Wednesday, 22 July 2020

WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 2020

WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement that “when we’re talking about infrastructure, it’s not just about the projects we in the Government are responsible for, we also have the opportunity to partner with communities, with iwi and local government. That’s what the $2.6 billion worth of shovel-ready projects we announced earlier this week were all about”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I also went on to say “Things like Home Ground, a project by the Auckland City Mission that will provide 80 apartments with wrap around support and care, or the Poverty Bay Rugby Park Grandstand … right through to the Invercargill inner city development. Collectively these projects are estimated to create over 20,000 jobs in the next 5 years.” These projects demonstrate our commitment to infrastructure that creates jobs, contributes to our communities, and achieves more than roading projects alone. I am very proud to be of the Government of infrastructure.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is the Government not releasing the full list of projects and starting work when it has been reported that 45 percent of engineering consulting firms are now considering cutting staff?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: First of all, it would be wrong to assume that the sum of the Government’s infrastructure announcements are the COVID response and recovery infrastructure projects. In fact, the New Zealand upgrade, announced in February, is $12 billion worth of infrastructure, which, in education alone, $249 million worth of projects have already been approved for 2,400 projects. Secondly, when the COVID pandemic hit, we moved straight away to generate jobs through infrastructure. On 1 April, we created the Infrastructure Reference Group. On 17 May, we received over 1,900 potential projects; that was then provided to Ministers. We worked through a shortlist of 800. On 29 June, very quickly, they were signed off, and on 1 July they started to be rolled out. We’ve already had hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth announced. Some we continue with due diligence, but we are moving as swiftly as we can.

Hon Judith Collins: Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that there are 200,000 construction workers in receipt of the wage subsidy and there is a crying need to get shovel-ready projects under way faster than she says her Government is capable of?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One of the issues with making sure we have shovel-ready projects is that we had an infrastructure deficit left by the last Government. In health alone, we had projects that we have had to wind up as a Government because DHBs did nothing to prepare for their capital works because they were provided with no support from the last Government to do it. That is why we’ve had a deficit of shovel-ready projects. Though, to come directly to the answer to the member’s question: again, it is wrong to say that, solely, we are reliant on the COVID response projects to provide a pipeline of work. In fact, we are the Government that established the Infrastructure Commission to determine that pipeline as well. We already have $750 million worth of projects announced. We are moving quickly, but we are ensuring due diligence as well.

Hon Judith Collins: Can she explain why her Government’s programme has resulted in industry leaders stating “The current situation is incredibly frustrating. We know the work is out there, but unless we know where, what, and, most importantly, when projects will start, contractors are left totally in the dark. They will have no choice but to put workers off or face the risk of companies going under.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as the Government of infrastructure, this is the investment of this Government in infrastructure, and can I point out that this is actually the generous graph—this is the one that includes the Future Investment Fund, where the last Government sold assets in order to put a paltry amount into infrastructure. This Government is a Government that has acknowledged that we had a deficit, but not only in projects but in skills, and that is why we have invested over $1 billion to make sure that we overcome that deficit and the legacy of that member’s Government as well.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it true that her Government’s processes have led to industry leaders stating, “The problem now was that no one could see six to 12 months ahead, so they were taking risks [even] retaining staff on assumptions that work would appear or [else they have to cut back the] hours.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have read the full context of that exact article the member quotes from, and I’d like to, again, point out, actually, another part of that article. It says, “We’ve seen this happen before. [In] the early 90s, thousands of jobs were shed, creating a capability crisis lasting a decade,”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Turn the volume down.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —“whose ripples remain today. The loss of skill and capacity in engineering and construction meant under-investment”. We are still having to repair from the under-investment—significant under-investment—of the last Government. We are doing that: $1 billion into skills, $12 billion into the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, and, in the last Budget alone, $45 billion in infrastructure and an infrastructure commission to create the pipeline of work that that member’s last Government did not.

Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that projects are being rolled out over coming weeks by ministerial visits—as confirmed by Shane Jones, who said, when asked, he “wouldn’t want to break a habit”—when there are so many jobs dependent on those projects being announced and they could be announced now, not waiting on a ministerial visit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive, Paul Blair, who has said companies are running out of time: “It’s very stressful, it’s increasing costs and it’s completely avoidable. The full list and timing of shovel ready projects”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to interrupt the member. The quotes that the member is using are getting unreasonably long. We were relatively liberal with the first quote from the Prime Minister, but I think the member does know she’s got to summarise.

Hon Judith Collins: Could I do it again?

SPEAKER: Yes, the member can start again.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you very much—thank you. What is her response to Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Paul Blair, who has said companies are running out of time: “It’s very stressful, it’s increasing costs and it’s completely avoidable.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would correct the member and say that it is incorrect to assume that the bulk of infrastructure investment coming from this Government is solely the $2.6 billion from the Infrastructure Reference Group. In fact, the vast majority, of course, has been announced and has started rolling out prior to now. Finally, though, we are moving simultaneously. We had over 1,900 projects that we have whittled down as quickly as possible. We are simultaneously working through the final details and contract negotiations whilst announcing them as quickly as we can. It would be wrong for us to announce projects without having done due diligence; the member would be the first to point that out if that was the case.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why are 200,000 construction workers on wage subsidies, which are due to expire very soon?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think you’ll find that in the global financial crisis, we saw a downturn as well. We are not going to let that happen on our watch. We are working as quickly as we can to make sure that we do not have an environment where, right when we need these projects, we see people backing away. But the member is oversimplifying. Many developers, for instance, are experiencing tighter criteria and loaning requirements from their banks. There are a range of factors at play. We are trying to counteract that with our investments.

Hon Judith Collins: When will the Prime Minister release the full list of shovel-ready projects to give certainty to the construction workers relying on her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, for the $2.6 billion which sits within the over $40 billion or more announced from Budget 2020, $750 million has already been announced, and we are moving as quickly as we can to finalise any contractual issues and notify successful applicants as quickly as we can.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the Government’s COVID-19-related spending is fully justified and providing industry sectors with the certainty they require?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am confident that the spending is justified, given the one-in-100-year shock to the global and New Zealand economies. The spending has given us the ability to go hard and early against COVID19 to keep New Zealanders safe, to allow our economy to open up sooner, and to support the economic recovery by protecting jobs and investing to create new jobs. I’m also confident that we are providing certainty to industry by ensuring funding is available for the projects that we are announcing.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So why has his Government not announced details of the so-called shovel-ready projects now, to give civil contractors as much certainty as possible?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe the Prime Minister covered this in some depth in the answer to the previous question. One of the issues, for example, is the issue around due diligence, and to reiterate a point that the Prime Minister has made, I am sure that if we announced projects that hadn’t been through that, the member would be the first to criticise us for that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is he saying categorically that each project is being announced immediately after due diligence has been completed by Ministers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is one of the factors that determines when it’s announced.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is the Government “trickling out” spending announcements—that’s a phrase used by civil contractor industry leaders—over the next few weeks in the lead-up to an election?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, we have covered this ground. We’re making sure the contracts are fully finalised. We’re making sure due diligence has been done. I reject the pejorative statement that goes with that, but also endorse what the Prime Minister has said: along with the Infrastructure Industry Reference Group projects, we have the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme and we have the massive, record investment in health and education infrastructure, all of which is being rolled out as we speak.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, what’s more important: ministerial announcements in high-vis during an election campaign, or providing certainty about jobs as soon as possible?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What’s important is actually funding the projects that we promise, making sure that the money’s there, not just relying on press releases and ghost roads.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding press releases and ghost roads, there was a big press release about light rail in Auckland. How’s that coming along?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, we covered this ground yesterday with the Prime Minister, so I don’t think we need to go over that. I did, however, see a press release that said that the first element of a $31 billion infrastructure plan was a four-lane highway with two tunnels, which turned out not to have any funding or any costings at all.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How are the fiscals, the potentials, and the legal work going behind the Transmission Gully stoppage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Regrettably, the public-private partnership signed up to by the previous Government is not progressing in a way that this Government would be comfortable with, and I think members on the other side may need to take a look in the mirror when it comes to whether or not projects are properly designed and properly funded.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that having the vision to connect 2.5 million New Zealanders who live between Whangārei, Tauranga, and Hamilton is not a good idea?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If all the Opposition over there have got is a vision, they’re going to be over there for a very long time.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think it’s appropriate to use scarce scientific funds to send friends of the Deputy Prime Minister to Antarctica?

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not related to the question. The member knows it, and will lose a supplementary as a result.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to test you on that ruling, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, better not.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The primary question was absolutely specific, and it did not relate to Antarctica funding.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On Friday, Treasury released the latest New Zealand Activity Index for June. This showed economic activity continued to bounce back in June to just 0.9 percent below the same month last year, after falls of 18 percent and 6 percent in April and May. The continued recovery in June was led by growth in electronic card spending, heavy traffic movements, and manufacturing activity, all of which were up on June 2019 levels. While the index was dragged down a little by an increase in the number of people on income support, other indicators, such as light traffic movements, business confidence, and new job ads posted online, also saw a continuing uptick. While the New Zealand Activity Index does not show the full economic picture, these are encouraging signs that the economy has bounced back after a difficult past few months.

Tāmati Coffey: What reports has he seen on the resilience of New Zealand’s economy in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yesterday the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) released a report on the role that land-based industries such as livestock, forestry, and horticulture have played in New Zealand’s economic performance under the COVID-19 pandemic. The report said that whatever COVID-19 has done to other parts of world trade, it has reinforced the underlying strength and importance of New Zealand’s land-based industries. The NZIER pointed to growth in demand from China and other Asian nations, combined with our flexible and adaptable supply chains and strong and effective institutions as the key reasons for New Zealand’s strong trading results through the pandemic so far, with dairy, meat, and horticulture sectors up by nearly $1 billion for the year to date compared with this time last year.

Tāmati Coffey: What did the NZIER report say about the outlook for New Zealand’s land-based industries?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The NZIER said that the general picture for exports is one of cautious optimism, based on the continued demand for New Zealand farm products despite COVID-19. However, the report did also point to the continued persistence of COVID-19 around the world, and particularly in the UK and US, as a key concern, and one that has been highlighted in many other commentaries, including the IMF and the World Bank. The Government is keenly aware of the importance of trade to our economic recovery and of the economic risks from worsening outbreaks and associated restrictions in key export markets. That’s why we are working alongside and investing in the future of our exporters, including through the Industry Transformation Plan for the agritech sector announced yesterday by Ministers Twyford and O’Connor. The Government is investing $11.4 million in this plan to lift the productivity of the sector, commercialise new products, and establish, for example, a horticultural robotics academy.

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: What percentage of New Zealanders are using the Government’s New Zealand COVID Tracer app on a daily basis, and what are its measures of effectiveness?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): A total of 617,200 users have registered for the COVID Tracer app. Official statistics record the number of scans per day, not the number of active users per day. Around 12,000 scans are being made each day on average. It’s important to remember that the app is just one of the tools available to us. The work of the public health units and the National Close Contact Service remain the mainstays of our contact tracing system. The measure of the app’s effectiveness will be how quickly it can be used to support contact tracing in the event that we have cases of COVID-19 in the community that need to be traced.

Dr Shane Reti: What are the recent trends in uptake and use of the Government’s New Zealand COVID Tracer app?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s been a flurry of activity over the last week or so. We’ve seen a significant number of additional posters printed, around 350 additional posters being printed per day, which is a good sign. There have been tens of thousands—I think 20,000 or 30,000—of additional users signing up to register for the app over the last week and a bit. We still have a long, long way to go to get everybody using it, but, you know, we’ll keep pushing it.

Dr Shane Reti: What are the reasons for more New Zealanders not using the COVID Tracer app and how will he address this?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, one of the big issues is that New Zealanders don’t, by and large, feel an immediate sense of threat from COVID-19. That, of course, is a sign of our success as a country and the team of 5 million in stamping out COVID19. But the message from the Government is that there is no room for any of us to be complacent here. We all need to do our bit. I’d encourage all members of Parliament to make sure they are using the app, and I also say to any member of the public: if they want to know why things like the app are important, they could sit down one evening and try and record down everybody that they had come into contact with in the last two weeks. Anybody who has tried to do that exercise will know it’s a lot harder than they might think it is.

Dr Shane Reti: Given that reply, does the Minister have the app and does he scan each QR code he comes in contact with, given his recent statements that these numbers are low and we do want to lift our game here?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I do. In fact, I even scan in and out of Copperfield’s every day when I’m using it here in the building.

Dr Shane Reti: How can he have confidence in the effectiveness of the app, when nearly half of the 1,558 reviews on the Google download site give it a one star with complaints it’s too hard to use?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s no question—[Interruption] There’s no question that there’s room for improvement in there. The next—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m taking this as a serious question and I’d like to hear the answer and not have it shouted down. Some of us think this issue is important to New Zealand.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There’s no question that the app was developed at speed during an emergency situation, and of course there is room for improvement. The next update of the app, which will be released before the end of this month, will deal with many of the common complaints from users, including that they can’t manually enter in contacts where there isn’t a QR code—that will be addressed—and that they can’t retrospectively add information into the app; that will be addressed as well. But even if people aren’t scanning QR codes, it’s merely registering for the app that helps the Ministry of Health where contact tracing is required. Already, people’s contact details from registering for the app have been used on multiple occasions as part of legitimate contact tracing exercises. So even signing up for the app and making sure that your contact details are up to date is actually a significant step that all New Zealanders should be taking.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm the recently found information that we’re up to 3½ stars on Apple and does he credit himself with that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, popularity is growing on this side of the House on a daily basis.

Dr Shane Reti: What role does an effective coronavirus tracing app have in recovering an economy and could a poorly performing app hinder recovery?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the things that of course could hinder a recovery is another outbreak of COVID-19. That could, of course, be caused by a variety of things, including premature reopening of the border, which is being advocated by some members in this House—not on this side of the House, though. Our first line of defence is our border. The second line of defence is our testing and contact tracing regime, and we need everybody to play their part in ensuring that there is an effective contact tracing regime in place should we need it.

Question No. 5—Small Business

5. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Small Business: Is he concerned with the ANZ report issued yesterday that “a net 48 percent of small businesses feel pessimistic about general business conditions in the year ahead”; if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): What I am concerned about is that perhaps the member hasn’t realised, but we are in the middle of a global pandemic, and what has been proven is that this Government’s decision to go hard and go early with a health response was also the best thing to do from an economic response. I refer to the MYOB report that was highlighted in the House yesterday by the Hon Grant Robertson that shows confidence amongst small to medium sized enterprises is cautiously improving, that more businesses are expecting to see growth in the next 12 months following on from March when the economy was heading into lockdown. I’d also like to draw the member’s notice to the June Xero Small Business Insights report, which also showed that 65 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that New Zealand has an opportunity to rebuild its economy better than before COVID.

Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a great question, but I actually asked him whether he was concerned, and I haven’t actually heard that.

Hon Member: It wasn’t a great question.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s right. It was a very long answer, rather than a question, I think the member was referring to. Have a go via supplementary. The member said it was a great question.

Andrew Bayly: Thank you. So I get a supplementary?

SPEAKER: It may or may not have been.

Andrew Bayly: I get a supplementary—thank you. What policies has he implemented, if any, over the past four months of this economic crisis to cut regulations for small businesses given this is the biggest problem identified by small businesses in the ANZ survey?

Hon STUART NASH: Mr Speaker, you said my last answer was too long. This one may be even longer if the member really wants me to list what we’ve done for small businesses since COVID lockdown. We have done a substantial amount. There’s the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, which was rolled out in two weeks—no personal guarantees, money out the door. There was the wage subsidy scheme, and in fact we were the first Government in the world to get money into the pockets—again, high-trust model, and it kept 1.7 million Kiwis employed. We rolled out a whole lot of tax measures which made it very easy for small businesses to either comply with their obligations or enter into—

Hon Shane Jones: Less red tape.

Hon STUART NASH: —an arrangement with Inland Revenue to meet their obligations. There are a number of things that this Government has done across—

SPEAKER: OK, OK, between the Minister and Mr Jones, I think you’ve answered it.

Andrew Bayly: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I asked about regulations; I’m not sure I heard anything. I heard about tax changes, but they’re not regulations. I asked him specifically: what has he done to cut regulations for small businesses?

SPEAKER: The member can have a go on the very narrow issue, rather than a general rave.

Hon STUART NASH: Well, we make an assumption that cutting regulations means it’s easier for businesses to do work. I just have to highlight what we have done with Inland Revenue to make it so much easier for small businesses to comply with their tax obligations. What we did do—

SPEAKER: All right, OK—the member’s addressed the question.

Andrew Bayly: What policies has he implemented, if any, over the last four months to support small businesses hiring new people given that a third of businesses now expect to shed jobs over the coming year?

Hon STUART NASH: Minister Hipkins actually released an apprenticeship and training package worth about $450 million. I think that what we have done in terms of allowing New Zealanders to re-engage with business, to retrain, to get back on the horse, so to speak, has been phenomenal. So for that member to suggest that we have done nothing in terms of allowing small businesses to grow, for workers to become engaged in the economy, to retrain, to train, and get back into work—I will note one thing: that member is the fourth small business spokesperson, so I suppose we’ve got to give him a little bit of latitude.

Andrew Bayly: In view of the report stating that over half of all small businesses now expect their profits to deteriorate, will the Labour-led Government provide meaningful rental support to small businesses, and if not, why not?

Hon STUART NASH: I think the member would know that’s not part of my portfolio responsibility.

SPEAKER: Question No. 6, Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Andrew Bayly: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, we will go back to Mr Bayly, but it’s really important, if the member wants another supplementary, that he stands up.

Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister for Small Business, did he support the increase in the minimum wage, effective 1 April 2020, at a very time when most small businesses were not receiving any income?

Hon STUART NASH: What we do know is an increase in the minimum wage provides an economic fiscal stimulus package.

Hon Judith Collins: Answer it—answer the question.

Hon STUART NASH: Yes, I did support that, because—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Who was that interjecting then? Well, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Judith Collins: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon STUART NASH: What I was saying is that an increase in the minimum wage provides a level of fiscal stimulus much needed. What we do know is those on the minimum wage tend to spend a lot of their income, and that is exactly what we need at this point in time.

Andrew Bayly: What hope can he offer small-business owners who only see a bleak future, with over half of them pessimistic about business confidence or conditions during the next twelve months?

Hon STUART NASH: I’ll go back to my original answer: we are in the middle of a global pandemic. In essence, what we are is we have one of the most open economies in the world at this point in time, because what we did is we went early, we went hard, and, as a consequence, we can all be where we are at the moment, because there has been no community transmission for weeks. What we have done by addressing the health response is allow our economy to open and, therefore, for small businesses to do as well as they possibly can.

Question No. 6—Social Development

6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about supporting employment initiatives in partnership with local government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On 9 July, along with Mayor Phil Goff, I announced an extension to our partnership with Auckland Council, the Ngā Puna Pūkenga—Skills for Industry programme. The programme will fund up to 700 placements in Auckland through an investment of $4.34 million, to support people into infrastructure and related environmental jobs. Of the 700 placements, 420 will be for youth in receipt of a benefit; those over 25 with three or more months on benefit; Māori and Pasifika; and our long-term unemployed; as well as people not in education, employment, or training. A further 280 placements are for people made redundant as a direct outcome of COVID-19. This is a key partnership with Ministry of Social Development (MSD) funding to support pre-work training and job matching, Auckland Council providing opportunities for employment through infrastructure projects, and industry partners taking up new recruits and supporting them to gain new skills and remain in the industry.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What other announcements has she made in partnership with local government?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I also recently announced, alongside the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, another extension of a pilot which supports rural councils to implement employment initiatives focused on connecting youth with local small businesses. This extension will see 19 additional rural councils able to access up to $500,000 each to create sustainable employment positions in their regions. The initiative was piloted with four councils—Ōpōtiki, Central Hawke’s Bay, Rangitīkei, and South Wairarapa—under alert level 2, and has been highly successful with three of the four councils meeting or exceeding their target of 30 employment outcomes within five weeks. Despite challenging circumstances during this COVID recovery period, we continue to see innovative partnerships like these having a positive effect on employment outcomes, local communities, and small businesses.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why are initiatives like these so important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Partnerships are crucial in our COVID recovery phase. Local government and the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs have important local insights into the specific needs of their communities and are well placed to work alongside the Government to develop solutions that will work on the ground. Establishing effective partnerships means that we can leverage local government projects, their relationships with both big and small businesses, as well as contribute MSD’s expertise of job matching and training and employment support products and services. This Government is committed to investing in jobs, people, and industries, and these initiatives demonstrate this commitment.

Question No. 7—Conservation

7. Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in regards to tahr management in New Zealand?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Yes, in the context in which they were made or taken. As Minister of Conservation, I stand by the work that the Department of Conservation is doing to implement the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan to ensure that the tahr population in the iconic Southern Alps is managed in accordance with that statutory plan. Over the last 2½ years there has been extensive consultation with hunting groups and control is now under way to bring tahr numbers down to a more sustainable level.

Hon Jacqui Dean: What is the total value to New Zealand’s economy of commercial and recreational tahr hunting in New Zealand?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I have heard estimates of around $14 million, but I would note that the borders are now closed, so the commercial trophy hunting industry does not have a lot of clients. I would also note that the national parks that she and the Tahr Foundation have been worried about, in the last five years there was an average of only 65 bull tahr which were shot as commercial trophy animals, and so 65 tahr in national parks is a niche industry, not a major one.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she agree that recreational and commercial tahr hunters add economic value to the regions of New Zealand, including the South Island’s West Coast?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: If the member read the Himalayan Tahr Control Plan, she would see that it recognises the value of recreational and commercial hunting. However those hunters have failed to get tahr numbers down to the level that the plan provides for—an upper limit of 10,000 animals. That is why official control is needed, and I’m disappointed that the National Party—and that member—is turning its back on national parks as a safe haven for our indigenous plants and wildlife.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she consider that expenditure by commercial and recreational tahr hunters on accommodation, on travel, hospitality, ammunition, and gear supports regional economies?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: What I’m concerned about is the threats that are being made to commercial helicopter operators which are causing those operators to retreat from work they have been doing for decades in controlling tahr in the central Southern Alps. What I’m concerned about is the threats of violence that are being made to the department and to those operators, and they are reported to the police.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific. I was asking whether the Minister considered that expenditure by commercial and recreational tahr hunters supported regional economies. I did not hear the Minister address that question at all.

SPEAKER: I thought she started with a yes, but I’m not—I’ll just ask her to confirm that.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: There is regional economic benefit from tahr hunting, but the misinformation that is being put about by the Tahr Foundation and others that there is a plan to eradicate tahr is simply that—misinformation. When these control operations are completed, there will still be thousands of tahr across thousands of hectares which recreational and commercial trophy hunters can go out and hunt.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Does she believe that tahr control, supported by recreational and commercial hunters, and the revenue they generate to the tune of $17 million per annum, is an important part of our economic recovery post COVID-19?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The member may not have noticed, but the borders are closed, which means that a lot of those international trophy hunters cannot come to New Zealand at present. It is open for recreational hunters to go and hunt tahr, and the Department of Conservation has an app on its website which shows where control operations have been undertaken, and there will be thousands of tahr available for recreational and commercial hunters to hunt.

Hon Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question, again, was quite specific. I did ask the Minister—

SPEAKER: And I’m absolutely convinced that it was not only addressed, but answered.

Question No. 8—Health

8. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about primary maternity services?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Last week, I announced the largest ever increase in funding for primary maternity services and the women and babies they support—$242 million. That includes $85 million for additional modules, indicating a broader range of services under the section 88 notice; $60 million to support community maternity initiatives; $35 million for the maternity action plan; $57 million for cost and volume pressures, which includes a 2.18 percent increase to fees paid to lead maternity carers—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just ask the members down there to be bit quieter. You’re coming across through the two mikes which are open down there, and it means that people up this end are having trouble hearing it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —$5.4 million for a $2,500 payment to eligible lead maternity carer (LMC) midwives to cover extra COVID-19 - related costs. I am proud that independent community midwives under this Government will receive better support for the vital role they play in supporting 60,000 newborns and their parents every year.

Marama Davidson: What specific support will this new funding provide for midwives caring for rural and high-needs women and babies?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Previously, all midwives were paid a standard rate, even though midwives supporting women in rural locations and women with complex pregnancies had extra time and cost associated with caring for these women. The new funding will mean that midwives who travel long distances to care for women or who provide extra attention throughout a complex pregnancy, labour, and birth will finally be able to be compensated for this additional cost and work.

Marama Davidson: How will this extra support better meet the needs of wāhine Māori, their pēpē, and their whānau?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As part of the $35 million maternity action plan, there will be a specific focus on kaupapa Māori approach to maternity care, and this action plan will help reduce avoidable inequities of service by targeting funding and delivering more culturally responsive maternity services. This will be part of the ongoing work undertaken by the Ministry of Health to improve maternity services and working conditions for midwives.

Marama Davidson: How has the Government supported midwives affected by the challenges created by COVID-19?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We all know that during alert levels 4 and 3, many LMC midwives experienced a much higher workload and incurred additional costs due to the need to socially distance. This included taking additional visits to care for expecting mums and newborns during this stressful time. As a result, last month the Government announced that all eligible LMC midwives would receive a one-off $2,500 payment to help cover those additional extra costs incurred during COVID-19. All midwives work extremely hard to care for the women and their babies nationwide, and I’m very proud that they are receiving the support that they deserve.

Question No. 9—Corrections

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement regarding community sentences, “we expect offenders to complete their hours”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. My expectation is that people serving community sentences complete them. Currently, 80 percent of community sentences are completed, so there is still room for improvement.

Simeon Brown: How many offenders who had hours remitted from their community service sentence during COVID-19 had failed to report for community service during the two months leading up to level 4 lockdown?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: That’s a very specific question. At various alert levels, community work was unable to take place—10,745 people were subject to a sentence of community work through the lockdown period, with more than half of these sentences imposed for traffic offences and non-payment of fines. Corrections identified 5,576 people who had demonstrated compliance with their sentences during the month prior to lockdown and remitted, on average, between four to seven hours a week of community work per offender from 23 March to 5 June.

Simeon Brown: Has the Minister’s expectation been met that offenders complete their hours, when half of the offenders serving community service sentences had their sentences reduced during COVID-19, and according to the written question No. 13740, which he provided to me, 2,539 offenders failed to report for their sentence in the two months leading up to lockdown?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, like all New Zealanders, we had to stop undertaking a range of activities at different alert levels, and Community Corrections sites were closed to people reporting, and staff worked remotely. Community work was unable to take place. The offenders on other community sentences continued to be monitored by phone, with home visits carried out where a case had been assessed as higher risk or where there were safety concerns. Corrections did a very tough job making sure that people who had community sentences did as much of it as they could.

Simeon Brown: So is the Minister telling the House that, essentially, he has an expectation that those on community service sentences should complete their hours, but his policies have left 2,539 people who didn’t turn up in the months leading up to lockdown essentially having more hours off than before?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Simeon Brown: Did Corrections consult with victims of crime prior to the decision being made to reduce court-mandated community sentences?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The offenders who were asked to do community hours—most of them, as I said earlier, were there for traffic offences and non-payment of fines, so I’m not quite sure who we’re expected to consult with when he’s talking about victims.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, during the COVID lockdown, which option did he prefer: mindlessly and myopically pressing on with enforcement of the law, or protecting the public’s health during a crisis?

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just wondering how that supplementary relates at all to the primary question around community sentences.

SPEAKER: Well, it relates to about five of the supplementaries. Can you ask the question again, or—have you got the question? Ask it again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: During the COVID lockdown, which option did he prefer: myopically and mindlessly pursuing with the enforcement of the law, or seeking to act in the public health interest?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, of course, the public health interest, because if we had people doing community hours during that time—often they’re picked up in vans; they’re carted around the country—that would just have been impossible. They would have been in danger of transmitting COVID amongst themselves.

Question No. 10—Biosecurity

10. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What progress has been made in the eradication of Mycoplasma bovis from New Zealand?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): New Zealand’s world-first effort to eradicate the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis has made significant progress. Three years to the day since it was first detected in New Zealand, there have been 250 properties infected by the disease, with all but four now clear of it. As we have with our response to COVID-19, this Government showed leadership, made a tough decision, went hard, and went early. This Government made the decision to put $880 million into eradication, because we back our primary sector. It was estimated that allowing the disease to spread could have caused $1.3 billion in economic losses to the sector in the first 10 years alone. As we have with COVID, we’ve been guided by the best science and a technical advisory group made up by world experts. Almost 2½ years into the 10-year effort, I’m pleased by the progress we’ve made. Our farming communities should be really proud of their efforts; this Government is certainly very proud of them.

Kiritapu Allan: What changes have been made to the programme over the past year?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The eradication effort has not been without substantial challenges. No one in the world has ever attempted this before, so we have been learning as we go. It’s not always been perfect, but we have learnt and made changes over time. We are serious about learning and improving. Some of the changes we’ve made include a greater regional focus, more farmer-focused processes, testing is timelier, research is under way to improve testing further, and compensation processes have improved for affected farmers. There is still work to be done and there will be more infected farms to find. But we’re well and truly on track to do what no other country in the world has done to eradicate this disease.

Kiritapu Allan: And what support has there been from industry?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, I’m very pleased to say that the key to the success of our programme are the partners DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand. They were part of the bold decision to attempt to eradicate this disease and have been part of our efforts since the very beginning. The Government Industry Agreement programme has been established, jointly funded, governed, and delivered by the Ministry for Primary Industries, Biosecurity New Zealand, DairyNZ, and Beef + Lamb New Zealand. Through farmer levies, industry is funding 32 percent of the cost of eradication. There’s also been support from volunteers of the rural support trusts around the country—outstanding organisations—as well as Fonterra, Federated Farmers, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand, the Meat Industry Association, and the New Zealand Veterinary Association. Everyone is united in our common goal to free our country of Mycoplasma bovis.

Question No. 11—Prime Minister

11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in all her Ministers?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: How can she have confidence in Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters when Radio New Zealand reports that he arranged for his personal friends Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek to go on a taxpayer-funded trip to Antarctica?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject many of the assertions made in that question. First of all, the Minister has pointed out in a statement that I believe that he has made publicly that, alongside the varied interests that visit Antarctica, including politicians, scientists, musicians, historians, and artists, of course, we also have an interest in redeveloping Scott Base. That was a Cabinet-mandated request of Antarctica New Zealand that they seek extra sponsorship for that redevelopment, and that is the vein in which those individuals visited.

David Seymour: Then can the Prime Minister please outline to the House the open and transparent process her Government went through to select philanthropists who might donate to Scott Base before the friends of the foreign affairs Minister Winston Peters, Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek, were selected to go on that trip at the expense—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

David Seymour: —of other scientific activity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the many parts of that question, firstly, I’m advised that no one lost their spot as a result of—[Interruption]—Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m advised that no one lost their spot as a result of the two individuals attending. Secondly, of course, individuals who visit Antarctica are available or publicly known. Many members on that side of the House will have visited it at some time in their career. Thirdly, it is part of the public record and a proactive Cabinet release that there was a requirement or an expectation that Antarctica New Zealand would start looking at additional ways to supplement the substantial funding that Cabinet was putting forward for the redevelopment of Scott Base.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was for the Prime Minister to outline the process used—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The question was addressed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does she know why an Official Information Act (OIA) response to the National leader’s office about the visit of Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek to Antarctica had redactions under section 6(a) of the Official Information Act, which is designed to prevent prejudice against New Zealand security, defence, and international relations, and, if so, what was specifically discussed with them that caused section 6(a) to be used to stop that information being released?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will appreciate, obviously, I don’t have that Official Information Act request in front of me, so therefore it is impossible for me to speak to a specific redaction. If there are requests on notice, or, indeed, questions on notice, it makes it more plausible for someone to answer a question of that nature.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: So has the Prime Minister asked the foreign affairs Minister what was discussed with these two people who were selected by him to travel to the Antarctic?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I could not have possibly asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question around a redaction which the member has only just asked me about. Secondly, it has been—

David Seymour: Why is the Deputy Prime Minister twitching so much?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Seymour, National are giving you two extra supplementaries, if you missed that signal. Also, the Minister of Foreign Affairs—of course, it has been a longstanding practice that they can support or make suggestions around visits to Antarctica. That is not a new process, and Murray McCully, I’m sure, would have been involved on many occasions in that regard.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting answer from the Prime Minister, but I asked the question if she’d asked the foreign affairs Minister why they were chosen.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve obviously given that answer in this House—the rationale that has been provided. The member asked me about a redaction in an OIA, which I cannot speak to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware that over the years many Ministers have sought to expand the international understanding of the importance of Antarctica to us, including asking ambassadors from the EU, asking international shipping registers who imperil the fishing resource of Antarctica? This has all been done over the years, but not one of them has been the source or origin of a race attack.

Hon Member: Is there a question for the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: Well, there is a question there.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m aware—[Interruption]—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m aware of a number of different circumstances under which different individuals who have an interest in Antarctica have been part of the visitation programme. As I’ve already said, it is the prerogative of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade to make recommendations from time to time.

David Seymour: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, the member knows very well he doesn’t have any more supplementaries. Sit down.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was responding to the Prime Minister, who said the Labour Party was happy for me to ask more questions.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Question No. 12—Police

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: How many incidents were there between 1 January and the end of March in 2020 involving firearms and gang members or associates?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): The crackdown by police on organised crime, which has been made possible by a significant increase in police numbers and a greater mandate by this Government to go hard on gun crime, is having a marked impact. I’m pleased to report that police have detected, disrupted, or attended just under a thousand firearms instances during that period; 88 percent of these instances were by members of the general public. The incidents ranged from selling ammunition without a licence to pointing a firearm at a police officer. For example, of those charged with presenting a firearm at a person, five were gang members but 29 were members of the general public. This is why we needed tougher penalties for gun crime, which that party opposed.

Brett Hudson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister gave a lot of information there about general members of the public in firearms incidents or offences. The question was specifically related to gang members and associates, and it was on notice in writing.

SPEAKER: And I think the member at least addressed the question. Whether he gave all the information that the member wanted, I’m not sure.

Brett Hudson: Is the Minister concerned about the number being 156 incidents between 1 January and 9 March, at least—is he concerned with that number of offences committed by gang members or gang associates?

Hon STUART NASH: What I can tell that member I am concerned about is that when we came to office, police numbers had dropped in the previous five years of the past Government, and, thanks to New Zealand First, we have delivered over 2,250 new front-line officers into our communities. My concerns around the lack of police have been addressed due to this coalition Government.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now the member will address the question that was asked.

Hon STUART NASH: Whenever there is a firearms incident that has occurred in this country, no matter by whom, I have concerns. It is why we have significantly increased the penalty for gun crime, and if that member was as concerned as I was he would have backed the bill.

Brett Hudson: Has he seen reports of firearms incidents involving gang members or associates resulting in significant physical harm or death to others?

Hon STUART NASH: I have seen reports and concerns of firearms crimes being committed, but, as I mentioned, 88 percent of firearms crimes committed in this country were actually by members of the general public, not by gang members. I think that member needs to widen his scope if he is really concerned about fighting firearms offences.

Brett Hudson: Why, then, did he not support my firearms prohibition orders member’s bill to take guns out of the hands of gang members that present the greatest risk to public safety, along with the majority of Parliament this morning?

Hon STUART NASH: I think I made it clear in my primary answer: 88 percent of gun crime was not committed by gang members. That member’s member’s bill dealt specifically with gangs. The regime we are looking at deals with every single person who poses a threat to our communities—it’s not just gangs. The other thing I would say is two Attorneys-General and his previous Prime Minister, Bill English, said that his bill was absolute rubbish.

Member Vacancy

Rangitata Electoral District—Andrew Falloon

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That under section 131(a) of the Electoral Act 1993, a vacancy in the Rangitata Electoral District having arisen in the period of six months prior to the date of the expiration of this Parliament, no writ be issued for the election of a member of Parliament for that electoral district to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Andrew Hamilton Falloon.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

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

Well, we’ve been spending a lot of time talking about MPs’ jobs this week, and it’s time we started talking about the jobs of people who really matter, and that’s the New Zealanders—the 200,000 New Zealanders who are now receiving an unemployment benefit, or what we call now a jobseeker benefit, and the 200,000, as well, construction workers who’ve had to receive the wage subsidy while they’ve been waiting for this Government to turn up with their shovel-ready projects list—the list; release the list, Government.

And is this list even ready? Well, according to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, yes, it is. This is what he said to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce yesterday in answer to a question about it: “Well, look, I do appreciate your question. I have the list, the whole lot. Why they are not telling you, I don’t know, but I’m going to go back and find out. How can you tender if you don’t know?” He’s right. That’s my answer. How could you tender by region when you have got the whole list, pages of the stuff? “You send me an email today, and I will ask.” Did he ask? No, he did not. We have got no list. Release the list, Mr Peters. Release the list, Prime Minister. Release the list.

We’ve got contractors all over the country waiting, waiting, for this work to begin. We’ve got councils waiting, waiting. They put together those councils—remember when Phil Twyford and Shane Jones put together a request to the councils: “Come up with your shovel-ready projects, we’ll get them going, we’ll fund them.” Remember that? You’ve got two weeks to do it all, all just after lockdown; 1 April was the announcement, and what’s happened since then? Nothing. Now—nothing. The councils put it all together in two weeks. Three months later, we’re still waiting. Even Mr Peters can’t produce a list, although apparently he’s going to get it one day. He’s going to ask for it and he’s going to get it. But he is right on this: it’s not possible for contractors to plan their work, to employ people, to keep people employed if the Government does not release the list. The Government must release the list. We have got councils all over the country, all these people, these contractors, employees, all waiting for the work to begin.

On a very serious note, the wage subsidy ends just before the election—just before the election. Why wait before just before the election to let people know what is actually happening with these construction projects? Why won’t the Government release the list? What is it that they’ve got to hide?

Instead, we’ve got a dribble of little projects that the Government wants to announce by ministerial visit.

Hon Member: That’s right; Shane Jones is dribbling.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Shane Jones has admitted it. There’s a great thing with Shane Jones, he’s so used to admitting it, he just keeps admitting it. Now he has admitted that he’s the one who’s going to announce all these by way of ministerial visit. Actually, the people of New Zealand deserve better than that. They deserve better. They want to know: where are these projects? When are they starting? Where is the money? Why don’t they have the work now?

Because, all joking aside, this Parliament is the Parliament of New Zealand—who, by the way, these New Zealanders, are looking at mass unemployment. We already have 200,000 people unemployed—200,000 people unemployed. Another 200,000 construction workers have had to receive a wage subsidy, and they want work. They’re skilled people, highly skilled people. They are people who could be picked up anywhere in the world because they’re so valuable to us. We all know, as a country that we have to build infrastructure—well, apart from the Greens, because they don’t think you do; as long as it’s a cycleway, it’s all they’re interested in.

We know that we can agree in Parliament that we need infrastructure. So where is the list? Release the list, Government. Release the list. Even let the Rt Hon Winston Peters have his list. Where is the list? What is it that they’re hiding? Why can’t New Zealanders know about this list? Where is the list? Release the list. Release a list of the contractors, release it to the councils, release it so that people can work. Stop this mass unemployment now. Help New Zealanders get back into work. Release the list.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): That was a speech 18 years in the making that we’ve all been waiting for, and what it came down to was “Release the list because people want to know if they have a job.” I think this was an echo of the National Party caucus meeting on Tuesday. Where is their party list? Who’s left with a job after what we’re going to see in only a few weeks’ time? “Release the list”—we are only a few weeks out from a general election while New Zealand sits at a crossroads where there are such important issues at stake, and that is what the brand newly minted Leader of the Opposition has to say in her first general debate speech: “Release the list.” Was it a blueprint for an alternative vision for this country? No. It was “Release the list.”

Well, I’ve got some news for the Leader of the Opposition. Let’s talk about what this Government is getting on and doing. While the party on the other side has been obsessed with itself over the last weeks, we look at just one small part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. Let’s have a look at what we’re spending in our local communities through our schools: 2,488 projects are under way in our school upgrade programme; $249 million worth of work is under way. When I’m in my local electorate, I talk to local tradies who are talking about the contracts they are getting at their local school and how this is so important to keeping their businesses afloat.

But I think this is a time for reflection. On this side of the House, we are incredibly proud of a Prime Minister that has led a decisive health response that saved lives and set us up for an economic recovery. Our rebuild plan is already in motion, and we are already creating jobs. We are going in the right direction, and it is important that we keep moving in that direction. We are committed to making sure that we are standing up for New Zealanders, just as we did when we put New Zealanders first to make sure that we were protecting their health. Well, we had baying from the opposite side that we were being too extreme, that we should be doing X, we should be doing Y. We stayed a course, and we stayed a course under a Prime Minister who understands what leadership is about, a Prime Minister that understands what her responsibilities are to this country. Not only did she keep us safe in terms of our health but this has set ourselves up as a country with the most economic and social freedoms of any country in the world, and that is a position that we will protect. That is a position that we are protecting through our managed isolation facilities. We are keeping COVID out of our communities. We are keeping it at the border by making sure we are working in systematic and managed ways to ensure the security of those borders.

What we have is an Opposition that is full of rhetoric. What we have is an Opposition that is continuing what they did in Government, releasing an idea in a press release. They are untested, uncosted—ghost roads yet again. When they talk about what the economic plan is, it is very much reverting to type and ghost roads. The first cab off the rank was a road, the second cab off the rank was a road, and the third cab off the rank was another set of roads. But let’s have a look at this. They are cutting Auckland Transport’s funding by not identifying which projects will go. So how about you release that list, Opposition? How about you tell Aucklanders which projects—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —are going to be cut? The axe is hanging over projects like SkyPath. These are the things that will create jobs. What we have is an Opposition that is assuming that the New Zealand Transport Agency will borrow a billion dollars a year, and they are raiding the COVID fund and putting our futures at risk. On this side of the House, let’s keep moving.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): That speech was the most excellently delivered load of self-congratulatory drivel I have ever heard. Unbelievable! Unbelievable! An attack on the Leader of the Opposition for wanting to create jobs for New Zealanders, and then the suggestion that that wasn’t the highest priority for any Government at the present time. That is a speech that only had one salient point in it. Release the list because New Zealanders need to know what is in that list of 800 projects that could save jobs. What is in the list of projects that Shane Jones and Winston Peters—maybe—and a number of others, in that Government will be going around the countryside announcing over the next couple of weeks, waiting for their time to use taxpayer money to announce a job that will create jobs just for campaign purposes.

There are 200,000 New Zealanders—plus—on the jobseeker allowance now. There are more who cannot get on the jobseeker allowance, even though they’re out of work, because their partner is still in work. There are more still who’ve lost part-time work, and casual work is all but gone. Then, just in the construction sector, 200,000 New Zealanders are receiving the wage subsidy, but that all comes off very shortly. What happens then? There might have been a chance to retain that skill base, to keep it moving, to keep it working if there was a better plan delivered from the Government, if some of the projects that they are spouting great support for were actually put into place so that they can deliver those jobs.

What have they done so far out of the 800? Thirty, just 30 projects. And the Prime Minister stands in the House and says, “Oh, that’s only just a little bit of it. Look what we did in January. Look what we’ve done in education. Look what we’ve done around health.” Well, what they’ve done is make big, big announcements and no action to follow, because if everything was all right, we wouldn’t have 200,000 construction workers on the wage subsidy. We wouldn’t have the industry leaders—in their entirety—coming out to say that there is a problem, that it’s causing stress; that businesses will have to slow down, businesses will have to close down aspects of their business, and businesses will put people off. Meantime, if you’ve got a bit of spare time, write to the Deputy Prime Minister and tell him that you love nature and are quite interested in the Antarctic. You might get a trip! You might get to post pictures on your social media!

Well, at least it keeps a few people in work trying to find a way to get the Official Information Act responses out that tell you nothing. This idea that there can be a slowness to those shovel-ready projects is a complete disgrace. So many New Zealanders would have gone to work this morning wondering if their job will be there tomorrow, or next week, or the week after, or when the wage subsidy ends.

That’s not a country that is going to have a population enthused about its future. It’s a country where there is fear—not only for the loss of jobs because of the retraction in the economy—but now, it would appear, well that’s how many New Zealand First people will get back if they get anywhere near winning a seat, because that’s the only way they’ll get back. There is fear, also, that apparently we could have some regional shutdowns in the very near future. How cynical is that? How cynical is that—to be saying to New Zealand, what a great job everyone’s done on the COVID-19 stuff, but don’t look at the economy. Don’t look at that. Look at the tree over there. There’s a squirrel running up it. In that squirrel is the possibility of some of the country being locked down again, some regions being shut down, all sorts of other things being done. But then, of course, we’re told that if we want to prevent community outbreak, we should have the app in place. We should all be wandering around telling the Government where we are, what we’re doing, who we’re seeing.

Well, I think that that is a Government over there that is taking a hugely cynical view of the New Zealand voter. Taking all the time they want to come up with the programmes they say are funded; coming up with just 30 out of 800—800 out of the thousands that were put forward by local bodies, but only 30 of them are out so far. That is not the basis to go to the electorate. This is a country where people—New Zealanders—are not cynics, and they will see through that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Gerry Brownlee forgot the first job of a deputy leader, which is don’t overshadow the leader in her first big speech. Mind you, Judith Collins set the bar pretty low, something that we’ve of course come to expect from Judith Collins in all of her endeavours in this House.

National’s running on the campaign platform of them being the best party to deliver. Of course, they made Gerry Brownlee their deputy leader, and the people of Christchurch know that Gerry Brownlee can’t deliver anything. Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated one thing: his commitment to restoring the Canterbury Plains in the middle of the CBD! As far as you can see, from eye to eye, you see flat land in the Canterbury CBD thanks to Gerry Brownlee’s rebuild efforts. Years on after the earthquake, the people of Christchurch are still waiting for those big projects; Gerry Brownlee promised them and didn’t deliver any of them.

I can tell you, around the Christchurch schools rebuild, this Government, in three years, has put more new money into that than National did in nine. If you take out the insurance money and the money they would have got anyway, we’ve put more money into rebuilding Christchurch schools than they did. That says everything about their commitment to the people of Christchurch. So if they’re going to run on the platform of being the party that delivers, and they’re going to have Gerry Brownlee as their deputy leader during that campaign, I say bring it on, because their record speaks for itself.

And then, of course, we had Gerry Brownlee running down the prospect of there being a further outbreak of COVID-19. Now, I know Gerry doesn’t read the news, but he should look on the telly at what’s happening around the rest of the world and he will see that while we live in tranquillity here in New Zealand because of our collective efforts, around the rest of the world it is a very, very different story. COVID-19 grows by the day around the world. The total number of cases that existed in the world when we went to level 4 is now the number of new cases we see around the world every single day. There is no room for complacency and there is no room to loosen up the very tight control measures we put in place to stop COVID-19 coming into the country.

I say that to everybody who might have heard Shane Reti’s first contribution on Radio New Zealand, the day after he became their health spokesperson, where he reiterated their commitment to reopening the borders for—among other things—international students. Now, I want to see international students back in the country when we’re able to safely do so, but I’m not going to put the overall health and wellbeing of New Zealanders at risk in the process of doing that. One of the worst things we could do for our country is rush to reopen the border—as the National Party have consistently argued over the last couple of months—and put the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders at risk. The best thing we can do for our economy is lock in the gains that we have made by stamping out COVID-19, and there is one party in Parliament that wants to put all of that at risk. It’s the party opposite, it’s the National Party, who have been very clear they would throw away the gains that we have made, and that is not something that members on this side of the House are willing to do.

We will bring the same focus to the rebuild of our economy that we brought to fighting the virus in the first place. We’ll keep the people in work, as we did through the wage subsidies, but we will invest in our people as well. After the global financial crisis, we saw tens of thousands of apprentices being laid off and for the next decade we suffered the consequences of that as we saw skill shortages that the members opposite, in Government, were more than happy to fill through skilled migrant labour rather than training New Zealanders. We will not make that mistake here. We will invest in our people as we have done with apprenticeship subsidies, with extra investment in vocational education and training, so that we can not only keep Kiwis in work but we can get them back into work quickly when they find themselves out of work, and so that we can, as the economy recovers, ramp up the building and construction projects without the reliance on migrant workers that the last Government were so hooked on. We will make sure that we are putting Kiwis back to work. That is what New Zealanders can expect from this side of the House.

The same level of focus that we put into the health response, we will put into the rebuild response, and it is clear that New Zealanders are up for that journey. Our team of 5 million has done an incredible job of fighting COVID-19. Now our team of 5 million needs to band together and continue to rebuild New Zealand in the wake of it.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to follow a caretaker health Minister who replaced a caretaker health Minister. I challenge the Minister: when he said that we need to have no room for complacency, answer the question I asked him in the oral question section, when I said to him, “Are you using the QR app at every single QR stop?” And furthermore, when we’re having that discussion, go back through the Official Information Act request that Stuff put to all 20 Cabinet ministers—have you asked them the same question? Is Cabinet using this Government app and are they signing in at every—we’ll hold you to that. I can see the Minister nodding his head. We will hold you to that. Every Cabinet Minister is using the New Zealand COVID Tracer app and signing in at every single poster stop. I doubt that, but we shall see.

I want to talk about the app and I want to put on record, first of all, and say we want to help and we believe there is a health information technology (HIT) component to improving the coronavirus response. We absolutely believe that. We did in the very beginning. The problem has been several-fold. First of all, the development of the app and its very late deployment—way past the time we were at the peak of our infectious cases. We have to ponder back and say, well, why was that? Why was that, when purportedly the Prime Minister was having conversations with Australia and with Singapore? Why was that, when large companies approached me and said, “Dr Reti, we’ll give this to the Government”—not small firms—“we’ll give this to the Government free of charge?” This was early March, early April, and the Government never took it up.

They never took that up, but what they did take up—if you look at the copyright to the New Zealand COVID Tracer app, you see two teams, the Ministry of Health and the Privacy Commission, and then two individuals, David Britten, a 24-year-old PhD student who actually did a prototype on the QR scan first of all, and Alan Chew, who built the core app. Both of them were ready in early April. The ministry approached Alan Chew in early April, when he offered it free, and took it up. They heard nothing more from then onwards until about six weeks later, when finally it was deployed. When they saw what their work had turned into, they were aghast. The shape and functions of the app was nothing that they had given to the ministry. I mean no disrespect to the team of developers inside the ministry, but sometimes you need to collaborate with professional expertise outside, and that did not happen. Well, one of the developers who wrote the core of the code said, “I am of the view that the app is entirely insufficient for businesses to meet their contact tracing obligations”. What a lost opportunity that was. So we can look backwards and say it was deployed too late—OK, it was.

Let’s then look at here and now. What we need is uptake and we need use. When we posed that to the Minister around the percentage of New Zealanders who have taken up the app—he avoided it here today. It is likely to be less than 10 percent. The target we need to get at is 60 percent of New Zealanders taking up the app—that will give us maximal traceability. There are benefits the lower we get, but we have to be at 50 to 60 percent, and we are way short of that.

Again, I posed the question as to why that was, and I think there is some argument to say that New Zealanders have lost some of the urgency—I get that. I understand that. But having deployed apps myself, you have to make it user-friendly. You have to say “What’s in it for me?” You have to make it easy for people to do the right thing. And it’s not clear to me that that’s happened. It’s not clear to everyone on the Google store who has rated it as one star that it’s easy to use. If you read those 1,558 reviews, they’ve all said it’s difficult to use, there were times when you were blocked, and it was hard to download. I take on board that the Prime Minister indicated that, in fact, it was three stars on iPhone. That’s only 700 reviews, so half the amount that the Google store—just so we’re dealing with facts; just saying.

When we look at experts in the area, Professor Nick Wilson from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago, who’s been advisory to this Government on coronavirus as well, describes the uptake as being microscopic: “It’s just not working.”; “It should probably be abandoned.” I think that would be a shame. That’s not what I’m calling for. What I’m calling for is for the Government to work with us to figure out how we can make it worthwhile for New Zealanders to take up this app, first of all; secondly, how we can look at other HIT additions to this, which is primarily just a QR code. Where’s the Bluetooth technology? We’ve had people talk about smart card technology. Where is all of that? It was great discussions early on, nice to be having gentle chats with Singapore, etc., but in reality, delivering that has not happened. We think there’s a place for an HIT component to improve our coronavirus response. It’s our role to lift that corrective bar, and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Today, I am going to outline the truth about the leak of my superannuation. There have been news reports about the case. The matter is not sub judice. But a source totally connected to both the ACT Party and the National Party has revealed that the leak was one Rachel Morton.

Morton heard about the case because she was present when former Minister Anne Tolley told her ministerial colleague Paula Bennett about it—not outside by the lifts, but in a ministerial office. Ms Morton then, thinking it would be kept in confidence, told ACT Party leader David Seymour, but, desperate for any sort of attention, Mr Seymour contacted Jordan Williams of the wage subsidy - receiving Taxpayers’ Union fame. Williams—no stranger to dirty politics—told John Bishop, father of National MP Chris Bishop, and the details were then leaked to Newsroom’s Tim Murphy.

Williams also told another dirty politics practitioner, National Party pollster David Farrar. Farrar tried to shut it down, seeing the risk it exposed to the National Party, but then went along anyway, although he later tried to steer the story away from National’s guilt, which is his usual modus operandi.

But Newshub wanted to control the story. Barry Soper and Newshub knew more about the story than Tim Murphy, who nevertheless tweeted about—and I quote him—“the mother of all scandals” about to break a day before the story leaked publicly. Ms Morton used to work for Newshub and Newstalk ZB. Newshub was trying its best to protect her after David Seymour tried to get the story leaked through channels not connected with Morton. Three Newshub journalists—Jenna Lynch, Lloyd Burr, and Patrick Gower—looked collectively stunned when they were told that they had burnt Ms Morton as a source. They knew they’d been tumbled.

When this was put to the Newshub reporters that it would also expose National and Jordan Williams’ dealings with Tim Murphy, one of the Newshub journalists paused and said that National were “distancing themselves” from the story, but it was an ACT-inspired hit job to damage me politically, in collaboration with a senior National Party staffer, Rachel Morton, who was the source of the leak and the source that led to Jordan Williams weaponising the information during the election campaign. Every last one of them—Morton, Seymour, Williams, Bishop, Murphy, Farrar—played dirty politics to breach my inalienable right and the inalienable right of every New Zealander to privacy.

My source also revealed that National Party members joked amongst themselves about the leak, but realised they couldn’t do anything with the “no-surprises disclosure”—their risk was too high. That, of course, didn’t prevent Ms Tolley from telling her sister, nor did it prevent 42 people being made aware of my super case. All it took was for that private information to fall into the hands of David Seymour, who craved media attention but couldn’t claim the limelight, because that would have placed a spotlight on Rachel Morton, his source.

This is what dirty politics looks like. That’s why I have brought this case on principle, at a huge cost—the principle of privacy.

The collusion between the National Party, ACT, and these grubby figures in and around politics is what turns people off politics. The characters in the story of my super leak viewed dirty politics as their religion, but it’s the worship of jackals by jackasses.

What I now know, and I didn’t know it as I went to court, is that during my court case, there were witnesses who gave evidence who knew the truth, even as they were not speaking it, and journalists—but not Barry Soper—who sat in the court who knew the truth, but printed a tissue of lies. That I now know. Shame on them, but now they’ve been exposed for what they truly are.

Maybe Mr Seymour could tell the precise circumstances in which he was told this information. Will he tell them, or will I have to? This has been a disgrace, and Mr Seymour is now outed.

I have got the witness I never had at the court. The judge said to me, “But you must tell me who did it.”, as though—with all their resources—one man against them, paying for his own costs, could be expected to do that.

Mr Seymour, I am resolved that this is day one of the truth fightback, and he is going to be in my line.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, that will be the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ valedictory. And what a great valedictory it was, going out the same way he has spent his political career: fabricating things, alleging things without foundation. And the classic is always this: will Mr Peters repeat those statements outside this Chamber? And the question will be whether or not he’s prepared to walk out on to the black and white tiles and mention all the names—my dad and David Seymour and Rachel Morton and all the rest of them. Will he say it? My pick is he won’t, because it’s all very well to come in here and talk about the ferries in the 1970s and use privilege. It’s all very well to use that, but actually parliamentary privilege is a privilege. It’s called a privilege. It’s not something that can be used to deflect from real issues.

We know why it’s come about today in the general debate. The tried and true Mr Peters’ formula of turning up and reading out a long list of things under privilege and making sure that the media will speculate about it—we all know why it’s happened. It’s because of the Antarctica New Zealand story that broke this morning on Radio New Zealand (RNZ). It’s as clear as day. Forty years he’s been doing this and he will continue to do it for as long as he’s in this Parliament, and I for one hope that the good voters of New Zealand follow the voters of Tauranga and the voters of Northland at the 2017 election—

Hon Tim Macindoe: And Hunua.

CHRIS BISHOP: —and Hunua all the way before that, as Mr Macindoe reminds me, and cast him into political irrelevance.

That’s what we hope they do—and they’ll have an opportunity to do it on 19 September—because the Antarctica story that’s broken this morning on RNZ is very damaging. Of course it is. “Good friends” in the words of the people who went to Antarctica at the insistence of the Deputy Prime Minister’s office—or the Minister of Foreign Affairs—on a trip to Antarctica when there was only one space available and two were insistent on going, and the Prime Minister said today in Parliament they didn’t go at anyone’s expense.

I know for a fact there are people lining up around the corridors all the way around the Beehive and up Molesworth Street to go on those trips because it is Antarctica and they are a rare and precious thing and they’re extremely expensive. So this idea that, no, they didn’t go at anyone’s expense is a complete fiction. Of course they did. So that was a wonderful valedictory by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

But I want to talk in my remarks about transport, because what our leader, Judith Collins, announced on Friday was a transformational package for the upper North Island: a 20-year vision for transport in the upper North Island, decongesting our city and building expressways to Northland—that’s all the way to Northland and to Tauranga. And Grant Robertson said, “Well, if that’s all you’ve got—if all you’ve got is a vision, you know, I’d like to see what’s coming.” Well, it’s better to have a 20-year vision than to not have one. And it’s deeply ironic when the one criticism that could be levelled at this Government is that they are all about vision and they’re all about good intentions. In fact, the one thing the Prime Minister’s got going for her is at least she talks about good intentions and talks about good outcomes. So it’s richly ironic for Grant Robertson to critique a vision.

But it’s not just a vision. It’s a costed 10-year plan, a transformational project for the upper North Island: a four-lane expressway between the Far North and Tauranga. And we now know from Megan Woods’ remarks in Parliament this afternoon and Grant Robertson’s increasingly incoherent press releases on the weekend—I think there were three of them in response to our statement; not, interestingly, by the actual Minister of Transport, Phil Twyford. He was persona non grata. Like everything else in this Government, it was delegated to the one vaguely competent Minister, Grant Robertson, to respond, albeit incoherently, on the weekend.

We now know that the Labour Party is opposed to four-laning the road between Whangārei and Tauranga, connecting and bringing together some of our largest cities—2.5 million people, to make it into a dynamic and economically prosperous region. And we’re going to complete the Auckland Rapid Transit Network in Auckland. We’re going to build busways. We’re going to build rail to Auckland Airport, which Mr Peters claims to support. What’s their bizarre critique of this? “You’re letting the New Zealand Transport Agency borrow against their revenue.” You can’t do that, apparently, even though the Government’s doing that with Kāinga Ora; it’s exactly the same model. Then they say, “Oh, you’re stealing from the multi-year capital allowances in 2026.”—six years away. There’s two elections before then. And then they say, “You’re stealing from the COVID fund.” The COVID fund was set up for economic stimulus into infrastructure over the medium term in order to get jobs and growth going. So it’s a very worthwhile use of the money and we stand behind it.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He tirohanga Māori tēnei: “Ka ara mai a Puanga ki te rangi”.

[This is a Māori perspective: “Puanga rises to the sky”.]

I want to put a very different spin on the debate that’s happening here today and I want to talk about, where I come from, Puanga, or to the rest of the country, Matariki. The first star in the Matariki sky are essential workers—essential workers who worked hard during the time of the COVID lockdown; the kaimahi who, in Māori terms, would be classified as ringa rōpā. They did the hard work while people stayed at home to make sure that we have the opportunity to come together again after the lockdown—that’s the first star in the sky.

The second star is the health services. Those who work in the health services right across this country: Māori health providers, hospitals, primary health organisations, many of them who got involved to make sure that (1) people were safe, (2) people were tested, and (3) those who were found to have COVID were cared for. Sadly, we lost some whānau during the COVID lockdown, we lost some whānau to COVID-19, but I want to acknowledge the second star of Matariki in the sky, and that is our health services.

The third star—and I’m quite proud of this—is Whānau Ora. Now, the first speaker in the debate today, the Hon Judith Collins, talked about: what have we delivered? I can tell you that Whānau Ora, during the time of COVID-19, this is what they delivered: over 120,000 care packs to whānau right across this country. They delivered services to well over 74,000 families in this country. They delivered those services from the Cape, all the way to the Bluff, and including Wharekauri / the Chatham Islands. That side of the House is asking us: “What has this Government delivered?” The numbers speak for themselves. Whānau Ora did that—Whānau Ora did that. What I can say is on the other side of the House, during the time of the COVID lockdown, all they delivered was 24 committee meetings—that’s it. I’m really proud of the third star in the sky, which is Whānau Ora.

The fourth star of Matariki in the sky is, of course, the 5 million New Zealanders—each and every one of us who worked hard to make sure that we stuck to the rules and we stayed home. We gave ourselves every opportunity to make sure that in the future—now we’re reaping the benefits—people from far and wide can come together to celebrate, to work hard, and also to plan for the future.

The next star in the sky—and while I know the right honourable Prime Minister will be shy that we heap praise upon her, I do want to acknowledge her. Her ability to communicate with Aotearoa during a very difficult time makes her, at least according to my view, part of the pantheon of stars of Matariki.

The next one is, of course, the infallible Dr Bloomfield, who I understand is going to be strapping on the boots in Wainuiōmata, in your home town, sir, this weekend. I challenge anyone to tackle him. I dare say that when that gentleman touches the ball, he’ll have a clear run to the line—

SPEAKER: I wouldn’t trust the Weepus.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Ha, ha! The next star in the sky, of course, is small businesses. Small businesses right across this country have done it tough. We’ve tried our very best to make sure that we can invest in them to make sure that they can continue to look after their staff; that after the lockdown they can come out of it strong and resilient. We acknowledged from the beginning we weren’t going to be able to save every business, but I want to acknowledge small businesses right up and down the country.

The next star in the sky, of course—I’ve already spoken about Whānau Ora. I was about to name them twice. But, of course, the next star in the sky is our future generations. I say that because Matariki gives us a time to strategise and plan for the future, and this is where we find ourselves. We need to create a country that is far more resilient into the future, and this Government knows how to do that. We know we must invest in jobs. We know we must invest in our people. We must start preparing for the future. We’ve got to start once again continuing a package of support for small businesses. Finally, we’ve got to position ourselves globally so that we can bounce back after COVID-19.

Just finally with my civil defence hat on, I want to acknowledge the communities of Tai Tokerau and Tai Rāwhiti who have been impacted by the floods of recent days. The community resilience—and I mentioned it yesterday—our matua Mike Butler and the hard work that they do in the communities to make sure that whānau are safe during times like this. I hope that Matariki shines brightly upon them and their futures that they plan progressively for, and I want to acknowledge all of them and the whānau doing it tough during these times. Tēnā koe, e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, without question, the greatest privilege we have as members of Parliament is the parliamentary privilege afforded to us in this House and in the conducting of parliamentary business, and today we witnessed—I witnessed, I believe for the first time—a member use that privilege, which should be treated with the respect due to the latitude, the vast latitude, it affords us, to make unfounded allegations about a number of people in a forum where they have no ability to respond. None of them can attend this Chamber and respond, with the same protections afforded to Winston Peters, a response to those allegations. I would hope that I would never show such a character to take the opportunity in this House to do such things to others. To me, I believe that would simply debase myself, and I leave it to New Zealanders to interpret the comments from Winston Peters earlier this afternoon.

Now, on to the Government, a Government of misprioritisation. I asked the police Minister today about gun offences and incidents involving gang members and associates. This is against a backdrop of increasing gang violence, particularly with the firearms, and all the Minister wanted to respond with was what non-gang members are doing—completely in line with the misprioritisation in the arms legislation of this Government over the last 12 months. They spent parliamentary effort for 12 months putting more costs, rules, and regulations on people that are fundamentally law-abiding people—certainly people that don’t present public safety risks to other New Zealanders. So when faced with a legitimate question about just how serious is the escalating violence, particularly that using firearms across our communities, the Minister just sought to deflect and cast blame on those that are not perpetuating it.

The true backdrop is months—it stretches well back into last year—of extreme violence being perpetrated by gang members and associates: execution-style killings in Auckland; a mother gunned down on her own doorstep because her son, who had gang affiliations, wasn’t at home; multiple homicides in Tauranga—a house there, a home, shot up with a semi-automatic firearm. So much gang violence, particularly involving firearms, and this Government doesn’t want to deal with the issue. Instead, it wants to focus on those people that don’t break the law, because, of course, punishing the innocent is how you reduce crime, or at least they seem to think so.

So when my firearms prohibition orders member’s bill came up for debate this morning, a measure that will actually allow a proper crackdown on those people that present the greatest risk to public safety with respect to firearms, they simply would not support that measure. They talked tough all throughout the Arms Legislation Bill. The Minister tried to talk tough about cracking down on criminals and gangs. Well, it does nothing, fundamentally, that bill—nothing in that area. But when presented with a bill that would, he ran from it. Tried to hide behind some advice, hide behind a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment, knowing full well that this Parliament has the authority, the sovereignty, to pass legislation that may impinge on rights—in fact, we did so recently with prisoner voting. He ran from it, instead of standing up for the safety of New Zealanders, showing them that we should and do care for them, and instead sought to deflect from a very real issue, minimalising the trauma and harm that is occurring in our communities. Gangs have grown over 34 percent under this Government. There are 7,166 gang members or associates as of April this year. It is a growing problem. They refuse to do anything about it. It’s time for a Government that will.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This week, I had the privilege to speak at the memorial for Jeanette Fitzsimons, a dear friend of mine, my mentor, someone who made a massive contribution to this House, and someone who, in particular, put climate change on the national agenda. Now, my wife once told me to avoid disappointments, you should never meet your heroes. But look, I had the great fortune to actually work up close with mine. In her maiden speech here in 1996, she said the key question was not whether centralised industrial capitalism should be controlled by the State or by private interests, but the unsustainability of centralised industrial capitalism itself.

