. I don’t expect them to be right up with all of the Standing Orders all of the time; I don’t expect any member—I’m not, myself. But, when a specific Standing Order is referred to, it ill behoves members not to read it.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I seek leave of the House to ask question No. 8 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

SPEAKER: The question, in my opinion, at the moment does not exist, and the member can’t ask it on behalf of someone else.

Chris Penk: Sir, speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Although I am prepared to put the leave to the House, even though it involves a suspension of the Standing Orders. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

SPEAKER: Question No. 9, Dr Duncan Webb. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. Can I just say to members that, at some stage, they will work out that if they behave badly, there will be consequences, and the consequences of—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Who interjected then? Who over there interjected at that point? Dr Webb, did you make any words at all?

Dr Duncan Webb: No, Mr Speaker. But I’m happy to.

SPEAKER: OK. The member will resume his seat. I just want to reiterate the point that the consequences are not only there for the members but there are consequences for the party, as well.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would hope, then, that you apply that equally across the two sides of the House—something we’re not seeing a lot of evidence of today.

SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ll try it a different way: we do hope that you will be able to properly adjudicate across the House, to apply the rule that you’ve just made, fairly.

SPEAKER: The member will, once again, stand, withdraw, and apologise, and if there is a further reflection on me, the member will be joining Dr Smith.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’ll choose to join him without any further comment, Mr Speaker. Not much point in staying in this Chamber.

SPEAKER: All right. The member will now withdraw and apologise, and if he wishes to indicate to the House whether he is going to join Dr Smith for the entire time Dr Smith is out, it would probably help us.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. How long is that?

SPEAKER: I’m yet to decide, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Then, clearly, I can’t give you an answer.

SPEAKER: Well, on that basis, Mr Brownlee will be out for as long as Dr Smith.

Hon Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 9—Fisheries

9. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Fisheries: What new protections is the Government putting in place to look after New Zealand’s native Hector’s and Māui dolphins?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): As we heard in question No. 3, yesterday the Minster of Conservation and I announced extensive new protections to be put in place as part of an updated plan to look after New Zealand’s native Hector’s and Māui dolphins. Fishing activities and the disease toxoplasmosis pose the biggest threats to Hector’s and Māui dolphins. The changes to the threat management plan will increase fishing restrictions in dolphin habitats, focusing on methods with the highest potential to affect dolphins. However, I would like to be clear that fishing vessels will be able to keep fishing if they move to different methods. These decisions are based on the best-available science. It includes sightings, aerial surveys, necropsy information, observer data, socio-economic analyses, and submissions. It is a considerable advance on previous assessments and gives us our clearest picture yet of the risk to specific populations of dolphins.

Dr Duncan Webb: What are some of the technical details of the threat management plan that will help to look after our native Hector’s and Māui dolphins?

Hon STUART NASH: The technical details of the new fishing measures will take effect from 1 October and are as follows: (1) there will be a nationwide ban on driftnet fishing, (2) an extension of current set-net closures and the creation of new areas closed to set-netting in the North and South Islands, (3) an extension of the existing area closed to trawling off the west coast of the North Island, and (4) a change to the regulations allowing the Minister to act immediately to impose further restrictions if a single dolphin is caught in the Māui dolphin habitat within the west coast of the North Island. In response to feedback from public consultation, we intend to consult further on commercial and recreational set-net closures between the north and south of Banks Peninsula. Other proposals will primarily focus on collaborative and innovative approaches rather than full-method closures proposed today, to encourage individual vessels and operators to avoid bycatch of Hector’s dolphins.

Dr Duncan Webb: What support will the Government make available to significantly affected fishers?

Hon STUART NASH: The changes will affect some fishing operators who work these waters. The decisions are not taken lightly, and I acknowledge there will be questions about some operations. A targeted transitional support package is being established to help and incentivise fishing operators to adapt to new restrictions. Fisheries New Zealand officials will now meet commercial fishing operators to work through the next steps. Support will be available to minimise the social and economic impacts. Livelihoods can be protected if new methods are adopted. The targeted support package will include ex gratia payments and free and independent business advice. It will be available to commercial fishers and licensed fish receivers who are most impacted by the new measures. The transitional support will also help meet the cost of converting boats from set-net or trawl to other fishing methods that have less of a known impact on the dolphins. The funds may also be used for moving to another fishing area or to exit the industry completely if that is the most appropriate option.

Question No. 10—Immigration

10. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: How many people, if any, have entered New Zealand under the “other critical worker” border closure exception category?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): The “other critical worker” category for border exceptions opened on 18 June 2020 and is an updated version of the “other essential worker” category. I’m advised that as of 25 June, 383 individuals have been issued an invitation to apply for a visa, having been granted an exception to border restrictions under the essential worker category. I’m further advised that to determine how many of those 383 people have secured a visa and travelled to New Zealand would require manual investigation of each of those 383 files. That requires significant collation of information, which I’m advised would require approximately 30 hours of work by Immigration officials. I appreciate the member’s genuine interest in the number he has asked for, but I’m sure he will appreciate that the information has not been able to be collated at this time.

Stuart Smith: Does he believe the public has a right to know how many people are entering under each category of border closure exceptions?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I do think it is of interest for people to know how many people are arriving in New Zealand on visas. Since 31 March, and as at 21 June, 711 people have arrived on visitor visas, 744 have arrived on work visas, and 101 have arrived on student visas. That’s a total of 1,556 people who have arrived in New Zealand who are not New Zealand citizens or residents or Australian citizens or residents.

Stuart Smith: Why doesn’t he, then, have the numbers for the people that came in under that category—that is, the critical worker border closure exception category?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I told the member in the answer to his primary question, the number of exceptions is known, and then once a person has an exemption, they may have to apply for a visa, they have to book their travel, they have to fly to New Zealand and cross the border. Now, that information is all on their files, but it has to be manually investigated, and each of those 383 files would need to be manually investigated to provide him with that answer at this time.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What figures can the Minister provide about how many people have requested a border exception and how many have been approved?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As at 23 June, 19,540 requests for a border exception have been received; 3,643 resulted in an invitation to apply being issued. That resulted in 3,125 subsequent applications. Of those, 2,986 have been approved.

Stuart Smith: Is the Minister concerned that not providing the information will heighten concerns New Zealanders have over immigration during a pandemic?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I think the thing that heightens concerns is Opposition members’ fearmongering about homeless people being able to get into managed isolation, and other stories that members opposite have picked up and run in the media. What people are interested to know about the number of people crossing the border is how many people are coming into New Zealand, what visas they are on. That information is publicly available; I just provided it to the House.

Stuart Smith: Is he satisfied the border closure exceptions are being responsive to the needs of businesses critical to our economic recovery?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Stuart Smith: Why, then, have no requests for “other critical workers” been approved since 12 June, as reported on RNZ this morning?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I say, the total numbers that have been approved to date are 383. I’m advised that there is an additional, approximately, 350 that are awaiting process, and the time it is taking to process most requests for exception is around about two days.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: When he said of his flagship $455 million new frontline mental health service, “it’s quite impressive how quickly these things have rolled out”, was he referring to the $20 million of the $455 million spent on services at that time or the 18 new sites delivering the service at that time?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I was referring to the more than 20,000 sessions of free mental health support that had been delivered as a result of the new service, which is already available at 40 primary-care sites across 11 DHB regions. We know these services are making a real difference to people’s lives. I was also referring to the fact that we are training entirely new workforces to deliver these services, which are being rolled out across New Zealand over five years, making free mental health support accessible to all through GP clinics, iwi and Pacific providers, youth one-stop shops, and via online and tele.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister’s answer in reference to the 40 sites, how can the Minister be confident that those 40 sites are operating, when, in response to written questions Nos 10699, 10693, and 10690, the Minister was unable to answer where the 40 sites are located, when they started seeing patients, or how many staff they’re employing?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The recent investment of $40 million to expand integrated primary mental health and addiction services to over 100 sites, providing coverage to approximately 1.5 million New Zealanders, will include 350 full-time equivalents of health improvement practitioners, health coaches, and support workers. These services will be rolled out by July 2021. By the end of July 2020, we expect at least 54 sites to have started delivering integrated primary mental health and addiction services. These sites are located across 11 DHB regions. Each of these sites will have access to support from both health improvement practitioners and health coaches. Since the member asked me this specific question yesterday, I have obtained a breakdown by DHBs as to where they will be located, and my office is happy to provide that to him if he wishes.

Matt Doocey: When the Minister made his Anzac Day announcement of a further 100 sites for his flagship new front-line mental health service—“By the middle of next year the programme will be fully rolled out,”—why did the Ministry of Health issue their own press release stating these sites would not be rolled out until the end of next year, six months later?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Could the member please repeat the question?

Matt Doocey: When the Minister made his Anzac Day announcement of a further 100 sites for his flagship new front-line mental health service—“By the middle of next year the programme will be fully rolled out,”—why did the Ministry of Health issue their own press release stating these sites will not be rolled out until the end of next year, six months later?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not seen that press release. However, I can very happily—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Do members want a reply or not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: What’s that, sorry?

SPEAKER: Keep going.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can very happily inform the member that we are an ambitious Government and we intend to have it rolled out earlier rather than later.

Matt Doocey: Has the Minister delivered the level of service promised to New Zealanders in Budget 2019, when his flagship new front-line mental health service has failed to spend its allocated funding and has been delivered in less than 3 percent of general practices to date?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I do want to push back quite strongly on the member’s framing there. Yesterday, I informed him that there was $48.1 million of funding available this year to distribute. Of course we have had some COVID interruptions, but $39 million of that, roughly, is already distributed, and it’s likely that the full allocation will be distributed this year. Those things are still being discussed in contract negotiations. It will either be this year or next year that the remaining portion is negotiated. So, actually, despite COVID, the officials have worked very, very hard to roll this programme out, as well as—on top of that—rolling out a psycho-social support programme during the lockdown that has provided a range of services, including the Mentemia app, which went to, already, 35,000 downloads; the Melon app, which had over 1,000 people sign up in just 10 days; the Getting Through Together website, which has had 34,000 unique visitors, to 23 April; and Sparklers at Home, which has had 47,900 unique visitors, to 23 April. This Government is proud of taking mental health seriously and is rolling out new services. I haven’t yet mentioned Mana Ake, Piki, and, of course, the nurses in schools, which were all done before this initiative. We will pit our record on mental health service provision on this side of the House against those in the Opposition any day of the week.

Matt Doocey: In light of the Minister’s response about his mental health record, why, when access to mental health and addiction services increased by 55 percent from 2009 to 2018—demonstrated by this graph from the Mental Health Commissioner’s report this week—is the Minister refusing to put on record how much access he will increase under his Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In select committee yesterday, we canvassed this conversation, and what the member was trying to imply was that we were going to limit services when this is a programme that is aimed at rolling out services to ensure every single New Zealander has access to free mental health and addiction services. It is our hope that that will be required by fewer rather than more people, but we want to make it accessible to all New Zealanders.

Matt Doocey: If access to mental health and addiction services increased by 55 percent under the last National Government, how much will his Government commit to today to increasing access to those valuable services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We want free mental health and addiction services available to all people with mild to moderate mental health addictions. We want everybody—every New Zealander—to have access to those services. That’s what we want on this side of the House.

Matt Doocey: Is the Minister confident that his flagship new front-line mental health service will not follow KiwiBuild and light rail as the next failure from this Government; if not, why not?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh, I reject the premise of the member’s question. But what I would say is that this Government is absolutely committed to taking mental health seriously. It is the first Government to make such a huge commitment to these services. We’re proud of that fact. We don’t shy away from the challenge that’s in it, because they have been neglected for a long time, as have our health services more generally. But we’re stepping up to the plate because we want to make sure New Zealanders can access the services they need.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What initiatives has he announced this week to assist industries and workers to deal with COVID-19 recovery?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Monday, I announced funding provided in Budget 2020 to ensure that our health and safety and employment systems are equipped to deal with the recovery from COVID-19. I was deeply impressed by the work and commitment shown by business, union, and Government officials to work together to develop guidance on how to address the unprecedented challenge of fighting the virus in workplaces. This Government believes that we get the best results from that type of tripartite engagement. I want this work to continue as we shift into the recovery phase, and that’s why I’ve announced funding for initiatives to assist industry workers and Government to continue this momentum.

Marja Lubeck: Can the Minister explain the employment-related initiatives?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, more and better targeted information is required for workers and workplaces to be confident in knowing and understanding their rights and obligations. We will be expanding services, including the Employment New Zealand 0800 line, which has seen a 49 percent increase in calls over April and March. A $3 million contestable fund will be set up to provide financial support for business organisations, unions, and community providers to create initiatives to support workers and workplaces through the COVID-19 response. We want to make sure that businesses that are doing the right thing by their workers continue to thrive.

Marja Lubeck: What health and safety initiatives have been announced?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The work health and safety system is playing a critical role in keeping workers and customers safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. WorkSafe and industry bodies are working together to provide guidance to help workplaces follow the rules and minimise the risk of COVID-19 spreading. WorkSafe has also rolled out an education campaign on effective COVID-19 controls with a four- to six-week campaign. New funding will help WorkSafe provide technical specialist respiratory hazard advice.

Dan Bidois: Will the Minister announce plans for Holidays Act reform to reduce businesses’ compliance costs in their recovery from COVID-19 before the election, given he has now had the task force report for nearly eight months?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I’m glad the member asks that question, because I’m extraordinarily proud of the fact that this Government backed me to deal with the Holidays Act, something the previous Government refused to do despite the fact that they got calls from businesses and workers for years and years and years to do something about it. Now, the group did provide—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can some of the member’s colleagues just turn it down so we can see whether the question’s actually addressed for once.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The group did provide us with a very good report, and, unfortunately, over the last few months, there have been other things that this Government has had to focus on, in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. But once resources can be returned to that very important work, of which this Government is very proud, they will be.

Dan Bidois: Will the Minister release its response to the task force report at the same time as the report itself?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Do the initiatives announced this week include strategies to reduce the amount of workplace bullying, given concerning revelations this week about bullying and harassment of senior public sector officials?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, I can say this Government takes bullying and harassment in the workplace extremely seriously, and we have been doing a lot of policy work in that area as well. The member can look forward to serious progress from this Government, unlike the previous Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to why the report will not be issued, or is he following the past practice of a certain political party that had a bullying allegation investigation and refused to disclose it?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think there are a couple of reasons that that could be ruled out.

Bills

Resource Management Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to a couple of clauses in Part 1 of this bill that is, essentially, a tinkering piece of legislation designed primarily just to undo the changes that were made under the careful guidance and stewardship of the Hon Dr Nick Smith in the previous Parliament.

The area that I’m keen to have the Minister explain to the committee and to the public of New Zealand a little bit more about is why he feels the need to make changes to—I think, in clause 6, that amends section 11—the legislation that was passed in the last Parliament, that, effectively, meant that if a subdivision had been consented as being a subdivision, the presumption was that unless specifically restricted by a district plan, then a subdivision could occur. That seemed to make a lot of sense. It was widely proclaimed as being a useful provision that would help speed up the consenting and the Resource Management Act process around subdivision. For some reason the Minister has decided to take that out, and I’m keen to know quite what his motivation was for that.

Then, there’s the area that is similarly related, that, essentially, under the Dr Nick Smith provisions, if residential zoning had been granted under a plan, then there should be no need for further consenting if the objective was to build residential dwellings on that consented residential-zoned land. Again, it seems to me that that was a good, sensible, practical change that was made by the previous Government and is now being reversed. So if the Minister would like to maybe just give his response to those things, we will—I’m sure, Madam Chair, you’re going to take the same sort of process as previously with the committee; we don’t need to use the five minutes, so we’ll have a free-flowing backwards-and-forwards debate?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yep, that’s correct.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He’s just checking on it. Have you got another question?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Is the Minister going to respond, or do you want to take another—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He’s just checking on the answer. Do you want to take another question?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Along those same lines, I wanted to talk to the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Parker—actually, it’s not along the same lines; something a bit different. I wanted to talk to the Minister about the enforcement functions of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) because we had a number of submitters to the Environment Committee who were concerned about this. The concerns that were brought to us were around the EPA’s ability to now undertake enforcement actions and investigation. The concerns were around uncertainty and complexity that this would bring. The submitters were concerned that there wasn’t any certainty as to who would be undertaking the investigation and at what point the EPA could come in and take over an investigation.

Now, we understand very well that, in some cases, local authorities don’t have the ability to undertake an investigation, and that’s why the EPA would come in. But the problem that submitters had was there was no certainty as to what the factors were that would mean that they would have certainty that the EPA would be taking the investigation, rather than a local authority, and then that would, in turn, mean that a judicial review of the EPA’s decision to take on the case would be made more difficult. Then there’s, of course, all of the different machinations, I guess, when you’ve got a local authority who’s taking a case and then the EPA can come in halfway through, so you’re increasing the cost and uncertainty. That was some of their concerns.

There were also concerns around if a local authority finished an investigation and found that there wasn’t to be any action to be taken and the EPA can come in and do the job again, creating more costs and uncertainty and more delays. So I was hoping that the Minister could respond to that just to talk about or to allay some of the concerns of people like Trustpower. If I could just read out, in fact, Trustpower made a good comment. They said, “Consent holders and the public will not have any certainty about who the regulator is likely to be when an incident occurs.” and “A lack of certainty will result in unnecessary duplication.” So those are some of the concerns of the submitters and I’m just hoping that the Minister might be able to give us some clarity around that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding first to the first point raised by Mr Simpson, we are reinstating the presumption that is actually reflected in most rules and most plans around the country, and the member is correct that we have reversed the changes late in the term of the last Government. It’s part of a suite of changes that are intended to return to the status quo before the amendment late in 2017, which we thought was wrong in principle. In essence, the effect of those changes was to remove rights of public participation and respective sub-divisional applications.

I sat on the Environment Committee with Mr Simpson, and he and I, I’m sure, both recall that one of the criticisms that was made of that rule by network operators like airports and people who operate quarries was that the effect of those rules was that reverse sensitivity effects of subdivisions adjacent to industrial activities that are, none the less, important to local economies couldn’t be taken into account—or wouldn’t necessarily be properly taken into account—because the owner of the quarry or the operator of the quarry or the airport wouldn’t necessarily have a right of submission in respect of the nearby subdivision application. So, over time, that could result in a quarry necessary for a large city being encircled by residential development that would, in the end, put pressure for the closure of the quarry, even though the quarry had been there first.

In respect of the question in respect of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) having rights of information gathering and the right to mount prosecutions, one of the problems that we have had in the system is that some councils, as the member said, have—partly because of the virtue of size and other factors—been unable to properly investigate breaches of their plans and breaches of the Resource Management Act (RMA). Sometimes they’ve been unable, sometimes they’ve been unwilling, and the Government believes that it’s appropriate that the EPA have that power. It actually hasn’t got a large budget to run away madly doing this all over the country, but on occasions it can help.

In terms of timeliness, the statutory time frame or the statutory period of limitation for prosecutions under the RMA until this passes is six months. Even after this bill passes, it’s still only 12 months—so all of this stuff has to be done within 12 months anyway. The most recent example of where this probably would have been useful was following the big rain event that we had in the Gisborne region which resulted in a lot of debris flooding across farms, destroying some buildings, and clogging up beaches, and it would have been useful for the EPA to have been able to directly help the Gisborne council in that event.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thank the Minister for the answer, and we don’t disagree that having the expertise of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) there to undertake those investigations and any enforcement actions is a good thing when the local authority isn’t able to do it. But the problem that the submitters brought up was that the lack of certainty and criteria, or factors, for when they definitely would be the body to investigate. So the submitters are saying, “We don’t know because there’s no criteria in there to show me which—is it going to be the local authority or is it going to be the EPA?” But, further to that, their problem is we could start an investigation under the local authority and then halfway through find that the EPA come in over the top and take over the investigation. That’s a problem, because, you can imagine, they’ve gone through cost and time and lawyers’ fees, and then to pretty much have to start the process all over again with the EPA, you might even find that they get all the way to the end of an investigation with a local authority and then have the EPA go through that all over again. So you can see the lack of certainty, and the cost for these guys, they’re worried about.

So, look, I understand what you’ve said, but you haven’t addressed the points that they bring up and that I’m raising in terms of the lack of certainty and the factors that could be laid out in the bill to actually state exactly when the EPA are going to undertake an investigation and to give more certainty around whether or not the EPA can come in over the top of a local authority and take over halfway through or, indeed, even at the end. I’m just hoping the Minister might be able to respond to those points.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, I suppose it would be theoretically possible to more codify the conditions on which that discretion could be exercised, but I would suggest that, one, that’s unnecessary and, two, it would add complexity and length to an already complex and lengthy Act, and I’m quite satisfied that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) can make decisions, normally in consultation with the local authority, as to where and when they should intervene. I can envisage, in some situations, it will be done at the request of local authorities.

Now, the EPA’s not always going to accede to those requests from local authorities, because this primarily should remain a responsibility of local authorities; they should be attending to their own monitoring and enforcement regimes. But, on some occasions, they might come to central government and say, “Look, this is actually a very important test case. We think central government should be paying attention to it.” In those situations, it may well be that the EPA was willing to take it over.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Could the Minister then foresee a situation where a local authority starts an investigation and the Environmental Protection Authority then takes it over and then hands it back to the local authority?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’ll just check with officials as to whether that’s possible under the legislation, but, if that is possible, I don’t think it would happen often.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Just while the Minister for the Environment is getting some advice on that, there’s another matter that I wanted to raise. The purpose of this piece of legislation states that the objectives of the bill are to reduce complexity, increase certainty, restore public participation opportunities, and improve Resource Manage Management Act 1991 processes. As the Minister’s just said, this is a long, complicated, and multi-faceted piece of legislation. The Resource Management Act itself, I think, when it was first passed 30-odd years ago, was something around 300 pages; it now runs close to 900 pages. This is the 19th, I think, significant amendment to it in its history. A piece of legislation that is already complicated, largely unintelligible to lay people, costly, time consuming, and expensive—surely, part of the process that should be being applied here is to try and reduce cost, and particularly if that can assist in reducing the cost of building homes.

Now, one of the changes that the Minister’s wanting to make in this amendment is a reversal, again, of a change that was made by the last National-led Government, under the guidance of the then Minister for the Environment the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It relates to the issue of financial contributions and development contributions. The original Resource Management Act provided for financial contributions, and also, separately, under the Local Government Act, there was a provision for development contributions. It was our view, and still is, that that is, effectively, allowing local government to, essentially, double dip, in that they are taking what’s really, simply, two bites at the development financial contribution cherry.

So that was under National’s legislation phased out, and, in short, it meant that the financial contributions were not available to councils. This piece of legislation reinstates those financial contributions and means that then, as well as the development contributions under the Local Government Act, combined you’ll have just extra cost and a layer of cost to building houses, making them more expensive. Surely that’s not the objective of the legislation.

So I’m keen to know what the Minister’s rationale and motivation is for, essentially, allowing local government to have two bites at the development financial contribution cherry.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to the first point about the increasing length of the Resource Management Act (RMA), I agree that’s a valid criticism of the Act, and successive amendments to the RMA have just kept adding to its length. That’s one of the focuses of the review being led by the Hon Tony Randerson QC, which is due to report back in a matter of weeks.

In the meantime, this amendment bill goes some way to removing the different alternative process tracks for consents and plans which have grown like—well, they’ve just grown ever more varied and complex. One of the provisions of this bill is to remove the collaborative planning process. The last Government added many tens if not—I think it might’ve been close to—100 pages of text to the Act by codifying collaborative planning processes which were already permissible by councils on a non-codified basis. The codified process made it more rigid. In fact, the codified planning process has never been used, so one of the provisions of this bill, which removes complexity and decreases the length of the RMA, is to repeal those provisions.

In respect of development contributions and financial contributions, the advice that the Environment Committee got that I sat on with the Hon Scott Simpson was that there was no double-up, and that remains the advice. We received submissions both at that select committee and subsequently from some councils who have set up their long-term provision of infrastructure, and, from memory, I think this was in particular around the Tauranga area where their smart growth corridors have had long-term plans to recover some of the infrastructure that are put in by the council at the cost of ratepayers over the long term by developments through financial contributions. As a consequence, we were satisfied on the basis of the advice that we have that, one, there is absolutely no double dipping, and, two, financial contributions should be retained.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, for the engagement this afternoon. I do like this new format, where we can pose some questions and get good, clear, and succinct responses, and I appreciate you turning to your officials if there is any element of doubt.

A big part of Part 1 is the establishment of a Freshwater Commissioner and a panel, and I’m curious to ask some questions about that, and as I understand how it’s going to work, there’ll be, as we know, regional policy statements aligning with national policy statements—or they might be different. So the Government of the day may have national policy statements; as we do, 2014, for freshwater management. And then the regional council or unitary authority calls for submissions; they write a report. At that point, as I understand it, that goes to the Freshwater Commissioner, and then the commissioner or the panel will make a decision with, I think, limited appeal rights that follow that. I’m curious to know from the Minister this afternoon about the cost of that process. Who is indeed going to incur the cost?

I guess there’s another topical aspect of this that I wouldn’t mind having a discussion with the Minister this afternoon about. We know that there’s a proposed dam up in Northland—Ngāwhā; it’s been publicised recently. There’s another aspect that the Environment Committee are dealing with, submissions through another Resource Management Act fast-track bill on the back of COVID-19 that’s going to create jobs. How would it work, hypothetically, if that particular dam was to apply through the Northland Regional Council? It could well be, for a water consent or a water take. How would the Freshwater Commissioner and the panel be a part of that process?

I’m curious if the Minister, when he gets up next to speak, could talk a little bit about the practicalities of how the commissioner and the panel would work, and I’m also keen to hear from him about likely and indicative costs of this, and where those costs would lie. Would they fall back to the regional council? In which case, would they then get passed on to their whole ratepayer base—in terms of would there be an increase of rates as a result of having this panel set up? Or would, indeed, a specific application go straight to the panel—let’s say a private sector applicant that ends up there? Their application goes through to the commissioner and through to the panel. Would those costs therefore fall back on the individual or the entity that is indeed requesting a water take, or other examples?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for those questions. The problem that we’re trying to solve here is that for some decades now, we’ve had declining water quality in New Zealand and, although in some parts of the country it’s getting better, I think the latest data reported that twice as many monitored sites had declining water quality, as evidenced by the macroinvertebrate index as were improving. So it’s pretty clear on that probably most basic of indicators that if the little critters that live in the water are dying more often than they are improving, things are still going backwards. That data also has a number of degraded rivers that are in a stable but degraded state and are not improving. And some of that’s pretty serious in New Zealand.

There’s a stream called the Otapiri Stream in Southland that is a tributary of the—it begins with “O”; I’ll come back to what it’s a tributary of. But the Otapiri Stream has a data set that goes back some decades as a consequence of work that’s been done by scientists over the years. There was a report that was done by—I think it was the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and a scientist employed by the Southland Fish & Game Council, a peer-reviewed study that was recently in a journal which showed that in the Otapiri Stream, which goes through mid to low country in Southland, more than 90 percent of the macroinvertebrates are dead. This has been caused, essentially, by sediment and nutrients—I suspect mainly by sediment in those areas.

Now, in order to get these problems under control, successive Governments have been trying to provide more central direction to regional councils through national policy statements (NPS). At one level, you can say it should not have been necessary—that this has always been within the responsibility and control of regional councils—and, you know, some of the responsibility for that getting to the point that it has actually lies with regional councils. It can also be said that these are fiendishly complex issues where the changes in part are driven by the changing economics of new technologies, fertiliser trucks, changing price of dairy in the world, and, therefore, it’s not fair to blame regional councils—that there is a need for more central direction from central government.

The problem with the current system is that it takes so long to change the plans that give effect to those central directions that I think most people agree are necessary. By way of example, the last Government’s changes to the national policy statement, which for the first time introduced a periphyton control, which is actually very important to control the overgrowth of slime in rivers, which is, you know—we don’t want. The planned changes necessary to give effect to that national policy statement, we know, in a substantial number of regional councils were not going to be in place until 2030, 13 years after the NPS was in place. During that intervening period, because of the terms of the NPS, it was also possible for waterways to be allowed to degrade. So we thought—and I think New Zealanders and I think virtually everyone in this Parliament now agrees—that that’s just taking too long. So there are various steps in that chain in order to fix it.

You need to change the national direction. Sometimes the regional policy statement that sits above regional and district plans also needs to be changed. At the moment, until this bill passes, those regional policy statements cannot be sped up through direct referral to the Environment Court. This bill allows those to be sent to the Environment Court. More often than not, those things are sent directly to the Environment Court or to an Environment Protection Authority panel with the agreement of the councils who also think these things are taking too long.

The second thing that this bill does is, as the member the Hon Nathan Guy has said, it introduces a new planning process so that rather than these new water plans going first to a council and then, on appeal, to the Environment Court—and they are contentious, so they just about always go on appeal to the Environment Court—we’re going to have a fused process, which actually is based on a process that the prior National-led Government used to sort out the combined Auckland plan. So we created a body that has some standing members because, you know, the issues as to—virtually every regional council has got some dairy issues, they’ve got some sediment issues from the high country, they’ve got urban issues in respect to the urban streams. So rather than every regional council going about this separately with separate panels, the bill proposes that we have these freshwater panels that will be chaired by an Environment Court judge. There will be some commonality of panel members who will have expertise in these issues. They will also be panel members that are nominated by iwi and by the regional councils. These panels will review the draft plans that are prepared by the regional council. There will be some assistance going backwards and forwards to those councils from the panel and from the Ministry for the Environment. And these plans, I suspect, in the end, will be a little bit more uniform across the country, and they’ll certainly be faster than the current process so that we can get the next NPS, which is due before we rise for the election, actually implemented faster than the 13 year - plus delay that we’re experiencing under the current legislation.

In terms of costs, overall costs in the system, I predict, will be lower because it will be a one-stage process rather than a two-stage process. The majority of those costs will still fall on regional councils to prepare the plans, as was in the old system but there will only be one hearing process rather than two. And there are contributions coming from central government towards those costs as part of the sustainable land-use package that was in last year’s Budget.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Chair, thank you. I just want to acknowledge the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, for his very comprehensive overview of his thinking, which, I think, when he outlines it the way that he has done, sort of makes some logical sense. We know that this is incredibly technical, it involves lawyers, we know that there’s a big planning process around all of this, and he’s also talked about numerous examples of water quality where it is degrading.

I was waiting for him to talk about water quality in the cities, because that’s a hell of an issue. It’s not a rural issue on its own, but with cities. When I used to get around the traps, I would always have to defend farmers and things, and I’d say, “Well, actually, do you know where the most polluted water body in the country is? It’s not too far from downtown Auckland.” No doubt the Minister will try and dispute that, and I’d be interested to hear what his officials think as well.

But, importantly, one aspect that the Minister didn’t talk about was the costs, but he may well have been going to address that just before he sat down. I think the Minister was framing up that the costs, in his mind, are going to be less because the time frame for the bureaucracy part may indeed be truncated. So I’d be keen—not now but at some stage this afternoon—to hear from the Minister on the indicative costs of this process, and what he alluded to was that that’s likely to fall back on the regional council. But what I’m just keen to know is: can we get a sense that, these costs, are they going to be more than what regional councils may indeed have budgeted for policy statements to meet these bottom lines in terms of processes or not, and does the Minister have a view that these costs, if they are potentially going to be higher, could end up meaning that rates may increase as a result?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In respect of the point the member the Hon Nathan Guy made about urban streams, he’s quite correct. Some of our most polluted streams are in urban areas. Without diminishing the importance of that, the length of stream in those urban areas is probably less than 1 percent of the total waterways—so 1 percent would be urban; 99 percent would be in rural areas. That’s no excuse for urban waterways to be degraded, and the member is quite correct that some of the worst of those are actually in Auckland City, where their infrastructure has not kept up with urban intensification and the overflow of storm water into the sewerage system accordingly has worse outcomes because there’s more sewage in the sewerage system following urban intensification. So when you have a big rain event and it overflows into the sewerage system, there’s more sewage that gets washed into the streams and from the streams actually out on to the beaches.

The good news on that front is that the proposed national policy statement (NPS) applies the same standards to both urban and rural streams, because it was a legitimate complaint of rural people that they felt picked on and that the same standards should apply in urban areas. The time frames for bringing all waterways up to the standards that will be in that NPS is, essentially, within a generation. We haven’t defined that, but you could say roughly 25, 30 years—

Hon Nathan Guy: Yeah, about 30, probably.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Probably about 30 years. But I think New Zealanders, once we get this on the right trajectory, will accept that. They just don’t like things getting worse in the meantime in either urban areas or rural areas.

Some other good news in Auckland is that Auckland City has brought forward—well, initially, it was over a billion dollars’ worth of expenditure for what’s called the Central Interceptor project, which is a great big tunnel that’s currently under construction, that runs, when it’s completed, from Western Springs all the way out to Māngere. It’s an enormous tunnel. It’s not much smaller than the Waterview Tunnel—well, it is actually smaller than the Waterview Tunnel, but it’s longer. In addition to that million dollars of expenditure, my understanding is that there’s at least $600 million of committed expenditure to have more tunnels that connect to that from different parts that were not going to be within the initial reach of the Central Interceptor project. So at the end of this very large piece of expenditure, the intrusions of sewage into the water system following rain events will be reduced by well over 90 percent. So that particular source of pollution in Auckland waterways will largely be remedied, which is an enormous project, and you’ll be left then with some of the more difficult issues to solve, like copper brake pad residues that are on roads and get washed into streams, which are even more difficult to fix.

In respect of the cost issues of the process, the cost of the freshwater planning process will be charged to the regional council for the panel, but the Government pays for the Chief Freshwater Commissioner because that person’s acting like a judge would in the Environment Court. Overall, the cost should be reduced because there won’t be appeals to the Environment Court. The only appeals remaining will be on matters of law, and both regional councils and submitters overall will face lower costs than would be the case in a two-step process.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just on that point, I just make a comment that the Central Interceptor is a big project for Auckland but certainly won’t solve all of its issues. The North Shore won’t see any of the effects of that. In fact, the cracking infrastructure—which, by the way, doesn’t go into the streams; it goes directly out on to the beach in many cases—that storm water will continue to degrade our beaches. But that’s just a point I’d like to make.

Without sounding like I keep banging on about the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), I would like the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, to answer my question from earlier. I would just like to make that point again that there could well be a case where someone is investigated by a local authority, gets to the end of the process, the local authority don’t take any action, and then the EPA can come in and start that process all over again. So you can imagine the unfairness, uncertainty, of that. In our democratic society, when we break the law, we know exactly who’s going to be in charge of taking care of us should we go to court, but in this case there is that potential to be investigated twice—or, potentially, even three times, if it goes from the local authority to the EPA and back to the local authority again. I would like the Minister to answer that.

But I wanted to move on to another point. We’ve talked already about subdivision earlier, and I wanted to bring up a second point in relation to that. This bill undoes another one of the changes that the National Party made in 2017, where we took away the appeal right to the Environment Court for activities to subdivide. So that has been reintroduced in this bill. So what we foresee happening is, again, the increase in costs and uncertainty making it more difficult to build and more difficult to build cheaply but also putting off developers. When they think about the potential to subdivide, they may think twice because of that uncertainty and additional cost. I was hoping the Minister could talk to that.

Lastly, I wanted to bring up the Randerson report, which the Minister talked about earlier, which is a huge piece of work that is no doubt going to suggest some wholesale changes to the Resource Management Act which are necessary. We’ve made this point many times, and I’ll make it again: we’d like to know why these little piecemeal changes are being made in this bill when there is a report that I think was already due to be released but has been delayed. I think the Minister mentioned that it was now going to be, hopefully, before the election. Why are we seeing these little piecemeal changes which undo really good work of the National Party in the last Parliament to make housing affordability better and to encourage more houses to be built, when we’re waiting on this big report, which could well, actually, say that, potentially, the changes that were made under the last Government were good ones? Who knows—who knows what the Randerson report’s going to say? But the point is: wouldn’t the Minister have thought that it would be better to wait for that comprehensive report that will suggest, no doubt, wholesale changes and then to put those in place, rather than making very small—what we would describe as tinkering around the edges—piecemeal changes that on the face of it seem just pretty petty politicking, just undoing a whole lot of changes—good changes—that the National Party made in the last Parliament to make building more effective and for us to have the ability to build more houses.

So I would like the Minister to talk to all of those. The first one was the EPA issues; the second one was then about the reintroduction of the Environment Court appeals around subdivisions; and then, finally, the more broader question around why it is that we are doing this, under urgency, when we’re waiting on this comprehensive report that will, no doubt, give us a whole lot of wholesale suggestions for changes that’s due in the next few weeks. It just seems like here we are again with another bill to make more changes to the Resource Management Act, when we could be doing this all in one go once we’ve seen that comprehensive report from Tony Randerson.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Responding to Erica Stanford’s points, it is theoretically possible that an investigation could be started by a council, continued by the Environmental Protection Agency, and they might complete the investigation, give the material back to the council, and the council might choose to be the prosecuting authority—rare but theoretically possible. I don’t see a problem with that possibility. There’s still only one prosecution that could ever eventuate from an egregious breach of rules.

Prosecution’s actually not the most common route that follows breaches of the Resource Management Act. Indeed, councils are understandably reluctant to prosecute in respect of less serious infringements—none the less, infringements of the rule of law should be dealt with proportionately. In addition to that prosecution route through the courts, the infringement route is made more realistic, if you like, relative to the costs and seriousness of prosecutions. So I would point out to the member that side by side to this is an increase to the maximum level of infringement notice that can be issued by councils. Councils are calling for that, in part because an infringement route doesn’t leave the same stain on the record of the person who is held to account; it’s different from a criminal prosecution that is a matter of record, and it’s cheaper for both the council and for the accused, and less stressful, actually, for the accused as well. So that’s an important change in this legislation—increasing the infringement fees that can be charged.

In respect of the issue as to why this bill and why did we do what we’ve done in respect of subdivisions, and the member suggested that some of the changes we’re making were petty. Well, from our perspective we’re not, actually. Some of the changes that were made to make it easier for councils, in a less rule-bound manner, to deal with boundary effects of a building, for example, crossing through a recession plain that’s set out in a plan—we’ve left those things. We think those things were sensible. But in respect of the change that was made to remove rights of public participation in respect of sub-divisional applications and related repeal rights, we just thought that was wrong. I’ve already covered the example in respect of airports and quarries, but more broadly we believe, as a matter of principle, that generally in respect of consent activities, if your public or private interests are going to be substantially affected by a private activity, there should be a right of participation. There’s really no difference between a subdivision application and someone building a new factory that’s going to be noisy or produce pollution.

It may well be—and I’m not predicting what the Randerson report says in respect of this—that there are wholesale changes to both plan making and/or consent decision-making processes, but I wanted to get the law back to the point where we had some, in my opinion, rational approach to all classes of activity, which was a rational point to start.

The final point: why couldn’t we wait? Well, the Randerson report will come out now. It’s a very complex piece of work, as other members have already alluded to. Turning that into law will take a number of years. Whether we’re elected or the Opposition is elected at the next Government—and I hope, for the sake of New Zealand, it’s us—I think whichever Government’s elected, that work will be carried forward, but it will take some years to implement. In the meantime, we’ve had problems with declining water quality, and some of the provisions that are in this bill are necessary to stop that decline early, rather than waiting for that holistic piece of work.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just pick up a little bit on what the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, was just saying and also further some questions that my colleague the Hon Nathan Guy was asking about, as well.

But just a quick question: has the Minister seen a draft of the Randerson report? He seems to be reasonably au fait with what it might or might not have, and his comments just a moment or two ago follow on from comments that he made in select committee earlier today that would indicate that maybe a draft has been seen or, indeed, the full report has already been received by him. It was due to be received, I think, at the end of May, and knowing Judge Randerson, as many of us do, I would be surprised if it wasn’t a timely delivery of a report like that.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m happy to respond to that. It’s not strictly within the terms of this, but, yes, the end of May was the intended date; of course, COVID interrupted. The chair, as you say, is very efficient and determined to meet his time obligations, so he provided a draft but incomplete report a little while ago because he wanted to show he was very close to that original time frame. There are a couple of parts that were yet to be finished, and I’m expecting to receive them within weeks, and I’m expecting the whole report very promptly thereafter then to be provided to the public, after it’s gone to Cabinet.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, I appreciate the Minister the Hon David Parker making that clear. So I just want to come back to some of the questions about water, particularly the issue that sometimes is prevalent—and it may be more of a perception than a reality, but it’s certainly very real to many people, particularly in provincial and rural communities—that there is a kind of anti-farmer tone to much of the Government’s legislative programme and that the Resource Management Act changes have a “Let’s deal to farmers rather than deal with farmers” mind-set. Now, I’m happy to accept—and I’m sure the Minister will probably refute that, but that presence, that sense of perception, does exist.

One of the areas that, I guess, helps reinforce that perception are things like the increasing in this bill of fines for stock exclusion infringements. So the bill in Part 1 will see the fine for stock exclusion infringements going up to $2,000. Many farmers would see that that is pretty steep, pretty heavy—and I realise that the $2,000 is a maximum, but they would say, “Well, isn’t the impact of a city dweller dumping rubbish, fly tipping rubbish into an urban waterway in a calculated, deliberate fashion, potentially more harmful than the accidental breaching by cattle of a rural waterway that was not intended, that was not malicious, that was not premeditated?” Yet there doesn’t seem to be a similar balance in terms of the impact on people who degrade deliberately, and in a premeditated way, our urban waterways.

So I’m interested just to get a sense of what the Minister’s view is about the bigger picture of the urban-rural split, if you like, the perception that some people in our rural communities will have, and also how he thinks that this piece of legislation will actually focus on, albeit the physically shorter urban waterways, but the demonstrably dirtier urban waterways.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Well, responding to the first point, the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon Damien O’Connor, is always keen to prevent the perception that there is a rural-urban divide; so am I. In virtually every speech that I give about these issues, I give examples in both urban and rural areas. Some of the people who decry what they assert to be an urban-rural split actually cause it. I do, sadly, have to put on record that, at the time of the launch of the Essential Freshwater proposals for public submission, I, together with the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, were all in a meeting where agricultural lobby groups said that they would respond maturely and moderately through the submission process to what was to be launched the following Monday. The following Monday, representatives of Federated Farmers said that this was the end of pastoral farming as they knew it. Of course, that caused great alarm within the farming community, in part because those incendiary comments were picked up by rural newspapers and presented to all of the farming groups, who were, understandably, concerned that this was going to be the end of pastoral farming as they knew it.

Andrew Falloon: How would you farm at a dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) level of 1 in mid-Canterbury?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually, in respect of that question, all of the gravel bottom rivers in Canterbury are already under a DIN of 1, so that’s how you do it.

Andrew Falloon: How about Hinds?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, actually, those issues were very properly canvassed as a consequence of the meetings that were held, including the meeting in Washdyke just near Timaru, I think it was, that the Minister of Agriculture, myself, and the member was present at. So those issues had been worked through.

But the responsibility that we all have for waterways in both urban and rural areas is a joint responsibility that we all own as citizens in order to pass on to the next generation the same things that we inherited from our parents. And I don’t mean inherited in a property rights sense, but, you know, I am someone who still swims in rivers. I really love the fact that I can pop down to my local river in summer and pop my head under without the risk of getting crook. And I’ve got to say that although I still swim in a lot of rivers, there’s occasions when I think, “Oh, I’m not sure I should be putting my head under.” That’s rational because in some of the rivers that I used to swim in that are now no longer as clean as they were when I was younger, it probably would be wise for me not to put my head under. I want to get us back to a country, which I think is an ambition that’s shared by rural and urban folk alike, that we can pop down to our local river and put our head under without the risk of getting crook.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn’t planning on taking a call on this bill this afternoon, but I couldn’t help myself, listening to the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker, in relation to this bill, because the process that he outlined in relation to the Essential Freshwater proposal that was put out last year is actually nothing like what the process was, because this was a Minister who put out a proposal for a dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) level of 1—of 1. Now, just to put that into context, in parts of mid-Canterbury, you’ve got farms that are next door to Department of Conservation land, you’ve got farms that are next door to Landcorp land, which have DIN levels of 3.2 coming on to their property. So you’re already dealing with farms that cannot reach that standard.

The Minister actually accepted that—the Minister accepted that—by then saying, well, actually, a DIN level of 1 isn’t possible, so let’s axe that and instead come up with a nitrogen toxicity level increase of 80 percent to 95 percent. The Ministers accept—in fact, Minister O’Connor across the Chamber has accepted that would be, I think, from memory, a DIN level of 2.4. So both Ministers have accepted that a DIN level of 1 is not actually possible. The Minister in the chair has accepted that, even though he isn’t particularly open to suggesting that this afternoon.

But what you have in Canterbury is that farmers across the board are saying that 1 and 2.4 are “equally unachievable”, because they’ve been working towards a standard of 6.9.

Hon Member: Rubbish.

ANDREW FALLOON: Well, the Minister heard it himself two weeks ago—

Hon Damien O’Connor: They’re not equally unachievable.

ANDREW FALLOON: They are exactly saying that. In Hinds, Minister—

Hon Damien O’Connor: They’re not equal.

ANDREW FALLOON: In Hinds, Minister—how do you think, Minister, a farmer can get to 2.4 in the Hinds catchment? Take a call and tell us, explain to us, how a farmer in the Hinds catchment is going to get to 2.4. Farmers across Canterbury have been working towards a DIN level of 6.9 under the ECan proposal, which they consider to be very ambitious, but they’ve been working towards it in good faith. The Government are now throwing that out, bringing in a DIN level of 2.4.

I do want to come back to the Minister’s other comment in relation to how he has treated everyone fairly, whether they be in urban areas or in rural areas. Well, Minister, in 2017, you were down in Ashburton and you were threatening farmers—you were threatening farmers. Mr Parker turned up to a public meeting in Ashburton, where he said if farmers keep pushing him over what the water tax will be, he will double it. Well, Minister, take a call and tell us when you’ve ever done that to an urban dweller, when you’ve ever told a person in a city—when you’ve ever threatened a person in a city to double their tax if they continue to push them.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): None of those matters are in this bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 517 and 519 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.

Amendments agreed to.

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 on other enactments

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.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 517 in the name of the Hon David Parker to the Schedule be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule 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.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Clause 1

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.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 517 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments 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.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 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.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Resource Management Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That the Resource Management Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Our resource management and planning system has been underperforming in its management of our built and natural environment—for example, in freshwater quality, and another example is in meeting the needs of our people for affordable housing and thriving urban communities. In short, the Resource Management Act (RMA) takes too long, costs too much, and has not been delivering for the environment, which is a pretty damning indictment of its overall performance.

This bill is the first part of the Government’s efforts to deliver a better resource management system, which should support a productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy. While the Government has commenced a broader review of the RMA, and that report will be delivered soon, there are steps which need to be taken now, and this bill makes improvements to the RMA that should not await that longer and wider review. I would add, for the sake of clarity, that this bill is also separate from the fast-track legislation before the House, which is currently before a select committee.

The bill we are considering today includes provisions to improve freshwater quality. The bill introduces a new freshwater planning process that ensures regional council plans are updated as soon as possible and in a manner consistent with Te Mana o te Wai. Under current processes, freshwater plans needed to give effect to the last Government’s 2017 national policy statement (NPS) will not be in place for many councils until 2030 or thereafter. That’s more than 13 years after the NPS was promulgated, and I think parties across all sides of the House—and regional government—agree that that’s too long. The changes will enable the new National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to be implemented much faster.

After the onset of COVID-19, the Government introduced a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to this bill to move the date by which councils must notify their new freshwater plans. This extended that deadline from 31 December 2023, which was already tight, to 31 December 2024. This will provide councils, communities, iwi, etc. an additional 12 months to meet the planned notification time frame. The bill will also restore public participation opportunities, including removing some preclusions to notification and appeal. It also respects council autonomy by repealing excessive regulation-making powers that were introduced by the last Government, which enabled the Minister for the Environment to override council rules. The bill also contains important changes to support councils in their role of enforcing the RMA and their district or regional plans. Maximum infringement fees will be increased, and the current six-month statutory limitation period for taking prosecutions will be extended to 12 months. The bill also provides the Environmental Protection Authority enforcement units with information-gathering powers to assist councils to investigate incidents and, at times, to take lead investigative roles from councils if and when necessary.

Can I thank the select committee for its efforts. After considering many detailed submissions on the bill, the Environment Committee proposed amendments, perhaps the most important of which was the enabling of decision makers to consider climate change mitigation under the RMA. As it stands, the RMA doesn’t allow local authorities to consider greenhouse gas emissions in plan making or consenting. In response to submissions on both the zero carbon Act and the Resource Management Amendment Bill, this bill formally links the RMA and the zero carbon Act through requiring RMA decision makers to consider the emission reduction plans and national adaptation plans that must be published under the zero carbon Act.

The bill also removes the prohibition on councils that currently prohibits them considering climate change mitigation under RMA consent applications. The bill as reported back had that effect from 31 December 2021, by which date the first emissions reduction plan will be gazetted. However, the Government introduced a post-COVID SOP to provide some flexibility to extend this date by Order in Council if required. This is because it is crucial that we have national direction in respect of climate-changing emissions consideration under the RMA in place before councils can consider climate change mitigation. The bill as amended includes a backstop deadline of 30 November 2022, which is when the first national adaptation plan must be gazetted by. This is to ensure that council consideration of climate change mitigation cannot be delayed indefinitely. In the meantime, applications that are called in and referred to a board of inquiry before the Environment Court by the Minister for the Environment can, on a case-by-case basis, take greenhouse gas emissions into account if the Minister so directs in the referral.

Returning to water issues, further provisions were included by the select committee 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 decision. Through Supplementary Order Paper, the bill also introduces several measures that support the implementation of the recently announced package around healthy waterways pursuant to the Essential Freshwater programme. This is in addition to the new freshwater planning process.

The development of mandatory and enforceable farm environment plans will now be provided for in the RMA. The Government recognises that we can’t tackle all environmental issues via national standards—farm plans will be needed. Making farm plans mandatory and enforceable is widely supported by regional councils and farming peak organisations, and it will help lift environmental performance. These farm plans will contain individualised measures, tailored to each farm. Farmers and growers will develop farm plans that identify the actions they intend to take to support the improvement of water quality and ecosystem health. We know that many farmers and growers are implementing good farm practices and achieving improved environmental outcomes. Farm plans will help lift others to similar outcomes and will be phased in over time, beginning with highly impacted nitrogen-enriched catchments.

In respect of reporting of fertiliser use, it’s of interest that nitrogenous fertiliser use has increased by about 700 percent in New Zealand since 1990, and in some ways it’s a proxy for the more intensive land use that’s put pressure on our waterways. To ensure that the Essential Freshwater package is delivering real results, the Government will also now monitor and annually report on the use of nitrogen fertiliser regionally across New Zealand. Sales data from the major sellers is considered a good indicator of fertiliser use on a regional basis and is reasonably cheap to collect. Existing powers under the RMA don’t currently allow for this type of information to be collected by central government, and an SOP achieves this. This reporting goes slightly further than that required under the Climate Change Response Act and voluntary measures already undertaken by the Fertiliser Association. The Minister for Climate Change and I will ensure that future reporting aligns and is not unnecessarily complex.

The next step in reforming New Zealand’s resource management system is the most comprehensive review in 30 years, and I’m looking forward to receiving the review panel’s report at the end of this month. The panel, led by retired Court of Appeal Judge Tony Randerson QC, will include major proposals for reform, including drafting of key legislative provisions. In the meantime, the RMA will be improved by amendments in this bill. Critics of the RMA—and I acknowledge the Hon Scott Simpson’s contribution in this regard at the committee stage—note that it’s currently at least twice its original length. This bill strips out some of the verbiage, including the lengthy provisions inserted by the last Government to codify collaborative planning processes. That tortured set of provisions was unnecessary, has never been used, and is repealed by this bill. It’s for these reasons that I commend the bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is, I think, the 19th substantive amendment to the 1991 principal Act, the Resource Management Act (RMA). The fact that 30 years on it is being amended for the 19th time is a good indicator as to its ineffectiveness in terms of providing for our natural environment and our built environment, and the Minister David Parker made reference to that in his third reading speech. I think there’s probably broad agreement, not only across this Parliament but throughout New Zealand that the RMA in its current form has become cumbersome, expensive, incomprehensible to lay people, and is slow and difficult to negotiate and navigate. Actually, it doesn’t achieve anything in terms of the aspirational goals that most New Zealanders, in fact all New Zealanders, want for their natural environment, and it stifles and slows down appropriate, sensible development in our built environment as well.

So this piece of legislation, we argue, is in fact, just tinkering. The Minister has given an indication that he’s going to be looking very carefully at the substantive report that retired Judge Tony Randerson QC is going to make available to him in its complete form very shortly. We would say, actually, “hallelujah”. It’s time for a real back-to-basics, fundamental review of our planning legislation and our environmental protection legislation. We have a particular view, on this side of the House, about how that might be achieved in years to come. But as the Minister has said, it is a big job—it’s an enormous job; probably not a job that could be completed within one parliamentary term, I would suspect. I’m conscious of the contribution that people have made in this House over many, many years, trying to tinker and adjust and make good on the piece of legislation that, sadly for our environment, is now considered by many New Zealanders to be something of a laughing stock. I don’t think that’s how our primary environmental legislative statute should be considered by New Zealanders. I think that, as New Zealanders and as legislators, we are better than that and we should have better than that for our natural environment, and to ensure that those who follow us in generations to come have something better than we have today—and we have an obligation to ensure that that occurs.

So back to this piece of legislation: essentially, tinkering—essentially, undoing the very good work of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he was Minister for the Environment, who made very pragmatic, sensible changes that helped reduce cost, that helped speed up the process, and that helped New Zealanders navigate through the minefield that is the Resource Management Act. This piece of legislation, effectively, is undoing many of those things—not all of them but many of those things—I would say largely out of a feeling that they need to do something in the last few months of this Government’s administration. But as the Minister has said, I think that probably, across this House now, there is a desire to make progress. So we’ll be looking forward to the detail of the Randerson report and what might come out of that.

I want to just refer to a couple of specific matters in this piece of legislation. The Minister did make mention of it, but it’s the changes in relation to climate change and the consideration of climate change and issuing of consents under the Act. Now, a Labour Government amendment back in 2004 specifically excluded from the consenting process considerations, matters relating to climate change and their impacts—

Hon David Parker: Until there was an MPS.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Until there was a Monetary Policy Statement. But then what has happened now is that by virtue of the changes that have occurred in this piece of legislation, it looks like we’re going to have a situation where climate change matters will be taken into account in terms of the consenting process. I understand the points that the Minister made, but we are now using this piece of legislation as an almost backdoor methodology for applying climate change issues into the consenting process, and I’m not convinced that that’s necessarily the best way of doing it, but we’ll wait and see.

I want to also talk about the changes in regards to housing, particularly the changes that the Minister is going to implement through this piece of legislation that relate to land that has been already designated through council long-term plans as being, for instance, suitable for residential development, and now is going to have to go back through a process where one would have thought that if houses were due to be built on land that had been zoned residential, then surely that would be a sensible and easy thing to do to build houses on that land. I’m not sure that we’ve had a convincing or particularly meritorious argument as to why that change needs to be made.

I remain utterly unconvinced about the Minister’s changes in terms of financial contributions and, essentially, it’s our argument that councils will be, effectively, able to double-dip. That only adds extra cost to building, does nothing to reduce the cost of home ownership, the home-building process, or, indeed, to speed it up.

The issue around fresh water: there are provisions in this legislation that put effect to the Minister’s Essential Freshwater structure, and that’s a matter that he, I guess, is entitled to do, but those are, again, relatively tinkering in terms of the bigger reform package that is probably needed and required. To use this piece of legislation to achieve that in the dying throes of this Government, under urgency, as we approach the 2020 general election, seems to me to be unnecessary and not particularly helpful to the wider debate about those matters that we as a Parliament and we as a nation need to have.

So it’s with some regret, I have to say, that on this piece of legislation the National Party Opposition does oppose it. We do oppose it, we do think it’s tinkering, we do think it’s largely unnecessarily, particularly given that the Randerson report, we hope, will signal a pathway forward to a better set of planning rules and a better set of environmental protection rules that will take this country forward. So we oppose this legislation.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Resource Management Amendment Bill. Like others in the House, though, I am waiting with expectation to see the Randerson review and the very thorough process that I understand that expert panel has gone through to build on some of the really good work that organisations like the Environmental Defence Society have done over recent years to look at how do we plan and manage natural resources in New Zealand. The whole concept of spatial planning is something that many people have proposed, because when we’re doing these big infrastructure projects, how do we ensure that the housing, the transport, the green spaces are all well-connected, that amenity values, natural environment is protected? And how do we plan in a sensible, coherent way? At the moment, the Act has really failed the environment. It’s failed people in terms of public participation because it becomes quite cumbersome. So we have had a series of changes. This bill is the latest of those. It will significantly improve the Act, but it is this wider reform that Minister Parker is leading that I think will make the real substantive change that will make the Act fit for purpose in the 21st century.

So with this bill, it is much more than the National Party has given it credit for because of the major changes that National made, which cut right across public participation, and which significantly increased the powers of the Minister for the Environment to reach down and amend provisions in district and regional plans with very few safeguards. Those section 360D provisions were widely criticised when they were introduced by National—a lot of submissions to select committee against them. This bill actually removes those from the Act.

The other area where this bill is really important is in the whole freshwater space. In the second reading, National members attempted to suggest that the Green Party’s support for the freshwater commissioners was showing that we had changed our position in terms of Environment Canterbury and the appointment of commissioners by that Government to do away with democratic decision-making. What these freshwater commissioners do is quite different. They have to be accredited under the Resource Management Act (RMA) in the same way that RMA commissioners are accredited. They have specialist expertise, and we all know that the management of water in Aotearoa has become very controversial, very contentious. So having commissioners who’ve got particular expertise with tikanga with freshwater management, good RMA qualifications, is a way to make sure that we get these national policy instruments like the National Policy Statement for Freshwater implemented into plans, because one of the problems has been the lack of national direction until very late in the Opposition’s term in Government, and then they haven’t been properly implemented into plans. So we need to tune up the system and these freshwater commissioners will help do that and help ensure that we have healthy waterways that all New Zealanders want to be able to swim in, to gather mahinga kai from, to be able to kayak in, fish in, and to enjoy. So the freshwater changes in this bill are major, and I hope that the Randerson review and others will build on the work that’s been in this bill.

The other area that’s really significant is the changes in relation to climate change that ensure that, having passed the zero carbon Act, we have a consistent regime under the RMA. As the Minister has noted, these changes in terms of allowing councils to consider the impacts on emissions will only come into effect when national direction is provided. So that will ensure that there are national policy statements or national environmental standards, there is consistent national direction across Aotearoa about how councils should consider emissions when they’re considering resource constraints and when they’re considering their plan provisions. We need to get our emissions down. It is ridiculous that activities where there are coal-fired boilers being put in, that councils haven’t been able to consider the emissions angle of that. So this bill is fixing things that need to be fixed, but this Government is looking to make sure that the RMA is fit for the 21st century, with a much more substantive review. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We’ve had a good discussion this afternoon about the Resource Management Amendment Bill, and I just want to take a moment and acknowledge David Parker, who was the Minister in the chair in the committee stage. We had a good discussion with him about aspects of this bill, but, importantly, I think it’s worthwhile just going back in history a bit. The Resource Management Act (RMA) is about 30 years old. It’s had 18-odd changes, or 19, I think, now—

Dan Bidois: This is the 19th.

Hon NATHAN GUY: —this is the 19th, Dan Bidois rightly points out—and it’s 800 pages long. It’s complex, and when we think about what the RMA is about, it’s about, fundamentally, environment planning and also overall planning as well, and those two butt up because you have an economic aspect of that, as well.

We’ve heard quite a lot of discussion about the Randerson report, from retired judge Justice Tony Randerson. I asked the Minister last week whether he had received a copy, and he said no. I asked him earlier on today, and he said he’s seen a draft, so no doubt the Minister is busy reviewing that and maybe changing a few words to make sure it lines up with his aspirations for RMA changes.

I thought it would have been appropriate for the Minister to reach out across the Parliament and work with the Opposition on this, but there’s been, as far as I know, very little consultation. I think zero—I’m looking around at colleagues, who nod their heads—consultation with us in terms of the wider review of the RMA.

We made changes when we’re in Government, and we couldn’t get all of the changes that we necessarily wanted because of our coalition partners. United Future and Peter Dunne wouldn’t support us to make the necessary changes that we wanted, and the Māori Party had concerns. But the one that really has made a difference that I like to talk about is the call-in process.

Nick Smith made the changes. Projects of national significance can be called in within nine months and done—not years and years and years of appeals heading off to the Environment Court, which is costly and bureaucratic, and now we are driving, up in my electorate, on the Kāpiti Expressway, which was indeed called in through a nine-month process. So we know that the National Government did make a difference.

Now, talking about this specific bill, we received 385 submissions in the Environment Committee and we heard 59 of those, and they were all actually pretty good contributions. But what we heard was there’s some support for this, and we heard from other submitters who weren’t that supportive.

We have spent a bit of time this afternoon debating about the freshwater commissioner’s role and the panel’s role, and I’m still not convinced that this aspect is going to be less costly than what we currently have. The Minister and his officials seem to think it is, and the proof of the pudding will indeed be in the eating. What I don’t want to see is more bureaucracy and more cost on ratepayers and, at a point when we are focused across the whole of the Parliament—and we’ll debate the merits of policy direction and so forth—we lose focus on creating jobs when our economy most needs them. But we know that fresh water has been a debate in this Parliament for a long period of time, and if the panel are going to help do a better job than what is currently in place with the planning and so forth, then I think, ultimately, that may end up being a better thing, but we’ll wait and see. The jury is out at the moment.

The other important aspect of this is also stock exclusions. It’s covered on page 15—I’m just going to find that, if you’ll bear with me. It’s all about the water body with the amendment in clause 70 to section 360, “Regulations”, of the RMA, where the water body can be fenced, but not the margin. So, presumably, that’s if a drain or a stream at certain times of the year flows beyond its normal route, then that will be included in the stock exclusion aspect that’s included in this bill this afternoon.

We know that about 96 percent of the farms in New Zealand have already fenced to exclude livestock. That’s about here—in Wellington—to Chicago, and back again. So we need to acknowledge the good work that our farmers have done, and now we have a further debate on stock exclusion because the Government, in another policy change, came out with a discussion document and said they wanted a 5-metre setback. Now, that is pruned back to 3 metres, but I’m heartened to hear from the Minister, who was in front of the Environment Committee earlier today, that those existing permanent fences won’t need to be removed and set back to that distance.

The other one is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 519, which was dropped on the Table this afternoon, and I would have liked this SOP and the other SOP 517 to have come to the select committee, but, unfortunately, it didn’t. It does two things, this SOP in my hand. It’s about freshwater farm plans. It’s reasonably new. We’ve had discussions in this Parliament about farm plans, and farmers are aware that they are going to need to do more in this aspect. But my challenge back to the Minister and the Government is that what farmers don’t want to see is more duplication and bureaucracy, because there are a lot of farm plans already in existence, with regional councils, Fonterra, and Beef and Lamb working on their ones. In effect, you have OVERSEER, your fertiliser plan—so there are a huge amount of plans that are already in existence, and I’m concerned that this freshwater farm plan is going to be another one on top of the others that are living documents right now. So that needs to be well-thought-through on how, practically, that is going to be implemented.

The other aspect of this SOP is, basically, a requirement for fertiliser companies to report annually how much fertiliser they’re selling. This is code for—and I hope I’m wrong—potentially, a fertiliser tax in the future. We know when we look back, there was the capital gains tax that was raging, there was a water tax and a nitrogen tax, and the Government backed away from those. So I’m just wondering whether this is a sneaky opportunity for—

Hon Damien O’Connor: You put GST up.

