Tuesday, 21 July 2020

TUESDAY, 21 JULY 2020

TUESDAY, 21 JULY 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Resignations

Andrew Falloon, Rangitata

Andrew Falloon

SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received an email from resigning his seat in the House effective immediately.

Obituaries

Hon Sir Toke Talagi

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I move that this House express its sadness at the passing of the former Premier of—

SPEAKER: The member—seeking leave.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I seek leave to move a motion without notice that this House express its sadness at the passing of the former Premier of Niue Hon Sir Toke Talagi, who passed away on 15 July, and place on record its gratitude for the contribution that he made to the self-governing State of Niue, including overseeing a resurgence of the Niuean language and culture and furthering the interests of the Realm of New Zealand in the Pacific region.

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I move, That this House express its sadness at the passing of the former Premier of Niue Hon Sir Toke Talagi, who passed away on 15 July, and place on record its gratitude for the contribution that he made to the self-governing State of Niue, including overseeing a resurgence of the Niuean language and culture and furthering the interests of the Realm of New Zealand in the Pacific region.

Fakaalofa lahi atu. We take this opportunity to convey our deep sympathy to the family of the Hon Sir Toke Talagi and to the people of Niue. Sir Toke passed away on 15 July in Niue, aged 69. He was first elected to Niue’s assembly in 1999 and in 2008 was elected the Premier of Niue, serving four terms until May 2020. Within weeks of taking office in 2008, he took up the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, and, across the years, he became an elder statesman of the Pacific, as well as a great friend to New Zealand. Sir Toke will be remembered for his life-long commitment to safeguarding Niue’s future security and prosperity, as demonstrated by his steadfast championing of sustainable economic development, education, and the protection of Niue’s taonga. In 2017, he was appointed a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in recognition of his many years of service to Niue and to the Realm.

Sir Toke will be laid to rest on Monday, 27 July, and our thoughts are with Lady Talagi, the extended Talagi family, the people of his village of Alofi, and all Niueans, wherever they may be. Monuina haau a fenoga ke he kautu he Atua.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): On behalf of the National Party we join with the New Zealand Parliament in giving our condolences and sympathies to Lady Emeline and also the Talagi family.

Fakaalofa lahi atu ke he motu ko Niue. Fakaalofa lahi atu kia Lady Fifita Talagi mo e fanau. Lahi e momoko he logona mai kua okioki taha matua Lilifu he motu ko Niue, Hon Sir Toke Tufukia Talagi. Monuina e fenoga ma matua. Kia fakamonuina he Atua a mutolu oti ma Niue.

Born in Alofi in 1951, Toke Tufukia Talagi was also educated in Tufukia School in Niue and then came to New Zealand, to Nelson College in New Zealand. He studied at Massey University at Palmerston North where he completed a Bachelor of Agricultural Science. While there he was also elected president of the Pacific Islands Students Association and organised protests against nuclear testing and racial discrimination; some would say thus began his political career.

He was elected to the Niue Assembly in 1999 and was immediately appointed an Associate Minister with responsibilities for economic development and civil aviation. As finance Minister he was also responsible for the managing of the recovery of Cyclone Heta and was the subject of public criticism over the distribution—but made a huge contribution to the recovery plans.

As Premier he was elected in June of 2008 on the 19th and he continued to progress relations with China and also negotiated with New Zealand for greater control of aid funding with those negotiations, which were successful. He was a major driver developing policies that would develop Niue as a greater economic independence power within the Pacific region. He was knighted in 2017 in the New Year honours for his investiture over here in Niue and also too in New Zealand, and for his support.

Some commentary has said that he was a controversial figure. He will be remembered as one of the greatest advocates of Niue—others have said this. I think Toke was one of the most unusual Niueans. He was determined. He built himself a business enterprise from nothing, and yet he was one of the strongest advocates for its people and for its country. He was always creative and fighting fiercely in many situations.

I can remember on many occasions on these Pacific missions where he would welcome us warmly and then at the same time, too, he would give us a sharp rebuke about the things that we could do more for Niue. So he truly was a son of the Pacific. It is said that his passion was the promotion of Niuean language and education of our young people and the future leaders of Niue.

A true son of the Pacific, now that your light has gone from this earth, may you continue to shine in the stars above your beloved Niue as a beacon of hope, of inspiration to all people in Niue and around the world.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): As Foreign Minister, we would like to express our sympathy and extend our condolences to the people of Niue regarding the passing of Sir Toke Talagi, and place on record our appreciation for the contribution he made to the advancement of Niue and the wider Pacific region.

Sir Toke served as a Minister first, and then as dedicated premier of Niue from 2008 to 2020, the second-longest serving Premier in Niue’s history. Over this 12-year period, he made a serious contribution to Niue’s progress, including by serving as Niue’s Foreign Minister. He was deeply respected across the Pacific Islands region, shaping Niue’s external engagement not only with New Zealand but throughout the Pacific and around the globe, and his legacy within the Pacific Islands region includes establishing Niue as one of the founding members of the Polynesian Leaders Group.

On a personal level, he was not the easiest man to deal with. In fact, in our first meeting, when I was the Treasurer of this country and he was the third Minister in their cabinet, we had a bit of a contretemps, so to speak, on how my country should be regarded after all its decades of assistance to the Islands. But we got over that, and—let me say—that’s an admirable thing. He always put, Sir Toke, the people of Niue first. So our thoughts and sympathies are with the people of Niue and his family at this difficult time. He has been a standout figure and, for many of us, he will be someone we remember with mixed but enduring affection.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, fakaalofa lahi atu ki a koe. The Green Party extends its support to the Prime Minister’s motion, wishing love and our condolences to the former Niue Premier, Sir Toke Talagi.

I noted with interest that he was elected president of the Pacific Islands students association and organised protests against nuclear testing and racial discrimination while he was using his time studying for a Bachelor of Agricultural Science at Massey University.

I also noted with interest that he campaigned and advocated strong and hard for more sustainable use of renewable energy. People of his beloved Niue and his beloved Alofi have talked about him being always creative; that he always wanted to find creative ways to fiercely protect Niue and Niueans—the mana motuhake, as we like to say, or their sovereignty and independence. People have talked about being remembered for his transformation, especially in the tourism sector in Niue, and I note with my colleague that he was also passionate about the promotion of the Niuean language.

Our thoughts, too, are with the people of Alofi and Niue, and I finish with a tribute to his advocacy and recognition of the impact of climate change across the whole entire Pacific region. He was very clear in his advocacy that “We stuffed up. It’s hard for us in the Pacific to think about anything beyond climate change, [that] every morning there’s a chance that water will be lapping in and in our houses.” I acknowledge the legacy and the continued work that we all have accountability to. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I’d like to join with other leaders, on behalf of ACT, in tribute and commemoration of Sir Toke Talagi and his tremendous leadership of Niue, and the people of Niue. I was fortunate enough to visit Niue for a week last July, and gained an appreciation of what a unique society it is, with some incredibly warm, thoughtful people, and some great challenges. I was able to see how, under the leadership of their Government over the past decade or so, they have overcome so many challenges and developed so well. I also got an appreciation of how important Niue is to New Zealand and, indeed, all of our Pacific friends, around whom it’s critical we wrap our arms first, because our relationships with our Pacific neighbours are our first and most important geopolitical relationship. I know that in such a small community, people will be sensing deeply the loss of such a strong leader who had led them for so long. I think it’s absolutely appropriate that, as the House of Representatives of New Zealand, we take the time to acknowledge their loss and reaffirm our friendship with all of the people of Niue. I commend this motion to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister, 30 June

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I seek leave to correct an answer to oral question No. 7 on 30 June 2020.

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

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I stated that in 2018-19, $14.56 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions. However, $14.56 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation alone. The correct statement is that in 2018-19, $14.71 billion was spent on New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) released on Friday showed the manufacturing sector bounced back in June, after a tough period since March due to the lockdown restrictions. The sector expanded with a reading of 56.3, up 16.5 points from May. This was boosted by strong readings for production and new orders, both at 58.6. While employment in the sector remains in contraction, with a reading of 47.8, the significant lift since May means that lay-offs are slowing. Compared to our international counterparts, New Zealand’s overall PMI reading was significantly higher than in Australia, China, the UK, the US, the eurozone, and Japan. While there are, indeed, tough times for many firms, this is a pleasing sign that the manufacturing sector is now beginning to experience the benefits of our collective efforts to go hard and early, squash the curve, and reopen our economy as one of the least restricted in the world.

Dr Deborah Russell: What recent reports has he seen on the performance of the services sector of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The June BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) was released yesterday, showing the services sector also bounced back strongly in June. The sector expanded with a PSI reading of 54.1, up 16.6 points since May. There are also encouraging signs in the activity and sales measures, jumping up to 58.7, and new orders, up to 59.6. As in the PMI, the employment indicator lifted but remains at 45.1. Compared with international counterparts, New Zealand’s PSI was better than that of Australia, the UK, the US, the eurozone, and Japan, who all saw contractionary readings for June. This is a further signal that our decision to go hard and early with our health response was also the best thing to do from an economic perspective. Because we have a more open economy, our industries are expanding faster than the rest of the world.

Dr Deborah Russell: What reports has he seen on confidence in the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Last week, Mind Your Own Business (MYOB) released a snapshot report on small to medium sized enterprise (SME) business confidence across New Zealand. The report showed confidence amongst SMEs is cautiously improving, and more businesses are expecting to see growth in the next 12 months following from March, when the economy was heading into lockdown. In addition, MYOB ran a comparison of their New Zealand and Australian SME surveys this month. This showed that more SMEs in New Zealand expect improvement in the economy over the next year than in Australia and slightly fewer New Zealand SMEs expect business to get worse over the year compared to Australian SMEs, and it also showed that more New Zealand SMEs thought revenue would increase over the year than those in Australia. This is yet another example of how the Government’s work, along with the team of 5 million, to keep the virus under control has meant that Kiwi firms can now operate in a more open and certain environment, while other countries continue to vary their level of restrictions and struggle to contain the virus.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is she satisfied with her Government’s record of delivery for new transport projects across the country?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Can I begin by taking the opportunity to congratulate the member opposite on her role as Leader of the Opposition. Coming back to her question, yes, I am pleased with what the Government has achieved this term to deliver new transport projects right across New Zealand, including the fact that we’ve either funded, started, or completed over 50 projects worth $10 million or more. We’ve already improved 2,500 kilometres of State highways with safety upgrades like rumble strips and safety barriers this term. In Auckland, we have of course plugged the $6 billion fiscal hole that was left by the last Government for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, which has allowed the ongoing construction around the Eastern Busway, State Highway 20B, the Puhinui interchange, the Old Māngere Bridge replacement project, and of course the ongoing work on the City Rail Link, the K Road cycleway, and Constellation bus station, to name a few. And we’re building a number of projects the member has signalled support for, including starting enabling works on the third main rail line and electrification to Pukekohe next month, and building has started on stage one of the Eastern Busway to Botany.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe that she has upheld her commitment in the Speech from the Throne for “more emphasis placed on public transport and light rail.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I know the member is probably going to reference light rail to the airport. I would say to the member that as she will well know, sometimes it takes a little longer than you would like to get what you want, and light rail would be an example of that for me and the Labour Party. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Judith Collins: It’s sort of lost if I can’t hear it, but that’s OK. What are the current estimates of—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I will remind the member that she asks questions, not gives a commentary.

Hon Judith Collins: What are the current estimates of when construction of light rail in Auckland will begin?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member knows, Cabinet gave this project full consideration. Two versions of the project were considered—two commercial options. Neither of those were agreed by Cabinet. That project has now gone back to the Ministry of Transport to then be presented to those parties who have the privilege of forming Government.

Hon Judith Collins: What are the estimated costs of the light rail proposals discussed by Cabinet for the next 10 years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If we’re talking specifically around the light rail project to the airport, the member will be aware that $1.8 billion was put aside for seed funding. The full cost of that project, of course, to the Crown would very much depend on the commercial arrangements for it, and, obviously, that was not something that this Government was able to settle. If the member wishes to reflect on any other projects, of course, there have been a number of rapid transit projects and public transport projects that this Government has contributed to. In Christchurch, we have contributed, roughly, $168 million to public transport through the years 2018-21 and, obviously, there’s the contribution to Let’s Get Wellington Moving, but if light rail in Auckland is what the member refers to, then those costs would very much depend on the commercial arrangement.

Hon Judith Collins: Has her Government upheld its commitment that “work will begin on light rail from the city to the airport in Auckland”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Certainly, it was the view of the Labour Party, and I think I can speak for the Greens—there was a view around the benefits of light rail to the airport. That was not a project that we were able to form consensus around. However, I am still incredibly proud of the number of projects this Government has delivered, and I see that the member, of course, has now delivered her own strategy for transport. I would point out the difference for this Government and, of course, the National Party is that we have fully funded our projects. On the other side, the National Party Opposition are planning to raid the COVID recovery and response fund to the tune of $7 billion, they are planning to raid over $3 billion from the multi-capital allowance determined for hospitals and schools, they are planning to borrow an extra $10 billion through the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and they want to cancel the regional fuel tax, leaving further cancellation of projects. On this side of the House, we fund what we plan.

David Seymour: Did the Government intend to have two completely different proposals for the same light rail project?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, the member is right to point out that when we first proposed this project, it was more of a streetcar-style project that was proposed. Over time, there was an unsolicited proposal brought through a public-public partnership proposal, and also NZTA significantly changed their proposal as well. So it is fair to say that what was campaigned on was not the eventual project considered by Cabinet.

David Seymour: Who’s actually in charge of this project?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Currently, it sits with the Ministry of Transport.

Hon Judith Collins: Has she seen the reported comments of the Rt Hon Winston Peters regarding light rail, “If Aucklanders knew the cost and disruption of light rail, they’d be shocked with collective alarm.”, and, if so, what is her response to those claims?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: These comments are no surprise to me. You’ll hear me reference in the first answer to the question that this was not a project that we could find consensus for around the Cabinet table. What we have formed consensus around are the more than 50 projects that we have either started, funded, or completed since we’ve been in Government, the large lengths of the country that we have put safety improvements around, and the fact that we have funded the considerable hole left by the last Government in Auckland. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask two—now—more senior members and one very senior member just to keep their mouths zipped while that’s going on.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So if she can’t get consensus in her Government, then why did she speak from the throne these words: “more emphasis placed on public transport and light rail.”?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Yeah, no—well, I don’t think we need to. The member can have another go at the question. She knows it’s out of order.

Hon Judith Collins: If, as the Prime Minister has said, she could not find a consensus in her Government for the light rail project, then why has she committed publicly to the light rail project as the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, as I’ve already pointed out, the project that the member is talking about that came before Cabinet was vastly different to the one that I campaigned on as Labour Party leader. Secondly, of course, as you’ve pointed out, in the statements made in the Speech from the Throne, reference was made to, of course, increasing multimodal transport options for New Zealanders. We did not believe in putting 40 percent of the transport budget into seven roads of national significance, which is what the last Government did. I would also note that in their first term they started two of them. We have produced 200 kilometres of stand-alone shared paths and cycleways since we entered office and started or funded or completed over 50 transport projects. We have made significant inroads on transport. The member happens to be referring to just one where we couldn’t agree.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister agree with the East West Link at $327 million a metre proposed by the National Party?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That, again, is an example of projects where, when we’ve come in, we have made a full reassessment. We have also chosen, of those projects that we have funded—we’ve made sure that they are fully funded, that they are delivered faster, and that they deliver better transport options—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fake figures.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —for New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader of the National Party will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And I think the Deputy Prime Minister might like to have a look at his Hansard as to the authentication. I think the member might have said “metre” when he meant “kilometre”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m sorry; it’s horrifying whichever way you look at it, but it was $327,000 a metre, or $327 million a kilometre.

Chris Bishop: It’s neither of those things—it’s neither!

Hon Judith Collins: To the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! No, well, the member has corrected it; it’s all right.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What did I apologise for, then?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member apologised for breaching Speakers’ rulings over many, many occasions. You know that there is a big difference between getting something wrong and making something up. There’s the question of mens rea. The member should think about it.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she then agree with the statement made about the light rail project by Jacinda Ardern in August 2017 that “I am committed to starting straight away.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve never denied that is a project that was a real priority for the Labour Party. We formed a Government later on in that year that was made up of three parties, not just one. That is the explanation for what happened with that project. I don’t know what that member’s explanation is for the fact that her Government announced projects that they didn’t even start, and they didn’t have a three-way coalition as an excuse.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement made in July last year, when asked whether light rail was definitely going ahead, “Oh, yes, yes, yes. Absolutely.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, we remained committed to that project and, in good faith, continued to assess the benefits of that project to Aucklanders. The fact that we could not find agreement on that does not remove the commitment we have to rapid transit in Auckland. I would point out that the member’s own proposals that she put out over the weekend include versions that try to create rapid transit to the airport as well. The major difference between us and the National Party is that we have funded our projects. We are not raiding schools and education for it, we are not increasing the debt on the New Zealand Transport Agency, and we are not ripping $7 billion out of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund for projects that won’t be delivered in 30 years’ time.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Prime Minister aware of any major transport infrastructure projects that have taken over seven years from the date of announcement to when they actually started construction?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. That would include a large number of the roads of national significance. In fact, in the first term in office, the National Party only started two of their seven projects, and some of them took seven years to complete.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it true that only one person has been killed on the roads of national significance since they have been completed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As a Government that has invested significant funding in 2,500 kilometres’ worth of safety improvements, we are a Government that is invested in safety improvements. As for the member’s claim, I cannot verify either way. But we are a Government committed to safety, not just investing in roads of national significance.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that this Government has significantly increased funding in this three-year National Land Transport Programme to road safety, to road maintenance on State highways and local roads, to new local roads, to public transport services—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s allowed to ask a question with two legs. I think the member got to about a centipede, or she was heading that way. No, the Prime Minister can answer some of them.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The simple answer is yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister, on the basis of the Pūhoi to Warkworth progress to date, which is 14 years now before it will be completed, is it not a fact that the Whangārei connection will therefore be another 74 years, and is anybody around who will be alive at the time? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Those of us who are mid-career.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I wouldn’t want to make any judgments either way on that front. I would point out, though, that there are a number of projects in the past that have been announced by the National Party that have taken a number of years to either fund or even start. Again, from the announcement that we saw over the weekend, two of the major policies around the Brynderwyn and Kaimai tunnels weren’t even costed.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that road safety improvements have already been carried out on nearly 3,000 kilometres of our State highways, an area 10 times greater than the entire roads of national significance that were improved, that aren’t even finished being completed yet?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is correct. I don’t think it’s fair to say that the singular focus of the roads of national significance was solely safety improvements for the vast majority of motorists, because, of course, they did take a large chunk of our transport spending and did not cater for our regional and rural roads.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has he received from the Treasury on potential job losses in New Zealand for the rest of this year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury’s most recent forecasts in the Budget show employment bottoming out in the June quarter 2020 at 2.463 million. The forecasts show employment is then expected to grow by 60,000 over the rest of the calendar 2020 year to 2.523 million in the December 2020 quarter. Treasury’s next set of forecasts will be released in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update on 20 August.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What are his expectations of job losses following the end of the wage subsidy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, that is a difficult calculation to make. Not all businesses who are in receipt of the wage subsidy scheme necessarily at the end of it would let staff go. Some of them will carry on; some of them have seen significant improvements in their turnover in recent times. So that’s not a figure that’s able to be calculated.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned that three of the country’s largest industrial employers have now either announced their closure, as in the case of Tīwai Point Aluminium Smelter, or are currently under strategic review, in the case of New Zealand Steel and Marsden Point?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, in respect of the latter two companies, it’s no surprise that large companies in the current uncertain environment are reviewing their operations. The Government is ready, willing, and able to be talking to those companies. I was down in Invercargill last week meeting representatives of Tīwai, of the workforce, and of the wider Southland community. The member will be well aware that Rio Tinto have long been either seeking increased subsidies or threatening to leave. What the people of Southland want is certainty and support, and the Government is working with them on both of those things.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the de-industrialisation of New Zealand something this Government accepts as inevitable?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, at a time when we’re losing jobs every day, why is his Government piling extra pressure on key industrial employers, with the emissions trading scheme changes, increased waste levies, and fuel excise taxes coming on top of the impact of the oil and gas decisions made earlier?

SPEAKER: The member may address any two legs of that one.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the last part of that question, we’re not. With respect to the first part of that question, it may have escaped the member but there is a global pandemic, and I stood in this House as far back as 17 March and said that we would not be able to save every job but we would do everything we could to support New Zealand businesses and households, and we are doing that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree that private sector investment is a key driver of job creation, and, if so, isn’t it lower taxes, regulatory restraint, policy certainty, and access to international investment that help more than anything?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely believe that it’s important that the private sector in New Zealand continues to create jobs. This Government is committed to being a partner with them in doing that.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about New Zealand’s health response to the COVID-19 global pandemic?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): The world is going to be living with the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 global pandemic for some time. Today, I announced a range of investments in our health services designed to build our capacity to respond to the virus. That includes an extra $150 million for Pharmac over the next two years to secure New Zealand’s supply of medicines and medical devices in the face of global supply challenges. For example, recent orders for a number of commonly used drugs cost approximately 70 percent more than they would have prior to the COVID pandemic. The funding boost will ensure that New Zealanders continue to get access to the medicines that they need.

Dr Liz Craig: Is the Government making further investments in contact tracing?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. Contact tracing is one of the key pillars of our defence against COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. Today’s announcement included a $30 million investment in the National Close Contact Service, including for surge capacity and information technology. A related information technology project will see the development of a new national immunisation solution to replace the immunisation register, meaning that we’re ready to roll out a mass vaccination campaign when a COVID-19 vaccine is available.

Dr Liz Craig: What other areas of the health response have Government prioritised in today’s announcement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government’s previously announced funding for more ventilators in our hospitals. Today, I announced funding for oxygen supply infrastructure, needed to support those additional ventilators. We’re also investing in our telehealth services, with an additional $14.6 million going into them to reflect the ongoing high level of demand they’re experiencing, and we’ve put an extra $50 million aside for the purchase of more personal protective equipment. All of these investments are designed to further build our ability to respond to the global pandemic.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that his Government’s COVID-19 isolation policies are appropriate and effective?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Yes, and the results speak for themselves. With over 30,000 New Zealanders coming home and going through these facilities, none have brought COVID-19 into the community and there is no evidence of community transmission in New Zealand.

Dr Shane Reti: Have any medical examinations been undertaken in coronavirus isolation facilities beyond the scope of the coronavirus legislation, given it only allows medical examinations of symptoms, temperature, auscultation, and swabs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, people are able to consent to any procedures whilst they’re in managed isolation or quarantine. I’ve been and visited these facilities. People coming off the plane get a health check as they come through the border, which identifies whether they’re going to quarantine or managed isolation. As they enter a managed isolation or a quarantine facility, a further health check takes place, which includes things like checking their heart rate and various other things as well, and there is the ability for people to consent to other tests whilst they’re in those facilities.

Dr Shane Reti: If, given what he’s said, people can consent to other procedures, why does he state in written question No. 13249 that consent has only occurred for coronavirus swabs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, can I get the member to repeat the question?

Dr Shane Reti: Given he has said that arrivals can consent to any medical procedures, why does he state in answer to written question No. 13249 that consent documentation only occurs for coronavirus swabs?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’d have to go back and check what the question was that the member asked before I could verify whether the claim the member is making is a true reflection of what I put in the answer.

Dr Shane Reti: Are the 164 mental health examinations carried out on people in coronavirus isolation, which he identifies in answer to written question No. 13253, within the scope of the coronavirus legislation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, on this side of the House, we do believe that if people have mental health issues they should be identified and they should get the appropriate support that they need.

Dr Shane Reti: Have blood tests been taken on people in coronavirus isolation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, if they’ve consented to it.

Question No. 6—Conservation

6. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: Is she committed to her department upholding the High Court ruling, which requires it to consult with the hunting community over the Tahr Control Plan?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Yes, and the department has started that consultation process. Last week, it met with the Game Animal Council and sent stakeholders, including the New Zealand Tahr Foundation, details of its plan.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Why are there helicopters in the sky shooting tahr?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There are helicopters shooting tahr because the hunting community has failed to get tahr numbers down. The surveys that the Department of Conservation (DOC) have done have shown a population. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I realise the question wasn’t quite what the member meant—I presume it wasn’t what the member meant. But I think the Minister got the gist of it and can answer it.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The department is employing professional hunters by air to shoot tahr to implement a statutory plan—the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan. It is disappointing that that member has turned her back on national parks as a safe haven for indigenous plants and wildlife and has turned her back on the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan, which was approved by a former National Minister of Conservation, the Hon Denis Marshall, which sets a maximum of 10,000 tahr in the tahr range. The department is implementing control to implement its requirements under law.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she believe, or does she think, that as tahr do not reproduce until at least November, it would be reasonable to wait to begin the cull while undertaking consultation on the more controversial aspects of the plan?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The department has undertaken considerable consultation on the previous operational plan. There have been six meetings of the Himalayan Tahr Plan Implementation Liaison Group since July 2018. It is known that tahr numbers are too high. That is having a major impact on our distinctive and threatened native plants.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she consider that since the tahr jam protest at Mount Cook / Aoraki at the weekend attracted over 1,000 people, she should be consulting with them as a group or as individuals?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The Tahr Foundation, which organised the tahr jam, is a member of the Himalayan Tahr Plan Implementation Liaison Group. It has been consulted at least six times since July 2018, and it will be consulted as part of the additional consultation that DOC is doing.

Hon Jacqui Dean: If that group were so well consulted, why, then, did they have to mount a protest against the Tahr control plan?

SPEAKER: Order! Not something the Minister has responsibility for.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I rephrase that question substantially?

SPEAKER: The member can, but it counts.

Hon Jacqui Dean: OK. Thank you.

Question No. 7—ACC

7. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What recent announcements has the Government made about ACC charges?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for ACC): Earlier this month, the Government agreed to hold ACC levies at their current levels until 2022. Levies will stay the same until 31 March 2022 for work and earners levies and 30 June 2022 for the motor vehicle levies.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why has the Government decided to hold ACC levies at their current level?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, New Zealanders and businesses are facing unprecedented financial pressures as a result of COVID-19, and this Government is taking practical steps to strike a balance between supporting levy payers throughout these difficult times and ensuring scheme stability. The economic outlook for the next two years is uncertain, so holding levy rates is a prudent decision, provides some certainty to businesses and other levy payers, and gives ACC more time to reliably assess the impact of COVID-19 on its finances. During the global financial crisis, the Government of the day increased levies only to find that they were too high in the following years. We are taking a cautious approach and ensuring we do not add unnecessary pressures on businesses and New Zealanders.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What other recent decisions has the Government made regarding levied accounts?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Government has lowered the funding targets for the levied accounts to ensure levies reflect the true cost of accidents and minimise long-term impacts on levy payers. ACC’s previous funding target of 105 percent solvency for the levied accounts was more suited to a private insurance company. We are lowering this target to 100 percent solvency, which is appropriate given ACC’s unique position as a mandatory sole provider and Government-supported social insurance scheme. Budget 2020 improved ACC’s long-term sustainability with an extra $285 million contribution in the taxpayer-funded non-earners account, which covers injury costs for those who are not earning and paying levies, including children, students, and retirees. Cost pressures in the non-earners account have not been addressed under previous Governments since 2014. Together, these changes mean the amount Kiwis contribute to ACC will be fair and sustainable now and into the future.

Question No. 8—Education

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

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): To answer the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, it depends on which region you reside in. For example, in Tai Tokerau, the wait time is 34.35 days, down from 61.16; in Auckland, it is 108.96 days, up from 101.02; in the Waikato, it is 82.25 days, down from 100.88; in the Bay of Plenty and Waiariki, it is 128.18 days, up from 123.04; in the Hawke’s Bay and Tai Rāwhiti, it is 95.4 days, down from 97.79; in Taranaki, Whanganui, Manawatū, it is 144.33 days, up from 130.18 days; in Wellington, it is 118.1 days, down from 170.7 days; in Nelson, Marlborough, West Coast, it is 86.3 days, up from 55.53 days; in Canterbury, it is 87.31 days, down from 88.41 days; and in Otago, Southland, it is 88.84 days, compared to 83.6. That’s between 30 June 2020 and what were the numbers on 30 June 2019. This variation predominantly reflects the access to specialists and number of children requiring attention.

Nicola Willis: What is the national average waiting time for early intervention support today?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Across the country, when you average out the national average across the country with those increases and decreases, we have 104.21 days.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that at the end of this term, waiting times for early intervention will be longer than they were when the Prime Minister promised to reduce them?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I can’t confirm that, actually, depending on where you live inside New Zealand.

Chris Bishop: You can!

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: And of course, we haven’t finished yet—that’s the other thing. I would say to the member, though, that part of the reason why there are some long wait times—sometimes, it is because of certain circumstances of family. An example would be where a request for support was received from the child’s paediatrician in October 2018, a lead worker was allocated within four weeks, however repeated attempts to contact the whānau via phone, text, and letter elicited no response. The lead worker sent a letter to the whānau advising that the request for support would be closed and inviting the whānau to make contact if they still required support. In October 2019, successful contact was made with the whānau and an interim assessment of the child’s need was made via phone discussion. A visit was scheduled for late November 2019, but was cancelled by the family. The field worker and family agreed to touch base at the beginning of January 2020 to reschedule the visit. You cannot do things to people’s children without them allowing you to do so, but we don’t take those children off the books, which therefore creates a waiting time.

Nicola Willis: Why did the proportion of children waiting more than 60 days for early intervention support increase between Budget 2018 and Budget 2019?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I don’t have the exact figures for Budget 2018 to Budget 2019, but what I can tell the member is that in the last financial year, the numbers of actual children that have been waiting on the waiting list has gone down. In the Bay of Plenty, for example, the number of children waiting over 150 days has decreased from 110 children to eight children. So while we certainly have some more children waiting for attention from specialists, because the National Government never did any workforce training which means that we don’t have the specialists that we require—even though we have hired more specialists—the actual numbers of children waiting are reducing.

Nicola Willis: Why has she been unable to translate $47.5 million in additional funding into any improvement in waiting times for children needing early intervention support?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I reject the premise of the member’s question from the perspective that I outlined where, in certain regions, there was an incredible decrease in the wait times for some children. Arguably because of the lack of specialists that had been planned for by the previous Government, there is a delay in us being able to put specialists on to the ground. We have hired 42 more specialists, and that started in October last year. We have 29 current vacancies, and 16 new graduate speech learning therapists were employed. However, when they are a new graduate, you cannot give them a full workload, and they must be managed by—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So why’d you promise it?

SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And I’m warning the member, if he does that in a facetious manner once more, he’ll be gone.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: So, to finish, inexperienced or new graduates cannot take on a full workload. They must be mentored by more experienced—but I have to say that the regional offices are doing an amazing job and people shouldn’t think that while children are waiting for a specialist, nothing is happening for them. Teachers, resource teachers: learning and behaviour, special educational needs coordinators, and learning support coordinators are all still working with that child, with their families, to assist them.

Nicola Willis: Why, on her watch, did one child have to wait 544 days for early intervention support, and is that good enough in the life of a child who’s hungry to learn?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I just outlined a circumstance, and I don’t know which area the child that the member is referring to has come from, but I just outlined a situation from a particular area where it was around about three years between when a paediatrician actually highlighted that child for attention of a specialist, and when the family finally agreed to allow for an intervention. You cannot do things to other people’s children without their permission.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: how long does it take to train an intervention support specialist in this case?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It can take between three and seven years to train a specialist in this area.

Question No. 9—Civil Defence

9. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What help is the Government giving to the communities of the upper North Island who are affected by flooding?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. First, can I offer our thanks to the leadership of the local civil defence and emergency management group, local government, central agencies, and, most of all, local community leaders, like Matua Mike Butler. Severe weather affected Northland and Tai Rāwhiti over Friday and Saturday, with widespread flooding, road closures, slips, and damage to property. Minister Davis and I visited Whangarei and Moerewa on Sunday, and we met with mayors and community leaders and saw firsthand the impact of the floods. Yesterday, Cabinet agreed to make an initial contribution of $30,000 to the Northland Regional Council’s mayoral relief fund to support people affected by the floods. Damage assessments are still under way, so it is too early to know the full cost; however, this money will help communities get back on their feet quicker.

Willow-Jean Prime: How will this money be used?

Hon PEENI HENARE: The council are developing criteria on how to disperse the funding. However, our intention is that this will be used to provide immediate relief for whānau who, for example, may need to replace whiteware damaged by flooding—as I witnessed myself on Sunday. The Government is staying in close contact with local councils to see what further assistance they may need. While flood waters have mostly receded, the clean-up will still take some time.

Willow-Jean Prime: Where else can people impacted by the upper North Island flooding seek support?

Hon PEENI HENARE: People can contact their local councils and local Ministry of Social Development officers through their normal phone numbers. Farmers or livestock owners who are struggling can get help and advice through their local rural support trust or sector group such as Beef and Lamb, Federated Farmers, and Dairy New Zealand, who are already involved. The Earthquake Commission and the Insurance Council of New Zealand are also urging people to contact their insurer so that their claims can be processed as efficiently as possible.

Question No. 10—Regional Economic Development

10. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: What recent Provincial Growth Fund announcements has he made?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regional Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Regional Economic Development: On behalf of the Minister, can I firstly acknowledge Minister Henare and the people of Northland in these trying times. Today we announced $14.5 million to upgrade priority economic routes in Northland to be suitable for high-productivity motor vehicles and heavy commercial vehicles. This investment is about improving roads because they are vital for creating operating efficiencies and improving route security, and it also means it provides safer access to the reopened railhead and container hub at Ōtīria. That means improved efficiencies and better productivity, with improved transport options allowing the export of more goods from Northland to the rest of New Zealand and the world.

Mark Patterson: How else will this Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) announcement benefit the people of Northland?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: On behalf of the Minister, I must point out that for years the people of Northland have been driving on substandard roads. As Minister Henare has just pointed out to the House, this week’s weather events have been catastrophic. With this in mind, more than ever the people of Northland have a mandate to upgrade their roads to a high, acceptable standard. It may not sound like much to the rest of the country, but the people of Northland and their cars have been suffering for too long. But to put it in perspective, we know that this will mean more and more use of roads and rail for the likes of horticultural projects. There are 16,000 hectares of forests to be felled in the next five years, beef production and dairy farm production to be exported to the rest of the country and the world, and we all know that tourism will come back, and Northland will need those roads to support them.

Mark Patterson: What other PGF announcements have been recently made?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: On behalf of the Minister, it is with great pride to note my esteemed colleague Parliamentary Under-Secretary Tabuteau travelled again to the good people of the West Coast recently and announced, for example, $13 million for KiwiRail to resolve the Ōmoto slip site and $1.24 million for a long-term awaited extension of the Hokitika airport terminal. These investments are about making sure the train can get there every day and deliver to Greymouth a vital stream of domestic tourists, for example, and give the people flying into the stunning West Coast an airport terminal that not only is up to standard but sets a high standard on behalf of the West Coast.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask my esteemed colleague why, oh why, oh why will the railway line between Kauri and Ōtīria have to be reopened?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Insightful question—basically, because the National Party closed it.

Question No. 11—Police

11. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Has he seen reports that the number of people on the National Gang List had reached 7,166 as of April 2020, and that this represents a 34 percent increase since he took office?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): No.

Brett Hudson: Is it a priority for him to reduce the number of gang members in New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: Yes.

Brett Hudson: Is he concerned that over the same time period that gang membership has risen by 34 percent, front-line police numbers have only increased by 12 percent?

Hon STUART NASH: Really? That’s a little bit rich. Let me tell you: Australian gangs arrived here in 2011—got a strong foothold. The next year, police numbers fell by about 150. Let me tell you one figure that is easy to quantify: since we became Government—thank you very much, New Zealand First—2,255 new officers have joined the front line. That’s in three years. In the previous three years of the last Government, police numbers fell.

Brett Hudson: What estimates has he received on how many gang members will be active in New Zealand by the end of this parliamentary term?

Hon STUART NASH: Let me tell you about the Bay of Plenty: 91 extra police; $6.4 million in assets seized; under Operation Silk we pretty much cut the head off the Mongols.

SPEAKER: Order! This might be an interesting response to a question that wasn’t asked. The member will address the question that was asked.

Hon STUART NASH: What I can tell you is the advice I’ve received from police is that gang membership is fluid and difficult to identify, and that the list is likely to be inexact. What I can tell the member is that about 60 officers per month are graduating on to the front line into our communities to fight organised crime and gang harm.

Brett Hudson: What concerns does he have with the establishment of a chapter of the Mongrel Mob Fatherland motorcycle club in his backyard of Hawke’s Bay?

Hon STUART NASH: One of the concerns I do have is that the National Party’s police policy will go back to where it was, which means a defunding of police, when we are in fact increasing police numbers throughout the country.

SPEAKER: Order! The Minister will address the question.

Hon STUART NASH: There was a recent operation in Hawke’s Bay where the newly constituted organised crime group actually took out a chapter of the Mongrel Mob. I’m very proud of the work they do in Hawke’s Bay.

Brett Hudson: With gang numbers increasing, will he now consider supporting my firearms prohibition orders member’s bill to curb violent gun crime?

Hon STUART NASH: That member has been told by a number of people, including his former colleagues, that that’s a rubbish piece of legislation. We’re doing a lot around this space. We’ve gone out for public consultation and we’re going to introduce something that has integrity and will actually work.

Question No. 12—Public Housing

12. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): How many social houses, if any, has the Government sold since it took office, and at what total value?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Since November 2017, of the over 65,000 State houses provided by Kāinga Ora, they advised me that they have sold 169 houses. Half of these sales were to tenants as part of the tenant homeownership scheme. As clearly stated in December 2017, State homes from time to time would be sold if they were no longer fit for purpose. However, the proceeds from these sales are always reinvested in providing new supply and quality homes. Since taking office, this Government has added 4,925 warm and dry homes to the public housing stock. Housing Minister Megan Woods is ensuring the momentum is continued. On this side of the House, we have made it a priority to increase the supply of warm, dry—

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has answered the question.

Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope it’s not actually challenging your ruling. I don’t think he addressed the last part, which was the total value. I apologise if he did, and would like the number again.

SPEAKER: Well, if the member did and people didn’t hear it it’s because his own colleagues were yelling him down.

Simon O’Connor: Oh, OK. Thank you. How does the Minister reconcile the Government selling I’m assuming around $30 million worth of State housing with the statement late in 2017 that “The Labour-led Government today cancelled the sell-off of State houses, fulfilling another of its first 100 day promises,”?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, just to answer the part of the primary question, the amount that has been gained from the sale of those 169 houses is estimated to be around $55 million. I would reiterate that that money is not returned to the centre; it is reinvested back into making sure we increase the quality and quantum of quality public housing stock in New Zealand. Now, when the announcement was made, back in December 2017, we said that there would be an end of the large-scale State house sell-off. We have sold 169 in three years, where the previous Government washed its hands of over 6,000 in its nine years in Government.

Simon O’Connor: When considering those not sold to tenants, what is the criteria that the Labour-led Government is using to determine which social houses will be sold?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I suspect you realise what I’m going to say. We’ve been here for almost three years, and he predicates that statement on a false constitutional position which was made very clear when this Government was formed, and I ask for him to correct the lexicon or the narrative these three years later.

SPEAKER: Yes, and, if we had the degree of exactitude that the Deputy Prime Minister is asking for, I think it’s fair to say that just about every question and most answers—and I especially think of one of his colleagues—would be ruled out. Ask the question again.

Simon O’Connor: As best as I can remember: when the Minister considers those houses not sold to tenants, what is the Government using to determine which of those State houses should be sold?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: When Kāinga Ora go through and assess, other than those that are being sold directly to tenants, they look at whether the property is too old and too expensive to maintain, the property no longer meets tenants’ needs, or is not in the right place to meet demand. I’d also add that sales are done in low-demand areas.

Simon O’Connor: When the Government has repeatedly promised that it will not sell State houses, was the insertion of the word “not” a mistake?

SPEAKER: Oh no. Order! Order!

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the member consider it a success that of the 169 State houses that have been sold, either for tenants or because they were not the right house in the right place, compared to 4,925 built as something we can be proud of, whereas the previous Government sale of 1,398 over three years and only adding 1,537—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Can I just finish?

SPEAKER: No. There’s enough of a question there.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You cannot for one minute consider that that supplementary question was in any way terse, as it should be required to be. For us to point that out and then lose questions is completely unreasonable.

SPEAKER: Well, the member should talk to some of his own colleagues. I’m applying a pretty even standard. Some of his own colleagues have been asking some very unreasonably long questions.

Simon O’Connor: I’m assuming that’s the end of it.

SPEAKER: One more.

Simon O’Connor: Oh, splendid. Thank you. Can the Minister explain to the House how selling State houses is a case of fulfilling a promise to not sell State houses?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, we said at the time, when we announced this policy back in 2017, that the large-scale sell-off of State houses was coming to an end. That was on the eve of the proposed sale by the previous Government of over 2,000 Christchurch State homes, which we stopped. I will reiterate: in the last three years we have sold 169, half of those to those tenants already in those houses, as opposed to the previous Government, who sold 6,000 in nine years.

Voting

Correction—COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill

SPEAKER: On 2 July, when the House was in committee on the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, the result of a vote on the question that Jami-Lee Ross’ amendment to Schedule 2 on Supplementary Order Paper 525 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 39, Noes 63. The correct result is Ayes 38, Noes 64. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the sitting of the House today will be extended into tomorrow morning for members’ orders of the day.

Bills

Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Hinerangi and the Crown in May 2019. The deed of settlement settles all the remaining historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Hinerangi. Ngāti Hinerangi is an iwi from the eastern Waikato, based in Matamata. The area of interest of Ngāti Hinerangi extends from Matamata to Tauranga Moana, including part of the Kaimai Range. The historical claims of Ngāti Hinerangi relate to conflict with the Crown in Tauranga, including the 1847 Tauranga bush campaign, the Crown’s confiscation of land in Tauranga, and the operation of the Native Land Court from 1865. Ngāti Hinerangi were left virtually landless by these actions, which have contributed to their economic and social marginalisation within New Zealand society and the loss of traditional tribal structures.

This bill comprises three parts, detailing cultural and commercial redress and the Crown’s apology redress. I will give a more fulsome account of the content of the bill when we come to our third reading, and I look forward to the opportunity to do that. For the purposes, however, of this second reading, I acknowledge Te Puāwaitanga o Ngāti Hinerangi Iwi Trust, including all members of the negotiating team. I acknowledge Ngāti Hinerangi representatives who are in the House today, including Phil Smith, chair of the trust; trustees Dianna Vaimoso, Chris Wilson; and their whānau. Can I say what a great pleasure it was to be hosted by them at their marae in northern Waikato in May last year, and it was a very sunny and very grand day and a great occasion and a great celebration. It was a great opportunity to catch up with those who have been the driving force on the side of the iwi to get to this point. The dedication and determination of those personalities has been vital in paving our way towards this settlement.

I also acknowledge the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, as well as the Government agencies and local authorities for their contributions to the bill. I also thank the chair and the members of the Māori Affairs Committee. Both the chair and the committee have done an excellent job in progressing this bill.

The proposed bill gives effect to those elements of the deed of settlement which require a statute. The bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee on 19 September 2019. The committee reported back to the House on 19 March this year. The committee received and considered 47 submissions on the bill: 43 submitters supported the bill and four submitters opposed the bill; nine submitters spoke to their submissions at Matamata in December; and four of the submitters sought changes to the bill. I’d like to extend my thanks again to the committee for their excellent work in the effort and consideration of the bill. They read and listened to the submissions and carefully considered whether these should result in any change to the bill. The committee didn’t recommend any substantive changes as a result, but the committee did, however, make some minor technical amendments to the bill, and it is a better piece of legislation as a result. I’m satisfied with the committee’s recommendations, as they will ensure that the redress agreed in the Ngāti Hinerangi deed of settlement can be properly implemented through this bill.

I want to make special mention here of Ngāti Hinerangi’s overlapping interests process, because this is always a difficult and often fraught process between iwi at the point of concluding a settlement. As part of the overlapping interests process, Ngāti Hinerangi agreed to transfer ownership in full or in part of three cultural redress properties to Tauranga Moana iwi. The bill provides for these arrangements to be implemented post settlement. Ngāti Hinerangi engaged in a process that demonstrated great leadership and pragmatism. These arrangements to address overlapping interests will provide for a long-lasting relationship between Ngāti Hinerangi and Tauranga Moana iwi.