Now, when you look around the world, we can see the results of that rampant industrial capitalism and a runaway culture of greed, consumption, and short-term thinking. Now, last month, in the Arctic, we saw consistently above 18 degrees, the hundred-year long-term average. The Arctic Siberia is literally burning. We’ve seen the World Meteorological Organization two weeks ago put out a report saying the red line that world Governments signed up to, 1.5 degrees of warming, could be passed in four years, something we thought was potentially years and years away. We’ve seen, since 1990, when Jeanette Fitzsimons and the original group of Green founders formed the Green Party—more emissions have entered the atmosphere in the 30 years since the Greens were founded in 1990, since Captain Planet was on TV, since Seinfeld was first on TV. In the last 30 years, more emissions have entered the atmosphere than the preceding centuries and centuries of human history. But I am proud to say, here, in 2020, we as a Government have done what’s needed to avert this urgent danger. We’ve taken action, we’ve laid the foundation, we’ve drawn lines in the sand, and we’ve set very important goals

This term, we’ve laid the foundation. We’ve developed and passed unanimously a zero carbon Act. We’ve improved the emissions trading scheme. We’ve set up a Green Investment Fund. We’ve taken action with climate impact assessments. We’ve set the foundation for a low-carbon economy. We’ve drawn lines in the sand, courageous lines in the sand, like stopping offshore oil and gas exploration. We’ve stopped the tens of millions of dollars of fossil fuel subsidies the previous Government was quite happy to give to oil companies. And we’ve set goals: a goal of being zero carbon by 2050 and 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035.

But we haven’t done everything we need to do. We need to go further; we need to go faster. Our country’s response to our generation’s nuclear-free moment, the most important issue facing our future and the future of our kids and grandkids, must reflect the urgency and scale of the emergency. So we’ve laid the foundations, but next term we need to go further; we need to build on that foundation. We need to erect the walls, and those walls have to be solidly insulated. We need to make sure that when we’re building the walls, we’re putting inside double- or triple-glazed windows. We need to make sure, when we’re putting on the roof, that it’s covered in solar panels. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

This election, we need to help Kiwis and Kiwi businesses reduce their emissions. So with public support, what we’re going to do is put solar panels on all 63,000 State houses. We’re going to halve the cost for people to install solar panels and batteries in their own homes. We’re going to support community energy, and I’m thinking of groups like in Paekākāriki or Waiteti or Ruatōria, Whangārei, who I’ve met with who want to produce their own energy. They want to do it locally and do it for themselves. So we’re going to support them with a $250 million community energy fund. We’re going to stop coal use by 2030 and gas use by 2035.

So our slogan this election is “Think ahead”, and I ask people to think ahead—what this means—because what it means is thousands and thousands of homes where people can point to their roof knowing they’re producing their own clean energy. I’m thinking about the hundreds of thousands of kids in those State houses who are going to be paying cheaper power bills. I think ahead to the national electricity grid that’s going to be able to use those 63,000 State houses as a virtual network, be able to time-shift that free, clean solar energy, to time-shift it to the time when we’re burning dirty coal and gas, saving everyone money.

I think of those communities who I’ve worked with and met who have felt they don’t have a fair playing field when it comes to the big power companies and those big power stations like Huntly. That’s what I’m thinking about—those schools and factories that are not going to have to burn dirty, old, expensive, polluting coal, who can do it themselves with clean wind, solar, and other forms of energy.

So, for me, this is a good example of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ thinking in action. It’s not about this false trade-off between the cost of the environment to the economy, or thinking of the environment as something totally separate. It’s integrating it and knowing that our wealth and our prosperity are dependent on the environment. And, actually, by investing in the environment, we can grow jobs, we can save people money, we can solve other social problems such as inequality and poverty. This is the mahi of Jeanette Fitzsimons that I’m proud to continue, and a whole new generation of Greens will continue it after September. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): We are enormously privileged to stand and speak in this House of Representatives. There are people all around the world who would love to live in a society where they can elect their representatives to come to a House like this and speak for them, and there is a quid pro quo for having the privilege of standing in this House. That is to use parliamentary privilege judiciously, with class, and with discipline, for the public good, as we say in the prayer at the beginning of every day that this House sits—not for our own private interests.

And what did we hear in the disgraceful, sleazy, innuendo-riddled speech from Winston Peters in this general debate today? Well, Winston Peters told the House that the reason his inability to fill out his own superannuation form got into the public domain was because my then partner told me, and I told Jordan Williams. That is categorically untrue. I want to tell the House none of that happened, and the fact that Winston Peters is prepared to say it using the privilege of this House but he’s not prepared to say it out there where, if he says it, he’ll be helping me finally get that home deposit—he’s not prepared to say it at all.

Unfortunately this is the kind of sleazy, base behaviour that people up and down New Zealand have got used to from Winston Peters and New Zealand First. And here’s the real issues motivating Winston Peters’ behaviour. Well, just today, Winston Peters was found to have been using taxpayer resources at the expense of the taxpayers’ objectives of getting research done in Antarctica so his friends could go on coveted tours to the special continent. That was going to be on the news tonight because it was embarrassing for the Prime Minister, who said it was for philanthropy when there’s no such policy, and Winston Peters used the old dead cat bounce. Throw something on the table in the hope that it would overshadow the bad news coming his way.

Here’s another reality driving Winston Peters—the polls. What’s the latest poll? ACT on 5 percent, New Zealand First on 1.5. That’s the real problem with New Zealand First—they are desperate, and you know they’re desperate because their plan is for Shane Jones to win an electorate seat. He’s never won an electorate seat or any electoral contest in his life. That’s the problem.

And here’s the other problem Winston Peters has got. He’s been hanging around here, letting people down, for 40 years. And because he’s done it for himself at every juncture, he’s never done it for the people of New Zealand, he’s left nothing behind—no lasting achievements that any future historian will ever be able to point to. Today he has plumbed new depths, because we have a politics in this country where we don’t attack people for their personal relationships. Winston Peters attacked my relationship with Rachel Morton under parliamentary privilege, when it began in 2016. That’s how low and sleazy he is. That is the cavalier approach that he takes to the use of parliamentary privilege, and today, again, he attacked me through a personal relationship because that’s as low as he goes.

I want to finish by saying, categorically, I did not receive information from Rachel Morton and I did not pass it on. The real problem Winston Peters has is that if he was a little bit competent and responsible at filling out his own superannuation form like every other superannuitant has to, he wouldn’t be in this problem, and if he actually ran his court case properly he wouldn’t be paying back 300 grand. Winston Peters, that’s your problem; don’t lie and make it mine.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

David Seymour: For what specifically, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: The member knows exactly what for.

David Seymour: Well, I don’t apologise for that speech, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: OK. The member will leave the Chamber.

David Seymour: OK. Fine.

David Seymour withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I came to the House before question time I had a vastly different speech prepared to give in this general debate, and having been part of your presiding officers’ team, Mr Speaker, I know that you work extraordinarily hard to ensure the mana of this Chamber and this House. Today, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: I am going to ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to get Mr Seymour and bring him back to the House. Thank you.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. Every member of this House is deemed, by the fact they are elected by the people of New Zealand, to be honourable. Today I am feeling a little bit of mamae in my heart because as members of this House we are all stained by the actions of other members, and we are all touched by the hurt and by the anguish that their families feel, and people who are impacted by the actions of members of Parliament as well.

In my speech today, I just want us to think about what brings us here. As I look across the House, I look at respected colleagues, people who I’ve actually campaigned against, and people I’ve campaigned with.

Matt Doocey: And beaten.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That’s right, Mr Doocey, but graciously, I hope. I know that most of us come here with good intent and with the knowledge that the people in our home patches want us to do well for them. Every time some rubbish thing happens here, it reflects badly on all of us, and our people back home go, “Come on, guys. What’s this about?” I look to what brings me here. The reason I’m here is I want to make sure New Zealand is the safest place for our kids. And having spent a long time working in the area of family violence, I know if we want to break the cycle of violence, we have to create an environment where our kids can be safe, where they thrive, where they reach their potential.

But if they look to us in this House, what is the example they are seeing of their leaders? Are they seeing people who are wanting to create an environment where we can all thrive? It’s been a rubbish couple of weeks, right? And we’ve been throwing stuff around at everybody. But have we been thinking about those people that this stuff impacts—our families, victims, the people in our electorates who are looking to us for hope? We have gone through one of the most difficult times in our country, and I don’t say that lightly, coming from Christchurch—we’ve been through some tough times. COVID impacts all of us, and we know how wonderfully we have done as a team of 5 million to get us to the point where, actually, we are the envy of the world. People want to come here. People want our products. People want to trade with us because they know that, actually, Aotearoa New Zealand is the best little place in the world to be. We should be upholding the mana of that by being the best that we can be as parliamentarians.

And I know we can be. But unfortunately, when we throw stuff around, whether it’s true or not, it sticks. And it smells. And it stains. I look up to the gallery at the people who have come to hear the next bill, who have come here with pride and respect and the expectation that they will be served by the people in this Chamber to effect what they want to have happen with their bill. We can only do that if we remember the premise of why we are here. It’s a privilege to serve our communities. We are here to honour the wishes of our communities and our people.

Every time I arrive on the forecourt in front of this building, I say to myself, “What a privilege.” Every time I go home to my home pitch of Christchurch East and I hear the concerns of my people and they give me a bit of, you know, “You should be doing this and you should be doing that.”, I take that all on board because they have given me the privilege of being here to represent them. Every time I look into the faces of my grandchildren, I think, “Your nanny is here to do a good job to leave this country in a better place for you.” So I just want to remind all of my fellow parliamentarians: we are all honourable, and I have the greatest respect for this job and this institution. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: As I indicated earlier, I have required David Seymour to return to the House to apologise for the unparliamentary remark he made at the end of his speech.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I withdraw and apologise.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill

In Committee

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Preamble, Parts 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): Whakataka te hau ki te uru, whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta, kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura he tio, he huka, he hau. Tīhei mauri ora!

[Be prepared for the westerly, be prepared for the southerly. It will be icy cold inland, it will be cold on the shore. May the dawn rise red-tipped on ice, on snow, on frost. Bring forth the life force!]

It’s not usual that I would begin a committee stage of a bill with a karakia, but given the debate that preceded this particular matter, I thought it was apt, because we have a very significant milestone moment. I’m not going to take a long call, because the second reading of the bill highlighted the substantial work that the Māori Affairs Committee did to go thoroughly through the aspects of the bill, and I want to thank them for their work, as well as Te Puni Kōkiri officials who advised and the clerks of the committee.

However, I want to highlight Supplementary Order Paper 539, which proposes amendments to correct two incorrect references in the bill. The first is to amend an incorrect Native Land Court Minute Book reference in clause 4(1), and the second is to update the commencement date for the final period in clause 4(7) of Schedule 1. It amends the commencement date for the final report of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute from 1 April 2018 to the now applicable date of 1 April 2020. While these amendments are technically non-controversial, they are necessary. It’s my recommendation that the House support them and advance with certainty to the third reading of this bill.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 539 and 541 in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill be now read a third time.

Me pēhea e tīmata taku kōrero, kia whakatau te waka o Te Arawa me ngā tini āhuatanga kei runga i a koutou. Nō reira, Te Arawa waka, Te Arawa tangata, tēnā koutou. Wāhiao, Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa, Ngāti Whakaue, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[How can I open my speech, welcome on this day, Te Arawa, welcome to you and those dearly departed that you bring with you. Te Arawa the ancestral canoe, Te Arawa the people, greetings to you all. Wāhiao, Tūhourangi of Whakarewarewa, Ngāti Whakaue, greetings to one and all.]

This is a milestone moment in our opportunity to rectify something that should have been done a long time ago. I want to acknowledge those iwi who are gathered here from Te Arawa, who all have a significant leadership role to play going forward. I want to also acknowledge the chair of Te Puia, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute (NZMACI), Harry Burkhardt and the chief executive of Te Puia, Tim Cossar.

There are so many people to acknowledge that are no longer here with us. I think back to the ilk of those like Te Kura-o-te Marama Waaka, Te Autiti Wikiriwhi, Ngawhare Maika, Te Rangi-puawhe, Kāpiti Hamiora, and Hamuera Mitchell. These are but a few, all of whom had been involved in some way, shape, and form in the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. That is an institute that has spanned a number of years and made a huge contribution. I acknowledge those koroua and I acknowledge the many kuia who have been selfless in their contribution to advancing the aspirations of Te Arawa but also of te iwi Māori in the work that they’re doing in association with this institute.

The Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute was originally a Department of Tourism concept proposed to take the place of the loss of the Pink and White Terraces in 1886. It was to be the new tourism icon in Rotorua. The Tohunga Suppression Act of 1907 typified the assimilation of Māori and in many ways became a turning point for Māori development and cultural revitalisation. Through the work of Tā Apirana Ngata, the member of Parliament for Eastern Māori then, legislation was passed in Parliament in 1926, which saw the birth of a predecessor organisation to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute and the original carving school, Te Ao Mārama.

I think back to the time of my own tupuna, Whaea Te Puea, when in the 1930s she sent Koro Piri Poutapu to Te Ao Mārama to refine his carving skills under the senior tutelage of Eramiha Kapua and working alongside Pine and John Taiapa to carve the whare Te Hono ki Rarotonga. He returned home to support a number of the old lady’s other projects such as Tūrongo House, the Kāwhia Methodist Church, Ngātokimatawhaorua, and going on to oversee many of our own Waikato master carvers such as Īnia Te Wīata.

Te Ao Mārama has contributed much more broadly to our nation, and this history is not really well understood. But many of the iwi across the motu can link the stories of cultural revitalisation to the role and function that the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute has played.

NZMACI, as it has been known, now will become a legacy institution of Te Puia in the tourism sense. It’s become a centre of excellence for Māori arts and crafts, a tradition carried on still today, teaching many of our children. We see it, for example, in the creation of Te Whare Raranga, the first weaving school, in 1969 and in 2009, with the opening of Te Takapū o Rotowhio, the national stone and bone carving school. We also see it in the more recent opening of the waka school, Te Wānanga-a-Kupe Mai Tawhiti.

The institute was established under the New Zealand Maori Arts and Crafts Institute Act 1963, but, as mentioned previously, it has a much longer history spanning back 93 or so years since 1926. Today represents a significant milestone to resolve a longstanding aspiration amongst the people of Te Arawa. The Crown, along with the Whakarewarewa joint trust, initialled a vesting agreement on 1 June 2017. The agreement was signed on 4 August that year. Today is the next step in the process of returning Te Puia to iwi at this third reading.

This is a memorable occasion for the Crown, the Whakaue interests represented by Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust and Hurungaterangi, Taeotū, Ngāti Te Kahu o Ngāti Whakaue, Te Puia Trust, and by Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa. It’s been a long journey with both the Crown and iwi having the resolve to see the efforts to return ownership of NZMACI business and assets through to its fruition. I am proud that it is this Government and this Parliament that will have the opportunity to complete the efforts of successive Governments.

I remember when Parekura Horomia was the Minister of Māori Affairs and my ministerial colleague Damien O’Connor was the then Minister of Tourism. I held the humble associate portfolio for tourism and I can remember when those discussions were initiated with them. So I do acknowledge many people who have walked along the path to try and bring forward today. There are too many to acknowledge individually, but I do wish to acknowledge the tireless work of numerous people within the iwi who have worked hard with officials from Te Puni Kōkiri and many more to ensure that the realisation of today can be for the benefit of your mokopuna and the next generation.

The Te Puia New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Limited Partnership will be the kaitiaki of this national treasure on behalf of iwi beneficiaries, and it will continue to see Te Puia succeed as a business. Te Puia, New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, is the only institute of its kind in Aotearoa, in the world. In fact, when we think about the moment that we’re in and the role that the institute can play in the recovery of cultural tourism, then it’s a significant opportunity that they have to help New Zealand bring forward what is unique and core to the recovery of our tourism sector.

The vesting endorsement process in 2017 was an important opportunity for iwi members to learn about the nature of the vesting agreement, how iwi groups will work together to provide a smooth transition to the new ownership and understand the benefits of the agreement. The partnership approach between Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa, the hapū of Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāi Taeotū, Ngāti Te Kahu o Ngāti Whakaue, and the Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust on behalf of Ngāti Whakaue will ensure that tangata whenua are at the heart of decision making, to ensure the longevity of this kaupapa.

Iwi have been looking forward to this day for many, many years. I’m pleased the hau kāinga of the Whakarewarewa Valley are finally assuming ownership of Te Puia and the institute. While the vesting is not a Treaty settlement, all of the stresses and strains within iwi and hapū that you might see in a settlement have played out in this process.

The bill dissolves NZMACI, repeals the New Zealand MACI Institute Act of 1963 and makes provision for the smooth transition to the new operating arrangements. It ensures that pan-iwi cultural functions presently provided for by the institute will continue now and into the future. Such statutory functions and responsibilities include encouraging, fostering, and promoting ahuria a toi Māori, providing training for the iwi of New Zealand, including whakairo rākau and raranga, making grants to enable persons to study, train, and gain experience in creating Māori arts and crafts, conferring diplomas or certificates on persons who have undertaken training or gained qualifications in Māori arts and crafts or Māori culture generally, and providing and supporting demonstrations, exhibitions, and tours of toi Māori and toi whakaari Māori. In this regard, we know that the future looks bright. It’s a tourism mecca, but it’s also a mecca of storytelling, of cultural revival and, dare I say, kapa haka performance—master class!

We wish you well today and we know that the road ahead may not be smooth, especially during this time in a COVID context, but we have every confidence in the governance expertise, the vision, and the master planning that you’re undertaking in Te Arawa to ensure that the future within your region happens with you, beside you, and with your aspirations at its heart.

And so today, the opportunity for this House to support the entirety of that aspiration for the benefit of all of New Zealand, I think, is a real milestone moment for Parliament. So without too much more, I want to recognise all the people who have come to support the speeches today and note your ongoing commitment for success and to realise the vision of your people. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E ngā whānau o ngā iwi o Te Wāhiao, Tūhourangi me Ngāti Whakaue me te iwi o Te Arawa, nau mai haramai ki te rā whakahirahira.

[Mr Speaker, to the families of Wāhiao, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Whakaue, and the tribe of Te Arawa, welcome to this auspicious day.]

It is certainly a pleasure to have you in the House and a privilege for me to be speaking on the third reading of your bill—of your bill—the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I, too, am privileged to stand here and acknowledge you all and the hard work of those tūpuna who have gone before you, and everybody who stands and sits here today as we go through the final stages of this, your bill.

I want to acknowledge Tā Apirana Ngata, a tupuna of mine, who, in 1926, through his hard work in this House, established the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute (MACI). From there, the whānau have actually grown it and it has become a national, if not an international, place for people to come and train and learn how to do whakairo, raranga, and many other things—as the Minister said, a waka as well.

As I look around and up into the gallery, I remember the day we came for submissions. It was the longest day of submissions I have ever had in the whole time that I’ve been in Parliament. I want to acknowledge my colleague over here, Tāmati, who drove us and actually worked us through that whole day as a select committee. I just want to say that it was an amazing day. It was a day where we learnt—where I learnt—a lot more than what words on paper could actually ever, ever give us. I want to acknowledge the chair from Ngāti Kurī, Harry Burkhardt, and also the CEO of Te Puia, Tim Cossar, for the work that they have done and for hosting myself and the Hon Nicky Wagner the night before submissions at Te Puia.

This bill has been a long time coming. I just want to say that, for many people in Aotearoa New Zealand, many tourists, I think that the whole establishment of Te Puia does go along without people understanding this. I think that today is a great day to put this down into history, add it to the books, to the history of this Parliament, so that, in years to come, when mokopuna come through our halls, they are able to pull the Hansards and see exactly what whānau have done to get us here today.

As I’ve said, the institute—MACI—has an amazing reputation, and many master carvers and weavers have gone through the corridors, they have been displayed at Te Puia. Many of us that have gone through Te Puia and gone and had a look at the carving schools and the weaving schools are impressed by what is produced through the institute.

I just want to talk a little bit about the functions of the institute, so that it is recorded in the history of this Parliament. The New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute in 1963 identified seven key functions. The first was to encourage, foster, and promote all types of Māori culture and practise an appreciation of Māori arts and crafts, and that has been done many, many times over.

To train Māori in the practice of Māori arts and crafts—and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were also some non-Māori that snuck in there and also received the training of Māori arts and crafts.

To provide demonstrations or exhibitions of Māori arts and crafts in suitable premises for any such demonstrations—and I too want to acknowledge the Government for some of the tautoko that they have given to the institute over the last few weeks, with the visit there by the Prime Minister. That was really a great token and a gesture and a respect of the people that run Te Puia, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute.

To arrange and conduct exhibitions of Māori arts and crafts—the performers are amazing. I’ve been amongst tourism groups that have gone through Te Puia, and the look on their faces, especially the overseas tourists, who absolutely stand in wonder and awe at what they are receiving. It is credit to the people that sit in this gallery today.

To develop and maintain areas of Rotorua district and elsewhere as scenic or tourism attractions—we must understand that Te Puia is actually 70 hectares in size. It is not a little wee place; it is a huge place. I think that everybody that visits there can take in and appreciate what they are seeing, what they are feeling, what they are smelling, all of those wonderful things that we get from visiting Te Puia.

To foster and maintain public interest in Māori culture and Māori arts and crafts, and to assist the preservation of Māori culture and Māori arts and crafts—these functions of the institute will carry on mai rā nō, and that is why I am so privileged to be part and parcel of the delivery of a third reading speech.

It goes without saying that, on this side of the House, we support this bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for the tautoko she picked up and carried through to this conclusion. I want to acknowledge my colleagues in the Māori Affairs Committee; yes, we worked hard, and a lot of that work is now paying off. So, without any further ado, as I said, on this side of the House, we support the bill, we commend the bill to the House. Kia ora. Tēnā rā koutou katoa.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Civil Defence): Te Māngai o Te Whare. Ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori. Tuatahi, hei tautoko ake i ngā mihi o Te Minita Whakawhanake Māori, anā, tōku tuahine, Te Hōnore Nanaia Mahuta, ki te tini kua tau mai ki runga i te kaupapa kua karangahia ki tēnā, ki tēnā kia hui.

E mihi atu ana au ki a koutou kua tāpae ake i ngā mate huhua kua kōrerohia mai nei e Te Minita, e te tāhuhu o tēnei Whare. Kia tangi atu ki a rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou me tēnei kaupapa mīharo me tēnei kaupapa mīharo.

Ka hoki wōku mahara e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ki te taima o Te Minita, Tā Apirana Ngata. I te kotahi rau tau o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ko tana ōhāki ki te iwi o Ngāpuhi “he iwi ngaro a Ngāpuhi, korekau he tangata tārai waka, korekau he kaiwhākairo”. Nā, kātahi ka rikarika mārika nei a Ngāpuhi. Ka tukuna atu ngā tamaiti, ngā mokopuna ki Te Puia, ki roto i ngā ringaringa atawhai o te hunga e noho mai nei. Mā rātou hei tiaki, hei poipoia, hei ropiropi i ngā tini o Ngāpuhi ka uru atu ki roto i tēnei whare wānanga mārika rawa atu. Nō reira, e mihi atu ana ahau ki a rātou. Ko tētahi o aua tohunga whakairo, anā, tōku pāpā rā, Te Wārahi Hetaraka, nānā tēnei [Inaudible] i poipoia ki roto i ngā tau.

Ka kimihia anō au i ētahi pānga ki tēnei o ngā wāhi. Nā, ki roto i ngā tau tekau pea, tekau mā rima pea kua pahure ake nei i tonoa e te Karauna, e tōku pāpā, arā, ko Erima tēnā, ki tōku tūpuna, ki a Kevin Prime, hei mea kaitakawaenga mō wētahi o ngā raru ka pā atu ki wēnei iwi. Ka tau atu a Ngāpuhi ki roto i a rātou, kaua ki te whakawā, engari ki te whakakotahi. Kua kite atu ahau i ngā hua kua puta mai, nā, i te rā nei kei konei tātou hei tautoko ake. Ka whakaaro ake ki ngā mahi katoa ka oti i ā rātou, engari ki roto i taku kōrero tuatahi i te rā nei, ko te aronga nui kei Matariki ki te rangi.

Nō reira, ko tēnei pire hei tūāpapa mō te āpōpōtanga o tēnei whare wānanga o tātou, kia hangaia he whare hōu, kia hangaia i tētahi tirohanga hōu mō ngā uri whakatupu e hāere ake nei. Koinā te pai o tēnei pire, koinā te pai ō tēnei pire. Kia tau ai te puehu, ka taea te kaiwhakairo te patu i te puru, ka taka mai, ka whaohia, ka taka mai, ka whaohia he huarahi hōu mō tēnei kaupapa, he huarahi hōu mō tēnei whare wānanga ō tātou.

Koinā tāku i tū ai ki te tautoko i te āhuatanga o tēnei pire. Hei tautoko ake i ngā kupu rangatira a Te Minita e noho mai nei. Hei tautoko ake anō i wāna mihi ki Te Rōpū Whiriwhiri i ngā take Māori, anā, me te mema o te Waiariki, o tēnei me te mea o mua i hāpai ake tēnei kaupapa ki tōnā tutukitanga.

Engari, e hia nei ngā taima kua tū mai au mō ēnei me te kī atu, ehara tēnei te otinga, he tīmatanga hōu kē. Koinā tāku i tino harikoa nei ki te mihi atu nei ki te hunga kua tae mai, ki te hunga e kōrero mai nei, kāti ki te hunga e haere ake nei.

Nō reira, ka nui tēnei māku, hei tautoko ake ki roto i Te Reo Māori, ngā āhuatanga o tēnei pire, ka tau tēnei i tēnei wā me te kī atu ki te hunga, kei runga rā e āta whakarongo mai ana, anā, mā Matariki koutou e manaaki, e tiaki, kia haumaru ai tā koutou hāerenga hokinga atu ki te wā kāinga.

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e te Māngai o te Whare. Ka tautoko mārika i tēnei Pire.

[Mr Speaker, I will remain in Māori. Firstly, I would like to support the acknowledgments made by the Minister for Māori Development, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, to the many who have arrived on this occasion. I would like to thank those of you who have paid respects to those that have passed on, those who were mentioned by the Minister. We mourn those who have passed to the long night, but let me bring the discussion back to our great occasion.

My thoughts go back to the days of Sir Apirana Ngata. On the 100-year anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi he left Ngāpuhi with these words: “He iwi ngaro a Ngāpuhi, korekau he tangata tārai waka, korekau he kaiwhākairo”. (Ngāpuhi is lost, there is no one who can carve a boat, there is no one to carve ornaments.) That got Ngāpuhi moving. Young people and grandchildren were sent to Te Puia to be nurtured by those who have arrived today. They supported, they looked after, and they upskilled the many of Ngāpuhi who joined our great house of education. Therefore, I would like to thank them. One of those master carvers was a mentor of mine, Te Wārahi Hetaraka, who nurtured [Inaudible] in the years that have passed.

I would like to make another connection to that place. In the last 10 or 15 years, the Crown and my father, Erima, asked my ancestor Kevin Prime to act as a mediator on some issues that these tribes were having. Ngāpuhi arrived amongst them, not to judge but to help unite. I have seen the results of those efforts here today. I think forward to all the great things that they will achieve. However, during my first speech today I mentioned that the big focus is on Matariki in the sky.

So, this bill is the foundation for the future of our house of learning, to help construct a new building, to help build a new vision for the generations to come. That’s the true benefit of this bill. When the dust settles, a carver will be able to work the wood, to fell it, to have it carved and with it a new vision and a new way forward for our initiative and our house of learning.

That’s why I stand today to support this bill. I stand to support the words of leadership espoused by the Minister. I also support her acknowledgments to the Māori Affairs Committee, including the member for Waiariki, who has supported this bill to its fulfilment.

That being said, I can’t remember how many times I have delivered a speech and said that this is not the end, but the beginning. That’s why I am so pleased for those who have arrived today, those who have spoken, and those who will follow.

Therefore, I have probably said enough for today. I support, in Māori, the bill, and sit down with these final words to those who are listening: let Matariki protect you, nurture you, and may your journey home be a safe one. Thank you to one and all. I enthusiastically support this bill.]

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Nau mai whakatau mai ki te pānuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings Te Arawa waka, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. Welcome, welcome to the third reading of this bill.]

When I stand in the gallery to address our people who have travelled from afar throughout the motu, and to those who have come from Te Arawa, there’s always a sense of trepidation and an immense privilege—but also an immense responsibility—to be able to address and to speak to what, effectively, is the bill of the people who have come from afar, gathered for the passage of this into third reading. I also reference, because this is televised, that members of the public who are listening in, this is part of their learning and lifting and raising of awareness as well, because the nation that we are of today is still being carved out. The threads of the different communities that we come from in Aotearoa New Zealand are still being interwoven into the fabric and shaping the face of our nation today.

So I turn to speak to this third reading of the bill as it passes into law, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. This is not a Treaty settlement bill, so that members again, for the benefit of those in the public, are aware of the difference. I stand and speak as uri, as a descendant of W’anganui. I am the member of Parliament elected to represent the people from W’anganui. I am a member of the National Party. I also stand to speak with the responsibilities of shadow Attorney-General, of Māori Crown relations, of Treaty negotiations, and Māori tourism. So all of those areas of responsibility that I carry, I carry with a sense of immense regard and a sense of the enormity of responsibility that comes with that. Every single one of those portfolios that I have the privilege and the burden of carrying at the moment are interwoven into this bill in some way or another.

Again, the third reading—for the benefit of members of the public who are listening in, because I know the people who have come from Te Arawa know this—this is the summing up debate on everything that has been canvassed and addressed in relation to the bill. I sat briefly on the Māori Affairs Committee and I had the distinct privilege to be able to sit in and to listen to the kōrero—I am a lawyer in my former life—the evidence of what the people were speaking to and the relationships of the people affected by this bill.

The third reading is a summing up debate. It’s been mentioned by previous speakers also, the record from the first and second readings of this bill has been captured in Hansard. Before I came to speak in the House, I reflected by perusing some of the kōrero that has been documented and recorded now into the history of Hansard. A lot of that is about the chronology, the history of how the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute has come to be. It is indicative of the journey that has been carved out, the pathways of all those who have been formative in the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute. This vesting bill is effectively about the Crown recognising and duly doing as it ought to, vesting the assets and the other responsibilities back to the people of Te Arawa.

So in August 2017—I’ll come to the chronology around the legal passage of this bill. In August 2017, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell—one of yours—was the Minister for Māori Development, and he, with Whakarewarewa Joint Trust, signed the vesting agreement. After that, it came to be that the bill came before the House—and you’ll see that I’ve got papers spread out before me here—for its first reading on 19 December 2018. From there, it was handed in to the charge and responsibility of the Māori Affairs Committee. That’s when the people came to Te Arawa to listen to the kōrero and to listen to some of the concerns. It is always a privilege to be able to be part of the most intimate kōrero and to hear some of raruraru and the problems.

It had been put to the Māori Affairs Committee that we resolve some of that by way of inclusion in the bill. However, we recognise that as Crown agents, there are some things that are just beyond our privilege and our responsibility, and that it is for the people to, ultimately, resolve your differences. The second reading of the bill had come about on 14 November 2019, and I had the opportunity to speak to the House in relation to that. I’ve talked about the chronology and the pathway of the institution in terms of its legislative passage, but also how it came to be. That was a vision of Sir Apirana Ngata, and that vision has been fulfilled by the people of Te Arawa.

This institution is in the presence on your whenua. It’s in the presence in your hearts and minds. It has been carried from your tūpuna and will be carried through you into the future generations. Sir Apirana Ngata had that vision, and that vision has been captured, as we know, in his w’akataukī: “E tipu e rea, mō ngā rā o tōu ao.”

For the benefit of members of the public listening in, that w’akataukī, that message from the heart is “Thrive in the days destined for you, your hand to the tools of the Pākehā to provide physical sustenance, your heart to the treasures of your ancestors to adorn your head, your soul to God to whom all things belong.”, and I think for many of us in the House today this is to be carried through in days to come. The Institute of the Māori Arts and Crafts encapsulates that—to carry from the past, the present, through into the future.

So it’s well known and it’s now documented in Hansard, but also in this bill, that the vesting of the assets—and we talk about the structure, but the structure houses everything that we’ve talked about: the knowledge, the presence of the people who have been there and have gone before, and the presence of those now as a gift to the future. When I spoke at the second reading, I talked about the relationships, and we are very strong in terms of the connections that we have to the areas that we come from and how we interweave and relate in carving out those relationships.

John and Pine Taiapa: Pine Taiapa came to Pūtiki, my area at the mouth of the Whanganui River, and imbued the essence—coming also from Te Arawa, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, he having graduated there with many others, travelling around the motu—and carved into our w’are karakia, St Paul’s Anglican church, and also to the w’are tupuna. When I go home, that is a correlation of the relationship to our people through to Te Arawa because of Pine Taiapa and that association. It’s a privilege to stand here to support and commend the third reading of this bill so that it’s carried through and made into law. To the people who have travelled from Te Arawa, today will be a celebration, but it just signs off a legislative passage. Kia ora. Tēnā tātou katoa.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ko Ngongotahā tōku maunga, ko Rotorua tōku moana, ko Waeteti tōku awa, ko Ngāraranui, ko Rangiwewehi, ko Ngāti Whakaue ōku hapū. Ko Te Arawa tōku iwi. Kia ora whānau. Kia ora.

[Ngongotahā is my ancestral mountain, Rotorua is my ancestral lake, Waeteti is my ancestral river. Ngāraranui, Rangiwewehi, and Ngāti Whakaue are my subtribes. Te Arawa is my tribe. Hello, family. Hello.]

I think that’s the first time I’ve ever said that in this House, and I’m proud to do so with my whānau and my friends above in the gallery here tonight.

I want to, firstly, as appropriate, acknowledge the passing of our elders, those who cannot be with us here this afternoon and, in doing so, I acknowledge the 93-year journey that Te Puia, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, has taken to get to this moment, ināianei. Actually, as I’ve said before, both to acknowledge Sir Apirana Ngata and to describe the mahi that we have undertaken to get to this point, I quote our venerable elder: “Tēnā, ka hāere tonu. Ā te wā, ka taea, ka mau.” [That, will go on. In time, it is possible, hold strong.]

That simply speaks about perseverance and the journey that we undertake to be here today: persevere, and you will get to your destination. Keep at it, keep at it, because I think it was Sir Robert Muldoon who first aired the thought—I think, Minister, you spoke about this in your address. He first aired the thought that “Actually, wouldn’t it be a good idea to put this institution back in the hands of the whenua in Te Arawa, our people?” Today, it is my pleasure to stand here as a member of Parliament, a humble, humble Rotorua boy, to speak in this House—[Interruption]—they know it; they know it and they can’t deny it—to acknowledge the mahi that those in the gallery have undertaken but also to acknowledge the Minister and to acknowledge my cousin Tāmati Coffey. I said that last time, bro, and we still haven’t figured out what the connections are, but I know—I know.

I just want to give this a bit of context, because it’s not all about joy. It wasn’t that long ago that I was in Te Puia talking about the struggle facing our whānau, the staff, the management, and the board of Te Puia in response to COVID-19. So we have to acknowledge the timing of this announcement today in our House, in this Parliament. Could we call it an irony? I would say to this House that it is the best time—it is the best time—for this Parliament to be handing back this institution, this taonga, to the people of Te Arawa, because the people in the gallery and the members below know that the future is bright.

The future is bright not only for the people of Te Arawa but for those who have undertaken the mahi in Te Puia. I don’t want to name names, but when I was there on that day, it was actually heartbreaking, because there were people in tears because hard decisions had to be made about our people and “What does this institution do now?” It was heartbreaking to talk to the leadership and to the hapū who were present on that day about “What does the future look like?”, but, actually, I’m also proud to say this Government understood what the challenges were and that this taonga of Aotearoa could not be left to fall by the wayside.

The Government of this day talks about a taonga that is more than the sum of its parts. It talks about spillover benefits. If there was an icon in New Zealand that we could all agree on and that we all do agree on in our kōrero today, it is Te Puia. It is more than the sum of its parts. It is about our Māori culture. It is about our heritage. It is about our learnings. It is about the future of the Reo and our people. But for Rotorua and for New Zealand, it is a taonga and a treasure and that icon that we must celebrate and tautoko, which we have done, so that we can move forward as a nation, not just as a people.

I have taken foreign Ministers, dignitaries, into the heart of Rotorua and, actually, into the institution, which I only just found out recently was designed as a thought in terms of replacing the destroyed Pink and White Terraces. I didn’t know that that was the genesis of the Māori arts and crafts kōrero.

So can I say to the people of Rotorua and the people of Aotearoa that it has achieved its mandate. It is an attraction that brings actually—I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say—millions of people to New Zealand. We know millions of international tourists go through Rotorua, and I know the majority of them go through our Māori Arts and Crafts Institute—through Te Puia. So to be able to stand up here today to acknowledge these difficult times but also to acknowledge the celebration of this hand-over and to acknowledge the tangata whenua, to acknowledge Te Arawa, and to acknowledge the people who have worked so hard to make sure that we can all be here today, on this historic day in this Parliament, is a testimony to everyone in this room and to those who have come before us who couldn’t be with us today.

This is a celebration—I say selfishly—for me, but it is a celebration for this Parliament and for Te Arawa. For that, it is a privilege to be able to stand in this House and support this iconic and important piece of legislation to the House and tautoko what we have achieved here today. Kia ora tātou. Kia ora whānau.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E ngā reo, e ngā mana, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. It’s with enormous pleasure that I rise to speak on the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill at its third reading. It’s been a long time coming, but it’s been worth the wait because this institution is absolutely unique. It is the only institution of its kind in Aotearoa New Zealand. It’s a taonga institution. It’s a national icon for New Zealand, for Māori arts and crafts, and for Māori tourism. It’s an enormously successful and vibrant business which highlights the very best of Māori arts and culture.

I, too, would like to recognise the work of Harry Burkhardt and Tim Cossar and all the team at Te Puia for the work that you’ve done, but also for what you’ve achieved over the years. Of course, the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute has had a very long history built on the vision of Tā Apirana Ngata—the vision to preserve Māori culture by establishing Te Ao Mārama. That, of course, was the first carving school—which we’ve heard about today—and we’ve heard of some of the places where pupils from that school have made contributions to marae right across the country. Wharenui, beautiful wharenui, have been treasured and appreciated for many years, and many years to come. That school, of course, closed only after about 10 years. But in 1963, the new institute opened, and that opened firstly with a carving school; followed quickly by a weaving school; later—in the 21st century—the national stone and bone carving school; and more recently, the canoe school opened.

Today, in New Zealand, the Māori Arts and Craft Institute has an international reputation for providing excellent training and also the very best master carvers, weavers, and sculptors. Its functions are about promoting Māori culture, teaching skills, and educating and entertaining both local and international tourists. I believe over 500,000 of them go through every year. The business has built up and expanded over many years through the hard work of everyone involved, and through—mostly—the tourism and the training activities. And I’d just like to make a note that it does not receive any financial support from the Crown.

So back to the bill—it provides for the assets and liabilities of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute to be transferred to Te Puia NZMACI Ltd Partnership and also provides for that partnership to continue to function as business as usual. As the Associate Minister of Tourism, I actually worked with Te Ururoa Flavell when he was the Minister for Māori Development on this bill, and was delighted when, in August 2017, he signed—with the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust—the vesting agreement.

The legislation before the House today will ultimately transfer the ownership of the New Zealand Māori Arts and Craft Institute from the Crown to iwi. We already know that the land on which the institute stands was returned to iwi in 2009. So this vesting agreement, and this legislation, completes the process of recognising the significant cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual association of Ngāti Whakaue and Wāhiao Tūhourangi and this area and Te Puia. So as I said, it’s been a long time coming, but it is absolutely the right thing to do, to return this organisation, this institution, with its land, back to mana whenua. I wish everyone involved with Te Puia a long and very prosperous and worthwhile future. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tuatahi, e mihi ana ki a koutou, Te Arawa, i tae mai nei i tēnei wā. He hōnore nui ki te tū ki mua i a koutou i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Firstly, I would like to acknowledge you, Te Arawa, who are here today. It is an honour to stand before you at this time. Therefore, thank you for honouring us today. Greetings to one and all.]

No doubt iwi have been looking forward to this for generations, and as our Minister for Māori Development said earlier, we’re very pleased and proud that mana whenua of the Whakarewarewa Valley are finally assuming ownership of Te Puia and the institute. Of course, while this is not a Treaty settlement, all the stresses and strains of the iwi and hapū negotiation and all the problems have been part of this, and we understand that. I feel I’m equipped to have a bit of a kōrero about it since I have a house just outside—well, in the village, basically.

Tāmati Coffey: Tania’s?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: So—no, it’s both of our houses. Being part of the whānau, I feel it’s appropriate I have a bit of a kōrero, because, having watched the hapū and iwi politics over the years, it’s been quite fascinating, actually—quite fascinating.

But first of all, I want to say thank you to Rino Tirikatene and the Māori Affairs Committee, who tread delicately through all the different problems that were raised through the process. We know how difficult these processes can be, particularly in the Treaty settlement process, where one hapū or one group think that they should have this and they should have that. Our concern is that the whole process should be equitable. I’m not sure if it is, but it was for the majority of people who voted and supported the kaupapa.

I will say, though, having watched those Māori iwi politics through the years, it’d be a good day, one day, if that gate was open and everybody embraced both sides. I’ve got a key, actually, and I might be able to help out. But I always felt, watching my wife’s whanaunga down there, struggling away, that there should’ve been more support from the Crown in terms of the village, and I hope that we can get there. We’ve got through COVID, we’ve got through a lot of things, and everybody are whanaunga, and it would be wonderful if we can get to the point where hapū politics, our own politics, don’t affect us in terms of actual common sense. It saddens me, actually, having watched it over the years.

But in terms of the model we have today, I salute everyone who’s played a real part in terms of this model in regards to where we are now, because I think back to my whanaunga Pine Taiapa, who played such a major role in Te Arawa in terms of helping and supporting carvers. I remember what made him tick, and it was all about the preservation of our culture, of tikanga, of rangatiratanga. I salute the aspirations of Pine Taiapa and of the kuia Emily Schuster in all the work that she has done in terms of all the weavers and the work that she had done in terms of upholding the culture. I think of Kuru Waaka and all that great kōrero that we all used to hear down there, and his aspirations for young people and for the culture and for the tikanga.

So when I look at Te Puia, I don’t look at it as just a tourism attraction. I look at it as an example of Te Arawatanga, tikanga, tino rangatiratanga, and I salute you in terms of your progress in regards to that. But I want us to remember, I suppose, on this day, those great mentors, those great tohunga who played such a role in terms of the preservation of our culture, in terms of the preservation of their culture and their aspirations that we had to retain what we had. If we never had them, we wouldn’t have had the carvers we have today. We wouldn’t have had the weavers we have today. We wouldn’t have the culture we have today. So when we look at Te Puia, it’s a wonderful model. We got there. Things are getting better. The gate’s going to open one day, and everyone’s going to complement each other and support each other and there’s going to be resources spread right across the spectrum. But my hope is that we honour the aspirations and the dreams of those tohunga who laid the base not just for Te Arawa but for Te Ao Māori. Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā koutou, tēnā nō tātou katoa.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Te Mana Whakawā. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere. Ngā reo, ngā mana, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. The House that stands here, greetings. The ground that is before me, greetings. Those who have passed, rest in peace. The spokespeople, the leaders, greetings to you all.]

It’s a privilege to rise in the third and final debate here this evening for the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. I’d like to start out by acknowledging my fellow colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee, led by the fantastic chair Rino Tirikatene, who, as the previous speaker noted, had to traverse some interesting delicacies and issues throughout this bill and the process of this bill. This is an important day today, and I would like to acknowledge everybody who has come down from the north. The people of Te Arawa, whether you affiliate to the strong, proud group of Wāhiao Tūhourangi or whether you’re part of Ngāti Whakaue, thank you for coming down and for honouring this fantastic occasion.

This is also an important occasion for New Zealand. The Māori Arts and Crafts Institute is one of its kind in New Zealand and it is a fantastic occasion to be able to transfer the ownership and the assets of this important institute to Māori and to see where that takes us in the future, and to grow this important organisation beyond that.

As I mentioned, I was a part of the select committee process for this bill, so I acknowledge the important kaupapa that this bill seeks to achieve. It was a fantastic privilege to come down, actually—down from Auckland, of course—for the select committee process in Rotorua and to hear some of the concerns with the vesting bill that we’ve been discussing. I think there was absolute agreement that the kaupapa of this vesting bill was important, and everybody wanted that. I think where the issues lay was around the governance structure and making sure that the hapū and the various groups that are a part of this community have equal say and have a chance to participate and run the organisation that we’re talking about.

I must say, it was the first select committee experience that I’ve experienced where we’ve been—and it was a great introduction into Māori culture, and I want to acknowledge Willie Jackson, the member speaking before me, and some of the challenges facing Māoridom. The aspirations that Willie spoke to, I also share those aspirations of working together, of overcoming the various factions and challenges and differences that various hapū and iwi face, to benefit Māori and to ultimately benefit all of New Zealand and Aotearoa. So I think that this is an important occasion where this important institute is transferred back into the hands of the local groups, to see how they get on and to demonstrate a vision for how Māori and iwi and hapū can all work together for the future. And so this is, I think, an important test of just how we can work together to benefit our people in the future.

I do want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell—fantastic contribution that he made to get it to this stage—and, of course, my colleagues right across the House who have inputted into this important bill, because it is an important occasion. I want to, again, just finish on this idea of self-determination or mana motuhake. I think that this bill provides for this institute to actually be put into the hands of local iwi and local hapū so that they can demonstrate mana motuhake. I think that is an important feature of why we’re here today.

I just want to finish by saying that this is a great occasion for us here in the House. It has been a privilege to sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, to go out there and also hear select committee submissions. I commend this bill in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call; I call Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou Te Arawa waka, tēnā koutou Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, ngā hapū maha kua tau mai nei ki Te Whare Pāremata i tēnei rangi nui, whakahirahira. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Greetings to the ancestral canoe of Te Arawa, Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and the many subtribes who have made it here to Parliament on this very important day. Greetings to one and all.]

I’m delighted to be able to make a contribution in this debate. As a son of the South, I just shot away from a meeting to try and protect our fishing rights down there, but I made it back into the House here today and I want to mihi to our illustrious Te Arawa waka whānau, from all of our famous tribes of Te Arawa who are here today. This is a momentous day. I’ve been delighted to chair the committee, but really my role has been quite small in the scheme of things. I do want to acknowledge one particular member of our committee, and that is Tāmati Coffey, your outstanding member for Waiariki who actually led the way for us in terms of our consideration and our examination of all the issues on this bill. So I want to mihi to you, Tāmati, because I know that this is a milestone piece of legislation for your people, so thank you for your contribution and for your awhi.

I also want to acknowledge Minister Mahuta, who has carried on the mahi that was laid down by Ministers—and I think of the late Hon Parekura Horomia, I think of the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell; all those Ministers of Māori Development who have been involved—and I want to acknowledge our Minister, our tuahine, for her work in seeing this mahi through. Because there were a lot of bumps along the way, a lot of issues that have been sorted through, and I’m pleased that all the kōrero has been said and now we’ve come to the time when we can finally pass this piece of legislation.

And what does it do? It returns a dear taonga which is right nestled in the heart of Whakarewarewa to the actual rightful owners of the land and the mana whenua, the hau kāinga. I am delighted for Ngāti Whakaue, represented through their three-hapū trust, the Pukeroa Oruawhata commercial powerhouse of Rotorua, and also Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao as well, because that partnership which is represented by all those groups will now be vested in the taonga of Te Puia and the New Zealand Arts and Crafts Institute. I want to acknowledge all of those in the past who have made the institute what it is, and as the saying goes, ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua [when one option is lost, a second will present itself].

This is a new dawn for the institute, this is a new chapter for Te Puia. It’s really exciting. Especially with the $7.6 million we put in through the Budget to support the special work of preserving our cultural legacy which is in Te Puia, and also the surrounding businesses. We know we’ll get through this COVID period and the institute is well positioned, well managed by some expert commercial people. I’m so impressed with all of the legal minds that are within Te Arawa who helped design the structures and everything that will be receiving this taonga through the passage of this legislation.

So I just want to mihi to everyone today, and support and tautoko this bill. Kia ora tātou.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora e te iwi. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. It is an unexpected pleasure for me to be taking a call in this debate. I do so as a last-minute replacement for the Hon Todd McClay, who, of course, is the member for Rotorua but also the National Party’s tourism spokesperson. So this is a matter of considerable importance to Todd, both in his capacity leading our tourism portfolio area—

Hon Member: Where is he?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Madam Speaker—but also because of his 12 years of dedicated service as the member for Rotorua, and I do wish to convey his greetings and his apology for being unable to take his call this afternoon. But I do so with particular pleasure, because it’s not often I get to rise in this House and reflect on my previous history as the chief executive of the Music and Arts Waikato Trust, as it was then known, better known as Arts Waikato, which no longer exists—I don’t think because they couldn’t cope without me, but they merged into the entity that is now Creative Waikato. And, of course, with our very close links to our neighbouring cousins in Rotorua, this is something that I, personally, welcome.

We have in our area the huge, rich heritage of the artistic history of Tainui. Could I acknowledge, in particular, my colleague, the Minister who has moved the final reading of this bill, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. My small electorate on the western side of Kirikiriroa fits very comfortably inside a very small portion of her much larger electorate, but I do genuinely appreciate the very close working relationship that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and I have always enjoyed. I congratulate her on the achievement of bringing this bill to its conclusion today, because it is a significant measure. It’s a matter of considerable significance, well beyond Rotorua, I might point out. So that is something that she, no doubt, celebrates deeply with you.

It was as the chief executive of Arts Waikato that I developed the ability to have regular exposure to arts with which I had previously been unfamiliar and again, as I mentioned, to develop a very keen appreciation of the huge importance of our artistic heritage going back over many centuries in our region. I’ve also been a regular visitor to the fine city of Rotorua. It’s a place that I think all New Zealanders love to go to, and because I’m an MP within the central North Island and my family and I have lived there for many years, Rotorua has always been a very popular destination. So we have a familiarity with the area and an appreciation of what this bill is covering.

The purpose of this bill, of course, has been well articulated by the previous speakers, and I don’t wish to go over all of the details that have been conveyed, other than to say that it is a measure of considerable significance that so many iwi representatives are here today to witness this important measure. We honour you and welcome you. It is a privilege to have you here with us and to be playing such an important part in handing back to you something that has been such a long time coming.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the previous Minister, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who, of course, was also of that region and who did a considerable body of work. And it’s nice that in this House we are often able to put individual partisan politics aside and just acknowledge how many people contribute. In this measure, I believe that it has been a real team effort and it’s a tremendous thing that we have achieved it.

Those who’ve just tuned in may be unaware that the land on which the Māori Arts and Craft Institute operates is in the Whakarewarewa Valley, but anybody who is a visitor to Rotorua will know where that is. That, of course, was returned to iwi in 2009, so the enactment of this vesting agreement and legislation completes the process that has been such a long time coming.

Now, I regret that I have insufficient knowledge of Te Reo to express what I think we’re all saying, but I am sure that there’s an appropriate whakataukī for it. In English, of course, the saying is: good things take time. It applies to this significant moment in time, which reflects the drive of so many. So I celebrate with you, I wish you well in this achievement. Me whakanuia e tātou. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[We must celebrate. Greetings to one and all.]

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa. Ōku hoa kaimahi, tēnā koutou. Ngā iwi, Ngāti Whakaue, Wāhiao Tūhourangi o Whakarewarewa, ngā iwi, ngā hapū katoa i tēnei rā, nau mai haramai, whakatau mai ki tō Whare ō Pāremata.

[Greetings Mr Speaker. Greetings to everyone. My work colleagues, greetings. The tribes, Ngāti Whakaue, Wāhiao Tūhourangi of Whakarewarewa—the tribes and all of the subtribes who have arrived today, welcome. Welcome to your House, to your Parliament.]

Like my colleagues, and especially those on the Māori Affairs Committee, we are really delighted to be able to stand today to support this, the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute Vesting Bill. As many have said, so much mahi has gone in to bringing this to fruition today.

It essentially is a return of the Māori Arts and Crafts Institute’s assets and liabilities to Te Puia NZMACI, as the limited partnership. That is the core of what we are finalising here today. I remember in my, I think, first and second reading speeches I wanted to very profoundly acknowledge what is at the core of this bill, which is the taonga of our arts and crafts, the whakapapa of our arts and crafts, the ever-evolving nature of our arts and crafts. We are affirming the ongoing, developing, evolving nature of how we bring the beauty and the taonga of our arts and crafts through Te Puia, and can allow for the ongoing operations and the mana motuhake of iwi and hapū presiding over and with Te Puia.

This is a bill about valuing our arts and our culture and valuing the leadership required, and understanding where that leadership is best placed. I mean, I remember the submissions that day in Rotorua, and I remember saying how I needed to draw up a whakapapa piece of paper to try and keep up with, as someone who was not of that whenua, the Game of Thrones sort of—[Interruption] No, this is beautiful, right? This is all part of us—this is all part of us. These come through in all the Māori settlements, the Treaty settlements, and the bills of this nature, and it’s a rich, rich discussion. I did have to draw diagrams of all the interactions and the connections between the hapū, iwi, and whānau because that’s how we always have been. So this bill, the journey of it, involved a lot of digging into the understanding of whakapapa and the understanding of the wehenga—also the wehenga that were caused by Crown processes and colonisation—and the understanding of how to bring our people back together again in the best way we can.

So those were the main points I wanted to acknowledge at the final reading of this bill. It was reviewing and going back over how important that kōrero is and how challenging that kōrero also is, and finally, realising the transfer of this taonga and of the assets and liabilities back to where they should have always been.

I, too, wanted to join in with my colleagues in acknowledging the role of Tāmati Coffey, because I understand Tāmati Coffey is our final speaker after me, I believe, in this House tonight. I wanted to make sure that we gave precedent and importance particularly to Tāmati Coffey as the electorate MP and as a whakapapa connection to this bill, to that whenua, and to the many hapū, iwi, and whānau involved.

So, I really just wanted to maintain the Green Party’s support for—and acknowledge the origins and the Ministers and origins who helped initiate this as well, and arriving today to Minister Mahuta, who has the privilege of finalising this journey, the importance of our political support to doing what is right, and to the responsibility we have to oversee and make sure that we are setting up a strong framework to allow the operations and the relationships to continue in a way that is tika as well, including the Crown and iwi Tiriti relationship.

So, I want to make sure that I leave good time for all of our speeches and particularly for my colleague Tāmati Coffey to be able to bring all of our kōrero together, to acknowledge the importance of what is happening in the House with this bill today, to acknowledge the importance of all of the iwi and hapū who have joined us, and to again stipulate my proud support for this bill passing today. Tēnā koutou.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tērā Matariki ka rewa i te pae

Nau mai, haere mai te hua o te tau hou

Tākiri ko te ata; ka pua te ata

Korihi te manu tino awatea

Tūī, tui, tuituia

Ko te tangi mai o te kō, ko korimako

I te atatū, tū ka takatū

Koia rā te Rongo whakairihia ake ki runga

Tūturu whakamaua kia tina!

Haumi e

Hui e

Tāiki e

Ngā hapū e toru o Ngāti Whakaue, a Ngāti Hurunga-te-Rangi, Ngāti Te Kahu, Ngāti Taeotū, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koutou katoa kua tae ā-tinana mai ki te taha o Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, te whanaunga anō kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā i te taha o Te Poari ō Pukeroa Ōruawhata. He mihi nui ki a koutou katoa ki roto i tēnei Whare, Te Whare o te raiona mō tō wā tuatoru mō tēnei kaupapa. Ko te wā whakamutunga pea.

He hōnore ki te kite i ā koutou i tēnei rā whakahirahira mā tātou katoa o Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, o Te Arawa whānui. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Yonder is Matariki, suspended over the horizon

Welcome and come forth the fruits of the New Year

The morning rises, the morning blooms

The bird of the morning chirps

Bind it, bind it together

It is the sound of the korimako I hear

Just after sunrise, I awaken

It is that indeed Rongo, hang it up above, permanently, affirm it

It is

Secure it. Draw it together

It is indeed, it is secure

To the three tribes of Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Hurunga-te-Rangi, Ngāti Te Kahu, Ngāti Taeotū, I acknowledge you all who have accompanied Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, our relations who are walking as one with the Board of Pukeroa Ōruawhata today. I would like to acknowledge each and every one of you in the House today, the lion’s den, for your third reading of this bill. It will hopefully be the final stage.

It is an honour to see you all today on this special day for Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and wider Te Arawa. Therefore, greetings to one and all.]

Whānau, I’ve got about nine minutes on the clock before I have to wrap it up, so I’m going to keep it nice and short. Mr Speaker, can I declare my conflicts of interest, which is that every organisation, every rōpū that I just listed, I affiliate to, I whakapapa to, and I do it so proudly as well. What you’ve just heard in the many speeches that have just happened in this House are the main reason that our Māori members of Parliament are so important in these conversations that we have down here in Wellington.

Iwi politics are hard; iwi politics are tough. As my colleague over here from the Green Party said to me after the day of submission hearings that we had in Rotorua, “I need a flowchart. I don’t know how it all intersects. There’s all of these different hapū and these iwi that are overlapping and I don’t know. I don’t understand it.” I said, “It’s OK. Take a breath. We are complex beings, but, you know what, we are beautiful as well.” And when we come together on occasions like this, that comes out.

Can I acknowledge you for your patience as well. This has been a very long road for our people. This started a long time ago, and it hasn’t been an easy road. There have been ups and there have been downs, and there have been people that haven’t been happy with the progress that has been made. But as we move forward, we must move forward together, and we must make sure that we’re inclusive of some of those voices that haven’t necessarily been on the journey but are on the journey right now.

Can I also acknowledge the previous member for the Waiariki electorate, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, who in August of 2017 initialled the deed which got the ball rolling. As we came into Government, it was my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta that picked up the wero and ran with it. It’s taken a little while, whānau, but good things take time and we’re in a good place right now.

I want to acknowledge the impact that COVID-19 has had on Te Puia. And I see you there, Tim. I thank you for your work that you do with our whānau on the ground. I acknowledge the wealth of experience that you have and how, during COVID, you were willing to roll up your sleeves and do whatever it took because the people were depending on you. So thank you to you.

I also want to thank all of our whānau that continue to actually do the hard yards. Despite tourism being in one of the worst states in New Zealand’s history here in New Zealand, we continue to have an operation. I know that it’s probably not making a lot of money at the moment, but the doors are open—the doors are open and the people have come. We’ve just had school holidays, and hopefully that saw a boost, actually, of people coming through the gate.

I wanted to dedicate my kōrero today to our guides—our many guides on both sides of the gate. I want to acknowledge them both past and present for the work that they do in telling our story, because I hope that one day they will be able to tell another story. I think that my colleague over here: my part-time Whakarewarewa resident Willie Jackson, who comes down and squats at Tania’s house—it’s not even your house. He comes down and squats at Tania’s house every now and then and calls himself a person of the village. I say, hmm! Go slowly on that one. But, actually, one day we will have that conversation. I know personally that that conversation about the gate has already started. And what better time, because, at the moment, with our borders closed, we have an opportunity in front of us, and I hope that we grab that opportunity with both hands.

Can I also thank our Prime Minister and our Minister for Māori Development and our Minister of Tourism, who, post-COVID, allocated $7.6 million to Te Puia to enable our school to keep going, to enable those scholarship students to keep on training. Yes, it’s a tourism operation, but at its heart, at its centre, it is actually our arts and crafts institute and the knowledge, the mātauranga, the mōhiotanga that is encapsulated in our institute needs to be preserved at all costs. Thank you to those that came forward with the tono, but also to our Government for realising the taonga that Te Puia is.

I hope that we’re able to celebrate this back home, because, of course, it’s nice to be here, but you know as well as I do that there are so many people that aren’t here at the moment that would like to be celebrating in this moment, because it has been such a big journey. All of those submitters that showed up on the day to pour their hearts out to our select committee, and I’ll take this moment to acknowledge our Māori Affairs Committee, led by my colleague Rino Tirikatene. We came down there that day and we listened to all of the kōrero from the whānau, from the iwi, but also from individuals, as well, that felt as though they needed to be heard in that process too. We’re in a better place now, and I’m just really happy that so many people have come today to hear the third reading.

No, they haven’t come. They don’t know. You guys don’t know what’s happening up here, but we’re having a really big thing over on this side. Thanks for being here and the ones above me too. This has been a journey for me as a first-time member of Parliament. Some would call it a baptism of fire, but I’m OK with that; that’s what we do in this role. I’m happy to be the member of Parliament for the Waiariki, I’m happy to be Ngāti Whakaue, I’m happy to be Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and I’m happy to look up into the gallery and see all of you today smiling down on this moment. E Te Māngai o tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri rauna i tēnei Whare, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, greetings one and all throughout the House.]

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have to declare this: I’m just joking. I’m not actually leaving; I just wanted to have a good leer up with all my friends and family to kick things off. But I’m just going to take a moment while some more come into the gallery and actually just take it all in, really, because six years has gone in a blink, and I can’t actually believe I’m here having this moment. I’ve got 15 minutes to cram in six years of great times and great people that I’ve met along the way. In fact, I think this is the second time only that I’ve written a speech for the House. The first one was my maiden speech. And look at that—I’m already off track! I’ve completely lost my train of thought. I normally just free ball it, but let’s give it a go.

Righty-o, to begin with, I just want to thank Matty, firstly. I’m now affectionately known by my friends as Clayton “I am the law” Mitchell. I’ve still no idea why my friends affectionately refer to me as that, but I’ve got Matty to thank for it.

I have to say, it’s been a crazy couple of weeks in politics. In fact, the last 24 hours has been even crazier, so maybe that term needs to be modified slightly. Last week was a bit awkward also and nearly caused further embarrassment for the National Party, when I got a call from one of their caucus members saying that I had their support to run for their leadership. I thought for a moment, “What’s this about? How can this be?”, and I was taken aback until I realised that they’d called the wrong Mitchell. They hadn’t cottoned on quite as quick as I did, and I was quick to say, “You should be calling Winston. He’d be a great leader for you guys.” At which point, they went, “Ah. I thought this was Mark Mitchell.” Crazy times, and I don’t know what’s next. I don’t think anybody could guess.

Anyway, it just seems like yesterday I was standing in the House for the first time, doing my maiden speech, as I’ve already said, talking about all the things that matter—and still matter—such as fixing the Resource Management Act (RMA), building roads, pushing for a single standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders, stopping the wholesale selling off of our State assets, building better internal capabilities for manufacturing and processing to add value to our exports to create wealth for Kiwis, and, of course, controlling immigration. I haven’t finished with helping out achieve those goals yet. There is much more that needs to be done and much more that we can all still do to make these things happen.

Anyway, six years on and a whole lot of rapid depreciation by way of a receding hairline—which I quite regularly get told about sitting behind the Deputy Prime Minister every day in the House. I get these emails from people saying, “I don’t know if you know this, but you’re going bald.” I don’t know what planet they’re from that they think that that’s an appropriate comment to make to a politician, but we’ve got feelings too out there, people. There’s only seven that watch Parliament TV anyway.

Anyway, I’m off back to the real world. In my time as an MP, I’ve had some highs—and I think, if the Greens have their way, New Zealand will be having a lot of highs after the referendum at the coming up election—and, of course, I’ve had some lows, but I haven’t had too many of those. I’ve had some lessons learnt, like the fact that common sense isn’t particularly common and that Australians like to fight over toilet paper when there’s a pandemic, which really surprised me. I’ve had plenty of incredible experiences, learnt a whole lot, and met some truly amazing people.

I’ve seriously enjoyed being party whip and working on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I’ve worked on overhauling the RMA. I’ve brought balance to the labour and industrial relations discussion. I’ve continued to push for a single standard of citizenship. I’ve introduced a member’s bill to make English an official language—most people don’t even know that English is not an official language of New Zealand. I’ve worked to find a fair solution for small to medium sized enterprise tenants during the COVID lockdown, and people know we’ve been doing a lot of work behind the scenes on that one. I’ve worked to get the firearms legislation in a much better place, and I’ve worked with the racing Minister to ensure the racing industry got the reforms required to ensure it was sustainable long into the future—and that was just last month.

But now, according to reliable media sources, I’m heading back to the real world to beat up a few gang members, get thrown out of some bars, and toss a few dwarfs. But more of that later—and I don’t mean at the function, because I couldn’t get hold of any leprechauns, so there is definitely no dwarf-tossing tonight.

Today, I’m here to reflect on my time in Parliament, to thank and acknowledge the wonderful friends and family who have supported me, and to acknowledge the great people I have met and worked with—not only those people in and around Parliament and across the political divide but also throughout the real world, in business and industry spread from Cape Reinga to the Bluff and even internationally.

I want to take a moment to genuinely thank and acknowledge the many who’ve made the journey to be here in the gallery today. A big thankyou for taking the time out of your busy lives and giving me your support over the past six years. I truly mean it. You all mean so much to me, and I really do feel quite flattered and honoured that you have taken the time to be here, so thank you, everyone. I’m looking forward to the after-match function, of course, for a couple of beers and some saveloys. That’ll be a bit of fun.