Hon NATHAN GUY: And Damien O’Connor has woken up. He can answer the question: is this a sneaky opportunity that your Government wishes to bring in a nitrogen fertiliser tax? He’s nodding, so I think it’s right. So he can go and campaign on the West Coast that he wants to bring in a nitrogen fertiliser tax for all those dairy farmers on the West Coast, because he’s nodded in agreement that that’s what this SOP is all about, which is so disappointing to hear.

But, in summary, we don’t support this bill because we don’t think that it actually does the things that are really going to stimulate growth and jobs in the New Zealand economy. We’re worried about the cost. We’re worried about the bureaucracy.

We do, however, support the other bill, which is a fast-track one on the back of COVID-19. That’s going to streamline some important projects to do with getting development in our economy going on the back of COVID-19. That has a sunset clause of two years, so we think there’s an opportunity for more projects to be included in that one, but we’ll have another point in time where we can discuss that further in this House. But we don’t support the bill that we are debating this afternoon.

Hon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a contribution on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Resource Management Amendment Bill. I want to compliment the Hon David Parker for good work done. There have been some quite extensive consultations. I know he and the Hon Shane Jones worked very closely together. I have to also compliment the Environment Committee for its work and for the level of consultation that was conducted throughout New Zealand. I know that Minister Parker fronted many meetings around, and I know from my own visits, along with Mark Patterson, down to the South Island, talking to farmers and hearing their concerns, that initially the bill had people very worried. Being a rural lad myself and someone who’s been heavily involved in governance boards of farms, farming enterprises, for quite some time, I am very aware, and New Zealand First is very aware, of the concerns that were aired by the farming community, particularly around compliance, particularly around costs and what would be expected of them and the extra work involved in all of that.

I guess what stands out for me in listening to the contributions in both what I thought was a very constructive committee stage this afternoon and the speeches thus far in the third reading, what stands out very clearly is that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken. I think that’s the one point that everybody in the House agrees on, whether it’s the Hon Eugenie Sage saying that the RMA has failed the environment or whether it’s been the Hon Nathan Guy himself saying that the RMA is costly, complex, difficult to administer, and has failed consistently, pointing out that in the 30-odd years—and I think two National Party speakers have pointed out; the speech notes must have been handed around by their research unit—that it’s been in force for 30 years and it’s had 19 amendments, and still members of the previous Government are standing up in Opposition, after having made major changes to it themselves in their time in Government, and saying that it’s broken, which leads me to one simple question: why are they really voting against this amendment? Why?

The only arguments I’ve heard have been that it’s because it’s tinkering, so that suggests that—and then I’ve heard criticisms: they’re saying it doesn’t do enough, it doesn’t go far enough, it should’ve been done earlier, we should get on and do the one job we have to do, and that is a major overhaul of the entire 800-page document which is the Act, but we shouldn’t do this. It’s sort of like the old comment that we used to hear in the army a lot, you know, when soldiers are told to hurry up and wait.

Tim van de Molen: That’s right.

Hon RON MARK: I’m hearing from National today—gidday, Tim—that we should hurry up and wait. “Hurry up and change and reform the RMA, but don’t do it now. Hurry up and get the Judge Randerson report here, but don’t make any changes now.” Well, if we are to address the problems that both sides of the House have acknowledged here this afternoon, then starting now to fix what we now can do is a sensible option.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the Government has made changes in terms of the fencing off of rivers and streams. Having been involved in doing quite a bit of that in my time involved in farming enterprises and seeing the cost of it, it is also good to see that the Government is now meeting those costs. That’s going to be a huge advantage and a huge incentiviser to farmers.

I want to acknowledge, also, all of the farmers who participate in the Ballance environmental farmer of the year awards that we see regionally—I attend wherever I can in the Wairarapa—and acknowledge the huge steps that modern farmers have taken to enhance and protect the environment, the way in which they have, you know, off their own bat, fenced off vast parts of their property, taken them out of production, either to, one, protect the rivers, protect the waterways, or, two, to assist with regeneration, to prevent erosion. They’ve borne those costs themselves, and they’ve been justly recognised by the Ballance farm awards for a number of years, and I just want to compliment those people for doing that. We’ve got some astonishing farmers in the Wairarapa, and they need to be recognised as opposed to—as some people would do—being continually beat up on.

I also want to acknowledge the comments that were made, just let it be known, that very mindful—and endorse the comments made by some of the Opposition members in reminding New Zealand that it’s not just about the farmers. If we’re talking fresh water, if we’re talking about waterways, if we’re talking about making it possible for people to go and swim safely in rivers and streams and estuaries, then as someone who’s been a mayor and been in local government, let me assure the House: I’ve seen some godawful streams and rivers in metropolitan New Zealand, and it doesn’t take a lot when you’re visiting cities to pull your phone out and take a few photos to prove that fact. This has got to be a national effort. If we are to tidy up our water, to improve the quality of our rivers, of our streams, and of our estuaries, then it’s a national effort on everybody’s part.

I’m hopeful that on the back of COVID, we are a more united nation, that we now understand the value of our farming community, our resilience as a nation, and our ability to withstand things that hit us out of the blue, such as a pandemic. Actually, a lot of that resilience comes from the rural community, from the farming community, and it’s what gives us the ability to keep our head above water, survive, and get up and rebuild ourselves and go forward. We need to be mindful of that as a Government when we are passing any sort of legislation.

I look forward to the passing of the next tranche of legislation which will accelerate, and I look forward to seeing Judge Randerson’s reports come through so that we might—and I live in hope that we might, remembering the conversations that have taken place over the last few hours, recognising the significance and the importance to the economy and to the wellbeing of the environment and our people, find space in here for some cross-party collaboration to truly take on board the report from Judge Randerson—I haven’t seen it, but I’m hopeful—take on board recommendations, work together collectively and collaboratively.

This is not going to be a one-term thing. These reforms are going to take place over two electoral cycles—let’s be clear about that—that’s 2020 and 2023. That’s plenty of time for us as a Parliament to recognise that, actually, if we’re to put something in place, if we’re to recognise that the RMA is dysfunctional, recognise the need that in the long-term we have to fix this, recognise that whatever fixes we make have to genuinely be to the advantage of the country as a whole and have to be sustainable, we might just—we might just—with a new age of MPs coming into this House, find a way of doing this together, find a way of doing this collaboratively. If we don’t, if we continue to play political ping-pong on this issue, we’re going to not really get ahead, and we will do our country, we will do the businesses, and we’ll do the farming communities, we’ll do the communities that support the farmers, places like Carterton—my town’s a service town—a grave disservice. We’ll be back in the House here in the Chamber again, lamenting lost opportunity and giving speeches saying the RMA’s broken, it’s failed the environment, and it needs to be fixed. The difference is we’ll be saying that in 2024, won’t we? I think it’s time, actually, in the interests of our mokopuna yet to come and the environment that we’re all striving to protect, to find a way to work collectively, collaboratively, together.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that was amusing, because we had the ability to do all this in the last Parliament, in fact, but who was it that didn’t vote with the National Government of the time to make those changes—to live in hope, as that member the Hon Ron Mark points out? We’ve had opportunities, but they decided to play politics. They were the ones who decided to vote against our very good amendments to the Resource Management Act (RMA) at the time. So it’s very rich for that member to stand up today and say, “Oh, I live in hope that one day we can all work in a cross-party manner, and rah-rah-rah.” Absolute rubbish.

This bill sums up the Labour—the whole of the Government, actually—term so far: big promises, big talk, big slogans, but absolutely no delivery. It’s almost like they sat down and went, “Well, gosh, isn’t it terrible that we only built 395 out of the 10,000 houses we promised with KiwiBuild? Now we’re going to make sure that no one else can build a house either. We’re going to make these incremental changes to the RMA to undo the changes that National put in place, to make it more difficult to build houses, to make it more costly and more timely.”

It’s very interesting: I found that the Minister for the Environment, at committee stage, when I put to him—I said, “Well, why is it that you are undoing those very good changes that we made in the last Parliament, to make it more difficult and more costly to build houses?” He said, “Oh, well, it’s very important that we put these appeal rights back in, because it’s important that we get back to a base where people get to have their say.”, and he waffled on and on about getting back to a base where it’s important that people have to have their say. At the same time—at the very same time—he’s putting two bills forward, the Urban Development Bill and the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, where he gets to completely circumvent the RMA. So, on the one hand, he’s saying it’s absolutely fine and we don’t want appeal rights because that just clogs up the system and he’s acknowledging that we don’t want appeal rights in those cases and under that legislation, but, on the other hand, when everyone else wants to subdivide their property or build a house, well, that’s not OK. It’s very, very confusing, and this whole bill—and I mentioned it in my second reading speech—is a confusing mess.

We’ve all acknowledged—we’ve all said many times—that the RMA has become cumbersome. It’s become huge and difficult to navigate. This will be the 19th amendment. It’s unwieldly. There’s certainly no good development that comes out of it and no good environmental effects. Actually, the only people that make any money out of this are the legal consultants. They’ve done very well. So when the Government announced that they were going to undertake a programme of RMA reform—like they always do with their big announcements—we were quite excited about this, because, as we all know, across the House everyone’s in agreement that something has to be done. But what we ended up with was an expert panel led by Tony Randerson to come up with a report that’s going to give us an idea of what the RMA could look like—wholesale changes that will actually make a difference—which is not in itself a bad thing, but, as per usual, the report is late. Potentially—well, hopefully—it’s out before the election. We don’t know. But they’ve spent the first three years, like they do with everything, kicking the can down the road. All that we have is this bill, which is a very small tinkering-around-the-edges bill, which, for the most part, just undoes good changes that the National Party did in the last Parliament to make it easier to subdivide, to have less appeals, and a few other bits and pieces that made developing more easy and cost-effective to undertake.

So you would think that they would have at least waited just until the draft report was out to see whether or not Tony Randerson agreed that these changes were good changes, because we don’t know. The Minister made the point, in the chair, that it’s going to take many, many years to put in place the Randerson report changes, but at least he would have had an idea, reading a draft report, whether or not the changes that he’s making today were in line with what Tony Randerson wanted. But no; instead, he’s pushing forward with this bill, which we all know is going to make it much more difficult for people to build houses.

One of the main changes that we made at the last Parliament that’s being undone in this bill is the rules around subdivision. So the rules were changed by National to increase the levels of subdivision so that we’d have a greater housing supply to streamline the process. We made it so that subdivisions could happen unless they were specifically restricted by a district plan, and so, therefore, you would get more subdivision.

Why is this significant? Well, it’s significant because KiwiBuild was such a massive fail. The Government can’t build houses. We know that the way that houses get built in this country is by the private sector. I think Nicola Willis, in her second reading speech, pointed out that there were 37,000 consents granted each year. So it’s quite clear that the private sector build houses. We need to make it easier for them to do so. I think I remember Nicola Willis saying, in that same speech, that, in fact, yes, there are some very big projects that provide lots of homes, but, actually, the incremental effect of lots of people subdividing adds to our housing stock. Here we are reversing the changes that National made at the last Parliament, to make it more difficult. Not only are we doing that presumptive right to subdivide, but we’re actually also now changing the change that we made, which was not allowing appeal rights to the Environment Court. So those are being put back. If you’re sitting there now thinking “Maybe I might subdivide.”, you’re going to think twice, because the uncertainty and the cost and the time, really, means that it is potentially not worthwhile. As I mentioned before, those incremental subdivisions are, really, what creates housing in this country, and here we are undoing it.

So all we’re doing, again, is more delays, more cost, and more time. If that’s not enough to stymy development and increase cost, the bill also reintroduces financial contributions. We were talking about this just a moment ago in the committee of the whole House stage. In 2017, the then National Government streamlined it so that your local council and the RMA both couldn’t ask for a development contribution—it was only the local council. We streamlined that to give more certainty and lower the costs for developers. But here we are putting that back in. So double hit, double whammy—so if you’re a developer you’re up for, potentially, two development contributions. I mentioned—I think we all mentioned—that this is just petty politicking changes that actually get in the way of good development, housing supply, certainty, and reducing the cost of building.

I mentioned earlier about the other two bills that are currently before this Parliament, and that is the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill and the Urban Development Bill. What those two bills, basically, do is set aside the RMA. You can circumvent the RMA to get things under way. So there is an understanding by this Government that the RMA doesn’t work—that if you want to get good developments under way, you need a fast-track consenting process and you need to be able to circumvent the RMA. They understand that and they know that. But, at the very same time, we’re passing a bill to make it more difficult, more costly, and more timely. It is such a massively confused approach, and I think the Minister—and I said in a number of speeches—needs to say to this House why the different approaches. He needs to come down to the House and explain to us why it is that for his own projects, he gets to circumvent the RMA but, when Mr and Mrs Smith want to subdivide their property and build another house, it’s going to be much, much more difficult, more costly, and a far more uncertain process.

The points that I’ve made are, firstly, that we’ve got the Randerson report that is due out very soon that we really should have waited for before making any changes. It’s just completely weird that we would be here making these little changes that could be in direct contravention to what Tony Randerson says in his report, which is due out very, very soon. It’s just a petty undoing of the very, very good changes that we made. It goes against the Urban Development Bill and the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, which acknowledges that the RMA is a hindrance to good development.

The last thing I’ll say is that in a post-COVID world, where we want to create jobs and get construction moving and get more houses built, this is a bill that is going to only get in the way of good, cheap, affordable housing, and more of it, which this country so desperately needs. For that reason, I am not supporting this bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a brief contribution, firstly, to touch on the points that Ms Stanford was mentioning. Firstly, I look forward to a thorough, rigorous, and cooperative engagement when the next tranche of resource management reforms come before this House, which they undoubtedly will next term. I think we agree, in principle, that low-cost, high-quality development is good, and I’m very proud of our record of building more houses in this term than that Government did in nine years previously.

But in terms of the other thing that this bill does, I just want to touch on the climate change point, which is a really important one and it’s really heartening because it shows that the select committee listened very carefully to submitters who pointed out the inconsistency of all of the hard work that had been done in climate change with the zero carbon bill and the work being done on emissions trading, and yet the Resource Management Act said it was inappropriate to take climate change issues into account when looking at consenting issues. Now, that just makes no sense, and so it’s really quite heartening to see an alignment of those things, an alignment that’s being carried through with other legislation before the Environment Committee—I must have one of the most hard-working committees in this Parliament, meeting six times this week no less, which I hear is unprecedented.

But I just wanted to say that that zero-carbon approach is one we really need to emphasise and the freshwater planning process is really a kick-start that has been languishing for years—well overdue. I want to absolutely emphasise that this is not about rural/urban and we absolutely acknowledge that some of the dirtiest waterways are in the cities, and the cities will be held to account to exactly the same stringent standards as any other New Zealander. Of course, it’s not going to be a political matter. The setting up of freshwater panels with commissioners makes sure that you’re getting an objective view, setting targets and goals and implementation which are fair and achievable and meet national standards—something that we have been needing for 30 years and which progress has not been made on until now.

I’m really quite proud to have been part of this important piece of legislation. It’s not a massive document. It’s not a sea change for the Resource Management Act, but it did pick some critical areas that needed attention. It’s done it effectively. It just shows what a hard-working Minister David Parker is. The fact is that this is going to be a great contribution to our resource management law. I commend it to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National opposes this bill, and we oppose it, simply, because we don’t believe that it will deliver on its purpose. Supposedly, the bill is supposed to reduce complexity, it’s supposed to increase certainty, and it’s supposed to improve resource management processes. I could support the bill if I thought that the amendments had any chance of reducing complexity, had any hope of assuring certainty, and had any possibility of improving resource management processes. But I believe the amendments, generally speaking, will make the situation even worse.

The bill amends the Resource Management Act (RMA), of course, but it also largely reverses changes made by the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017. The main purpose of that bill was to reduce bureaucracy and red tape that was stifling job growth, that was stalling house building, and that was really making it difficult to have effective environment management—all these things that we should be supporting right now. We don’t want anything to make it more difficult to get a job or harder to get a house. I think everyone agrees that good environmental outcomes—we need more consistency and more responsive planning across the country and better alignment with existing plans and legislation, but this bill won’t do that either.

The Resource Management Act was originally introduced in 1991, which is well over 30 years ago, and it was, at that stage, about 300 pages long; it’s now got to over 800 pages long and it’s been patched and amended so many times that it’s almost impossible to read. It was originally considered cutting edge; now I don’t think it’s fit for purpose. You’ve got to be a highly paid specialist lawyer to even read, let alone interpret, its many myriad of rules and regulations.

Listening to people talking in the House today, I think everyone agrees that the Resource Management Act is now inaccessible and underperforming, making it almost impossible to get the decisions that we need to manage our environment and our economy effectively and well. There’s been demand for change to this legislation for years, but the political realities of MMP have prevented any meaningful reform, and today we’re seeing the same thing happening again. The coalition Government acknowledges that the bill is only an interim measure—another patch-up—and that stage 2 is already on the way, and that’s going to be bigger, brighter, and better. But the Resource Management Act is an essential piece of our legislation, and these patch-ups are an enormous waste of time and resource. National believes that the time has come for a full review and rewrite of the whole Act.

It’s really disappointing that this bill does nothing to address housing affordability; in fact, we believe it actually increases the cost of home building and will make it more difficult. By removing the processes that were designed to speed up the consenting of controlled activities, by removing the prohibition of appeals against building residential housing in a residential-zoned land, and by allowing the duplication of financial contributions, we believe that the subdivision of land and the building of homes is going to be more expensive and slower, and we don’t see any real benefit.

We’re also concerned that there are few ways to monitor the effectiveness of councils. They are monopolies in this space with absolutely no competition. So there’s no drive to ensure timeliness, cost effectiveness, or even customer focus, and that is a recipe for poor performance, and in many cases, both the environment and the economy suffer.

This bill also introduces provisions for the management of fresh water. But, again, we are doubtful about the benefits of these changes. I’m particularly concerned about the loss of the collaborative approach to water management. That approach really catalysed communities to come together, to work together to sort out local water issues, something that is extremely difficult to achieve. It’s been successful in bringing farmers, environmentalists, recreational interests, and iwi together to nut out bespoke water solutions for the best local outcomes for water catchment by catchment, but this bill will remove the process.

Not all councils use the collaborative approach; it was optional in the previous legislation, which begs the question of why you’d get rid of it if it wasn’t working. But those who have, particularly in Canterbury and the Waikato, have seen some real progress in terms of managing water quality and quantity. As an ex - Environment Canterbury councillor myself, I saw the challenges of managing water in an area like Canterbury. The issues are technically and socially challenging and with problems of conflicting interests and the need for capacity to protect environmental values. It was the introduction of the collaborative approach that got people around the table and allowed them to make the compromises that were required to make progress, and this bill will remove this opportunity. I agree with the Hon Ron Mark and his comments about collaboration, but it seems that it’s, obviously, easier to talk about these things rather than do them.

I also note the irony of this Government appointing a Chief Freshwater Commissioner and water commissioners across the country. These water commissioners will be appointed by central government, not regional Government—not locally. That’s a significant shift from local to central control. I can’t help pointing out that this is being done by the same politicians who howled with indignation when they were in Opposition, and National put in temporary commissioners to run Environment Canterbury. Those commissioners had a very similar mandate: to make progress on water quality and quantity in their region. I’m also pleased to point out that the commissioners did a great job in Canterbury and that water management and the environment in general have greatly benefited from their work. Now, of course, Environment Canterbury is fully elected, although they too will be subjected to a centrally appointed water commissioner.

So, in conclusion, the RMA may certainly need work. It is overly complex, inaccessible and not fit for purpose. Actually, it needs to be totally revised, rethought, and rewritten, and National has committed to do just that. This bill is a mere tweak and I think it’s an unwise one. It won’t reduce complexity, it won’t increase certainty, and it certainly won’t improve resource management processes. National can’t support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call’s a split call. I call Angie Warren-Clark.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m really delighted to take a very short call on this bill. What we know from the community is that water is a really important issue, and what we know is that our community wants to be swimming in their rivers, they want to be having healthy waters, and this bill really moves towards that. This bill sets up commissioners which are part of the community, and those commissioners are, in fact, able to look at all the water issues there are. It, essentially, stops the degradation of our waters, and people tell us that this is really important. I think the Minister earlier today spoke in his final speech about the fact that there’s a concern about whether we put our head under water; we shouldn’t be like that in this country. This bill is stage one of two stages, but it is actually going to fix one of the major issues that all of our country is concerned about, and therefore I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): One of the biggest pieces of feedback that I get from property developers, landlords, and businesses in the building and construction industry is: “When will we see meaningful reforms to the Resource Management Act?” I’ve heard today from this House, from the likes of Ron Mark, that the Resource Management Act (RMA) is broken, that it’s dysfunctional, and the question that this House needs to consider is: is this bill that we’re considering today the best way to fix the RMA? What I mean by that is: will it speed up development, will it ensure our environment is preserved, and will it reduce unnecessary bureaucratic processes for those in the sector?

On this side of the House, we’ve answered no to all of those questions. This bill is, essentially, a bill that tinkers with the RMA rather than reducing the fundamental issues with it. It doesn’t address housing affordability. I heard the Minister David Parker, for 10 minutes, talk about the bill and he didn’t reference housing affordability at all. It makes building houses and subdividing more difficult, and it adds unnecessary costs and delays in the process.

Now, under this new bill there are new powers that councils and the Environment Court and boards of inquiry will be able to consider the costs of climate change mitigation. But, in terms of the greenhouse gases in New Zealand and the largest buckets of opportunity for this country, this sector doesn’t really fit the bill. If we look at the largest sectors—whether it is energy, transport, or agriculture—those are the sectors that we should be focused on in order to reduce our carbon footprint in New Zealand. So allowing councils to stop developments and subdivisions on these grounds, we think, is absurd.

What I didn’t hear from the Minister today is how this law speeds up the development of homes. What we also didn’t hear from the Minister is how it reduces complexity and improves the resource management processes, which is the core objective of the Act that we’re discussing here today. What I think we need to do, and what my community in Northcote has always urged in this instance, is a bipartisan approach to have meaningful reform to the Resource Management Act. That means making it easier to build—whether it is small DIY projects in your home—but also making sure that we’re looking after our environment as well.

The second area is in relation to speeding up the resource consent process. I’m absolutely in agreement with my colleague Nicola Willis, who said that the processes councils have for resource consents is, essentially, a monopoly, and yet we have heard nothing from the Minister and nothing in this bill that addresses the complexities of getting a resource consent and, in fact, how we can speed that up.

So I support the other bill that we’re discussing in the House today, which is around the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, but that, in essence—

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s not this bill.

DAN BIDOIS: —that is not this bill, as Minister Hipkins referred to, absolutely—calls out the workarounds that were already in place and are going to be in place in this Government. We have such a poor Resource Management Act that we’re now going to vote separately to this on a bill that, essentially, provides a workaround.

So let me ask a question to this House today: are we committed to substantial reform of the Resource Management Act? If so, then let’s come together in a bipartisan fashion. We on this side of the House stand ready to make substantial reforms to the RMA that do improve housing affordability and the construction costs for everybody so that we can make housing more affordable. That’s what we want in this country: housing affordability to be addressed. So I oppose this bill and National does not commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Every MP in this House would love $100 for every constituent who has complained about the Resource Management Act (RMA); most of us wouldn’t have to sell another raffle ticket in our life. However, we also hear from those same people who then, as soon as they want to stop something happening in their neighbourhood, the RMA becomes their best friend and they start waving it around like certain politicians do with a Bible.

So when I look at this bill, this is about getting started. You wait nine years, complain, do nothing, and then when this party, this side of the House, actually gets started on doing something about the Act, something about getting this country moving, then we hear nothing but complaints from the other side. This is a very good piece of legislation that will ensure that those who so often dominate the discussion will actually now hopefully be silent, and we’ll have a common-sense approach to getting things done in this country. I commend this, Madam Speaker.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I enjoyed the previous member Greg O’Connor’s contribution, and this side of the House, we thought it was a comedy fest. Often, if you’re watching out there in voter land in New Zealand, it can appear to be a bit of a comedy fest, because if you look at the guts of this bill, it does absolutely nothing to reduce complexity. It increases the cost of housing. It adds a whole heap of red tape. It increases the time to get resource consents processed.

But, in terms of affordability, what happened to the previous SHAs—special housing accords? What happened to them? You go to any mayor across New Zealand and they will chew your ear off for literally half an hour, telling you how great the previous National Government’s SHAs were. Go to any mayors around New Zealand and they will tell you it reduced time for resource consents. Not only making them quicker, it meant reduced time—[Interruption]

And listening to the members of the Government—they’re coming up. They know. We’ve hit a sour point. We have hit a sour point, because they know this bill does absolutely nothing to reduce time, cost, and complexity. There’s absolutely nothing in here, and I encourage the members across the aisle to get up and take a call and name one thing, just one thing, in this bill that reduces cost to the average Kiwi.

This bill does absolutely nothing to make it cheaper or easier to build a house. I’ve had a bit of fun: I’ve had a look at this bill, and within this bill—I spent time trying to figure out what’s the point of it. But within the bill, if you look at a couple of parts, the first part, Part 9A, “Freshwater farm plans”, well, if you go and talk to any farmer across New Zealand, they have these things called environmental farm plans, which most dairy farms have now. In the environmental farm plans, it covers, basically, anything across the farm. And section 217A, “Purpose”, all this does is add another complex process to what farmers already do. So now we’re asking farmers to do more red tape, more regulation, which is already happening.

Then, if you go for a bit of a deeper dive, if you go to Part 9B, what 9B is, basically, saying is the Minister of primary industries wants to introduce a fertiliser tax. That’s what Part 9B covers. So, under cover, you think this bill was supposed to reduce costs, but if you’re a farmer, this means there is another target on your back from this Government. A fertiliser tax—a fertiliser tax—is hidden in this bill. [Interruption] What’s that?

Angie Warren-Clark: Have a look at the quantities of nitrogen.

HAMISH WALKER: Exactly. The Government member’s just admitted there will be a fertiliser tax in this bill, so post-election there will be a fertiliser tax. I acknowledge the member for announcing that.

Now, if we dig a bit deeper inside this bill, which absolutely does nothing to reduce cocks—costs, time, and complexity—

Andrew Bayly: What was that?

HAMISH WALKER: —if you look at National’s—sorry, Andrew Bayly, I was looking at you for too long there.

If you look at what National did in the previous Government, the RLAA—National’s Resource Legislation Amendment Act—this was passed in 2017, which, basically, reversed subdivision presumption, saying unless specifically restricted by a district plan, you can subdivide. For anyone out there watching Parliament TV tonight—I’m sure you’re enjoying it—if you’ve gone to build a house, at the moment, it’s a complete nightmare. Often, to get through resource consent, it not only takes months but it takes years, and the cost involved is absolutely horrific. If you look at this bill, it only makes it harder and slower for people to subdivide to build homes. The repeal of the fast-track provision will only slow down resource consent.

I urge any Government Minister or MP to get up and tell this House one aspect, just one aspect, of this bill that will make it easier. [Interruption] Angie Warren-Clark, what’s one thing? Name one thing—one thing. Deborah Russell—one thing. Greg O’Connor, you’re a smart man—one thing. See, none of them can name one thing across the House to make it easier. Chlöe Swarbrick, the Hon James Shaw—one thing.

Hon James Shaw: Protects the environment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Protects the environment.

HAMISH WALKER: Protects the environment. At least the Greens members can answer—at least the Green members can answer. But what’s concerning is in here, Part 9B, fertiliser tax. So the Green members said it protects the environment, aka, “Farmers, we’re coming after you”. If you look at the good work that farmers have already done, you only need to look at the 29 water catchment groups across Clutha-Southland—they’re voluntary. Farmers give up their own time to improve the waterway, and if you look at the quality of water in Southland, yep, it did degrade from 2001 to 2012, but it’s improved quite a bit from 2012. That’s because farmers work together.

This is an example of the difference between the Labour Party and the National Party. The Labour Party prefer to work at farmers, have targets on farmers’ backs, as opposed to the National Party; we like to work with farmers. So farmers out there, Part 9B, the fertiliser tax, is very, very concerning. [Interruption] The Labour Party members, all of them there yelling out are city dwellers—they’re all from city. What about the most polluted water in New Zealand? That’s in the Auckland CBD. They’re yelling at me over there, and they know that the most polluted water in New Zealand is in the Auckland CBD. What about your fellow city dwellers dumping rubbish, which is more often deliberate than the case of, say, cattle breaking through a fence? But we know this Government has farmers in their eyesight, and that’s why Part 9B, the fertiliser tax, is another example of the Government coming after farmers.

This bill is a dog with fleas, and it needs to be put down. It needs to be put down as opposed to debating it in here tonight. We are wasting the House’s time with this bill. This bill adds cost, time, and complexity; it does simply nothing to improve the process to make it more affordable for housing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll tell you what’s delaying this process is this speech.

HAMISH WALKER: I encourage any Government member to take a call. [Interruption] You going to take one?

Kiritapu Allan: I could, just to respond to this—it’s wonderful.

HAMISH WALKER: I’ll sit down if you take one.

Kiritapu Allan: I almost feel like it.

HAMISH WALKER: Are you going to take one? They’re tempted. They were thinking about it. They’re over there looking through the notes. They’re looking for one thing that’s going to help the punter out there. They’re looking through their notes and they can’t find one thing that reduces the cost of housing. For those reasons, we don’t support this bill. Thank you.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Resource Management 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 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 24 June.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): When we were last debating the first reading of this bill, Andrew Bayly had the call, and he has three minutes and 29 seconds remaining should he wish to take it.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Madam Speaker, I would like to talk on this bill, and I was talking on it, as you correctly referred to, last week, and I basically summarised it, but I think, for many people today, if they are tuning in—and perhaps for some of my colleagues, more particularly across the way—that it might be useful just to help summarise what’s in this bill.

The first thing I’ve got to say is that National will be opposing this bill, and the reason for that is that the first and primary objective of this bill is around setting taxation rates for the coming financial year. Whilst there is no change in the rates specified in the bill, we are concerned that New Zealanders are paying too much tax that has occurred as a result of inflation, and the result of that is that their wages go up in line with inflation, and they also slowly creep up and eventually go into a higher tax bracket. This has been a problem for some period of time, and National actually took the bull by the horns and announced that we are going to inflation index incomes for New Zealanders every three years to reflect the impacts of inflation. That’s a $660 million package that will save New Zealanders $660 million a year, and that is why we’re opposing it—because we would have liked to have seen this in this bill.

Also we are very concerned that this Government, whilst it’s stating it’s not going to increase direct taxes, has a history—a long history—of introducing indirect taxes, and you only need to live in Auckland to know what that means, whether it’s an increase in fuel tax or the other—and I think there are about seven of them that the Government has introduced over the period of nearly three years in Government, and we think that’s wrong. Shifting tax from a direct tax base to an indirect tax is the same thing, and I think that issue needs to be exposed more often, and that is why we’re opposing this bill.

So this bill is wide-ranging, particularly around research and development and the write-off of feasibility expenditure. It makes provision for a $10,000 write-off if you’re looking at a new venture. Obviously, in the select committee—this is the first reading, obviously—we will be looking at that threshold of $10,000 to make sure the rules will be workable and whether, in fact, that derives significant value for businesses. It includes a number of changes around property, particularly where there’s common shareholding, it picks up the issues around leases, and it also deals with making sure that transactions are accounted for between seller and purchaser in the same way. And so it’s going to be an interesting process in select committee.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): This is not an excellent bill and I will not be commending it to the House, but I have little bit more to say about it than that member, Deborah Russell, just did. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill at its first reading, which the National Party will not be supporting. I just want to continue on with some of the comments that my colleague Andrew Bayly was making in relation to how this piece of legislation, essentially, cements the Government’s tax policies for another 12 months, and how those policies are harmful for New Zealanders as we recover from COVID-19.

One of the key issues that this bill does is it sets the taxation rates for the coming year. It sets the income tax rates, and it continues them at their current rates, which they have been at since, I believe, 2010 when the tax reset was made by the John Key National Government. Since then, we’ve had inflation of around 13 to 15 percent, which means that incomes have continued to grow and people are paying higher taxes, but their income is being, essentially, deflated due to inflation. This is what is called “bracket creep”, and this is an issue that the current Government has failed to address and is continuing to fail to address by this bill. As New Zealanders’ incomes grow and part of that increase in income is a reflection of the fact that we have inflationary pressures—

Kiritapu Allan: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I note that there is a stranger in the House. I’m not sure if there has been any amendment from the ruling this afternoon, but there was a particular member that was not to come into the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, are you still meant to be out on leave?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, Madam Speaker, that’s my difficulty. I phoned and asked what time I’m allowed to return to the House and nobody will tell me. I think I’m entitled to know, as a member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): OK. If you wouldn’t mind adjourning to the lobby and I’ll get an answer for you directly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That would be helpful.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thanks, Dr Smith.

SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to continue with the points that I was making around bracket creep, which is a significant issue in this piece of legislation, and an issue that this Government continues to fail to address. It’s an issue that we addressed in the 2017 Budget. We did pass important legislation which would have changed the brackets for tax rates in New Zealand to ensure that the brackets were increased so that New Zealanders were able to keep more of their hard-earned money. Not only has this Government removed and cancelled that tax relief but they’ve continued to increase the taxes that New Zealanders pay throughout their lives.

We’ve seen the regional fuel tax put in place in Auckland. We’ve seen taxes increased three times on fuel across New Zealand, with the next increase coming on 1   July—another increase to punish motorists without any delivery being done on any additional transport projects in New Zealand. And just this week we’ve heard that the light rail project in Auckland is not going ahead, despite the continual increase in taxes that we’re paying for petrol across New Zealand. This is a Government which approved light rail, a Government which then approved the higher taxes to pay for it, a Government which has then cancelled the light rail, and now they’ve kept the taxes in place. So we’re paying more and getting nothing, and that’s the problem with this Government—they have a failure to deliver on their promises.

But not only have they increased fuel taxes—something they’ve done very effectively without delivering—we’ve seen the ring-fencing of losses, we’ve seen the Amazon tax, GST on overseas roaming, the extending of the bright-line test, increased WorkSafe levies, and of course, as I mentioned earlier, the cancelled tax relief which was very important to New Zealanders and something which the National Party has committed to doing on a regular basis, because inflation is something that doesn’t stop. It’s like rust; it keeps going, and our tax brackets should be adjusted on a regular basis to ensure that New Zealanders are paying a fair rate of tax on the income they earn, and are not being penalised by inflation.

This Government said when they came into office that there would be no new taxes—an absolute lie; something that they have broken seven times. Seven times they’ve increased taxes, and that’s something they have lied about. Of course, we remember the Tax Working Group—the Tax Working Group’s report is sitting on Grant Robertson’s desk gathering dust, but I’m pretty sure he’s opening it up again, and brushing that dust off as he prepares for the upcoming election, because we need to remember that whilst they have ruled out doing anything at this stage in regards to the capital gains taxes, or wealth taxes, or inheritance taxes, or all the other proposed taxes which they would love to put in place, they have not yet announced their policy for the upcoming election. I can guarantee New Zealanders that if this Government is given the opportunity to sit on the Treasury benches for one more term, that Tax Working Group document will not only have the dust blown off it but they’ll be implementing as much of it as they possibly can over the next three years.

So what we should be talking about as we come out of COVID-19 is not how we have, as the explanatory note of this bill says, a “framework [to] help ensure that taxes are fair and efficient, and that they impede economic growth as little as possible.”; we should be having a conversation about how our tax system can ensure that New Zealand’s economic growth can grow, we’re not impeding it, we’re growing it, and we’re giving people opportunities. We’re incentivising people to be able to grow their businesses, to try and keep jobs and keep people employed, and that’s exactly what the National Party is committed to doing.

That’s why we’re talking about how we can incentivise businesses, keep businesses going through giving them tax relief around GST—giving them a portion of the GST they paid last year back to them so they can have cash flow in their businesses at a critical time so that they can continue to pay the bills, they can continue to stay afloat, and that they can continue to keep people employed. These are the issues which New Zealanders care about right now when it comes to tax. How can a tax system work for them to help grow our New Zealand economy and to help grow businesses and to help grow jobs? This bill does not do this.

This bill simply implements the current tax rates, rolls them over for another year, and then makes a range of tinkering around the edges in the Tax Administration Act, the Goods and Services Tax Act, the student loan scheme, KiwiSaver, the Companies Act—it’s just tinkering around the edges, and it’s nothing, with no vision, no energy, no drive, and no vision for how New Zealand can truly recover from COVID-19. The National Party is proud to oppose this piece of legislation because it does nothing to help grow the New Zealand economy.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): The New Zealand First Party, as an integral part of the great coalition Government, will support this bill.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought the previous speaker, Shane Jones, would surely have taken a little more time. He’s known for his robust debates and hot air, and he’s managed to speak for 30 seconds, which—and also the previous speaker across the other side, Professor Russell—

Dr Deborah Russell: Dr, not Professor—never Professor.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Dr—sorry, sorry. Dr Deborah Russell, chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—again, I thought she would have something to say on this bill. It’s a really very important bill.

This bill particularly, this omnibus bill, does a lot of things. Firstly, it does set the rates of tax for the year. Both previous speakers on this side have said that we like lower taxes, we like less tax, we want more money in people’s pockets, and the Green MP said, “Well, but you increased GST rates back in 2010.”, as Simeon Brown mentioned. But she forgets to realise that the marginal rates were cut at the same time, a tax take - neutral policy which incentivised people to work harder, because that’s what marginal tax rates are—all marginal tax rates determine the amount per dollar of gross earnings that is kept—and it also disincentivised by increasing the GST—well, it incentivised less spending. It disincentivised spending, because that’s what a GST is; it’s a tax on consumption. That was the purpose of that move, to increase the incentives for people to turn up to work every day to increase their money in their pocket so that they might then determine for themselves what they are to do with that money in their pocket. Of course, if one is to spend the money—you can either save it, spend it, or invest it, and, of course, if you wish to spend it or consume it, you would be taxed at that higher rate of GST on the day. Of course, the investing was not taxed—there was no investment tax—and there was, of course, no savings tax or taxes relating to those other two legs, if you like, of the three-legged chair. So I just wanted to clarify that.

My colleagues have talked about the effect of inflation and the increase in gross wages as opposed to real wages and the effects that static tax rates have on the real wealth of the individual, and as Andrew Bayly and Simeon Brown have traversed that, I will not repeat it, only to say that our policy is to inflation-proof the marginal tax rates so that only an increase in real wages would be caught in an increased marginal tax rate, not the gross increase in the person’s income.

Turning to the bill, it does a lot of things. A lot of it’s actually quite good. I’m going to go through a couple of things around the—well, where should we start? Let’s talk about the—and this is why I was so surprised that Deborah Russell didn’t mention some of these things—technicalities that involve the research and development changes, if you like, how we need to in select committee consider what is going around the rest of the world when it comes to R & D tax credits or rebates or environments, because it’s easy for an international company to take advantage of one country’s tax legislation over another, and if we are to incentivise certain things without considering that, there is opportunity for international players to game our system, and, of course, we certainly don’t want that to occur. So there’s a lot of work just in the R & D side of this bill.

There’s always been a lot of work put around the rules to do with trading and property. It’s been there in that legislation for a very long time that if one buys and sells property or is in the habit of buying and selling property, that property becomes part of that person’s stock or trading stock. So when one buys and sells a widget, we’re taxed on the gain, and so it is with someone who trades in houses. That’s been an underlying principle in the Income Tax Act for years and years. We clarified that a few years ago, and this current Government has increased the window to five years around what is deemed to be tradable profit when one is dealing with properties. Now we have a situation here today in this bill dealing with the same issue and also closing up loopholes that are being taken advantage of, which I think is a good part of the bill, and it does restrict or does not enable people of similar family names or cousins or friends or associates to appear to be separate in their tradings. It binds those people together, considers them one, and enables—

Hon Shane Jones: Associated persons test.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: That’s what I’m trying to say. Thank you very much, Mr Jones. The associated persons test is clarified and so will capture more people who are trading in property. So that’s a good bit, but quite complex and I think it deserves a bit of time in select committee.

There is another piece that I’d like to turn my attention to which is a good piece of the bill, which relates to M. bovis. This part of the bill is specific to the rural sector, where farmers have received compensation because they’ve had their herds culled. That is, you know, sort of like you’re selling all your stock at once, you’ve got a massive revenue income stream, and so therefore it’s taxed, and that’s obviously quite unfair because the farmer would not normally do that. The farmer would not normally sell all his stock on hand in one hit but M. bovis has forced the farmers to have their herds culled, and they are compensated for that, quite rightly so, and at the moment that is income, but this allows that income to be spread over a six-year period. So that’s another good part of this bill.

I think this bill is a missed opportunity. I’ve talked about the marginal tax rates and how that could be linked to inflation, but there are also other opportunities that could have been in this bill to restore confidence in the marketplace, to restore confidence in the general economy. The wage subsidy does some of that, but there are other things, that could be in this bill, which enable more cash to be put into the system, and targeted incentives. I’m talking about the GST refund proposal from this side of the House. That would enable GST to be refunded from those who pay the GST. So the larger the business, the more turnover—it’s a turnover-based incentive, if you like—the more GDP that you are creating as a business, would see you benefit the most, because it would be based on that—the GST that the business would normally have paid away. So I think that’s a good target audience.

The second target audience that could have been in this bill and that we have proposed is to enable investments to be written down much more quickly than they otherwise would be, and something that would normally be 15 to 20 years, depreciated down to zero could—even if it’s half that, even if it’s brought to a 10-year or a five-year or a two-year or a one-year or even an immediate deductibility, it would incentivise people to invest, to invest in hard assets. That makes no difference to the revenue that the Government would collect; it is only a matter of time. That deductibility would happen in any case over a period of time, and what we’re suggesting is that deductibility happens much more quickly, which would incentivise people with cash—because there’s plenty of cash around through the quantitative easing and the low interest rates and so on. It would incentivise people to invest in hard assets. Of course, if you’re investing in whatever it might be—a tractor—well, then, someone’s got to make the tractor, build the tractor, produce the widgets that go into the tractor, and all that multiplier effect can occur if one is incentivised to invest in these things.

So I think that is a missed opportunity, an opportunity to encourage people to invest. Once you feel like you’re investing, you’re only going to invest where it’s deemed or you think you’re going to make some money out of it, and, of course, we want people to turn a buck. We want the economy to get kick-started, and so that is why that’s an excellent proposal, because people who are thinking of investing—

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

Alastair Scott: Oh, I was having so much fun!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You could seek leave for an extension, but it may not be granted.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Get in line. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to speak briefly on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill and just to pick up a couple of points, in the spirit of this being a parliamentary debate, from the Opposition. It was interesting just contrasting some of the speeches from the push-me, pull-you of politics, the National Party, because they were saying completely the opposite things. Alastair Scott said the bill does a number of really quite good things, Simeon Brown said the bill doesn’t do anything at all—which I would have thought, as a conservative who is always seeking to preserve the status quo, he would’ve found quite pleasing. But nevertheless, I think it’s a very good bill. It does roll over the existing tax rates, it does close some loopholes, and it makes some other technical changes. I think it’s a very good bill on balance, and it should be endorsed by all sides of the National Party, whichever diametrically opposed position they take. Thank you.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution this evening on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill. I would just like to congratulate the Minister opposite who just sat down, the Hon James Shaw, for nearly cracking a minute, which I think sets a record for Government members on this piece of legislation tonight. So I do thank him for making a substantial contribution.

But I do want to speak on the bill, and I do so with some disappointment, actually, because, although income tax rates remain unchanged in this legislation, at least for the short term, what they don’t address is a wider problem in our income tax legislation. Every year in this country, taxation actually goes up. It doesn’t go up because the Government puts up income tax rates every year; it goes up because people move through the tax brackets and they end up paying more of their income as a proportion in taxation because it’s not adjusted for inflation.

Simeon Brown: It’s unfair.

ANDREW FALLOON: It is unfair, my colleague Simeon Brown says, and he gave a very good contribution earlier in the debate on exactly this point. It’s been called by some to be a stealth tax, because, although the legislative tax rates don’t increase, people still rise through the tax thresholds and end up paying more as a percentage of their income than they otherwise would.

On this side of the House, we don’t support that. We don’t support tax increases every year on hard-working New Zealanders—every year seeing them end up every week with less in their pay packet than they otherwise would have if those tax rates had been adjusted for inflation.

I won’t be sitting on the select committee that will be considering this bill, unfortunately, but I hope it does come up with an alternative proposal to what’s contained in this legislation. That would be a very, very simple move, which would be to automatically, every three years, adjust for inflation for our income tax rates. It would ensure that people end up paying the same rate of tax, essentially, every year, based on their income, and it puts Government in the same position as the taxpayers that they claim to represent. If we don’t do that, what we’re left with is a bill where, year after year, the Minister of Finance rubs his hands with glee because he’s taking more off taxpayers while they’re ending up with less.

I would like to address some of the better parts of this bill, because there are some good aspects. The first one was touched on by my colleague Alastair Scott earlier, and that relates to Mycoplasma bovis. I speak, I suppose, with some real sense of pleasure in relation to this part of the bill, because I’m an MP who comes from an area that’s been very, very hard hit by Mycoplasma bovis. The electorate that I serve has had 20 percent of the cattle culled across the country. In fact, 15 percent of the cattle culled have come from one district alone. That’s the Ashburton district—quite a small district compared to the rest of the country. This measure in this bill, as Alastair Scott has pointed out, would ensure that when someone is getting an unexpected or a higher income in the year—in the tax year—because either they have received compensation or they’re sending their cattle off to the works to get rid of Mycoplasma bovis, which is exactly what we want, that income could be spread out over six years rather than being in one tax year. So that is a very good measure, and I congratulate the Minister for it.

There are some other aspects to the bill which aren’t too bad. One of those is in relation to deduction for feasibility, and that is that the bill provides an amendment which would provide for an immediate deduction for feasibility expenditure incurred in creating, completing, or acquiring depreciable property or revenue account property if the total of such expenditure for the income year is $10,000 or less. We don’t oppose that measure, per se. We do have some concerns about the $10,000 threshold. And so that’s, I hope, something that will be teased out at select committee as well.

Another one in there, which isn’t too bad, I hope, is in relation to tax credits for research and development, and that is an amendment to bring it into line with the eligible R & D expenditure definition proposed by the legislation, which includes a novelty factor. From our perspective, it will be important that we get an assurance from the select committee that the definition of eligible R & D expenditure in various other legislation is consistent with what’s proposed in this legislation. So that’s something I hope that the Finance and Expenditure Committee do take a closer look at.

As we heard in the debate earlier, New Zealanders are paying too much tax. I think Andrew Bayly, despite having a reasonably short space of time to express it, did get that message across very well. But that’s not actually the worst part of this bill, because it’s not what’s in this bill that I worry about so much as what’s coming next. In recent months, this Government has taken on billions and billions and billions of dollars of new debt. I for one, actually, in some respects, don’t have a huge problem with that, because a lot of that debt is required. Some of it might not be. The $20 billion that’s been set aside, for example, for—

Simeon Brown: Slush fund.

ANDREW FALLOON: —potentially, a slush fund, as Simeon Brown describes it. But a lot of that debt was required, because we had things to pay, like the wage subsidy, which, despite some faults, kept people in jobs, or, at least, retained jobs for a space of time to let businesses get their affairs in order. And that was a positive. That was very positive.

But what I worry about is that in this bill, and in other legislation that the Government’s brought forward to this Parliament in recent weeks, we don’t actually see any sort of coherent economic plan. All we see is a tax plan. So I worry about, in coming months and coming years, if we don’t come up with a coherent economic plan to actually get our economy moving again, what it means for legislation like this, and what it means for our tax structure.

If you look back at recent history, it’s actually not too hard to look at what they might do. This is a Government that loves tax. All you have to do is look at their record on tax in the last three years. They brought in an Auckland regional fuel levy. In fact, it’s not even an Auckland regional fuel levy—you’ll like to hear this, Simeon Brown from Pakuranga—because, when they brought in that legislation, they didn’t provide for any amendment in there that would have prevented price spreading. So what you’re seeing in some parts of the country is where fuel companies are allowed to spread the price of fuel across other parts of New Zealand—less competitive markets.

Simeon Brown: The Ashburton tax.

ANDREW FALLOON: Well, I wouldn’t quite call it the Ashburton tax, Simeon Brown. But certainly there are some areas that have seen elevated price levels as a result. Of course, there are other fuel taxes that have been brought in. They’ve extended the brightline, for example. That was a measure that was brought in for a very short period by the last National Government, but this Government has extended it out—I think doubled it, from memory. They’ve also increased WorkSafe levies, so that is a further tax on, particularly, small businesses, who are, unfortunately, struggling at the moment. There is ring-fencing of losses, of course; and then, unfortunately, the biggest one for me, which is the cancelled legislative tax relief, which, of course, the last National Government legislated for—in one of the first acts of this new Government, they, unfortunately, axed that.

The question we have now is: what’s next? That’s their record of the last three years in terms of tax—putting more and more taxes on New Zealanders, when, actually, the economy has been going pretty well. So what’s going to be their approach now, when they have declining revenues, more people out of work, and more benefits to pay? Their approach will be, Simeon Brown, not an economic plan but a tax plan. There’ll be a water tax. There’ll be a nitrogen levy. They’ll be whacking farmers again with the emissions trading scheme.

Simeon Brown: What about a capital gains tax?

ANDREW FALLOON: There’ll be a capital gains tax. I’ll come to that one. That’s a very good one, though, Simeon Brown. There’ll be a land tax, an asset tax, and, of course, as Simeon Brown says, a capital gains tax, which this Prime Minister promised was off the table, but, of course, it’ll be back because she’ll be able to blame COVID-19 for bringing it back. There’ll be more petrol taxes—there are some more coming up on 1 July: an increase in petrol taxes of 4c—and more increases to road-user charges, but there’ll be more to come, and, of course, higher income taxes, not in this bill but guaranteed to come in future years.

This is a Government that doesn’t have a growth programme. They don’t have a plan to get our economy back on track. All they have is a tax plan, and it’ll be in full force if this Government, by some miracle, manages to get re-elected in September.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): What an extraordinary set of contributions we’ve had from the Opposition. I just want to dwell on one of the pearls that they’ve put forward, and that is their passionate support for the indexation of income tax. There might be, as I look around, at least one member in this Chamber who recalls the response of the National Party to Dr Michael Cullen’s proposals to index income tax rates, which were derided as “chewing gum” tax cuts. Yet that now, apparently, is the saviour of the New Zealand economy, and the idea a visionary tax policy from the National Party.

Andrew Falloon: That was a one-off.

MICHAEL WOOD: It was not a one-off. Dr Cullen’s proposal was for the annual indexation of income tax rates, and the line used by that side of the House was that they were “chewing gum” tax cuts. Yet that is now their idea of a visionary tax plan for the future of New Zealand.

What this bill does is ensure that New Zealand has the income that’s required to pay for the services and the infrastructure that New Zealanders need. And what is also extraordinary to me is, having listened to speeches all day from members opposite which whine and complain about Government debt, what do we hear from members on the other side? We hear that Government debt is too high, but we hear that we should have swinging tax cuts as well. These two things do not compute.

We hear, at other times in this House, that the Government is spending too much, and that the Government is not spending enough. And I simply cannot understand how this lot seriously imagine that they can be in Government in three months’ time when they can’t string together a halfway decent and credible fiscal plan. It’s a long way from the party of Key and English. Members on this side of the House had significant disagreements with that Government, but they did actually know how to add up numbers. They didn’t always come to the right conclusions, but these guys can’t even add up the numbers and come up with a fiscal plan that even halfway makes sense.

So this is a Government which has used its tax base and its sound fiscal position in totally unprecedented circumstances to support New Zealanders, to help New Zealand jobs, to help New Zealand businesses get through a global pandemic. And what we actually need at this point in time is a stable tax base and a stable tax system so that we can continue making the investments and the supports that New Zealanders need to get through the challenging economic conditions that we and the whole world will face over the next six months.

Now, this bill sets those annual rates, but it also makes a number of other important changes to the tax system, and I’m pleased to hear that, generally speaking, there’s support around the House for that. It’s part of an active programme of work led by the Hon Stuart Nash under which we have seen significant improvements to the IRD system over recent years, and, in fact, one of the pieces of feedback that I have been really pleased to receive over the course of the challenging circumstances we’ve faced with COVID-19 is that many New Zealanders have actually really valued the support that they have received from IRD. They’ve generally been pretty quick to respond to queries, they’ve generally been willing to address small issues, to write off debts where it’s possible and where it’s reasonable to do that, and, of course, we’ve had other really great and helpful measures such as the interest-free small-business loan scheme, which has given out over $1 billion to help the cash-flow needs of small businesses in New Zealand—over $1 billion.

Those members opposite, they keep throwing the question, “What have you done? What have you done?” Well, just listen up: over a billion dollars through the IRD’s small-business interest-free loan scheme, and I’ve received outstanding feedback from small businesses in my electorate about how that has helped them get through. It’s not everything, of course; this Government has always said that we can’t save every business and we can’t save every job—no Government in the world can under these conditions—but we’ll cushion the blow and help as many of them get through as possible.

This bill isn’t the whole picture, but it sets up a stable tax base and makes some sensible changes that’ll see New Zealand businesses and New Zealand workers into the coming years with some confidence, and gives us a tax base to support the services and infrastructure that New Zealanders need. Along with members on this side, I commend it to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it is a pleasure to speak on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill, and I have some advice for the member that just took his seat, Michael Wood. If he’s getting a lot of feedback, as he referred to earlier, he should stop talking to himself in the bathroom because that seems like he was only hearing his own voice. But he also mentioned that this party is a long way from the Key and English party. And I’d say, well, actually, things change. That’s true. But the major difference between this side and that side is that Ministers such as David Clark would have been gone by lunchtime. That is what leadership is about and, unfortunately, we’re not seeing it from that side. But back to the bill.

The issue about indexation, which was also touched on by the previous speaker, is quite an important one, actually. This time that we’re going into now, it’s going to be about confidence. It’s going to be about having people spending some money because a lot of our GDP in our economy is based on consumption. And if people don’t have the confidence and they don’t have the cash in their pocket, they won’t be spending. If they are not spending, then the economy won’t go around. We will end up in a spiral where the lower the expenditure, more jobs are lost, more people on the dole or getting some other form of Government assistance. And when you are on the dole—not you, Madam Speaker—but when people are on the dole or on lower incomes such as they will be, they don’t have the confidence to spend and invest. And then it becomes another spiral because then it just continues it downwards where we end up losing more and more jobs. And it’s such a pity because tax isn’t going to be what drives your economy, but it has a significant impact on it.

It is, as I said, about confidence. It is about businesses having the confidence to invest in their future as well. And given that in the OECD we have the fourth-largest tax take from companies, we have one of the highest—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m really sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

SPEAKER: The House has resumed. When we adjourned for the dinner break, we were debating the first reading of the taxation bill. Stuart Smith was speaking, and if he wants, he can have two minutes and 44 seconds.

STUART SMITH: He does indeed. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps if I could recap as to where I was up to, I was talking about the indexation of tax brackets and bracket creep and how if those members were to adopt the National Party policy within this bill, that would put $660 million back into the system, and—

Brett Hudson: How much?

STUART SMITH: $660 million.

Brett Hudson: Oh, that would drive more spending.

STUART SMITH: It would drive more spending and it would help halt the spiral downwards, which I fear we are facing.

However, I do want to point out a really good feature of the bill, which is the M. bovis tax provisions, which allow the income that’s received for compensation for those cattle that have had to be destroyed or killed. It gives the farmer six years to pay that tax off, and I think that will be greatly appreciated, not just from a financial position, but, Mr Speaker, as you would understand, there’s a heck of a lot of stress and depression out there amongst those farmers. I don’t mean that in a clinical sense, but in the situation—

SPEAKER: Well, sometimes it is—yes.

STUART SMITH: —well, it may well be—they have found themselves in, and it’s a very serious matter, actually. I know that in my electorate, dealing with some of those people—as other provincial MPs will have had this experience—this will really, actually, mean a lot to them. It’s not a lot of money from the IRD’s perspective, but it’s quite significant for those people that are involved in it, and I congratulate Minister Nash for including that in the bill. I think it’s really important and it will, as I said, be well-received.

But we do have a difficult time ahead and, as I said earlier, before dinner, the importance of confidence in the economy—confidence so that people can and will spend—is so important because, in fact, a big percentage of our GDP is driven by consumption, and that requires people to spend some money in the local shops, the local cafes, and so on. What we’re seeing from overseas is that while the support from Governments and from the welfare side of the economy is very much appreciated, that money doesn’t go around in the same way it does when people are earning money with a job and have the confidence to spend that money.

How we get that confidence back is going to be quite a challenge for us all, but it’s my submission that, actually, not lowering taxes through the tax bracket relief is actually not going to help. It will harm. It will slow the economy and it should—

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

JO LUXTON (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): I premise my contribution that it is to be assumed that all members of this House want to do what’s best for all New Zealanders. So the question to ask of every bill that comes before us is whether it is the best possible bill for the situation that it seeks to deal with and whether it is the best for all New Zealanders, especially at the time now that we have where we are in urgency. So for people out there who are watching, when the Parliament is in urgency we are going to be running beginning from yesterday through today, up to midnight and then again tomorrow up to midnight—

SPEAKER: Saturday.

PAULO GARCIA: —if at all; hopefully not—to debate 21 bills that the Government seeks to pass over these days.

Added to this question is that we are presented with circumstances that demand all the more that this question be answered transparently and with clarity as to its intent and its effects. The circumstances we call COVID-19, the pandemic, which has required a lockdown which has now resulted in a New Zealand economy that is in severe decline. We are in crisis. Both sides of the House confirm that we are—to use an overused but very apt word—in an unprecedented situation where the Government has to spend to unprecedented levels. Spending which is of borrowed funds—borrowed money. My colleague Lawrence Yule, in his speech yesterday on the appropriations bill, said that when the Government speaks of spending and allocating funds, then these funds are not the Government’s funds but borrowed funds and funds that are borrowed against all New Zealanders, against us—that we will be paying for this.

So there are further questions to ask. First, I will ask these questions. So the first question to ask is: is the borrowing at the right level? Is the spending useful and appropriate for getting the country towards improving the economy?

The other question is: how will New Zealanders be paying for this? So we are going to be paying for it by taxes—and just again, for the benefit of the viewers out there, especially because of the very strong messaging in the 2017 campaign, which I remember very clearly, that very good promises were made that no new taxes would be raised. But several have been—for example, the Government has increased fuel taxes three times, it’s added on a regional fuel tax in Auckland, introduced ring-fencing of losses, and Amazon tax.

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, the member will resume his seat. I’ve been searching through the bill. Not in this bill. The member will speak to this bill, thank you.

PAULO GARCIA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise for that.

So it is a given that inflation leads to higher taxes and higher taxes means a heavier burden on the common ordinary New Zealander like myself.

Matt Doocey: Everyday New Zealanders.

PAULO GARCIA: With the income—everyday New Zealanders. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill actually fixes the income tax—it remains the same, unchanged, for 2020-2021. So this essentially will result in a higher and increased financial pressure on New Zealanders.

An arguably better bill would provide for a rolling tax relief, which would link income tax brackets to inflation, ensuring income taxes are adjusted in line with the cost of living—

Hon Tracey Martin: Cut spending.

PAULO GARCIA: —allowing New Zealanders to keep a little bit more in their pockets.

Kieran McAnulty: Would the member sell assets?

PAULO GARCIA: This is—

SPEAKER: Order! It’s hard enough to keep this debate on track without irrelevant interjections.

Kieran McAnulty: Yeah, Tracey.

SPEAKER: No, Kieran McAnulty.

PAULO GARCIA: The rolling tax bracket is actually a policy that National announced last year. And the Government has been free to accept this, but the current taxation bill before us does not. It does not provide for this.

This is the principal reason why National opposes this bill. National does not support potential increases in tax, whether directly or indirectly, and we view this as leading to that. The bill does provide for a deduction on feasibility, a $10,000 write-off, which is something that we agree on, the deduction on the feasibility. But we are just uncertain whether that $10,000 is the correct amount.

I end my contribution there. Mr Speaker, thank you.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the debate went a little bit off track so let me clarify. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) 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 50

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Education and Training Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education and Training Bill be now read a second time.

The Education and Training Bill is the culmination of about 2½ years’ worth of work to update and modernise our entire education system and the way that it operates. But particularly, it consolidates several pieces of education and training legislation into one Act of Parliament, making it more accessible to a wider range of people in the process.

I would like to acknowledge the 434 individuals and 96 organisations who took the time to submit on the bill, and I particularly want to thank those who gave their oral submissions during the COVID-19 lockdown or disruption period and also thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for the diligent and conscientious work on the bill during their time.

The bill proposes a number of changes, a number of significant policy changes, alongside a complete rewrite of our education legislation. The majority of this bill codifies and simplifies and amalgamates all of the existing statute law around the way our education system operates. But it does make some policy changes and I want to particularly focus on the changes that have been amended through the select committee’s deliberation.

The bill implements changes to the early learning services licensing regime so that the provision of early childhood education and care can be more closely aligned with the needs of communities. The committee’s added the needs of children to the list of considerations that the Minister must take into account when considering an application to apply for a licence, and for greater transparency and certainty the committee has specified fit and proper criteria to be used by the Minister when determining the suitability of applicants to run an early learning service.

I welcome the committee’s amendments in respect to the provisions that confirm the right for students enrolled in a State school to attend the school for all of the hours that the school is open for instruction. It has become apparent that some children, some of our most vulnerable children, are actively discouraged from attending school for the full number of hours that they are legally entitled to be there. This law removes any big ambiguity around that and clarifies that all children are absolutely entitled to attend school for all of the hours that is open.

It does allow for there to be a transitional attendance plan, which would last for up to six months, which would allow for a temporary reduction in attendance hours where that is in the child’s best interests. That is often necessary as a child transitions from being in the home to being in school, where they may have additional needs that need to be taken into consideration. The committee’s amendments would allow for the transitional attendance plan to be renewed once only for a period of up to six additional months. This amendment will ensure that all children, no matter how particular their needs are, are able to realise their right to attend school full time. They should not feel pressured to only attend part time.

Another change that the bill makes is regarding school boards. Under the bill, the Secretary of Education will take over boards’ responsibility for developing and consulting on enrolment schemes. Boards are currently required to develop enrolment schemes, which can be time consuming and an administrative burden. This change will enable the secretary to take a regional approach to developing enrolment schemes, and, as a result of this, it will help to reduce the compliance burden for school boards of trustees, who are, of course, volunteers. It will also improve transparency and consistency with the system of how we manage school enrolments. The committee’s proposed amendments, which I fully support, to clarify in the bill that the secretary has full responsibility for the development and management of enrolment schemes and to require the secretary to consult with the school’s board and take reasonable steps to understand the views of the community when developing a proposed enrolment scheme.

The bill introduces a new dispute resolution scheme for State schools. The committee has made amendments to allow for dispute applications to be made orally rather than only in writing, to allow for recognised caregivers, rather than only parents and guardians, to pursue disputes on behalf of students under the age of 16 and to make the scheme subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The committee has also made changes to allow the chief referee of the new disputes panel to filter out complaints that are trivial or vexatious or that are better dealt with by another body. Regulations will be able to be made to ensure that information can be sought by the new panels, and I fully support these changes. I also want to acknowledge the committee’s diligence in finding a few key provisions that needed to be carried over from the Education Act 1989 that were not carried over in the drafting and that were missed, therefore, from the bill that was introduced to the House.