In conclusion, this second reading is, of course, part of the last stage of the settlement process that seeks to recognise what is important to Ngāti Hinerangi and to provide redress for historical breaches of the Treaty. As we often acknowledge in this House, no amount of redress will ever be enough to fully and truly and properly compensate for the hurt and the harm and the mamae caused by the Crown’s actions in the past, but this is a step towards acknowledgment, recognition, and reconciliation, and I hope that it can allow for Ngāti Hinerangi to have confidence for the future. I commend this bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Nau mai hāere mai ki tēnei Whare anō. Ngā uri me ngā mana whenua o Ngāti Hinerangi. Ko Harete Hipango tōku ingoa. Nō Whanganui ahau.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Welcome to this House, again. The descendants and those with authority over the land of Ngāti Hinerangi. I am Harete Hipango. I am from Whanganui.]

I stand to address the House in the added and new responsibilities that I have, first of all, as the lead speaker for the National Party and also with the additional responsibilities and portfolios now as shadow Attorney-General, and also with the role of the spokesperson for Treaty settlement negotiations, in addition to my Māori-Crown relations portfolio and Māori tourism.

So, for the purpose of those members of the public who are listening in and aren’t necessarily familiar with the process, today is the second reading of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill. The first reading was before the House on 19 September 2019. I didn’t have the privilege to take a call to address the House. However, since then the process is, after a first reading, the matter goes to select committee, and that select committee was the Māori Affairs Committee, which again, I did not have the privilege to be able to sit in and be part of listening to the kōrero, the submissions, and the evidence from the people of Ngāti Hinerangi and those who have an interest.

So the members of the House who will be speaking today to address—some of whom were on that select committee, and I think it’s pertinent to name who they are. Chairperson, Rino Tirikatene, my colleague and fellow parliamentarian who chairs that committee; Dan Bidois, a colleague in the National Party; Marama Davidson, who is the deputy chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the co-leader of the Green Party; Joanne Hayes and Matt King, National Party members on the select committee; Adrian Rurawhe, whanaunga and Assistant Speaker of the House, the Labour Party; the Hon Nicky Wagner, my colleague in the National Party; and the Hon Meka Whaitiri, who is a member of the Labour Party.

So, as is known, the purpose of the second reading is to bring back before the House what had been contemplated after hearing evidence of the submitters from the Ngāti Hinerangi people and interested parties. I acknowledge Minister Little, Minister of Justice but also Minister for Treaty settlements, and my former colleague, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, who again was the former Minister for Treaty settlement negotiations. So the second reading of this is for the House to hear back from the Māori Affairs Committee after hearing the evidence of any concerns associated with the bill as had been presented. There is a report that has been filed or submitted to the House, and that report is available to the public online. This bill, as has been addressed in the first reading and by the Minister in the House this afternoon, is seeking to redress the injustices from the Crown’s actions and omissions in relation to the people of Ngāti Hinerangi.

The report from the Māori Affairs Committee is some seven pages in length. It details there what those amendments are that have been contemplated. The report feeds back that there is nothing substantive per se, apart from recommending a number of changes which are deemed to be minor and technical. However, in saying that, the issues are of substance to the people of Ngāti Hinerangi because this is their bill, and it impacts on the ongoing relationships moving into the future by addressing the grievances.

In brief—and I think, again, for the benefit of the public listening in—often these Treaty settlement bills don’t have the due and the full public coverage and attention that they are deserving of. These settlements, and Ngāti Hinerangi, are a significant part of Aotearoa New Zealand’s history and the journey that we’ve gone on. So I’ve referenced before, while standing in this House addressing those listening, here present and also in TV land, that this Chamber is a chamber of commemoration and that just positioned to one of the main entrances to the Chamber is the plaque which is the commemoration of the New Zealand Māori Land Wars.

So the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill has distinctive parts to it, and those parts are: addressing the historical context and giving the story, the whakaaro, the thoughts, the knowledge, and the history, the kōrero associated with those grievances, the omissions, the actions, and how to move forward. The other part, of course, is the formal acknowledgment by the Crown and the apology. It then moves into what the redress is, and there are three cultural redress—no, I stand to be corrected. There are components of redress. There’s the fiscal redress, there is the cultural redress, and there are those other elements that have been addressed within the bill.

Now, as is often the case, there is so much to go through to cover within the space of 10 minutes. And that is why there is the written report that’s made available, to go through the detail of that. And, as is well known, I now am positioned as a member sitting back on the Māori Affairs Committee. The approach that we take there as members of Parliament, but also cross-party, is one of collaboration, one of working cooperatively, and one of ensuring that these Treaty settlement bills take heed and are cognisant of the fact and the concerns that have been submitted by way of the oral evidence of the people who have that vested interest. We work concertedly as a select committee to take heed of that and to progress the transmission from the first reading, through to the second reading, through to the final passage of the third reading, which hopefully will come soon.

So the significant part, as I’ve touched on, is that this bill is a Treaty settlement. It’s a significant one, since the time that the incursions of injustice had occurred, which dates back to the 1800s. But the chronology is that the Crown signed a terms of negotiation back in February 2014. So in terms of the legislative journey, or the process for it to arrive at these final stages of it taking its passage into law, it has been a long one. And I can also relate to that, coming from W’anganui being uri and mana whenua of W’anganui, the long journey that my tūpuna have taken. So I can acknowledge and I associate and empathise with what the feeling is for the people with the journey that you’ve embarked on. You carry that of your tūpuna. But importantly, in carrying that, this is being done for our mokopuna and the history of those going into the future.

We come from the past, but we learn from the past and we carry that forward into the future with a sense and a real stage of hope and development and progression. And that’s what the redress, in terms of the fiscal settlement—which some may deem, at $8.1 million, is insufficient, and in the context and scheme of the suffering and the grievance and the passage of time, it is. However, you of Ngāti Hinerangi have negotiated the settlement. You—Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that you are in the Chair, but often in this kōrero I address the people who have come here. The people Ngāti Hinerangi, this is your settlement and you carry it forward to make the most of the opportunity, bearing in mind what your tūpuna have carried through to what your mokopuna will be: the bearers of hope. I will have the opportunity to address everybody—and, importantly, with that sense of aspiration and hope and fulfilment moving forward into the future—at the third reading of this bill.

In conclusion, it is a distinct privilege. I never thought that I would be before the House, 2½ years ago, speaking to Treaty settlement negotiations, having been on a journey for more than 20 years of my lifetime with now my nannies and koros, who were tūpuna—ngā tūpuna aitua.

So, to address the people from Ngāti Hinerangi, ngā mihi ki a koutou katoa. Kia māia, kia kaha, kia manawa nui.

[I acknowledge you all. Be courageous, be brave, be steadfast.]

I commend this second reading of the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā anahera pono. Mā ngā māngai hei tautoko, ae anei, ake nei, āe. Tēnā koutou, Ngāti Hinerangi, tēnā koutou ngā whanaunga tini, karanga maha, nau mai whakatau mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ahiahi. Ka tū tautoko ahau ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua. Nō reira, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and faithful angels. May the divine mouthpiece confirm this prayer now and for ever. Yes. Greetings, Ngāti Hinerangi, greetings to my many relations and welcome me to Parliament this afternoon. I stand to support this bill at second reading. Therefore, to the leaders among you, greetings to one and all.]

I’m delighted to speak in support of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill at its second reading. I want to acknowledge the member for W’anganui, Harete Hipango and her elevation within her caucus, but also for her contributions in this debate thus far. It’s always a pleasure to speak to these readings and I am particularly fond of Ngāti Hinerangi as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee because we travelled—it was back in December now last year—right into the heart of Matamata, the most beautiful part of the country—

Matt King: Northland.

RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh, it’s better than Northland, I’m afraid, Mr King. It’s equivalent to those most beautiful parts to the north and to the south. But Matamata is a wonderful part of the country. And so I was delighted, along with fellow committee members, to hear the kōrero from submitters. It may not be the largest Treaty settlement, but every iwi has mana and every iwi has their own history and their own grievances which have been fully traversed and embodied in the deed of settlement which this bill gives full effect to. And so I was very pleased to chair the proceedings on that particular day.

We heard a number of submitters, as Minister Little said. Of the 47 submitters, 43 were 100 percent fully in support of the bill; no changes required. There were some opposing submitters. And I think it’s understandable that we do hear some other contrary views. As we know, a Treaty settlement involves many hapū, and if we think of Ngāti Hinerangi strategically where they are located, there are a host of other iwi around Tauranga Moana, around the Waikato - Bay of Plenty area, which are all in that area of interest in which Ngāti Hinerangi is nestled. So we heard from hapū members who were perhaps wanting to get clarification around the terms of a particular hapū, for instance. So there was Ngāti Tamapango, who is part of Ngāti Hinerangi, and Ngāti Pango. And to cut a long story short, the two are one and the same, and Ngāti Pango, which is a hapū of Ngāti Ranginui on Tauranga Moana is also reflected in Ngāti Tamapango in Ngāti Hinerangi.

So it’s always most interesting to hear the history and to hear these connections. And really, it’s all about the whakapapa, because there is the common ancestor of Kōperu, I believe, the common tupuna which links all of Ngāti Hinerangi and all of those hapū as well.

We also heard from other hapū who applied to the Waitangi Tribunal. They sought some decisions from the tribunal around the mandate of Ngāti Hinerangi; the tribunal dealt with those issues—whether they would decline the urgent applications, or dismiss certain applications—because there was already a mechanism in place for any hapū of the eight hapū that are part of Ngāti Hinerangi. There is always a mechanism and a process in place as part of the mandate arrangements that they could have followed through on. So those opportunities were available to those particular hapū, but it was, again, very important that we were able to hear the kōrero and to record that, not only through our submission process, but also here in the House.

But the long and the whole of it, we actually made no substantive changes to the bill, which is great. It fully reflects what was recorded in the deed of settlement. There were a host of technical amendments that we made around descriptions of various properties and the like, which are all now 100 percent correct. And so this bill is now well positioned. I mihi to Ngāti Hinerangi. We have had a bit of a hiatus—we had the Christmas holiday break—from when we heard from submitters, and then obviously COVID-19, which has intervened. So it’s been quite a bit of a hiatus between then and now, but I’m certainly pleased that we’ve picked it up again and that we are able to take another important step with this bill through the House. And with that, I’ll say more at the third reading, but I want to mihi once again to Ngāti Hinerangi, and I am here to tautoko this bill at its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Ngā whānau o Ngāti Hinerangi, nau mai, haere mai. Nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnēi rā. Welcome. Welcome to the second reading of your bill, the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill. It is my pleasure to stand in this second reading to speak on your bill, Ngāti Hinerangi, because it is really important.

While I was not able to make the submissions part of the process of this bill, I heard many good things that came through. We always have people that are for it. In this case, there was a majority of people that submitted that were for this bill. Then, of course, we had others who supported parts of it and opposed parts of it, and then, of course, we had those who oppose the bill, which was minimal, actually.

I just want to say that like all the other bills that have come through the settlement process, there’s always that whole area around confiscated land, land stolen from iwi. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Hinerangi because they were made virtually landless and almost wiped out. This bill actually goes a little way—a little way—to trying to restore the mana of Ngāti Hinerangi. For me, it is a start—it is an economic start. Once we get through to the Royal assent part, $8.1 million will be received by the iwi.

But I just want to talk a little bit about the history and what Ngāti Hinerangi endured during the 1860s: the raids on their land from the colonial Government, the promises that were made that were never fulfilled, and the whole area around the taking of this land. We hear it so many times in this House. We talk about reparation, about trying to make good on the things of the past, but we all know that there is no quantum big enough to be able to make that a true and meaningful response to the horrible things that happened in the past.

As I said, I started talking about the historical side of Ngāti Hinerangi, when, in the 1860s, they joined te iwi o Tainui for the Kīngitanga battles against the colonial soldiers. As I said, Governor Grey promised they would only take a quarter of the land, only to have the whole of the land taken from Tauranga Māori. That is definitely an awful indictment on the Crown back then.

I want to carry on and talk a little bit about the trust going around to gather the many whānau towards being part and parcel of this deed of settlement. We see that there were eight hapū that have joined. Our colleagues have spoken before me. Rino Tirikatene talked about Ngāti Pango and Ngāti Tamapango and how they are, for want of a better word, one and the same, for easy reference, and all of those hapū that came together to support the next stages of this bill. As my colleague Harete Hipango said, there’s another couple more stages, the committee of the whole House and the third reading, yet to come.

The vesting of the sites: there were 14 sites that were vested in Ngāti Hinerangi—from Ngā Tamahine e Rua, which is a scenic reserve, right through to Tūranga o Moana property as an encumbered fee simple land. All of those little bits make up a whole heap of land, but not as much as what was taken from you. The deed of settlement provides statutory acknowledgments across seven areas and three geothermal sites as well—resources. These things all seem to add up—the cultural redress of $200,000—in a quantum. To actually help revitalisation, there is a revitalisation fund and a marae rebuild fund of $20,000. All of these things will go towards what we are banking on: that Ngāti Hinerangi will build their economic independence not just for now but for their mokopuna in the future.

I have a lot more to say about this, but I want to reserve it, because this is just the second reading and we have a little bit further to go, and I want to be able to save that for the third reading. Like the rest of my colleagues in this House that will be speaking on this bill and the parties that support this bill—which is everybody—I want to commend it to the House. I pay homage to you sitting up there in the gallery, Ngāti Hinerangi, for your perseverance, for your kaha, and for your mana. Kia ora koutou.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the second reading of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill. It’s an absolute honour to stand and take my call. Tēnā koutou katoa, he mihi mahana ki a koutou—my very warm greetings to you, Ngāti Hinerangi. It is a pleasure, as I mentioned, to support this bill, because it gives effect to the deed of settlement signed by Ngāti Hinerangi and the Crown on 4 May 2019. Ngāti Hinerangi, as we’ve heard in the speeches already contributed so far, you are located in the eastern Waikato, in the Tauranga area, and you’re based today in Matamata. I’d like to also join the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Andrew Little, in acknowledging Te Puāwaitanga o Ngāti Hinerangi Iwi Trust, who are all here today—your negotiating team—and welcome you to your House, your “Whare of Representatives”. I also should really note the previous Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, for his work, as well, because it’s taken, to this point, 16 long years. That actually gives hope to my iwi, Ngāpuhi, that one day we, too, will be in this House.

Dr Shane Reti: Me too!

JENNY MARCROFT: Ha, ha! Excellent—we have agreement across the House. That is a good thing. Thank you to the good doctor, and congratulations, too, on your elevation. I acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene, and the words you have spoken. I have previously been on the Māori Affairs Committee, and it was with great disappointment that I was then moved to another committee, because it is a committee that works collaboratively. The real essence of the work that they do is on Treaty settlements and progressing them through the House. It is so important that the Crown makes that step forward on your behalf, because it is no longer something that we should hold back any more. I’m just saying that, really, for Ngāpuhi. Get it together, Ngāpuhi. We’re looking forward to your turn, too. I also note Harete Hipango’s contribution in the House, and I would like to acknowledge your elevation, too. It is a pleasure to see that you have taken a new seat in this House.

The committee heard 47 submissions: 43 in support and just four opposed. Those nine submitters that spoke to the committee, that travelled down to Matamata—what a joy for them to be part of that submission process, to hear the kōrero and to make some determinations as to any changes that needed to happen in the bill. No substantive changes needed to be made as a result; just some minor technical amendments to the bill. The committee also heard about transferring land to solve overlapping interests. There are a lot of iwi that have overlapping interests, and in particular I take note of the tikanga-led process that was undertaken between Ngāti Hinerangi and Tauranga Moana iwi to address those overlapping interests. I note also that following the settlement, Ngāti Hinerangi has agreed to transfer ownership, in full or in part, of three cultural redress properties to Tauranga Moana iwi. The bill actually will make arrangements to be implemented post settlement, and so that is something that will happen after we pass, finally, the third reading—hopefully not in too many months’ time.

The committee heard that Ngāti Hinerangi was interested in purchasing Matamata College, and perhaps there is some sadness that that didn’t come to pass. I do note that Matamata College was determined to be unavailable, but the settlement will include the first right of refusal over the college, which will be in place for 178 years. So not all is lost there. I did note the 16 years it has taken to reach this stage of the second reading, and it has been noted already in contributions—$8.1 million, a Crown apology—that’s probably the most significant thing, the apology, because when you address the apology, and when it is spoken, and when it is heard, it is felt in the heart. Then healing and movement can happen, and that is probably the most important thing I feel can happen: that healing happens from this place to address all the wrongs that have been in place over a number of years.

Ngāti Hinerangi were among the force of Tauranga Māori who defeated Crown troops in the battle of Pukehinahina, Gate Pā. Maybe in time, as this Government has said, we will teach New Zealand’s history in schools. Your stories, too, will be told in classrooms around New Zealand, around Aotearoa, and we look forward to our children of the future learning your stories as you tell them—not necessarily from the Crown perspective, but from your iwi perspective. The land that was lost in confiscation, questionable land dealings, and the actions of the Native Land Court, until you were virtually landless in both the Tauranga Moana and the Waikato areas of your tribal rohe, leading to social, cultural, and economic marginalisation—today we begin the end of that journey of pain, moving into one of hope and freedom.

I’d just like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Shane Jones, who spoke on your first reading. He said that “in Parliament, in the highest court of the land, [we] accord them our respect by binding together to pass legislation that acknowledges that despite the processes of colonialism, the various wars, and the ebb and flow of economic forces in [the] part of New Zealand [that you’re from], [you] have found the tenacity and … the spirit within … to continue to perpetuate [your] own identity”. In conclusion, redress, no matter what amount, will never, ever be enough to compensate for your losses, to right the wrongs of the past, but it is a step towards acknowledgment. It is a step towards reconciliation and towards that pathway of reconciliation. So today in the House we take that step in the hope that Ngāti Hinerangi will be able to move forward together with confidence in your future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. To the spokespeople, to the leaders, greetings one and all.]

It’s with great pleasure that I stand here to take a call on the second reading of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill. It’s been a very long journey for the iwi to get here. If we look back, although rangatira affiliated to Ngāti Hinerangi signed the Treaty of Waitangi in Tauranga in 1840, it wasn’t long before the iwi was at odds with the Crown. From the 1860s onwards, Ngāti Hinerangi was constantly in battle to retain their whenua. It was in protest against the colonists’ insatiable demand for land that Ngāti Hinerangi joined the Kīngitanga movement in an attempt to slow land sales, and was also involved with them in battle, alongside Kīngitanga forces, in both Taranaki and in the Waikato. Then, their warriors returned to support Tauranga Māori and participated in both the crushing defeat of the British military at the battle of Pukehinahina at Gate Pā, and also their own defeat at the battle of Te Ranga.

During the multiple land confiscations that followed, Ngāti Hinerangi protested the surveying of their land, and were victims of a scorched earth campaign. The battle continued on through the Native Land Court, but, eventually, Ngāti Hinerangi was alienated from their land and became virtually landless.

As the submission of Dianna Vaimoso and Hinerangi Lilo explains, landlessness had a huge negative effect on Ngāti Hinerangi, and I quote from their submission: “No land meant no kai, no income, no kāinga … So, many of our whānau were forced to leave the only place we’d known as home, in search of employment. With our people, went our sense of identity, our sense of belonging, our community, our fellowship, our connection to each other and our turangawaewae. While we have a strong group of whānau based in our local community in the present day, we have hundreds of whānau living in other parts of the country, in Australia and further afield. Our hope is that this bill will help us lure them home for good or just more often so we can rekindle that connection to our whenua and each other.”

Certainly, the 20th century was a very tough time for Ngāti Hinerangi, and, in fact, if it wasn’t for kaumātua Rawiri Thompson, who knew his history and knew that Ngāti Hinerangi wasn’t merely a hapū of Ngāti Raukawa but an iwi in its own right, we wouldn’t be in this House today. Another generation down the line, and the opportunity to bring the iwi together again to “rekindle their connection with the whenua and each other” may have been lost for ever.

So today we celebrate, and we celebrate the next step in this Treaty settlement process. The identity and whakapapa of Ngāti Hinerangi was established in 2004 through research in the Māori Land Court, and the negotiations towards this Treaty settlement began in 2014 on the watch of the Hon Christopher Finlayson. I was part of the Māori Affairs Committee, which met submitters in Matamata late last year. There were 47 written submissions in total and we heard from nine submitters on that day. It was a very interesting and useful time. We heard from the trustees that even these Treaty negotiations have been a battle. So it is absolutely appropriate that the Crown unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Hinerangi for failing to uphold its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and the resulting damage that was done to the iwi.

Of course, not everyone in the iwi is completely happy with the settlement, and I want to acknowledge those who spoke to the committee about their concerns and I recognise how difficult it is to get a unanimous agreement in any settlement. However, this settlement has a very respectable participation rate, at 58 percent of eligible registered beneficiaries voting, and a very high percentage of votes in favour: 96 percent. This shows strong support for the settlement, and is significantly higher than most settlements in both participation and, especially, approval rate.

Although we heard a variety of opinions from submitters, which we considered fully, in the end we only made a very few, mainly minor, changes to the bill. However, I’d like to reflect on two important issues. The first is to congratulate Ngāti Hinerangi for the creative way that they have dealt with overlapping interests. We heard that the Ngāti Hinerangi area is overlapped by 11 other groups, and that a tikanga-led process was undertaken between Ngāti Hinerangi and Tauranga Moana iwi to address those overlapping interests. Following settlement, Ngāti Hinerangi have agreed to gift ownership of three cultural redress properties to Tauranga Moana iwi. I think this is a unique and innovative solution, and it has the potential to set the relationship between Ngāti Hinerangi and Tauranga Moana iwi on a new, very positive course post settlement.

Again, I quote our submitters: “After meeting with Tauranga Moana iwi, our trustees and negotiation team made the decision to gift this piece of land to our Tauranga whanaunga when we receive it back. Yes, getting it back meant a lot to us but it meant so much to them too and it will forever symbolise a bond between our iwi. … we believe this outcome strengthened us an iwi and enhanced our mana.” The committee thought so too, and see it as an enlightened and elegant solution.

The second point I want to talk about is the ownership of Matamata College land. Many of the iwi were keen that the land under Matamata College was part of the settlement. Many Ngāti Hinerangi children attend the school, and the iwi want to encourage educational success for Māori, and, as mana whenua, to be seen as the rightful people of Matamata township. They feel that once again obtaining ownership of the land that the college stands on would reinvigorate a sense of pride and belonging for attending whānau, now and for generations to come. Unfortunately, as we’ve heard, Matamata College was deemed unavailable for this settlement, but to recognise the importance of the school to the iwi, the Ngāti Hinerangi settlement does include a right of first refusal over the land, which will be in place for the next 178 years, and who knows what could happen in that time.

So, in conclusion, Ngāti Hinerangi has battled to get this settlement with the Crown over many, many years, and there has been plenty of debate within the iwi as well. It is not a perfect settlement, and not every person supports every part of it, but it opens up a whole new era for the iwi, a 21st century blossoming, and an exciting future for Te Puāwaitanga o Ngāti Hinerangi. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa, ōku hoa kaimahi, ki a koutou o Ngāti Hinerangi hoki. Kia ora rā.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to one and all, my work colleagues, and also those of you from Ngāti Hinerangi. Greetings.]

My goodness. This is the second reading of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill that the Greens will be supporting alongside all the other political parties in this House. And I was thinking back to—I believe it was 9 December 2019—where our Māori Affairs Committee travelled to Matamata and had the submissions and the hearings for this bill, where the Māori Affairs Committee sat on that day in Matamata. It was a beautiful day and it was, again, another privilege, another beautiful opportunity to meet kanohi ki te kanohi and to see the whānau of the hapū and iwi.

This settlement is attempting to start to address some of the injustice that again has been perpetuated by the Crown, that has been generational and has left generational scars. So I was just looking back through—I wanted in my second reading speech, because it is quite different from the first and the third readings—it is the speech that acknowledges that we took the hearings and the issues that were raised in the hearings back to the Māori Affairs Committee. We sat down with advisers and all of the members of that committee and tried to sort of work through the concerns and the issues that were raised.

And so I wanted to focus my second reading speech to just again acknowledge and put on the Hansard, the debate records, how vital that opportunity for hapū and whānau members to be heard was, because it once again highlights the real challenge and the ongoing difficulty of a Crown perpetuated process to try and settle enormous grievances—grievances that we have all known across Aotearoa, and settlements that, of course, don’t come anywhere near justice. They are part of a step towards trying to improve Crown and iwi and Māori relationships. But that day was important, and I wanted to remember the spirit that people came to us to bring the stories, different stories, stories of hope in what this settlement will allow Ngāti Hinerangi to be able to start. I’ll pick up on some of them.

I remembered, I think it was Joanne Aoake, who, interestingly for me, picked up on the bill’s ability to, hopefully, provide help with iwi health services to be able to deliver that aspiration of iwi-run, iwi-led health services as part of how this settlement could help. Now, those are ongoing discussions that, of course, are up to the iwi and the whānau and hapū members to decide how to use the fruits of this particular settlement to improve and put it to good use to help the people and help the land.

As our report notes, our report-back from the committee, and as is very common—in fact, I think it happens for every single claim that has come before the House—there is always concern and opposition to the settlement. It is always raised to us at select committee how these settlements can be seen, can be felt, to pit whānau and hapū and even iwi against each other when we are trying to settle some of these injustices. And that was certainly raised on the day in Matamata as well.

I remember, for example—I had a quote in here that was acknowledging, and I want to acknowledge Te Whānau Bidois here in this House, who came, my colleague Dan Bidois. But I remember it was Matua Rawiri, I think, who said “This settlement is going to damage our tribal relations.” Now, I want to acknowledge that the way that the processes have been set up, that is always something that is raised. This is why the Greens have always talked about how the large natural settlement criteria of the current Treaty process always lends itself to the difficulty of hapū and whānau and iwi feeling that they are not properly represented in these particular settlement claims. And that’s a challenge for us here as representatives in this House.

Minister Little, in all of the readings of this bill to date, has acknowledged that he has listened and has accountability to try and work out ways to better acknowledge that the large natural groupings criteria could very clearly set up further damage for tribal relations. And what I wanted to say in the second reading is that we owe it as members, I think, as members of Parliament, to support as much as we can the iwi and the hapū that are left with the difficulty of trying to repair, heal, maintain, and grow relationships with the wedges that have been created by these Crown settlements, and we need to wish all the aroha and all the support, but also be thinking about what are the systemic supports that we can provide in this House to acknowledge the potential damage to tribal affiliations that happen.

In saying that, I too acknowledge the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust and all post-settlement governance entities, who are left with the profound, challenging work and exciting work of trying to move our waka forward, picking up what has come through from these settlements, working with whānau and hapū, working with the debates and marae, trying to figure out what are our dreams now, how can we use our settlements to further our people, to support our people. That is no easy task and it’s not even an easy task getting to this point of second reading in the House of the legislation. So I acknowledge and I believe that the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust are here today as well. We owe it, as representatives of this House, to wish them all the love and support, but to think about what are the solutions and systemic fixes that we can actually give to that work from this point onwards.

I wanted to pick up on—here we go—the valid oppositions that are also raised as well as people taking hope from these settlements. I wrote in my notes that a story of Tamapango was read out at the end of that day, of that submission day, that breaks my heart and exemplified the real stories and the tūpuna who were involved and what their battles and conquests were. That story of Tamapango left a deep feeling of emotion in my heart that day and was a reminder of the reason why we are standing here debating these settlements. It was a reminder of what it always comes back to: the resilience and strength of Ngāti Hinerangi, the modelling of Ngāti Hinerangi for the rest of our country, for the sort of Aotearoa that we want to be able to build and being able to come through such incredible land, language, and tikanga loss, and maintaining their ahi kā, maintaining their tikanga, and their kawa to be upstanding and strong as Ngāti Hinerangi, despite the incredible injustice and takahi that their tīpuna were confronted with and were subjected to. I made a particular note in my book that day about that story, and I want to thank Ngāti Hinerangi for sharing that story, and the heart of what these claims are all about with all of us at the Māori Affairs Committee today.

I look forward to the third reading of this bill and to seeing another start for Ngāti Hinerangi in moving people and their whenua forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Tēnā koutou katoa, Ngāti Hinerangi. Nau mai, haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata mō ō koutou pire, the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill. Ko Matt King taku ingoa. I’d like to acknowledge the members of the iwi that are up here in the gallery today—looking fine, looking sharp—and I’d like to acknowledge our chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, Rino Tirikatene, a man I really respect. I enjoyed travelling down to Matamata to hear your submissions with the rest of the select committee team.

This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed on 4 May 2019 between the Crown and Ngāti Hinerangi, and it represents a final Treaty settlement for the iwi, for acts and omissions from the Crown prior to 1992, and isn’t it about time that we got there? I know you’re based in the Matamata area, the second most beautiful part of the country—Northland being the best, of course. I travelled there; I can vouch. It was good to listen to the submitters and receive the hospitality that we received and the welcome we received in that lovely part of New Zealand. I know it extends from the eastern part of Waikato-Tauranga through to the Kaimai Ranges. Sometime in the future, we’re going to be trying to put a tunnel through the Kaimais, and we hope you support us with our plan—we hope you do.

In 2014, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Hinerangi trust, and in December 2015, an agreement was agreed in principle and it was signed, and it formed the basis of the settlement. It was initialled on 14 December 2018, and in May 2019, years later, the Ngāti Hinerangi deed of settlement was signed. I know from the select committee that there were minor changes made, mostly to definitions and interpretations. The voting process had strong support, and that’s important, but there was some opposition to the mandate that the parties have. I note that it resulted in three urgent applications to the Waitangi Tribunal, but none were successful. So here we are today in the second reading of the bill—so we have the committee stage and then the final reading, and hopefully everything should go through well, and everyone in your patch should be very happy.

It recognises the wrongs of the past, and there have been many wrongs in the past. For me, it’s great to be part of this process, being in Parliament and being part of the process of Treaty settlements and understanding a lot more of the history of New Zealand that I would probably never have been able to learn about or never had the opportunity learn about, but I’ve had to because I’ve been in here and I’ve been part of the process, in the Māori Affairs Committee. So you do get to understand what went on in the past and what we’ve got to do to put it right. So it’s really great to be part of that with my colleague here, Harete Hipango, who has been promoted up in our party, and she represents us well. It recognises the wrongs of the past and, in my view, unlocks future potential for the region, for the iwi, for the country.

We’ve got to acknowledge the input of the Hon Chris Finlayson. He has been an absolute legend of a man that has done so much work on behalf of National, on behalf of Parliament, to progress these Treaty settlements. So it’s really important that we acknowledge him, and he is sorely missed, actually. One of the things that comes out of these Treaty settlements is, yes, there is financial redress but, really importantly, apologies—unreserved apologies—to the hapū, to the whānau, for the wrongs of the past. That is as important as anything, that acknowledgment, and a real, true acknowledgment from the Crown to the wrongs of the past, because without that acknowledgment, no one can move forward.

I know that Crown acts of land purchasing and confiscation left the iwi virtually landless. Between 1865 and 1868, the Crown confiscated over 290,000 acres of land in Tauranga. Some was returned, but the process was flawed, and this did not help and contributed to the marginalisation of the iwi, both economically and socially. It’s simply not possible, really, to compensate fully for the loss and the prejudice—it’s not possible. So what we’re doing here is we’re acknowledging it. It’s not tokenism, by any means, but, definitely, you cannot compensate truly, fully, 100 percent. Everyone knows that. But what it’ll do is, hopefully, forge a good relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Hinerangi and a real catalyst for positive change.

So the settlement included an agreed historical account, acknowledgments and apologies, cultural redress, financial redress of $8.1 million, revitalisation payments, a rebuild of a marae, co-governance and arrangements over the upper Waihou and Piako River catchments, and vesting of 14 cultural redress properties, which include the Wairere Falls scenic reserve, which is considered a sacred awa of Ngāti Hinerangi. The benefits of the settlement will be available to all members of Ngāti Hinerangi wherever they may live.

I just have to say that from our point of view, the National Party, we’re very proud of the Treaty settlements that we’ve been involved in, endurable Treaty settlements, the numbers of them that we’ve managed to get through under Chris Finlayson and others. We’re really proud of that, and if we get back in at some stage in the future, I would really like to see the Ngāpuhi settlement go through. That would be a big dream of mine in Northland. We’re not here to talk about them; we’re here to talk about Ngāti Hinerangi, but that would be a dream of mine, to see that settlement go through.

As a result of the focus on historical settlements this Government has completed, we’re only better for it, so I’m really happy to see the fact that this Government has continued on the good work that we did, and may there be many more settlements. I see here we had 56 settlements in principle and 58 deeds of settlement signed in our time between 2009 and 2017, and as I said before, we’re very proud of our record and we’re very proud to be part of this settlement today. When it finally goes through to the final process, maybe in the new year, maybe in the new term, it’ll be a great day for Ngāti Hinerangi.

So, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

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

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. He Hōnore, he korōria, ki te atua he maungārongo ki runga i te mata o te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Tēnā koutou, Ngāti Hinem—Hinerangi, nōku te Ngāti Hinemihi kē. Tēnā koutou, Ngāti Hinerangi, koutou kua tae-ā-tinana mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i tēnei rā whakahirahira mō koutou. Nei rā te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnei Te mema mō Te Waiariki—mai i Ngā Kuri ā Whārei ki Tihirau, mai i Maketū ki Tongariro, e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. He uri ahau o Tauranga Moana, o tērā waka hoki. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Honour, glory to god, and peace to the land, may good thoughts come to all men. Greetings, Ngāti Hinem—Hinerangi. Actually, Hinemihi is mine. Greetings, Ngāti Hinerangi, you who have arrived at Parliament in person today on what for you is a very important day. I acknowledge you all. This is the Member for Waiariki—from the dogs of Whārei to Cape Runaway, from Maketū to Tongariro, I acknowledge you all. I am a descendant of Tauranga Moana, of that other ancestral canoe. Therefore, greetings to one and all.]

Can I acknowledge your journey—your journey that you are still on that started some time ago. Unfortunately, today is only the second reading. There’s still a little bit more to go on this journey, but we’re doing it once and we’re doing it right. So I want to acknowledge that long journey that you are still on.

It’s not a perfect process, the Treaty settlement process. There will always be people that aren’t happy with the settlement process. Unfortunately, we still have to try and move forward and address some of the historical wrongs, and I hope that as you move forward, you will continue to be inclusive of those people who maybe at this time aren’t all on the waka heading in the same direction. So can I mihi to you on that note.

On this side of the House, it sounds like everybody supports this bill. It’s been through a process. Obviously, there was the trip down to Matamata, where the Māori Affairs Committee were able to go down there and look Ngāti Hinerangi in the eye and actually listen to some of the harrowing tales from days gone by. Through this settlement, the Crown is looking to address those past injustices that it has inflicted upon Ngāti Hinerangi and provide opportunities for Ngāti Hinerangi and the Crown to move forward together. The historical claims relate to conflict with the Crown in Tauranga, including the 1867 Tauranga bush campaign, the Crown’s confiscation of land in Tauranga, and the operation of the Native Land Court from 1865. Ngāti Hinerangi were left virtually landless by these actions. This settlement lays the cultural and economic foundation for Ngāti Hinerangi rangatahi, for mokopuna, and also for generations to come.

What does the bill do? Well, it contains an agreed historical account, first and foremost. Our Crown acknowledges the apology. There is cultural redress, and there is also commercial redress contained in this package as well. The settlement package includes the vesting of 14 sites of significance to allow Ngāti Hinerangi to re-establish connections with various parts of the rohe and to strengthen their own identity. It also provides for relationship instruments with key Crown agencies. It also has a co-governance arrangement over the Upper Waihou - Piako catchments and a payment of $200,000 for the cultural revitalisation of their people and also a fund in there to help rebuild marae. The commercial redress package also includes $8.1 million for transfer of five Crown-owned properties to Ngāti Hinerangi, including the sale and lease-back of Manawaru School and the Matamata Police Station, a right of first refusal over 51 other Crown properties, and the transfer of part of the Waihou forest.

This is a small part of what was lost back in the day, but it is the part that has been agreed to. I just want to acknowledge again the Māori Affairs Committee, the Minister who has overseen this, and also the people who have been generous enough to be able to get around that table and try and hash this out so that they can create a better future.

Before I resume my seat, can I just respond to a comment from Matt King, the previous speaker, when he spoke about giving mana back to the people but, at the same time, putting a hole in the Kaimai Ranges to feed those members’ insatiable need for roads. I would like to think that you are a big part of that discussion, and can I just say beware that party and promises when it comes to our Kaimai Ranges. They are our environment, they are our taonga, and they must be looked after.

I look forward to the third reading of this bill and the committee of the whole House, so that we can put this issue to rest. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Kia ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Welcome, Ngāti Hinerangi, to this place, to your place, to our place. I’d particularly like to acknowledge the CEO of the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust, Tony Harrison, and the chairperson, Phil Smith—thank you both for making the journey along, and the rest of your team as well. It’s great to have you down with us today for the second reading of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill.

Now, before I get under way, there have been a few errors made by some of the speakers today—well intentioned, but errors none the less. There were claims that Matamata is the second best part of the country, when, quite clearly, it is the best. For anyone who has travelled there, they will be well aware of this. The Māori Affairs Committee, I’m sure, experienced that when they travelled down to the mighty Waikato. They would have been struck by the majestic beauty of the place and absolutely gobsmacked at the awe of the mighty Wairere Falls, the Kaimai Range, and the beautiful rolling foothills and the magnificent, productive, fertile farmland of that rohe. Ngāti Hinerangi understand that. I have the pleasure of representing that area as the member of Parliament for Waikato, as well, and so I am blessed to understand that, as well. I grew up in Te Poi, which is within the rohe, and I absolutely acknowledge and understand the importance of that place and the beauty of the region.

We’ve traversed already today—pretty well, I think—the details of the peculiarities within the bill, the particular aspects as it pertains to this particular settlement bill, but there are a couple of bits that I just wanted to touch on. I really wanted to acknowledge, first of all, the journey, not just in the claims settlement process but, actually, prior to that and regaining the voice, regaining your identity, regaining your mana, and re-establishing Ngāti Hinerangi as its own separate iwi. So, well done for your pride in your own history, for your passion in pushing for that, and your perseverance in actually continuing and seeing that through to the reality where we are now. So I’d like to acknowledge that. I know that journey wouldn’t have been easy, but you can be very proud of that.

So we’ve got to this position now where there has been some redress made and, obviously, those details we’ve heard a bit about already. For me, when I was speaking recently with Tony, we talked a lot about what this means, but, actually, one of the things that struck me out of that conversation was around the fundamental that this is really a catalyst for positive change. This is a nice line in the sand that we’ve had some challenges in the past, that has been incredibly difficult, we’ve got to where we are now, and, actually, the future looks positive. There are some challenges of course—there always will be, and success takes time—but I have no doubt that with the passion within Ngāti Hinerangi you will achieve many wonderful things. I look forward to seeing that within our wider community.

Now, that area, as I mentioned, has been home for me, and I’m very proud of that. I’ve always enjoyed the Wairere Falls—and for anyone who hasn’t visited, it’s the largest waterfall in the North Island, it’s a beautiful part of the country, there’s a fantastic walk up there—it takes me a bit longer up and back down now than it used to 10 or 15 years ago, but politics does that to you!

Chris Penk: Don’t blame politics; it’s the pies!

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Ha, ha! Well, perhaps I can’t blame politics, yes—but that’s all right.

So, look, it’s a beautiful part of the country. I saw earlier on Facebook today—and members of the iwi here today may have seen it too—Hinerangi Lilo, I think it was, did a post on the Matamata-Piako District Council Facebook page talking about the importance of the area for her as a member of Ngāti Hinerangi and incorporating that and building that into the plan process that Matamata-Piako District Council are going through, as well.

So it’s really fantastic to see that voice being heard, to see strong advocacy for your passion and your rohe, your iwi. So I’m proud to be standing here, helping to shepherd this second reading through. A lot of that hard work has been done. There are still some points to progress through this House. The select committee has fixed up a few of those little tweaks. But, largely, now we have the remaining couple of stages, and then finally—finally—we tick that box and Ngāti Hinerangi can move forward with this as a positive catalyst for change, and I look forward to seeing that. Kia ora.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Otirā, e tika ana kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā whānau, ngā hapū katoa o Ngāti Hinerangi i tēnei wā; ki a koutou kua tae mai nei ki tēnei Whare e tū ake nei. E whakapiri ana ahau i taku mihi ki a rātou kua mihia kē ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. So, it is only right to acknowledge the families and all the sub-tribes of Ngāti Hinerangi at this time, and those of you who have made it to this House. I add my acknowledgments to those of the speakers who have preceded me. Therefore, greetings to one and all.]

It’s a real pleasure to speak to the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill in the second reading. I’m a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and I join with colleagues from across the House, especially those who travelled to Matamata to hear submitters on this bill. Can I just say to the House and to members of Ngāti Hinerangi that are listening in to this debate that the process can be challenging both for submitters, for the claimant, for the members of the committee itself. We find ourselves often hearing disputes and we have to make sure that we give everyone a fair hearing, and sometimes we have to ask the hard questions. It does not mean that we dispute what is being said. It just means that we want to find out all of the information that we can. We then take that information away with us. We consider it. We ask officials that have worked on the settlement for further information, as we did in this case.

In the report back to the House it outlines quite clearly all of the things that we discovered and the decisions that the committee came to. So I support what other members of the committee have said about this settlement, that we considered very clearly what was told to us about different hapū about what was supported and what was not. At the end of the day, we have come to the conclusion that this bill should be passed with no major changes at all. There are a few technical changes. In saying that, I also want to acknowledge exactly what is in the deed of settlement rather than the legislation. The legislation only contains aspects of the deed of settlement that needs to be in legislation. There’s a lot more.

Can I add to or endorse the words of the Hon Nicky Wagner in her expressions about the historical account. I think it’s really important that we, as members of Parliament, are aware of the historical account that is in the legislation and in the deed of settlement. The historical account in the legislation is a briefer view of the longer version in the deed of settlement. So when the Hon Nicky Wagner spoke about the scorched earth policy in one of the battles that took place with Ngāti Hinerangi, there’s a longer version of that in the deed of settlement.

It’s harrowing to read them, but sometimes you just have to do it. You have to read it to get an appreciation of what the members of Ngāti Hinerangi had to endure over—as my colleague from the Green Party, Marama Davidson, said—a long period of time, and over generations. So we all agree with that in this House, and it’s important that we express it together so that, as it says in—I want to just read a couple of quotes from the legislation. The first one is one of the acknowledgments. It says “The Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of its acts and omissions left Ngāti Hinerangi virtually landless, and had a devastating impact on their economic, social, and cultural well-being and development.” So in the first part of the legislation we’ve got the historical account, we’ve got acknowledgments, and we’ve got the apology. So the historical account, as members have discussed, sets out what actually happened. The acknowledgments say this is what the Crown acknowledges. What I just read out was one of those things that is acknowledged.

Then it goes on to an apology. So two quotes from the apology. The first one is: “The Crown is profoundly sorry for having failed to uphold its obligations to Ngāti Hinerangi under te Tiriti o Waitangi”. Then it goes on to say, “The Crown hopes that through this settlement it can restore its honour and alleviate the justifiable sense of grievance felt by generations of Ngāti Hinerangi.”

Now, they are wonderful words. As we’ve heard laid out in this House today from different members outlining what’s in the settlement, we should always acknowledge quite clearly what the Crown has done, and it’s acknowledging that through this legislation, and then it’s apologising for it. But I’ve said this in this House before, and I’m going to say it again today, apologising for something is only meaningful if we never do it again. I say that collectively, that we must never do that again, so that we do not impact on Ngāti Hinerangi in the ways that have been acknowledged in this legislation. I say that, which is a really difficult thing to do, because when we’re having the second and the third readings of these bills, we all have high intent not to do that, but we all have to be vigilant on every piece of legislation that goes through this House as well—every single piece, so that we make sure that Ngāti Hinerangi is not impacted.

So I do think Matamata and that area is a lovely part of New Zealand. I think the whole of our country as well, that we’ll all, as electorate MPs, stand up and say “My electorate is the best.” I’m no different. I’m from Te Tai Hauāuru, and we’ve got Ruapehu, Ngāuruhoe, Taranaki, Te Kāhui Maunga. I wouldn’t want anyone to make an apology like this and then say things like “Well, we might put a tunnel underneath one of your maunga.” That would be wrong—that would be so wrong to do that. So I think it’s important that we always, when we’re saying that we will do things, actually follow through on them. So that’s my contribution.

Nō reira, e tika hoki kia tuku te reo mihi ake anō ki a Ngāti Hinerangi. Nō reira, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, it is only right that I too acknowledge Ngāti Hinerangi. Therefore, greetings to one and all.]

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Nau mai, haere mai, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It’s a pleasure to speak at the second reading of the Ngāti Hinerangi Claims Settlement Bill, having followed this bill through our Parliament from its first reading last year. I’d like to start out by absolutely acknowledging the fantastic work of the Māori Affairs Committee, chaired by Rino Tirikatene, for which I was, at the time that this bill was considered in the select committee, a member of that committee.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust and all those who have come down from the north today. Thank you for inviting us to Matamata. It is indeed a fantastic part of the country. I must say I learnt an extraordinary amount while on a select committee visit to hear the submissions from the area. It was a pleasure to take time out to hear those submissions.