Of course, I particularly want to thank my gorgeous, wonderful family, who have been patient and have shared my time with my job as an MP for the last six years. Particularly, I want to thank my lovely wife, Erika, and my kids, Jazzie, Ollie, and William. Will, when you came here, you were smaller than a grasshopper, and you still have to sit on your hands to see over that rail there. Good to see you growing well, mate. Keep up with those greens. But also, with my mum and dad—my mum and sister Bobbi couldn’t be here today, nor could my mother-in-law and father-in-law, Lesley and Neil, or my UK family, due to the travel restrictions. But I know you’re watching, along with Adam and Cath, Big Rich, Chris Blockley, Pete, and Nina. Thanks for tuning in. I know the other seven people that watch Parliamentary TV, too—thank you.

What a journey, what a blast, and what a very humbling and privileged time it has been. When I arrived at this place, I was expecting a very hostile and sterile environment and one which I anticipated wouldn’t be a particularly good fit with me. But I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Although I had never considered being a member of Parliament and anyone that knew me would have said it’s not the right fit for me—eh, Gibbo? Where are you? There you are. And partly because I’d never had any formal training, I didn’t use big words when I spoke, and I hadn’t been part of any debating team growing up—that and, of course, I struggle with bureaucratic nonsense and clipboard-carrying, hard hat - wearing suck-ups who make your life unnecessarily difficult, and the fact that I’ve got a reputation for not putting up with the woke brigade’s politically correct BS. But I couldn’t say that, the proper word of that.

But, all that being considered, I actually found I am a good fit for this place, for all the reasons that I’ve outlined: because I do speak fluent human, I don’t mind standing up and having a good row, and I won’t be bullied or capitulated by the metropolitan elite. To that end, I have truly had a great time, and I mean it. Where else can you go for a good dust-up, make some changes, and get paid for it? Now I feel like I’ve got a Master’s in politics, with a far better understanding of how this place works and how to get things done, which has been absolutely fascinating.

I’ve had some high times, and I’ve had some low times, as I’ve already alluded to. Starting with the ups, I have to say the Northland by-election in March of 2015 was a truly incredible time and one that I immensely enjoyed being part of. But every up has its down, and the low point of that three-week campaign was actually hardest felt by my good friend Fletcher Tabu-two-toes, who had to share a room with me every day and put up with me snoring. In fact, after the first night, I woke up with Fletcher saying, “Jesus Christ, mate. Your wife is going to leave you.” I replied with, “What? Why?” I thought I might have sleepwalked in the night and given him a nice big spoon. It’s true. He said, “Because you snore so bloody loud.” In my defence, I just want to add, I was not snoring, I said; I was just dreaming I was a motorbike. But, after three weeks of it, I couldn’t claim or justify the reoccurring dream status. So sorry, Fletch. I truly do apologise to you, mate. I digress.

Anyway, what I’ve learnt—I’ve learnt a whole lot during my time in Parliament, starting with: you don’t need to be in the same party as someone that you are friends with. When I look around this room, I genuinely see people that I’ve enjoyed working with, people that I honestly respect—and you know who you are. So thank you. Two, I’ve also learnt you don’t need to be smart to be an MP—sorry, Matt King; I couldn’t resist. I’ve also learnt you don’t need to be smart or good-looking to be an MP—where is Benno? Sorry, mate—couldn’t help it. I’ve learnt that not all MPs read their paperwork before select committee, but everyone says they have. It’s not hard to work out which ones are which. I’ve been guilty of that a couple of times—“Yeah, yeah—read it, read it, read it.” Take it as read, but, yeah, we know who you are—oh, there you are over there, Benno. You’ve gone a bit redder than normal.

I’ve learnt that media have their own agenda and will often completely twist the truth to suit their agenda. However, there are a couple of journos I trust—keep up the good work, to you I say. I’ve also learnt that you can apply an economic term to just about any situation you like by internalising your externalities. Isn’t that right, Fletch? Private joke. I’ve also learnt that even if you’re allergic to people, you can be a great politician, Darroch. So maybe there’s an ointment or a Lucozade you could take. But, finally, I’ve learnt that division by multiplication is a term I just couldn’t quite work into my speech, so sorry about that, Brent—I tried, bro.

Right—my decision to not stand again was one which I haven’t made lightly. Time’s flying. Almost a year ago, actually—just after your 40th birthday, Kimbers—I spoke to Winston and Fletcher, letting them know of my plan to not seek nomination in 2020, because I felt that six years was about the right amount of public service time for me, and I was ready to get back to the real world of business. Winston asked me to sleep on it for a while, which, of course, I did. As he said, I might want to change my mind at some point. In fact, during the lockdown, I had plenty of time to think about what I wanted to do, and it became abundantly clear to me that my decision to not do another term was the right one.

To some, COVID was stressful beyond words. It was hard on families, relationships, and particularly business, and I’m very mindful of that. But, to me, it was one of the most amazing times. The world slowed down. Everything was reset, and the norm was no longer the norm. Most importantly, and much to my pleasant surprise, I realised my wife still loved me and I still adored her. We had fun together, and worked on projects, too. During COVID, I connected with my kids in a way that I had never done before either, helping them with homework, going on walks, playing cards, and having family discussions about the world and all its wonders. That was priceless. I’m so proud of my family and how they make me feel. Without them, who am I? Another three years would see Jazzie heading off to uni, would see Ollie borrowing the car keys and not wanting to hang out with the olds, and William would be off to high school. He’d be able to see over the lectern, too—sit on your hands, mate. There he is! Yeah, poke your head up. That’s why I’m not re-standing, because you all up there mean so much to me, the absolute world. I love you to bits, more than anything.

Now, everyone wants to know what I’m going to do next. Hopefully, I’ll have time at the end to fill you all in. I don’t want to do a Tim Macindoe on you—like you did at your maiden speech—ripping through the pages to get through the end of it. I’m already under pressure of time—righty-o, moving on.

I’ve met some lifelong friends in and outside of Parliament, and I look forward to regular catch-ups with you all in the next weeks and years ahead. I’d like to start by thanking Audrey van Dalen, who has been an incredible office manager and great friend to me. I will truly miss our daily catch-up, Audrey; thank you. I’d like to also thank Talani Meikle for being the best pocket rocket in the business. I’m going to miss working with you too, Talani, wherever you are—there you are. I see you up there. A big thankyou to Mike, Allie, Paul, Louie, Taylor, and all the team on the 13th floor. What a pleasure it has been to work with you. Thank you for your support and help. Also, I’d like to thank the team on the seventh floor, particularly Helen Lahtinen, affectionately known as “Northern Efficiency”. It’s been great working with you, too. I hope you’re in there.

To my electorate, wow—truly, wow. I couldn’t have done it without you. Roy Townhill, your blood is worth bottling, mate, and I’ll miss you. Giving me my weekly serve of honesty is a great virtue. To my electorate committee, thank you for believing in staying the course, even when the course wasn’t always clear—even for me, it wasn’t clear sometimes. Thank you also to Chris Lee, who has always been a rock that I could depend on. I want to thank Mary Gear and the Gear family for your constant support, love, and loyalty. Just a quick side note: Tommy Gear was the patriarch of the Gear family, but, sadly, this term he passed away, leaving a massive hole in our New Zealand First family. I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for his tenacity and friendship. Thank you, my friend. We’re missing you, mate.

Finally, I want to thank my caucus. It’s been a great honour and a huge privilege for me to be working alongside you all. Winston—and, you know, he doesn’t like this sort of stuff—you are an inspiration, and I’ve enjoyed beyond words the time I’ve had with you on your team. I’ve particularly loved campaigning with you, but also sitting down at the end of the day over a nice hot cup of tea—aka single malt—discussing New Zealand and world politics, among other things. You put everything into whatever you do, and your wisdom and experience is second to none. Not only have you made politics interesting for me; you’ve made it fun.

Shane, we didn’t know each other very well prior to this term, although, in saying that, both you and Dot always made me very welcome at your home for your annual Waitangi hui. Now, three years on, I can say you’re a great friend, someone who I truly enjoy spending time with and always good humour, great advice, and your knowledge and counsel is unparalleled. As a footnote, mate, just so you’re tuning in, I have been asked by Dot to say stay off the pies and keep up with your training.

Ron, what a great pleasure it’s been working with you, mate, over the past two terms. I’m not sure I can say this without getting cautioned or thrown out, but it’ll be the first time I’ve been thrown out of the House if it doesn’t go so well: you’re a genuine good bastard. Tracey, thank you for being there for us all when we needed you. Mark, working with you over the past term has been fantastic. You have a great future in politics. You never shy away from a good fight, but you’re respectful and diplomatic and a true ambassador for the primary industries. Jenny, you hit the ground running, and working with you has been great.

But, last but not least, two friends that have genuinely become my brothers, Fletcher and Darroch, so completely different—and I couldn’t underscore that enough—to each other, but both so loyal, humble, and genuine. I’ve had so much fun working with you both, laughing so much at times I’ve had tears coming down my legs. You both work your arses off and give everything to what you do. You are the unsung heroes, and I will truly miss catching up with you guys every day.

In conclusion—oh, crikey, I got it in—finally, I want to thank the system for giving all New Zealanders a chance to represent their communities, their people, their support, and their ideas. Democracy may not be perfect, but it sure beats everything else. This term, I had the chance to go to Uganda, Lesotho, and South Africa, leading a delegation from New Zealand as the executive member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association with the Hon Maggie Barry, who I’ll be staying in the House to listen to straight after this—I’m staying with you, ma’am, yeah; great friend—and Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—did I say it right? I’ve been practising, girl!—and Wendy Hart. It was there that I realised that at times, politics in New Zealand can seem petty and childish, with MPs being over-pedantic and making unnecessary, snide, and mean comments to one another—and that’s just the MPs; don’t get me started on the “meania”, aka the fourth estate. However, I realised that petty politics was far better than the AK-47 politics that parts of Africa and the world experience on a sometimes daily basis and that a difference of opinion doesn’t wind you upside down in a ditch or missing to be never seen again.

To that end, I can say I’m proud to be a New Zealander and proud of our country. I’m proud of our people, and I’m proud of our history. We need Kiwis with passion, with drive, and with experience in this place, so step up and get involved. It will change your life. To New Zealand, I truly thank you. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I’m just going to do something slightly unusual and indicate to the House that at the conclusion of the Hon Maggie Barry’s valedictory speech, the House will be suspended for the dinner break, which means that we don’t need to wait, and we won’t automatically finish at 6 o’clock.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E Te Whare, tēnā koe. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. To the leaders, to the many voices, and to all the diverse people and communities of the four winds, I honour and respect and greet you all.

I will begin by acknowledging my family and friends here in the public gallery. Many who have come to this Chamber tonight to witness my final speech were also here for my maiden speech. I am grateful for your ongoing love, friendship, and support. It has been my honour to serve the people of the North Shore, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart for giving me the opportunity and for having enough confidence in me to elect me three times, for trusting me to represent the interests of their beloved community since 2011. In particular, I thank Gary and Leslie Monk for their ongoing friendship and support. It has meant a lot to me. To the president, Peter Goodfellow, and the board member Alastair Bell, for all their unquestioning help and loyalty, thank you. To Don McKinnon, a mentor and friend, and, of course, Lady Clare McKinnon, thank you. I acknowledge David McKeown, who’s been an outstanding North Shore electorate chair, a man of integrity and great fairness. I’m grateful for all he’s done for me and for all of North Shore National, and I’m also very glad he’ll be there to support the new candidate, Simon Watts, who is here in the gallery tonight.

I wish Simon all the very best for the election as, of course, I do all my talented and highly competent National Party MPs and colleagues. They will thrive, I am sure, under the competent and dynamic leadership team of Judith Collins and Gerry Brownlee. I’ll be campaigning right through until election day to contribute to a National victory. So don’t worry, team. I won’t be slackening off.

To be an effective MP, of course, it is vital to have the right people walking and working cooperatively alongside you. I acknowledge at this point my staff who are here in the gallery, Miriam Wiley, Jack Boltar, and the indefatigable Pat Humphries. They have certainly been the three musketeers, and I thank you for your skills, your energy, and your loyalty. Monika Miller was for seven years alongside me as my electorate agent in Takapuna, and Sally Guinness was with me from day one in here in Parliament, and in charge of our Beehive team, Gay and Alex, Scratch, Brent, and Kayla, et al.

I have always been a hard worker, and I have high standards and expectations of myself, as I do of anyone who works for me. The job of an MP is far too important not to have highly competent and dedicated staff, and I was fortunate to have worked with two of the very best. I thank you, Monika and Sally, wholeheartedly for your loyalty and for always going the extra mile.

The most constant and significant influence on my political life has been my good friend Peter Kiely. It was indeed serendipitous that I was made member of Parliament for the very electorate where Peter lives. There was an outside chance it might reflect badly on him if I didn’t do well. So he’s always taken a keen interest in my wellbeing and has kept me safe from harm. Peter, I thank you for your friendship, your support, and your wise advice from the beginning until the end.

As I said in my maiden speech, this parliamentary precinct is part of my old hood. Thorndon is my tūrangawaewae. Dad was an accountant at the railways, and my mother’s florist shop was just a few doors up from here on Molesworth Street. Our family home was around the corner on Tinakori Road, and I went to the primary school next to the church on Hill Street where my parents were married and buried from. Growing up, these leafy grounds of Parliament were part of my everyday childhood landscape, and, having now spent the best part of my 50s here as an MP, you might say I haven’t come very far. But today it feels a little bit like I’ve come full circle as this chapter in my life now comes to an end.

I had been planning to wear the same frock for my valedictory as I had for my maiden speech, but, alas, it seemed to have shrunk rather a lot, unlike its owner, who should have done a lot less Bellamy’s and Copperfield’s and a lot more nil by mouth and exercised steps. But I have gained so much more than just a couple of kilograms here, in my time in Parliament. Having been in the media, examining politics closely for 30-odd years before stepping up to be an MP, I was well aware of how rare it is for members to be able to choose their time of leaving, as I am doing after six years in Government, three as a backbencher and three as a Minister inside Cabinet, and now a final term in Opposition.

I’ve been here through good times and through tragedies—the earthquakes, global financial crisis, mosque shootings, and now the COVID challenge. At its best, I think this Parliament delivered in a way that our team of 5 million New Zealanders can be very proud of. But, at its worst, being in Parliament can be frustrating, dehumanising, and brutal. As we’ve all been reminded recently, the pressures that come with the privilege of being in the service of the public can take a heavy toll on MPs and on their families. Please don’t be too quick to judge. It’s a tough life in here, tougher than you might think from the outside, and I think that the long hours and the unrelenting 24/7 scrutiny adds up to the sort of life that doesn’t suit everyone.

In this place, you do need a loyal subtribe of your own where you can take shelter from the storms. An essential part of my survival strategy has been the weekly get-together with my “class of 2011” intake year group. Thank you all for those hundreds of Wednesday nights in trusted company, trying to make some sense of it all. It’s still work in progress, of course. I value the honesty and the camaraderie, if not always the food. Goldie’s coleslaw toasted sandwiches—they are not height of the cuisine that I’ve been used to, but good on you, Goldie. That’s how he keeps so thin, I suppose.

Look, I’m not what you might call a career politician, like the predecessor, perhaps, who spoke before me. I didn’t sign on for a 30-year lag with a gold watch at the end, although I am looking forward to getting my souvenir traditional farewell silver tray soon. I have unbridled admiration for those stayers with stamina—my old friend and father of the House with the big brain and the big heart, Dr Nick Smith; our ever ebullient and fast on his feet deputy leader, the nimble Gerry Brownlee—both are National’s lifers, and we need their parliamentary debating skills, their institutional knowledge, as well as their strong sense of fairness in this House.

For my part, I was raised to be a participant, and not so much an observer or a bystander. I was expected to contribute to the community and to try to help those less fortunate. I didn’t join the armed forces as my grandfather and father had done in the two world wars. Instead, my contribution to serving my country, when the time was right for me, was to stand for public office. The notion of service might be seen by some as rather quaint and old-fashioned, but to me it has meant trying to be a voice for the vulnerable, for the people who don’t have a voice in this House. I’ve wanted to speak up for our seniors suffering silently with elder abuse, and to strongly advocate as well for the survival of the critically endangered plants and birds that partly define who we are as New Zealanders.

I acknowledge John Key. Thank you, sir, for believing in me and backing me from the start, and for the trifecta of portfolios you gave me on my birthday in 2014. It was the best present ever—or so far, anyway. The commemorations of World War II coincided with my time as the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. I was privileged to represent my country on many formal occasions, perhaps most memorably, at the Western Front battlefields. It was a moving experience reading the Ode of Remembrance at the Menin Gate in Belgium, where, almost every night since 1929, they have sounded the bugle for The Last Post and recited the ode to express their gratitude and to remember the sacrifices of the fallen, including some 12,500 New Zealand soldiers buried there.

I will never forget the sadness, standing in the windswept, empty car park of a Belgian cheese factory in September 2015. There was no marker, nor memorial, to show the significance of that place, which was the battle site of New Zealand’s worst ever day of military loss. One year later, I was able to return to Passchendaele and unveil the first of many Ngā Tapuwae plinths, as part of our footsteps in the Anzac Trails, which tell the stories of our courageous soldiers of the Great War. It was also a proud moment for me as the MP for North Shore to dig in the first plant in New Zealand’s memorial garden at Passchendaele, part of a project that had been driven by a determined group of my fellow Devonport RSA members, Chris Mullane and Mike Pritchard amongst them. It was a bronze flax, just in case you were wondering.

With my lifelong interest in plants and nature, a highlight of my political life was as the Minister of Conservation responsible for Predator Free 2050. We launched it four years ago this week, and at the heart of National’s bold vision to save our precious vulnerable national species, to achieve that goal, we can and must eradicate the unwanted eco-invaders—the rats, the stoats, and the possums—who don’t belong here and are eating our songbirds and our taonga plant species to the brink of extinction.

Sir Paul Callaghan said getting rid of the pests was essential, but it would be our Apollo moon shot, and he was right. The late Sir Rob Fenwick, who I first met on a television garden show 30 years ago, and who had a profound influence on my thinking, was a visionary who made an enormous contribution and helped convert our distant moon shot prospect into something down to earth and well within reach. We are, of course, only the custodians of this land. We are the kaitiaki, the guardians, of our grandchildren’s natural heritage. We owe it to them to do better and to try harder to save our kiwis and our other endangered native species. I encourage people to put aside their prejudices about genetic modification and also prejudices about 1080. There is no time to waste.

I’ve enjoyed being part of National’s most effective policy advisory group, the Bluegreens, and, at the annual forum earlier this year, I was humbled to be given the inaugural Takahē Award for tireless work encouraging all New Zealanders. Thanks to Chris Severne and the Bluegreens for all you have done. I hope that in my time here, I have made a worthwhile contribution to preserving our natural heritage. I acknowledge the Department of Conservation’s (DOC’s) greatest director-general, Lou Sanson. DOC is in his DNA, and he’s been the right man for the times to lead New Zealand’s conservation heroes and warriors.

One of the most sobering realisations as Minister for Seniors for three years was knowing the extent of the abuse and the neglect of our elderly. We would not be the country we are today without their skills and without their hard work and toil and their wisdom. For those people who have come before us, we truly do stand on their shoulders, and yet why is it that 70,000 of them over the age of 65 say they have been the victims of physical, psychological, or financial abuse?

I don’t believe we value our seniors enough, and I don’t believe that as a society we are doing enough. We need to do more to keep them safe, and that’s often from their own families.

I know, from my own experience with my mother, Agnes, and her 10-year journey with dementia, how important it is to put the person at the heart of our policy decisions. It’s a philosophy I’ve tried very hard not to ever lose sight of, as an electorate MP for North Shore as well as a Minister.

My concern for the vulnerable and the elderly is at the heart of my opposition to a proposed law change to allow euthanasia and assisted suicide. For more than 20 years since the death of my father, I have been involved with end-of-life care as patron of Mary Potter Hospice and, later, of Hospice New Zealand. I chaired 28 days of public hearings into the euthanasia bill, and I’ve heard and I understand that people want more and different choices at the end of their lives and to have their suffering eased.

New Zealand has, simply, not done well enough in the care for the dying, and we must do better, which is why I have put together, with the palliative care community, a member’s bill to guarantee and enshrine New Zealanders’ access to world-class palliative care wherever and whenever they need it. The member’s bill is now in the ballot in the name of my friend and colleague Simon O’Connor.

Properly funded end of life care is what needs to happen before, in my opinion, we push the nuclear button on the option of euthanasia. I acknowledge Sir Bill English, along with Lady Mary English and Professors Sinead Donnelly and Rod McLeod; it’s been a great privilege to work with you over a long number of years in our opposition to euthanasia, and I know that we all hope the public will vote against that referendum on assisted suicide at the upcoming election.

In the 10 years I have been in politics, my son, Joe, has grown from beginning in college to being a university graduate, and, as I said in my maiden speech and reaffirm here tonight, Joe has taught me more about myself and about life than anyone else in the world ever has. I thank him for being him, and how proud I am of the fine young man he has become. I know his father, Paddy—alongside him, here in the gallery tonight—shares that same pride in our son.

Your life is not your own when you’re an MP, and that’s as it should be for a role as important as this one. But I’ve missed, now, enough family events and milestones, and the time is right for me to get together and get stuck into the bucket list with my best friend and my husband, Grant. We first met doing Outward Bound, and I knew then that he was the man I could go into the jungle with—I could trust him implicitly. We’ve certainly been in the parliamentary jungle together for the best part of 10 years, and he has never once failed nor faltered. He has always had enormous faith in me, and for that I am hugely grateful. In politics, as in life, I am excited about the prospect of walking alongside him in this next chapter of our lives together.

My time in this place has been short, and yet sometimes it seems an eternity. You don’t get everything right every time, and you can’t always get everything that you hope for and dream and strive for, but I know that I have worked and fought hard, tried my best, and not given up on the issues that are important to me. Whether I have succeeded or not is up to others to decide.

I have no regrets. I’ve done my dash, and I’m leaving Parliament with my integrity intact and in the certain knowledge that being the National Party’s MP for North Shore has been a rare privilege and a lifetime’s highlight. I thank you. Fare thee well. Haere rā.

[Applause]

Sitting suspended from 6.05 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded to the remaining stages of the Education and Training Bill; the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill; the Public Service Legislation Bill; the Urban Development Bill; the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill; and the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill; the second reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill; the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3); the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill; the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill; the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill; the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill; Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill; and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill.

Tim van de Molen: Is that all?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yeah, that’s it. Ha!

SPEAKER: Don’t challenge him!

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This urgency motion continues to reclaim the 60 or so hours of Government time in the House that was lost during the alert levels 3 and 4 of our COVID response. With the House soon to be out of action for a couple of months during the election campaign, there is a need to ensure that significant legislation isn’t further delayed and that as much of the programme is passed as possible.

The urgency motion includes 12 bills that will have their committee stages and third readings remaining, two with only third readings, one first reading, and one second reading. No bill will go through more than two stages in the urgency motion, and a common feature of many of the bills in the motion is that they bring about significant change in their sector and a delay in their passing would mean preparations for the implementation would be frustrated.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education and Training Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Following discussions across the House, I seek leave for debate on all of the provision of this bill to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 24, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I was very prepared to go through each of the parts as we went along and explain each of the provisions in the bill, but perhaps if I could just give a very high-level overview at the beginning of this. I am very happy to engage, so, you know, questions and answers, and if members wish to make speeches then, of course, they’re welcome to do that as well.

This is a very substantial piece of work. It draws together all of our significant education legislation in one place for the first time in quite a long time. It repeals the 1964 Act and the 1989 Act. The vast majority of the legislation before us—it’s a very thick bill, obviously, but the vast majority of it is simply tidying up the existing statute book. It is bringing all of our existing education law into a more streamlined and coherent form. The Education Act of 1989, I think has been the subject of goodness knows how many amendment bills since then. It’s been amended just about every Parliament, I think, has amended it multiple times, and it has become a bit of a mess. If we want people to follow the education law of the land, it would be good to actually get it to a point where people can follow it and understand it, and this bill will certainly do that by creating a new single Education and Training Act.

The structure of the bill follows the process that someone would go through in their journey through the education system, starting in early childhood education, moving through schooling, into tertiary education and beyond. Then there are clauses that relate to the way the system is structured and administered and the central agencies that are in there and their involvement in that.

There are some significant policy changes in the bill, though. It does implement some of the recommendations that arise out of the Tomorrow’s Schools task force report and the work that we have done around that. There are some further changes to the issues around restraint and the use of physical restraint in schools—one that I think has exercised members across the House over the last five or six years since that issue was first raised. We still haven’t quite got that right yet, and the bill has another go, through the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled, at getting the balance of that right, because I’m not convinced that the balance of that is quite right.

There are plenty of other provisions as we go along, which I’m sure we can discuss. I do want to indicate to members, though, if they’ve got any questions or if they wish me to comment on any parts of the bill, I’m here for the duration and I’m very happy to do so.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to ask the Minister a few questions, and they principally relate to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 544, because, as you’ll appreciate, this introduces new content to the bill that we didn’t have the opportunity to analyse at the Education and Workforce Committee. So in this contribution I hope that Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, will be patient. I will ask a couple of questions, and then I’ll rise to take another call in future.

The first question is in relation to the changes around school enrolment zones. Members of the House will be aware that it is this particular part of the bill that National takes particular issue with. We think the current system, whereby communities via their boards of trustees are in charge of consultation, engagement, and the initial setting of school zones, is a good one, and we are concerned and sceptical about what will happen when the Ministry of Education takes over those responsibilities. So with that in mind, it leaps out at me that this SOP pushes out the time line under which the Ministry of Education will take on that responsibility until 1 January 2021. It is described in the SOP that the intent here is “to provide adequate time to transfer responsibility … from … boards to the Ministry of Education.” And, Minister, it seems to me that this must be a huge amount of responsibility that the Ministry of Education is getting ready for if it’s going to take them this many months to prepare.

We had been led to believe in previous contributions by Labour members that this was just a simple administrative change. This would indicate that there is some preparation that needs to go on at the Ministry of Education that hasn’t occurred while this bill has been moving through the stages in the House, and I would like some explanation of what it is that they are going to be doing over the next few months in preparation.

My second question on the SOP relates particularly to the clauses around “physical restraint”, which, of course, is new language, because the bill initially talked about “physical force”. I, like the Minister, have been petitioned and engaged by many parents who have real concerns about the way these provisions might have worked, particularly for children with additional needs, and equally I’ve heard concerns from teachers about what steps will be taken to make sure that they feel that they can operate within the law in a way that does keep other children safe and that keeps themselves safe in their workplace. I appreciate that there is a difficult balance to strike here between ensuring that no child is put at undue risk of physical discipline and equally that teachers are able to keep children safe. So these are detailed changes, and I think it would be useful to the House if the Minister could give us more background on what consultation has led to these changes, whether affected stakeholders will be happy with these changes, and why they are better than what was in the bill that came out of select committee. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Sure. I thank the member for her questions. In terms of the school enrolment zones, the delay to 1 January 2021 is largely a resourcing issue that the Ministry of Education have to work through. Schools do put a lot of time and energy into managing their enrolment zones and into the consultation with their communities, and the Ministry of Education need to gear up to be able to better participate and to better lead that process.

Schools aren’t all of one mind on this. There are some schools that definitely want to keep control of their own enrolment zones, but there are also others who will very happily see the back of having to do that consultation process. They don’t enjoy doing it. They do see it as a source of division with their parent communities, and they don’t enjoy having to lead that consultation process. So, yes, I absolutely concede there is a divided body of opinion within the schooling community about who should best manage the consultation with their communities around enrolment zones. The delay, though, which I think was the member’s question, is really just about making sure the ministry can get the systems in place to be able to do that work, instead of schools doing it.

With regard to “physical restraint” or “physical force”, this has been one of the most difficult issues in the bill, to be frank, and it was a very difficult issue when the last Government grappled with it. I think they had a really good go at trying to get it right—didn’t quite land perfectly. I don’t think this is absolutely perfect either. If you like, on the continuum of views, you’ve got the teaching community at one end and the disability community at the other end, and I think what Parliament has been trying to do for the entirety of the time—and I don’t think it’s a particularly party political matter—is to find the right balance in the middle that says, “Yes, teachers need to be able to exert some control where it is required to keep everybody safe, but then there are very legitimate concerns raised by the disability community about the fact that children with disabilities are often on the receiving end of that—disproportionately so.” Very real concerns have been raised about that.

So we moved away from the use of the words “physical restraint” based on the feedback from the teaching community, because of the feedback that things like, by way of illustration, a teacher hugging a child while their parent left—and anyone who’s dropped their kid off to a school or an early childhood centre where the kid doesn’t necessarily want to be left behind will understand that this happens every day—that teacher is restraining that child by giving them a forceful hug while their parent leaves. The teaching community read the “physical restraint” provisions as that they couldn’t do that, and I don’t think anybody would say that that’s not something that’s a legitimate thing for a teacher to do. They do it every day, and we don’t want them to feel that they’re being criminals when they do that. They’re providing comfort to a child by giving them a good, strong hug while their parents leave. But then, on the other hand, by moving to “force”, what we heard from the disability community was that they thought that that was going too far the other way.

So we’ve come back more to the middle ground. The teaching community preferred the word “force”; the disability community preferred the word “restraint”. What we’ve tried to do in the middle is actually improve the consultation requirements around the guidelines, because, actually, the guidelines are where the real meat of the issue is resolved, and a better consultation process—taking some time out to do that really well and really thoroughly and get everybody on board—I think will be the key to getting this right.

The second part of it is, of course, training. It’s all very well to say to the teaching community, “Here are some new rules; now you’ve got to follow them.” Actually, if we want to do a better job around restraint and force in schools, then actually really good quality training is the answer to that. There are things around non-violent physical intervention—good training that is available in those circumstances. So we’ve got to do a better job of making sure that the teaching community can access those.

So this is by no means the final solution to this problem. This is going to continue to be a challenge for all of us. Whoever is in Government, there’s going to continue to be concerns on both sides, and I think we’re all going to have to continue to navigate our way through that.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Chair. And thank you to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, for being available to answer our questions. I want to go now to something that I’ve had a lot of feedback on in my community in Northcote since I was elected just over two years ago. This issue, of course, came out actually while I was consulting them on the Tomorrow’s Schools review and what they thought about it, but it’s been a consistent theme whenever I’ve spoken to a principal or a teacher, which is the bureaucracy that they face dealing with your ministry.

Whether it’s property issues, whether it’s zoning, whether it’s staffing matters, whether it’s resource matters, the level of frustration amongst our schools dealing with your ministry is at its all-time high, I think. It’s led, quite frankly, to a number of my principals leaving the sector—really good principals. Principals, if you were to rank them, would be certainly in the top quartile of leadership in New Zealand’s schools.

So I guess my first question to you, Minister, is that a lot of these changes that you’re proposing seem to me like they’re actually strengthening the bureaucracy rather than reducing it. So the question that I have is for you to please explain to me—but also to all the principals and the teachers who feel a sense of frustration with dealing with your ministry—apart from just amalgamating several Acts into one simple Act, where does the reduced bureaucracy come from? I would appreciate it if you can address that for the sector. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Sure. I thank the member for his comments. I think this is another one of those intractable challenges that we face in education, because when we are talking about the Ministry of Education, we’re talking about the delivery arm for the Government of the day, if you like. So the Ministry of Education are always going to be focused on implementing the policies of the Government of the day, and those policies will change. And then that creates, you know, some interesting challenges for schools when the policies of the Government change and the ministry ultimately has to implement those. So the ministry does, I think, sometimes find itself the meat in the sandwich, frankly, between schools and the Government.

I think sometimes some of the criticism that’s directed to them should better be directed to us, all of us collectively, actually, because we make decisions that the Ministry of Education then have to implement on our behalf. The bureaucracy issue is a challenging one. It’s always been thus. I think if you go back to before Tomorrow’s Schools, it was a challenge, and looking at it post - Tomorrow’s Schools, it’s grabbed a whole host of new challenges.

Through the COVID lockdown period, the Ministry of Education have never communicated—I think, since Tomorrow’s Schools—with schools in the way that they did during that lockdown period, and the feedback that we heard from schools was incredibly positive during that time. So I’ve spent some time just listening to them and saying, “Well, what made the difference? What was different about the way the ministry worked with you during COVID-19 lockdown compared to what they had done before?” I think there are a few key things—one is we gave the Ministry of Education some more discretion, and that’s something different that Governments don’t generally tend to do to Government departments. We tend to be quite prescriptive about what they can and can’t do.

So we said to the Ministry of Education, “Find out what schools need and make sure they get it during that period of time.” So we gave them some more discretion at the front line, and schools really welcomed that, and I think the ministry welcomed that because it helped to strengthen their working relationship with schools. Of course, that comes with risks. But, actually, I think the Ministry of Education handled it incredibly well. The frequency of communications was really, really important. The Ministry of Education was sending out daily updates through the beginning period of that COVID19 lockdown because the information was changing all the time. The schools just wanted one credible source of information where they knew they could trust that as being the truth, and the ministry worked very hard with public health officials to make sure they got that.

So I think the issue isn’t a structural one; it’s a relationship one. I think we’ve still got some work to do to improve the relationship between the Ministry of Education and schools, regardless of what the policies of the Government of the day are. There is some further structural change that Government is considering, and the Opposition have been involved in the discussion around that, around the establishment of an education support agency to put more of that support directly to the front lines. I mean, actually to give that front-line level a bit more discretion in the way they work with schools, so that they can be more flexible and nimble in responding to the needs of individual school communities.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is about the early childhood education approval process. So through this legislation, the Minister will be actually giving the approval to entities to open an early childhood education centre. This is through allowing them to apply for the licence so the approval actually will come from the Minister. So the criteria that have been set in here for a Minister to provide that approval—when I go through that list most of those things are easy to satisfy for any operator. But there is one criterion which is going to be really difficult for any operator to satisfy if that operator is a new operator and wants to enter into the early childhood education sector, and that is in clause 17(2)(d). This is the licensing history, and it says, “(i) any other early childhood services previously or currently owned, operated, or managed by, or otherwise connected with, the applicant; and (ii) every person involved in the governance of the proposed service.”

So there could be some operators. They want to enter into the early childhood education sector. They may not have any history. They may not have operated any early childhood education centres, but they know that there is a need in the community. So I want to know from the Minister if this is intentional to rule out some kind of operators like home-based operators, because it’s really important that people, those who are new in the sector, also get the opportunity to enter into the sector, because these people are in the community and they understand what the need is. They do the assessment based on what is needed in that community, and they come up with their plan of a centre, which could be for 40 children, it could be for 100, or it could be for 150 children. But if the Minister sitting here in Wellington makes a decision about that person just based on this criterion, that may not serve the community’s best interest.

So I want to clarify from the Minister why we have this kind of criteria where the history is actually a very significant criterion amongst other things that are listed here, and what the Minister will actually be doing to go out and look for that applicant’s ability to provide in this particular sector. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I think that’s a very fair question. The way the early childhood education licensing regime works at the moment, we’ve seen significant and rapid expansion of some very high-quality early childhood education providers—and no one should want that to stop. But we’ve also seen some expansion of providers who are not providing a high-quality early childhood education. So under the current licensing regime, if a provider has conditions placed on their licence in one service, i.e., there are quality concerns around them, there’s nothing to stop them continuing to open new services, even though we know they are not a quality provider. So these provisions are designed to ensure that a service that is not a quality provider—the provisions the member’s specifically referenced—can’t continue to proliferate the number of services they own. On the other hand, if they are providing a quality service, that should be a factor that’s taken into account in the licensing.

The final point that I would make, though, at the moment, is that there’s nothing to stop the proliferation of services in areas where we don’t need them—sometimes to the exclusion of growth in areas where we do need it. So we do need to have some better tools to say that it isn’t just a matter of saying to someone, “Anyone can set up an early childhood education centre. I mean, as long as you make the licensing criteria, you can go forth and do it.” Actually, we don’t need the huge amount of proliferation we’ve got now. But we do want to direct the growth into the areas that are currently underserved.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call the Hon Tim Macindoe.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): As soon as I heard “the honourable” I thought, “At last, I’m in.” I think I might be the only one here. Ha, ha! Thank you for the call, and could I also acknowledge the Minister. I think that this new approach that we have to committee stage is working so much better, and I do acknowledge the Minister for his willingness to engage. We’re having a much more useful interaction, I think. While I want to ask him a couple of questions on aspects of the bill that I’m concerned about and that, as he will know, ultimately, have led National to feel we can’t support it, nevertheless I do want to put on record that there’s much within the bill that we do support. It does make a lot of sense to be bringing aspects of our education infrastructure in legislation together.

I am very glad that common sense has prevailed, Minister, as far as hugs and a degree of restraint, particularly for young children. I think, almost on a daily basis, when I was five and six, I was either stubbing my toe or grazing my knee. I even remember—I was in standard 1. Now, colleagues, that’s year 3, but I was in standard 1. I remember going to the front of the classroom and sharpening my pencil into a rubbish bin, standing up and cracking my head on the bottom of the blackboard ledge. Yes, I’m sorry, it was a blackboard, not a whiteboard, but I’m only 94! I cracked my head, bled all over, and the teacher, of course, gave me a great big cuddle. Then she phoned my mother and I had to get taken off to the sick bay, and my mother followed the pool of blood all the way up to the sick bay. Anyway, that is, of course, a very sensible—

Hon Chris Hipkins: So that’s where it all started to go wrong.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: That’s where it all started, yes. One wouldn’t wish to make inappropriate remarks, but yes, Minister, that probably is where it all started.

The other thing is I want to pick up on the comment he made a moment ago about the fact that often the ministry find themselves the meat in the middle of the sandwich. I fully agree with that, not just because I am a former Associate Minister of Education. I saw the Hon Tracey Martin, who succeeded me as Associate Minister, and we have the Minister here as well. In fact, I do want to acknowledge Nicola Willis and congratulate her on taking over the role as the National Party’s education spokesperson. One of things you have to look forward to, Nicola, is getting your name on a spade in Christchurch. There’s a group of us who had the great privilege, as a result of all the rebuild projects and schools in Christchurch, who have our names forever etched in that spade, which goes round to all the different projects as you turn the sod.

Not only am I a former Associate Minister, I’m going to out myself—because I’m not sure if even the Minister knows this—as a former employee of the central north office of the Ministry of Education in Hamilton, and there aren’t many people in the National Party who can lay claim to that. But on either side of an election defeat in 2005, I worked in the student support team there and got to see the work of many of those people who are sometimes dismissively, and, I think, unfairly described as bureaucrats who actually do a huge job for us around the country. So I do want to give them a pat on the back. I know they come in for a lot of criticism, and I know that there’s often frustration about the bureaucracy within the system, but nevertheless, most of the people who are in there are in there for thoroughly good reasons and have a lot of expertise to share.

Now, let me get on to the aspects of the bill that—

Jamie Strange: Ha, ha!

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m not sure why my Hamilton colleague across there finds that so funny, but perhaps he thinks occasionally I digress. I’m not sure. We are, of course, concerned about the way in which this bill progressed through select committee and the fact that three of the six months allowed for it were in lockdown. Given the significance of it—it is an important measure—it is of concern to us that it didn’t have what we would consider to be normal scrutiny in the select committee.

Now, my colleague Nicola Willis has already talked about the way in which the bill strips boards of trustees of their right to develop, consult, and review enrolment schemes, and I echo her concern. I was grateful to the Minister for responding to it, so I won’t repeat it. Dr Parmjeet Parmar, the excellent chair of the select committee, has also talked about some of our concerns in relation to the staffing and the vetting of people who work in early childhood education centres. But, having been the shadow Attorney-General at the time that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill was going through the Parliament, those who are listening may remember that one of the things that particularly concerned us was about the granting of police powers of entry without warrants. Now, while I don’t expect that police will be regularly going into the homes where early childhood education is taking place in home-based education, nevertheless, the fact that that even exists is a worry. I would like to think that this Government would give us an assurance that that is going to be removed very, very quickly, because for the life of me, I cannot see how that is justified now, in the post-lockdown period, when we’re back at level 1, when it never would have even been contemplated before we commenced going into lockdown and up through the alert levels in March and April of this year.

The other two questions, just in the limited time I have available, are to ask the Minister to explain the minimum eligibility requirements that have been established for principals. Naturally, we want to ensure that we put really good mechanisms and support around principals, but it is a job that is increasingly demanding and difficult to staff, particularly in some of the more remote areas. Could he please just explain the thinking on that? Also, what is the case, other than within Pacific Island countries, for stopping offshore awarding of NCEA? We believe that our export education market is really important—[Time expired]

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to go back and talk about the zoning issue, and I just wanted to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, some further questions based on the answers that he gave to Nicola Willis’ question—the first question this evening.

I note the Minister said that the extra time is for the ministry to “gear up”, and I’m just keen to explore that some more. I’m interested to know what “gearing up” means—extra staff, extra resources, systems, IT systems; I’d be really keen to know what the cost of that is. I mean, bearing in mind that you have boards of trustees who give, collectively, thousands of hours of free time, and they’re all very, very good people who know their communities, providing that time free of charge, I’m very interested to know what the ministry are doing to gear up, and what the cost of that is. I know that the Minister in his answer said that there are some schools that don’t want to have the burden of deciding on school zones. I certainly know from my electorate—I haven’t spoken to a single principal or a single board chair who would want to relinquish that task. They feel very strongly about the knowledge of their local communities and their ability to go out and listen to the community and make those decisions themselves.

So I’m really keen to know not just only about what gearing up means in terms of staff, resources, systems, and cost, I’m also very keen to know practically how this would work. I’ve been through it recently with Albany Primary School in my electorate, which is about to hit a thousand students, and I do note—and I’d like to put on record—that the Minister promised me a new primary school in Albany. I know they haven’t purchased any land yet, but, just as an aside, I remind him that that’s really important—just get that in there. But I went through that process because they were told they needed to relook at their zone, and so I went through that process with them, and all of the consultation that was undertaken, the public meetings, the feedback—I went through all that with them. I went to all the public meetings and spoke to the board chair and spoke to a lot of the angry parents and watched that process happen.

So I’m really keen to know practically now how that process will be undertaken by the mother ship, so to speak. Will there still be that same level of community consultation? Will it be lines on a map? Who will be consulted? School board chairs, local boards, for example—they know where all of the infrastructure and housing is going to go, often before the Ministry of Education in many cases I’ve been involved in—principals; what will that level of engagement with the local community be? Currently, we know that that level of engagement is undertaken with the community by the school board, and I’m really keen to know, will that be completely gone away from, or will there be something that replaces it by the ministry with this gearing up process, I guess.

I have very strong concerns about this, knowing the level of concern from my principals and board chairs about giving up this thing that they’ve been doing for a very long time and all of that knowledge that they have of their local communities. I’ve seen it happen where they know their communities so well, and if you draw lines on a map it looks like that would make sense, but when you understand the communities and where they live, work, play, travel, things look very different, and I’m just wanting to know how practically this will now work with the ministry taking care of it, but also to remember I would like to know about what this extra gearing up means as well. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you. I’ll just run through the issues raised. But, first, in the jovial spirit in which Tim Macindoe started his contribution, a word about the Christchurch spade.

I was very excited when I became the Minister of Education to go down and do my first sod-turning in Christchurch, and I got handed the Christchurch spade and I looked at the front of it and there were all these dignitaries listed down, and all the schools where they had turned the sod, and there were all these distinguished names, and every now and then one of them would pop up a second time, and then I turned it over to the back, because they’d run out of space, and there were all these distinguished names, and then there was this big block that just said, “Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe, Tim Macindoe” and I looked more closely at it and I discovered that it was all on the same day. He must have just gone from one school to the next school to the next school, just sort of a run in, turn the sod, and run out again, because he went through all of these schools on the same day—so I think that’s cheating! Anyway, he did raise some important issues.

In terms of the minimum eligibility requirements for principals, I think what this speaks to—the bill doesn’t actually define what the minimum eligibility requirements will be, it puts in place a process by which they can be developed, but I think what it does define is that the difference between a school that thrives and a school that doesn’t often comes down to the way that school is led. I think we can probably all agree on that; there’s very clear evidence on that, and, actually, you can have schools that are functioning brilliantly, and then after a change of leadership it can change very quickly. Similarly, in a school that’s really struggling, a change of leader can change it very quickly the other way.

So it’s a question of trying to remove some of the luck from that equation and say, “Actually, we’ve got to do a better job of supporting aspiring school leaders so that they can move on to those very important leadership roles better supported.” It shouldn’t just be pot-luck. You shouldn’t just be able to take a great classroom teacher, put them into a principal role without properly supporting them to do that, because, actually, that’s the way you lose your brilliant classroom teachers, because they just get overwhelmed and burnt out. This has been a persistent problem since Tomorrow’s Schools was introduced. Amazing teachers just get burnt out by the overwhelming demands of being a school principal.

On the other hand, I don’t think any of us would want to go back to the old point system that we had before Tomorrow’s Schools where you only got a certain principal’s job if you had enough points in order to qualify to get that, and school communities ended up having school principals inflicted upon them that they didn’t actually want. I don’t think any of us want to go back to that, so school boards will still be the people appointing their school principal, but there’ll be more of a process around that to support them to make sure they get the right person. I think, by and large, the single biggest decision a school board of trustees makes is who their principal should be. They get it right, the school will go well; they get it wrong, it will be very bad for that school. So it’s about getting more support around that.

With regard to NCEA offshore, you’ll see that we’ve changed our position on this. So initially the concern was that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority would have difficulty maintaining the quality standards for NCEA if it was delivered offshore. The reality is, in the COVID period, actually we are delivering NCEA offshore to some of those international students who can’t get here because of the travel restrictions. So that will be an opportunity for us all to see how that goes and to make sure that there can be good, robust quality control around that. Then the future Government, whomever that may be, can look at that and say, “Do we want to continue with that, or do we want to keep NCEA just as a New Zealand - based qualification?” So COVID-19 provides us with an opportunity to actually see how that works in terms of the quality controls that can be put in place there.

In terms of Erica Stanford’s comments about what is the gearing up involved and why delay the commencement, there’s a very practical consideration in here, as well, that shifting that function to the Ministry of Education in the middle of a school year, when schools may be in the middle of consulting already on a process to change their enrolment zone, would potentially get quite messy. So allowing schools to finish any consultation periods for this year that they’ve already started gives them time to do that and it gives the Ministry of Education time to, effectively, have a good quality hand-over of those processes to the ministry where they’re required.

In terms of the resourcing, the Ministry of Education is already very engaged in this process with schools. In terms of consultation, school communities will still be consulted to the same degree that they are now. School boards of trustees—the law, as members who have read through the bill will see that it’s very clear school boards of trustees are consulted at least twice in the process leading up to consultation and during consultation as well. So the Ministry of Education won’t be putting out draft zoning changes, for example, without consulting with school boards first, and I think that’s a really important part of ensuring that there can still be confidence in the robustness of that process.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I’m going to ask another couple of questions, but before I do so, I do want to note the circumstances in which we’re analysing the 637-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 544 that landed on the Table today. Those circumstances are that we have had, on this side of the Chamber, less than a day to look through the entire SOP, and I have to say, the more I look at it in detail, the more questions I have. So this may be one call, but I’m going to pack in a few questions.

I would ask the Minister first why it is that an SOP of such detail wasn’t one that he felt any need to engage with us on. I stand in big footsteps in the form of Nikki Kaye, who was our previous education spokesperson, and I know she had a history of effective engagement with the Minister, and I hope that where we can work together to progress the interests of New Zealand’s children and school system, that we will do so. Certainly putting an SOP of this magnitude down on the Table without any engagement prior isn’t consistent with that.

So my question first is about the new powers that are given to the Secretary for Education under new clause 612D to direct education entities. Now, as I read it, these relate to when there is an epidemic notice in force. What I would like to understand is how the Minister sees these provisions operating under alert levels: i.e., what COVID alert levels could these provisions potentially be used under? I do want to note how significant the provisions are. They can be used, for example, for private training establishments—so not simply for State-run institutions but also for privately run institutions—and the powers include operating, controlling, and managing the entity. So in the case of private training establishments, we are talking about the Government taking over the operation, control, and management of a private business.

So I would very much like to understand the Minister’s thinking here in terms of in what circumstances these powers might be used and why it’s thought that they’re appropriate, noting, of course, we have just come through alert levels that are very serious, and at no point was there a question that I was aware of publicly that the Minister of Education required additional powers to take over the operation of private training establishments, universities, or other educational entities. So these are significant powers.

The powers also include directing the body of that entity to comply with requirements as to the opening or the closing of that entity for physical attendance or instruction. This is an interesting point for me, because here in Wellington, Victoria University did make a choice that it would restrict the amount of face-to-face instruction that was occurring, and there was some ambiguity about whether that would continue into different alert levels. So I’d ask the Minister again: does he anticipate a situation in which the Government would direct a university or other education entity as to the way it would provide instruction? And what, again, would be the criteria and circumstances in which the Minister would do that? So I have many more questions I could ask about this clause, but I think, given it’s only landed in Parliament today—the powers appear very significant—it does bear some addressing.

The second area that I have questions about relates to new clause 71A and again is in relation to enrolment schemes. Frankly, I’ll admit it, I’m a bit confused about what this clause means, and I’d just like the Minister to clear it up for me, because I want to know how subclauses (1) and (2) interact. The way I read subclause (1), it tells me that a Secretary for Education can allow for an enrolment scheme to exist that allows, essentially, siblings to attend the same school as their siblings, even though they no longer live in zone for that school. But what I want to understand is: is that an automatic allowance or is it something that each sibling or each family has to apply to the Secretary for Education for, or is it simply permitted? Because in subclause (2) we have that before granting an authorisation, the Secretary must be satisfied that it’s in the best interests of the school and local community and can be managed within the existing school network.

That concerns me because it implies that there will be circumstances in which the secretary would reject the application of a sibling wishing to attend the same school as their siblings. This is a circumstance that occurs fairly regularly in our communities as families move from one neighbourhood to another but wish to keep their children at school together. The idea that every family would have to apply to the Ministry of Education for the right to do that does worry me somewhat. So I’m hoping the Minister can clear it up and tell me I’m wrong. So if the Minister could address those two issues, I’d be most appreciative.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Absolutely. Look, with regard to the 630-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), having been in Opposition, I do understand the concern that the member raises about that. The vast majority of the SOP is basically a reprint of the bill with additional amendments included in it. So it’s not 630 pages of new amendments.

What’s been interesting about the process of this legislation is quite a lot’s happened since when the bill was first introduced and sent off to select committee. So a big set of the amendments are incorporating the vocational education reforms that Parliament’s already passed. Of course, they had not been passed when the bill was first introduced. So it actually updates the bill to reflect changes that Parliament has subsequently already agreed to.

Similarly with the epidemic notice provisions that the member refers to, Parliament has actually already passed those provisions. We did that during that crazy period where Parliament passed a number of laws in response to COVID-19. So the changes in this bill simply bring those provisions that we passed in relation to COVID-19 into the current bill. Although the original set of provisions was specific to the one epidemic notice around COVID-19, this extends that to subsequent epidemic notices that may be issued. The reason for that is just a prudent one: we don’t know when an epidemic may happen and we do need to have the ability to respond to those things.

The most common issue that I think we were concerned about were schools or early childhood services refusing to close when we needed them to close for public health reasons. So the ability to be able to do something about that was the motivation behind putting those in place. Now, of course, what we saw during the COVID-19 alert level escalation, if you like, was a huge degree of cooperation from the entire educational community, and as a result we didn’t need to use any of the powers that are there. So these are really just sort of safeguarding for the future in a way that I hope no Minister will ever have to use in the future. I think as long as we see the type of cooperation that we did—bearing in mind, you know, COVID-19 is one epidemic. There’s the potential for any number of other public health - related issues where an epidemic notice may be issued, and we do need to be prepared for those.

With regard to enrolment schemes, new clause 71A, that the member raised, this basically codifies existing practice that isn’t, strictly speaking, allowed under the law, and it’s what’s called grandparenting. So where an enrolment scheme changes, if there’s one sibling in what would now be an area outside of the zone, the Ministry of Education have always worked with schools to ensure that any siblings could be included in the school’s enrolment. Strictly speaking, under current law, that’s not allowed. So this basically just brings the law up to align with the current practice. So it is designed to ensure that what we do now and what we have been doing for a very long time—I think since enrolment schemes were first introduced in the late 1990s—it allows for that current practice to continue.

There was one other issue that got raised earlier on which I neglected to get to, and I think it might have been Tim Macindoe or someone who was raising questions about the entry provisions with regard to home-based early childhood education and the powers to go into a home. I’ve had my own kids in home-based early childhood education, so I’m well familiar with the model; it’s one that I support. They are, of course, places of business. They would only be able to enter into a part of that home where the education was taking place, and it would be for the purposes of welfare check and quality control and so on.

Hon Tim Macindoe: The concern is being able to do it without a warrant.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, the issue is that it’s a place of business. If someone is using their home as a place of business where they are being paid by the State to care for a child, then actually we’ve got a duty around ensuring that the welfare of that child is being maintained and that there are sufficient quality controls in place.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I would like now to come to the issue of workforce development councils. As we know, these development councils replace the industry training organisations or ITOs, and certainly—

Hon Tracey Martin: No, they don’t.

Hon Member: Ignore that.

DAN BIDOIS: OK. So as I understand it, these workforce development councils are established to maintain some skills across sectors in our country. Now, what I want to talk to you about, Minister, is something that I think I’ve raised with you in select committee, which is around how do we expose our kids to alternative careers other than university. I know we’ve had a discussion about this, and I wanted to know whether you thought that it was appropriate that these workforce development councils had a role to help our children choose apprenticeships, for example. As a guy who’s gone down both routes—apprenticeship route first and then the university route—certainly I’ve seen the drive to get people into universities, and I think that shows in our stats, where actually 50 percent of school leavers go to universities and the rest either drop out or go into industry. So I wanted to get your sense of, in particular, clause 347, and whether it is something that you considered that workforce development councils could have a role to expose our children to private industry, to careers in private industry, to apprenticeships in private industry, and whether that is, I think, a missed opportunity, and whether there’s something, actually—you know, whether you’d accept a late Supplementary Order Paper. I don’t have one tabled.

I do think it is an issue. It’s an issue that schools have talked to me about, that ITOs have talked to me about, that industry has talked to me about—the lack of apprentices. You can throw all your money on it, and you guys—your Government, sorry—is throwing money at it, but if you’re not getting into our schools and getting excitement amongst our students to go into industry, to do an apprenticeship, if the best option they have is to go in to do a BA at university rather than do a builder’s apprenticeship, then I think we’ve got a real problem in New Zealand.

Hon Tracey Martin: Don’t knock a BA.

Dr Deborah Russell: Don’t mock a BA.

DAN BIDOIS: Hey, I’ve got a BA—I’ve got a BA.

I think that’s that challenge. I think the fact that the member opposite mentions the issue with the BA actually reinforces the stereotypes that we have over university qualifications versus builders versus butchers versus other trade apprentices. So I would like you, Minister, to address, I guess, the function of these workforce development councils, the role that they could have in helping to encourage school leavers to go into trades and other apprenticeships, and where this fits in this legislation. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I thank the member for his contribution. I was just reflecting, actually, as I was listening to the debate, that one of the things I think Parliament struggles with is this a little bit. We have far fewer tradies across the Chamber now than we might have had 30 years or 40 years ago, and that’s something that the Parliament probably needs to reflect on. There are far more people around this Chamber with degrees than there would have been 30 years or 40 years ago. I think sometimes, actually, we lack that voice in Parliament, and I think it would be good to have a bit more of that here in the Chamber. I say that as someone with a university degree, but it would be good anyway.

With regard to workforce development councils, I absolutely believe they should have a role in exposing kids in schools to a broader range of career options. We’ve been doing a lot of work in this space. We start in this in New Zealand far too late. We wait till kids are thinking about what they’re going to do when they leave school before we start getting good careers advice to them. Actually, we need to start much earlier in the piece, probably around intermediate school ages; the research is telling us that’s where the careers advice should really be starting.

One of the things I’ve tried to do as Minister of Education is give credit where it’s due. The last Government did some good things in this area. I think trades academies were a good innovation. Our Government has expanded them. I do believe that they are doing a good job of exposing kids to a wider range of career opportunities and getting them on a pathway which is leading to future qualifications and good, solid employment.

The Government prior to that—our Government—set up the Gateway programme, which was about getting kids into sort of tasters of on-job learning, and, actually, I think that that’s a really positive programme as well.

We’ve put some money into careers expos and particularly vocational careers expos. Again, coming back to the member’s actual question, workforce development councils, I think, can play a really significant role here in getting businesses connected with schools to expose kids to that wide range of different trades and career options that might be available to them.

I have to say, for a long time, the universities have done a far better job of getting into schools than vocational education providers and businesses have done. We need to really do something about that. We’re working very hard on doing something about that, because I want to make sure that kids understand the full range of options that are available to them.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I hope the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, will indulge me, because there have, obviously, been a lot of changes made and there’s a lot to go through, so if you wouldn’t mind. I mean, I also didn’t sit on the Education and Workforce Committee for a lot of this, but I was here for the first and second readings, and there was some talk around the police vetting for the home-based early childcare providers.

Some of the comments that were made and some of the feedback that I had early on was that initially it was every person that lived at that house would need to be police vetted, and there were some concerns around that: whether or not people who weren’t working or in that house at the time that the operation was being undertaken—would they need to be vetted. There was a lot of pushback around that.

I’m just wanting to know: have there been any changes made around that? What advice has the Minister had? Is it still the case that every single person who lives in that house—regardless of whether or not they work or are there during the time—are still to be vetted? Yeah, I just wanted him to clarify, because I haven’t been able to.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question that I want to ask the Minister in chair, Chris Hipkins, is in Part 3—it’s clause 95. This is about physical force at registered schools, because during the select committee process we had a number of submitters that wanted to discuss this change of term. I believe that because of this, this discussion has come up again, because before it was sitting in the legislation as “restraint”, but people knew how to operate and how to use that term or how to use physical restraint in schools. But with the “physical force” term coming up, this discussion has come up again, and my fear is that this will imply that, somehow, physical force can be applied in a way which we don’t want it to be applied.

I know in clause 95, in subclause 2(c), it says that “the physical force used is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances”, and also in the select committee, we did define what physical force actually means, but we know that children have different kinds of strengths, especially children that have special needs. So how will a grown-up understand what reasonable and proportionate force means for that child? We are talking about children that are of a very young age, from year 5 to older ages in schools. So I have a concern about this, because we have anti-smacking legislation in New Zealand, and I know this is not smacking, but parents cannot use force which can be seen as smacking. But here I know that the force is only to be used to stop any—as we have defined in the select committee process—bodily movement that can cause any kind of harm to that student or anyone else, but it’s a fine, fine line.

So I want the Minister to clarify to me why, actually, we need physical force. We could have done without physical force in this legislation in our education system. Why do we need this kind of physical force, because, to me, it seems it can be interpreted in a way which we don’t want? What kind of training will be there for teachers to understand what physical force actually means? Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you. Just running back to the issue around police vetting for home-based early childhood education (ECE)—I think a very legitimate issue there. Why would adults who are not normally present, or young adults, in some cases, who are not normally present in the home require police vetting? That’s because they can be present in the home. It is, ultimately, someone’s home.

So someone can be home sick, for example, when the children are present in the house, and it is important that children are kept safe—bearing in mind that we could have up to five children under the age of five under the care of one adult in a house. If another adult who is not police-checked is at home, if there was a concern, then that actually significantly increases the risk for those five children who could be in that home. Home-based is the least supervised part of our early childhood education system. As I’ve indicated before, I believe in it as a part of our ECE system. I believe that home-based environment is a really good one for some kids, but we’ve just got to have really good, robust quality controls in place to make sure those kids are being kept safe.

With regard to the comments from Parmjeet Parmar, the member was working off the bill as reported back from select committee, not the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and those are provisions that have been changed. So the word “force” is now no longer used; we’ve gone back to the use of the word “restraint” after some further consultation with the sector. But the key issues I think the member raises are legitimate ones, which are around guidelines and training. So the bill now, with the SOP, puts some pretty rigid consultation requirements in place around the development of the guidelines to ensure that all of these issues can be carefully worked through with everybody involved, from the disability community through to the teaching community and everybody in between, and also that we can then develop and make sure we’ve got in place good training for teachers. There’s no question at all that that’s actually the key to making this whole thing work.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Sorry I keep harping back to zoning issues, but we’ve had so much feedback on this. I wanted to talk to the Minister about a case of a school here, and I know that it’s not in my electorate but it’s here in Karori—or just over the hill from Karori. A school that has a special—they take a lot of kids with additional learning needs, and they’re really well-known for that. Parents want to send their children there, the school is wanting to cater for these children who aren’t in a set zone, they’re well-known for that, and they’ve got really good teachers who are capable of looking after those children who have those additional learning needs. So I guess the question is—I’ve been made aware recently that they’ve been forced to have a school zone. So, immediately, that excludes all of those families. Now, before the decision was made to put a zone on them, they were sorting themselves out really well, and the communities that they were taking children from were happy—everyone was happy—until this decision was made to come and create a zone.

Now, there will be more schools like that around the country who are well-known for certain things—you know, either it’s special needs, additional learning support, dyslexia, dyspraxia—and their ability to take students from a wide range of suburbs that may not necessarily be in their immediate zone is really useful. Just hearing that case that Nicola Willis was talking to me about immediately raised some concerns with me, because I can see, potentially, that—it’s already happening, but I can see this happening more—having school zones forced upon schools like this will actually have a detrimental effect to families who have children with, for example, additional learning needs being able to send them to schools who can cater for those needs.

So I’m just wondering if the Minister has come across cases like that, has taken it into consideration, and what he sees as the potential solution to situations like this when there are schools that cater for those needs.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): Look, I think, again, the issue the member raises is a really serious one. We’ve got a challenge, I think, in New Zealand around genuinely inclusive education. Some schools go out of their way to be inclusive, and they become what we colloquially term “magnet schools” where parents, if they’ve got kids who’ve got additional needs, seek out the schools who make their kids feel welcome and go to the ends of the earth to cater for those kids, and I take my hat off to those schools. But I think every school should be making that effort, and they don’t, and that’s the problem. And it’s not something that we should tolerate.

There are subtle things that some schools do to make it clear to parents whose kids have additional needs that they are not welcome at their school, and that is not acceptable. It is just wrong. Kids should be allowed to attend their local school, and they should be given all of the support that they need by their local school in order to be able to thrive in their education. I think that it’s wrong that that’s not happening.

Tying it back to the issue of zoning and where some of this pressure comes from, there are subtle things schools do that are unacceptable and that we have to put a stop to. So a school principal saying, for example, “Oh yes, of course you can enrol your child at my school. We’ll look after your child—but, you know that other school down the road, they’ve got heaps more kids who are like your child, and they’d do a much better job of looking after them.” Now, if you’re a parent, which school are you going to choose? The one who welcomes you with open arms or the one who sends that kind of signal to you? I’ve got to say to the schools who are sending those kind of signals to parents: they’re wrong. It is not acceptable. Every school should welcome every child in their community and should do everything that they can to make sure that they are properly catered for.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. Look, I understand the Minister’s passion about this, and, yes, they should, and it’s all very well to say that, but the point is that there are some schools who just do it better. They cater better for children with additional learning needs. And saying that children can’t go to that school because they have to go to the school that’s in their local area just doesn’t give them the best outcomes for their children.

I understand his sentiment around it shouldn’t happen—and it’s not even necessarily that schools aren’t welcoming; it’s just that there are other schools that do a far better job. Giving parents that choice to send their kid who has an additional learning need to a school that can better cater for them—surely that’s what we want. So I take your point, but I disagree.

What I would also point out, and I’d like just to take this a step further, is it’s not only that they have better teachers or programmes, but actually for an example in my electorate, I’ve had many parents come to me and say, “I’m in zone for this school. They don’t have any single-cell classrooms; they’re all open plan. My kid’s got an auditory problem, they’ve got an auditory receiver, or they’ve got some kind of learning need that means that they don’t deal well in the open plan, modern classroom, and my local school doesn’t cater for that. Can you help me, as my local MP, get my child into a school out of our zone that will cater for their needs because they’ve got an audio receiver or some other learning need that means that they need a single-cell classroom or a different configuration of classrooms?” So you’ve got that issue, as well.

It’s not about schools not being welcoming or having the wrong attitude. Often it’s the case that the school—the property and the configuration of the classrooms—just doesn’t suit that child. I have that again and again and again, and I just think that, yep, there are some schools that do it better, and they’ve got teachers who are more geared up for learning disabilities and additional learning needs. You’ve got some schools that have got a better configuration of classrooms, and those parents already are facing such struggles getting their children to learn because of those additional learning needs that surely we should be offering them the very best start by allowing them to choose the school that best caters for their needs rather than forcing them into a school that perhaps doesn’t, and I would invite the Minister to respond to that.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I just want to follow the chain of this discussion on the enrolment issues, or the zoning issues in particular—just going back to what Minister Chris Hipkins answered before about how adaptable the schools were during COVID-19 and how the ministry gave the schools more discretion. In relation to zoning, I do have concerns about the way in which the ministry will be taking over the control for zoning and what that means for, again, more bureaucracy that we’re giving to schools.

So, firstly, I’ve got a couple of schools in my electorate that require school zones, and under the current system, they would be able to go through a process and determine that zone themselves. I’ve also got other schools in my community that wish to change their zones, and under the current system they would have been able to do that. Under Supplementary Order Paper 544, which you’ve left with us at the last minute, essentially the ministry overrides that and takes that process on. I just want to, again, challenge the Minister as to how this reduces bureaucracy for our boards and our school principals at a time where—particularly in Auckland—roll growth has been extremely high in some schools and low in others. Therefore, there’s going to be a desire for adaptability and nimbleness in our schools, where schools are able to adapt really quickly, given their growth over the next couple of years, and all of a sudden they’re going to be hit—bang, smack—with the bureaucracy of this ministry to seek approval for, essentially, making a change to the zone.

So, again, I wish to push the Minister to answer the question of how does a change in proposed new clause 69A around enrolment schemes actually reduce bureaucracy for our boards and our principals. If he can outline that, that would be very much appreciated.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just to respond to a couple of those issues with regard to some schools having special programmes for kids, there are criteria in here that allow for enrolment zones to give priority to students who are enrolled in a special programme, even if they are not within the school’s zone. So there are provisions there that will allow that to continue to happen.