In addition to the substantive changes, the committee has made a range of technical changes, such as incorporating the recent changes made to the earlier Acts by the Education (Vocational Education and Training Reform) Amendment Act and the Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Act, both of which were passed after this bill was introduced into the House. The Education and Training Bill was drafted and introduced and sent off to select committee before the magnitude, the full magnitude, of COVID-19 was known. We’ve got an opportunity in this bill to make some important changes to reflect the needs and issues that COVID-19 has identified. I’ll be moving a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect.

That includes delaying the expiry date of the Education (Pastoral Care of Domestic Tertiary Students) interim code of practice until 2022 to allow for the disruption caused by COVID-19, and it makes other minor changes around the interim code. A Supplementary Order Paper will also cancel the export education levy payment obligations for enrolments between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021 in recognition of the need for relief for international education providers. It will also propose an amendment to enable the Minister of Education to vary a funding determination following consultation without a stand-down period whenever there is a national or local state of emergency or where there is an epidemic notice. These sorts of changes were enabled by temporary legislation that was passed by Parliament in the wake of COVID-19 and it formalises those changes.

I’m also proposing to allow for State and State-integrated schools to provide distance learning to currently enrolled students based offshore on a case by case basis until the end of the 2022 school year, and that would include the provision of NCEA.

The bill gives new powers to the Secretary of Education to act and respond in future emergencies and epidemics. Again, the law change that we passed right before the COVID lockdown period provided some additional powers that applied specifically to the COVID-19 response, but of course, we have to be mindful that other emergencies can also have an impact on the education sector. Having worked through that more thoroughly now, there is good reason for extending those provisions to other states of national emergency or other epidemics.

The Supplementary Order Paper will also make other important amendments to the bill. These include delaying the commencement of the enrolment scheme changes until January 2021, adding a new provision to allow the Secretary for Education to approve a provision in enrolment schemes that allows siblings of students currently enrolled at a school to also enrol at that school when an enrolment zone changes in a way that would otherwise prevent the sibling from attending the same school, otherwise known as grandparenting. That’s something that’s been done by enrolment schemes for quite some time but is not, strictly speaking, allowed for in the current law. So we’re tidying that up. We’re correcting the law to align with current practice. It allows the Minister of Education to establish subcategories of private training establishments by Gazette notice.

I do quickly want to touch on the physical force and physical restraint provisions in the bill, an issue that has been very contentious for the teaching community and for the disability community. The bill, as introduced, changes terminology around physical force and physical restraint. However, there are still some concerns that are being worked through, and I intend to bring a further Supplementary Order Paper during the committee stage to resolve those issues. It is important that we address the inconsistencies and the confusion that exist around this area of the law, but it’s also important that we address the concerns that have been raised by the disability community and so on. So we will continue to work on that and we will have a Supplementary Order Paper that will be introduced before this bill has its committee stage.

I believe this is an incredibly positive bill for the education sector. It codifies and puts into law many of the changes that the Government has been making over the last 2½ years. It will make the education legislation much easier to follow. It completes some work that has been ongoing for about 20 years to update and modernise our education statutes. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. On this legislation from the very first reading, we have been explaining our concerns and our reasons why we oppose this legislation. In the first reading, we said that we hoped that we would get the opportunity to address our concerns in the select committee process. But that didn’t happen. Just now, I’ve heard the Minister saying that there’ll be some Supplementary Order Papers, but, still, all our concerns are not going to be addressed through those Supplementary Order Papers—but that is for the later stage. But for now, in the second reading of the Education and Training Bill, I’m taking this call to oppose this bill.

We oppose this legislation. As I said, there are several reasons and we are hoping that these concerns will be addressed, which didn’t get addressed in the select committee process. In the select committee process, though, we had a very good discussion on this legislation. I want to acknowledge each and every one that submitted. We received 574 submissions and we had the opportunity to hear from 90 submitters, so that was really good. So there was a lot of engagement, a lot of discussion about this legislation. We know that this legislation is not only a compilation of other legislation that have things to do with the education sector, but also to implement the final report of the Tomorrow’s Schools Review Independent Taskforce into law. So this is the Government’s response to that report that through this legislation will be implemented into legislation. So it does more than just compiling various education legislation in this legislation.

So there are several concerns. Number one, I would like to—as the Minister of Education said, about physical force and physical restraint, these terms which are being changed, and also religious education provisions in this legislation—they came up quite often in the select committee process. Definitely, the discussion around physical restraint versus physical force was a prominent one. In my view, this change of these words from “physical restraint” to “physical force” has actually revived this debate. So until now, in my view, the education sector was quite settled about the understanding of what “physical restraint”—or in other words, if we call it “force”—means in the education sector. But now reviving this debate might send a signal, which might not be the signal that we want to send through this legislation.

The other concern that we have is: how are our educators going to get training or understanding of what this physical force will actually mean? So, yes, “physical force” was defined in the select committee process and the definition looks good. But still, we have concerns about how this would practically be applied if educators have to apply physical force. Yes, the Secretary for Education will be coming up with guidelines and rules, and in the select committee process, we made it clear that the secretary will be required to consult with young people. Young people’s voices are important in this and also young people that have special needs and also organisations that provide services to people with special needs. But that may not be sufficient, so we have concerns because this debate has been revived because of this change in words that has come up in this legislation.

Then, in the early childhood education sector, we have concerns about the system that this legislation is going to set for applying for an approval to get a licence to provide early childhood education. In this, the Minister will be required to provide an approval to an entity to apply for a licence. So, yes, some concerns were addressed in the select committee process. We know, as the legislation was proposed, the Minister is required to take into consideration the demographics, what is already there, what is not there, and also the need of that community. But then we added the need of children in the select committee process and also, as the Minister is required to look at if the applicant is a fit and proper person or persons but the criteria were not described in the legislation, that has been clarified. The third thing is about if somebody gets the approval, but holds on to that approval, doesn’t proceed to the next level. Then what happens? Because the Minister will have the impression that the Minister has given 10 or 15 approvals in that area, so thinking that they will have progressed to the next stage, that is, to provide the service. If that hasn’t happened, how do we control that? So that has been managed by putting a timeline there.

But we still have concerns because this is going to add another layer and also the Minister may not have that kind of good grasp of what is needed in the community. This needs to be community-led and early childhood education providers, they know, they do their assessment before they come up with their proposal. If there is a company that is a well-known name in the early childhood sector, then it might be easier for them to get the approval. How will it work for somebody who is new and wants to enter in this sector? So we don’t have that clarification in this legislation, because we don’t want hurdles for people that want to enter into the early childhood education sector.

Then the other concern we still have is about educational achievement, because now educational achievement becomes one of the accountability factors for boards of trustees. So this is a very important point for us, because as a mum, when I sent my boys to school, I wanted to see how their school was doing and I wanted to see my kids were able to achieve an education. Obviously, sports were attached to that but education was the main focus for me, for my children. I’m sure parents out there, they want to see that their children are achieving an education when, you know, that is the main expectation. So we would have liked to see that educational achievement is actually the prime accountability factor for the boards of trustees, not one of the four accountability factors for boards of trustees. In my view, what this has done is this legislation, as it is proposed, is going to dilute that educational achievement accountability factor. So education in schools is important and we all understand that education is the key to success. We all want to see that every child is able to get education, is able to do well in their life, so educational achievement—getting that diluted—is not something that we like in this legislation.

We just heard from the Minister that there is going to be a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House, but that we will consider when it is tabled. But this is about awarding NCEA overseas. So our education sector is highly regarded internationally. We know we get so many international students come here. They gain a New Zealand qualification. We also know that around 80 percent of these students, they leave, they go to other places, use this education that began here in New Zealand to make their life. Yes, a small proportion, they will follow that pathway to residency as well because the provision is available, so they try to take up that provision, too. But for NCEA not to be awarded overseas, as is proposed in this legislation, putting those restrictions and making it available only for people that are from here and it not being awarded overseas in my view is a step that is going to take us back.

Our export education sector has hugely supported our economy and we want to continue to see that. This is a sector which is highly regarded and continues to support our economy. We want to build on the sector, not minimise the sector, but as it is proposed it appears that it is actually not going to support it in the sense that we want to see it supported to support our economy. So we have concerns about this and especially in the context of COVID. Even during this legislation when we were dealing with this bill in the select committee process, these 90 submitters that appeared before the select committee, some of them appeared here in Wellington, some appeared through video link. So now people are getting used to using technology, getting used to connecting while they’re away, distance learning should be becoming kind of a part of learning nowadays. We all need to adopt technology. We all need to see how technology can be used. And awarding NCEA overseas actually is something that we seriously should look into.

So we are really looking forward to seeing what the Minister is proposing through the Supplementary Order Paper, but what I understand is that it is going to be up until 2022, as the Minister said. Also he said it is going to be on a case by case basis. So it’s important for us to understand what that case by case basis means and how that case will be evaluated for awarding NCEA overseas and what will be the criteria for that. So these are some of the reasons that I’ve listed why we cannot support this legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’m absolutely delighted to stand here and take a call in the second reading of this bill. I was away and sick when this came through last, at the end of last year, on the first reading, and I remember watching it at home and thinking I would really like to be there and having my say in this particular bill, because this is a really important piece of legislation.

The consolidation and the modernisation into one Act is incredibly important to the total sum of the education sector. I can remember when I was a school principal, and trying to find the relevant legislation that actually guided our profession and our sector was really difficult, because there were so many different pieces of legislation and, actually, some of the language was not accessible for many people to actually find, and so that would be the first point I would make—is that I really enjoyed working through the select committee process in bringing all of those pieces together. The consideration that the select committee members gave was very, very in depth. It was a fantastic process and, as the previous speaker has just mentioned, we had a mixture of face-to-face and a mixture of Zoom meetings, but I can guarantee that we gave this due process when we went through this particular piece of legislation.

A couple of pieces in this short call that I would like to point out and talk about, firstly around the enrolment schemes. I’m delighted to see the changes that this particular bill will bring to enrolment schemes. Having a more transparent way of enrolment schemes, not having to reinvent the wheel so many different times, having the regional ministry, the Secretary of Education, overseeing this, devolving that to the regional offices in education makes perfect sense, because, again, our boards of trustees are having to do all of that work and then take it to the Ministry of Education and then there can be disputes. I know that the other side of the House had some upsets and anxieties around this, but I can tell them that, from personal experience, this is exactly what the principals in my area are crying out for. They wanted to see a more transparent way of doing and having enrolment schemes worked out.

The most important part of that legislation is the very, very strong community consultation that still has to happen. That’s really strong in the bill, and I was so pleased to see that that was really highlighted there. So it’s more about a partnership, which is exactly what the sector wants to see. The sector has been crying out for a strong partnership between the Ministry of Education, principals, and boards of trustees, parents, whānau, and children, and this is exactly what this bill is bringing. It’s a bit sad that the Opposition, throughout that, failed to see that this is what this bill actually brought to the sector to make it way stronger.

The other point that I’d like to make is around the disputes resolution scheme. I am absolutely delighted to see this particular part come through and be strengthened within this bill. I have seen so many cases, over my time, of children who have been hurt in the process of disputes panels—well, no, they weren’t disputes panels; having the stand down, suspension panels—

Hon Tracey Martin: Disciplinary panels.

JAN TINETTI: Disciplinary, thank you, Minister Martin—the disciplinary panels. Children have been hurt in that process, and having no recourse, having no way to come back—whānau not feeling that they had a voice. In fact, it was only yesterday—yesterday—when I had someone phone me to tell me about a young boy who I happen to know quite well who went along for a suspension meeting, was running 30 minutes late, was told that they had no right to actually speak at that suspension meeting, because the people that were there had other things to do. That evening that whānau got a phone call to say that that boy had been excluded from school. There was no comeback for that family, and this bill is changing that. This bill is ensuring that those families will have a voice, and I really like the way that the committee came together and said, “Well, actually, some people will feel more comfortable bringing an oral submission.” So people can actually make the submissions in a way that is most comfortable for them. I feel really sad about that young man, that young boy—he was 11 years old—but I know that we are ensuring that those situations will be addressed in future by changing the legislation as it stands today.

Hon Tracey Martin: Tell him to write to my office, Jan.

JAN TINETTI: I will be doing that, Minister Martin; I will be putting a letter in to you.

I am delighted in this piece of legislation. It is making a big, big difference to the whole of the education sector, right from early childhood, right to tertiary. I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I do want to take this opportunity to welcome Jan Tinetti back and to say it is nice to have her with us for this debate. She was missed while she was away and while she was unwell, and we’re glad to see you healthy again, Jan.

But I do want to take issue, very respectfully, with the approach she took in that speech. What she kept referring back to was what would make the sector happy. I, on this side of the House, together with my colleagues, unashamedly say that when we are assessing education legislation, the concern we should have, the motivation we should have, should not be what makes the sector happy; it should be what improves the education of children and what improves the experience of the parents and families raising those children. Here on this side of the House, our focus in education policy is children and parents. We make no apologies for that, and I would say, respectfully, to the member and those of her colleagues, that a sector-first approach will not lead to the best outcomes for children.

Here in this bill, we have, actually, quite a solemn and significant opportunity, and it’s set out there in the purpose statement, and the Minister earlier made comments about what this bill sets out to achieve. It sets out no less than to update and modernise the entire education system. It’s taken 2½ years to appear here, and we are told that this is the grand solution. Of course, there is so much we need to do in education, because education is actually almost the most important thing—probably the most important thing—that a Government can do to shape the experiences that an individual has when they’re born in this country. We can’t control what happens in every family, nor should we, but we do have the power to change what happens in the hours that a child is in a State-run institution. All of us in this House, thinking about that power that the Government has to influence a child’s education, would surely say, if we were being honest, that we don’t do a good enough job in this country. How can we possibly think we do a good enough job of education in this country when we know that as many as one in five New Zealand children still leave school without the literacy and numeracy skills they need to succeed? They need to access further training, and they need to contribute fully to our society. So the size of the task is significant, and that’s why we have a right to expect from the Government in this legislation some significant and meaningful reform, because too many children are being failed by our current system.

My conviction is that if we are going to see change in the education system that truly, transformatively changes the experience for all those children who are being failed by it, then that change won’t actually come from big Government. As much as I like many of the officials in the Ministry of Education, they’re not going to be the ones that solve it. The real changes for education will come from the communities and families that truly make up our schools. Wherever we have seen successful innovation in education, it has been community-driven. I give you partnership schools. Partnership schools were an answer to the question of why do too many children keep being failed by our State system. Partnership schools showed that when communities take responsibility for their own people, when families can drive their own solutions, when they’re given the ability to innovate, they can make positive change.

But this bill says no to all of that. This bill doesn’t have communities in it. It doesn’t have innovation. It doesn’t have families. Instead, what this bill does is centralise at every opportunity. There, on that side of the House, we have members whose trust in the ability of big Government goes far too far. Here on this side of the House, we have a healthy scepticism about what Government can really achieve. I want to take you through some of the aspects of this bill which I think demonstrate the unbridled confidence that Labour members have in what a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Education can achieve if only we give them enough power, because this bill gives them more and more power, at the expense of families and at the expense of communities.

Let’s start with the zoning provisions. When we look at the zoning provisions, let’s remember what zoning’s all about. The purpose of zoning is to exclude children from the school their families would otherwise send them to. It’s so that if a school is overcrowded, we can make a choice to send some children away. Of course, in an ideal world, we would not do that. In an ideal world, if a school is really successful, it’s doing a great job of providing education, and a family says, “I want to send my child to that school because I think it’ll give them the best education possible.”, then we, as Governments would say, “And so you should—you should have that choice.” Yet, of course, no Government in recent history has been able to afford the increases to school property on an individual basis that would be required to support those choices, and so successive Governments have had to make school zones to avoid overcrowding.

I would put to you that in my lifetime, if there was something I could do to change education for the better—if I was that education Minister, sitting over there—I wouldn’t just tinker; I would look at how I can truly empower parents to choose the schools that they want. But instead what this zoning law does is it says, “Well, let’s just really zone in on our power to exclude and let’s not muck around with giving communities the ability to define the home zone of a school. Let’s not let communities be the ones developing where the boundaries might be. Let’s not let communities be in charge of the consultation. Hey, and let’s not let them be the ones that are actually deciding the geographical boundaries, because we can’t trust them, apparently.”

Apparently, according to the advice we received from Ministry of Education bureaucrats, who, we must remember, according to these members, know better, if we leave it to communities, they might not have equity in mind. I would put to you that the people who best have equity in mind are the parents of a child who say, “I want my child to attend that school.”, not a bureaucrat in Wellington saying that if you live in that neighbourhood, you can’t go to this school. I would put to you that a community has the best knowledge of which neighbourhoods and which families have the historic ties to a school and should have a right to go there.

So this bill says bureaucrats know better, and we on this side of the House take issue with that. We think that it devalues the role of communities and that it sets a dangerous precedent.

That’s not the only area where this bill puts the Ministry of Education first. Of course, this bill, very tidily, incorporates all of the changes that were made in response to the tertiary training reforms. Of course, they too were a radical centralisation of the tertiary and skills training system, in which the Minister of Education took many of the powers of asset control and ownership away from local polytechs, away from Southern Institute of Technology and other innovative providers, and said we’ll put it all in a central institution.

Let’s remember where this all came from. What started this bill out was the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms—the review of the Tomorrow’s Schools reform. The original report actually said that any kind of school board at all would be scrapped in favour of bureaucracy. We saw communities use their voice, we saw parents use their voice, we saw boards use their voice, and utterly reject that. But what I see in this bill is the Government’s attempt to sneak in as much central control as it can keep.

Finally, I want to raise the example of what goes on in early childhood education (ECE) in this bill. What this bill does is it introduces a new discretionary power for the Minister to accept or reject applications for early childhood education centres. I have been around education long enough, and the Speaker will remember, when he was the Minister, that this country actually has a history of under-provision of early childhood education. There have been times in our history where, if you wanted to enrol your child in early childhood education, you couldn’t find a place for love nor money. I think it’s a good thing—and I want to put it on the record in this House—that now, if you’re living in an urban centre, most likely, as a mum or a dad or a caregiver, you have a choice about where you send your child to early childhood education. I am nervous about a bill that creates uncertainty and creates an unclear process whereby the Minister can accept or reject an application for an ECE centre. I actually want to continue to see diverse provision of early childhood education in this country, for more people to want to come in and educate our children. And I fear that this bill gets in the way.

This bill is not only a missed opportunity; it shows the priorities of this Government, which are bad and which tend toward centralisation. National would put families and communities first. We would do much better in Government.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Just to correct Nicola Willis, the speaker who resumed her seat, this bill didn’t start with the Tomorrow’s Schools review. It started with a conversation across New Zealand for a 30-year vision about what our parents, what our students, what our families, what our educators, and what our country believed success looked like. That was the first thing in education that this Government did. We went throughout New Zealand and asked New Zealanders, asked students, asked young people, asked our seniors, asked our parents, and asked our educators, “What does success look like?” They said that it doesn’t look like national standards and it doesn’t look like charter schools and it doesn’t look like a voucher system and it certainly doesn’t look like setting up those parents who happen to work in the Ministry of Education and have children inside our schools against the parents who don’t happen to work inside the Ministry of Education and have children inside our schools.

I find it fascinating that a member who’s going to stand for Wellington Central decides that insulting bureaucrats is a way to start her election campaign. There are incredibly dedicated parents inside of the Ministry of Education who spend an awful lot of time—much more time than that member—moving around the country talking to families, to students, to disability groups and other specialty groups, to teachers, and to educational professionals. To write them off in the way that that member just did—I don’t know what she thinks her election campaign’s going to be like, but if that’s the start of it, then I don’t hold out a lot of hope.

Can I come back to the bill. First of all, I also need to disagree with something that the Minister of Education said in his opening speech. Now, I don’t often disagree with the Minister of Education. He and I have had a long relationship inside this House, where we’ve worked on many facets of the education sector. But in his opening speech, he said that “boards of trustees are, after all, volunteers.” They are not. They are elected officials. Boards of trustees are elected by their communities to represent their communities’ hopes and to set the strategic direction for their local school for the outcomes for their children.

I have heard some other strange things from members of the Opposition around suddenly some lack of accountability, supposedly, about boards of trustees with the academic outcomes for their students, which is completely false. Boards of trustees are required to report, and of course they report not only to their community on the academic outcomes for their students but also on the safety and wellbeing and the holistic wellbeing of their students to their community as their elected representatives, but they also must report to the Ministry of Education on those outcomes and the things that they are doing around discrimination and anti-bullying and all sorts of other areas.

So I do take issue with the fact—boards of trustees are elected officials. They have put their hands up, they have been voted into those places to represent their communities. They are not volunteers.

The other thing I want to speak to is I want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty. Chris Hipkins, Catherine Delahunty, and I used to be sort of the “Three Musketeers” around this place, actually, and certainly in that area of learning support, and certainly in taking on the Government of the day when they decided that, you know, everybody had to get to that line on that day at that time, or otherwise you’d failed—which was what was national standards—and I want to speak about the disputes panels.

So I want to talk about the disputes panels. That came out of the inquiry into dyslexia, dyspraxia, and children on the autism spectrum. That came out of the presentations made to us by the parents who had children with diversity that meant that the support they needed inside of school needed to be different so that they were able to participate more fully. Unfortunately, they got caught up inside the discipline process, because at that time, we did not have a Government that invested in the learning support that they needed for the schools to be able to work with them and their families around their diverse needs.

Now, this Government has not finished with the actions that we want to take to better support those families, but we have put one of the largest amounts of investment into specialist areas and into other areas and into learning support coordinators and a learning support delivery model, and we have acknowledged those students and we have acknowledged those families and the difficulties that they have had. We must do better, but the disputes panels came out of that inquiry. That inquiry was brought to the select committee by Catherine Delahunty, it was supported by Chris Hipkins and myself, and the casting vote was the Hon Judith Collins. So just to acknowledge all those and to say that we have now started to move forward another one of the recommendations from that select committee.

In my final moments, I want to talk about physical restraint. I want to talk about the dog’s breakfast that was left to us by section 139AC. That is the clause inside of the current Education Act 1989, section 139AC, which is the physical restraint clause. It never worked. It’s never worked, from the moment that the previous Government put it into place. It never worked for the children with diverse needs, it never worked for the teaching profession—it never worked. It was a knee-jerk reaction, without all the other supports around it that were needed to make sure that those children could participate in the school day with the right supports for their needs.

One of a teacher’s key responsibilities is to effectively manage their classroom environment so that positive teaching and learning can happen for all students. There are times when a student or a group of students, for whatever reason, disrupt teaching and learning, either by stopping teachers teaching or by stopping other students learning, and we must not forget that a classroom is a learning place, but it’s also a workplace. We have dual responsibility.

Teachers don’t want to use force. There is a problem still with the piece of legislation in front of us. I want to acknowledge Golriz Ghahraman, I want to acknowledge Chris Hipkins—the three of us recognise that what we currently have inside this legislation is not there yet. We will continue to do work and, as the Minister identified, we will bring in a Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House. Collectively, we’ve got to come up with a solution, because what we’re doing now is not working.

So we endorse the bill. We commend the bill to the House from the New Zealand First perspective, but we acknowledge that the three parties that create the Government are continuing to work together because we’re not there yet on clause 95, around the physical restraint. Our teachers do not want to use force and our parents want their children to be safe, but I have to acknowledge—I have to acknowledge—that we are seeing an incredible number of children coming through with behavioural issues and with the inability to self-moderate, and one of the things we know from the Chief Science Advisor is that the ability to self-moderate is much more a predictor of what will be success later in life.

So we owe it to these children, we owe it to their families, and we owe it to the teachers in our classrooms to try and get this right. We’re not there yet, but we’ll continue to work on it. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Education and Training Bill. I couldn’t just believe what I heard over there from the Hon Tracey Martin: that after going out there, consulting, and putting the Tomorrow’s Schools report together, this is the best they can come up with. If that’s the best they can come up with, then I have grave concerns for the future of our education system in New Zealand—we’re in big trouble.

The other thing I want to take note of is that board of trustee members are volunteers—or not volunteers, as the member says. Actually, in a week like this, which is National Volunteer Week, I’d just like to start out by acknowledging the many thousands of board of trustee members—elected or whatever—who give up their time, who are volunteers, they do not get paid.

Hon Tracey Martin: They’re paid—they’re paid.

DAN BIDOIS: Some of them don’t get paid. And if they do get paid, they get paid a pittance for what they do. So I just think that that statement is an affront to the volunteering capacity of our elected—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I say to the Hon Tracey Martin, one of the privileges in this House is for members to make errors, all right? They don’t need to be shouted down.

DAN BIDOIS: So look, on to the bill that we’ve got today, and I’d certainly like to acknowledge the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, Parmjeet Parmar, and all of the committee members that I now sit on this committee with. I haven’t been a part of this submission process, but I do want to share with you some thoughts of mine reading through the summary of the bill and the implications for this on our wider education system.

Firstly, look, I’ve lived all over the world. I’ve had the privilege of studying at some of the best institutions in the world, and I think some of the advantages of New Zealand’s education system are as follows: its first is that it’s community driven. It’s driven by these volunteers, or whatever you want to call them—people who give up their time and their effort because they want to see their schools do well. It’s decentralised: it’s decentralised in powers and it’s decentralised in terms of decision making. There’s local responsiveness and there’s local empowerment that goes along with that. I think that that is a unique feature of our education system in New Zealand, and it’s something that we should seek to preserve, no matter what happens.

I think that that is under threat with the bill that we’re talking about here today, because, as my colleagues Parmjeet Parmar and Nicola Willis have pointed out, this bill is about centralising power into the Ministry of Education. It is this philosophy that Government knows best and that Government is the monopoly provider of education and education solutions.

I also want to take note on how rushed this process has been. Our education system is really important, and there are thousands upon thousands of people that give up their time and work in this sector. I would’ve thought that a proper due process would have been called for in order to get these reforms right, because the feedback that I’ve heard from this sector in Northcote—principals and parents and board of trustee members—is clear. They are sick of the pull of reforms, no matter who is in Government. When National is in Government—and I’m criticising my own side here—we go one way, and then Labour gets in Government, we pull ourselves the other way. For the life of me, the one consistent feedback that I’ve heard from school after school is this: “Take the politics out of our education system.” So in that vein, why did we use the approach that we’ve taken in order to rush this through in an ideological manner that we have? That is what I ask and it’s what my community in Northcote is also asking as well.

But let me turn to the bill itself and the select committee process. Here are a few things that have come up that we strongly oppose on this side: the first around the shifting of responsibilities of zoning. So as I’ve pointed out, one of the great features of our system is local responsiveness and local decision-making for their communities. I have had a number of schools with significant pressures on roll growth that want the ability to determine the school zone for their communities. Now, we’ve heard from the Minister of Education this week that they’ll still have the opportunity to do that, but that’s not correct. Now the Minister and the ministry draft those zones for the school.

The second area is around removing the board accountability for raising student achievement. I just think that that is, again, removing accountabilities for school boards to focus on the right outcomes. I say this with the conviction of my own experience, because, quite frankly, New Zealand’s education system did not do much for me. But for all those kids out there who are underachieving—Māori, Pacific Islander, or Pākehā—we have to ask ourselves here, what are the incentives that we put in place for school boards to lift student achievement? Now we have a bill that we’ve got here today that removes the accountability of school boards to focus on that; so we’re opposed to that.

The third area is the discretionary power of the Minister and the Ministry of Education to grant new licences for early education providers. We think that, again, that is far too much concentration into the ministry’s hands on that. But, again, I come back to another part of this, which is around the process for putting this law in place. We have a democratic process in this House that is built on years of tradition and due process. We have here a case where the select committee process was shortened, where we spent less time looking at submissions because our country was in lockdown. I say this because I would have loved to hear from more boards of trustees as a part of this process, because let’s not forget, those boards of trustees, they’re all parents. They all have kids that go to school and they’re all invested in the education system that they serve. So I just think the process for this law was terrible and we should have had a more robust process going forward.

National’s vision for education in New Zealand is simple: we want to prepare our kids to succeed in the future world, whether it’s nationally or internationally, and that means taking those that underachieve and lifting them up, giving them a helping hand, giving those kids that probably would have dropped out, like I dropped out, and saying, “You can go to university. You can do well, and here’s the incentive structure for that in place.” We want a curriculum where people are stretched in our education system—whether it be with languages, whether it be digital fluency, whether it be cultural fluency, and we want a system where every kid achieves their God-given potential in this country.

There are aspects of this bill that we agree with, and I have not decided to focus on that today. But the promises of the Tomorrow’s Schools report were clear: let’s focus on tomorrow’s school, the school of the future. I had high hopes, as did many in the education sector and parents around the Tomorrow’s Schools review. But what we have here is a law that does nothing but to serve to satisfy the ideological bent of the Labour Party of centralising control of the sector, of saying that Government knows best, not parents and local communities.

Again, there were other aspects that we approve of, but by and large we do not support this bill in the House. I’d like to acknowledge, again, those in the select committee, and I look forward to hearing the amendments in the latter stages of the process. But, for now, National opposes this bill and we do not commend it to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill tonight, and what a mammoth piece of work it is, so I do commend the Minister of Education for shepherding this bill through the House and the Education and Workforce Committee, including the chair of the committee, that I have recently joined, Parmjeet Parmar, who has the mammoth task of shepherding bills like this regularly—it’s a busy committee. This bill, as others have said, updates two bills that have been repeatedly amended over 55 years, and we’re now seeing something comprehensive that addresses the education journey, from early childhood education into primary school, secondary school, tertiary and vocational training, all in one piece of legislation.

At last count, for me—and it might have changed slightly, but it’s 578 pages, so it is a dense piece of legislation. I won’t be addressing all of its parts, but—

Chris Bishop: Oh, come on!

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Ha, ha! We can all take our share, right? I would like to start with the aspects of the bill that address early learning and that the provisions of this bill, essentially, strengthen the community-based needs and, actually, in-home early childhood education. But one of the things that the committee has come out with and changed the bill, I believe to improve it vastly, is to include that the needs of children must be added to the list of considerations that the Minister must take into account in applying this bill to licence applications and considerations. We know that much of our law is outdated in the sense that we don’t have things like the rights and interests and wellbeing of children and young people be mandatory considerations, as they must be because New Zealand is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, one of the most universal, binding, and enforceable pieces of human rights law that I’ve had the pleasure, and displeasure, sometimes, of working on outside of this House in my previous life, in trying to set measures and to apply that aspect of human rights law for children and young people. It does require us in our law to take their interests into account when we make decisions that affect them. So it is really nice to see, and a bit of a shock that it wasn’t already one of the mandatory considerations, but we’re at least updating our law in that way for the really young people that partake in our education system.

One of the things that the Minister touched on and I really welcome in this bill is the amendments and changes around the transitional attendance plans. Again, I think we were all a little bit shocked to find that some of our most vulnerable or systemically marginalised of students were being actually pressured not to attend school for the full number of days that they have a right to attend and they were being, in different ways, excluded. So this bill provides for plans to be set out and agreed upon between principals, whānau, teachers, and the Secretary for Education so that children and young people who wish to attend school in different numbers of days than what is provided for in an ordinary education can at least be part of that decision making, and all of the different parties can hear from each other. That plan takes into account that young person’s wellbeing but also the teachers and principals and others who’ve come together, and we know that in terms of due process, people feeling heard always makes for better decision-making and better acceptance of decisions, better understanding of why things are happening, and that was missing.

Along those lines, in terms of due process and what this bill addresses, we’ve also got the dispute resolution scheme improvements. That actually was a really, really big issue when I worked in child rights for the Children’s Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, for YouthLaw—all of the different sector-based organisations that looked after the rights of children and young people in education, who consistently and repeatedly fought for children and young people who had been excluded from education for various reasons having a right to be heard and having a right to appeal those decisions. Because we know that the decision to exclude a young person from education can be one of the most damning, one of the most profound things that actually happens to a young person—a person—in their life. You know, it can really affect the entire course of a person’s life—our livelihoods, our ability to find dignity in the world—and to not be heard, for whānau not to be able to participate in that process or be heard or to have a right to appeal, was incredibly damaging.

I know from the other end of the human rights spectrum that in terms of youth justice, vast numbers of young people that we see come through that end of our system have been excluded from school, have undiagnosed—you know, what’s described as serious learning disabilities, cognitive diversity, and none of that has been able to be heard or processed through something like a transparent and, in this case, free of charge process where those decisions can be made with the children and young person and their whānau being involved. This includes the right to be orally heard—we know that legal language and having to put things in writing is really exclusionary in a lot of ways.

One of the other things that we really welcome in terms of the Green Party is the clarity around the right to opt in to religious instruction in schools. Having lived under a theocracy and having had religious instruction imposed upon me, and the trauma of my family in trying to overcome that, I know that there is no place for enforced religious instruction in our public schools unless a child, the young person, and their family want to opt in to that, knowingly and voluntarily. This bill clarifies that, so it is a step in both modernising our education system and also upholding the rights, our fundamental rights, to not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion, if that’s what the families wish. So that’s something.

But I do want to also, and lastly, address the issue that the Hon Tracey Martin and the honourable Minister have both raised, and that is that on this side of the House, we have heard from teachers, we’ve heard from parents and children and young people, on the issue of the use of restraint and the use of force that comes under this bill. We’ve heard the trauma that’s been suffered on both sides. We know that teachers are anxious and distressed, often, about the way that they can execute their duty of care to the children in their classroom, whether it’s special needs, whether it’s something else that has caused a disruption in their classroom, but also the other children, and that they’re nervous about that. They don’t know where their rights and their duties lie. But we’ve also heard repeatedly from incredibly distressed parents, whānau, children, and young people who have had different types of treatments, and they don’t know—there’s no transparency, and there’s no standardised way that they can feel safe in those circumstances where there is some use of restraint or force. Those words being included in legislation makes everyone concerned—we understand—nervous, and there’s uncertainty around that.

So we on this side of the House—and I do appreciate so much the Hon Tracey Martin and the Hon Chris Hipkins, as Minister, who’ve all come together with us as the Green Party to try and resolve this issue, try and come to a place where there will be, as the Minister has indicated, a Supplementary Order Paper addressing this issue and the removal of words and phrases in this bill that may lend themselves to a situation where parents are uncertain about whether use of force may cross the line, and teachers, principals, and other school caretakers are nervous about where their duties and obligations or restraints lie. So we’re going to work together to change that—and that’s our promise to this House—at committee stage. We’re not going to leave any uncertainty around that, and we are working together, which is, kind of, the beauty of this MMP Government. But it’s nice that we’re all on the same page in terms of the wellbeing of children being absolutely paramount. So I commend this bill at this stage to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Education and Training Bill at the second reading. I just want to remind the House that this was meant to be a piece of legislation which was going to give rise to the Government’s enormous contribution to the education sector through the Tomorrow’s Schools review where they were going to reimagine the education system and where they were going to make massive changes to how the system worked. But all we’ve got is really just a whole lot of legislation put together. It’s not, as the previous speaker said, 578 pages; it’s actually 668 pages, put into a big ream of paper, basically, with a few changes included, but nothing of the substantial visionary Tomorrow’s Schools changes which the Government and Mr Hipkins were going around New Zealand talking about. That’s a good thing in some respects, because one of the key changes that the Tomorrow’s Schools review did propose was to essentially wipe out boards of trustees and to reimagine our education system with so-called hubs, which would manage hundreds of schools and somehow deliver better outcomes. Of course, we on this side of the House opposed that proposal because we know that when communities are at the heart of education, when parents and families and children and educators are working together in a local school, then we will get better outcomes for our young people and for the future of our country.

So I’m very pleased to see that that centralisation change has been wiped out. But this piece of legislation does chip away and does continue to put the theme of centralisation into our education system. It’s about how much control the Minister of Education could grab. He realised he couldn’t grab it all, he tried, but he got as much as he could through this. Of course, the bill went to the select committee, and there were hundreds of submitters. I just want to acknowledge everybody who made a submission on that bill. I think 90 submitters came and presented orally to this select committee. I want to particularly acknowledge them for taking their time to do that.

I just want to make this important point around the process, because this bill has been kept to the traditional six-month time frame for bills going through Parliament. Whilst normally, in normal circumstances, that would be OK, in these circumstances, that meant that a significant portion of that time was whilst the country was in lockdown and dealing with COVID-19. Of course, COVID-19 has changed every single aspect of our society. In particular, it’s had a huge impact on our education system and on our education sector. I just want to acknowledge all the schools in my electorate of Pakuranga for the work they have done to continue to ensure that the education that young people in my electorate get continues to be to the top standard that it always has been. I just want to say thank you for all the hard work that they’ve put in.

Now I want to get to some of the key points in what we oppose in this bill. Firstly, one of the key power grabs that this bill does is to take responsibility off schools for the setting of school zones. This is an important point for schools up and down the country, and particularly important in my electorate of Pakuranga, because when a school sets a zone it can be a controversial aspect, but it’s also very important part of what a school board does. A school board, in setting a zone, has the responsibility of consulting with the community. And who best knows who is in that community? Who best knows that community? Is it the bureaucrats in Wellington who look at lines on a map and demographic data and come up with proposals? Or is it the people who actually live there, who send their kids to those schools, who help fundraise for the school, who know the parent community? Is it them or is it the bureaucrats in Wellington? This bill says it’s the bureaucrats in Wellington who know better than the parents in my electorate, and I take great offence to that because I know the parents in my electorate of Pakuranga know their community far better than the bureaucrats in Wellington who look at lines on a map.

I’ve had examples even during my time as a member of Parliament with zoning changes and the school will come and see you, or parents will come and talk to you about it, and they talk about what they know about this street and that street and who lives there and what that means—details which the ministry has no idea about. Inevitably, once you have that engagement, you get positive changes and you get a better outcome. But this says, “No, the bureaucrats in Wellington will know better than the parents in Pakuranga.”, and I find that completely offensive.

Another really important change it makes is around the purpose of our school boards of trustees. What it does is it removes school boards’ specific accountability for raising student achievement by making it one of four equal objectives. So currently, under the law, a school board’s specific accountability is to raise the student achievement in that school. That is their responsibility, clearly defined. Now it makes it one of four equal objectives with a range of other aspects which are barely defined and which will mean that that primary responsibility of student achievement gets diluted as the school board of trustees has to focus on other things as well.

When I think of our local schools, I think of student achievement as being the primary objective in that school. Because when I think of what the outcomes that we’re wanting from our education system are, it’s about our young people being able to achieve, to get a good education, and to come out with qualifications which will set them up for their future. This dilutes that responsibility and will inevitably lead to worse outcomes in our education system.

Another really important point, which goes back to how this piece of legislation should not have continued to be rushed through during COVID-19, is the fact that it removes the ability for NCEA qualifications to be granted offshore.

Hon Tracey Martin: It went through select committee, didn’t it?

SIMEON BROWN: It did go to a select committee, and I hear a bit of chitter chatter about the rush—

Hon Tracey Martin: A full select committee; it didn’t get rushed at all.

SIMEON BROWN: I hear a bit of chitter chatter about the rush—yes, I acknowledged earlier. I acknowledged earlier that it went through a normal six-month period. But the world has changed, the world has moved on, COVID-19 has happened. But the Government is now saying we’re going to bring a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). So that SOP didn’t go to the committee, submitters didn’t get the opportunity to look at it, they didn’t get the opportunity to scrutinise it. The Government spent 2½ years having working groups and reviews in education, but when it comes to the crunch, they’re happy to whack an SOP in there so they can get their point across.

So one of the areas is the fact that this bill removes the ability for NCEA qualifications to be granted offshore. That has a significant impact on the international students, which—

Hon Tracey Martin: That’s why there’s an SOP.

SIMEON BROWN: Well, then why did you not put it to the select committee?

Hon Tracey Martin: Because COVID happened after it was at select committee.

SIMEON BROWN: Oh, there’s more excuses from the Government. They’re full of working groups and excuses; it’s the two things they are good at—and non-delivery, that makes three. And incompetence, four. Well, I guess the list does go on, doesn’t it? I could go on about the Government’s failures, but I won’t. Let’s get back to this piece of legislation.

Another part of this bill is it continues the ideological reforms around the review of vocational education. Another significant reform this Government has done, amalgamating our polytechs all under one umbrella, thinking that you’ll get better outcomes by having the one educational beast, which—it’s not going to be based in Wellington, that one. I think they’re going to base that one somewhere else, I think it’s in Hamilton this time.

Hon Kelvin Davis: What’s your excuse for the failure of all those organisations under your guys’ watch?

SIMEON BROWN: Well, I can tell the Minister that’s asking me the question that the Government’s amalgamations will not lead to better outcomes in the vocational education system. We know it’s going to cost—they’ve already announced hundreds of millions of dollars in this Budget to try and put it into bureaucrats rather than education. That’s what they did in this Budget.

Another really important point is the education changes in this bill around early childhood education and how they are putting in place active network management. Now, what does active network management mean? More control for bureaucrats in Wellington rather than choice for communities and allowing choice for families when it comes to education. That’s what this bill is about. It’s about the creeping control of Wellington rather than empowering our local communities. The National Party will not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Marja Lubeck, five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You can just tell a lazy Opposition when they say that a six-month process is a rushed process. They obviously don’t do anything at all. As we’ve heard already in the speeches, this bill is a revamp of the whole education legislative framework. It puts a new structure in place. It’s more modern. It’s more reflective of a less prescriptive education environment, and, in general, it reflects all the many tidy-ups that are, quite frankly, long overdue.

What really thrills me though is the aspect of lifelong learning in this bill, something that this Government is, obviously, investing in heavily. We saw that recently with a boost into adult and community education.

This bill’s been through a very thorough process. We’ve heard 545 submissions. A quarter of those gave oral submissions, and I’d like to thank all those submitters who came. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PAULO GARCIA (National): I stand to make a contribution to the Education and Training Bill. It seeks to accomplish—it has a large scope. It wants to put together a number of existing legislation and consolidate it into the bill. It is a good thing, the consolidation. While that is a good thing, the resulting centralisation of control in the Ministry of Education is something that National does not support. National believes that it is indeed sensible to put the things together, but there are portions of the bill that National opposes.

I am a trustee in a board in a school in the place where I live. Speaking to the exchange about being a volunteer or not, I do believe that I’m a volunteer. I am paid a meeting fee, which is donated to the school—so, essentially, there is still consideration for being a trustee. Being a trustee, I’ve seen how much work goes into the board, into the meetings, and how much work and effort the parents of the school put into being involved in the direction of the school. Taking away the authority, or taking away the opportunity, for the board of trustees to make decisions and discuss and review the setting of the zonal geographic requirements of the students is something that the trustees actually—it’s a part of the desire to give service to the board, and taking it away is not something that they would agree to, I think.

The National Party also, on the other hand, agrees with and supports some portions of the bill. Removing barriers to foreign teachers who can become registered and come to New Zealand to teach is a good thing. The dispute resolution is a very good step forward, in the sense that it gives to the students and the parents the opportunity for a discussion outside when they have had no success from the school. This process needs to be fleshed out, because there have been concerns from submitters saying that they are not fully aware how this system could be worked out in practical terms.

The amount of work that has gone into the consolidation of legislation is such a big effort that running through the six-month period, with three months of that period done during the lockdown, makes it seem insufficient in terms of the opportunity that the public may have had to make submissions. Although many have been made, I understand that only about 23 boards of trustees were able to make submissions. So that’s a bit of a concern as well.

Ultimately, National believes in making sure—I’m sorry, my time has ended.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I must admit, after listening to the contributions from the Opposition, I’m a little confused as to where they stand. They support many things within this piece of legislation, but then they don’t support pieces of this legislation. So I would say it’s a matter of opposition for opposition’s sake, actually.

But one of the things I do want to talk about briefly is around the fact that people who provide home-based early childhood education—other members of their household will now have to be police vetted, and I think that that makes perfect sense. Because, in an early childhood setting, every person that teaches or works in that setting when children are around must be vetted, and so I see this as an extremely important step towards ensuring that our tamariki are kept safe while in their education and care facilities, whether it be centres or whether it be home-based.

Huge piece of legislation, fantastic piece of legislation, and I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Education and Training Bill at its second reading.

You often get pieces of legislation in this House that very clearly show the differences in approach between the two sides of the House, and this is one of those bills. You clearly get that picture when you see the Government and the opposite side of the House believing that centralisation of decision making is best when it comes to education and when it comes to our young people. On this side of the House we’ve always clearly believed that it is our view that families, communities, schools, and boards of trustees know best when it comes to the education of our young people.

Nicola Willis said, prior, in her contribution earlier this evening, the best outcomes that have been made, the best decisions that have been made, are the ones that have been driven from the ground up, from the communities, from the schools, from the families, and from the boards of trustees. She made the very good point that charter schools were one of those things, that it can be proved that when the community comes forward with a solution for children who are failing in the mainstream and who are failing in even our special character schools, that what incredible results we get when the community takes control, they innovate, and they come up with solutions for those children, and no more so than at Vanguard Military School in my electorate. But no, gone by lunchtime then, and we see it again in this bill with a centralisation of decision making, taking power away from schools, communities, boards of trustees, families, and parents; where we firmly believe that decision making and all the power should be with them. It is always because this Government believes that they know best. They don’t trust communities. They don’t trust families. They don’t trust boards of trustees.

Frankly, although it’s a big bill with many pages, it’s a bit of a disappointment of a bill. I think Marja Lubeck actually summed it up best when she called this bill a long overdue tidy-up. This bill has come about from the Tomorrow’s Schools review, which was set up by this Government, and they spent millions and millions and millions of dollars on it. It came up with some radical ideas and solutions about changing the future of education and how it would look, and we end up with a bill—and she’s quite right, Marja Lubeck is quite right, it’s a bit of a tidy-up. It’s got a few bits and pieces in here but when you compare it with what the Tomorrow’s School’s report wanted, it’s a vastly different thing. So I guess all that money was wasted.

There are aspects, and I know that it’s difficult for Jo Luxton to understand—in a bill this big, there are obviously going to be some parts of it that we agree with, but the vast majority of it we don’t, and that’s just what happens. I’m unsure why that’s such a difficult thing to comprehend; it’s not surprising when you look at the size of the bill that there will be some parts of it. But there are so many failings of this bill that were not addressed at select committee for us to vote in favour of its second reading tonight.

The one thing that I would like to consider, and others have mentioned it as well, but I’ve got some specific examples I’d like to talk about, that’s the shift of power away from the boards of trustees when it comes to zoning. As I’ve mentioned earlier, we oppose provisions to centralise power and take away that responsibility from boards of trustees and centralise it with bureaucrats in Wellington. School boards know best their local communities, they know best their families, they know best their area, and they should be empowered to make decisions that work best for families, particularly on issues like zoning. On this side of the House we are very fearful that removing this autonomy and responsibility may lead to the Ministry of Education, however well meaning they may be, imposing conditions on schools that do not take families in these situations into account.

I want to just start my discussion about zoning just by saying that even the current zoning arrangements, they’re not perfect. But the things that schools and families and communities—the thing that is the big problem with the current situation is the ministry’s involvement. It’s not the school’s involvement or the board of trustees’ involvement, it’s the ministry’s involvement. What this bill does is take what little the school does have available to them and centralise it even further. It takes the worst part of the current situation and makes it even more worse.

I want to talk about two examples, one in Wellington and one in Auckland, one in my electorate in East Coast Bays. I’m not going to say the school but it’s a local primary school who have recently gone through this change of zones. They did the consultation, but in the end it was the ministry who came in over the top to make the decision, and that was the problem. It was the problem that the bureaucrats in Wellington came in over the top and said, and forced the school, firstly, to even undertake the consultation, and then forced them into a position that they didn’t want to be in. Now, the depth of feeling in the community when the ministry made this decision was absolute shock. It was one of anger and huge disappointment. I had parents ringing me saying, “We will fundraise for new classrooms. We will do this. We will do that. Why don’t the ministry understand that we are part of this community? Why are they trying to force us in the opposite direction to attend a school in a community that we have absolutely nothing to do with? We don’t travel in that direction. We don’t shop over there. We have nothing to do with that community. We are squarely in this community. That school is in our community.” The depth of feeling was surprising, the anger and the outpouring of emotion. I went to a couple of the meetings where they were attended by many, many very angry parents who could not understand why this decision couldn’t be made by the school. So as you can see the part of the decision-making process, it’s not perfect now, but the part that’s not perfect is the ministry making that decision.

Schools and boards of trustees can be trusted to make these decisions, to work with other schools to figure out where the growth is. It was really interesting in this case, actually, of this primary school that I’m speaking of, it said that there was going to be a development across the road of 450 new homes. Now, interestingly, the ministry didn’t even know about it. It was the community, the board of trustees, and the school that knew about it and could account for it but not the ministry. There’s so many examples of that in my community with different schools knowing where the growth is and actually trying to tell the ministry that their modelling is wrong, and actually, here’s where all the growth is, and here’s where we need to have our zones. The ministry are the ones who don’t have the up-to-date information and keep making wrong decisions. We end up with some schools that are over-enrolled and some that are under-enrolled, and it’s not for lack of trying by the local schools to try and get the ministry to understand.

The second example I wanted to talk about is a school that I was actually just discussing with Nicola Willis. She didn’t get time in her contribution to talk about it—Makara Model School. It’s in a relatively rural area—forgive me, I don’t know Wellington well. But what she said to me is that it’s over the hill from Karori, and it takes a number of students from the Karori region. It prides itself on specialising in children who have additional learning needs. It takes any student—it did take any students that had those additional learning needs, and it was known as a school that was best for those students. A lot of people from Karori would send their children to that school. What the ministry did was come in over the top and say, “That’s not allowed. We’re going to create a zone.” All of the schools wanted it. All of the parents wanted it. The community wanted it. But the ministry came in over the top and said, “Actually, we know best.” And that—I know you’re wanting me to come back to the bill, Mr Speaker—is the problem with this bill. It centralises this decision making. It takes those decisions away from schools and the consultation away from schools, communities, families, and boards of trustees, and puts it with bureaucrats in Wellington who don’t know local communities. They don’t know geography. As I mentioned, they quite often don’t know even where the growth is. Those are just two examples. Even now, the system isn’t perfect. But this bill is going to make it far worse.

In my final minute, I want to just say that we’re also very, very concerned that this bill removes a specific accountability placed on school boards to raise educational achievement by amalgamating up with three other objectives and giving them all equal weighting. No one on this side of the House argues that those three aren’t important, those other metrics aren’t important, but by not having educational achievement at the top of the list, in our opinion, it is not a good thing.

So in the dying seconds that I have left, I just want to say that we back communities, we back school boards, we back families, and we back parents to make the best decisions, and not this Government or bureaucrats in Wellington. Thank you.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training 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 48

New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Public Service Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I move, That the Public Service Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Members of the House will note that this bill has not been reported by the Governance and Administration Committee following its consideration. It has been sent back to the House without the committee deliberating on the bill, and therefore I intend to table a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the committee stage that will pick up the recommendations in the departmental report that were the result of the committee’s deliberations on the bill and that encapsulates the feedback provided by submitters.

The bill aims to deliver better outcomes and better services to New Zealand to create a modern, agile, and adaptive Public Service and to affirm the important constitutional role the Public Service has in supporting New Zealand’s democratic Government—I’ve enjoyed my time in the House a little too much today, Mr Speaker, as you might hear from my voice.

Crises often bring out the best in our public servants, and they often drive the type of behaviour that this bill is incentivising that encourages Government to join up together to deliver better outcomes for New Zealanders. It’s too easy, though, for that spirit of collaboration to start to disappear once the emergency has passed. Conventional conceptions of agency autonomy tend to reassert themselves, as do the more conventional modes of leadership. We know that as we head into the COVID-19 recovery phase, we’re going to need Government agencies in all aspects and all areas of government to work together in a much more coordinated fashion to support all New Zealanders—our people, our businesses, our community organisations—through the recovery phase, and this bill helps to provide us with the tools to make that happen.

We need to maintain that impetus towards a joined-up Public Service that we saw during COVID-19. We need to support innovation and responsiveness in the way we did during the lockdown period. We need our Public Service to work as a single Public Service, not a series of silos.

The Public Service Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that results in a new Public Service Act and amendments to the Public Finance Act 1989. The first six parts of the bill will become the Public Service Act, and they’ll repeal and replace the existing State Sector Act. Part 7 of the bill will become the Public Finance Amendment Act, which will provide the necessary financial powers and reporting obligations for the new organisational arrangements that are contained in the new Public Service Act.

Part 1 of the bill clearly establishes the purpose, principles, and values of an apolitical Public Service. It recognises the role of the Public Service in supporting the Crown and its commitments to its relationships with Māori. It affirms the spirit of service to the community that public servants bring to their work every day and that they have been showcasing during the COVID-19 emergency situation. These provisions of the bill relating to the principles and values were overwhelmingly supported by submitters.

There are some important principles of the way our Public Service operates that many, including myself as a member of Parliament, were surprised to learn are not enshrined in legislation. The law does not currently create requirements around political neutrality, around merit-based appointment, around free and frank advice—around so many of the constitutional conventions that we take for granted in our public servants. This bill addresses that anomaly and makes sure that those things are reflected in the Act.

Part 1 of the bill deals with those issues. It also deals with issues around the Public Service identity. One of the things that surprises me about New Zealand—and we are different to other places in the world like this—is that if you ask a public servant what they do for a living, they’ll typically describe the department or agency that they work for. If you ask them that question in many other countries, they will say, “I’m a public servant.” That’s not part of the New Zealand lexicon and it should be, quite frankly, and we should be proud of that.

There’s been discussion about whether the bill should specifically refer to the obligation of the Public Service to uphold the law, and one would think that that would be rather obvious, but there’s been careful consideration by the committee as to whether the bill should contain an explicit reference to human rights law and to obligations. We’ve listened very carefully to the debate over this. Consequently, the SOP will make it very clear that the Public Service does need to respect and uphold all of New Zealand’s laws, and it makes it readily apparent that that includes the relevant human rights laws.

Part 2 of the bill provides for a wider range of more flexible organisational forms in the Public Service. The State Sector Act created a series of nice, neat, vertical silos within the Public Service, and we know that that does not lend itself well to joined-up public service and to joined-up reactions and responses. This was something that successive Governments over the 1990s and in the early 2000s and even up to today have grappled with, and various different things have been tried: departmental joint ventures, cross-agency working groups, the Social Investment Board—these are examples of the sorts of approaches that have been tried by different Governments to address this challenge. The Public Service legislation that we are introducing today creates some new opportunities to create that kind of joined-up Public Service that we all want to see.

Part 3 concerns the people working in the Public Service, including the role of the Public Service Commissioner and the two deputy commissioners. It provides for the commissioner to establish a Public Service leadership team that will create system-level leadership in a system that at the moment has quite excessive devolution.

In terms of the employment ceilings, the bill provides for several means to ease the strict boundaries between agencies to ensure that there can be better mobility of staff between agencies. The bill reinforces the point that was made by the very first Public Service bill that New Zealand passed early in the last century of merit-based appointment. It is something that is fundamental to the way our Public Service operates, and it’s something that we should all be jealously guarding. No one should get a job in the Public Service because of who they know; they should get a job because they are the best person for the job, and the bill enshrines that basic principle that our Public Service has operated on for the last 130-odd years. It puts it back—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, the member might not have got a job.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thankfully, that principle doesn’t apply to democracy, Mr Brownlee, as the member should be well aware.

Part 4 relates to Government workforce policy, and the bill expands the range of agencies that must have regard to Government workforce policy statements and specifies in more detail the matters that might be encompassed in that. Parts 5 and 6 accomplish the carry-over of some necessary provisions from the State Sector Act and address other technical matters, including the repeals. Part 7 deals with the changes to the Public Finance Act, which ensures as we move to more flexible working arrangements and new types of Public Service organisation that we’re still maintaining strong accountability when it comes to the expenditure of public finance.

The bill will support the collaborative and cohesive Public Service that we know is going to be necessary to address the very complex needs of New Zealanders in the COVID-19 recovery phase. They span different agency boundaries. We need the Public Service to work together in a joined-up way that’s based on the needs of New Zealanders, rather on than the needs of the individual Public Service agencies, and this bill moves us very progressively in that direction. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): We support the intention of the bill, and that is to help deliver better outcomes and also services for New Zealanders by creating a modern, agile, and adaptive Public Service, and also by affirming the constitutional role of the Public Service in supporting the democratic Government of New Zealand. The bill repeals the State Sector Act 1988. The Act itself is over 30 years old. Although we have had 13 times of changes to the Act itself, the Act has become somewhat outdated, so we agree—we agree—that there are areas where the Public Service can do better, and we need to make sure that the Act is able to meet requirements today and tomorrow.

The Public Service is essential to the functioning of the Government, and also New Zealanders contact and communicate with the Government on a daily basis, so such services are particularly important. Overall, New Zealanders are satisfied with the services provided by our public sector. As a matter of fact, they may be very proud of our Public Service. Nevertheless, we believe the Public Service can do better.

The bill itself attempts to help create a unified Public Service that acts as a single team to provide better services to all New Zealanders. The bill also attempts to strengthen and streamline the Māori-Crown relationship, the employment of the Public Service, the leadership of the organisation, and also the Public Service in the regions. So all these are good attempts.

We support all these attempts, and we do think that there are good changes in this bill. For example, we support the provisions that enable public servants to move more easily between public agencies. We also support provisions that enable departmental joint ventures so as to better tackle those challenges that transcend individual department agencies. We also support overall public sector principles such as political neutrality, free and frank advice, merit-based appointments, open government, and stewardship.

Having said that, we have some problems with the bill. Firstly, this is an important and complicated bill and we believe it deserved a better deliberation process.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Seven months.

Dr JIAN YANG: The bill will have far-reaching implications for the operation of the Public Service in New Zealand.

Brett Hudson: But it’s not a COVID bill.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Some of us worked through COVID.

Dr JIAN YANG: There is a strong public interest in the bill. Let me tell the member what the committee has done—what happened in the past few months regarding this bill. The committee spent 16 hours considering the bill, including 45 minutes on the initial briefing, about five hours on oral submissions, and just 11 hours on the departmental report, which contains 69 recommendations. National members of the committee made a consistent effort to actively engage in committee procedures in an effort to improve the bill.

The bill was referred to the committee on 23 November 2019. I, as the chair of the committee, called for public submissions the following day, without any delaying, and submissions were closed on 31 January 2020. Remember, this period coincided with Christmas and new year holidays. The committee process was then delayed due to the COVID-19 lockdown. Now, in the level 4 lockdown, we lost two meetings, and then, on the first day, we entered the level 3 lockdown, the committee had a meeting and considered this particular bill. We spent 1½ hours on this particular bill. Unfortunately, the committee lost another two meetings because of urgency—the House urgency.

So when it became clear that the committee would not be able to meet and report back that line of 8 June, National members proposed an extension of the report-back date to 29 July, and then we shortened that to 6 July and Labour MPs still opposed our request. Then the Chief Parliamentary Counsel wrote to the committee saying that due to insufficient time being allowed, the Parliamentary Counsel Office would not be able to prepare a revision-tracked version of the bill before the report-back date of 8 June. She noted that for a large bill requiring extensive or complex amendments such as the Public Service Legislation Bill, more time was needed. National members then agreed with the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and in the meeting on 3 June, we proposed yet another extension, and that is 3 July—even shorter than earlier suggested extensions. So we are disappointed that Labour members of the committee rejected the proposal again and insisted on a truncated committee process, which would compromise the quality of the bill.

This is important, complex, and large legislation. It should not have been rushed through during the COVID emergency or rushed under urgency. There is nothing urgent here, because this is a long-term reform, and it needs better consideration and care. We should deal with this with precision.

In addition to the process issue, National also has some concerns over this particular bill—for example, National is concerned about the increased size of the central government bureaucracy and increased centralisation that this bill is designed to support. The bill is a lost opportunity to improve the accountability of the Public Service and to improve the connectedness between local government and central government.

Now, this bill as it stands makes it too easy for Governments to constantly change ministries’ and departments’ names. Also, it will encourage a culture of changing names and forms of Public Service departments, rather than actually improving the delivery of public services. So I oppose the bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the Public Service Legislation Bill.

I’d actually like to start where Minister Chris Hipkins left off, and that is to thank our public servants for the work that they did during the recent COVID-19 situation. I think I’ll echo all members on this side of the House, at least. Sam and Alma, who worked out of the National Crisis Management Centre, did a tremendous job in supporting all MPs, and I was certainly in their debt every single day of the level 4 lockdown, contacting them, asking them for advice, and asking them for assistance, and I just want to thank them very much for their work. That, to me, sums up what public service is. It’s that when we do have a crisis like that, everyone gets in, pulls together, and does the very best for New Zealand. I say that as someone who’s married to a former public servant, and they do a tremendous job on behalf of their country.

Now, I do want to run through some of the reasons we do oppose this bill, though. There are several, but my primary concern is more that this is such a wasted opportunity, and I’ll come to that in a moment. The bill repeals two longstanding pieces of legislation: the State Sector Act 1998 and the Public Finance Act 1989. Not only have they been on our statute book for more than 30 years; they also represent some of the finest traditions of our democracy. I will, with the House’s indulgence, just touch on one of those for a brief moment, which is the Public Finance Act, which establishes parliamentary control over public finances, including, for example, the appropriations that we debate so regularly in this House, and, importantly, it also outlines the principles of responsible fiscal management, which has for several decades, along with the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994—working in tandem with that Act—put us in very good stead.

Since the passage of both of those pieces of legislation, but certainly the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994, successive Governments have stuck broadly within a framework of fiscal responsibility, with some Governments obviously exercising more fiscal responsibility than others. But even in the circumstances of, for example, the Canterbury earthquakes, where large-scale borrowing was required, there was always a path back to some sense of normality in terms of our debt position.

Today, our debt is obviously growing at a pretty rapid rate of knots and, as I said in the House late this afternoon, a lot of that is for a very good reason, with things like the wage subsidy, and with the projections out to, I think, about 2023 being 50 percent as a percentage of GDP. That all might sound quite scary to us because we’re used to numbers far lower than that—something, usually, with a “2” in front of it, or occasionally a “3”—but just bear in mind that for about 70 years of New Zealand’s history, the Government and we New Zealanders owed more than 100 percent of GDP, and in fact it spiked. It lifted to in excess of 200 percent at one point. That’s still the case, actually, for many countries around the world, and that, unfortunately, puts them in quite a negative position when it comes to responding to issues like COVID-19, and also if they have any natural shocks in the way that we did with the Canterbury earthquakes as well.

Those two pieces of legislation, the Public Finance Act—which this bill repeals—but also the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was passed by the Bolger Government, have set an important framework for responsible fiscal management. So, with that context, I do want to speak to this bill, and particularly to the fact that we had in this Parliament a real opportunity to build on some of the tremendous work on what needed to be worked on but also to bed in other things that do work well, and that is where this bill, unfortunately, does fall down. As my colleague Jian Yang has already pointed out in quite excruciating detail, actually—not excruciating because it took a long time to do so, but just the levels that National MPs went to to try and persuade Government to actually bring in a better process. I found that very disappointing. So this process has been rushed, despite Mr Hipkins’ comments earlier. Particularly in what should be a considered and deliberative undertaking, unfortunately, this has been one that has been pushed through with unnecessary haste.

The bill was debated at select committee during the lockdown and that was during a period where, in my view, no non-COVID legislation should have been progressed. I understand there were some discussions across the House about whether or not it was appropriate that non-COVID legislation should have been progressed during that time, and so I was disappointed that this bill was progressed despite that. MPs’ minds were elsewhere—they were on our communities.

Brett Hudson: That’s right—where they should have been.

ANDREW FALLOON: They were working with our constituents, certainly in my case and, I know, in Brett Hudson’s case—who does a fantastic job up in Ōhāriu—and I’m sure, actually, members across the House, whether they be electorate MPs or list MPs.