Of course, it has been documented in this House that I have a connection to Ngāti Hinerangi, and I just want to explain that connection, however weak that may be. Now, my late grandfather Lawrence Bidois is buried up in the Kaimai Ranges. I didn’t really have much connection to Ngāti Hinerangi growing up, because my grandmother was whāngai-ed out to Ngāti Maniapoto. So we spent most of our youth growing up in the marae around Ngāti Maniapoto. Also, another reason why we didn’t spend a lot of time in Ngāti Hinerangi is that the marae where my grandfather whakapapa-ed to was no longer in existence. So I do have a connection to Ngāti Hinerangi, but I also have a connection to Ngāti Maniapoto, and I’m working through my real parents at the moment, and it seems that I also have connections to the North as well.

So that’s just a little bit of background there, but we’re not here to talk about myself. We’re here to talk about this fantastic process that we’ve been through and the kaupapa of this bill for the people of Ngāti Hinerangi. That kaupapa, of course, is firstly founded on acknowledging the grievances of the past, whether it’s the land that was taken, whether it’s the villages that were attacked, or whether it was the alienation of the land for the people of Ngāti Hinerangi. And it’s also an apology. My colleague, of course, the previous speaker, Adrian Rurawhe, mentioned the apology for the acts that led to the various uprisings and rebellions but also the loss of culture that went with it.

Turning our attention to the future, which is really about what we can do about it: yes, acknowledge it; yes, apologise; but let’s also seek to redress the grievances of the past. That is why there is a settlement of $8.1 million, there is a fund for cultural revitalisation, there are a number of important sites that have been given back to the people of Ngāti Hinerangi, and there is also input into the management of a lot of assets and sites, and, of course, Matamata College featured as important in that.

I do want to come to the select committee, because it was a very vocal select committee. I must say, I do learn a lot about Māori culture going to and being a part of these processes, because you realise that you really cannot please everybody, you know. There are a lot of challenges that the select committees have to deal with. It is our role to hear those grievances, to hear those concerns—either for or not pro the bill—and then, if there are any issues with the bill, to seek to find redress for that.

The majority of submissions, as has been discussed widely today, were in favour, but there were a number of submissions with concerns around one of the specific hapū that was mentioned as part of this bill, which is Ngāti Tamapango, and there was a sense that, actually, Tamapango wasn’t really acknowledged as a hapū in itself. It was, I think, more an affiliation to Ngāti Pango, which is what we heard quite clearly from the select committee. So there were concerns around the association of a hapū, and that was not necessarily fit for the actual hapū or people that affiliate to that hapū.

The second is around the mandate of the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust. I certainly want to acknowledge the work that’s gone in over the years to, I think, provide a really robust process to seek a mandate for the Crown to enter into negotiations with the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust. But there were a number of submitters, including Rawiri Bidois, my uncle, who did raise some concerns around the mandate that was given, or the lack of mandate. I think, just taking a step back, there was an acknowledgment that possibly the process to seek a mandate is not necessarily smooth enough for those that perhaps don’t have a sense that they’re part of that.

That brings me on to the third issue that was raised, which was around the attempts to withdraw from that mandate. We heard from the select committee that there were a number of attempts to withdraw from the mandate. That went to the Waitangi Tribunal, and, of course, that was upheld or struck down by the Waitangi Tribunal. But I do want to raise in this House a really important point, which is: how can we make it a really easy process and communicate that process in a really easy way so that in future—and we’ve got more on the horizon, whether it’s Ngāti Maniapoto or, hopefully, up north, and iwi settlements up there. How can we make it a really easy process for groups or iwi or hapū or sub-hapū—the ability for them to actually opt out of the mandates that have been sought? I think there were some issues around that that raised some concerns around the ability for hapū groups to actually withdraw from the mandate. Look, that was raised from the likes of Ngāti Tokotoko and other various hapū, and, unfortunately, we weren’t able to really make many changes to the bill, because, as was mentioned, the bill really just gives effect to the deed of settlement.

So, look, it has been a really insightful process for myself to be a part of this and to just understand the intricacies involved in the way the Crown negotiates with iwi. And don’t forget: iwi is really a European construct. Going back to the history well before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, Māori culture was more organised by hapū. These iwi constructs are really a mechanism that was born out of a way to organise ourselves to engage with the Crown. It has been really insightful, and I think that there are absolutely lessons that we’ve learnt as members of the select committee around how to make that process smoother. I just want to again acknowledge the fantastic contributions from the select committee, from all those from the Ngāti Hinerangi Trust. Thank you for coming down. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe. Tēnei ka tū ake nei ki te tāpiri aku mihi ki ngā uri whakaheke o Ngāti Hinerangi, ā koutou whānau, ā koutou mātua tūpuna. Nō reira, nau mai haramai, rarau mai ki roto i Te Whare ki te whakarongo ki ngā kōrero.

[Greetings. I stand today to add my salutations to the descendants of Ngāti Hinerangi, to your families and your ancestors. Therefore, welcome, welcome to this House to listen to the speeches.]

I’ll take this opportunity to contribute to the bill, even though I didn’t sit on the select committee, but I also contributed to the first reading.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge Rino Tirikatene as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and the membership for their thorough and diligent consideration of all the aspects that you would want to consider as a Treaty settlement bill makes its way through the House. To all the members who have participated in this debate, thank you for your contribution, because anyone listening to the nature of this particular settlement will realise just how difficult it is for a seemingly small iwi to be able to assert their legitimate rights and interests in today’s time as a result of resolving some of the historical injustices of the past.

I say that deliberately because mention was made by members in the House of the range of overlapping interests that Ngāti Hinerangi had to consider as they navigated their way through the Treaty settlement process: Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Raukawa, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Hako, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Pūkenga, and Ngāi Te Rangi. That in itself indicates how difficult it will have been, over time, to maintain the integrity of your identity and then embark on a process—the Treaty settlement process—to assert an identity that has long remained on the land and is going to continue to assert their aspirations as an iwi.

Why I mention that is because, while words on the paper, like lines on a map, can be hard lines, actually, those overlapping interests probably start to give us an insight of some of the whakapapa interconnectedness that one might expect when you’re surrounded by other iwi. But I do want to acknowledge the outcome in relation to the Tauranga Moana iwi around transferring some of the land there. That, to me, without delving too much into the specifics, indicates that, above all else, it will be important for Ngāti Hinerangi to maintain their relations with all the associated iwi that sit on their fringe.

I also want to note that in the select committee’s thorough consideration of many issues—and they made some technical amendments to the bill, which is outlined in the commentary—they also, as members have referred to in the House, heard some disgruntled opposition to the bill. There were around about two urgency applications, as has been stated in the summary, to the progression of this particular settlement, and not upheld by the Waitangi Tribunal. But again, these are difficult and challenging aspects of trying to carve out a settlement where you are also ensuring a way forward for those who have a vested interest in the settlement progressing but are also going to put to rest some of the historical tribunal claims that make up the component parts of the settlement. That’s detailed clearly in the bill, and for many of the reasons unbeknown to this House, that is often the place to go to as to why various members of a hapū, or hapū themselves within the context of an iwi, will assert their opposition, often because their Wai claim is being included within the context of the settlement and they believe it shouldn’t be. We just need to have confidence that the select committee did consider these issues and made no change to the recommendations of the settlement.

The other thing that I wanted to comment on briefly was the post-settlement governance entity (PSGE) structure being a marae-based structure. As time passes and your soft lines around your hapū connections start to merge with other hapū, often what is the case is that the physical manifestation of how iwi and hapū recognise their mana and authority within a rohe is through their marae. Ngāti Hinerangi themselves have taken to model their PSGE upon their marae-based structure. Again, this is insightful because many of our marae, no matter how big or small our iwi are, struggle to get whānau back to the marae to be able to contribute to the broader wellbeing aspirations of the iwi. In today’s world, having a marae-based structure can contribute to the broader social, economic, cultural wellbeing aspirations that you have within your hapū or your iwi. So I do want to recognise that, because it will be difficult to try and moderate expectations for your settlement, keep your identity strong and growing going forward, and also be inclusive around the whānau—that you say, “Hey, come home, contribute. We need you.”—things like that. It’s not easy. And I can say that from our own experience as well.

The other thing is it’s not about how big or small a settlement is. In fact, it’s the level of aspiration that you have for your iwi and what you do with what has come out of a settlement. I want to acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, who made the comment just in this second reading that no settlement entirely in and of itself can completely rectify the historical wrongs that have been caused by the Crown. However, if there is enough belief within iwi to pursue a settlement process such as this, it is an opportunity to reassert your relationship through your cultural redress. It is an opportunity to consolidate your structure to be able to prepare for the future. It is an opportunity to actually ensure that your history will be told and shared widely throughout the land. All of that is evident in your particular settlement.

Can I lastly come back to the issues around hapū and whakapapa. I found this to be the case when I sat on the Māori Affairs Committee as a backbench MP. One of the most difficult things to do was arbitrate over whakapapa—in fact, you’d prefer not to do it. We’re ill-equipped, as politicians, to listen to the breadth and depth of whakapapa that comes before us. In order to manage expectations around that, often the process in and of itself does require much of that to be resolved before it gets to the House. But I say time and time again—if people who want to object to a settlement process want to do so by bringing whakapapa to this House—we’re the last people to adjudicate, and we shouldn’t be. I would much rather prefer to leave that within the mana and the domain of iwi themselves to do.

On the issue of Matamata College—and probably because a certain Prime Minister also, I think, has links to Morrinsville and Matamata—can I say that the first right of refusal opportunity is a genuine opportunity that you will have, over the 178 years of when that might be realised, to re-establish your connections to the whenua, and that’s what it’s about. After all that has been said and done, for Ngāti Hinerangi, who have never lost their identity—and the settlement will not be giving back their identity, because they have always held their identity. But for Ngāti Hinerangi to now repatriate and resettle their relationships—their kin relationships as well as their on-land relationships in their rohe—in their domain in a way that their mokopuna and those to follow will say, “This is who we are, this is where we come from, and this is who we will always be.” is a very strong outcome of any settlement.

Nō reira, i roto i te ngākau whakaiti i tēnei wā kei mua i a koutou. Tēnei e mihi ana ki a koutou katoa, Hinerangi. Ki te komiti whakahaere, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I humbly speak before you today. I acknowledge you all, Hinerangi. To the select committee, thank you one and all.]

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill

Second Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister for Urban Development: I move, That the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill be now read a second time.

The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill provides the framework for a new funding and financing tool for bulk infrastructure that supports housing and urban development. This tool can be used by anyone, whether they be a council, a developer, or Kāinga Ora. It demonstrates that this Government is tackling the issues that underpin New Zealand’s housing affordability challenge.

I would like to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for its work on the bill and the organisations and members of the public who made written and oral submissions on the bill. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank the efforts of the Opposition, who actually began this journey. It is great to see all sides of the House supporting this bill. I would like also to acknowledge the efforts and collaboration of the high-growth councils and Crown Infrastructure Partners who partnered with Treasury and the Department of Internal Affairs to develop this bill. The partnership signals a new way of working, and I hope that councils and developers continue to engage in this way.

The committee received 38 submissions, representing individuals and organisations with interests in housing, infrastructure, financing, the environment, public health, and local government. Of those who expressed a clear position on the bill, 90 percent supported its broad intention and direction. Submitters generally noted that the bill will only support large infrastructure investments and that the bill lends itself toward new development areas. This is true. It is these areas where we tend to see financing constraints inhibiting investment in housing-related infrastructure. Nevertheless, the bill is flexible, to allow for the possibility of supporting brownfield development and infrastructure needs. Some concerns were also raised about transparency, given the possibility of a private entity levying the public. I am pleased to see that the committee has sought to bolster these provisions in the bill by bringing a special purpose vehicle’s (SPV’s) activities within the ambit of the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act, to strengthen levels of accountability.

This bill supports infrastructure projects that are economically viable. It allows them to proceed in environments where councils don’t have enough debt headroom to deliver the project on their own, and it does this by ring-fencing the financing eligible infrastructure from a local authority’s balance sheet. The bill is not designed to crowd out local government. Instead, it adds to their funding and financing tool kit. This is about creating partnerships between councils, developers, and the Crown to bring the infrastructure that our communities need.

During the first reading, the Minister for Infrastructure highlighted the funding and financing constraints that councils are facing on a daily basis. Auckland will use 90 percent of its debt capacity over the next decade. Hamilton will use 86 percent over the same period. COVID-19 has exacerbated these debt constraints. With council revenues expected to fall as they grapple with the economic consequences and help their communities with rate deferrals and other support, it has become even more critical to address some of the funding and financing challenges today. By mitigating financing constraints on the infrastructure decision-making process, this bill will assist with the funding and financing of critical infrastructure projects to provide the homes that New Zealanders need much sooner than would otherwise be possible.

While we do face tough economic challenges ahead, we mustn’t forget the long-term outcomes that this Government hopes the bill will achieve. By overcoming technical financing constraints and speeding up the provision of housing-related infrastructure, we are tackling one of the fundamental problems that is driving up house prices: a lack of serviced urban land. Increased land and development capacity available for housing will support a more competitive urban land market, ultimately helping to bring down the cost of urban land. The bipartisan support seen in this House on this bill’s introduction and general support from submitters in local government sends a strong signal that resolving local government funding and financing challenges is a priority that is something we can all be proud of.

Now turning to the committee’s work, they have made a number of useful changes in response to the submissions. Transparency and accountability are going to be critical to gaining support from the public, councils, and the wider sector for the underlying model. I’ve already mentioned that the bill now includes provisions to bring SPVs within the ambit of the Official Information Act and Ombudsmen Act. The committee has also identified other opportunities to bolster these provisions and made changes to protect the legitimate interests of landowners and councils when it comes to infrastructure endorsements and construction powers provided to SPVs. I welcome and support these changes.

One small but key amendment was made in response to submitters to ensure that the infrastructure and levy endorsements from local authorities and consents to include protected Māori land within a levy area are all required before the levy order can be recommended. This was always the intention, but required a slight tweak to avoid any doubt. The endorsement requirement is a fundamental part of the levy proposal process. It makes sure that local authorities who will ultimately own and operate the infrastructure once constructed are satisfied with the quality and technical aspects of the infrastructure.

Some council submissions highlighted that it was not clear that the costs of acquiring land to provide infrastructure could be covered by a levy. These costs make up a significant portion of infrastructure investment. In some cases they can exceed a third of the total construction cost. The committee has helpfully ensured that the bill is explicit that land acquisition costs are eligible for establishment costs to be recovered via a levy. The committee has also made a number of technical adjustments to ensure that the bill operates as intended and interacts well with local government practice and key legislation such as the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

I want to touch briefly on one area where submitters made comment but the committee has not sought any changes. A number of the submitters sought an expanded scope for the bill or wanted it to be altered to become a general local government financing tool. The bill arises from the Government’s urban growth agenda, thus does have a deliberate focus on supporting housing-related infrastructure. As such, it creates processes for and obligations on councils and SPVs around this purpose. What the bill does do, which goes some way towards some of the submitters’ comments, is provide for the model and underlying commercial structures to evolve over time. It only prescribes processes necessary to protect levy payers, local authorities, and the Crown. The methods used to identify and develop projects remain unprescribed. However, Crown Infrastructure Partners are the Crown’s agent to help facilitate use of this bill, should it be passed into law. This will encourage a continued partnership approach between councils, developers, and the Crown to help provide the infrastructure needed to support housing for our communities, something which has historically been a rare occurrence but is critical to the successful provision, funding, and financing of infrastructure.

Overall, the changes recommended by the committee improve the bill, provide additional transparency, and support its objectives. I thank the committee for their consideration of the bill. The bill is stronger because of these collaborative efforts from across the House. I move that the House take note of the committee’s report and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Phil Twyford has been a disaster as transport Minister. But—

Marja Lubeck: I think we’re looking at the disaster.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh. Be kind, eh? Isn’t that what they say, Marja? Didn’t they say “Be kind”? Clearly the memo didn’t get through to the list MP based in Rodney, about “Be kind”. You’re what number? Is it 56 or something? I don’t know.

Hon Member: 64.

CHRIS BISHOP: 64, is it? She’s going to lose by about 19,448 votes I think, but anyway.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Back to the bill, eh?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well she started it, Mr Speaker. But, fair enough. Anyway, Phil Twyford has been a disaster as Minister of Transport, but he has got a couple of things right. One of them is the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill, because actually Phil Twyford intellectually understands the case for urban land reform and for changing the way in which we finance infrastructure in New Zealand. He recognises, quite adroitly, the connection between funding of infrastructure by local councils and housing supply. I have quite a lot of experience with the challenges of funding and financing infrastructure properly, because my own electorate, my own area, is very similar to many other parts of the country that are struggling—

Hon Scott Simpson: Where is your area?

CHRIS BISHOP: Lower Hutt. Thank you, Mr Simpson. Struggling with the challenges of rapid population growth—actually, in some ways quite surprising population growth—and funding the housing supply to keep up with that growth. And the challenge of—

Darroch Ball: Oh, here we go. What did you guys do in nine years? What did you guys do in nine years? You just figure it out now, did you?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no, no, no, no, no, I’m not making a party political point. This problem goes back across our Government, and the Government before that, and the Government before that. This is a 30-year problem we’ve had in New Zealand. And what we’ve had in Lower Hutt is—Lower Hutt was fine for about 15 years, when the population stayed stagnant. It had 100,000 people; it bubbled along. When I was growing up in Lower Hutt, the population of the Hutt was about 100,000 people—that was 20 years ago. I’m 36, about to turn 37. In between 2013 and 2019, the population in Lower Hutt grew by 10,000 people—so 10 percent growth in Lower Hutt in five years. Now, by any stretch, that is very rapid growth, particularly for a city that had become used to a stagnant population that was not growing.

Now, a growing population is a good thing. Cities that are growing are more vibrant; economically, they are more competitive. And all cities, I think, frankly, want people to move there. I mean, in the same way New Zealand wants people to move to New Zealand, cities want people to move there, because actually a growing city is the sign of a successful city, in the same way a growing country is a sign of a successful country. Actually, over time, if you don’t grow, you stagnate, and you wither, and you die. So of course we want people in Lower Hutt, but you’ve got to build the infrastructure.

The problem that’s happened in Lower Hutt in the last five years—seven years in particular—is we’ve constrained housing supply growth. We’ve made it impossible to build new housing. The effect of that, the effect of not building more housing in Lower Hutt, has been house price increases of $300,000 over the last five to six years; rent is up $200, on average, per week in the last four years; and the social housing waiting list has quintupled in the last three years and is at record levels. There are over 500 families in the Hutt, priority A and B, waiting for a home. They’re priority A and B, they’re the most urgently in need of housing support, and they can’t get one.

Of course, the thing I always say to people is: our housing problems are connected. It’s not enough just to say we need to solve homelessness. Of course, we need to address homelessness, and of course we need to do programmes like Housing First. I commend the Government for continuing with the Housing First programme, to wrap that social support around people who are at the real hard edge of homelessness. It’s not enough just to say, “We need to solve homelessness.” Frankly, it’s not enough just to say things like, “Well, we need to get rents under control.” Everything in the housing market is interconnected; everything you do in housing relates to supply.

You grow the supply of housing, you constrain rapid house price increases, and you make it easier for people to rent. You constrain those rent increases, because rent increases are obviously highly correlated to house price increases. Of course, once you constrain rate increases, you make it easier for people in the private rental market to get into a home. You don’t crowd people out of the private rental market who then have to be forced to rely on social housing. People who can’t afford market rents—private market rents—obviously approach the Ministry of Social Development and Kāinga Ora and say, “I need a home.”, and if there’s a fixed supply of Kāinga Ora houses and social houses in some areas—which there is—then those people struggle to find their way into a home. That’s why we have a social housing waiting list. That’s why there are 500 people in Lower Hutt waiting for a home right now. They can’t get into a social house because there are not enough numbers; they can’t access the private rental market because they can’t afford it, even with the accommodation supplement; and they certainly can’t afford a mortgage. So we have to reform the way in which we fund infrastructure to fund housing and that’s the critical connection that we absolutely have to understand.

The good news is, on this side of the House, we get it. We started the infrastructure funding and financing work in Government under Bill English and then continued by Steven Joyce and we have carried that through.

Marja Lubeck: It’s not the party of Key and English any more.

CHRIS BISHOP: That is both incredibly insightful but also one of the most trite statements you could ever make, because they are literally not here. So well done, Marja, for that stunning insight: Steven Joyce and Bill English and John Key are not here. Congratulations. The deep thinker from Rodney worked out that people have left. Well, actually, she’s about to leave at the next election and we look forward to that and the—anyway.

So we get it, and before I was interrupted by the rudeness from Rodney I was actually going to make it a nice point, which is Phil gets it and he’s continuing it. It’s taken too long, hasn’t it, Ms Dean—it’s taken too long. We’re sort of, what, three weeks out from the House lifting and this is only the second reading. I mean, it’s nuts when you think about it.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Imagine what we can do in nine years.

CHRIS BISHOP: But at least it’s been—“Imagine what we could do in nine years.”, says Under-Secretary Tabuteau. I don’t want to imagine what this Government would do in nine years. If the social housing waiting list in Lower Hutt quintupled in three years, I don’t know what the multiple of 15 is, but it’s a lot, and if you had nine years, we would all be in trouble. We’d all be in trouble.

Hon Scott Simpson: The member won’t have to worry though.

CHRIS BISHOP: “That member won’t have to worry.”, says Mr Simpson. That’s correct.

But anyway, there is a serious point, which is that what this does is make sure that the people who benefit from the new development pay for that development. That sounds like a simple idea, actually, but it actually is quite a revolutionary concept, which is that if a council wants to facilitate new development, the people who are the beneficiaries of that development—people who benefit from the infrastructure, the waste water, and the roads, and the infrastructure that goes into facilitating that development—they will pay. At the moment, you’ve got this weird situation—or at least difficult situation—where existing ratepayers are asked to pay for the infrastructure and they pay for it through their own rates. Unsurprisingly, that creates a backlash to varying degrees of intensity from existing ratepayers.

So what we’re saying is, absolutely, councils need to get on and facilitate new housing supply, yep, and central government’s got a role in doing that—absolutely. But the fundamental part of that infrastructure to facilitate those developments will come from local councils. What we’re saying is this creates a new funding model and new vehicles to make sure that can happen: special purpose vehicles which can raise capital, finance the infrastructure, commission construction of the infrastructure, and transfer it over time back to the relevant local authority.

We examined it pretty closely in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. It probably doesn’t go as far as we in the Opposition would like it to go. It’s something that we will re-examine in Government. But it is good that there is a consensus across the Parliament, I think—I hope—that this bill will make a difference. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the greatest challenges we will face as a country over the next 20 years—the immediate short-term priority is COVID, obviously, but over the next 10 to 20 years, we have got to make sure that local councils can fund infrastructure properly. We know that on this side of the House and we intend to make sure that we are part of the solution, not just part of the problem. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this—and it’s great to hear Mr Bishop’s closing words there that we do seem to have an accord in recognising that infrastructure is a huge issue. This Government is committed to addressing that on all fronts, from setting up Kāinga Ora itself through to the Urban Development Bill, the infrastructure bill, and the infrastructure commission Act, and, of course, now we have this Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill—a bill which recognises that when benefits flow from development, those benefits should be paid for by the people who receive them.

So the levy structure here is a fantastic structure and allows those costs to be borrowed and to be spread across a long period of time. But what this really is is just another step by this Government to make sure we have a comprehensive approach to addressing all of the infrastructure issues around the country, whether it be housing, whether it be water, whether it be transport. The fantastic Minister who’s taken this bill to the House, Minister Twyford, has done an outstanding job in this area.

I absolutely commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like a lot of the Government’s work on infrastructure, that was a very brief and half-hearted attempt. But nevertheless, I’ll take a call here on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill second reading as it’s come back from select committee.

Now, they get a bit touchy about infrastructure over there, because they know that they haven’t met the expectations of the public and, indeed, the expectations they probably set for themselves, if we’re honest. But the reality is that infrastructure is absolutely fundamental. We have to get it right, we have to do better, and, actually, over a period of time—a few decades—we haven’t had the depth of pipeline, the confidence for the construction sector, that is necessary to really start streamlining that work and getting the efficiencies that can be achieved from having that more consistent pipeline.

So this is good; we support it—Mr Bishop, I think, made that quite clear. But the reality is that there are a number of facets within here that are absolutely vital, and I really just want to pick up on the point that Mr Bishop made as well, around the interwoven nature of the different development aspects. Housing, of course, is reliant on having good infrastructure, and that’s roads, waste-water connectivity, a whole range of different aspects, and we need to link all of those up. So this Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill helps to do that.

Now, we had started working on the framework of this, actually, and it’s something that I do with my four-year-old daughter as well. You sort of trace, you put dots on a piece of paper and then they come along and join it, and you congratulate them on doing a great job, and I think that’s what the Government has done here. We’ve put the dots out for them, they’ve joined it up, they can be really chuffed with what they’ve achieved, but it just makes sense and we were heading in that direction in the first place.

So we have a pretty ambitious plan for infrastructure, and we heard that just on Friday from Judith Collins announcing a massive plan of works: $31 billion over 10 years across a range of different areas, and, in particular, in the upper North Island. So that has real benefits, and when I look at my electorate of the Waikato, it’s set to benefit significantly from the increased potential that the investment in infrastructure under that package will deliver through jobs growth, greater social opportunities, and improving the wellbeing, I suppose, of the broader Waikato community. So we’re really excited about those projects in the Waikato—expressway projects, but also looking further down the track at linking those into Auckland and further north, and across to the Bay of Plenty as well. So this bill presents opportunities in that space as well.

When we look at how the local authorities will fit in with what’s being planned in a broad, visionary infrastructure pipeline, like the National Party announced just the other day, there is a need—it provides the ability for some of the territorial authorities to then start thinking about their longer-term plan and how they fit in with that. An example would be the Waikato District Council, largely within my electorate, and that district covers quite a large area—it sort of skirts around the eastern side of Hamilton City to Tamahere at the southern end, and then goes right up to the Bombay Hills at the top, and the difference between those communities is significant. What they’re experiencing in the Waikato—and in a number of other areas, but specifically in this case, they are experiencing high growth in those northern communities: Pōkeno, Tuakau, Te Kauwhata. All those areas that need significant investment in infrastructure—and Mr Bishop touched on it as well—around the current model that, effectively, requires existing ratepayers to fund that infrastructure investment to then bring in additional ratepayers and homes over time.

Now, there’s an element of fairness within that, and ratepayers will readily raise that as a concern for local councils. I hear regularly from councillors and mayors around their difficulty in trying to juggle that particular requirement. So communities like Tamahere who aren’t seeing the same growth that’s being experienced at the top end are still having, through their rates, to fund some of that infrastructure. This bill provides a new model to help facilitate some of that growth over a period of time, so the establishment of the special purpose vehicles (SPVs) will enable that particular project to get off the ground. So that’s creating a vehicle to implement—to carry out the construction of that project then handing it over to the particular territorial authority at the end of it. That’s really what we’re trying to achieve here, is taking away the complexities of managing around existing debt levels on local council balance sheets and enabling them to still invest in infrastructure that’s needed in the areas—so this does that.

There are a couple of areas through the select committee process that we tweaked to improve. One of those I just wanted to touch on was around the eligible costs—what could or couldn’t be considered eligible costs. Land acquisition hadn’t been part of that, but, actually, a fundamental part of any infrastructure project is having the underlying land on which to begin your construction. So that now will be considered an eligible cost under this bill, which is appropriate, and the other aspect was then around transitioning that. These SPVs are only ever a tool for the development, the construction phase, of a particular project, and then the intent is that it is handed over at the end.

That needs to happen promptly. There’s no need for these SPVs to continue on over time, and so there were some questions around how you deal with excess levy that may build up through that period of levy being sourced by the local bodies for that particular project, and then, indeed, potentially having a surplus levy at the end, or actually having uncollected levies as the case may be. So what we did through the select committee was to actually tweak that slightly to allow for the more rapid wind up of the SPV by assigning any uncollected or postponed levies back to the territorial authorities so that they can effectively then continue—as they would with outstanding rates as well—to look at avenues to collect those that are required.

So those couple of changes were just a few that I thought were relevant to note in this, but broadly it’s getting the plan in place to provide a bit more long-term planning for territorial authorities, for central government, for ambitious plans like we announced last week—$31 billion infrastructure plan. This will enable those territorial authorities to work in amongst that so that regions like the Waikato, Auckland, Northland, and the Bay of Plenty can prosper. So we commend it to the House.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this fantastic piece of legislation. I say that despite the contributions from those opposite. They seem to be in a really kind of moody psyche at the moment. It’s not good on the other side of the House—it’s just kind of nasty—and, with your patience, Mr Speaker, I’ll just point out some of the flaws in their arguments that they have put to the House this afternoon.

Darroch Ball: You haven’t got time, mate.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It’s true—I will run out of time. I’ll be concise.

Mr Bishop very succinctly outlined the fact that he saw the only way for our economies to get better was for the populations to continuously grow. At some point, we have to ask the National Party—because they did it for nine years. That was the second part of their solution for economic growth. It was unfettered immigration into New Zealand. At what point do you say “We have to manage this.”?

I put that question to the opposite side of the House, despite their guarded support this afternoon, and I ask those members opposite: at what point did they go out to local councils in their nine years that they were last in Government and say “We have an unfettered immigration policy, so you might want to look at investing in infrastructure, roading, schooling, and housing in your communities.”? I’ll give you the answer: nobody from the National Party ever went to a council anywhere in New Zealand and told them that that’s what would happen. How do I know? Because in Tauranga and Rotorua I spoke to the mayors and their councillors—and in Auckland, actually—and was told point blank, “I’ll tell you what, Mr Tabuteau, if only National had told us what was coming, we could have planned for it, worked towards it, and maybe, just maybe, we might have been able to get ahead of the curve.”

So what we see here today represents an amazing opportunity for this country. Mr Bishop spoke of his community of Lower Hutt. I can use Rotorua as the example of the issues that we have been facing in our time of growth in population in Rotorua. Just recently, we were able to announce a $55 million investment in the Te Ngae Road upgrade, for example. What that did was unlock an investment by Ngāti Whakauē land development of more than 1,000 properties to be developed in Rotorua—something we have been achingly, desperately wanting for so long—and what was necessary? Actually, before this legislation, it meant the Government had to come along and co-invest in the infrastructure upgrades. That meant storm water and that meant safely re-contouring the road so that people could safely move off into what will be this new housing development—$55 million to make that happen.

So what we see here today is what I genuinely—I genuinely—believe is an answer on top of all that this Government is doing to address the housing crisis in New Zealand. It’s been so difficult trying to catch up with the kind of non-attempt from the National Opposition in their time in Government. Nothing was done, we went nowhere, and a housing crisis ensued.

What we have now is the ability to unfurl councils’ constraints on investment in infrastructure so that housing can be undertaken in our towns and cities. The obligation, as members know, was that councils are legally required to take responsibility for these infrastructure upgrades. Unfortunately, everyone is all too well aware of the fact that councils do not have this money. Post-COVID, this is even more of concern for our councils when trying to manage their debt structure, and the last thing we want to do is encourage councils to increase rates. We need to help them to alleviate the burden of these costs.

So what this legislation does is it says to councils, “Actually, what you now have is an opportunity through the special vehicles”—or investment vehicles, as they were—“to work with the developers, perhaps, who can now spend the money themselves directly on infrastructure upgrades in order to unlock that housing potential that we so desperately, desperately need.” In doing that, we—I mean, it’s kind of so basic but so fundamentally important. It simply means more houses for New Zealanders, and, actually, I’ll give Mr Bishop credit. He articulated the argument and the spillover benefits of this legislation in an articulate manner.

It’s not just about the ability to build houses; it’s the question of what that means to society. Actually, I’d put it to the House that the ability to offset these costs through these special purpose vehicles means that more houses can be built now, and I note to the House that this is on top of the national policy statement on urban development, which will require councils to zone more land for housing and will allow for more apartments and town houses. The Resource Management Act reform led by Minister David Parker will change the way we plan for urban growth in New Zealand. The Urban Development Bill will cut through the red tape and will lead large-scale, master-plan urban development projects that are too complex, risky, or uncertain for the private sector to undertake alone.

Fundamentally, that means cost savings. That means massive cost savings. That means New Zealanders can buy houses at a cheaper cost than they can today. This is exciting for New Zealanders struggling right now. It’s exciting for the next generation of New Zealanders wondering how on earth they are going to buy their first home.

This will fundamentally change the way New Zealand moves forward and the way that we can look at homeownership in this country. Homeownership, for me, defines wealth equality in this country. We used to be the home-owning democracy of the world. We can be again, and it is legislation like this that takes us down that pathway in an accelerated and an exciting way. So for me to be able to stand up in the House today and commend this bill to the House is an honour, and I thank you very much for it.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): We’ve just had eight minutes of a speech from Fletcher Tabuteau, the soon-to-be retired New Zealand First member. It took me all of seven minutes and 45 seconds to find out whether he was actually supporting the bill or not. It was typical of a New Zealand First speech—one that is hard to define and hard to quantify and hard to actually understand what point the member was trying to make; grab bags of bits and pieces from Winston Peters’ speeches still ringing in his ear from their modestly attended conference at the weekend.

It was very, very funny to see that the other side of the House is looking very glum—very glum indeed over there. They’ve got cause to be very glum over there, because we are but 60 days from an election and this has taken them—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): And we’re 60 seconds into a speech that has not yet mentioned the bill.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: This legislation has taken them—notwithstanding that we’re 60 days from an election—nearly an entire term to get to a second reading point. That’s incredible, given that this was work that was first started—the conceptual work, the initiation of this legislation—by the previous National-led Government in the last Parliament. Why has it taken them so long? It’s just bizarre. But it’s like so many other things that this Government has done: not much, and what has happened has happened at snail’s pace, at glacial speed.

So here we have the report back from the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that I don’t sit on, but I gather, from speaking to colleagues and listening to speeches in this debate and reading in preparation for speaking today in the House, that the select committee actually did some very good work. That doesn’t surprise me, because there were good contributions from across the House. Much of the good work, the detailed work, of most legislation is done in select committees, and here we have a classic example of how that worked and how the select committee worked to improve the legislation that had been developed in concept form by the previous National Government that, as put in at first reading, needed quite a bit of tweaking, I have to say, but we’ve sort of got to a better position now.

I listened very carefully to my colleague Christopher Bishop, who is the very good and hard-working member for Hutt South. He has made it very clear that on this side of the House, we support this legislation, we like the concept, we understand what it is trying to achieve, and we endorse that—we support it and endorse it. So if I think about the examples that he cited from his electorate, where there has been rapid growth, rapid development, and an inability by the local authorities there to fund, through any other mechanism than rates, the kind of infrastructural development required to support rapid growth, then I understand the sorts of issues that he and his communities are confronting.

But it’s not just in Hutt South and in Lower Hutt where these are issues; it happens all around the countryside. Even in my own electorate of the beautiful Coromandel, we have issues where small territorial authorities are having to fund infrastructure and growth because people are moving to the Coromandel—many of them are retirees; people who are moving from the cities and coming to live in a very beautiful part of the country—and they want to have homes and facilities, but the council is already stressed and strained in terms of their rating capacity. Mine is a unique area, much the same way that parts of Jacqui Dean’s electorate has the same problem, where you have big influxes of tourists at certain times of the year, and that means the local council not only has to provide infrastructure for people who just are living in the districts but they actually have to provide massive infrastructure for the seasonal peaks of visitors, and that means a further burden on ratepayers.

So this funding mechanism is going to fundamentally transform and change the way that local authorities are able to raise money in what is, effectively, a mechanism that means that the people who will benefit from the building and installation of this new infrastructure will be the people who, effectively, fund it through the new special funding vehicle. I think that’s a very good and sensible idea.

Most local councils in the high-growth areas are already under rating stress. We’ve seen post-COVID that, in fact, many councils are already under even greater stress now because there is a call by many ratepayers to actually have rate increases that had been promulgated and budgeted for and set out and publicised for those rate increases to be reduced. So that only adds further pressure on an already stressed funding model and they’re unable to invest in the core infrastructure that’s required to support high-growth new housing developments.

So one of the things that I particularly like about the special purpose vehicle model that is created under this legislation is that it gives a degree of flexibility for councils to be more imaginative at times where they can raise a bit of money through the special vehicle. They can then leverage the balance sheet to take advantage of the very low interest rates that exist at the moment in a way that helps find the funding to build infrastructure that is specifically not the actual housing infrastructure but it’s the support infrastructure—so it’s the transport, the roads, the water infrastructure, the energy infrastructure, the social assets, the community halls, the parks, the reserves, and, of course, in today’s modern age, the digital infrastructure as well, which everybody seems to need as a matter of course these days, to provide broadband and mobile coverage in the new housing developments.

What this legislation doesn’t do is enable the special purpose vehicle to fund the actual housing. It’s not going to fund the building and the construction of houses; it’s the support infrastructure that provides the funding mechanism here, and I think that’s a good idea. It’s not going to be able to be used to, for instance, provide solid waste disposal or recycling infrastructure; that needs to be funded elsewhere. And it’s not going to be able to be used to provide schools, hospitals, prisons, or social housing.

The levy is going to be capped to protect landowners from cost overruns, because we all know, after years of experiences and many sad instances, that too often the budgeted and contracted price for much of this important infrastructural spending, when it comes to the end and it’s installed and completed, there are often significant budget overruns. This legislation means that that debt is going to be ring-fenced, that it will be capped so that the people that are contributing to the funding and who are going to benefit know what the quantum is going to be and they know what their liability’s going to be, and that’s a very good degree of certainty that they are provided with.

So we support this piece of legislation, on this side of the House. We think it’s a good piece of legislation. We think it’s worthy of support. I want to thank members from across the House who sat on the select committee, who did improve it; I think that the work that they did was very worthy and very good. On this side of the House, we commend the bill for consideration.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I won’t do as good of a job of speaking on this piece of legislation as our Associate Minister of Transport, Julie Anne Genter, would, but filling her massive boots this evening, I’d like to state upfront—just because the Hon Scott Simpson asked us to be upfront about our position—the Greens do support this legislation. This legislation, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill—as I think was quite well articulated by the Hon Scott Simpson, the problem; but I don’t know if he’d necessarily agree on the solution—speaks to the failing, or the failings, rather, of our currently very centralised model of governance and of resourcing of projects. Primarily what we’ve seen—the problem that I’m speaking to is over the past several decades, and the past decade in particular—is an expansion of the mandate of local government, the amount of things that they are blamed for and expected to do, but no requisite expansion of the resources available to them, which means that frequently there is a reliance—or an overreliance, arguably, as was put forward by the Hon Scott Simpson—on rates. I would argue that there is somewhat consensus on the kaupapa on the Government benches. I’ve been pushing the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, on continuing to expand and change those models of revenue available to our local governments.

But to the purpose of this legislation—as has been well articulated by a number of members across both sides of the House, and it would appear that everybody is in agreement on it—basically, it enables a special purpose vehicle, or an SPV, which will be set up for each project. It’s responsible for raising the necessary finance and, in most cases, also constructing that infrastructure. For those who happen to find themselves tuning into Parliament TV—best show on TV—just to let those folks know something which I think is critically important and, in listening to the debate so far, I’m not sure has been raised, which is it’s worth noting that this infrastructure funded by these SPVs will always end up back in local council ownership under this model, meaning, of course, that the infrastructure that is built—which, you know, the community needs and wants—will remain in the community’s ownership, fundamentally.

There’s been a lot of talk of housing throughout this discussion of this infrastructure legislation this evening. Infrastructure is, of course, recognised as critical, potentially for different reasons and from different perspectives across political parties. Housing is, of course, important. I was finding it fascinating listening to the contribution of the new shadow Leader of the House, Chris Bishop, and his statements that everything is connected as far as housing goes because, funnily enough, that’s frequently a turn of phrase that you will actually hear from the Green Party talking about how everything is connected—whether it’s in terms of policy, the economy, housing, the environment, or otherwise. I found it fascinating that he spoke to the fact that housing and infrastructure and our communities are connected. But he didn’t quite connect the dots back to the issue of inequality, which, in his contribution, Fletcher Tabuteau did.

Chris Bishop also spoke to the issues only of supply in the housing market and didn’t quite hit the nail on the head with regard to the issues around demand, which, actually, we have an opportunity to recognise in this House. The issues around demand are largely driven by the systemic settings that we put in place, which enable the seeing of housing as commodities. Housing isn’t stocks. People do need to live in housing and there currently is a disproportionate taxation on working income as opposed to capital.

But all of that aside, recognising the inextricable links between our housing stock and the infrastructure that is critical to supporting it and to supporting flourishing communities, particularly where there is increasing intensification and the need for density done well, the Greens support this bill for its facilitation of the development of that necessary infrastructure. There has been a whole lot done in this past term of Parliament, but there is, as I think everybody in this place recognises, still a whole lot more to do. The Greens support this bill.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The member who just spoke, Chlöe Swarbrick, made an observation around this bill which I think was certainly worth making, and it is something that as legislators we might not be that aware of, and that is that the assets of whatever local authority it is that have gone through the special purpose vehicle process ultimately return to that community. It is a good point that has been raised by Chlöe Swarbrick—[Hon Jacqui Dean’s phone rings] excuse me, I’ll just deal with that, make it go away—but also it comes with another aspect that I think—I did not sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. A number of us are seeing this bill for perhaps the first time, and it occurs to me that while it is cause for celebration indeed that the community asset is returned to the control of the local authority upon completion; however, what that comes with is the attendant liabilities that will have to go on to the local authority’s balance sheet, ultimately.

So if we think about the example of local roads, local water infrastructure, storm water, waste water, etc., if that has been part of the infrastructure mix in that special purpose vehicle project, then those assets will then, once they are returned to the control of the local authority following construction, have to be folded into that local authority’s asset management plans, 10-year planning documents, and so on and so forth. So to think of this as a special purpose vehicle which has a happy ending upon completion and returned to the local authority, that is certainly not the case, because there will be, for all time, consequential roles of local government in terms of maintenance and further funding for depreciation, all of those matters that must be managed by local authorities with the attendant cost to the ratepayer.

The question I have, because I didn’t sit on the select committee—unfortunately, because I would have enjoyed it very much, because this is this is a good concept and a good bill. But I guess the question I would like to have explored is the liability, the ongoing liability—who will pick that up? Will the local authority then have to review its rating policy and determine whether or not the cost associated with that asset road infrastructure be ring-fenced, as it is during the course of the finance raising and the construction of that asset? I think that is a question that all highly geared local authorities may well have submitted on, but it should certainly be a consideration for local authorities.

Having said that, I mean, this was a piece of work which was begun in 2017, I understand, or earlier by the previous National Government. It is a successful model. We support it. I mean, my colleague Scott Simpson sitting beside me is forever extolling the virtues of the beautiful Coromandel, but if I think about the even more beautiful town of, say, Wānaka or Cromwell, some of those fast-growing local authorities in the South Island, then this special purpose vehicle for the provision of much-needed housing infrastructure I think holds a lot of promise to the local authorities—Queenstown Lakes District Council, Central Otago District Council, and on and on it goes—because those councils struggle with getting the community mandate to raise funding often to put in that necessary infrastructure to support housing.

Yet housing is the one thing that those growing communities need, and good-quality housing for all those people that come to, say, Cromwell and Wānaka, if I am to remain talking about my own electorate and local authority areas. If we are to provide good housing across the range, then there needs always to be the provision of good infrastructure. It just seems to me that if we are talking about subdivision expansion, expansion of waste-water services and water services, as those councils are funding, and if this vehicle is going to support that work to enable more good-quality, cost-effective housing to take place, then we give this bill our endorsement. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jamie Strange—five minutes.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Five minutes.

JAMIE STRANGE: —on this bill this afternoon, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. I’d like to thank the Minister for Urban Development for bringing it to the House. As a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I really enjoyed shepherding this bill through the committee. We have a housing shortage in many areas of New Zealand, and this bill is one of the tools to address that shortage, particularly highlighting the aspect around the special purpose vehicles. One example of a special purpose vehicle is the Milldale development up in Auckland. The sod was turned in 2018 by Hon Phil Twyford, Mayor Phil Goff, and Marja Lubeck, sitting beside me.

Marja Lubeck: Oh, thank you. That’s right—action.

JAMIE STRANGE: And this action taken by this Government enables the building of 9,000 houses up in the fast-growing Auckland region. The previous Government, during their nine years, did a lot of talking about housing, but not a lot of action. But we are seeing action by this Government. We will see more action, and this bill will facilitate that, and I look forward to seeing that. I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this bill, something which I believe—and my colleague Scott Simpson mentioned—has been under development for a considerable period of time. And here we are, in the last breathing weeks of this Parliament, to see this bill go through here. At this particular point in time, infrastructure is incredibly important. It adds not just connectivity to our society but value to our communities. There’s no point in somebody building a housing estate if they have no supporting infrastructure. It is so important, so expected, so just baseline.