The grandparenting for enrolment zones is for a school and not for an individual family. If the Secretary for Education approves for grandparenting to be allowed, that’s for the whole school and not for each individual family within that school, so I just wanted to clarify that.

In terms of the issue around the bureaucracy of enrolment schemes, this doesn’t really change much with regard to the bureaucracy that’s associated with enrolment schemes. It does change the emphasis of where the burden of that rests, and so more of the burden of that will rest with the ministry than with the individual schools. At the moment, basically, the schools have to do all of that work themselves. Now, the Ministry of Education will take a lot of that work, but, of course, the schools will still be very involved in that process.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to ask about the new licensing process for early learning services that is introduced in this bill. The Minister of Education, I understand, has introduced these new provisions, I think, out of a concern that there has been a proliferation in new early learning services. I’m not sure whether that’s the case, because it hasn’t ever been stated explicitly. I have a concern that we have had times in New Zealand’s history—in fact, even just a decade ago—where we actually had a shortage of early learning service places in many parts of the country, and where parents, and, frankly, women in particular, were delayed in their ability to return to work when they had young children because they were unable to find early learning places for them.

It remains the case today that there are still parts of the country where, from time to time, there are real shortages of early learning. In fact, it is the case sometimes here in Wellington City that people will struggle to find an early learning place for their child at the age that they wish them to commence early learning. So it’s in that context that I raise with Minister Hipkins my concern that potentially, having this new two-step process, which introduces a far higher degree of uncertainty for early learning providers about whether or not a centre may, in fact, progress, may limit the creation of new early learning services in a way that will constrain parents’ access to early childhood education.

I say that against the backdrop of what the Minister knows is a very complicated process for setting up an early learning service, because first you have to battle the Resource Management Act. That’s actually the first bit you have to do. You have to get permission from the local council to put an early learning service in, and that’s no easy thing, because there are concerns from neighbours about noise and cars and driveways. Different councils around the country deal with it in different ways, but even then, once the consent’s granted—of course it’s appropriate that a licensing step occur where the Ministry of Education approve a licence, or not, for a service. My concern is that the new two-step process that the Minister’s proposing is, frankly, vague. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister what mitigation he sees to that, and also how much discretion he envisages applying in the application of this new two-step process.

What are the circumstances in which a new early learning service would have its application for a licence rejected that are different from the current provisions, under which already the Ministry of Education, within the current law as it stands, can reject a licence for an early learning service on the basis that it doesn’t think that that early learning service meets the right tests for providing early childhood education? I put to the Minister: what are the additional considerations that he will be able to make in assessing these applications that actually add value, as opposed to simply adding delay and adding uncertainty? Because, as I’ve said, the end result of delay and uncertainty could be a shortage in early learning places in some parts of the country. I also put to him: what process will there be if people feel that the way that their application has been assessed is unfair? Short of judicial review, obviously—but will there be other ways in which people can interact effectively in this two-step process?

The second area I wish to ask further questions about relates to the zoning provisions that my colleagues have also been asking many questions about, and when it comes to those zoning provisions, my question relates to the circumstance which actually occurs pretty frequently, which is where the ministry fails to build new classrooms on time. Actually, the ministry—I’m sorry; they’re wonderful officials. We enjoy it when they come to the Education and Workforce Committee. They’re smart people, but sometimes they are slow at getting things built. Now, in that circumstance, isn’t it convenient that the ministry can then decide that a zone is so tight that it doesn’t require them to build those classrooms anymore? How does the Minister envisage using ministerial power to ensure that the ministry doesn’t just use these new, wider powers it’s been given to make its own job easier, at the expense of local communities who wish to be able to send their children to a school that does not have enough capacity because school property hasn’t been developed on time? Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Just briefly on those points, I think the main issue around early childhood education licensing, which is one that I canvassed with the member’s colleague earlier, where people will notice the difference is the moves that we will be able to put in place to stop the proliferation of low-quality early childhood education providers. I can think of one big early childhood education provider now that’s expanding quite significantly—it’s one that has a reasonably strong link with the National Party—which provides a very good quality of early childhood education.

Nicola Willis: I’ll tell Tony.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Um, please don’t! And, actually, you know, they’re expanding. They will almost certainly meet the licensing criteria. There won’t be issues with them, because actually they’re providing a good quality of early childhood education. We have had examples in recent times, though, of services who maybe have restrictions on their licences continuing to expand by opening more services, and, actually, that’s the sort of thing that I think we should all agree we don’t want to see happen. We actually want to sort out the issues that you’ve got with your existing services first, and then, if you can get that sorted, look to expand. I think that that’s the main difference. We can’t do that at the moment. We can’t take that into account in the licensing regime at the moment. So this will allow that to happen, which I think would be welcome.

The last point the member raised was—

Nicola Willis: Zoning and school property.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —zoning and school property, and I think she raises a very legitimate point. I think that as a country, we’ve been far too slow, and this is not just—I’m not going to point the finger at any particular Government for this. Over 30 years, we have been far too slow to expand schools to cope with population growth. We actually went through a period in the early 2000s where we saw a downward trend, and there were the school reviews, because, actually, rolls were going down. And then, of course, suddenly they turned back up again, and we were far too slow as a country to start expanding the school property. So I think the Ministry of Education is getting better at that, and I think that they’ve sped that up. Modular classrooms are part of the solution. Sometimes it’s better to bring in modular classrooms, even if it’s only as a temporary solution—Tim Macindoe’s nodding furiously, because I know he was involved in these discussions—until you can build.

One of the constraints that we’ve got, of course, is that some of our school sites, particularly in the areas where the population’s growing very quickly, are on small sites, and therefore the best way to go is up, rather than out. Those are the ones that we have the challenge with, because you can’t always whack a modular classroom on there, because there’s not enough room, and so you’ve got to go up. Those are the ones where we haven’t kept up with population growth, because it takes that much longer to plan and to build for that more complex growth.

One of the things that the Government has done, and we did it in last year’s Budget—and I think every Minister of Education who came before me will be envious of this—is we grouped up four years’ worth of population growth funding and appropriated it in a single Budget. The reason for doing that is because of the length of time that it takes to plan and execute these programmes. If you’re only getting one year’s funding at a time, you’re not planning far enough ahead, because you haven’t got the money to plan far enough ahead. So by doing four years’ worth of planning—and each year you add the next year on to the tail end of that—then actually you can speed the whole pipeline of construction work up. And I think that that builds on some of the work that Tim Macindoe, and before him Nikki Kaye, were doing in the school property area, because I think we would all agree we’ve got to be faster at coping with population growth.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 544 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

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

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 24, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

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

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 24, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Education and Training Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education and Training Bill be now read a third time.

I’d like to begin by thanking all of the members of the House for a very lively and constructive committee stage for this legislation. It does represent the biggest change in decades for the education sector and an important step towards ensuring success for all of our learners. I think the debate was useful and constructive, and I thank members for that.

I want to acknowledge someone who isn’t here tonight, the Hon Nikki Kaye, the National Party spokesperson for education and a previous Minister of Education, for all of the work that she has done over this term of Parliament to ensure that we can have a constructive working relationship on education issues. I want to wish her all the best with her retirement. I suspect that we will see her at some point in a future role, thriving in whatever it is that she chooses to do. I want to acknowledge Nicola Willis and welcome her to the role. Of course, in the next nine weeks or so, I suspect, collegiality and cooperation may go out the window just a little bit, and I hope that after the election, however that lands up, we can continue to work constructively on education issues, because it is incredibly important.

This bill delivers a high-quality public education system for New Zealand. It strengthens quality, the viability, and the support for early learning services up and down the country. It improves the police vetting requirements to increase the protections for our young children. It supports the right of all children to enrol at and attend their local school full-time, and it provides an effective pathway to resolve serious disputes and keep students engaged in education. It incorporates the reforms of vocational education and the introduction of the code of pastoral care for domestic tertiary students that this Parliament has previously passed through other legislation. It also incorporates the epidemic response measures that we passed as a Parliament and makes them available for the use in future epidemics. The bill implements some of the key elements of our education work programme, including some of the first steps to implement the decisions the Government has made as a result of the review of Tomorrow’s Schools. Again, I want to thank the Tomorrow’s Schools review task force for the hard work that they have done in consulting up and down the country on those changes.

But, significantly, this bill draws together all of the relevant provisions relating to education that are currently spread across several Acts. Currently, most education sector legislation is in the Education Act of 1989. There is, however, an Education Act of 1964, where there are still some provisions there—the Beatles were touring New Zealand, I suspect, at the time that that bill came into force, which shows you how long it’s been around for. This bill consolidates that down into one easier to understand, modern piece of legislation that is less prescriptive. It also moves some elements of prescriptive legislation out of legislation and into regulation, where it can be more easily and readily amended to cope with the changing times.

So just touching very briefly on some of the key changes that the bill makes, it allows for more active management of the early childhood education network and changes to the licensing requirements to ensure that quality standards can be met. It means that the Ministry of Education will take into account the needs of children in the community, as well as the applicant’s character, licensing history, and financial position, when deciding whether to approve the application for a new early childhood education licence. Police vetting requirements for home-based early childhood education services have been clarified and strengthened.

In the schooling sector, very importantly, this bill clarifies that once a child is enrolled at school, they are entitled to attend that school for all of the hours that that school is open. It is wrong that some schools have been engaging in the practice of rationing the number of hours that children with additional learning needs are allowed to attend their school. Once they are enrolled at school, they are entitled to attend that school for all of the hours that the school is open, and this bill makes that absolutely clear in law. The bill also amends the legal framework around physical restraint, taking on board feedback that we’ve received from the teaching community and from the disability community, striving once again to get the right balance here. I suspect this is an issue that Parliament will continue to grapple with, because it is incredibly complex and there are very legitimate arguments being raised on both sides of the argument.

The bill enables the establishment of a dispute resolution scheme for the schooling sector—not, actually, for the first time. It was established when the Education Act of 1989 was first passed, and it was repealed almost immediately, but, actually, it was an original part of the model of self-governing schools, that if we are going to have self-governing schools, there does need to be a quality dispute resolution scheme in place to resolve the issues that may flow from that, and this bill puts that in place. So once established, panels will be able to resolve serious rights-based disputes between students and their schools where those disputes have not been able to be resolved at a school level. It makes changes to enrolment schemes to strengthen the enrolment schemes regime, and that’s been well canvassed during the committee stage of the bill tonight.

In the tertiary education sector, as I’ve indicated before, this bill incorporates the reforms of vocational education and training that the House has already canvassed at length when that legislation was passed. Of course, that legislation was passed after this bill was introduced, which is why the bill has now been amended to incorporate those changes. It also incorporates the changes we made to allow for the code of pastoral care for domestic students.

Then, as I mentioned, some of the changes that the Parliament has made around allowing for the Secretary for Education to have greater directive powers in the case of an epidemic—those changes were passed by this House in light of COVID-19, and we have ensured that they are enshrined in the legislation going forward so that if there is a future epidemic, those powers will still be available to the Secretary for Education, so that whoever the Government of the day is is able to respond to that. The export education levy payment obligations for international students are suspended for the next two years, recognising that that part of our community will be suffering as a result of fewer international students coming into the country, and this will ease some of the financial pressure on those education providers.

I think this is an excellent piece of legislation. It’s one that has been several years in the making. Successive Ministers of Education have taken steps towards tidying up the Education Act. This completes that work, and I suspect in the next Parliament the process will start all over again and it will only be a matter of time before we have an Education and Training Amendment Bill before the House. But I hope for now at least we’ve got the education legislation into a point where those who are required to abide by it can at least follow it.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on the Education and Training Bill. I want to first acknowledge Nikki Kaye, because she was the education spokesperson for National who worked on this bill most closely with the Minister of Education, and who has led our education policy development. In doing that role, Nikki Kaye has been a fierce advocate for the interests of parents and communities. That has particular relevance in this bill because without her, this bill would have been a lot worse than it is today. It’s still, unfortunately, a bill which National will oppose, but I am absolutely certain that without the advocacy of Nikki Kaye, it would be a far more radical piece of legislation. That’s because the context for this bill was the Government’s Tomorrow’s Schools Review Independent Taskforce.

That task force was commissioned by the Minister with an extraordinarily broad mandate. It came back and it made radical proposals, the shadows of which are still apparent in this bill. I will, in this contribution, take you through where that shadow still lies. When that task force reported back, it proposed centralised bureaucratic hubs that would control schools, instead of parent boards. It proposed absolutely marginalising parental involvement in the governance of schools. It proposed that all school property management would be taken over by the Ministry of Education, that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Education Review Office would be discarded, that intermediate schools would be abolished, and that an education service agency would take over all servicing of schools. This idea was abhorrent to National, and that is why Nikki Kaye embarked on 30 public meetings throughout the country. In those public meetings, she engaged with parents, she engaged with teachers, and she engaged with education experts, and their feedback was resounding. The feedback was that that sort of radical change would take New Zealand’s education system backwards, would reduce the achievement of children, would loosen the engagement between parents and their schools, and would, all in all, be bad for our education system. So that was rejected.

I thank Nikki Kaye for working constructively with the Minister to help him see the light and to help him see that these were very bad ideas and were going to get him into a lot of trouble and, frankly, his colleagues into a lot of trouble in their communities up and down the country. She did a good job. But Nikki Kaye was only the Opposition spokesperson, and so she wasn’t able to save things completely.

I want to step you through now the aspects of this bill which National remains very concerned about. The first is the significant change which takes away from school boards of trustees, from locally elected parents, the ability to develop, consult on, and review their enrolment schemes. Now, it is bad enough that at the moment, the ministry can come along and say to a school, “Too bad, you’re having an enrolment scheme; here it goes.” But the saving grace that we have at the moment is that at least when that happens, boards of trustees are the ones that drive the development of that zone, who are the ones who drive the consultation, who are the ones responsible for engaging effectively with the community to discuss where the boundaries for that zone should lie, and they are the ones engaged in reviewing it.

What this bill does is it takes that ability from local boards and it gives it completely over to the Ministry of Education to drive that process entirely. What we heard tonight in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill is that such is the magnitude of that task for the Ministry of Education that they need a few more months to gear up. They need more resources, we are told, in order to take over this function. We on this side of the House are alarmed by that prospect, because we anticipate a future in which local communities are less able to influence which neighbourhoods of children schools take on. We anticipate a future in which ministries will impose enrolment zones that school boards disagree with.

I want to take you through a specific example. The example I want to talk to you about, of how the ministry can get these things wrong, is one that’s very current in my colleague Hon Dr Nick Smith’s electorate in Nelson, which is Nayland College. Now, Nayland College is a coeducational secondary school, and for many years parents from surrounding communities, including in Nelson, have wanted to send their children there because their local school was a single-sex school. Some parents prefer single-sex schools and some parents prefer co-ed schools, and so they’ve made the choice to send their children a little bit further away to go to the co-ed school. But in recent years, the Ministry of Education has been particularly slow in replacing classrooms that needed to be fixed, has not done a good job of getting them built, and the result is that that school is now reaching capacity constraints, and the ministry have said they’re going to impose a zone. Now, this, I think, is a portent of the future we will see under this bill, because what we can expect is that the Ministry of Education will have far less incentive to manage its development of property well, because, actually, it’s going to be the one in charge of setting the zone, engaging on the zone, consulting on the zone, and the power of the local board to influence that will be lessened considerably. So we will see more Nayland College - type situations, where a school community wants it to be able to take additional students but it is unable to. We will see more situations where schools are unable to create the community of interest that they wish for their school. This will diminish parental choice, and it will diminish community involvement.

We also remain concerned about other aspects of this bill, because as the Minister says, what it does is it brings together the operation of early childhood, primary, secondary, and tertiary legislation into one piece of law. In doing so, it involves all of the changes we’ve seen as part of the Reform of Vocational Education review, which centralised control of our tertiary education system so that the innovation and excellence that we’ve seen at institutions like Southern Institute of Technology (SIT)—like the wonderful SIT in Southland. Instead, that is swallowed into an amorphous bureaucratic body, and we say that’s wrong. Why would you get rid of a wonderful independent institution like SIT?

It then, also, introduces a two-step licensing system for early childhood education that we remain concerned about. In the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, the Minister said that this was about quality. Well, then why is the bill so specific in providing that the Minister can use this for a network management approach? The former Minister sitting in the Chair—the Speaker Hon Anne Tolley—will be aware of what network reviews have meant in the past when Labour have used them. What network reviews have meant is Ministers making arbitrary decisions about what should be closed and what should be opened. We are concerned that giving a Minister considerable discretion in this way will mean that we will see delays in the opening of new early childhood services, and we will see uncertainty and cost added to that process. If an early childhood centre wants to open, we think it’s very important there is a clear process that they can go through, and the two-step licensing process proposed here remains vague.

The fourth area of concern I want to highlight is around the changes relating to physical force and restraint. In one sense, actually, on this side of the House, we agree with the need for some change. We have, like all members of Parliament, heard concerns about the way the rules currently work in schools. The previous National Government made a very well-motivated attempt to make changes in this area that would meet the concerns of parents and of teachers. There have been some challenges with those. We then saw a model proposed in the bill that went through a select committee, and National discussed that in some detail. Again, concerns remain, particularly from members of the disability community, who felt that it gave too much discretion to teachers.

But what’s happened today is we’ve had Supplementary Order Paper 544 land on the Table of the House. That proposes a totally different set of rules in this area from those that were considered in depth by the select committee. My concern is simply that we on this side of the House have not had the adequate opportunity to assess what those changes mean, nor to engage with the experts in this area or the members of the community who would have a view on those changes. That is what the select committee process is meant to provide for, but in this instance, these changes haven’t gone through that process. So our concern is not whether these are right or wrong but simply that they have been rushed. We are concerned that there could be problems in the implementation because of that.

Finally, what we see in this bill is actually missed opportunity, because in this country, we have an education system that, by and large, does a great job, but we still have one in five children leaving our schools without the literacy and numeracy skills they need to achieve. If the Minister thinks that this bill contains a single thing in it which will really address that challenge, then he is dreaming. We need to do a much better job in education. This bill is not the bill that will deliver that.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): It’s a wonderful opportunity to be here and stand to talk on the fantastic bill here, the Education and Training Bill. This bill, of course, is a key part of the broader work plan that this Government has had and has going forward in education. This bill is the key legislation, the key framework, that shapes our system. It brings together many different forms of legislation that have been built up over the years—legislation that, I have to say, has been difficult for the people that work within the sector to actually navigate. So bringing it together, pulling it together, and modernising it into this particular bill is very much overdue and has long been desired by the sector and is a bill that is very much welcomed.

I’m not going to take much time here this evening, because I think that it’s been said in previous speeches and also the Minister of Education’s first speech, but there are a couple of areas that I would like to just take some time to comment on. Firstly: enrolment zones. We’ve heard some opposition around the provisions in this particular bill around enrolment zones and the fact that there is opposition over that side of the House around the Secretary for Education taking over the development and consultation of the enrolment schemes. For those numbers of schools that those people are hearing from that are opposed to this, there are an equal if not more greater amount of schools who are actually welcoming these changes. These changes will make these schemes more equitable for those schools. There are a number of schools that have struggled with the enrolment zones. It is a burdensome process for boards of trustees, and many have stated over a number of years that they wish that there was a more equitable, fairer scheme in place that could actually take that burden away from them, and they could actually then focus on their key governance roles.

Unfortunately, we heard from the other side during the committee of the whole House that there was concern around the role of the principal. I share those concerns. It is a very, very hectic role that puts a lot of pressure on the individual. In many schools, the board of trustees is actually guided a lot by the principal in that enrolment scheme development, and it’s the principal who actually takes on more workloads and takes them away from their key role of leading teaching and learning within their school. So I see this as being something really positive for our education system and really positive for those schools who really struggle—actually, for all schools—because, in effect, it will lead towards a much fairer system and a fairer enrolment scheme within our education system.

I do want to very briefly, in my final couple of minutes, just talk about the changes that have been made in the physical restraint. We’ve heard that this is one end of the spectrum, which will be the teaching workforce. We’ve got the disability sector over here, and we’re trying to find this place in the middle. I absolutely welcome these changes. It is a really hard space to actually navigate, but I think there are some key pieces in this legislation that will point towards a way in the future. The key changes are around the requirements around training for our teaching workforce. We must see that happen. I like the discussions of some ideas about those ways forward. We’ve got some fantastic training programmes in that space here in this country at the moment. I am myself trained in non-violent crisis intervention, NVCI. I think it is a fantastic training programme. If our teaching workforce were trained to that level—not necessarily that particular programme, but to that level—then we will go some way to addressing our concerns of our disability sector.

This is a fantastic bill, and I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this to the House.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have been quite clear, since this bill has been reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee, that we will be opposing this legislation, but then we again took the opportunity during the committee of the whole House—which was just before the third reading now—to ask questions. Those questions were based on concerns that we have in this legislation. I have to acknowledge that the Minister did take calls, but he just addressed those questions; he didn’t actually answer them. In a way, he just defended the position that he has towards this legislation. So if the Minister had actually, genuinely looked into resolving those issues that we had raised, maybe we would have thought about changing our position.

So I’m saying that we are not fully opposed to this legislation. There are a few things that we like in this legislation. Like Jan Tinetti was saying, this is about putting all those provisions to do with the education sector—this is the early childhood education sector, compulsory, and tertiary education—together into this legislation, making it easier for people to navigate. We support that, but there are provisions in this legislation that are to do with various education sectors that, as early childhood education, compulsory, and tertiary education, we don’t agree with.

First, as I have started talking about things that we actually support in this legislation, I would like to give another example of a provision that we support. This is about renewing transitional plans. In my view, this is actually a good change in this legislation, because this is about taking care of people, young children, where their wellbeing is in question. So there is a requirement of attendance—usual attendance—and there is an exception allowed which is fixed in the current legislation for up to six months. Through this legislation, that is going to be flexible.

But what is good about this change is that it has to be initiated by a parent or a guardian of the child. So we don’t want to see any child or the family of that child being forced to keep the child away from school. So it is initiated by a parent, and then, of course, the school principal has to be involved, the Secretary for Education has to be involved, and there has to be a medical practitioner involved in this whole process to make sure that this process is not just to keep that child away. When children start school at that very young age of five years, we want to make sure that their experience of attending school is really positive. We don’t want to give them a fright. We don’t want to, in a way, punish them by making them sit there when their physical or their mental wellbeing doesn’t allow them to be in school for that many hours. So that flexibility is something, as I said, we support.

I also want to acknowledge Supplementary Order Paper 544, which was introduced during the committee of the whole House. In that, offering NCEA to offshore students was addressed. That was a concern we had from the start. In the context of COVID-19, we know that we have learnt that there are a lot of things that can be done while being away. You don’t have to be learning face to face. Distance learning is very much—that is possible. Now, we know that a lot of students are not able to come to New Zealand. Export education is a very important sector for New Zealand, and we need to see all possible ways to support our economy. Export education is one sector where we definitely need to build on. So this was a concern we had from the start, but that has been addressed through the Supplementary Order Paper.

Then, again, the physical force and physical restraint issue that we talked about before. So now we know that the Minister has said that is being addressed, but, again, there is a question of training of teachers. We don’t know exactly what kind of resources are going to be available or what kind of training is going to be available for teachers to understand what it actually means and what it will mean for children that have special needs.

Now, talking about concerns that we have in this legislation, during the committee of the whole House, I wanted the Minister to address the issue of the early childhood education centre licence approval system that is going to be put through this legislation. One issue that didn’t get answered was where there is a criteria of checking that entity’s history of providing for the early childhood education sector. So there could be a lot of people that are new players in the sector, they want to get into this field, and they may not have a history. So I feel that those people will find it really difficult to get into the sector.

Our population is growing now—the first time we have 5 million. There are a lot of young families that do need childcare centres in their vicinity or close to their workplace. During this recent recess, I, with my colleague Barbara Kuriger, visited an early childhood education centre. Actually, it was the opening of their brand new centre. That was a beautiful centre. This was in the middle of a big workplace, a lot of workplaces around it. So that was providing that convenience that parents need when they have children of that age. They can bring those children close to their work, drop them in their day-care centre, and then while going home, pick them up and go home.

So these people, the providers in the sector, they understand what the need is, and they understand where that need is. So we should give that freedom. We should give that kind of decision-making ability to our community, rather than the Minister having full control, deciding where and when somebody can apply for a licence to start an early childhood education centre. So I’m not in favour of that, and we on this side, as we have said, we have concerns about that.

The other issue is about the process. During the select committee process, three months out of six months of this legislation were when we were in lockdown. Now we are considering this legislation in urgency—the committee of the whole House and third reading. So I fully understand that the Government wants to look like they have done a lot of work in this sector, but this is not the way to push through this legislation, which the Government themselves have acknowledged is very important legislation in the education sector. So we have concerns about the process as well. Maybe if there was more time—as we have seen through a Supplementary Order Paper, the Minister has actually fixed a couple of issues that were raised by us. I believe that if we had more time, maybe there was a possibility to work on this legislation where we could have supported this legislation. But at this stage, it’s not possible for us to support this legislation in its current form.

Enrolment zones have been talked about. Yes, that remains a concern in this legislation. After the committee of the whole House, we are concerned. Again, to me, it looks like it’s the control being taken away from local schools. The control is going to sit with the Secretary for Education, which we don’t support.

Overall, this legislation, as I said, we fully understand that it is consolidating various legislation which have anything to do with various education stages—that is, early childhood education, compulsory, and tertiary. But putting this together, we have expressed our concerns about vocational education reform and political reforms that are now part of this legislation. So that was separate legislation, and now that is consolidated into this legislation as well. So that is another area of concern. We didn’t support that reform, and we cannot support those provisions and this legislation just because they have become part of this bigger legislation.

So I have expressed our concerns about this legislation. This is a very important area. Education and training is important, and it becomes even more important now we know so many people will be losing their jobs. They might be looking at upskilling themselves to find a new kind of job. With the advancement of technology, there is a need for people to upskill, so education and training should be given more seriousness than the way the Government has dealt with this issue. So I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Education and Training Bill. If I can just go back to the start of this Government, one of the requirements of the coalition Government was actually to hold a conversation with New Zealand to set in place a 30-year vision for education. It was to establish what New Zealanders thought success looked like for their children. It criss-crossed New Zealand; it had hundreds, thousands of participants. It was a conversation that was required by New Zealand First of their coalition partner, because we had made a commitment to repeal national standards, to repeal charter schools, and to repeal COOLs, or communities of online learning, all of which were unnecessary but were put in place by the previous Government.

They were unnecessary because the Education Act 1989 already had the flexibility inside of it for those things to exist. Strangely enough, we have seen that very fact. So since the disestablishment of charter schools, what we have seen is those that were charter schools have become “schools of special character”. It was always the argument that New Zealand First put forward that the special character provisions in the Education Act 1989 could be widened so that more than one special character could remain. I would argue that Hohepa in the Hawke’s Bay should be able to take advantage of that broadening of special character recognition so that they too can become a State-integrated school.

We also believed that national standards were not good for children. I remember having conversations with the Rt Hon Bill English during negotiations where he acknowledged that and recognised that, and recognised that, actually, a success was bigger than just a line in the sand. New Zealand resonated with that when we had that 30-year nationwide conversation. COVID has proven that communities of online learning can exist under the current Education Act.

So this piece of legislation builds upon what was that coalition requirement and starts to set into place and connect from early childhood, compulsory sector, tertiary, and moving on through into lifelong learning. One of the things that is the reality of New Zealand’s future in a COVID environment—because we’re not post-COVID yet—is that many New Zealanders are going to need to take up fresh learning, whether it be micro-credentialing, whether it be using the vocational pathways to recognise their current skill set and how that skill set can be transferred into another opportunity to gain income.

So this piece of legislation starts to cement in some of those changes. There are three particular areas. First of all, after years on boards of trustees, and knowing also, as the Associate Minister of Education with responsibility around bullying, anti-bullying with discrimination, racism, and so on and so forth inside our schools, and for learning support, I can do nothing more but welcome the dispute resolution panels that have been set into place here.

Again, I want to acknowledge Catherine Delahunty, as it comes out of the dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum—an inquiry that was initiated by Catherine Delahunty and supported by Chris Hipkins and myself and the current Leader of the Opposition. At that time, it was the disability community that came and said, “We need another mechanism by which to take our concerns when our children are stood down or excluded or expelled from school—we need another body earlier than the Ombudsman, because the Ombudsman takes too long.” And the Ombudsman himself came in front of the select committee and said, “My workload is such and my office is such that they are right. They need something else, closer to the ground, closer to community, and that is more a mediating body that is able to rebuild a relationship between the school, the student, and their family.”

But one of the things we are seeing is more and more behavioural issues among our children, and they are younger and younger and younger, from three-year-olds and four-year-olds who are being put out of early childhood education, to six-, seven-, and eight-year-olds that are so aggressive and so violent and so unable to moderate their own behaviour that they are being excluded at that age from schools. So not only is it that there is a disputes panel being put into place through this piece of legislation, but other work that this Government is doing to try and pilot like the Managed Moves in Napier and other ways to assist families and children to be able to learn the art of self-moderation that we know will help them for the rest of their lives when they are in situations of anxiety or stress, where they can learn to take a breath and take a moment and manage what is happening with them. But the vision of the dispute resolution panels as articulated through that inquiry is that parents and schools will be able to come together and, through a mediation body rather than an adversarial situation, find the best solution for the student.

I want to go to the physical restraint clause. This was not the clause I would have preferred. I actually put forward a different wording for Supplementary Order Paper 544 that was built around non-violent crisis intervention and my belief that every teacher, as they once were, should be trained in non-violent crisis intervention. That is not just for the children who are on the autism spectrum or those that have been referred to often during the debate on this document; it is also for those children that their behaviours come not from a disability, not from a neurodiversity, but from a circumstance inside their life. We have not empowered our teaching staff with the skills they need to manage before something becomes a crisis. I remember going to Canada, for example, and how the classrooms there had lowered their lighting and put up fairy lights, and there was a tepee in the corner that was available for any student that needed it, not a student stigmatised because they may have a neurodiversity and at times during the day they needed to separate themselves and make themselves safe.

So I would have preferred a wider definition that would have required the Ministry of Education to step in immediately and train not only the teachers in the classroom but initiate, inside initial teacher training, non-violent crisis intervention as a norm for every teacher. However, we’re in a coalition Government and this is better than what it was. What was put into place by the National Government was unworkable in the real world.

One of the things that became unworkable was—and I’m going to draw on another parallel. In the context of family violence, we recognised that children are victims of family violence if they are inside a home where there are things being smashed, things are being thrown, and things are being screamed. But apparently, under the previous legislation before this change, that wasn’t the situation. No other child was being traumatised if they were in a classroom where another child was throwing things, smashing things, and screaming things. Those two things cannot be true at the same time. So the previous legislation was unworkable for real life. It didn’t help students, it didn’t deliver for the disability community, and it certainly didn’t deliver for the teaching profession, who are attempting to educate every single one of their students at the level and with the resources that allow them to be their best. So it is with great joy that we’re able to finally change—perhaps not as much as I would have liked to—and make a practical change to what has been an unworkable situation inside our schools around physical restraint. I hope that the teaching profession will get the support that they need from the Ministry of Education. I know the Minister himself is adamant that they will. So that’s something that we will need to keep our eye on.

Finally, however, the last thing I would want to say is around the workforce development councils. The workforce development councils are based on the Ōtorohanga model. It’s part of the conversation that New Zealand First brought to the table. It’s about knowing what local communities need: where are the opportunities for employment? Are there the appropriate education opportunities for the young people or those in their 30s, 40s, and 50s to be able to gain that education, gain that training, and be able to find employment in their area, regardless of where they are in New Zealand? We commend the bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to take a call tonight on the Education and Training Bill.

It’s always a pleasure to follow Tracey Martin. It always allows me to insert a bit of vim and vigour into my speech, because she always says things that make us on this side of the House raise our eyebrows.

The first thing that I would say is that, obviously, she referred to the Tomorrow’s Schools Review Independent Taskforce report that was put out. We all know this Government spent millions and millions of dollars with this review, travelling around the country, spending a great deal of money on fancy lunches and croissants and coming up with a range of new ideas that were going to have a—[Interruption] Yeah, they did. They had croissants.

Hon Member: What’s wrong with croissants?

ERICA STANFORD: Nothing wrong with croissants, but they are relatively expensive in the grand scheme of things when we’re spending taxpayers’ money. But, that’s right, we always remember that the other side of the House forget that it’s not their money; it’s taxpayers’ money.

Anyway, the point is that they went around the country and they had what the Hon Tracey Martin said was a conversation that was needed to be had. I don’t know what the conversation that was had was, because, as Nicola Willis pointed out in her speech earlier on tonight, we ended up with recommendations that were going back to what we had in the past of education hubs that were this massive centralisation, which no one was happy with.

I have to acknowledge Nikki Kaye, as Nicola Willis did earlier on this evening, because she went around the country and she spoke to principals, communities, families, teachers, parents, and even children in the 30 meetings that she did, and the pushback on what came out of that review was extraordinary. As Nicola Willis said, a great deal of work was done between her and the Minister of Education to water down some of those changes that were so opposed by the sector and families and parents.

The Minister went on to talk about the wonderful job that this Government has done in getting rid of those unnecessary charter schools, and he said that they’re all doing fine now that they’re special character schools and that that was always good enough. I actually have to say that those charter schools have done more for increasing our educational achievement in this country than this bill will ever do. Nicola Willis pointed out that there isn’t almost a single thing in this bill that will lead to an increase in educational achievement and outcome, and I have to say that the charter schools and the model that was in place before had some incredible results, and getting rid of those is a massive step backwards. But I won’t go on too much about that, because it’s not in the bill, and I know that the Speaker will want me to get back to the bill.

What I want to talk about—and we’ve alluded to it earlier—is this idea of the taking away of the responsibility around zoning from school boards. As Nicola Willis pointed out, there’s sort of this shadow of what was left of the Tomorrow’s Schools review. Most of those things were stripped out, but we were left with this problem, and we are still very opposed to this.

There isn’t a single school in my electorate that I have spoken to that’s in favour of this. It’s really interesting when you’re working with schools as a local MP to see the pitfalls of the Ministry of Education when they get involved in things like zoning, and even new classrooms. They’ve failed miserably so many times in being able to account for growth and in understanding where growth in communities is, and that’s just when they’re looking at classrooms. That’s why we have such a lag of availability of classrooms, because they always get it wrong. It’s really interesting that in this case, the Minister, when he was in the chair earlier, said that “Well, the ministry will still be consulting with school boards before and during the consultation process.”, but we all know well that the Ministry of Education will pay lip service, at best, to the wants and needs of the community, because it’s not as simple as drawing lines on a map.

Actually, if they’re going to consult with the boards and they’re going to consult with the schools, why not just leave that process as it is with the boards and the schools, because they know their communities best? There has to be a balance in between numbers of students and where they can go, and communities where people live, work, play, and shop, and where they feel connected to. There has to be a balance, and as Nicola Willis pointed out earlier, this will bring up the possibility of an excuse by the ministry to not put in place builds of new classrooms, because they will simply jimmy round the zoning to make up for not building new classrooms. In fact, we already see it, but that will lead even more to not taking into account communities’ wants and needs in terms of their communities and where they feel connected to, and that balance will certainly be swung more in favour of numbers rather than the needs of communities.

I don’t want to go on too much more. The last thing I would say is that we’re also very concerned that this bill removes that specific accountability placed on school boards to raise educational achievement by muddying it with three other objectives and giving them all equal weighting. On this side of the House, we don’t argue that those three metrics aren’t important, but not having educational achievement as the number one top priority of that list, in our opinion, is not a good thing.

In the dying few seconds that I wanted to take up, I just wanted to say that on this side of the House, we strongly back communities, boards of trustees, families, and local areas. They know what’s best for their local schools, and it’s not the Ministry of Education coming in and making decisions for those local communities. We will always back those local boards, teachers, parents, and communities above the Ministry of Education, and we will not be supporting this bill.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. It’s a daunting challenge and a humbling one to hold the education portfolio, and, as everyone who’s spoken tonight has acknowledged, this bill touches on some incredibly important aspects of our education system and, thereby, our society. Education is a basic human right. It, in a way, underpins many, many others of our rights—our right to democracy and to engage with it, our right to information, and our ability to thrive and participate in society. So the fact that we are tonight modernising our laws around education, from early childhood education and strengthening that up and down our nation, right to the rights of students with different needs to both attend their local school and to be treated well while they do that, and right through to vocational training, to tertiary education—it is a joy to support the passing of this bill.

But I do want to just focus on a few aspects of it, because it is mammoth and none of us have actually been able to get through every single thing that we like about it. But to me, this is a good bill because it is a human rights - based framework that it adopts, in a lot of ways, and one of those aspects of the bill is around the right to participate and to attend school. I think we were all a little bit shocked when we found that, in fact, some of our most marginalised students, those with needs that should be catered to in our schools, were not in fact being cared for in the ways that they needed but being discouraged from attendance. So this bill makes it clear in law, finally, that once a student is enrolled in a school in New Zealand, they have a right to attend for all the hours that that school is open, they are able to participate, and, if they are going to attend a lower number of hours during the week or during the school day, that programme is established for them with their own input and with the input of their whānau.

So that is a basic child rights principle, and New Zealand is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child—that’s one of the most universal and enforceable aspects of human rights law—and we’re proud to try as a Government to uphold those rights for our children and young people. So their input in that programme and their right to attend school is really important.

The next aspect of this, which is a due process right that has been really, really long overdue for students and for parents, is the right to dispute resolution that is fair, that’s inclusive, and that will result in a mediated outcome for students and their family where they have been, for example, excluded—where their rights or their wellbeing is touched upon by a decision that’s been taken by the school and where that decision is not able to meet the child’s needs in the view of that whānau. So that has been missing, even when something as important as exclusion has applied to a child. And we know that that actually will impact on a person’s life for a long time. It will change a child’s life. It will mean that they have outcomes that we know, at the other end of our due process and rights scheme, as a Government, in the justice system, will result in people coming through the youth justice system. We know that some 90 percent of young people that come into conflict with the criminal justice system experienced what’s been diagnosed as serious learning disabilities and have often been excluded from school. So that’s how we’re impacting their lives, but there was no dispute resolution mechanism at the end where education is concerned, and this bill provides for that.

I do want to thank Youth Law, the Human Rights Commission, and the Children’s Commission, who I know—in my previous life working on children’s rights—fought really, really hard for this change. As the Hon Tracey Martin noted, this also came about as a result of a Green-initiated inquiry by our MP Catherine Delahunty, who I’m sure has kept a very close eye on this bill as well.

The next rights-based change that this bill makes that we welcome is the prohibition against religious instruction in schools. We would have liked the bill to have gone further and to address the issue of religious practice, which is something else which comes through in a more insidious way that parents often don’t know about, so that could mean prayers before assemblies, which isn’t a particular class that the child may be excluded from but just part of school life. I know from sitting on the committee that parents and other rights-based organisations came and raised concern about it. We know that the Human Rights Commission has taken this to court. But it is a positive step that in law we now recognise that separation of religion from State schools, and the education system is something that’s important and to be protected, and we’re upholding that.

But the last aspect of this bill that I welcome with great joy and has been introduced just tonight is the part that removes the previous wording of the bill that we know caused grave distress to parents, families, and communities of children with cognitive diversity and special needs that were not being addressed by schools and teachers were not supported in addressing. That is the use of the term “use of force” being allowed in our education system. The term was introduced to replace the previous wording that we’ve now reinstated, which was the “use of restraint”. We’ve now reinstated that, but the framework that’s been put around this, instead of use of force, is something that’s truly progressive. So we did that through really close communication with parents and with teachers. We know that nobody wanted the use of force and the escalation of what children were already experiencing as being traumatising.

So the terminology has reverted back, but we’ve also inserted a requirement that use of restraint is restrictive, that it is only used where there is imminent risk of harm, and that, before that, we will expect teachers and others dealing with children to use de-escalation methods that fall far from physical restraint or physical intervention, that are far less traumatising and will require us as a Government—and this will be our commitment—to provide for training and support of teachers and everyone that deals with children in schools to know what de-escalation looks like, to know the behaviours that may escalate to a risk, and to intervene in a non-violent, non-physical way well before that happens and support children to behave appropriately in the classroom.

So we have inserted a requirement as well, and this is truly progressive and this has never existed before in our law, that guidelines be developed in consultation with not just parents but parents of the affected children. So they’re a subgroup of parents, and they hadn’t been effectively consulted with before. That had been causing them huge stress, and now they are specifically noted as a community that will need to be consulted with, together with teachers, with principals, and with experts and policy makers. So everyone will come to the table for the first time and develop guidelines around what behavioural de-escalation looks like, and that is a commitment by our Government to provide for truly inclusive education, for compassion in our schools, and for equality.

And so I do support this bill. I am so pleased and so grateful to everyone who came together to tell us what was needed, from the ground up, and to share their expertise and their time, and that has resulted in a bill that we can all be proud of. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a contribution at the third and final reading of this Education and Training Bill. I just want to start out by saying that one thing I always try to apply to any legislation that I’ve been debating in this House is the application of a simple question, which is: does a law address a defined problem? And for us to answer that question, you’ve got to dive deeper and ask: what is the problem, and then is the legislation that we’re considering the appropriate solution to that problem? Now, I applied that same methodology to the Tomorrow’s Schools review, and I was actually startled by the lack of a definition of a problem, and the solutions that were provided weren’t solutions to any problem at all. And I must say that I wasn’t the only one. Most principals, most board of trustee members, most parents I spoke to and consulted with over the Tomorrow’s Schools task force review report had the same conclusion: what is the problem this report is trying to solve?

I just want to reflect on some of the feedback that I’ve had from my area of Northcote from the sector, because those are the problems that I’m getting about our education system. The first is the bureaucracy of the ministry: the sense that in any problem that schools or teachers are having, they’re coming up against a brick wall between themselves and the ministry in getting progress. The second is around the lack of adequate resources, whether it’s teachers or school classrooms. The third is around support for our most vulnerable: not only people with complex needs but also students with high needs, as well. The fourth is around preparing our kids for success in the modern world, and the fifth is really around the ability of schools to handle the political football. The biggest feedback I actually got on the Tomorrow’s Schools review was schools hated being treated like political footballs. Whether it’s a National Government pulling them in one way or a Labour Government pulling them in another way, they hated the extremes of the political spectrum, and they wanted us to actually take politics and ideology out of our schools to address some problems.

Now, what I see from the bill that we’ve been talking about is that it doesn’t address any issues that I’ve just outlined for you today. It is a bill that, quite frankly, is searching for a problem, and it only reinforces the view from our education sector and from our parents out there that this law is all about ideology. It’s all about ideology and not about good policy: the ideology of centralisation, the belief that Government knows best for you and your child rather than the school; the ideology of removing power from local communities and the sense that, actually, local communities don’t know what’s best for their kids; a sense of removing accountability. My colleague Erica Stanford mentioned the lack of accountability now under this new bill for school boards and the accountability they have for students’ academic achievement. So this bill really doesn’t provide much in the way of improving student outcomes and addressing some of the deep-seated challenges that are facing the sector.

I was actually quite optimistic. I was thinking the Tomorrow’s Schools review would address some of these challenges. But then I saw the recommendations—centralised hubs, removing power from boards of trustees, phasing out intermediate schools, and even things like fixing the tenure of principals in our schools—and I thought, what are the problems that they’re actually trying to solve? All we have today is a watered-down version of that Tomorrow’s Schools review in the form of the Education and Training Bill. And again, as I said, it’s the same ideology that is prevalent in this Government of centralisation, of stripping power away from local communities and schools and saying, “Governments know better for you and your child than you and the communities.” So we absolutely oppose the ideology that is prevalent in and seeping through each and every part of this legislation.

I want to also talk about the lack of due process that’s gone into this bill. Only three months at the select committee, I believe, but also—

Simeon Brown: Six months, but three months in lockdown.

DAN BIDOIS: Sorry?

Simeon Brown: You’re right.

DAN BIDOIS: Yeah. It’s the three-month select committee process, but also it’s the fact that we have had dumped on us at the last moment a Supplementary Order Paper of hundreds of pages that we on this side of the House haven’t had time to read and digest. And, again, all that does for the sector, for the boards of trustees, for the parents, for the teachers is reinforce this notion that it is ideologically driven, and we oppose those changes. So I’m proud to stand and oppose this legislation, as somebody who, I must say, the education sector absolutely failed. I stand here proud as a school dropout and also a Harvard graduate, and it’s no thanks to our school system that I got there. I think some of the deep-seated challenges are absolutely missing from this legislation, and I’m proud to oppose this bill in the House today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call; I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is actually with great pride that I stand to take a call on this bill, because it’s a bill that will modernise and strengthen the education system. It makes some significant changes across the system that will support the progress, the achievement, and the wellbeing of every New Zealander. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the outset, could I acknowledge the Minister of Education for the way in which he conducted his part of the committee stage debate which immediately preceded this. I think it is one of the great innovations that we’ve seen of recent times. We didn’t necessarily agree with all of his answers, but he engaged regularly, and I think that, as I say, deserves to be acknowledged. And he did make some compelling points.

Now, in this contribution, I’d like to focus on the skills and employment provisions of this Education and Training Bill. Of course, we had a significant debate over the last year or so over the Government’s Reform of Vocational Education, which became known as RoVE. It was proposed about a year ago. National strongly opposed it, even though there are aspects of it that we could see some merit in, and all of those aspects are now enshrined in this bill that is receiving its third reading tonight.

It is quite a radical centralisation of tertiary education, skills, and training, and that’s the aspect that my colleague Dr Shane Reti raised such concerns about when he held this role. In fact, he was the spokesperson, until very recently, for tertiary education, skills, and training. In our reshuffle last week, my fine colleague Mr Brown has taken over the tertiary education aspect, and I’ve been given skills and education. While you’re a very fine and capable man, Mr Brown, I’m a little concerned to see that it takes two of us to replace Dr Reti. Although I have to acknowledge that, like rust, he never sleeps, and he has done very fine work in producing policy that we are going to be proud to run on in the upcoming election.

One of the major concerns we had, and it does need to be acknowledged again, was the huge cost of this megamerger. It was in the region of $400 million. That’s a huge amount of money that has come out of other aspects of education. Just to give you one example, in last year’s Budget, industry collaboration projects, scholarships, awards, and university programmes such as the university-led innovation programme were cancelled, and at the time we were wondering why. It became clear very soon after that it was, in part, to fund RoVE. They were helped by the fact that their fees-free policy was a spectacular failure. They’d been estimating about 80,000 people would take it up, but because only 50,000 did, they had quite a few dollars left over from that to pump into it. But that was just one aspect that really did concern us.

In addition to the extraordinary cost of RoVE—and, as I say, this is all enshrined in the current bill—the second major area of our concern, which I do just want to put on record again tonight, was that so many jobs were being lost because of the megamerger that took place. We have effectively now got all 16 polytechnics coming together under one entity called the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology. It’s a pretty radical restructure. Some of our regional polytechs were very badly hurt. I’m slightly conflicted, in that I have to acknowledge, as the MP for Hamilton West, Wintec is in my electorate. So this new administrative centre is in my electorate. It had to go somewhere, and I’m very glad, considering it had to go somewhere, that it came to Hamilton. I’m very glad that that does result in some extra jobs being created in my electorate. But nevertheless, we still were opposed in principle to this megamerger.

Now, some of them, WelTec and Whitireia, were at least neighbouring polytechnics, so maybe you could say that it was going to be possible for there to be some efficiencies there. But they’ve had to come together with one chief executive and it does, of course, therefore mean that there were major job losses, and Unitec and Manukau Institute of Technology were also merging with the same consequences. But then you go to the extraordinary, bizarre merger between Tai Poutini on the West Coast of the South Island, which was merging with NorthTec in Whangārei and the Western Institute of Technology in Taranaki. Now, how on earth you could have the West Coast, Northland, and Taranaki all being able to operate effectively and in a way that didn’t cause major disruptions in those regions is almost impossible to contemplate. Yet, in February of this year, the Government pushed on with RoVE. Tonight, here they are enacting it into legislation. I think that there are very significant concerns in this area and I am sorry to see it going ahead as it inevitably will do.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand in support of this bill. This bill is going to provide the framework for modernising and strengthening the education system and will make a huge difference to learners at all levels. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): The National Party does not support this bill.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Well, I do support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

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

Bill read a third time.

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

WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 2020

(continued on Thursday, 23 July 2020)

Bills

International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Ultra-quick question for the Minister, because I appreciate the committee has been very supportive. We’re just conscious that there were the non-international elements that have been introduced here—asphyxiating weapons, expanding bullets. And then, Minister, we had starvation follow through a little bit later. I’m just wondering if there’s any indication, through you or your officials—are there other expected changes coming through the Rome Statute, in the near future? Obviously there will be changes well into the future, but the committee has observed—we’ve already had, if you will—two stages, which we would have preferred to have been in one. It’s just some assurances to the committee that there aren’t any further changes to come in the near term.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Can I say, seeing it has taken 20 years to get to where we are now, I wouldn’t hold my breath, at this present point in time.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 535 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 4 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Schedule

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 535 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to the Schedule be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

The Chairperson reported the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move, That the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The bill updates New Zealand’s International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 by adding a series of war crimes amendments that were made to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It will ensure that our implementing legislation remains up to date and will enable our ratification of these important amendments, despite the fact that we’ve taken somewhat a long time to get this ratification occasion.

The bill had its first reading on 3 December 2019 and was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The committee reported to the House in May 2020 and recommended that the bill proceed. The bill was read a second time on 24 June 2020, during which time Minister Martin noted that a Supplementary Order Paper would be moved to incorporate the starvation amendment into the bill. The starvation amendment was the most recent war crime amendment to the Rome Statute, which criminalised the starvation of civilians in the context of non-international armed conflict. That amendment was made only after this bill’s introduction and so was not included in the bill at the first instance. However, we welcome that the Supplementary Order Paper has been approved and the bill amended to incorporate this amendment. I am pleased that the process allowed New Zealand to update the primary Act in an effective and efficient manner to now reflect all war crimes amendments to the Rome Statute.

This bill will bring our domestic legislation in line with the most recent war crimes amendments to the Rome Statute and give New Zealand courts jurisdiction over these additional war crimes, in line with our existing legislation. The bill demonstrates New Zealand’s support of the global system of international criminal justice. It includes the rules of international humanitarian and criminal law. New Zealand recognises that these legal regimes form crucial elements of the multilateral rules-based order, and that as a small State committed to the international rule of law and those institutions charged with upholding it, we take our international role and responsibility seriously and encourage others to do the same.

This bill demonstrates our commitment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and all States and parties to the court have a responsibility to ensure their domestic systems and legislative regimes are set up effectively to investigate and prosecute these most serious international crimes under the system of complementarity. At the ICC Assembly of States Parties, New Zealand has supported the inclusion of all these additional war crimes in the Rome Statute. We are pleased that we will now have the chance to give effect to these amendments in our domestic law.

I’d like to thank all those who submitted on this bill and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its work on this bill as well as examination of the starvation amendment. Sometimes these sorts of things can sound like they’re boring and tedious and time consuming, but the reality is it’s through measures like this, taken by countries all round the world who have and share our values and the ability to impose greater pressure—indeed, embarrassment—on nations who do not follow the rule of law, that change internationally may well much more quickly happen. So I commend the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): National supports the passing of this bill to incorporate into New Zealand law a number of amendments, as the Rt Hon Winston Peters has said, from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee conducted an international treaty examination of the war crimes amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court early this year, and recommended a bill be passed subsequently. Domestic legislation is required to bring any international treaties into force, and, as a result, we support, as I say, the passage of this bill today. We welcome the war crimes amendments and hope they will discourage the use of inhumane weaponry.

I wasn’t on the committee, and I came to the foreign affairs spokesperson role for the Opposition relatively recently. I am not, either, an international jurisprudence expert. I am sure Mr Peters is; he’s an expert in most things—just ask him. Humility is his middle name, and I’m sure he’s all over this like a rash.

I’m not. But what I would say is just two brief general comments. The first, and it’s a good thing about New Zealand, is that all parties, more or less, in this Parliament and probably, actually, most of them outside this Parliament as well, support multilateralism, support the rule of law, and support international bodies with power, with teeth, and the ability to do things. That’s true whether it’s the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, the UN, or many others besides. It’s certainly also true of the International Criminal Court.

I wouldn’t say I’m cynical; I would say, though, I think, as a former UN secretary once said, “These bodies aren’t going to get us to heaven, but they can save us from hell.” So we, in supporting this bill, stand up as a small country, and as the Opposition, for multilateralism, the rule of law, and supporting these international bodies in what they do—their important work.

The final point I simply wanted to make was that I think we can all, if we think about it, agree that the means and ability of humanity to hurt each other and to inflict misery and sadness, tragically, regrettably, can be infinite. If you see the amendments that we’ve made, they are a step and a way in which we as a Parliament can stand against that misery and those ways of inflicting, as I say, misery, hurt, death on people around our globe. The Ministers referred, for example, to the amendment around starvation. If we thought about that and dwelt on that for very long, I think we could all agree what an awful state of affairs it is that an amendment like that is necessary or desirable in this bill. But there it is. In passing this law today, the New Zealand Parliament, I’m sure as one—certainly from the Opposition’s perspective—stands up against such inhumane international crimes.

Hon Aupito WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Rt Hon Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the role that he plays on behalf of New Zealand, not only throughout the Pacific region but globally, and commend him for moving the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill quickly at its third reading. This is evidence of the Government’s quick action on updating our international commitment and obligations and is further evidence of what good governance looks like. It also demonstrates what good political leadership looks like, and I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just a few observations on this bill. National’s been very supportive of the changes. I think it echoes what, actually, previous speakers have said, which is this Parliament supporting multilateral efforts. But that’s probably the area I want to put most of my time into. Just around the bill itself and the amendment around starvation, it all makes a lot of sense just for the public to, once again, understand that it’s really important as an exercise of New Zealand’s sovereignty that we pass domestic legislation in order to bring international treaties into effect.

So can I acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and all its members who worked hard on both of these. This came through, if you will, in two tranches: one around the likes of poisoned weapons, expanding bullets, and so forth, and then a little later around starvation. I thank, obviously, the officials. I’m mightily impressed with Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials, I have to say, and through the Minister to thank them for their work, not only on this but also certainly the briefings and the insight that they give me in my role.

I will say that the process to get us here was a little untidy. I think it’s good that we’ve had a Supplementary Order Paper to resolve the starvation matter, but in terms of parliamentary process, it has been a little untidy, if not resolved today.

Two last points: international crimes and the International Criminal Court sit within a framework of multilateralism and rule of law. We must continue to work hard and stridently to support that. I would add we need to do that along with our allies. There are growing malevolent forces out there in the world who are not playing by the rules, who believe they are a rule unto themselves, and who are quite prepared to use their strength and clout—military, economic, or otherwise—to push us around. They know who they are. I’m going to give them the dignity today of not naming them, but those actors need to be warned, and New Zealand needs to stand very strongly with its traditional allies and those who do support multilateralism and the rule of law.

The final call is that the Minister is clearly enthusiastic for passing bills like this. I would ask in our final two weeks that the Autonomous Sanctions Bill be put on Order Paper No. 1. In fact, I see the Leader of the House here. Throw it into the urgency motion. New Zealand needs this. Here is your opportunity to be remembered and to give me a chance to do another speech praising the Government for its actions. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I’m actually a proud member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and I would like to acknowledge our chair, Simon O’Connor.

So this International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill, essentially, adds to the current list of war crimes that were agreed at the annual Assembly of States Parties in December 2017. For our information, we’ve added to the list of crimes weapons that use microbial agents, biological agents, or toxins; weapons that injure by fragments that are undetectable by X-rays; and blinding laser weapons. What the Supplementary Order Paper does is also add the crime of starvation, which was a recommendation by the State parties in December 2019.

What I want to reassure the House about is that, as a select committee, we did consult with the public in March regarding the starvation amendment, and we actually reported back to the House in May 2020. So the addition of the starvation amendment is pragmatic because, essentially, our report back would then trigger a piece of legislation. So rather than have a completely new piece of legislation, the Minister has added the starvation amendment, and I want to note that in our select committee report, we did say, and I quote, “The Government intends the treaty to be implemented through an amendment to legislation.” So we’ve been transparent with the public.

I also just want to acknowledge that we ratified the Rome Statute in September 2000, so this is a 20-year-old document. Essentially what it does is determines what is an international crime. As we all know, starvation as a method of warfare—I just want to particularly highlight that—is about depriving civilians of objects indispensable to their survival. So we’re talking about food and water. It was a crime in international disputes; it’s now, via this amendment, also a crime in non-international conflicts. So this is where there are conflicts internally within countries. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a great pleasure to stand and take a call on this bill, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. I haven’t actually sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; I’ve only just recently come on to the committee, but can I acknowledge the chair, Simon O’Connor, and the other select committee members that have worked on this bill. Can I acknowledge the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, who is in the House and is the sponsor of this bill, and just put on the record that that New Zealand has got a very long and proud record of taking strong stands on international bodies.

I’d go back to the genocide that we saw unfold in Rwanda. We can be very proud as a nation that we took a stand and said that there needed to be a much stronger intervention in support of, at the time, the head of the UN mission there, General Roméo Dallaire, to prevent the type of genocide that we saw unfolding. We stand here today in this House of Representatives in New Zealand, right down the bottom of the world, in a relatively peaceful country, but right now, as we all stand here in this House taking calls, there are people that are suffering under corrupt regimes that’ve got no interest in upholding basic human rights and are bullied and suffer terribly under those regimes.

The one thing that I think is very important in this bill is the highlighting of “poison or poisoned weapons”, “asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and analogous liquids, materials, or devices”. It was only recently, if you think back just in the last 10 or 15 years, when we remember those terrible images of the Kurds that suffered under Saddam Hussein’s regime and the contorted bodies of children that had been subjected to poisonous gas attacks—just innocent, innocent victims with no ability at all to be able to escape or defend themselves or any chance of survival whatsoever.

So I do want to acknowledge the Minister. I do want to acknowledge that this is an important amendment bill, in support of what is being passed, and just say that we as a country should continue to constantly look at ways that we can even take a—even though we’re a small nation, constantly look at ways that we can continue to take a lead on the abolition of military-style rifles like the AK-47, that wreaks so much harm and havoc around the world, and things like these poisonous gases. So I want to stand in support of this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this legislation. It’s a positive step forward. I think the next steps our country needs to take are to criminalise the crime of ecocide and also ratify the Kampala amendment to have a crime of international aggression. These are the next steps we as a country need to take. Kia ora.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I take a short call on this and acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs in so doing, and also the officials and the advisers and the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which I am not a member of, but I have substituted in on different occasions and have been fascinated.

As is heard, the National Party support this bill. I won’t go into the detail, other than saying that it expands the list of war crimes. These are war crimes that during the course of my lifetime, I never factored in. I remember watching movies as a child—I remember my childhood—and a key figure of note on the global scene in relation to breaches of humanitarian and the genocide that was happening was Idi Amin in the 1970s. So growing up, that lifted my consciousness around warfare and the atrocities of that. And then, moving through, watching spy movies—which I thought were so surreal but in today’s age are so real. The movies that come to mind, of course, for many of us are the James Bond movies—growing up watching those and thinking, “My goodness, sci-fi.” But it’s not; it’s the reality of today.

So the war crimes that this bill incorporates into the New Zealand jurisdiction: expanding the inclusion of poison or poisoned weapons; asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases; expanding bullets; and then, of course, the microbial agents, biological agents, or toxins; weapons that injure by fragments that are undetectable by X-rays; and blinding laser weapons.

We will also reflect and recall in recent years, prior to me coming into Parliament, the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning case, where, by way of the exposure to chemical gas, he died within the course of three weeks. Then, as recently as 4 March 2018, during the course of our service as MPs, was Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, being on a beach in Salisbury, being subjected to these toxins that almost took their lives.

We have a duty of responsibility on the international global scene as New Zealanders. This incorporates that we deal with this within our own jurisdiction, but we are one of a party on the international global world warfare international responsibilities and that duty of care. So I commend this bill to the House, with all of the colleagues standing here in Parliament to take calls today. Kia ora.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is just a very short call to acknowledge the Minister and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, who has worked on this. As I have heard in the debate today, it’s a very positive step forward for Aotearoa, for New Zealand, and it’s positive that there is support across the House for it. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good to have the opportunity to contribute to this, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. My own contribution, like that of others, will be relatively brief. I do just want to touch on a couple of points under the headings of why, what, when, and who.

On the subject of why, obviously we are aligning domestic law and international law. A couple of other speakers, including the Minister and also the Hon Simon Bridges on our side of the House, have mentioned that. It’s not merely a matter of aligning the two, of course, but domestic law is needed to give effect to the international law, so from that perspective, it’s a worthwhile thing that we do to pass this legislation in the House today.

As for the “what”, of course, the subject matter has been traversed, at least briefly, in the House today—very briefly in the case of the committee of the whole House stage. But I did note with interest an exchange between Simon O’Connor on our side of the fence—but wearing his hat, I suspect, as much as anything, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The Minister was able to answer a question in relation to starvation being a weapon of war, essentially, which is a sad thing to reflect as far as human nature is concerned. But the Minister noted rightly enough that these things invariably take a lot of time to come to our attention and to be given effect to within the international context. So that’s an interesting heads-up, I guess, for the future, that we should expect more of such legislation and international instruments to be updated continually to reflect, sadly, the inventiveness of the human mind, such that we need to continually work to understand the ways in which we find ways to do harm to each other.

So that covers the “what”, really, although I would just point anyone who’s interested in more detail to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. It’s got a commendable amount of detail on these different offences that are being updated within the international criminal context and, again, as I say, our own domestic arrangements.

I’ve covered the “when” aspect somewhat by noting, as the Minister had, that the wheels do grind slowly, and the ongoing nature of these kinds of updates that we need to pass, for the reason of updated technology, I suppose—just to look at such detail as expanding bullets and microbial agents and toxins and undetectable weapons that injure by fragments and so on.

I’ll just complete my remarks with an observation on the “who” aspect, by which I don’t mean the World Health Organization but rather those who are involved. We stand today at the intersection of diplomatic, legal, and political worlds, among others, probably. So I do want to acknowledge all those who’ve been involved, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and others within the broader sense of Government, and also the Government of the day, as joined by the Opposition. As you will have heard, we are having no hesitation in commending the bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start by just acknowledging the Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, for shepherding this piece of legislation through the House. It’s an important piece of legislation, and I want to also acknowledge that it’s really good to see that it has across the House party support. Everything has been said previously, so I just want to finish off by saying I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill at its third reading—a bill which the National Party supports as it incorporates into New Zealand law a number of amendments from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court concerning war crimes. I just want to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, ably chaired by my colleague Simon O’Connor, for the work that they’ve done in considering the bill and the submissions that have been taken into account.

I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well for bringing this important bill to this Parliament, a bill which expands the list of war crimes subject to the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction, allowing the court to hold individuals criminally responsible for them. This is the type of legislation which is about ensuring that we maintain the highest levels and standards in this very serious area—war being an area which no one in this House wants us to partake in, but standards, nevertheless, need to be in our legislation that New Zealand needs to be a party of. The amendments make it a war crime to employ the following in a non-international armed conflict: poison or poisoned weapons; asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, and materials; expanding bullets; a whole range of microbial agents, biological agents, or toxins—a range of very serious issues which this bill ratifies and I commend it to the House.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I’m very pleased to stand briefly to reaffirm the Labour Party’s support for this piece of legislation, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Amendment Bill. New Zealand has a proud history of standing up for the international rule of law and human rights, going back to events such as our isolated stand in the League of Nations to try and defend Abyssinia from annexation; the role of Peter Fraser in the Labour Government of that time, at the founding of the United Nations; our own use of the International Criminal Court to stop French atmospheric testing in the Pacific; and many, many, many other examples of New Zealand playing its part and engaging in a stable and peaceful international order.

This piece of legislation is a part of that evolution. It clearly puts into frame a range of awful techniques and practices that should be outlawed, and I’m very pleased that we are continuing to play our role, following on from that strong history as a country that believes in international human rights. I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Public Service Legislation Bill

In Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move that this order of the day for the committee stage of the Public Service Legislation Bill be discharged and the bill be referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Unfortunately, you should have done that when you first stood. We are now in committee. You had to do it before we moved into committee.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stood to do so, and the Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I realise that, but you did sit down and you didn’t call the point of order, so unfortunately the Standing Orders does not allow that at this stage.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m assuming that we’re now beginning the debate on the committee stage?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, well I haven’t—I’m just getting my papers.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It would be hard to find a more important statute on the books of New Zealand than our legislation that governs our public sector. The very job of this institution of Parliament is to deliver public services, to provide public advice, and to provide the electoral accountability between the 5 million New Zealanders and the tens of thousands of people who work in our respective Public Service, and the extraordinary part that we have this morning in Parliament is the House in urgency, writing legislation that sets the framework for our New Zealand Public Service and the Government, this week, tabling over 500 clauses—200 pages—of law changes to this legislation. It is intending, effectively, to table in this Parliament 500 clauses of law that define how our public services work and to, effectively, say to the Parliament “and we’re going to pass it today.”

I have heard the Minister in the chair, over the last 10 years, give numerous speeches about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and proper legislative process. I ask the Minister in the chair: how can he possibly pretend that Parliament is giving proper scrutiny to his legislation, 200 pages in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 549, which the Opposition got access to only two days ago, and say that it is a good lawmaking process?

Now, I’d say to Minister Chris Hipkins, in respect of the emergencies that our country has confronted around the earthquake and around COVID-19, that you can justify such speed of process, but this is nothing to do with that. This is one of our foundation Acts. It has almost a constitutional status, as we well know, with the powers of the State Services Commission. This is the most significant legislative change since the State Services Act was passed in 1988. How shambolic and awful have our parliamentary processes become, and how arrogant the Government has become that somehow it thinks it’s satisfactory process for an Act of this sort to be changed.