But it wasn’t just MPs, of course. It was also potential submitters, and they were in an even worse position than us because, as we know, New Zealanders up and down the country were losing their jobs. Often, in these cases they had children at home or had an enormous amount of other pressures on them, so to ask them to submit during that period is, frankly, pretty disappointing, and yet we had the select committee pressing on despite all that. As Jian Yang has pointed out, we tried numerous times to try and persuade the Government to extend that period. We also tried to get the bill returned back to select committee so that more time could be taken on what is a very important piece of legislation, and yet Labour members pushed on, despite those valid concerns about the state of the bill and the changes that had been proposed.

Now, I will say there are some good things about this bill, and I do just want to touch on a few of those. For a period of my life, I was a public servant, and I worked here, in fact, for a number of years, both for the Parliamentary Service and for Ministerial Services. I always found it strange when I worked here that the two organisations never seemed to align very well. They didn’t talk to each other all that much and they almost didn’t seem to recognise one another.

So, as we know in this place, Governments do come and go. They might last nine years or six years or, as it was in 1975—and perhaps later this year—just three years, and during all that, it’s not just the MPs and Ministers who are affected; it’s also the staff who are affected. They often move from Government to Opposition. Yet, despite that, there wasn’t a recognition that they should be joined up—that there should be a single approach between Ministerial Services and the Parliamentary Service.

The same is even more true, actually, for the wider Public Service: the people who, often, live in Wellington and move between Government departments for their entire careers. They might move, say, from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Education and then to the Ministry of Social Development, and there hasn’t been a lot of recognition across the Public Service that that is their core role. They may be employed by a different agency from time to time, but, actually, their core role is to be a public servant, regardless of the ministry, department, or agency that they work in. So this bill, I think, improves that situation quite a lot. What it allows for is the portability of annual leave entitlements, and, to me, that seems entirely reasonable.

But I do have some criticisms. Jian Yang, again, has pointed out some of those, and I’m sure my colleagues will point out some others, but the main one is that this bill is a lost opportunity to improve the connectedness between local government and central government. Despite what I’ve seen about the portability between central government agencies, that portability is also true for local government and central government. We often have people moving, for example, from the Wellington City Council to a core Government agency here in Wellington, or from the Auckland Council down to Wellington to take on a role here as well, and this bill doesn’t address that. It doesn’t address that there’s portability between central government and local government in the same way that there is between central government agencies.

We also see that this bill is wrongly focused. It dwells far too much on issues like changing the names or changing the form of departments and nowhere near enough on what should be the Public Service’s core role and what, in my view, is their core role—and what, I think that if you asked them, most public servants would say is their core role—which is the delivery of public services.

So for those reasons and for others that will be canvassed, I’m sure, by my colleagues as we head into the night—and they will be well traversed by them—I can’t support this bill. It’s a wasted opportunity and we won’t be supporting it.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to endorse New Zealand First’s support for this Public Service Legislation Bill. In doing so, I echo the words of Andrew Falloon, who’s just sat down, in terms of the commendation of the role that our Public Service had in the COVID response. Prior to coming into the House, I had no previous experience of dealing with the Public Service outside perhaps the local council. I had a perception of the Yes Minister television series, which is one of the greatest TV shows of all time, in my view. But what I’ve seen since coming in here is that we’re incredibly well served by some very, very capable people.

Just going back to the COVID response, I do want to actually just have a shout-out to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). I know that within my role in the primary industries side of things, dealing with the various industry groups and businesses, whether it be in horticulture, the dairy sector, sheep and beef, shearing—absolutely, without exception, the feedback I was getting as they were having the interactions with MPI was exceptional. In the circumstances around that, with the speed of rolling out massive changes and communicating that response and how that would be complied with in order to keep workers safe, MPI absolutely excelled themselves in that response, from all the feedback I’ve had.

The State Services Act of 1988 and the Public Finance Act of 1989, which intersect with the precursors for this bill—it ties those up nicely, or it is certainly attempting a step in that direction. I think that’s incredibly wise, because whilst there was the nimbleness of the COVID response, sometimes that’s not always the case. The Government, to someone coming in from the private sector, is a big, lumbering beast. It has a lot of moving parts to it, and I think anything we can do to streamline those processes—and just as a small example, I was in at Invermay the other day, at AgResearch, and they were talking about the process of getting funding. When they look at what they would like to do, it starts off with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and at some point it cuts across to MPI, and then it drifts down to them at the coalface. I think the more seamless we can make these processes the better, and that’s exactly what this bill sets out to do.

So I commend Minister Hipkins on bringing these reforms forward. He’s certainly been a busy Minister. I’m on the Education and Workforce Committee, and we’ve had a deluge of really significant legislation coming through there as well, so I commend him on bringing this forward as well. So, without further ado, New Zealand First supports this bill.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I would also like to acknowledge all the public servants who really worked hard during this difficult time and the challenging times which New Zealand has faced.

I would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Dr Jian Yang, who really worked very hard to ensure that we came out of this process of select committee on this bill with a very good piece of work, but we are very disappointed that the Government members and the Business Committee did not give us the opportunity to follow the work. The process which we followed was that we heard the submissions and we had the revision-tracked version, where there were so many recommendations by the officials, but we did not get a chance to report back all those changes to this House, which would have improved this bill a long way.

The State Sector Act 1988 is being redone after 30 years. This is the real opportunity to modernise the New Zealand Public Service. It is the missed opportunity for substantive reform and rushed process during the lockdown that does a disservice to its importance. The select committee should have been working on COVID-related emergency legislation during the emergency when the MPs were confined to their homes, but the Government opportunistically used this to push through this large, complex, and important legislation.

Madam Assistant Speaker Dyson, I know you have been the chair of this select committee for a long time, and I have worked with you. I have seen that the intention of this select committee is always to bring the best out of the select committee process for any complex bill, and that was the intention in this process when we were going through the select committee process for this bill.

Some good points in this bill which I would like to share with this House include that it is going to bring the real connection between the Crown entities and the public sector, which is very important. The chief executives will be responsible to promote diversity and bring more inclusion into the workforce. They will be expected to build an inclusive workplace culture that attracts and promotes diversity. As we have seen in this country, it is becoming more and more diverse, and we want that the workforce and the public sector should be representative of the true population. This will need to include the removal of the barriers to current recruitment and development practices in order to ensure all people have fair and equal access to employment opportunities and career progression, which is a very important thing. We have seen that some of the areas where we don’t have that are, particularly, the Māori, the Pacific people, and the ethnics, who don’t have that progression which they should have and which they deserve.

This will also be able to deliver more innovative and meaningful programmes that have a greater impact. We want that New Zealanders should have the best out of every public servant, and this bill could have done that, provided we had had that process of the select committee.

A strong system of focused Public Service leadership is needed to improve outcomes for all New Zealanders. As we have seen, the public servants are required to give frank and free opinion to the Ministers and to the ministries while the policies are being formulated. That is a very important thing which we need to understand—that the frank and free opinion can help have better policies for New Zealanders.

The system leads will be also available to appoint based on functional experience and expertise, instead of it needing to be an agency chief executive. A chief executive will be responsible for employing their day-to-day staff, but, as a collective, they have to work together to have the better outcome for the betterment of New Zealanders.

If we talk about the culture and the behaviour, then this system will get rid of rigid systems and processes. We need to understand that there should be flexible things available. Chief executives have already started to lead together for the system. This will be formalised as a new Public Service leadership team and it will help public servants to build on the collective way of working, which, again, is an emphasis of this bill.

I hope that during the committee of the whole House, we will be able to put forward some Supplementary Order Papers which could make this bill more workable and better so that it can help the public servants. With these words, I oppose the bill at this stage.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in the second reading of the Public Service Legislation Bill, which we are supporting, just to recognise that this is possibly—people who haven’t worked in the Public Service may not understand how significant this is. I think, quite often, there’s this discussion held about the bureaucracy in quite dismissive ways. We heard it for a few years, and I think it really undermined people’s ability to understand how central the Public Service is to everything that people need from their Government. I sometimes think of—and this may make me a bad Green—the politicians as the petrol and the Public Service as the engine. We’re the energy, but they’re the people that get us where we need to go, and it’s a really, really important relationship.

This is the biggest overhaul of the public sector since 1988 and one of the most significant overhauls in our country’s history, so it is an important piece of legislation. What it does is it sets out new purposes and principles and values, and it has these apply to Crown agencies as well as to core Public Service departments. It enables public servants to be appointed to the Public Service, and the Minister of State Services mentioned that in his speech. It’s just about actually helping people connect more to the idea of acting as public servants and having a sense of pride in that, which I think is really an important thing.

Part of what comes with this, which is a really great thing, is portability of annual leave if people move between different agencies. I think that just helps people to be acknowledged for that service to our country, and it’s a good thing. It requires diversity and inclusion in employment practices in the legislation as well, and I will speak to that a little bit more, because in the Greens, we would’ve liked to have seen the gender pay principles put into this piece of legislation. That is such a central challenge and such a core focus for the Government that I do think this piece of legislation would’ve benefited from having it in there.

It also sets up a senior leadership team of all public sector chief executives (CEs) and requires CEs to help create a coordinated, collaborative public sector, and it creates a greater range of organisational forms, including legislating for joint ventures. There’s a stand-alone, prominent clause in the legislation with codified expectations about strengthening the Māori-Crown relationship and referencing the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—which is surely very central to getting anything done effectively in this country, making sure that that is in our work and centred in it. The competency for delivering on that is present in the Public Service, and this legislation helps deliver that.

I’ve seen some commentary in the media on this piece of legislation that’s been quite dismissive and worried that it’s removing power from the people in this place and enabling, I think, in this vision of the Yes Minister that Mark Patterson brought into the debate, the sense that, actually, more collaboration across Government will just enable more obfuscation and will take the ability away from Ministers to direct agencies. There was a piece I read where—and I’ll just quote from it—they were saying they imagined that one department will find it costs millions if a Minister wants blue doors on State houses and the State Service wants green doors. They were saying, “One department will find it costs millions to enter blue paint in computer systems; toxins in blue dyes will be flagged by another; and an obscure researcher will be disinterred to show indigenous birds are at risk from the minister’s colour choice. The solution will come when yet another ministry finds a green-looking paint that has been labelled cyan.”

That’s a really cynical, cynical view of our Public Service, and I think it really misses the nature of the complexity of the biggest challenges we face as a country and how they cannot be dealt with in silos. I talk about family violence in that example. A very common journey for somebody who’s experiencing domestic violence is where they may tell a counsellor or their doctor about what they’re experiencing and not get an appropriate response. There may be a police call-out and a warning given, as an example. They may be referred to a Ministry of Social Development - funded community service and get some support in that place. School might identify behavioural issues with their children, and then they may notify Oranga Tamariki. There may be ACC counselling for a parent. There may be another police call-out and, usually, the mum may want to leave with the kids, and then there’s the requirement to find housing and, often, that will be a need to try and find State housing. There may be issues about getting leave from work, and that brings in Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment oversight or the requirement to go to Work and Income. Then a case may go in front of the courts, and then there’ll be the justice system in terms of programmes for people to get help to recover or to be able to change their behaviour, and it may be a prison term and that involves the Department of Corrections.

To me, that is a very, very typical story. There’ll be multiple engagements, and all of those agencies at the moment report straight through to their Minister, only focusing on their one area and the priorities of their Minister. Part of what this Government is doing around family violence is setting up a system of collective responsibility, which is being enabled to be embedded by this legislation in recognition that we are never going to be able to turn around the endemic rates of domestic violence in this country unless we start lining up the work across those agencies and that taking independent approaches—isolated, siloed approaches—will just keep us where we are now.

We hear continually from our community organisations that at the moment, they may have funding contracts with two or three different Government agencies to run their basic service. They’ll have to make applications to each of those agencies and they’ll have to report on different criteria to each of those agencies to, essentially, be doing the work of supporting the whānau that they work with. It’s a huge waste of Government resource, and their time and ability is being taken away from being able to support people. Then we hear of examples like I heard in Christchurch last year, I think, of a woman who had come up through one of the processes we were involved in, where they’d found she was under eight different intensive case management systems through Government agencies because we hadn’t had the ability to join up and create a process that truly puts people at the centre of our work, rather than our organisational priorities.

That at the heart of it is, for me, why this piece of legislation and the work of this Government is potentially truly transformative. We have vehicles now to truly start responding to the needs of people in our community, and that, for a topic that many people may not understand or may find boring, is actually really, really exciting. I hope people will take some hope from this. While there may be things that we’ve heard in specifics that people would like to see, there’s always time for that, but I think this is a great start.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I rise to oppose the second reading of the Public Service Legislation Bill. I’d first like to congratulate the Greens and New Zealand First members, who both took very substantial calls on this bill. Listening to part of this bill and watching the amount of legislation today from my office, it appears that Labour members are restricting themselves to just seven-word calls, which really doesn’t show the public or, indeed, in this case, the public sector much respect for the legislation that is before the House.

This bill has much in it that is to be welcomed and commended, but it is, in fact, a wasted opportunity—very much a missed opportunity—for a couple of areas that I’ll touch upon. One is the way the process was conducted—particularly in the times it was conducted—and indeed what isn’t in the bill but should be if it really intends to deliver on what the Minister claimed is on the tin when he introduced the second reading.

Much of the select committee process was undertaken during our COVID-19 lockdown, and we were told by the Leader of the House as we went into the lockdown that only COVID-related legislation would be progressed while we were in lockdown. There was an exchange between the Leader of the House, who is the Minister responsible for this bill, and myself in the early part of this debate tonight. I happened to point out that we’d been told that lockdown was for COVID-related bills only, and his response was “Some of us were working.” Well, one could claim that’s a bit offensive, but, you know, some of us are robust and stout characters, and there’s not an ounce of irony in that statement from me—there is a bit of coincidence, but no irony.

We’re stout characters. We can take that sort of gibe from across the House, but the truth is the work we were doing included things like helping someone who had discovered that cancer had returned to get a cancelled biopsy test rescheduled, helping someone to get approval to, potentially, move a child with mental health issues from the opposite end of the island to their home, where they could be best cared for in very difficult circumstances, and helping someone in education to understand that, yes, they can travel back to their home of residence under lockdown to best be able to perform their professional duties.

That was the work for MPs. No matter what party they belong to, whether they were electorate or list, that was the work of MPs over the lockdown. It was the work that our constituents, the people of New Zealand, needed us to perform. So to take members away from those very personal and very important duties for committee processes for legislation that was not directly COVID-related was not only against what we, as members, were told as we headed into lockdown but it was, indeed, taking time from members that could have been spent on the most important and real work that they were doing under the lockdown. Instead, we ended up with what can only amount to a more rushed process than it needed to be.

Members on this side sought very fair and reasonable extensions to the select committee report-back date to allow more scrutiny and more consideration. That was rejected by Government members. That in itself is a shame but it’s also, quite frankly, wrong, given that the circumstances of the scrutiny were so impacted by the COVID-19 lockdown, and there isn’t even an excuse that somehow the changes in this bill not only warranted but needed to be progressed so quickly.

Some areas that we do agree with, for instance, are the areas focused around collaboration between Government entities and their ability to work together, principally to deliver a better outcome for our citizens. Now, we think that it’s important and is very worthy—in fact, it’s stuff that we had started doing in Government, in terms of legislation. More importantly, though, it was things that we had already put in practice in the last National-led Government. Ministerial-led clusters were delivering those very on-the-ground operations across separate Government entities, with a singular focus that was led from the top and that was all about delivering the right and better services for citizens, no matter what particular area of Government we were looking at.

One that is very interesting to me now, in my police spokesperson role—although I didn’t hold a role in that area when we were in Government; I was a mere backbencher—was the justice sector, and the Greens member, in her contribution, spoke a lot about how this bill will help across family harm and all of the contingent areas and interests in that area. Well, I would absolutely agree that these measures will help. But in terms of the need to hasten or refuse greater scrutiny, I really hope that member has visited the Integrated Service Response team, perhaps in Christchurch—and I’m sure she has; there are a couple of them around the country—where, on the ground, you have representatives from core Government agencies dealing with family harm response quite literally the day after the harm has been reported, and working very practically, pragmatically, and sensibly to seek to ensure not only the right response but also the measures that can be taken to minimise the risk of repetition or repeat offending, and they are extraordinarily successful.

Their funding was in doubt for some time, and that is a crying shame. I’m very pleased that it was extended for a period of time. It really needs to be something that we bed in in the family harm area. It should be the standard way of operating. It is a phenomenal success but it is also an example on the ground, under current law, under current modes of operation, where people from various Government agencies can come together in the same room and they have all the information, they talk freely and frankly, they make decisions together and on the spot, and they take collective responsibility and support the specific people who are tasked with leading the management of that response. It can work today. The current situation is not a need to have rushed this legislation, but yet they did.

On top of that, what is missing from this is really where the focus of these improved public services should be, which is outcomes. It just assumes that by doing these things we get better outcomes, yet this is a Government that eschews targets and measurements. It claims that they create perverse incentives, but, actually, that’s what should be in here. They scrapped our Better Public Service targets. Those are the things that should be embedded in this legislation.

More than that, earlier this year, the Productivity Commission released their report on productivity in the State sector and, quite frankly, it was a shock. Their finding was that many—far too many—Government entities have no fundamental grasp of the concept of productivity, certainly not in their own operations, and far too many of them think that productivity is not relevant to what they do. Well, that absolutely should be fundamental to what they do and how they look at doing what they do, because productivity in a State sector sense is not simply about the amount of money; in fact, that’s only a part of it—the amount of money they spend to deliver their services. It is all about the quality of the outcomes they deliver for the funding that they receive from Government—or from this Parliament, in fact—through the appropriations. That should be in the bill. It should absolutely be a centrepiece of the bill, but it’s not. It may not have been introduced in the Governance and Administration Committee, but a select committee—had it been allowed to continue as it should have—would have been a perfect opportunity to have raised that.

This bill as it stands is a missed opportunity. We should expect much more of the Government. We should expect much more of what we can come together to seek from our Public Service.

I just want to finish by reiterating also my thanks to the Public Service, particularly those that were assisting in the COVID response. They were truly phenomenal, how they worked with the interests of our citizens, our people, at the forefront of their minds and their actions. I’m going to take this opportunity to congratulate and thank the elected officials’ line. By pure circumstance, I just happened to deal with Alma more than most, and she is truly phenomenal. We oppose this bill.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Public Service Legislation Bill is something on which I hope to have much more to say than the member for New Lynn was able to manage.

Minister Hipkins, when moving the particular reading that we’re in at the moment, said that the COVID-19 lockdown and associated issues had brought out the best in the Public Service. I’d like to join others who have noted with gratitude the commendable work of so many Government departments and, indeed, individuals within what we’d loosely call the Public Service. During that time, as a local MP, it was very helpful to be able to interact with so many who were working very hard in that environment.

However, the Minister’s point that the crisis had brought out the best in those individuals and in those agencies indicates, actually, that it’s not necessary to have this particular legislation in order for that to happen, and so what he’s indicated by doing that is actually that perhaps, to the extent that there are times when the best is not brought out in the Public Service, it’s a matter of culture rather than one of law. So, to that extent, the legislation would seem to be redundant.

Of course it’s a worthwhile aim for the legislation to join up our services that are not joined up currently. The Holy Grail that is a whole-of-Government approach is a worthy aim of course, in itself, but the reality, I fear, is that the instinct for autonomy—not to say patch protection; I wouldn’t go so far as that. But the instinct for independence amongst Government departments, I think, is not something that can be so readily solved at the stroke of a pen, albeit many strokes of a pen—truth be told, it’s rather a large piece of legislation—and it’s one more so, I think, as I said before, of a culture and a mindset rather than a matter of law.

Others have talked about the missed opportunities within the legislation, and there’s always a moral dilemma for an Opposition as to whether one supports changes that are worthwhile in themselves but do not go as far as they should in terms of areas that are not addressed. The place that we’ve landed on this particular bill, as you’ll have gathered by now, is that we shouldn’t reward that lack of vision by the Government, and in particular, I think, the lack of emphasis on accountability of actual tangible outcomes as distinct from organisational matters—the Government’s matters, you could say—and so that explains our position on the bill.

I would say, however, that there’s some pretty high-flown language and some pretty stirring stuff in the explanatory note of the bill—for example, that the single, broad policy aim is “to provide a modern legislative framework for achieving a more adaptive and collaborative public service, by expanding the types of agencies that comprise the public service, unified by a common purpose, ethos, and strengthened leadership arrangements.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): There are people in the gallery listening, Mr Penk, just in case you want to up your game a bit.

CHRIS PENK: Pardon me?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): There are people in the gallery listening, in case you want to up the game a bit.

CHRIS PENK: Oh, I don’t think there are people in the gallery listening, Madam—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): There are—truly.

CHRIS PENK: I think there are—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): They are awake.

CHRIS PENK: —people in the gallery, but whether or not they’re listening—I’ll do you a deal, Madam Speaker. I’ll give them the opportunity to listen, but whether they then choose to or not will be, of course, up to them.

So, Madam Speaker, forgive me. I was running out of breath, among other things, by the end of that sentence, and what I was really saying—and you’ve given me an invitation, I suppose, to repeat it, which I will not take up; fear not—was that there’s some pretty high-flown language and some pretty stirring stuff in respect of the broad policy aims, as the bill describes. I see that it’s the result of an “extensive consultation process”, and if there are any more fearsome words in combination than “extensive”, “consultation”, and “process” in the context in Civil Service legislation, then I can’t think of them while staying awake, Madam Speaker.

I would say, though, that there is one positive change that I was able to identify when reading through the bill. There is provision for public servants to, effectively, transfer between different agencies and keep their accumulated annual leave. That seems a pretty sensible kind of thing to do.

Also, amusingly, there’s a new type of chief executive established called a “functional chief executive”, as opposed to, I suppose, a dysfunctional one. So that’s pretty positive, I guess, but it can’t overwhelm our instincts, nevertheless, to oppose the bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): We have fantastic public servants on the mighty East Coast and this bill will build a more effective and unified Public Service, which is great for them. So to that point, I commend this bill to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s, again, a pathetic contribution from the Labour members, and I would—

Kiritapu Allan: That’s very harsh.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well, take it as you like, Kiritapu Allan, but I think that was pathetic, and you could have been—

Kiritapu Allan: Oh wow, doubling down.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: I know you’re hurt by my comments, but you’ll just have to take it on the chin, as you always do.

But I do want to commend the contributions from the New Zealand First member Mark Patterson—a full call—and also Jan Logie from the Greens. I ended up actually agreeing with much of what Jan Logie said. It surprised me completely. I stand to be corrected, but she even had a reasonable analogy when she said that the Public Service was the engine and we here—I think she was talking about MPs—were the petrol that kept the engine going. I wasn’t sure if she said “petrol” or not. It wasn’t—

Hon Member: She said “petrol”, yeah.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: She did say “petrol”—great. So she’s a petrol fan, just like I am.

This bill, the Public Service Legislation Bill, says some good things. You know, there are some sensible things that are written here. The thrust of a strong leadership at the top driving the culture or driving the entire Public Service as one is—it seems to me that should have been done years ago. This is a review, or a renewal and a refurb, of a 30-year-old Act, so I accept that some of these things are new, but what I would say is it seems, as Minister Hipkins himself said, the best was seen in the Public Service during this crisis, where the service got together and worked across silos—for want of a better word. They cooperated and really focused on the job that had to be done and, clearly, without saying so, they did things and probably bent a few rules to do things that were actually done and they achieved a lot of stuff, and that’s great.

So this sort of legislation, while it seems obvious because it supports the Crown in its commitment in its relationship with Māori, for example, with a flexible set of options for organisational arrangement—and it sounds fantastic, but you can’t write legislation and just have it turned on like a tap. It can’t happen unless the people in the organisation want it to happen, and Chris Penk talked about the culture of a place before any actions can really be embedded into the organisation. We saw that around the health and safety law reform, where we had legislation that led the public to become more focused on health and safety, and we dragged the public along with the legislation that was leading it. But it’s finally taken a long time for the culture of health and safety to be embedded in our workplaces on a day-to-day basis, and this will be the same. This will be the same, where we will continue to have silos, we will continue to have patch protection, and we will continue to have scraps about funding and protecting their projects in various agencies, and it will be a while before we have a situation described by Jan Logie, where we have a multiple-agency, cooperative resource available to the New Zealand public.

So, for me, what I was pleased to hear, though, is that this legislation doesn’t lead, actually, which is a good thing. This sort of follows what is starting to happen out there in the Public Service already. For example, Brett Hudson talked about Integrated Services Response teams. He talked about ministerial-led clusters, and these things are already happening. These things are already bringing in various agencies together to get a better result for all New Zealanders, and that’s a good thing.

Of course the agencies are supporting the Crown in its commitment to its relationship with Māori—that’s already happening—but now we’ve got this piece of legislation which says that it’s following what is already happening out there. It says that this legislation will “support the Crown in its commitment to its relationship with Māori:”, but that’s already happening. In regard to the same sort of thing, a “flexible set of options for organisational arrangements”—you’d think that was already happening, and I’m sure it is already happening out there.

So my point here is that while we should be careful when we lead with legislation and pull people in to follow—that takes time—we should also be careful when we try to prescribe too much. That should be left to the natural evolution of the agency and it should be left to the people in the agency to work out for themselves the best way to find a solution, and that comes from the leadership at the top across the Public Service—a leadership team comprising a bunch of senior leaders across various agencies—which sets the tone and the culture. I’ve come back to that word “culture” again, which was used by Chris Penk, which is not in the legislation, but I think it is really important to the way that the Public Service will behave.

I was interested to also think about the missed opportunities that have been mentioned already. The Living Standards Framework, which this Government has set itself, measures and sets goals and ambitions around the economy and community and individual people’s health and the environment, but I don’t see that here for the Public Service to consider when they’re making their arrangements or doing any of their actions or services, for example. So, for me, that was an opportunity, at least, where the Living Standards Framework could have been embedded in this legislation, which would still be following the practices that are occurring already in the Living Standards Framework in the agencies across the country.

As I say, you know we’re not supporting this bill. There were opportunities for other things to be included in this bill. We’ve talked about the rushed process and the lack of opportunity for people to submit, resulting in an unchanged bill being returned back to the House. That’s really not acceptable, that’s not desirable, and we can do better than that. For those several reasons, I cannot support this bill.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kei te tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki Te Whare.

[I commend this bill to the House.]

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Service Legislation 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 47

New Zealand National 46; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I know that all members understand how important New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension are to older New Zealanders. This is a bill that emphasises and contributes to the sustainability of the core settings that are of greatest importance to older New Zealanders, while reflecting changes in how New Zealanders live and participate in the workforce across Aotearoa New Zealand today. It achieves this by moving towards basing entitlement to New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension on individual circumstances while retaining higher rates for single people. Alongside that, the bill also makes changes to several other superannuation and veteran’s pension settings to bring them into the present day and improve their clarity and consistency.

One of the bill’s more substantive changes is that it closes the option for superannuitants to include their non-qualified partner in their rate of entitlement. Superannuitants who are already including their non-qualified partner will be grandparented, so will be unaffected by this change. It’s important for me to note that this provision originated at a time when sole, mainly male, breadwinner families were more common, and mandatory retirement ages were an accepted part of working life. Before the breadwinner retired, the other partner would be expected to rely on his earnings, and, after he had to retire, they could be expected to rely on his superannuation. I’m glad to say that times have changed since then, and often our older couples are both in employment—compulsory retirement ages are a thing of the past, and both individuals in a couple can work past the superannuation qualification age if they are able and wish to. This particular change helps us to remove some of these antiquated assumptions about participation in the workforce and bring this legislation into line with modern New Zealand.

Complementing the closure of the non-qualified partner provision, the bill also removes what’s known as spousal deduction. The change will mean that superannuitants don’t have their own entitlement, including both their pension and their winter energy payment, reduced by their partner’s overseas pension. Spousal deduction was intended to ensure that all couples have the same level of Government-administered retirement income, but it’s come to be seen as unfairly impacting the rate of New Zealand superannuation based on their partner’s overseas entitlement.

In addition to these changes, the bill also includes a number of other minor clarifications. The bill expands eligibility to the single living alone rate to people in self-contained mobile homes. It also allows people who carry out voluntary humanitarian work overseas for a New Zealand charity or affiliated organisation to count this time toward the resident’s requirements for New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension. The bill ensures that people don’t have their superannuation affected by part of an overseas pension that’s based on voluntary contributions. It provides legislative protection for the current practice of setting net superannuation rates at no less than 66 percent of the average ordinary time weekly wage after tax. And it consolidates provisions relating to the special disability allowance paid to partners of people in residential care in the Social Security Act.

At the committee of the whole House, I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper that will amend the commencement dates for the bill. This proposes that the bill commence on 9 November 2020. This has been necessary to allow the Ministry of Social Development to respond rapidly to COVID-19. I’d like to thank all the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their attention to this bill and also to thank each of the submitters who took the time to write to and speak to the committee. I’m very pleased that the select committee has come together to make a number of important amendments to the bill that will see it work more effectively. One submitter drew attention to the anomaly that superannuation would still be affected by an overseas pension paid to or on behalf of a superannuitant’s dependent. This isn’t a situation that happens often—once in perhaps the last 10 years—but it’s still important to address. Under the current legislation, superannuation won’t be paid to provide for a superannuitant’s partner or their children just for the superannuitant themselves. So an amendment to stop these overseas pensions for dependents from affecting superannuation is a welcome addition.

There’ve also been some changes to help the closure of the non-qualified partner provision work as intended. These include amendments to help clarify what happens to the partner of someone who’s hospitalised for 13 weeks or more. The change is to ensure that when one partner has their super or main benefit reduced while they’re in hospital, their partner and the community always gets effectively the single rate of super or their main benefit. This is needed because the two Acts currently only cover the situation where both partners receive payments under the same Act, and, in future, we’ll see more couples receiving payments under different Acts.

There’s also a change to the income tests that apply to a beneficiary whose partner receives veteran’s pension. At the moment, that beneficiary would get a harsher income test than a beneficiary whose partner receives New Zealand superannuation. That doesn’t make sense. So I’m pleased that the committee has recommended improving the situation for partners of veterans so that they are treated the same as partners of superannuitants.

The bill will provide relief to superannuitants who are affected by their partner’s overseas pension, some of whom currently receive no or very little New Zealand superannuation as a result, and a number of whom shared their stories with the committee. The closure of the non-qualified partner provision and the removal of spousal deduction emphasised the core settings for New Zealand superannuation: that it is available from age 65 for citizens and residents who meet the residents requirements, that rates maintain a relationship with wages, and that it is not subject to an income or asset test. Those settings are certainly worth protecting. So those are what we’ve chosen to emphasise in this bill—the outcomes that we want to endure for the future. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been said that when you grow old, three things happen. The first is that you lose your memory; the second is that you lose your memory; (c) you lose your memory; and, of course, fifthly, you lose your memory. But something else happens in New Zealand as well, and that is that you qualify for superannuation and, in the case of some New Zealanders, you also qualify for the veteran’s pension. This piece of legislation—on which I’ll put members out of their misery and say that the New Zealand National Party will continue to support—does some very worthwhile things in clarifying and simplifying the entitlements for those who are able to receive New Zealand Superannuation.

The Minister for Social Development has acknowledged the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. I was not privileged to be a member of the committee at the time that the submissions were made and the hearings were taking place and the consideration of the bill also took place, but it’s obvious from reading the report that they’ve produced that considerable work, and care and diligence has gone into producing that. The Minister has acknowledged a number of amendments that the select committee has recommended and we think that those are sensible as well.

It’s an omnibus bill, Madam Speaker, as you’re well aware, but of course, I’ve got to continue to speak as I’m speaking to you—part of the fiction of this place. But anyway, the omnibus bill, it will amend a number of different Acts: the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Veterans’ Support Act, Social Security Act, Income Tax Act, and Tax Administration Act.

I do want to acknowledge, in relation to the veterans aspects, that today is the 70th anniversary of the commencement of the Korean War, and I note that in this Chamber we have, among other memorials, one dedicated to the Korean War, sometimes referred to as the “Forgotten War”, but, of course, by remembering it on every occasion that we are able to, we shall not forget.

The legislation does some pretty complex technical things, but all quite logical when you think about them in relation to a person who’s entitled to receive superannuation and has that entitlement affected by other people in their lives—often, well, roughly speaking, we could say “loved ones”, but there’s different categories of partner, of course, and also dependants. So I’ll take a little time to walk through the most relevant ones of those for the benefit of the record and to explain why we in the National Party believe that this legislation continues to be worth supporting.

One of the main ones is that the person who is able to receive superannuation will have a clearer path to having the rate calculated. So the bill takes away the non-qualified partner rate, the NQP rate, so that’s where a person until now was able to choose a higher rate if their partner, as in their life partner, doesn’t qualify in their own right. So there’s a simplification exercise whereby we’re saying that the each of those persons will be entitled to receive what they are able to receive, notwithstanding that the person who is subject to the provision of the bill is affected by the fact that they are in a relationship with someone else. It’s all pretty clear if you read it, I can assure you.

The effect of this isn’t retrospective, and I think that’s important for the sake of fairness. If a person who has already elected to choose the NQP rate—that’s the non-qualifying partner rate—has already entered into that regime, effectively, before the commencement date of the bill, then they’ll be entitled to proceed along the same lines. So that seems a reasonable kind of provision in our view.

Spousal deduction is something that the Minister’s mentioned. Sounds like something that Sherlock Holmes would have been checking up on his wife, but, in fact, deduction in the sense, obviously, meaning the reduction of a pension—superannuation or a veteran’s pension—whereby a partner receives an overseas Government-administered pension. I think it’s probably recognised right across the House that there’s an element of unfairness whereby a person, or—actually more to the point—a couple could receive less than what would be the standard amount as a result of the fact that one of them is in receipt of a benefit of some kind from overseas. And the bottom line really must be that there shouldn’t be less entitlement for a New Zealander who is otherwise able to gain their full superannuation simply because their partner is overseas and in that kind of category.

So too we are no longer penalising a person, effectively, for having been overseas outside the New Zealand qualification requirement where they’re there doing humanitarian work, and that’s a pretty broad definition, I think, appropriately so. Similarly, for those who are living in self-contained mobile homes, well, we don’t say that that’s the kind of accommodation that would disqualify them from the living-alone rate. In other words, there’s a bit more breadth and a bit more generosity about the kind of person—person’s activities, really—that allows someone to continue to receive the superannuation at the full relevant rate.

The bill contains a number of different subtle details, which I’ll just go through reasonably quickly because there are a large number of them. But I think it’s worth noting that a person’s partner might change in status—for example, the bill gives a particular example from a de facto to a spouse in the more traditional sense of that phrase. That doesn’t prevent a couple from continuing to receive the NQP rate that they’d opted into before the commencement date. However, if the partnership changes—as in if there’s a breakup and in a new partner enters the life of the relevant person—then all bets are off in the sense that the person doesn’t have the ability to say, “Well, I’m going to go back to being in the pre-Act position of claiming the NQP rate anyway.”

There’s a lot actually in the bill as well that’s quite laudable that actually just simply clarifies the position. It doesn’t actually change necessarily the status of people to be able to claim superannuation, but does make things clearer, and that’s actually a useful thing in itself. The change of pension type, for example, in relation to those who switch between New Zealand superannuation and the veteran’s pension—these provisions are sequential; they are next to each other and in the same Act, so that’s clearer.

I’ve been part of the process where the same committee, actually—the same select committee—has been considering in relation to another piece of legislation which is considering, more particularly, the situation of veterans. One of the themes that’s emerged from that is that the lack of clarity about what’s available to these fine Kiwis—the lack of clarity is often actually quite a challenging thing itself. So for this piece of legislation actively to be seeking to make the situation clearer for the benefit of those who are eligible to receive these various kinds of benefits, that’s a worthwhile thing.

We talked before about spousal deductions; well, so too, for dependents who are living overseas and receiving a benefit or pension. Likewise, they shouldn’t be in the position of penalising a person who would otherwise be receiving a full superannuation. So that’s a good thing. Similarly—well, not similarly, but a sort of a similar kind of theme, albeit that the details are different—is that if one’s partner is hospitalised, then the effect of the amendment that the select committee’s proposing is to say, well, for that period of time that there’s a long period of hospitalisation, then the person who is the subject of the Act would not be receiving superannuation—it’s reduced—as though they had a partner. It’s a little bit like saying that we’ll treat them as though they are a single person for that period of time. While in some senses that would seem, I suppose, anomalous, because the fact of the partnership remains, in practical terms and in terms of the support for a person who is living by themselves, we can say that for someone who has a partner who is hospitalised, in effect, that’s a pretty similar thing to being single for certain purposes, at least.

The final point that I would make, again, in support of the bill, is to say that there’s a principle at play whereby those who receive veterans’ pensions shouldn’t be having a more onerous income test than those receiving the more ordinary form of superannuation. That’s something that the committee spelt out quite clearly and explicitly, and I thank them for doing that. So for all those reasons, on this side of the House we continue to support the bill and we look forward to its continued passage on that basis.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. The purpose of this bill is to simplify and modernise the New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension schemes which provide financial assistance to our older people.

It was an absolute privilege to be part of the select committee that considered this bill, and can I at this point, given that this is a second reading, just acknowledge and thank all those who submitted to our Social Services and Community Committee. I also acknowledge the officials who provided us with advice, and I also commend the Minister for Social Welfare, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for her work on this bill and, more broadly, within the social development space as well.

Now, the Minister has mentioned a few amendments that were suggested and that have been passed through the select committee as well. This is, basically, at the heart of a bill that hopes to improve the system and to make it a little bit fairer. I’m not going to go into all of the changes that have been proposed, or the changes, actually, that this bill will make once it’s passed into legislation, but I will draw attention just to the fact that it stops the spousal deduction off the New Zealand superannuation or the veteran’s pension. Currently, what happens is that the amount of the person’s New Zealand superannuation or veteran’s pension could be reduced if their partner receives an overseas Government - administered pension.

This is a change that many in the sector have called for for a long time, and I’m incredibly pleased that this bill will make that change. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Could I congratulate Priyanca Radhakrishnan, because that speech was one minute and 40 seconds long, and she is part of the Labour Party’s “class of 2017”, most of whom, tonight, have taken calls of between two and seven seconds. The intriguing thing about that is it’s been their finest work in their, to date, fairly undistinguished parliamentary careers. Certainly, they have been their most memorable, and, yes, Kiri Allan has been one who has done that, and Dr Deborah Russell has taken several. I have no doubt at all that she will look back on some of the previous speeches she made—and I’m making a serious point here—during the—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it about the bill?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, well it’s relevant to the bill, Madam Speaker. You know me—it’s always relevant to the bill. Ha! I’m not quite sure what the body language is, Ms Radhakrishnan, but the point I’m making is that if they hadn’t spent 2½ years filibustering in the most ludicrous way, they wouldn’t be now in the position of having to rush this bill and many others through the House.

Those who are seasoned watchers of Parliament will know that we are sitting tonight under urgency considering the second reading of this bill, which they could have got on with some considerable time ago, and then they wouldn’t have had to take two-second speeches in which they say precisely nothing; they could have indeed paid some attention to the important aspects of the bill, because there are some significant aspects, and I would like to acknowledge—I’m going to look in this direction, because one cannot bring the Speaker into the debate, but, in all seriousness, I want to acknowledge the member for East Coast, the former Minister for Social Development, the Hon Anne Tolley, under whose watch much of the important aspects of this bill commenced.

Hon Scott Simpson: A very good Minister—a very good Minister.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: She was a very good Minister, and I hope I’m not in breach of the Standing Orders in doing it in that way. But I think acknowledgment needs to tabled—credit where credit is due.

So here we are under urgency rushing a bill through. Now, like Mr Penk, who is now our veterans’ spokesperson in the National Party, I too didn’t get to hear the submissions on this bill; I’ve only recently joined the Social Services and Community Committee, and it’s fairly unusual, I think, for the first two Opposition spokespeople both to have been in that position where they didn’t hear the submissions on the bill. But, in reading the report, and in reaching the fact that here we are now, I—well, I can’t be sure that it’s entirely unanimous but I presume there’s almost unanimity in the House about the bill; clearly, they’ve done some good work and paid respect to those submitters, and I acknowledge them.

Could I also acknowledge Gareth Hughes, the Green member who is the chair of the committee. In the short time that I’ve been a member of the committee, I’ve been very impressed by Gareth Hughes’ style of chairmanship—I think he’s very collegial and fair, and that deserves to be acknowledged, and I’m sure he did a good job in chairing the submissions process.

Hon Scott Simpson: A big loss to the Green Party.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: He will be a big loss to the Green Party, and I’m sure the Green Party would acknowledge that, and I congratulate him on the new job that he’s recently secured with his wife.

Could I also—

Hon Members: What job?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The new job that he has recently been appointed to.

Hon Members: What job?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, sorry, I think it’s public knowledge, but if not, I’m just going to move on very quickly. I understand that they have a new job and they’re looking forward to it, and I wish them well in their post-election employment. I hope that I’m not leaving to find new employment myself, post-election—ha, ha!

I did just want to acknowledge, as Mr Penk did, that it’s particularly appropriate that we’re dealing with this particular bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill today as we mark the 70th anniversary of the Korean War. I’m sure that we all would want to acknowledge our veterans even with the passage of time, and it is quite extraordinary to think that 70 years has passed since that particular conflict. I’m sure we would all want to acknowledge our veterans and say that we are for ever in their debt and hugely grateful to them. I just hope that within our lifetimes, the tragedy that is North Korea may see a similar sort of restoration of human rights and a semblance of democracy, because what a horrific situation it is in that country.

Now, many of the members who have spoken have quite rightly commented on the fact that the important aspect—or perhaps the most significant aspect—of this bill is the spousal deduction issue, and I know that that has been a long time coming. Those of us who have been electorate MPs will have heard from constituents over many, many years how unfair some of them had found it, and I don’t know whether other MPs would say it, but, for some reason, in my case, it’s been mainly Dutch constituents who have brought that particular issue to my attention, and so I’m delighted to be able tell my Dutch constituents when I next go home, “We’ve heard you and we’ve acted, and we’ve acted in agreement, and this longstanding grievance that you feel will be at last overcome.”

It’s also worth noting that New Zealanders, of course, are living longer, and that’s a great thing, and as long as we have a degree of quality of life, I’m sure we all welcome that. When superannuation was first introduced, I understand, way back in the days of the first Liberal Government, and with some extraordinary sort of moral qualifications and other things, at the time, it was set at 65 years—the age of entitlement—and the average age of life expectancy for a man in those days was 58, and for a woman it was 63. So you had to have exceeded the life expectancy before you could even be considered for a pension. Well, how times have changed. It’s still at 65, but now, most New Zealanders can expect to live about 25 percent of their lives on superannuation, and, in fact, I would like to acknowledge, if I may, Alan and Alice Hodgson, of my electorate, who yesterday celebrated 70 years of marriage, and I think that is a tremendous achievement; I had great pleasure in talking to Mr Hodgson last night and passing on my congratulations to both of them. And may I also mention that today is the diamond wedding anniversary of my parents-in-law, Joan and Michael Murray, wonderful parents-in-law, love them dearly, and they are in Havelock North and I look forward to seeing them over the weekend. [Deputy Speaker gestures to member to speak to the bill] Yes, but Madam Speaker—they’re pensioners, Madam Speaker. Actually, because I’ve already talked about the “class of 2017” from the other side, and he wasn’t so kind, in the collegial spirit for which Waikato MPs are so well known, could I also wish a happy birthday to Labour list MP Jamie Strange.

Hon Member: He’s nearly a pensioner.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: He’s nearly a pensioner—that’s right. In fact, he texted me earlier to say that he was about to nod off in his office, and if he wasn’t before, I’m sure he is now.

I am interested by the fact that there is one issue where there is going to be disagreement, and that is that the Minister has signalled that she is going to defer the introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper to do with the spousal deduction from 1 July, and she’s claiming that she’s doing that because of the COVID-19 impact and the suspension of Parliament. I don’t agree that that’s fair, because it has been well signalled, and I know that New Zealand First doesn’t think it’s fair either, so let’s see what can happen there. I’ve got a quote from Dr Claire Dale, who is a research fellow at the retirement policy and research centre in the Department of Economics at the University of Auckland Business School, who was talking about the anomalies in the policy for superannuitants with overseas pensions, and in particular said, “Of these multiple anomalies, the most egregious is the spousal deduction. This policy reduces a person’s superannuation when their partner has an overseas pension. A woman could have lived and worked all her life in New Zealand, and entered into a second or maybe even a third relationship later on, only to find she gets less New Zealand super, or even none at all, and so loses precious financial independence. Increasingly, men who marry women with long working histories from other countries are affected as well.”

So that is just one example of why we need to modernise this legislation, we need to simplify it, and we need to take into account the fact that many people’s living arrangements are very different nowadays. It’s appropriate for us to recognise the social changes; after all, when my father retired, that meant that my parents, effectively, retired, because he was, in the old traditional way, the breadwinner. I think that my mother’s role as an active mother, home maker, was every bit as important—

Hon Scott Simpson: When’s their wedding anniversary?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, sadly, Mr Simpson, my father has been dead for some years, but their wedding anniversary was 4 August, and I still remember each day—ha, ha!

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Please don’t encourage him.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, it was kind of him, and, in fact, my mother is probably watching this, so could I wish her a very happy birthday for a couple of weeks ago. But anyway—you can blame that one on Scott Simpson; blame that one on him.

But it’s also important to recognise that single people do still need to enjoy a slightly higher rate, because it costs as much to heat a room for one person as it does for two; it costs as much to power a fridge or an oven for one person as it does for two; it costs as much to register a car which a couple may have owned as it does for two. And that is why the difference between the single and the couple’s rate has always existed and must continue to exist. We’re sometimes asked that—that’s the reason. I’m out of time, and, Madam Speaker, I know you’re absolutely disappointed about that! Ha, ha!

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): It is always a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in my support of this legislation, the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Tim’s mum.

JENNY MARCROFT: Tim’s mum—happy birthday. Tim’s parents-in-law, congratulations on your anniversary. Anyone that happens to know Tim, it is wonderful to see such a jolly superannuitant in the House.

Back to the bill. It’s really great tonight that we’ve heard from the member opposite, Tim Macindoe, who’s just resumed his seat, without giving us a lecture—it’s been most pleasant indeed to listen to your contribution this evening.

New Zealand Superannuation and the veteran’s pension legislation, how important is this to all of our seniors? It is extremely important. We can’t underestimate its value. For those of us who have parents in the ripe old age of receiving their superannuation, that’s a wonderful thing. If my father had lived, he would have received a veteran’s pension, so I’d just like to acknowledge him today on the 70th anniversary of the start of the Korean War on 25 June 1950. My father was in the 16th field regiment and served two terms with the K-force Korea. He also, firstly though, started his military career in the J-force at the end of World War II. So I take just a moment to acknowledge all of those in this House who have served New Zealand and all of those others across New Zealand who have given of their time, their bodies, their hearts, and their souls in service of our country. The Korean War is also known as the forgotten conflict that shaped the modern world, but we will remember them, particularly those that have fallen in their service.

I’d just like to come back to the bill to say that I think that it is important that we are modernising and simplifying through legislation, and so I don’t want to hold up this bill any longer. I commend it to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be in the House this evening to support the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the speakers tonight on this bill, and, while we’re at it, I’d like to acknowledge my parents as well, who are pensioners.

This is an omnibus bill, and it does deal with that social assistance for that very particular special part of our community, our older New Zealanders. This bill, as had been noted by the member Chris Penk earlier—but I’ll just repeat it just in case it was missed—amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Veterans’ Support Act 2014, the Social Security Act 2018, the Income Tax Act 2007, and the Tax Administration Act 1994, and it is about moving the assessment of eligibility towards an individual basis. The purpose of this bill, which has already been highlighted by speakers, is, essentially, to modernise and simplify our superannuation and veteran’s pension. I agree with the Minister Sepuloni, who spoke, it is time. The nature of our relationships for younger and for older has changed, and, complexity or not, and simplicity, at the end of the day, we needed to have an Act that reflected the reality of relationships today. So I applaud this bill in doing that.

I’d just like to note some of the particular provisions that are included in this package. In clauses 8 and 9, we’ve got provisions that relate to missionaries and volunteers for secular charitable organisations. Part of that is the treatment of the various periods of absence from New Zealand. I do note, and I definitely support, those changes to section 9, including that humanitarian work will be added as a valid reason for absence from the country. Also included is treatment of overseas pensions that include a voluntary component, the scope of a single living alone rate, and the legislated wage for New Zealand super and veteran’s pension. We do support the intent of this bill and the broader policy intent to make sure that our veterans are not left behind at all.

New Zealanders are living longer, and just this week, in our Social Services and Community Committee, we heard from the Minister for Seniors, Tracey Martin, who provided some very relevant demographic data for our committee. Some of that data was very interesting. In 2001, 65-plus-year-old New Zealanders accounted for less than 12 percent of our population, and, by March 2020 that has gone up by 4 percent, so it’s now 16 percent of our population. We also heard that by 2034, seniors are expected to make up more than a fifth of our population, which will be over 1.2 million. In March 2020, 11 percent of seniors were aged over 85. This is expected to rise to 15 percent in 2034.

So not only are New Zealanders living longer, they are a part of our community that contribute hugely to our society in employment, to our families, to our communities, and to our volunteer roles as well. On that note, I would just like to acknowledge a submission by Age Concern New Zealand. I acknowledge their very strong voice and advocacy for our older New Zealanders. In particular, in their submission I noted their vision, which is older people live a valued life in an inclusive society, and that’s a vision, I think, that I fairly could say that all members of this House would also agree with: a vision for all our older people living a valued life in an inclusive society.

The National Party is committed to ensuring that our older New Zealanders do receive the respect and the support and the security that they deserve for the service and the work they have done during their time working, raising kids, and being part of the community. It’s wonderful to be here to support this bill, because we do want a superannuation system that is more sustainable.

The rate of our New Zealand super and veterans’ pensions that recipients receive does depend on your relationship status—the spousal reduction; or was it spousal deduction, which is, actually, a reduction, as was mentioned by the member Tim Macindoe. I, actually, am delighted that Tim Macindoe has become a member of our Social Services and Community Committee. No doubt about it, most, if not all, submitters made quite strong points around that part, and it’s good to see that under this bill spousal deduction is gone. It will no longer apply to the standard rates of the New Zealand super and veterans legislation. That means that superannuitants will no longer be affected by what a partner will be receiving from an overseas pension. Again, it is good to reflect the changing nature of our relationships in terms of modernising this legislation. So that’s a good thing. That’s a fantastic thing: that we can reflect society today. I just note that around 450 superannuitants in the 2022 period will no longer have their entitlement reduced, because of the removal of that spousal deduction. So that’s a significant amount.

Also, in relation to the submission from Age Concern, it’s a body that does a lot of advocacy for older New Zealanders. They are one of the many social service providers in our communities. I note that they have over 4,500 volunteers, who gift around 5,000 hours per week of volunteer work to the community. They also have 150 paid staff throughout New Zealand who work almost 4,000 hours per week and across boards to provide governance for local Age Concerns and other care. This is not the only body that does this work in terms of older population and in terms of the contribution that they make in our community. And, as we know, many of our older New Zealanders are still in the workforce.

I would also like to acknowledge that, in terms of the tabled Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 508, we do not support that SOP, but I would like to acknowledge that this was a part of our community that was very vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus and the lockdown. It was a very anxious time for them, and it would have been good to have that reflected in terms of this bill, in terms of allowing the date for that to still remain as it was for 1 July 2020. So we won’t be supporting that SOP.

But I would like to acknowledge my fellow committee members on the committee. We worked very collaboratively on this bill. It was good to be able to generally be in consensus of the views and wonderful to hear all the submissions. I acknowledge all the submitters. I would also like to acknowledge our chair, Gareth Hughes. I echo the sentiments of the member Tim Macindoe. I think Gareth Hughes has done a tremendous job as a chair for our committee. Thank you very much, Gareth. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that this bill has clearly unanimous support across the House, I won’t delay its passage too long. I would just like to respond to the comments made by Ms Loheni and Tim Macindoe earlier as well, just to, sort of, receive thanks on behalf of Gareth Hughes, and I’ll make sure that I pass that on to him. The Green Party, of course, is also supporting this bill. We supported it at first reading; we’ll be supporting it at second reading, and so on. Many of the provisions in here are ones that we have been advocating for for some time.

A number of members have already made reference to section 70 and the, sort of, built-in inequity that’s contained there, and I know that there are some people who are queasy about the fact that the implementation of that has had to be delayed due to COVID-19. Just for the record—you know, to make sure that it’s in the Hansard—that is not because of policy reasons or any political intention to delay it, but it is simply a pragmatic issue in terms of the execution. It’s clear that every party here supports the change to section 70 and that the spousal deduction was one of the most egregious, kind of, anomalies that’s contained in the current set-up, and that we’ll be moving as fast as we are practically able to do to fix that.

In terms of the other provisions, I mean, the overall intention here, you know, it does simplify the superannuation and veteran support system. It does make it fairer through a whole series of different amendments, and I think anything that modernises it so that it does reflect New Zealand society more—and Tim Macindoe I think made some very good points about just how much New Zealand society has changed since superannuation was first created and how, sometimes, a system gets ossified at a particular moment in time and society moves on. I think this bill does a great number of things to help to modernise it and to simplify it, and for those reasons, we support the bill and look forward to its speedy passage through the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems to be a night for all-round consensus and bonhomie. James Shaw, the Minister who has just resumed his seat, is usually better known for giving a long, detailed, thorough analysis of the issues that relate to his portfolio areas, so it’s kind of a treat and almost a shame to have him speak for such a short time on such an important bill. I take the point that he wants to make, which is that he doesn’t want to delay the passage of this legislation any longer than it already has been, but that’s actually been the problem for the Government. It’s that this bill has been delayed. It’s something that should and could have been remedied much sooner than is currently the case.

I, like a number of other speakers on this side of the House, didn’t have the privilege or opportunity to sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and hear submissions on the bill. But I accept and acknowledge the gracious comments that have been made about the chair of that committee, Gareth Hughes, who is at the pinnacle of his political career in terms of his parliamentarian role of chairing that committee, and it’s such a shame that he, in fact, didn’t get an opportunity to take a ministerial responsibility, as the longest-serving Green MP in the Chamber.

So, putting that to one side, I do want to just endorse the comments that others have made tonight about the benefits that will accrue from this omnibus bill passing through the House.

My electorate of the Coromandel is not only beautiful and large but it has an age demographic that is skewed very much in favour of the 65-plus age group. In fact, at the last general election, Coromandel had the largest number of voters in the 65-plus age group enrolled out of any electorate in the country. Over my time as the member of Parliament for Coromandel, it’s fair to say that I’ve had more than my fair share of constituent inquiries around some of the matters that are addressed in this bill.

I notice that it’s predicted that in terms of the correction of the spousal deduction issue, it’s expected that something like 450 superannuitants in the 2022-23 year will no longer have their entitlement to New Zealand superannuation or the veteran’s pension reduced because of their partner’s overseas pension, and there have been times when I’ve been sure that, actually, all 450 of those people must have resided in my electorate, because these are people who feel very passionately about the wrong that has been done to them. They feel very strongly that they have been ill-treated, that the system doesn’t treat them fairly, that they are being disadvantaged, and that they are people, generally, who have been—well, in fact, always, in my experience—good citizens and who have been contributing citizens, whether it’s been in New Zealand or during periods of time when they’ve worked overseas and maybe have contributed to the voluntary schemes of superannuation that are set up in most countries these days.

Some of the most harrowing conversations I’ve had as a constituent MP have been in trying to explain the provisions of the existing law in relation to this area to people who just feel that they’re being hard-done-by and that the system is agin them. I’ve felt very sorry for them because, actually, the system has been agin them, and it has been unfair and it has been inequitable, and those people feel very disgruntled. So I’m hopeful that when the Parliament passes this legislation, those people will feel that a wrong has been righted—probably later than it should have been, but it will be righted none the less—and that’s a very good thing.

I remember particularly a constituent case where a partner in a relationship had had an international career with a multinational company. In the period of time that this person had worked during their working life, they had, I think, worked in something like 16 different countries, being stationed with this multinational company, doing good work. In each of the countries that this person was doing work in, they had contributed to the various superannuation schemes in that country, and trying to unwind with the Ministry of Social Development the complicated maze of contributions that that person had made during their professional and working life was a nightmare—an absolute nightmare. It should not have been that difficult, it should not have been that hard, and it was just wrong that we actually treated somebody who was a New Zealand citizen, who had made contributions during their working and professional life in a positive, correct, and appropriate way, thinking that they were making provision for their retirement, thinking that they were doing the right thing—and then, when it came to returning to New Zealand, they actually got financially penalised. That was wrong, it is wrong, and I’m very, very pleased that it’s now going to be corrected.

So I say to the 450 people in my electorate for whom this is an issue that help is on the way. So that’s a good thing.

But there are a couple of other aspects of this bill that also appeal to me and that I think are important in terms of righting somewhat smaller wrongs. One of them, funnily enough, also relates to my electorate, where not only do I have a beautiful and large electorate with an age demographic that is skewed to the 65-pluses but we have a very high percentage of people who occupy and live in mobile homes in my electorate. They choose to do that because it’s a nice part of the country to be living in and doing those sorts of things, and they can move their mobile home around and they can come around.

Hamish Walker: And because of the MP.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Most of them—actually, yes. My colleague Hamish Walker is correct: many of them come, of course, absolutely for the quality of parliamentary representation, and I’m sure that that is a motivating factor for—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Perhaps that’s why they’re mobile.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —many of their decisions. They choose to come from all sorts of electorates. [Interruption] They choose to come from places as far afield as Mt Roskill and Palmerston North, no less. In fact, we have a big number that come from Palmerston North, and they say, “The reason I’ve come to the Coromandel is the quality of parliamentary representation. I’ve left Palmerston North and I’ve left Mt Roskill and I choose to come to Coromandel.”

Well, they come in their droves. They come in their droves, in their mobile homes, across the Kōpū Bridge at night, in the dark, by the moonlight, sometimes, to come to the beautiful Coromandel. Here they come, and this bill rights a wrong in terms of their access to the entitlements that have been available to other people who might, for instance, already live in a flat or a granny flat or in a hotel or a motel or a boarding house or in units or in a caravan park, but, for some bizarre reason, mobile home dwellers have been exempt. Well, as is the case with the spousal deduction, help is on the way, and this is a very, very good thing.

So I say to those people, who tonight are probably on the road in their mobile homes, heading from places like Mt Roskill and Palmerston North—there’ll be people coming from all around the countryside, heading towards the Coromandel, coming for the quality of parliamentary representation—and they’ll be saying, “I’ll be able to get the appropriate and sensible contribution to my superannuation.” So, for that reason, and that reason alone, and forgetting all the other good reasons, the National Party will be supporting this legislation.

We think it’s a good piece of legislation, and our only real criticism is that the Minister, who is not well-known for her speed and alacrity, has taken so long to do it. But I guess that in the dying throes of this Government’s administration, we should be thankful for small mercies, and at least she’s roused herself into some kind of movement tonight, under urgency, and is progressing this bill in the dying throes of this Government’s administration. We support the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand in support of this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank the speaker who just sat down, Dr Liz Craig, for that very short speech. I’m wondering whether I could actually take some of her time considering this is actually a split call. Having said that, I shall see how I go and see how the room feels.

I stand on this side of the House together with my National Party colleagues in support of this bill. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for seeing this through, and also the Social Services and Community Committee chairs and the members who have actually actively participated in the process of this bill. I have to, first of all, declare that I haven’t been part of the process, but when I came to this Chamber and found that we were debating this, I had to volunteer to speak. And I hope that the House will give me a little bit of leeway to talk about the Korean War, because Korean War veterans mean a heck of a lot to me and today is the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War.

Some of the elements in this bill—well, it’s actually a very small scope in the sense that we are wanting to make sure that our veteran’s pension is not disadvantaged by spousal deductions, when they have partners who may be younger and who are entitled to overseas pensions and if their pension amount is higher than what the New Zealand situation is, the pension of the veteran was actually deducted. That seems extremely unfair. For people who have actually sacrificed and volunteered to fight in war for the democracy of the foreign countries that this nation has deemed our soldiers and sailors had to attempt to fight for, I believe we have to do everything we can to make sure that we respect them, we honour them, and make sure that we provide for them and protect their pension and, hopefully, pay them more than what we are doing. And I think this bill does that. So I’d like to thank all of the members who have actually supported it.

On 25 June 1950, just before dawn, war broke out in Korea. North Korea invaded South Korea. During that time, the UN put out a call to the world for people to volunteer to fight, to come to the aid of Korea. New Zealand was one of the first countries to respond to the call of the UN, and, within days, two frigates were sent on their way to fight the war in Korea—it only took days. Actually, war broke out on 25 June, and when New Zealand frigates actually arrived in Pusan, it was 30 July. So it wasn’t many days after the war broke out.

After that first arrival of the frigates on 10 December 1950, thousands of New Zealand men sailed to fight for a distant country for democracy. The Prime Minister of the day, Sidney Holland, farewelled soldiers, who were known as the K-force. And some of the battles that they fought were really, really bloody, and many New Zealand K-force veterans remember how difficult it was during the winter months where their boots split open because they weren’t prepared as to how cold it was and how bloody it was. In one hour during the Kapyong battle in Korea, when they were fighting the North Koreans and the Chinese, they shot off 2,300 shells. New Zealand forces did that in an hour. That’s an amazing number of shots.

Not only did the New Zealand veterans who fought in the war battle the war, but they were also cultural ambassadors for New Zealand. I, as a Korean child born in Korea, was raised to believe that the song we now know—well, I now know—as Pokare Kare Ana was in fact a Korean song. I thought it was a Korean song. It is called Yeon-Ga, which means love song. It is the same tune, and the lyrics have the same meaning as Pokare Kare Ana. It was learnt by Korean children because the Korean veterans sang it to them and taught it to them. They were, in fact, the cultural ambassadors in Korea for New Zealand. It is the veterans who have fostered a closer relationship with Korea, and I honour them. And for those 47 who never returned to this country after the war, lest we forget.

Madam Speaker, could I use some of that time that Liz Craig—no?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately not.

MELISSA LEE: Oh, what a shame. Can I seek leave, Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you can seek leave, yes.

MELISSA LEE: I seek leave to extend a little bit of time to talk about part of the bill, if I may, to use up Liz Craig’s—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. I did give the member some licence to honour the Korean War veterans.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, other people have talked about their mothers, and, you know, so.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. In the absence of anyone showing any interest on the other side of the House, I shall rise and take a call, which is a little disappointing, actually, given the nature of what we are debating tonight, that no one on that side is showing sufficient respect to our superannuitants and veterans who have served their country, to do them justice by actually reflecting on the particular changes that are put forward in this piece of legislation.

We’ve actually seen a theme of that over the duration of today’s debate, where members of the Government are pushing through a raft of different pieces of legislation and doing so in an expedited manner which is unbecoming of the House really, if one were to consider it. That’s a personal view, of course, but the reality is that we’re here, hearing very short calls from the Government side, not doing justice to what are some reasonably important pieces of legislation for those that are impacted by it—in this instance, of course, those superannuitants and veterans who have served their country.

I really want to take the opportunity to elaborate on that a bit through the duration of my call and perhaps pick up on some of the things and, on behalf of everyone here, acknowledge those contributions, even if we’re not seeing that forthcoming from the other side. I wanted to start by acknowledging the comments made by Jenny Marcroft in relation to her father, I believe it was, who had served in J-force.