But, you know, we do live in a country which is long, and narrow, and sparse, with a relatively low-density population. So it has been an issue, in terms of funding infrastructure, that this country—the local and central government—has had to grapple with for a considerable period of time because we know that, particularly, the on and underground costs are very, very high. Yet without them, we cannot live in a modern society, we cannot connect to a world overseas, which is so important for us. Here in New Zealand, though a small nation, we are a particularly strong trading nation. Our infrastructure is critical. So we see that this bill proposes different mechanisms by which we can attack this problem. We can set up a process and a special purpose vehicle to enable the infrastructure challenges of our country to be met.

It’s very good that we have this broad support across the House, and no doubt broad support between central and local government, because we all acknowledge that we do have—in many places—ageing infrastructure that is looming to be a significant impediment to our society progressing. And so we are very pleased to support this bill. We understand that the beneficiaries of infrastructure will pay a levy to this special purpose vehicle, and the levy will be based on rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act. The person who is liable to pay rates on a property will be responsible for also paying the levy. Look, we all know that—especially in local government, when local government elections come around—everybody is loath to see rates increase. Yet we all want to see services increase. We want to see the quality of our infrastructure increase. We want to see amenities continue to be improved in our local communities. All of those make our communities, our towns, and cities, and our countryside pleasant and beautiful places in which to live.

So I am pleased to support this bill, along with colleagues in this House, because we are indeed addressing a problem that has been around Parliament after Parliament. We want to see this succeed so that we can be very proud and very secure in a nation that we believe has the amenities and the infrastructure to support our growth going forward. Thank you.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a short call on this piece of legislation, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. I think this piece of legislation is, I would say, a result of some innovative thinking. What we know for certain is that we’ve had a chronic housing shortage across New Zealand for many, many years, and one of the biggest hurdles that we find is money and finance to build infrastructure—whether it be housing, whether it be roads, etc., etc. What this piece of legislation does is it creates a new infrastructure funding model that will allow us to see far more houses being built far sooner than we would have without it. So I commend this bill to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to take the call leading up till 6 o’clock. National supports this bill, but I do wish to talk really around the reasons and the genesis for where this bill came from. It’s a National Party idea, it’s a National Party suggestion, but also in my former role as president of Local Government New Zealand, despite what Fletcher Tabuteau MP said previously in this House, there were a lot of conversations with the Government around how we could advance housing, how we could fund infrastructure, and what were the barriers to that.

It’s fair to say that the funding model, particularly around housing, for the provision of infrastructure is a barrier to development, and I just want to paint a picture for members of this House of the sort of choices that local authorities face. They are faced with, in many cases, debt ceilings—Auckland in particular has a debt ceiling. They are faced with, for want of a better word, a reluctance for communities to pay substantially more in rates and to spend more on debt servicing and debt itself. So you have that on one hand, and then you’ve got this insatiable demand for housing. When you have an insatiable demand for housing, there’s a lot of pressure on local authorities to do things. Developers come along and they say, “Mr Mayor”—or Mr Councillor or Mrs Mayor or Miss Mayor—“we’d like to do this.”, and generally the council has to put all the money up first, has to build the infrastructure, and then from that it charges development levies, but they generally only occur at the subdivision stage and when the titles are issued. Generally, the infrastructure’s already done by that stage because there’s a lag. So local authorities, in my view, carry all the risk. I’m reminded of going to Te Ānau about seven years ago. There were almost 800 sections in Te Ānau: fully roaded, all the reticulation, and no buyers. Now, that’s now been sorted out—I haven’t been to Te Ānau for a while and I’m sure it’s been sorted—but that local authority took the risk, did that development, and carried that risk itself.

Then you have this whole issue of developers saying, “We don’t want to pay the development levies, or if we do, we want to pay them as the closest possible time to when we get paid for the sections.” So there is complete misalignment of incentives for councils to stimulate housing development, to fund all the roading, to fund the other water and waste-water infrastructure when they know it could be a significant number of years before they get that money back. When councils have a debt ceiling and they have rating risks, generally councils are cautious. So they will develop a little bit here and a little bit there, but nothing of the scale of the demand that housing requires. Currently, most high-growth local authorities are close to their maximum debt levels—most. Auckland—it’s well known that it is, and in the recent controversy at Ihumātao, they talk about the fact that Auckland can’t borrow any more. That’s been a conversation that’s been part of that. I know of a number of others who are at their debt ceiling, and, really, they have limited ability to do things.

So, effectively, this sets up a new vehicle—a new vehicle that allows the councils to do things differently. It allows infrastructure funding and financing to be done differently and, effectively, takes it off the council books and allows a repayment mechanism which is not damaging to the credit ratings of the local authorities. Simply put, without it, Auckland would currently not be able to fund its future demands for housing requirements, infrastructure, bus lanes, and all the things that go with that development.

I remember sitting in meetings with the Hon Steven Joyce talking about how we could do this, and he reminded me of the fibre concept. Crown Fibre really was a concept that recycled cash, and this really is no different. There is a debt vehicle that the Crown largely helps with, the housing infrastructure fund is developed, the development happens. Once the money’s paid back, then we get on, and a new development is funded. So we support this because, frankly, without it, the challenges we face in housing would almost be insurmountable.

I look at my own community in Hawke’s Bay, where the provision of land is easily done, usually. There are zoning rules. In my own case, there is a thing called the Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy, that determines where future growth is going to occur between Hastings and Napier and how that works. I can say from experience that what we generally find is the limiting factor is not what the land is; the limiting factor is who’s going to pay for the infrastructure, who’s going to take the risk, and what is the uptake of those developments. I often see, and I used to see in my previous role, developers come to me and say, “This development only works if you fund the infrastructure upfront. We’re not prepared to take the risk, and nor are we going to fund those development levies in the way you want.” Whether it’s industrial development or residential development, the net result of that is the council’s risk-averse, the developer doesn’t want to pay, and things get held up. In that environment, we are not helping ourselves or the people of New Zealand who need houses.

So this mechanism, worked out by the previous National Government, initiated, in my view, by people like Steven Joyce, Bill English, and Judith Collins, is a way of transferring that risk off the council balance sheet and putting it on the Government balance sheet through the Crown infrastructure fund. It can be used, also, for other things, not just housing: waste-water costs, water costs, electricity costs, even fibre. There are a whole lot of things that the Crown infrastructure fund can be used for on the very successful model that Crown Fibre has developed.

I’ll remind this House, as we come to the close for the day, in COVID-19, New Zealand was only able to operate because, effectively, we’d invested in fibre—way more than Australia, actually. We have a fibre network in New Zealand that allowed New Zealand to communicate and keep in touch with each other by Zoom and all those other things. That is because of the model that Steven Joyce put in place to recycle the money. As a result, we are the envy of the world.

So in commending this bill to the House, I think it goes a long, long way to solving our housing issues. Nobody else has been able to come up with a better solution, and it will take the risk aversion away from local authorities. I’ve sat round those tables and everybody wants to spend money—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House has resumed. Kia ora tātou, colleagues. When we were here last before the dinner break Lawrence Yule had the floor and he has one minute 40 seconds remaining to speak should he so desire. Are we taking a further speech? No. OK.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill

Second Reading

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be helpful, I think, if people had their dinner during the dinner hour, and not in the House.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I haven’t had any dinner, because I haven’t had time. It’s a Jet Plane. That’s the only thing I’ve been able to eat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no eating in the House. The Standing Orders are quite clear, and both you and the whip have been unable.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to move?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move that the bill be introduced into the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think what you’re—

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move that the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be tabled in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, “be now read a second time”.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I move, That the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Hon Member: Read the bill, mate.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Sorry, I’m trying to chew my Jet Plane! The Government responded to COVID-19, and it is now time that we rebuild our economy. One of the important things that we should do in introducing this bill is, firstly, make an important amendment to the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017 by rightly including mental health and addiction support workers. The bill also corrects a formula within the existing Act and formalises the ongoing payment of care and support worker rates to vocational disability workers employed by Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development. The bill also reinforces the Government’s firm commitment to pay equity and lifting wages for this valuable workforce. Improving mental health and addiction outcomes for people living in Aotearoa New Zealand is a top priority for the Government. Paying a fair wage to those who support and help New Zealanders when they are most vulnerable is an important step along the way. We believe all people deserve a fair go, which is why we have committed to supporting the historically undervalued workers in this sector.

I thank the Health Committee for its consideration of the bill and appreciate the hard work of the members in considering the submissions. Submitters were almost unanimously supportive of the bill. The Health Committee has examined the bill and recommended that it progress mostly unamended, but with some minor changes to extend the amendments to mental health and addiction support workers employed by clients who may directly receive their own individualised funding, primarily from the Ministry of Health. The committee noted that although these workers and their employers are included in the settlement agreement, the definition of “employer” in the principal Act does not currently cover individually funded clients, this meaning that under the bill as introduced, care workers employed directly by individually funded clients may not consistently receive the pay and conditions they are entitled to under the relevant settlement agreement.

To that end, the bill as reported back contains two changes, which I support. These are, firstly, the addition of clause 11A to insert new section 9A into the principal Act—this would apply to any client who receives individual funding for mental health or addiction services and who directly employs a care worker to provide these services; it would require them to pay the worker at least the minimum rates mandated in the relevant settlement agreement and the principal Act—and, second, to amend the Schedule to insert a new clause 2A into Schedule 1 of the principal Act. This would require individually funded clients to provide back-pay to their directly employed workers if they had been paid less than the minimum rates between 1 July 2017 and the date on which this bill is enacted. Both these changes ensure that protections are available for directly employed workers through individualised funding arrangements.

I acknowledge the comments of the committee regarding the coverage of the Act for care and support workers engaged through individual funding arrangements. Those workers are not covered in the original settlement agreement. In practice, as noted by the committee, this is currently managed by the Ministry of Health operationally through funding contracts to ensure that those workers are treated fairly and their conditions are not less than those covered by employers under the Act. Agencies will continue to look at how this can be improved where individualised funding models are used in the delivery of care.

In conclusion, this bill better recognises the importance of the mental health and addiction support workforce and the value of a highly trained and capable workforce. Those people needing their care and support will benefit. Likewise, employers who receive funding to offset the cost of higher wages will have a more stable and capable workforce with increased opportunities to support higher quality care. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and kick off the debate today for the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. We are in the second reading, not the first reading as the first speaker, the Hon Damien O’Connor, mentioned, but that’s OK; everybody is entitled to their own views of the world. But we are, in fact, in the second reading. This has been in the House before. It has then been referred to the Health Committee, and, as was noted, there were a number of changes that were made in the select committee for us to consider today. I would like to acknowledge the Health Committee and the work that they did hearing submissions over this bill.

Just to, again, reflect the kaupapa, or the purpose, of this bill, the purpose of this bill, really, is to give effect to the settlements that have been created. Those settlements go back to—let’s not forget the landmark settlement, from Kristine Bartlett—the Terranova settlement that was lodged in 2012 and then passed five years later, in 2017.

This, essentially, gives effect to an agreement and makes some changes around the agreement for support care workers and mental health support care workers. As was noted in the select committee, there were a number of recommendations that were made around clarifying the duties of individually funded clients with the Ministry of Social Development, and there were also a number of other changes that were proposed around the minimum hourly wage rates, back-pay, and coverage of the amendment to include mental health and the support workers that are in the space. They weren’t included in the coverage of the original agreement.

So this bill is something that we are supportive of. I note that the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Chris Hipkins, has dropped a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) just this afternoon. We have had some time to consider but not enough to indicate our support at this stage. But we will review that SOP and indicate in the latter stages of this bill how we’ll be voting. But, look, it is a really important piece of legislation, of course, addressing a key issue, which is pay inequities for workers that are in industries that are predominantly performed by women. I think that this is a reflection, certainly, of the great work of Kristine Bartlett and the movement that she has been a part of and, certainly, continuing down this path into other sectors and addressing inequities in that respect.

Without taking too much more time in the House, I just want to say that National will be supporting this in the second reading, and we look forward to further discussion about the Supplementary Order Paper in the latter stages of the parliamentary process. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. As the chair of the Health Committee, can I acknowledge firstly the 13 submitters who provided us with, actually, scope to amend this piece of legislation, which, on the face of it, is actually incredibly simple. Essentially, it adds two cohorts of support workers to this pay equity settlement between the Government and care and support workers. It adds mental health and addiction support workers and it also adds vocational disability workers engaged by Oranga Tamariki in the Ministry of Social Development. The principal Act supported care and support workers who are funded by the Ministry of Health, DHBs, and ACC. So that was the premise of this piece of legislation, to expand the scope to those two cohorts of care and support workers so that they could receive pay equity, which was received, as Dan Bidois said, through the Kristine Bartlett case.

But what it also did was correct the formula used for calculating future minimum pay rates for support workers covered by the principal Act. So, in fact, what we are doing through this amendment bill is also amending the principal Act. And it was good for us to have done that because what it also meant we could do through this piece of legislation was look at the funding for those who receive pay or who are employed by individually funded clients. Individually funded clients previously had not been encapsulated within this piece of legislation, and it was incredibly important for us to set those minimum pay rates, because by default now people who are employed by individually funded clients will receive at least the minimum pay rates mandated in the relevant agreement.

That is incredibly important to note, because the other thing that we determined as a committee was that these individual clients should not be seen as employers. And we noted, because, obviously, there is a relationship between those individually funded clients and the Ministry of Health who have what they term “hosts”, who help individual clients to manage their funding, highlighting the issue through our process of making sure that those care workers who choose to be supporting people in that circumstance also have access to education and qualification opportunities as care workers.

The only other point I wanted to highlight in my contribution was that we also had submissions from union representatives that made a point that we shouldn’t go against the spirit of these settlements by reducing support and care workers’ hours, that there shouldn’t be a trade-off between paying someone adequately and then cutting their hours of work because, in fact, what that would lead to was the same amount of pay. Obviously, from their perspective, it wasn’t seen to be fair, because they were still required to do a certain amount of work but be paid for less hours. Other than that point, I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight, the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill, which, as has been described by others in the House, fundamentally brings the mental health and addiction support workers and the vocational disability workers into the principal Act. Now, I had the privilege—I’d like to acknowledge the chair, Louisa Wall, who has just sat down—to work on the Terranova legislation in the previous Parliament, led by Simon O’Connor, as I recall. That was a really important piece of work that we did in quite a short time frame. I recall Jan Logie from the Greens had a significant contribution and helped us shepherd that legislation through.

I’ll come back to some of the learnings now two or three years later from that settlement, but if we just talk here in the second reading, I’ve already described the purpose of the bill. As the previous speaker said, we had 12 submissions—one was joint, so 13 submissions, if we like. They were useful. I found one that was particularly useful. We need to remember here that the departmental report was done on 9 September 2019. That’s a long time between drinks from here to now. If we look at that departmental report and to the submission from Alicia Scroggins Meek, it’s interesting that officials respond to her concerns around peer support workers and training by saying that the industry training organisation (ITO) Careerforce specifically includes peer support workers on the list. Well, what’s kind of interesting is here now, nearly nine months later, it’s an ITO. ITOs are gone. That is no longer a departmental option on that list. They have now been dissolved as transitional and will disappear into the great mega-polytechnic in the sky. So it’s kind of interesting that this far afterwards, if you like, it’s no longer valid advice. It seemed to be then; I contend it still should be, but that’s a different bill, a different piece of work.

Also what officials pointed out to us was the cost of this—$173.5 million allocated to support the mental health and addiction settlement through an increase in Vote Health. Now, after the Terranova bill passed, I think others noticed the same as well, but within about a year or two—and it had been brought up at select committee; it’ll be interesting to see if we see the same here and if there’s anything different we can do—there were two things that stood out. The first was relativity. We were told that if we did this for care and support workers, because their pay would be elevated so high, we would get a movement of people from one service industry to another to a better pay bracket. There was some movement of workers across the health spectrum.

We’re also told that we could have the difficult situation of a relatively junior worker now being paid at a higher level than maybe a supervising worker, and that would be complex also. I haven’t seen so much of that. I did see some movement. I think what also stuck out was we were reassured that there would be passed through to the employer the funding to take this pay equity settlement into account, to take Terranova into account. Well, we needed to watch really closely to make sure that happened. We had multiple explanations that “Don’t worry, employer. This will be covered by Government. The pass through will happen.” And certainly, on a number of accounts, that did not happen and it created other holes in the system.

So we’re happy to support this bill. I think that’s part of what we can learn from the Terranova settlement. It was a good piece of work from the select committee. I remember in the previous select committee when we excluded mental health and addiction workers, that almost became a fall over point. I think for expediency and just the urgency to get that settlement under way, we reluctantly agreed to exclude them on the basis that this legislation would be following close behind, and here it is. So we’re happy to see this continue to progress through the House, and it has our support.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise to support this Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First during this second reading. We do note that it formalises the pay equity that expands upon or broadens the scope from the Terranova settlement bill that was before the House in 2017 and brings mental health and addiction services staff—and we know that this is an area that’s getting increasing help and assistance and awareness, I think, of the absolute need out there for these services. So it is pleasing to see that those workers will, indeed, be included within this pay equity settlement, and, of course, the vocational disability workers at the Ministry of Social Development and Oranga Tamariki. As I said previously, it means the principal Act—the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act of 2017—has already seen, I understand, 5,000 workers from 1 August last year get a backdated pay, but also, on average, about $3 an hour and up to $5 an hour or $200 a week for some workers that had been more grossly undervalued in terms of their pay rates.

So I must say, the Terranova case is the famous one that has sort of brought this whole previous piece of legislation, the work by Kristine Bartlett, and now this amended legislation for it as well. Going through this Parliament, that case has been referenced often in various pieces of legislation as, I guess, a marker for industrial relations, and a significant marker. Kristine Bartlett is to be congratulated for her work there.

It wasn’t until about, I guess, six months ago that I actually discovered that the people that run TerraNova—who have been incredibly vilified, I might say, through this—is actually my cousin. So I stand here by association to defend, actually, what was a business that was built up over time and probably has had a little bit of a rough ride through this House in terms of being singled out as the exemplar for industrial relations. Nevertheless, the broader principle applies, and certainly New Zealand First and all parties in Parliament appear to be support this, which, I think, is the right and proper thing to do. But also there is the other side of it, which is the employers and the adjustments they’re going to have to make to take on board these higher pay rates. And, of course, in this part, it’s primarily the Government.

So without further ado, we look forward to the committee stage of the House. I understand there’s some Supplementary Order Papers which we will be looking at in due course, but New Zealand First continues to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak at the second reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. It is a bill that’s taken a long time to get to where it needed to go. As the previous speaker, Mark Patterson, has already named her—and others have mentioned her as well—Kristine Bartlett CNZM: every now and again in this House we come across legislation that has been advanced enormously through the experience and the dedication of one individual. So I would begin my short call by commending her on her tenacity.

Five years, three court cases, two appeals, and one landmark pay settlement is what that individual went through to get to the place where it was acknowledged that 55,000 workers who work in an industry that Kristine Bartlett knew very well—she had been, I think, nearly a quarter of a century as a rest home carer. So she knew exactly the importance of legislation like this, which has advanced the professionalism of the profession of aged-care workers, in my view. They are not necessarily valued in a way that this society should value them, and one way of doing that is to make sure the remuneration is good.

So for those 55,000 workers, they received an advance in the first tranche of the Terranova case, as it was known, when the pay equity settlement bill was passed in June 2017 by the National-led Government. This is the next part of the legislation, which needs to—we did give way, as others have indicated, and I remember those discussions very well, and with my colleague and friend Matt Doocey, also, who said, “These are important issues for people who work in the mental health area and they need to be acknowledged in the same way. Where are the differences? Where are the distinctions?”

So, true to the undertaking, and in keeping with our support of the earlier legislation that we had put through, was the understanding this would come at some point. Its time has come tonight. I think that all of the parties made settlement agreements. In respect of the various work that the Health Committee did, I commend the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall, who has spoken on this and done a lot of work on it. I wasn’t so much in the Health Committee at the time that this was put through, but I know how much of an impact it made on the final legislation, because the duties of the individually funded clients did need to be clarified. There were a lot of issues that were not properly addressed that this piece of legislation tidies up well, around minimum hourly wage rates also—that’s the addition of clause 11A inserting a new section 9A into the principal Act.

This needs to apply widely, and it will apply to any client who receives that individual funding, whether it is for mental health, or addiction, or in the aged-care sector. So the equality, if you like, has been addressed by this legislation. The definition of “employer” is also something that the Health Committee refined and made into the good piece of this legislation; it has worked very well. I mean, our preference would have been that the right to prescribed minimum pay was enshrined in legislation, but this is what it is, and it is a piece of legislation that needs to pass. I won’t hold up the time of the House any further, but I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party, and as Minister for Women I’m really thrilled to see this progress being made. The previous speaker referred to Kristine Bartlett, and she absolutely deserves our constant recognition for her leadership in this area of pay equity and the landmark impact it had on tens of thousands of care and support workers who were being underpaid due to that profession being historically female-dominated. I also have to acknowledge Kristine Bartlett’s union, E tū, which played a huge role in supporting her taking that case, and the unions generally, who have been at the forefront calling for greater action on pay equity.

So, of course, this legislation progressing to second reading hasn’t stopped us from extending the pay increase. In August last year, 5,000 mental health and addiction support workers received a pay increase backdated to 1 July 2017. Nearly half received an increase of more than $3 an hour, which meant full-time workers were paid an extra $120 a week before tax. If you’re on a very low income, or earning near the minimum wage, that makes a substantial difference. One in five workers received an increase of more than $5 per hour, around an extra $200 for a 40-hour week.

Previous speakers, including the chair of the Health Committee, mentioned some of the important changes that were made at the select committee, and I think that it was clear that in addition to extending that settlement to addiction and support workers, there was also work to be done on ensuring that people weren’t missing out on hours and simply receiving a higher rate, but, of course, that rate only results in an increase of remuneration if your hours aren’t cut. So minimum hourly wage rates are incredibly important.

This is just, I think, one more example of this Government following through on the promises that we made in the run-up to the last election. One of the first decisions that was made was to extend the settlement to mental health and addiction workers. I think in that moment, during COVID-19, when we were all in lockdown level 4, it became very clear that there are a number of essential workers who do the mahi that enables the very basics of our society to survive and thrive, and many of them are not highly paid. If we want—and I think most of us do—to live in a world where people are supported to do the work that we really need, the important caring work, then it’s vitally important that we work together to correct structural imbalances and discrimination that has meant that caring work has been undervalued for far too long. We will continue making progress on that later in this week, so I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and give my voice and support to this second reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the chair Louisa Wall and the members of the Health Committee, who examined this bill. I was not a member of Parliament at the time, but I do recall quite vividly the announcement of the historic $2 billion pay equity settlement, which was passed in June 2017 by the then National-led Government, so I feel very fortunate to be able to be here at this time to speak in the second reading of this part of the bill.

It was indeed a historic and momentous occasion, and it does recognise the work that is carried out by 55,000 workers in our aged care and disability residential care and home community support sector. Of course, we acknowledge that the majority of that sector are women. They are mothers, they are sisters, they are aunts, and I, in particular, also acknowledge women in my wider family that work and have worked in this sector. It’s incredibly important work, and it’s also important that we show that we are caring for the people that are caring for our loved ones, for our elderly, for our vulnerable, and for the disability sector as well.

I commend the work of the select committee and the officials in their efforts to address and to tweak some of the shortcomings in the bill, in particular around the carers who are hired by individually funded clients. It’s already been traversed from the contributions made tonight in terms of the background to this bill, and in particular was noted around the Terranova settlement, which I actually didn’t know that much about, but I was really pleased to hear the contribution from my colleague Dr Shane Reti about that. But, as has been traversed, it is really to give effect to those settlements which were in respect of the vocational and disability support workers. That was signed by the Crown and relevant parties on 17 June 2017. I’d like to acknowledge that the primary purposes were to address those historical inequities and to achieve that pay equity in a more consistent manner across the sector, and I think this goes a long way towards making that happen for the sector.

The principal Act expressly excluded the mental health services that were funded by the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Social Development, and Oranga Tamariki, and so it’s good that this bill has corrected that now that this has now provided and made provision for mental health services—a positive move, particularly in light of recent years and the climate in our mental health services, particularly.

I would note just some of the select committee changes that were clarified in terms of the support workers that can be employed by clients who receive individualised funding for the Ministry of Health. These workers and their employers are included in the settlement agreement. Also, as was noted, the definition of employer in the principal Act did not cover the individually funded clients. The changes now would ensure that those care workers are paid by individually funded clients, so that they receive the same pay and conditions, including both minimum-wage rates and back-pay. Also, in terms of some of the key provisions in the bill around mental health and addiction support workers and vocational and disabilities support workers, these are covered by the other provisions of the of the principal Act, including the enforcement of provisions in the case of disputes or an employer’s failure to comply with the requirements of the principal Act.

I would just like to say that I support this bill to the House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Dr Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it is a great moment when we can pass legislation like this, which for thousands of workers will see them paid properly because, of course, fair and equitable wages are part of the dignity of work and a huge amount of work has gone into expanding the fantastic task Kristine Bartlett undertook.

I just want to say that New Zealand has an improving record on pay equity but we’ve really got to keep working on that, and it’s easy to be complacent when we pass legislation like this, which does address some issues. But this is an area which this Government will continue to work on to ensure that the gender pay gap falls progressively, and we will, of course, have an ambition to have no gender pay gap at all. This is one small step in that direction. I commend the bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do rise feeling slightly inferior to the last speaker when I reflect on his tie. I have a somewhat simple tie, and I was reflecting on Duncan Webb’s tie as to whether it was sort of a keyboard or an accordion or piano keys—

Dr Duncan Webb: I think I got it from David Carter.

MATT DOOCEY: OK.

I’m here to talk on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill—a very important bill—and I do want to acknowledge the former National Government. This bill follows on from the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill, which was passed in June 2017 under the former National Government. We do acknowledge Kristine Bartlett but also the Minister responsible, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and we acknowledge his work in shepherding that bill through the House, because you would have to question what the current Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has been doing with this bill, which has been languishing on the Order Paper. It looks like it was referred to the select committee in May 2019. We’ve heard plenty of speeches from the Government side about the importance of this bill, yet submissions closed in July 2019, and here we are, in the last few weeks of this Government and the last few weeks that this Government will have, hastily going into an extended sitting to pass legislation that they clearly should have prioritised a lot earlier if they were living up to the words that they’re stating today.

Clearly, this bill is very important for pay equity, and we do know that for these sectors, they are a female-led or a female-dominated workforce. I worked in the mental health field from my early 20s. It’s fair to say I worked in this workforce, which is very much a female-dominated workforce, which I must say has helped me get a better perspective of the world, working in the mental health and addiction sector for a number of years, and I feel better for it in bringing that knowledge into Parliament. What we do know with the mental health and addiction support workers, who will be the beneficiaries—or one of the groups, because the other group is the vocational and disability support workers—is that they are a workforce that is very much needed, because specialist medical professionals are, quite bluntly, very expensive, and I would never underestimate the work our care and support workers do, especially in the mental health and addiction field, in keeping people well and keeping them out of crisis and keeping them out of specialist services. So that’s why it’s quite right today that we are acknowledging them and passing this bill in its second reading.

Our fantastic Health Committee chair, Louisa Wall, clearly outlined the very technical amendments of this bill to progress. Our colleague the Hon Maggie Barry clearly outlined some of the reasons those two groups were not included in the original bill—the mental health and addiction support workers and the vocational and disability support workers—but this bill is very much needed. I think that’s clear from across the House, and my good Cantabrian colleague Duncan Webb was talking very much about the gender pay gap and how we need to address that inequity. This bill is one step forward towards addressing that, and I do hope that this Government will be better organised to make sure this bill is passed into law before the House rises for this term. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill has a significant recognition of the importance of the mental health and addiction support workforce and goes a long way into recognising the value of such a highly trained and critical part of our workforce. Not only will those workers benefit from this bill but so too will those people who actually need their care and support. So without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call this evening on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill at second reading. It’s taken a long time to get here, but we are here, and we have to acknowledge Kristine Bartlett, who was the force behind the principal Act, and her incredible tenacity. The bill amends that Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017, which, as my colleagues before me have pointed out, was the piece of legislation passed by the National-led Government to give effect to the historic $2 billion pay equity settlement for 55,000 healthcare workers. This bill amends that Act, as has been traversed, to include those two further agreements signed by the Crown—one in 2017, signed with the vocational and disability support workers, and then the other in 2018, which was signed by the mental health and addiction support workers.

We’re pleased to continue to support this bill at second reading, and I must say, as we get nearer to the heat of the campaign, it’s nice to be able to stand here in the House tonight and just speak to a bill that we all agree on—that has bipartisan agreement in the select committee and here in the House. On this side of the House, we very much appreciate the hard work of the Health Committee. I wasn’t on that committee, but I do know that it’s always very ably led by Louisa Wall, who’s an incredibly good chair and well respected by everyone, especially on this side of the House.

As I said, I wasn’t on the committee, but I understand there were 13 submissions. I’ve had a look at them, and in particular I’d like to point out the submissions from the Public Service Association and E tū proposing that the definitions of “employer” in that principal Act should be amended to account for individualised funding arrangements—so people who receive their own direct funding from the Ministry of Health to employ a mental health support worker or addiction support worker. So while people in this arrangement, mental health and addiction support workers and their clients, are covered by the settlement agreement, the committee wanted to make sure that this was reflected in the Act. The Ministry of Health’s advice in their departmental report was that the definition of an employer should not be amended in the Act. In practice, people currently receiving individualised funding for a care and support worker are required as a condition of that funding to pay the rates consistent with those in the settlement Act.

In order to ensure that directly employed care workers consistently receive the pay and conditions that, of course, they’re entitled to, the Health Committee has recommended additions to include minimum hourly wage rates and back-pay. Clients who are directly funded to employ a key worker would be required to pay their care worker at least the minimum rates mandated in the relevant settlement agreement and the principal Act. They’d be required to pay back-pay to their workers if they’d been paid less than the minimum rates between 1 July 2017 and this bill coming into force. We are pleased with the changes that have emerged from the select committee, very happy to support the bill at second reading, and I commend the bill to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A real pleasure to rise tonight on the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. I was not on the Health Committee at the time that this was discussed, and so I cannot comment at all on the 13 submissions that came through.

However, I do believe it’s really important to make the comment that pay equity is something so very important to the women of this country. We have a 9.4 percent pay equity gap in this country, but the real damning story is 21 percent for our Pacific sisters, and I think that that is something that needs to change. This bill is addressing some of that work, and I’m really happy to see that the mental health workforce and the vocational disability workforce are the next cabs off the rank, because these are some of the worst-paid people in the country.

With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3)

Second Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): My mouth is clear, Madam Speaker, so yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m pleased to hear it.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I can enunciate a lot more clearly, thank you.

I move, That the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.

This bill has followed a review of DIRA, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. The review was undertaken to ensure that the regulatory regime was fit for purpose and able to support a sustainable dairy industry. It was referred to the Primary Production Committee in August 2019 and was reported back to the House in March this year. I wanted to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill. I’d also like to thank the many people who provided written and oral submissions. These submissions have been taken on board and have contributed to the bill we now have before the House.

The bill as reported back is not the same as the bill that was introduced, the primary change being that the committee recommended repealing the requirement that Fonterra accept any application to become a shareholder and supply milk, known as “open entry”.

When DIRA was passed in 2001, open entry was seen as a foundation of the regulatory regime that was established as a way to manage the risks associated with a company that had market dominance. At the time, Fonterra controlled around 96 percent of farmers’ milk production and had a near monopoly in New Zealand of domestic consumer markets. There were concerns that Fonterra’s market dominance could impact on the performance of the dairy industry and, being a dairy nation, on our economy as a whole. The bill as introduced retained the requirement for open entry but recognised that there were aspects that needed to be adapted, particularly in regard to giving Fonterra more control in how they were able to manage their investment in processing capacity. The bill, therefore, sought to include measures that provided Fonterra more business autonomy but that also didn’t allow Fonterra the right of carte blanche.

The suggested changes included, firstly, that Fonterra could refuse milk from new conversions and, secondly, that Fonterra could issue capacity constraint notices for up to three seasons rather than only one. At the time of initial drafting, this seemed to be an appropriate balance between managing the continued risks of Fonterra’s high-value market share and also managing any perceived negative impacts of continued regulation. However, this approach is no longer seen to be the best way forward.

The select committee received nearly 100 written submissions and heard many oral submissions. Open entry was the focus of many of these submissions, and there was strong support for its removal. A key concern was the cost that open entry imposes upon Fonterra. This was because the company has to maintain extra processing capacity to deal with unforeseen volumes of extra milk. This is seen to create a risk of inefficient investment in commodity processing capacity, which in turn may, firstly, divert investment away from the more innovative and potentially more value-added products; secondly, potentially leave stranded assets as milk production in New Zealand plateaus as a result of environmental limits; and, thirdly, it could possibly reduce competitiveness in the global markets on which we depend for so much of our economic wellbeing. The select committee therefore recommended that open entry, with one exception, be removed.

It is almost a year since the bill was introduced. The recent COVID-19 emergency has demonstrated the importance of New Zealand’s primary industries to us all. The primary industries kept New Zealand and much of the world fed through that period of crisis. They generated revenue when much of the economy needed to slow or to shut down. As we move from crisis to economic recovery, we need to ensure that these industries—including the dairy industry in general, and Fonterra in particular—are well placed to continue to make that contribution. We therefore support the removal of open entry in the bill as reported back. This will ensure that Fonterra can manage its milk supply and its investment for the best possible outcomes for the company, for its farmers, and for the economy as a whole.

The select committee recommended one exception to the removal of open entry. The committee considered that Fonterra should still be required by law to accept any application to become a shareholder and supply milk where the applicant was a first-time farmer. We do not intend to support this particular change to the bill. It is undoubtedly important to have succession planning in the dairy industry to ensure that new farmers can enter the industry, but I do not believe that this proposal is the best way to achieve that. The committee itself recognised that there would be difficulty in getting a definition of “first-time farmer” correct. If the definition of “first-time farmer” is too wide, there is a risk that Fonterra could be required to give open entry to corporate firms; too narrow, and there is a risk of excluding the people who are intended to benefit.

There are risks of costly legal review and diluting intended benefits to Fonterra by removing open entry. To remove these risks but still reflect the intent of the committee’s proposal, I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. This paper will remove the requirement for Fonterra to accept applications from first-time farmers and will instead give Fonterra a clear direction that it must, when considering applications, consider the ongoing viability of a dairy farm when a new applicant applies after a Fonterra farm has changed hands, and also that they have regard to the land-use opportunities available to that applicant. I consider that this strikes the right balance between giving Fonterra more control over capacity, and also manages risks to the overall future of the dairy industry, while giving farmers the opportunity to make decisions about land use for the benefit of their farm business and the economy as a whole.

I also intend to make some consequential changes to the bill as a result of removing open entry. The bill as introduced contained measures to enable Fonterra to mitigate risks while open entry remained in place. They would have allowed Fonterra discretion to accept or decline an application to become a shareholder if the application came from a new conversion or it was evident that the applicant could not meet Fonterra’s terms of supply. The bill also allowed a capacity constraint notice to be issued for three seasons rather than one to enable better management of capacity when supply volumes were uncertain. As Fonterra will have full discretion under the amended bill to accept or decline applications, these measures will not be required and can be removed from the bill.

I have outlined the key changes that have arisen since the bill was first introduced and how I propose to deal with them. I will now briefly recap other matters covered by the bill which remain largely as introduced. On the issue of raw milk regulations, the bill amends the raw milk regulations to phase out the eligibility of large export-focused processors to buy up to 50 million litres of raw milk at a regulated price. This measure was introduced in 2001 to provide some initial and limited stimulus for new, larger processors to enter the market and compete with Fonterra. However, the dairy sector has changed markedly since that time, and this measure is no longer required to help generate competition. The bill therefore reduces the current eligibility conditions. A processor that has its own supply of 30 million litres or more in a single season will no longer have an entitlement to buy raw milk from Fonterra at regulated prices.

The bill also widens the concept of what constitutes a processor’s own supply so that this provision cannot be gamed or misused. Currently, own supply only relates to raw milk purchased directly from farmers; in future, own supply will also include raw milk purchased wholesale—for example, from another processor or an intermediary.

I have noted also in the bill that the New Zealand consumer market is well served by a range of small, speciality dairy processors. There are, however, only two companies that provide nearly all of the basic household dairy staples of fresh milk and tabled cheese. Those companies are Fonterra and Goodman Fielder. When Fonterra was created, the Government recognised the risks to the interest of New Zealand consumers of having only one large company controlling the whole market for domestic consumer products. There were risks of a lack of choice, of pricing, and of supply. DIRA therefore made a specific provision for Goodman Fielder to have a supply of raw milk. The Government now considers it important to maintain the regulatory backstop for Goodman Fielder. This is not to protect the company; it’s to protect the interests of New Zealanders who want to be able to buy fresh milk and other dairy basics year-round.

This Government is moving to pass this piece of legislation to give certainty to the dairy industry, to ensure Fonterra get on and add value to the milk that they get but to ensure some protection for dairy farmers to have a competitive pressure on their own company, and to ensure that there are opportunities for new and innovative people who want to get into the dairy industry. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to thank the Minister, Hon Damien O’Connor, for the way that he has engaged with the Primary Production Committee and dairy farmers throughout New Zealand on this bill, and I think you will see the support from the National Party and the Labour Party on this bill together, which shows that politics can work together in a way which gets the best result for New Zealand’s primary industries going forward.

I’d also like to thank members of our select committee that were on there and now thank them—from all parties. Now, I know New Zealand First, Labour, and National had members on that committee, and I thank them for the way that they conducted themselves in the hearings and got to a solution which we can all live with and go forward with. So thank you very much to those members involved.

I also just wanted to thank all those submitters, as the Minister did. People are very in tune with this issue in the dairy industry. It is something that has been at the forefront of many farmers’ minds for many, many years. Since the formation of Fonterra, it has been an issue that has been raised at many farmer meetings on a constant basis and has been reviewed in this Parliament on numerous occasions. I think today we get to a defining point in that review process where we, essentially, do not have the open entry requirement on Fonterra any more. There still will be an open exit requirement, and that will enable farmers to leave if they wish to and to pursue their own opportunities, as they would determine as any commercial business.

Now, as the Minister said, the open entry requirement has been taken out, and it’s quite a big change in this bill from what was initially put forward. I’d just like to thank again the Minister for the way that we were able to work together to achieve that. I know we’re on different sides of the political divide but I do think that we both have a common view for the industry, and it was good to see that we were able to put this in place in legislation here tonight, so I sincerely thank you for the work you’ve done in enabling that to happen.

This removal of the open entry has been refined with a clause that we have seen that needs a little bit of work on drafting, because it is a little bit rough and ready at the moment, but I’m sure we’ll get to that point where we’ll get it into a nice concise clause. Essentially, what the Minister had talked about is that there are two parts to that clause as it is at the moment, and they look at the ongoing viability of the farm and also the land-use sustainability of that farm. So put together, that will be what we would be wishing to see in the clause when it comes to the House in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). That one phrase or one test that’s got two limbs to it, you could say, would give a little bit of comfort to anybody that is an existing Fonterra supplier. That clause, as I understand it—and we have not got it in front of us in writing, apart from what I’ve got from the Minister’s office—is, effectively, only applying to Fonterra suppliers. It does not apply to non-Fonterra suppliers—so that clause will only apply to them.

Now, the Minister’s made a number of other major changes in this bill which we haven’t had the fortune of seeing in writing. It would likely be good for Labour members to talk about them more as they go through their speeches. But in essence, if I get it right, the conversion clause is now removed, Minister. So that was a clause in the legislation which, effectively—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind the member—I’m sorry to interrupt, but the SOP is debated in the committee stage and can be referred to at the second reading, but, of course, it’s not before all members and it’s not on the floor to be discussed in detail.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: No, and those issues—thank you, Madam Speaker—they had been raised by the Minister, and I’m just wanting to make sure that members are very much aware of them, because they are considerable departures from the existing bill. They’re not departures that we would necessarily disagree with either—it’s not in that sense at all that I’m raising it.

So the dairy conversion—if you look at clause 22 and applying section 96A, my understanding now is that will be removed, and also so that test that Fonterra could have used to prevent new supply will no longer be there, and also the three seasons review is no longer available to Fonterra in that condition either. So those changes—and there was one other, I think, the Minister indicated, that I’m sure will go through—don’t make a lot of difference in the end to the end result we’re getting to, which is that the open entry requirement will, effectively, have been removed.

When we come to why that’s important, many submitters made it very clear that they felt that Fonterra had achieved its purpose in the sense that there was enough competition out there in the market. When we look at the statistics around that competitive pressure that’s out there, in most parts of New Zealand there is that ability to choose another manufacturer rather than the existing manufacturer—for example, Fonterra—that they may have been with in the past. Now, that ability to choose gives a certain dynamic to the New Zealand industry which many farmers have taken upon themselves to be part of, but it does also present a challenge to Fonterra long term in its capacity requirements. That was the essential argument that submitters came to the committee in favour of—removing that clause—because they felt that that was too much of a commitment that Fonterra had to make in its capital contributions to be able to meet any and every supplier that may just determine to come back to Fonterra at some point in time.

In some ways the Minister has indicated that the Government is willing to support the arguments of those submitters and also, in essence, the arguments of Fonterra in that regard as well. One can only assume that that generosity that we’re seeing from the Minister must have a caveat somewhere at some point in time. He shakes his head in disbelief—

Hon Damien O’Connor: Always generous.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Always generous. So the sceptic in me is saying that there must be something that the Minister has planned for the dairy industry in the future that isn’t so favourable, and we could go through a number of what those unfavourable aspects could be in regard to environmental requirements or taxation requirements, or just general taxation requirements that could be put upon farmers if this Government was re-elected, and God hope that it never is. So there must be a catch to everything, and we’re waiting to see what this Minister has planned as his catch to being able to be so generous in his decision making with Fonterra and Fonterra suppliers at this time.

But in all seriousness, this is something that farmers have been looking for for many, many years. It will give a lot of dairy farmers peace and certainty around their cooperative—a cooperative that we should acknowledge has done an amazing job for New Zealand. Not many other countries can have an organisation of that size and scale on the world market that performs to the level it does. That is good for “New Zealand Incorporated” as a whole. It’s not only good for the farmers, it’s not only good for those that are employed with the organisation, but it is also good for the country as a whole.

We also need to recognise the importance of those non-cooperative supply companies that actually have a vital role in the market as well, in providing that competitive tension to the cooperative and giving farmers a choice as well. I think we’ve got to a stage in our industry now where we do have that fine but nice balance between an international player that is competitive on the world stage on a scale basis but also we have a number of other players that are also internationally very effective in what they do and give farmers choice, but at the same time we give farmers some security around the cooperative that they’re part of. So I think that’s the balance that we all seek to achieve and it is achieved in this bill here tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker—just for the information of the speakers who referred to the SOP, it is now on the Table.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) and pleased to take a short call on it.

New Zealand had quite a unique situation when the principal Act was developed and passed in 2001, and this bill retains the core of that Act, which ensured that it acts as an economic regulatory tool; that it provides an incentive for Fonterra to act efficiently in the absence, at the time in 2001, of performance pressure from the market; and it ensures that in this bill, we’re removing some of those regulatory pieces to just provide a more efficient, effective, and less costly regime.

Previous speakers, Mr Bennett and the Minister, have canvassed the issues around open entry and exit and the very strong support that there was in submissions for removing open entry—the fact that it has led Fonterra to really overcapitalise in terms of its stainless steel infrastructure, enabling it to process all the milk that it was required to, and that acting as a bit of a burden when it really wants to shift to more added-value production in the dairy space. So, with the Primary Production Committee’s very careful consideration of submissions and then going further with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is now tabled to actually remove that load on Fonterra to have to accept anybody who wanted to supply—and that also recognises that we now, around New Zealand, have a number of quite large companies which are also taking on milk and have their own supply.

One of the other interesting things in the bill is that it does provide for more regular reviews of the regime—every four to five years, recognising that this bill was introduced last year, that it had been preceded by quite a large degree of consultation and various reports, and also that the bill, in terms of Goodman Fielder, provides for an additional 50 million litres in terms of its entitlement to regulated milk. That’s quite important, because Goodman Fielder made it quite clear that the current cap of 250 million litres of supply had been reducing its ability to compete in the market, and it also recognises, really, that it would’ve been prohibitive in terms of being very costly for Goodman Fielder to set up its own milk supply, transport, and processing network to duplicate that that Fonterra has.