Now, in Part 1 of this bill, we set out the framework and we have called it the broader principles for the management of our Public Service, and we have tabled amendments because we have concerns about some of those principles. One of the most important is respect for this institution of Parliament, and I say to the Minister of State Services: how can you possibly expect that the culture that you’re trying to establish within the Public Service of one of respect for our parliamentary democracy—how is that being delivered when this Parliament of 120 members receives a 200-page SOP with the expectation that Government members will have given due reference to those provisions, and they’re going to be whacked through the Parliament under urgency in less than 48 hours?

I ask the question: is there any member in this House who’s read the 200 pages and 500 clauses of amendments?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, that’s very good—the Minister says he has. I will ask him a very specific question, then: why is the Government changing from the bill that was before the Governance and Administration Committee to the amendments?

The issue around appropriate medical tests that can be done in this bill is changing. There was no opportunity for submissions and no opportunity for any member of the public to be able to test whether the legal requirements for requiring a public servant to take medical examinations is appropriate. I don’t know—I only heard about it 24 hours ago. It’s a pretty significant issue.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I only spotted one question in that contribution from Nick Smith, and I’m happy to respond to it. The SOP tabled by the Government here does little more than adopt the amendments recommended in the departmental report that the select committee did not work its way through, because in the six months available to them they were unable to organise their business in a way to do that as select committees would normally do.

The SOP adopts the recommendations that arose from the select committee process, so it’s a bit surprising to see that the member who participated in the select committee process is unfamiliar with the contents of those amendments, because those amendments arose from the select committee’s deliberations on the matter. Unfortunately, the committee were unable to organise their business in such a way that they presented the bill with the amendments incorporated back to the House, so therefore the Government picked up the work that the committee had done, and adopted the recommendations from the departmental report that are a reflection of the submissions received during the select committee process. All of the amendments that are proposed in that Supplementary Order Paper flow from the select committee’s process.

It is regrettable that the committee were unable to organise themselves—as I said, in the six months they had to consider the bill—in a way that presented the bill back to the House in a shape that it was ready to pass. So the Government has picked up the work that they did, and we have followed that through, and we present the SOP that picks up the work the committee has done.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This process now is a question and answer. If you’re following a line of thought, I’m quite happy—you don’t have to take a call.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well, I wish to challenge the Minister around the issue that every one of the amendments in the SOP comes from that select committee because that is, actually, not correct.

The second thing is the Minister says that “Well, the Public Service legislation was before the select committee for six months.” Actually, something occurred in the last six months. I don’t know whether any colleagues noticed, but, actually, we had the biggest national emergency in the history of our country. We had our Parliament shut down for a significant period. We had the very Minister in the chair say to this Parliament that, during the COVID emergency, there would only be time to consider urgent legislation associated with the COVID emergency. Now, nobody would reasonably say that this Public Service legislation, the biggest change in legislation in respect of our public services since 1988, is somehow related to the COVID emergency.

So for the Minister to say, “Well, everything in this SOP is just what the departmental report said.”—Minister, that’s at the core of the problem, because what you’re saying, Minister, is these are the amendments the department wanted, and Parliament shouldn’t take too much interest. Is that the culture that he wants to establish for the New Zealand Public Service—that the departmental officials decide what law they want to govern themselves, and Parliament should only take a peripheral interest, receive it two days ago, bang it into law?

I ask the question again: has any member of the Green Party read the 200-page SOP and the 500 amendments?

Michael Wood: Repetition.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member says it’s repetition. It’s actually pretty crucial. The member Michael Wood thinks that Parliament should just take the report from the department, slap it into law, and that that’s OK. That’s the sort of Labour Party view of the job that this Parliament has around legislation that governs the expenditure of $80 billion of public taxpayers’ money every year. Members opposite think this process is fine, that it’s just Parliament’s job to rubber-stamp the law and, if the department decides that this is the law that they would want to govern the operations of the public sector, they can deliver this Parliament 500 clauses of law, give us two days’ notice, and pass it through all its committee stages, and somehow that is appropriate Parliament scrutiny of legislation, and members on this side of the House say it’s not.

We have witnessed, I would say to the Leader of the House, situations where rushed law of this sort—where a Minister has told the Parliament it’s one thing, and two days later we discover that, actually, it was a completely different law that we passed. We’ve witnessed other laws in the last few weeks where Parliament passed the law one week and the next week we had to go into urgency to pass new law to patch up the mistake we made in the previous week, and we are repeating all those errors. I can give this Parliament absolutely no assurance that I have given the level of scrutiny on any of these 500 clauses that we only saw two days ago, and that they are good law.

Again, I stress how important it is: this is a sham process; this is Parliament being treated with complete disrespect. I have heard a hundred speeches from members of the Labour Party in Opposition criticising bills under the previous Key-English Government that had a far more robust process with it. It is an incredible double standard for Mr Chris Hipkins to sit in the chair and to pretend this is satisfactory process on one of the most important pieces of legislation. It is a sham, it is a disgrace, it is actually saying to the Public Service, “Do what you like, produce what laws you wish, Parliament will not scrutinise them.” The importance of our parliamentary democracy around its control of the public sector and the way in which they behave is something that he has no regard for. He has become little more than a “Yes, Minister” in this regard, and it’s something that he will live with with regret, as will other members that are passing this law. I’ll bet you there isn’t a single New Zealand First MP that’s read this huge Supplementary Order Paper. I’ll bet you there is not a single backbench member of the Labour Party—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, OK. Now, if I can interrupt the member, I have allowed him—because the process is difficult—considerable time now to make what are quite general comments about process, but we are actually on Part 1, debating clauses 3 to 20 and Schedule 1. We are also in a different type of committee process where you are not limited to four five-minute speeches but more a question and answer process of the Minister. So I’m happy to allow the member to continue, but I do want it focused on Part 1 and I do want it in the order of a question and answer session on details of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): An important clause in Part 1 is clause 10. It deals with the issue of Public Service principles. I think every member of this House hugely values the New Zealand culture of having a politically neutral public sector. We support the principle in clause 10 around the free and frank advice, the merit-assessed appointments, the principles of open government and of stewardship, but I have moved a Supplementary Order Paper because I think there is a very important principle for the Public Service that is missing, and that is an obligation to spend money wisely and effectively.

Over the last four months, I have never seen a Government spend money as recklessly as what we have seen, and I ask, for members opposite: why would you not support the New Zealand Public Service being required to spend wisely and effectively? I noted earlier last month the $570,000 spent on a little slide outside. I could refer to the waste of public money in so many spheres—the 340 working groups on which this Government has spent over $50 million. I could mention many, many areas in which this Government has been reckless with public money, and there hasn’t been a focus.

I’ll just give one little example, and it’s relevant to this part: the Ministry of Education, when this Government came to office, had 2,600 staff. In the brief nearly three years, the number of people in the Ministry of Education bureaucracy has increased by 33 percent. Let me just compare the numbers: a 33 percent increase in the number of ministry bureaucrats in Wellington. There has, over the same period, been a 1.2 percent increase in the number of teachers in the classroom. Let me say those numbers again: under this Labour Government, under this Minister, a 33 percent increase in the number of paper pushers in the Ministry of Education; a 1 percent increase in the number of teachers.

Members on this side of the House don’t share that priority. We want to maximise the amount that is spent on front-line services for our children.

Marja Lubeck: These are the people that were cut—people that were cut by the previous—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I ask the member who’s interjecting: would she like to explain why the numbers of people in the Ministry of Education has gone from 2,632 to 3,487? It’s a 34 percent increase in just three years. The Government has broken its promise on children getting access to special-needs support while at the same time we’ve got a bloated ministry bureaucracy.

Marja Lubeck: Thirty years—30 years; still got no idea.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And the relevance—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member who is interjecting that, in actual fact, she has a very loud voice and she is not sitting in her seat.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So I would say to that member: will she support a requirement that our Public Service spend the money wisely and effectively? Now, I just use one small example, that National members would much rather the finances went to teacher-aides to support those three-year-old children for whom we’ve seen a blow-out, against the Prime Minister’s promise, in the time it takes for them—I think my colleague, the National education spokesperson, pointed out the time had almost doubled. Wouldn’t we rather that than the money being spent on increased bureaucrats?

So National’s view is that our Public Service does need to be politically neutral. It does need to provide free and frank advice. It does need to have open government. But why, in the principles of our Public Service, have we not included any reference to spending public money wisely? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s not part of the Government’s DNA. It’s not part of their culture. They do not feel the duty that every parliamentarian should feel, the duty that every public servant should have.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The principle around efficiency and effective use of public money is a really important one, and it is one that we considered when putting these principles together. The principles are owed to the Public Service Commissioner. When it comes to the expenditure of public funds, the duties of public servants in that respect are owed to the Minister. The basic premise of the Public Finance Act, which, of course, we all follow here in the House, is, actually, it’s Ministers that spend money—you know, public money, appropriated by Parliament—and therefore it’s Ministers who should be accountable for the efficient and effective spending of that money to this House. The issue of efficiency and effectiveness is covered in other parts of this bill.

Now, if we go to the very first provision before the one that the member speaks to, which is the purpose of the Public Service, it refers to “high-quality and efficient public services”, so it is already encompassed there, but particularly the responsibilities of chief executives, which is referred to further on. It makes it very clear that “the efficient and economic delivery of the goods or services provided by the agency and how effectively these goods or services contribute to the intended outcomes.”—that is the responsibility of the chief executives, and they owe that responsibility to the Minister.

So the question really is—there’s no question about the fact that there should be reference to the efficient and economical delivery of public services; the question is how that’s best framed within the law. I’m comfortable with the balance here, recognising that, actually, the Public Service Act, which is what this will be, is not the primary legislative vehicle for these particular provisions. It is the Public Finance Act, which, of course, sits alongside the Public Service Act, that deals with that, and there are very comprehensive duties set out there around responsible fiscal management and the responsibilities of chief executives in that.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Now, indeed, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith mentioned, it is very unusual to see a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) as thick as this. I myself, of course, have been here for nine years—the first time I’ve seen an SOP this thick. This is largely because the Governance and Administration Committee could not report the bill back to the House. Now, the Minister mentioned the process. Also, I understand you ruled that, you know, we spent some time on this. But as the chair of the select committee, I think I should clarify a few points, really.

Now, I asked for submissions the following day, the day after the committee received the particular bill, and then it coincided with Christmas and New Year, and then we had COVID-19, so we lost a few meeting days. Then we really tried hard to meet our deadline. We tried very hard to have an extension. I have to say, the officials worked very hard, were very, very patient—and Dr Nick Smith, actually, also was very patient, and worked very, very hard—and they went through all the details of this particular bill.

I have to say, the bill itself—we support the intention; it’s very important. And the honest thing is that because it is so important, so complex, it’s a generational change bill, so therefore we thought it needed more time. I’ll give you an example of this. Indeed, many of these changes here are based on recommendations from officials, and the committee itself, and we did support most of the recommendations, but there are points we thought we should have more time to talk about. One particular point is, for example, the Chief Human Rights Commissioner. They mentioned that they would like to have a particular clause on this, but this is not included in this particular SOP.

So there are points we thought we should have more time to go through to examine and that we didn’t really have a chance to talk about—points like whether we should have a deputy commissioner to replace one particular chief executive, you know, under circumstances and for how long. We did have discussion, but in the end, we were not able to finalise some particular points. So that is why we believe that this particular SOP indeed has some flaws, because we do think that we were unable to have the time to examine carefully some particular points.

As I mentioned, really, this is a very important bill. We spent some time, but we lost some time during the six-month period, and just two or three more weeks would really have enabled us to go through all the details to improve the bill and to really make it a bill which makes a generational change.

Now, I support the vision like the commissioner’s, Commissioner Peter Hughes, and it’s a very good vision, a modern, agile system, which I believe is necessary for us. But when you have to rush and, in the end, can’t really have what we would call a perfect bill, then that’s a missed opportunity. So that’s why we believe that, indeed, as Dr Nick Smith mentioned, we would really support having more time to go through all the details. But, unfortunately, of course, we are not able to do so. But having said that, I do agree that this bill’s intention is good and there are many changes which we support.

But here, with this one particular SOP, with so many points, it’s just a rush under urgency. We don’t think that it really will serve this bill well. So that’s why we believe that we need more time. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain more points in more questions, and I believe that the committee should have that opportunity to examine the particular bill. I think that this particular bill, with more time and with more careful consideration, would be a much, much better bill. Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the member, could I just comment that members seem to have reverted to the old style of committee stage debate, where their speeches were five minutes long, and that was it. The new regime is the House has agreed that there is a dialogue with the Minister. Some members are expected to raise questions to ask the Minister to respond. The Minister is expected to respond, and then the member can assume they’ll get another call. Five minutes is not a target.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister based on his response to the Hon Nick Smith earlier. It is in regard to clause 10 in Part 1. The Minister’s response to the Hon Nick Smith’s tabled amendment was to refer to other parts of the bill that he thinks cover off spending public money wisely and effectively. But if we read in that clause 10, which is about Public Service principles, the first opening line is “In order to achieve the purpose in section 9, the public service principles are:”.

So while the Minister—and this is my question for you, Minister. While you’re saying, “Well, you know, Hon Nick Smith, have a look back at the purpose in clause 9. That takes care of your particular tabled amendment.”, in clause 10, it says that in order to achieve the purpose, the following principles are politically neutral, free and frank advice, merit-based appointments, open Government, and so on and so on. None of those refer to the wise and effective use of public money. That’s what Nick Smith’s tabled amendment says—the wise and effective use of public money. There is no reference in those principles to the use of public money. I take on board that there are principles around remaining politically neutral and free and frank advice, but the specific tabled amendment wants to insert the topic of use of public money. Can I ask the Minister why, if, in fact, the opening line is “In order to achieve the purpose of section 9”, they should be—I guess I just don’t see why there couldn’t be reference to the use of public money in that list of principles.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Can I just briefly reply to the member. Clauses 9 and 10 do need to be read in conjunction with clause 50, which, of course, is in the next Part of the bill. The way the Public Finance Act works—and, as I’ve indicated before, the Public Finance Act, of course, sits alongside what will be the Public Service Act—chief executives are responsible to their Ministers for the operations of their agencies and for the efficient use of public spending. So if you look under clause 50(1)(c), which says, “A chief executive of a department or a departmental agency is responsible to the appropriate Minister for—(c) the operation of their agency, including in carrying out the purpose of the public service under section 9;”, and then if you move to clause 50(1)(h), it says, “the efficient and economical delivery of the goods or services provided by the agency and how effectively those goods or services contribute to the intended outcomes.” So it is covered. There is, obviously, a cross-reference between clauses 9 and 10 and clause 50, so I’m comfortable that it is covered by the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There are 24 changes in Part 1 of this bill. We only got these changes provided to us less than 48 hours ago, and I want to go through and systematically ask questions of the Minister as to what those changes mean. Now, a core part of this Public Service Act is which agencies are covered—so whether Government agencies, whether we’ve got independent agencies like ACC. We’ve got, of course, 2,700 schools. We’ve got district health boards. A really key question for all the other parts of the bill is who is covered, and we spent a lot of time at the select committee determining whether Crown agents, and which of those agencies, should have the commissioner of the Public Service oversee them, which will have powers to investigate them, and how their responsibilities will wrest back to Ministers.

We see in clause 8 some of the detail of Government departments, of departmental agencies, where we’ve got these new interdepartmental executive boards and these interdepartmental ventures, which previous Prime Minister Bill English, through the social investment model, established. Now, what we see in clause 4 of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 549 is changes to which Crown agents Part 1 applies to. When we had the bill at the select committee, I was really keen to know: will these rules of Public Service be neutral, will these rules of the Public Service be open, accountable, will these rules of merit-based appointments—all of those things. We need to know as a Parliament as to which are the agencies that are covered by them.

So I would like to know from the Minister, quite specifically, with the changes that he is proposing to clause 4(1), where we are saying “Some provisions apply to Crown agents” now—not all of them; only some of the provisions apply to parts of the Public Service. I’d like the Minister to answer the question: what does his SOP change in terms of the agencies that are now covered by this legislation, and when it says that some provisions will apply to them with his Supplementary Order Paper, I would like to know which are the agencies that are not going to have some of these principles apply. In other words, we need a very clear definition on which parts of the Public Service are covered—how is he changing that?—and when he is changing the coverage of the provisions in this bill, we need clear answers as to what those changes are. If the Minister could give some clarification of why these changes are being made at the last minute, that also would be helpful.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I’m very happy to clarify. Clause 4(1)—the clue is in the name. It says “Guide to this Act”. The additional wording added at the end of clause 4(1) is simply providing additional clarity. It does not make any changes to the substance of clause 8. Members looking at clause 8 will, of course, see that Supplementary Order Paper 549 does not make any changes to the substance of that clause.

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

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask a question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins. First of all, in Part 1, clause 10 says that while appointing the chair of the board, it should be a merit-based appointment. In the Supplementary Order Paper, it clarifies further that it is not only the chair but the board members also. So what criteria are to be followed and who will look after that this is being followed, particularly if we look from the ethnic side? How will they get that equal representation under different boards, because so far that question was raised during the select committee process and we don’t have any report from the select committee? So my question to the Minister is: how are you going to address this issue while appointing the board members as well as the chairs from time to time?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I’m not entirely sure that I follow the member’s point. Clause 10(1)(c), which I assume is the clause that the member is referring to, refers to the fact that the Public Service should make “merit-based appointments (unless an exception applies under [the] Act):”. The basic principle of merit-based appointment, of course, is one that was in the original Public Service legislation passed early in the last century. And the purpose of that legislation was to move away from, effectively, cronyism, where the Public Service was dominated by people appointed based on who they knew rather than based on them being the best person for the job. So the basic premise here under clause 10(1)(c) is that the Public Service should operate on the basis that the best person for the job gets the job, i.e., it is a merit-based appointment rather than favouritism or cronyism, as has been the case in the New Zealand Public Service in the past—certainly the case in the early days of the New Zealand Public Service before the original Public Service legislation was passed.

With regard to board appointments, I’m not sure which particular boards the member’s referring to. But, of course, I would note that many, many boards within the Public Service, particularly when it comes to Crown agents, Crown entities, and so on, actually these provisions do not apply to because those appointments are made by the executive and there are people who are on those boards who are politically aligned. That has been the case for a very, very long time.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the most important features of our New Zealand Public Service is its lack of corruption. I think every New Zealander, on all sides of the House, is tremendously proud of the reputation that our New Zealand Public Service has. We do not have the patronage that you see in the US where half the Public Service—certainly the senior levels—change with changes of Government. Equally, we are ranked very, very well—in fact, National is very proud that when we left Government in 2017, New Zealand was ranked as the least corrupt country in the world. If we look at the history of that, this Parliament should be very proud of the Public Service Act 1912, that introduced a provision that has survived five generations of law changes around tough provisions in respect of anybody trying to procure some advantage from a public servant.

We were interested, at the select committee stage, in quite detailed law that was in that 1912 Act that provided for it. I notice in Supplementary Order Paper 549 that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is intending to amend that historic clause. Now, in my interpretation—and I say to the Minister that I only saw the specific word changes that you’re proposing a day ago, only read it yesterday; that’s when we had these hundreds of amendments referred to us. But you significantly, in clause 4(6), are amending the wording of that historic provision; that is, the existing provision makes it an offence to solicit or attempt to influence any Public Service leader, and a provision in that provides immunity if it is for good-faith or omissions.

Now, we’ve had this new word added to that historic provision. I looked at some of the court cases, and the danger when you amend a piece of law that’s been around for such a long time is that the case law that is established where a behaviour with the Public Service is inappropriate, and so, sometimes, in my view, there should be a high threshold for us changing laws that actually have very good basis. So I would like an explanation from the Minister on clause 4(6) as to why he is changing the definition of an offence for attempting to solicit, to influence, a Public Service leader.

My interpretation—and I don’t claim particular expertise—is that the addition of the words lowers the bar. It will make it more difficult to get a prosecution as a consequence of the amendments in clause 4(6). I’d like to know from the Minister why we are lowering the bar around that very historic protection that it is a criminal offence to solicit or attempt to inappropriately influence a member of the Public Service. There may be a perfectly good explanation for it, but I say that given the huge importance of protecting the integrity of our public sector, the huge importance of making plain that trying to inappropriately solicit or attempt to influence the Public Service is something that we should have robust law about. When the Governance and Administration Committee considered this clause, it did not include the conditioning word. I’d like to know from the Minister why it is that we are, at this late stage of the process, under urgency, amending this core definition that sits at the heart of making sure that our public servants act properly, and at the heart of making it plain that any person trying to influence the Public Service in a way that would undermine New Zealand’s reputation for the integrity and transparency of our Public Service—why is it that the Government is changing that provision?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): As I mentioned before, clause 4, of course, is a guide to the Act, and the clause that the member specifically refers to is the explanatory clause for Part 5 of the bill. So the substance of the member’s issue is with Part 5 of the bill.

However, I will address the member’s concern. Offence to solicit or attempt to improperly influence Public Service leaders—the thing the member seems to have an objection to is the insertion of the word “improperly”. It is, of course, possible to directly seek to influence a Public Service leader in a very proper manner. Lobbying happens from time to time. There is nothing improper about that. I don’t see any grand conspiracy in saying that an attempt to influence a Public Service leader needs to be improper for the rest of the provisions to apply. There are instances where people will lobby, where they will advocate for their position or advocate for their cause. That’s a perfectly proper part of the way the Public Service operates, and, in fact, New Zealanders, of course, we do want them to be working with the Public Service. So I think the thing that we’re dealing with here is improper influence—i.e., buying favour—and I think that this is merely just a clarification.

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

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 549 and 558 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to:

In clause 10(1)(e)(v) replace “agencies.” with “agencies; and”

After clause 10(1)(e), insert:

Economy

(f) to spend money wisely and effectively.

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

Ayes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Public service agencies and joint operational agreements

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the member the Hon Dr Nick Smith, could I just remind him of the new process that the House has agreed to undertake. We no longer have a limit on speeches of four five-minute speeches. The expectation is that you don’t always speak for five minutes and that the point of your contribution is a direct question to the Minister, who is then expected to answer it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We are in an extraordinary situation where we’re under urgency. We’re debating one of the most important pieces of legislation on our statute book governing the Public Service, and we are dealing with 200 pages of amendments that the Opposition only received 48 hours ago. So I do ask in your consideration that you do, in fact, allow us to scrutinise the changes that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is proposing.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s not a point of order. I give you the call, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 2 of this bill deals with the issue of Public Service reorganisations and there’s a really important debate for this Parliament to have in this area. In some countries, we have jurisdictions where their public service structures are so moribund that they’re not able to adapt and change to new issues. And those countries require bills and Acts of Parliament, many in jurisdictions to go through multiple Houses of Parliament and sometimes also to have the approval of their President or executive to be able to reorganise Government departments. I do fear that we have in New Zealand the opposite extreme that I have seen occur over and over again, where it is so easy for Governments of the day, of whatever political persuasion, to be able to shift around the Public Service all the time. I sometimes believe that there’s sort of an attitude from Ministers and Governments that if they change the name and reorganise Public Service organisations, that somehow that results in better outcomes for New Zealanders.

So the really important question for our Parliament in Part 2 of this bill is when the Government of the day wants to reorganise the Public Service, how do we give them sufficient tools to be able to make our Public Service efficient and responsive to the challenges of the time where, on the other hand, it’s not so loose that you can have almost a constant churn in the name and the different agencies that make up the New Zealand Public Service? And so my first point in respect of Part 2 and a question for the Minister is: does he share the concern of many submitters that this bill just makes it too easy? It makes it possible, without any reference to Parliament at all, to make massive changes in the make-up of the public sector. And what does he view is the right balance between a reasonable level of stability within the Public Service that means that you can build careers, that you can build brains and expertise, that the general public know “I’ve got this issue. That’s the agency I go to.”—all that social capital that makes for a country to work well.

I’m not an extremist in the sense that, of course, Governments need to be able to make changes. They do need to be able to adjust to challenges of the time and the changing ethos. In my political career, I’ve seen far more emphasis, rightly, on protection of the environment, so changes in agencies in that area. I was responsible for creating the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as an arm’s length regulator, so I’m not one that’s opposed to change. In that instance, I put an Act through Parliament to provide the stability that I think an independent agency like the EPA that New Zealand has.

What this bill does—what this part does—is, effectively, say that it can be done by Cabinet, by decree of simply—the executive can pretty much make any changes it likes across the public sector. I am of a view that if you’re actually going to build up the career and the credibility, you need a bit of brake, you need a bit of slow-down. You actually want the reorganisation of Public Service departments not to be the first option when you’ve got a policy problem or issue in our country that needs addressing but actually down the order a bit and actually more of a last resort rather than a first resort to dealing with new challenges.

As I interpret Part 2 of this bill, my view is that you can change any Government departments simply by Order in Council, by decision of the executive. I think that’s too loose. I think that results in a continuing culture in New Zealand of a constant churn of a number of public agencies. I would like to know from the Government and from the Minister as to whether the intent of Part 2 and the way this bill is drafted is for those changes, effectively, to be made by Order in Council. If so, are we not establishing a new Public Service law in which we are going to see over the next 20 years—and we hope this Act has got a similar life to the old State Sector Act 1988 that’s done about 32 years—this constant churn of public departments and not actually building what we want, and that is a stable, effective Public Service that allows New Zealanders to hugely contribute to our country in those Public Service organisations? And I would like the Minister’s views on Supplementary Order Paper 556 that I’ve tabled that actually says this Parliament needs to take a view about the organisation of the State.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Thank you. I think the member raises a series of very legitimate points. I think, reflecting on the operation of the Public Service over the last 30 years, Ministers on both sides of the House have often rushed to reorganisation ahead of looking at effectiveness. And reorganisation, of course, is not always the right solution to get better effectiveness out of our public services, and there is a big disrupting factor. I think back to the biggest reorganisations of the Public Service—the core Public Service, the departments in the Public Service—and we’ve seen in my time in politics the creation of the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment, the creation of the Ministry for Primary Industries: significant reorganisations of the Public Service. They did not come before this House; they were done by Order in Council by the Government of the day. In that case, both were National Governments—or the same National Government, in fact, both of those reorganisations—because that is what is allowed for now under the State Sector Act. So these provisions carry forward the existing mechanisms that apply to Government department reorganisation as apply within the State Sector Act.

There is a legitimate argument about whether or not we reorganise the Public Service too often, and my view is that we do. I’ve been quite resistant to that in my portfolio areas, and actually resistant to that as other Ministers have put forward proposals to do that as well, because I think sometimes we do structural reform too readily and create disruption, which doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes. So I think it’s a very legitimate point the member makes.

However, I do believe that the flexibility in this Act is important. The executive, the Government, and the Public Service shouldn’t need to come to Parliament every time a function shifts from one department to another, which does happen on a regular basis. I think that that would create all sorts of bureaucratic problems that wouldn’t be necessary. I think the member himself would acknowledge that there is a degree of change that is acceptable as part of the day-to-day operation of the Public Service and getting people in the right place. The main changes that we’re dealing with here are actually how we connect up the silos that exist within the Public Service in a more effective way. The last Government was doing things in this regard. We’ve talked about the Social Investment Board. Some of the work that was happening there, I think, was trying to solve the gnarly problems that have existed ever since the State Sector Act direct was passed, which is that we’ve created very effective silos and they’re very effective when they’re only dealing with issues within their silos. But when they’re trying to deal with issues that cut across silos, the system doesn’t work as well as it should. So the provisions in this bill are designed to create new mechanisms, and it is consistent with the work that was being done by the last Government to create new opportunities to join up those silos, to work on some of those bigger cross-cutting issues.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I would also, in the same conversation, that I want to extend, refer to this Government’s establishment of the housing and urban development ministry, and the subsequent reports that have shown the failure of the Government to deliver KiwiBuild was contributed to the fact that there was this massive reorganisation going on around those agencies that distracted them from the delivery of houses, in which we have seen such an appalling failure, where 100,000 homes were promised and only 400 delivered, reinforcing the fact that simply moving around Government agencies does not result in better public services.

Now, the question that I want to ask the Minister is a very important one, in respect to public services, and is as much in my role as the member of Parliament for Nelson. The most important public services delivered in my community are health and education, and I think across this Parliament, we would recognise that they are two of the most important practical areas for the citizens of New Zealand, for which they are pleased to pay their taxes, and they want to have good services. I have to say to the Minister of State Services that there is a huge level of anxiety in my community about the reorganisation of Public Service departments and agencies with the plan to nationalise the polytechs of New Zealand. My own Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology, that’s been an independent agency for 115 years, a controversy raging—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just interrupt the member. This is the second reference he’s made in just two minutes to matters that are fundamentally outside the scope of not only this part but, actually, this bill. So if the member—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): —please wait till I’ve finished my sentence—would like to resume his speech and address issues in Part 2, he’ll be able to continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The item that we are debating is Part 2. It’s about the reorganisation of departments and departmental agencies. Now, quite clearly, two of the largest parts of the public sector are the education and health services. The Minister in the chair, Chris Hipkins, is currently dealing with two major reforms, one of polytechnics and proposals to merge or reduce the number of DHBs in New Zealand from 20 to eight. They are absolutely relevant to the provisions in Part 2—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Dr Smith. That’s a direct challenge—could you please resume your seat. That’s a direct challenge to the contribution that I just made. You have directly defied the request that I made that you now refer your comments to Part 2. Neither the DHB proposals nor the tertiary education proposals are covered in Part 2. If the member goes back to them, his speech will be terminated. The Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Part 2 of this bill deals with the establishment and the reorganisations of departments and departmental agencies. Now, there is inevitably with these provisions—it allows Ministers to have very extensive powers around reorganising Government agencies. Now, the question I have for the Minister is: would it be his intention to use these powers to implement aspects of the Simpson review into our district health boards, the creation—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Third time unlucky—the member will resume his seat.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to raise a point on Part 2 for the Minister in relation to local government and Public Service agencies. And I understand your previous ruling, but if you just let me explain briefly.

I am critical of the process that’s been followed here in the report-back provisions, but there is absolutely an ability for New Zealand’s public sector to work across local and central government, and the ability for reorganisations of central government to include members of the local government fraternity in and out of those sectors. Largely, in my view, this bill is completely silent on that, and that would’ve been something I would’ve liked to have seen if we’d managed to get it referred back to select committee or, in fact, if we’d had more time.

Because it is my view, when I look at a large number of Government agencies and reorganisations and I think of entities like the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Transport, and many others who have key links to local government, that there has been an opportunity lost here. Also, the thing I’d raise, and I’d ask the Minister to speak to this, relates to the State Services Commission’s inability to have any input or say in local government as it currently stands. In my view, that’s a missed opportunity.

So I specifically come to reorganisations, and, bearing in mind how we’re operating, I’d like the Minister to respond to how local government could or should be included in any way, shape, or form in this, if possible, please.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Yeah, very happy to comment on that because I think it’s actually a very legitimate issue. It isn’t specifically covered here, but I think it’s worthy of comment because it does relate to reorganisations, and the member is right: I think one of the frustrations that local government expressed to central government is that the way we organise ourselves in silos at central government doesn’t always work for local government and for good, constructive relationships between central and local government. So I think some of the tools that are introduced here in this part that help to join up Government in a way that can then better partner with local government, I think, do provide part of the solution to that.

I think local government gets frustrated when they feel, and I’m sure the member will have some personal reflections on this, they’re shunted from one central government agency to another, when, actually, what they want to do is they want to sit down with Government—you know, with central government, and with the Public Service, not necessarily with a particular aspect of it. And if you look at something like COVID-19 and the economic challenges that are posed by COVID-19, central and local government are going to have to work together very closely, I think, on aspects of our recovery phase out of that. So, for local government, they’re going to want to make sure that they’ve got a good partner there who can join up in a way that, you know, creates good scope for that work to take place. I think that these provisions, particularly around things like joint ventures, provide the opportunity for central government to be a better partner with local government.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. In his Supplementary Order Paper, on page 25, clause 3, he says that the commissioner may appoint one or more independent advisers who are not chief executives of departments to the board. So my question is to the Minister: on whose advice is the commissioner going to appoint these independent advisers, and why is there no limit to how many advisers he can appoint? Is he free to appoint as many as he wants, or is there a limit as to how many of these advisers can be appointed by the commissioner?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I would expect the commissioner to use his or her judgment in making those kinds of appointments. As is inherent within the existing legislation, of course the commissioner does have powers of appointment where they do have to exercise judgment.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Part 2 covers Public Service agencies and joint operational arrangements. I understand that we did have what you’d call departmental agencies since 2013. The bill itself would improve—make more flexibility. At the same time, the bill introduces new organisational forms, including interdepartmental executive boards and interdepartmental ventures. The question is: because these will be relatively new, will the Minister or the Government take steps to make sure that these things will be reviewed after a certain time? I understand that the officials have replied saying that there will be some kind of update from time to time, but it would be more reassuring to include a particular clause to say that these new agencies—because these are new, never tested properly—including interdepartmental executive boards and interdepartmental ventures, will be reviewed after two or three years to see whether they are operating properly. So will that happen or will we simply say OK, we won’t have any time frame and we will simply check as we like?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to refer to clause 21 in Part 2. It specifically is in respect to the reorganisation of Government departments in Schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill specifically lists the Government agencies that are going to be able to be restricted in Part 2 of this bill, and specifically lists the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health. Now, myself, as the member of Parliament, the most important public service for my area is the delivery of health services and the delivery of education services. We have—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Dr Smith, you will resume your seat. I have ruled on that matter. Please resume your seat. I have ruled on that matter. You are now, for the fourth time, directly challenging me, and that is not acceptable.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m quoting the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I realise you’re quoting the bill, and I know why. This is not about the tertiary education review and reforms, or about the proposals in the Simpson report on district health boards. That is not referred to in Schedule 2 relating to Part 2. So if the member please resumes his contribution referring to relevant matters in Part 2.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The core issue for the Parliament in Part 2 of this bill is what is the process that Parliament expects of reorganisations of the public sector. Sometimes, you require legislation, so, for instance, in a previous sense, when the Government chose to restructure district health boards or Crown health enterprises, that required legislation. The key issue for the Parliament in Part 2 and clause 21 is what powers we give to the Cabinet for reorganising public sector agencies—so, for instance, if you wanted to take the Ministry of Health, that is listed in the schedule, and you wanted to divide it into Healthcare New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. The real question for the Parliament is should that require legislation or should we pass generic legislation that lets the Government make those changes without any reference to the Parliament?

That is a very real issue. So my question for the Minister in the chair is that if under clause 21, where you have specific reference in Schedule 2 to the Ministry of Health, and the Government wanted to proceed with a very significant restructure of the health sector, and, for instance, provide for new organisations like Healthcare New Zealand or the like, is it the Government’s view that the empowerment provisions in clauses 21 and 22 would enable that to occur without any reference to Parliament?

I say again: some of the most important public services that are provided for New Zealanders are in the education and health sector. The way in which they’re delivered is absolutely core to this Parliament, and if we are to pass legislation that allows significant restructuring of Government agencies, whether they be the Ministry of Education, whether they be the Ministry of Health, or any other agency in Schedule 2, there is a real issue for this Parliament as to when does the elected representatives of the communities get to have a say in that.

So my question to the Minister in the chair, in his role of the State services Minister, is: is it the intention to use the provisions of clause 21 and 22 to be able to progress the very substantive reviews and reports that have been received by the Government in those core areas, will there be reference back to Parliament if those reforms are progressed with, or is it the Minister’s expectation that with the powers that are provided in Part 2 of this bill, effectively, the Government would say, “Well, you’ve authorised the Executive Council, the Cabinet, to make these decisions, and as a consequence we would be able to make those very radical changes to those core public sector agencies, without reference back to Parliament.”? That is actually a really important issue for New Zealand, it is a really issue for the Parliament, and that is why I seek an answer.

I seek also an answer as to why there is no provision in this Part for any public consultation requirement.

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Very happy to say to the member that, of course, the current Government has not made any detailed decisions on the health and disability review, but it is the Government’s intention, if re-elected, at the time that we do that, that we would bring forth separate legislation to the House to implement the Government’s decisions in that regard.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I wish to ask the Minister in a subsequent contribution about the establishment of joint operational agreements. Minister, I raise—under clause 37(1), it says, “Two or more chief executives or boards of public service agencies may enter into a joint operational agreement for their agencies to work together to achieve stated goals.” and “(2) Before executing an agreement under this section, the chief executives or boards must obtain the agreement of the Commissioner.”

Minister, I ask this question in relation to the relative power between the commissioner and the executive—in other words, Ministers. I liken it to things like when the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was formed, when the Ministry for Primary Industries was put together, and the subsequent dismantling of it by the current Minister. I look at where is the ministerial oversight in that mix? I would have thought that Ministers have a duty and an obligation to understand—and you as the Minister of State Services would understand this—what’s happening. But I look at this clause, and it seems to me that the commissioner actually has all the say. Things can be done—one would hope they couldn’t be done without ministerial oversight, but it seems like these clauses allow an awful lot of power to be given to chief executives and their boards to make arrangements, and no overriding provision of either of those Ministers or the Minister of State Services.

So, Minister, I’d like to understand your interpretation as to how that’s actually going to work in reality on the ground. And it’s available for any Minister of the executive, with Cabinet approval, I would have thought, to make changes, but this appears to give a whole lot of power to the State Services Commissioner and public sector chief executives and boards to reorganise things.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d encourage the member to read on just a little bit further and he’ll find under clause 37(3) “The agreement must not purport to—(a) alter the responsibilities that exist between the chief executives or boards and the appropriate Ministers;”. So the answer to the member’s question is it does not alter that arrangement.

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

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

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

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 People working in public service

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Part 3 of this Public Service Legislation Bill deals with the issues of those that are employed in the Public Service. The issue on which we received the most submissions from members of the public was this core issue of the structure of the senior levels of what is currently the State Services Commission, with a significant number of proposals for, rather than a single person having the powers invested in them as the protector and independent leader of the Public Service, that to be held by a number of people, and, obviously, the bill provides significant provisions around the role of the Deputy Public Service Commissioners. Effectively, this bill does not change things significantly from the existing State Services Commissioner and the deputies.

The question I firstly have for the Minister of State Services is that the bill does not make any provision for connecting the very significant public service that exists within local government, and a question and a discussion that we had was whether, actually, the need for us to have a better connected Public Service in New Zealand would make good sense in having a Deputy Public Service Commissioner with responsibility for local government. There are a number of real public benefits for that. Certainly, my experience, in 14 different ministerial portfolios, is a real quality of public servant, where they’ve been able to have part of their working life in a district council, maybe a regional council, working with environmental issues, and then another part of their career within the Ministry for the Environment, that writes many of the laws and regulations that local government has.

Equally so, I do think this country has some performance issues in local government. If you had an agency the likes of the Public Service and a deputy commissioner in local government, that would be able to review and to provide for mayors and councils some degree of independence around the capacity of those organisations to deliver. At the moment, we do have an organisation of local government managers, and, yes, it does fill a little bit of that gap, but the truth is that it’s run by the local government managers themselves, and I’m not sure they want a really robust oversight of it.

So I think this bill is a missed opportunity in which to better connect our Public Service and to include a Deputy Public Service Commissioner for local government and to include in the provisions of the bill that allow public servants to be able to continue their careers by moving from different Government agencies to include local government agencies, because I think we can generate a really good quality of public servants and service by allowing that. This bill makes some useful changes to allow people to have parts of their career in different central government agencies, but it excludes that local government sector.

So I would like to know from the Government why, in doing this reform, the option of broadening the mandate of the Public Service Commission to include local government, the option of having a deputy commissioner with specific responsibilities for local government, and the options for public servants to be able to move between central, regional, and local Government and protect their employment elements were not considered in the bill’s development. Finally, in the same way in which the Public Service Commissioner plays a really, in my view, constructive role of reviewing the performance of agencies, they could actually provide a very powerful central government tool to improve the capacity and the delivery of that big part of New Zealand that’s involved in the local government sector.

It’s my view, just to conclude, that so many of the Acts that we pass have a component for local government to deliver, and we often see that the intent of Parliament is not achieved because the local government sector hasn’t had the capacity to be able to deliver those. So, yes, it’s a detailed question with respect to Part 3, but it’s a broader policy question about the interconnectedness of our Public Service and where, in our view, it would be constructive to have better links with local government, and we wonder—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): The member will resume his seat. The Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I thank the member for his contribution, and it’s an argument that I have considerable sympathy for. Of course, I’m not the Minister of Local Government; it’s one of the portfolios I’ve yet to hold. But it is something that I do agree with him. I think the connection between central and local government, certainly from a workforce perspective, is something that we could do a lot more work in that area.

Part 3, of course, doesn’t grapple with those issues. I think there would be a significant policy process required. There are some significant constitutional issues that that would throw up, including the fact that, at local government level, of course, their accountabilities are to the relevant elected representatives at local government. But could we do a better job of joining up the Public Service workforce and the local government workforce? Yes, I do believe we could. I think that’s a big piece of work. If that’s something that the member is keen to pursue in the next term of Parliament, whatever the election results are, he will certainly have an interested party in me to take part in those discussions, because I think they would be well worth having.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): To further that debate, though, this is the biggest reform of our Public Service legislation in 30 years, since the 1988 State Sector Act. Why would we not get on and make that change now, if the very purpose of this legislation is to set the framework for our Public Service for the next 20 or 30 years? National members see it as a missed opportunity. That is why we think we would be better to do this legislation properly and make sure we cover that off. I find the response from the Minister of State Services, who says, “Oh, but local government has its own election process and the accountability is to those local members.”—I remind the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, that they are creatures of statute, and we as a Parliament, equally with the powers we give to the local government commissioner and other agencies, are perfectly possible to be able to provide by legislation the extension of that public sector role.

Now, the Minister, in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), has proposed 13 changes to this Part, and these are part of the 200-page SOP that we are passing under urgency. I think the Minister should answer questions about the nature of those changes that he is making, and, particularly, I’m interested in the changes in Part 3 around the issue of collective employment contracts. Some of those are an interrelation between this Public Service legislation and our Employment Relations Act. It is National’s view that we should not use our public sector legislation to try and screw the scrum, as one might say, either towards individual contracts or collective contracts. We think it’s a very important principle that employees should be able to organise themselves. We don’t believe in compulsory unionism. We want the people to be able to organise the way in which they contract to be neutral.

I do ask the Minister, in Part 3 of this bill and the changes that are being proposed in his SOP, a very direct question, and that is: is there any intent or are there any specifics in respect of promotion under 42(c)? He has proposed amendments around good employer obligations. We’ve seen amendments that he has made in respect of the roles and responsibilities that chief executives have as employers. A key question within that context is: is it the intention of these changes to maintain a core part of the State sector reforms of 1988, where pre-1988, the Crown was, effectively, the employer of our thousands of public servants? The 1988 State Sector Act shifted that and made it the chief executive of each particular agency.

We see changes here in the functions in clause 51 of this Part 3 around the functions of chief executives. I would like the Minister to go through those 24 changes in this Part and explain why this is, effectively, the employment part of the bill that affects over tens of thousands of public servants. What is the reason for the changes from his original bill around those issues of the good employer requirements, those changes around the responsibilities of the chief executives, and is he able to assure the committee that the Government, in these changes and in the bill, is not attempting to screw the scrum either in favour of individual or, my greater worry with the union involvement in the Government, screw the scrum towards collective agreements? And can we take reassurance that this legislation is neutral on that and will allow the Public Service to reorganise themselves in terms of wage bargaining on the basis that best works for them, without any inherent bias?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the Minister to respond to the member, could I just say that I understand that when you’ve been following one process for a long time, as the member has, it’s quite difficult to change to a new process. But the House has agreed that the committee stage of debates are no longer where members aim for the target of five minutes, but they have a conversation with the Minister. In every contribution the member has made, he has aimed for his target of five minutes and put a question in the middle of it. That is not the process any longer that the House has agreed to.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I can respond to the member’s contribution. I’m not entirely sure exactly what his question was, but with regard to negotiation of collective agreements and the good employer provisions in the bill, the Government’s intention is to align these provisions with the Employment Relations Act, which is what we believe the bill does. It’s not our intention to change the employment relationship as defined in the Employment Relations Act. Of course, it does carry forward the provisions of the conventions, the current processes under the State Sector Act, where the departmental chief executives are the employer. That continues.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I’ll ask a very direct question, then. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, in introducing the bill, made exactly the same statements; what the Minister has not answered is that he is making 24 amendments to Part 3. So my simple question to the Minister is: what are those 24 changes? In clause 42, in clause 45, and clause 48, there is a whole series of changes. Something has obviously changed from what was in Part 3, in which all the same assurances—it’s just a transfer of the old Act; that it’s just reinforcing the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. What are the changes that have been made from the bill in his Supplementary Order Paper 549, and why?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): They are the changes agreed by the Governance and Administration Committee.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for the Minister, a direct one. In clause 73 it says “Chief executives and boards to promote diversity and inclusiveness.” In his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) he has proposed to delete some part of it. In the last sentence of subclause (1)(a) it says it should “reflect the makeup of society;”. So I did ask the State Services Commissioner whether he was satisfied with the diversity presently in the public sector and his answer was no. So my question to the Minister is: how is he going to ensure that there is a true reflection of the society which makes up New Zealand today and how is he going to address this issue when there is a clear clause 73—what he’s proposing in his SOP?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): If the member refers to clause 73(1), I think the important words to refer to are the very first ones: “A chief executive of a department and a board of an interdepartmental venture must—(a) … [be guided by] the principle that … the group comprising all public service employees … [should] reflect the makeup of society;”. So it puts the onus to ensure that happens back on to the chief executives.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Firstly, I want to respond to the point that was made by the Minister when he claimed “Oh, I don’t have to answer those questions because they were agreed to at the select committee.” Having been a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, can I make absolutely plain to the Minister that the committee did not agree. The committee did not have time to agree. So for him to avoid my very real questions about the changes to Part 3 of the bill, saying “Oh that’s just what the select committee”—the select committee did not agree on any of the changes. It was not able to conclude its deliberation. We did not get the Parliamentary Counsel Office. This is the first that we have seen of the specific changes.

I want to refer quite specifically to clauses 73 and 74 of Part 3 of the bill. Clauses 73 and 74 provide for the commissioner’s obligations in respect of promoting diversity and inclusiveness. My question for the Minister is: what’s changed from when he introduced the bill? Why is he proposing to delete clause 74? Clause 74 sets out the commissioner’s functions in relation to diversity and inclusiveness and says that the commissioner’s functions include developing and maintaining guidance and standards for diversity and inclusiveness in respect of the employment of persons in the public sector, and reporting three-yearly on the diversity and inclusion. So my simple question to the Minister—in fact, if I refer back on when this bill was introduced, a number of Labour members specifically made reference to how good it was that clause 74 was in the bill. So my question to the Minister or any member of the Government is as to why clause 74 is being deleted.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I thank the member for his comments. If he refers to the next part—but this is a drafting change. It’s not a question of removing the obligations; it’s a question of how they’re reflected in the legislation. So clause 74 has been removed, but in the next part, he will see that diversity and inclusion has been added into clause 97(2)(da), which is included there, and there are further obligations around the reporting of that contained elsewhere. So it’s simply a question not of whether those things should be required but where they are reflected within the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Minister has said that in respect of the provision that he’s deleting in clause 74—and I remind the House that this is a 200-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 549, that we’ve had for 24 hours. It has not been possible in 24 hours for me to go through and cross-check each of the amendments. My first question to the Minister: what is the substance of the change in deleting clause 74 around the commissioner’s obligations for diversity and inclusiveness? It’s not enough to simply say that, well, the provision has moved from there to there. I think Parliament deserves an answer. What is the effect of the changes in deleting clause 74, as he proposes to do in the SOP? I have a similar set of questions with respect towards—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, can we just get that answered now? Do you want to just answer that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The answer is that in terms of the substance, none. The different clauses that are referred to—and Schedule 3 has the other part of that around the reporting requirements—still require exactly the same thing. They’re just expressed in a different part of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): But the Minister is still not providing an explanation. If the effect of the change is absolutely nothing, why do it? Why wasn’t his original bill, the requirements around providing the three-yearly reports, putting a specific function on diversity and inclusiveness—if the intention is to make no change at all, well, why is—there must be some reason why the bill as introduced and the bill on which members of the public submitted is being changed by the SOP. It is not a good enough explanation to simply say, “Oh, well, look, I’m changing it, and there is no reason to change it.” Well, I’m sorry. That doesn’t stack up. There must be a reason for making the change around that issue of diversity and inclusiveness.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Improving legislative quality is, of course, a legitimate part of the parliamentary process.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I know that this Parliament has had huge debate over the issue of pay equity. Pay equity is a really important issue. It’s something that the select committee spent a significant period of time on. In the SOP that we have had less than 24 hours to study, I see that clause 80 has been deleted and has been replaced by a new set of nine new clauses. It’s been difficult, in the very brief one day that we’ve had access to this huge SOP, to be able to establish what the impact—why we’ve deleted the original clause 80, why we have introduced a new clause 80, and what is the material effect of the changes. So my question to the Minister: why change clause 80 around pay equity claims? What’s the practical effect of the extensive changes made to provisions in Part 3 around those pay equity claims?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The new clause 80 reflects the feedback received in the submissions to the select committee. Those changes were, of course, outlined in the departmental report, which the select committee agreed. The select committee did not then get the revision-tracked version, which reflected the decisions that the committee had made, because the committee was unable to do that in the time that was available to it. But the member is wrong to say that he is unfamiliar with these changes. These were the changes that were outlined in the departmental report by the officials who were working at that point not as advisers to Government but as advisers to the select committee.

Kiritapu Allan: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m just going to keep the train of thought, so save your thighs.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Parliament’s not seeking an answer around process, Minister. The Parliament is seeking an answer as to what is the effect of the changes, and it’s not good enough to say, “Oh, it’s in the departmental report.” This is the first occasion that Opposition members have had to see the detail of legislation, and in an area like pay equity, it’s important. So I ask the Minister again: what is the actual practical effect for pay equity claims of the deleted clause 80 as compared with the new clause he’s wanting the Parliament to adopt?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I think, as I indicated to the member before, the substantive change really is just to clarify things. It doesn’t make substantive change. It does clarify the responsibilities of the commissioner in the process, which, of course, is something which there hasn’t been good clarity around before. It was one of the things that came up in the submissions process. So these changes reflect that. The main thrust of the change, really, is to clarify the role of the commissioner.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is hardly good enough to tell the Parliament that, well, what we’re doing in clause 80 around pay equity claims is clarifying the role of the commissioner. We were told when the bill was introduced that it clarified the role of the commissioner. We were told now that, well, the new clause clarifies the role of the commissioner. My question for the Minister is how it clarifies the role of the commissioner. What is different? If you’ve deleted a whole clause and introduced another new page of law, we deserve an answer as to what has been changed, and how does this better clarify it, if he wants to put it that way. What is the difference in the role of the commissioner under the old bill and the new law as to what he’s seeking to clarify?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The wording is clearer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): That is about as clear as mud, if I might say, and it does show what a sham of a process we have over such important law.

I now turn to the redundancy provisions. This is hugely significant for our thousands of public servants, and, again, where the Minister is expecting the Parliament under urgency to ram through legislation that impacts on tens of thousands of public servants, legislation and wording that we’ve only seen for a bit over 24 hours, and the way in which those redundancy payments take effect. We heard a huge number of submissions from members of the public, including the Public Service Association, on when there is eligibility for a redundancy payment and when it is ineligible. Now, the National Party’s on the provision that says if a person moves from one public agency to another and they have a continuity of their employment conditions, then we don’t think it is wise use of taxpayers’ money for them to receive a big redundancy cheque.

So there is a need for reform from the old State Sector Act 1988. We understand and actually share the frustration of taxpayers that someone that gets made redundant from one department and picks up a job at a restructured department the next day walks away with an unusual bonus. But my question, and equally the opposite way round, is nor do we want to in this legislation put it so much in the powers in the hands of the State that you can do a workaround to, effectively, disentitle a member of the Public Service from their redundancy payments. Now, what we see again in clause 87 and in respect of 89 around interdepartmental arrangements is changes to the law around these redundancy entitlements. My question to the Minister: what is the practical effect of the changes he is making to the redundancy entitlements of public servants in respect of Government changes in agencies and in respect of the issue of interdepartmental agencies?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The changes that the bill makes are, of course, the very issue that the member has referred to, which is where there is a restructuring or a rearrangement and someone gets basically offered their job back but at a different department or agency, but they’re still doing substantively the same job, then they shouldn’t get redundancy. So in clause 87(1), paragraphs (a) and (b) set out how we define whether it’s the same job—you know, whether it’s a comparable or equivalent job—to ensure that we’re not providing redundancy where those conditions are met.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My specific question, though, is—know all of that; had extensive discussion in the Governance and Administration Committee about all of that. What we didn’t know was that this subclause (2) is being deleted and replaced, and my simple question to the Minister is this change that he’s made at the last minute, in the last 24 hours, to these redundancy provisions—what is its practical effect?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Its practical effect, as with many things, the member will be aware, is greater clarity and clearer wording.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well, again, we get to this position where the Minister says it provides greater clarity. How? What is the level, because at the moment it is as clear as mud. To simply stand up and to say, “Oh, we’re deleting that clause and putting this new clause because provides it greater clarity.”—you’re talking about tens of thousands of public servants, their rights to redundancy payments and making sure that’s fair, making sure public money’s not being wasted. What is the practical effect of his Supplementary Order Paper in deleting and replacing section 90 of the old State Sector Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Semantics.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 52

New Zealand National 51; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Government workforce policy

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us, colleagues, to Part 4, debate on clauses 95 to 102, “Government workforce policy”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I’m interested in engaging in this important Part that deals with the process of Government workforce policy statements. I’ve heard the debate in Parliament for 30 years that if only the Public Service was able to plan how many nurses and doctors and teachers and all those things that we perfectly required, we would end up with a better quality Public Service. National is of the view that you do need some level of workforce planning. We’re also of a view that there will always be a level of uncertainty. New Zealand doesn’t control how many New Zealanders come home or leave, and there are many other elements of technology and others that affect pressures on the Public Service and the number of staff.

We’ve long seen the trend that when the New Zealand economy is very strong, we tend to get a drift of people from the Public Service to the private sector, and then during times of economic hardship you get a greater degree of flow the other way, where those that work for the Public Service have a greater degree of stability.

Now, one of the concerns and the first question I want to ask of the Minister is when do we expect to see the Government produce its first Government workforce policy statement under these provisions? The reason I ask that question is a number of submitters said that there should be a requirement for the Government to, in the law, have such a workforce policy statement and to update it at regular periods. So my question to the Minister is: what assurances can he give about the timetable for producing workforce policy statements, when would he expect the first one to be delivered, and if they really are going to be grunty and contribute to a more effective Public Service, what is his attitude to those proposals that said there should be a legal requirement to produce them with this particular time frame? We have all sorts of statutes on our book where public servants, particularly our control agencies like Treasury and the like, can do things, but unless they have statutory requirements to do them within a particular timetable they can drift forever. So firstly a question on workforce policy statements, timetables, and whether we should statutorily require them by time.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I think the member raises a good point in his early part of the contribution that, you know, I think all Governments would like to think that we could do a better job of forecasting the demand for certain types of skills. Governments have not always been able to do that in a particularly reliable way, and I don’t think we should pretend that there’s some magical answer to that. There’s always going to be a challenge there about getting the right balance of skills across our public services. We’ll always, I think, strive to do better.

With regard to when a public workforce policy statement may be produced, that will, of course, be a matter for the next Government. It’s not my intention or the Government’s intention to produce a statement under this legislation—assuming it gets passed in the next 24 hours—before the election, but I would envisage it would be a reasonably high priority for a new Government after the election.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The question I asked the Minister was: should there be a statutory requirement to both deliver a Government workforce policy statement within a particular time frame and for it to be reviewed at a regular level, not necessarily religious as to whether it be three years or five years—that’s what a number of submitters have said. I note he has not picked that up, even though it was strongly submitted on at the select committee that such a requirement should exist, and so my question to the Minister: why not have a specific timetable for delivering a Government workforce policy statement, and isn’t there a real risk that unless there is a requirement to do so, it won’t happen?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): In very brief answer to that, the current Government’s position is that there shouldn’t be a legislated requirement around the timetable for that. That’s a matter for different Governments to make decisions on, and different Governments will have different views upon that, so the law should be flexible enough to allow, say, an incoming Government to usher a new workforce policy statement if they wished to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The second important line of questioning is that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper excludes a significant agency. It’s very important for this Parliament that in clause 101, and in respect of clause 97, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Parliamentary Service are specifically excluded. Now, I support those. In my view, these are very important separation of powers. It’s not for the Government of the day to be telling the Parliament and the important Offices of Parliament what they do. In my view, you had a risk with the bill as introduced by the Minister that you had the Government of the day intruding on the independence of those agencies. So National is supportive of maintaining the constitutional separation of those.

Here’s the question, though: there are a large number of other agencies that had an independence from the Crown; why has the Minister drawn the line? So, for instance, if we look at the New Zealand Police, in my view, actually, one of the most important protections that we must jealously guard is the independence of the New Zealand Police and the Commissioner of Police around issues of investigations and prosecution. We all know what happens in countries where that process gets politicised. So what I’m interested in testing the Minister on is in making the decisions that his original bill was wrong—that it should not have included the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Parliamentary Service, the Ombudsman, Auditor-General, and Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner—why has he included others that do have independence, and what is the justification for the new line that he has drawn around the appropriateness of these workforce policy statements and the powers it gives to the State Services Commissioner to have a role in those agencies? Why are there still quite a large number of agencies that have statutory independence? I make the differentiation—I excuse if the language is not perfect. There’s the constitutional separation between the Parliament and the State sector but there is what I would call a statutory independence of a large number of other agencies. Is it really necessary for them to be included within the parameters of what the State Services Commissioner does and the application of these workforce policy statements?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I think the member answered his own question in his very last contribution there. There is a distinction between a constitutional separation, if you like, and a statutory separation or statutory independence. Constitutional separation says that the Parliament and the executive are different and should be treated differently. These provisions weren’t my provisions. They are carried-forward provisions from the State Sector Act. As we got into this discussion, the Clerk of the House and the head of the Parliamentary Service in particular raised questions about whether they should be removed. The Speaker wrote to me and indicated his view that they should. I did consult extensively with parties in Parliament through the Parliamentary Service Commission because I don’t think the executive should make these decisions unilaterally; I think they are, rightly, decisions for the Parliament. I would not have inserted these provisions into this bill had I not been convinced that there was, effectively, unanimous support for them across the House because of the constitutional nature of the changes that we’re making here. So, we have consulted extensively with the member’s party to ensure that these provisions are broadly supported across the House—and they are.

The governing conventions that apply to the police and the Defence Force are not changed by this legislation, so excluding them would, effectively, change the conventions by which they operate at the moment. It’s not our intention to change those existing conventions that already apply.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I wanted some clarity. Is the Minister saying—when he responded to my question he said that Government workforce policy statements, including the Clerk of the House of Representatives and these other offices, were already in the State Sector Act. Is that what he is claiming—that for workforce policy statements, the original bill was consistent with State Sector Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I think the point that I was making to the member is that the offices concerned—so the Office of the Ombudsmen, the Office of the Auditor-General, the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—were covered by parts of the existing State Sector Act. The decision that we have made is to remove them completely from the State Sector Act. With regard to these workforce provisions, of course, some of these provisions are new, so they wouldn’t have been included in the previous legislation. But the principal point that I was making to the member is that aspects of the operations of those entities were previously covered by the State Sector Act. They are now being completely removed from this legislation, and they will be covered by their own legislation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): That’s where I think the Minister was incorrect. He said that “Well, look, the reason this was in the initial bill was because it’s just a carry-over from the State Sector Act.” That is not correct. These workforce policy statements are new provisions. He made a choice incorrectly and made a mistake in introducing the bill with the provision of those offices. It is simply misleading for him to be saying, “Oh, well, the reason they’re in there is it’s just a carry-over from the State Sector Act.” That is not correct, and, actually, it’s really important that the House recognise that and correct the overstretch.

The consultation with other political parties about crossing over into the powers of the House of Representatives and including them should have occurred before the bill was introduced rather than now. I do ask the Minister about those agents that are still included, and that is—I’ll give a good example: the courts. They have a very important independence. Is it his intention that the workforce policy statements would apply to the bench of the judiciary, and how does that deal with the proper separations between the courts and the Government? I look at an agency like parliamentary counsel that is specifically listed. So I go back to my original question. The Minister has, effectively, said, “Yeah, I got it wrong. I shouldn’t have included the House of Representatives. I shouldn’t have included the Office of the Clerk. I shouldn’t have included the Parliamentary Service.” My question is: do these provisions cover workforce planning for the judiciary? And is that appropriate?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The answer to the question is yes, they do. The member can see that it covers all of the—the courts, of course, are covered; they are administered by a Government department. There is separate legislation, of course, that governs the courts. Nothing in here could override the independence that they have under the legislation which gives them that independence. The distinction made here around the Office of the Clerk, the House of Representatives, and the Parliamentary Service, of course, is that they do not report to the executive.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well, I’d say to the Minister, with due respect, neither do our judges. Has he consulted with the judges that they will be covered by these workforce planning documents? And it is appropriate for the State Services Commission, both in developing Government workforce policy statements, to have the influence that is provided in these set of clauses. Would he not accept that our judges deserve the same level of independence as the House of Representatives? So I ask: has there been consultation about the inclusion of the judges in the workforce policy statements, and is that constitutionally appropriate? We’ve properly separated the House of Representatives. I would suggest the judicial bench is in a similar position.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I have just received clarity for the member. Judges are not covered by this; it’s only Public Service employees of the Ministry of Justice who would be covered.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This shows the nonsense of, under urgency, passing 300 pages of Supplementary Order Papers on the hop—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, what I think it shows is the benefit of the committee where the Opposition are able to ask the questions that the member is asking and get the clarification of what is the legislation that is before us. There may well be a process that the member doesn’t like, and the member’s taken many opportunities to refer to that. But the benefit of this process is exactly what the member’s doing now, which is asking questions and getting answers and clarifying what this legislation is about.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. But I ask a question of the Minister: does it cover the judiciary? He says yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no he didn’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes he did.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, he didn’t, actually. In those words, he did not. It has now been clarified that they’re not covered, because they’re not—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Which I am much reassured by—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good, so can we move on?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, that was only as a consequence of the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Of asking the questions—my point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right indeed. Indeed, that as a Minister, any member listening to the House to the Minister’s would’ve drawn the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Move on.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —conclusion that they were included. Well, can we get some clarity in other areas? We have a Children’s Commissioner, we have a Retirement Commissioner, we have a large number of those. Can the Minister clarify whether they are included in these provisions?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ll check, if the member wants to keep going—I’ll check.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister doesn’t know.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): He’s going to ask advice.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I do have to say, when we’re being asked to pass law under urgency, where we have only 24 hours, I make no apologies for this House for not understanding 200 pages of legislation I only got 24 hours ago.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, look, I am going to stop the member because the new process that we are implementing here in the committee stage is a question and answer. In fairness, where we had five-minute speeches, and sometimes a member could expand on that and take a 10-minute speech, the Minister had adequate time to seek advice from the officials who are here to help with the detail. But in this case, where it is a pretty quick question and answer and we don’t need to have five-minute speeches for each question, the Minister is able to seek advice. That’s why every committee stage has officials here, and he is perfectly able to seek clarification and advice from the officials. That’s what he’s doing.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can’t wait for the answer.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I refer the member to clause 101. I do just want to pick up a point that the member made. All of these provisions, of course, have been through the full select committee process. There are only two minor wording amendments to these provisions that have not been through the full select committee process. So all of these provisions—the member has had ample time to scrutinise those.

But with regard to clause 101, it does specify the difference between an autonomous Crown entity and a Public Service agency. So a Public Service agency or Crown entity must give effect to the workforce policy statement; an autonomous Crown entity must have regard to a Government workforce policy statement.

So the people that member just raised, like the Children’s Commissioner, would be regarded as an autonomous Crown entity. So they have to have regard to it, but they would not have to follow it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I strongly disagree with the Minister that the select committee had ample opportunity to ask these questions. We did not. I remind the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, that the Parliament was in the COVID emergency for a good period of the three months. When the Minister says that the select committee did a complete process, that is not true. The committee could not agree on the bill. The bill was not reported back to the House. So that statement is simply false.

Now, I want some clarity in respect of this part as to where it covers. We’ve had a mistake from the Minister as to whether the judges are in or out. The Children’s Commissioner—I’d like to know is he covered? I’d like to know whether the issue of the Tenancy Tribunal—is it covered? Is the Tenancy Tribunal covered by the workforce planning documents? Simple answer: yes or no.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Well, it would depend which categorisation they’re under. So look, can I clarify for the member the bill makes it very clear what’s regarded as a Public Service agency and what’s regarded as an autonomous Crown entity. So the member is, of course, welcome to read the bill to—I’m not going to go through every individual department or agency and identify which categorisation they fall under. The member’s welcome to do that at his own leisure if he wishes to. But it makes it very clear that if they’re part of the Public Service—so they are a Public Service agency or a Crown agent—they must give effect to the workforce policy statements. If they are an autonomous Crown entity such as the Children’s Commissioner, which clearly is, then they only have to have regard to it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It’s not good enough for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, to simply say, “Oh, well, the Minister should read the bill.” This is a 200-page bill for which the Minister introduced a Supplementary Order Paper 24 hours ago to make 200 pages of changes. I’m a diligent member of Parliament, but actually to give that sort of level of detail the scrutiny it deserves is simply impossible for any human being, and I suspect there’s not a member of Parliament in this House that has gone through the 200—

Louisa Wall: Did you read the departmental report?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I did, but here’s the—the member opposite says “Have I read the departmental report?” You know what that says?