Jenny Marcroft: J-force, K-force.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: J-force and K-force, yes. My grandfather actually served in J-force as well, in Japan, post - World War II. I just thought that was a nice little connection. When we think about that, in New Zealand there are so many families that have some direct connection to a member who has served or members who now continue to service in the New Zealand Defence Force, and there are a few members within this House as well. I’d like to acknowledge Chris Penk, our veterans spokesperson, who started our contribution on behalf of this side of the House on this particular bill for his service as well. Also having been fortunate enough to have had the privilege of serving in the New Zealand Defence Force briefly myself, I can clarify for Ms Marcroft that whilst the 16th Field Regiment is indeed a great unit, you cannot beat the infantry. Infantry is what makes or breaks any war and in that regard—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do they get superannuation, do they?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: So in terms of the superannuation and the veterans who have proudly served in many infantry regiments, I’d suggest and come through now to the opportunity where they are getting some appropriate support from the Government of our country, in relation to recognising the service they have provided over a period of time, by then providing some support and assistance back to them as they move through their twilight years, I suppose, and superannuation phase. Actually, many of these people are still contributing in meaningful ways. That may be in terms of community groups or associations where they are experiencing or displaying a higher level of volunteerism within the different communities that they represent. So from that perspective, it is important that we make sure we get the rules right, and I think it’s fair to accept that we haven’t necessarily had that right.

I’ll just touch briefly on what my colleague Scott Simpson mentioned as well, in terms of some of the contributions he’d heard from constituents as well, where there had been a number of issues raised around eligibility to pensions and superannuation. I’ve had a number of those cases come across my desk as well. [Interruption] We hear members on the Government laughing and criticising. I understand they don’t really perhaps understand what the issues are here, because they’re not constituent MPs largely, so they don’t have these cases coming across the desks. But there have been many constituent cases come across my desk as the member of Parliament for Waikato, where people have raised concerns around the issues of overseas pensions impacting on a New Zealand citizen’s right to access particular levels of superannuation. So it is quite appropriate now that we are finally making some changes.

Again, we’ve had, well, nearly three years’ worth of this Government, and the changes have been reasonably slow in coming in that regard. But I would like to commend and acknowledge the Minister for making a last ditch effort to twitch something across the line prior to going out of Government and into Opposition. We’ve seen a clear trend coming through with tonight’s polls in that regard that will see National soaring to victory in just three months’ time.

But this particular Government have made some good changes here, and we do support this bill because there are some relevant aspects to it. On those fronts, we do acknowledge and accept there needed to be change over time. So that spousal deduction, that’s gone now. That’s appropriate. I think one of the other key aspects is they’re actually making this simpler to apply for. There were several steps that had to be progressed through that were, I’d suggest, overly complex and perhaps restrictive somewhat in enabling people to access what they were appropriately entitled to. So by seeing some of those simplifications coming through in this piece of legislation, I think that’s a good step, and I would commend the Government for bringing those forward as well to try and streamline the process and just make it easier to get the right result for those people that deserve this level of support after their contributions.

I’m focusing here mainly on the veterans’ side, because that’s a particular passion of mine, for those who are now getting—

Hamish Walker: Tell us about your experience, Tim.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —that level of—

Hon Member: How many years, mate?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —service and—ha, ha! Yes, plenty of requests here to talk more about the infantry, and whilst I am always happy to delve into some of those discussions, I’m not sure that tonight is quite the right session for that. So I would encourage them to follow an infantry mantra that we all follow, taught early in our training; that is, hurry up and wait. I am happy to impart some more stories post tonight’s discussions.

But in terms of some of the other aspects that I just want to touch on here, one of the key changes that’s been brought forward is in relation to the list of places of residence that are now eligible. I think that’s an appropriate reflection of the fact that we have changed a number of ways in which we live and operate within society now, and those changing societal demands and in terms of relationships and also our working partners and the likes—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Oh, here come the motorhomes.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —that comes into it. I hear strong interest from the other side of the House in relation to motorhomes. I’m happy to pick up on that motorhomes theme, because, actually, this morning in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, we heard some submissions in relation to tiny homes and the consideration they should be given and the classifications, therefore, for what becomes a place of residence in relation to this bill. So they are quite relevant in the nature of this evening’s discussion.

Hon Member: We’re interested.

Hon Member: They’re all watching closely.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: And it is good to hear that they are interested, because the select committee this morning was also interested. I note Mr Eagle was on that and asking some very pertinent questions throughout the—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Name dropping.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —course of that. I’m always quite happy to name drop Mr Eagle as a hard-working member of Parliament who, I believe, is under-utilised by the Labour Party, who surely don’t pick up on the fine talents on display and available by that fine member.

So what we’ve seen here through this piece of legislation is: proposing a new regulation-making power to enable those different types of residences to be brought into play as required. As our needs evolve, as processes change, as living requirements change, and models of living example adapt as well, then it is necessary to reflect that in our legislation. Tiny homes, tiny dwellings—call it what you may—are an aspect of it.

We’ve also seen just recently where the Minister for Building and Construction has brought forward a few changes in that space to enable some of those small dwellings to be built without consents, and having just recently picked up that building construction portfolio that’s a particular area—

Hon Kris Faafoi: This is going straight to the Facebook page.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —that I wanted to touch on tonight. And it’s encouraging to hear the high level of support from the other side of the House for my contribution this evening.

One of the other areas that’s important to reflect on is also the changing nature of retirement options within New Zealand. When we think back 20, 30, 50 years ago, the range of options that were available and the types of dwellings or residences that might have been utilised by our older New Zealanders are significantly different to what they are now. I had the privilege recently to meet with the Retirement Villages Association and hear about some of the different types of dwellings that are being put forward there. So in that nature, it is quite relevant to ensure we’re modernising our legislation to account for that.

So while on the balance of things, I think we’re landing in a good space—we have indicated our support for this as the National Party—it has been a little disappointing it’s taken two years and eight months into this parliamentary term to get to the point where we are progressing some of these changes. But, broadly, they make relevant and necessary updates to bring us into line with the needs of those particular people.

I would just like to end by thanking all those who have served their country and particularly the infantry, picking up on Mr King’s comments there, and acknowledge that this has some appropriate changes for those who are now in their twilight years, and I thank them for their service.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Mr van de Molen, when your own team’s heckling you, it’s just time to give up. The poor bloke’s pocket square was beginning to droop by the end of that.

I was going to give this a full 10 minutes, such is the significance of this bill, but after the sheer psychic sclerosis that descended upon this Chamber in that last speech, I don’t think I could put my colleagues through it. I just want to say, very briefly, that this is a bill that’s an example of a Minister in a Government that’s not kicking the can down the road; it’s making progress on the issues that matter. I was just talking to my colleague here, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, about the issue of the removal of the spousal deduction, an issue that has bedevilled electorate MPs for years and years and years. Here we have a Government and a Minister that’s finally getting on with the job and delivering progress for New Zealanders. That’s what we’re doing every day on this side of the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the love of the people, it is 11 p.m. on a Thursday night in the middle of the cold New Zealand winter, and for those few people that happen to be listening to this debate out there across Aotearoa at the moment, all they need to know is that that side of the House agrees to it—this side of the House agrees to this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to thank the members of the Education and Workforce Committee for their hard work and support of this bill. I’d also like to thank all of the people who made submissions on the bill, especially those who shared deeply personal accounts of how pay inequity has affected their lives. This Government is committed to building an inclusive economy, and to do so we must address inequities in pay for female-dominated work. We propose to enact world-leading legislation that sets out a fair and practical process for employees to investigate whether their work is undervalued due to systemic, gender-based discrimination.

This bill will make it easier for employees to raise a pay equity claim through an accessible process aligned with New Zealand’s existing bargaining framework. The bill will enable employers and workers to negotiate in good faith to come to a pay equity settlement while still retaining the right of recourse to the Employment Relations Authority or court through the dispute resolution process.

The select committee received close to 600 submissions on the bill from a range of individuals and organisations. The high level of public engagement shows just how important the issue of pay equity is to New Zealanders. Most submitters were supportive of the bill, particularly the low threshold for raising claims, the lack of hierarchy of comparators, and the incorporation of the pay equity regime into the existing Equal Pay Act. The committee listened to those submissions and has recommended that the bill proceed with a number of amendments, which I support.

A key amendment that the committee recommended was to define the meaning of “predominantly performed by female employees”. The bill as originally introduced did not state what “predominantly” meant, and the committee was concerned that without guidance, the parties or courts could interpret “predominantly” to mean a higher threshold than intended. The committee has recommended clarifying that “predominantly performed by female employees” means “work that is currently, or has historically been, performed by a workforce of which approximately 60% or more members are female.” This definition aligns with the pay equity principles proposed by the joint working group and the reconvened joint working group, which include that the threshold to enter into pay equity bargaining should be a low one.

A number of submitters raised concerns about the dispute resolution process in the bill. In particular, submitters were concerned about the many steps in dispute resolution and the potential for disputes to become long and drawn out, placing a burden on the resources of both parties. The bill originally required parties, in most instances, to go through mediation and then facilitation before they could apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination. There will be some instances where facilitation is useful in resolving disputes, but it may not be useful in all circumstances. The committee has therefore chosen to remove mandatory facilitation for deciding whether a claim is arguable. If parties cannot agree on arguable, then they can go directly from mediation to seeking a determination by the Employment Relations Authority. This change will ensure parties don’t unnecessarily spend time and resources deciding on whether to enter into pay equity bargaining, especially if they recognise that facilitation is unlikely to result in agreement.

For other matters that arise during bargaining, except where fixing remuneration, the committee has recommended that facilitation only be used where the authority or court considers it would be helpful. The requirement to go through the full range of dispute resolution steps, including facilitation, has been retained before the authority can fix remuneration, to ensure the parties have every opportunity to agree on the terms of settlement themselves.

The committee received many submissions containing a variety of views as to what the limitation period for back-pay should be. The provisions in the bill balance the systemic nature of pay inequity with the responsibility of employers to address a pay equity issue as soon as they are made aware of it. Parties can agree to any amount of back-pay during bargaining, including settling without back-pay. However, if parties cannot agree, the authority or court may make a determination on back-pay, taking into account certain discretionary factors as part of a determination fixing remuneration. In general, the amount of back-pay that courts will be able to award will depend on the time it takes for parties to deal with the claim.

We introduced this bill to make it easier for workers to make a pay equity claim, using a more simple and accessible process aligned to New Zealand’s existing bargaining framework. Following the select committee report back, our social partners, the Council of Trade Unions, and Business New Zealand approached us with the view that the pay equity bargaining framework should align more closely with the framework for collective and individual bargaining under the Employment Relations Act. I agree that closer alignment with existing employment bargaining practices will make the pay equity process better for all parties involved. Good-faith bargaining offers the best opportunity to build productive employment relationships through a collaborative process. The bargaining framework provides opportunities for parties to agree to address wider workforce issues alongside pay equity claims if they wish.

Through a Supplementary Order Paper, I plan to make additional changes to the bill to further align pay equity bargaining with existing bargaining processes while maintaining distinctions where necessary. Working through these changes took time, but we wanted to get it right. Such changes include enabling unions to raise pay equity claims and allowing union and individual pay equity claims to progress separately. This will enable parties to negotiate claims more easily, similar to the way they’ve been doing claims in the State sector. The bill will continue to allow employees to bargain individually for pay equity where there is no union or where employees choose not to be represented by a union.

We also plan a number of tweaks to streamline and clarify the process. I understand that the transitional provisions were discussed by the committee at some length. Under the original provisions, pay equity claims that had formally commenced in the authority or court under the Equal Pay Act but had not yet been determined were discontinued and transitioned to the new regime. We recognise that there will now be claims that have made substantial progress by the time the bill is enacted, which was not foreseen when the transitional provisions were first drafted. Therefore, we also propose to make changes to allow those claims which will be in the process of being heard by the Employment Relations Authority or court at the time of enactment to continue undisturbed by the bill.

This Government has made an investment of $1 million to assist parties in navigating the pay equity claims process. This money includes funding for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to develop online tools and resources which will improve people’s understanding of the pay equity regime by providing detailed guidance about the different steps in the bill. This will help to reduce disputes, improve bargaining efficiency, and lead to more enduring pay equity agreements.

I acknowledge the ongoing work of unions and agencies to progress pay equity claims in the State sector using the joint working group principles on which this bill is based. The time we have spent working on this bill has not slowed the progress of those claims. I’d also like to thank the Minister for Women and our social partners for working with me on this important legislation. It has taken time to improve the bill, but it is certainly worth getting it right. A robust and accessible pay equity process will be a critical tool in reducing the gender pay gap across the economy. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to lead off the Opposition side of this debate on what should be our last bill this evening that’s debated in the House. So it’s very much a pleasure and good to be discussing the Equal Pay Amendment Bill in the second reading. National will be supporting this legislation, and I hope that is proof that National supports good policy regardless of where it comes from. This bill was referred to the Education and Workforce Committee in October 2018, so this Government has had nearly two years in which to sort this bill out, and it surprises me that we’ve now got news that a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) will be dropped to tidy up this bill and make it more consistent with the Employment Relations Act.

Again, this is a lack of process and I asked, I think, in previous readings why this bill was being delayed. They had a bill that my colleague Denise Lee had submitted and they pretty much took 90 percent of that bill and wrote their own law based on that. Now we’ve lost two years and now we’ve got further changes to this law that are being proposed. Look, all I can say is that’s a lost opportunity. It’s a lost opportunity for the many thousands of women out there who do suffer from pay discrimination and, unfortunately, this Government has again failed to deliver on that.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway, is in the House, and he’s saying he’s progressing other bills, but this Government has progressed other bills this week around prisoners’ voting rights, around making sure wellbeing is at the heart of the Public Finance Act, so that should tell you where the priorities of this Government are at. They’ve sat on this bill, they’ve extended this process, and they could have made much more progress to date.

Look, anyway, National supports the kaupapa or the purpose of this bill: essentially to make sure that women are paid an equal amount for work of equal value—that is the kaupapa and the spirit in which my colleague Denise drafted her member’s bill which this Government voted down over 2½ years ago and then resubmitted 90 percent of that bill later. So it’s a really important bill that has an important purpose and seeks to outline a process for women in sectors where they feel that they have been historically underpaid to go through and make those claims and resolve those claims.

I do want to acknowledge the gender gap that exists in New Zealand. In 1998 that gender gap was about 16 percent. As of last year that gap was reduced somewhat to 9.3 percent, but there’s much more work to do. I want to acknowledge all the thousands of businesses out there that are—independently of the Government and of this law—trying to make strides in that area. Certainly I think it’s reflected that it’s not just legislation, it’s actually the wider mood of the public and customers who are driving companies to, for example, report their own gender pay gap and, in a transparent manner, try to address that as well.

But this bill is important. It’s important as a signalling tool to companies and to workers out there that if you are women and you do work of equal value to men then you should be paid the same amount. So that and the spirit of the law, we support. Just to run through quickly the process for pay equity claims. So the criterion that’s been determined is around work predominantly performed by female employees. In the select committee, we’ve changed that slightly to be 60 percent—to basically put a value on it. So if you’re in a sector where at least 60 percent or more of workers are traditionally women, then that meets the criteria, but you can’t raise a claim if an employer has already extended previous claims to their workers. So that is, again, another criteria that must be fulfilled.

This law provides, essentially, a process for workers to go through to raise a claim but then work through that claim until it’s been resolved. I’m glad the Minister talked about the dispute resolution process and trying to make sure that that is smooth and consistent with the Employment Relations Act. So there is a really good process that’s in place in terms of bargaining and settling pay equity claims and providing a dispute resolution process for that.

National’s position is clear—that we link pay to the value that’s been created, regardless of which gender you are. So if you are out there in a job and you are performing a function, then regardless of whether you’re a man or a woman, you should be paid the same amount. There are historic reasons why market rates for pay may be discriminated against or may be different for gender. Part of that is bias and part of that is historical, and that’s what this bill seeks to address, and we certainly are supportive of it.

So look, without further ado, I guess, we look forward to seeing the SOP and to be able to scrutinise that. As I said, this House has actually had quite a substantial amount of time to address this bill—well over two years—and now we’re at the stage, in urgency, of discussing changes that are going to be made later on in the process. So I look forward to seeing the SOP as soon as we can, and we on this side of the House will certainly scrutinise that closely to make sure that it provides a smooth process for going through pay equity claims and addresses the issues that have been identified. So look, it’s a privilege to be leading this discussion on the Opposition side, and, as a man in this position, it’s certainly a great privilege to be able to address this, because certainly there are thousands of men that want to see women of equal value paid the same amount as well. So without much more time at this very late hour of the evening, National will support this bill into law, and we commend this bill to the House.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad that the previous speaker, Dan Bidois, is going to scrutinise the Supplementary Order Paper because he certainly didn’t scrutinise this bill. The most he got out of understanding the bill is that women are going to be paid the same as men. Well, actually, that happened in 1972. We’ve had the equal pay legislation already for quite a few decades but its purpose hasn’t actually really been progressed.

I would imagine that calling this bill a signalling tool would be quite offensive for the hundreds of women that over probably half a century have fought so hard to get pay equity for women—a really, really quite offensive speech that doesn’t actually acknowledge the really complex work that has been involved in getting this bill to this stage. And that was actually evident if the member had listened to the 591 submissions that we heard where the women very eloquently told us the impact on their lives of having different acknowledgment of their work than their male counterparts. We heard over a 100 organisations and individuals, and they made it very clear that we have to tackle this problem of inequity.

One of these very personal stories was of a Public Service Association delegate. I remember her very vividly. She was a mother of two, a grandmother of three, and she was telling us about the multiple jobs she was working over 100 hours a fortnight, and she said that she still couldn’t make ends meet. And it wasn’t until Kristine Bartlett and her union, E tū, won the equal pay case that she actually managed to get her hours down to 62 a fortnight. She managed to actually see her kids, take her grandkids to the movies, and she said she was able to shout them fish and chips afterwards and that is what this bill will do for so many tens of thousands of women more.

Campaigning for equal pay for women has been ongoing for decades, as I said before. It was actually a New Zealand Parliament that passed one of the very first pay equity laws in New Zealand. If Mr Bidois had done his research, he would have known that was in 1972 but it took 41 more years before a court actually made sure we got some traction on this issue. Now, one of those women that campaigned so hard, who I want to make a mention of here in the House, is Elizabeth Orr. She published this book only a few days ago and I was very privileged to receive a signed copy. If the member would perhaps take the trouble to go to chapter 16, if he can’t read any of the rest, then he would really understand a little bit more about the hard-fought fight of women to even get to this part of the bill.

If we had, in fact, taken on the bill that the National Party put on the Table, women would have been kept in low-paid jobs forever because that bill overrode the court case that was fought for so hard. Hundreds of women took to the streets in 2017. They all were against a bill that the National Party tried to drive through while they were in Government trying to keep those women in their low pay, get that win away from them, and for ever and a day keep them in their place, as Mr Bidois would probably say. But, hey, he’s a man and he stood up here and he said that a woman should be paid the same as a man and he was about 41 years too late to say that. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call to support the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. While we support this bill, I want to say that this side is really disappointed to see that this bill had been sitting on the Order Paper for 13 months. So this bill was reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee in May 2019, and today is 25 June 2020. So for 13 months, this bill was sitting on the Order Paper. If the Government was so passionate, why was this bill sitting on the Order Paper for 13 months?

After the bill was reported back, the very next day, on 14 May, two Ministers in charge of this legislation, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and the Minister for Women—did a joint ministerial statement, and the title of that was “Supporting working women with pay equity: next steps”. If I read the first sentence, that was “Women who aren’t paid the same as men for similar jobs will be given the tools to make a pay equity claim as the Wellbeing Budget delivers a practical solution to gender discrimination in the workplace.” They’re talking about the previous year’s Budget, and they have already delivered this year’s Budget.

So this is a good example of this Government being a big-talk Government, but when it comes to delivery, there is no delivery, no action. So they were really good at doing that press release, but then they didn’t progress the legislation through the House, and we—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to stop this member and ask her to relate this to the actual bill. I’ve heard a lot about the process, a lot about her opinion of what happened after the bill was reported, but actually nothing relevant to the bill. So the member needs to stick to the bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Mr Speaker, this is the second reading, and we’re talking about the select committee process, so it was reported back from the select committee on 13 May.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, and I reiterate what I said: you need to, in those comments, bring it to the relevancy to the bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. So what this highlights is that the bill was reported back, but then there was no action. In the select committee process, we worked really hard on this legislation. We were sitting long hours; we even applied for an extension. The first time the extension was declined, and then we applied for an extension again—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Which, again, is all part of the process, but it is actually addressing—

Nicola Willis: The select committee process is what second reading speeches are about.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Mr Speaker, this is the second reading—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’ll do this on my feet, then. I tried to do it from a point of encouragement, and now I’m making a ruling, OK? And I don’t appreciate, when I’m doing that, that other members interrupt or try to interject. It’s not helpful at all. I’m warning the member that this is her warning. She needs to speak to the bill, not about the process.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this is the second reading, and I’m talking about the select committee, and I’m talking about the process that we had to deal with in the select committee, because this is the second reading, and I’m reflecting on how we worked hard in the select committee on this legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, and I’ve made my ruling on that. The member’s not going to—I’m going to start the time again, and the member can speak to the bill.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you. So in the select committee process, we received 596 submissions, and out of that we had the opportunity to hear from 41 submitters, and I want to thank these submitters, because they’ve made this effort twice, because this bill was on the Order Paper before. But when that Government came into office, they decided to not carry over with that legislation; they decided to dump that legislation, bring this legislation again under their name.

So these submitters had to make this effort twice to submit on this legislation, which is very much similar to the legislation we had before on the Order Paper. So I really want to thank them for their effort. And in the select committee, we received various kinds of submissions and there were some submissions that were copy and paste—that was totally fine. But the message that came through was very similar, and the message was that—as in the example here of one submitter which I have picked, and I’m quoting this sentence from the submission—“We have waited too long for our work to be valued.” And that length of time was added to by 13 months of this bill sitting on the Order Paper.

We also received some submissions which were handwritten, and that, I think, was really amazing, because that shows us that the technology was not a barrier for people to come forward and submit on this legislation, which was really positive. So we could see how much interest was there in people to engage with us on this legislation.

Another example that I have picked here is of a person who is working in a female-dominated industry, and this person says if that industry was not that low-paid, then they would have attracted more males into that industry as well. So this was actually a really good perspective that the submitter provided.

The other thing we saw in the select committee was that some submitters were not just talking about themselves; they were talking about their co-workers. They were not advocating just for themselves but they were advocating for their co-workers as well. And this is another submission where I would like to quote a sentence from the submission: “I feel that I’m paid fairly in my role. However, I do feel that there needs to be more equity and fairness in terms of pay equity for support staff.” So she is talking about support staff in her industry where she works. So this was really good to see, that people were actually not just concerned about themselves, not just advocating for themselves, but they were advocating for other people in their industry as well.

In the select committee process, the whole select committee—members from all sides—worked really nicely on this legislation. There was so much interest to ensure that this legislation, when it was reported back, was reported back in the best possible state. And now we understand that the Minister is going to table a Supplementary Order Paper, and we really look forward to seeing that Supplementary Order Paper and speaking to that Supplementary Order Paper as well.

It was to the extent that the officials had to, for pay-back provisions in this legislation, bring a PowerPoint presentation to explain how it would work—so that was the level of engagement we had in order to make sure that when this bill was reported back, it was reported back in the best possible state.

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just do raise a point of order, and it’s to bring to your attention there is a member in the House who was required to not be in the House earlier by the Speaker. It could be that there’s been a change to that ruling or there’s been clarification about the time length of that, but I just bring this member to your attention.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. You won’t be. You will leave the Chamber immediately. [Interruption] I will call the Serjeant-at-Arms. [Interruption] Order! The member will leave the Chamber immediately.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: So going on to the changes that we made in the select committee, I know that members—those who have spoken before me—have covered some changes, and I would like to cover a couple of changes as well. One change that we made in the select committee process which I believe is a very important change is about the timing for raising the claim. In this legislation, employees can raise a claim under the Equal Pay Act, they can also raise a claim under the Human Rights Act, and they can also raise a personal grievance under the Employment Relations Act. When the legislation was proposed, the term used was “raising personal grievance”, so we wanted to clarify: what does that mean, raising personal grievance? Does that mean verbally somebody raises that personal grievance? Is that considered to be enough to block that person from making a claim under other legislation—that is, the Equal Pay Act and the Human Rights Act? So that was clarified in the select committee process, and now it’s clear that the person will have to actually lodge a claim with the Employment Relations Authority. Then it will then be considered to be raised as a claim under the Employment Relations Act, so the person will not be able to make another claim under the Equal Pay Act and the Human Rights Act. I believe, when we are talking about providing tools to women or employees to make such claims, it’s important that the process is really clear, so this was one of the examples where the select committee worked really well to make sure that the process was clear.

The second thing which has been already talked about is the threshold. As the legislation says, one of the criteria is that the work should be “predominantly performed by female employees”—predominantly. So we wanted to make sure that this word “predominantly” is interpreted appropriately. We didn’t want it to be interpreted as a workplace where 90 or 95 percent of employees are females. We wanted to make sure that it is a reasonable number, and that’s why the number that is put in there is “approximately 60% or more”. It’s really important to note this word “approximately”. We deliberately decided to put these words, “approximately 60%” because we didn’t want a clear cut-off at 60 percent. So it could be 58, 59 percent—that means, yep, it’s approximately 60 percent, so that will be considered to be a place that is employing predominantly females. So this was another important change.

Then, finally, in the remaining time that I have, I would like to touch on confidentiality of the person making the claim, because the employer is required to notify other employees that will be affected by that claim. It was really important for us to clarify what it means for that person or the employee that is making the claim initially, so that has been clarified as well in this legislation.

So this bill has been definitely improved in the select committee process, and as I said at the start, we are supporting this legislation but we are quite disappointed to see that it has taken this long for this legislation to come up for this stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this Equal Pay Amendment Bill through the second reading. I don’t intend to take too much time of the House on this important, common-sense change to legislation, and the Minister outlined very clearly and in detail what the bill was about and why it was so important. I’d just like to acknowledge the 596 submissions through the select committee process, and that the Government has listened and we have heard those submissions. Some of those submissions were actually very personal experiences; they brought forward very important aspects of developing legislation and ensuring that we’re aware of the context and the importance of legislation such as this, that we are aware of that, and that’s why we are supporting this.

I’d just like to congratulate the Minister on working very hard on this piece of legislation. I know it wasn’t easy. I know the Opposition want to stand up and try and make it out that the Minister has been sitting on this legislation and doing nothing. That’s hardly the case, and, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. So I’d like to congratulate the Minister on doing so. It’s a very good bill, it makes a lot of sense and a lot of important changes, and we do acknowledge that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper coming forward and we look forward to that coming through and making those important changes to this legislation. We commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): National supports the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. We support it for the very good reason that we think that gender should not be the basis for determining the pay that someone gets and that men and women deserve not only equal pay for doing the same work but equity in the payment for the work that they do based on the value of that work rather than the gender of the people doing it. This is what this bill sets out to achieve and it establishes mechanisms which allow people to make claims where pay equity and equal pay principles are not upheld.

National supports this bill and we have supported advancing a framework of this sort for some time, and it is particularly frustrating to members on this side of the House that women in New Zealand have had to wait inordinately long for this framework to be established. In fact, it is emblematic of the approach of this Labour Government the way that this bill has been progressed. This is a Government that is very good at announcements and is terrible at delivery, because the process by which this bill came to the House is reflected in what is finally in it. The National Government saw the need for amendments to our existing legislation in order to allow pay equity claims to be made more easily and within a better framework that would mean that people were less required to resort to the courts. The feedback that National had got was that using the courts for these sorts of processes was cumbersome, provided a significant barrier, and meant that some cases were not able to be progressed. And that was the rationale for advancing legislation of the sort to provide a more practical bargaining framework.

So National had work under way and then Labour came to power. Denise Lee, I want to pay tribute to her because she is someone—she is one of the many women in this country who have championed the need for a bill of this sort, for a bill that allows for pay equity claims to be made, and she submitted a bill to this House. She brought to this House a bill very, very similar to the bill we are debating tonight, and I would invite the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to articulate in any clear way what there is in this bill that we are debating right now that is superior to the bill that Denise Lee brought in, and what was in her bill that could not have been amended at select committee 2½ years ago. Denise Lee brought a bill to this House and it was summarily dismissed by the men opposite because they felt that it wasn’t a Labour bill and they wanted to take the credit.

If it seems to you that perhaps I’m exaggerating what happened there, I want you to think about when this bill was actually introduced. This Government bill, which, essentially, picked up Denise Lee’s bill and put it a Labour sticker on it, was introduced on Women’s Suffrage Day, the 125th anniversary. That was the day that Labour announced their Equal Pay Amendment Bill. What a feel-good coincidence that that could be Labour’s bill. And so the bill that we have here is important, absolutely, but the way in which it’s been co-opted by members opposite is disappointing and I think shows poor intent.

Then, of course, what happened is that we did consider it at the Education and Workforce Committee and I, like members opposite, do want to say how thorough that select committee process was. We did hear from a number of submitters, both those who felt that they had been subjected to unequal pay, whose work had not been valued appropriately by their employers historically or currently. We heard from women who were concerned for the future of other employees and who spoke of the need for a good process. There were technical issues which we had to consider. We were very aware of the weight these sorts of frameworks can have on employers in terms of them needing to go through these processes and needing to ensure that the way in which they determine pay is fair. So we analysed this. We received a lot of advice from officials. There were technical issues that we went through at length and I think we did a pretty good job.

So the select committee reported back, and on reporting back we had every expectation that the bill would be progressed forthwith. So it was genuinely surprising to National members on the select committee—and I don’t know how members from Labour felt—when this bill was allowed to languish for months upon months upon months. And the Minister has not given us an explanation in any detail about what was so wrong with this bill that we’re debating right now that emerged from select committee. He’s told us that it needs a clean-up in the form of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Well, of course, we don’t have that SOP before us, so I can’t presuppose what’s in it. But I do think that it’s fair, as a member of the select committee and a member of this House, that I would expect from the Minister that he would explain why it took months and months and months for him to make up his mind about what he’d do with this bill, and even when he does that, the SOP isn’t going to be provided until the committee stage, despite the goodwill and good intent of members on this side who want to work in a cross-party fashion, who want to work across this House, to advance the pay equity framework for women. So it’s very disappointing.

Not only that, but what we’ve seen in this clumsy and incompetent approach, in which people make symbolic announcements and then let things languish because they don’t actually know how to deliver on the detail of them, is that in that time we have seen that women have had to continue under the current framework for equal pay claims and for pay equity claims, which is the very framework that more than three years ago now was identified as being problematic and creating and making—there’d be too many barriers for women wanting to advance these claims. So the actual result of the Government dithering around on the delivery of this bill is that equal pay for women—pay equity for women—has not progressed at all. And I think that that is absolutely emblematic of the approach of this Government, which is to make the big announcement and worry about the delivery later, make it clumsy, make it incompetent. Great intentions—but when it comes to making it happen, just no good at it.

So when I look to this bill, I think about the future and I think, “Well, how do I want it to operate and how do I want it to be?” And I want this to be something that means that if any group of women, any group of employees, genuinely believe and can demonstrate that they are being underpaid on the basis of their gender, that even though they are doing work that is of equal value to a group of men—who may be doing slightly different work but they are doing work of equal value—that group of women can go through a process that is not overly cumbersome, that allows them to demonstrate that, to have an independent assessment of that, a fact-based assessment of that, and that they can then work with their employer to get fair compensation for that lack of pay.

Yes, I hope for that process. But the thing I think is much more important and that I really want from this bill, and that means that I wish that it had been progressed earlier, is that I want it to be very clear to every employer, to every employee, that we have an expectation in this country that gender does not play a role in the pay that people get. And what I am frustrated by, and what I think members on this side of the House—and certainly Denise Lee—are frustrated by, is that in the service of the timing of a press release, this Government has put the advancement of those objectives at risk. And I think that’s not good enough. It’s disingenuous and it’s unfair.

So when my two daughters grow up, how will we know whether this bill has actually been successful? Well, we know that this bill’s been successful when we actually see that these sorts of claims are no longer necessary, because we’ve established a framework in which people don’t want to have to be doing compensation and that they pay people fairly to begin with. But we will also see that that gap between the pay of men and women, which currently sits at about 9.3 percent, is reducing in real time. But I would commend to this House that we remember that the contents of this bill, as good as they are—and who knows what’s on the SOP, but I hope, I hope, that the Minister has drafted that in good intent and it doesn’t gut the content of this bill that’s been worked so hard on—is not just this bill that will advance the pay for women. There are many more things that need to be done and they start with actually ensuring that women have the opportunities that men do, and I still believe there are many barriers to that. But this is a step forward. It’s just a shame it took so long for the Government to take this step.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare.

I’m very pleased to be speaking in support of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill tonight. This bill represents one of the biggest steps for gender equality in employment in over 40 years. And although we’ve had the Equal Pay Act since 1972, we still have a gender pay gap of 9.3 percent. That gap is much worse for Māori and Pasifika women, women with disabilities, other women of colour or immigrants to New Zealand. Actually, the gap is far worse than for Pākehā women, and we need to start focusing on that ethnic pay gap far more, I think, than the gender pay gap.

I’d really like to acknowledge first up, the work of the Education and Workforce Committee, for the many hours they spent hearing and reading submissions and developing their report. Thank you too, to all those, over 600, people and organisations who made submissions on the bill. The insights and expertise have been invaluable for improving the bill. It’s fantastic to hear that the Opposition will be supporting this legislation. I think that is a positive step. And I know that while many of the speakers tonight from the National Party have spoken in favour of the bill and have complained that previous legislation wasn’t accelerated faster, the irony is that legislation was actually literally putting up barriers to women taking successful pay equity claims. That’s precisely why we’ve had to do so much work during this term of Government to fix it, and develop legislation that would actually make it easier for women and all people in female-dominated workforces to achieve fair pay for their work.

The issue with pay equity is, of course, right across a profession or a type of work that has been female dominated, that’s why there is that pay gap. So it’s not just because they’re women but because the profession itself has been female dominated. And in 2014 the Court of Appeal found that the Equal Pay Act can be interpreted to require equal pay for work of equal value, leading to that landmark TerraNova settlement. And we have to shout out to Kristine Bartlett and the E tū union who were successful in their campaign to raise the pay of care and support workers.

I will get to the bill, but I do just want to address some of the points the previous speaker made because she did claim that no progress had been made on this issue while we’ve been working on the legislation. Unfortunately, she’s absolutely incorrect because as soon as our Government came in, we extended the claim to mental health workers—the care and support workers’ claim was extended to mental health workers—as it should have been from the beginning, which the previous National Government did not do. And while this process has been under way, the Government has been busy progressing many pay equity claims in the State sector, including social workers at Oranga Tamariki, and, most recently, the $348 million teacher-aide pay equity claim. Would this have happened under a National Government? No. So lots of progress is being made, and we are achieving much fairer pay for women. And you can already see that in the largest reduction since 2002 in the gender pay gap in the Public Service because this Government made it a priority, started working on it, and definitely the pay equity claims and settlements are starting to contribute to that.

Throughout the process of developing the bill and preparing it for second reading, my party has been ensuring that all women who may have a pay equity problem can access the process. This legislation aligns with the existing bargaining systems with which many employers and employees will already be familiar. As noted by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, a Supplementary Order Paper is planned to more closely align this bill with the Employment Relations Act, which is something that was brought to us by our social partners, Business New Zealand, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and their affiliates post the select committee process, which is why it has taken some time to get the legislation right. But it’s more important that it is right. It has not been a barrier to us making enormous progress for women and on pay equity claims during the time that this process has occurred. So it’s just a little bit of a story that the Opposition is telling themselves. I’m sure they believe it, because they’re not really paying attention to reality these days; it’s too depressing for them.

But we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Even after this legislation is passed—and I’m looking forward to that time—we will still have a lot of work ahead of us to ensure that all women and girls in all of their diversity are financially secure and can thrive, are safe from violence, are recognised for the work that they do, and are able to be financially independent. Removing bias and discrimination, ending domestic and sexual violence, and paying women what they are worth are all different sides of the same issue.

So this bill is a milestone, and at the second reading, I just have to say that there will be a Supplementary Order Paper. We have had, during this process, the Ministry for Women working very closely with the officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). We’ve worked in absolute partnership with the Minister of employment relations, and there is something novel that this Government has done that the previous Government did not do, and that is that we had a genuine partnership approach with the Ministry for Women and the Minister for Women at the table as we ensured that this legislation was going to do everything possible to end this structural bias and discrimination against women and what they are paid. So I look forward to the next stage of this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased tonight to rise to take a call on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill at the second reading.

I wasn’t, at that stage anyway, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, the select committee that scrutinised this bill and did such a wonderful job. They had—what?—almost 600 submissions to read through, many that they saw in person, and I know that they did a lot of hard work. It’s shame I couldn’t be on that committee; I’m on it now. But I would like to just commend their hard work.

On this side of the House we are delighted to finally have the chance to stand up and support this bill after it’s sat on the Order Paper for more than a year. The reason this Government has scheduled the second reading of this bill tonight is not so much to address the gender pay gap as it is really to address the Lees-Galloway PR gap, and that’s a big gap, cavernous, some would say. That’s what happens when you give residence to someone who’s in jail for bringing in drugs. But despite this being an excellent bill, that we support, the purpose, really, that it serves is fluffing up this Government’s image, and I’ll talk about that a little bit more later on.

But firstly, I would like to just say that I am disappointed that my very good friend and colleague Denise Lee isn’t able to speak to on this bill tonight. Because Denise has done some excellent work in this area, putting forward her member’s bill, the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, back at the start of the term, which built on the previous National Government’s pay equity legislation. Unfortunately, Denise’s bill had a very short lifespan before it was defeated by the Government. Did they have a radical alternative plan for pay equity and equal pay policy? No, they just wanted to play politics. Because this bill that we’re here tonight to debate has had a long and winding journey. The new Labour-led Government, when it came to the end of 2017, outrageously decided not to reinstate the previous National Government’s pay equity bill. And when Denise Lee put up the same legislation as a member’s bill at the start of 2018, they voted that legislation down.

Dan Bidois: Lost opportunity.

ERICA STANFORD: Yeah, it was a lost opportunity. And the Government has had the gall to reconvene the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles, which largely reconfirmed the findings of the original Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles that we set up.

So the Government have introduced their new bill. They introduced it on 19 September 2018, which, by happy coincidence, was also the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage, which was a PR dream. There were some lovely news stories around the time written about Minister Lees-Galloway and Minister Genter, about the wonderful work they were doing to close the gender pay gap. You might be thinking that 19 September 2018 sounds like an awfully long time ago, and wondering what’s happened between now and then.

Well, after going to the Education and Workforce Committee the bill was reported back to the House on 13 May 2019, and that was it. Since being reported to the House it’s languished on the Order Paper for over a year. Late last year, Minister Genter actually forgot that it had been reported back, saying it was still in front of a select committee, and actually it had been three months since that committee had finished dealing with it. Since then, still, nothing. Given that there has been cross-party agreement that the law around pay equity and equal pay needs to be changed, the new Government could have carried over National’s first bill. They could’ve voted for the second bill. But instead they dumped this issue on a second working group, came up with a third bill, which is a 90 percent carbon copy of the first one. And now we hear, tonight, that they’ve got a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). They’ve had two working groups in over a year and an SOP. We don’t know what that is, I hope that it’s something that we can support. But they’ve had plenty of time.

Back in March, I read a glowing op-ed by our Minister for Women, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, published in The Guardian for International Women’s Day. The headline was “In New Zealand, we are starting to value women’s work fairly. It’s time for the world to follow”. Well, I can tell you, where would the world be if they followed this Government’s lead in closing the gender pay gap? They might as well give up and go home. At the time, Minister Genter wrote her fluffy column, no doubt earning her and the Government international plaudits, this bill had been waiting for its second reading for 10 months. As much as I enjoyed reading her lovely column, the reality is this Government has set pay equity progress back by at least two years because it wanted to play politics. It wanted publicity stunts. It wanted the credit because it suited their image.

This is an excellent bill, and I do applaud the Government for bringing it to the House so we can finally make some real progress on the issue after a farcical process. But I would like to finish with this point; while the Government fluffed around, and used this bill for PR stunts, and forgot how far along it was in the process, the gender pay gap has remained exactly the same as it was in 2017, 9.3 percent. This Government has talked big, delivered nothing for pay equity in three years. Despite that, I commend the bill to the House.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to make a brief and positive contribution, one is to acknowledge and thank the Opposition for coming around on this issue, having spent their last nine years in Government resisting through the courts every equal pay claim that was brought by working women and their unions. I want to have a shout out to the trade unions who have been at the forefront of this issue for decades and who have won pay equity claims and who have worked constructively with this Government in recent times to actually get pay equity in place for tens of thousands of workers.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the two Ministers who have spoken in this debate this evening, Ministers Lees-Galloway and Genter, because they’re the people who have worked across party lines, across sectoral lines with business and with unions, to make this piece of legislation a reality. The Labour Party on this side of the House, with our partners on both sides—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member but it’s come time for me to leave the chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 12 midnight to 9 a.m. (Friday)

WEDNESDAY, 24 JUNE 2020

(continued on Friday, 26 June 2020)

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The House is resumed. When we were debating last night, we were on the split call of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Good morning, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand first today to speak about the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. From 2008, when National came into power as Government, New Zealand’s gender pay gap was at 12.5 percent. By 2017, that gender pay gap had been reduced to 9.3 percent. National supports this bill. National is committed to closing that gender pay gap.

After many legislative changes that paved the way for that reduction in the gender pay gap, which included the right to request flexible working arrangements for all employees, reducing barriers for women to work, and encouraging greater work-life balance for both men and women, the bill seeks to address the current shortfalls of the Equal Pay Act, arising from an undervaluation of work predominantly performed by women over time. Pay equity is a significant component of that gender pay gap.

The bill provides for practical and workable processes for employees and employers to follow. So, once a pay equity claim is lodged, the bill establishes a simple and practical process by which the employer and their employee can bargain and agree on a better arrangement, better pay, and better working conditions. The bill creates that framework, which had been initially absent from the current Equal Pay Act, which was not equipped to provide that guidance on pay equity claims once lodged.

National is committed to achieving pay equity in New Zealand, which is why we support the bill. It is, however, just important also to point out that a bill was lodged by our colleague on this side of the House Denise Lee in 2018, and that was voted down. That bill was predominantly similar to the bill that we have before us, and it would have been more expeditious if what had happened was, instead of being simply voted down, whatever shortfalls the members of this House found in that bill could have been resolved and sorted out at the committee process, which did not happen. So, essentially, what has resulted is this pay equity change of providing for a framework for bargaining after a pay equity claim that has been lodged has been delayed for at least two years. That’s the only reason why we raise concern for that, because that’s two years we consider as a wasted opportunity for the very many women out there who could have benefited already through this time.

Nevertheless, National supports this bill in furtherance of its commitment to achieve pay equity in New Zealand, and recognising that the bill is another step forward towards closing the gender pay gap.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ll take only a short call because my message is short and to the point. National supports this bill. Of course we support this bill, because it’s the next step towards achieving pay equity in New Zealand and towards closing the gender pay gap. Of course we support this bill, because National’s pay equity equivalent bill was already in this House back in 2017.

We are angry that it’s taken so long to get any pay equity bill to its second reading. National and the pay equity advisory committee did this work nearly four years ago. In 2017, National’s bill had already passed the first reading and was in select committee. The new Labour coalition Government dumped it. In 2018, we gave the Government another chance to get legislation done when Denise Lee’s pay equity member’s bill was introduced to the House, and they voted it down. Finally, now, in 2020, very close to the end of their term in Government, in urgency, at last, you’ve finally got round to the second reading.

It is gross incompetence on the part of this Government that it has taken so long to get progress on a bill that is so important to women, and we are still not there. Women in New Zealand are still waiting for pay equity legislation to come into law, when it should have been in place back in 2017 or 2018. This Government talks a lot; it talks a lot about supporting women. This Government talks a lot; it talks a lot about being kind. This Government should be ashamed of itself that this pay equity legislation has taken so long to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Well, this is a great bill and thank goodness that we got rid of the incompetent piece of rubbish that was before us when we came into Government. “Hear, hear!” to this side of the House for working with stakeholders, putting something in place that actually will bring about pay equity for women, and, to that point, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill will make it easier for low-income ratepayers to apply to the Rates Rebate Scheme. It does this by removing the need for applicants to sign the application form in front of a witness who must be a council officer, justice of the peace, or other authorised person. Applicants will still be required to verify that information on their application form and make sure that it is accurate, but they will be able to do this in a much more accessible way.

This may seem like a small change, but the benefits are important to those who need help paying their rates. Currently, applicants need to attend in person to have their signature witnessed. This can be difficult, especially for those with a physical disability or mobility issues. In the last rating year, 79 percent of applicants were superannuitants, a group more likely to be experiencing declining mobility or a physical disability. In fact, the latest disability survey showed that 49 percent of this group had a physical disability of some sort.

Applicants also pay for the cost of travelling to an authorised person to complete their applications. These costs can be significant, particularly for those people living in rural communities. For some applicants, particularly those in smaller communities, needing to discuss their application form with council officers in public can be a significant source of stress and embarrassment. Some councils have staff that carry out home visits for those applicants for whom travelling would cause too much physical or emotional stress. I’d encourage this approach across the council sector.

The bill will overcome these difficulties and save the costs faced by applicants and councils from the statutory declaration requirement in the current process. Removing the need to be physically present also creates the opportunity for an online application process, should one be become available in the future.

The bill also makes a change that will give councils the opportunity to design their own application forms if they think this will benefit their community. These forms will need to be approved by the Secretary for Local Government to ensure they comply with the statutory requirements. For those councils who do not want to design their own application forms, a standard application form will continue to be supplied by the Department of Internal Affairs. Submitters to the select committee on the bill supported this change.

This change was needed before the COVID-19 pandemic struck. However, New Zealand’s response to the pandemic has also shown how important it is that people can access Government services remotely, particularly those people who are more vulnerable to illness. During the COVID-19 response, the Government made a temporary modification to the statutory declaration process so that it can be completed remotely.

This bill will ensure that vulnerable people will still be able to access the Rates Rebate Scheme without needing to attend a public office in person, and allow people to verify their information remotely. This will also provide ongoing benefit to those who are ill for whatever reason and at home and cannot get to the council offices. The Rates Rebate Scheme provides important support to ratepayers on low and fixed incomes. In the last rating year, just over 300,000 people received a rebate at an average amount of $582, and that makes a big difference.

The bill is just one of a number of changes the Government has made to improve the Rates Rebate Scheme. Under changes to the Act begun by my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson, residents of retirement villages can now access the Rates Rebate Scheme like other households. The Local Government Regulatory Systems Amendment Act, passed into law in March last year, ensures that those receiving a winter energy payment will not have this payment included in their income for the purposes of calculating a rates rebate. This change ensures the winter energy payment is used for its intended purpose.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its work considering the bill. The select committee recommends one change to the bill, and that’s to change the commencement date to 1 July 2020. This means the bill will now come into force at the beginning of the next rating year, and I support the change.

I note the select committee also recommends that the Secretary for Local Government consider requiring applicants to provide their IRD number on their application forms. This would enable officials to undertake income data-matching. It would provide officials with another tool to ensure the income information provided on application forms is accurate. I support the select committee’s intent to ensure the application process is secure and that accurate information is being provided; however, both the select committee and my officials have advised that a number of operational changes are needed before data matching could happen.

I’d like to thank those that took the time to submit on the bill. I was pleased to see several submissions from the local government sector, who all supported the intent of the bill and noted that it would reduce the costs of administering the Rates Rebate Scheme. A number of submitters made clear the problems the statutory declaration requirement can cause for applicants. The citizens advice bureau noted how applicants can struggle to find an authorised person to complete their statutory declaration. Submitters also made it clear that the Rates Rebate Scheme provides important support to those ratepayers that are on low or fixed incomes and are struggling to pay their rates.

Some submitters noted that, while the bill enables an online application process in the future, not everyone will want to apply online. This is an important point, and the intent is that the application process will remain accessible for all who wish to apply. This means a paper channel should continue to be maintained in an online application process, if an online application process is introduced in the future.

In conclusion, the bill will make it easier for low-income ratepayers to access the support they are entitled to. It will also reduce the costs for local councils administering the Rates Rebate Scheme. This is just one of a number of changes the Government has made to improve the Rates Rebate Scheme, as I’ve mentioned. We’ve also ensured that those living in retirement villages can access the scheme and that people aren’t unfairly penalised for receiving a winter energy payment. The bill gives local councils the flexibility to design their own application form, should they wish, and maintain a paper application process. Finally, the change will enable an online application process to be implemented in the future, should councils wish that to be the case. So I commend the bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the Minister who’s just taken her seat, Nanaia Mahuta, whose name this bill is under. Pleased to make a contribution on this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declaration) Amendment Bill. I’m pleased to also be a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, which oversaw the proceedings of this bill, and I also acknowledge my fellow committee members as well.

We in the National Party do not support this statutory declarations amendment bill, and we have noted in the report a minority view on the bill. Before I go there, this bill is set to amend the Rates Rebate Act of 1973, which, effectively, sets out the Government-funded rebate scheme to low-income ratepayers, which we in the National Party support. Of course we support this rates rebate for those on low incomes.

The intent of this bill is to make it easier for those applying for this rates rebate by removing the requirement to do a statutory declaration to verify the application. And therein lies the biggest hurdle for us as the National Party in terms of this amendment, and we cannot support this. Currently, those applicants who apply for this are required to physically present themselves, either to a council office or to an authorised person such as a justice of the peace, or go in to see their local member of Parliament to complete an application. We don’t believe that this bill has been well thought through. It is piecemeal. In fact, we know that we are here to actually fill up time of what is a deficient legislative programme.

I just want to acknowledge the comments made by the Minister Nanaia Mahuta, and also there were comments in her first reading speech in terms of the intent to reduce the burden, to make it easier for those to access this rates rebate. I note her comments around the physical presence of having to come in and do a statutory declaration, sometimes in small communities—it may be embarrassing. Actually, I acknowledge the intent for the Minister to want to take the burden out of that for people in our community, and, you know, I acknowledge it. But at the same time, I don’t believe that we should remove what is a very important process in terms of robustness and scrutiny on that rebate. Ultimately, at the end of the day, we are accountable for every single dollar of taxpayer money, and I think there is an expectation on taxpayers, including older people in our community who are still contributing, that we do provide some very good and clear oversight and robustness in processes like this. So I acknowledge the intent—we should always try and make systems processes easier—but, at the same time, it should not be at the cost of oversight.

I don’t believe that the process of a statutory declaration is overly cumbersome. There are a number of people in our communities—our JPs in our libraries, MPs, council staff—who will make themselves available to assist those to get those statutory declarations. I don’t agree that it is such an impediment that we should remove this measure of accountability. Further, I don’t believe that there has been any data to support the case for this particular amendment. Where is the evidence for that? And I don’t believe that embarrassment should be a reason to remove an important oversight, as I see it. We have to be accountable for every single dollar taken up by the scheme.

I just want to touch on the submissions, and I do want to acknowledge and thank all those that came and made submissions to the committee on this bill. Just an overview, the committee received 10 written submissions on this bill. Of those 10 submissions, four were from territorial authorities. One submission was by a local government organisation, two submissions were from other organisations, and three of those 10 submissions were made by individuals. So I think it’s important to note that 70 percent of the submissions were from either a territorial authority or a local government organisation.

I just want to also touch on the fact that part of this amendment—in terms of why I say it’s piecemeal, why did the Minister not take into account the New Zealand Productivity Commission inquiry, which was just in November last year, and their final report? They actually made some recommendations around a wider overhaul of the system. So if it is about ensuring a better process and that it is easier for those, particularly many of the superannuitants that apply for this, there was actually a recommendation to abolish the scheme and replace it with a national rates postponement scheme. So I see this amendment as more just tinkering at the edges. But perhaps the best path forward would have been to take into account those recommendations and have a look at a wider change to the system, which would actually be far more effective for more people in terms of wanting to address some of those challenges for those in the community. And I think this is what I talk about when I say it’s been piecemeal—this has just been tagged on; that wider report is not taken into consideration. At the same time, it’s a bill which, I repeat, could, effectively, expose this current scheme to abuse.

So, you know, in effect, this bill should have perhaps waited and we could have had a look at that Productivity Commission report and look at a wider overhaul of the system, because we’re probably going to be back here having a look at it anyway. I think there are some good recommendations in that report that the Minister and the Government members could take into account.

Just talking about the actual parts of the bill, the main substantive amendments are in Part 1 of the bill, which is the part that provides for the removal of the statutory declaration. And then Part 2, the related amendments, provides that the verification is replaced by a form approved by the Secretary for Local Government—that is in Part 2 of the bill. I also note, and it is in the report, that the date that the Act comes into force changes to 1 July 2020.

So I repeat the concerns that we have in the National Party, which have been outlined in our minority view, in that we should not remove the very important oversight and access to the Rates Rebate Scheme. It is now, effectively, an honesty system, which we believe is open to abuse. It has no oversight. We don’t believe that the council members will have the opportunity or the resources to go and check through all these applications. At the end of the day, this is still taxpayer-funded money to support the scheme, and we should still hold that line in terms of some oversight for those applying for this. We do not support this bill.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I wish to pick up something which the previous speaker, Agnes Loheni, just said. She said that this was an honesty system, this bill, and it’s clear that members of the Opposition simply don’t trust our fellow New Zealanders. That’s a very sad state of affairs.

This bill makes life easier for elderly people. As an MP, I have signed off these forms myself, and, memorably, on a couple of occasions, gone to visit bed-ridden people so that I could help them with this particular declaration. Why would we not make life easier for people who are finding it a little bit difficult to get about? It’s a very good reason to support this bill. It is an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, Dr Russell certainly hasn’t given me a lot to reply to; so the one point she’s made is the one I’ll start with. Yes, the National Party does trust our fellow New Zealanders, but not all people, sadly, are trustworthy. I invite Dr Russell to indicate whether every person she has ever dealt with, ever encountered in her life, has been trustworthy, particularly when given the opportunity to avoid paying a bill or to get something for a bargain or in another way to put one across the system. She’s looking down studiously, but, having made that allegation before, I think she should answer the question. No, clearly she doesn’t want to.

So I say again: the vast majority of New Zealanders are honest, and I think everybody in the National Party recognises that. It’s probably why we represent most of the electorates in this country, because we make the connection with our constituents, and they expect us to be responsible, particularly with the way we collect their money—not us personally through the rate system but by association, as members of this Parliament, through our tax system. They don’t want us to collect one more dollar than is justified and they expect us to spend every dollar that we could collect as responsibly, as appropriately as we can, and in ways that do make a real difference. What we are seeing at the moment from this particular Government is fiscal recklessness that borders on total irresponsibility. Their current approach to handling public accounts and revenue is absolutely alarming.

Now, I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Finance had an incredibly difficult job in May this year. Whatever Budget he had put together by, say, the end of February, when most of the decisions would have been made, would have had to go out the window. We all know that and we recognise the challenge that he faced. But the Budget we saw on—was it 19 May?—whatever date it was in May—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): 15.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Sorry?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): 15 May.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: 15 May. Thank you, Madam Speaker—wasn’t really a Budget at all. It was, to be fair, more just of a fiscal update. And it’s relevant to this bill, because we’ve also seen a Government that is at the moment telling us, “We don’t even know how we’re going to spend all the money, but there’s somehow this $20 billion, nobody knows where it’s coming from out there, that we’ll spend”—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. As interesting as his points may be to himself, this issue before us is about the Rates Rebate Scheme which benefits superannuitants. It’s not about a general Budget debate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I was just going to raise that very point myself. The general debate starts after question time on Wednesday—so second reading Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate that. I was simply wishing to make the point—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Macindoe, please don’t offer any challenge to my suggestion to you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I wasn’t, Madam Speaker, I promise you I wasn’t looking to challenge you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This is twice. Second reading.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Great, OK. I didn’t have the opportunity to hear the submissions on this bill. This is the second successive bill which has come through the House in this urgency period which emerged from the work done by the Social Services and Community Committee. I’ve only recently joined that committee; so I am at a disadvantage because I wasn’t present for the committee’s hearings. Reading the report, which is quite short, I’m not even sure how many submissions were received and how many were heard.

Gareth Hughes: It’s pretty easy to find out. It’s only 10.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I was about to pay the chair a compliment to say that, in the short time I’ve been on the committee—and I mentioned this last night when he wasn’t here; I’ll mention it again now—I’ve been very impressed by the way that he chairs the committee. I believe he does so in a very professional and collegial way, as a result of which there’s a good sense of purpose in that committee. So Gareth Hughes deserves our support. I’m just acknowledging the fact that he is going to have the advantage that I don’t have this morning of being able to talk about the submissions in greater depth.

Dr Deborah Russell: They’re on the system; you can find them.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Ah, not being able to hear submitters in the committee does put somebody at a disadvantage, because quite often you then have the opportunity to pick up the flavour, what has motivated them, that goes well beyond the written submissions. Of course, I’ve looked at what has been put forward, but I didn’t have the advantage of hearing from those people. It is, as I say, a very short report.

I do want to acknowledge the work that local government does, and it’s nice to be able to speak on a bill introduced by my fellow Waikato MP, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for whom I have great respect and with whom I think I’ve always enjoyed a very good relationship. I acknowledge the work that she does, but I can’t agree with her on this bill, largely for the reasons that my very good colleague and friend Agnes Loheni has already mentioned.

In particular, it’s because we have to be responsible, and that was the point I was trying to make in referring to Budget matters. We are in unprecedented times. I know that’s become a cliché, but at the moment, more than ever before, it is really important that we are accountable for every dollar of taxpayer and ratepayer money that we take and how we spend it. Unfortunately, I think that this bill is a case of robbing Peter—in this case, the taxpayer—to pay Paul—in this case, the ratepayer.

Michael Wood: That’s how the Rates Rebate Scheme works. That’s what it does.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, Mr Wood seems to think that that’s an admirable objective. I would challenge him to take a call and tell us whether a bill of this nature should be being debated here on a Friday under urgency.

Michael Wood: Generally speaking, this is the place we change laws.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, well, he’s being very, very cynical and sarcastic now. So I look forward—

Tim van de Molen: It’s more than he’s said in any contribution over the last 48 hours.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: That’s right. It’s longer and, actually, more comprehensible than any of his contributions in the last 24 hours.

I want to apologise to our constituents for the meetings we have cancelled with them today; for the appointments, therefore, that we cannot keep; for the functions and events that we cannot attend in our electorates when we should be there. We’d made commitments to them and we’ve inconvenienced them in order to be here today to debate fairly minor matters. I suggest to you that this is a total abuse of our urgency system. Urgency should be—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Our job is to put through legislation.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, absolutely. I’m so pleased the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has said that. So why did her party and the parties who support them—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s part of our job.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, she can continue to shout. Why did her party and those who support them in Government waste 2½ years doing nothing, filibustering over and over again on bills that everybody supported? That’s on the record; people don’t have to take my word for it. That’s a matter of public record that they wasted 2½ years and now, suddenly, they’re saying, “We had to adjourn Parliament during the COVID period and we’ve now got a heck of a lot to do.” Well, why didn’t they get on with it in the first 2½ years that they were in office rather than abusing the urgency system and, by association, abusing our constituents in this way? Absolutely outrageous—indefensible. I wasn’t cross at the start, but after listening to the inane interjections that have come from the other side of the House, I’m getting pretty worked up now. I actually didn’t think I’d be taking a full call, but you bet I’m going to be taking a full call now.

Their key point on this particular minor matter revolves around the way in which people declare their circumstances in order to qualify for a rates rebate. Now, I have huge sympathy for those who are both elected or work within local government, because they’re under a constant tension between ratepayers who, on the one hand, want them to keep rates as low as possible and are always alarmed when there’s a threat of significant rates increases—and we’ve heard so much of that in recent times in this post-COVID environment, when people’s livelihoods are at risk and their incomes have taken such a hit—but, on the other hand, of course, we all want our councils to be able to deliver all the basic services that are expected of local government, and we also like it when there are a few extras that enhance the social and cultural appeal of our cities or our towns. Unfortunately, there’s often the tension there between those who say, “Oh, you can’t afford anything else, don’t fix the swimming pool, don’t bring that show to town.”—or whatever it might be—and others who say, “But that’s what gives us quality of life.”

Ultimately, it comes down to the people who are affected by this bill, because I do have huge sympathy for the elderly, for all who are on fixed incomes, for those who are on low incomes who really do struggle. We all acknowledge that. But there are other ways of being able to assist them. Having a system that is open to abuse—and that’s the problem with this bill—simply lends itself to ensuring that the decent, honest people are punished again, penalised by having to pay that little bit extra. And those who can get away with being dishonest will. That is why we are saying: do not have a system that is so lax, that enables people to go through the cracks far too easily, and dump on the decent, hardworking taxpayers and ratepayers of this country.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to add New Zealand First’s support to the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. For those watching at home, maybe a little alarmed after watching that speech and the perpetual outrage of the member opposite, who has seemed to fire up over what is actually a pretty good bill and a generous bill, a bill that looks to lower the barriers for low-income people who need to get access to a rates rebate, it is really important for those people on low and fixed incomes and particularly in these times when we know there is going to be some increase in hardship through the COVID response and recession. So New Zealand First has no qualms in supporting the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Just about missed it, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I did.

IAN McKELVIE: The contribution of the last speaker was so substantial that I missed that too!

I want to acknowledge the Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta. She’s been around local government long enough to know that people in this building should never annoy the people that are out there doing the work. And I think she’s quite right in that respect, because local government is a tricky business, and the big difference between local government and this form of Government is that local government set the rates and collect the rates and everybody knows what they’re paying. So, when you’re out there as a local government politician, you front up to everybody that goes past you whether you like it or not, and you get the blame for everything that happens. In here, we kind of have tax bills that go through here on a weekly basis almost, certainly on a monthly basis. We set the taxes and we never get the blame for it So the big difference between local government and national Government is that local government politicians are accountable for every step they make; we don’t seem to be until the end of the three-year term, when we are certainly accountable for some of the things we have or have not done

Anyway, that wasn’t my point. I also, like one or two other speakers, was not on the Social Services and Community Committee at the time this bill came through, but I have been around local government long enough to have a fairly good understanding of rates rebates. Whilst we don’t support this bill, I do have a great deal of sympathy for those people who collect a rates rebate. I think it’s an essential part of what we do. Whether it’s the right way to deliver these things or not is an argument for another day. This argument that we’re having today is all about how we deliver the rates rebate and what the best form of delivering it is.

I’m going to point out some of the anomalies in the Rates Rebate Scheme in a moment, but one of the interesting things about our councils and how they’ve evolved over the years is that almost every council—in fact, all of my councils but one in my electorate—has a JP sitting in the office most days of the week and some at some time. So the current form of acquiring a rates rebate isn’t that complicated, and I tend to agree with one or two of the previous speakers who think we are spending a bit of time down here on a Friday debating a bill that probably isn’t entirely necessary.

However, the point I want to make about the Rates Rebate Scheme is that it’s all very well for those people who live in their own house and pay their own bill, but many of our superannuitants in New Zealand—and there are various reasons for it, a lot of them legislative—don’t actually live in their own house but do pay the costs of living in that house. That’s where this rates rebate scheme is very challenging. Because if they live in a house that’s either provided for them by family members or provided for them by a trust, and they have an agreement to pay the costs of the operation of that premises, they don’t qualify for the Rates Rebate Scheme. And through our electoral offices—I’m sure all of us will get inquiries of this nature—I’ve had a number of inquiries in my time in this place from people who are ineligible for the Rates Rebate Scheme for varying reasons, and the reasons often relate to the way they occupy the premises they live in.