So this regulatory regime recognises Fonterra’s strengths and seeks to enhance those while also protecting domestic consumers and providing for some controls that recognise that there is no real opposition to Fonterra in terms of its size and scale. So with the changes that the select committee has made in response to submissions, and the further changes that the Minister is making by SOP in terms of removing open entry—which was something that the Green Party was very keen to see go from the outset—we are very pleased to support the bill. Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tonight, as we’re standing in the House discussing the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3), I’d just like to make a mention of the dairy farmers out there who are in the various stages of starting their calving season. I just want to wish them all the best. It’s been quite a tough season for many, with droughts, and now a number of them are under water. So I just hope that the rest of the calving season goes really well. It’s been a really interesting year for farmers, and it’s surprising how often in the last few months, since COVID hit, that we all of a sudden hear about agriculture being the backbone of the economy. It’s not actually news to some of us, because that’s always been the case.

In terms of the bill, 19 years ago—actually, at the time I was on the Fonterra Shareholders’ Council—was when the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act came into place. It was very crucial at that time. We’d had so many mergers in the industry. What it did was it allowed the two major companies in New Zealand to form one, which gave them a 96 percent monopoly. So there was certainly some grounded fear that this was the only way to bring it together, to have some rules and some mechanisms and some protections in place to ensure that the monopoly didn’t abuse its power. If we look today, it’s down to about 80 to 81 percent, and in some parts of the country it’s certainly met the requirements that were in the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act initially that would unleash it.

This bill, and the second reading here tonight, is part of that process of unleashing, because Fonterra needs to be in a position to make some really good commercial decisions. I find that as a cooperative, when it makes bad decisions, everybody jumps on it, but when it’s trying to make good decisions, it’s restricted by some of the rules that currently sit in the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. We’ve had people referring tonight about the stainless steel and about the building of plants and all of that sort of stuff. When you think that a cooperative the size that it is is restricted from turning away milk supply and it can’t make its own commercial decisions, then it really is restricting the company in making good decisions.

The other thing that’s a bit hard about this is that a lot of the smaller companies that are coming into New Zealand and are setting up in competition with Fonterra have a level of foreign ownership with them, and quite a level of foreign ownership with them. The National Party is not concerned about foreign investment per se, but, actually, you have to have it on a level playing field, and the problem is the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act hasn’t been providing that level playing field.

When we look at this bill, it talks about, in my notes here, a start and stop, supplying to Fonterra. I would turn that around and say, actually, it was stop and start. The thing that got to most farmers was that you could leave Fonterra if you wished but they had to take you back any time that you wish to come back. Those who were left holding the baby, so to speak, and those loyal shareholders who stayed in the company were quite miffed about that whole open entry and exit clause. They’re not worried about the exit clause. If people choose to go, then that’s a personal freedom and a choice. But, if a shareholder decides they’re going to leave Fonterra and they always know that there’s the safety net of the door being open on the way back in, they’re going to take much more freer choices about how they come and go.

I also would note that it wasn’t only the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act that did force Fonterra. It was under those constraints, but for a long period of time we did hear a lot of, you know, “We want more milk, more milk, more milk”. That’s going back in the early stages. There’s a lot more questions being asked about that now in terms of the environmental part of it.

The one thing that I’m not sure about—and we had lots of discussions about this as a committee, and I will say I wasn’t permanently on the Primary Production Committee at this stage but I did actually sit in a few times—was around the Government members sitting on the milk pricing panel. I know that there’s so many checks and balances in that milk pricing panel that I’m not sure that that’s overly useful or effective, but it’s not something that’s going to drive us towards voting against the bill.

One thing that I’m disappointed about, standing here tonight—because I did sit in the committee for quite a period of time, and we went round and round trying to get a piece in this bill that supported new entrants and gave an intent or gave a construct for Fonterra not to be able to turn away those brand new entrants to the industry. It was quite a difficult thing, and we sent the bill back to see if we could create some wording around that intent or some sort of clause in here. I’m kind of disappointed that at this point of time, in the second reading, I’d still like to see something a bit more concrete that really supports the new entrants into this industry.

I also see, as part of this bill, this bill gives Fonterra the right to cancel a farmer’s milk supply on animal welfare and environmental grounds. This does make practical sense, and I see no reason why this bill shouldn’t do this, but where I do get concerned is that this needs to actually be operationally fit for purpose within Fonterra. I think right now the early response service that Fonterra operates in part needs a complete review, because Fonterra currently have terms and conditions of supply and they don’t always use that in a way that protects animal welfare. So I think we need to have some really good discussions around how this will operationally work, because I cannot see any practical reason why we wouldn’t do it, other than it needs to be up and running and running correctly and properly so it services all farmers and it services the animal welfare and the environment at the same time.

So I remember speaking on this bill last time, and I do remember James Shaw pointing out that, actually, the force in this bill to take all milk was one of those things that could potentially have a detrimental effect on the environment. We largely agreed on that point, because it’s really good to see that there’s no force in here to be able to take conversions from places where it doesn’t make sense. Of course, this is all backed up as well by the ability for farmers to get resource consents anyway. So if Fonterra was willing to take a farm but then a farmer couldn’t get a resource consent around water, effluent, and all of those sorts of conditions, then they wouldn’t be able to operate a dairy farm in the first place.

So despite the reduced market share in Fonterra, it still is a pretty significant power, and I don’t think that we should ever back away or be frightened of and ashamed of the fact that 80 percent of the cooperative of New Zealand dairy farmers want to supply that cooperative. Our competitors are out in the world, and we have to stick together and we have to have some sort of global scale. I think this bill is a really good move in just taking some of the tensions away around that open entry. But long may Fonterra continue to be a really solid, large, main player in New Zealand—something that we can all be proud of. It’s been a real pleasure to speak on the second reading of this bill tonight, and I look forward to the committee stage and the third reading later on. Thank you.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I also rise to support, on behalf of New Zealand First, this Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3). It has been, as referenced earlier, a bill that has been well traversed through the select committee, and I’ll come to that as we assess this through the second reading.

But, of course, the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, or DIRA, was absolutely imperative in allowing the formation of Fonterra at the time. As has been referenced earlier, 96 percent to 97 percent of the supply of New Zealand milk went through Fonterra in 2001 when it was formed, essentially replacing the old single-desk dairy board and the processing companies sitting underneath that, that had amalgamated to the point where they were down to two. So this is enabling legislation, but it was time for a tidy up.

But Fonterra is incredibly important to New Zealand. It is a behemoth by New Zealand corporate standards, but it is our behemoth. It is owned by 10,000 or so New Zealand dairy farmer shareholders, who control that company. But not only just the processing in New Zealand—they own a lot of offshore assets in a value chain well beyond these borders that allow them to capture the profit from further through the market and bring it back to New Zealand for the betterment of our economy. We absolutely owe a debt of gratitude for the far-sighted vision of our industry leaders in the dairy industry that set Fonterra up. For all its warts and all—and it has had its troubles in recent times, which it’s now working its way steadily out of, but it’s important to note that it is our company or it is owned by the 10,000 New Zealand dairy farmers who have an absolutely intrinsic vested interest in bringing and making this company the best it can be for the wider New Zealand economy.

I note that other industries that have this sort of collegial approach—the kiwifruit industry, for example, through Zespri—have also thrived through this time. If we look at the wool industry that Minister O’Connor is busy trying to assist to resurrect at the moment, we have lost complete control of those value chains and fragmented industry, where trying to pick up those parts is incredibly difficult. So it’s important that we respect the fact that the dairy industry, and particularly the farmers of Fonterra, have maintained their structure, maintained their wider vision, and haven’t sold out to corporate and short termism. This bill will assist in many ways.

Of course, the major change to this, as has been traversed, is the repeal or almost total repeal of the open entry provision that meant Fonterra was compelled to take any milk offered to it, which—at the time, with 97 percent supply, we needed pro-competition; we needed other companies to come in and sharpen Fonterra’s pencil, make sure that it was competing effectively and wasn’t just a big, lazy monopoly, and to the most part they’ve done that. There’s been some great companies get off the ground, some—to my chagrin and New Zealand First’s chagrin, probably—with foreign ownership involved, but also the likes of Open Country Dairy, that are New Zealand-owned through the Talley’s, have grown and kept Fonterra honest.

It’s got to the point now with Fonterra down around the 80 percent mark, which was always where it was intended that these provisions would drop away within the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, that now we’re at that point that we take the opportunity to do just that and free Fonterra from the shackles of having to take all milk offered to it, because they then become the default provider of stainless steel. So the Fonterra farmers are, essentially, subsidising, through having to run their business at a less efficient level because they’re holding overcapacity of stainless steel, which in a manufacturing business is hugely inefficient and a genuine cost on that business, so that other farmers could wash in and out of the co-op as they so wished, which is not fair. It certainly was the view of the select committee that the time had come for that provision to be repealed, or almost totally repealed.

In terms of the exception, we did work quite hard, and I share Barbara Kuriger’s frustration in the sense that we did manage to beat out a provision for first farmers to still have access, because we felt that it was incredibly important that new farmers entering the industry are encouraged and have a pathway into Fonterra ownership, shareholding ownership, and supply, and often the expense of buying shares up front is prohibitive. There is the MyMilk scheme with Fonterra that they do. They are actively encouraging, but we wanted to make sure that those first-time farmers did have that right to entry where possible. I respect the fact the Minister has taken that away, looked at it, hasn’t been totally satisfied with that, and, you know, through some wider consultation, has come back with a tidier version, which I think gets to the same ends in a slightly different and tighter way.

I think in terms of the competitors and the select committee process, here we are in the second reading talking about the select committee. Whilst the farmers, particularly the Fonterra farmers and Fonterra itself, obviously, were keen for open entry to go, some of the domestic competitors were not so keen. But I think the time has come. They’ve got their businesses up and running. They need to be competing on commercial terms. They need to have a value proposition to talk to farmers, to say that if you’re going to change companies to us, there is some certainty for them that that is a value proposition that is worth their while making that move. They shouldn’t necessarily need the default position of being able to say, “Well, if it doesn’t work out, you can go back to Fonterra.” I don’t think that is a sustainable proposition, and the select committee certainly felt that the competition had matured enough where we didn’t need that provision to be left.

The phase out of regulated milk over 50 million litres a year, I think, over five years, from memory, down to 30 million litres, and once a company exceeds regulated milk for that one year, they then become ineligible—that is an elegant solution. There was some talk, I think, early on of getting rid of regulated milk altogether. But we did hear through the select committee process—and I can’t remember; someone will remind me—that small Bay of Plenty dairy company that came and made an incredibly persuasive submission around how important that regulated milk was for smaller companies that may grow over time but they’re not big, foreign, overseas corporates coming in to try to take a big chunk of the market or big domestic players. They made a compelling case why there should be a threshold. We agreed with the 30 million litres that was originally proposed, and that survived the select committee process.

I guess the other thing—there are a few other bits and pieces. I think the regulated milk for domestic consumption, the Goodman Fielder provision—I’ve been quite uncomfortable with that. Having a, once again, foreign-owned company that’s got regulated access to milk is not something that sits comfortably with myself or, potentially, New Zealand First. But it is, once again, an elegant solution. Throwing it round, there does not appear to be a more effective way of doing that. You need a competitor of some scale that’s prepared to invest in stainless steel and supply chains to allow the domestic market to be competitive. We know for the—well, this is incredibly important legislation for dairy farmers. For the greater population, the price of milk at their local supermarket is their overriding interest in this bill, and they want to know there’s plenty of competition. So we did traverse issues around Goodman Fielder, but we could not, and certainly I could not, come up with anything to put to the select committee that was a better solution to what we’ve got in front of us. So I will look forward to the Supplementary Order Paper in the committee of the whole House. But we welcome the certainty that this legislation will now bring to the commercial decisions made within the dairy industry. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I’m once again living proof that if you hang around here long enough, you go round the full circle. But I just want to comment, before I get into the real facts of this bill, on the Minister of Agriculture, who made a very eloquent speech from the other side of the House. I remember him on the last two iterations of this bill standing about where I am haranguing the useless Government, the terrible cooperative, and the fact that Westland Milk Products was the hero of New Zealand’s dairy industry. Well, we know where Westland’s gone! But none the less I just wanted to say before I start that I am a cooperative supporter, and I think that Fonterra has served New Zealand extraordinarily well. I don’t, however, think that this legislation has at all times served either New Zealand or Fonterra extraordinarily well, and some of the changes that were made to this bill in the course of the reintroduction of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) will, in fact, improve a lot of those things for Fonterra and for the industry as a whole.

It’s a kind of unique situation we’ve been in, because we’ve had a piece of legislation that probably in my lifetime was the second-most contentious piece of farmer politics that dominated the rural scene. The most contentious of those was the wool acquisition debate of the late 1960s, and most people in this House won’t remember that. If that debate had succeeded, of course, we would have had a wool industry that we could have perhaps talked about with a bit more pride today. Of course, I heard the Minister just not long ago come to the select committee and say that he couldn’t make the wool industry any worse. Well, in fact, he’s halved the price of wool since he’s been the Minister. I don’t think that’s necessarily his fault, but that’s what’s happened to the price of wool.

I think this is probably the third iteration of this piece of legislation that I’ve seen come into this House, and the situation’s changed dramatically in that time, in that Fonterra at the time—and Mark Patterson made this point—was something like 96 percent of the dairy industry. The dairy industry, of course, at that time was a third the size it is now. Now, you can argue whether that’s good, bad, or indifferent for New Zealand, but it sure does produce an awful lot of income for New Zealand: some $20 billion annually, which is hugely important to New Zealand’s wellbeing and, in fact, to our employment, as well. It is a very big industry.

Some of that growth in the industry has been caused by the terms of the original Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA), and I don’t necessarily think that was—some of those terms at the time might have been made with the best intentions, but, in fact, the result they created was not in the best interests of New Zealand, or the dairy farmers, or the dairy industry—or Fonterra, for that matter. But that’s one of the great challenges that we face in this place, because the moment we interfere in business through legislation, we put distortions into the market place that almost always create problems that, in some cases, become insurmountable. Not very long ago we had the Racing Industry Bill go through this House. This House has been interfering in that industry for some years now without success, and I think it’s a great lesson to us that we should be very careful before we interfere in what, effectively, is—I wouldn’t say it’s a free market, because it’s not, but it’s certainly a market-driven situation. That creates a whole lot of problems.

I think that this bill does fix some of the challenges that I think we’ve had with Fonterra and with DIRA for some time. It does enable some parts of the industry to get on with their business without political interference in them. I want to comment on a couple of other issues which are particularly relevant to my electorate, and one is the milk given to Goodman Fielder, who operate in my part of the world from a factory adjacent to the Longburn dairy factory, which, of course was stolen from Tui by Kiwi, we always think, in the Manawatū. As an old Tui shareholder, we felt we got ripped off by the Taranaki, but that’s not unusual.

Barbara Kuriger: Oh, never!

IAN McKELVIE: I think so, Barbara! I think so. We got ripped off by the Taranaki. At the time it was quite a bitter debate, actually, and in fact this whole debate leading up to the formation of DIRA in 2001 was quite a bitter debate, in many ways—not bitter, I wouldn’t say, in that form, but there were certainly some dominant characters who led those debates in those days. It does create some interesting issues.

Another point I wanted to make about the dairy industry, and, in fact, farming in New Zealand in general, is that we have some extraordinarily innovative companies that have been driven by the sector, and they’ll continue to be driven, providing we have a healthy industry. The provision of DIRA is critical to that healthy industry. One or two of them are based in Palmerston North, in fact, and, of course, the Gallagher Group, who are the doyen of electric fence manufacturers—and security system manufacturers, petrol pumps, and many other things—are based out of Hamilton but also have a large base in Marton, in the Rangitīkei electorate. Levno, the modern company—he’d like me thinking it’s modern—that does the milk measuring and milk meters and things like that, comes all the way out of Foxton—in fact, Nathan Guy’s electorate at the moment, although I’d like to claim it at times. And, of course, the Allflex tags were born and bred in Palmerston North, taken over by a French company.

I guess New Zealand First wouldn’t like this much, but many of our companies have gone that way, and, of course, the agricultural sector does have a whole lot of those kind of companies that are very innovative, create world-leading products, and produce stuff that the world wants. Of course, Fonterra is one of those, because I think we’re around 3 or 4 percent of world milk production but we’re something like 90 percent of the world export—or 90 percent of our milk is exported, in one form or another. So we create products in New Zealand. Fonterra’s been absolutely the leader in this field, because they have a base, again in the Rangitīkei electorate, through their science and research centre on the Massey University side of the Manawatū river, where many of their world-leading products have been created. So whatever we think of our industry, and however we devise legislation to ensure that it’s equitable and fair for everyone, it’s very important that we have these very strong entities like Fonterra, because they enable New Zealand—and their competitors, actually—to produce products that are absolutely the best in the world.

If we didn’t have Fonterra sitting there, I doubt the competition would exist in New Zealand to ensure there are other companies. There are some very good ones: Tātua, Synlait, Open Country Dairy, to mention three. There are many more who are doing a great job for the New Zealand farming industry, and they’re doing that job as a result of this piece of legislation that was initially introduced to create exactly that. So I think in some ways the initial legislation has created an environment that we absolutely wanted to create in New Zealand, and that was what was envisaged by those people who designed the legislation initially. However, it has also created some distortions, and those are some issues that we as a Parliament and as a country and as farmers have had to deal with, and had to deal with at some cost to the industry, as well. We’ll have to continue to deal with that as we go along.

I was not part of the Primary Production Committee, and, as I said, you go the full circle in this place. I was part of the select committee that dealt with the last two iterations of this bill, but not this one, and I have listened to the Minister on numerous occasions espousing all sorts of views on farming. It’s amazing how once you become the Minister you get captured by the system and you do what you’re told, and I’m most impressed to think someone from the West Coast would end up having to do what they’re told. He seems to have got there. I won’t take any more time of the House, but I do think this bill does achieve a lot of what the industry has been asking for. My two dairy farming colleagues, not quite with the same vehemence that Shane Ardern would have shown at some stage in this House—almost; Bennett’s nearly as bad as him—have explained the intricacies of this bill, as did the Minister, and certainly Mark Patterson did as well. So I commend the bill to the House and wish it luck as it goes through.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I always enjoy listening to that speaker who’s just resumed his seat, Ian McKelvie, because he obviously has a great knowledge about this particular area, and what he has in knowledge, I completely lack—it’s not my area of expertise. However, I am aware that the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, in its original iteration, set up Fonterra, and now what we are attempting to do is to ensure that we can enhance the dairy industry through some changes made in this particular piece of legislation. So rather than hold the matter up, I commend the bill to the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to make a few comments on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3). As other speakers, particularly the very learned Ian McKelvie has just said—he wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, but I thought it was worthwhile, in making my contribution, just to think of my own involvement with the dairy industry over the time that I’ve been a member of Parliament.

In setting the scene for that, I think it’s important for newer members of Parliament to actually understand the history of the dairy industry in New Zealand. It was a case whereby there were hundreds, if not thousands, of small cooperatives. My own area, where I’m fortunate enough to farm now, Banks Peninsula, had a dairy co-op in just about every bay: Le Bons Bay, Pigeon Bay, Okains Bay, Little Akaloa. There’s one small one still existing today in Barrys Bay. But that was the nature of how the dairy industry started in New Zealand. We then went through a period of quite significant amalgamation of all these cooperatives because of, just, scale of economics. By the time that I came into this House, we, effectively, had two major competitive dairy co-ops in this country: the New Zealand Dairy Group based in the Waikato, and the Kiwi dairy cooperative based in Taranaki. The interesting thing about that—and we’re talking now about the mid-1990s—is Canterbury, which is now a powerhouse of the dairy industry in New Zealand, wasn’t even really on the scene at that stage. The dairy transformation that’s occurred in Canterbury has occurred subsequent, really, to the enactment of the very first Dairy Industry Restructuring Act.

I became a junior Minister and Associate Minister in 1998 and was privileged then to be part of the discussions as these two major cooperatives came before the then National Government and talked about trying to amalgamate Kiwi and New Zealand Dairy Group to create a company which at that stage was unnamed but later became known as Fonterra. Of course, the Government was then challenged with making sure that we established some competition to allow Fonterra to establish, and yet allow the industry to develop, to mature for other players to come into the industry. I recall long, long discussions with some of those dairy stalwarts at the time: John Storey, Sir Dryden Spring, John Roadley; the Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, was heavily involved; Ministers like Bill Birch and particularly the senior agriculture Minister at the time, the Hon John Luxton.

Of course, the election came along in 1999. The job at that stage had been well progressed but not completed. The then Labour Government picked up that legislation, continued the work, put it through the select committee—from memory, in the year 2000—and finally, we passed the legislation in 2001, establishing the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, allowing Fonterra to form and also establishing mechanisms by which other innovative companies could come into the industry.

I talk with some pride about our own company, Synlait, in Canterbury, which was established over the time that I’ve been a member of Parliament—now a very significant contributor to the dairy industry of New Zealand and a very, very significant contributor to the economy of Canterbury. I want to acknowledge in that the leadership given by John Penno, who was significantly involved as we progressed—as Synlait developed and has now become a major player to the New Zealand dairy industry.

We now have got the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) before us. We’ve obviously therefore had two others. I was involved in one of them and I assume—I haven’t had the chance to research this, but I’m sure it was the dairy industry restructuring bill No. 1. At the time, I was the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister for Primary Industries, and I conclude—a lot of the discussion tonight has been about the continuing open entry, open exit. If I have one minor regret, I suspect we might well have got it wrong then when we at that stage said that Fonterra had to continue to accept every possible supplier. I say that because as I regularly drive through the Mackenzie Basin, there we see dairy farms which I feel should not be in the Mackenzie Basin. That is a particularly fragile part of New Zealand, a beautiful environment, but fragility is known to those who are familiar with it.

I suspect that may be an inadequacy of the regional plan, may be an inaccuracy of the district plan, that the Mackenzie District Council has allowed dairying to develop into the Mackenzie Basin. But one thing that did force that to happen was the fact that Fonterra had no choice whatsoever—that if a farmer wanted to establish, having got through the resource consent process, then Fonterra had no choice but to accept the milk from that place. So I think in hindsight, maybe we’ve got to it, I think, tonight, where we’re now saying that Fonterra has the ability on occasions to say “We will not accept milk from a particular supplier, be it an environmental reason, be it a animal welfare reason.”, and I wonder, in honesty, whether we shouldn’t have got to that space earlier.

My final point is I wonder whether, in time—it won’t be in my time, obviously, in this House, but whether in time—we’ll have a “Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 4)”, or whether, in actual fact, we can now say this industry has matured to the stage when it no longer needs this governing legislation. I personally think we are at that stage. I think Fonterra has been a remarkable company. It is New Zealand’s biggest company. The actions and the performance of that company affect the livelihood of every New Zealander. We have seen also maturity right across the industry with a number of other significant players providing that competitive edge, providing choices for dairy farmers in most parts of New Zealand. I think before too much longer, this House should think about whether we even need to have governing legislation governing the structure of the New Zealand dairy industry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The following call’s a split call. I call Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I wholeheartedly support this bill. I want to acknowledge the members of the Primary Production Committee, of which I am one, for the extensive examination we gave to this bill, and Minister O’Connor, who has picked up through his Supplementary Order Paper 547 some of the requested refinements.

This is a fantastic bill. It is all about helping to support our vitally important dairy industry that is maturing and that is growing. We want to ensure that the legislation provides some certainty but also allows us some competitive tension for Fonterra, but also doesn’t unduly hamper Fonterra as well in terms of its rights to have to collect milk.

So I think we’ve reached a really well-balanced place with this bill and I’m looking forward to seeing in its passage the continuation of the evolution of our dairy industry, which is such an important industry for Aotearoa. Kia ora.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A pleasure to stand in support of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) at the second reading. I’d also like to commend the members of the Primary Production Committee. It’s pleasing to see the changes that have been made to ensure that we could reach an agreed position on moving forward as a country. The reality is we are facing incredible economic pressures and, as in the past and so into the future, we will need to trade our way back into prosperity. We will need to take active measures to ensure that we retain our competitive edge in our core industries.

Dairy is one of those pillars upon which our economy is sustained. We are a country of 5 million feeding a population of 40 million through our dairy exports. This is a great source of satisfaction, that we are able to do our bit for the world prosperity. It is a great example of taking our competitive advantage, our ability to produce the cheapest feed for our dairy herds in the world, and turn it into outcomes that see ordinary New Zealanders employed and able to make good for their families.

Make no mistake, ordinary New Zealand families will need the dairy industry to be operating at maximum capacity, selling our dairy products into the world, as part of our COVID-19 economic recovery. When this bill first came before us, we did not support it as it lacked the competitive features that would make the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill a fit-for-purpose piece of legislation. I acknowledge the collaborative approach of the committee that it has taken as to enable us to support this bill in the interests of all New Zealanders.

The removal of open entry requirements will allow Fonterra to take a more competitive stance in the market. As National, we support competition in the knowledge that it generally brings out the best in business. Competition I see as the catalyst for innovation and excellence. The fact that other dairy entities have entered the market and through good practice have reduced Fonterra’s market share shows the market works. To enable Fonterra to be able to make a more competitive stance, the removal of the open entry requirements is critical. This will allow Fonterra to better consider each application against their own quality supply requirements. That is a good thing. Equally, the open exit provisions will enable farmers to move between the best providers as they see fit. This will ensure Fonterra and its internal competitors maintain attractive conditions to enable real farmer choice.

That said, and to ensure new farmers have a fair chance to sell their product, we support the retention of open entry. We need to ensure an intergenerational focus on farming in New Zealand and work to keep New Zealanders on our farms and innovating. We have been world leaders in dairy production, in part because of this intergenerational view.

The proposed new clause 20B will replace section 73 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act, which requires Fonterra to accept applications to supply milk. This clause needs to be discussed and further refined, taking into account sector views, and so I’m pleased to see the committee will do so. I note the committee is taking the unusual step of recommending a placeholder provision in our proposed new section 73(1). The committee expects the House to amend new section 73(1) to reflect exceptions through removal of open entry provisions.

A strong, competitive Fonterra and independent dairy processing business is vital to get us through this upcoming economic downturn that we face. I support this bill, Madam Speaker.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand’s success in dealing with COVID-19 positions us well for an export-led recovery. As other speakers have said, dairy is one of our main exports. This is a bill that responds to a lot of what the dairy industry has been advocating for. It amends, as others have said, the 2001 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act to remove regulatory requirements that aren’t needed any longer and it gives Fonterra a little bit more flexibility to manage its operations.

This is a really good bill. It keeps us moving in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3). Most of the important clauses have been covered by other speakers, and I don’t intend to go over those. But, as the honourable member Ian McKelvie mentioned earlier in his speech how important it is when you are regulating industries to bear in mind that all regulations have an impact on the market in some way, I want to focus on clause 23, which amends section 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act. It allows or gives the cooperative the ability to have price differentials for practices such as environmental practices, sustainability practices, labour practices, etc., and they are to reward those people following that and of course, by default, to actually, effectively, punish those that don’t.

I think the key point in this is that in a market where you have the main player—that is, Fonterra—unable to do that when its competitors can and where we have seen those competitors having much more reactive sustainability and environmental practices in their pricing structures, it was something that Fonterra was unable to do. So it’s a great thing for me to see this in this bill.

If Fonterra wasn’t able to act as nimbly as its competitors in that field when it’s got 80 percent of the market, I think that was a real handbrake on the dairy industry’s ability to really be a world leader in the market. When you’re selling different products into discerning markets around the world, it is all about all of those practices, and, unfortunately, there are fantastic farmers doing fantastically well out there with their environmental practices, but the world and the industry is judged by its worst players, not by its best. The revision in this bill gives Fonterra a tool to act and to encourage that good behaviour that we all desperately need. So, with that, I commend the bill to the House.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I’m pleased to stand and add my support to this bill, following on from the contributions of others around the House. I’m really delighted that our Minister, the Hon Damien O’Connor, has been able to develop a piece of legislation that not only assists the dairy industry to move forward positively but has developed such a degree of consensus around this piece of reform that is captured in this legislation.

It’s a good example of the way that this Government works; we don’t kick problems down the road, we focus on how we can make progress on behalf of all New Zealanders—

Simeon Brown: Tell us about light rail. How did that go?

MICHAEL WOOD: —and I think it’s absolutely wonderful that we’ve been able to achieve that for the dairy industry.

The member opposite doesn’t need to worry about light rail, but he must be absolutely delighted about the money that is going into the Eastern Busway serving his electorate.

None the less, I commend this bill to the House. Once again, I thank the Minister and the select committee for the great work that they’ve done on it.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill

Third 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 third time.

The New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill is an important step in ensuring our superannuation system reflects our contemporary society. From 9 November 2020, different rates of superannuation will continue to be paid based on whether a person is single or in a relationship, but someone will not be able to receive superannuation because their partner does. They will need to meet the age and residence criteria themselves unless they are already included in their partner’s superannuation at the time the bill commences. If someone receives a Government-administered overseas pension, it will continue to be deducted from their own New Zealand superannuation or veteran’s pension, but if one partner in a couple gets an overseas pension, the bill means that it won’t be deducted from their partner’s superannuation unless one partner is included as a non-qualified partner. These changes reflect the change we’ve seen in society away from the male breadwinner model, where women were not expected to work outside the home and would be dependent on someone who might be forced to retire at pension age. They reinforce the core settings and purpose of New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension while contributing to their sustainability.

In the future, partners of superannuitants or veterans pensioners, like all New Zealanders, will be supported through the welfare system if and when eligible. The bill makes some changes to legislation regarding income tests, hospital rates, and special disability allowances to ensure these work as expected when a couple receive benefits paid under two different Acts. This bill also makes a range of improvements to the clarity and consistency of policy and legislation. The bill clarifies that if a person made voluntary contributions to a Government-administered overseas pension scheme, the proportion of the overseas pension that is based on those voluntary contributions won’t be deducted from their New Zealand superannuation or veteran’s pension. The bill also includes, for the first time, a provision for people who volunteer overseas with a secular charitable organisation to have that period of service counted towards the residence requirements. There’s already a provision like this for missionaries, and the bill clarifies that missionary work should have some connection to a New Zealand organisation to count towards the residence requirements.

Single people who live alone in a self-contained mobile home will be able to receive the living alone rate. The current practice of setting the net weekly amount of superannuation for a couple who both qualify at no less than 66 percent of the net average weekly wage will be protected in legislation so it cannot be lowered without Parliament’s agreement. These changes are important for the groups who are affected and, in the case of protecting the current wage link, for the long-term stability of New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension.

I want to briefly address the fact that this bill was originally intended to commence on 1 July 2020 and that the commencement has had to be delayed until November 2020. This has been unavoidable due to the need for the Ministry of Social Development to deal with a significant increase in demand for services due to COVID-19 and to introduce a number of complex products and services during this unprecedented event. However, while it might be happening a little later than expected, I’m proud that this bill will make important steps to modernise and simplify New Zealand superannuation and veteran’s pension. I know that a number of MPs across the House have been lobbied on some of the issues addressed in this bill, not least of which is the spousal deduction policy. It’s always good when we have instances where parties across the House can agree on legislative change. This is one of those instances, so I do acknowledge all the parties in the House for their support, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, sorry. The question is that the motion be agreed to. My apologies.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, and no need to apologise, Madam Speaker. I’m just grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and, on behalf of National, to lead off on this, the third and final reading. I confirm, before going any further, that National continues to support this legislation. We support its broad intent and, indeed, the detail within that.

I’d like to make a number of remarks under the themes of the consistency that this legislation is seeking to introduce to a number of different pieces of legislation that are currently on the statute book; also talk about the extent to which the Parliament, by passing this Act, will be modernising a couple of different regimes; and, finally, just talk about some of the detail that is important. I acknowledge that the Minister for Social Development has gone through a certain amount of that detail already. I think it would be risky for me to try to paraphrase that in a way that might lead to more confusion, not less. Some of that detail that we’ve heard about—and that, indeed, is contained in the bill, obviously, in some considerable length—should not be confused. The provisions regarding spousal deduction and the extent to which benefits and allowances are calculated or recalculated, depending upon the status of one’s spouse and overseas pension—that’s material not to be trifled with, so I don’t intend to do so. But I do think it’s helpful just to note a couple of the particular aspects of the bill in which the detail is significant, because it points to the intent of the Parliament in passing the bill, and I hope that anyone who is listening to the debate or should wish to go back and check later will understand what it is that we have been engaged in through this process.

Speaking of process, I wasn’t on the relevant select committee at the time that the bill was going through and receiving submissions. I’ve done my best to get up to speed on that, but I do just want to acknowledge, none the less, those who did contribute to the debate by appearing before the select committee, by submitting in written form as well, and, of course, all those involved in its passage so far—officials and members of Parliament on all sides of the House alike.

I mentioned before that the passing of this bill is an exercise in ensuring some consistency. There are a couple of different regimes involved. One is superannuation in the general, broad sense of that phrase, also the veteran’s pension schemes, and I note that the Minister for Veterans is in the House, and no doubt he’s taking some interest in this, as well as other legislation that is currently passing through this place. Suffice it to say that we believe, in National—and I suspect and hope that other parties would agree—that changes that are made to the superannuation scheme that applies to all New Zealanders should not leave behind veterans. Certainly, at the very least, the changes should ensure consistency between those such that veterans aren’t inadvertently excluded from any benefits that are brought by this bill.

The fact that it’s an omnibus bill reflects that there are a number of different pieces of legislation that are being changed. I won’t go through all of those, but suffice to say they’re in the retirement, social security, and taxation policy spaces. Of course, it’s important that they all interrelate, and the bill does the things that it should do in relation to making consequential amendments and, of course, ensuring that those all tie in together pretty well.

I talked before about the second of the three major themes that I wanted to highlight. That was around modernisation. I think an example of that is the fact that changes are made to ensure that those who serve overseas in a charitable capacity are not disadvantaged by the fact that the nature of that work is secular or the characterisation of that is secular. That’s consistent with a view that I think is pretty universally held: that the affairs of Church and State should be kept separate, in most instances, certainly. And I think it’s appropriate—and we in National think it’s appropriate—that people who are engaged in doing good generally overseas are not penalised, as I say, by the fact of the particular delivery of that not being ostensibly by a faith-based organisation.

It’s worth noting, I suppose, in the general policy context of what we’re discussing, that New Zealanders are living longer, and many seniors will no doubt take an interest in different policies relating to superannuation ahead of the upcoming election. That, however, is not particularly the subject of this bill, and there’s, obviously, discussions that could be had around that in a separate kind of way. But I think what isn’t in doubt—again, I would say, hopefully, across the House—is that senior New Zealanders do contribute heavily to this nation. They provide help and assistance in many different ways, sometimes still formally in the workforce, as we understand that phrase in its usual kind of a way, but also often in a volunteer capacity, whether formal or informal. By recognising in some small way that work that’s undertaken perhaps to support family or the community is work that’s worthy of being recognised as such—notwithstanding that it’s not employment with a capital “E”—that’s a useful thing that we can do through this bill as well.

The detail—as I promised earlier, I wouldn’t look to get too deep into that. But I think it’s worth noting that the bill is careful to recognise situations where an overseas pension is entered into by the spouse—or partner, roughly speaking—of a person who themselves is eligible for New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension. There has been contention for many years—and a number of us will be aware of it as MPs who have received correspondence from constituents—that a person who is contributing to an overseas scheme that has a voluntary component feel, sometimes, as though they have been penalised by the fact of having made those voluntary contributions overseas because the New Zealand regime has, until now, in some cases, regarded those as overseas pensions to reduce the amount of New Zealand super to which a person’s entitled. Anyway, suffice to say that that’s, I think, helpful and useful and, frankly, a fair change that the bill is looking to make. Again, on this side of the House, we support that.

The final comments I’ll make relate to a bit of the detail, because I think it’s interesting as much as anything. One is to be found in Part 1; the other in Part 2. They’re pretty similar—in fact, mirror provisions, so far as I can tell on a brief look. The “Meaning of living alone”, which sounds a bit like it might be something that a Bee Gees song focuses on.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Sing it for us.

CHRIS PENK: Mr Macindoe’s suggesting that I sing “I don’t want to live alone” by the Bee Gees, but, I think, in the interest of “Stayin’ Alive”, I will not do that. No, I’m not going to go there.

I thought, nevertheless, what was interesting under the heading of the “Meaning of living alone”—section 159 amended in clause 25, or replacement section 4A in clause 5, depending upon whether one’s looking at the Veteran’s Support Act amendments or amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act—was the condition relating to the occupation of a different kind of dwelling. We’ve got a house or a flat; we’ve got a boat or craft moored within the following sea or waters, which include any waters within New Zealand that are a lake, estuary, lagoon, river, stream, creek, or other waters. That seems to me impressively detailed and broad in such a way that the gentleman—I presume it was a gentleman who wrote the first thesaurus: “Rodget”. I may not have even pronounced that correctly.

Hon Member: Roget.

CHRIS PENK: Roget—that’s one for the Hansard people to consider and that I owe them a drink over again. Anyway, don’t know what you’d do without your thesaurus, as the saying goes. I’d probably be lost for words if I were to lose it.

Anyway, I’ll leave my contribution there, except to say that we do continue to support the bill for all the reasons I’ve said and also some much more worthy ones that colleagues no doubt will go through at this, the third and final reading.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill makes—I’m sorry; it’s just the contribution of the previous speaker just leaves me lost for words, frankly. But anyway, this bill makes a few substantive changes that will contribute to the sustainability of NZ super and the veteran’s pension, and, as previous speakers have said, it modernises existing legislation and improves its consistency and clarity.

Some of the main changes that it makes—and I won’t go into a huge amount of detail. Unlike the previous speaker, I actually won’t go into a lot of detail. But basically, it removes the non-qualified partner provision. The Minister has already gone into detail as to what that means. The reason that it’s been removed is because contexts have changed: people are working longer, and often both partners are working, as well.

In addition to that, the bill also removes the spousal deduction, which makes things a lot fairer, frankly, because the change means that superannuitants won’t have their own entitlement—and that includes the winter energy payment—reduced simply because their partner is getting an overseas pension.

So this is a bill that makes a fair few changes, as I said previously, to improve the consistency of the bill. Given that it’s the third reading of the bill, I just want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for her work to get the bill to where it’s at today at its third reading. Also, my fellow select committee members on the Social Services and Community Committee, we had some really good discussions about this bill. Also want to thank submitters who took their time out to submit to the bill and officials who helped us with the process along the way. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can assure you that I won’t be bringing the Bee Gees into my contribution in the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill for the third reading. I did see, Madam Speaker, your wry smile, and I thought, “I shall stay away from such a topic.” I’m not so bold as my colleague Chris Penk.

This is a piece of legislation, obviously, that the National Party is supporting. It’s really important with the fact that we have more of our seniors who are living longer, and they have made a significant contribution through employment and through family and volunteer roles over their lifetime, and we want to make sure that they are well supported in their golden years.

So the relationship status is relevant in terms of eligibility for the New Zealand Superannuation and veteran’s pension in three ways, which I’ll just touch on. The first is what they receive is dependent on their relationship status: if they’re single and what their living arrangements are. For a qualifying New Zealand Superannuation or veteran’s pension recipient, they can choose to include their partner who doesn’t qualify, and that might be that they don’t qualify based on their age or their current residency status in their New Zealand Superannuation or veteran’s pension, and that would be subject to an income test. Then if one partner’s entitlement is to a Government-administered overseas pension that exceeds their entitlement to a benefit or pension, the excess is deducted from the entitlement of the other partner, and this is commonly referred to as the spousal deduction.

As my colleague Chris Penk said, members of Parliament often get letters of complaint about the spousal deduction, and in the select committee process there was a resounding support of that change from submitters. So it is always encouraging for those who make a submission to the legislation that we pay attention to what they say. And it’s really important in terms of this change that the majority of the submitters did actually support it. On the other hand, the non-qualifying partners provision wasn’t quite so overwhelmingly supported.

The reality is that we need to take every opportunity to modernise and simplify our legislation, and these are just a couple of examples where it can be quite complicated. This is making it fairer and it’s also making it simpler. But for us in the National Party, one of the things that is really important is that the New Zealand Superannuation scheme is sustainable, and it’s for that reason that we have campaigned and will continue to campaign on progressively increasing the age of entitlement from 65 to 67. It’s not starting for a few years—2037—so there’s plenty of time for people to get prepared for that.

The sustainability is really important. If we look at what’s happening in New Zealand at the moment—the impacts of COVID—there’ll be significant debt that’s taken on by the Government, and that’ll be for future generations to pay off. So it is really important, on this side of the House, that we have a New Zealand Superannuation scheme that is sustainable. We were disappointed that Jacinda Ardern had the opportunity to also stick with their former policy of lifting the age of entitlement but backed off it. We would have preferred that we could have had a situation across the Parliament where there was general agreement about making the New Zealand Superannuation scheme more sustainable for generations to come.

So the other speakers have covered the detail of this bill. It is supported by the National Party, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): New Zealand First still supports this bill and commends it to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I haven’t even had a chance to do my warm-up, Madam Speaker. I am very disappointed; I was genuinely looking forward to hearing the Hon Ron Mark’s contribution on this bill. Given his ministerial portfolios, I assumed that he would spend a little bit of time treating us to the benefit of his thoughts on it. I can only assume that he does genuinely feel that it is a valuable bill.

I don’t think there’s any question that all New Zealanders would wish to see our superannuation scheme being one that is fair, one that enables those who have qualified for it to live in a degree of dignity. Obviously, you’ll never get rich on superannuation, but you can—I would hope—be able to enjoy a quality of life that is appropriate for people who have, in many cases, served our country if they’re veterans; and in all cases, given us the benefit of their considerable contributions over a lifetime.

So I am very pleased to support this bill, and I’m delighted to see that it has reached a point where we are about to be able to commit it to the law of the land. I’ve mentioned that I think all New Zealanders want to see a system that is fair, and that means that they need to have certain guarantees. Therefore, it is also important that, wherever possible, we can reach a broad bipartisan agreement over superannuation policy. I think that we have seen over many years now that this House is committed to doing that. I’m pleased to see that the chief whip for the Labour Party clearly not only agrees with me but is thoroughly enjoying this contribution.

Michael Wood: Just waiting to hear the member’s thoughts on clause 2 of the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Well, I thought I’d wait for the member himself to do that, because I know that he—I defer to his great wisdom, and I know that he’ll want to give one of his electrifying 30-second concluding speeches at the end of the bill. I’m still actually trying to figure out which Bee Gees song I could possibly give, possibly even move on to the Beach Boys, I thought, since—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Feel free to move on to the bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Madam Speaker, how very generous of you. OK, well, I don’t think it is actually necessary for me to say much more other than to say that I do commend the work that has been done. I’m pleased that the House has reached this point and look forward to seeing it enacted.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support, on behalf of the Green Party, this bill. I think it’s a very positive change to the approach to superannuation—a fairer approach. Look, I’m not going to take the House’s time, but as the chairperson I want to thank everyone on the Social Services and Community Committee that improved the legislation, all the submitters—and there were a number of them. It’s a good example of how legislation can be improved, and I’d like to acknowledge everyone. Kia ora koutou.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and stand on the third reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. As has been traversed in the House so far tonight, the National Party supports this bill. I’m pleased to have been a member on the committee, and I also wish to acknowledge my fellow colleagues on the Social Services and Community Committee that oversaw this bill through, and also I’d like to acknowledge our chair, Gareth Hughes, who’s just resumed his seat. I just also want to acknowledge those submitters that put through their submissions on this bill—there were 50 submissions. I would just note that the prominent themes that came through in the submissions were the non-qualified partner provision, the removal of the spousal deduction—probably about half of the submissions were on that one—and the reform of the direct deduction generally. I just want to also acknowledge the Minister, Carmel Sepuloni, for her collaboration in the process of this bill.

Ultimately, we’re acknowledging, as National, a commitment to respect and support our seniors, our veterans, in this bill. I noted in my second reading speech on this bill that in 2001, less than 12 percent of our population were 65 years and plus, and in March 2020, that number went up to 16 percent. So, clearly, New Zealanders are living longer, and many of our seniors contribute hugely and immensely to our communities through employment, through family support, and through the volunteering roles that they do. So we are committed to ensuring that they receive the respect and the support they deserve.

Of particular note, in terms of some of the key changes that were really well received in this bill, was the, as I said, spousal deduction. That was one that, as has been noted, a number of people have been contacting their local MP for many years around, just the sense that it was quite unfair, so I’m very, very pleased to see that that was addressed in this bill.

This bill will affect around 450 superannuitants in the 2022-23 year, and they will no longer have their entitlement to New Zealand super or the veteran’s pension reduced because of their partner’s overseas pension. I also note some of the changes around the list of places of residence extended to self-contained mobile homes. The bill adds a new regulation-making power to allow regulations to set out qualifying places of residence, which will enable future developments at older people’s housing arrangements to be recognised a lot more flexibly—so that’s a really good change.