Louisa Wall: That you’re a good member of the select committee.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, it says that we just do what the Public Service says. Whatever the department says; that’s what the Government does. Well, actually, I don’t have that view.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is very important to note in terms of Parliament’s constitutional principles that we operate under, when Public Service departments are advising committees, they are acting as advisers to the committees, not as advisers to the Government. What the member is saying is an outrageous slander on the quality of our public services and it should not be allowed to stand.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, are you speaking to the same point of order or is it a different point of order?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You’re speaking to the same point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am. The Minister has made the claim that the advice that is given to officials at select committee is completely independent of the Government of the day. That is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, that is not correct. The Minister has said that the department officials are providing advice to the select committee; they are not providing advice to the Government. That’s a true statement.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is true. But equally, it is true—and I’ve been in many select committees where officials have made plain the advice that they are giving to the committee is on the direction of Cabinet and the Minister.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: But let’s see what’s occurred here. The Labour—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, we have a point of order taken by the Minister. I gave you the opportunity to speak to that. I think that the Minister is correct and, rightly, we must not in this House attribute the accusations against public servants. They are doing their job and they are—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I didn’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I think you were. I think you were very close to it and I am upholding the objection by the Minister, so let’s continue, but let’s—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make my point very plain, Madam Chairperson, and it is this. The Labour member interjected—and that was that the departmental report should stand and that’s it. Actually, it’s the job of this Parliament to not just rubber-stamp the departmental report but to scrutinise it, and I shall continue to do so. I simply want an answer from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins. If you take the Ministry of Justice, he’d have said that the judges are excluded. My question to him is that there are a whole lot of layers within the Ministry of Justice. Is the Tenancy Tribunal? Is the Employment Tribunal? Are the disputes tribunals—are they covered by the provisions of this part?

Hon Chris Hipkins: I think the comment that I made to the member before is that their independence as specified in the laws that establish those bodies is not changed.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The question I asked the Minister was not whether they’ve changed, but whether they are included by this part. Does Part 4—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That isn’t a point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I haven’t had an answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, that’s the point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So my point of order is: I’ve asked the Minister does Part 4 of this bill that we cover, cover those aspects of the justice ministry—Tenancy Tribunal, Employment Tribunal, disputes tribunal?

Hon Chris Hipkins: As I said to the member before, it would depend on the legal form of those various agencies. If they are a Public Service agency or a Crown agent, then they must give effect to it. If they are an autonomous Crown entity, then they must have regard to it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m still none the wiser.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think we’ll have a little bit more but we don’t want to get repetitive. You’ve asked a question—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, I’ve asked the question but I haven’t had an answer.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, it has been answered. You might not be satisfied with the answer but it has been answered.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, no, what the Minister in the chair has said is, “Well, I actually don’t know whether those tribunals are included.” He made a mistake about whether the judiciary was included. I’m expecting the Ministry of Justice—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look, I’m sorry, but I have already said that he did not make a mistake with the judiciary because he did not use the word “judiciary”. You used “courts”.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I used the word “judges”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): And he talked about—his answer to you was about the courts being public servants and using public funding, so let’s stop that, because that’s not correct.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It is reasonable to ask over Part 4 of this bill as to which Government agencies are included, and which parts of them. What we’ve got from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Hipkins, is confusing answers: go look at this schedule or go look at that to determine that. Actually, we’re making amendments. We have seen that the original bill made a mistake in including the House of Representatives, the Clerk’s Office, the Auditor-General, and other officers. I’m just simply seeking clarity as to whether those tribunals that sit within the Ministry of Justice—we’ve got clarity that our District Court judges, our Supreme Court judges, our High Court judges are not included, and my question to the Minister is: are those large number of tribunals that deal with tenancy disputes and employment covered by this part?

Hon Member: Stop asking the same question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I just want an answer—[Interruption] Well, are they? Are they in or out?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re not going to have a debate across the Chamber. We’re either having a debate properly or we’ll move on. But I think, in fairness, the member’s asked a question. He’s had an answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, my question was whether they are included. What I’ve been told is “Have a look at another part of the bill.” I’ve had a look at another part of the bill. There is no specific reference to those tribunals, and I am none the wiser. Now, what I do know is that the original bill made a mistake, including agencies that properly should be independent. For me to be told that I’ve had an answer when I have not—does any member in this Parliament know whether Part 4 of this bill applies to the large number of immigration, employment, judicial disputes, and other tribunals? Can any member in the House—Minister or anybody else—tell me whether they are included?

So here we are under urgency, passing law and not knowing what we’re doing. I make no apologies as a member of Parliament for saying when I pass law, I want to know what it’s about, because in the last two months we’ve passed laws and we’ve found out afterwards it was a very different law to what we had requested. So if any member of Parliament or the Government could tell whether those tribunals are included or not, I think the Parliament deserves an answer.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Part 5 Offence, immunity, responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993, and public service reorganisations

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Part 5 is debate on clauses 103 to 106 and Schedule 9.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): In Part 5 of this bill, in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), the intention is to remove clause 105. Clause 105 in the bill, as introduced by the Minister, requires that a departmental agency comply with section 23 of the Privacy Act. Now, the huge responsibility that our Public Service agencies have and the effective management of privacy laws is important. My first question for the Minister is: why is clause 105 being removed? My second question is: if clause 105 is being removed, why is there still reference in the title of Part 5 to responsibilities under the Privacy Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I can confirm to the member that these changes were made on the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, and, again, it comes back to a drafting issue in that these provisions are covered by Part 6.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well, that’s hardly a good enough answer. The title of Part 5 reads “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993”; you would then expect, in Part 5, for there to be some reference to the Privacy Act, but the Minister’s SOP deletes clause 105 so that there is no reference to the Privacy Act. I think the Minister has made an error. I think that if the law is to make any sense, the words “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993” should be deleted.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I don’t think he’s going to answer that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Madam Chair, the responsibilities of our Government agencies to respect privacy is actually a very, very important, huge issue. So I do ask the Minister why he is removing clause 105, that puts a responsibility on departments to comply with the Privacy Act, with his SOP, and why does the title of the Part specifically state “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993”, when, with the Minister’s SOP, there is no reference to the Privacy Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I can refer the member specifically to clauses 108A onwards, in Supplementary Order Paper 549, which makes it clear that in the tidying up drafting of the legislation and the amendments, the Parliamentary Counsel Office have recommended shifting these provisions into the Privacy Act 1993 itself, and that’s what the changes do.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The Minister’s explanation does not satisfy us. We’re here to debate Part 5; those provisions are not in Part 5. There is nothing in Part 5 that makes reference to the Privacy Act. Now, the Minister in the chair has—if I started talking about issues in Part 6 or further on, I’d probably be told off.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You will.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You will.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Will. Well, the Minister’s just referred to parts later in the bill. Part—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In answer to your question, yeah.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That’s right. So my question to the Minister is: there is no reference in Part 5, under his SOP, to the Privacy Act, so why does the title of Part 5 say “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993”? There’s an error; there’s a mistake in the Minister’s law. I’m just not going to rubber-stamp law that makes no sense.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I’ve just sought further advice, and the member is correct: there has been an editing error in regards to this. So that is something that we will certainly look at.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House for the words “responsibility of departmental agencies under Privacy Act 1993” to be deleted from the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Isn’t it somewhat concerning that, under urgency, passing legislation—200 pages of it—for all of the hundreds of officials, for all the members of Parliament in the House, we’ve got errors in the law? My question for the Minister is: what other errors might there be in this law, and will he give the committee an absolute assurance that there are no other mistakes in the bill? There are 200 pages of SOP that have not gone to a select committee that he is trying to rush through the Parliament. So what I’m seeking from the Minister is that we’ve found a mistake in his law, with respect to the Privacy Act—a pretty important Act. What other mistakes are there in the law, and can he give this committee an absolute assurance that there aren’t any other mistakes in his 200-page SOP?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Of course, I can confirm that, from time to time, people, in drafting of legislation, do make mistakes—and that does happen from time to time. We have a whole process that the Parliament has put in place to tidy those matters up: it’s called the Statutes Amendment Bill. You’ll see hundreds of amendments passed by this Parliament every year that tidy up minor drafting errors with legislation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): So does the Minister accept responsibility for the error in his SOP?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We’re just not quite sure that we can do what we’ve just done, but I think they are quickly drafting an amendment to make it formal, but the committee can do it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Doesn’t it speak volumes that on one of the most important statutes that sits on our law books—the relationship between this Parliament and the tens of thousands of public servants—rushing a bill through in which we have now found an error about something as significant as privacy—

Hon Member: Under urgency.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —under urgency—200 pages of SOP, of which there is an error in respect of application of the Privacy Act—actually, this Parliament is owed an apology. It’s owed an apology by the Minister for rushing the process. I ask again: can the Minister give an absolute assurance—absolute assurance—that there are no other errors in Part 5 of this bill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I can clearly say that I’m not going to apologise for the incompetence of the Governance and Administration Committee that were unable to complete their deliberations on this bill by the extended deadline they were given.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Point of order. So let’s see where we’ve now ended up—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, no, no, no, no. The member has a point of order?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I’m speaking—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): But I thought you said “point of order”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I didn’t; I said “there is a point”. The point is this: so now the Minister in the chair is saying that the select committee is responsible for the SOP in his name. Didn’t we just hear that from the Minister? This is a Minister that won’t take responsibility. If the wheels fall off and there’s an error, “Oh, that’s the select committee and the National Party’s fault.” Well, whose SOP is this in the name of, Minister?

Minister, I refer you to the fact that this is not the select committee report; this is a 200-page SOP that has Chris Hipkins’ name on it. For him to now stand up in the Chamber and say that these errors in Part 5 of this bill are the responsibility of the select committee is truly disgraceful. This is just an example of another Minister who will not take responsibility for his mistakes and will try and blame it on the select committee. That is very unfair on the select committee; it is really rather desperate.

I simply ask the question again, having found an error in Part 5, in respect to reference of the Privacy Act: are there other errors in Part 5?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are we done?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’ve asked a question of the Minister. The question is—we know that Part 5 has an error in it. The Government is scrambling to fix that up because the provision that refers to departmental agencies’ responsibilities under the Privacy Act 1993 is wrong. There’s an error in the bill. The question that I have put—and I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question—is: can the Minister give an assurance that there are no other errors in Part 5 of the bill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): No other errors that I know of.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Before we vote on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) on Part 5 and then have a vote on the amended Part 5, could we have clarity as to whether the issue of the error that’s been identified—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah, there’s a tabled amendment. There is a tabled amendment. We’re just going to vote on it now.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So amendment has been tabled. Is that a separate SOP, just so for the voting it can be clear?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes, I have it in front of me—hang on. So I have an amendment in front of me that replaces the Part 5 heading with “Offence, immunity, and public service reorganisations”. So that’s the Minister’s tabled amendment to the Part 5 heading—hang on. It’s the Minister’s tabled amendment to SOP 549 to the Part 5 heading, and, for the benefit of the committee, it reads: to “Replace the Part 5 heading with: ‘Offence, immunity, and public service reorganisations’ ”.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to:

Replace the Part 5 heading with: “Offence, immunity, and public service reorganisations”.

Amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 556 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.

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

Ayes 52

New Zealand National 51; Ross.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Part 6 Amendments to enactments, repeals, and revocations

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Colleagues, that brings us to Part 6, debate on clauses 107 to 112 and Schedules 10 and 11. This is amendments to enactments, repeals, and revocations.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My first question on Part 6 of this bill is in respect of the amendments to the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988. These are significantly different to what was in the bill and amended by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 549. My question for the Minister in the chair is: what is the practical effect of the new provisions that he has added? Just to be really clear about my question—we became familiar with what Part 6 of the bill did, in amending the Clerk of the House Act, in respect of the bill as introduced. Those provisions have now changed. What I’d like is a practical explanation of the SOP and how it changes the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988 with these amendments that we’ve only had for 24 hours.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): It has the same effect as the ones that we debated earlier, which is to remove the Officers of Parliament and the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk from any coverage of the Public Service legislation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My question is that if indeed that were correct, that this amended Act would make absolutely no change to the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act, then we would be making no amendments to the Clerk—that was, that we’d completely do that. Now, I accept we need to amend the original bill, but the key provision I want an answer to is: what changes are we making to the Clerk of the House, because it’s quite clear from this part of the bill that we are still making some changes to the Clerk of the House Act, and could he clarify that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The reason for that is under the State Sector Act, there are some provisions currently that the Clerk has to follow—that the Office of the Clerk are covered by in the State Sector Act. As we remove those, we can’t leave a void. So the insertion into the legislation covering the Clerk of the House of Representatives is to ensure that we’re not creating a legislative hole where there are no provisions. So it’s as we remove the Office of the Clerk from being covered by what was the State Sector Act, soon to be the Public Service Act, we’re not creating a hole. So we’re inserting an equivalent provision so that they’re covered into the legislation that affects them.

It basically means that the commission is no longer involved, that the Clerk themselves conducts—this clause specifically relates to negotiations with unions. The public commissioner no longer has any involvement in that. It’s very clear that that’s conducted completely independently by the Clerk.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): So, again, just to get clarity from the Minister, when the staff of the Clerk of the House of Representatives sit down to negotiate their terms of employment, what changes as a consequence of the passage of this law? We knew that under the original bill as introduced there was an inappropriate intrusion through this Public Service Legislation Bill. We’ve pulled that back, and National members welcome that, but I still just ask the practical question, and that is: as a consequence—and, again, we have only seen these changes 24 hours ago. I just simply want the clarity as to what’s the practical effect for the Clerk of the House of these amendments. If there was no impact at all, we would see there being no amendments at all to the Clerk of the House. What is the practical effect of these four clauses that amend the Clerk of the House Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): Well, I just answered that for the member, if he’d listened to my answer. By removing the Clerk from having any coverage by the Public Service Commissioner, it creates a legislative hole that needs to be filled. So that legislative hole is filled by inserting these provisions into the legislation that covers the Clerk.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well, I’m sorry, Minister, that is not what we have before us. What we have is that these provisions are repealed. So what we have in the provision of new clauses 106B, 106C, and 106C(2) is the addition of the words “after consultation with the State Services Commission”. But the Minister’s explanation that we’re adding a new function to the role of the Clerk of the House of Representatives cannot be correct, because there is no new function added. All we are doing is repealing particular sections. So can the Minister clarify, when he says that there are additional functions for the Clerk of the House, where are those in the bill? I cannot see them.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): So the issue is that at the moment, under current law, the Clerk of the House has to consult with the commissioner. We have that, so that is what clause 106B does—it removes the obligation on the Clerk to consult with the commissioner. But that, of course, then creates a bit of a gap, which is what clause 106D fills. It means that it is the Clerk of the House of Representatives who has the overall responsibilities here. So it is literally—these are significant wording changes, and I do understand that. But they all have the same effect, which is to mean that the Office of the Clerk will operate completely independently.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I thank the Minister of State Services for that explanation that no new function is being added, but what we’re doing is simply separating the Clerk of the House from some of the overview, currently, of the State Services Commissioner. Now, the amendments that the Minister is making to the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act are actually pretty important. If we look at tragedies that have occurred where the Public Service has failed and if we look at the commissions of inquiry that occurred with Cave Creek—which was an example where the Crown failed in its obligations, with the Department of Conservation conducting negligible actions, and there was some argument as to whether they were criminal.

My question for the Minister is that with those amendments to the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act—and it may feel pedantic, but I have to tell you that when you get a tragedy like Pike River or a tragedy like the CTV Building or the likes of Cave Creek, there are very important questions that the public ask about accountability and liability. The key question I have, particularly in respect of the specification that the Minister is amending with his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around the departmental agencies—so the debate here, Minister, is in respect of the criminal liability of Crown organisations. When they really screw up, which are the agencies that get covered by that Act for that criminal liability, and how is that being changed with the SOP and the specific provisions of Government agencies? In other words, what I’m interested in is how are we changing the criminal liability of Government departments when they screw up really badly, and, from a practical effect, which Government agencies are being included and excluded from the parameters of the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act?

Again, I say it may sound a bit nerdish and a bit technical, but I have to tell you that when you have a tragedy like Cave Creek and you have the loss of life and there is a question of manslaughter or criminal negligence, the coverage of the Crown organisation is a very, very real issue, and what the Parliament needs to be clear about is when that criminal liability is being changed. The reason we need to be a bit cautious is that I’m one of those that says that the liabilities of the Crown or of Government departments should be no greater or any less than a private organisation, and sometimes, because we write the law, we exempt those issues from liability. So I’d appreciate a Minister’s answer around the questions of criminal liability.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): There is no change to criminal liability here. All this does is insert an interdepartmental venture or a departmental agency into the coverage of the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act. As these are a new type of Government entity, it ensures that they would be covered. If we didn’t make these amendments, then we’d potentially end up with some parts of the broader Public Service not being covered by this legislation, so the effect of these amendments is to ensure that they are covered.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): My question to the Minister is that as a consequence of these new Crown agencies, including interdepartmental ventures and departmental agencies, being brought out of the general law and into the specific law around Crown organisations, does that increase or decrease their liability? In other words, if you didn’t put this in the law—if the Minister is correct—that means that these organisations, both Crown agencies and interdepartmental ventures, would not be covered by the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002. Does that, as a consequence, increase or reduce their liability?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): It means, effectively, that they’ll be treated the same as if they were a Government department. So if a function, for example, is taken from a Government department and put into either an interdepartmental venture or a departmental agency, it would be treated exactly the same as if it had stayed in the department in so far as the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002 applies. These organisations don’t currently exist, so it doesn’t increase or decrease their liability, because they don’t currently exist. It means that if they are created, the provisions that would apply if they were a department will stay exactly the same.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Minister, I’m sorry, but it’s not quite there. The bit I totally understand is that with regard to the level of liability, these Crown agencies and these interdepartmental agencies, through the Minister’s amendment, are going to be treated the same as a core Government department. I get that bit, but it doesn’t answer the question as to whether, if you didn’t include them and they were a generic organisation, the likes of a community organisation, a private company, or a private individual—are we increasing or decreasing the level of liability that they have currently?

My understanding—and I’d love clarity—is that the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act actually has the effect of reducing the level of liability as compared with an incorporated society, a private company, or a private individual. In other words, what we are doing through this provision—yes, I get it that it makes it the same. But if you didn’t do it, wouldn’t those organisations have a greater liability?

This is relevant for this reason, and I will explain it to the Minister. All the time, the Public Service is making decisions about what stuff is done in-house and what stuff is contracted out. The Government extensively contracts out social services, building roads, and all sorts of activities, and there are different levels of criminal liability that apply.

In other words, if an agency, for instance, in health contracts out to an organisation like IHC, the criminal liability of IHC is different to that of a DHB or the Ministry of Health. So it is absolutely relevant to know that for these interdepartmental ventures and departmental agencies, will their liabilities be greater or less than an IHC or a drug foundation, or any of those types of organisations. Is the impact of this bill to increase or to reduce their liability as a consequence of extending the jurisdiction of the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): The member’s asking for a legal opinion regarding the difference between those covered by the Crown Organisations (Criminal Liability) Act 2002 and those that aren’t. That’s a debate that’s well wide of the scope of this bill.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 and 558 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 6 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 6 as amended agreed to.

Part 7 Amendments to Public Finance Act 1989

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National has concerns that, with respect to Part 7—the core issue for us is ensuring effective and wise spending of public money, and we should be in no question of the importance of this part. The Government spends $80 billion, $90 billion, now heading towards $100 billion a year of public money, and National would want included—there’s all sorts of nice values in this bill about the Public Service being neutral, and we support that, and those things. But, equally, in the Public Finance Act we think there should just be a very explicit overriding obligation on the Public Service to spend public money wisely and effectively, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s view of amendments that would require that obligation on every Public Service agency, whether it be department, Ministry, or the like.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): By happy coincidence, I find myself in the chair at the moment that the member asks that question. The first thing that I would point out is that Part 7 itself is a relatively technical part in terms of the changes, in the sense that what it does is facilitate—through the Public Finance Act—what is happening in the rest of this bill, as opposed to I think what the member is suggesting, which is a wider sweep of reform of the Public Finance Act. We are, in fact, as the member will be aware, going through a Public Finance Act modernisation process, the first element of which this House has already passed, which is the wellbeing amendment bill that went through a few weeks back. We’re now looking at what further modernisation is required, and, just to draw him back to this part of the bill, what it is doing is allowing for the more flexible arrangements created by the rest of the bill to be able to be reflected in the obligations on Public Service agencies through the Public Finance Act. I think that is both an important technical thing to do and very supportive of these arrangements.

By way of explanation of Part 7, I would point to one of the things which is mentioned here, which is the concept of a joint venture. We have one of those in operation at the moment around domestic and sexual violence, and it’s a fantastic piece of work, bringing together—I think—between eight and 10 different Government and State sector agencies all under one heading and working towards one set of accountabilities, one set of outcomes, in terms of eliminating the scourge of domestic and sexual violence from New Zealand. It’s been a very successful programme and we’ve funded it significantly, but if you go looking for it in the Government’s accounts, you won’t find it, and the reason for that is that each of the eight agencies have a small portion of it reflected under their appropriation. So, actually, this will help make what all parties, I think, in Parliament want to have happen: the breaking down of silos within Government more clear and obvious in a public finance sense. You’ll actually be able to see all of that in one place, rather than having to go through and find eight different versions of it.

So that’s what Part 7 is about. I understand the points that the member’s making about the importance of the efficiency and the effectiveness of spending. I think that’s better dealt with through a direct Public Finance Act amendment rather than Part 7 of the bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Minister, I understand totally what Part 7 is all about. National members were very disappointed when we set out in the earlier debate that the principles of the Public Service should include spending money wisely and effectively, and so the purpose of my question was, having not put it into the Public Service Legislation, let’s at least put it into the Public Finance Act, and I’d like the Minister to respond to that question.

The more detailed second question I have for the Minister is that our whole system of Government is around parliamentary accountability for public money, and a very important—and if you walk through into the Parliament, the signing of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was that the Government was not allowed to spend money without the authority of Parliament, and we have a whole set of trying to codify that in the Public Finance Act that we’re amending with this bill. The really important part of the accountability in the Public Finance Act is that for every Vote there’s a Minister. That Minister needs to account for that expenditure, and that accountability process is really important.

Now, I want to make absolutely plain—the Minister has made the point about the Government’s response to family and sexual violence, and National is strongly supportive of the provisions in the wider bill and in this part that get our Government agencies out of their silos and working across sectors to try and get better outcomes. A number of those initiatives were taken during our period of Government, and your Government has also taken initiatives in that area, and no problem.

The bit that we need to sort in the Public Finance Act is in ensuring where you have multiple agencies, multiple Ministers, and multiple chief executives, and you have the appropriation of money, that you—in achieving a very proper public objective: getting better cooperation and coordination—don’t lose that fundamental responsibility of someone’s responsible for the money. So my question—particularly where there are 36 changes in this part to the bill that went before the select committee. The fundamental question that I want the Minister to answer is which Minister, when Parliament goes through its annual appropriations—and let’s say you take an example, whether it be in the health, whether it be in the justice or other sectors, where you establish a cross-interdepartmental executive board and agency. Who’s responsible to the Parliament? How is that link maintained?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yeah, I thank the member for his question, and I think this does cut to the heart of how we get the balance right between making sure that we are having Government function in the way that the outside world functions and still meeting those requirements that the member has alluded to. So at a very practical level, there will always be a specified agency and there will always be somebody who has to account and report. Actually, what Part 7 does is make sure that someone still is doing that—that’s the point. So by changing around the requirements or the contents of an annual report, as we do here, and the various other reporting and strategic documents, that is about making sure that there is a specified agency who does that.

What I do want to put on the record and actually agree with the member on is that this has to be watched and monitored closely, and I think he’s right about that, because what we don’t want is no one to be responsible. So I believe that the bill actually fulfils that. What we will see as these evolve over time, I suspect, are further changes down the track, particularly around appropriations, because we’re already doing that. The member himself was part of a Cabinet where they moved more towards multi-category appropriations and multi-year appropriations, both of which are very useful tools of flexibility in the system. We have managed, as those have been implemented, to continue proper parliamentary scrutiny.

So, actually, what this part of the bill is doing is the very thing that the member wants it to do. It would be fair to say that as these practices evolve, we may choose to see the Public Finance Act (PFA) evolve alongside them, and, you know, it is certainly my intention, if I have the privilege of being in the position of administering the PFA again, to continue to work on how we can both make it flexible but also maintain those accountabilities. But that is actually the very thing that Part 7 does.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to specifically ask the Minister about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled, SOP 549. I want to say to the Minister in the chair that we’ve only had these 200 pages of amendments for 24 hours, and so I make no apologies for wanting to scrutinise it. But what surprised me is the amendment that says that the agency that is administering the appropriation can, in fact, be different to the Vote. Can he explain that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’m just going to get some advice for the member on the first part of that, but yes, that is because—it’s the very point I’m making. So let’s take the current joint venture that we have in operation now. So that is, effectively, managed through the Ministry of Justice—that’s, effectively, how it’s managed, and it would be continue to be the lead agency. Now, as it happens, a number of other agencies are contributing to that. There is actually no great value for the Parliament in digging into, for example, Oranga Tamariki and their role within that, because it actually is an incoherent way of assessing whether or not the Government’s expenditure is effective in that area, because what you’re then doing is saying, well, yes, that money has come through Oranga Tamariki, but actually their responsibility is part of the wider joint venture—you lose the impact of what they’re doing.

A very specific example within that is a partnership between the police and Oranga Tamariki as part of the domestic and sexual violence joint venture. Being able to disentangle whether or not who’s got which dollars within it and are they being used you will still be able to do, but under this process you’ll actually see it as part of its coherent whole.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Chair, I know you’re cautious of me getting into detail, but sometimes, actually, a practical example is a way to interrogate the amendments that are being made to the way in which this Parliament deals with Estimates. What concerns me with the provision in clause 116 is Parliament’s going to be faced with the situation where it’s dealing with Estimates at a select committee and the person and agency responsible for the Vote is different to that which is administering the Vote. That’s specifically what is provided for in the SOP. So my question for me: how do we expect this to practically work?

So let’s say you’ve got the Ministry of Justice appearing before the Justice Committee and it’s on an issue where it’s responsible for the Vote but the administration is going on in some other Government agency. A member of the select committee says, “Hey, look, you’ve made a mess of spending that 2 million bucks.” And they say, “Oh, nothing to do with us. That’s administered by someone different.” Are you confident, and how can it be that in the SOP, clause 116A, inserting section 14(1)(ca), where it specifically says that the agency that’s been authorised with the Vote from Parliament can be different to the agency that’s actually administering the fund—aren’t we really breaking up the parliamentary accountability?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): No. Yeah, no, we’re not, and the point that I want to make very clear to the member, and I think this is how this will need to evolve—my personal view is that where there is a clear—and it will be—specified agency, they will have to front up and they will have to be accountable to Parliament. What I think we need to evolve to, though, as we have more of these cross-departmental entities, is providing for that cross-departmental entity, which will have, as the joint venture does, somebody who leads it, a chief executive—that they can be brought in front of a select committee. But the member is arguing here that just because there is an administering agency and a specified agency, somehow or other that means he won’t be able to question them. He will. The specified agency simply needs to be prepared to be able to answer questions for things to which they are responsible to Parliament for.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): To further that discussion, Minister, is that currently we do not have the situation where the Vote is different to who administers the Vote, and what the Minister’s SOP does is actually say that for the first time in Parliament, the Vote could actually be administered by another agency.

But I also want to ask the Minister the question about his amendment in respect of assets and liabilities, because in the Supplementary Order Paper—which I again say is being rushed through and we’ve only had 24 hours to look at—the Government is amending the way in which those assets and liabilities are going to be managed. So what my question is is: what is the practical impact of the amendments—how those assets and liabilities will be dealt with in the Public Finance Act?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just to clarify with the member, he’s not referring to changes in Part 7 with respect of assets and liabilities?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Yes I am. Part 7, clause 124(4) specifically says in the amendment, “Subsection (1)(a) applies to a specified agency only to the extent that the specified agency manages assets or liabilities.” So what I want an explanation of is what—this is the first we’ve seen it. We’ve only seen it for 24 hours. It’s reasonable for me to ask: what does that change in dealing with assets and liabilities under the Public Finance Act? What’s the practical effect of clause 124 and the changes in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): On that specific section, it is around the responsibilities, as the member will be aware, of chief executives. So this is making sure that we are clear in the Public Finance Act what a chief executive is responsible for. It refers back, as pretty much everything in Part 7 does, to earlier changes that have been made. So it’s simply about making sure the Public Finance Act reflects the changes here.

To come back to the member’s earlier point, yes, we are moving into different territory here—that’s the whole point of doing a bill, is to actually create an environment where we’re not sitting here to just reinforce the status quo. We are trying to facilitate the very thing that he has acknowledged both his own party and the current Government have done. It will mean that things feel different from time to time in a committee, but the whole point of changing the law and changing the Public Finance Act through Part 7 is chief executives, in this case, remain responsible. So it’s actually making sure that we keep the integrity of the Public Finance Act while we amend or create new legislation for the public sector.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Well, let me be very specific, because these issues are big. The Public Finance Act was introduced—when I first came into Parliament, a huge issue was that there were massive liabilities that had been hidden by a previous Government, and we came into Government and suddenly we had huge liabilities. So part of the Public Finance Act was making sure there was transparency about liabilities—that Government can’t hide nasty, big legal action or other liabilities on the books.

Now, the question I’m asking is around how we deal with both assets and liabilities for these new agencies. I’ve indicated to the Minister, and we’re in agreement—we want to have the capacity for these interdepartmental agencies that are able to do things. But the question is this: at the moment, in the Public Finance Act, if you’re the Secretary for Justice and you’ve got a big liability on your books because you’ve screwed something up and you’re being sued, or you’ve incurred some large debt, the Secretary for Justice is in the gun, as the chief executive of that agency, for that.

My question is that what we’re saying here in the law is that the specified agency is only responsible to a limited extent. So where I want to know there’s accountability is if there is a liability incurred by one of these new agencies we’ve created and they don’t declare a significant liability or they don’t declare a substantial amount or legal action or debt, who’s in the gun?

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Part 7 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 549 and 558 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 3

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 4

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 5

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 5 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 6

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 6 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 7

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 7 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 7 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 8

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 549 and 558 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 8 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 8 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 8 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 9

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 9 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 9 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 9 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 10

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 549 and 558 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 10 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 10 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 11

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 549 and 558 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 11 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Schedule 11 be agreed to:

Item relating to the Ombudsmen Act 1975

in the item replacing the item relating to section 23(3), replace “the item relating to section 23(3)” with “the second item relating to section 22(3)”.

in the item relating to section 23, replace “after the item relating to section 23” with “after the second item relating to section 22(3)”.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 11 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 53

New Zealand National 51; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Schedule 11 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): We come to, as I understand, both the title and the commencement clauses of the bill in this debate. I note the process that this bill has been through, where we’ve had a 200-page Supplementary Order Paper tabled a couple of days ago, with the Government’s intent to put it into law, as to the appropriateness of sections like section 89 effectively coming into immediate effect. Now, section 89 of this Public Service legislation impacts on the redundancy entitlements of MPs—sorry, not MPs; that would be significant—of public servants. The question is whether applying that immediately—why would it not apply as per the time that the rest of the bill comes into effect? Why is the Government so keen to have those legal provisions that constrain the redundancy obligations of the Crown reduced?

I also wonder why it is that section 110 is being brought into effect earlier than the remainder of the Act. The commencement of this Act is quite significant, in that it is many years—32 years—since the State Sector Act came into effect. So why is it that there is the differentiation around those provisions? What the commencement clause says is that the bulk of the Act comes into effect on the date of Royal assent, with the exception of those redundancy provisions in section 89, and with respect of the sections in 110(1). I’d welcome a contribution from the Minister of State Services as to why that’s the case. My understanding is that section 89 is dealing with a situation where an employee is transferring between different Government agencies. Is it that the Government’s got particular departmental restructuring occurring, where the continuous service provisions are to apply? I would have thought the logic would be compelling for a continuity of entitlements that a person working in the Public Service has, that it would be desirable to have that come into effect more immediately. We’re talking about this bill impacting on tens of thousands of public servants.

I’d also be really interested to know, in respect of the six-month delay in section 110(1)—now, section 110(1) deals with the repeal of section 4C of the Act. So the question for the Minister is why it is that the date of which those new provisions in section 110—why are they being delayed to six months after the date of Royal assent? I’m assuming the Government’s intent is for this new Public Service legislation to take legal effect next Monday. That would be the GG—the Governor-General would sign off on the law change. These staggered commencement clauses need to be justified. With section 89, the proposal in the bill is that it will effectively come into effect any time that the Government wishes, that the executive would wish. So we’ve seen provisions where particular parts of a bill come into effect by Order in Council and the Order in Council has not been passed for years. And the existing law stands to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but in accordance with the decision of the Business Committee, I will report progress to enable the House to resume for question time at 2 p.m.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Public Service Legislation Bill.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee following oral questions. Because of an agreement with the Business Committee, we will now break for lunch and resume at 2 o’clock for oral questions.

Sitting suspended from 12.56 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): My question is to the Prime Minister: does she agree with the comments regarding shovel-ready projects made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce that “I have the list, the whole list—why they are not telling you, I don’t know.”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! It’s not quite the quote.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I beg your pardon?

SPEAKER: It’s not quite the quote. The member has to quote the quote accurately.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I tell you what, I’ll read off your notes, not mine—how’s that?

SPEAKER: I’m reading off the ones that were submitted, but carry on.

1. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she agree with the comments regarding shovel-ready projects made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in a speech to the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, “I’ve got the list, the whole lot—why they are not telling you, I don’t know. But I’m going to go back and find out. How can you tender if you don’t know?”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context that it was made. For example, the Government has a list of projects, and the question was being put by a potential tenderer who wanted to know how she could become part of the tendering process. She was told, of course, there is a list, but, of course, when the fiscals and all the due diligence is done before the tendering process opens, not until that time can you start tendering. When the tender goes up to the whole wide world, that’s when that person can be part of the process, and Mr Brownlee, I’ve got the list here, for what it’s worth—google it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, how was the Government able to issue the press release detailing the shovel-ready project funding by region with an estimate of jobs if they had not confirmed the details of the shovel-ready projects—meaning that the list can be released in the substantive form mentioned by the Prime Minister today?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, when one has a grasp of commercial actions and transactions, you do realise that people out there understand how the process works. It’s very hard to inform a person without that knowledge of how the intricacies of these commercial transactions work, but we have announced about 60 projects, worth over $750 million, as a Government, since the launch by Minister Robertson and Minister Jones on 1 July. The list of announced IRG projects—meaning Infrastructure Industry Reference Group projects—are up on the Crown infrastructure partnership website, Mr Brownlee. I’m happy for my office to send him these details because I do realise it’s very hard for that member to have been caught up with these problems, given what’s been happening lately.

SPEAKER: Order! The voice of the Prime Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why has the Government not released the full list of shovel-ready projects with accompanying details—which the Prime Minister now says they have—as was announced on 1 July, so that work can begin?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m very grateful for Mr Brownlee to get to the very issue that is at the centre of this Government’s action, and that is immediacy—not some other time in the distant future, but right here, right now. The Government took only six weeks between receiving the initial infrastructure reference group report in mid-May and announcing the first projects that showed we’d progress them with dynamic speed, and 1,924 submissions for projects were received. Due diligence on more than 150 projects takes time, and sometimes announcements are not able to be made in order to protect the Crown’s negotiating position. Anyone who understands commercial transactions will realise—because they do understand it, of course—how sensitive that is. I note the Prime Minister went to reopen Redcliffs School last week, nine years after the Canterbury earthquake, which that member was in charge of managing the recovery from, and we’re still having to work on it, nine years later, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it fair and kind for the Government to be drip-feeding projects via ministerial visits, press releases, and other announcements, instead of releasing the full list of projects and delivering certainty for the construction sector?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister—and perhaps answering more in her name than in my own—fairness and kindness is the middle name of the Prime Minister, but I want to say that the Government has been undertaking due diligence on some of the projects. Releasing them early would impede commercial negotiations, and that’s clear if you know anything about commercial transactions. The Government will announce the projects when it’s appropriate to do so. This programme is a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the impact on the economy, and is proof that we have listened to our businesses and communities about their needs. This work stream will provide a pipeline of work across different sectors in different regions and will help provide much-needed certainty.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did she receive a question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters asking her why the Government was not releasing the full list of shovel-ready projects with the details she’s outlined for the House today to provide certainty for the more than 200,000 construction workers currently receiving the wage subsidy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, understanding that particularity when a question is put relates to the circumstances in which the question was asked by the lady at that meeting—a packed-to-the-wall meeting, I might say, and I was devastated by the response. But it was clear as daylight that she wanted to know how to become a tenderer, and that’s why the way the question was put by Mr Brownlee is simply wrong.

Jenny Marcroft: How has this Government’s record on infrastructure compared to the previous Government?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, unlike some people who talk but there’s not any action, we intend to build things, and not just issue uncosted press releases of $31 billion, with no costings or detail whatsoever, going from Tauranga to Katikati—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Order! We’re now into the areas where the Prime Minister does not have responsibility.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But I’ll get it to where she has got it—can I?

SPEAKER: No.

Jenny Marcroft: How much has the Government announced in infrastructure investment over the next 10 years, and how does that compare to other parties’ proposals?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The first part may be answered, and it’s a warning to the Prime Minister not to stray into the second part.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well—

Hon Grant Robertson: Good luck with that.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister of Finance will not comment on my rulings, especially if he wants to be present to answer his questions.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, can I say it’s not $11 billion, it’s not $21 billion, and it’s not $31 billion, but $54 billion has been planned by this Government—not $31 billion but $54 billion. It will be costed and, better still, for the great comfort of businesses and workers around New Zealand, it will be supported by the money to back it up. We will not take years and years and years, like happened in Canterbury—

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, sorry—I’ve got to bounce this back.

SPEAKER: The member will apologise to the House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given that the Government is claiming such an extraordinary record of announcements of infrastructure projects, can she explain why her Government is ignoring the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ assertion that contractors must know what the projects are in the shovel-ready line-up in order to be able to tender for them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Thank you very much. On behalf of the Prime Minister, that’s exactly what the Prime Minister found out the question dialogue was all about. A lady wanted to know “How can I become a tenderer?”, and the answer is that when the process has had all the fiscals done and all the legal work done and it goes online, if she keeps her mind on there and if she—like Mr Brownlee—googles it, she will know exactly that day, in the first minute, and will get equal treatment. But here’s the fact of the matter: on 1 April, this resource group established and announced applications sought—that’s 1 April. On 17 May, the report was received. On 29 June, Cabinet signed off the broad allocations. On 1 July, the launch and initial projects were confirmed. As Harry Truman would say, “Action this day”.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does the Prime Minister accept that, notwithstanding that interesting time line, the bit that’s missing is when the shovel-ready projects full list with their implementation dates will be announced, and will she commit to releasing that list with those details today?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, on behalf of the Prime Minister, it is sometimes difficult to grasp when you haven’t got a commercial background or have never been involved in business, but this is how it happens. Someone in the local government or in the local area around the country, in the far-flung regions as well, has got an idea that, essentially, needs to be funded. These applications go, in many ways, by way of process all the way to the infrastructure group that’s looking into them. When they have done all the fiscals and all the work and seen whether it’s possible, it’s then that they announce the Government’s preparedness, backed up with money, to put these projects in place. As for all the other questions about shovel-readiness, I do not follow the member’s questions, because they have no sense of understanding in terms of what the commercial practice of this country is.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I thank the Prime Minister for that answer and I ask her: will she be talking to the Rt Hon Winston Peters to perhaps give him some of her commercial knowledge on how these things work, so that he won’t go round saying statements like “I have the list, the whole lot—why they are not telling you, I don’t know. But I’m going back to find out.”? How can you tender if you don’t know? If there is a commercial reason why that’s a load of rubbish, the Prime Minister should just tell the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, because of the way the questioner put the question, she suggested that somehow she didn’t know about the tenders, when at that point in time what she wanted to intimate to the Deputy Prime Minister was “No, Deputy Prime Minister, you don’t have a tin ear. How can I become a part of the process?”, and I answered her.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to the Government’s economic response to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I’ve seen a huge number of positive reactions from people who have taken the time to contact the Government to say what a difference the support has made to their business during COVID-19. One business owner wrote to us to say, “Thank you to you and your team for your mahi to date. The quick response with the wage subsidy has saved our small business and kept our nine workers in full pay all through lockdown and beyond. Our workers are content and appreciative. The result means there is a boost to their wellbeing and they’re feeling positive about the future.” Another said, “A heartfelt thankyou for the second subsidy. That will keep me afloat until spring when business will flourish again in its pre-COVID status, and the profits over summer will maintain us over the quieter winter period.”

Jamie Strange: What reactions has he seen to the impacts of the Government’s economic response to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve had many businesses contact us to say what a difference the Government’s decisive early economic response has made to their business outlook, now that we have the virus under control and business activity is returning to normal. A director at a dairy firm said that the Government can take some of the credit for the biggest upward move in Fonterra’s global dairy prices for several years. They said, “Because we locked down early and eliminated COVID-19, this meant our dairy economy could get going quickly and gave the world, especially China, confidence to buy our product.” Another medium-sized business owner contacted us to say, “Your actions and support over the first stages of COVID-19 have been a lifeline to my businesses, our 50-odd staff, and hundreds of suppliers we work alongside. Without the wage support scheme and the small business loan scheme, it would’ve been impossible to stay afloat, and your decisive action has meant a quick, positive return to business.” I’m pleased to see that our support for business is having the desired effect of improving cash flow and confidence.

Jamie Strange: What reactions has he seen to the Government’s fiscal management of the economic response to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve seen many positive reactions to the Government’s fiscal management as we navigate through this unprecedented global pandemic. One New Zealander has written to the Government to say it was a very wise move to hold back $14 billion of the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund in contingency. I’ve also seen other reactions from commentators in the media, including Cameron Bagrie, who said it was sensible, and well-known socialist Mike Hosking, who said, “credit where credit is due” and that in comparison to other countries, “there are those that started off worse than us, and we will still end up a lot better off than many.”

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Has she asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he made it clear to Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek that he was facilitating their passage to Antarctica on the basis that sponsorship was being sought for the redevelopment of Scott Base; if so, have they provided sponsorship?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: On behalf of the Prime Minister, on 4 June 2019, Cabinet decided that as part of an over $250 million redevelopment of Scott Base, Antarctica New Zealand would seek $50 million through private sponsorships to offset some of the costs of redevelopment. It’s the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ prerogative to invite people to visit Scott Base, as countless foreigners have in the past, in the interests of New Zealand’s broader objectives in Antarctica. This is a prerogative that both the previous National Party Government and this Government have taken up. It is for Antarctica New Zealand to seek sponsorship, but as a wise man once said, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that she wanted to check the integrity in New Zealand’s Antarctic programme and she’ll be seeking reassurances from her Foreign Minister on that, did she ask him to give reasons for the travel Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek took to Antarctica?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, for the past year or so, the Government has been encouraging Antarctica New Zealand to generate private sponsorship for our redevelopment of Scott Base to offset the cost to the taxpayers. Taking interested individuals to Antarctica is an integral part of those efforts. Or is the member and those members over there saying now that they don’t believe in public-private partnerships—are they saying that? And does the National Party no longer believe in managing the taxpayers’ financial risk, as a responsible Government ought to? The Foreign Minister met with the Antarctica New Zealand board on three occasions to outline his expectations following Cabinet’s decisions and more recently to express his disappointment at the board’s failure to follow the Cabinet direction on this issue.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has her Government or her Foreign Minister asked Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek for a donation towards the redevelopment of Scott Base?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, who just answered this point in the last question by saying it was for Antarctica New Zealand to seek sponsorship—in the same way, for example, that a former Prime Minister, who I thought would have appraised his Foreign Minister in the time of his policy, said this in 2013: Mr Key said the Government was still considering whether to increase its $26 million funding for Antarctic activities, but he was keen on support from the private sector. Mr Brownlee, weren’t you told that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why weren’t Antarctica New Zealand staff working on the ice at the time told why Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek were there, rather than being left with the impression that the reason for the pair being on the trip was “kept very quiet”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was no reason for the staff at Antarctica to be told that, any more—

Erica Stanford: How were they supposed to ask for a donation, then?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you can scream out as long as you like, lady, but let me give you the facts. Murray McCully took 130 people down to the ice, including staff members. [Interruption] Keep on shouting. Keep on making a fool of yourself. Keep on shouting, lady. A hundred and thirty, including staff members—where, on the ice, they said that it was inappropriate and unsafe. That’s the National Party’s record.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did anyone from the Government, Antarctica New Zealand, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs—

SPEAKER: Order! Sorry, before the member goes on, I’ve just been contemplating one of the comments that the Prime Minister made. I think we’re living in times where many of us sense change, and language which would have once been acceptable is no longer. I think referring to a member just as “lady” is not any longer an appropriate thing to say. I think it’s fair to say for most of my parliamentary career, it would have been—members were, in fact, referred to as “lady members” on occasions—but I think we’ve passed those times. So it’s just a general—[Interruption] Who said that? Who said it? [Hon Shane Jones raises hand] Go and have some time outside.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, calling someone a lady, in my view, is not denigrating at all. It’s, in fact, the height of respect, and that’s why I use it. If I was to use the word “woman”, I’d regard that as thoroughly a put-down. If you don’t mind, some of us wish to stay with the age of chivalry.

SPEAKER: Yes, I do—I’ve asked Mr Jones to leave the Chamber.

Hon Shane Jones withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: I understand that, and I think I might have even tried to express it myself, but I think it was clear that the comment that the member made was one which was not appreciated by the majority of members in the House. Some of us, Mr Peters, when the times move, have to move a little with them.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Did she, her Minister, or any agency of Government explain to Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek that their invitation to visit the Antarctic was as part of a programme for attracting private sector funding for the redevelopment of Scott Base; if not, why not?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, nothing so nakedly mammonic as that. Can I just say the Foreign Minister is a long-time proponent of getting other interests and other countries involved to advance the New Zealand interests on the ice. It’s illustrated by the fact that 12 years ago he spent considerable time with Senator McCain of the United States going to Antarctica, spent time with the European Union and getting representatives from the Europeans to go to Antarctica, and spent time with international shipping registry countries to say to those countries “You must come to Antarctica because the boats you are registering are ripping off the environment.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How about answering the question?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m answering the question, Mr Smith. That member knows absolutely nothing about this or why he’s in this Parliament after all these years.

Darroch Ball: What role did her office play in the Antarctica trip?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, as before and down through the decades, is only involved in the approval of travel by Ministers and their staff.

Darroch Ball: Does the Antarctic trip breach the Cabinet Manual?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no; these individuals are not family members or close associates of the Minister, Mr Peters in this case, but is of a number of people in the National Party who are aghast at this attack right now. Can I say, in 2007 the Government facilitated the transport and travel of Jan Cameron, the founder of Kathmandu Clothing, to Antarctica, seeking a contribution to the redevelopment of the Scott and Ernest Shackleton huts? That’s the fact of the matter. And on that trip, incidentally, was one Guyon Espiner, the architect of this story. How do you like that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Were Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek targeted for a donation to the Scott Base redevelopment, and is that the reason why they were granted the trip?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, there was a cancellation by a Minister, and the factual evidence—happy to be disclosed to the member—was that it emerged without difficulty, over time, not by way of direction at all, but at request, also backed up by the evidence, that there were two seats available. As a consequence, it was asked, “Well, what about these two who have a serious interest in nature and Antarctica?”, and, more importantly, in line with the plan as we have done with Le Quesnoy in France and elsewhere, do something proactive to save the taxpayer money. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I have talked to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is proud of the fact that he took a proactive role.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very, very tight and specific question, and the answer did not even go close to answering that. It gave some interesting facts, which are, of course, able to be partially substantiated by the Official Information Act releases that we’ve seen so far, but it doesn’t answer the question if they were granted that trip because they were being targeted for a donation to the Antarctic redevelopment project.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order, I made it very clear in the first answer, second answer, and three other answers after that that the responsibility to take the matter further lay with the Antarctica foundation. How much more clear could I make it?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: When the Minister who was to travel cancelled his arrangements, who put forward the names of Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, as admitted, probably for the 30th time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs did. Of course, when Mr Key went down there with all his journalists, none of them asked about the taxpayers’ cost, did they? See this photograph? [Holds up photograph] Full of journalists, 14 on the trip, and they have the temerity to raise that issue themselves. How do you like that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, if a taxpayer benefit is to be seen in this, can she explain why it’s reasonable for the Foreign Minister to invite someone who has said, “I don’t … do business [in New Zealand]”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh really? On behalf of the Prime Minister, I would ask Mr Brownlee to have a chat to his party president, Mr Goodfellow, about that. Why doesn’t he? Caught red-handed. Typical, isn’t it—just typical. I can say out there in New Zealand the National Party people are aghast at his appalling attack on two innocent people.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is the Prime Minister aware if any of the journalists that accompanied the former Prime Minister to Antarctica provided any form of sponsorship to Antarctica New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, and—dare I say—the people of New Zealand, thank you for that very apposite question. The answer is doughnuts so far.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Does she accept that journalists travelling to the Antarctic will be able to tell the team of 5 million New Zealanders about the programme down there through their various media outlets, and, if so, what outlets did Bee Lin Chew and Su Arn Kwek use to tell the New Zealanders about their travels to the Antarctic, other than Instagram photographs with seals and penguins?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, very good question. They came back, wrote a book about it, and talked to the most important person with respect to Antarctica these days—the person who’s finding the money, namely the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident his policies and actions are providing businesses with as much certainty as possible so that they can invest and create new jobs with confidence?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am confident that that is the case. For example, our policy of not putting the economy at risk by reopening the borders until it is entirely safe to do so is part of our plan to minimise our risk of a second wave of infections. This gives businesses the certainty that this Government is focused on keeping our economy as the most open economy in the world, with the fewest restrictions on domestic movement and activity, allowing them to invest and create jobs.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why does the Deputy Prime Minister have a list of so-called shovel-ready projects but the contractors trying to save jobs don’t have any certainty about most of the projects?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I disagree with the latter part of that question. There are plenty of people who are now, with a great deal of certainty, looking towards the more than three-quarters of a billion dollars’ worth of announced infrastructure reference group projects. The fact of the matter is that some of the contractors will be bidding into a commercial situation. We have to make sure that we have all the ducks in a row before we undertake that process.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he declined to confirm yesterday that each project is being announced immediately after due diligence has been completed by Ministers, he mentioned other factors; was political calculation the primary other factor?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. As discussed, commercial negotiations would be another factor.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he explain to the House how it provides certainty to developers for the Government to prevent the development of more than 400 new houses at Ihumātao and more than a year later for the entire situation to remain in limbo?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can say is that, in contrast to the houses that may or may not have been built at Ihumātao, we can see, on this side of the House, thousands of public houses built in contrast to the sell-off by the other Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have any advice on the number of jobs that have been lost by the prevention of houses being built at Ihumātao?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. And, as the member knows from the answer I gave yesterday, Treasury are projecting an increase in the net number of people in employment by the end of the year.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the Government’s intervention at Ihumātao has undermined the certainty of property rights in this country, one of the foundations of job creation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely not.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting councils to improve their drinking-water infrastructure?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced a $761 million investment to support councils’ investment into their water network across the country. Our water infrastructure is run down and urgently needs to be upgraded. That’s why we’re working alongside councils to address some immediate and long-term challenges to reform the way in which water services are provided, so that no matter where someone lives, they will have clean, safe drinking-water, cleaner lakes, streams, and rivers.

Willow-Jean Prime: What has the Government done to futureproof our drinking water in the wake of the 2016 Havelock North water disaster?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re in the process of standing up Taumata Arowai, the water services regulator, which will be responsible for the comprehensive enforcement and compliance of drinking-water standards and will start to collect a comprehensive set of data relating to waste and storm water systems. This will help drive a more consistent approach to our water management system. The $761 million will be used to bring forward planned infrastructure for repairs, maintenance, and renewals to act as direct stimulus for the local economy.

Willow-Jean Prime: Will councils have to amalgamate?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: No, and it’s important to stress that the water reform agenda is asking councils to rethink the delivery of water services so that ratepayers receive the full benefit of scale and cost sharing. Importantly, what I’m asking councils to consider is a world-class water management system that doesn’t burden future generations because of the current, inefficient model. The Government is acutely aware of the significance of the proposed reform programme on other roles and functions of local government. That’s why we’re working with them.

Willow-Jean Prime: What if councils do not opt in?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Good question. The approach I’m taking to water reform is about working with the sector. It’s an opt-in approach. A sign of this is a partnership approach that we’ve established with local government in our three waters steering committee. The group is now undertaking engagement with the sector to explain in more detail the opportunities of the stimulus package and the approach to water reform. If a council chooses not to participate, the region will still benefit, because we need councils thinking strategically about the long-term challenges ahead of them to achieve a reliable nationwide water network and efficient service delivery.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How would he rate the performance of his coronavirus testing policies for effectiveness and economic recovery?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): In the context of 440,000 tests having been completed and the fact that we are now 83 days since our last case of community transmission in New Zealand, I would say that our response to coronavirus, including our testing regime, has been incredibly effective. However, as I’ve said many times, there is no room for complacency. I have been concerned that, over the school holidays, testing rates have not been at the level that we would expect in order to provide New Zealanders with a level of reassurance that there is no further COVID-19 emerging within the community, and the Ministry of Health is working with all of the relevant stakeholders to ensure that testing rates come up again. In terms of the economy, I would repeat what the Prime Minister has always said—that the view of this Government is that a very good health response is the best thing we can do for our economy. Unlike many around the world, New Zealand is now one of the freest economies in the world, with New Zealanders having most of their ability to move freely around the country and interact on a day-to-day basis as they normally would restored—very, very different to what other countries are experiencing.

Dr Shane Reti: Was it a one-star performance of his testing policies last Sunday when, instead of the 4,000 daily tests he has indicated, only eight people were tested in the community?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Of course, that’s not eight tests in total; that’s eight people tested in the community. There were tests in managed isolation and people working at the border in addition to that on that day. But, no, those are not the levels of tests that we’re expecting. But I do want to make clear, though, that the testing numbers in the community will fluctuate on a day-to-day basis, but we certainly wouldn’t expect them to be that low.

Dr Shane Reti: How much Government funding was used across the country last Sunday to test eight people in the community; and how does he rate that economic performance?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The level of funding required is the level of funding that will be supplied. So, if more funding is required for more testing to take place, the Government will supply more funding in order for the testing to take place. Those levels of testing that the member’s referred to are not good enough. Since that time, further guidance has been issued to ensure that those testing rates are coming back up again.

Dr Shane Reti: How many people in managed isolation have tested positive at the day three test, given there were two last Sunday; and how does he rate his day three testing policy?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have with me the exact number who’ve tested positive at day three, but I would note that a number of people who tested negative at day three tested positive at day 12. What that shows is that our policy of having two tests—one about three days after people arrive and one about 12 days after they arrive—is helping us to pick up cases that might otherwise go undetected. I do note that day three is about the right period of time—and all of the evidence is suggesting that’s about the right period of time, given the incubation period for the virus—to pick up most of the cases coming across the border. But it doesn’t pick up absolutely all of them, and there are still cases of people who have tested negative at day three coming up with a positive result on day 12, and that’s why the testing regime we’ve got in place is the right one.

Hon Grant Robertson: What impact does the Minister believe it would have had on testing and the cost of testing if the Government had agreed with the Opposition’s calls to open up the borders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The need for testing would be significantly higher because if we had reopened the border or created the trans-Tasman bubble with Australia at the time we were being urged to do so, we could be Melbourne, where they are seeing hundreds of new cases on a daily basis, and that is involving extensive levels of testing within their community that we do not need in New Zealand at the moment because we do not have community transmission.

Dr Shane Reti: Given, then, that he is so pleased with day three testing in managed isolation, how does he account for his answer to written questions where he states that day three testing is not compulsory?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase his question. There was quite a lot at the beginning which was nothing to do with the question. Just ask the last bit, which is the question.

Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to written questions stating that day three testing is not compulsory, given people are still testing positive to day three?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because the testing that is required—the compulsory testing—is when somebody is going to be leaving managed isolation. They will not be able to leave managed isolation or quarantine without there being a negative test. If they refuse the day three test, then it doesn’t make a heck of a lot of difference because they will still be picked up further down the track. But the key issue here is that day three testing helps us to ensure that those people are getting any support that they may require.

Question No. 7—Small Business

7. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister for Small Business: What support has the Government provided to small businesses to help them adapt and innovate to deal with the impacts of COVID-19?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Small Business): The Government is taking decisive and considered action to support small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through a once-in-a-century global economic shock caused by COVID-19. In addition to the $15 million invested in the Regional Business Partner Network since March, that has been accessed by 12,465 businesses, the Government is now boosting this with an additional $40 million. The fund enables the network of over 1,400 registered professional service advisers across 14 regions to deliver free business advice and training to SMEs to build their capabilities. Businesses with under 20 employees have received 78 percent of the support funding. The additional boost will keep up the momentum to help SMEs adapt and innovate to deal with the impact of the virus.

Jo Luxton: How does the additional investment in the regional business partner scheme help businesses adapt and innovate to deal with the impacts of COVID-19?

Hon STUART NASH: The Regional Business Partner Network connects firms to expert advice at no cost to the business. Advice covers topics like business strategy, finance and cash flow, continuity planning, human resources and employment relations, digital services, marketing, and health and wellness for owners and staff. The professional support is in huge demand from our smallest businesses—those with 10 or fewer staff. This is the same cohort of SMEs that have been most enthusiastic about our Government support, like interest-free loans and the wage subsidy scheme. Around 80 percent of businesses that have used the network for professional support have 10 or fewer workers. Over 500 Māori businesses have accessed this support, and there’s been strong interest from manufacturing, tourism, construction, and retail businesses. The network offers a fast and localised way to get practical support to businesses, especially the small to medium firms that are the backbone of our economy.

Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen from small businesses or their advocates who have accessed the regional business partner scheme?

Hon STUART NASH: Napier small business owner, Mr Paul Freeman, who received business finance training and social media training and used it to change his company’s marketing, has stated that the services have been lifesaving. The Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce says the extended funding will make a critical difference for many businesses in the region, enabling them to get the right advice at the right time. One Southland business advised, and I quote, “Prior to our sessions with the service providers, we were concerned and didn’t really have a grasp of exactly where we were financially—when the pain would start or stop. But, armed with updated cash flows and reports and the know-how, we can trade our way through.” The Government does not underestimate the struggles small businesses are facing at the moment and the pressures they are under, be they financial or mental health. This is the time to leverage personal and business networks and to use local contacts to help to innovate and to grow.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Is he satisfied the border closure exceptions are responsive to the needs of businesses critical to our economic recovery?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes. Fundamentally, our border is one of our best defences against COVID-19. Our border restrictions are our best defence against COVID, which keeps our economy open for business. This Government is taking a measured and cautious approach to opening the border. Overseas, we’re seeing the implications of opening up the border too quickly, and this is a risk that this Government is not prepared to place on New Zealanders after sacrifices our people, communities, and economy have made. I’ll be working closely with other Ministers to ensure we are effectively managing the flow of people into managed isolation and quarantine.

Stuart Smith: What does he say to businesses such as Mainstream Engineering, who can’t commence projects because they are unable to get essential workers into New Zealand even though there are clearly no New Zealanders available for the roles?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I would advise them to apply an expression of interest under the critical worker scheme.

Stuart Smith: What does he say to the director of Rebar Technology, who said that the inability to get two skilled workers into New Zealand, due to not getting exceptions to commence urgent work on a project, has cost 10 jobs they had planned for Kiwis?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: There are challenging times for all businesses during this crisis. As I said, our border restrictions are our main line of defence in ensuring that New Zealanders and our economy are safe. There are parameters and criteria now for critical workers. I’m sure the member is aware of those, and I won’t necessarily labour the House with that, but it is also time for businesses who have traditionally relied on migrant workers to look at other ways, including, essentially, training up New Zealand workers to make sure that they can meet their labour needs.

Stuart Smith: How can he say that these exceptions are supporting long-term economic recovery when businesses can’t get the workers they need to commence projects when no Kiwis are available?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, there are tests within the process and criteria that all businesses that may have shortages have to meet in order to get critical workers into the country. There is a balance to be had about keeping our communities and our economy safe. Businesses must make sure that they extinguish all avenues to find New Zealand workers, and there are criteria there for it. If they can’t meet that, then they have to potentially innovate and start training up people who may be out of jobs.

Stuart Smith: Will he take responsibility for delaying projects and the jobs that will be lost due to businesses not being able to get critical workers into New Zealand?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: This Government will take responsibility for the actions that it’s taken at the border to ensure that our communities are safe, that our economy is back up and running. When you look at overseas economies that are still hit by the COVID virus, there are criteria, and the bar is very high because we need to keep the country and our communities and our economy safe. Those businesses know those criteria, and they need to make sure that they can find New Zealand workers. If they can’t, then there is a process which they can go through.

Hon Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware of the calculation of the cost of the lockdown in Victoria amounting to around A$3 billion, and how does he see that as a balance against calls to open borders up?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’m aware now that the member included that figure in the question, but as I say, the importance of keeping border restrictions tight and balancing that with ensuring that if there is critical work to be done, there is a pathway for people to come into New Zealand, is extremely important. Again, if you look around the world and see the economies that are struggling to deal with COVID, and you look at New Zealand’s experience in terms of being able to manage it, we are in a very good position, and we need to protect that.

Question No. 9—Agriculture

9. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Agriculture: How is the Government supporting the agritech sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): This Government knows that our primary sector is going to play a key part in our post-COVID economic recovery. New Zealand agritech companies are creating innovative technologies and solutions that support our farmers, growers, harvesters, and fishers to create more value and achieve greater productivity and sustainability. This week, Minister Twyford and myself launched key Government and industry plans critical to scaling up highly productive and internationally competitive Kiwi firms. Now is the time for New Zealand agritech firms to seize the opportunities to solve challenges affecting the primary sector globally and to show the world the Kiwi entrepreneurial spirit. This Government is investing $11.4 million directly into the agritech sector. They have access to $84 million of the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund. They also have access to a $300 million fund initiated by my colleague the Hon David Parker, supported by Cabinet, that provides them a pathway to a better future.

Kieran McAnulty: What role can agriculture technologies play in supporting the primary sector through their current workforce challenges?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: A huge role. This Government is committed to lifting skills and lifting incomes right across the primary sector, and technology is one way of achieving that goal. As part of our Agritech Industry Transformation Plan, that we launched this week, there is a specific work stream around talent and skills. In common with other technology sectors, the agritech sector provides a pathway for high-skilled roles and there is an increasing need for expertise in this area—for example, this week I met with some highly skilled robotics and mechatronics engineers who are working in the field of horticulture robotics. We see the growth in automation as providing an opportunity for new highly skilled, highly paid roles. The automation of farm processes that are traditionally labour intensive will also, in time, take pressure off the need to continuously find labour for picking, for packing, and for other roles. This is something that is a real challenge for the sector right now, and as a Government we are committed to assisting them to solve those problems.

Kieran McAnulty: What is the Government’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic when it comes to the agritech sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: COVID-19 has clearly been a major issue for all sectors. In our Industry Transformation Plan, we’ve looked into New Zealand’s comparative advantage globally, and with the work our Government has done to eradicate COVID-19, we see that New Zealand is in a good position to use this period of global uncertainty to build our offerings. New Zealand has the opportunity to extend our agritech expertise into product areas which have an increased appeal globally, building on our skills in dairy- and pasture-based innovation. COVID also gives us an opportunity to look at some of the challenges here in New Zealand that we can resolve in order to grow the sector, such as how to better utilise data and how to increase the flow and commercialisation of our intellectual property. COVID-19 is a challenge but it offers huge opportunities for New Zealand also.

Question No. 10—Education

10. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement, “the Government has been very clear that our cash reserves that have been accumulated by Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) will be ring-fenced for spending in the region that has accumulated those. That is the policy decision of the Government. That’s recorded in the Cabinet papers and in the Cabinet minute. That is very clear.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.

Simeon Brown: Does he support the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology’s (NZIST’s) policy which removes control of the cash reserves from ITPs, puts them in a central balance sheet, rather than leaving the money for use in the region which has earned it, and which NZIST’s chief executive, Stephen Town, has said does not reflect Cabinet’s intention to the extent expected?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The NZIST are reviewing their cash reserves policy. I think Stephen Town is correct that the policy that they had drafted—and it was only a draft policy—didn’t reflect Cabinet’s intention, and they are going back and having a look at that. It did mean that some of the ITPs were not seeing the level of reserves ring-fenced that they expected to.

Simeon Brown: Then can the Minister assure each ITP that every dollar from an ITP’s cash reserves will be spent in the region that has accumulated them and that the policy will reflect Cabinet’s expectations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that’s the Government’s intention. I do want to, however, make it clear, though: cash in the bank doesn’t necessarily mean cash reserves. At different times of the year, institutions will have a much healthier level of cash in the bank, but they spend it down during the course of the year. So one of the issues that NZIST have to work through is what actually are reserves versus cash in the bank that’s already committed. Some ITPs have already committed to significant capital projects that they’ve committed their reserves to. So if they’ve already committed their reserves, they don’t get to have them twice.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why would Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) chief executive Liam Sloan publicly say that he felt “misled” and “disappointed” at the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology policy that would allow the loss of $23 million of reserves not being spent in the region?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I did follow that matter up, and the chair of the board has stated—and I’ll quote from that—“While there are concerns at NMIT about the proposed policy from NZIST around the use of reserves, we’re working closely with NZIST to develop a shared understanding and resolution around this policy. Discussions are very productive and we feel confident in reaching a mutually agreed solution. It is regrettable that this work is not clearly articulated in the article. The board of NMIT is committed to ensuring a positive relationship with the NZIST and it is not helpful dealing with media misrepresentations and material delivered out of context.”

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he give a categorical guarantee that all of the $23.4 million in cash reserves at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology on 31 March, when the new institute was created, will be retained for our region?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member didn’t listen to the answer to the question before the last, which is: cash in the bank doesn’t mean cash reserves. Some of that money has already been committed by NMIT.

Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation

11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Why, considering it was due to be released in June 2019, has the Government not yet released its Research, Science and Innovation Strategy?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Trade and Export Growth) on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: The tentative June date was set, but sector participants recommended a broader round of public consultation, which they preferred to a quicker process. It was then intended that the strategy would be released earlier this year, but COVID intervened. I then decided to put the release of the long-term strategy on hold while we responded to the COVID-19 epidemic. On behalf of the Minister, I intend to revise the strategy in light of COVID and will complete this following this year’s election, if re-elected.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How can she use COVID-19 as an excuse, when COVID-19 did not hit New Zealand until February this year, and the Research, Science and Innovation Strategy was due to be released in June last year?