So there are some anomalies in this scheme, which I think are not ideal. Not everyone is treated the same. What I noticed, and I spent a bit of time in local government—and the other thing you can do in local government, which is actually quite a good idea, if you really want to find out what the constituents think, you go and sit out in the council office or the foyer of it on a rates payment day. You’ll get a bit of feedback then. A lot of politicians wouldn’t like to do that, of course, because it would make you a bit nervous.

But now, of course, with the way we’re changing society and the way we’re changing the way we do things, people don’t go to the council office as often as they used to. They don’t turn up at the building and pay their rates as they have done. I’ve even had a constituent who brought the cash into my office to give it to me to pay the council rates, because they’re either not able to go into the council building or they’ve been banned from it for some reason or other or whatever. So you get all forms of methods of paying rates, and people are, I guess, to some extent, intimidated by the fact that they’ve got to go and pay their rates or they do go to pay the rates. They’re also intimidated by the fact that they have to acquire or fill out a form in order to get a rates rebate. So, often they will need assistance to do that, and in my experience of JPs’ work, JPs are always friendly and offer to assist in any way they are legally able to. So I think that probably the need for this bill is minimal, to say the least. So I don’t think there’s a great deal of need for it.

I just want to talk about one or two other things in respect to this bill as well. Of course, if we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need a rates rebate scheme because everyone would be paid adequately to pay the bills they need to pay and get on with life. We don’t live in a perfect world, unfortunately, and that’s just one of those things that happens to us.

I want to talk about just one other issue, which I’m very opposed to, because I just don’t like the system. It relates to the kind of—and there’ll be some terminology for it that I won’t use, but it’s a little bit like reverse mortgages, where you, effectively, drip-up your house on the basis of paying the bills you need to pay to live. I’m definitely violently opposed to that sort of proposal. I think that type of thing diminishes people’s ability to understand where they sit in life, basically, because what it does is it creeps up from behind you. You don’t know it’s coming, and, nowadays, when I was born, you got to 65 and you thought, well, that probably will be my lot. I didn’t think that and I’m past that now. The problem is, you then get to 69 or 70 and think “God, I might have 20 years left yet and I’ve got no money to keep me going.” That’s the very reason I’m opposed to this type of situation, because when you get that stuff creeping up on you and you go on and on and on living and you keep on living and suddenly you’ve got to the point where you’ve actually got nothing left—you’ve got no equity left in your property or your life. The world changes so quickly and I think it’s a very dangerous situation—a very dangerous situation—to get into, and it’s one that I don’t like. [Interruption] Yeah, I should be at the beach. You’re right, Hamish. I’d be a lot better off there.

But I do think we’ve got to be careful when we put legislation of any sort in place, that we think about what happens as people’s circumstances change, as we live longer, and as the world rolls on. So we are opposed to this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill for a number of reasons. One of them is that we don’t necessarily, on this side of the House, think it’s the most appropriate system, and I’m not sure there’s a better system, frankly. I don’t know how you would deal with the issue that the Rates Rebate Scheme is designed to deal with in a better manner than we are dealing with it at the moment. Now, the argument we’ve got, of course, is that this bill changes the way you make an application for that rates rebate scheme. In fact, it could become more onerous, because, if you’ve got to start providing your IRD number and then the IRD starts to check the facts against your IRD number, there could well be much more expense than there is in what goes on now. I don’t know whether that will happen or not, because the moment you put your IRD number on something, and if the Secretary for Local Government then gave the IRD the opportunity or the ability to check that, or this Parliament did through legislation, it may well become a much more expensive and more cumbersome scheme to operate than it is now.

I think, Madam Speaker, you yourself brought a rates bill to Parliament, as a member’s bill, not that long ago, which enabled some of our older members of our society to claim rates rebates back on, I guess what could be called, body corporate properties. That’s probably not quite the word, but something like that. So that’s another issue that’s been through this Parliament in recent times.

Anyway, I am standing as a National Party member of Parliament and we certainly are not supporting this bill. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I thank the previous members for their kind words about my chairmanship, but before it goes to my head, one thinks they may be simply looking for content, for filibustering—but thank you very much.

This might be the only opportunity I have to speak on this bill, because I’m not the Green Party spokesperson for it, but I do want to thank members of the select committee, the Minister, and the submitters. It was a really collegial process, and I do thank everyone involved. A total of 103,000 people applied for a rates rebate in 2019, so this is about helping people get access to support faster and simpler, and over the course of the consideration of this bill, I had to see a justice of the peace myself for some banking forms, and the line was snaking out of the Karori Community Centre. I was near the front. It was closing in 15 minutes’ time. I don’t know what happened to all the people snaking behind me, and these are daily experiences Kiwis face. So I’m incredibly proud of the fact that we’re making it easier.

There are three big points I want to very quickly talk about. One is the commencement date. In this COVID environment, I’m glad we’re bringing this forward, because people can get access to support faster, which is wonderful. The second is our comment around IRD numbers and potential data matching. That’s about, I think, future proofing the system and making it even easier to administer in the future. The third point I’d like to raise is the National Party’s objection in their minority view. Of course there are still the offence provisions in the existing Act which apply. Nothing’s actually changing there.

A point to the future—obviously it’s owners who can apply for a rates rebate. We’re increasingly becoming a rental-based society; so I think we need to have a look at that in the future, as renters currently cannot access this. So I think we need to have that conversation in the future. Kia ora koutou.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Madam Speaker, thanks for the call. Very delighted to stand here on a Friday morning in urgency to speak on the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill.

I have two concerns about this bill that I’d like to raise. First is around the commission’s report that came out recently, which stated that this is not well-targeted at all. And the reason for that: if you take people who own their homes, they pay rates to their council; it can be anywhere from $1,500, a couple of thousand a year, right up to thousands of dollars a year, depending where you live in New Zealand. Often the conversation, especially around older people, people like Ian McKelvie’s vintage—

Hon Nathan Guy: He’s young!

HAMISH WALKER: He is young. People that have mortgages, often the conversation is if someone doesn’t have a mortgage, they don’t have their income—they may have a pension—often the focus is on them. But the real focus of this bill needs to be on people that rent, elderly people that rent. They can’t get any relief through this, because they pay their rent to the landlord, and the landlord is the one that pays the rates to the local council. But the commission came out and said that this bill is not well-targeted, because it needs to focus on the people who rent; often sometimes they don’t have high incomes. They need assistance. They’re the ones we need to be focusing on. So that’s my first real point around the Rates Rebate Scheme. The commission also came up with their report stating that this is not only untargeted, the whole system needs to be revamped, and that system they came up with was a national rates postponement scheme, which would, basically, better fulfil the purposes that this bill wants to do.

I want to acknowledge the Minister; I can see what she’s trying to do. But I also want to reflect on some of the comments from the Government members during this debate. Some of them, one of them in particular, mentioned the fact that we want to make it easier for people to access rates rebates. Well, there are plenty of justices of the peace. They’re wonderful people. Their role is a very important role, and as MPs you get to know them reasonably well. To become a JP, you have to go through a process, you have to meet up with your electorate MP, and you get a feel for which part of the communities need which type of JP. But to go and see a JP is not a huge process; it doesn’t take months. You, basically, make an appointment—it’s free, it’s accessible—and we heard from the Government members saying they’re trying to remove cost. Well, it’s not that hard to go and see a JP, and they perform a very important role. They, basically, safeguard us.

Deborah Russell mentioned the comment around, “We don’t trust Kiwis.” Well, Deborah Russell, you’re a former accountant, I believe—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m not, actually, Mr Walker. I won’t take offence at that, though.

HAMISH WALKER: I am. So that member would have heard of the fraud triangle. And the fraud triangle is, basically, as we know, a triangle has three sides. And this is around the motivation when people want to commit fraud. So you’ve got opportunity on one side. The second part of that fraud triangle is pressure, and then the third side is the rationale behind it. So, when you lower the safeguards, the likelihood of fraud being committed increases when there’s more conditions present.

So, if we look at one condition: pressure. If you’ve got someone who lives or maintains a high lifestyle or they have pressure from their friends or family to live a certain lifestyle, there’s pressure for them to commit fraud. The second one: rationale. Often you may get someone out there that wants to “borrow” money from the Government, or rip the Government off, but in their head they’re borrowing it because the Government can afford it. And then there’s the third part, which I want to touch on, which is around opportunity. Removing the role of the JP—the justice of the peace—to look at the documentation, to see that there’s a genuine need here, presents an opportunity for someone. That’s what this bill does. It removes the JP from the process. The process now becomes a council issue—it’s, basically, form-filling. You’ve given the opportunity for people to commit fraud on this bill.

All this bill is doing—a well-intentioned bill which will give the opportunity to a lot of people out there to commit fraud, and that probably goes to the heart of this Government: well-intentioned. They had the cheek to stand here this morning and say that no one will abuse this process. We only need to go back a few weeks. Look what happened with the wage subsidy scheme. How many businesses are already coughing up, paying that back? A wee lesson for the Government: it’s well-intentioned but there are people out there that will rip off the system, and our responsibility as MPs is to ensure our taxpayer money is spent wisely. And this has hit a sore point, because now they’re all chipping up, they’re all waking up, they know it. So I urge any member of the Government to explain how this system is not going to be ripped off. It’s not well-targeted, as the commission stated, the whole system needs a complete revamp, and for those reasons we do not support the bill.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): What a miserable lot they are on the other side of the House, denying a group of New Zealanders, mainly senior citizens, a slightly easier process to access a little bit of financial support when they don’t have much income. Well, on this side of the House, we stand the side of the Citizen Advice Bureaus, we stand on the side of Grey Power, we stand on the side of the Waimate District Council, the Waitomo District Council, the Wellington City Council, who all submitted in favour of this bill because they know it’ll make life a little bit easier for the people they serve. I look forward to members on the other side of the House fronting up at Grey Power during the election campaign and saying why they oppose this bill which makes life a little bit easier for those people. On this side of the House, we’re here to support all New Zealanders and make progress. That’s what we’re doing. I commend this bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Madam Speaker, firstly I acknowledge the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for clearly a well-intentioned bill, also acknowledging the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Gareth Hughes, for his contributions, in that he confirmed that it is an attempt to provide an easy, immediate solution for the targeted New Zealanders who will benefit from this bill.

The point to consider, again, is whether this is the best bill—under the circumstances—for most New Zealanders. The Productivity Commission inquiry points out that the bill will lead to an unfair situation, because it does not treat alike the situation of renters who are on low incomes, and the targeted beneficiary of this bill, and New Zealanders who are in low-income households who live in their own homes and therefore do not rent and who are not paying mortgages. The bill will create a different treatment for a like type of New Zealander, making it, essentially, unfair to those who will not qualify for it.

Now, the accommodation supplement has been the Government’s principal form of assistance to the low-income household where they live in their own home. However, because of the very low costs of that—of living in their own homes—they are not able to secure that assistance. This bill making it easier for them, but only them, is something that needs to be thought out; especially because, in taking on this bill, the Government will take responsibility for paying out the rates rebate to the New Zealanders that are targeted to receive it.

The requirement to make a statutory declaration is not difficult; as my colleague Hamish Walker has pointed out, the process is accessible. The presence of people who are authorised to take statutory declarations is sufficient. If it appears that they are lacking, maybe that is one area that can be looked at as well. I have been a solicitor for a while in New Zealand and have never really looked at statutory declarations as an opportunity to make money, but really as an opportunity to help. The many numbers of people who come and walk into my office on a regular basis for this, the citizens advice bureau themselves have made themselves always available and always, always—if not almost always, there will be someone who will be on hand to take a statutory declaration. The purpose of the verification of the statutory declaration really just provides a reasonable and necessary check on people making declarations. If this is considered to be too arduous, then, as the Productivity Commission had suggested, maybe there would be a better scheme, a national scheme which would have Government collaborate with local government and suitable financial institutions to design a better scheme.

In fact, the Productivity Commission itself suggests that this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be abolished.

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

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): This is a very important bill that we’re debating in urgency this morning. We support the whole scheme about the rates rebate, but we do have some issues with this bill that I want to talk about this morning.

But, I guess, looking back, because it’s always good to look back while you look forward, I had seven years on the Horowhenua District Council before I came into this place; so I understand grassroots and I understand how ratepayers rely—actually, quite a few of them rely—on this important scheme. But what we are going to debate this morning, and, indeed, we’ve had good contributions from this side of the House—probably found a little bit wanting on the other side. They don’t seem to want to engage with us today on this particular bill. But there is an issue, and that is about taking away the statutory declaration in this bill. It’s written in the bill here that this can be difficult, costly, and time-consuming. I used to be the Associate Minister of Justice who used to oversee the justices of the peace, and I got to know the JPs up and down the country very well. JPs do a fantastic job, and they are accessible. If I look in my community, my late father used to be a JP. He’d turn up every couple of weeks to the local library, which is very much a community centre now, and I know that happens in the Kāpiti Coast library as well. So JPs are very accessible to, effectively, sign off the paperwork to ensure this process is right.

Our concern is if that process indeed is going to be removed, it’s going to be very easy—well, too easy—for applicants to be able to, effectively, fiddle with the system, not be accountable. In the end, I have a fear that this bill could cost councils more than what it’s trying to save by some of the detailed work that needs to go on with the statutory declaration.

Brett Hudson: It’s almost as easy to get wrong as accidentally getting your eligibility wrong on your superannuation application, isn’t it?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I’m not going to go there today, Mr Hudson, but your point is an interesting one. When I look at the engagement on this, because the whip for the Labour Party stood up and said that all these councils were in favour of it, and I thought it would be interesting to note for the House today that they received 10 submissions—ha, ha! It doesn’t seem like a huge amount of support to me—and heard oral evidence of four submitters in Wellington. So it’s interesting for the whip to stand up and say, “Oh, there’s widespread support on this.”

But right now, when you think what ratepayers are thinking about it, it’s the cost of their rates, and there are debates going on, raging in communities right now, because the annual plan process is upon councils, councils are settling on their rates for the next 12 months—a massive debate in the Horowhenua District Council, where the votes were almost split around the table about an increase. In the end, they decided to not have such a substantial increase, which I think the community, by and large, supports, because we find ourselves in a very unusual situation with COVID-19, where a thousand people are still lining up at the dole queue at WINZ a day. That is massive, isn’t it? So, when you think about the hardship of people that rely on the scheme, we’re going to have more ratepayers that are going to rely on this Rates Rebate Scheme because of the hardship that they find themselves in.

The other thing about this bill that I found rather interesting was that it talks about councils being able to design their own application form, and I thought: why on earth wouldn’t you want to streamline this process? Because one council will, potentially, have a different form to another council. This is going to put a lot more accountability on council staff to, effectively, tick the boxes and try and understand if the applicant is actually being true to their word, because there’s no statutory declaration, no JP oversight to look at the forms, to look the individual in the eye, to make sure that they are satisfied that everything is true and correct.

So this bill could end up costing councils more because of fraudulent activity, because someone—and I see there’s an opportunity for applicants to go online as well as the tried and tested paper-based method. Now, what we saw in COVID and the Zoom sessions—and I want to acknowledge Steven Joyce and the great work that he did rolling out ultra-fast broadband up and down New Zealand. We didn’t completely cover the whole country—we’ve still got black spots—but we relied very heavily on internet access when we were all locked down in our own homes. I think the online ability is good, through this bill, but there’s a caveat. It’s a bit like online voting, and that debate has been had and been booted around local authorities and even for our general election. Online voting is a concern to me because it’s just too easy to have fraudulent activity, and this is the concern that I have with this. Move away from a paper-based system, make it easier to go online with transactions; people go, “Yeah, that’s a great idea.” But then, once again, you don’t have the necessary oversight.

The other aspect that I thought was interesting was the data matching with IRD. I would have thought—because there’s been massive investment in the last Government and this Government in terms of IRD having to get their systems in place for a modern developing country like ours. Billions of dollars have been invested in IRD to make sure that their systems can actually be more accessible and work. So when I read that the Secretary for Local Government, which is, basically, the person that runs Internal Affairs, should consider applicants including their IRD number on the rates rebate application form—and “consider” means, well, what? Just have a fleeting glance at it? I’m not sure. I didn’t sit on the select committee, but could someone tell me if this issue was widely canvassed and debated?

Agnes Loheni: We did talk about that.

Hon NATHAN GUY: So it was considered. And why wasn’t it—

Agnes Loheni: There was no reassurance about how it was going to work.

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yeah, no reassurance from IRD, or from DIA—from both? Yeah. So it’s interesting. So I’m a little bit disappointed that when you think about the investment that’s been made in IRD—billions and billions of dollars into their software systems—why on earth couldn’t IRD provide a check with the IRD number being included? [Bell rung] Mr Speaker, I’m just going to wrap up in a moment. So that’s the bit where I have a concern, because it just looks a bit easy that the committee has—we’ve heard that the committee discussed it, but they’ve, effectively, passed the buck over to the Secretary for Local Government, and that, in my mind, is disappointing.

So, in summary, we can’t support this bill, because we haven’t been given enough assurances through the select committee stage that there won’t be fraudulent activity, potentially, as a result of making this application process easier. I’ve heard from our opponents over the other side. They say, “Oh, well, you stand up in front of Grey Power and talk about this in the election campaign.” Well, we support the Rates Rebate Scheme—we do wholeheartedly. It’s very important for those people that are struggling to make ends meet, and we know there are going to be more people, as a result of COVID-19, that are going to have to put their hand out and go through this very important scheme. What we don’t support is the checks and balances that are, effectively, being taken away, and we believe that this bill has the ability to even cost local authorities more in terms of potential fraudulent activity.

So there was an opportunity to get this right, with more checks and balances, through the select committee process, but, unfortunately, the Opposition couldn’t get their voices heard enough and were blocked. We’ll wait and see, in due course, whether our concerns about this bill come to pass. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This is a good bill. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Rates Rebates (Statutory Declarations) 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 44

New Zealand National 42; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill be now read a second time.

The bill will establish Taumata Arowai as the new water services regulator, an entity that will oversee, administer, and enforce New Zealand’s drinking-water regulatory system while also overseeing the performance of waste water and storm water networks. This is the first of a two bill legislative reform package that will comprehensively strengthen the country’s drinking-water regime. While this bill creates Taumata Arowai as a new Crown agent, a second, complementary, water services bill will be introduced to legislate a new drinking-water regulatory framework and prescribe the new regulator’s responsibilities and powers.

In the wake of the serious contamination of Havelock North’s drinking-water in 2016, this reform package demonstrates this Government’s commitment to fixing a broken regulatory system for water and ultimately ensuring New Zealanders receive water that is clean and safe to drink. We’ve had years of under-investment and challenge in the three waters infrastructure space. That’s lead to increasing fiscal pressures on renewal, maintaining, and building a resilient water network system. While we acknowledge it may be challenging for some suppliers to comply, the Government has made a commitment to partner with local government to find solutions.

So let me return to the bill. I want to thank the Health Committee for its work to consider the bill, and the organisations and members of the public who made written and oral submissions. I would also like to acknowledge the constructive collaboration of local government and the wider water sector and their contribution to this bill, as well as the work of the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry, which recommended the creation of a dedicated drinking-water regulator. In addition, I would like to thank my colleagues for their support and contributions towards the bill, in particular the Minister of Health, the Hon Dr David Clark and the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker.

It was significant to see support from all sides of the House during the bill’s first reading and during the select committee process. When it comes to ensuring the basic right of clean, safe drinking-water for our communities we all need to come together as MPs with a greater benefit in mind. And in this instance, the desire to strengthen the regulatory environment to assure ratepayers of safe, healthy drinking-water from the source, through the pipes, out the tap, and back into the receiving environment.

The Health Committee received 70 submissions on the bill from individuals and organisations, including a number of local authorities and public health groups. The vast majority expressed support for the intent of the bill and for the establishment of Taumata Arowai to regulate drinking-water services and oversee waste and storm water performance across the country. In particular, many submitters commented on the need for and benefits of this new entity, and the important role it will have in promoting safe drinking-water and protecting the health of New Zealanders. Very few submitters disagreed with the establishment of Taumata Arowai. Feedback was generally focused on suggestions for improving clarity and consistency across particular aspects of the bill.

Based on this feedback, I’m pleased that the Health Committee has recommended a number of specific and technical amendments to the bill, which I wholly endorse. Those amendments to the bill, as introduced, include changes and additions to a number of definitions to ensure alignment with the complementary water services bill, which is in the final stages of its development. Also there are changes to improve transparency and clarity around Taumata Arowai’s Māori Advisory Group, including strengthened reporting requirements for how Taumata Arowai’s board considers and gives effect to the Māori Advisory Group’s advice, and the addition of a formal mechanism to enable time for Taumata Arowai to establish a technical advisory group, providing the regulator with a flexible process for seeking independent expert advice on technical aspects whenever needed.

The committee also recommended the inclusion of a definition of “Te Mana o te Wai” that is consistent across legislation, including with the existing National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. One of Taumata Arowai’s statutory objectives will be to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai in relation to its specific functions and duties. This definition will provide clarity and certainty for the regulator as it interprets and gives effect to Te Mana o te Wai as part of its statutory obligations. Overall, the changes recommended by the committee improve the bill. And again, I want to thank the committee for its thoughtful work.

As a dedicated, focused regulator, Taumata Arowai will provide national level oversight, leadership, and guidance for drinking-water suppliers tasked with adhering to their new regulatory requirements. It is intended to take a collaborative and supportive approach to working with local authorities in the wider water sector, including working with water suppliers to help them achieve compliance, building sector capability by promoting education and training, having regard to cultural aspects including ensuring that tikanga Māori and Te Mana o te Wai are enabled and supported. The regulator will also provide a firm but consistent approach to compliance, monitoring, and enforcement. This will ensure adherence to the regulatory regime and, ultimately, ensure that what comes out of the tap is safe to drink.

It has been and continues to be the Government’s intent to take a holistic, system-wide approach to three waters reform, from the source, through the pipes to the tap, and back out again. That’s why Taumata Arowai will also have a remit to provide much needed central oversight and guidance on the operation of wastewater treatment plants and stormwater networks, with regional councils remaining the primary regulator for waste and stormwater discharges. This allows the new regulator to contribute to improved freshwater outcomes, in addition to its primary focus on drinking-water regulation and safety.

Our new regulatory regime will address the serious and unacceptable situation identified by the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry and the Three Waters Review, where some New Zealanders don’t have access to safe and acceptable drinking-water, where too many people must boil their water to ensure it’s safe to drink, where an estimated 34,000 people get sick from their drinking-water every year, and where there is a risk of another Havelock North contamination event occurring; a tragedy that resulted in four deaths and over 5,000 serious illnesses.

COVID-19’s tragic and unprecedented impact, both here and abroad, has brought home for all of us the importance of safeguarding the long-term health and safety of our whānau, particularly our most vulnerable members of society. With this bill, the Government is making clear its continued determination to put the health and safety of New Zealanders first. We’re fixing a failed regulatory system, and this is a key pillar of our Government’s reform package. We’ve chosen a dedicated water regulator so that there will be a very clear focus on safe water, and this is what the local government sector wanted. The bill also fits with our wider plan for Māori, and that’s the participation in the overall water management network. A Māori advisory group will be established to advise the regulator on Māori interests, and the regulator will have an objective to protect and promote Te Mana o te Wai.

Before I finish, I’d like to note my intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper during the committee stage of the bill. This would amend the commencement provisions in the bill to provide time for Taumata Arowai’s board to be appointed before the Act comes into force. I hope members of this House will join me in continuing to support the passage of this bill, as the first step in our regulatory water reform programme. I move that the House takes note of the Health Committee’s report, and I do commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill, which has now returned from select committee. I want to acknowledge the chair and other members of the Health Committee, who did a good job with this bill, and all those who submitted on it. In fact, there was such agreement with the recommendations the officials made, that the committee unanimously agreed with pretty much all of the recommendations—again, showing the collaborative nature of the select committee process.

Now, as has been mentioned, this bill falls out of a recommendation from the Havelock North inquiry, and, fundamentally, it does three things. It creates the regulatory body for drinking-water, it does provide advice on waste water and storm water—advisory only; so while this is primarily around drinking-water, there is a reflection in the bill on waste water and storm water—and it develops a Māori advisory council.

Now, there were parts of this bill that were quite complex—for example, identifying and describing a domestic self-supplier, which might seem by itself to be quite easy, but I will read you some examples as to what is a domestic self-supplier and what is not. For example, a domestic self-supplier: “A single property, with tenants on a lease, that is supplied by a rainwater tank is a domestic self-supplier. A single holiday house that is supplied by a rainwater tank and is rented to tourists on a short-term basis is a domestic self-supplier.”—that’s quite complex. It depends on what the lease or rental arrangement of the house is, and whether it’s on a water tank or not.

“A multi-dwelling building (for example, multiple separate apartments contained in a single building) that has its own bore water supply” you might intrinsically think “Oh yes, this is a domestic self-supplier.”, but it’s not, in this bill, qualified as a domestic self-supplier, even though it’s got its own bore. Instinctively, you might say, “Well, look, it would seem to be.”, but we came up with good reasoning for that, and we can understand and explain that.

“A marae wharekai … or community hall that has its own river water supply is not a domestic self-supplier.”—again, we might have thought that it might qualify. “A café building supplied by a rainwater tank is not a domestic self-supplier.”—so they are quite complex definitions here.

Are you on a rainwater tank, is it a bore or is it a river, and is the property leased, is it commercial, is it a short-term lease—all these qualifiers come into the definition of a domestic self-supplier. So we grappled with that and understood from officials how we might explain and why that suited the purposes of the bill.

Similarly, in what might seem a similar definition, a “drinking-water supplier” is also quite complex. Who is the drinking-water supplier? Well, it’s “a person who supplies drinking-water to consumers who are drinking-water supply;”, but, interestingly, it also “includes a person who ought reasonably to know they are supplying drinking-water to consumers;”. Now, that’s going to be a little bit difficult to challenge as to who “ought reasonably to know”, but that wasn’t the purpose of us at this point. We were reassured by officials that they could establish that, should it be contested, but it also shows some of the complexity around what might seem a relatively simple premise.

The Māori Advisory Group is created by this bill as well, and as my tuahine has said, Te Mana o te Wai is also incorporated in the bill. Of course, this isn’t new. This talks about the mauri, or starts to talk about the mauri, of the wai, and if we think back to Chris Finlayson and his Treaty settlement with Whanganui River, where, effectively, it was given some of the same attributes of a natural person, then this is sort of an extension of that piece of work to include it in legislation and say that we recognise the non-tangible things around the importance of water as well. Māori interests are taken into account through the creation of the advisory council, but, again, this is mainly setting up the administrative body.

I’ve mentioned how collaborative the select committee was in getting to this second reading, and I also want to acknowledge then the Hon Jacqui Dean, who brought her expertise and listened to a lot of submissions on behalf of some of us—we left that to the domain experts, and she advised this side of the House as to what our recommendation should be—and Lawrence Yule, who then also picked up some of the local government responsibilities, obviously, with intimate understanding of some of the reasons that this bill comes to the House. So I did want to acknowledge their work on this.

Look, the National Party will be supporting this bill. We’re comfortable with it being advisory. We’re comfortable with the framework that it is setting up. There are further discussions to be had on waste water and storm water, and we don’t think we’re precluding those discussions in this bill here. It does certainly talk to waste water and storm water, but just in an advisory way. We see no regulations here that we need to offer a substantive view to. That will be another discussion for another bill at another time.

So, on the basis that this is primarily talking about drinking-water and that it’s creating the administrative framework for drinking-water to press forward, we agree with the recommendations of the Havelock North inquiry, and we agree with the substance of what is in this bill. Again, our thanks go to the select committee and to officials, who helped navigate us through some of these complex issues, and we’re supporting this bill further. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I’ll, firstly, start with acknowledging my colleague Dr Reti and also Matt Doocey, who’s in the House. But can I say from the Health Committee perspective, we do take our work seriously to a point where we work together collaboratively. So I do want to highlight that this is not only a cross-Government agency bill—because, in fact, in addition to the Health officials, we had local government officials work with us and Environment officials who are also part of the context of that work—but it was also cross-Ministers; Minister Mahuta has acknowledged Minister Clark. And I want to say it’s cross-party, actually, and I do acknowledge the work and contribution of Jacqui Dean specifically, who did come in and sub for the National Party as we deliberated.

So this bill is one of two. And the context of this bill is it will provide for the broader reforms. We’ve heard about drinking-water, which comes from the Havelock inquiry. It also includes waste water and storm water. And the next bill, rua, will be about the regulation of drinking-water, source water, waste water, and storm water.

I think the governance arrangements do need to be explained. So we have Taumata Arowai and then we have a Māori advisory board that, when originally proposed, you couldn’t sit on both. I actually think, significantly, that was one of the major changes that we agreed to as a committee. So there will be shared members.

But the other aspect I want to highlight is that the Māori advisory board will have their own section in the annual report and their advice to Taumata Arowai will be transparent. Also, within that context, if Taumata Arowai doesn’t take the recommendations, the Māori advisory board will be able to highlight that. So there is full transparency and disclosure. It didn’t quite go to full co-governance, but I think it’s a step toward a model that will see iwi and Māori, who, obviously, have an interest in water, fully realising their governance responsibility. And we did respond to local government and providers and suppliers by also adding a technical advisory board, which will provide, obviously, advice to Taumata Arowai.

I am very excited about this bill being before the House today, and we’re also very excited, Minister, that your next bill will come to us as well. So I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Matt Doocey.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the call. I thought you hadn’t seen me standing there for a moment there. Can I start by acknowledging, as well, the Health Committee, and especially the committee chair, Louisa Wall, who, I think, ably chairs the Health Committee. It was a difficult time during COVID-19 to coordinate a gaggle of MPs and a range of submissions in a number of important bills we had in front the committee at that time. I know there was some criticism as to whether we should have continued with that, but, in the end, respectfully, we’re all foot soldiers and we’re just doing what we’re told, and the process proceeded. And here we are today at the second reading of this important bill, the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill, which the National Party will be supporting.

And, of course, the reason we are here today, as many submitters noted, during the inquiry into the Havelock North drinking-water issue, the inquiry highlighted systemic failures with the drinking-water regulatory systems, blurred accountabilities, ineffective enforcement, a lack of expertise and investment, and a need for a dedicated, well-resourced regulator. So that was the driver of this bill. We had 70 submissions, and it was fair to say that most submitters agreed with the direction of travel with this bill, and that’s why this bill, coming back for its second reading after being through the select committee process, has only really had minor changes and minor amendments, which we’re supporting today.

But I think what we don’t want to do is get lulled into that sense of security that we have got it right so far. And that’s what I want to talk about today in my call—the tensions within that, because, quite rightly, it was a very emotive issue at the time, but we as legislators need to make sure that we have good law. There was some concern that if we just view this bill, this stand-alone bill, on its own it doesn’t really represent the full make-up of the systems.

We’ve heard from previous speakers today about the Three Waters Review and other bills that will be introduced, because, of course, they will be supporting each other. There was a real tension around the costs, and if I can refer to the submitter, the Waimakariri District Council, who I, obviously, as the Waimakariri MP, have a lot to do with. In their points of submission when they talked about the centralised regulatory body, the bill is silent on who will fund the regulator and where the funding will come from. At present, district water advisers, the existing regulators, are funded by central government via the Ministry of Health. So you can see that real tension playing out between councils understanding what will be the end result around compliance and cost, and especially councils that might feel that they are on the back foot because they have a limited rating base. When you look at the Waimakariri, they currently provide reticulated water supplies for 80 percent of the district’s population from 14 schemes. And you’ll find that they are a range of urban schemes as well as semi-restricted supplying rural and rural/residential areas.

So you can see from that that there’s quite understandably some apprehension about what this bill will end up looking like but more as to how it translates from the intent to the implementation. In the end, this bill clearly is signalling the intent, and we heard from the 70 submitters that they support the intent. We have, what I would say, so far, is the full support of all the parties in Parliament, but the real concern is what the cost of the implementation will be. But I think what we should point out also, in contrast to that, is that the cost is a valid argument but, of course, the cost of doing nothing is more of a valid argument in my mind, because not only is it the cost of providing safe drinking-water to New Zealanders but the cost of not providing that is a real concern in terms of health and social costs, which we saw in Havelock North.

When you look at the monetised benefits of these reforms, as stated by the Department of Internal Affairs, it ranges from $13.5 million to $16.5 million. So we need to weigh that up. There will be up-front costs. There will be real pressures and tensions as each jurisdiction has a different make-up and a different profile about how they’ll be able to respond to that. And in an area like Waimakariri, the electorate that I represent—I cover parts of Christchurch City Council and Waimakariri District Council—you can already see this tension playing out as to what will be the cost of the compliance and delivery for metropolitan areas and provincial and rural areas. So that’s why we welcome this bill. But we do look forward to the introduction of the next bill, which will make up a more complete picture.

We do look forward to further regulations coming through that will help enable local councils to make informed decisions. They know that they are going to have to take a step up. There was a real concern that came out of the submissions that a lot of the capability of the professionals sits within local government at the moment, and with this new Crown entity, that might take that capability and capacity out of local government, so that would be a concern as well. I look forward to supporting this bill and debating it next in the committee of the whole House.

Debate interrupted.

Obituaries

Constable Matthew Hunt

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I seek leave for this House to observe a minute of silence in remembrance of Constable Matthew Hunt. At this time, one week ago, Matthew was killed in the line of duty. Police officers around the country are observing a minute’s silence, and I move that our Parliament stand with them as a sign of respect and solidarity—not only for them and Matthew but for Matthew’s family also.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Please be upstanding.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tērā e tika ana kia tuku atu te reo mihi poroporoāki ki te tangata, ko Matthew Hunt me tōna whānau nō reira tēnā tātou.

[It is only right that I make a special acknowledgment of the passing of Matthew Hunt, and to his family, therefore, greetings one and all.]

Bills

Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): New Zealand First is very happy to be supporting this common sense piece of legislation through the House and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It’s nice to be talking on the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. I think most of my colleagues have traversed this. I’ll just say, New Zealand is quite unusual. If you look around the world, in most jurisdictions there is some form of regulation of water and waste water. Australia has what’s called the Office of the Water Regulator, and, certainly, Britain has significant regulatory oversight powers, I was involved in that reform of the water industry for many years in Britain. So New Zealand seems to be getting to the stage—obviously this is the first of two bills, and I think it’s very important that we set adequate regulations, standards, to make sure the water quality is up to speed. In time, with the next bill, there’ll be more focus on waste water as well. But I think this is a good and important first step in that process. Obviously, there are some issues around funding and how the actual office is going to work, but I think it looks like it’s going to be a very interesting discussion and probably long overdue.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.

Can I begin by congratulating the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for her stewardship of quite major reforms in this space, working carefully through the issues, responding to the Havelock North inquiry, and working to bring a bill to the House that everyone supports. And I would also acknowledge the work of the Health Committee in hearing the submissions and making some changes. The fact that Taumata Arowai will become a Crown entity, independent of the Department of Internal Affairs, I think highlights the value of that independent role. The work that the select committee has done in terms of ensuring that one of Taumata Arowai’s objectives is to give effect to Te Mana o te Wai, integrating the reform here and drinking-water with the wider freshwater reform that Minister Parker is leading through the essential freshwater programme, but really ensuring that this organisation has real scrutiny of drinking-water supplies around Aotearoa, because of Havelock North—but not just Havelock North; a number of other areas: Darfield, Springston, Cardrona—where there have been outbreaks of gastroenteritis that have been quite severe, and where the supplies have not met basic standards in terms of bacterial protozoa contamination.

One of the key things for Taumata Arowai is its functions, and they include, in clause 11, identifying and monitoring “matters that affect the safety of drinking-water … including current and emerging contaminants”. This will be an increasing issue, I think, because of the recognition of the extensive contamination by nitrate of aquifers in areas like Canterbury, and the risk that that poses to people drinking those waters, the increasing scientific evidence of increased incidence of colorectal cancer when people are exposed to low levels of nitrate in water supply. Until now, we’ve focused on protozoa and faecal contamination, bacteriological contamination of our drinking-water, which caused such problems in Havelock North, but nitrate nitrogen is a really difficult contaminant, because once it’s in the water, it can’t be treated to remove it.

So the establishment of Taumata Arowai is very timely. I look forward to the following legislation, which will expand on its functions and the overall regulatory system, and am very pleased to support the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Could I just thank all members, and I’m sure Kiwis all around the country, for the mark of respect shown a few moments ago to the memory of Constable Matthew Hunt. I’m sure that we all are united in grief, and we send our aroha and condolences to his family, and I’m pleased we were given the opportunity to show that respect here, in the House.

This is the second bill we have considered in succession this morning in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, and I’m pleased to say that, on this occasion, we are supporting the bill that she’s brought forward. It was, of course, dealt with by the Health Committee, which, as has already been noted, is chaired by Louisa Wall. I want to say that those are two members whom I hold in very high respect, and I have seen over many years how hard they work. Although I am not a member of the Health Committee, I have from time to time been subbed on to the committee by virtue of some of the portfolio responsibilities I hold within the National Party; and I’ve always been very impressed by the way in which the committee works, and that reflects well on the leadership and chairing of Louisa Wall, so ngā mihi nui.

Louisa Wall: Kia ora. And we love the cheese.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes, we do indeed love the cheese. So it just shows—I knew that she was a woman of quality and good taste and she’s just shown that yet again. And go the Chiefs against the Hurricanes, both sides actually—they’re getting to the point where they’re particularly hungry, and I’m looking forward to a great game when that one happens. But we’ve got the Crusaders to get past first. Anyway, we’ll get moving right along.

As I say, I am pleased to support this bill, which, of course, arises out of the terrible contamination of water that befell the community of Havelock North just a few years ago. It’s something that is very dear to my heart because I was married in Havelock North, and my parents-in-law still live there. In fact, I noted in the House last night that they were celebrating their diamond wedding anniversary, so a lovely occasion for them. But I do recall what a frightening time it was for the residents of Havelock North, and I thank the Minister who noted that four people lost their lives as a result of that. So clearly, it’s a very significant issue and all steps that can be taken to improve the regulatory framework and overall management of water quality—to ensure that New Zealanders have the absolute assurance that the water they are receiving and consuming is safe—is naturally something that we all want to be able to ensure, and it’s a responsibility I’m sure we all take very seriously.

This bill, of course, as has been noted, is only one part of the measure. There’s probably a more substantial bill still to come, but it is, nevertheless, something that reflects the concerted efforts of all members of Parliament to ensure that things are improved. So, again, I commend the Minister for the leadership she has shown in bringing this bill to the House; and I thank the Health Committee for the work that they have done, listening to submissions, making suggestions on how the bill can be further improved—that’s showing Parliament at its best, that’s how select committees should be able to work well, and I’m pleased that it’s happened on this occasion.

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

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): There is little that is more basic in life or that is more central to the function of government at all levels than providing the necessities such as water in a safe manner to citizens. There are clearly problems that have been left for too long in this sector in terms of how we structurally ensure that in our country, and those failings have been evident. I’m really proud that under our Minister of Local Government, Nanaia Mahuta, this Government has picked up on that issue, is making progress on it, and that we’ve been able to work carefully to build a high level of political support and consensus across local government in other key parts of the sector to make these much-needed reforms. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you’ve heard, National supports this bill. The Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill establishes Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator. It will be a Crown agency and it will provide for objectives, functionings, operation principles, and governance arrangements, and those governance arrangements include the establishment of a board and of a Māori advisory group. We are told that this is a first step in a broader package of reforms to the three waters regulatory system. I do agree with the previous speaker, Michael Wood, who says the time has come for this reform.

That broader package of work will introduce system-wide reforms. It’s about regulating drinking-water and source water, and it’s about new regulations to improve the management of waste water and storm water. Now, National supports the establishment of an independent water regulator. We see it as a logical response to the Havelock North water inquiry. When we were in Government, we had already done a significant amount of work on a water regulatory framework. But, of course, establishing the Crown agency is the easy part of the water challenge. The real debate will come around the scale and scope of the upcoming reform, especially around potential future costs. All water supplies, all councils, and, in fact, all ratepayers are sensitive to increased costs and are concerned about ongoing expense. We’re particularly concerned about the cost to smaller drinking-water suppliers and smaller communities that have a limited ratepayer base to pay for it. In a country with so much fresh water, we cannot make water supplies unaffordable. We fear that some communities could be hit by huge debt in the long term.

The question is really about whether the drinking-water standards need to be raised for small suppliers and small communities, or whether compliance with the existing standards should be the focus. So as I said, National supports the establishment of this agency but sees real challenges ahead for New Zealanders and for Taumata Arowai in delivering a fit for purpose, affordable water supply, and an effective management of both wastewater and stormwater.

I believe we are beginning to see a pattern developing here—a pattern of small, incremental legislative change, when really, as Michael Wood said, we need real reform. We’ve seen it in the Government’s limited amendments to the Resource Management Act. We’ve seen it in the Government’s limited amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, and we’re seeing it here in the face of the need for a new water regulations system. In each case, New Zealanders need and are crying out for significant reform, and in each case the work is challenging. In each case, the Government has spurned comprehensive reform and has brought in interim legislation which merely nibbles at the edges of these problems.

In National, we believe that necessary reforms should be done in a timely manner. Necessary reforms should be done efficiently and, of course, necessary reforms should be effective. Do it on time, do it once, and do it right. But as a small first step towards a bigger picture of reform, National supports this bill.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): In rising to just take a short call on this Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill, I wish to note the extraordinary need there is for reform in the water sector, as my colleague Michael Wood has spoken about, and the extraordinary programme of work that the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, has started on. It is now starting to flow through into the House and further beyond. It is a large programme of work and she has undertaken it in her usual style—slowly, steadily, and getting it right, without undue haste, without recklessness, about getting it right. This is starting to bear fruit now. It’s coming through, in good time. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This bill, the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill, is a very important bill; National supports it. It does three things. The first one is it sets up the regulatory body, which will be a Crown agency. There’s going to be further advice sought on waste water and storm water, and we know that that’s a big issue around the country, particularly in our cities. If we look here in Wellington, there is an issue with storm water and sewage, and what have you, going into the harbour, and it is an issue in Auckland, which they’re grappling with.

It also develops a Māori advisory council, and I want to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall, and thank her for her good leadership on this. Not that I was on the Health Committee, but I understand it worked incredibly well on this bill together, and all of the recommendations from officials have been picked up. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It is often said that the next wars will be fought over water. It’s good to see that peace has broken out in this House over this very good reform. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill amends the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, also known as the Classification Act. This Act establishes New Zealand’s classification framework, which has an objective of protecting New Zealanders from harm. Part of this includes setting requirements to make sure that DVDs and films shown at cinemas show suitable ratings and warnings. This, in turn, enables people to make informed choices about what they want to watch. If you wanted to buy a newly released DVD or a family classic to watch with the kids over the weekend, you can make that informed choice. You pick up the DVD. On the front is a label that reads “G”; you know, then, that it’s safe and that it’s fine for the whole family to watch. Likewise, if you see a label that reads “R16” or “R18”, with warnings for violence, sex scenes, or offensive language, you know that it wouldn’t be a good idea to watch that movie with your nine-year-old. That all makes sense, but our rating and labelling regime is out of date. It is pre-internet. These days, it’s not so much about buying DVDs, because streaming services provide a lot of content that we watch.

I know that the Minister of Internal Affairs has received a lot of letters and emails from members of the public who have concerns about their children watching content and movies that are not suitable for their age, causing them psychological harm and influencing their perceptions of reality and the real world. The worst example that we’ve had of that is the show 13 Reasons Why. I’m not sure who’s watched it, in the House. That did harm to young people here and overseas, in part because it originally had no rating and young people did not know what they were getting into and what they were about to watch.

That is what this bill is designed to address. It’s about reducing harm. It’s about bringing our law into the 21st century and having consistency across our ratings and descriptions, no matter how shows are viewed. This bill does not aim to prevent people from seeing or viewing movies they are free to watch, but, just like at the movies, and DVDs as well, it will require streaming services to consistently and clearly display appropriate age ratings and warnings. I say “consistently” because at the moment a movie can have a completely different rating and warning depending on which service you are viewing it on. For example, the film Suicide Squad has an official classification of R13, with warnings for violence, horror, and cruelty. It is rated as 16-plus on Netflix, with no warnings; 16V on Lightbox—the “V” stands for violence—and M on Google Play, with no warnings.

In addition to these inconsistencies, the ratings and warnings on these video on-demand services can be nondescript, hard to find, and hard to read. This shouldn’t be the case. This information is important. So the technical details like the form and look of these labels, which will be prescribed in regulations, will be developed with providers and regulators. They’ve got to be workable and effective and work across the different platforms that people use—smart TVs, laptops, mobile phones, and tablets. The bill will make it so that the shows and movies you see on Netflix, YouTube, iTunes, and other listed providers display consistent labels in a consistent manner.

It will do so by requiring commercial video on-demand providers that are listed in the schedule to comply with the new labelling requirements set out in new Part A of the bill. The labels will have a rating that recommends a suitable audience for the show, and a warning for any mature themes like violence, sex, and suicide. Providers listed in new Schedule 4 can comply by following the current process for films in cinemas or on DVD. Alternatively, the bill enables listed providers to rate and label their own content by using a self-rating system approved by the chief censor. It is important to note that the new labelling requirements only apply to providers listed in the schedule to the Act. This reflects that these services are accessed by a number of New Zealand consumers and are household names. The schedule can be updated when necessary via Order in Council, in consideration of specific criteria.

I want to emphasise to the House that the chief censor will still be able to use call-in powers under the Classification Act. So if there are concerns around content provided by a service that is not listed in the schedule, then the chief censor can call it in for classification.

This bill will extend and modify legislation that was designed in the pre-internet era. I understand this is challenging, and I would like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill. I’d also like to thank the 19 submitters on the bill, particularly those who made time to make oral submissions to the committee. It’s so important. The committee has recommended amendments to the bill in response to some of the issues raised in submissions and to improve the workability of the bill, and I thank them for that.

Of important note is a recommendation for the addition of a purpose statement in Part 3 of the new labelling requirements. The new statement emphasises the purpose for this bill, which is to reduce the risk of harm to children and vulnerable consumers from viewing inappropriate content. This, in line with the objectives of the Classification Act, is important. It also delivers on the Government’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically the obligation to develop guidelines to protect children from information and material that can be injurious to their wellbeing.

The majority of recommendations made by the committee provide clarity on how the self-rating process will work in practise and adapt relevant sections of the Classification Act to accommodate the new labelling requirements. The Government supports these recommendations.

I give notice of an intention to table a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) at the committee of the whole House stage. The SOP will amend the commencement provisions in the bill to delay the implementation date for the new labelling requirements. This should give listed providers enough time to update systems, make arrangements, and discuss terms and conditions with a classification office. It will also allow time for technical regulations for the new labelling regime to be developed carefully, with detailed consultation with providers that will be regulated.

The Government is working with industry to develop a framework for how the costs of the new regime and role of the Classification Office will be met. Options under consideration include a levy which is not currently authorised by the regulation-making powers in the Classification Act. Therefore, the SOP will amend the bill to include the creation of a levy-setting power to charge commercial video on-demand providers, amongst the purposes for which the regulations can be made.

The Government envisages that the legislation be enacted before the House rises in August. This will allow the regime to be implemented as early as possible once the important work of ironing out the technical details is completed. It will help New Zealanders make informed viewing decisions when they are choosing what to watch on these services. It also provides for an efficient compliance regime, so there should be no delays in the availability of content.

Thank you again to the Governance and Administration Committee and to the officials for their efforts on the bill. I commend the bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and indicate, as we have indicated through the select committee process, that at this stage, we are cautiously supporting this bill at second reading. I’m a little surprised to hear that the Minister is indicating a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in delaying the implementation date. That was going to be one of my SOPs, because I believe—considering the fact that there is wider media review and some issues that may actually occur, I was going to recommend during the committee of the whole House to delay the implementation of this bill. On that note, I would welcome any conversation that the Minister may extend to me in regards to the dates and the fees that were actually indicated by Minister Nanaia Mahuta.

I’d like to begin with a congratulations to Tracey Martin. I have to say that the Minister has actually been quite open to having a conversation. Unfortunately, we never quite got together to have a discussion, but I’d like to think that we’d like to blame COVID for that, perhaps. But I welcome a conversation in the next stage re. the delaying of the implementation, because there are some issues that I’d like to discuss with the Minister as well.

Minister Mahuta actually laid out the bill quite fulsomely, and I think I’d like to perhaps start off with the genesis of the bill, where the previous Minister of communications under the National Government, the Hon Amy Adams, was concerned about the convergence issue in the media sector—that people were not only watching content on linear television but people were consuming them through commercial video on-demand (CVoD), on the internet, through their laptops and phones, and the way that people were getting that content was varied. She felt that they needed a legislative change to make sure that we were protecting New Zealanders.

When the Labour Government came in, one of the things that the Hon Clare Curran did was to delay that, and since then, Minister Faafoi is actually overseeing the wider media sector review. There is also a review that was happening under the Māori media sector review. The internal affairs Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, carved this particular area out so she could bring it to the House so we could actually pass this legislation.

Although I agree that this is something that we needed to do in terms of consolidating and making sure that the classification is ordered and people are not being confused as to when they are watching content online or on their linear television or on CVoD or whatever; that there is consistent classification; that people are not confused by whatever is actually on the sticker or on the labels—I agree that we need to have consistency. However, there were some concerns when this bill actually came to the Governance and Administration Committee at its first reading, and through the select committee process, I think we have ironed out some of those concerns.

One of them, to give an example to the members in the House, was that when a multi-platform broadcaster like Sky, who also stream online, who actually have broadcasting standard labelling for their programming on Sky—they have the same labelling or classification on their streaming service. But this bill would have, ultimately, meant that they had to have different classification, potentially, because they were being classified by two different regulators. So the one that is for broadcasting is actually quite different, and the other one that is overseen by the Office of Film and Literature Classification could be different. Potentially, Sky could have ended up with two different classifications for the same content that was going out on two different platforms—but it’s the same content. So that was one of the concerns during the select committee process. People have actually mentioned that there needed to be consistency, and it may end up, you know, with different classifications.

That was a major concern, and also the regulatory burden on these companies, because they already pay huge amounts of money to make sure that they stay within the legal frameworks, and they actually want to be responsible broadcasters. One of the comments that was actually made by a submitter was the fact that this, potentially, was an inappropriately applied band-aid for the system.

Some of the other comments that I’d like to bring to the House is the fact that this bill cannot fix the internet harm issue. I know that the Minister is concerned about reducing the harm, and I think all of us want to do that, but this bill does not actually reduce the harm of people who seek to find content that is inappropriate or harmful. Minister Nanaia Mahuta mentioned a particular programme—I don’t want to repeat the name of it because I don’t want to promote it, because it is actually content and subject matter that I don’t think children should really be exposed to. But they do. When something, as you know, hits the internet, whether it’s actually Twitter or any other social media, young people find the content without having to be on a platform like, let’s say, Netflix or Neon or Lightbox. They find it. They go looking for it. There are video on-demand providers who are not in the Schedule that we have listed in this bill, who provide content that is actually harmful.

So I am concerned that we are not dealing with the real harm, but for the purposes of making sure that we streamline content classification labelling, I commend the work of the select committee, as well as all of the officials who have actually participated, particularly the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

One of the things that I actually want to bring up—I purposely decided to request the office to provide me with the classification tool. There is a self-classification tool that the commercial video on-demand providers can sign up to so they can actually do it themselves. For organisations such as Lightbox or Neon or Netflix, they would not have people sitting there ticking boxes going “This is how many violent incidents or sex content or kissing” or whatever—you know, the ticking that they have to do to actually get to a classification. In my office, we decided to test the tool out. We decided to pick a cartoon that was G-rated. When we did the exercise, it didn’t come to G, and we have actually raised that issue. So there will be some tweaking around the tool that has to be done.

But one of the things that I’m really happy about is the fact that broadcasters who also stream are not subjected to the regulatory burden. The fact that content providers, commercial video on-demand providers, are actually willing to do this—there was a lot of concern that they may be geo-blocking. There was recently an article saying that we have the worst possible Netflix content in New Zealand compared to the rest of the world, because—you know, the number of the population size, I guess, is one reason. But if we have regulatory burden, commercial video on-demand providers may not provide the variety of programmes that we could be exposed to and actually enjoy, and geo-blocking is one of the ones. So if other countries can see it, New Zealand may be blocked because they’ve decided that it’s too difficult.

One thing that I’m quite happy about is the user-generated content that’s not going to be part of this, because I don’t think the platform should be responsible for, you know, the Hon Tracey Martin putting a family video, let’s say, online on YouTube. They should not be responsible unless it breaches the rules, and we already have regulation and legislation to make sure that harm is prevented and people are actually prosecuted accordingly.

In this particular instance, I commend the bill to the House and actually signal that I have an SOP that I will bring to the House during the committee of the whole House stage.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and thank her very much. The public may not know, but the lifts in Parliament work really, really slowly. There’s only two going at the moment in the core of the Beehive. And even though I came down—I left my office at call number 10. The calls have been short and the lifts have been long. So I apologise and I thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for standing and taking the first call.

Can I acknowledge the member Melissa Lee, who has just resumed her seat. This is an area of extreme interest to her. She has raised, and did raise at the Governance and Administration Committee, with the Department of Internal Affairs, areas that she had specific interest in that she was worried may have needed to be on the Schedule. But then, after going through it, I understand at this stage she is comfortable that they are not on the Schedule. That may be the Supplementary Order Paper she’s talking about.

Can I acknowledge the conversation and the comments that are made in the House and will be made in the House. The member who resumed her seat is quite right. The media content regulatory system, the whole of it, needs to be reviewed; it’s pre-internet. My reality, when I sat in this seat, was that I had major research from the chief censor, among young people themselves that said, “We are being harmed and we think adults should be doing something about it”, and 83 percent of the New Zealand public said they wanted to see a single classification system applied across all platforms.

One of the reasons why a single classification system is so important is the parental blocker that you can put on your devices at home are set to New Zealand classifications. So if, for example, you have gone as a responsible parent and put in “I don’t want my child to see anything that is over a rating of R16.”, if we don’t have alignment of the classifications, that won’t work. That’s exactly what happened with a programme that I’m not going to mention by name. And there’s a programme on right now that required a complaint to be made because it had an R16 rating. At the moment, because this law is not there, the chief censor had to get a complaint first, which means harm has already been done. He had to go and view that programme and then he lifted the rating to 18+. Again, I’m not going to mention it because I’m not going to give them the media coverage, but this is important. So I carved it out because the piece of work, as the member Melissa Lee actually clearly identified—she’s absolutely right—is a much bigger piece of work.

The Hon Amy Adams did start that piece of work. I felt, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, and strangely enough, as the Minister for Children, that I couldn’t wait, or we couldn’t wait, and continue to allow young people and children to be harmed while we waited for that bigger piece of work to be done. I also felt, and I have had representation from the industry saying, that if it’s overly burdensome maybe people would geo-block programmes in New Zealand.

It is my view, and it is the view of this Government, that, actually, the wellbeing of our children is more important than sometimes I might not be able to watch a programme that somewhere else in the world they can watch. I know it’s a delicate thing when we start to ask the internet to take more responsibility or work with us and legislate levels of responsibility on them. I know it’s a delicate space, and I know that there are members in civil society who say it should be free and a Government should not touch it, but it is doing harm. The chief censor has, quite clearly, done an enormous amount of research with thousands of young people in New Zealand, and they are asking us to do something to make sure that they can be safe.

Yes, young people will seek out a programme if they’ve heard about it. But the reality is that more young people will now be informed that if you watch this programme, you will see these things inside of it. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it. It provides them with a choice. That’s what this bill is about: choice. Kia ora. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): National will support the bill to progress to a fuller discussion in the committee stage. I would like to thank our colleague Melissa Lee for her work and her understanding in contributing to the improvement of this bill. Now, no one would disagree that we should reduce the potential for harm to consumers from viewing inappropriate content. Research indicates that there are, indeed, harms that have occurred due to insufficient classification regimes online. So while people have become more aware of the potential for harm online, or commercial video on demand, the Government has its responsibility to somehow help the consumers by providing more protection. And this bill is an effort.

So this bill will require that the commercial video on-demand content that is made available in New Zealand display appropriate and consistent labelling—I would like to emphasise appropriate and consistent. At this stage, the providers of the commercial video on-demand content do not have a consistent regime to follow. Basically, it is very hard for consumers to get enough information or consistent information to make an informed decision, because there is a gap in our legislation at this stage. The gap is that on-demand online content in New Zealand is not subject to the mandatory labelling requirements that films for cinemas or DVD release are. So that is, the commercial video on-demand is not within this particular regime. That is why we need to somehow make this amendment, have this bill.

Under this bill, the labelling will provide information about the content rating and a description so that consumers are able to make informed decisions. This is the core of this particular bill, the purpose of the bill. To help achieve this, the bill will, basically, update the function of the Classification Office to empower the office to somehow make it more workable for the office to do their operational work.

Also, the bill will replace the definition of “film” in the Act because, at this stage, the definition of “film” in the Act does not include commercial video on-demand, and, therefore, this bill will make sure that the Act itself will cover this area. Also, this bill has an amendable schedule which will have a list of the providers of these commercial video on-demand, and the list itself can be amended as it sees fit. So these are the main provisions or main purposes of this particular bill.

Now, we support the bill, as I said, we would like this bill to progress to committee stage so we have a better discussion. But as the previous speakers have mentioned, we believe this bill itself is narrowly scoped. We have a much broader issue here. That is the content regulation. The content regulation is a much broader issue, we need to have more discussion about this. So this bill itself, because it’s narrowly scoped, could conflict with a broader regime and therefore may become outdated before too long. We believe we should have a wide-ranging, open-scoped review of New Zealand’s media sector, and this is the best approach to tackling the hard questions affecting broadcasters, producers, and content creators.

At a more technical issue, we need to have the right sort of classification framework and also content regulation that inform and educate consumers instead of frustrating them. So we made a number of recommendations or amendments at this committee stage, and we are going to go through all these recommendations at a later stage. But, overall, we believe that this bill itself is a good bill. We’d like to support it to the committee stage so that we have a better discussion.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. A very important piece of legislation, this, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. It is an amendment to the 1993 bill which lines up standards of regulation that we have and have gotten used to on our daily screens—the way that we currently consume our broadcast material these days—but actually makes it applicable for online services such as on-demand services as well. It’s a good bill, it gets support from us, and I commend it to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in support of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill on its second reading.

I would like to acknowledge our lead person on this bill, Melissa Lee, and the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, Dr Jian Yang, for their contribution, and the contribution of the Opposition members on the select committee to improve this bill.

We have seen transition in our lifespan, starting from the radio, to black and white TV, to colour television, VHS, then things kept on adding, and now the latest version is commercial radio on-demand. The law was a long time overdue to be updated so that the latest formats can be caught under it, and this bill does that.

There are some concerns, which have been raised by my colleagues on this side, particularly Melissa Lee. As she mentioned, the biggest concern was the implementation of this bill. As the Minister said in her speech, there will be a Supplementary Order Paper during the committee stage to extend the bill for its implementation. I think that’s a very good idea, and that shows that the feedback is reaching the Minister, and the Minister is listening to it.

So these are some of the points which have been already discussed by the previous speakers. I don’t want to repeat, but particularly the concern is that the same content has to be classified by different agencies, that was raised by some of the submitters, and the committee paid attention to that, and that has been resolved at the select committee stage.

So I hope that during the committee of the whole House some more improvements will be made to this bill so that it is up to date and will last for a long time. With these words, I commend this bill at this stage. Thank you.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party supports the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. As others have said, there is a well-understood R-rating system which exists for classifying films and videos and what this bill does is making it mandatory to have this same classification applied to video content that people see through Netflix, through Neon, and through Lightbox—those internet streaming services—to ensure that we do enable viewers to understand what they’re going to see before they actually see it. We’ve got a voluntary regime at the moment. That’s not working; it’s inconsistent. So this bill will standardise that through requiring those providers that are listed in the Schedule at the back to apply a wider rating system.

And just to respond to the comments from the Opposition about why this isn’t part of bigger reform, I think the Minister made it very clear in her speech that this is part of wider reform, but it is more important to get this classification on the streaming services put in place to protect particularly children, and that’s why this is being advanced. We support the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Excellent to be talking on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. I think most people have traversed the subject—of course, we are going to support this bill, and we’re a little bit disappointed, of course, that the Government’s taken so long to actually try and address it. Obviously, the Minister is trying to get this bill through. It’s pretty narrowly focused. It is at least something to get started in this area. We are keen that there are some provisions put in place, and it’s going to be an interesting process as this bill winds its way through the House. But we do believe that there needs to be an overall framework, a better framework, that encompasses the media sector in general, and I think this bill, whilst it has significant deficiencies, is a way of at least starting that process of reforming and improving the situation at the moment. Thank you very much.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the absence of other people taking to their feet, I thought I would comment on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill—what a mouthful that is.

I want to just commend Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House. It’s not without its complexity and it’s not without, I guess, commentary from both sides of the discussion on this. But I do think that having a systemised and consistent classification process is in the best interests of New Zealand. And look, I do note that there are content providers who are saying if it’s going to be unique to New Zealand, that’s going to be an issue, and it may be that New Zealand gets geo-blocked from content being provided. Apple TV have said that. Microsoft have said that. Actually, all the big Silicon Valley players have said that.

I guess what we are saying is that, look, these are reasonable requests. They should be requests that jurisdictions around the world, in terms of protecting or stopping harm, particularly to young people—it’s something that every jurisdiction should have a consideration for. There may be an opportunity for a broader, more systemised approach right across jurisdictions, because these content providers are saying, you know, with 5 million people, the cost of doing that, it actually might be cheaper for us not even to provide content. Look, I do think that that’s a pretty blunt response to a situation that I think, particularly in the United States of America, with what’s been happening there, people would have significant concern over.

So there are all sorts of issues, particularly parents knowing what their young kids are viewing with on-demand video. There are concerns around that. Not every parent can be there in every room watching everything that takes place. We do need to have mechanisms that work. We do need to have some sort of filtering process or classification process, and increasingly this is coming through in the technologies that we are employing and having in our homes.

So, in my remarks, I’d probably like to just read out a quote from our chief censor, David Shanks, which he posted on 23 December 2019 regarding this. He said, “As a parent with children”—I think parents right around the country can identify with this—“spanning the ages of six, 12, and 15. I am keenly aware of the challenges facing parents and caregivers in today’s broad-ranging digital environment. Online game platforms, streaming services like Lightbox, massive content hubs like YouTube, and apps like TikTok provide huge opportunities for entertainment and engagement. But I worry that my kids find these things a little too entertaining, and I’m sure every parent knows what I’m talking about, being a parent myself, and I struggle to stay on top of what they are playing and watching. Lots of parents tell me they feel the same.”

He goes on to say, “This amendment certainly isn’t going to fix everything in the area of media regulation and nor was it intended to. It is a meaningful step in the right direction.”, which is why we as a party are supporting this to the committee stage. It gives us time to look at ensuring that as we head in the right direction, the mechanisms that are put in place will be effective, will be taking into consideration the nuances that have been presented to the committee from both sides of the discussion. He goes on to say, “We welcome the changes and know they’ll be of benefit to both industry and consumers.”