I just want to also support this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): This call is a split call—I call Dr Deborah Russell.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill. In speaking very briefly, I do just want to pay tribute to the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, Gareth Hughes, who is leaving this House shortly, but I’m sure he will be proud of having guided this piece of legislation through his select committee with great unanimity, improving the legislation, and getting it to the stage where it seems that the entire House is going to agree on it. So congratulations to Gareth Hughes, and I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Legislation Amendment Bill, and I just want to start out my contribution by talking about how important our senior citizens are in New Zealand.

I keep saying, when I’m out in the hustings and campaigning, that by 2040 two out of every five New Zealanders will be over the age of 60. That is a huge proportion of New Zealanders who will be in this category, and that is why this amendment bill is an important component for our country’s wellbeing.

I don’t want to take too much time, but I do want to talk about the concept of the people that will be affected by this bill, and, as my colleague Agnes Loheni pointed out, there will be directly about 450 superannuitants that will be affected by this, but particularly the people that are affected by this are those that have overseas pension components. I’ve had many complaints in my own electorate of Northcote around the way overseas pensions are deducted in relation to receiving the New Zealand pension as well. So this bill seeks to deal with that, and I think it really modernises the legislation in relation to the way overseas pensions are treated.

So, look, this is an important piece of legislation. I do want to acknowledge the select committee. Gareth Hughes has been a fantastic member and leader of that select committee in this House and certainly will be a member that will be a big loss to this Parliament, but I do commend this bill to the House.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to commend the Minister, Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. As she said in her contribution, it is a piece of work that many of us as electorate MPs have had some experience in over the years, where our constituents have come to us with this basic unfairness of the inability to have overseas pensions matched to New Zealand ones, and, in some cases, where couples are receiving significantly less than they would be if they were able to access New Zealand pensions fully. So in that regard, I think it’s a great piece of work. It does address the basic unfairness in the system.

It has been kicking around for a wee while in terms of needing a piece of legislation to correct and to amend this particular issue, and I’m pleased that we now have that. I commend the bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m just going to take a very short call tonight because most of it has been said by the people before me, but I do think there are two groups of people who really have earned their way in our society. They are veterans and superannuitants, and I’m just wanting to make special mention of those.

I know there are some really good provisions in this bill. It’s been well-thought-out and it’s supported across the House tonight, and it’s my pleasure to support it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I’m delighted to be able to take a brief call to support this important piece of legislation. The reason I’m really delighted is because this Government is really proud of the work that we have done over the last term in Government to be supporting our seniors, and this bill is just a part of that story of progress. We can think of important things that we’ve done such as bringing in the winter energy payment, and then this year, in response to COVID-19, doubling the amount that is received by our seniors and also by people on main benefits to ensure that they’ve got the support that they need to stay warm and healthy through the winter. We can think about the work that’s gone into the SuperGold card, which has been supported by parties on this side of this House over successive Governments, and that’s delivering real benefits as well. Also, the parties on this side of the House are very proud to be parties that have consistently supported a stable regime of superannuation so that our seniors do have security of income in their later years.

This piece of legislation is about making sure that we have a system that is fair and reasonable, and, as other members have spoken about in the course of this debate, we’ve had this particular issue around the deductions from overseas-administered pension schemes from New Zealand superannuation. This piece of legislation won’t go all of the way to meeting some of the concerns that constituents have expressed to members across the House, but it will go some of the way, and I think it will be certainly very welcomed by people in all of our communities.

This is a good piece of legislation. It’s indicative of the work that this Government has undertaken to make progress on behalf of all New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): In light of the excellent progress that the House has made, I would seek leave that the House adjourn slightly early.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Suspend.

MICHAEL WOOD: Suspend.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): So leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 21 JULY 2020

(continued on Wednesday, 22 July 2020)

Bills

Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill

Referral to Justice Committee

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the order of the day for the committee stage of the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Justice Committee for consideration.

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

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand Labour 46; Ross.

Noes 17

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill

First Reading

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is about the insurance sector and those that have had their homes insured in order to protect against risks that might cause damage to their homes. Insurance plays a vital part in protecting society from the many risks that we face in New Zealand by making people financially whole following damage to their home which results in loss. The importance of insurers is highlighted by the fact that they contributed billions of dollars for the rebuild of Christchurch and Kaikōura following the earthquakes in those regions. Insurance provides certainty and allows for a far speedier recovery than without it.

A home is the largest asset most people have, and without insurance would be left with little should damage occur to their home. However, I have heard from too many people affected by the Kaikōura, Christchurch, and Seddon earthquakes that dealing with insurance was more stressful than the earthquake itself. There is currently a lack of legislative framework and clarity around settlement offers for insurance claims, which can result in great stress being placed on homeowners who may find themselves waiting long periods of time before a claim is settled. During this time, they’re required to find a suitable accommodation elsewhere for long periods of time, which is disruptive to their lives.

My member’s bill aims to make life a little easier for people who are dealing with the long-term effects of losing their home. This bill introduces a legal time line for insurance companies to assess and present a settlement offer to claimants, and it provides an opportunity for the time frame to be extended in extreme circumstances, at the Minister’s discretion, which will see a faster response and resolution for claimants. This bill will require an insurer to make a decision about a claim, and notify claimants within six months of receiving the claim. This will speed up the process and give claimants greater clarity about when they can expect a resolution, which will help ease stress during difficult times and allow them to get back on with their lives sooner.

While policy holders are required to have their insurance premiums up to date, there is currently no time requirement for insurers to assess claims and make an offer. There must be a clearer understanding of obligations both for the insured and the insurer as to the time it will take to accept the claim and for a settlement offer to be made. In extreme circumstances, the Minister will have the discretion to grant an extension to the six-month deadline.

The detailed provisions of the bill have been studied by insurance companies and the Insurance Council. The communications I have received from them have all generally been supportive of the bill, with no major issues raised. I look forward to any issues that are identified being considered by the select committee. This is an important bill for the insurance sector and for everyday Kiwis who own a home. It’s important that after events like the Kaikōura, Christchurch, and Seddon earthquakes, we work to identify lessons and make changes to improve our responses for future events. Putting into law a deadline for insurance companies to make an offer to claimants will be a step forward.

I feel privileged to have the opportunity to develop legislation that will bring immeasurable benefits to New Zealanders. As such, I’m very pleased to move this bill through its first reading. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Look, first of all, congratulations to Mr Smith for having his bill drawn, and good on him for recognising the struggles that people face when dealing with insurers. Unfortunately, this bill does not come close to addressing those issues. They are issues which faced Cantabrians for a decade, and they have struggled to resolve them, and the Government of the day did pretty much nothing about it. This bill is a bill which is well meaning but it’s utterly misplaced, and what is needed is a far wider review of some of the obligations.

I am concerned that the key clause in the bill actually doesn’t do anything at all. The key clause is clause 9, and to look at it, it’s got three key points. One: it says that this bill relates to houses that are uninhabitable. Well, we know for a fact that in a disaster, many houses are significantly damaged, many are not as good to live in—they’re colder, they’re draughtier, they’re crooked, things don’t work as well—but they pass the threshold of inhabitable. So this would only touch on a tiny fraction of the damaged houses.

Then, in terms of clause 9(1)(a), the insurer must “take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure that the claim is processed as promptly as possible;”—that’s existing law. That changes nothing at all. There’s already an obligation to act reasonably, in good faith, and promptly, so that’s a meaningless clause.

Then the real problem is the most important bit—paragraph (b): “decide whether to accept or decline a claim”. That’s actually step one of about five steps in an insurance process. The very first thing that happens is a claim is made. So the homeowner says, “I’ve got damage, and it falls within the policy.” The next step is for the insurer to look at that question and say, “Yes, it does fall within the policy, and there’s no reason not to pay the claim. Your premiums are up to date. It’s not a fraudulent claim.” It’s actually a very simple and very much a preliminary question. The next question is: what is the extent of the damage? The next question is: how do we propose to resolve the claim? And the final step is the actual settlement of the claim.

In my experience in Christchurch, over many years dealing with insurance claims, I had probably two or three issues of there not being an acceptance of the claim, and there were only two reasons for that. One was fraud, where the claimant had told lies, and the other was the insurance premiums were not up to date. So it’s not the problem. The problem is the tortuous process of assessment and, ultimately, the negotiations around settlement, and, unfortunately, this bill does absolutely nothing to address those.

Since Labour has got into Government, we have done a whole lot of things around disaster insurance. We have addressed the Earthquake Commission (EQC) issues. The other thing I’ll note in respect of this bill is that it does nothing in respect of the EQC. It, in fact, says the six-month time starts to run only once EQC has resolved its claim, and under the National Government, the EQC would take years and years. In fact, when I entered Parliament, six years after the earthquakes, there were still unresolved initial EQC claims. That’s no longer the case, and the reason is that this Government, under the then Minister Megan Woods, sorted out EQC, reviewed it, and got on with it. We also set up the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service (GCCRS) to speed up claims and to assist homeowners in resolving those issues, and we also set up the earthquake tribunal to make access to justice quick, affordable, and effective—things which the Government on the other side never did. It sat on its hands for years and years.

So, yes, Stuart Smith, you are right that we do need to help and put systems in place to expedite insurance claims, particularly around disaster insurance. We’ve been doing that, and it’s something which we are committed to keeping doing.

So this bill, well meaning though it is, actually does not correctly understand the framework for insurance settlement. If we’re going to go down this road, it’s a much more detailed and comprehensive revision that we need. So simply to say that a claim must be accepted does nothing. Even in the speech of the member, he talked about prompt settlement of claims, and you’re right: the prompt, accurate, and fair settlement of claims is what we should be aiming for. But in this piece of draft legislation, it does not address settlement of claims; it addresses acceptance of claims. The question this bill actually seeks to answer is whether the claim actually gets in the front door, not whether it is ultimately resolved.

It really just illustrates a lack of understanding. I’m not surprised that the Insurance Council isn’t too worried about this bill, because it does pretty much nothing. This House should not indulge in pretty much futile legislation. So the legislation looks good, dresses up nicely—and good on you for letting your constituents in Kaikōura know that you’re a busy MP—but it does nothing at all.

In terms of the obligation to take all reasonably practicable steps—in fact, the concern I have there, in clause 9(1)(a), is it arguably dials down the obligation, because, in fact, an insurer has an obligation, which approaches a fiduciary obligation, to act in good faith, to put forward, to take into account, the interests of the homeowner. Now, don’t get me wrong, I saw many insurers who didn’t do that. The problem wasn’t that the rules weren’t there; the problem was that there was no way to enforce those rules, and that for a homeowner to take that dispute to some dispute resolution process was pretty much impossible, whether it was the insurance ombudsman—it was usually over their jurisdictional limit—or whether it was through the courts—it was pretty much too costly, too slow, and too complex to go through the courts. And that is exactly why the earthquake tribunal was put into place.

Can I just say that that tribunal is a real model for how we should be addressing disputes of this nature—disputes where there is a massive imbalance of power. Yes, in insurance cases, we need to equip insured parties—consumers and homeowners and others—to effectively and quickly resolve those disputes in a way which is compliant with the policies.

Of course, the other kind of thing which doesn’t come out of here is the policies themselves. The policies are often written in such complex terms that it’s pretty much impossible to know beforehand whether you’re going to be covered or not. No one actually reads their policies; they simply trust that the insurer has given them a fair deal. And what we found out in these disasters was that, many times, what the insurers had promised was less than what they had given rise to expect. Then, of course, when it went through the assessment process, the insurer would dial back, would cut back, would slowly chip away at the entitlements: whilst it might have said it was an as-new policy, all of a sudden the brick wall became a brick veneer, the polished wooden floors became a wooden laminate—all of those kinds of things. They’re the kind of things we need to be looking at, not simply “We will accept your claim. Get in the queue. Wait for six years whilst we think about how we’ll settle your claim. We’ll get back to you. Trust our experts. Trust our quantity surveyor. Trust our engineer.”—no.

The GCCRS is another fantastic model where there are independent experts which can run a peer review, a good-sense check on the pretty much self-interested approach of some of the experts who provide reports to insurers.

Look, I’m not going to pretend there’s not work to be done in the insurance sector. There is. And I don’t want to suggest that Stuart Smith isn’t well meaning and doesn’t have his heart in right place here. He clearly does, and good on him. But this bill is too little, too late, ineffectual, futile, and it’s not something we can support on this side of the House, because we want to do more and better. That’s what this Government has done with the review of EQC, the Greater Christchurch Claims Resolution Service, and the earthquake tribunal, and really turned around what’s gone on in Christchurch and in Kaikōura as well. So to the member, I’m sorry—good on you for doing it, but it’s not something we’ll be supporting over here.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): We all understand that insurance is vital in our society. Most of us have experienced some kind of claim against damage, for example a car incident—it happens quite often. That has happened to me, actually, recently. So it is kind of stressful to have some kind of accident, but at the same time, if you have good insurance, if you are confident that this thing will be sorted quite quickly, then you would feel less stressed and therefore you’ll be able to focus on something else, so you can move on with your life.

But an earthquake is actually more, of course, stressful. As an Aucklander, I do not have this kind of experience, an earthquake, but Kaikōura, Christchurch—all these places experienced earthquakes, and residents there, I can imagine, must have gone through a stressful time. If you can’t sort out accommodation, can’t sort out your claims in a timely way—you can imagine how miserable, how stressful, these people’s lives would be. This bill is indeed a very good bill because it helps people and it makes sure that the claims will be sorted quite speedily, in a timely manner, for those who can no longer live in their accommodation, their properties. This is a very important bill, because if people can’t live in their properties, they have to find a place to stay, and they do not know when the issue will be sorted. They do not know whether financially they will be able to sustain this kind of stressful ordeal. So this is the purpose of the bill—basically, to set out a time frame, to set up legislative framework, to make sure that these issues can be sorted.

The bill also envisions some kind of difficulties, some kind of extraordinary conditions. In those conditions, the time frame would be longer. So this bill indeed has all the details to help those who are in difficulty to find a way out, and the hard-working MP Stuart Smith must have contacted many, many constituents and must know all sorts of stories. So this is the motivation to help those people who are in difficulty to get help in a speedy way.

Now, actually, I did a quick search online to see the experience of getting claims sorted. I’ve found that earthquakes—this is a survey. They found that earthquakes caused enough uncertainty and stress “long before you or your organisation has to deal with a complicated claims process”—right? The survey also has found that many people find dealing with insurers to be incredibly confusing, overwhelming, and long-winded. So it is a challenging process, and they don’t know what to do. They have no time to deal with a very complicated case, they have no experience in dealing with complicated cases, and they have no idea when this will be sorted. You can imagine how stressed people can be.

So this bill tries to make sure that the insurers need to act quickly or in a timely way. If there is a necessity for the claims to be extended, under certain circumstances it can be extended, and the Minister would have the discretionary right, basically, to make decisions in some circumstances, so it is not like one bill for all. It is a bill which tries to find a way to help the residents who have no place to stay, who want to get out of this particular ordeal in a legal and proper way. So I support the bill to the House.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I rise to speak on the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill. It is, as we’ve heard from my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, an anodyne bill, an inoffensive bill, an ineffective bill, perhaps a mis-focused bill, a bit of a nothing bill, a well-meaning bill. I would like to suggest that the member who proposed this bill is only one of those things, which is well meaning, but the bill itself achieves nothing. He is, of course, well meaning, but the solution he proposes here is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

I agree, and we agree, on this side of the House, that there are, in fact, real problems with settlement processes, with the length of time it might take. We agree that there are problems with the complexity of policies. We agree that there are problems with the way that insurance companies can reduce the amount that is available for settlement. We agree that the complexity of policies might make life difficult for the insured. But where we disagree with the member is that this bill solves those problems. It doesn’t.

So as I said: anodyne, inoffensive, ineffective, a bit of a nothing bill, mis-focused, and not an effective bill. As Dr Duncan Webb said, it’s no wonder that the Insurance Council of New Zealand is happy with it; there’s kind of nothing here to be unhappy with, and that’s the reason that we are not going to support this bill any further.

It was very interesting listening to Dr Webb, because he is, of course, an expert in insurance law. He spent a lot of time following the Christchurch earthquakes working with the people in that city who were affected by claims and by difficulties with insurance companies and the Earthquake Commission. So he understands the detail of how insurance works, really, really effectively. And Dr Webb pointed to the issue in this bill in clause 9. He says that clause 9 doesn’t focus on the right part of the problem. The easy part of the problem is right up-front, where the insurance company decides whether or not to accept a claim. In fact, this is the operative clause of the bill, which says that the insurance company has to decide whether to accept or decline the claim and notify the insured of this decision within six months of receiving the claim. But, actually, insurance companies do that anyway, so this just is not actually an issue. The problem with insurance companies arises during the process. So that critical clause, 9(1)(b) actually achieves nothing, and that’s a real shame—what a real shame—because this bill could have done something.

I want to just focus on a particular issue that I noticed in the interpretation clause too, which is where it talks about an “uninhabitable property”. An uninhabitable property, according to drafting of this bill, means a “residential property that has been destroyed or is so seriously damaged as to be unsuitable for living in.” But what does that exactly mean? What does it exactly mean? You see, there’s a real problem that some residential property is currently unsuitable for living in, but people live in it anyway—garages, tumbledown houses, all the sorts of things that we are trying to fix on this side of the House.

So one question that would be raised, in that respect, is whether the property had become uninhabitable due to the event—the earthquake, the flood, whatever—or whether it was uninhabitable in the first place anyway, and that, of course, would avoid an insurance claim. But the other thing is that people have different standards of uninhabitable. I suggest that, like the operative clause of this bill, that particular way of definition actually adds no substance to the bill.

So because this bill doesn’t actually address the critical issue, which is how to go through the settlement process—because those settlement processes are currently being addressed already by processes that this Government has put into place—and because, although it is a well-meaning bill, it achieves nothing, on this side of the House, that it is not worth spending a select committee’s time on it or spending the time of insurance companies on it—giving hope to people where none actually exists, because the bill achieves nothing. We would have a line-up of people submitting on this bill and yet, at the end of the day, it would be a nothing.

So for those reasons, on this side of this House, we will not be supporting the bill.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First—unfortunately for the member opposite, in opposition to this piece of legislation. The reasons are that it kind of missed the mark in terms of timing, missed the mark in terms of intent, and we’re already on the substantive issues that were raised by the member in his opening speech. This Government realises there’s still work to be done, and we’re working on it. So we thank the member for his well-meaning messages, but, thank you, we’ve got it under way. Cheers.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to stand in support of the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill, moved by my good friend Stuart Smith, a hard-working member of Parliament who has himself seen many of his constituents go through the stress that is going to be addressed in this bill.

The bill says that any property which is uninhabitable because of an incident should be settled by the insurer as soon as possible. There should be a time frame. For example, if the person who pays a premium hasn’t paid the premium, he can’t claim it if the incident happened on the day the premium was due. There’s a time frame, and you have to pay the premium on time, whereas on the other side, the insurance company don’t have any deadline with how long they will take to settle the claim.

So I can clearly say this can only be seen by someone who has gone through that kind of trauma. I have gone through that kind of trauma when my business was burnt out. The premium was paid on time, but the insurance company took a long time to settle it. It was really stressful for me personally that I did not have a business to run. I didn’t have the capital to reinvest, and that kind of thing happens when there is an incident.

So I support this bill, and I can see that the Government members are just opposing it because of the reason of opposing it. But it is a very good bill. I was hoping that some of the sensible members could stand and support this bill to the next stage. If they have got any issues, those could be addressed during the select committee process. I am really disappointed with the Government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to this Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill and congratulate the member who has brought it. As others have said, it does appear to be a well-meaning bill. The Green Party will not be voting for it today only because we do feel that although there is a problem in this sector, and others have touched upon it, and delay and settlement claims may be one of those problems, there are others and there needs to be a more comprehensive approach to solving these problems, where fairness for those experiencing loss of property—and often in really stressful situations, as we all know, including those of the big natural disasters like Christchurch and Kaikōura and others—needs to be at the heart of the processes that we review and put in place here.

There is other work under way that the Government is going to do that for this sector. But to introduce this type of reform in an ad hoc way and to introduce just one solution, which is to impose arbitrary time limits on settlement without putting in place other measures to also guarantee fairness, to guarantee a fair process in terms of enforcement, and to facilitate people to understand their rights and to make sure that those rights are there in the insurance claim contracts, does seem to be solving a problem that’s not quite at the core of what people are experiencing when they experience unfairness in their insurance claims.

So we will be voting against this bill, but we are cognisant of consumer rights issues in this sector and we will work with the Government to continue solving them in a more comprehensive way.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call, but before I do that I’d like to congratulate the member sponsoring the bill on having successfully progressed the bill to this stage. After listening to the detailed analysis from my learned colleagues Dr Duncan Webb and Dr Deborah Russell, there is no need for me to repeat the key points behind our decision not to support this bill. The bill is well-intentioned, no doubt about that, but the bill does little or nothing to address the issues in question. We can’t support it. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this, the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill. I start by paying acknowledgment to the sponsor of the bill, my colleague Stuart Smith, the hard-working member of Parliament for Kaikōura, an area that, of course, knows a thing or two about earthquakes and related matters. At this reading, it’s appropriate to understand the intent of the bill and the various things that it looks to do. The detail can come later if and when—and I say that hopefully—it proceeds to a select committee for consideration and beyond, so that the issues that are raised in here by Mr Smith have the opportunity for the attention that they deserve.

Dr Webb, on the other side, made a number of criticisms of the bill that I think were unfair, and I want to raise a couple of those in passing as well as, obviously, comment more positively on the things that the bill will do besides those. One is that Dr Webb said that the bill does nothing. It doesn’t do everything, certainly, and the sponsor of the bill wouldn’t claim that it does, but it does do something, and it does something quite meaningful. It relates to the acceptance of a claim. Now, that’s the starting pistol fired at the start of the race. So when Dr Webb says in effect—and I paraphrase, I think, fairly—that the bill doesn’t represent the whole running of the race and therefore the starting of the race is unimportant, I think he misses something that is quite significant, which is that for people who are making claims that are not yet accepted, to even get off the mark, if I may extend the metaphor, is often a very difficult and stressful and time-consuming thing in itself.

The bigger picture, then, is that we’re talking about a framework where there are obligations that already exist—yes—and Dr Webb acknowledges issues of enforcement—yes. That’s fine as far as it goes, but the point about having a specific time frame that Mr Smith’s bill does is that a claimant is able to have a line in the sand on which to hang their hat, if you’ll excuse the mixed metaphor. They will have something to hang on to when engaged in a process that is more concrete, more certain merely than an obligation to act in a fair and reasonable manner or within a time frame that is as soon as practicable or other similar phraseology. It is helpful, I say to Dr Webb, actually to have something a bit more certain than that, a point at which one can start jumping up and down.

I note that the bill prohibits contracting out, and I think that’s appropriate. The reality is that in this type of situation, there is a power imbalance between the insured and the insurer, and so I think it’s right and quite sensible that my colleague is stating, if I’ve understood the detail of the bill such as I’ve looked at it—and I must admit that I haven’t done so in huge detail. But it seems to me that that’s an important feature to ensure that everyone is bound by this regime so that there can’t be any persuasion not to be able to enjoy its protections.

I won’t say much more than that, except, again, as I say, a very worthy purpose of the bill. I think some of the key features are really valuable, and a faster response and resolution for claimants is something that every member of this House should be on board with.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you very much. At the heart of this bill—and I understand what the member proposing this is trying to do—is trying to address the imbalance that exists between two parties to a contract. In New Zealand, we found during the earthquake sequence in Christchurch, in Canterbury, that we are some of the most insured people in the world, and we have a trust in the contract that we make with our insurer that when things go wrong, we have an expectation that that contract will be honoured. What we found in Christchurch—and I know this intimately well because I’ve had hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of families come and sit in my office—is that the weight of power that sits within the insurance industry is strong and powerful. And in a case like what happened in Christchurch—and I’m sure what also happened in Kaikōura, which is why the member has brought this bill to the House—the power imbalance is way too strong for ordinary New Zealanders to fight against.

Having a date to actually accept a claim does not deal with the basic unfairness of this, which is that from that point on, as a claimant, you are basically not in negotiation; you’re actually in battle with the insurance company. The insurance company is doing its best to settle for the least amount, and you, as the homeowner, are doing your best to get what you want, which is your home repaired. Many of the difficulties that we had in Christchurch with constituents in Christchurch East—and remember, in my part of town, we lost the most homes. The difficulty that we had was, actually, in establishing our rights as homeowners to have what was in our insurance policies, whether that was, you know, total replacement or as new. These were issues that were debated for years and years and years. In fact, I still have a small cohort of constituents who are still on my books; we are still battling to get their homes repaired, nearly 10 years since the first earthquake.

Now, that’s got nothing to do with the acceptance of the claim. It has got everything to do with the settlement process and it has everything to do with the imbalance between Earthquake Commission and the statement of whether you’ve gone over cap or not as a as a claimant. All of these things contribute to the delay, whether you actually have your house repaired and it’s repaired appropriately and your house is actually fixed, or whether you have to go back and have your home repaired not once, not twice—and in the case of one of my constituents, three times—before your house actually is repaired. She was in her 80s, that particular constituent. I get what is trying to happen here, I get that this is trying to redress the balance, but we are talking about something that is far more complex than just putting a date to set to accept a claim.

I want to talk a little bit about what happened for one particular family, and that was with a claim to Southern Response. This is kind of atypical of the claims that my office represented. We had to find engineering reports, we had to do things like hydrology reports, we had to find a whole lot of information to stack up the argument that this family had that their house was not repaired appropriately, and it was going to cost a lot more than the insurer was willing to settle for. There were things that happened in Christchurch that should never ever happen again. You should always lift the carpet to check if the foundations have been damaged, and that was one of the things that, during the scope of works process, didn’t happen.

So while I commend Stuart Smith for wanting to address this issue, and it is a real and live issue, I’m sorry we won’t be supporting this bill on this side of the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve just heard the most thoughtful speech and well-thought-out speech from the other side, in opposition. I pay tribute to the Hon Poto Williams. She’s a very capable Minister and she may even have a promotion coming as soon as today. I hope she does.

The main thrust of the opposition to the bill was that this wasn’t going to solve everything. It’s not. I never claimed it would at all. But then we heard, I think, Fletcher Tabuteau let slip that they’re working on something. Well, it’s been three years of this Government and they’re still working on something. Then there were references from Dr Duncan Webb that they had put these great things in place, like the insurance tribunal. Well, the insurance tribunal appointed a judge who has Family Court experience. I don’t doubt he’s a very capable judge, but there’s a heck of a difference between Family Court issues and insurance issues—they’re vastly different—and that may explain why it’s been so unsuccessful. The tribunal’s had 113 applications to deal with the issues that this bill would go part-way to deal with. Out of that, they’ve resolved 32—just 32—with an average time for a judgment of 123 days. It is painfully slow. Our Government promised so much from this tribunal and it’s delivered very little. The reason is, of course, because it’s such a complex issue.

This bill will in fact make some difference—and I accept some of the criticism from the bill. Some of it is very minor and could be dealt with in select committee. But the main thrust of it is to actually have the claim accepted or declined and have a settlement offer put in front of the claimant. That hasn’t occurred for months—many, many months—well over six months, and that uncertainty this bill seeks to resolve.

The bigger disadvantage for an insurance company the moment they make a settlement offer is they have to provision for it. Now, one small insurance claim of half a million dollars is large to the homeowner, as an example, but it is not large in insurance company terms. But in terms of a large event, that would be multiplied by many hundreds, thousands, perhaps. Once an insurance company has to provision for that claim, they need and want to get it off their books as quickly as possible. So the argument that they’ll simply make low-ball offers to fulfil their obligation just doesn’t stack up, actually. There will always be a gap between what the claimant wants and what the insurance company wants to pay. And there should be, because the insurance companies are taking everybody’s premiums. So they have to be very careful about what they pay out and only pay out what they legally have to, and, likewise, the claimants have paid premiums over a long period of time and they want to maximise their opportunity to get an insurance payout. There will always be a bit of a crunchy meeting of minds, and eventually it will be resolved.

To try and deal with that in a bill and to make that be rushed through that last bit of the process would be incredibly difficult and simply impose more unfairness into a situation when people are dealing with the high stresses of losing their homes. This bill, though, allows the claimant to get to that point so that they can actually have a settlement offer in front of them, and it would enable them to move on with their lives.

I think it’s a great step forward to put this bill forward. I’ve heard very weak arguments against. The only exception of a good response came from the Hon Poto Williams. It’s unfortunate that someone like Duncan Webb couldn’t have brought something more to the House than his very weak arguments that he put forward. So with that, I commend my bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

BRETT HUDSON (National): I move, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Firearms prohibition orders are intended as an additional tool in the tool box of police to help keep New Zealanders safe. The National Party campaigned on firearms prohibition orders at the 2017 general election, and we have championed them in this 52nd Parliament ever since. Regrettably, although the Government had the chance in its own Arms Legislation Bill which was recently enacted, they did not take up the opportunity to work with us on this regime that will help to keep firearms out of the hands of the most dangerous threats to the public of New Zealand.

It is true that because this bill was crafted some time ago, there have been a few changes—most recently, of course, the Arms Legislation Bill. They would necessitate some updates to this bill, and the select committee is the perfect place for those updates to be made—for instance, they are as small, but significant, as numbering changes to sections because that previous bill introduced some more. There is certainly the element of ensuring that the bill now captures all categorisations of firearms, particularly, for instance, firearms which are now prohibited explicitly under law.

But, without question, this bill and what the heart of it is will help to keep New Zealanders safe. I’d like just to give some background context to that, particularly at this time. This bill was drawn from the ballot, from the biscuit tin, in February. The backdrop in New Zealand at that time, and in the months leading up, was a prolific amount of violence, including murder, involving gang members and firearms; stories such as a mother in South Auckland who was killed on her doorstep because her son, who had gang connections, wasn’t at home; homes being shot up in Tauranga, and multiple homicides in that town. There are far too many stories in recent times with gang members possessing, most likely and most often, firearms that they were not lawfully entitled to possess at any time, using those firearms to commit crimes and, regrettably, too often, to cause physical harm or death to New Zealanders. Something needs to be done.

There are offences, of course, under the Arms Act for unlawful possession, for unlawful discharge of firearms. We argue that there is a place—and, in fact, a much-needed place—for a very tough regime for those that do present the greatest risk to New Zealanders should they be in possession of, or around, firearms. Firearms prohibition orders are not intended to be widely issued across the general body of people who might possess firearms or have licences, but who may also pose some sort of a risk to the public—they are intended for those who pose the greatest risk. That’s why the criteria are quite narrow and quite strict. Firearms prohibition orders can only be issued under this bill against gang members who have already been convicted of a serious offence under section 86A of the Sentencing Act. That includes things such as murder, such as manslaughter, or attempted as such. It also includes sexual violence and other sexual crimes. These are crimes which are, by their very nature and by legislation, deemed to be serious.

Part of the reason for that I will come to, around the eligibility, is about the impact that has been assessed over time on these measures against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but the intention was all along to make sure that there was a narrow definition and that it was addressing people who posed the greatest risk. Now, should members across the House agree for this to go to select committee, I would welcome the opportunity not only to fix things such as section numbering and firearms categorisations but members might wish to discuss the eligibility criteria. It has been put to me by, in fact, a colleague and others that it’s not only gang members that might present that greatest level of risk to the public. If members across this House, in what would then be the next Parliament, wished to look at that eligibility criteria, and perhaps broaden it somewhat, I would be certainly open to that discussion.

But I contend and reiterate that it is important that we have an extra tool in the tool box of police to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of those that represent the greatest danger to New Zealanders. This bill creates new offences with very harsh penalties for those that are subject to such orders who are in possession of firearms, who are sold or supplied firearms—the seller or supplier is subject to those same very harsh penalties—or, indeed, who, without reasonable defence, are residing in premises where firearms are held.

This is an opportunity to do what we as a Parliament should have done over the last 12 months. It was a criticism from us that the Arms Legislation Bill placed more cost regulation and rules on law-abiding firearms and did little, if anything, of substance to deal with genuine criminal behaviour and gangs. This could have been a part of that bill, it is important that it becomes part of our statute book now, and I certainly would call upon members across the House to support this.

I just want to talk about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act connotations, because it is true that this does impact, arguably, rights for people, and that has been reported in section 8 findings on more than one occasion now, but I would draw the members’ attention to section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the sovereignty of this Parliament to choose to make laws that do impinge on people’s rights. It is an explicit permission under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that this Parliament can do so.

I also, just for context, draw members’ attention, just a few weeks ago, to the prisoner voting bill. Had we said the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act trumps everything, the Government would have presented a bill that gave all prisoners the right to vote. It’s actually what the court said in its assessment of the previous law, but instead Parliament and the Government proposed one that still constrained rights to some. So even most recently we have a real-world example in this House, where the Parliament gets to decide that it will pass legislation that does impinge rights. So the mere fact that there can be a finding that firearms prohibition orders do impact rights is no reason why this House can’t, or should not, still look to enact legislation to put this regime in place.

I’d just like to finish up with an acknowledgment of a news report I saw last night, and that was that New Zealand First had signalled that they will support this bill to first reading. They had signalled that there are elements of it that they wonder are already taken care of through that Arms Legislation Bill that was enacted, and certainly the eligibility for a gang member to have a licence is, but, as I say, the heart of this bill is actually about new offences, with very tough penalties around prohibition orders.

But I would like to take this opportunity—I have never, in fact, in six years, so looked forward to a contribution from a New Zealand First member in this House than I do this morning. But I acknowledge that report, I look forward to their contribution, and if it is the case—and I’d like to believe that report is accurate—then I’ll take this opportunity to acknowledge New Zealand First for placing public safety ahead of politics, and I welcome and thank them for that support. I pledge—and obviously this is all subject to an election in just a few weeks’ time—to work constructively with all members of this Parliament on this bill should it progress to select committee. I say that’s exactly what should happen, this is something New Zealand needs, and I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. When I made the decision to come to Parliament, one of the things I wanted to achieve in this House is the disempowerment of organised criminals in New Zealand. I agree with the previous speaker, Brett Hudson, and congratulations for having this bill drawn—or re-drawn, as it were—out of the ballot. Gangs do present a serious threat to the security of New Zealand, and it’s far too big a threat to be dealt with with piecemeal legislation like this.

Firearms and gangs are inherent. I remember an early experience while working as a detective in Masterton. I recall getting a phone call at 11 o’clock at night from someone I knew who had decided he was going religious the next day and wanted to give up his firearms that night. I knew this was an individual who we’d had a few problems with over the years and that he had access to firearms, but we’d never been able to find them at his place—they were never kept at his place. Now, due to the intervention of his newly found religious zeal, I went at 11 o’clock that night into his house, where he then, having satisfied himself I was alone and wasn’t with anyone else, disappeared for 10 minutes and came back with a sheet covering a very, very large number of firearms, which he promptly handed to me. And, just as an aside, not only had he gone religious but those around him had also gone religious, and instead of receiving my usual greetings, which normally involved suggesting I make love elsewhere, I was actually being invited to praise the Lord with him as I staggered down the drive with this extremely heavy bundle of firearms, which I promptly threw into the boot.

And another little aside: just as I did so, a rival gang also pulled up in their car and sat there quite surprised as they recognised me as a detective talking to this member of another gang and throwing this big parcel of firearms, which at that stage I had not examined, into the back of my car. I threw them into the car, leaving these rather surprised other gang members with their jaws open as their car was surrounded by these same females asking them to praise the Lord as well. So the world had turned itself on its head on those backstreets of Miriam Street that evening.

The main point of that is that it’s a very, very good example of this individual who had had considerable access to firearms. He had a pretty good haul. There were military-style semi-automatics and some pretty impressive firearms that had been involved in some shoot-outs. But they weren’t at this address, and the whole point I go back to is that if we’re going to make some inroads into gangs, it’s got to be far more than just these piecemeal pieces of legislation, because what you’ll find is that the essence of gangs—

Simeon Brown: Come on!

GREG O’CONNOR: If that member over there would just sit and listen, he will learn that the essence of gangs is about power. Power means that you get others to do your offending for you. The prisons of New Zealand are full of what senior gang members affectionately know as “jailbait”. They aren’t actually gang members—they tend not to be. They may get their patch from having committed the offence that puts them in there, but they are hang-arounds. Hang-arounds then become prospects, and it’s those prospects who won’t be captured by this legislation—they’re not gang members—who are the ones who do most of the offending. It is them, like in the tale that I related—those firearms were stored at an address nearby where those people actually had no criminal record and they were being forced to hold on to those firearms. That’s what we’ll actually be doing if we’re not careful. We’ll end up forcing these gang members to draw more people into their sphere of intimidation to ensure that they do have these firearms.

So, yes, part of anything we do around gangs has to be to reduce their capacity to offend, and certainly firearms do increase that capacity. But what is absolutely necessary is that we ensure that what we’re not inadvertently doing is pushing their activities into another area that will drag more people into their sphere of intimidation.

Even the sponsor of the bill did mention that there have now been changes since the firearms amendment bill came in this year as a result of the shootings in Christchurch. One of the main purposes of that bill was to ensure—and I go back to that gang member I spoke of. In those days, firearms were actually very hard to get hold of and hard to replace if the police ever seized them. What had changed, certainly up until February this year, until the passing of legislation, was that those firearms had lost their lustre. They’d lost their exclusiveness because they were incredibly easy to replace. I give the example of a person called Peter James Edwards, who was a licensed firearm owner in west Auckland who legitimately bought 74 firearms from Gun City, which he then adapted and which ended up in the gang community. What that meant was that it was relatively easy, prior to the legislation, for such firearms to be replaced. Now, of course, someone acting like Mr Edwards not only would not be able to get hold of the firearms he was passing on but his activities would now be revealed. So it’s about reducing the supply.

You will know, Madam Speaker, that in recent times police have been extremely successful in seizing a large number of firearms from gang members. The important part is that those firearms that have been seized will be a lot harder to replace now than they were before. This is why I say it’s important that anything we do be part of a range of activities we do.

The legislation by itself—and I can see that something along these lines has been included in legislation which is designed to do the ultimate, which is really going to affect the gangs, which is to actually stop the money supply—the reason these gangs are thriving. The Rebels were the first Australian gang to establish themselves here. You may remember the new Leader of the Opposition guaranteeing, pledging, that they would never be allowed to establish a foothold in New Zealand. When you say that and at the same time you reduce the number of police officers, let alone the number of police officers who are actually policing gangs, the two things don’t actually gel. And that’s exactly what happened, and that is why the opportunity was missed around 2012/13 to actually do something about the gang situation. Now we’re seeing yet another plane load. The Australians have gone through and hand-selected some of the most capable criminals in their land and brought them back here, and they’re in the business of establishing themselves now.

Fortunately, one of the main ways in which we attack gangs, attack organised crime, is to ensure we are policing them. And it’s policing them we are now, and that is why you will see that large numbers of the new gangs arriving in New Zealand are not used to the sort of scrutiny in New Zealand. They are not used to the fact that instead of having the ease with which they did business in Australia, they are now losing a considerable amount of the proceeds of crime. Many of them are now in prison. That is how you do it—it is a concerted effort, ensuring that what we do is not just piecemeal legislation but is stopping the business of crime, because that is what gangs are, and the best thing we can do as a society is to ensure in New Zealand that the gangs are not romanticised as they currently are in too much literature and too much music. It’s far more important that we actually ensure that New Zealanders understand what they are—these gangs. They are organised criminals. Their power comes from their ability to ensure others commit the crime, to coerce others to commit crimes, like storing their firearms, and coercing others into taking the rap and doing the time.

The intent of this legislation may be good but the reality of it is that the people who are being targeted do not have the firearms at home, and if we’re not careful, what we’ll do is ensure that the gangs increase their sphere of intimidation to make sure that the firearms are stored in safe places and out of the reach of legislation like this. So, unfortunately, I can’t commend this bill to the House, although, again, I congratulate the member for having it drawn from the ballot. But it is just a piecemeal piece of legislation that unfortunately won’t have the effect it needs to have, which is to decrease that sphere of intimidation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This firearms prohibition bill, brought to the Parliament by Brett Hudson, will make New Zealand safer. It will give the police the tools that they need to go after the high-risk areas of where firearms are in New Zealand, and I am bitterly disappointed and underwhelmed that Labour is opposing this bill. I’m delighted—and I commend my colleague for securing the parliamentary support for its introduction.

This bill highlights the key practical difference between National and Labour on firearms laws. What we have seen from the Government is broad-pan legislation that treats all firearms users as though they are criminals. It involves putting huge amounts of costs, of restrictions, and, frankly, of quite impractical measures on the tens of thousands of New Zealanders in a country that enjoys its outdoor recreation, its hunting, and its sports shooting, but misses the target of actually going after those people that cause the intimidation, the violence, and the deaths from guns. My colleague Brett Hudson’s bill provides very targeted prohibition orders on those people who we should prohibit from having firearms, and goes further in actually giving the police the powers to go after those people and ensure that they don’t have these dangerous weapons.

Now, I’ve heard members opposite continuously challenge the National Party—“Where’s your policy? Where’s your positive alternative?”—and this is exactly what you have got with this bill. Quite frankly, the contribution from Greg O’Connor for opposing this bill really does need scrutiny. Mr O’Connor said, “Oh, we’re not going to support this bill because it’s not a comprehensive response to the surging gang numbers in New Zealand. It doesn’t deal with the issue of police resources. It doesn’t deal with the issue of going after the money of gangs.” Well, neither do the Government’s bills. So why would you oppose a bill that’s a positive part of the solution when of course you should do those other things, but that’s no reason—no reason at all—to oppose this bill.

Now, I look at the detail of this legislation that provides for four groups of people to be able to have prohibition firearms orders issued. The first of those is people who have committed a serious, violent offence—not accused; convicted in a court of law of a serious violence offence. Who in this Parliament believes people who in the last 10 years have committed such an offence should not be prohibited from holding a firearm? I look at the weak law and order parties like Labour and the Greens—only they would be foolish enough to say people who have convictions for serious violence offending should be able to have firearms. Then the bill specifically says if you’re a gang member, you shouldn’t be able to have a firearm. I look at the surge in gang numbers up from 5,000 to over 7,000 in just three years of this Government. This Government is soft on hard crime, soft on gangs, and I am delighted to have a bill that prohibits that group of people who cause so much crime and so much harm. I equally include the provision that includes domestic violence. Those that have convictions for domestic violence, they are actually some of those that are causing the most of the tragedies.

So this is a well-targeted bill. It summarises so well National’s approach to law and order and the views on firearms: focus the legal effort and the resources on those that cause the crime, and we will make New Zealand a safer and better place—

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

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be able to bring some sense into this debate. This bill, the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), has two purposes. The first one is to prohibit gang members from holding a firearms licence. Secondly, it is making it illegal for them to possess firearms, ammunition, or parts, and it also allows police to search the vehicles or premises of gang members for these items at any time and at any place without a warrant.

The first point I’d like to make is that in the research done by officials in this space, the blanket banning of gang members from holding a firearms licence is likely to have absolutely zero effect on the problem that has been identified. The reason for that is that in 2014, 3.969 gang members were analysed in relation to firearms offences, and of that number, less than 1 percent held a firearms licence. So I would like to put it to the members opposite that introducing legislation that removes the ability for a gang member to hold a firearms licence does absolutely zero to target the problem that they have identified.

As to what is actually being proposed in this space, let’s go to the second point, which would be the paper that the members opposite might not have picked up from the Table in front of them, and that’s the Attorney-General’s report on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet on this particular bill. What this says is that the bill treats gang members differently from another person, but, quite clearly, the members opposite don’t have a problem with that. Their former deputy leader is on record saying, in a very 1984-esque quote, that some people have more rights than others, and that’s exactly where this Government has a problem in terms of how this is being approached. So what has been stated in the past is that gang members, quite simply, do not have the same human rights as other people.

The problem that I’d like to pick up on in the time that I’ve got left is this entire model of the firearms prohibition order (FPO) has been based upon Australia. What I saw when I worked for the police was that what happened was the then National Minister of Police went on a trip around the world, to Australia and to America, to look at other gang problems. They went on a bit of a shopping trip and brought back a selection of different mechanisms to try and modify gang behaviour, and that was put in as a gang strategy in New Zealand. But the big problem with that approach was that it took situations completely removed from the New Zealand one and applied them here, in the New Zealand context, without understanding the underpinning issues that permeate the New Zealand gang problem, and this FPO model is simply just one of a suite of measures that were brought in that came from either California, New South Wales, or somewhere else.

My proposition to those members opposite is that if we are going to develop a long-lasting approach to some of the fundamental crime issues within New Zealand, it is not this approach of shooting from the hip, removing their rights, and taking away their gun licences that is going to have any kind of long-lasting impact upon reducing the rate of arms offending and illegal firearms within New Zealand. So what has happened recently, and what is a positive thing that we will see make some difference over time, is that we are trying to establish a better test so that people who are not fit and proper should not be able to have access to firearms, and the Government has work under way to draw up new legislation to support existing laws.