SPEAKER: Can I—oh, no; the member can answer it. But can I just recommend to members that they listen to the answer before they go for a pre-prepared supplementary.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I gave that explanation in my answer to the primary question.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she accept that if she had released the strategy on time, there could have been more investment in innovation in Budget 2020, as a Government report from early last year suggested different investment in innovation until the Research, Science and Innovation Strategy is released?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, and, in fact, the sector will benefit from the $401.3 million funding boost that was in Budget 2020, which included a lift to Crown Research Institutes funding of approximately $196 million; plus that fund also includes the COVID response and recovery fund. And, of course, since COVID, the Minister has rapidly stood up the $25 million COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund to accelerate the development and deployment of innovative solutions and to support research to alleviate the impacts of COVID-19.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What does it say about the importance her Government is placing on the research, science, and innovation sector that she has failed to release the strategy, creating uncertainty for the sector, which is already struggling to rebound from COVID-19?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I thank the member for the opportunity to inform the House that the assertions in that question are quite wrong, for the reasons I’ve previously explained.

Question No. 12—Internal Affairs

12. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made to help support firefighters throughout New Zealand?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): It was my privilege to recently announce over $50 million worth of upgrades and repairs to fire stations across the country. This involves improvements to 26 fire stations across the country, ranging from total replacement of old stations or ones with significant seismic issues through to partial refurbishments and improvements for obsolete facilities. I’d like to specifically highlight Christchurch City, Sumner, and Kaikōura, who will all finally receive new fire stations after theirs were damaged in earthquakes. For a long time, communities have been waiting to see firefighters housed in facilities that make their difficult jobs just a bit easier. These projects will help our firefighters. They will help their communities and create local jobs.

Mark Patterson: Why are these improvements needed, and is this the total amount to be spent by Government and Fire and Emergency New Zealand to improve the conditions of our career and volunteer firefighters?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to the first part of the question, this funding will provide for decontamination facilities to be constructed at Ōkaihau station. Decontamination facilities enable firefighters coming home from a fire to remove equipment safely and prevent carcinogens from smoke being brought into living and eating areas of stations. It will also support rural brigades whose facilities are obsolete or no longer fit for purpose, including the Cavalli brigade, which is currently operating from a pair of shipping containers. This funding will allow a brand new station to be built for these firefighters. For a period of time, these dedicated firefighters didn’t even have a toilet because their portaloo was stolen by local criminals. In answer to the second part of the question, no. In addition to this funding, Fire and Emergency has also budgeted $38 million for property upgrades in 2021. Since its formation on 1 July 2017, Fire and Emergency has invested over $120 million in capital property works. I believe that fire stations should be up to the same standard as the amazing people who operate from them, and these upgrades will help accelerate that process.

Bills

Public Service Legislation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): When the committee, after its urgency session this morning—we were to debate both the title and the commencement date for this important Public Service Legislation Bill. I would note, after three hours of debate on it, that not a single Government member has chosen to take a call on any single provision, which highlights just the lack of engagement in the parliamentary process of getting this legislation right.

Now, the commencement clause has three different timetables for the provisions of the Act coming into effect. One of the provisions is specifically related to the redundancy provisions. One is connected to an Order in Council in respect of when those parts would come into effect. The question I’d love the Minister to address is that there’s no requirement when you say that part of the Act will come into effect when the Cabinet agrees to an Order in Council by the Governor-General, no deadline. That could be deferred a year, it could be two years, it could be four years, it could be into ad infinitum. In fact, it’s actually surprising the number of laws that this Parliament has passed that the Cabinet has never passed the regulations for the Governor-General to actually bring those provisions into effect. So I think the committee needs an explanation from the Minister in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) as to why we have these three different dates for different provisions of the bill.

One part of the commencement clause says that it will come into effect on the day it will get Royal assent, which, given the Government’s programme, I assume is next Monday. Another portion of the bill will come into effect six months after that, which would suggest in January next year. And a third portion of the bill would come into effect whenever there was an Order in Council passed.

Now, the provisions with respect to redundancy are actually quite significant for tens of thousands of public servants who are covered by this Public Service Legislation Bill. Whenever there’s a reorganisation of Government agencies and there’s a huge reorganisation the likes of what we’ve been debating with the issue of the polytechnic sector, or whether it be in terms of the massive reform proposed for district health boards—when a staff member moves from one agency to another, their entitlements in respect of redundancy are affected, and the way in which that commencement clause works has an impact on who will and who will not be eligible for the protections that are provided. And so my very specific questions that I’d want the Minister to address are why there are those different commencement dates; why would we not want those protections for public servants, particularly in respect of any redundancy provisions? If the argument is that this bill makes those provisions fairer—and I’m one of those that say they are an improvement—why we would want to defer that beyond the implementation date for the bill?

Finally, I would say that in the committee stage, we found errors in this legislation, and I would argue that that being the case, with the indecent haste that the Government has rammed this legislation through under urgency, a 200-page SOP only made available two days ago—why would it be that we want to rush in with the implementation of the bill? That is why National members do not support the commencement provisions that are set out. This is actually, alongside our finance legislation, some of the most important legislation that Parliament has. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the country’s elected representatives in this Parliament and the thousands of public servants that we have with us, and that’s why I’d ask the Minister to address those questions.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): There are two issues there. Most of this law comes into effect the day after it receives the Royal assent. There are two areas that don’t. Clause 89 provides continuous employment that will enable the portability of entitlements to statutory leave within the Public Service. It does not have a specific date by which it will come into effect. There are a couple of reasons for that. One is that agencies’ current administrative policies and payroll infrastructure vary significantly and aligning this will take some time to get right, and it’s difficult to put a specific date on the time frame that that will take. There are also some likely forthcoming changes to the Holidays Act that will need to be taken into account as well. Of course, the timetable for that will be determined by the Parliament, and as such it’s not possible to put a specific date into this bill.

With regard to clause 110, it’s a technical clause which repeals aspects of the bill which make amendments to other Acts, repeals, or revokes legislation. So this is a technical provision used by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). This commences six months after the enactment as all of the amendments, repeals, and revocations will have been undertaken or completed by then. So PCO then repeals these matters to keep them off the statute book and to keep the legislation tidy.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 549 in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

The committee divided the bill into the Public Service Bill and the Public Finance Amendment Bill, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 550.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Public Service Legislation Bill with amendment and divided into the Public Service Bill and the Public Finance Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

Bills

Public Service Bill

Public Finance Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of State Services): I move, That the Public Service Bill and the Public Finance Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Now, these bills repeal the State Sector Act 1988 and replace it with the Public Service Act 2020 and make amendments to the Public Finance Act 1989. This is a very significant day for the New Zealand Public Service. Before I get into the detail of the bills, I do want to take a moment to acknowledge our hard-working and dedicated public servants up and down the country. There is no doubt that in a time of emergency, we see the Public Service at its very best. We see our public servants going out of their way to ensure that New Zealanders get the support that they need in extraordinary and often very, very difficult circumstances. What a time of emergency also highlights, however, is that our Public Service sometimes strains under that pressure when it requires joined-up Government approaches when all aspects of Government need to work together, hand in glove, to provide New Zealanders with the type of support that they need. So this these bills deal with some of the biggest impediments to that collaborative and joined-up approach that we expect to see from our Public Service.

We do need to see the Public Service organising itself much more around the needs of New Zealanders, the needs of New Zealand businesses, rather than organising around the needs of the Public Service. The State Sector Act 1988 was a watershed piece of legislation that fundamentally changed the way a large part of our governing apparatus in New Zealand operates. It has had many, many strengths. It certainly strengthened the accountability of the Public Service with regard to the efficient use of public resources. It strengthened the lines of accountability between chief executives of those departments and Ministers, and between the chief executives and those working underneath them, and that was of course a very welcome development at the time.

But what it has done over time is it’s reinforced a view that the Public Service should operate in silos. The reality is New Zealanders do not live their life in silos. We do not wake up every morning thinking, “I’m going to attend to my education needs at a certain part of the day, and then I’m going to attend to my health needs, and then I’m going to attend to my other needs.” Actually, we’ve got to have public services that can work and operate around the needs of New Zealanders all of the time, and I believe that these bills will go a significant way to ensuring the Public Service can do that. We’ve got a Public Service that is incredibly well respected by New Zealanders and around the world, and that is something that we should all be very proud of.

So the bills help us to reconnect with a spirit of service to the community. It reconnects us by unifying the Public Service around a common purpose, principles, and values, something that has been sorely lacking from the State Sector Act. It will ensure that the Public Service operates with integrity and continues to earn and retain the trust, confidence, and respect of New Zealanders. A review of the statutory framework for the Public Service, the State Sector Act 1988, was carried out in 2019. There was extensive public consultation before legislation was drafted. I do want to commend those working at the State Services Commission for a very robust process. These bills didn’t just emerge out of nothing; there was a very robust consultation process in which people had the opportunity to put forward their views on the strengths and weaknesses of our existing arrangements.

Consultation occurred based on several aims. One was affirming the constitutional role of the Public Service in supporting New Zealand’s democratic form of Government. That’s very important. The Public Service does not stand alone from Government. It is the delivery arm of Government, and the constitutional role of the Public Service is to support the elected Government of the day. The reforms occur around the goal to create a more modern, agile, and adaptive Public Service, and, of course, to deliver better outcomes and better services for New Zealanders.

So I’ll briefly touch on each of the parts of the bills. Part 1 of the Public Service Bill clearly establishes the purpose, principles, and values of an apolitical Public Service. It recognises the role of the Public Service in supporting the Crown and its commitment to its relationship with Māori, something that has not been well captured by legislation in the past, and it affirms the spirit of service to the community that public servants bring to their work every day, and I think every one of us can attest to that. We see that in our local communities.

Part 2, very significantly, provides a wider range of more flexible organisational forms for the Public Service. These will enable the Public Service to respond more effectively and quickly to multi-disciplinary cross-agency issues and challenges, and to the changing priorities of the Government of the day—of course, Government priorities do change from time to time, and particularly when there’s a change of Government.

Part 3 concerns the people working in the Public Service. It begins with an expanded leadership role for the Public Service Commissioner. The new name—being the Public Service Commissioner, replacing the State Services Commissioner—I think better accurately reflects the nature of the role. It also creates a more joined-up leadership of the Public Service and provides for new future and system-level leadership roles. The good employer provisions carried over from the State Sector Act 1988 are modernised, with explicit reference to diverse and inclusive workplaces and the workforce, pay equity, and recognition that remuneration decisions must be made free of gender and other bias, something that this Parliament has been working hard to achieve.

Part 4 relates to the Government workforce policy and the use of workforce policy statements to set out the Government’s guidance and expectations for agencies on employment and workforce matters. Parts 5 and 6 carry over some of the necessary provisions from the State Sector Act 1988 and address other technical matters, including the repeals. And Part 7 covers the amendments to the Public Finance Act that are required to allow for the increased flexibility in working arrangements created by departmental agencies and to account for the new Public Service organisational forms.

So to sum this up, it is a very big day for the New Zealand Public Service. There has been several years of considered work that has gone into creating these bills. I do want to thank all of those who have been involved in the process. It’s a piece of work that I am very proud of. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This legislation represents a lost opportunity to substantially upgrade one of the most important statutes that we have within our Parliament. This legislation has been the victim of both poor policy and poor process, and National is disappointed that we are not able to support them. Now, we absolutely agree that the Public Service that supports the Government of the day is a defining factor that makes New Zealand such a great country—hugely proud that we have a Public Service that is to a large degree free of corruption. In fact, when National left Government in 2017, we were ranked the least corrupt country of 196 countries in the world, and that reflects well on our Public Service. I am one of those that hugely values the fact that we’re not like the United States, where all the senior levels of the Public Service disappear. We have a genuinely politically neutral Public Service, and that needs to be jealously guarded. Equally so, it’s important that our Public Service is as open and transparent as is possible and practical, and that is an area that needs further reform and where this legislation represents some lost opportunity.

National’s biggest concern with this legislation is the lack of focus on getting good value for money for the taxes that New Zealand’s 5 million citizens pay. Yes, it’s important the Public Service is politically neutral, that it’s transparent and those things, but, actually, one of the most important things is that it spends public money wisely and carefully. I cannot believe that the parties in Government—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—voted against National’s amendments that would’ve put a value in the public sector that they have a duty to spend public money wisely and effectively.

The reason I think historically that’s so important is that when the State Sector Act 30 years ago—when we last wrote this legislation, the public sector had an appalling reputation as being bloated and wasteful. All those trends are coming back again, that the needs of the centre outweigh the actual delivery of public services for New Zealanders. I give a simple example: the Ministry of Education, one of the agencies the Minister of State Services is responsible for, had 2,632 staff when our Government left office. It now has 3,487. That’s an increase of 33 percent in the number of officials within the Ministry of Education, a one-third increase, in the same time as there’s been a 1.2 percent increase in the number of teachers. I think the average tax-paying New Zealander wants their money going into those front-line services rather than into a bloated bureaucracy, and that is the risk of this legislation, that, simply, we expand an ever-growing Public Service that is not focused on the activities—the health services, the education services, the justice services and the other things—that are so important.

The second disappointment I have with this legislation is with respect to the linkages with local government. What this legislation does is miss the opportunity to get a far greater level of connectedness between that huge part of the Public Service that is in local government. So many of the Acts, the laws, the grants, the public money that we in this Parliament provide is actually delivered, either in regulatory services or in terms of finances, by the local government sector. There was a real opportunity to create a deputy commissioner of public services for local government. There was a real opportunity to enable staff to be able to move between local and central government and to build their skills. There was a real opportunity to provide our elected representatives, our mayors and our councillors, with a robust audit of the capabilities of their organisation, in the same way that our State Services Commission does for public agencies. The Government missed that opportunity for an incredibly important improvement in the public services.

Then the third issue on which I must express concern is the way in which the changing of Government agencies and departments has become an excuse and made easier rather than actually improving services. This is a Government that is radically changing our polytechnic sector. All of our polytechs are being merged into one amorphous, big institution. We’ve got a report from the Government that they’re going to make radical changes to the other really important public service of health services, with a report that recommends whole new organisation of health and of our district health boards. What this legislation does is reduce Parliament’s role in the reorganisation of Government departments.

Here’s the balance that we need to find in this legislation: in the United States, it is my view that their public service legislation is so restrictive that the institutions of State cannot adapt to the changing issues of the time, that they’ve got old, cumbersome departments that are out of step with the issues that face that particular country. I fear we’re in the opposite, and that is that every time there’s a new issue, we reorganise the Public Service—continuously changing. A classic example in the term of this Government is this Government created the new housing and urban development ministry, and it supposedly was going to deliver the 100,000 KiwiBuild houses. I have never in my political career seen as big a public policy failure as KiwiBuild. That promised New Zealand 100,000 homes and is yet to deliver 400 of those homes. It was an example of where the Government believed that they were going to be able to address a real issue through reorganising Government departments rather than actually being focused on the delivery.

I want to point out the very poor process with this important legislation. The Minister introduced a 200-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) with 500 clauses in it on Tuesday night—law that will be in place tomorrow. Who in this Parliament seriously believes—I’ll put a bet on it: there is not a single MP in this Parliament that has read that law. I found an error in the law, that subsequently was corrected, just by chance during the committee stages that we had to repair. This is Mickey Mouse legislation. Not a single Government member chose to take a call. I sat on the Governance and Administration Committee. I have never seen and been so embarrassed that MPs were so lacking in engagement on one of the most important Acts that this Parliament in this term will pass. Nobody could give a hoot from the Government benches about the detail of that legislation. There was zero engagement at the select committee. Parliament has just rubber-stamped a massive SOP without any of the proper investigation and proper consideration of a bill that is so important to New Zealand.

This legislation is a lost opportunity for New Zealand to make a step change in the improvement of our Public Service, and the fact that the Government voted down amendments at a time when we are facing the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression and refused to put a requirement on the public sector to spend public money wisely and effectively speaks volumes about this Government. They somehow believe that just throwing money at problems solves them, without the requirement that, actually, it’s the effectiveness in the way in which that money is spent that we should be focused on. National does believe there is a need to upgrade the old State Sector Act of 1988, but we would want that focus on efficiency, that important issue of development of a stable and professional Public Service, and look forward to the opportunity to amend this legislation and provide the sort of framework for New Zealand’s Public Service that will not just work for public servants but one that will work for the New Zealand public.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just before I get into talking about these very important bits of legislation, I do want to respond to a couple of matters that member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, raised with us. The first of those was his interest in value for money, and I thank him for that. I am also very interested, as you might imagine, as the Minister of Finance, in the concept of value for money. Value for money does not necessarily come from cutting services. In fact, it can lead to a significant decline in value for money.

The member raised the question of the number of staff at the Ministry of Education. The thing was that the Ministry of Education, when it was under the stewardship of the former Government, unfortunately stumbled into Novopay, didn’t build the number of schools that were required, didn’t have a proper capital unit within it, and when it comes to the polytechs, that is the very definition of the problem with the member’s premise, which is that the polytechs individually were going broke. In terms of the taxpayer, we were writing out cheques for hundreds of millions of dollars because of the poor approach taken, the cuts, the austerity approach taken. So value for money actually comes from having a Public Service that is well organised, well led, and focused on the outcomes for New Zealand, not on the turf warfare of different agencies. So I reject the criticisms of this legislation by the member who just spoke before me.

What I want to do at the start is to thank all of those who’ve been involved in this legislation. My involvement comes from my role as the Minister of Finance, but the Minister who has had the greatest impact on this is Minister Hipkins, and I want to congratulate him for a project that I know means a lot to him personally. It is a massive piece of work to reform our State sector’s legislative architecture, and he has driven it and driven it hard, and he deserves to be congratulated for that. I also want to congratulate and thank the leadership of the State Services Commission and, in fact, all of the departmental heads who’ve had a role in this legislation, and other State servants. From today, we can properly call them public servants.

That is the other point I want to make, by way of introduction—is that by the best estimate of the Leader of the House, rushing out and having a quick look at the statute book, we think that it is probably at least 60 years since New Zealand’s public servants were properly recognised in law as public servants, not State servants. Now, I know what was planned in 1988. I know what would lay behind the thinking of the creation of the State Sector Act, and perhaps going back to the 1960s as well. But now, today, we finally, in law, give New Zealand’s hard-working and dedicated public servants the right name and the right place.

And it matters. In the words of another politician in this House, words matter, and in this case they genuinely do, because our public servants serve the public of New Zealand. They actually don’t serve the State of New Zealand, per se; they serve the public of New Zealand. And haven’t we seen, in the last few months, the value of that work? I’ve actually mentioned it, and I acknowledge that today is an important day for Madam Speaker in the House, and I’ve acknowledged it before, as a former Minister for Social Development—the extraordinary work done by that ministry during COVID-19. That is just one example of the incredible job public servants do for New Zealanders every single day. Today, finally, we recognise that in the name of this legislation. I am very pleased that we are doing that.

The bit of the legislation that I am most connected with is what was in Part 7 of the legislation, which is around the changes to the Public Finance Act (PFA). This piece of legislation works in couple with the changes that we are making to the PFA not just here but also in other legislation. Recently we passed through this House the Public Finance (Wellbeing) Amendment Bill. What that bill does is lock in within our budgeting process the concept of wellbeing. The wellbeing approach, as we’ve interpreted and driven it through over the last couple of years, is about core elements of this legislation. It’s about taking a long-term, intergenerational view of what we do with the important taxpayer money we look after. It’s about breaking down the silos between agencies so that we are focused on the outcomes for New Zealanders, not the inputs. Too often we do that, and I will admit that we’re all guilty of it at times—of focusing on the amount of money that we might get for a particular project or a particular ministry. That’s an input. It matters. It’s important. But it’s not as important as the outcomes that we are creating for New Zealanders. So that focus of the wellbeing approach, which we’re embedding in the Public Finance Act, now comes through this piece of legislation as well, and the two work incredibly well together.

What Part 7 of the legislation actually does, in part, is allow within the Public Finance Act the very flexibility that’s created by the rest of the legislation. So the rest of the legislation creates different structures for how we’ll deliver those outcomes. I want to mention one of those, and I’m pretty confident my colleague Jan Logie is probably going to mention it as well, since she’s in the House, and that is around the joint venture on the elimination of domestic and sexual violence. The interesting thing about that coming together of about eight or 10 different Government agencies is that when we set about doing it, we didn’t have a name for it, because, actually, the concept wasn’t there. It was called a joint venture, and now, within this legislation, we formalise that approach.

Now, why does it matter for me? It matters for me because that goal of eliminating domestic and sexual violence, which is shared by everybody in this House—we now have the ability to say that is our goal; that is the outcome we’re working to. These 10 agencies are jointly accountable and responsible for that. They have a shared vision. But the problem that we’re now solving with Part 7 of this legislation is that if you go looking for that joint venture in the Budget or in the Government’s accounts, you won’t find it. You’ll find 10 different bits of it that you have to put together to then say “That’s the joint venture”. Now, that might sound like a simple thing, but its consequences are much more significant. It means that we don’t have, within the monitoring structure, the ability to see it as one from a financial perspective. That changes with the legislation that we’re passing today. That is the kind of approach that will deliver value for money, and more than that, it will deliver the outcomes that we all share when it comes to making sure we eliminate domestic and sexual violence.

I see huge opportunity for this kind of approach across Government, where we focus on the outcome, we break the silos down, and we actually have the legislative mandate that sits behind it. It’s exciting, and when I’ve done my addresses over the last few years to the Institute of Public Administration, the audience is full of young public servants who want this. They see themselves as public servants and they want to work on these big issues together across agencies. Today’s legislation puts in place the framework for that, and that’s why I’m very proud of it, and that’s why I commend it to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): This legislation is a once-in-a-generation update of the legal framework governing the foundation and operations of the Public Service in New Zealand. I was very much impressed at State Services Commissioner Peter Hughes’ stories about the evolution of New Zealand’s Public Service. I shared a vision of many people for New Zealand Public Service, and that is a streamlined, modern, agile, and adaptive Public Service. Make no mistake: New Zealand Public Service still performs very well by international standards. Nevertheless, we believe the State Sector Act 1988 has its limits. So we need a new Act which will be able to serve us not only for today but also for tomorrow. So that is why we are having these particular bills.

National supports many changes to the legislation to update, basically, the legal framework. For instance, National supports the changes to enable public servants to move more easily between department agencies. We also support provisions that enable departmental joint ventures so as to better tackle challenges that transcend individual Government departments.

Now, we say that we support many changes, including the cultural change that would enable public servants to feel that they belong to one particular system, they are part of one particular system, regardless of which agency they work for. So this bill will have far-reaching implications for our Public Service. And there is a strong public interest in this. For that reason, we should not have rushed the process. Because we really rushed the process, we now have concerns. National members of select committee tried time and time again to extend the report-back date so that we would be able to fully scrutinise this particular bill. However, Government members of the committee declined our requests. Now, our concern is, because we do not have time to fully examine all the provisions, this legislation will not be able to serve what it is supposed to achieve.

I’ll give you an example. A good example is New Zealand Human Rights Commission’s concern. They are so concerned that the chief commissioner, Paul Hunt, wrote a letter to me saying that they are deeply concerned about this particular legislation in terms of the impact on human rights. Now, I’ll read the letter. This particular letter says, “As it should, this bill expressly recognises the human rights of public officials. However, it does not explicitly require or even encourage public officials, when performing their duties, to take into account the national and international human rights commitments repeatedly affirmed by New Zealand over many years.” Originally, they thought the committee would be able to make an amendment. But because the committee was not able to report on the bill, and therefore the committee could not do anything, then the chief commissioner wrote to the Minister asking for a Supplementary Order Paper. But then the Minister declined. So if the committee had the time to consider the bill more fully, then we might be able to consider issues like this. But because we did not have time, therefore we were not able to consider all these issues.

So this is a good opportunity, but we missed the good opportunity to make these bills better bills. For that reason, I oppose the bills.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this legislation, the Public Service Legislation Bill, now in two parts. I simply want to add to the conversation in the House by acknowledging Minister Hipkins and, actually, Minister Grant Robertson and their efforts. I see the Public Service in the gallery this afternoon, and I simply wanted to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their incredibly hard work—the undertaking that they have gone through to get this legislation in front of the House as it is today.

I just outline very briefly what we are seeking to achieve through this legislation. We are enabling the Public Service to deliver better outcomes and better services. We are creating a modern, agile and adaptive Public Service and affirming the constitutional role of the Public Service and supporting New Zealanders’ democratic form of Government. In seeking to achieve these, New Zealand First supports this legislation. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the third readings of these bills. As has been mentioned by earlier speakers from this side, we are not supporting this legislation. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t acknowledge the work of public servants in this country. I would like to acknowledge the State Services Commissioner, Peter Hughes, who is sitting in the gallery to see the process of this legislation. I want to say that during these hard times, the public servants have delivered world-class service to the citizens of New Zealand.

I have travelled around the world, from time to time, and have always been admired by others because of our public servants. I have hosted a lot of public servants from overseas in Parliament, from time to time, who come here to learn from our public servants how they operate during the processes. That shows that our public servants are very well recognised all over the world.

The reason that we are opposing this legislation is the process. The Public Service Legislation Bill was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee just before Christmas, and I would like to acknowledge the chair, Dr Jian Yang. He took the initiative and immediately called for public submissions before the Parliament closed for the Christmas break. Then, in February, the Parliament was not reconvened, because of the COVID conditions around the country, and that really left us with no other option than to take submissions over Zoom meetings—whereas the Government instructed to all select committees that only those bills which are related to COVID should be addressed. But this bill was not related to COVID, but this bill, in a generation, was going to be revamped and realised, and we wanted the best outcome out of this. The select committee, I think, on both sides, whether it was Government members or Opposition members—their intention was to improve the bill. A lot of hard work was done, and I would like to acknowledge the officials for their support in improving this legislation. The departmental report was ready, which was discussed in the select committee at length, and a lot of changes were made during that period.

The only thing that was left was that the Parliamentary Counsel Office had to redo the bill and make the amendments in the bill. That opportunity was requested by us from the Opposition side, but the Government MPs declined that request. And that is where I think the process is lacking behind. This legislation—which would have been very good legislation, because a lot of hard work was put in during the select committee—could have gone through this whole process, the committee of the whole House and the third readings, in lesser time than what we have taken in this one day or so.

So I think the intention of the legislation is really good, but the process has been very shambolic. And that is why the National Party is opposing this legislation.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in the third readings of the Public Service Legislation Bill and the Public Finance Amendment Bill, and offer the Green Party’s support for this incredibly important legislation. It has been good to hear the importance of this acknowledged by all speakers across the House, even those who have some issues with the legislation and may not be voting for it today. Actually, I think some of the really key components of the legislation will help transform the effectiveness of the Public Service to deliver. Their ability to deliver for our community seems to have been universally acknowledged, and I just want to acknowledge that today.

I, too, would like to add my voice to those of other members in this House in thanking the public servants who have been working so incredibly hard this entire term of Government, because there has been so much legislation going through, but particularly in response to COVID-19, where everything changed and normal ways of working had to be adapted. What I saw happen was some amazing collaboration between community and Government and between Government agencies that had never happened before, and it was all for the betterment of our community. I do want to acknowledge, though, that I suspect there are many public servants who are looking forward to a holiday and a slowing down in the pace, because it has been really tough and relentless. But the standard of work that at least I have seen has not slipped at all, and that is a huge credit to them.

So in terms of the legislation and the reasons that the Greens are supporting this, it is about, I guess, codifying what we may all have understood as some of those core principles in our Public Service and the principles of political neutrality and free and frank advice and merit-based appointments and open government and stewardship. I think they’re principles that we all thought were in there, and it’s good to get them now on paper and to make sure that they are entrenched in the work of the Public Service—the creation of the sense of people working for different agencies that now actually, rather than identification with the agency, it’s identification with the function of a public servant, and that core role that I know many feel of actually working for the people of this country rather than one siloed agency or Minister. It’s about the betterment of our country and it’s great to see those changes being made here.

I did hear some of the Opposition critiques around this being a missed opportunity, and a point was raised that they’d wanted to have fiscal responsibility or some other phrasing of that in those principles. The Greens were happy not to support that suggestion, because I think the way that that seemed to have been interpreted over the last nine years, I would say, has given us a sense that most people recognise it hasn’t delivered for the country: a workforce crisis within teaching and health and social work, and within our community sector hospitals, which are virtually crumbling around the staff trying to care for patients within them; where courts haven’t had their basic systems upgraded and they’re still working with huge piles of paper, and actually putting people’s safety at risk; fire stations with portaloos that are falling over; aged-care facilities without basic staffing standards that are putting our parents’ and grandparents’ lives and everyday wellbeing at risk; a fundamental health crisis; where the previous Government’s first view of fiscal responsibility meant that they thought the priority was Housing New Zealand, returning a surplus to the Government rather than building State houses. That is not a view that we want entrenched in legislation. That is not a view that we believe serves our country or strengthens the ethos of public service. We want the values and the outcomes to be up front and centre and are pleased to see that that is the general approach within this legislation.

I do want to spend, too, a few minutes talking about the different forms of Government arrangements that are enabled through this legislation, which enables interdepartmental executive boards consisting of chief executives working towards a common outcome, who will now become individually and collectively responsible for that board’s work. That’s about getting joined-up leadership. And I feel as if I can speak to this from personal experience, as acknowledged by Grant Robertson, around this Government’s acknowledgement that domestic violence and sexual violence—when we looked at all of our efforts over decades as a country to try and address those entrenched forms of violence, we saw that we’d struggled to sustain our efforts and we’d struggled to make a difference for people in our community.

One of the key reasons for that was the organisation of Government, that each agency was doing its own bit in isolation from each other. And quite often we had cases—I think it was Justice and Corrections, who were funders for non-violence programmes, and they came up with two entirely different programmes. It was the same community provider on the ground delivering the programmes to the same people, but they were expected to provide two different models of intervention with people. And that just doesn’t make sense and undermines people’s efforts to change. As Government, we need to line up our ducks. We need to actually create a coherent response to this form of violence that is centred around people’s lived realities, not just the priorities of any one agency. That is what we are in the process of doing with the joint venture.

I want to acknowledge what a big change that is for all of our Government agencies, where we know that we have teams within agencies who don’t even know what each other is doing, and now we’re trying to create understanding and collaboration across all of Government. That’s a massive job. We’re not all the way there yet by any means, but we’re making real progress. And we saw that during COVID, where the prevention responses around recognising that there was likely to be increased risk of family and sexual violence through lockdown—so Oranga Tamariki and ACC and the Ministry of Social Development came together to look at actually what kind of prevention messages could they each put out there that would make sense together, how they could each ensure that the organisations that they were supporting were able to keep delivering and were supported to do that. They worked with Civil Defence and Emergency Management to help them check in on people and make sure they were safe. We had no mechanism to do that before.

That kind of way of working is how we make a difference for people’s lives in our community. It’s so important for domestic and sexual violence. It’s also critical for issues like climate change. That is fundamentally why the Greens are so pleased to be supporting this legislation. Even while we would like to see some iteration in the future, the inclusion of national and international human rights, as suggested by the Human Rights Commission, and the pay equity principles included in the good employer section of the legislation—they are the steps that we think come next. But this is a really good start and we look forward to working constructively across Government and the entire Public Service for the betterment of our communities.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to contribute briefly on the Public Service Legislation Bill, which, of course, has been split into two separate bills. Others on this side of the House have noted the shortened process as compared with the very large piece of legislation in front of us, and made unfavourable comments about the extent to which that would seem inappropriate for the purpose of scrutiny and so on. I won’t belabour that point, but I do state it for the record. On the other side of the House, we have heard a point that I think was actually pretty well made about the significance of the phrase “public servant”. I do just want to pause at this point and acknowledge with thanks those who work with and for our country to improve the lives of many of its citizens—and I used the term “citizen” pretty broadly—to the betterment of us all. So I do want to acknowledge and thank those who are directly affected by the legislation and, indeed, those who have helped put it together.

But I would say it seems a bit of a strange argument for the Minister of State Services to be placing quite so much emphasis on the importance of the phrase “public servant” as opposed to “State servant”, suggesting that the name “State servant” would imply that such people are not serving the people directly but instead serving the State. Well, if that’s the case, then officers of Parliament are not performing a function that’s directly useful to people but rather merely serving the Parliament, and Ministers of the Crown likewise, presumably, would be thought to be serving only an abstract entity and not the people of the country. Opinion may differ on the extent to which any given Minister of the Crown is indeed serving the people, but that’s not a territory for this debate—and, of course, we can have some fun on that matter in the upcoming couple of months and not the upcoming couple of minutes.

So I’ll just echo a couple of comments made by others on this side of the House rueing the lost opportunity to improve interconnectedness between and within local government and central government—and others have made similar points along the lines of those colleagues who have emphasised the importance of fiscal prudence. We made a specific suggestion regarding an amendment for that. I suppose the other side might reasonably say, “Well, of course, it should be obvious to any public servant or, indeed, any politician that fiscal responsibility should be one of the aims of the exercise that they are conducting.” Of course, that’s the case with all these principles: they’re all stating the obvious to some extent. But the purpose of the exercise is to put in black and white the kinds of things that should be taken into account on each and every occasion.

I don’t think I’ll probably be able to add much more to the debate either in terms of time or value, so, at that point, I’ll say that I join with colleagues on this side of the House and reflect the position that we’ve already stated in relation to the bills.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Public Service Bill and the Public Finance Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bills read a third time.

Bills

Urban Development Bill

In Committee

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all parts of this Urban Development Bill to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. You’re not calling for a party vote on that! No.

Tim van de Molen: All in good time!

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for agreeing to consider this committee stage in one part, and I think it is a useful way to approach this bill, which gives us an opportunity to really ask some of the questions around—I want to start on this bill by asking the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, and thanking him for being available—the nature of the bill itself, this Urban Development Bill.

My first question for the Minister is that there are a number of processes outlined in this bill, leading towards the creation of a specified development project—so even before we get to a project being designated as a specified development project, there are a number of processes, and I’m not asking the Minister to outline every one of those processes, because they’re all there in the bill, but what I am interested in hearing from the Minister is the rationale for those processes.

Erica Stanford: Madam Chair?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: No, no. No, I’ve asked a question.

Erica Stanford: I know, but he’s not standing up.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Erica Stanford.

Hon Jacqui Dean: So he’s not going to answer? I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): May I anticipate your point of order, and if I don’t address it, you’re welcome to have another go. The Minister isn’t required to address every point as they come up; it is expected that he will be answering all the questions. But if he doesn’t feel a need to answer yours as you go, then we could have another contribution.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Thank you. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That leaves me a little questioning of the process, because, earlier today, in fact, when considering a number of committee stages, the Chair at the time suggested to the committee that this was more of a conversation, and that was—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Correct. What’s the point of order?

Hon Jacqui Dean: The point of order is that if it is a conversation, then a question is posed and an answer given, and then the questioner has an opportunity to ask another question, and receives an answer. That’s the way a conversation goes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you. That’s not a point of order. You will find on occasions that conversations are more one-sided than you would find ideal. The Minister’s not required to answer every question as they are raised. The expectation is that he will answer them, and the member who’s had the call, who didn’t take the full entitlement of five minutes, will be expecting another call, and the Chair will be giving him or her another call.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you for the Minister being in the chair. I’ve got some questions around Part 1, and I note there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table addressing this. I want to talk about the things in the bill that have been excluded, so protected land, parks and reserves, Māori customary land, land protected from use of certain powers without agreement—so there’s a whole range of parcels of land that aren’t able to be used for development. They’re specifically excluded—“Restrictions on developing certain land”. We went through that at the Environment Committee and understand and agree with all of those lands that are restricted from being developed.

The question to the Minister is: did he receive any advice on other parcels of land that, for example, have had, say, a recent Environment Court decision? So you may find there is a parcel of land that, under the Auckland Unitary Plan, was able to be developed, locals took that to the Environment Court, and the judgment was in favour of them. So this may have been quite recently, say in the last couple of years. Under this bill, technically—and I’d like the Minister’s advice on that—as far as I can see, that land could then be developed.

Now, I want to just run the Minister through an example. So in my electorate, for example, we’ve got Ōkura. It is on the banks of the Ōkura estuary. It is a pristine marine reserve. The area was, under the Auckland Unitary Plan, allowed to be developed with infill housing. The council actually opposed that, funnily enough, and so did all of the local greenie groups. So they all got together, took it to the Environment Court, and the Environment Court went and ruled in their favour. So this is a very recent decision on a parcel of a very significant land that was said, if it was developed in that way, to put the pristine marine reserve and estuary in great danger.

So I guess my question is that in this bill, as far as I can see, there’s no preclusion for that land to now be developed in contravention to that ruling of the Environment Court. So I just wanted the Minister to answer that to start with, if he would.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Madam Chair, thank you, and I want to thank the members for their questions. I take it that the member Jacqui Dean is really just wanting to have a general conversation about the processes in Parts 2 and 3, leading up to a specified development project. So those processes do form much of the substance of this bill, and a great deal of time has gone into considering the balance between, kind of, complexity and speed. The objective of this legislation is to bring large-scale, complex projects to fruition in the space of months or one or two years as opposed to sometimes a decade, which is what they would normally take under some of the existing processes.

So there are processes set out in Part 2 for the ability for local authorities or others to make proposals about specified development projects, and then a process for these proposals to be considered for the development of a plan for the development project. It sets out mandatory things that should be included in that plan, and then there’s an establishment process for an independent hearings panel. It’s true, I think, that much of this process was inspired by the independent hearings panel process that was used for the Auckland Unitary Plan. There’s a front-loading of public consultation, designed to give people in communities a say and to be able to shape the development plan at an early stage, and then everybody has a chance to have a say and make a submission at the independent hearings panel. But the critical thing is that there are appeals only on matters of law and judicial review.

So some critics, I think, pointed out, and some people at the select committee pointed out, that the process was quite complex and quite weighty, but we’ve done our best to try and strike the right balance between a process that will facilitate good planning and good decision-making while giving people access to the rule of law through the independent hearings panel, and while also giving flexibility for the way that the different tools are used in putting together these projects. I’m happy to have other questions from the member on the processes around the specified development projects.

To Erica Stanford, the issue about whether there exists under these provisions the possibility that development in certain areas could go ahead after it’s been through some other process—and Ōkura was cited as an example—theoretically, yes, a specified development project could take place in an area like that, which has already, say, been through the Environment Court. We didn’t seek to preclude that possibility in the legislation, but there are a number of checks and balances that are built into this that are designed to make sure we get good decision-making, that everybody has a chance to have a say.

So local councils, for example—their view on the specified development projects must be sought formally and transparently. Hopefully, we’ll come later to the provisions around parks and reserves, but any reconfiguring of parks and reserves, for example, would have to go to Cabinet, to the Minister of Conservation. So there are a number of checks and balances, including the fact that these plans would have to go to an independent hearings panel likely to be headed up by an Environment Court judge.

The other thing, I think, to remember is that the provisions—Parts 6 and 7 of the Resource Management Act—are included in the principles and purpose of this legislation. So there are a number of different checks and balances designed to ensure good decision-making. But, yes, it’s true—just in the same way that a project like this could alter the designations and the consenting that exist within a district plan, they could affect a hypothetical block of land that had already been through some kind of process.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you for that answer. I think that in his answer the Minister has put a huge amount of fear into so many local community groups, conservation groups, and residents and ratepayers associations around the country who have fought for decades and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars that they’ve raised themselves to get decisions to protect local land that is now, as the Minister has pointed out, under threat. This concerns me greatly. I know that the people who have fought for so long to protect Ōkura are going to be shaking in their boots.

I guess, firstly, I’d like to ask the Minister if he took advice or would consider putting some extra checks and balances or requirements for the panel to consider relatively recent Environment Court decisions, potentially, or whether the Minister puts himself in the shoes of a community who has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of their time and energy and thought that they won a great battle like they did in Ōkura—and this will be replicated throughout the land—who are now sitting there with that answer going, “Everything we worked for—all of that blood, sweat, tears—is now under threat.” Is there not something—has the Minister considered anything that would ameliorate that, by perhaps making the panel take into account relatively recent Environment Court decisions?

I guess the other thing that the Minister has to consider is that he himself has said in the past that he wants to see the removal of the rural urban boundary. People in these communities are already feeling under threat by comments like that and now this bill, and the Minister has just said that the land that they’ve had protected is now under threat. They are feeling very, very vulnerable. I want to know what potentially the Minister might agree to in terms of additional checks and balances or things that can be put in place to make sure that recent decisions that have been put in place in protected areas, or Environment Court decisions that have ruled in favour of protecting land, could not be considered by the panel.

Further to that, has the Minister had any feedback or has he considered ruling out any greenfield development? Because if that was in the bill—I mean, we could put that in the bill today as an amendment. Is that something that the Minister would consider? Because that would then make all of those community groups and all of those people around the country feel a lot more safe and secure after all of the hard effort that they have put into winning many battles.

I note that there is a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table for protection of some land stock. Hell, I’m not familiar with it—I just picked it up—but, obviously, I’m not the only member in this committee concerned about this. I think there are potentially some ways around this, whether or not we put into the bill some requirements to take into account those Environment Court decisions or we preclude greenfield developments. I just want to know if the Minister would consider any of those or has considered them and taken any advice.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m interested in why the member would want to exclude greenfield developments from the provisions of this bill.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): The thing, to the Minister, is that brownfield developments are the obvious reason to develop—a good place to develop. Greenfield, if it was excluded from this bill, would stop the concerns of many people in communities around New Zealand who are worried about a process that goes around the Resource Management Act (RMA), that has limited consultation, limited right of being able to fight it to the Environment Court, in areas that could be of extreme significant value and under normal circumstances would have the protection of that consultation and that process of being able to take it to the Environment Court. A greenfield development is very different than a brownfield development.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): The Government wouldn’t consider that as a possibility. It’s our strong view that our towns and cities need to be able to grow up and grow out. Actually, greenfield development is, as long as it’s well supported by infrastructure and is well planned and has good transport links, one of the main ways that our communities grow. This legislation is designed to cut through the red tape, to speed up development and allow our towns and cities to grow. We need to build more houses. We need to build strong communities up and down this country. That’s what this bill is trying to do. It’s pro-growth. It’s pro-development.

Now, we want to build high-quality developments, urban intensification in our towns and cities, but that’s not the only kind of growth we want. We need our cities to grow up and grow out. So we would not contemplate the idea of excluding greenfield developments. You know, the development at Drury in Auckland southern suburbs is exactly the kind of development. A town the size of Napier built around two new railway stations and a town centre with great roading connections would be exactly the kind of candidate that could benefit from this legislation, and that is a greenfield development. The member asked whether or not we would consider requiring in the bill that the independent hearings panel take into account things like recent Environment Court decisions. That would be the ultimate in telling Environment Court judges how to suck eggs. It would be an obvious and logical thing to do. They operate under the RMA. They will operate under this legislation and they will be setting out to make good urban planning decisions. And taking into account the intrinsic biodiversity or ecological qualities of a reserve and taking into account recent Environment Court decisions would be exactly the kind of thing they would do when they make their decisions.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Sorry, last one for now. Can the Minister, then, stand here today and tell me categorically that land at Ōkura, which has been very recently protected by the Environment Court, will not be developed?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Much as I don’t want to play into the member’s scaremongering, I’m not going to stand here and list a series of land parcels around this country that will be excluded from this bill. Our Government believes in development. We believe in growth. We believe in building more houses. Now, that’s the point of this legislation. Now, if the member wants to put a Supplementary Order Paper on the Table listing a series of suburbs and communities and villages around this country that will be excluded from this legislation, I invite her to do that, but she won’t get support from the Government for that.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I have done just that—I have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that identifies a parcel of land that I think does need protecting. And I’m sorry to hear the Minister is carte blanche ruling out any SOPs about parcels of land. Can I ask him, because I have to ask questions: would he be willing to consider my SOP 515, because I think it’s quite a good one? Oh, OK, I’ll come back.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I would not, I’m sad to say. I know the member feels strongly about this, but to start in an ad hoc way, listing a whole lot of neighbourhoods or communities that would be excluded from this bill would fly in the face of the very purpose of this bill. If the members choose to read the bill, they will see that it is full of checks and balances. It has been carefully designed to ensure that we get high-quality decision-making that will deliver quality urban development. Those are the checks and balances.

I’ve already talked about the independent hearings panel. I’ve talked about the consultation process, the requirements for councils to be fully involved and have their views sought and formally included in the process. There are also checks and balances that require the powers that are being exercised by Kāinga Ora in these specified development projects to go up to Cabinet. So there is a democratic accountability. That’s the way to deal with this issue and to ensure we get good-quality decision-making; not to just rule out a list of different communities around the country from intrusion.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): It may fly in the face of the purposes of the bill, but I have to ask: why does the Government care so little about the interests of local communities where members of Parliament would be able to identify parcels of land which are important to those local communities—in some cases, I’d say, quite sacred to how local communities feel. The member for the East Coast Bays raises an area in her electorate. And I think what the National Party should be doing is putting forward Supplementary Order Paper on areas that are important for their particular communities.

I have also to ask the Minister why the Government has come here with this type of bill when, yet again, we’re seeing some add-ons to the Resource Management Act (RMA) over and over again—and successive Governments have done this—which just highlights very clearly that the Resource Management Act is broken and needs to be overhauled and fixed from scratch. If the issue is that you can’t get developments through the process fast enough, do something to make the process faster. If the Environment Court is so slow to process appeals and that’s the very reason why we want to abandon the access to the Environment Court, do something to make the Environment Court faster. Has the Government done that? No. Did the last Government do that? No. We just go through the Parliament and tack on new bits to the RMA, make it more complex, make it more difficult, and, effectively, override community rights.

At the heart of this, “specified development projects” are, effectively, private plan changes. It’s a similar way of doing it. The process that was set up by the last Government around the independent hearings panel for the Auckland Council was done that way so that we could avoid large-scale appeals. Part of the reason why we wanted to avoid large-scale appeals was because getting through the appeals is so slow. But appeals, particularly when an organisation that is not the local authority is not democratically elected by the local authority, has the ability to come up with plan changes or specified development projects—we’re moving the decision making around what a community looks like further and further away from the people who actually elect the decision makers, and, in this case, with plan changes, its local authorities.

If it is so logical and obvious that the independent hearings panel would take note of Environment Court decisions, why don’t we just put it in there? If it’s so logical and the Minister thinks it’ll happen anyway, then let’s just put it in there because it is logical. And there are communities around the country that care deeply about how the plans look in their area. They care deeply about the fact that through the Auckland plan process Housing New Zealand left, right, and centre were throwing appeals in whenever they could because they didn’t like the fact that local communities were standing up for themselves. Housing New Zealand and now the Kāinga Ora, they have an agenda which is about forcing mass-scale huge developments on local communities. They want to override what local communities care about and this bill will enable this.

The very reason why I’ve put up this SOP—albeit not in my electorate, but very close to it; an area I used to represent when I was on the city council—is because I’ve seen for years and years Housing New Zealand attacking the ability for locals to try and protect that area. Now we’re all local community—most of us are local community MPs, electorate MPs. We all at some point in time would have had someone talking to us about the issues with the plan that the council has, development issues that are coming our way. Whether we like it or not, view shafts are important to people—how their local community looks to them. Local people care about green space in their community, the ability under this bill to wholescale remove community objections.

Yeah, sure, there’s an independent hearings panel. Yeah, sure, there’ll be judges chairing them, but that’s not good enough. Why is the Minister and why is this Government so anti-community when it comes to suggestions and ideas from members of Parliament that are in touch with the communities that wish to put these up? Why is this Government also not coming forward with a proper Resource Management Act amendment bill which would speed things up properly but still maintain community democratic rights? That’s what we’re losing here. That’s what this bill does. I’m not anti-development, but I am pro-community and I don’t think this bill does that.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I thank the member for—I think there are three points that are worth responding to on that. So on the member’s last point about the RMA, he’ll be pleased to know that my colleague the Hon David Parker is well advanced with a comprehensive reform of the RMA, including the urban aspects of the RMA. The member will see shortly proposals that are emerging from that process that do tackle the fundamental problems of the RMA: that it, for instance, doesn’t protect the environment very well, it costs too much, and it takes too long. And so the member should look forward to seeing those proposals.

In relation to Stockade Hill, which is the subject of the member’s SOP 515, the member’s SOP would amend the bill to exclude Stockade Hill and a zone with a 1 kilometre radius of Stockade Hill’s summit from any exercise of the powers in the bill, thereby excluding them from acquisition and development under the bill. That would have the effect of locking up land in a far more Draconian way than currently happens under the Auckland Unitary Plan and that’s certainly not the objective of our bill.

Third, the member seems to think that the motivation or the policy intent for this bill is slowness of appeals to the Environment Court under RMA processes. That’s not the main intent. The purpose of this bill is to allow the Government, councils, council development agencies like Panuku, iwi, and private developers to undertake large-scale complex developments that would otherwise be far too complex and risky and uncertain for the private sector to do on their own. Fragmented land titles are often complicated, and outdated network infrastructure, three waters and roads, remediation issues—these are things that actually make large-scale urban development projects, particularly in brown and greyfield settings, far too complex for the private sector. And what happens then? They simply don’t happen.

So this is about giving councils, the Government, and the private sector, and iwi the tools to do the very large-scale high-quality developments that we need in our big cities—that cities in Australia, and in the North America and Europe have been doing for decades, using public authorities like this to get through the complexities of large-scale urban development. So it’s not about the slowness of the Environment Court. It’s about bringing together all of the tools and the powers that currently exist within the law but are scattered across 20 different statutes. Councils asked for this. They want these powers because the existing proliferation of different statutory powers is so complex for them and so time-consuming. What this bill does is that it brings them all together in one place. It’s streamlined, it’s expediting, and it’s designed to make development much easier.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I have several questions for the Minister for Urban Development. The first question was in response to a comment that the Minister himself made with regards to a question from another member around Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. To paraphrase, the Minister noted that the Hon David Parker was well advanced in his RMA reform work—I do paraphrase. Does that mean that Minister Parker has been in receipt of the independent report into the Resource Management Act; and, further to that, has the Minister himself seen that report? If not, to both parts of that question, then, is, in his knowledge, David Parker advancing an RMA bill or RMA work ahead of receiving that independent report, which was due to land on his desk, I understand, at the end of June? There will be a great deal of interest, so I just pose those questions.

The reason I ask those questions is because my colleague Erica Stanford has raised an excellent point around RMA reform and the greater context within which this Urban Development Bill sits. While it does provide, in the Minister’s view, a consenting process for large-scale and complex projects, there are provisions for that in the RMA. We all are dissatisfied with that—that is completely understood—which is why David Parker and ministerial colleagues did commission an independent report into the RMA, has expressed the view that there needs to be a wholesale reform of the RMA, and has told the House in the past that, I understand, he awaits the report with interest; well, as do we.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I wonder if the member would like to move on to the Urban Development Bill now.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh, thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’d appreciate it.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: That’s exactly what I’ll do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Good.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much for your advice.

In the context of this Urban Development Bill, I do think the RMA and its development does bear referencing, because it is going to be the statute that will still be in effect for every other project, apart from the post-COVID RMA consenting projects and these large-scale and complex projects, which fall within the purview of the Urban Development Bill. So we have, in effect, a chocolate box mixture of legislative pathways into development.

I want to know, before I move on to more detail on this bill, how those different chocolate box selection of pathways which are being developed—there’s the COVID19 (Fast-track Consenting) Act, we’ve got this Urban Development Bill, and we know we’ve got another bill well advanced; thank you very much, Phil Twyford, for alerting us to that. So we are very interested in how business will regard that. These are the people who are the ones going to be investing in our economy post-COVID, and, if they have such a great selection of consenting tools to choose from, is that going to add to certainty for investment? If there’s one thing we’ve learnt in New Zealand, it’s that stable Government—which we haven’t got now—and certainty, in providing certainty, as I say, for investment, does not seem to be prevailing in this country either, with a mix-match of different types of “let’s get around the RMA” solutions rather than advancing reform of the RMA. Well, I see that’s happening, but we’d like to see the report first.

So that is my first question, and I have more to ask.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to talk—well, I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, actually, to talk about his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I know I’m only a new member, but I haven’t in my time—which has only been three short years—seen an SOP like this. It looks to me like a tidy-up SOP. I mean, for the people who are listening at home and can’t see this SOP, there are many things like, “In clause 100(3), replace “remains” with “is”, “after ‘consents’ insert ‘within a project area’ ”, and it goes on and on and on like this for many pages.

Apart from, potentially, the first part, there doesn’t seem to be anything substantive; rather, just a tidy-up. So if the Minister could run us through this SOP—I think it’s important; this is the first I’ve seen it—and just run us through some of the more substantial parts of this SOP and the reasons for that, but also then just if he could clarify: why all of these changes? We spent a long time in the Environment Committee going through the bill, and I wasn’t aware of the fact that there would need to be more amendments made to the bill. So it would be really useful if the Minister could run us through those, I think.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I do invite the Minister to provide an answer to my question. I’m quite happy for the Minister to take advice if he needs, but the question, I think, was relatively simple, and has been flagged within the context of the Urban Development Bill. What is the context of this bill within the wider Resource Management Act framework? That’s the question. So I really am very happy for the Minister to take advice on that.

My question in this intervention refers to clause 33 in Part 2, wherein the clause sets out what Kāinga Ora would need to do when assessing a project selected in accordance with clause 31. So within that subclause (a) which would require Kāinga Ora to identify, at a high level, the constraints and the opportunities that arise for the project—and this is information for the Ministers. So it could be argued that it’s critical that that information is at a very good quality. During the select committee process, of course, the phrase “high level” was replaced with the words “in general terms”. So given the fact that this is a project assessment being undertaken for the information of Ministers for what is potentially a very large scale and complex project, I would like the Minister to answer the question: what does “in general terms” encompass?

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been listening to the debate with some interest this afternoon on this Urban Development Bill and, indeed, I have a few questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, who knows a lot about housing or maybe a lack of getting houses built. I do agree in part with this bill that it should streamline land to allow houses to be built, but we have some concerns about it.

The question that I do have is in the section about acquiring land. Could the Minister highlight to me about how that process will work and, in particular, about compensation for the land that may indeed be acquired. What happens, indeed, if this land is acquired and then not utilised? That’s commonly called land banking, and that’s been a bugbear in the past.

Hon Ron Mark: Yes—for nine long years, it carried on and on and on.

Hon NATHAN GUY: For longer than that, Mr Mark, and even in Carterton. So the former Mayor of Carterton, I’m sure, knows a lot about it.

The question that I have specifically for the Minister about this bill is: what happens, indeed, if Kāinga Ora actually acquires the land but then doesn’t get around to developing it? That is an interesting point. Of course, the Minister will probably stand up and say, “No, no, that’s not going to happen, because we haven’t built enough KiwiBuild houses and we need to get on and build the houses.”, but I am interested, and I can see his officials running off the bench to give him the answers now. It would be interesting to know if this Crown agency is going to go around acquiring land and then sitting on it unnecessarily.

I’m interested in the compensation and I’m interested to know what is the process of them acquiring land, and is there a time frame, indeed, after the land is acquired when that development actually needs to get started? Could this bill actually work for Ihumātao? That’d be an interesting question. Has the Minister said to his officials that this bill could be applied to that?

It would be an interesting question for the Minister to enlighten us on as to where that process is up to, because here was a development that was going to mean 480 houses were going to be developed not too far from downtown Auckland. It had been through a process, Fletcher’s were under way, and suddenly it’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Is this within the scope of the bill?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes, it is, because it comes back to the point about building houses. The development process was signed off by Auckland Council, the Government has its fingertips all over this, and here we have a bill that is meant to streamline it. Could this bill apply to Ihumātao? That’s a question for the Minister.

Has the Minister had any correspondence or discussions from the Mayor of Auckland, Phil Goff, because what I’m hearing happening is that this new Crown agency is paying more for staff than the council is prepared to pay. It’s raiding technical people out of Auckland Council and is prepared to pay them more, so I’m interested to know: has there been any discussion with Phil Goff through to the Minister—a sly text, a phone call here or there, a meet-up at the cafe or wherever it might occur? Is the Mayor of Auckland worried that he’s losing his staff, or his chief executive is losing staff, through to this Crown agency? So I’d be very interested to know the Minister’s answers to those specific questions.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Let me start by responding to Erica Stanford’s question about clause 33, “Project assessment”. The reason that the drafters have replaced “at a high level,” with “in general terms,”—I know it’s probably a subtle distinction, but in this clause, which is basically about doing due diligence on these projects, the desire of the drafters was to make sure that there was as much flexibility as possible given to the people doing that due diligence work.

In response to Nathan Guy, I would say that the powers in the bill that are around acquisition of land, essentially, apart from deviating in some key aspects, largely mirror the powers of the Public Works Act that are used routinely around our country for roads and motorways and network infrastructure.

Hon Nathan Guy: Do you think that’s enough?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, in fact, what we have done with this bill, based on a lot of deliberation, has been to constrain and roll back some of these powers. So the powers that Kāinga Ora will exercise on land acquisition are quite significantly restrained, particularly in relation to Māori land.

On compensation, exactly the same provisions apply as exist under the Public Works Act. The member anticipated correctly that I don’t expect Kāinga Ora would acquire land and leave it sitting around for a long time, just as I would not expect Waka Kotahi, the Transport Agency, to do that. I can say to the member that I am not aware that there has been any thought given as to whether this Urban Development Bill could be used in relation to Ihumātao, and while I have had much correspondence with the Mayor of Auckland, he’s never raised with me the fact that their planning staff are being paid high salaries at Kāinga Ora.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 64

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

Noes 52

New Zealand National 52.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 542 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 515 in the name of Jami-Lee Ross to clause 20 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 1

Ross.

Noes 116

New Zealand National 52; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Parts 1 to 6, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Urban Development Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Urban Development Bill

Third Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I move, That the Urban Development Bill be now read a third time.

This bill enables a new type of urban development to be undertaken in New Zealand, one that will transform communities and improve housing options; access to jobs, green spaces, and amenities; and the quality of the environment. The bill sits alongside wider system reform, such as our comprehensive review of the resource management system, with a focus on the Resource Management Act (RMA), and the Urban Growth Agenda.

Last year, this Government established Kāinga Ora with a mandate to initiate and enable urban development that is well-designed, people-focused, and ready for the future. In my second reading speech, I spoke about how the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Act was an expression of a commitment to roll up our sleeves and tackle long-term problems, to work with the private sector and community organisations to fix problems that have accumulated over many years and were ignored for too long, and to be an enabler of development, and partnering with the private sector, with local government, and with iwi. This bill provides the tool kit for this work. It recognises that central government should have a much stronger role to play in the urban planning system. Central government should be an enabler of urban development that creates communities where people want to live, work, and play.

The complex urban development that needs to happen in our larger towns and cities struggles to get ahead because we need to change the ways that we develop our urban areas so that our cities can thrive and everyone can have a place to call home. Traditionally in New Zealand, really for the last century, our cities have developed by turning neighbouring countryside into suburban streets and homes. Now, that kind of horizontal expansion out by cities is still important, but we know that we need to intensify our urban environment. The second-generation growth in our cities—that is, urban intensification—is often too complex for the private sector to do on its own. These projects require work on network infrastructure, fragmented land titles, balancing different interests, and creating high urban design standards, and often all of that together, on top of the myriad of different statutes that govern urban development, creates too much risk and uncertainty for the private sector to lead these kinds of projects.

This legislation is about having a public agency—Kāinga Ora—that can partner with the private sector, with iwi, and with local government to de-risk these projects so that people will invest in them and make them happen. Now, this is before a developer needs to deal with misaligned processes and decision-making, restrictive planning rules that too often stop our cities from growing up and out, slow consenting, difficulties in amalgamating land title, and challenges around building or changing network infrastructure—or getting the commitment to build the infrastructure and the funding of development activities.

This bill addresses the barriers to complex development by creating a streamlined process that gets decisions made upfront in an integrated way, and it will enable large-scale developments to happen much more quickly. It represents a new way of doing urban development. Specified development projects that are set out in this bill are the kind of complex projects that, by and large, New Zealand has not undertaken. These projects have a scale that means they have the potential to transform our urban areas and deliver desperately needed housing and infrastructure.

The bill enables specified development projects in two main ways. The first is by creating an integrated decision-making process to reduce the risks of complex urban development projects by bringing together multiple interdependent development processes into a single approval process, without losing important checks and balances. The second is by equipping Kāinga Ora with a tool kit of development powers that it can use to overcome the barriers faced by transformational urban development projects, such as planning constraints, old and ageing infrastructure, and limited funding and financing for urban development. Each of these tools is designed to address one of these barriers, and using them together will enable multiple aspects of the urban environment to be changed with greater certainty, speed, and integration.

I want to return to this idea of Government being an enabler of development. A key feature of Kāinga Ora’s urban development tools is that they can also be used by others to deliver specified development projects through a joint venture or through delegation. From the moment we started developing the policy and the drafting of this legislation, it was always our intent that the specified development projects would be joint-venture vehicles. The special powers exercised by Kāinga Ora, but the development led, crucially, by partnerships between iwi, between local government, in places like Auckland, Panuku—Auckland Council’s development agency—and private sector developers. It’s not our intent that by inserting central government into this space, we displace the private sector or the other key actors—iwi and local government. It is our view that this legislation should be an enabler, and it’s my hope that developers will come forward, that councils will come forward, and that iwi and others will come forward with proposals to use this legislation to lead large-scale urban development projects.

It’s also my response to the Opposition’s concerns that this legislation is not doing enough to support the private sector to build. Private developers and local authorities can use these tools and the streamlined processes to deliver specified development projects. But it’s essential that the special powers are exercised transparently and accountably in a democratic way by Kāinga Ora. In addition to that, this urban development legislation does not sit on its own; the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, gazetted today, will remove restrictive planning rules that stop our cities from expanding up and out, creating an artificial scarcity of land, and will free up heightened density rules that stop the city from growing out, effectively rationing floor space. The national policy statement also removes rules that add unnecessary costs to housing development.

Our joint spatial planning work with local government in the six high-growth metro centres means that, for the first time, local authorities are planning ahead. They’re making room for growth instead of trying to stop growth, working within a 30-year time horizon and collaborating with multiple councils in a region and with iwi. We’re lining up Government agencies to provide an all-of-Government approach in the spatial planning partnerships so that schools, hospitals, and transport infrastructure is coordinated and integrated.

The RMA review, led by the Hon David Parker, is working on more fundamental change to our urban planning system, but I want to point out to members that the fundamental review of the RMA wouldn’t necessarily fix the kind of challenge that this legislation is designed to deal with, and that is the inherent complexity of large-scale urban development projects. The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill is also another step towards fixing a broken funding and financing system to support urban development by allowing the private sector to finance essential infrastructure to support more housing being built.

Together, all of these measures mean that this Government is delivering generational change to urban planning and urban development. We recognise that the housing crisis is a failure in public policy. It has many causes, but the two chief amongst them are a broken system for funding and financing infrastructure and a highly restrictive planning system that stops our cities from growing. It recognises that the housing crisis is a failure to ground urban planning in economics and a failure to insert central government into a space which has been left to local authorities on their own for too long.

This has been a long process, but we’re almost there, and I want to thank all of the stakeholders, the officials, who’ve contributed to this work: people in the Clark- and English-led Governments who did policy work on the creation of an urban development authority, the Productivity Commission, all of the industry bodies, the advocates, and the community groups who contributed to the policy process. I also want to thank the officials for all of the work they have done in bringing this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a little dispiriting to hear the Minister Phil Twyford offer his view that he has no faith in the Resource Management Act (RMA) being worked up by his colleague the Hon David Parker, as he said only a couple of minutes ago here in this House. The Minister expressed the lack of faith in his colleague and the lack of faith in a major piece of work being undertaken by his Government, which has been signalled right from the get-go of this unfortunate term of Parliament. We have yet to see any result, but, even before we have seen any proposals from Minister Parker, we hear Phil Twyford—and I’m just not quite sure what title he has these days; it’s shifted a little. Oh, urban development, there we are—urban development Minister. I think it is his number four role—slightly smaller and smaller each and every time. But to display such a lack of faith in his own Government Minister colleague’s RMA reform does not bode well for that policy process—to admit in this House that even the RMA, he said, and I paraphrase, couldn’t deal with the complexity of large-scale projects that are the intended beneficiaries of this Urban Development Bill and its processes.

Therein lies the problem with this whole piece of work, this whole suite of bills that this Government has brought to the House and has signalled that are being brought to the House. It is a chocolate box. It is a pick and mix of processes that developers, individuals, can pick from in order to undertake any kind of housing, roading, or infrastructure work in New Zealand. Is that a step forward? Not in my view. If you want to undertake a large and complex development, go ahead: you go for the Urban Development Act. If you are a small developer, go ahead: go for the COVID-19 fast-track RMA Act—or its precise name. If you need funding, no problem: go to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill process, which is also going through the House. If all that fails, no problem: David Parker is bringing forward RMA reform. He’s well advanced in his work—

Hon Scott Simpson: He says.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —he says—but the Minister certainly hasn’t released the independent report on the RMA that we’re all looking for.

So what is it to be if a developer seizes Tauranga in its sights and wants to undertake some large-scale complex development which involves roading, it might involve some commercial properties, it might involve infrastructure, water, waste water, all of those things? No problem—all it has to do is to make an application to undertake—

Hon Shane Jones: What’s the name of this bill?

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Ha, ha! Well, for Shane Jones’ information: Mr, Jones, this is the Urban Development Bill that we are discussing today, and we are in the third reading. I’ll say it again: we’re in the third reading of the Urban Development Bill.