Look, I think those were very good comments. That’s why I wanted to read them out. I think they are good and they’re balanced and I think they resonate with Kiwis all over the place. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Jonathan Young. I’m sorry I was a bit confused at the beginning about your timing, and I didn’t actually call your name, so I do apologise for that.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. To be on the committee—it was great to hear submissions, and it’s really good to see that measures are being taken to standardise how not just anybody but our young people also get their video content, and for parents to know in advance what children might be being exposed to on some of these new online streaming services. This is an important move, it’s good to see that the Government is taking action in an area where it’s needed, and I commend it to the House.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, and it’s a privilege to stand and speak on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill in this second reading. I too want to congratulate Minister Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House. I also want to acknowledge Melissa Lee and Jian Yang, who have worked very hard with the Governance and Administration Committee in getting this bill into the House and moving it through into this second reading.

Essentially, everything that everyone has said about the bill, about reducing harm to our children being a priority for this bill—I think it’s great that the Classification Office is being empowered. I think it’s a great start for the classification of commercial videos on-demand. It’s really well-timed to start a lot of—as Melissa Lee, my colleague, said, some of the content that’s in some of those videos were pre-internet times, and so we need to make sure that we keep our young people safe from harm from those videos.

Our side has declared a bit of caution in supporting this bill, but I’m sure, as Dr Jian Yang has said, that will be sorted out with the committee of the whole House period. So I support the bill. Thank you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This piece of legislation is a perfect example that when technology changes and delivery methods change, then so must our legislation to keep our young people safe. It’s all been said before, so I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to ensure that the laws governing Māori land work better for whānau by making practical and technical changes to reduce the complexity and compliance requirements that Māori encounter when they engage with the courts about whenua Māori. Te Ture Whenua Maori Act seeks to facilitate the retention, use, development, and control of Māori land as taonga tuku iho. The bill amends the Act to improve the process for succeeding to interests in Māori land and to provide a new tikanga-based dispute resolution process. It enables the Māori Land Court to deal with a wider range of matters relating to whenua Māori, ensures the remedies available to the court are practical and effective, and enhances Māori housing tenure. Some minor and technical changes are also included.

The Government listened to the problems experienced by Māori land owners navigating and complying with the Act and getting involved in decisions about their whenua. They didn’t want wholesale reform; so what we’ve done is introduce a targeted set of changes to the existing Act that will better support Māori land owners to connect with their whenua, establish their governance structure, and manage and utilise their whenua for the next generation.

I’d like to thank the Māori Affairs Committee for highlighting in their report some of the other barriers raised by whānau in their submissions. I’ve asked officials to look into these issues as part of further policy work to look at the potential for further regulatory changes to remove even more barriers for whānau.

This bill is not the only support being provided to whānau. The bill sits alongside our Government’s Whenua Māori Programme, which is supporting landowners to connect with, govern, manage, protect, and develop their whenua. The programme has invested in on-the-ground whenua advisory services, supporting landowners to develop the skills and access the services they need to realise the potential of their land. It’s also providing landowners with easier access to information and resources to inform their decisions about how to utilise their whenua. We launched the Tupu website, which has got a huge uptake and is a positive tool for Māori land owners. It will deliver modernised Māori Land Court services and systems that will support the efficient operation of the court.

I introduced the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill at the end of February 2020 to address issues whānau have been raising for years about the issues associated with the rating of Māori land. Targeted amendments to public works legislation will be introduced when this is possible, given the impact of the COVID-19 response on the House’s schedule.

I want to thank members and the work of the Māori Affairs Committee, and their consideration of this bill. I’d like to also thank everyone who provided feedback. The select committee received 73 submissions from individuals, members of the judiciary, Māori trusts and organisations, iwi organisations, and legal organisations. I’m pleased to note that there was wide-ranging support for the bill. I understand the submissions were helpful in identifying improvements to the bill, and the committee has recommended changes which improve clarity and effectiveness. Thank you.

Some of the recommended changes include that the Māori Land Court’s powers to grant injunctions be limited to Māori land and Māori reservations, removing the proposed extension of the court’s powers to include issuing injunctions over general land owned by Māori. This would avoid land held by post-settlement governance entities being included in this category. The committee recommended that the Māori Land Court have the power to determine applications about the performance of an easement. The Māori Land Court already considers applications to establish, modify, or cancel an easement that involves both Māori freehold and general land. On that basis, the bill should be amended to allow applications to be heard by either the District Court or the Māori Land Court if the application wholly relates to Māori freehold land or relates to Māori freehold land and other land.

The bill clarifies the lifetime rights surviving spouses or partners can receive upon the death of their spouse or partner who was a Māori land owner. It also clarifies the lifetime rights to which the whānau of a deceased person is entitled where the tikanga of the relevant hapū or iwi determines that there is no relationship of descent. Mindful of the administrative burden that these new provisions will place on trusts, the committee recommended that the registrar of the Māori Land Court be required to record the new categories of occupation and income rights for surviving spouses and partners and whānau. Thank you for that suggestion.

The bill expands the scenarios where the Māori Land Court can appoint experts in tikanga as additional members of the court. The committee accepted the recommendation from submitters that the knowledge and experience of tikanga Māori or whakapapa experts as additional members should be a relevant contribution to proceedings.

The bill provides for a new, free tikanga-based dispute resolution process that would provide a practical mechanism for whānau to resolve disputes out of court. This is a new phenomenon, but I think the intent is simply that we do no more harm to the fabric of whānau connections, because it’s a difficult area. On the committee’s recommendation, the bill now clarifies that, while judges can both refer issues to mediation and act as mediators, the same judge cannot act as a mediator on an issue arising from a matter they referred to mediation.

The committee reviewed the provisions relating to the right of first refusal, and the bill now clarifies that, when notifying members of the preferred classes of alienees, the seller or donor must make reasonable efforts to locate their addresses. Notice must be published on an internet site to which members have free access and on which members are reasonably likely to learn of the proposed alienation. The committee also recommended that a seller or donor should be able to approach the Māori Land Court for direction about the steps they need to take to satisfy requirements for adequate notice of the right of first refusal for sale or gift of Māori land.

A significant proportion of whenua is inaccessible to owners because it is landlocked, and whānau cannot unlock its potential for either use or development. The owners of landlocked land may apply to the Māori Land Court for an order granting reasonable access, subject to certain criteria, and the bill expands the criteria for the benefit of whānau.

The Māori Land Court has the power to impose charges on Māori land for the cost of surveys, which exposes the risk of alienation from the land if owners cannot meet the costs of the charges. To strengthen the retention of Māori land, the committee advised that, while the Māori Land Court should be able to continue to order the survey of Māori land, no charge may be imposed on the land for the survey costs.

The committee also suggested further amendments, which were minor and technical in nature, including making the necessary amendments to the regulations. A number of these amendments will facilitate the process of modernising court services and ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose so they can use and engage with the Act today, but, more importantly, utilise their whenua.

I acknowledge the members of the Māori Affairs Committee for their hard work, especially in this area, because it’s a contentious area. Given the difficulty of working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, their commitment to make sure that this bill progressed through its order of business is a welcome relief for many of those Māori land owners waiting for these changes.

I look forward to constructive debate in the House during the committee of the whole House stage. This will provide a really good opportunity for each of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee to identify the real-time issues that Māori land owners are facing and how that will be fixed by these proposals.

The bill will better support whānau to connect to their whenua, and I hope that it receives widespread support. I commend the bill to the House.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’m very privileged to stand and speak on Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill in the second reading and I thank the Minister for Māori Development for her comprehensive speech just then around what the bill is set up to do.

So, although this side is going to be supporting the bill through to the committee stage, I just was a little bit disappointed that a hand was not reached out to this side of the House from the Government benches for us to work together on a more comprehensive Te Ture Whenua Māori bill, something that could pull together all the other bills that are coming through the House. It would come through the select committee and something that would be very comprehensive, very similar to the one that was put forward by the last Government and Māori Party in coalition, because it covered many, many areas. I feel that this particular bill has taken little bits out of there and put it into this succession bill, and I think that, you know, we could have actually done a really excellent job on this bill by bringing together a comprehensive Te Ture Whenua Māori bill. I think that, you know, the opportunity has been missed and we’re going to have a whole lot of other little bills that will end up making it up. It’ll be quite fragmented when it should all be singing out of the same—let’s say—amendment bill book sheet.

So I just have some comments around some parts of the bill that I found to be—you know, could be quite contentious because we’ve had issues of this in our whānau, and these are the new rules on succession—succession from whāngai. So a few years ago in our whānau, we had a whāngai who wanted to succeed to land—to our Māori land that belonged to our whānau—saying that he was a whāngai. We went back through the history books and our whakapapa to find out just whereabouts this whāngai came in and who did we know in the whānau—and we pulled together groups of kaumātua to find out whether or not this person had a legal right or a right within the whānau to claim whāngai status for land and his claim to our whānau land.

It caused big, big ructions because not only could he succeed to our lands as a whānau, he could also succeed to his mother’s land who wasn’t one of his whānau. And even the person that he said was one of our whānau actually was another whāngai. So you see how the whole whāngai system kind of goes from there—it jumps and jumps and jumps—and we ended up having to take this to the Māori Land Court and have a debate with the Māori Land Court on his status as whāngai since our kuia and kaumātua could not hand on heart say that this particular man was a true whāngai of our whānau. I think that, when it comes to succession of whāngai, there is a gap within this bill that we will most probably debate—I would 100 percent say that we will debate or I’ll debate it in the committee of the whole House—to tighten that area up, because as children of our parents and our grandparents, we have a mother and a father that we can succeed to on their lands; so mine is Ngāti Porou and on my mother’s side, it’s Whanganui Awa and Rangitāne in the Wairarapa. But, if I was a whāngai, I also have a right through blood, through blood, to also succeed to my birth parents’ lands as well.

So that to me is an unfair advantage. And so I think that loop around whāngai needs to tighten down a bit more so there is no unfair advantage when it comes to whāngai. All of this has been driven by a big row that happened within our whānau around whāngai and whāngai status. And when they say that, you know, it will be the kaumātua or the iwi or the hapū that will determine who was the whāngai, if that doesn’t happen, it could go to the Māori Land Court and they could make that decision. So what if they, as happened with our whānau, made a decision and it was not actually supported within the kuia and the kaumātua of our family? So, in our family, our decisions as kaumātua and kuia—they were actually lost and the Māori Land Court didn’t even listen to them. So I just have a little bit of concern around that, and I had been talking to my colleagues on this side of the House about that and said I am going to bring it up in the committee of the whole House.

The other area around landlocked lands: now, we talked about this at the select committee, and especially one particular area—and there must have been thousands of hectares of land, Māori land, landlocked land in this country—but one particular area of note was Mōkai Pātea, which is Taihape. They have lands that sit in behind Ngamatea Station—and I can’t remember the other station on the other side—but they are landlocked, and in here it talks about reasonable access, and it does define it, but at the end of the day, it will actually be determined by the actual farm owners in the front. Will they give access? Will they give access through reasonable access? What is that? They will interpret that, because legislation is all very well, but at the end of the day, when it comes to enactment on the ground, it is all about interpretation.

Landowners at the front of these landlocked lands will take that interpretation to the very nth. No matter what the clauses are in the bill, they will take it to the very nth. I have seen it. I’ve been on Ngamatea Station. I’ve looked across into the Mōkai Pātea lands—they have beautiful bushlands in there—and the only way that they can get in there to actually have economic development, and that’s hunting, is by helicopter. Not everybody, not every farmer can afford a helicopter ride into their landlocked lands. So I think that needed to be tightened up a bit more, around the road access with those owners at the front of those landlocked lands. So I think we need to tighten that down a bit, I believe, to make this bill more meaningful to whānau, to hapū, to iwi who are owners of landlocked lands. There is a whole piece of legislation around what is a landlocked land, who can have it? Can you prove ahi kā, etc., etc.? And that is fine, that is fine. But my biggest concern is: will those owners at the front of the landlocked lands give access, based on reasonable access?

So those are just a couple of areas of this bill that I have had concerns about and will look forward to having that debate around, especially when we look at lands that actually are ripe for forestry, which is where New Zealand First is at. Landlocked lands cannot be put into forestry if they can’t get access to it. Even if they fly in all of the plants and plant them, you’ve still got to get those logs out. The most effective way of doing that is to truck them out; and there are jobs as well.

So, as I said, we are going to support this bill right through, but I just want some of the issues that I have outlined here today debated in the committee of the whole House. I think that I was disappointed we weren’t brought on board with the Minister—a hand out to say, “Come on board, let’s have a bit of a kōrero about this, what is it going to look like?”, because some of the things in this bill actually come out of the bill that we had in the last sitting, and because it is so comprehensive and covers every single aspect of Te Ture Whenua right through to the end and doesn’t leave any stone unturned.

So, as I said at the start of my contribution today, we support this bill. We want to see whānau, and hapū, and iwi thrive on their lands. We want to see them build on their lands, and grow their economy on their lands. We just want to make sure that the bill that is being presented to them is a bill that is strong, it has very few—if not no—gaps in it, and that everybody benefits from it from within the whānau. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to talk on this bill, which has been a long time coming. We have been looking for changes in our Ture Whenua Māori for a very long time, and actually very pleased to see the Minister usher this through the House at its second reading.

There is a great desire for Māori to be able to utilise their underutilised Māori land, and this bill actually frees that up. It also frees up the Māori Land Court to be able to deal with some things that normally would be quite a big, laborious process—anything that streamlines the process for Māori to be able to access their land and develop it should be encouraged. That’s exactly what this bill does, and so I commend it to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, and thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the law that this bill seeks to address, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, is actually a really important Act of our Parliament. With the amount of land that’s gone to address Treaty claims for Māori, there’s a huge opportunity, and I think there’s about 5 to 7 percent of all land in New Zealand that comes under this Act. So there’s a huge opportunity for the legislative arrangements to be such that enhances the potential of this important asset for the Māori community of New Zealand.

This amendment bill that we’re discussing today, essentially, seeks to reduce the complexity and the compliance burdens that Māori face when they’re interacting with the courts or with the Government over issues of Māori land. It’s actually really important to get that right so that Māori can focus on productive use, getting the most out of their land, and getting the returns as required to improve the iwi, the hapū, and the people of their communities.

So we do support this on this side of the House. The select committee did make a number of recommendations, and I would like to acknowledge all of those on the select committee: the chair, Rino Tirikatene, but all select committee members. I have fond memories of that select committee. I miss the kai very much, but I’m very happy to call the Education and Workforce Committee my new home.

The select committee duly heard a number of submissions on this bill and worked very hard, along with the officials, and I’d like to do a special shout out to the officials, who waded through those submissions, made a number of specific recommendations, most of which, actually, were incorporated into the bill that we’re discussing today.

So some of those changes were about clarifying the meanings, making sure that there’s flexibility over successions, and my colleague Jo Hayes referred to one of those flexibilities around succession to whāngai versus whānau. We look forward to debating that in the committee of the whole House and to just tightening that up, because the issue of whāngai is actually one that needs to be addressed. Also, there are changes so that judges who are involved in court proceedings cannot also act in those proceedings where they’ve been mediators. I think that’s just addressing some conflicts of interest in those circumstances.

Look, what we would have liked to have seen in this bill is—you know, winding the clock back, the previous National Government, along with the Māori Party, did a lot of work in the Te Ture Whenua Māori space, and we would have liked to have seen that some of those changes, in a bipartisan fashion, were incorporated into this legislation today, because it is important for Māori and Māori land owners that these kinds of laws are enduring, and we saw in the previous Government a whole bunch of failings with this legislation. We sought to address that, it was in the select committee stage, and then the new Parliament came through, and we would have appreciated a hand out to the Opposition to reach across the aisle to make sure that these changes are in fact enduring throughout the life of Māori land owners and their successors, which this bill also incorporates.

So, look, I just want to reflect on the massive opportunity that this bill presents. If we get it right—and the Ministry for Primary Industries has stated this—the opportunity for this country is $8 billion, most of which will go to the Māori communities throughout New Zealand. If we get it right and there is streamlining of court proceedings and dealing with successions, that is worth a massive $8 billion to the Māori economy. We on this side of the House have made it very clear that we want to see the Māori economy improve, and that is what we look forward to debating in the committee of the whole House, in terms of how we can feed some of those recommendations from the previous Parliament into this bill to make it more impactful for the Māori community in New Zealand.

So that is it. We commend this bill to the House at this stage, and we look forward to the debate in the committee of the whole House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Disputes Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for bringing this bill to the House. It is really a privilege to take this very short call in support of this bill and the practical and technical changes that will reduce the complexity and compliance requirements that Māori encounter when they engage with the courts around their Māori land.

I would just like to reiterate the words of the Minister in her opening address to us this morning: that this Government listened to the problems experienced by Māori land owners navigating and complying with the Act and getting involved in decisions about their whenua. And I think that’s the key thing for me when I think about the land, the whenua, that I’m connected to in the Hokianga—a large block of 3,000 hectares with multiple ownership. Many people come and have discussions about that land, who’s succeeded, who hasn’t, and it often creates a lot of tension and argument for whānau that really shouldn’t be happening, because when we connect to our land we connect to our whakapapa, and we have our place and our identity which we can embrace.

This is a really sensible bill, and I’m really pleased to support it. I commend it to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill, the general intent of and direction of which we’ve been in support of for a long time. In fact, I recall the Hon Chris Finlayson telling me that in his term, once he’d been handed his portfolios, he said to the Prime Minister, John Key, “I want to have a run at Ture Whenua. I want to sink my teeth into Ture Whenua.” And the Prime Minister said, “Yep, OK, go ahead. Have a run at it.” And so he did, and he did a whole body of work that brought it to—it was already done before we came to this bill. And it just strikes me that sometimes you’ve got to go backwards to go backwards—is what strikes me—because so much work was already done, and we had this through to committee stage, and then we’ve sort of needed to go backwards to substantively come back to what we have here today. It doesn’t mean that we won’t support it, but it seems like there’s a whole body of work that was done that was good work that maybe has been pushed aside, although I can see some parts of it that have carried through into this bill.

The committee did have 40 submissions—33 organisations, a wide range of individuals—and covered a large number of areas. I won’t relitigate what my colleague Jo Hayes has gone over in much greater detail than I will, but I do want to particularly talk to the landlocked Māori land, as we see that as still being unrequited. We can still see challenges with that.

On the counter side to that, I do want to talk to a particularly good part of the bill, and that is the ability for the Māori Land Court to change some of the designations of Māori land—changing Māori customary land to Māori freehold land, determining owners or the classes of owners of Māori customary land. I think this is very useful, particularly up in the Far North, up in Northland, where we know there are large areas of Māori land that are unproductive and unable to be used, and part of our goal with Te Ture Whenua, in our hands, was to “unlock” that potential. But there were challenges with title. There were challenges with what the rating implications would be, and I throw out a note of thanks to John Carter, who has done some good work around rating and Māori land in the Far North so that that Māori land could come back into productivity without the fear and consequence of having large rate demands behind it. I think, legislatively, this helps that process, in that it does without consequence allow Māori customary land to be re-designated.

So, again, our thrust to this bill is that we’re in support of it. We were in support of it, of course, when it was in Chris Finlayson’s hands. I want to acknowledge the body of work he did and the additions that have been brought forward through the select committee here, and I hope we can continue to move forward with the intent of this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I think I’ll be the fourth person in a row to say it’s a pleasure to stand and speak to Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. I do want to start by acknowledging the Minister, Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for this piece of legislation and for progressing it through to the House, which seems at this point to have unanimous support. I really acknowledge the significance of that. I remember the debates in the last term of Parliament over the previous Government’s attempt to make these reforms. Those debates were long and heartfelt because there was a huge amount of confusion and fear within the communities that the legislation that had been put up by the previous Government was actually going to undermine the protection and tikanga processes for Māori. This piece of legislation has not had that response, and while I heard from a previous member from the National Party that they would have liked to have seen a comprehensive bill, I actually think the smoothness of the progress of this bill shows the wisdom of taking a more constrained process and stepping through this work, because it is so complex and so contentious, and the link between the people and the land is so essential to being that taking it in its whole, I think, was proven to not be a smart strategy. I think this approach has shown its value.

The Greens are very happy to be supporting it. The heart of this piece of legislation is trying to ensure that Māori land is retained in Māori ownership and that the law is fit for purpose for managing Māori land. Part of doing that is ensuring that a tikanga approach applies to succession of land interests by anyone other than direct descendants, while protecting life interests of a surviving spouse. It’s also introducing a new mediation process for disputes as a voluntary alternative to court processes. It’s about enabling those difficult conversations to be supported and to happen early and with less cost, which, surely, is to the benefit of everyone?

It modernises the powers and jurisdictions of the Māori Land Court and gives new powers to court registrars to handle minor, non-contested administrative matters. It makes it simpler for the Māori Land Court to turn Māori land into Māori customary land where the land was Māori customary land before it was called Crown land, and that being on the request of the Minister responsible for the land in question. It clarifies the process for notifying people with the right of first refusal where Māori freehold land is alienated, and some other changes.

I will note that this, for the Green Party, sits alongside the noting that there is more work to be done in this area. For us, we have long campaigned around reforms to the Public Works Act in support of the cry for not one acre more, and ensuring that we strengthen the protections for Māori land from compulsory State acquisition. That is work that flows on and supports these changes today that we look forward to seeing realised, as well as the growing of the funding—which has started—for papakāinga and Māori development of the land, and as we’ve heard about from other speakers, the unlocking of the potential and the productivity of Māori land to support the people. Though I do just have to say, as a Green, that I think the way that that idea has been presented in this House has missed the sense of the inherent productivity of the land in itself in its untouched state. Our environment, when it is well supported, keeps us all alive and able to function even without physical or economic development. That is the ground that we need for everything. It’s on that note, the Greens are very happy to be supporting this bill.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As we’ve heard today, National does support this bill, but, as we’ve also heard, we are very disappointed about the limited scope of its provisions. We know that most Māori land is in regions that are crying out for new opportunities, more jobs, and a reason for Māori to be able to return to the land. Reform of the Act has the potential to make a real difference in land use in those regions, and a real difference for future prosperity for people and communities. We want Māori land owners to have greater autonomy over their land while ensuring that whenua Māori is protected for future generations. This bill is the first step in much-needed reform to make sure laws that govern Māori land work better for whānau, to make sure that the complexity and compliance requirements are reduced, and particularly when Māori have to go to court about their land. But it’s only a first step, and we believe that much more work is needed to unlock the potential of Māori land for economic development. This bill is, basically, tinkering around the edges, and it’s a real missed opportunity.

As we’ve also heard, the whole issue of Māori land is complex, and the 1993 Act has been amended a significant number of times, but this is another minor amendment. Back in 2014, the Ministry for Primary Industries had a study that showed that 85 percent of Māori land was either undeveloped or underdeveloped, and that increasing the productivity of that land would lead to billions of dollars for Māori and the regions. Māori need those jobs, Māori need that productivity, and Māori need that financial return. National believes that the present act stymies development and it needs to be rethought and revisited. Following that Ministry for Primary Industries’ work, National and the Māori Party rewrote that Act with the aim of providing opportunity for Māori, if they choose, and to release the potential of the land. That was the Hon Chris Finlayson, and he worked with the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and they went back to fundamental principles and brought comprehensive reform to the House, and that went through all the process of select committee and it was being debated in the committee of the whole House when the Government changed.

I believe that was another wasted opportunity, but this bill does incorporate the work that Chris Finlayson and Te Ururoa Flavell did at the time. The new rules on succession were, basically, taken out of National bills, and the new Part 3A, which provides a mechanism for alternate dispute resolution, has also been extracted from that bill. So we’re pleased about that, but we’re deeply disappointed that other issues have not been attempted to be attached, particularly things like landlocked lands. We’ve heard about them today. That’s a major problem, and it hasn’t been tackled comprehensively here.

I’d just like to go through a few of the things that the select committee did in terms of changes. We made quite a lot that were minor and technical, but there were some important changes. For example, the bill will allow simple and uncontested application for the transfer of Māori land to descendants to be processed through a Māori Land Court registrar rather than a full hearing. Now, in the original bill, when it came through, applicants needed to request the use of a registrar to go through the process, but the select committee made changes so that applicants no longer need to request a registrar; they get one by default, unless they request to be heard by a judge. So that’s going to make it an easier process.

We also clarified the meaning of “simple and uncontested”, just to make that very clear. We also made changes so that there was more flexibility over the succession between whakapapa, biological descendants, and whāngai—people adopted in Māori customary practice—on land succession matters. We extended the Māori Land Court jurisdiction to hear certain matters related to Māori land which were generally handled in other courts, and I think this is a good initiative because it will mean that Māori Land Court judges will be able to have a better use of their understanding of Te Ao Māori with these cases when it affects Māori land. We also introduced an obligation for owners of Māori freehold land who wish to sell it to make reasonable efforts to locate the addresses of the classes of people who had been given the right of first refusal to buy that land.

And, finally, we’ve given the court the power to order a survey of Māori land, however—and this is significant. Unlike on previous occasions, the cost will not fall on the Māori land, and could no longer lead to owners losing their land because they couldn’t afford the cost of a survey. This has been a terrible thing that’s happened a lot in the past. Māori families, whānau, have lost their land under these circumstances, and it’s caused enormous pain and disruption over the years.

This bill is useful. It’s useful because Māori land and the regions are crying out for opportunities, more jobs, and the reason for Māori to return to their land, and these reforms will make a difference. But National still believes that significant reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 is well overdue. Significant reform would make a real difference to the use of Māori land, especially in the regions, and to the future prosperity of people and communities. So, as a first step forward in this reform of Māori land, National supports the bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Actually, can I thank the Hon Nicky Wagner, who is a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, for walking us through the amendments that were agreed by the committee, along with Jo Hayes, who are here in the House. I just want to acknowledge the work of that committee.

This piece of legislation is a collaboration between Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Justice. Essentially, it is about connecting Māori with their whenua through whakapapa and also through whāngai. I want to highlight that the new disputes process—and, obviously, it was something that Jo Hayes chose to speak quite extensively about in her contribution—is, I think, incredibly important, because what we are talking about is Māori on their whenua being able to govern and protect that whenua, manage that whenua, and develop that whenua for whānau. So this bill is incredibly important, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting hearing the discussion about this bill that we are debating this afternoon under urgency because I heard the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) quoted a couple of times and I just searched up and reflected on some of those reports that indeed have been discussed today. I was the Minister at the time, when I released a report on 4 April 2013 that indicated there was $8 billion of potential with unproductive Māori land in New Zealand. That’s a massive number. What’s lost in translation, hasn’t been talked about today, is that to return that $8 billion in terms of earnings and opportunity, it would require $3 billion of capital, because obviously infrastructure is important on Māori land. Fertiliser, new grass species, whether it’s horticulture, you’ve got to set up an orchard—it comes back to one fundamental thing often, and that’s water. And that’s a debate that no doubt we’ll have in due course with the Resource Management Act fast-track bill that will be coming back in here soon. There would be 3,600 jobs created, and I would think that that number is a bit light, particularly with some of this land that has the potential to grow very valuable horticulture products, and we know that there’s more job creation involved there.

Then there was another report that I released when I was Minister, that was focused on Northland and Kaikohe, and that report came about in May 2016, where I asked MPI to drill into the detail about Northland and look at that opportunity around Kaikohe. That’s quite topical at the moment; I’m looking over at Duncan Webb, and he’s nodding. So in a 50-kilometre radius around Kaikohe, there are about 4,000 small parcels of Māori land. That is significant, and that’s 84,000 hectares of land that’s mostly unproductive around Kaikohe—so, very large numbers and massive opportunity. This bill goes some way to allowing that opportunity to come along, but it doesn’t go as far as what the National Party would have liked to have seen. I want to acknowledge Chris Finlayson when he was Treaty settlements Minister for the work that he did, because he really kicked off the reform that we’re talking about today, along with the Hon Pita Sharples; then it was transferred over to Te Ururoa Flavell, who took it over and then it got bogged down a bit, I think, with the iwi leaders group. It did come in eventually into a shape and form into this Parliament; then the election came along, then it sort of got turfed out of the Government’s Order Paper and agenda. Now it’s back to where it is today.

So I think there’s going to be more questions asked when we get into the significant part of this debate, the committee stage, because we’re only talking about the second reading right now. There are some important questions that need to be asked of the Minister when she is in the chair: why this bill couldn’t be widened out, because it is quite narrow in scope. One important aspect that I picked up in this bill is that it will enable judges of the Māori Land Court to mediate without the need for a formal court hearing. In my mind, I think that’s going to be very important. That should help to speed up the process. So I see in this bill there are some important aspects of it that we support, but we just feel there’s an opportunity missed and that it could have gone further. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I’m not allowed to take too long and I won’t, but—ah!—the comments from over the other side of the House: absolute crock of rubbish. The bill that they chucked up over the last term was one of the most atrocious pieces of legislation ever seen. You go up and down the electorate—any Māori electorate—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I’ve just reflected on her beginning comments. If there is any suggestion that there is a restriction on a member—

Nicola Willis: Baa!

SPEAKER: Yes, well the member behind Kiritapu Allan had better not laugh too loud at that noise. It wasn’t a comment from Nicola Willis. The member is not restricted and she should not indicate to the House that she has been.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: And I feel absolutely no restrictions. This is a great bill. The last bill in this House was a crock of rubbish, and I commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the last speech, you’ll see that I’m not really qualified to speak on this bill! But I will expand on why. So now I’ve got to expand on why. I could tell that Kiritapu Allan came from the East Coast because I very well remember in the last Parliament most of the objection to that bill came from the East Coast too, and, of course, that’s one of the reasons that I’m not qualified to speak on this bill. It’s a hugely political issue, this, and I fully understand it, coming from a family that’s been in New Zealand for a long, long time, and when you read the title of this bill, it’s about disputes resolution, succession and related matters, and I know all about the challenges that that creates for us.

But I just did want to mention an issue that Jo Hayes raised earlier, because it does concern a large patch in my electorate, and that’s the area that Mōkai Pātea own in the back of Taihape. It is a very cold place, I’d have to tell Kiritapu Allan so she wouldn’t be that keen to come down there! It’s not often warm there, but the Mayor of Rangitīkei, Andy Watson, has raised this issue a number of times, and I know he submitted very strongly and so did the Rangitīkei District Council, on behalf of Mōkai Pātea, actually, on the previous bill that came to the House on this very issue, because they do own a large piece of land in there, they don’t have access to it, and that’s another story of politics—internal politics that only they will understand. That’s the reason this issue is so complicated, and it’s also the reason that this bill will be back in the House again, and I’ll bet it’s not too long before it is.

It is a challenge that we need to get to the bottom of in New Zealand—the reasons for this bill. And this bill touches on some of the issues and it does start to resolve some of them. None the less, it’s a matter that has to be dealt with in the future, otherwise we are going to end up with large sections of our community who are unjustly precluded from, I guess, benefiting from both their heritage, their historic connections, their succession or lack of it, and the ability to utilise their assets for what they want to utilise them for. So I think, for that reason, I will certainly support this bill for where it’s got to, but I do think there’s got to be an enduring and long-term solution to this issue, and I think it’s got to be resolved as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we’re just losing so much opportunity in New Zealand. That’s my contribution, Mr Speaker—I kept out of the politics.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Ka pai ki te kōrero e pā ana ki te pire whakatikatika i Te Ture Whenua Maori. Ehara au i te mea katakata nātemea ko tēnei take he mea tino whakahirahira ki a Aotearoa. Kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire ki Te Whare.

[I am happy to speak on this Ture Whenua Maori amendment bill. This is no laughing matter, because this is very important for the country. I support this bill in the House.]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Urban Development Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I move, That the Urban Development Bill be now read a second time.

This omnibus bill provides Kāinga Ora, New Zealand’s housing and urban development authority, with functions, powers, rights, and duties to enable it to undertake its urban development functions. The bill complements the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Act, which established Kāinga Ora as a Crown entity on 1 October 2019 and set out its objectives, functions, and operating principles. The purpose of this bill is to facilitate urban development that contributes to sustainable, inclusive, and thriving communities. Kāinga Ora will work in partnership with iwi, local government, developers, and others in the urban development sector to deliver communities that provide a diverse mix of good quality, affordable housing choices and good access to jobs, transport, public amenities, and open space.

I want to thank the Environment Committee for its work on this bill. Their efforts have improved the bill. I would also like to thank the members of the public who took time to make written and oral submissions. A majority of submitters supported the bill’s direction. Some suggested ways that its provisions could be improved in terms of how they work in practice, and the committee has taken these concerns on board. I want to acknowledge the wealth of technical expertise offered both by local government and industry practitioners. Their contributions were invaluable and have led to improvements in the bill.

Even before COVID-19, New Zealand’s cities faced some formidable challenges such as flattening productivity and difficulties in accommodating growth in transport, particularly, and many, many parts of the country have grappled with dysfunctional housing markets, shortages of housing, and very high-priced urban land. These issues remain. We’re making good progress on them, but it’s become even more essential that we address them in the current post-COVID environment. Along with the other tools in our Urban Growth Agenda reforming the way we finance and fund infrastructure for urban growth and freeing up the planning rules so that our cities can grow up and grow out, we also need to find ways of ensuring that large-scale and sometimes complex urban development projects can be facilitated.

This bill will work alongside the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, and when both of them are passed, they will, together, progress much-needed development and infrastructure in our towns and cities. While some of their objectives overlap and both include streamlined Resource Management Act (RMA) consenting, the Urban Development Bill is different in its targeting. Large-scale transformational projects are key to creating well-designed cities that provide for our future needs. The big challenge for New Zealand cities in the 21st century is that we must enable second-generation growth, quality intensification. In cities that were often designed and built in the middle decades of the 20th century, the challenge now is to build a more efficient and more sustainable and livable urban form. That’s not always easy, because of the fragmentation of land title, the problems with ageing infrastructure, and the complexity of having multiple stakeholders, communities, residents, and businesses in existing, built-up cities.

This bill gives Kāinga Ora the tools and the mandate and the duties to enable that role to be played. It allows Kāinga Ora to initiate, facilitate, and undertake a special type of complex, transformational urban development. The bill describes them as specified development projects. For those listening to this debate, we’re talking about projects that entail the building of whole new communities on a scale that will deliver thousands of new dwellings, new transport infrastructure, and places for businesses and industry and residential development.

The bill gives Kāinga Ora access to a tool kit of development powers and access to land acquisition powers when undertaking any kind of urban development project. The tools will enable Kāinga Ora to develop multiple aspects of the urban environment with greater certainty, integration, and speed. The specified development project process is at the heart of the bill. It brings together multiple disconnected development processes and enables them to be accessed through a single, more streamlined process without losing important checks and balances. It brings together all of the powers that local government currently wields, but in one place, in a joined-up and streamlined way, for the express purpose of speeding up complex, large-scale development projects.

The tool kit of development powers that come with a specified development project include streamlined RMA planning and consenting processes, powers to build and change network infrastructure such as roads, three waters, and public transport, and the ability to create or reconfigure parks and reserves. These are the kinds of tools that enable a development project to become a community.

Kāinga Ora will have new mechanisms to fund urban development, including targeted rates, development contributions, betterment payments, and service charges. It will also have access to land acquisition powers, which can be used for specified development projects and, more widely, on all of its urban development projects. Each of these powers is designed to address a specific barrier to development that currently exist. These powers will be applied flexibly, based on the needs of each individual project, and—importantly—subject to appropriate checks and balances.

There are a range of checks and balances in the bill. We’re very conscious in designing this legislation that Kāinga Ora, with all of these tools brought together in one place, is a powerful entity at the service of urban development, and it’s important that the property rights of incumbent owners in a development project—it’s important that the community and the local residents and the community of interests that may be affected by developments on this scale all have a say in the process and their rights are respected.

The bill recognises the importance of protecting the environment and ensuring good access to open spaces. It provides for the protection of significant environmental interests, alongside historic heritage and cultural considerations, and there are multiple points along the process that is set out in this bill for the creation of these specified development projects at which concerns can be raised and issues debated and interests protected during the process.

The bill recognises the aspirations that Māori have in urban development as potential development partners, as people significantly impacted by the historical and current pressures in the housing market, and through Māori connections with the land and natural resources in a project area. The bill establishes protections for Māori land and it includes engagement requirements designed to ensure that Kāinga Ora identifies and supports Māori aspirations for urban development, including by providing opportunities to participate in development. That’s important because from one end of this country to the other, iwi and other Māori organisations—particularly in the post-settlement era—are some of the most active investors and developers in large-scale urban development projects.

Kāinga Ora will work in partnership with iwi, local government, and the private sector, and we’ve taken on board the longstanding concerns about this kind of legislation from the private sector and from local government—fears that this could see them being crowded out. The specified development project process is designed as a joint venture vehicle that can include private developers, can include iwi, and can include councils.

The committee received 133 submissions on the bill. Those submitters represented groups and individuals with an interest in housing and urban development, and, as a result of those submissions, the committee made improvements, particularly around engagement and partnership. The first significant change made to the bill was to emphasise the importance of early engagement, reinforcing the importance of Kāinga Ora undertaking that engagement in a way that reflects the needs of all people involved.

Submitters raised the need for Kāinga Ora to partner in order to be successful, and that principle has been greatly strengthened in the bill. Submitters raised concerns around infrastructure requirements, particularly the possibility of councils inheriting infrastructure that might not be fit for purpose—it could either be gold-plated or substandard—so there are provisions to now ensure that Kāinga Ora identifies the technical design standards for that infrastructure before it’s actually built.

The changes recommended by the committee, in my view, significantly improve the bill and support its general purpose. This bill will allow us to deliver more and better housing and will allow our cities to build great new urban neighbourhoods and communities for people to live and work and play. I want to thank the members of the committee for their work on the bill. They’ve improved it and, on this basis, I commend the bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): As with so many things that the Minister Phil Twyford says, National finds it very difficult to disagree with his good intentions and the goals that he has for this bill. What we worry about is this bill’s ability to deliver on those objectives. We supported this bill at its first reading, and we did so for the very principled reason that we support the concept of urban development authorities and the Specified Development Projects that they can carry out.

New Zealanders—many will be aware of international cities where vibrant new suburbs have emerged, whether it’s the Docklands or others, as a result of this sort of an urban development project. We recognise the need for vehicles that allow for brownfields urban regeneration in areas where more can be done if the sufficient powers are in place. We recognise the urgent need in New Zealand to accelerate housing development, particularly housing development focused around transport and other amenities, and we recognise that right now it is almost impossible to do that in some areas, that powers are required to assemble parcels of land, reconfigure infrastructure, and allow the assembly of public and private buildings. We don’t think a piecemeal and incremental development approach is sufficient, and so it was that the last National Government initiated a discussion document process to draft this sort of legislation. There were reports from the Productivity Commission recommending this sort of a process, and National, I believe, in Cabinet had initiated a bill of this sort.

So it is in sorrow that I stand here and say that today National can’t support this bill at its second reading, because we do continue to support the need for urban development powers and urban development authorities, but we don’t think that the Government has done a good enough job of this. We have three major areas of concern. The first is the context in which this bill is being progressed, the second is the detail of the processes this bill sets out and the complexity thereof, and the third is the balance this bill provides between State power and private property rights or the ability of private developers. I will take you through each of those three major concerns.

Select committee scrutiny of this bill, as the Minister mentioned, brought forward many submissions. While I wasn’t part of that select committee process, I have taken the time to read through those submissions and to speak widely with those involved in housing development and urban development in New Zealand, those developers, local authorities and others. What has come through as a consistent theme when discussing whether or not people support this bill is an overwhelming concern about the extent to which the Resource Management Act (RMA) is continuing to hold back much-needed development. The concern here is that that should be the first-order priority of any Government seeking to speed up development. In fact, the disdain for the RMA unites detractors from left and right in an almost unrivalled fashion—in fact, you know, in recent times, possibly only rivalled by the ability of Dr David Clark to unite detractors from left and right. What we hear from those concerned about the RMA is that the Government has been quick to move on some of the press release - type issues, such as KiwiBuild promises of 100,000 homes, but has been entirely negligent in its progressing of meaningful reform to planning law.

The reason that is significant for this law is that, essentially, what this law we are debating today does is it says we acknowledge that the RMA is incredibly complex and so, in some specified cases, we’ll let people cut through it. We’ll let people get through all of that complexity in a fast-forward way. Of course, what this creates as a concern is that if you’re doing that for one very specific subset of Crown-led projects but you’re not doing it for other development, we could potentially have very uneven benefit across our community. For example, there is no way that this bill can ever assist the small developer who wants to do a small development. It can’t assist those who wish to do a private development without Crown involvement. It can’t assist those who don’t get to the front of the queue with Kāinga Ora. So we see that this bill is a poor substitute for the wholesale planning law reform that New Zealand so desperately needs, and we believe that without that wider system change, the benefits of this bill are inherently limited.

We’re further concerned that it does tip the balance towards Crown-initiated development in a way that could hold back new development for New Zealand, because while the Minister points out that yes, of course, private developers will partner with the Crown in these Specified Development Projects, the reality is not all developers will pass the Crown test. Some will miss out on the ability to partner and therefore will miss out on access to a huge range of powers from which private benefit can be gained, from which profit can be gained, and from which development can happen. We don’t think that that is fair, and we support more wholesale planning reform.

The second area of concern that I flagged was that of complexity. As you know, the devil is always in the detail of these things, and, for this Government in particular, the devil is in the delivery. This bill agglomerates powers that are currently dispersed among multiple Acts and organisations, and it also incorporates some novel things, including an engagement process. Submitters identified on many occasions that this could give rise to legal ambiguities and omissions. Now, the Environment Committee, I’m sure, has done a very good job and did identify many of those admissions and many of those complexities, but there is a high risk remaining of technical difficulties in this bill. That’s not a small issue, because those technical difficulties could have a very material impact in terms of delaying or sabotaging the development projects that could be under way.

To give you a sense of that, I just want to refer to the submission from the New Zealand Law Society, that noted that the list of principles that need to be applied for special development projects is long and, without an explicit hierarchy, could be very difficult to apply. They recognise the potential for conflicts between different Acts and, for example, around rating issues and development contributions. Parliament’s own Legislation Design and Advisory Committee highlighted that aspects of the bill may make it difficult to understand and lead to uncertainty or errors. This House must take note of those concerns very seriously, because those are the sorts of concerns that some commentators had way back in the day, back in 1991, when the Resource Management Act was introduced. Today, I think we can all agree that all of that has come true, and so we on this side of the House flag our concern that the complexity of this bill may undermine its good intent of fast-tracking development processes.

We also have concern—and this comes both from submissions and from discussions with those involved in urban development currently—that the way this bill sets about its process actually could be so slow and difficult so as to not warrant the additional powers it gives the Crown. To quote the Urban Development Institute of New Zealand, it “threatens to significantly undermine, if not entirely negate, the value gained from deployment of the UDA [process].” That is because the process is pretty complex. Kāinga Ora has to do an assessment of goals, it has to engage stakeholders, it has to do an assessment report, then it goes to the Minister, who does an Order in Council, a governance body is formed, then boundaries are progressed, the councils are engaged—they have to be on the governance entity—then a draft development plan goes out, it’s notified for consultation. There’s an independent hearing panel, the hearing panel hears things, then the hearing panel makes recommendations about things that need to be ameliorated, and then it goes back to the Minister. My point here is that this isn’t some simple fast-forward cut-through, and the potential for major projects to fall over or to be subject to huge complexity and delay remains.

Finally, I flagged the issue of private property rights, and I think perhaps, given the shortness of time remaining, I am best to highlight the submission from another who said simply that the way that the private property rights are impugned on here is that, yes, there are land acquisition powers that have always existed under the Public Works Act, but the difference here is that the way it is done potentially encourages Kāinga Ora to land-bank before a Minister has made a decision about a Specified Development Project. The concern here is that the Crown will acquire land, will therefore create profit for private developers at the expense of those who had land in the first place, and there are questions raised about the compensation mechanisms that are introduced.

So National continues to support this in concept, but the devil is in the detail. We oppose the bill.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): This is a really good piece of legislation, and to put our head in the sand and say that it would be too difficult would be completely wrong. The coordination for the use of land, infrastructure, and public assets to maximise public benefits in these really complex urban developments is a great thing that this bill addresses. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shortness of the contribution of the member Jan Tinetti, who’s just resumed her seat, gives insight to people who are watching and listening to this debate into the shallowness of the detail around this bill. At the select committee that I had the opportunity to sit on—the Environment Committee did consider this bill—there were lots of submissions, and the bill that has come back to the House as a result of the report of the select committee, as the Minister has acknowledged, is a much improved bill.

It needed to be a much improved bill, because there were remarkable failings in the bill that was presented to us at first reading. We wanted to support it. In fact, we did at first reading. We wanted to, because the concept of an urban development plan is a good one. It’s a good concept. It’s something that other countries have done very well. They’ve adopted different models, but this particular model is one that comes from a Minister who has a reputation that precedes him. That reputation is not a good reputation for actually achieving things, getting things done, or actually delivering on the PR statements that go out with commentary on bills like this.

Indeed, my colleague Nicola Willis has correctly and clearly identified the three main issues that the National Party Opposition has with this bill. They are essentially around the context of the bill, the detail of the bill, and, thirdly, the balance between State power and private property rights. I want to spend a minute or two addressing a couple of those issues that Nicola Willis addressed in her speech a few minutes ago, because at the root of the issue that we have with this bill, on this side of the House, is essentially that it defaults to the hardy annual of most left-leaning Governments around the world, and certainly those with a socialist bent of the sort that we have in this Government, and that is that Government knows best, that big Government is best, that big central authority is best.

Actually, that’s not the way that we see it on this side of the House. We don’t take the view that actually it’s always Government that knows best. We actually do think that there is a very good and proper role for the State to have a guiding principle approach to urban development. That’s what we would support, the concept that we support, but we don’t support the centralisation and issuing of big Government proclamations, really, that will see the challenges between private property interests and those of the State balanced unevenly in terms of big Government State control. For that reason alone, let alone the others that we have problems with, that’s a good reason to oppose this bill.

Now, the State agency Kāinga Ora is a Crown agent and it has two main purposes, and that is to be a public housing landlord and to lead and coordinate housing and urban development projects. Those, by definition, are projects that would normally have difficulty getting off the ground under standard planning and development rules. That’s really the nub of the problem, and that goes to this issue of context that Nicola Willis was talking about.

The real issue here is root and branch reform required of our planning legislation in the form of the Resource Management Act. Just last night, we passed legislation that related to—I think it was the 19th significant amendment to that piece of legislation in its near 30-year history. The RMA, the Resource Management Act, our primary statute for planning and environmental protection, sadly—and it does pain me as a New Zealander that our primary environmental statute and our planning legislation should be treated with such derision and ridicule by New Zealanders of pretty much both sides. I think Nicola Willis made that point in her speech—the derision that occurs from both the left and the right. Sadly, now, the initials “RMA” may have entered the lexicon of KiwiBuild and light rail as being largely considered by New Zealanders as something of a joke and something not to be taken seriously. And I don’t think that our planning platform legislation or our environmental protection legislation deserves to be the subject of ridicule and contempt by ordinary New Zealanders up and down the countryside. We can surely do better than that.

So I want to just refer to a couple of comments that were made by worthy, credible submitters at the select committee who actually went to a lot of trouble to point out the complexities and the issues and the challenges that this legislation presents. One of them was Auckland Council, and Auckland Council submitted that the bill actually undermined the network planning that already existed. Auckland is an area where actually we do need some new urban development planning rules, and probably in no other urban environment in the country more so do we need sensible legislation in this area than in Auckland. But they said, and I think that as a House we need to respect and understand their position, that the bill undermined network planning and may confuse and complicate existing planning arrangements.

So they’re effectively saying that this piece of legislation is going to make it harder for them rather than easier, that it’s not going to help, that it’s not going to have the desired outcomes that the Minister wants to see. And I think that’s a sad thing. So when the country’s largest urban local government indicates that they find this piece of legislation potentially undermining existing situations and then making things more complicated, then that’s not a very good position.

But there is more. The New Zealand Law Society made the point that they were concerned that the list of principles was long, too long, and without an explicit hierarchy and that they could be difficult to apply. Now, I respect the wisdom and the knowledge of the New Zealand Law Society, and I think they made good points. I think that they made valid points in terms of criticising this bill. There isn’t an explicit hierarchy of decision making and it’s going to be largely left to central government, the Minister, and again it comes back to that issue of big Government: Government knows best. The Law Society went on to say that given the number of Acts that the bill is intended to interface with, the potential for conflicts between Acts is high and it would be useful for the bill to clarify how it relates to provisions of the Local Government Act, especially as to the settings of development contribution and rating issues.

These are important points. These are not small matters that are—

Andrew Bayly: Trivial.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —trivial, as my friend and colleague Andrew Bayly says. These are not small matters. These are important matters that I would have thought a Minister bringing a piece of legislation like this to the House would have considered, would have taken into account, would have had his officials say, “Look, haven’t we got a bit of a problem here? The Law Society is saying there is an issue here. Wouldn’t it be good to actually get officials to do a little bit of work on it?”. And even though the select committee did work on it, did make some changes, did make some recommendations, that has not been taken up by the Minister and there are still issues with this bill. So that also goes to the reason that we will be opposing this legislation.

Finally, I want to just go back in time a wee way, because as this Government draws to the end of its term in office and prepares to pack up their offices and bundle up their papers and documents and move back into this side of the House, it doesn’t seem too long ago—well, actually, it was; it was nearly three years ago—that the Speech from the Throne was given after the 2017 election. And in the Speech from the Throne, it says this, amongst other things—and there are so many things in the Speech from the Throne that haven’t been delivered on, that haven’t been fulfilled, that haven’t been achieved in terms of the promises made, the lofty ambitions, and the aspirations of the speech are undelivered. But one of them was, and I quote, “This Government will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary and free up density controls.” So do we still have an Auckland urban growth boundary? Has there been a removal of the Auckland growth boundary? No, absolutely nothing has happened.

So, again, another example of non-delivery, non-ability to actually do what they said they would do, in a way that New Zealanders now find so sadly disappointing because, effectively, they thought things were going to happen. The delivery hasn’t happened and what we’ve had is now a record, as I said earlier, that precedes the Minister’s reputation for non-delivery, not doing anything, and failing to achieve the results.

We oppose this bill.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): New Zealand First rises to support this Urban Development Bill, this much-needed bill, to allow Kāinga Ora to have the tools to do much-needed urban development. I think in the 1970s, actually, we were building more houses than what we are now. It’s clear that there has been regulatory failure. I’ll commend the Minister for Urban Development, actually, for taking some action here. We’ve heard some fine words from Scott Simpson and Nicola Willis, but Scott Simpson was in a Government that completely failed, in nine years of power, to do anything about the Resource Management Act.

This Urban Development Bill seeks to address some of this, for a very specific issue. We’ve had massive population growth, particularly in our largest cities, and we need to build more houses. So we will get behind this bill. It does have significant powers—I note even things like being able to set their own bylaws and the like. So there is significant powers, but we are satisfied that the checks and balances are there in the appropriate community consultation and the like—iwi, local government, and the private sector as well. So New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Mr Speaker, thank you. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this bill, the Urban Development Bill. I must admit I’m a bit surprised that Government members are not taking the opportunity to explain and talk about this bill. They seem to be taking very short calls. We’re in the middle of urgency, this special day when MPs have been held back in Parliament in Wellington to debate what is considered to be highly important bills to be pushed through. I personally find it slightly insulting that many of the members on the Government side are not taking their full calls or even attempting to take anywhere near a full call.

But on that note, this bill, which is an important bill that we are discussing today—this is probably the most important bill that we are going to cover today in Parliament. This is an important bill, and, as I’ve said before—

SPEAKER: Just making sure the member had the right bill. It’s quite a lot fatter than the one he was waving around.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, I have, Mr Speaker, but thank you. This bill is very important, and as the speaker said before, we supported the first reading of it. We’ve seen many fine examples of these urban development authority (UDA) developments around the world. You can think about London dockland—that was a wasteland which is now totally covered in highly desirable commercial buildings—West Sydney, Melbourne, and all those sort of places. So the concept’s proven it can work well, and, essentially, what this bill is about is speeding up the process for, first of all, after you’ve done your feasibility, consenting it, and then putting in place the appropriate structures, whether it’s infrastructure or urban planning or the transport arrangements that go with it, together to make sure it happens much quicker. So, obviously, we understand that concept and we support it.

The issue I think people forget—and I’ll just remind that last speaker from New Zealand First, Mark Patterson. He’s got no sense of history—and when I say “you”, I’m talking to the previous speaker—because it was New Zealand First that actually stopped the National Government from actually reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA), and it would have been helpful if we could have moved forward. One of the issues that we’ve got with this bill is that it is about the RMA, and the issue with this is that I think the context missing in this conversation—I think there’s a view that the Government can solve a lot of the housing issues. The reality is, if you look at the analysis of how many houses are built in New Zealand, the broad breakdown is that the top largest builders in New Zealand account for about 25 percent of all the builds in New Zealand; the Government normally only accounts for between 1 and 3 percent.

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. It is lunchtime. The House is suspended until 2 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House has resumed. Members, before the lunch break, we were debating the second reading of the Urban Development Bill. Andrew Bayly had the call and he has seven minutes and 11 seconds remaining.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I was sort of cut off part-way through my discussion on this bill. What I was explaining was there’s sort of an assumption that Government can play a large role in housing construction in New Zealand, and whilst it’s important, it’s not as significant as many of the Government members sort of seemed to imply in their earlier speeches. For instance, the top 20 builders in New Zealand, basically, account for 25 percent of all new house builds. Then we’ve got the Government sector—that accounts for between 1 and 3 percent. Then the rest, the 75 percent - odd, is actually made up of one-, two-, three-person small building firms. So I think this bill’s got to be seen in the context of this.

These types of urban development authorities are primarily used for urban regeneration, large-scale projects, where there’s contiguous landholdings that can be assembled into a package, and, from there, to make sure townships are regenerated and with close proximity of housing developments. For that reason, that’s why we support urban development authorities.

The issue about this bill, though, even though it’s been substantially worked on by the Environment Committee, is a lack of clarity around how it’s going to interact with a number of other bills. Obviously, people refer to the Resource Management Act (RMA), but it’s not just the RMA; there’s a whole host of bills that this one seeks to find a pathway through to enable this urban development authority—and then we talk about special development projects—to actually occur. There’s some concern whether, in fact, the bill will actually work, and that’s one of the issues.

But I think the biggest issue, and I know my colleagues have discussed it, is this issue around the rights and power of this new entity to be able to undertake those new developments. I think one of the most concerning things—and I’m looking at the Minister now. This bill provides for the urban development authority to become a BCA, a building consent authority, such as Auckland Council, such as most 68 councils around the country. One of the issues that is happening right now, and I’m sure the Minister is aware of it, is that this entity, Kāinga Ora, is actually in the process of going and nicking all the good staff out of Auckland Council’s consenting team and luring them across, paying between $10,000 and $15,000 more than they’re currently earning at Auckland Council. So rather than adding to the sum total of new consenting consent people in New Zealand, what’s happening is this Government agency is nicking staff from another council entity, and I think that’s a real problem—it’s a real problem. It’s a problem when you talk to Auckland Council, and I know they’ve had discussions with you, but I think one of the issues about this authority—

Hon Phil Twyford: Andrew, lift your horizons up. Don’t get lost in the detail.

ANDREW BAYLY: No, I’m not lost in the detail, because that is what’s happening right now, and, actually, what it means for developers—and this is the next thing.

The biggest issue I have with this bill, personally, is that what the Government has done through this bill is solve the RMA and consenting issues for itself, and I know for a reason, but for developers who undertake most of the work, the private sector, they will still struggle to operate under the existing framework, and that has not been dealt with. If you really want to do a lot of urban regeneration and a lot of urban development around housing, that is the core issue. I take your point that this does some improvement for UDAs, but we have not dealt with the most crucial issue that all developers have in terms of being able to undertake developments quickly, get consent through, and often we have a lot of problems with that, with all the risk that goes with it, and I think that’s why this bill is actually—we haven’t addressed the central issue, and that is one of the reasons why we’re opposing this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill because we know how important good urban development is to our communities and to the future of our climate. Here in New Zealand, we’ve had quite fragmented provision of housing. It’s been expensive, it’s led to incredibly expensive transport costs, and sometimes, in the big rush and focus to create affordable housing, it’s possible to lose sight of the fact that if you create a lot of cheap housing on the fringe with higher infrastructure costs and higher transport costs, a need for households to own more vehicles, you end up losing all of the benefits of the more affordable housing with more expensive transport. What good urban design delivers is complete neighbourhoods with affordable, energy-efficient housing; amenities like shops, schools, parks, places where people can work; excellent public transport; safe walking and cycling links, so that you can stay within the community but you can also get to other parts of the city. That was simply not going to happen without significant change and the ability for the Government to step in and provide greater leadership. Because what we have been seeing is a lot of subdivision out on the fringes, full of houses, nowhere near shops, nowhere near schools, no parks, absolutely car dependent, and that was going to continue to happen. Of course, the cost of that to the economy, to people, to the planet is enormous.

Here with good urban design and good urban development we have a fantastic opportunity to create the kind of communities that New Zealanders actually long for, and they just haven’t been provided those opportunities. I know so many young people who want the opportunity to live in a walkable neighbourhood. They don’t need a big, stand-alone house with a yard if there are nearby parks and green spaces. In fact, what’s far more important to many young people is that proximity to their friends, proximity to where they work so they can spend less time commuting and more time doing the things that they really care about.

So we in the Greens, of course, did have some concerns because any time you centralise power like this, there is the potential for the needs and desires and aspirations of the community to be lost. So some of the improvements that the Green Party made, and that we’re very, very proud of, are ensuring that there will still be an absolute focus on Te Tiriti and the rights of tangata whenua as partners and kaitiaki.

We also ensured that in the purpose and principles of the bill good urban design was a major part of it. I mean, there is simply no point in us amalgamating and giving these powers to a Government agency if it’s not going to be tasked with delivering the public good. I think one of the reasons we haven’t had the benefits of integrated development is because, when you have private developers, the incentives are to maximise their profit, and that’s fine, but not if it’s at the expense of the things that we actually care about. So we want to get the incentives right so that private developers are delivering what the community wants and needs; that we’re doing it in a way that protects our water, our soil, our climate, our air for future generations; and just to enhance the very wellbeing of how we live our lives right now. It’s an absolute no-brainer. It’s something that I think most New Zealanders could absolutely agree with.

So having good urban design and bottom lines for protecting our environment—because once we start to chip away, chip away with more development that slowly takes away the green belts around our urban areas, slowly might chip away at our incredibly valuable agricultural soils, we could have found ourselves in the situation of not having access to the very things that we love about New Zealand and that we want in our communities.

I see this legislation as a positive move forward that will enable us to deliver quality, affordable housing with the types of smart transport connections that are affordable, frequent, good for the climate. I really, really do hope that when we start to see the types of projects that are enabled by this, there will be an excellent opportunity for community to really be involved and to be there at the beginning of the structure planning so that we can start to see the types of neighbourhoods that all New Zealanders would love to live in. Tēnā koutou.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am taking this call to oppose the Urban Development Bill in its second reading. We supported this bill in the first reading, and we supported it because we wanted to hear from submitters in the select committee process, and we wanted to work on this legislation to make it fit for purpose legislation. But what we saw during the select committee process was that there were several concerns that came through, and those concerns matched with the concerns that we have, and that’s why we have decided to not support this legislation going forward.

We fully understand the intention of this legislation, and we support the intention of this legislation—that is, urban development—and before the last election we started the process of forming an urban development authority and we started a consultation process as well, and so that’s why we decided to support this legislation in the first reading, because this legislation is intending to coordinate the use of land and also infrastructure to maximise its benefits for people. During the select committee process—I’m not a member of the Environment Committee, but I’ve gone through what submitters had to say—I see that there were 134 submissions out of which the select committee had the opportunity to hear from 52 submitters. I was listening to the Minister when he made his speech, and the Minister said that most of the submitters supported the direction of this legislation. So, yes, we also support the intention of this legislation. That doesn’t mean we support this legislation, because we believe that the mechanism that this legislation is using to deliver what it intends to deliver is not going to work.

So because of the statement by the Minister that most submitters supported the direction of this bill, I would like to dissect what submitters had to say. So if we break down what submitters had to say, and if I just break them down under different headings—that is supported or not supported—then we see only about 20 percent of submitters supported this legislation. Around 29 percent—I’m rounding the percentage up—of submitters didn’t support this legislation. So going from one extreme—that is, 20 percent supporting—to 29 percent that didn’t support this legislation, in the middle there are a lot of submitters that have said that they support the intention of this bill, but they had some reservations, and that number is 27 percent, and 21 percent had no clear position on this legislation.

So that just shows us that this legislation, though the intention is there, is not going to deliver what it intends to deliver. There were some common themes that came through on various parts of this legislation from various submitters. Resource Management Act: we have heard from various speakers on this legislation before, and yes that came up again and again, because submitters thought that it was important that the Resource Management Act was taken along with this legislation. We cannot find a solution without looking at the Resource Management Act, because we know that when the Resource Management Act was implemented, for those days it was fine, but now we have seen this huge population growth—we are over 5 million people. I’m based in Mt Roskill and there are a lot of Housing New Zealand houses being developed—old houses are being demolished and replaced with new houses, and I’m a big supporter of the mixed housing model. So we need those houses coming up in Auckland, because that’s where we are seeing big population growth, and we need infrastructure to support that kind of growth. But for that, we have to tackle the Resource Management Act, and this legislation is trying to find a way to tackle this issue without tackling the Resource Management Act, and that’s why we don’t have confidence that this legislation will be able to deliver what it intends to deliver.

The second thing is about partnerships with various organisations. If we look at the submitters, most of the submitters were organisations, because we know that this legislation is to bring changes at central government level and also local government level. So excluding all the local government submissions, if you look at the submissions most of them were from organisations. These organisations are keen to understand how partnerships will work. So partnerships with private organisations are important to deliver this important objective of this legislation, and we didn’t get enough clarification in the select committee process that that will be possible.

Then private property rights were another issue that came up. Private property rights are important for people. We know that, yes, Government can acquire private property under the Public Works Act, but in this legislation the way it is put forward looks like it is going to minimise those rights that people have on their private property. We want to encourage people owning private property—they should feel very proud, they should not feel insecure owning a private property.

The Green member who spoke before me, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, talked about an efficient transport system and also providing an enabling environment for communities. Actually, that was something that did come up, because this legislation doesn’t speak enough to affordability of houses, and it doesn’t speak enough to low-emission transport systems or safer, efficient transport systems. It doesn’t speak enough about that enabling environment that the member talked about to provide for communities, because in communities we have people that are in different age groups, there are children and there are seniors, and we want to see that there are amenities and things provided in terms of infrastructure to support these different age groups, and this legislation doesn’t speak enough to provide for all these things. And that’s why we have decided not to support this legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to speak in support of the Urban Development Bill. My electorate is Mt Roskill. I live there; I know the community well. One of the most positive things that is happening in Mt Roskill is that through Kāinga Ora we are leading a comprehensive urban redevelopment of our community to provide the affordable housing that our local families need and to do exactly the kind of integrated planning that the member speaking prior, Parmjeet Parmar, just referred to—new and improved roads, parks, community facilities—all the rest of it, to actually build a community that people want to live in and that can cater for the urban growth that is happening in Auckland and in many of our main urban centres.

This bill is one of the key structural elements that will help us to deliver that on a wider scale and deliver the affordable housing that New Zealanders need. This Government’s record is strong in this area. Pre-COVID we had record building consents going through the system. We’ve got Resource Management Act reform on the move now, after 25 years of inaction. We’ve got a record number of affordable and public houses being built, better insulation standards and health standards for people in housing, and this piece of legislation will help us to build even more of the houses in the context of good communities that our people need. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Simeon Brown—five minutes.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in the Urban Development Bill. I find it quite interesting, the member for Mt Roskill talking about this Government’s record on housing. Dare I remind the House about the Government’s record in regard to “Kiwi Fail”—I mean, sorry, KiwiBuild, where they’ve delivered, I think, 380 houses—

Dr Shane Reti: Is the architect here?