But this is a legally dubious bill that is ill-advised and it will not address the issues that are trying to be fixed in this instance. It might look good—it might look good in a press release. It might seem like you’re tough or are trying to be good, but, in reality, if 1 percent of gang members own a firearms licence, this bill does absolutely nothing in terms of enabling a greater response in this space.

Prior to the original bill’s first reading, the New Zealand Police had recommended that the Government did not support the bill when it first came up as the No. 1 bill because it had serious flaws and it would not have delivered on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement—and that is advice from officials. I think you need to go back to the drawing board and have a good look at effective legislation that would actually address the problem, and this bill doesn’t do it.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what a curious debate to be taking part in. I’ll start by saying New Zealand First has looked at Mr Hudson’s bill and we have noted that, at first glance, it bears some similarity to a bill originally proposed by, of all people, the Hon Paula Bennett when she was the Minister of Police, at a time when she was being well informed by senior police officers as to what they believed they needed in order to bring a higher degree of safety to the streets and remove guns from the possession of gangs. Interesting that this bill did not go as far as the Hon Paula Bennett’s bill went, because Mr Hudson’s clearly looked at some of the human rights implications and has taken those aspects out of it, which gives New Zealand First a degree of comfort, because it’s not so much the impact it would’ve had on the gang members themselves, the people who are the focus of this bill; it actually removed a human rights issue relating to anyone else who may or may not have had gang members in their family, who, being family, might actually be in their home on the odd occasion, be it for Christmas or be it for Labour weekend or whatever, or be it just for catching up with whānau, as you do.

Interesting that at the time, if I recall correctly, I think Labour actually had a degree of sympathy for the bill. Now we have a situation where the Labour side of the House is opposing this bill but at the same time proposing—and this is what’s going to get really interesting, because the speeches I’ve just heard from both the Labour speakers are going to be interesting when read back when the Minister of Police puts forward what he’s proposing to put forward, which actually will bring into question human rights issues.

I cannot speak on this bill without referring to the contribution from Mr Hudson saying that this is aimed at making New Zealand safer. Yet what we witnessed here earlier on in the House did not make things safer for first responders. I just struggle when I see Labour and National colluding and working together to defeat a member’s bill of a New Zealand First member of Parliament which sought to bring safety and enhance safety around first responders. We are talking public safety, so it’s the same thing to us in New Zealand First. Actually, ironically, we would say first responders are more deserving of protection and support given the work they do and the difficult circumstances, the first responders being police as well. Then in the next breath, we’re talking about this bill and standing on our high horse and promoting it as being in the interests of public safety and police safety. I don’t know what the word is—probably “confusing” is how the public will see it.

But New Zealand First is not going to be detracted by that. We’re going to stick to our word—support good legislation going to select committee—that it be examined. I think there have been comments made that are quite accurate. This Government has passed through firearms legislation which was designed by the police to tighten up on how firearms licences are issued; the question is, if we did that correctly, why do we need this piece of legislation? But I’ll leave that question for the select committee to work through, because I do understand what Mr Hudson’s trying to focus on, and New Zealand First applauds him for that.

There’s this other question around—and I take Ginny Andersen’s arguments and say, though, her arguments—actually, she’d be a good contender for Minister of Police because, clearly, her research is more thorough than some that I’ve read. If those arguments, Miss Andersen, are correct, and I think pretty much you are, then that would be the argument against the Government itself putting up a firearms prohibition order next year or after the election.

So it’s going to be a curious time. I simply say to people that New Zealand First is focused on one thing, good firearms law, and we mean to make some redresses in the next term of Government, when we’re back in Government. We mean to tidy up some things that we didn’t necessarily as a caucus, as a party, feel comfortable with. I look forward to good, constructive dialogue at select committee, where I know we’ll be represented very, very well by Darroch Ball, unless he’s a Minister, of course—he could be Minister of Police by then—to see good, constructive legislation come out. I congratulate Mr Hudson, thank him for his work, and we assure him that we will give the bill good consideration all the way through committee.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), a bill in the name of my colleague Brett Hudson, a fantastic police spokesperson—I’m sure he’ll make a police Minister, too, very soon; maybe not as soon as what Ron Mark was referring to, but maybe in 60 or 59 days, or something like that, he will be the Minister of Police.

This piece of legislation is an incredibly important piece of legislation, because what it does is it targets gangs and those who have committed serious offences and it puts in place a system whereby the Commissioner of Police is able to prohibit them from having firearms. It is about ensuring not only that gang members but people who have committed serious violence offences, offences under the Domestic Violence Act and offences under the Arms Act, are not able to have firearms.

This is the type of legislation which should have been progressed by this Parliament as it has worked through the Arms Act over two bills in this Parliament over the last couple of years. This is the type of legislation which targets those people who are not law-abiding citizens, who have been convicted of serious offences, and makes it clear that it is not acceptable for them to have firearms and to be able to have access to them. This is the type of legislation that puts the emphasis on those who break the law, not on law-abiding citizens.

So I’m proud to support this piece of legislation in the name of Brett Hudson. I’m proud of the fact that he is finally getting this to a select committee and that it will be duly considered and that this will be progressed and will soon be part of our law here in New Zealand so that we can make our streets and our communities safer.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill, because as we know here in New Zealand, unfortunately, over this term, the concept of regulating firearms has come to the fore in this House for many reasons, and not least for our nation having lived through its most traumatic instance of gun violence, that act of terror that happened in Christchurch in March 2019. We found that successive Governments had actually kicked the issue of prohibiting and regulating the use of firearms to a point where we’re very late to it, but I am very proud to be part of a Government who did act swiftly to regulate firearms, to regulate the types of firearms that we found out so tragically were out on our streets and to regulate them—in fact, to introduce far, far more stringent and far more effectively enforceable regulations around things like having a gun register, around having a fit and proper person test, which was introduced only last month with the attendance of very senior members of the police force, the deputy commissioner, and others who’d been calling for this type of change for years and years. Other Governments, including the previous Government, had ignored them, to tragic effect.

The Green Party will not be supporting this particular bill today because we don’t believe in using the criminal justice system and things like the regulation of firearms to further the type of rhetoric that only really makes politicians look tough on crime. The use of words like “gangs” and the prohibitions that curtail human rights without really effectively regulating what we want to regulate—which is firearms use unlawfully out there on our streets—is not effective, and we don’t support it. I would note that with the rules that we introduced last month around the fit and proper person test we did, in fact, prohibit criminal groups and those with certain types of convictions from obtaining gun licences. “Criminal groups” does cover gangs.

In this particular bill, we have a reference back to the list of 35 gangs that we have listed. We know that that disproportionately focuses on Māori and Pacific populations. We know that those are not the only criminal groups that we need to prohibit from holding gun licences—we learnt that in Christchurch. So to say that we will focus only on the old kind of gang that we’ve already listed, and we will use the term “gangs”, we will rile this fear in our communities without actually looking at what we want to prohibit, which is people with criminal intent, which is people who are known to be violent, to hold people who have the type of hate, the type of ill will in our communities—as we know many different types of groups may hold, but we’re only going to focus on gangs.

We know that our criminal justice system has previously done that to our detriment because it has focused away from what is, in fact, dangerous. In fact, we’re not going to focus on what prevents crime; we’re not going to focus on strengthening our communities so that they are more equal, and that people do have jobs and homes and access to mental healthcare, access to drug addiction services; but we are going to keep doing the same old thing that we kept on doing before. We’re going to do things that we know, in fact, breach human rights. We’re going to make our communities more divided and unequal while we see crime rates rise. Well, that isn’t what this Government is about. So we do oppose this bill.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Kia ora. Thanks, Madam Speaker. What Paula Bennett actually said, and I know there’s been a few references to her speaking on this legislation, was that some people have fewer human rights than others. I think this bill, or the previous version of it, inspired that particular comment, which is a pretty extraordinary thing to say, to be honest, and I think we should all just pause and reflect on that. But actually, that’s what sits behind this piece of legislation.

As I’ve been sitting here listening to the speeches and reflecting on what’s being said, I’ve wondered, given that this is the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), whether, if it’s not passed through this House today, we’ll see another attempt to put it through in exactly the same form as No. 3, because No. 1 was, as I understand it, exactly the same piece of proposed legislation. At that time, I understand that it was the police, prior to its first reading, that recommended to the Government not to support the bill as it had serious flaws; that it wouldn’t deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement; that there were concerns raised about police accountability and human rights violations where searches could be based on subjective reasoning instead of sufficient facts; and the fact that the bill was based on the New South Wales legislation, an Ombudsman’s review had found multiple failings and, you know, this is a kicker: including no firearms located in over 600 searches.

So if you, sort of, draw it together, you come up with something that’s wrong, ineffective, and is based on a mirage and a set of contradictions. So you have to ask yourself: well, if it failed back in 2018 as No. 1 and now here it is as No. 2 in pretty much exactly the same form, what is the point?—what is the point? Keen to hear that from the member when he gets up and speaks again. Is it a place filler or is it actually something that’s supposed to mean and be effective in some way or another? It seems to me that it’s a waste of this Parliament’s time to put up a piece of legislation as a member’s bill that has already failed, has clearly got no substance to it, isn’t going to be effective, where there’s been clear recommendations that it breaches human rights, and police say it’s not workable and don’t support it. But I guess what really sits behind this—

Brett Hudson: So to that member, it’s about the colour of the party not the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Hudson.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: —is that it’s about how it appears. It’s that whole tough on crime, “Look at us, we’re tough on crime. Never mind whether we’re effective or not or whether it’s actually right and proper legislation, which is what the people of New Zealand expect of us. But oh, no, it looks as if we’re being tough on crime.”

To be honest, I feel embarrassed to be speaking again. I didn’t speak last time, but I have read some of the transcripts from members who did speak against it. I’ll just read, actually, quoting David Clark, who spoke on it back in 2018, who said that “This is a bill that undermines human rights principles and enables the extension of searches without warrants … puts the police in an invidious position. [And] they’ve recommend the Government not support this bill.” And at the same time, he said—and, again, he said, this is a kicker—“there’s a National Party member who said not … long ago that the National Party firmly believes, or this person firmly believes, that searches should not be enforced without warrants, [which is] apparently in complete contradiction to the bill’s intent.” So I kind of leave you with that thought, and I think it would be a good idea for the member to withdraw the bill before it got to the vote.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Clare Curran said she felt embarrassed to be speaking, and I’m not surprised. But I want to stand on behalf of the ACT Party in favour of this Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) because it’s actually a good start on a piece of legislation to solve a real problem. That problem is not ultimately firearms; it’s P. It’s the scourge of P that does not discriminate. I represent the Epsom electorate, and I can tell you that picture-postcard Remuera families are affected by P as much as any other. People don’t talk about it a lot. People don’t talk about it perhaps because they are embarrassed. But once you start talking about the effects of P on the people of New Zealand, you find that none of us are more than a couple of degrees of separation from a life ruined by that drug.

Who is peddling the drug? Who is profiting from that drug? Well, it’s the gangs. How do they go about enforcing their ill-gotten property rights in this criminal enterprise? Well, they use illegal firearms, and we know that, at great pain, from the recent death of Matthew Hunt, a young police officer at the beginning of his career, slain by a gang dealing drugs with illegal firearms. That’s why Brett Hudson has done the right thing bringing a bill to this House to address the problem.

But I’d put it to Brett Hudson that we can actually do better on a couple of counts. One is, I know that the licensed firearm community, the people who have been punished for the actions of criminals over the last 18 months, are very concerned about leakage, funnily enough the kinds of issues that Clare Curran alluded to—leakage of this law to affect other groups of people at the whim of police. I can understand that concern. So the ACT Party supports this bill on the first reading because Brett Hudson is going in the right direction. But when Parliament reconvenes after the election, serious questions will have to be asked about whether this bill is safe. Is it susceptible to mission creep, where it may affect law-abiding people wrongly defined under a law designed to catch gangs?

The second thing I’d say to Brett Hudson and the House is that I don’t know that this particular law will hit the gangs hard enough. You see, the thing is that it says they’re not allowed to have a firearm. The problem is they’ve already got illegal firearms so I don’t know if making more laws will deal to people whose problem is they fail to follow the law. The ACT Party says we got to hit them where it hurts. Sending these guys to jail for breaking the law is not going to have much effect. You see, they got more friends in jail anyway. But what they do care about is the bling—the gold-rimmed motorcycles that they use on their social media channels to recruit the next generation of thugs and, ultimately, victims of the scourge of P.

The ACT Party says what we should be doing with this bill is amending the criminal proceeds legislation to say, if gangs with illegal guns deal drugs, it’s open season on your assets. That’s what we should be saying, not just “here’s another law for you to break” but “if you break the existing law, then we’re coming after your assets.” That’s the opportunity to punish the gangs in New Zealand. That’s the opportunity that we have to actually put the squeeze on the scourge of P that is ruining so many lives. The ACT Party looks forward to the next Parliament where we can work together with our friends in National, and Brett Hudson in particular, to really get stuck into gangs with illegal guns dealing drugs and loot, ruining lives, by hitting them where it hurts: going after the bling and the assets that they use to suck people into this terrible tragedy, life after life, day after day. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill on the first reading

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, ngā mema o Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m pleased to take a call on the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend the member who has had this bill drawn, Brett Hudson, but, clearly, Labour will be opposing this bill.

Essentially, the bill attempts to do two things. It prohibits gang members from holding firearm licences, making it illegal for them to possess firearms, ammunition, or parts, and it also allows police to search the person’s vehicle or premises of gang members for these items at any time. We’ve heard previous speakers on this side, who are opposing this bill, say that police themselves have reservations on this particular bill. But the point I want to make, and, hopefully, the member who is sponsoring this bill can alleviate for the members of the House, is the evidence that says firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) actually work. I’m keen to hear Mr Hudson express that to the House, the evidence that he’s obtained that shows that FPOs actually work.

My understanding is that this is modelled on a similar piece of legislation followed by the New South Wales Government. Let’s see what they’ve said about their own FPO policy. Obviously, wherever we are in the country, gangs are rife and should be addressed appropriately, and I think we’ve got the tools and the mechanisms and the commitment from this side of the House to give the police the tools to do exactly that. But let’s see what the FPO policy in New South Wales model talked about and what they actually found in addressing their own policy around firearms prohibition for gangs.

Some of the issues that they raised in their own review of the FPO policy talked about an absence of record-keeping in terms of premises being searched. They were actually not lodged. Again, I can only assume that that’s a concern of the police. The review also appears to have found that the power to search without a warrant was misused; 92 people who were searched were not subject to an FPO—again, concerns that our New Zealand Police have around this bill. Children were present during those searches. Their bedrooms or homes were searched, and we can only understand the trauma that would have had on young people, be them children, be them teenagers, when their homes were searched.

I understand that, in New South Wales, you cannot request a review of how the police conducted a warrantless search. So, again, these reservations of the New South Wales FPO have demonstrated the misuse, the trauma of innocent people perhaps, or not so innocent people, and the lack of recording when police instigate searches.

Of the FPO searches in New South Wales, 642 resulted in police finding firearms, and only eight were recovered as an unlawful item, and that’s usually related to drugs. So there are many, like I said when I opened my contribution—the evidence that the member sponsoring this bill could alleviate for the House’s benefit as to where FPOs actually work in similar jurisdictions as New Zealand’s, because in New South Wales, it hasn’t worked. It has not worked. So I’m really keen to hear from the member himself, where he can draw on evidence where it works. Of course gang activity is something that we are, on all sides of the House, abhorrent with—we are abhorrent with.

But my key point that I want to make in my contribution is hearing from the member sponsoring this bill of where FPOs have worked, where they are, and he can express to this House where they have been successful to address the issue and the purpose that he’s presenting. But on the base of it and on the conclusions that I bring to the House around New South Wales’ own FPO being an abject failure, Labour will not support this bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll just address a couple of the issues that were raised over the course of this debate, and then I’ll finish with an acknowledgment.

An early speaker mentioned that this bill wasn’t comprehensive enough. Perhaps that member hasn’t been around sufficiently long to realise that most members’ bills are, in fact, very tightly defined on to specific issues. But I’d also note for that member and his colleagues that the Government claimed themselves to put up a comprehensive firearms bill recently, and never has there been, I think, in the history of this Parliament, a so-called comprehensive bill which missed the mark so widely, because all it did was place more rules, regulation, and cost on law-abiding firearms and do little of real substance around genuine criminals and gangs.

What little it did do, actually, remarkably enough—because a number of their members have said about licences and “Gang members don’t have firearms licences”—they actually included the provision that we had in our firearms prohibition orders bill that being a member of a gang or an associate, a prospect, are grounds to be denied a licence. So they felt it important enough to include that. We actually agreed with that particular provision.

The heart of the bill is not about licences and whether the gang member is licensed or not; the heart of the bill is saying that if the Commissioner of Police believes that a prohibition order should be in place, that person, if they possess or are near a firearm, are subject to very, very stiff penalties. The nature of the prohibition orders helps the police with thresholds to undertake search and seizure powers that they possess.

I just want to finish on the element of contributions with Mr Seymour, and I thank ACT for their support. I just make a note on his comment about locking these people up and what does it achieve—well, it certainly achieves fewer victims over those many years that they would spend in incarceration. On the point of the criminal proceeds, I noted recently a video circulating of a new motorcycle club—Mongrel Mob motorcycle club, of all things—in Hawke’s Bay. I looked at this row of Harleys, and I suspect that each one of those would probably meet the threshold for the current law around criminal proceeds. But, you know, should good fortunes return us in a position to have that meaningful discussion, Mr Seymour, I’d be very happy to discuss with ACT the idea of looking at that particular Act as well.

I just want to finish off with a second acknowledgment of New Zealand First and their decision to place public safety ahead of politics. I acknowledge the comments that Mr Mark made, but I acknowledge also his caucus colleagues for agreeing to progress this bill to select committee. As I said in my first contribution, there are things that will need to change, partly because, of course, the Government themselves have put a bill through that changes section numbers, amongst other things. There are things that we could look at to further improve and to satisfy all parties that would be in the 53rd Parliament where we can.

But this is a measure that is important to add to the tool box—not to replace things, not to fix entire systemic issues, but an additional tool in the tool box for police to help keep New Zealanders safer. I thank and congratulate ACT for their support but also particularly New Zealand First for signalling theirs. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Order) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 65

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 54

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

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill

First Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members, at the end of the first reading debate on the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill, the Clerk did not have the opportunity to announce the bill’s first reading. I’m going to ask him to do this now.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I move, That the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Firstly, can I say that this bill is not about harsher penalties, it’s not about coming down hard on young offenders, and it’s not about being tough on crime or soft on crime. If anyone who reads this bill thoroughly and wants to understand it, it’s about giving purpose and structure to the current system. It’s about giving structure to what already exists. In fact, there’s nothing in this bill that wants to change any of the offences, any of the penalties, or any of the provisions or resources that the current youth justice system has and uses to deal with young offenders.

What this is about, primarily, is about giving structure, particularly to the huge part that police play in the youth justice system—which I’ll get into soon—but also giving interventions and early interventions to youth who pop up on the radar, not after the 20th time that they offend, not after the 10th time that they offend, but after the first time that they offend. Everybody in this House knows and understands—and this bill realises that and it backs up the fact—that there are multiple reasons why young people offend. They don’t just wake up one morning and decide they’re going to go and rob a dairy. When that happens, when those incidents occur and they pop up with serious offences and they get arrested and they get taken to Youth Court and they get taken to prison, it’s because that’s the 20th, 30th, 40th time that they offended and nothing has been done of substance to help them stop that. Likely, the first time that they did was when they were 10, 11, 12, or 13, when there were other influences in their lives that were causing them to go down that pathway—whether that be issues at home, issues at school, issues socially, or issues with drugs or alcohol.

What surprises me and amazes me is we’ve got a Youth Court that has, actually, great resources. They’ve got great programmes and great abilities to intervene in young people’s lives. But what we do in this country is we do everything that we can not to put them in Youth Court—everything that we can. It’s written in legislation for police not to prosecute. When people hear the term “prosecute”, they think, “Oh, punishment. So we mustn’t do that—we mustn’t demonise or criminalise young people.” That’s not what it’s about. It’s not what the youth justice system should be about. That’s not what this bill is about. In fact, what this bill does is it tries to turn it around on its head.

We need to intervene once in the lives of young people that offend. It’s not normal for young people to offend, even at the low level. Now, “intervene” doesn’t mean putting them in cuffs, put them in front of a judge, get berated, and put them into a prison cell; it means having a logical, common-sense, tiered system of intervention.

Right now, if a young person offends at the lower end of the scale, the police are directed to do nothing except pick them up and take them back home. What’s the problem with that? The problems start at home. So we have young people who are offending and offending and offending, and the police have the direction to take them back to the place that caused the offending in the first place. Then we get surprised when we have the reoffending rates of young people so high when they enter Youth Court, and even higher when they get to the certain serious level of offending, and they have to get put into youth justice residence. It may come as a surprise to people here, but when a young person steps one foot into Youth Court, they have a more than 60 percent chance of reoffending—not because they went to Youth Court but because they went to Youth Court so late in the day, because we failed to intervene when we should have. And then when they’re in Youth Court, only a very small, minuscule number actually get to, first of all, step in front of a judge. But then when the offending is serious enough, then they get to youth residence. A youth residence reoffending rate is 95 percent plus.

Then you start talking about the conveyor belt of crime, where we’ve got young people going from 10, 11, 12 who are offending, going through the Youth Court, going into youth justice, residents of the system, and ending up in adult court when they’re older because they are disengaged young people who hate the system, who hate authority, who flip the bird at the courts and the police. They don’t just wake up when they’re 17 or 18 and say, “Well, I’m an adult now, I better change.” They are so deep-seated in what they are doing that they end up in the adult court and they end up in adult prison. More than half of every single adult who is sentenced to prison in adult court has previously been through the youth justice system—more than half. And we’re sitting here and we pretend to accept that our youth justice system is working; the stats don’t show it.

Young people reoffending are increasing, the seriousness of crime for young people is increasing, and it could all be traced back to the fact that we have failed them when they were younger, when they first started to offend. We failed to give them the structure and the resources and the intervention. It’s not about arresting them, and it’s not about punishment; it’s about ensuring they’ve got everything wrapped around them when their parents and the adults around them have failed them. What happens is that we as a country and a society and as a House and a Parliament are failing them further, because we’re not putting any interventions, wraparound services, around them.

What this bill does is it gives structure to the police. Eighty percent of all young offenders don’t end up in Youth Court; they are dealt with by police, by a thing called “alternative action” or “diversion”. Diversion is up to the police officer, the police youth aid officer, it’s up to the area commander, and it can vary from either Auckland or Southland. Unfortunately, their direction right now is to not prosecute, not to intervene. This gives structure to it. It gives demerit points. Everyone understands what demerit points are and how they work. If a young person offends at the lower end, we need to intervene and find out why. We need to go around to their homes and find out why. We need to make sure they’ve got the support to stop them then, not try and stop them when they’ve offended 20 times and they go into Youth Court. This is just ensuring that the resources that the youth justice system has at its disposal, at the Youth Court level, can be used on the young people at the early stage.

The other detail in this bill is that it utilises the existing justice sector seriousness scale of offending. There’s a measurement in there, and I’m hoping that this bill gets enough support to get through to select committee so that it can be debated there and thoroughly gone through.

It’s just common sense that we look to tighten up and give every avenue we can to young people and young offenders to try and assist them to stop offending at an early stage. We don’t want them to go to Youth Court or to youth residence, because we all know, including New Zealand First, that that’s a bad place for them to be. It’s a bad place because at that point in time, currently, it’s too late for them and they end up in the system. If we want to truly lower the adult crime rate, lower the numbers of people in the gangs, we need to start early with the young people, get them right on track, and get some structure to the youth justice system. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to congratulate the member for bringing this bill, and I have good news for him: the National Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee stage. Any innovative idea and good idea brought to this Parliament will be supported by the National Party. I would also like to thank New Zealand First for supporting Brett Hudson’s bill, the member who is based in Ōhāriu, working very hard. He had a very good bill, which was supported by New Zealand First. So it is, I think, one all for both sides for innovative and good bills which are being supported in this House today.

Darroch Ball gave a very passionate speech, and I agree with him on many fronts—that youth are to be given a proper direction so that they can contribute to this country, and they are our future. I want to give an example that when youth are given a proper direction, they perform and deliver. The example is when the Christchurch earthquake happened, the youth came out and helped the people over there. There was a direction for them, and that is what we lack sometimes.

I believe that a lot of people say that youth are useless, but my belief is that youth are used less. We need to use them in a proper manner so that we can have better results, and this bill exactly gives some very good incentive to the justice system to monitor the youth for what they are doing.

Demerit points—we know, as we have seen in the driving licence, that when we cross a certain limit, we drive very consciously not to gain any further demerit points. On a similar basis, this bill will enable youth offenders to get the demerit points so they will be discouraged to get involved in any kind of crime or the justice system. National supports the intent of the bill to encourage youth offenders to take responsibility for their actions, which the demerit point system incentivises. This could have positive effects on the young offenders, who will be encouraged not to acquire demerit points.

We can be encouraged that youth offending is decreasing. National supports any attempt to continue this trend. However, the bill needs to be scrutinised at the select committee. That is why we believe that it is important that the select committee process should have a thorough look at this bill and improvise. The select committee always has an intention to improvise with any bill which is referred to the select committee, and I hope this happens in this case also.

The research is clear that young offenders need solutions and intervention into the cause of their offending. Punitive punishments have been proven to be unsuccessful in dealing with these young offenders. As the proposal of the bill mentions, going tough on youth is not a solution. We need to give them incentives and guide them that this is not the right path, and the demerit points will encourage them not to clock up to 100 points, where they will be referred to the District Court system. With these words from the National side, we will be supporting this bill to be referred to the select committee, and we’ll continue to consider this further. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, will just begin by acknowledging the work that the member Darroch Ball has put in to this bill to get it to where it’s at today. As he has mentioned in his speech, this is a bill that aims to put in some more structured interventions to redirect those who have offended, youth who have offended, from reoffending, and it tries to do it in a few different ways—one, in terms of providing support to those who are deemed to have offended, but also to hold them a little bit more to account for what they’ve done.

I’m just going to go through the bill a little bit, but I’ll just say at the outset that Labour does support the bill to select committee, but there are a few, I guess, niggly bits, for want of a better term, that I would like to see investigated or examined at the select committee stage as well. However, the reason that we are supporting it is that, you know, if there is something that we can do better from a youth justice point of view, we obviously want to be able to do that, and this bill may help us decide whether the current system is delivering consequences or whether there’s a better way to do that.

Now, in terms of the way in which the bill aims to put in those consequences, it’s really about an enforcement officer who determines—there are a few different bands ranging from low offending right through to high offending. So an enforcement officer determines which band is applicable and then determines the youth justice demerit points that will be, I guess, awarded or given to that person in question, depending on where in the band they fall. However, there does seem to be some discrepancy in there in the sense that although it’s a tiered level of consequences, it does fall to the judgment of the person who determines which band and how many points specifically. But that’s not insurmountable; it’s just something that I wanted to point out.

The bit that I do support, I guess, is what then happens next. So a young person who has offended goes into a particular band, is given a certain number of points, and based on the points that they’re given, they’re referred to different programmes to help support them to change their behaviour. That’s the part that I find interesting. So there are a few different scenarios. Someone who has accumulated between 1 and 80 youth justice demerit points gets the option to participate in the Limited Service Volunteer (LSV) programme. That is a programme that, through the Social Services and Community Committee, we’ve actually gone out and visited as well. So that looks like it could be a good option for some young people.

For others who have accumulated, on the other end of the spectrum, between 81 and 99 youth justice demerit points, they get the option between two different avenues, I guess. One is the LSV programmes and the other the youth employment, training, and education programmes—again, from the point of view of not just being additionally punitive to these young people but actually looking at ways in which the system might be able to support them to change their behaviour and change the course or the trajectory of their lives, in fact. That could be pretty powerful.

Now, some of the bits that I mentioned earlier in terms of the process are what I would like to see examined also at select committee. So a notice needs to be provided as soon as possible, as soon as reasonably practicable, by the enforcement officer to the young person in question and the young person’s parent or guardian. So, basically, what the enforcement officer needs to tell them is what the demerit system hopes to achieve, what offence they’ve committed to receive the demerit points, how many points they’ve received, what actions will be taken as a consequence, what happens if they accumulate more points, what their rights of appeal are, and how they can clear their record. No issue with that.

However, the way in which that information is communicated to the young person I find potentially a little bit problematic, because if they don’t receive the notice—so as long as the notice was provided to the young person, the demerit points accrued are valid. Finally, there is no requirement for the officer to actually visit. There’s an option for them to do that and speak to the young person in question, but it’s not mandatory, and I find that a little bit problematic as well, because I would like to know that the person has actually received the notice and has been talked to about what some of the options are. I’d like to see that examined also at select committee to see if that’s the best way that we communicate or if there’s a better way to do so.

With that, though, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with my colleague on this side of the House, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, in stating that the National Party supports this Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill, at least to the select committee. No doubt that will be a matter for the 53rd Parliament.

We’ve discussed and debated already in this House a number of the aims of the bill. They seem worthy to us. Obviously, the devil in the detail will be something that will be available for examination more closely at a later point. But for this, the first reading, I think it’s worth noting the intention to provide a structured intervention regime. An intervention is literally a coming between, so, in this case, the member who’s sponsoring the bill is looking to come between an initial set of offending and what would otherwise be a later set of offending. Of course, the intent is to head it off at the pass by introducing a system where the relatively insignificant offending would be appointed to the possibility of later more significant offending, so that the path that a young person would be on would be diverted, essentially, such that they would not be engaged further in that kind of activity.

I think it’s always worthwhile, particularly at the early stages of discussing and debating a bill—I did find the problem that it attempts to solve. The general policy statement that the member has outlined actually goes into a bit of detail on that, and I think that’s a very worthwhile thing that we have seen by this bill, in the name, I think, of Jenny Marcroft, and her colleague Darroch Ball has spoken to that as well.

A number of percentages are worth noting—for example, that 60 percent of youth offenders reoffend, apparently; and then the number of reoffending occasions, three or more times, six or more times, at 40 percent and 14 percent, respectively. It is sobering reading indeed. So I think there’s a well-established case for the fact that something should be done to help, to try to solve the problem of persistent offending. But, of course, this will be only one of a number of ways that any Government should look to solve it.

So we’re happy enough with the idea that this go forward. There is, I suppose, the tension between the subjectivity of those making decisions, that the member has highlighted in the explanatory note as being problematic. Of course, on the other hand, we do like the idea, generally speaking, as a Parliament, of allowing discretion to decision makers. So that’s a fundamental tension that can and should, and, hopefully, will, be thrashed out at select committee and beyond.

The other observation I make before I conclude my remarks is that I’m just interested in the language that’s being used. The member has talked about the recycling through of complex and ambiguous systems. The cycling through of offenders—well, that’s sort of a circle metaphor. We sometimes talk about people’s lives spiralling out of control, and, of course, we also talk about a vicious circle where someone gets involved in a system in such a way that they can’t get off. So all of these, I think, go to show the difficulty of, sometimes, the social and criminal justice elements that we’re considering here, which is that the circle has no end and the danger of course is that people get into a system and don’t get off.

So to the extent that this may be helpful to identify those who are in a difficult place and can, hopefully, be found a better place, we do support it, at least, as I say, to select committee, and we’ll look forward to seeing what further can be said about it as we go forward.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are the Greens going to take a call?

Golriz Ghahraman: Yes, we are, sorry.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Golriz Ghahraman.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was expecting to be speaking at slot seven. Standing to speak on this bill takes me back to my work both in the criminal justice system and in child rights. It is in the youth justice system—and most New Zealanders wouldn’t know this—where our international human rights record really falls. Our youth justice system commits our most persistent and clear breaches of international human rights law, in that we continue to prosecute children as young as 10 as adults in our adult criminal justice system. We exclude children at 10, and 13, 14, and beyond that regularly from our otherwise model youth justice system, based on ad hoc standards. We continue to persist in detaining children in age-mixed facilities with older defendants and convicted criminals.

None of that is conducive to bringing down the rates of offending by young people. It also ignores all of the evidence about what’s best for young people, what will help them to thrive, what will help them to come out of a situation where offending has occurred. We know that when young people do commit offences, overwhelmingly, I can say, it goes along with either some very recent trauma in their life or a longstanding mental health issue or longstanding abuse or neglect in their background. As a lawyer, more often than not, when young people are coming into conflict with the law and you’re dealing with them and you look at their pre-sentence reports and their psych reports, you will see all of the most harrowing things that we think of when we think of the State coming into a family’s affairs, and they’ve often been removed from their homes multiple times. They have had multiple foster care placements. They’ve had multiple notifications to Child, Youth and Family and Oranga Tamariki for serious abuse—the kinds of things that someone from the community would get involved with the family and report them for. It is heartbreaking, and the criminal justice system is very much the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff not only for adult offenders but, most starkly, for young people.

International best practice, based on evidence, says that what we should be doing wherever possible is diverting children away from criminal justice processes, from punitive processes, because that process in and of itself will have a lasting effect, and will mark that child as different. It will create indicators that will almost definitely result in them reoffending, dropping out of school, seeing themselves as less than, as different, as bad—all of the things that we don’t want to do to the young people at that first moment when we can actually intervene and support them.

We know that some 90 percent of young people who come into conflict with our criminal law are then diagnosed with what is described as a serious learning disability. So we’ve failed them through not having inclusive enough education, something as simple as that, as a fundamental human right. We failed because we know that young people now live in the midst of a persistent housing crisis. They’ve moved so much that they’ve become disconnected from their communities and their schooling, and from healthcare. And we know that mental healthcare is not accessible here in Aotearoa yet.

So this is a Government that will focus on all of those things—on providing young people with their rights, with their basic rights, which will mean that they will thrive, that they won’t continue to offend. And what we should be seeing when we do see a child come into conflict with the law is that there is trauma there, and our intervention should be based on the evidence. If the evidence has told us that criminalising that child and reacting to them in a punitive way will make it worse, we’ll almost always—

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

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to start by saying it’s a novelty to speak on a bill. I haven’t done it for a few years in this way, and I’ve got to make sure I don’t enjoy it too much, actually. Can I just acknowledge a couple of people—firstly, Darroch Ball, for bringing forward, I think, a thoughtful bill, and I also acknowledge Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, who is our lead spokesperson in this area with responsibilities for National in the area of youth justice. I’m sure he’s already said we support this at first reading.

That’s not a guarantee of where we will go, but I do want to say—in a sense what I’ve just already said in acknowledging Darroch Ball—I think this is an interesting idea. I think it’s thoughtful, and thoughtful and New Zealand First don’t always go hand in hand, but I think they do on this bill. I think the idea of a demerits points system—I suppose what New Zealanders will think of when they think of traffic offending; of course, I’ve never got demerits myself, but some members in this House will now know the feeling and how that works and ratchets it up for recidivism and for more serious offending—I’d just say it’s interesting and is thoughtful.

I also like and think what is thoughtful about this bill is what I also understand, from my perusal of it, was on the other side, that notion that there are things that you can do to wipe those points. That, I think, is a good thing; it’s cause and effect. So, for example, having been out and seen the Limited Service Volunteers programme out in Whenuapai, I think it was, and what is happening out there—what an excellent programme. The notion that a young person can do that and get credit for that and then have those points worked—and there are other things I know they can do that are in this bill. That is, in principle, at least, I think, right.

I want to say this bill appeals to, I suppose, National Party sensibilities and values. And I say that because, you know, there are basic notions that we believe in strongly. And they are accountability for your actions, they’re incentives and disincentives. That works better than just, sort of, you know, a less nimble, less cause and effect way of thinking.

Can I address the fact that, of course, this is in the youth arena, and there are some verities that go with youth offending and sentencing that I think have become almost religious amongst lawyers—that, you know, there can’t be penalties and we have to treat things so differently and da-da-da-da. And look, I go along with that at a level. But, as someone on the other side of the House likes to say, sometimes these things are shibboleths. You know, they’re there without actual purpose, and we can’t just treat them religiously like they’re absolutes, and that’s it, and we’re never going to question it. So I, personally, go along with the idea that, yep, in youth justice there should be lesser sentencing, we should treat young people and children differently. But you know what? Common sense and right tells me that for recidivist offending and for serious adult crimes, that requires consequences, actually. If you’re going to do serious adult crime, and you’re going to repeatedly do even petty crime, there are consequences that should follow for it. Otherwise, we, as a society, are creating a breeding ground for criminals amongst our young. And that’s not fair to them and to their future, because you’re not giving them a sense of consequence from their actions over time, and it’s also not fair to society.

Look, in my brief perusal of this bill, I think there are some serious questions to be asked in the select committee process. These are simply the ones that, as I say, have occurred to me briefly; there may be others. And I suppose they revolve around this point: this bill may be, in my view, right in principle, but have we got it right in terms of the outcomes in it? Have we got the weightings right in those sections or clauses 210C and 210D, I think they are, in terms of are we too soft on the points or are we too punitive? We’ve got to think that through and make sure we get that right if we’re, as a Parliament, to pass this. And have we got the punishments and the way they ratchet up and the remedial actions right? Are there other ones we should include? Are there some we should get rid of? I think those quite practical questions are ones we’re going to have to think through at committee stage. But at this stage, we support this, I think, thoughtful bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to stand here to speak on the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill. I just want to take this opportunity to thank the member Darroch Ball for this bill and for his idea in terms of contributing to reducing youth offending.

I’m not sure whether the House knew that I first started as a social worker, as a youth justice social worker in Ōtāhuhu in Auckland, and through that, I became a youth justice manager. Through my insights, I do bring insights into youth justice.

I want to acknowledge that throughout all of this, we may refer to young people as youth offenders, but at the end of the day, they are young people from the age of 14 to under 18, and their voices need to be heard. The member spoke about the 80 percent of young people who offend once and they don’t come through the system, so, really, this is for the 20 percent, and I want to acknowledge the member for bringing that into the conversation today.

I want to talk about the purpose because it’s important, if there’s a bill in the House, that we know what the purpose is. If you could allow me, Mr Speaker, to read what the purpose is, new section 210A in clause 8 states that “The purpose of the youth justice demerit points system is to provide for a consistent system of intervention for young persons who have accepted full responsibility for committing an offence or who are charged with committing an offence, in order to—(a) identify, deter, and penalise repeat offending by young persons; and (b) increase accountability and transparency within the youth justice system.”

I would like the select committee to look at the strategy in terms of the evidence. What does the evidence tell us?

I want us to go to new section 210C in clause 8, because in that is the journey of a young person through the court system, beginning with a warning from the police officer and going to a record in the court. So what I know is that a young person is arrested or warned by a police officer, then the police officer refers the young person to a youth aid officer, the youth aid officer speaks to a youth justice coordinator, the youth justice coordinator speaks to a youth justice social worker, and then it goes to the court, where the young person is appointed a youth advocate. If we look at new section 210C(2)(a), it’s the police—so the police decide whether to warn this young person or not, but I’m not sure what advocacy the young person has in that journey.

In terms of subsection (2)(b), it’s the police who refer the matter to the youth aid officer, so the youth aid officer then decides whether it’s the intention to charge a young person by taking alternative action. If that doesn’t happen, then the youth aid officer refers to a coordinator for a youth justice intention to convene a family group conference. So I’ve talked about paragraphs (a) and (b). That involves the police and also involves the police in terms of the youth aid officer looking to alternative actions, and then, in the third section, in paragraph (c), it looks to the youth justice coordinator. Then, in subsection (2)(d), it refers to the youth justice demerit points and it refers to a young person being brought into court, and that’s the only time a young person gets a youth advocate to speak on their behalf.

The question I’d like to seek the select committee to look at is: where is the voice of the young people in this bill? They are experiencing the youth justice system if they continue, and I’m talking about the 20 percent that the member referred to. If they continue on this track, they will end up with a record. But what I’d like the select committee to ask is about the advocacy for young people: how well are they informed from the point in paragraph (a), when the police officer looks at the demerit points from “between 1 and 40 youth justice demerit points”, right down to paragraph (e), where, if it is over 100 points, they are referred to the District Court. It is the beginning of a record for a young person in court, and it must be taken seriously.

We do support this bill in its first reading, and I commend the member for bringing it forward in terms of the purpose, which is to reduce offending. But I do ask that we look at this with caring eyes in terms of not only deterring young people from reoffending but also looking after their record. Have we asked the right questions? Do they get the right advocacy before they reach the stage that they are before the District Court on a—

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill, in the name of New Zealand First member Darroch Ball. It’s a pleasure to be supporting this piece of legislation to select committee so that it can be scrutinised, so that the public can make submissions, and so that the people are able to have their say on this important piece of legislation.

One of the big issues, I think, in our justice system that I get often asked about as a member of Parliament is around youth offending. It is one of the complex and complicated issues where the justice system seeks to balance the rights and the futures of the young people against the crime that they do commit. There is a debate to be had, in my opinion, around whether the law currently sits in a way that gets that balance right. I think this bill does in some ways seek to address that debate by putting in place a system whereby young people who offend are given demerit points in a transparent and open way, where their offending is measured in a way which then can be looked at by the courts, looked at by the justice system, and so that it can then be addressed. If it continues and persists—and one of the shocking figures that I see in the explanatory note is that 60 percent of youth offenders reoffend—then it can be taken to court.

One of the key issues that this bill does is it seeks to put in place essentially a carrot and a stick. It has consequences if the offending continues but also provides opportunities for young people to prove that they are changing their behaviour by going on a course, by the limited service scheme—to be able to change their behaviour and to be able to prove and demonstrate that they are seeking to make amends for their offending. So this bill, I think, is good framework. There will be a number of questions, which I and I know other members of this House will have, over how this will work, how it will be set up, and how it will be managed.

I look forward to hearing submissions from the public, from those who are involved in the youth justice system, but also those who are victims of crime who have been affected by youth offenders and the experience that they’ve had with the system. So I commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to the select committee process.

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. We are supporting this bill through to its first reading. Why? Because we understand that youth offending is actually a very serious issue in New Zealand, and we’re committed to addressing it from various angles. We want to make sure that we’re engaging our at-risk families, our at-risk youth, making sure that our Māori organisations are wrapping around and supporting where possible; that we’ve got kaupapa Māori service providers which are able to swing in and help build better pathways to a better future for our rangatahi. Improving access to healthcare, improving access to mental health support, training, being able to get an education, and actually taking away some of the financial barriers all create part of a package that this Government is dedicated to to make sure that we’re turning around the fortunes of our young people out there all across New Zealand.

A Ministry of Justice report released in August 2019 found that the number of child offenders aged from 10 to 13 had more than halved from just over 5,000 children in 2010 to just over 2,300 children just last year. The number of youth offenders aged 14 to 16 is also down: more than 13,800 in 2010 to just over 5,600 last year. That report also stated that Māori youth offending rates had improved. It said that the proportion of young Māori offenders who appeared in the Youth Court decreased from 46 percent in 2017 to 36 percent in 2018. So the more that we can wrap around, the more that we can do to be able to help turn around outcomes for our young people—that has to be welcomed, which is why we are supporting this bill, the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill, to its select committee.

The intention of the bill is to provide for a consistent system of intervention for young people who have accepted full responsibility for committing an offence, or who are charged with committing an offence, in order to identify, deter, and penalise repeat offending by young persons and increase the accountability and transparency within the youth justice system.

I want to thank the member Darroch Ball for bringing this to the House, but just raise one thing as something that should be discussed in the select committee when we do put it out there for submissions, which is that we have been made very aware of the racial bias that sits within our justice system. We need to make sure that as we are dealing with our youth offenders, as we are hearing the various submissions that are going to be coming in from around the country—this bill doesn’t necessarily deal with that. So I would still like to put a call out there to all of those people across Aotearoa who are thinking about submitting to actually submit and come forward with various ways that we can help to address that racial bias within our justice system. But it doesn’t take away from some of the good stuff in this bill.

One of the implications in this bill is also that police need extra guidelines to effectively manage youth offenders or at-risk youth; that their training and judgment are somewhat inadequate. We just need to push back on that, because I believe that our police have our best interests at heart; that they need to exercise their expertise in their roles without that level of parliamentary intervention.

So I’m hoping that all of these various issues are going to come through in the submission hearings. For that reason, again, as I said before, we’re supporting this through to the select committee. So I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to join with my National colleagues indicating National’s support for this Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill. I want to give a little bit of context in the sense that I’ve got a real concern that the overall direction of justice policy under this Government is about reducing accountability—going soft—that will ultimately see more offenders and a poor approach to the management of justice issues.

One of the things that really worries me in my home area is that in the brief three years of this Government, the number of Nelson people completing and attending their community sentences has dropped from 76 percent to just 18 percent—that is, just 18 percent of people committed to community sentences are actually turning up and doing that work, and that’s before COVID, in which my colleague Simeon Brown has exposed the way in which the Government is just writing off huge numbers of sentences for people that have committed offences.

Now, National is interested in a demerit approach for youth offenders. National’s not a party that has a “lock ‘em up, throw away the key” sort of mentality. We do believe in accountability. We do believe that where people do the crime, they do the time, but we are also very aware of how important it is in the youth justice area to take a smart and sophisticated approach to youth justice issues. I think all of us who represent constituencies in this Parliament are aware that across the group of youth offenders, you have got some that go off the rails a bit, commit a single offence, and with a smart intervention by our youth police liaison officers, you can get them back on to the road reasonably quickly. But where I think there is a real concern is where you have these hardened youth offenders that time and time again get caught up in the merry-go-round of the youth justice system without action, and there does need to be some accountability.

The issue that I will be really interested in at the Justice Committee in dealing with this youth demerit points bill is whether a legislative demerit point system is actually going to result in better outcomes for young people. Quite often in the youth justice area, you’ve clearly got a whole mix of different youth experiences and the right approach to getting those young people back on to the straight and narrow. Now, the real question for both Parliament and the select committee will be whether a demerit point system will actually improve it. I’ve seen and attended Youth Court hearings and actually have quite a high level of confidence in our judges. The real question for Parliament is, by passing this law and having both our judges and our police that work with youth offenders, are we going to put them into a points system, a regimented sort of mechanical system for dealing with their offending, that actually makes things worse rather than better, rather than having the flexibility for them to be able to apply their professional judgment about what the right thing is to do with a particular young person?

So I’m open-minded about it. I certainly think the bill ticks the box, from National’s point of view, of having a better approach for those youth offenders that are committing multiple offences. We’ll keep an open mind in the select committee. The bit that we’re clear about is that we want smart interventions with young people, and we will go into the select committee process around this idea of demerit points with an open mind. Demerit points can work pretty easily, with a pretty straightforward “You’re 10 kilometres over the speed limit, you’re 20 kilometres over the speed limits.”, in an area like transport offending. In the area of youth offending, it’s a lot more complicated. Open-minded—let’s send this bill to the select committee, hear the submissions, and see if it can make a constructive improvement in the way in which our country deals with youth offenders.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Firstly, I just want to thank the House for seeing this bill through to select committee, but also seeing the bill—from what I’ve heard from the comments—for what it is, which is not a punitive measure, or doesn’t want to bring any punitive measures, but puts around structure and support and early intervention. That’s precisely the intent, and I think that—it’s my belief anyway—that’s what’s missing in the early stages of the youth justice system, and I think this bill will go a long way to do that.

I take the points from both sides of the House that because not only is this bill a multi-layered, complex bill but the whole youth justice system is complicated—why youth offend in the first place, what’s the best way of dealing with individual youth; it would vary. So I think that select committee is the best place for it to be to hear from all the stakeholders involved, including not only the victims of crime but those who have been youth offenders themselves and how the system dealt with them, how they felt that the system worked for them or failed for them, and how we can make it better because, ultimately, that’s what we’re supposed to be doing in this place.

I think that one of the members from the Labour Party mentioned some of the stats, and I think that we’ve got to be very careful about what stats we use, and not only that, but look a bit deeper than the surface of what those stats are actually saying. I’ll give you a prime example: The youth crime rate has for a long time been measured not by how many offences, how many offenders, or how many victims there are of youth crime, but by how many young people end up in Youth Court. So we’ve just been discussing for a long time the fact that 80 percent of young people don’t end up in Youth Court, and they can offend 20, 30, 40 times before they get to Youth Court and get prosecuted, and then they’re counted once. So we’ve got to be careful about seeing how many people who have ended up in Youth Court and see the number go down or up, see how that’s working, and whether it’s not working or working.

I’d just like to point out a couple of other reports from 2019. In the Youth Justice Indicators Summary Report, it showed that 70 percent of all 16-year-old offenders end up in adult court within two years. That’s more than two-thirds of all 16-year-olds who go through the Youth Court are processed through the adult court when they are older. It’s stated that youth who are committing serious crime has also increased from 2010. In 2017, over that 12 months, it has increased by 10 percent on the year before. Even on youth in remand—and I take the comments from Dr Nick Smith about those on bail and breaching bail—Oranga Tamariki found, and this was last year, that the vast majority of all custodial remands actually occurred in cases where youth were already on bail. That means that the youth was given bail but then either reoffended or breached their bail conditions.

Between the period 2011-2016, almost half of all youth on bail reoffended, and those with three or more bail breaches doubled from 20 to 40 percent. Of those in custody, 94 percent of them either breached bail or reoffended whilst on bail. So it’s a mixed bag, and I think that we need to be very careful about looking at the stats and what stats we use, and—again—what’s behind those stats. That’s why I think it’s a really good thing that this bill will be going through to select committee and this House will be given the opportunity to hear from the experts and look deeper into the statistics on how our youth justice system is or isn’t working, and how we can make it better. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Ross.

Noes 9

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I move, That the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

I am heartened to be the sponsor of this bill before the House. I thank Mr Soane Foliaki of the community law centre in South Auckland for this opportunity to address a gap in the law. It’s a privilege to be a member of Parliament and, in doing so, bring the voice of the community to this House. Today, it is the voice of the disabled, through the collaboration with the Community Law Centre in Papakura.

This bill protects those with disabilities. The bill prohibits the seizure of goods of a judgment debtor with a disability where the item proposed to be seized is necessary for the judgment debtor’s care, support, or independence. At present, the principal law requires good judgment to be exercised by the bailiffs to act fairly and reasonably. The principal Act does not prohibit the bailiffs seizing property that enables independence of tetraplegics, such as their modified mobility vehicles.

About five years ago, ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa, a New Zealander with a disability, a tetraplegic who was a judgment debtor, had his modified mobility vehicle seized by a bailiff to be sold at an auction to satisfy a debt which was a quarter of the value for the vehicle. The bailiff had initially locked the wheels of the vehicle to enforce payment of the debt. The judgment debtor could not afford to pay the debt and, despite the protest from the judgment debtor’s community lawyer, the vehicle was transported to Turners auction for sale. During this time, the judgment debtor was no longer able to attend his doctor’s appointment, as he could not afford the taxi fare. He became very ill and ended up being taken to hospital by an ambulance and admitted into the intensive care unit at Auckland hospital. For a period, he was in a precarious situation, and he was most fortunate to survive his ordeal. His lawyer, Mr Foliaki, had managed to bring the matter before the court, and the court directed the return of the vehicle to the home of ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa.

Section 167(2) of the District Court Act 2016, the principal Act, states, “By the warrant, the bailiff or constable is authorised to seize—(a) the goods of the judgment debtor, except—(i) his or her tools of trade to a value not exceeding $5,000; and (ii) his or her necessary household furniture and effects, including clothing for the judgment debtor and his or her family, to a value not exceeding $10,000; and (b) money, bank notes, and securities (that is, bills of exchange, promissory notes, bonds, specialties, or other securities for money).” There was an international incident where a German pedigree pup, seized by authorities for unpaid tax, was sold on eBay. It was reported that in Germany, officials initially wanted to seize the wheelchair but ended up taking a dog. In other words, the tools of trade of a carpenter, a plumber, a motor mechanic are protected under the principal Act as life necessities. However, the modified vehicle of a tetraplegic or a disabled person, and his or her very expensive high-tech wheelchair, are not protected under the principal Act.

It is an injustice that the State is empowered to seize the necessities to the life of person who has a disability, such as a modified vehicle or even a high-tech wheelchair that provides for daily transport needs. As his lawyer, Mr Foliaki, argued, in this case, the modified vehicle was an extension of the legs of ‘Una. The wheelchair, the modified vehicle, enabled the tetraplegic freedom of movement and independence to attend important appointments, especially with his doctors. The proposed amendments will ensure the protection of disabled persons such as tetraplegics from seizure of his or her property that is necessary for his or her care, support, and independence. This would promote inclusion and participation in society.

Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 did not provide sufficient protection to protect ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa; nor did the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities help him. I want to acknowledge Angela Desmarais, who is the kaituitui from Disabled Persons Assembly New Zealand Inc., for her support in sharing her insights and widening my world view of the disability community. She stated that a disability is not a sickness; it’s a disability. Also, to Mike Potter and Colleen Brown of Disability Connect, who informed me of the views of parents—a TV to us is just a TV, but it’s a tool to parents of certain disabled children.

Lastly, I acknowledge the Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero. They wanted to include the Treaty of Waitangi and for this bill to consider using the United Nations conventions on the rights of disabled persons’ definition of disability, as this defines and includes the wider disability community. The definition used in this bill is that of the Human Rights Act. This is something the select committee may address.

I would like this opportunity to thank the members of this House through my journey of talking about this bill in the last two very busy weeks of this year. I want to take this opportunity to thank Jan Logie for her support. When I asked her for a time to meet, without hesitation she said, “I support this bill. The Green Party will support it.” I want to thank the Hon Simon Bridges. Despite all the fears of what I’ve read about the Hon Simon Bridges, it was actually a very pleasant conversation and a one-on-one, down-to-earth conversation with a member. I want to acknowledge him for his support. Prior to that, it was the Hon Mark Mitchell. I want to acknowledge him, too, for accepting my request. I want to address this because often in this House, we call each other the Opposition, the Government, the supporting partners, but when we’re going for a member’s bill, you’re wanting everybody to support your bill. So it is my intention to thank everybody that I spoke with. And, of course, I want to thank Darroch Ball, who said to me that it’s common sense for his support of this bill. In those respectful conducts, I want to acknowledge everyone that I’ve spoken to, especially my caucus, who approved this to go into the ballot.

In conclusion, I want to thank Community Law South Auckland, Mr Soane Foliaki, and, of course, they’ve opened a community law Centre in Papakura. I want to thank ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa. This is your bill. This is your story, and I know that he has stated to Newshub that he does not want any other person to go through this. I want to thank all the members for their support.

Mahatma Gandhi once stated that the true measure of any society can be found in how they treat its most vulnerable members. Today, I’m seeking every member of this House to support our most vulnerable members. I eagerly anticipate the support of the House for this bill, and I commend this bill to the House. Mālō ‘aupito.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I just want to start by saying the National Party and the Opposition treat this bill very much in a similar way to the last bill, and that is that we will support it to select committee. We think that it’s absolutely well intentioned and purposed. I know what the member has said, that Gandhi quote—you know, it’s absolutely right. Judge society on how it treats those who are most vulnerable, with disabilities and the like—to paraphrase that quite significantly, but you get the point, and that’s absolutely true. So we support it at this stage. We support the intentions of it.

Can I say I also appreciate the member taking the time yesterday to meet with me and to discuss her bill. She’s also thanked Mark Mitchell. Can I just say, I said yes; Mark Mitchell didn’t. So you just remember that in your future speeches, if the member pleases.

But I say again, a response to a very real issue, and, you know, the member’s talked about that case, ‘Una Tanginoa—a very real situation which I think we can all be concerned about and have compassion for—where Mr Tanginoa is a quadriplegic in a wheelchair. He, by necessity, required for any sort of mobility and independence and travel a modified van that the news story I’ve read tells us was about a $30,000 van, with its modifications. In fulfilling his debts, it was seized by the bailiff in that case. That kind of brings us to the current law and where we’re going with this bill. Under the current law, prior to this bill and the question of whether it becomes the enacted law of this country, as I understand it, there is a discretion, there is some fairness provision there, and that is that. Whereas what this law does is it takes away that discretion and it leads us to a position where the bailiff, on behalf of a creditor, cannot seize goods for a debt where they’re necessary for the debtor’s “care or support, independence,”.

I come back to it. It’s hard to disagree. In fact, we don’t disagree at all. We agree with the intention from the member in light of the very real case that she’s brought forward, and it’s led her to bring this bill in. But what I would say in addition to that is that it’s very difficult to get a law like this perfect, right? Between discretion on the one side—where the problem with that is it can, in particular cases, and the case of ‘Una Tanginoa is one in point, be unduly harsh, because, actually, whilst there’s a discretion, the people and the bailiff in this case—and I’m not sure if there was ever a court case about this; there probably wasn’t—they took the van with the modifications for his mobility. And that seems unfair. That seems wrong. That doesn’t seem just in his particular case.

So that’s the problem there. But what I identify—and I don’t actually form conclusions on it yet. I think it’s something for us to flesh out at the select committee. In light of the people we hear from, the cases and the stories we hear, and maybe some of the more technical submissions I hope we get, at least, we can draw a conclusion on whether the law that is being proposed here by the good member is potentially—I emphasise that word: potentially—too wide. Yep, it’s compassionate at one level for the debtor—for, in this clear case, the disabled debtor or debtors that will be affected or impacted. But I would just say, well, what about the creditor—what about the creditor? Because we have to be quite clear, in my view, that not all creditors are created equal. Not all creditors are the fat cats that perhaps we might stereotype them as. So the law needs to be as appropriately—dare I say it—narrowly drawn to be just as we can get it and not too wide. You know, it could be—I simply pose the question—in this case, too wide. We need to ask that question. We need to see what the submissions are at select committee.

I use the thought—and I want to take care here not to be in any way insensitive about the issues we’re talking about, but—of a relatively minor disability, but where this law is used in that circumstance, or where the item in question is “necessary”, because that’s the word used in the bill, but in a relatively loose sense of that word. And, you know, you might say, “Well, ‘necessary’ is not loose.”, and that’s actually true, but there’s always issues here, and we wouldn’t want to see this over-used, in a sense—a way of getting around legitimate creditor-debtor issues. It does need to be necessary—absolutely necessary. Not only that, it needs to be necessary to those purposes in the bill here, which, as I say, are care, support, or independence.

So I simply say, in summary, this is a good thought and a good thing the member has done in bringing this before the Parliament. It’s well-intentioned. That’s why we support it to select committee, where we can think the practical effect through, and that’s what needs examination—just on that spectrum between, as I say, on the one hand, full-bore discretion—saying no, never—and just whether we’ve got that practically right. Where is the line to be practically drawn? We’ll be looking at that as an Opposition very closely at select committee so that this law comes out the other end, we hope, as a good, well-purposed, not just well-intentioned but well-scoped, law for New Zealand.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Can I first acknowledge the author of the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, and also acknowledge Mr Foliaki from Community Law Centre in Papatoetoe and also Mr ‘Una Tanginoa, who actually started this process by seeking support from community law, who did go to the court.

So for the previous speakers, I’ll outline the context of his mobility vehicle being removed from him. It was a rent debt. It was a landlord that went to the court to have $5,117 repaid, and this man, Mr Tanginoa, was a pensioner on an invalid’s benefit. He had assumed that Ministry of Social Development were paying his rent and they weren’t. So between October 2014 and April 2015, when that rent wasn’t being paid, the landlord then sought recompense and did that through the courts.

I’d like to, I guess, affirm something in our law already, which is that the law currently says that you can’t take a tradesperson’s tools to repay a debt because they are vital to their livelihood. I guess my contribution within the context of this proposed legislation is that you can’t take a disabled person’s tools to repay a debt because they are vital to their lives.

I think, when we look at this specific example, the consequence of the court enabling that debt to be collected saw the bailiff, I guess, exercise their judgment. There is scope in the law to make a determination about what is fair and reasonable seizure. So it seems that, in this case, they deemed that the access of a modified vehicle for Mr Tanginoa was not fair and reasonable. They confiscated it, they sold it, and, as a consequence of him not having his vehicle, he was unable to go to the doctor. Now, normally, I suppose, that wouldn’t be a life and death situation. But for Mr Tanginoa, who is a quadriplegic, it resulted in an infection that led him to the hospital, to ICU, and there was a threat that he could have lost his foot. Therein lies, I guess, Mr Tanginoa’s story, his willingness to share that story, to become vulnerable: with the intent, with Mr Foliaki and my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, that this never happens to anybody else again.

In looking at what are helpful tools for quadriplegics, we, I’m sure, are not surprised that modified vehicles are helpful tools, as are specialist wheelchairs, as are, I think, technology. There’s a list of other things in terms of daily needs and tools for quadriplegics. But I can presume now that the House will support this bill, based on the contribution of the Hon Simon Bridges.

So is there an issue? Yes. The previous Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, asked for a report on whether a change needs to be considered. I actually haven’t seen that report; hopefully we can source it from the Ministry of Justice. But I presume that the Ministry of Justice officials actually said, yes, this is an issue, and, in fact, what the system is waiting to do is to review the Act. In lieu of us waiting as a Parliament to review the Act, I’m pleased, as is my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, that this Parliament has an opportunity to rectify this issue now. We don’t have to wait for a review of the District Court Act to ensure that disabled peoples are prioritised, that they are actually considered to be special citizens, special New Zealanders. If we can do that for tradespeople, then surely we can do that for our disabled citizens.

So I think this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. I just want to join with my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki about the reference to other things, such as the Treaty of Waitangi, such as what was highlighted by Paula Tesoriero in terms of other definitions and human rights, I guess, doctrines, that compel us to have extra protections and special protections for our most vulnerable, which includes peoples with disabilities. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, on this side of the House, as the Hon Simon Bridges has mentioned, we support the bill, at least to select committee. We acknowledge the work that the member has put in in compiling a piece of legislation that is not only worthy in terms of its subject matter but also is, I would say, a good member’s bill subject in the sense that it is relatively tight in terms of the reworking of the law. Therefore, it is not overly ambitious, if I may say that not at all in a pejorative sense, but it does, of course, have the potential to significantly affect particular New Zealanders.

The disproportionate effect of such practices as we have heard of today is one that as a Parliament, as a House of Representatives, we should take very seriously indeed. I acknowledge in that space the advocacy of the Disability Rights Commissioner, which the member herself has already acknowledged, and other advocates. I do also want to give a mention to the work that’s been done by community law centres in relation to this. I think it’s always worthwhile to note the contribution they make to our legal system and indeed our society, these pillars of the community, these law centres who provide a great service to those who would otherwise not have the access to justice that should be considered a right and not a privilege.

The explanatory note to the bill talks about the implication of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act not fully recognising the problem that the bill seeks to solve. I think perhaps an issue is more that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act doesn’t make law that can be applied in a black letter sense. It’s more that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has general principles of rights and freedoms that it protects. But she’s right, of course, to point us in the direction of section 21 in relation to unreasonable search and seizure. And she is obviously arguing—and so far the House is agreeing—that we should regard as unreasonable a seizure of assets that are necessary to a person who has a disability to live a good life. The living of a good life is not a concept that is exactly encapsulated in the bill, but I hope the member will not mind me taking a liberty with provisions that she’s got in front of us, because I think that is really the essence of what she’s looking to achieve.

I suppose also I should add that it’s a matter of safety as well as the goodness of the life that one wishes to lead if we’re talking about such things as specially adapted motor vehicles and so forth, and therefore, again, it’s something we should take very seriously indeed. Others have already noted the tension between the desire to have certainty and to take away discretion or to require less of the good judgment, which we see in the general policy statement. As the member who spoke on our side of the House, leading off our contribution to the debate, Hon Simon Bridges, has noted, that is something that will be appropriately discussed at select committee, and I, for one, if I should be returned to this place in the next Parliament and to the relevant select committee, would relish the opportunity to be part of that discussion and debate and to hear exactly where is the right place to draw the line, particularly when it comes to such concepts as promoting inclusion and participation and enabling independence, and so on. So anyway, as others have already said, it is a very worthwhile concept, and let’s discuss the detail in due course. We look forward to doing that on this side of the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t intend to take a very long call. I think it’s actually a bit crazy that we have to debate a bill like this, when—look, it says in the general policy statement that the Act requires good judgment to be exercised by the bailiffs. We’ve heard the examples, the particular example about why this bill is put forward, and it just amazes me that a situation like that would occur when we’ve got our most vulnerable people in situations that they are in being treated the way that they are. That’s what it comes down to: the way that individuals want to, and have been, treating people—and whether it’s written in black and white, unfortunately, it seems to matter. That’s why New Zealand First will be supporting this bill through to select committee. It’s just unfortunate that we have to get to this stage where we have to put this into legislation.

New Zealand First supports both sides of the House’s comment, actually, and the reasons for this bill and why we need to support this bill through, and also some of the concerns, or rather questions, that were raised, and questions that, it has been stated, will be raised during the select committee. I think that’s important, that we hear from the stakeholders and the people that are involved with this, both from the implementation side but also the receiving side, so we can iron the law out and make sure that we get what we want, which is an improved result of the implementation of the law as it’s written. We look forward to the select committee, and hearing from the experts and hearing from the advisers on how we can make this a good one. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I am pleased to take a call on this quite detailed minor amendment bill, the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill. I am happy to be supporting the bill to select committee. We’ve done a lot of work through this Parliament in improving the rights of people with disabilities in New Zealand, and it’s proper that we work at laws like the District Court Act around ensuring that its provisions are appropriate for the full diversity of people, including those who have disabilities that need care, support, and equipment for that purpose.

One of the things the select committee will need to have a careful look at is that sometimes when we seek to help a particular group by removing the capacity for debts to be collected, you may well have a situation where people won’t provide finance for that particular group. I think it’s OK, but at select committee, what you wouldn’t want is to create a situation where this law change resulted in people with disabilities being unable to access finance for purchasing mobile scooters and those things as a consequence of removing the right of the person that provides that finance to be able to recover the property. So we have to try and navigate a way through improving our debtor laws so that we don’t get the almost inhuman situation of a person with a severe disability having their mobile scooter or other equipment that’s essential to their wellbeing being removed. On the other hand, you are always, with such laws, looking for unintended consequences.

I’m also interested that as we try and “micro-write” the laws for every possible circumstance—we currently say in the law that bailiffs need to act fairly and reasonably. I will be interested at the select committee to see how many examples there are and whether there is the scale of problem where people are having scooters or other essential equipment or property removed. Part of me thinks that when the law already prohibits behaviour that is unfair or unreasonable, why is that not working in holding back bailiffs from doing such unconscionable acts as removing equipment that’s essential for those New Zealanders that have these sorts of disabilities?

I commend the member on introducing the bill. I’m pleased to have it go to a select committee—and they are some of the issues that the select committee, in detailed consideration of this bill, will need to consider in determining whether these are appropriate law changes to make to the District Court Act.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. I was honoured by my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki to actually take my call on this bill. She’s aware that I’m a father of a disabled son—that is why she invited me to do this. One thing that I might say is that as anyone who’s been involved in the disability sector knows, it’s somewhat of a parallel existence that when you are confronted with day-to-day situations that normally we can get through without having to think about, there’s all of a sudden another criteria, another threshold that must be met just to perform day-to-day duties. So that’s why bills like this, which do make some recognition of that need to parallel exist, are important.

There’s another important part of this bill, too, that hasn’t really been brought up today: that actually, this will be very good for the bailiffs. I mean, bailiffs are an often maligned group of people; however, they are people who are out there just doing their job. Most of them I don’t think leave school wanting to be bailiffs. It’s something that many of the people who get into that job do because it’s a way of putting food on the table. So this actually gives them that protection as well, because the law as it stands, as has been pointed out, does require such bailiffs to make good judgment. But as we will know as lawmakers, good judgment is one thing that while many of the courts have tried to define by precedent, at the end of the day each situation will be taken on its merits. So now those bailiffs who are confronted with a situation who do end up having to exercise the powers that they do as bailiffs will now have the security of this bill to fall back on and say, “Actually, we can’t seize that vehicle, we can’t seize that motorcycle, we can’t seize that mobility device that is absolutely essential for that person that we are dealing with.” So as I say, spare a thought for those bailiffs and see that this is something that will certainly protect them.

Again, one of the previous speakers brought up the fact that there are bigger issues around where such a device or vehicle is put up as security in any way for a loan, perhaps even a loan to actually obtain that vehicle in the first place. There may well be issues that, I think, the select committee, as Dr Smith has pointed out, may well have to address to ensure that happens at the same time. However, it does—again, I go back to what I said before about a bill like this—give cognisance through the difficulty added to life as a disabled person.

There are those who have become disabled after a life where they were actually able to operate freely in society unencumbered. Those people probably get a better appreciation of how difficult it is than those who have never known any different. So it’s essential that we as a House, we as legislators, where we find these gaps—and again, I congratulate my colleague, who has clearly, through the situation exposed by Mr Tanginoa, now stepped up, seen that’s a situation that does need repair, that does need fixing. And you only have to hear the speeches here today—often, when a bill like this comes before the House, we sit back and think, “Well, how come nobody’s ever thought of this before?”

So going back to my first premise that assisting bailiffs and everyone involved in the whole of the seizure where we have distressed people—people financially distressed—and the timeliness of this bill also must be in mind, because, sadly, post-COVID, we are going into a different economic environment where there will be more financially distressed individuals who will have the inability to pay debts. The bailiffs will be busy—in fact, it will be a bit of a growth industry, I fear. So a piece of legislation like this that gives that protection to the bailiffs so they will know when they do go to a house and they do see a disability mobility vehicle out the front of the house—or that’s what they’ve been sent there to seize—they will be able to pick up this piece of legislation and say, “No, well, it’s quite simple, we can’t.” So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party will be supporting this bill. It’s incredibly important that we provide extra protection and support for the most vulnerable people in our society: those with disabilities. I want to just acknowledge all those who have been advocating for that support and protection, both in this specific instance but also in other wider areas of our society.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to stand here in reply to this District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill, which I call the “ ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa Bill”. I want to acknowledge all the members, my parliamentary colleagues, that contributed to this bill, especially the Hon Simon Bridges. I want to acknowledge that he did fly in at 10 past 8 that morning and confirmed with me that he will meet with me at 9 o’clock. Also, Mr Mark Mitchell did say to me that he supports it in principle, but needed to consult others. So I just wanted to correct that tiny little fact. But I want to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges’ comments about compassion in terms that it is a “good thought” bill, but he did talk about that the word “necessary” in terms of—it might be slightly wide, which I agree that the select committee can look.

I want to thank my colleague here, Louisa Wall. Her contribution was two words that really struck a chord. She spoke about that you cannot take a tradesperson’s tools that are vital for their livelihood; in comparison with a disabled person, it’s vital for their lives. So there’s a difference between livelihood and lives. So thank you, member Louisa Wall, for that contribution.

Chris Penk—I want to thank Chris Penk for acknowledging the good work that Community Law does and referencing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I just want to acknowledge him for that. The member Darroch Ball—thank you, Darroch. Thank you for your comments in terms of it being common sense, and just because something’s not written in black and white doesn’t mean that it’s not in there. I’d like to acknowledge him for seeking that the select committee look for experts and advisers in this area, and, of course, the Hon Dr Nick Smith for his comments about improving the rights of disabled persons and cautioning us in terms of unintentional consequences.

To my colleague Greg O’Connor—thank you, Greg O’Connor. Sometimes when we think about bailiffs, we forget that they are people delivering a vital service. So thank you, Greg O’Connor, for bringing that side of the argument into the kōrero today, and protection for bailiffs now that if this goes into law, they are protected from applying good judgment, where we’ve seen in this case—in the ‘Epalahame ‘Una Tanginoa case—we all agree that that did not fall into “good judgment”.

Just to round off, I want to acknowledge the work of the Community Law office, especially the work of Mr Soane Foliaki, who is based in Ōtara. Of course, they do now have a Community Law office in Papakura. I am honoured to be the member based in Papakura to bring the voices of the people to this House. Also, I want to encourage everyone out there who thinks that this was something that would not happen in New Zealand to exercise the tools afforded to the select committee. If submissions are sought, please, please put a submission in, because we would like to hear the thoughts of those who have gone through this experience or who do not wish for others to go through this experience.

In my opening speech, we’ve referred to the word “tetraplegic” or “quadriplegic”. It’s been reported that Mr Tanginoa was a quadriplegic. His lawyer refers to him as a tetraplegic, but in the end, it summarises our needing to learn more about the disabled community, and that when we’re speaking about a certain disability, we need to be informed of what it means for that person. I also want to acknowledge those who are champions in this area to please bring your voice when submissions are sought. Bring your voice to the select committee. It is much needed. This is the time for this to come to this House. Of course, to my colleague and my friend, fellow rugby coach, Mr Soane Foliaki, thank you for your assisting me in the journey of this bill in the House. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō ‘aupito.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I move, That the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

The Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill comes as a result of some work I undertook for the then Minister of Local Government, Paula Bennett, commencing in 2014, and the brief to myself was very clear. She wished me to focus and consult widely on the incidence of what she called “loopy” rules, and I think that’s a very apt description of a number of the rules that beset local government and literally get in the way of local government providing top quality service to those people it serves in its regulatory functions and other functions that it undertakes.

I assembled a panel of people from throughout New Zealand from a range of skills and experiences, including the private sector, property development, chamber of commerce, local government mayors, and a few other experts. We literally consulted in most parts of New Zealand, from Northland down to Southland. We went to Invercargill; we went to the West Coast. We took our time. We not only listened to local government on their views around the rules and the constraints under which they operate; we also heard from the general public. A number of property developers and those who wish to make a contribution to their communities by way of development, building property, building subdivisions for housing, building commercial properties had a very singular and strong message to us at that time. That was that their reflection was that not only was the Building Act and not only were the Resource Management Act (RMA) and a number of other Acts providing sometimes troublesome impediments to them getting on and doing what they wished to do by way of application—the focus wasn’t on that, and that is not the focus of this bill either.

The focus that came through to us very strongly, apart from those reflections around legislation such as the Building Act and the RMA, was on customer service. I will go into that, obviously, a little further, but just one reflection I will make on the RMA: I want to congratulate the Labour Government and the local government Minister Nanaia Mahuta for their focus on ensuring that local government itself is given the tools to improve its performance across all its regulatory functions. I believe, and I do hope, that this customer service - focused bill finds favour across the House as a simple measure to concentrate the attention of those in local government at performing their regulatory functions properly, so that we can truly provide good service to those who approach local government for their regulatory functions.

The customer focus doesn’t mean providing a welcome mat in the front office of a council. What it means, and what my intent is with this bill, is, just as the Public Service are now required to do, local government receive and process applications to them for whatever function, most particularly in terms of resource consents and in the Building Act but not exclusively, and that a system is worked out within local government—and far be it from me, and far be it from this Parliament, in my view, to prescribe what that should look like, because I respect the autonomy of local government. But what I would like to see through this bill is the chief executive of the local authority to turn their attention to “How do we respond to this—very simple, in this case—resource consent or building consent application? What is the best, most timely, most cost-effective way that we can process and see the passage of this application through our council, and to provide a decision? It may not be what the applicant hopes for or wants and may have conditions, but how do we provide an answer for the applicant so that the property developer who wishes to build social housing, for example, has certainty and has a decision which is cost-effective and timely coming through that local authority?”

By way of, perhaps, example, throughout the work of the Rules Reduction Taskforce, we had many, many meetings with property developers. They are the ones who wish to build houses. They’re the ones who wish to build warm, dry homes, whether it’s social housing right through the range. One developer said to me—and we were in the southern part of New Zealand—“Tell me which council you believe we get better service from when we are fronting up to the front desk with an application for a subdivision, say.” This developer gave us two examples. One was in a very busy, very fast-growing local authority area, and the other was in a slightly bigger, more urban but more stable area without that much growth. So I went, “Of course one is going to get better service from a fast-growing local authority who’s geared up for that.”, and the answer was, “No. Actually, we got excellent service from that local authority which was just in steady mode, and the reason we got that good service from them and timely, cost-effective decisions was because they literally rolled out the red carpet, because they welcomed us into town.” Any developer who wished to build homes was welcome in that town, and they got what the developers regarded was good service from local authority. That’s what I’m hoping to achieve through this bill.

I did say towards the beginning of this reading that it wasn’t just about customer focused—no, it’s not. It’s about good process and good service, but, actually, customer service goes an awfully long way. If I think about one council I have visited a couple of times over there—and that would be Rotorua—it strikes me: you walk into the building and it is warm and friendly and welcoming, but most of all it’s got bicycles, and the bicycles are there for council staff to jump on instead of using the council fleet of cars, and I thought that is good innovation and that is good thinking on behalf of councils. Councils are innovative. Councils do care, mayors do care, planners care about the applications that come across their desk. But what I would like to see here is a focus on who they should be focusing on, and that is the people they serve, the people who come into the council with an application. It might be a licence, it might be a hairdressing licence, or it might be liquor licensing. I’ve mentioned a number of applications it might be.

So just finally, just so I can put it on the record, the main provision of this bill is that section 14 of the Local Government Act is amended, which is around the principles relating to local authorities, and it inserts “[promoting] a customer focus and delivery of public services and regulatory functions”. If this small, simple—very simple—bill can move councils along just a little bit, together with all the other initiatives that the current Government and previous Governments and future Governments will be bringing in to support local councils and their very important economic development functions—and I have talked about housing. I do believe the provision of housing and the provision of economic activity is critical now in this post-COVID world. Well, if we can get this through, then I do hope it finds the favour of the House. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I rise to take a call on the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill and say that we will not be supporting it. It’s a seemingly small and innocuous amendment, but it’s the kind of bill where it proposes a solution and we’re trying to figure out the problem, because the problem that the member’s proposing actually relates to the Resource Management Act.

So we will not be supporting it, but let me go through in detail around why, because the member Jacqui Dean has said that part of the proposition is to ensure that there is a greater emphasis of councils on the customer. It demonstrates that either the member has failed to recognise the range of customers on a daily basis that local governments and councils deal with, or she’s talking about a specific type of customer. In the example that she’s given, by and large, building consents are a certain type of decision making where if that was the intent, then she should have had the definition in that bill.

But let me come back to the range of customers, because that does make a very big difference. I mean, we inserted the “four well-beings” back into the law, which was supported by councils, because councils realised that they needed to engage quite widely on a number of fronts with their communities, and that was going to be a hallmark of their ability to deliver services that would actually meet the aspirations of a community on a number of fronts: recreational facilities, cycleways, waste services, the way in which you set fees and levies. So councils already engage with their communities and they consult widely on a number of things. They have the annual plans and long-term community plans.

They consult on things like bylaws. And if we go to the range of bylaws that they consult on—in roading, speed limits, parking, traffic; alcohol ban bylaws; trade waste; freedom camping; and dog control, to name a few. And if you go on to any council website, they will detail the range of things that they are consulting on to secure community feedback—those most affected, perhaps, in some instances—so that they can then use that feedback to tailor the decisions that they make. That’s a really important element of the services that councils provide, because if we truly believe in local people making local decisions, then we have to be able to ensure that they are able to engage with their community and take on board really strong views and really local things in order to moderate the decisions that they’re making that are impacting those most directly affected. So I wonder whether the bill is somewhat misplaced and the member, having focused a large part of her contribution on building consents, may have actually wanted to target another set of provisions or expand out so, more precisely, her intent could be reflected in the bill that she was going to bring to this House.

When I think about a number of councils that I’ve visited and the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers awards that highlight the level of community engagement and customer focus that councils have to engage in—because they are measured every day in every moment on a number of fronts, because where the rubber hits the road is on the range of services that they’re providing—when I look to the member’s own council, I was quite interested around the range of engagements that they had on things like the Kakanui mowing survey. They surveyed the community. The community didn’t want a change of service, but the council took on board that—they didn’t change the service, although they undertook a new contract. That very much was reflected back by the local community to ensure that the mowing of that particular area was going to stay the same, even though the person delivering the service was going to be different.

When I look at the consultation in, again, the member’s own area, Ōtematatā master plan—where that was engaging with the community to set out their vision on how and where the township will grow, there was a lot of feedback on that particular issue, and the council was able to glean from that feedback a better response to the decisions around the master plan and planning. Then there are things like where the Moeraki toilet was going to be placed, and the community expressed a strong view in favour of the council, and so the toilet went up and the project proceeded.

My point here is that every day the council has to engage with the community on a number of things. Yes, for significant things—again, the annual plan and the long-term plan actually capture a lot of the significant aspects, but then there are smaller aspects, very local, that can get communities very charged up, and it would be remiss of any council not to take on board the views of those most directly affected so that they can better make decisions. If that’s not customer focus, I’m not sure what is.

Some of the contentious areas, however—and let me come back to things like planning fees and charges. These are often consulted on because a dollar here, a couple of dollars there increase can make all the world of difference; but, again, you can go through many council websites and they will demonstrate how they are consulting on planning fees and charges across a number of services that councils provide, and then take on board the feedback about where there is the most concern or impact on those most directly affected, and then councils are able to propose the types of changes that take account of those types of things. That is as we would want it—surely, surely.

I acknowledge what seems to be the genuine desire to ensure that there should be a customer focus across councils, but I assert that there are already mechanisms within councils that take account of this. We have to ensure by and large that, on a regular basis, as a matter of best practice and good protocol, councils develop the tools where they are regularly engaging with communities, not driven hard by statute, but, actually, this is about responsible, good governance, good local decision-making, and enabling the community to feed into a process.

I was really, really encouraged by the range of things in my own area that have been consulted on—everything from gully restoration to recreational facilities, playgrounds, Hamilton being a family-friendly area, upgrading all the playgrounds, being ensured that we’re a cycle-friendly town—the extension of the cycleway has been really useful in promoting all sorts of activities and our recreation facilities. Those are things that communities and families feel really strongly about—even where you can take your pet for a walk without being hassled by anyone else. So there are already mechanisms in place for councils to garner the feedback of their communities—those most directly affected—so that they can tailor their decision making to ensure that their focus is on their local communities: those most directly affected.

Let me come back to the issue of building consents, because, again, if you go to council websites, you’ll find that councils oblige themselves by identifying the process that they undertake to work through building consents and the timing you can expect, but also if there are off-ramps because of whatever reason, what might cause a delay and the clock gets stopped. You can go through the 67 territorial authorities and see that level of visibility. Now, I’m not saying that that in itself is an absolute assurance, but that is there to give people, users, greater oversight as to the processes, the timings, that they can expect from a certain council.

Lastly, can I say as a result of the COVID experience and timely payments to small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs), Minister Nash and the Minister of Finance and I sent a letter to councils just to say that people are going through difficult times; it would be really good if SMEs could be paid on time by councils. Councils respond really positively. They don’t need a stick. In fact, many councils pride themselves on best practice in the way that they engage with people, because their focus is about delivering better services to all communities in their area, and there’s no need for the bill, really.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak to support the Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill. Just now, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta talked about public consultation and said that it may be part of the customer focus, but it cannot replace customer focus. They’re somewhat different.

Customer focus is something that companies, organisations, and Government agencies frequently talk about. If we visit home pages of companies, we’ll see customer focus for these things. We all agree it is important and it is a culture that we should have in dealing with customers, so there is no dispute in that sense. However, it is often easier said than done because when you implement this customer-focused culture, you’ll find that it is not so easy. Now, we all experience this kind of customer-focused culture in different ways. There are various experiences, I would say. Because of the modern technology, we now have maybe a modern understanding of the customer-focused approach. We have a different standard in terms of the customer-focused culture.

Now, local government plays a very important role in our daily lives. We all have some sort of dealings with local authorities, but developers—as the sponsor of the bill, the Hon Jacqui Dean, mentioned in her speech—are often frustrated when dealing with local authorities. I have talked to many developers, and they do express their frustration from time to time, for example, in terms of resource consent or in terms of inspection. Very often, an inspector will come to inspect one particular part of a project, and then there will be a change in specifications and then a change of standard, so there are at least three variations or change of requirements. It has financial implications for these developers, so how do you deal with these sorts of issues?

It is important for councils and for local authorities to understand the frustration and also understand the financial implication and also economic implications, and for that reason I think this bill can help promote a customer-focused culture in local authorities. It gives customer focus some kind of legal status to make sure the local authorities will indeed have this kind of customer-focused approach in delivering public services and also regulatory functions. At the moment, there is no requirement under the Local Government Act 2002 for local authorities to do so, so it is important to have this kind of bill to make sure the local authorities do understand that it is their responsibility to promote a customer-focused culture in their agencies.

So, for that reason, I think this bill has its importance and, for that reason, we should support the bill, and it is also feasible to do so because we do have what we call the State services framework, which actually promotes the customer-focused approach. So if we applied that to this particular bill to make sure that local authorities understand and, really, do something, it can be done.

So, very specifically, as the sponsor of the bill, the Hon Jacqui Dean mentioned, actually, we could have a case manager to follow this particular project, as we often do. In a bank, you have a case manager, and then you follow this so that you don’t have to deal with different kinds of people at different times. If people do not understand your case, you have to repeat what you have said before, and in the end, no progress. So it’s a waste of time. A waste of time means a waste of money and financial cost, and this is particularly important, of course, for small businesses in this particular time of post - COVID-19 recovery.

I do believe this is a useful bill. This is an important bill. I support the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill. I’d like to acknowledge Jacqui Dean for her good fortune in having it drawn from the ballot. I’d like to begin by just sort of outlining, unfortunately, some of the challenges that we have on this side with the bill. Now, I’m sure no one in this House would argue that having good customer service is important from a local authority, you know, from a business, from Parliament, from members of Parliament. But one of the issues with this bill is it’s fairly ambiguous. I mean, what does customer service mean? Who is the customer?

So let’s look, for example, at the Dog Control Act. Who is the customer in terms of council staff interpreting that Act? Is it the dog owner? Is it the dog? Is it the cat? Is it the neighbour? Is it members of the public? Now, I don’t mean to sound facetious here, but I do mean to raise the point that the bill is rather ambiguous. It is rather subjective, because, as the previous speaker mentioned in his speech, people can have an experience, in this case with a council—people can have what seems to be the same experience but interpret that in different ways.

So this idea of what is customer service, what is good customer service—now, I used to work in retail. If I could put a little bit of a context on that, I spent five years working in a music store while I was studying, and some of the aspects we were taught about good customer service—and I’d like to make the point that I believe councils already do have good customer service. But let me just make this point. So the first one is focusing on customers’ needs. This is fairly sort of well known, particularly around the business community: the customer comes first. So you develop products and services for the customer’s needs. Now, I would argue that councils already do this. We heard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta that this bill is a solution looking for a problem. So is there really a problem around customers’ needs? The council have various mechanisms, short-term plans, long-term plans, to look at the customers’ needs across the city. There’s opportunities within those mechanisms for those customers—in this effect, those people who live in the city, who pay rates—to engage. So it’s already there.

What about the second one—customer preferences, viewing customers as individuals with different preferences? I would argue that councils already do that. The councils engage in a range of areas. You know, they engage on social media, targeted to certain groups, already. Most councils have ethnic groups, ethnic advisers who reach out to various groups to provide customer service. So I would argue that they already do that.

What about another one that we learnt in the business sector, the voice of the customer? So is the voice of the customer heard already through the way councils generally operate? I would argue yes, and it happens every three years when there’s a local body election. So at that time, those customers have the opportunity to vote for people to represent them, which moves on to point number four, customer advocates.

The customer advocates are the councils who are elected when the customers have their voice. So, look, if someone, let’s say in the city of Hamilton, has an issue with the Hamilton City Council around customer service, they need to go to their councillor and the councillor will then advocate for them to the council. I don’t think this is the place for—I don’t think there’s any necessity for us to pass legislation around this when we already have those systems in place. I’m a little bit confused around this bill, but that’s OK.

I would like to pick up on the building point, because the Hon Nanaia Mahuta mentioned that sometimes there are views expressed to MPs around the timeliness of building consents, around building, and I’d also like to raise the same question to the member Jacqui Dean. So why does she not just focus on building consents? Maybe in her right of reply at the end of this speech, she might want to talk about that. So my time has run out. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First and to signal right at the outset that we feel very sorry for Nuk Korako. I mean, Nuk Korako came to the House with a serious bill, and it got labelled as probably one of the most ineffective and useless and unnecessary members’ bills to ever hit the floor, and that title’s just been taken away from him by the Hon Jacqui Dean, with her Local Government (Customer Focus) Amendment Bill—his was, of course, the infamous lost-luggage bill. So congratulations, the Hon Jacqui Dean, you’ve just taken the title off Nuk Korako, and that’s hence why New Zealand First sees no need to support this bill. Look, I do apologise to the honourable member; I know she sweated hours and hours and months of research to come up with these two clauses to amend the Local Government Act to make local government do what my council did when I was the mayor, as a matter of course—talk to people.

In fact, I thought I could do a quick straw poll of mayors throughout the country, and flicked out a text and said “Do we need this bill?” Well, it’s interesting. Now, I know they’re all busy people and I really should not have interrupted their days, but the response that’s come back from various mayors around the country is simply, “No, we do this as a matter of course; this is what we do.”

I do find it rather curious that the party had trumpeted the need to cut red tape, slash bureaucracy, do away with stupid rules, the Paula Bennett—

Mark Patterson: Bonfire regulations.

Hon RON MARK: Bonfire regulations. Paula Bennett was going to burn down the world with piles and piles of regulations that were pointless, meaningless, had no need, and were simply tying up hours and hours of Public Service time.

But, look, it’s really simple, and I have no real depth of knowledge—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The time is coming for me to leave the Chair. This bill is set down for further consideration next sitting day.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Wednesday)