SIMEON BROWN: Yes, the architect of that project is in the House, and it’s great to see him here. But 380 houses, when they promised 10,000 per year. What a fail. And of course we’ve got light fail as well—I mean, light rail, which is another shocker.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: To Mt Roskill—light rail is going to Mt Roskill!

SIMEON BROWN: That also goes through Mt Roskill, doesn’t it? Well, it should be there by now; we’re only 85 days from the election; I’m sure the local member is working very hard trying to get “light fail” through his electorate along with “Kiwi Fail”, because they are certainly his priorities.

The National Party will not be supporting the Urban Development Bill. Whilst we support the intent of the urban development authorities and the need for reform in this area, the reality is that this Government is kicking the can down the road with what the real issue is, which is fixing the Resource Management Act and making the long-term changes, which not only benefit the Crown and Crown development through Kāinga Ora, which is what this bill will do, but also ensure that the planning rules and processes are in place so that private developers are given the same opportunities to be able to have faster consent processes and be able to realise the benefits that this bill seeks to provide. This is something which is not provided in this bill, and is something that needs to be done to ensure that our legislation actually provides wholesale reform so that we can actually have better housing, built faster, and at a lower cost. Unfortunately, this Government is not tackling those real issues which the National Party will be doing in 85 days, once we’re elected to Government.

Hon Members: Ha!

SIMEON BROWN: And I hear them laugh, but seek.co.nz—take a look: you might need a job soon; that’s for the members across the aisle.

The other issue in regards to this bill, which I know a lot of people submitted on—but also a range of people in my electorate of Pakuranga have approached me around—is the balance that this bill gets in regards to the balance between urban development goals and the recognition of property rights. This bill does grant Kāinga Ora significant land acquisition powers, and whilst these powers are largely similar to the land acquisition powers set out in the Public Works Act 1981, it does differ in some significant respects. There is significant concern around this, particularly regarding the reduced offer-back arrangements, which will impinge on property rights. This is an issue which I know that a lot of communities up and down New Zealand will have concerns about. I know in my electorate of Pakuranga, the area around Howick, Stockade Hill, is an area which has significant historic and heritage aspects to it. Those communities are concerned about how these powers may be used, and that is another reason why the National Party won’t be supporting this bill, because there needs to be better balance in that regard.

So we have a number of questions around the powers, we believe there needs to be more scrutiny of these powers, and for those reasons, the National Party will not be supporting this bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a funny old game, isn’t it? The Environment Committee, which I chair and which is probably one of the most hard-working committees in this House, has been sitting pretty much all this week.

The National members were really good on this bill. They worked through it. They tidied it up, took on suggestions, gave suggestions, made sure that the powers of the various authorities involved were suitably limited, made sure that the rating powers weren’t too extensive, and made sure that any excess in the special levies went back to where they belonged, and we have a fantastic bill that’s come out of the select committee, in a fine form—and now they come to the House and don’t support it. That’s really surprising, but I want to thank them for the great work they’ve done. They’ve made this bill better, and there’s going to be better housing developments in New Zealand because of it. I commend the bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a good effort, and I would acknowledge the Government for that. This highlights some of the complexity we have in the planning and development space, but, unfortunately, creating this Urban Development Bill isn’t fixing the underlying issue. We’ve already heard from this side of the House a number of concerns around the Resource Management Act and how that fits in, and that is where we need to see some serious reform. Unfortunately, the Government has indicated they’re looking to review that, but that won’t happen this side of the election, of course, so this isn’t really landing in the right space.

Whilst we commend the effort in terms of trying to create a system that enables a better planning environment and facilitates that development in an expedited way, the challenge here is, in part, that it is tacking another piece of legislation on to the side of that overall framework and it’s not addressing the underlying issue, it’s not providing the right solution, and, actually, in this particular situation with this bill, the risk is that it shifts the power too much in favour of Crown-oriented or Crown-initiated developments. In a time like we’re facing at the moment, where there are significant challenges on the horizon, the economy is facing a major uphill battle, we need to be encouraging private investment, private businesses, as much as possible and facilitating them to pick up the mantle and move forward with projects. Our concern is that this doesn’t achieve that, and it actually skews the balance more in favour of those Crown-initiated projects, which is a concern as well.

It also seems to be overly complex in a number of facets, and we heard, actually, Auckland Council submit on that, and also the Law Society raising some concerns in that regard, with the number of Acts this reaches across and the risk of conflicts arising out of that.

So, look, on the face of it, a good effort, but, unfortunately, not the right piece of legislation we need at this time, so we can’t support it. From this side of the House, our position remains that we need more wholesale reform of the Resource Management Act to facilitate that better development, and that will be our focus post-election, should we have the opportunity. So we do not support this bill.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. This is a really important bill, because as we came into Government we’ve inherited a huge housing crisis. Certainly down in Invercargill, our State houses were sold off. We’ve got an acute shortage of housing across all different housing classes. And what this bill will do is it allows Kāinga Ora to be that development authority that can pull together and do streamlined and integrated large urban development projects.

It’s an incredibly technical bill and I want to thank all of those who made submissions on this bill. We had about 133 people that submitted and, as a result, this bill has ended up a lot better. I also want to really just acknowledge the work that our officials did because, again, as I say, an incredibly complex bill, but they worked really hard and we ended up with a good result. So it’s a pleasure to support this bill and I commend this bill to the House.

Amendments recommended by the Environment Committee by majority agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

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

Noes 39

New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their time and their contribution to improving this bill. The objective of the bill is to strengthen the regulatory functions of Waka Kotahi, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). This bill responds to the decade-long failure by the NZTA to properly carry out its regulatory function. In response to that failure, I commissioned a review into the regulatory capability and performance of Waka Kotahi, and this bill responds to the findings of that review.

I believe that 16 written and four oral submissions were received on this bill, and I want to thank the submitters for their suggestions. As reported back by the committee, 10 submitters supported the objective of the bill. I understand that more than half of the submissions only commented on the proposals for tackling unsafe speeds, and that across the speed-related provisions, some submissions were in support and others opposed, but most raised suggestions to improve the bill.

Of the submitters that did address the review of the NZTA, they were generally supportive of the introduction of the new director role, although some submitters raised questions or made suggestions regarding aspects of that position. I’m pleased to note that following deliberation, the committee has made a range of adjustments to the bill and is unanimously supporting the bill, as amended, be passed.

In relation to the director role, the committee recommends that the director is appointed for a period of up to five years but can be reappointed. The terms and conditions of employment for the director must be determined by an agreement between the NZTA board and the director. It’s important to note that the intent of this position is that the director of safety is statutorily independent of both the board of NZTA and the Minister of the day and the ministry. The committee also recommends that the role of the director is clarified by stating that the director is an employee. The clarification will also ensure that the definition of the director’s independent functions fully captures that policy intent. I support these additions, given the leadership role that the director plays in the land transport system and that the fixed term recommended ensures that the director can be refreshed periodically in line with the general practice in the State sector for chief executives.

In relation to funding, clause 5 of the bill establishes a new mechanism to enable the Crown to incur expenses or capital expenditure to fund the agency’s regulatory functions. This mechanism allows for all road users in the land transport system to contribute to the costs of operating the safety regulator. This provides a strong public benefit across the system. The committee recommends amending the bill to require the NZTA to consult the public before it seeks funding from Ministers to support its regulatory functions under this section. I support that because it will help to ensure that any request for funding is integrated with the NZTA’s overall funding review processes.

On the point of confidentiality and sharing of information, the committee recommends an amendment to include new provisions on this. I support their recommendation because without the explicit ability to share information across the New Zealand Transport Agency, information silos are likely to occur, leading to safety issues being missed. One of the key benefits of retaining the NZTA as a single consolidated entity responsible for infrastructure and services for land transport, as well as the land transport safety regulator role, is that it’s able to leverage its knowledge and real-time understanding of the land transport system to achieve good outcomes across all of those roles. So this will mean that information can be shared freely within the transport agency for the purpose of performing or exercising any of its functions, duties, and powers.

Moving on to regional transport committee functions, the committee recommends that any additional functions allocated to regional transport committees may only be prescribed through regulations made under the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) rather than under any Land Transport Act. Regional transport committees are established under the LTMA and all of their functions are set out under that Act. This recommendation will ensure the functions of regional transport committees remain set out in one place, providing clarity to those committees and to local government and the public. I support this recommendation. The regional transport committees play a vital role representing the voices of their local communities, negotiating the content and direction of the three-year regional land transport plans with Waka Kotahi.

The committee also had some things to say about the rules around committees. It recommended that the powers set out in clause 104 of the bill should be narrowed to more precisely describe the purpose of these committees. Clause 104, inserting new section 159A, enables rules to require the Transport Agency to establish committees, and the amendment proposed will specify that any committee required to be established under this section will be for purposes associated with speed management. Further clarification about how these committees function is recommended by the select committee, and these will be provided by three amendments to new section 159A(1) of the Land Transport Act, including the following: enabling rules to set out that the director may appoint members to a speed management committee; clarifying that the definition of interest be interpreted to mean as provided for in the Crown Entities Act 2004; and, thirdly, ensuring that the rule may, rather than must, set out the date on which the committee is to be dissolved or a process by which that date is determined. I support these, as they provide additional but useful detail regarding the purpose, the functions, and the powers of these committees.

The committee recommends also clarifying how by-laws will interact with land transport records on the register. The register of land transport records is intended to be the last step in the process for making various land transport decisions, including, for example, speed limits. Road controlling authorities such as councils currently set speed limits on their local roads through by-laws. Therefore, there are thousands of speed limits set out in by-laws that will need to be transferred to one central register. The clarification that the committee recommends is to require by-laws to be included in the register and it will determine how conflict or overlaps between records on the register and the by-laws are resolved. Again, I support this clarification.

The committee recommends also clarifying certain minor matters regarding the creation of land transport records and providing for regulation-making powers to support the operation and the administration of the register. This is provided for in clauses 107A and 110 of the bill. I support all of these amendments. The regulation-making powers support the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the register. These powers were previously proposed to be set out in a range of secondary legislation under Land Transport Acts. This recommendation provides clarity to the registrar and the public by bringing these requirements into one place in regulations under the Land Transport Act.

The committee recommends that the commencement date of the bill be 1 September 2020, with all clauses related to the review of the NZTA to come into force on 1 April 2021 or earlier by Order in Council. The original date in clause 2 of the bill was 1 July 2020. I support changing the commencement date to reflect the passage of the bill through Parliament and to provide greater flexibility around the timing of the appointment of the new director role and other changes to the NZTA.

There were some recommendations, also, on consequential, transitional, and savings provisions in the bill. Lastly, the committee recommends that the bill is amended to include and provide for any necessary provisions in that regard, and I support those.

Taking these amendments into account, the bill will ensure that the NZTA Waka Kotahi’s regulatory function and leadership role within the land transport system is strengthened and clarified. It addresses a number of things that were identified in the review of the NZTA’s regulatory performance. It does this by establishing the Director of Land Transport to provide a greater focus on regulatory delivery and to drive more accountability for regulatory outcomes and decision making in the New Zealand Transport Agency, and by strengthening the agency’s regulatory function so that it has the tools that it needs to do this job effectively, ultimately keeping people safe within our land transport system.

Again, I want to thank all those who submitted on aspects of the bill, and I want to acknowledge their participation in the democratic process. Their views have been heard. I’m committed to ensuring that the NZTA not only builds the best, most efficient, and sustainable transport system that our country can hope for to move people and goods across our island nation in a way that supports the economy and quality of life but we also have an obligation to ensure that the transport system is safe for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill and just to acknowledge the detail that the Minister was able to, in his allocated speaking time, convey after the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, deliberated and reported back to this House.

We all know the background to this legislation was the tragic loss of life in a vehicle accident. Mr William Ball lost his life when a seatbelt failed. That ordinarily would have been picked up through an inspection, and that, of course, caused a review of the process that took place and that’s where some regulatory failure was identified.

So the Ministry of Transport then took on the services of a reviewer, MartinJenkins, who commissioned a study to bring independent advice to the secretary of transport, not only looking at the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)’s processes but also looking at the Ministry of Transport and their role in monitoring the NZTA. They, essentially, discovered that the NZTA had three different functions that needed to be far better put together. They had the role of being the regulator, they also had the role of being the infrastructure deliverer, and they also had the role of being the investor. What they discovered was that during the early stages of the NZTA’s development—its establishment and development—there were some lacks discovered in the regulatory regime. So hence the review and hence the report, which the NZTA, the Minister, and the Ministry of Transport, have all welcomed and the outcome has been, I think, this bill, which has brought certain changes.

Certainly, I think the most prominent change is the establishing of the role of director. I think that is a very, very important role. It creates, in a sense, somebody who has statutory independence to function to ensure that the regulatory regime that the NZTA Waka Kotahi must follow, and also has that degree of independence where the Minister, the agency, or secretary may not direct the director in terms of performing that function.

I think that what this is offering is real strengthening of a very important agency that affects every one of our lives. It ensures that we can have confidence that the regulatory regime that is to enforce the regulations, of course, particularly around the public safety, are strongly in place. I just have to say that the NZTA do have a very strong culture of public safety; it’s one of their driving principles. And we know that this is going to improve them even more. So we’re very pleased to support this legislation going through the House. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hello to the other side of the House—no, still asleep. That’s all right; I’ll take a call instead on this Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. They’ve fallen asleep at the wheel, it would seem, on the other side of the House, which is, I suppose, to be expected from them on a Friday afternoon.

I won’t take too long on this bill. Mr Young has done a very job of traversing the key aspects of it, but I did just want to highlight a couple of pieces that are particularly relevant in acknowledging the unfortunate incident that led to the identification of some regulatory failings and, therefore, the need to rectify that through, largely, the creation of the new director role within this piece of legislation.

That actually brings it into line with the Civil Aviation Authority and Maritime New Zealand in terms of having that role, that regulatory function of a director. So from that perspective we support that aspect. Having independence, though, is critical to that, and that was one of the amendments that we put forward at the select committee to ensure that when performing a statutory independent function, the director must act independently, and the Minister, agency, or secretary may not direct the director performing that function. So that was an important distinction to get in there, just to ensure that independence in that regard. The other aspect, sitting alongside that, was actually time-limiting that to a five-year term, as well, which I think was an appropriate measure to ensure the ability of that process.

I will just touch briefly on two other aspects. The Minister elaborated on the establishment of the register and the speed limit process changes. The speed limit one is, I think, an important one to, again, gain consistency across different road-consenting agencies, the territorial authorities or local councils, to ensure that there aren’t conflicting by-laws coming through in that process. So the streamlining and centralising of that is, I think, an appropriate move in that space.

Largely, there are some pretty technical and minor changes but the new director role, I think, is an important function, and I will be following with interest how that plays out over the coming year. So we do support this bill and won’t hold it up any further.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise to speak, briefly, in support of the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s an important piece of legislation that arises, as has been outlined, from MartinJenkins’ review, which identified some clear regulatory improvements that needed to be made. What I’m also pleased about in this bill is that there’s a really clear focus on road safety and the need to have an agency that is fit for purpose to do the most important thing that we can really ensure, which is that when New Zealanders use our transport system they’re kept as safe as possible.

So I commend the Minister of Transport for that work. I thank members around the House for their support for the legislation and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I move, That the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its detailed consideration of this bill and the public consultation process it undertook. The committee’s recommendation is that the bill be passed without amendment. This bill seeks to update New Zealand’s legislation to incorporate the latest war crimes amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, enabling ratification of these important amendments.

The Rome Statute came into force in 2002 and established the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world’s first permanent International Criminal Court, with jurisdiction over crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. Its adoption and entry into force was a landmark achievement in international criminal justice. New Zealand ratified the Rome Statute on 7 September 2000, being the 17th country to do so, demonstrating our commitment to the rule of law and international criminal justice. New Zealand remains a longstanding supporter of the court and its mandate to hold to account those who commit the most serious international crimes.

In New Zealand, the Rome Statute is implemented through the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000. This Act establishes New Zealand’s jurisdiction over specific offences corresponding to those offences set out in the Rome Statute and provides for cooperation with the court, for example, through assistance with investigation and prosecution. That Act currently includes those war crimes which were contained in the Rome Statute when it first entered into force. Subsequently, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute has recognised additional war crimes and incorporated them into the court’s jurisdiction.

In June 2010, the Assembly of States Parties adopted provisions to criminalise and bring within the jurisdiction of the court the use of the following in non-international armed conflicts: poisons or poisonous weapons; asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and analogous liquids, materials, and devices; and expanding bullets. Later, at its 16th session, in December 2017, the assembly added further provisions to criminalise and bring within the jurisdiction of the court the use of the following in either international or non-international conflict: biological weapons, weapons or munitions employing non-detectable fragments, and blinding laser weapons. Collectively, these are known as the war crimes amendments.

New Zealand supported the inclusion of all these crimes, recognising that they represent conduct amounting to war crimes and should be recognised as such under international law. This bill incorporates these additional crimes into the primary Act and thereby ensures that New Zealand’s implementing legislation for the Rome Statute remains up to date and enables our ratification of these amendments. It does this by extending the current definition of war crimes in the Act to include those crimes reflected in the war crimes amendments. The bill also creates a carve-out as regards those provisions relating to the crime of aggression, which the Government has not yet decided to ratify and which is substantively different to the war crimes amendments.

Incorporation of the war crimes amendments will allow proceedings to be brought in New Zealand courts for these new war crimes under section 8 of the principal Act. Proceedings may be brought regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the person accused; or whether or not any act forming part of the offence occurred in New Zealand; or whether or not the person accused was in New Zealand at the time that the act constituting the offence occurred, or at the time a decision was made to charge the person with an offence. The Attorney-General’s consent is required for any prosecution under the primary Act, providing a safeguard to ensure that only appropriate cases proceed to a prosecution. Additionally, the bill corrects two technical errors in the principal Act as enacted.

As indicated, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee undertook public consultation on this bill and recommended that it be passed without amendment. The committee received several submissions on the bill, all of which were supportive of the bill, though some of these encourage the adoption of further crimes into the bill, such as the crime of aggression. In December 2017, the crime of aggression was added to the jurisdiction of the ICC via a series of amendments which entered into force in July 2018. However, these are of a very different nature and scope than the war crimes amendments covered by the bill. Further, the Government has not yet approved the ratification of those aggression amendments and so this bill does not seek to incorporate them.

The committee also received submissions recommending that the bill incorporate one particular amendment, the starvation amendment, which I will turn to now. Recently, in December 2019, the Assembly of States Parties amended the Rome Statute to make it a war crime to intentionally use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies in the context of a non-international armed conflict. New Zealand supported this amendment. The intentional starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is already a war crime under the Rome Statute in international armed conflicts. The starvation amendment harmonises the law in this respect to also make this conduct a crime in non-international armed conflicts, which constitutes most modern armed conflicts. This amendment was adopted by consensus and has strong international support, including from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Because it was adopted after this bill was introduced, it was not introduced in the original bill. However, I intend to move an amendment to the bill by a Supplementary Order Paper to incorporate this amendment so that the primary Act may be updated in an effective and efficient manner to reflect all war crimes amendments to the Rome Statute. I commend the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand and take a call on the second reading of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. I don’t sit on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, but can I acknowledge them for the work that they have done, and can I acknowledge the chair, Simon O’Connor. I have subbed on to that committee from time to time, and I’ve been impressed at the fairness and the efficiency with which he runs that select committee, and the important cross-party work that’s done, particularly on a bill like this.

We do support this bill to incorporate into New Zealand law a number of amendments from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes. We recognise that domestic legislation is required to bring any international treaties into force, and as a result we support the passage of this bill today. We welcome the war crimes amendments and hope that they’ll discourage the use of inhumane weaponry.

The only closing comment that I would make is that a weapon that is very commonly used around the world in the wrong hands—i.e. with a terrorist group or an organised crime group—is the Kalashnikov 47, the AK-47. While we sit in this Parliament and we pass law recognising that something has to be done around that type of weaponry being dispersed around the globe, I think that we need to have a very close look at ourselves in terms of our country, and make sure that we haven’t got weapons like AK-47s on our streets, creating harm, and killing people back home here in New Zealand.

So, although we support this bill and the passage of this bill, I’d also caution the Government and say that a very close look has to be taken, and some vigilance and focus around the fact of whether or not the weapons that we’re condemning and that we’re trying to stop the proliferation of around the world isn’t in fact happening here right under our own noses, in our own country, New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. As a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we did consider this International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill, and, essentially, what it does is add to the current list of war crimes, which were agreed at the annual Assembly of State Parties in December 2017, and, as Minister Martin highlighted, are microbial agents, weapons that injure by fragments, and also blinding laser weapons.

I do want to highlight the issue of the starvation amendment, and it was an issue with timing, because that starvation amendment was a resolution of the December 2019 annual Assembly of State Parties; so I want to acknowledge that. But I also want to acknowledge that Labour and Green members supported the officials’ recommendation that we add the starvation amendment to this piece of legislation. The National Party took a different position but, actually, with the Minister intending to add that amendment at the committee stage, I’m hoping that the National Party will support it. The reality is that starvation means—and I quote—“A method of warfare by depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival.” That is, they kill people by not giving them food and water. We have to do something about that; we have an opportunity through that bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Privacy Bill

Third Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Privacy Bill be now read a third time.

The purpose of this bill is to promote and protect people’s privacy and give them confidence that their personal information is properly safeguarded. Privacy can mean different things to different people, but I think we can all agree that privacy law and data protection are vital, particularly now, when information in the hands of agencies and corporates has the power to affect the lives of individuals globally. It’s imperative that our law relating to privacy is fit for purpose.

New Zealand privacy law has been well served for 27 years by the 1993 Privacy Act. Applying to almost every person, business, or organisation in New Zealand, the Act’s privacy principles guide how personal information can be collected, used, stored, and disclosed. However, information technology has revolutionised how we deal with personal information. We’re collecting, storing, and disclosing more personal information than ever before. This bill updates the Privacy Act to modernise its language and strengthen privacy protections to better address the challenges of our data-rich society. The bill retains the existing principles-based approach to privacy regulation, which is the strength of our privacy regime, while further strengthening it in a number of respects. I will highlight a few of these.

The Privacy Bill introduces new mechanisms to promote early intervention and risk management by agencies, rather than relying on people making complaints after a breach has occurred. The bill’s reforms will also enhance the role of the Privacy Commissioner. One of the key reforms in the bill is the new requirement for agencies to report privacy breaches that pose a risk of serious harm to people. A privacy breach is any unauthorised or accidental access to or disclosure, alteration, loss, or destruction of personal information. Privacy breaches can affect people significantly. It’s important that people are aware of what’s happened to their personal information so that they’re able to take steps to prevent or mitigate any harm. Requiring agencies to notify affected people and the Privacy Commissioner of privacy breaches brings our privacy law up to date and aligns it with overseas best practice.

This bill also gives the Privacy Commissioner new powers. It allows the commissioner to issue compliance notices which will require an agency to do something or to stop doing something in accordance with the bill. This power will enable agencies and the commissioner to take more proactive steps to address privacy concerns. Currently, compliance relies on an individual bringing a complaint rather than placing accountability on the agency to address privacy concerns, and issuing compliance notices will fill this gap in the law. The Privacy Commissioner will also be given the power to make access directions requiring agencies to provide people with access to personal information that they hold. Currently, the commissioner can only mediate and make recommendations regarding access; so this will streamline the existing complaints resolution process so that people can access their personal information quickly.

The bill provides certainty about the extent to which it applies in a range of situations involving overseas persons, agencies, and information. This is important now that New Zealanders routinely submit their personal information directly to online retailers and other businesses based overseas. To strengthen protections, New Zealand agencies will now be accountable for ensuring that acceptable safeguards will apply to information that is sent overseas. Cross-border disclosures will generally only be allowed if the information is subject to comparable privacy protections overseas as apply in New Zealand or the person concerned consents to the disclosure. The bill also clarifies an agency’s obligations when they send personal information offshore for storage or processing. It provides that personal information is still treated as being held by a New Zealand agency when it’s held by another agency for storage or processing, even if that other agency is outside New Zealand or stores the information offshore.

I’m aware of concerns that the bill’s reforms do not go far enough. In 2018, the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation was introduced. That law contains new rights, such as a right to data portability, a right to be forgotten, and requirements for algorithmic transparency. Many people, including the Privacy Commissioner, submitted that similar rights should be added into this bill. However, the Justice Committee did not recommend those additions, nor did it recommend substantial fines for individuals and organisations who seriously breach their obligations under the Privacy Act. These are important areas of privacy law, which would represent substantive changes to the bill and our current policy framework. They require careful consideration, policy development, and consultation, and they need to be considered within the wider regulatory scheme in order to avoid unintended consequences. Adding such reforms into this bill would significantly delay the enactment of the important reforms it already contains. Instead, these issues can be considered as part of any future work on privacy reform.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the road that we’ve taken to get to this stage of the parliamentary process and all of those who’ve contributed to this bill’s passage. In particular, I want to thank the members of the Justice Committee for its work on this technical piece of legislation and to those who submitted. The submissions that were made informed the committee’s refinements of the bill, which assists the bill in achieving its aims of enhancing protections for personal information. It’s satisfying to get to this final stage. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Well, I have to say that this is probably one of the best bills that the Government has brought to this House, when you put it up against their reformist agenda, like the prisoner voting bill or protecting the name of the Ombudsman. But the reason why this is probably one of their best pieces of legislation is that this is the work done by the Hon Amy Adams when she was justice Minister in the previous Government; so of course we’re in support of this bill.

The protections in the Privacy Bill are extremely important. The key purpose of the reform is to promote and protect people’s privacy and give them confidence that their personal information is properly protected. We support these privacy reforms, which were a large piece of work instigated, like I said, by the previous Minister of Justice, the Hon Amy Adams. I see Darroch Ball looking with admiration as he considers just how good this bill is and thinking thank goodness that, actually, this Government was able to pass at least one decent piece of legislation while they were in Government.

We support balancing strong privacy protections for individuals with sensible use of data and data sharing by agencies. Having sensible and practical privacy laws makes a huge difference to how effective Government programmes are. We’re very happy to stand in support of this bill. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to briefly speak on the bill in support of it as well. What occurs to me as I stand here is that this was a bill that was originally—well, the principal Act we’re amending was—put in place 25 years ago and yet here I stand with a device on me that tracks where I shop, what I look at, and develops algorithms about my habits. We live in a vastly different privacy environment to that that was around when the principal Act was put into place, and so it’s timely and appropriate that this bill is developed at this stage. It’s been done so with cross-party support, and I strongly commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the reference to the age of this bill. This bill’s almost as old—or the law that it’s replacing, the Privacy Act 1993, is almost as old—as me. But it’s great to be here to see—

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s taller.

SIMEON BROWN: It’s taller than me. That’s right—very good point. There’s a lot of things which are taller than me, including this bill. It’s probably quite a big one.

But it’s great to be in the House to be talking about a piece of legislation which has put forward the review done under the previous National Government, the work done by the Hon Amy Adams, to update our privacy legislation. These protections which are in this bill are incredibly important to New Zealand, and it is important that they do keep pace with ever-changing technology and the way the world is operating.

It’s important, though, as well, that it does go through due process; so this piece of legislation has gone through a huge amount of consultation from the Law Commission’s report review back in 2011, which recommended complete modernisation by repealing and replacing the previous Act and then bringing this bill in, which reflects new technologies, the way data is stored, the way Governments use it, and providing new provisions around this.

So this piece of legislation will make a number of key changes, one of which will be that it brings in a new criminal offence to mislead an agency in a way that affects someone else’s information, and to knowingly destroy documents containing personal information where a request has been made for it, with a penalty fine of $10,000. These are important changes. It will make important steps forward for New Zealanders whilst protecting their privacy rights. The National Party commends this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The Green Party supports the Privacy Bill and would acknowledge the huge amount of work that the Law Commission did in 2011 with its review and its report, finding that the Privacy Act was essentially—the foundations of it were good, but it was in need of overhaul and updating to recognise new technology and the challenges that that creates, and also to recognise that we’ve got a view now of privacy and the need to protect it that is evolving in the light of new technology. So this bill retains the flexibility that was in the Privacy Act, but the new reforms also encourage agencies to address privacy risks at an early stage, so that citizens can be assured that their data, their information, is protected. The Green Party commends the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I move, That the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill be now read a third time.

I’d like to acknowledge from the outset the whole House for its support in bringing this forward to its third reading. I’d particularly like to acknowledge our coalition partners, New Zealand First, for their ongoing interest and support for having an independent commission and I also acknowledge our confidence and supply partners in the Green Party, who also have been keen advocates for this outcome. I want to thank too the Health Committee for its speedy and considered recommendations that helped shape the bill that we have before us. Improving the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealanders is, and should continue to be, a focus for all of us here, and it has been pleasing to see the overall support for establishing the new commission.

This Government has taken significant steps to improve mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand. We have expanded access and choice in the primary care area and also addiction supports. We’ve developed initiatives to prevent suicide and support people bereaved by suicide. We’ve improved support for people experiencing mental distress and addiction. We’ve strengthened specialist alcohol and other drug services and expanded enhanced school-based health services, the so-called nurses in schools.

Progress has been very difficult, but there is more work to do. Sorry, I shouldn’t say “difficult”; I should say “significant”—all progress has its own challenges, but what I mean is “significant”. Transformation does take time and must be supported by a long-term commitment and focus, and it’s important New Zealand continues to prioritise mental wellbeing throughout the challenges we are facing. That is part of the commission’s role, keeping us on track. The bill delivers on the election commitments made by Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens. It also fulfils the commitment in the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First.

Now, I want to briefly speak to the commission’s role. It will provide confidence that the Government is on track, as I’ve said. By providing independent system-level oversight of mental health and wellbeing in New Zealand, it will hold the Government of the day and other decision makers to account for their contribution to the mental health and wellbeing of New Zealand.

The bill gives the commission the ability to look at the full spectrum of mental wellbeing, and this was well canvassed in the committee stage debate. That goes from the promotion of mental wellbeing to the social determinants to how the system is supporting those with serious need. The commission, therefore, has a wide scope to consider factors that contribute to mental health and wellbeing from outside the sector, and that goes to things like income, employment, poverty, housing, social connection, and discrimination. The Government’s intention is that the commission look at those determinants in so far as they impact on the mental wellbeing of all people—not all domains of wellbeing; there are other agencies involved in that work as well.

The commission has three types of main functions. The first set of functions relates to monitoring, reporting, and making recommendations. The commission will assess and report publicly on the mental health and wellbeing of people in New Zealand and that will provide transparent information to the public and to the Government and non-Government decision makers about what’s happening and how it’s working. It is important the commission is not just a monitor but that it also contributes to improving the system, so it will also make recommendations for improvements to approaches to mental wellbeing. The commission can make recommendations to any person, and that includes to Ministers, and it can compel information also from Government agencies. The commission’s functions and powers allow it to identify opportunities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of approaches to mental health and addiction services or other areas outside the mental health and addiction sector that impact on mental health, and that goes to those areas I’ve spoken to just before.

The second function is about promoting alignment, collaboration, and communication between those involved in mental wellbeing. It is critical that we have a mental health and wellbeing system that’s joined up and accountable. The collaboration role is particularly important, given the commission’s broad focus and the many contributors to mental wellbeing from both the health sector and from other areas.

The third function of the commission is advocacy for the collective interests of people who experience mental distress and addiction and the people who support them. We know that effective advocacy can actually be an important contributor to people’s mental wellbeing and to equitable provision of services. It can ensure that the voices of people are heard and that the people who are affected remain at the centre of decision making. And the commission’s advocacy function gives it the platform to promote positive mental wellbeing and to challenge stigma, challenge discrimination, and challenge other barriers to mental wellbeing.

The commission’s role is to contribute to improved mental wellbeing for all New Zealanders. Unfortunately, we know that the burden of mental health does not fall evenly in our society; some are at a disadvantage and experience poor mental health and addiction outcomes more often than others. Equity is therefore at the heart of the commission’s role, and the importance of this aspect was reflected during the select committee process itself where, I’m informed, there was strong interest from groups who represent those people with poor mental health outcomes. Throughout the bill, the intent is clear that the commission must assess and report on precisely this area on equity and a system that contributes positively to achieving equity for Māori and for other groups that experience poorer mental health and wellbeing outcomes currently in society.

As part of its focus on equity, the commissioner must have effective means of seeking views. It must seek the views of Māori, people with personal experience of mental distress and addiction, and people who share a common identity, experience, or stage of life that increases the risk that they will experience poor mental health and wellbeing. Groups listed in the bill as being of risk of experiencing poorer mental health and outcomes include disabled people, Pacific people, rural communities, children and young people, rainbow communities, refugees, and migrants.

So, in closing, as we recover from COVID-19, I expect the commission will play a key role in assessing the ongoing impact COVID-19 has on the mental wellbeing of people in this country. I anticipate that the commission will monitor how the mental wellbeing of individuals, whānau, and communities is being supported at all levels, from community-led interventions to the all-of-Government contribution to mental health and wellbeing.

It’s important, in my view, that New Zealand continues to prioritise mental wellbeing and the commission has an important role to keep us on track and to be a voice for the collective mental wellbeing of people in this country. If the commission is effective in performing its role, it will help improve and increase trust in New Zealand’s approaches to mental wellbeing. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise on behalf of the National Party to support the third reading of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. This is an important day for New Zealand’s journey in not only treating mental illness but promoting mental wellbeing in our communities of Aotearoa New Zealand. I will be the only National member of Parliament taking a call in this debate this afternoon, and that’s because we believe, on this side of the House, we want to expedite this bill so it is enacted as soon as possible. In fact, through the amendments of the select committee, we were able to make a change where this bill would be brought in by 9 February 2021 or earlier, if the bill was passed. That’s why I think it’s important today that we make sure, under this urgent sitting, that this bill is finally passed this afternoon.

I do want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Health Committee, especially Health Committee chair, Louisa Wall, and the cross-party mental health group—Chlöe Swarbrick from the Greens, Jenny Marcroft from New Zealand First, David Seymour for ACT, and Louisa Wall for Labour—who are coming together to, hopefully, take a bipartisan approach to addressing the big issues we’ve faced in New Zealand around mental health and to take longer term solutions than the parliamentary three-year cycle.

I also want to thank the submitters, who I think played a big and pivotal role in the bill that’s turning up today in its third reading. We had a range of submitters, from mental health professionals, people with lived experience, families and friends of people who have been distressed by their own mental illness, advocacy groups, and stakeholder groups. I do want to highlight one submitting group, and that was the Young Nationals. I know there are other youth wings in other parties that take an active role in making sure the parties that they support are addressing mental health, and why that is important for the younger generation is we know our younger generation is highly articulate about mental health. They have the vocabulary to talk about it. They are not fearful to talk about their own mental health issues, and they are the ones who are driving us forward and I want to acknowledge them. Specifically, I’ve worked with the Young Nats as the National Party mental health spokesperson over the term. I want to put on the record one of the policies that we will be taking to the general election, and that is a contestable fund to roll out psychological first aid training. It was developed in conjunction with our Young Nationals, and I think they’ve done a fantastic job in developing that policy.

Of course, the Mental Health Commission is not new, and it is back to the future in some ways. One of the concerns when the previous Mental Health Commission was disbanded was that people felt that it had lost its teeth, its mandate, and lost its way. What we really need is an entity that will drive change. In fact, we kind of need to get mental health out of health because, as we know, it is a cross-Government, a whole-of-Government, issue—responsibilities in education, criminal justice, health, and social development. So I think it’s important that we make sure the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission has the mandate and the authority to really drive that change.

This side of the House was disappointed that we weren’t able to amend the bill for the ability for targets to be included. The reason I point that out, and it is with respect to the initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission who are currently in this role, is that they’ve produced a check-in report of where we’re at. In some ways, it’s a good report; it’s a bit of a snapshot. But I will be hoping, once we have the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission in place, that it will be picking out areas that we need to improve on with more voracity than this report.

You know, we do know after the mental health inquiry that we currently serve only about 5 percent or 6 percent of the population, providing mental health services to them. The mental health inquiry indicative target said we needed to get to 20 percent. So we need this independent entity to drive that forward to hold to account the Government of the day, the responsible Ministers. I do have a view of my own that I do hope one day in New Zealand’s Parliament we will see our first stand-alone mental health Minister. Other jurisdictions across the world have moved to that model, states in Australia as well—not necessarily a mental health ministry, but a stand-alone mental health Minister that can work across his or her Cabinet, across his or her Government, and across all the Government agencies to draw the mental health strategy forward, and to drive it forward. Because what we listen to and hear every day in our constituents’ offices is that time and time again—I even received an email from a lady last night who’s been let down by mental health services, and that’s a criticism of successive Governments. I think now that it’s incumbent on us; the time is right for mental health to make a big step change. I hope and I believe that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will be a key driver of that.

Just to finish, I just want to reflect on some of the challenges, as this bill has gone through the House. One of the things we were faced with on the select committee was how you agree on targeted groups, because, of course, as soon as you start deciding groups, you start excluding groups. But I think the select committee was able to work through that very collaboratively and end up with the schedule at the end of this bill that highlights a number of key groups. One thing I think we are proud of on this side of the House was the inclusion of our rural communities. Devastatingly, in New Zealand, we have a high suicide rate. Thankfully for urban communities, that has tracked down 7 percent. But, unfortunately and devastatingly, for our rural communities, that has increased by 17 percent. I do hope that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will look into that, but also to the full range of target groups. In the end, we do need to differentiate—what will work for the rural communities of New Zealand will be very different for what needs to be provided for the urban communities that we serve.

This is an important bill for New Zealand; I commend it to the House. Godspeed to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission to make a real change for New Zealanders.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. As the chair of the Health Committee, I’m incredibly proud of this bill, and, firstly, I want to acknowledge Minister Clark, who’s here today. This is a flagship policy for you. You’ve made it your priority, you’ve made it your focus, and, actually, through the He Ara Oranga report process, which listened to New Zealanders, this was one of the recommendations.

So I want to acknowledge that we are creating an independent Crown entity. It will be independent of Government policy, and I think that’s really important.

I want to acknowledge the 99 written submissions and the 42 oral submitters who came to the committee. I too want to thank “Team Health”, I’d call us. We’re incredibly collaborative, and, again, this is an example of that work.

The groups that have been identified in Schedule 1A—this was an innovation, and I want to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for allowing us that opportunity. All the groups wanted to be listed, to be honest, because part of the requirement of the commission is to identify priority groups and to consult with them. So, obviously, as has already been mentioned, Māori are there by virtue of our status as our indigenous peoples, but we’ve also prioritised Pacific peoples, refugees and migrants, the rainbow community—who particularly mobilised, I want to say—rural communities, disabled people, veterans, prisoners, young people, older people, children experiencing adverse childhood events, and children in State care.

I thank the officials. For me, I want to highlight the work of Robyn Shearer and the team from the Ministry of Health, and, I guess, my simple message to them is that if they take the people with them and if they build on the relationships through this process, then the outcomes will take care of themselves.

The only other group I wanted to highlight were men, actually, because our men are our priority. Our colleague Matt Doocey highlighted that in the rural sector, it is men who disproportionately are taking their lives, but we also know that in the construction space, it’s become an emerging issue.

So I just want to end with what is the objective of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and that is—and I quote—“better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for people in New Zealand.” I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai, tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand this afternoon in support of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission Bill. In doing so at this, the third reading, after which we will be passing through Royal assent, the commission will fully and finally be realised, moving on from its interim stage at present.

I just want to recognise all of the mahi, which the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall, has echoed, in recognising those who came before the select committee and had their voices heard, as well as those who contributed to He Ara Oranga, the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction. But, alongside that, I want to recognise those who have championed this in the political and the advocacy and the activism spheres for such a long time, and I also want to recognise former Green MP Kevin Hague, who, as health spokesperson for the Greens, fought really hard against the original disestablishment of the Mental Health Commission. But what we’re talking about today, with the establishment of this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, is the establishment of a commission, of an entity, that will, essentially, be a watchdog, that will hold our Government—and future Governments—to account for their implementation of policies, of funding, of law, and of the impact that that has on the mental health of New Zealanders, particularly those who have been identified in this legislation as particularly of need.

I want to just actually stipulate that all of us have mental health. We often talk about mental health as though it’s this kind of thing that’s out there, that we only ever talk about it when it is poor. But, in the same way that all of us have physical health, we have mental health, and I actually think that this is perhaps best recognised in a tikanga Māori model of health, the hauora, which recognises social wellbeing, physical wellbeing, spiritual and mental or emotional wellbeing, all of those things as being interconnected and all interdependent for wellbeing at large. Actually, I think we need to recognise that the mental ill-health crises that we presently have in this country is the logical consequence of what occurs when you start to deprioritise certain elements of that hauora model. This is what happens when we try and disconnect individuals from their communities. This is what happens when people don’t have a sense of hope, a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, and a sense of identity. I think that, hopefully, in the wake of COVID-19, as we come into this place of recovery as a country, we’re starting to recognise how deeply interconnected and interdependent we all are as communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.

Funnily enough, on the point around this interconnection and the importance of our physical, our emotional, our community, that being our social and our spiritual wellbeings, that interconnection is actually core Green kaupapa. Oftentimes we’re critiqued as a party for not only focusing on the environment but also talking about the social and community issues that people in this country face. I guess, in threading that needle to the prominence and importance that this Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission will have moving forward, it is to recognise, fundamentally, that all of this stuff is connected and, hopefully, that we can continue that conversation with a semblance of the nuance that it is owed as we move forward.

Of course, this is one of the many recommendations out of the Government inquiry into mental health and addiction that was titled He Ara Oranga. I think that that report was groundbreaking in and of itself, because, for the first time, even though we’d had multiple inquiries over the last few decades into the state of our mental health services, this was the first one that was given the mandate to look beyond solely the individual clinical forms of treatment that we may respond with as a society, as a health system, or as politicians. It was groundbreaking because it looked at individuals as part of society. It was groundbreaking because it looked at the features and the factors and the attributes and the characteristics of one’s life that can lead them to experience poor mental health, and it therefore recognised that mental ill-health does not occur in a vacuum. In fact, it reflected swathes of contemporary research which showcases that people’s environments are largely determinative of poor mental health—interestingly, in the same way that poor physical environments can be determinative of poor physical health. Again, this is the critical point that I need all of us to really reflect on today: that all of this stuff is connected and none of it happens in a vacuum.

We’re stoked, as the Greens, that this is passing today. We’re stoked because we hope that it is the start of the journey of the recognition in a systemic, institutional way that mental ill-health isn’t happening in this vacuum over or out there, but, in fact, it is deeply embedded in our lives and in society at large. I want to commend the Minister of Health, Dr David Clark, for his mahi in working, actually, across the House, from my understanding, and in speaking to the members of the newly formed mental health and addiction wellbeing cross-party group. This is important, and this will be really important to a lot of people. So I hope that we don’t take this as just lip-service, having ticked it off the list, but, in fact, that what we’re establishing today is an institution that will hold us all to account and make sure that we bloody well are holding ourselves to the promises that we are making. Very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that Part 1 stand part.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of this bill to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

BRETT HUDSON (National): Like a good gentleman, I thought I’d allow the Minister to take a call. But instead, I’d just—you know, it’s a late Wednesday afternoon on a Friday. So I just thought I might just inquire, because I subbed into the committee for this bill. So we were keen to understand why it was that a piece of legislation had to be passed in order for people to talk to each other, maybe make a few plans—because we actually support the idea of an integrated approach to transport planning, which would include discussions about how all forms of transport, including rail, sit alongside our road network developments and plans.

So the Minister might like to stand, rather than just let this go through to the keeper, and perhaps give us the reason why it required legislation for this. I’ll give the Minister an example just to help. So if we take the integrated service response (ISR) for family harm, for instance, that’s a unit that sees members from multiple agencies, about half a dozen, maybe more, come together the day after a family harm incident, each of them having access to every piece of information, each of them understanding precisely what happened, discussing together what needs to happen, what should happen, and taking ownership, particularly for a lead, to make that happen.

So it’s not clear, Minister, why provisions in this bill are required for humans to get together and make sensible decisions. So you might actually like to take a call and tell us why we’re taking this time under urgency to pass a bill to simply enact what people have been doing since time immemorial, and it certainly has worked in Government with the example I used of the ISR. Let’s start with that one, please.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I thank the member Brett Hudson for his questions, and it provides a useful opportunity to set out the reason, then the purpose, of this bill at the beginning of this debate.

By statute, and by many decades of customer practice in this country, the planning and investment in decision making to support the country’s rail network has been siloed from, completely separate from, the broader management of our land transport system, and it does seem bizarre that rail hasn’t, by law, been considered land transport. And so our National Land Transport Programme—the three-yearly programme of investment in public transport and roads, State highways, local roads, walking, cycling—has not and cannot incorporate rail in its planning. That’s why, fundamentally, we are changing the law to bring rail in from the cold, to fully integrate it into our policy planning investment and decision-making framework.

And so the bill mandates the creation of a rail network investment programme on a three-yearly cycle. That will be signed off by Ministers, but on the basis of advice from Waka Kotahi, who are responsible for the land transport system, directly addressing this question about integration and coordination. We want all modes to be able to play to their strength. There is certain freight which is best carried by coastal shipping, some of which is best carried by rail, a lot of which is best carried by the road freight haulage industry—unless we have a good understanding of how they all join up, then we cannot make the appropriate infrastructure investments.

I hope that’s an answer to the member’s question. It’s certainly the intent of this bill, and I want to thank the select committee for all the good suggestions they’ve made and the amendments that have been incorporated.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Minister. That was an answer. It didn’t answer the element of why it was necessary, but it certainly did answer why you want to do it. So my follow-up question to that is: OK, we accept that, we actually think this integrated planning is a good idea, but why, therefore, is it necessary to legislate to allow the pilfering from the taxes the hard-working motorists pay for their roading network to fund the decisions that follow from that planning process? Oh, come on. Do you want me to ask another one?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I will, hopefully, do justice to the member Brett Hudson’s question. In this country we have a world-leading transport funding and planning system based on the principle of hypothecation. So all of the contributions that are made through road-user charges and through fuel excise duty—every cent of that money is spent on transport in one way or another, so it’s completely hypothecated. It’s certainly been our Government’s policy that rather than investing all of that money only in one mode, that actually in the 21st century we have to take a more intelligent approach and invest across the modes in order to deliver the best outcomes for New Zealanders—whether they are motorists, whether they’re catching the bus or the ferry, or walking and cycling—that way we can get a truly efficient and sustainable system.

I’ll give the member one example of why that’s important. If you look in Auckland at the success of the Northern Busway that cost about $400 million to build a decade and a half ago, it’s taken three lanes of traffic off the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and actually saved the country billions of dollars. By investing in a busway, it’s created a massive benefit for motorists. That’s why we have to take a multimodal approach, including rail, which delivers year on year, as the EY report demonstrated three years ago. It delivers $1.5 billion of economic and social value to New Zealanders every year by getting freight off the roads, preventing deaths and serious injuries, reducing carbon emissions, and reducing wear and tear on the roads. So that’s the joined-up approach that underpins this bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 521 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford be agreed to.

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

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 7; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 39

New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, be agreed to.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 7; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 39

New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

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

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Our Government is committed to securing the role of rail in the New Zealand transport system. The network is a major contributor to the national and regional economic growth of this country. It’s a vital link in our supply chain, and it will play an important role in our economic recovery from the pandemic.

Rail provides so many benefits to New Zealand: reducing emissions and congestion, reducing road deaths and injuries, and providing vital connections between communities. This Government’s vision is for a multimodal transport system that gives Kiwis real transport choices, and within that system we are striving for a national rail network that will provide modern rapid transit in our largest cities, particularly Auckland and Wellington. But, as we speak, as Tauranga, as Hamilton, and as Canterbury plan their future transport systems, they are all looking, in one way or another, at the role that rail can play as the backbone of public transport systems.

Rail is also the backbone of a sustainable 21st century freight network, and we need to consider all of the modes together as parts of an integrated land transport system. We want the most efficient mode to be used for any given task moving freight or people, and rail can no longer be left out in the cold. This bill brings it in for decision makers to consider alongside every other mode. It will support the restoration of rail, helping to achieve our Government’s goal of a rail network that delivers value for all New Zealanders.

The EY Value of Rail report—that was commissioned by KiwiRail, but suppressed by the former National Government, and released by KiwiRail when I became the Minister of Transport—found that rail contributes $1.5 billion of value to New Zealand every year. By taking trucks off the road and reducing wear and tear on our highways, by preventing deaths and serious injuries, and by reducing carbon emissions, it contributes real value. Without it, our transport system simply wouldn’t work.

The Future of Rail review that our Government did found that the network has been in a state of managed decline. Fixing the issues with rail so that it can deliver on our vision requires an ongoing commitment to investing in the network, and that’s why our coalition Government has invested $4.6 billion into the rail network in the last three years. However, the challenge is not just about increasing the level of investment. We also must update our current approach to planning and funding rail, and address the structural factors that have contributed to its managed decline.

The annual planning and funding arrangements for rail through the Budget process have imposed a short-term view of investment that is entirely inappropriate for a long-lived asset like rail. The result has been uncertainty, short-term procurement decisions, and chronic under-investment in the rail network.

The new planning and funding framework that this bill ushers in follows a partial integration approach. It brings rail and other land transport investments closer together and allows investments to be made in a way that gets them to work together. This is an important step not only for rail but for our vision of an efficient and sustainable multimodal transport system. Ministers will retain their decision-making rights over rail investments, KiwiRail continues as a State-owned enterprise, and Waka Kotahi—the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)—will be responsible for providing Ministers with advice on the rail network investment programme, which will be produced on a three-yearly cycle. While the Government guides the rail network through the investments needed to keep it resilient and reliable, it’s crucial that Ministers are accountable for and have oversight of the funding for the rail network as well as its commercial assets.

It’s important to ensure that the statutory rail network investment programme established by this bill is robust and it reflects regional and national priorities. This bill ensures that Waka Kotahi gives independent advice to KiwiRail and Ministers that takes into account any relevant regional land transport plan. Rail is critically important to so many of our regions, and it’s very important that the regions have a voice in the rail network investment plan. This will also ensure that Ministers are informed of any interdependencies between the regional priorities, the regional land transport programmes, and projects. This will allow KiwiRail to work closely with Waka Kotahi and regional councils to make sure the voices of the regions are heard.

This approach will also ensure that rail infrastructure is funded through the National Land Transport Fund. That is the budget and the programme of all land transport modes that is produced on a three-yearly cycle with a 10-year horizon. This bill contributes to our goal of ensuring that rail is no longer siloed and no longer ignored, but its critical decisions about investment and services are made in a joined-up and integrated way so that in any given corridor or any urban area where we’re wanting to move people, or in any freight task around New Zealand, we can make investments based on what is the most sustainable, efficient, resilient transport mode, and not by simply defaulting to what we have always done.

As we’ve previously said, Crown funding for rail will need to increase from past levels to ensure that KiwiRail can continue to operate as a commercial business and that its freight and logistics operation is run on commercial lines as a business, but we also want to secure the public benefits from the wider rail network. The development under this legislation of a track user charge recognises the need for transparency and fairness in rail funding. The track user charge will ensure that the users of the rail network contribute to its maintenance and upkeep. Under the National Land Transport Fund, we can continue, in a small way, to invest in rail when it is the most appropriate investment for the transport system, but I want to make it clear—because I know this is something that is still sensitive, and it’s been the subject of some confused debate—that the bulk of funding for rail on an ongoing basis will continue to be provided by the Crown. With this combination of funding from track users, the Crown, and the National Land Transport Fund, we will be able to fund the catch-up investments the rail network needs to achieve its goals.

Rail is a strategic, long-lived, national asset which delivers safety, anti-congestion, and environmental benefits for all New Zealanders. It is the sustainable backbone of our 21st century transport system. It’s clear that we need to take a long-term and properly planned, integrated approach to rail in this country, and this bill is about changing that approach to transport planning and applying a long-term strategic approach.

The bill will secure rail’s ability to continue to deliver those benefits to New Zealand that I’ve mentioned, and we will ensure that we have a rail network that keeps people, places, and products connected. It won’t surprise members of this House that the commanding heights of our economy, the great export producers, our dairy, forestry, coal, timber—all of those are the major export primary producers, and they want to see investment in rail. They want an efficient and modern, capable rail network. Talk to the two freight-forwarding companies who shift the most freight in this country—Toll Holdings and Mainfreight—and they want to see investment in a modern rail network. They don’t support the narrow, roads-only vision that we so often hear from the Opposition benches.

This bill will be vital for progressing regional economic development, creating jobs, and developing our regions at a time when they need it most. The bill will give the long-term certainty that the rail network needs, and it will be instrumental in delivering a resilient, reliable, and safe rail network that will benefit all New Zealanders.

I want to finish by thanking the public servants in the Ministry of Transport, the people who work for KiwiRail and NZTA, and Treasury, actually, who have all contributed to the future of rail review and this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill. Look, it’s actually a bit of a smoke and mirrors bill, in the main. It’s got a lot of stuff it talks about which is—some of it good—not actually legislatively necessary, all to disguise what the Minister of Transport admitted: that, actually, at the heart of this, the nub of this, is the little land transport cookie jar that they can raid when they feel a need to fund rail.

Actually, Mr Speaker, you wouldn’t have seen, but Madam Speaker before you might have gathered that I appeared a bit late here when the revised speaking list came out this afternoon, worried that I might not be able to make it in time to take this call. As things transpired, it was so much easier, so much easier. But, you know, that actually of itself is illustrative of the wrong-headed thinking in this and why we shouldn’t be pilfering the Land Transport Fund funded out of roading fuel taxes for rail, as there I was, on the eastern side of the CBD and look, surprise, surprise, there is no way I could have got back here by the rail that this Minister wants to raid from that fund.

It took Wellington Combined Taxis. It took the second taxi; for some reason, the first one took a look at me and decided to go elsewhere. But the second taxi got me here on time using the road, the road funded at least in part because it’s a local road—at least half-funded by road-user taxes paid by motorists that this Minister wants to divert away, divert away from the network used most often by most people for most journeys and to instead put it somewhere which is used far less often, by far less people for far less purposes. That is suboptimal at best. I wouldn’t claim it wasn’t used at all, but compared to the roading network and the demands on that, it is used far, far less.

I do agree with the Minister, though, that the idea of integrating our planning—transport planning, including all modes, particularly rail, alongside road—is a good idea. In fact, it’s a fantastic idea. It doesn’t need legislation to do it. You don’t need legislation for people to talk to each other, arrive at a consensus, and agree on a way forward. You don’t actually need law to permit that. But even if we allowed that, perhaps, legislating a framework around that might assist in some way; you don’t need to take money out of the Land Transport Fund from motorists to achieve that. So all this bill really is about is a funding source for rail that takes money from people that have paid their taxes for the roads they use, giving them less, to give a service that doesn’t appear to be able to wash its own face a bit more money.

I’m just going to finish with a comment he made about people that said they want this—Mainfreight, for instance. If there were road transport companies that really wanted rail to thrive, they would put more of the goods they carry on rail. That would create the profits the retention of which would provide the capital for KiwiRail to have grown. The fact they don’t do that shows that it isn’t the economic powerhouse that the Minister wants to believe it is. There is a place for rail investment from the consolidated fund, Minister. Road users who pay road taxes have an absolute right to expect that those taxes—because, as you have said, they are hypothecated—will go to maintain and further improve their roading network. This is a bad bill conceived of a bad idea.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s disappointing to hear that—and, really, some fundamental misconceptions about how the funding of State assets works. It’s no good expecting Mainfreight to put more freight on rail if the rail system is absolutely derelict through years and years of neglect. I speak for Canterbury here, because we would love to see some rail down in Christchurch—better freight, passenger rail; would love to see it there, but the state of the network at the moment simply doesn’t work.

If we can get some of that freight off the roads, on to the rail, free up congestion, and use those funds for improving the rail network, it’ll be better for everyone. People will move more freely, freight will move more quickly, carbon emissions will go down, and you know what? That’s the work that this Government has been doing for the last three years and will continue doing into the future, and this is part of that plan. I commend it to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, if we were to believe that member’s view of this, it’s all sunshine and lollipops if this bill is enacted. Well, the simple reality is that it is not, and this member is quite clearly unaware of the detail of how we’ve got to this stage with this particular piece of legislation. So, as it’s gone through the different steps, we have been very clear in our view that there is no need—and, in fact, that it would be inappropriate—to enable rail access to National Land Transport Fund money, which is, fundamentally, to have the upgrades of roading and the likes.

Hon Phil Twyford: It already has access to it.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Now, the Minister says they already have access to it. So, if that’s the case, why are we bothering with this piece of legislation at all, Mr Twyford? Clearly—clearly—the Minister is not quite up to speed on it, and I appreciate that it’s late in the day for him, but what the existing legislation enables is that the National Land Transport Fund is to be used for some aspects, like train stations or busways, that are outside the typical roading stuff, but this new bill enables a whole other suite of access to the funding. And so, from that perspective, we totally oppose that, because the fundamental premise on this side of the House is that the National Land Transport Fund is there to fund roading projects, and rail in particular should be funded through its own mechanisms in that manner. Now, we’re not opposed to rail funding, and indeed we support rail in the right places, but it should be a commercially focused Stated-owned enterprise (SOE). And what we’ve seen from this Government—the intent—and that’s born out through this legislation as well, is that KiwiRail moves away from that SOE model to a public-good model. And, simply, that’s not where it should be; that’s a fundamental difference in perspectives between the different sides of the House.

One of the key concerns I have in relation to this legislation, as well, is that, actually, it makes it a little clunky. So what we have brought in here, through this, is to implement what are called “rail network investment plans”. So these are a three-year programme of work that gets put forward to sit in the Government policy statement on transport. But the issue here is that the Minister has to sign off this rail network investment plan, which then the New Zealand Transport Agency must include in their planning programme; yet they have no ability to influence what’s in that plan. There’s no flexibility for them to make trade-offs between what might be proposed on the rail side versus the road side, and so, from that perspective, the two just don’t align, and you can’t merge that together into the seamless, multimodal transport system that the Minister claims he wants to achieve. It just doesn’t make sense; we don’t need this piece of legislation. It’s not the right thing.

One of the other aspects I have concern around now is that, given the COVID situation we’ve seen, there has been a significant shortfall in the revenue gained through the National Land Transport Fund, and so now, if we’re providing more of that funding for rail, the question is how many more roads are going to miss out. We’ve already seen $5 billion stripped out of that road funding budget by this Government. We totally oppose this bill and will continue to do so.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s no surprise, and should be no surprise to anyone, that we are supporting this bill, because New Zealand First is the party for the regions. What do we need in the regions? We need investment and, especially, we need investment in rail. I think that the Minister Phil Twyford quite eloquently set out in detail what this bill will do in regards to ensuring that we are able to invest in rail, concentrate on rail, build rail, especially in our regions. I think that he also outlined why it was so important.

What is hollow to me about the National Party not supporting this bill is the reason, because it’s opposite to what this side of the House is, which is we are the regions and we want to invest in rail, and that side doesn’t. The last speech that we heard from Tim van de Molen was that they want to invest in roads. Well, New Zealand First is supporting the Labour Party and this coalition Government and supporting this bill, and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I’m not going to take too long, because I endorse the comments made by my colleagues on this side of the House. We don’t support this bill. We don’t think it adds value. I think it was Margaret Thatcher, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said once that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money. This is a bill that is designed simply to rob Peter to pay Paul and to divert money away from road users to obsolete railway. So we oppose this bill, and that’s it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I actually wasn’t intending to do a call on this bill, but I do feel compelled to respond to the Hon Scott Simpson, particularly his invocation of former Prime Minister—I’m aware that I’m also standing between members and their weekend as we end urgency. But I do just really, really, really need to respond to the invocation of former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, and particularly that statement: “The problem with socialism is you run out of other people’s money.” I want to ask members of the National Party where on earth they think money for the roading projects that they love so much comes from. It is largely from everybody, because they are not particularly in favour of user-pays policies for roading projects. What that means is that people, like myself who do not own a car end up paying for the roads that the National Party is so keen on.

Just to make it really clear to members of the public who may be actually listening and hoping for some content of this legislation to be discussed, what the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill does is create a framework that brings planning and funding of the rail network under the land transport planning and funding regime set out by the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Currently, that Land Transport Management Act deals with the planning and funding of public transport, State highways, and of local roads. So to add rail into that mix is simply actually to become more agnostic towards the types of projects that we are funding. As an Opposition that so often gets up in the House and talks about ideology, I would really love them to reflect on the ideological obsession that they have with roads at the cost of all other projects.

Particularly on that point, just finally, I want to respond to the point made by the honourable Brett Hudson, which is that most people use roads—he’s not honourable. Well, my learned colleague, my learned friend Brett Hudson—

SPEAKER: No, no, he’s not even learned.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Oh OK, Brett Hudson from the Opposition.

SPEAKER: That’s for lawyers only.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yeah. What he was saying is that most people use roads; therefore, we should just continue to fund only roads. That has got to be some of the most broken logic that I have ever heard from a member of Parliament. We’ve always done things this way; therefore, we must always continue to do things this way, even if it particularly doesn’t work and is one of the major drivers for increasing carbon emissions in this country. We have an opportunity to do things differently. And, actually, the core logical point made by Brett Hudson is that if you build it, they will come, and they will use it. Therefore, it’s a great argument for investing in rail.

So the Green Party are really glad to be supporting this piece of legislation today, and I wish all members of the House a great weekend.

SPEAKER: The question is that—

Ian McKelvie: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh—I call Ian McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can’t resist it, Mr Speaker. I cannot resist it and the reason I cannot resist it is that I’ve got 10 minutes to waste, because the Government, by putting this bill through this afternoon, has stuffed my 5 o’clock at the Fat Farmer and I’m very upset about that, so I’m going to waste a bit of their time—because I’ll never get back to the Fat Farmer by 5 o’clock today. I just want to remind the previous speaker that we too like rail—so much so that one of the members of my electorate yesterday brought a petition to the House trying to get the train to stop in Taumarunui.

SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

IAN McKELVIE: The rail is so bad they won’t stop in Taumarunui. So that’s another reason for me not to support this bill, aside from the Fat Farmer at 5 o’clock.

But I just want to remind the Minister, because it’s ironic—irony is not meant to be used in this House, I realise that, but it’s somewhat ironic that the last Labour Government hypothecated road funding specifically to be used for roads, and this one’s de-hypothecating road funding to be used for whatever we want, and I thought that was quite interesting as well. I do remember the argument at the time, put up mostly by Local Government New Zealand, at length, to get road funding dedicated to roads. And now we’re un-dedicating road funding for roads. So, Mr Speaker, that’s my short contribution.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, I’m sorry. Dr Parmjeet Parmar. Sorry, the member’s got to call loud when we’re trying to get out of here!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Mr Speaker, thank you. Ha, ha! I just want to comment on that anti-road attitude from Chlöe Swarbrick and the Labour Government. They need to realise that buses run on roads. Buses are part of public transport systems, so we do need roads not just to support motorists but also to support our buses. Putting money from one pot to the other pot is not a real investment. We want real investment if the Government is really serious about investing in our rail network.

The Minister Phil Twyford was really good at using some words like “sustainable system”, “We need investment.”, “We need a multimodal transport system.” We support all those things, but this bill is not supporting that. So that’s why we oppose this legislation. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 45; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; New Zealand First 7.

Noes 32

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 4.09 p.m. (Friday)