I’ll actually just address some of the problems that this side has with this Government. It’s not just the RMA reform which is a chocolate box pick and mix selection; oh no, we’ve got the Provincial Growth Fund, don’t we? No plan, no idea, and a bit afraid they’re going to lose places like—well, their place in the House. So their solution is not a plan for all this; their solution is a pick and mix, a chocolate box of little dollops of money spread liberally around the country where they want the votes. But I digress.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Just a little.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I just want to pull a quote from Phil Twyford around the second reading of this Urban Development Bill—Shane Jones—and I quote from Twyford: “This bill gives”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Please refer to members by their correct name.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —“Kāinga Ora the tools and the mandate”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Jacqui Dean.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —“and the duties to initiate”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): The Hon Jacqui Dean.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —“facilitate”—I beg your pardon?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): You knew I was talking; you carried on talking. That’s very disrespectful. You will refer to the Minister by his correct name, not just his surname.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I thought I said “Minister Twyford”.

Hon Member: No, you’ve got to say “the Hon Phil Twyford”.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker—the Hon Phil Twyford.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s better.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: So Minister Twyford wasn’t acceptable? Just as a point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s correct; it’s not his name.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: OK. Thank you. So speaking from the second reading, the Hon Phil Twyford told the House that this bill gives Kāinga Ora the tools and the mandate and the duties to initiate, to facilitate, and to undertake a special type of complex transformational urban development. We’re talking about projects that entail the building of whole new communities on a scale that would deliver thousands—thousands—of new dwellings. Where have we heard that before? Where have we heard the promise of thousands and thousands of new dwellings in this house?

Hon Members: KiwiBuild.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Of course it is; it’s KiwiBuild. The Hon Phil Twyford is the author of the KiwiBuild project for building thousands and thousands of homes; he has utterly failed in that regard. To date, he has built around 400—a fail. That record, the Hon Phil Twyford, does not give rise to any confidence on this side of the House that this Government has any ability to fulfil the promise of the Urban Development Bill.

I leave the House with one last thought—not entirely just for this bill—to note that the Hon Phil Twyford has just dropped a new National Policy Statement on Urban Development today. In the context of this Urban Development Bill, it matters, because what this new policy statement on urban development provides for is that tier 1 cities—that’s the big ones—will now not be able to set building height limits of less than six storeys in city centres, and—this is really interesting—they will end minimum car park requirements. So how does that fit in with the consultative, enabling nature of the provisions in the Urban Development Bill? It doesn’t. Once again, here is this Government being entirely prescriptive. It knows what it wants. It wants urban density. It wants to go up, and it wants to get very, very dense.

This Urban Development Bill process is lengthy. It is costly. It is no improvement on the RMA. We look forward to seeing some proper real work on the RMA. We do not support this bill.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and what a pleasure it is to speak this afternoon on the Urban Development Bill. Can I say that I know—let me digress a little—that on that side of the House, they do secretly support this, because I know several of their members have come to me saying, “What a fantastic piece of work. It’s about time.” I know when I read through this, they absolutely love it. I know the good people of the East Coast sitting up there will say, “We love this too.” So there we are.

This is a fantastic bill, because what it does do is—and I am surprised, because I know the member has a local government background, has experience from local government, and this is the near-perfect piece of legislation as part of a suite of legislation to help local government and other partners bring about housing and infrastructure in their communities. It fast tracks it through and brings about the transformation that, actually, only documents talk about. I always see lots of documents in council buildings which talk about the fantastic planning that could happen, should happen, but doesn’t happen.

This is the bill that’s going to make the transformation a reality, because what it does is it brings about all the nuts and bolts to put in place a community, new communities, a whole lot more easily than can be done right now. I know, representing Wellington South-east, we have corridors from the Basin Reserve up through to Newtown there that would benefit 100 percent from this type of legislation, led by Crown entity Kāinga Ora, who would facilitate this in partnership with the local authority and those partners already in place, and there are two. Despite that side of the House saying that there’s development right now under way being brought to some disrepute—and I was talking to that developer, and he’s well under way. That’s the sort of person that will bring about practical and just real change to the housing market. I know that the Wellington City Mission, too, is planning a major development for transitional and emergency housing. Players are already in this space wanting to make a difference. This piece of legislation makes that happen, and it makes it happen a whole lot more easily than it happens right now.

I’m not going to talk too long, because this is just too good to be true and I want to see this through. I want to see this enabled and enacted so those on the ground wanting to build more homes for Kiwis right across New Zealand, particularly in our urban communities, can just get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s interesting to follow Paul Eagle, a man who we could tell, as a House, didn’t really have his heart in it. He’s far more interested, I think, in thinking and planning about his urban development, which is, ultimately, to become the mayor of Wellington City, and he’ll be doing it, I’m sure, as soon as he can extricate himself from the Labour Party caucus, which won’t be very far away.

We heard earlier on from the Minister the Hon Phil Twyford, in this debate, a sort of apologetic justification, a rationale, for the establishment of this urban development State agency that he wants to establish under this piece of legislation. The apology that he made was that he didn’t have faith in his colleague the environment Minister, the Hon David Parker, in achieving the kinds of reforms necessary to the Resource Management Act that would facilitate sensible, long-term, intergenerational urban development planning in New Zealand, and that has been lacking. That planning has been lacking.

In fact, the last National-led Government had established a process to develop a range of urban development authorities, but, no, true to form in their standard, old-fashioned, socialist ways, a Labour-led Government, instead of giving free enterprise and the private sector an opportunity to thrive and grow and develop urban environments of the sort that this country desperately needs, they’ve reverted to type and have developed a good old-fashioned, 1960s-style, centralised Government agency—a huge Government agency and a bureaucracy—to actually squeeze out the role of the private sector in urban development, to squeeze them out, because, ultimately, in their heart, this Labour-led Government doesn’t have any faith in the private sector. They want to be like most socialist Governments all around the world, who seem to relish the opportunity to tell people how to live their lives, how to spend their money, and how to make decisions, and they want that to be done from here centrally, from Parliament, issuing proclamations and decrees from Parliament, from the Beehive, and a State-run agency to do the job that, actually, the private sector, given half the chance and the right kind of regulatory and legislative framework, can do very, very well indeed.

If we look around the world to examples of where urban developments have been done in a way that is refreshing, vibrant, new, and going to create improved lifestyles for people, we look to places like—I don’t know—the Darling Harbour in Sydney or to Docklands in London or to the developments that have occurred in Melbourne. What is the common feature there? Well, the common feature there is not that you have a centralised, bureaucratic, State-run monopoly on good ideas but, actually, you let the private sector have a go, have a crack, and you smooth the pathway to allow that to occur in a way that is not bureaucratic, that is not State-run by a huge army of civil servants who actually, in the end, probably slow the process down. For the Minister the Hon Phil Twyford to stand up in his second reading speech and, essentially, give an apology as a rationale for this piece of legislation is an incredibly sad indictment on this Government.

You know, on this side of the House, we do have confidence in the private sector, in private entrepreneurs, and in business to do what they can do best, to do it profitably, to do it well, and to do it efficiently. But we have to make sure that the regulatory and environmental legislative framework is sufficient to enable them to do it. What really is at the nub of this issue is what’s required is some wholesale reform of our planning and environmental legislation. My colleague and friend the Hon Jacqui Dean made passing reference to it in her very good contribution in this debate, in that, really, at the root of the problem here is the Resource Management Act. We on this side understand and know that this piece of legislation actually wouldn’t be required if our primary planning legislative statute was doing the job that it was designed to do.

What we’ve decided to do on this side of the House is to take a very appropriate approach to it. Our leader, Judith Collins, has announced only a few days ago, on the back of the largest infrastructure plan and spend in this country’s history—she tacked on the end a very good piece of policy, which is to get rid of the Resource Management Act, actually to get rid of it, because its time has been and gone. Our opportunity now is to do one of the suggestions that the Environmental Defence Society has put up, and this is ahead of the report of Tony Randerson QC, whose report is sitting on the Minister for the Environment’s desk awaiting eventual publication. We want to see what that does, but, in the meantime, we take the view that, actually, our primary planning statute is not serving properly the role and objective that we need it to as New Zealanders, and it’s certainly not serving us in our environmental protection as well. So we think that the best thing to do is to start again. It’s run its course. It’s the subject now, sadly, of scorn, derision, and ridicule by almost every single New Zealander, and it’s time to start again. What actually we need is a proper planning statute, a proper planning Act—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Mr Simpson, you’ve got four minutes left. You don’t have to take the whole four minutes, but in that time—

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh, why not, Madam Speaker? I think members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): —would you mind talking to the bill and not talking over me. Thank you.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It’s the Urban Development Bill, third reading.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Yeah, I know—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Excellent.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —and the Urban Development Bill is only necessary because our primary planning statute isn’t working. If it was working, we wouldn’t need this piece of legislation. If it was working in the way that it was designed to, we wouldn’t need this. Actually, what we do need is some urban development, and we need it soon and we need it quickly and we need it rapidly. But using this methodology of a big, cumbersome State agency to do it is not, in our view, the way to do it. We think that there’s a more nimble, nuanced, flexible approach to it, and that’s why we’re going to be voting against this piece of legislation: because it won’t do what the Hon Phil Twyford thinks it will do unless there is proper and sensible radical reform of our resource and planning legislation. We oppose this legislation.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Infrastructure): This bill has been carefully crafted. It builds upon the debris of nine wasted years under the former regime, where, despite a host of attempts, each intervention worsened the statutory framework for resource management in New Zealand, hobbled the ability of private enterprise to deliver housing outcomes, worsened the prospects of landowners, and, quite frankly, drove investors out of the field of expanding the industrial estate within New Zealand. It has taken our colleague the Hon Phil Twyford to bring forward the Urban Development Bill.

The essence of this bill is a statutory mechanism enabling Kāinga Ora, after it’s followed a process called the specified development project process, to assemble disparate blocks of land and to bring them into a coherent whole, thus enabling developments to take place. Whilst there will be opportunity outside of the heart and the more densely populated areas of metropolitan New Zealand, as my colleague Mr Eagle said, there are a host of areas in our capital city that will definitely benefit from the implementation once it comes out of the House and has been ratified by the Governor-General. So our party has not a sliver of doubt in supporting the Urban Development Bill, an overdue increase in statutory measures to affect societal outcomes in the form of better housing and a higher quality of life. We support the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): What an exciting day. Here we are, under urgency, passing all these laws. We get the opportunity to talk about the Urban Development Bill and even to listen to the member who has just spoken so knowledgeably about the housing industry. My first thing I’d say to the member who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Shane Jones, is if this was so important—and I’d just remind him that National actually proposed this during the term of office when we were last in power, so that’s three years ago. If it was so important, why has this bill taken this long to get to the House, three years later? So that’s the first thing. The first thing is that it has been an absolutely tardy response to something that should have been a long time ago and picked up because National had done the hard work on it.

The second thing I’d say to the Minister, or the member who has just resumed his seat, is that building 400 houses hardly makes a big difference to the 30,000-odd houses that are being constructed each year in New Zealand. And the Government’s efforts of building 400 houses over the last three years is really not part of the scene.

The third thing I would say to him is that if he actually understood the housing sector in New Zealand, it is particularly unusual—for a start, the top 20 builders normally account for about 25 percent of all new house builds in New Zealand. The New Zealand Government over the long term has only accounted for between 1 and 3 percent, and 400 houses over the last three years would put that at the bottom end of that spectrum. And the rest—three-quarters of the houses built in New Zealand—are built by one-, two-, or three-person building firms. So this should be seen in that context.

As I said, in many cases around the world, urban authorities have worked well, and there are a number of examples that people have quoted: Melbourne, Sydney, Toronto—all those sorts of stuff. Normally, they work in the context of big catalytic change, big areas that have been subject to absolute change and regeneration in an urban sense. We support the principle. We introduced the concept. But the issue with this bill, as it’s meandered its way through select committees, and then there’s some form of ministerial intervention over the last three years to slow it down, is that it is a cumbersome bill and it has some issues with it, as the New Zealand Law Society and as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—a whole raft of people—have identified.

It’s just interesting, even with setting up the specified development project, the role that Kāinga Ora has in it. Virtually every aspect is controlled and initiated by Kāinga Ora. The ability for third parties to be having an input in it is quite limited, and I think that is part of the issue with this. The thing is that we’ve already seen the impact of this. We have seen Kāinga Ora going out and poaching consenting staff—in fact, their best consenting staff—out of Auckland Council. This is where Kāinga Ora is going to first start this: they’re out there in the market paying up to $15,000 more per annum to these people to entice them from Auckland Council, across this entity here, poaching them, and putting the rest of the private sector, who is trying to build houses, in a worse position because now they’re finding it hard to get consenting officers.

So these bills need to be seen in the modicum of what’s going on. But I’d say this: why has it taken three years for this bill to progress to this point? It’s a shame on the Government, led by Labour but cohabitated with a number of other parties.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I am inspired by this bill because it will enable us to create towns and cities and neighbourhoods that are vastly more livable than what we currently have. I can imagine—in fact, I’ve been to cities overseas, population 200,000, around the same size as Wellington City, situated in a comparable region, a city called Freiburg, which has five light rail lines—actually, I think seven now. They were building two more when I was there. They had two neighbourhoods that had been developed around the year 2000 that were almost car-free. This gave an incredible choice to residents of that city. Whereas, in most parts of New Zealand, there are very few choices. People have to live in a house that’s often not near shops, not near where they work, not in the centre of town; that’s usually too unaffordable for people. The public transport options aren’t as good as we would like—of course, we’re working on that. But where the house is located—whether it’s close to amenities, shops, schools, parks—is important, and, whether it has good public transport links from the beginning, that gives people choice.

So in this neighbourhood called Vauban in Freiburg, you can hear birdsong, you can hear children laughing. In this small neighbourhood, the highest development is four storeys. Most of the places have been developed as multi-family buildings that were designed by the families themselves. They hired an architect together and they built two, three, or four storeys. They have five parks in this neighbourhood, and the light rail line was built before the housing was. In fact, the tradies showed up on the light rail line for work. It’s also connected to the central city by very wide walkable and cyclable paths. Families who want to own a car, of course, can; they just have to park it on the outside of the neighbourhood. And there are car-share cars, which every person who owns the public transport pass has access to.

Now, imagine living in this kind of community. It means that you can walk right down to the shops, that houses were built to the highest energy efficiency standard—incredibly warm, many with solar panels, and all of them surrounded by lush green gardens. This type of living isn’t a dream. It exists—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. Mr Bennett and Tim van de Molen, I’m actually having difficulty hearing the speaker. So if you wouldn’t mind going into the lobby for your conversation, that would be more respectful. Thank you. Sorry, Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Living in this type of neighbourhood is entirely possible, and yet it is impossible in New Zealand right now. It’s been nearly impossible for the co-housing developments to create these sorts of jointly shared housing developments that weren’t required to have a car park in front of every single dwelling or have a garage on the side. So what we want is more choice. I mean, people who want to live in a stand-alone house and have two or three or four or five cars, they’ve got that option. It’s not particularly affordable, but many people are forced into that because there’s a lack of affordable housing. There’s a lack of quality, sufficient developments within the urban area that are connected by fast, frequent public transport and those safe walking and cycling routes. So what this bill does, in and of itself, is just enable that more coordinated development.

I could give another example. I was in Copenhagen, where a joint initiative between the city and the State was developing new housing around—they were pushing the port out into the harbour, and they were able to develop heaps of new housing, 25 percent of which was social or public housing, some of which was market housing; all of it around a frequent rapid transit route, which was being built. The metro was being built out—and with schools. There you get complete neighbourhoods with a variety of different types of people of different ages. But the amenity that exists when you have that option—you have those quiet, safe streets for the kids. That’s something that I want for my child. I know many other people in New Zealand would want that. What this bill will do is finally enable more of that type of coordinated development that starts with the rapid transit links and the safe walking and cycling routes, that provides a range of different housing types. So there isn’t just the stand-alone house, but there’s a whole range for families of different sizes, people of different ages, and it’s far more affordable.

Any time I’ve gone out and talked to New Zealanders and given a presentation of what can be done with very high-quality urban design and smart thinking, people say they love it. They want that here. So what this Government is finally doing is getting rid of some of the barriers to this type of development, to more affordable housing, so that younger people have the opportunity to live within a city. Of course, we have to invest in those fast, frequent public transport links, and we have to make cycling safe, but there’s such a huge opportunity in that. You know, in that town of Freiburg I talked about earlier, it’s not a huge city. Nearly 50 percent of the trips are walking or cycling trips. People of all ages use their bike to get around in all weather because it’s safe and practical. And, of course, the consequences of that are that transport is more affordable. So it’s better for their economy. They have higher productivity—something you would think the National Party would care about, but, of course, they don’t. So when you enable safe walking and cycling within the city centre, you make it easier for people to get around at lower cost and you reduce pollution through carbon emission and you reduce noise.

This bill will enable us to have the coordination to have high-quality development, like we did see in Hobsonville Point, which was, of course, started by the last Labour Government and working in conjunction with Waitakere District Council. But, ultimately, this is all about giving people more choice, and it’s about creating the types of towns and cities that we would love to live in, that we can afford to live in, that are going to protect us from climate change, and that are going to reduce pollution. All of this is entirely possible, and thank goodness we have a Government that is actually committed to taking action on climate change, that is committed to solving the housing crisis, and that is committed to enabling the type of high-quality towns and cities and neighbourhoods that many New Zealanders have been longing for, and this bill is just one step on our plan to deliver that. So the Green Party is supportive of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Well, that was a very interesting address from the Hon Julie Anne Genter. What I heard her say was they support this bill because it’s going to streamline a whole lot of things and get urban development happening. But I’ve heard speeches from the Greens recently opposing the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill, which is all about building things, roads, and providing jobs and economic growth in this country. So how is it that the Green Party can have two stances? I’m confused by that contribution.

I’m not going to speak too long. We have some concerns about this bill. We’ve raised them in the select committee, and we’ve raised them today with Minister Twyford. We got some satisfactory answers. We also found that the Minister wasn’t on top of the specifics of this bill. I’m concerned about this Crown agency having the power to acquire land willy-nilly. I’m concerned about the compensation. There are other aspects that concern the National Party as well.

But, if I can, just for the last half a minute of my contribution, can I acknowledge a colleague who’s going to be standing up here very shortly, the Hon Anne Tolley, in giving her valedictory speech. I have been in Cabinet with Anne Tolley for quite a period of time. She served this Parliament and her constituency of East Coast and Napier incredibly well over 21 years. We’re sorry that she’s leaving the National Party, but I wish her well—more time with Allan and the grandchildren. Congratulations, and well done.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to speak on the Urban Development Bill. It’s a real shame that not all parties within this House are voting for such a good piece of legislation, particularly when there’s complaints of houses being torn down and land having lain vacant for so long, that there’s opposition to actually making progress and streamlining the ability for building houses even faster than what we are doing already.

We know that we need to intensify our urban environment, and we also need to know that such projects require a lot of work in terms of infrastructure, in terms of how we get that land and how we create high urban development standards, and often that creates a lot of risk for our developers. What we will do is enable specified developments and projects in two main ways, and we’ve seen that happen exactly in the Hutt Valley with Ēpuni, where we have 153 houses being built on land that has lain vacant there for over eight years. So right now, when we’re building on that land, having streamlined processes with the local council, with the way to build greater intensification right next to schools and rapid transport, that is the way that we have high-quality developments within our cities, that provide much needed housing for people who are waiting. So I commend this most excellent bill to the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I’ll take a very brief call on the Urban Development Bill, following the excellent speech by my friend and colleague Andrew Bayly. He asked the House why it had taken three years for this Government to get this legislation before the House. The answer is absolutely easy: it’s in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford. I’m surprised it’s even here.

I want to conclude my comments by also acknowledging the valedictory about to take place by my friend and colleague since I’ve been in this Parliament and the wonderful contribution that Anne Tolley has made to the democracy of New Zealand.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): It’s a pleasure to take a very brief call on this really important bill. This is an incredibly important bill in the context of our acute housing shortage. What it’s going to do is allow us to do these complex urban developments that we really need to be doing, taking into account where you’ve got areas with multiple landowners, where you’ve got infrastructure that’s ageing and may need to be moved. So, basically, this bill gives us the powers and the processes to be able to do this. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Urban Development Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 54

New Zealand National 52; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

SPEAKER: Members, it’s my intention to do as I did last night and to indicate that at the conclusion of the Hon Anne Tolley’s valedictory, the House will be suspended until 7 o’clock on this occasion, so I don’t have to interrupt the celebrations that are occurring when that speech ends. I will say, of course, that if the speech goes too far over time, I’ll be gone.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): I stand here as the 74th woman to be elected to the New Zealand House of Representatives, and I want to begin tonight by recalling when I stood to deliver my maiden speech and acknowledging, in particular, my granddaughter Madeleine. She was here then, just months old, and she turns 21 this October. So for her whole life, her grandma has been a member of Parliament.

She came with a busload from Napier, all pretty excited, as it was about 50 years since Napier had had a National MP, and she’s here today, with my extremely supportive family. My son Heath and his wife, Cathy, and—I can’t see the little granddaughters; oh, yes—Cassandra and Alexis. My daughter Imogen—mother of Madeleine—and my grandson, Joshua. My husband, Allan, of course—and I’ll come back to him. My London-based daughter, Andrea, who’s watching and is with us in spirit—and goodness only knows how long it’s going to be before I can give her a hug. My mother, who is in a rest home in Havelock North—and I hope she’s got the channel right. My sisters, Kate and Bronwyn; my sister-in-law, Miranda; my cousin; and my niece and nephew. They’ve all put up with years of my political career: the good, the bad, and a little bit of the ugly.

In 2002, as a list MP, I lost my seat. I went out into the private sector, and Tony Ryall and Simon Power convinced me to try to win the East Coast electorate. I was selected as the candidate in late December 2007, and took off for a last Christmas holiday to Lake Waikaremoana with my family. Well, come Boxing Day, and Tony Ryall’s on the phone. He had started a campaign for me to save the Eastern Bay rescue helicopter, and poor old Robyn Watchorn, who worked for Tony before her 15 years for me, was in the office on Boxing Day, faxing petitions to all the local businesses—and for the younger members of Parliament, faxes are things that look like phones that print out at the end. It was a great introduction to the relentless work ethic expected of an MP, and that family will take second place.

I’ve been very lucky to have support from my husband, Allan. To win the East Coast seat, we had to move to Gisborne. We had to leave Napier, where Allan and I had both grown up, met, wed, and raised our family. All our friends were there, and all the contacts and influence that we’d built up over the years. What an enormous sacrifice that was that Allan was prepared to make for me, and I will always be so grateful.

After almost eight years, he’d just settled down, and I then moved him again as the electorate moved across into the Bay of Plenty. Thank you, Allan—you’ve been a great partner and supporter throughout my political career.

I want to thank also my electorate chairs, Pat Seymour and Wayne Marriott. They ran the local party machine, they kept me out and about, they paid the bills, they kept up the support base and the volunteers, and they play a huge role in the life and times of an electorate MP.

I’ve been fortunate to have incredible staff, both in my electorate and in the ministerial offices, and some of them are here with me tonight. Thank you, Robyn Watchorn. What an extraordinary woman she is. She was recently honoured for her outstanding community work over many years. She is a talented artist who made our commemorative camellia broaches that all the women wear so proudly, and, as I say, she’s worked in my Whakatāne office for 15 years. Caroline Taylor worked in the Gisborne office for over 10 years. Sharron Wilson was in both Te Puke and Gisborne, and Shirley Whitwell in the Kawerau office—I don’t know where they are; they’re in different places—Carolyn Meihana in Murupara; Amanda Hillary in Wellington; and Marie Rolls and Grace Hickson and Wendy Tozer. Thank you for all your help and dedication over the years. I really couldn’t have managed without any of you, and it’s great to have so many of you here tonight.

As a Minister, I was also blessed with great staff, and two in particular were with me almost entirely throughout my ministerial life: Michelle Morehu and Gillon Carruthers. Michelle came first as a receptionist, but took over as my senior private secretary within months and continued almost until the last, and, boy, she ran my life. She was outstanding, and I quickly forgave her for the fact that she had previously worked for Clayton Cosgrove.

Gillon managed my media team and, I guess, presented my life, and his advice kept me out of trouble on more than one occasion. Our greatest challenge was probably the riot and subsequent fire at Spring Hill prison—a corrections Minister’s worst nightmare. But with Gillon’s management, Ray Smith and I stood shoulder to shoulder and dealt with the media and the unions, recognising the enormous bravery of our staff, but never showing for a moment in public how dangerous the situation really was—so much so that many of my colleagues hardly even remembered there had been a riot.

There were several other staff in my office who spent some time in my office, and I was always pleased when they went on to successful careers and I hoped that I had been able to contribute in some small way to their successes. Gareth Richards, Monique Lepine, Stephen Jones, Maggie Beaumont, Antony Harvey, Ashley Murchison, Zach Castles, Cameron Olderfield, and Ashleigh Muir—thank you sincerely. To those who came from the State agencies to work with me, at times I made their jobs difficult, I accept. They were often caught between what a Minister wants and what the agency can or is willing to deliver. But, without exception, I valued their expertise and knowledge and I thank them for all their help.

I’ve had an amazing career as both junior and senior whip, as a Minister, and as a Deputy Speaker, and I want to acknowledge and thank my chief executives: Karen Sewell from the Ministry of Education, Graham Stoop from the Education Review Office, Peter Marshall and Mike Bush—who’s with us tonight—from the New Zealand Police, Ray Smith—who’s also here—from the Department of Corrections, Julie Reid in the Serious Fraud Office, Brendan Boyle from the Ministry of Social Development, and Grainne Moss from Oranga Tamariki. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have worked with you all such highly competent professionals, and I’m delighted that some of you have been able to come tonight. I think we accomplished much together.

Thank you to all the people that make Parliament work: the Parliamentary Service and staff—and I see Raf up the back there; the hard-working House staff; all the people in the Clerk’s Office—David, you and your team that support presiding officers; and especially thanks to the VIP Transport Service men and women, with whom I’ve probably spent more time than with my husband. They’ve all looked after me so well over the years.

But as I consider my life and my time in Parliament in its closing days, I am reminded of the meaning of the word “politics”. From the Greek “polis”, meaning “city”, comes the Greek word “politēs”, meaning “citizen”, and I’m sure that if Chris Finlayson was here tonight, he’d correct my pronunciation. But, in other words, it’s all about people. When I look back on my career, the moments and the highlights that defined my time are the people, and I thought I’d share with you tonight some of those people.

I remember well the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of parents who contacted me about national standards. They talked to me in airports, they talked to me on aeroplanes, they talked to me in cafes and restaurants, they emailed me, they faxed me, and they phoned me, and all with the same story: “If only we had known earlier, if only the school had told us, if only the teacher had said to us that our son or daughter was falling behind, couldn’t read properly, had no grasp of maths, or was really struggling to keep up with the basics, instead of telling us that they added value to the class, were delightful personalities, or were good participants.” They said, “If only we had known, we could have helped them and got them extra assistance. Instead, we only found out that our child was way behind when they started at high school, and then they told us, and then it was way too late.”

As education Minister, I negotiated the trades academies, which enabled young people to begin their trades qualifications while still at high school. Years later, my own grandson raved to me about his own experience with the trades academy. I knew that too many of these kids who learnt by making things—kinetic learners, they call them—were finding school irrelevant and, with the global financial crisis upon us, would struggle and drift into unemployment or, worse, into gang life. I remember taking PM John Key to the Whakatāne-based academy, where we met a large group of excited but very focused young people, and two stood out for John and me. They came from way up the coast. They left home at about 5 a.m. to ride—possibly a horse—down to catch the bus to Whakatāne, which was over three hours away. They told us they were still in school only because of that day, Friday, in the trades academy. Of course, that huge trip was repeated at the end of the day. I know one of those boys. He secured an apprenticeship at the end of that year and is working locally in Whakatāne to this day.

As corrections Minister, I took an enormous risk and OK’d the Rimutaka Prison taking part in Wellington on a Plate. Martin Bosley was the chef who sought that approval and over the years has been joined by a number of well-known chefs, and the prison event is one of the most popular. But I remember going out into the kitchen that first night and talking to a man who, with a real light in his eye, told me that in his whole life he had never been good at anything, but he had found that he could cook, and a famous chef had told him that he was talented and would help him find a job when he got out. Martin and many others did find jobs for some of these men who did have talents, and have supported many of them on their release.

I also remember visiting a prison that had just started a puppy training programme where the prisoners took care of the initial training of the puppies. You know, they did the toilet training, the walking on a lead—basic things—before their intensive training started as assist dogs. I remember talking to this enormous man. He was huge. He was covered in tattoos. He was a real fierce-looking dude. He wouldn’t meet my eye, because many of them wouldn’t, of course. But I did ask him had he had dogs previously, and he nodded. I said to him, “Were they fighting dogs?” And he nodded. Then, this great big fierce man bent down and picked up this little puppy, this golden Labrador ball of fluff, and with this gooey look on his face tucked it into his neck and told me that Daisy had scratched at the door to go out to the toilet for the first time the night before. That programme was about teaching empathy to people whose past crimes showed little evidence of it, and I saw that in his face that day, and I knew that the programme had made a difference.

Of course, I loved being Minister of Police. We are so lucky in New Zealand with our police because they’re so professional, and they’re not only law enforcers but they’re social workers and mental health workers all at the same time. I was so proud to be their Minister. The work my colleague Amy Adams and I began with the whole-of-Government response to family violence was led by a passionate policewoman, Tusha Penny. I well remember her recounting the story of a woman whose history of abuse was only really uncovered by agencies when they finally sat down together and began sharing her information, especially ACC—because this woman was extremely accident prone. She’d managed to shut her own fingers in car doors on several occasions. She’d had a car engine drop on her feet, breaking toes, twice. She’d spilled boiling water over herself, had fallen down stairs, and walked into doors numerous times. She’d come to the attention of the police and then the family harm group as a low to medium risk of harm. But with the full knowledge of her past injuries and violent experiences, she was immediately moved to extreme risk, with huge support and assistance provided for the first time ever. This woman I remember, I never met, I never knew her name, but I know we saved her life.

I want to mention two young people from Child, Youth and Family, which is now Oranga Tamariki. Everyone who knows me understands my lifelong determination to make sure that these, the most vulnerable children in our communities, are safe and are able to thrive if they have to be in State care to keep them safe from harm. I finally grabbed the opportunity to address the system that was failing them so badly, despite the very best of intentions. You can only do that by talking to the people who live under that system and experience it. So I set up an advisory group of young people who had either been in State care or who were still in State care.

The first young man’s story didn’t actually have a happy ending. He was just 14 going on 15 when he came into my office. He was sullen, he was cynical of the process, and he was a little over-awed, and all of those three at once. Next thing, he’d run away from his foster home. But he turned up to see me at the Gisborne A & P show. I think he’d been with cousins up the coast. With encouragement, he returned to Wellington and he came alive around the table when we started discussing youth justice services, because he knew about them. He’d had a lot of experience of them. His contribution was invaluable and insightful, and I was so grateful to the officials that listened to him and made changes accordingly. Sadly, I know that this wasn’t enough to make up for everything else that had damaged him.

But one of that group, a bright, intelligent, and determined young woman, took every opportunity to contribute to the redesign process. She came along to Parliament and she sat up here and she watched the lawmaking process when she could, because she was at university studying to be a social worker. I ran into her a year ago at a local school. She had a very successful career. She was highly respected. As we hugged, I knew her eyes were on not only her future but the future of the people she was bringing up behind her. I wish her all the best.

Finally, it’s been a huge honour to represent the East Coast electorate for 15 years—so many wonderful people; such a rich and diverse cultural and social electorate. Many people have crossed my path in that time. I’ve been lucky to work with some great mayors, and we’ve dealt, through the office, with some characters, with some tragedies, but, mainly, with some wonderful, hard-working, innovative, and generous locals.

But my best memory is of Bruce, whose kidneys were slowly dying. He came to me in great distress, not for himself but for his wife. He was still able to have his dialysis at home, but his wife’s health was deteriorating, and the strain on her was overwhelming. In those days, in Gisborne, when it was no longer possible for home-based dialysis, people had to move away. They had to move to Hawke’s Bay or to the Waikato. Bruce was really worried that his wife would have to leave her home, all her family and friends, and all the support and be alone over in Waikato looking after him. So, with the help of a generous Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall, we built a dialysis unit in Gisborne Hospital, and I visited Bruce there several times. In fact, he had a picture of him and I on his coffin. He was always happy to see me, he always had a big smile on his face, and he always thanked me that his wife was able to be well-supported in her home as his health slowly deteriorated. He was a lovely, lovely man and a loving husband, right to the end.

Over these past three years, I’ve met many people from across the world, focusing particularly on increasing the number of women in decision-making roles, especially in the Pacific. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me these opportunities. I also chaired an amazing committee on your behalf developing a code of conduct for the entire New Zealand Parliament, and I met and talked with staff, unions, officials, media, and MPs over the past almost 12 months. Anybody who works here or out in our electorate and community offices has the right to feel safe and respected. It’s a tough environment—we all understand that—but that’s no excuse for some of the behaviour that we know takes place. I spoke with staff who were genuinely frightened to come to work at times. I spoke with MPs who were bullied by colleagues and tolerated sexual harassment as part of the job. None of them had any expectations that something could be done about such behaviour. Well, that is simply unacceptable.

We didn’t manage to negotiate a full code of conduct with consequences—unfortunately, the COVID lockdown impacted on our time. But we did report back to you, Mr Speaker, seven statements of expectations of behaviour. They’re very simple. Let me go through them: to show that bullying and harassment, including sexual harassment, are unacceptable; to act respectfully and professionally; to foster an environment where people feel safe and valued; to behave fairly and genuinely, treating others the way we would like to be treated; to use our position of power or influence to help others and avoid harm; and to speak up if we observe unacceptable behaviour. I sincerely hope everyone in the next Parliament commits to these expectations, because—I tell you what—the public expects nothing less.

As I leave this wonderful place, my heart is full of all these people that I’ve had the great privilege to work for and with. I’m confident that I, along with all the people I’ve mentioned tonight, have touched the lives of many and made a difference for the better, and that’s what politics is all about.

This is the hard part, because tonight I only have one regret. My father attended my maiden speech after the 1999 election. We sat together every election night, watching and analysing the results, and he came to Wellington every time I was sworn in as a Minister. But he’s not here at the finish, and that’s a big gap in my life. I knew I’d cry, but I couldn’t leave him out, because he’s been such a big part of my political life.

So I say thank you to the National Party and to my caucus colleagues for your friendship and support over the years. As Deputy Speaker—sorry, I can’t read.

SPEAKER: You’re not meant to read anyway!

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As Deputy Speaker, I’ve got to know and respect MPs right across the House—[Deputy Clerk hands over tissues]—thank you, Suze—and I thank you for the collegiality that breaks out every now and then, and I wish you all the best of luck in the September elections—some more than others, perhaps.

Thank you to my wonderful family for all their support and love, and I know that they are looking forward to not having a mother or a grandmother or a mother-in-law or a cousin or an aunt in politics. Allan, the good news is that I’ve dusted off the bucket list, but the bad news is that I’ve also found a to-do list. Kia ora tātou, everyone.

[Applause]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Bills

Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill

In Committee

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

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

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Oh, spoilt for choice—Ian McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Oh, you’re kind, Madam Chair. Sorry, Erica. And I’m not that quick to get up. [Interruption] They didn’t have to laugh, did they? I’ve spent a bit of time watching the House today. I watched Nick Smith, and I’ve learnt something today. I’ve figured that if you could make that much of a game of the Public Service Act—and I thought it was quite well written—I’m going to have a field day with this one. So we could be here tomorrow, given the lessons I’ve learnt from Nick Smith, but I won’t do that to you.

I am new to this business, and, unfortunately, I didn’t get to sit through the select committee, which I would have certainly enjoyed. Forestry is a very important part of what we do in New Zealand, and I think will become an increasingly important part of what we do. Whilst I don’t always agree with the Minister’s aspirations for the industry or for the land and the people in it, he does none the less have an enthusiasm for the industry which I think is worthy of the cause. It is a very important industry for New Zealand, and it’s one that we must make sure works properly.

But I’m not sure that—we certainly don’t agree that this bill is the way that we should go about it. I do have a number of questions that I think I would like the Minister to answer initially on, and I know that the Environment Committee had some discussion on a lot of this stuff—a very brief discussion, unfortunately, but none the less they had a brief discussion on the bill. But what, I guess, concerns me initially about it—and I don’t know whether the Minister can enlighten us to the fact or to the point, and that is around the costs of the bill to this industry and the cost of the imposition of Part 1 of the bill to the industry. Obviously, that’s where all the—and I’m not talking about the regulation yet—I’ll get on to that in a minute—but, primarily, the costs of the levies and how it might be structured and what that’s going to cost the industry.

The other thing that I think is interesting is that it’s taken so long to get this bill to the House, and I wonder, having got it there right at this point, why was there such urgency to get the thing passed and get it into action? Obviously, the regulation will come first. So that was, really, my question of the Minister.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Thank you for relieving us of any tension we may have been suffering that you want us to remain here indefinitely and discuss this bill, because it’s self-explanatory. But can I direct the member’s attention to page 8 of the commentary, and there is a reference there under the heading “Cost recovery”. Can I also direct his attention to a new section 63ZK, where it completely imposes an obligation—and I have to acknowledge the mahi of the select committee in this regard—on the Minister to consult with people who would be substantially affected before regulating for a cost to be imposed. I just want to remind fellow members of the House, and, indeed, those from the industry sector who may be listening in, that this creates a regime that does not come into force until such time when regulations have been constructed. They will be the subject of an extensive consultation process, which will include all sectors, including the tangata whenua, and during the development of those regulations, I have every confidence, as outlined in 63ZI and 63ZK, that any anxieties that people may be suffering at the moment, or reflected by Mr McKelvie, can be dealt with during that process.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that point, to the Minister in the chair, talking about the extensive consultation before coming up with these regulations so people shouldn’t be concerned. Does he understand the feeling in this sector, that they may not potentially believe him when he says that, because of the process that we’ve been through with this bill? I’m sure that the Minister has read some of the submissions that we received, but the feedback from this bill in the select committee was that people were pretty furious. The sector was furious; 95 percent of the submissions were against the bill. They felt aggrieved because they didn’t have time to properly submit on the bill. They felt aggrieved because there was no consultation and no proper process. They felt aggrieved because they felt this bill was dropped on them. They felt aggrieved because they feel like it’s a Trojan Horse bill. So I guess the point is that the sector are listening, probably sitting there feeling like why should they believe the Minister that there’s going to be some sort of extensive consultation process now.

I guess, in terms of questions to the Minister, one of the things that we noted in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) was that “MPI commissioned Forme Consulting Group and Scion in early 2019 to examine the log supply constraints”, but that study was only undertaken in Northland. So it’s understandable that when the select committee were listening to the feedback from the sector, everybody outside of Northland was saying to us “Why do we have this bill? There’s no problem. We don’t have a problem with supply. We don’t have problem with the mills. There’s no problem of getting supply.” And actually, they didn’t even agree with needing to regulate the industry. But there was this overwhelming feeling that there was no problem and that, yes, there might be a small pocket in Northland that was a problem, but, in fact, nowhere else.

So does the Minister think that perhaps the study that was undertaken wasn’t fully representative of the whole of New Zealand—in fact, that this bill is putting in place something potentially that is going to affect the whole country when in fact the problem is only in one small pocket, where that Minister, in fact, lives? I’d like him to respond to that. I do note in the RIS as well, they keep going on about the fact that there wasn’t a longitudinal study, that there wasn’t enough evidence to, in their opinion, warrant this bill. And if the Minister could respond to that as well.

I just want to point out that it was tough sitting in that select committee, firstly, because we felt that this bill shouldn’t have been rushed through so quickly under urgency—Budget urgency! Why there was a reason to put this under Budget urgency we don’t know. But the overwhelming feeling from the sector was anger and they don’t want this bill in.

And the purpose part, the very first thing it says is “to support continuous, predictable and long-term supply of timber and equity of access to timber.” But, in fact, there’s nothing in this bill, and what they were telling us is it’s going to be hidden in regulation. They feel like this bill is a Trojan Horse, that what’s coming they’re not going to be consulted on, and that it’s all hidden. They’re all very worried that they’re going to be dictated to about where they have to supply their logs to, and they’re very aggrieved about that. So there’s a number of things there that I’d invite the Minister to respond to.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): I’d like to thank the member for those remarks. I do want to pay attention to the contributions that are being made. I direct members’ attention to the purpose of this legislation, and it is forward-looking. It is not stuck in the past with any provincial spats. It’s dealing with the fact that if we are to make the most of our endowment in New Zealand and the post-COVID environment, then we need to secure, as the Act and the purpose said—and I want to acknowledge the good doctor, the honourable member, shall I say, Dr Webb, from Te Wai Pounamu, who under the leadership of so said member added in new section 63A(1)(a): “support the continuous, predictable and long-term supply of timber, and equity of access to timber,”. Far be it for me to admit that I may have been less than fulsome or thorough in my original analysis of the bill, but that has strengthened the bill and it addresses the matters that the member has raised.

This is an attempt to lay down a statutory platform that will cause growth in areas of investment into forestry and its ability to contribute in the future that we fully have not canvassed. But investors in the domestic manufacturing context will now have a greater level of confidence that over time, after the regime has been implemented through regulations, the purpose of the Act will be given effect to.

Now, the notion that somehow it should not have been passed and the sector did not understand what the Government’s agenda was—I don’t really want to continue the quarrels that emerged between my officials and the industry as this bill was developed, other than to say our Government has had a clear volume to value strategy from the day we were empowered, and this bill is a small and relatively uncontroversial step towards that outcome.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. So the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, just touched on some very interesting points there, because there’s really two parts to this bill—in fact, there’s now a Part 3, which is a different part altogether, but that’s come in as a result of the urgency this bill was rushed into the House under. I want to just talk about a couple of things that, actually, you could agree with if they weren’t going to cost the industry too much money, and that’s basically around the fact that the register of log traders and the register of forestry consultants and things like that certainly has some value to the industry, and there’s probably other parts of the industry that could’ve managed that.

I think what I want to really understand is the nature of what is now called—and I’ve forgotten its name, but it’ll come to me in a minute—the Forestry Authority. I want to understand the nature of that, and I wonder whether the Minister can give us an idea of whether that might just be a secretary, for example, which it sort of describes in the bill, but you don’t know how big the secretary is. I wonder whether that’s an operation that could be managed outside of the structures—in other words, it could be given to an outside entity to operate. That would be very interesting to know. So that’s the part of the bill that’s pretty simple and relatively easy to understand and probably has some value to the industry.

I notice a lot of the discussion around the structure or the setting up of this bill related to the fact that there were people in the industry that were, effectively, disadvantaged by the fact they didn’t either understand the industry or didn’t feel they were satisfactorily dealt with by either log traders or by people involved in the operations of the industry. That’s a bit of a challenge. The thing that really concerns the National Party, and certainly concerns, almost unanimously, the industry, is what the nature of the regulations that come out of this bill might look like. I think that’s one of the reasons that you can only oppose it. I’ve watched Ministers from both sides of the House plant regulations in front of select committees without having the regulations in front of the select committee, and it makes select committees very nervous as to what might actually be the end result of that.

In fact, just last night, or the other day, we had the DIRA—the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act—legislation through this House, where we’re seeing the impact of Parliament interfering in a business-related or an export-related industry, which had unforeseen influence on what happened in the industry, and that would greatly concern me about this as well. I think the potential for these regulations—and I’ve got no idea what they might entail, although I can imagine it—the danger is that I think they will cause distortions in the industry, and I think there are other ways of dealing with the issue the Minister just raised, which was primarily the ability for New Zealand to grow the added-value part of this industry, and the thing that’s constricting that is a lack of capital, basically. Until we can introduce capital and a return to those people that are adding value, no amount of regulation’s going to fix that, because all you’re going to do is flatten the market, I think. So I think that’s the big worry, but I would like to understand, as I sit down, just what the authority involves and how much bureaucracy might be involved in that authority as it comes into being.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Madam Chair, I thought the process was that the Minister would answer questions. Have we got to that point or not?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): There is no requirement for the Minister to answer questions as they are presented to him—he might bundle two or three. But the expectation of the House is that there won’t be five-minute speeches. There will be questions from members, and the expectation is that the Minister will answer them.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you for your guidance, Madam Chair. But the quid pro quo on that is that if the Minister won’t answer questions, good, sensible questions posed by my colleague Ian McKelvie, then members on this side reserve their right to use five minutes if they choose, because the process is one that we thought was working pretty well.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry, Mr Simpson, just to say that I’m not sure that two wrongs have ever equalled a right. It’s quite unusual for you to, first of all, assume that the Minister’s not going to answer when I have just given you an explanation that there is no requirement on him to answer immediately after a question’s posed. He may well have thought, “Scott Simpson’s taking a call, he’ll have excellent questions, I’ll answer them at the same time as I answer Ian McKelvie’s.” The process that the House has agreed to is not that you will aim for five minutes for your speech; it is that you will use the time within five minutes to ask the Minister a question.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is an underlying concern and fear that came through so strongly during select committee submissions from such a wide and overwhelmingly large number of people in the sector that there is something deeply wrong with the motivation of this piece of legislation. The clauses that were most concerning—and there were lots of them—were the 63ZZ series in clause 4. These deal with the regulations to be made by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, and they’re wide, and they’re comprehensive, and they are pretty scary, actually, to the sector. It’s the fear of the unknown, I think, that is largely at the root of the concern that the sector has. If it was just one submitter, one forester, one landowner, or one logger, then maybe the select committee would have felt that that was an outlier in terms of criticism or concern about this piece of legislation, but we had submission after submission after submission after submission. Then when we asked officials for their response to the matters that had been raised by submitters, frankly, we didn’t get the answers that were anywhere close to providing the reassurance or the safety that the submitters were seeking. That only added to the sense of concern and fear about what the real motivation and purpose of this piece of legislation is for.

On the face of it, the label on the front of the bill looks reasonably benign—it looks reasonably benign. On first glance, people would do as we did—having not had much of a chance to look at it because it was introduced under urgency. We supported it at first reading because on the front of it, it looked OK. The registration of advisers seemed to be a relatively sensible idea. It wasn’t until the committee and, indeed, members on this side started to delve into it in more detail, and then when we started to get submissions from the sector, that we realised that something was deeply wrong and flawed with this piece of legislation. So my questions to the Minister are really around what is the true purpose and the hidden meaning and plan behind this piece of legislation, because it’s not made clear. It hasn’t been made clear during the select committee process. It hasn’t been made clear by way of ministerial statement as the bill’s progressed through the House. There’s been very little comment from the Minister.

It seems pretty clear to us on this side of the Chamber that there is a potential that the Minister is hearing from one part of the sector, that may be relatively small in number and quantum, but the large silent majority, which is no longer silent but now quite forceful and vocal, has been sort of roused out of their slumber, if I can put it that way, and this piece of legislation has united them against it. So my question to the Minister is, really, what is the purpose of the regulations? How does he intend to make them operate? What confidence can he give the silent majority of people in the sector, traders in the sector, who are feeling very concerned about what they see as a Trojan Horse.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Can I first turn my attention to the honourable member McKelvie’s concerns about the delegation of any statutory functions to a person or an entity outside of the initial statutory body. I would direct his attention to proposed new section 63ZV, which clearly outlines that there are a host of standards and requirements that must be satisfied, and, indeed, the Minister must be satisfied. So there will be always a pin cushion, and politicians of the day wanting to hold someone accountable will have a target.

Can I now go to honourable member Simpson’s points, and I direct his attention—I’m assuming because he was on the select committee and he’s no slug when it gets to matters of environmental policy—to the rules governing forestry practice standards. I won’t repeat what I said, that this is a future orientated piece of legislation, which is building a platform for a host of investors, possibly unknown at this stage, who will derive more confidence through the quality of the advice they receive to expand the current size of the forestry sector, and change, perhaps, the types of trees that existing investors may seek to invest in. They will be able to sleep soundly at night knowing that the quality of the advice has a statutory process around it, and there will be accountability. The log mongers, I’m not surprised, given that they have existed in a frontier-like environment, and they have enjoyed the fruits of a laissez-faire environment which is now being bought, not before time, into a regime that will enjoy the lightest of regulatory touches. But where there are cases where their behaviour is not of a level that we should expect in forestry transactions, then they will be held accountable.

If I direct the members on the other side of the House to proposed new section 63ZZC, subsection (1) and (2), and they will see there what the rules, which will comprise the practice standards, are going to cover. Those rules, obviously, will enjoy full effect once the regulations are passed. Members on the other side of the Chamber know, as the select committee chairman reminded me, that any regulation that’s ultra vires will be struck down in the High Court.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, in reply to a question earlier in this debate, made the note that this was a “relatively uncontroversial” bill, and I’d just like to explore that concept a little further in light of the number of submissions that we heard, mostly via Zoom, which painted a rather different picture from the one the Minister has just explained to us in the Chamber.

I will start with the Forest Owners Association, who told us and who directed their comments to the Minister’s attention: “We strongly urge you”—and I’m quoting—“to reconsider this bill and look for other ways to facilitate the ongoing development of the domestic wood-processing industry.” So that was, I think, a well-directed suggestion and comment, and it was made in a very respectful way. And what the Forest Owners Association were saying to the Environment Committee and saying to the Minister is they were really questioning the regulation and the measures in this bill. Were they the right fit for the intention of the bill, which was to improve the practice, if you like, of forestry owners and log traders? So that’s really my first question and that comes via the Forestry Owners Association and I think they make a reasonable request. I know we’ve got the regulatory impact statement in front of us, but that didn’t give me any guidance on what other measures could have been considered, so I am interested to know what other ways were considered by the Minister to facilitate the ongoing development of the domestic wood-processing industry.

The other component of the questions I have is around registration, and that was signalled to the committee and signalled through the bill. But there were a lot of submitters, and I made notes, as you do, handwritten, and every submitter, practically—well, first of all, every submitter said that they had very little time to make a substantive submission. That was every submitter, and I don’t think there was an exception to that, and we’ve rehearsed that in this debate. Many of those submitters raised questions around where the regulations were going to be directed. What were the regulations going to be? Now, we all understand that regulation often comes after the legislation, but there was expressed to us a degree of apprehension about what that regulation might entail on the basis that a number of the submitters simply couldn’t identify, in particular, what the problem was to be solved. So I would like to know further: what is the problem that has to be solved that can’t be solved in other ways?

And finally, I would like the Minister to address the issue of how much note he has taken of the many, many submitters, forestry companies, large and small foresters associations, 90 percent of whom—and I’m guessing, but it’s about 90 percent of whom—oppose this bill, citing a lack of consultation, lack of time to make consultation, uncertainty around the regulation, and no real sense of what the problem was to be solved.

And lastly, I would like the Minister to address his statement and clarify just what exactly he meant when he made the comment that this bill was “relatively uncontroversial”, because that was not the experience that we heard through the select committee and it certainly wasn’t the experience of the submitters.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister in advance for his engagement. So far, I’ve been listening and there have been good answers to the questions that we, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, have been putting forward on this bill. We realise that the select committee did a pretty good job panel beating this bill, but we still have got some concerns, and I’d like to address a couple of those this evening.

We’re still concerned about, potentially, the trade implications of this, and I may have heard the Minister addressing it before I got into the House, so I guess my specific question is: has the Minister sought any advice from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials about the implications, or potential implications, of this bill on any trade negotiations in the future? I know that the Ministry for Primary Industries have a trade team—they’re well respected—but I’m very keen to know: has the Minister reached out and sought any advice from MFAT trade officials who are typically on the front line and in the engine room trying to negotiate free-trade agreements? Right now, they’re working hard to try and get one across the line with the European Union, and we know that there’s a few stumble trips along the way there, and also with the United Kingdom.

The reason I raise that is currently the primary sector tell me that there’s about $6 billion of non-tariff barriers that our exporters have to deal with a year. That’s what it costs our industry, effectively—that money not flowing back to farmers and growers and foresters, and the like, so I’m keen to hear the Minister explain that one too, please.

I’m also slightly confused—page 36, new section 63ZZC(2)(a)(ii), inserted by clause 7. So what this particular part of this bill, clause 7 of Part 1, says is that registered log traders and registered forestry advisers, on the recommendation of the Minister, must meet some rules that are set, potentially by the Minister. It says the Minister may set standards. Then it goes on to say, “Biosecurity, sustainable land use”. So I’m interested to know: is the Minister giving a nod that the forest advisers will be the ones that will be held to account if they go and advise that class 5 land, as an example, is suitable for forestry? Now we’ve got a live example right now, where Tolaga Bay beach is tangled up in a massive slash, and I’ve heard the industry say, “Oh, well that’s the old rules. They’ve been changed now; shouldn’t happen again.” We all know that these weather bombs, these significant weather events, occur from time to time, so I’m curious to know that there’s some rules and some standards that the Minister and his officials may set, and in particular, the sustainable land use. We’ve heard the Minister refer back to fines and penalties in this bill that could be used as a threat. Hopefully, they aren’t used regularly, but I’m very interested to know what the Minister means around that, because that’s particularly interesting.

The other comment is that I heard the Minister, I think it was in his first reading, say that after the election, it’s likely that politicians will want to restrict the ability of forest investors to expand their holdings into productive farmland. We all concur with that comment on this side of the House, but it would be interesting to know what the Minister is thinking around that particular aspect. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): There’s a number of issues raised, but if I could start with the former Minister of Agriculture, the Rt Hon David Carter’s concerns, and if I could direct your attention to page 36 and isolate new section 63ZZC (1)(a)(ii)—the reference to biosecurity, sustainable land use.

So, obviously, the ongoing tension between landowners who are favouring forestry as opposed to those who favour ongoing pastoralism—it’s not in a happy spot in some parts of New Zealand, but we have every right to expect that people selling their intellectual services as advisers will be required to offer advice to a high quality of standard. It may come to pass that a future Government, wanting to rebalance the extent to which forestry creeps into farmland or, indeed, the opposite, as has been the case for the last 10 to 12 years, and to reference the fact that those standards will deal with matters such as biosecurity, sustainable land use, shows that a future Minister—and I know I did alarm some members of the forestry sector when I said, “Look, if you think that I’m a bit over the top, you could end up with a Minister from the Green Party, so behave yourselves.” I said that to them, sadly, and I have to apologise to Minister Sage, because I quoted her name, and at that point about a thousand xeroxed submissions materialised from the ether. But that was a political remark.

So the point that I’m making is that there will be an opportunity for standards to be promulgated. They will not usurp the rights of a territorial authority to exercise their statutory functions, or, indeed, the Crown through national policy statements. I think that that’s a very useful addition to the arsenal of opportunities that the receivers of advice can hold the givers of advice to.

There was a question raised about “Was there adequate consultation?” Well, we live in post-COVID times, and there is such huge, tremendous pressure confronting our export sector, our investors, and I think the fact that this bill is where it is tonight reflects the sense of urgency that grips the Government to build statutory frameworks that allow us to get more value out of volume, and many Governments have preached that.

The final point I’d say is that, obviously, this bill would not be in its current sophisticated form and state if there was any sense that it might compromise or undermine our international obligations, but the purpose of the bill makes reference to international trade and domestic processing. I’m very proud to have led this quality of advocacy, as the politician privileged enough to be the Minister. Look, I think that the gale of uncertainty that swept through the forestry sector—once this bill passes, it’ll all diminish.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the Minister of Forestry was trying to placate the concerns of foresters and us on this side of the Chamber, but I don’t think he’s helped. The prospect of a Green Party Minister being in charge of this legislation would only make people even more concerned than they are now—the prospect of a Green Party Minister being able to set rules by Order in Council that set standards relating to any matter relating to forestry operations, including, as he’s mentioned under new section 63ZZC(2)(a)(ii), in clause 7, “biosecurity, sustainable land use, biodiversity, and emissions trading;”. Well, that will do nothing to placate the concerns of the people in the sector who are worried enough that the current Minister may be in charge of setting those regulations—perish the thought, let alone, that it may be someone even more perverse and unusually inspired than his good self. This is the section, this is the piece of the legislation, that has caused the most grief, I think, in terms of concern in the sector.

So the assurance from the Minister that he’s acting in good faith and doing the right thing, I guess, is good as far as it goes, but that assumes that we take him at face value in his role, acting in good faith. But it’s the prospect of, dare I say it, a lesser Minister at some point in the future having the kind of power and influence that will be potentially wielded by this piece of legislation that is the really scary thing.

I want also just to ask a question about some words that were put in at the request of the Environment Committee to try and ameliorate the concerns. That is in section 63ZZC(2A), and it says, “However, the rules must not impose any condition or requirement that is that is properly a matter for commercial agreement between the parties.” Those words were put in because what we were worried about as a select committee was that there was a potential for inappropriate involvement in what are, actually, property rights—the rights of a property owner to produce an income from a piece of land in a way that they choose to, having made prudent decisions that they’ve come to under their own analysis and research and their own thought about what kind of capital return or investment return that might make. So if they choose to grow trees, should it be the purview of regulated advisers that they define for property owners what kind of trees, what variety of trees, should be planted on a piece of land or, indeed, at what point those trees should be harvested.

I know the Minister has concerns about the potential for trees to be harvested before full maturity or before full market maturity, and there is concern that, actually, these new regulated forestry advisers are going to advise landowners, foresters—maybe against their will or their good judgment—when to harvest trees.

So those are, I think, legitimate concerns that foresters have that, somehow, notwithstanding the extra words that we’ve put in, there will still be a potential for influence—undue influence—about decisions that are properly made by people using their good judgment, their own research, their own nous, and their own investigative powers as to what is the commercially appropriate outcome for their investment in the land that they are earning an income from.

So I’m keen to know how the Minister is going to try to further placate the concerns of landowners that they’re not going to be told when they can harvest trees, at what point of the tree’s maturity it will be harvested, or, indeed, which tree variety is going to be allowed to be planted on their property and which not.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just remind the committee that the House has agreed to a new process during the committee stage of debate where the members no longer target five minutes for their speeches but use the opportunity to ask the Minister questions. The expectation is the Minister will answer it, not necessarily straight away but during the course of the debate.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’ll answer the questions for the Minister. That’ll solve the problem. I was very interested in the point he made about the Green Party Minister running this bill. We in fact used to have a Roundwood operation ourselves, and we used to use draught horses, which will please the Minister no end. That solves the problem of that. The other thing I was intrigued about, that the Minister said in one of his earlier answers, with post-COVID, is I took it to be cryptic for we no longer need to consult. In fact, that’s what his answer sounded very like.

But I wanted to ask an interesting question about the exemptions, because when you get into—well, I think it’s interesting—bills like this and you start to put exemptions in place, those exemptions are always kind of subject—because you get to a point where you’re a tonne over or a tonne under, and how do you work that out? But it’s interesting when you drive through the Rangitīkei electorate. There are two—and I invite the Minister to drive from Waiōuru to Ōhākune. There’s a very large firewood operator in that area, and, actually, in Marton also there’s a very, very large firewood operator. And when you think about 2,000 cubic metres a year, it’s not a lot of wood. It’s about 50 loads of logs, if you think about it in that respect, from those trucks that come down to the port here, for those people who want to know what a load of logs look like. So about 2,000 cubic metres a year, and I’ll guarantee, this legislation could well catch the firewood operators on that rate. I realise the regulations are able to specify different volume, and no doubt that’s how they’d work, but what interests me is how that would work and how it would be tested. So my question for the Minister is really around the thresholds and what triggers those thresholds and what would trigger a Minister to review those thresholds or the regulations to review those thresholds. So that’s one point.

I think pretty much every other point in the bill has been covered by our previous speakers and we’ve had answers to some of those questions. Some of them, of course, won’t have to satisfy us because we clearly oppose. We don’t oppose all of this bill because, like every piece of legislation that comes to the House, there are some bits of these bills that actually would be quite useful were they in a different form. So that’s my lot.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): These remarks, especially from the member who has just resumed his seat, have been very focused. Now, on the question of exemptions, I direct his attention to new section 63H(2), set out in clause 7. At this stage, I have received no advice that the quantums referred to, 2,000 tonne—and there’s about 30,000 tonne on an ordinary international freighter taking the logs out of the country, to 35,000 tonne, and 47 to 50 tonne on a truck. If it comes to pass that the regulations need to be niftily crafted to overcome that problem, I’ve got every confidence, because Te Uru Rākau, the officials that will go forward and implement this bill, realise that centre of mind must be economic services and economic returns.

On the question of exemptions—I’m on page 36. I’m on new section 63ZZC(2A) in clause 7. I think in the future, the best answer I can give to Mr Simpson is that there may very well come to pass where legal minds far more acute than mine, not unlike the chair of the select committee, will give a definition as to what “properly” is. Does “properly” mean “ordinarily associated with a day-to-day, bog-standard commercial transaction”, or are we referring to “is the conduct properly considered to have belonged to a bog-standard commercial transaction?” When time comes for that debate to take place, they’ll go back to the purpose of the Act, and the purpose of the Act is very lucid. It addresses the need for us to maintain international trade, and it addresses the overdue need to give confidence for those investors who want to expand the size of the domestic manufacturing base in this particularly, in some cases, stressed industry but, in this industry, with an enormous amount of potential in the future.

So I would caution members on the other side of the House from delving too deep into apocryphal interpretations. Time will pass and they will find that this bill actually strengthens the entirety of the industry—in particular, those who are employers, employees, and investors in the processing sector. Sadly, no one from that side of the House has stood up to talk for the processors.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I think the Minister in the chair, the Hon Shane Jones, is—I accept that he’s trying to help, but I think he’s instilling only more fear amongst those who are concerned about that particular clause, because if the prospect of a lesser Minister than himself, perhaps a Green Party Minister at some future date, invokes fear and concern in the minds of foresters, then the next big scary thing is that judges, activist judges, should be the ones who determine who can log a tree and at what stage.

If we leave it to the judiciary, that may be all well and good, but some poor landowner, some poor forester, is going to have to go through a judicial process, go through litigation to have some kind of definition that the Minister’s assuring us will surely come if that is going to be judicially interpreted by a judge, maybe an activist judge, who is going to look at the purpose clause of the bill and say, “Well, I know exactly what the Hon Shane Jones meant by that but I have a different view. And it’s my view”—said the activist judge—“that actually these registered forestry advisers do have a capacity to tell landowners when a tree can be felled and at what stage of maturity and which type or variety of tree can be planted on which piece of land.” That’s even more scary to members of the sector than, in fact, probably even the prospect of a Green Party Minister having purview over this piece of legislation is. So my concern is that in trying to placate us with the prospect of long and expensive, potentially, activist litigation, actually this will only instil even greater fear in the minds of those people who are worried about it.

I want to ask a separate question relating to new section 63ZZD, the rules about the code of ethics, in new Part 2A of the Forests Act, set out in clause 7. Subsection (1) states, “The Forestry Authority may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make rules that set a code of ethics for registered [foresters].” And these rules may include—and then these are those worrying words—“without limitation, matters relating to—”, and then it goes through a series of matters that may be applied in terms of creating a code of ethics.

This Parliament has been grappling with issues of those sorts. And if parliamentarians can’t agree a code of conduct or a code of ethics, it seems hardly fair that on the recommendation of the Minister, a code of ethics is going to be forced without limitation upon these registered forestry advisers. I’m interested to know what the Minister’s thoughts and views are on that subject, please.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 543 in the name of the Hon Shane Jones be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 40; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Shane Jones to clause 7 be agreed to:

in clause 7, new section 63D(1), replace “section 41(2A) of the State Sector Act 1988” with “clause 2(6) of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Legislation Act 2020”.

in clause 7, new section 63D(2), replace “section 41(2A)(a) of the State Sector Act 1988” with “clause 2(6)(a) of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Legislation Act 2020”.

in clause 7, new section 63D(3), replace “section 41 of the State Sector Act 1988” with “clause 2 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Legislation Act 2020”.

in clause 7, new section 63E(6), replace “section 42 of the State Sector Act 1988” with “clause 4 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Legislation Act 2020”.

in clause 7, new section 63E(7), replace “section 41(2B) to (2F) of the State Sector Act 1988, which provides” with “clauses 2 and 3 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Legislation Act 2020, which provide”.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 40; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 40; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

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

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou, ko ngā mokopuna—greetings to you and, as I said in our Māori language, the mokopuna.

I move, That the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This particular bill in its development has been shepherded forward by the officials from Te Uru Rākau, a division of the ministry of te ahu matua—primary produce—and I want to place on record my acknowledgment and my mihi, as we say in our reo, to vice-Minister, otherwise known as manager, Julie Collins, and her team, some of whom are in the House this evening.

I want to traverse some of the key points of this bill and acknowledge the support that this bill has enjoyed, initially from all parties in the House. It was attacked by the former member of Clutha-Southland, and it was also criticised but voted for by the member of Bay of Plenty. Considerable changes have happened in the lives of those two men, but now we are here where we are this evening.

The purpose of the bill—the people of the forestry sector, including the processing sector, should derive a great deal of confidence that their industry is in a safe pair of hands this evening. Gone are the days where the processing sector will no longer be able to enjoy a place of pride. In fact, in the event that electoral fortunes smile upon my good self, I look forward to seeing the processing sector, the planting sector, the nursery sector, and other elements of the forestry industry joining together and creating a credible peak industry body.

If I learnt anything during the process of this bill, I saw the costs of people not working together. Sadly, they catastrophised various statements and they imagined the worst. I don’t want to mention any of them by name because this speech will one day possibly be referred to—in the event that elements of the forestry sector prove to be recalcitrant, it could very well feature one day in a court case.

The purpose of the Act outlines the need for a consistent and reliable supply of timber. There are critics who say the bill doesn’t go far enough and it doesn’t enable the State to force our largely foreign-dominated sector to sell logs at a stipulated price. That was a step too far. The bill very simply creates an occupational licensing regime, and firmly within the sights of this bill is that category of trader otherwise known as a log monger. The owners of small plots of trees were very happy to hear that this bill will register advisers. If it’s good enough to have real estate advisers and agents registered, if it’s good enough to have the advisers of financial alchemy registered, then it’s certainly a good idea to have forestry advisers registered.

It also requires, in terms of developing regulations, practice standards. Practice standards will give a guide as to what is an appropriate level of conduct. I want to go on record and acknowledge the co-leader James Shaw and the Minister of Conservation, who, during various discussions of a small group known as the forestry Minister’s group, reminded me that forestry has a major contribution to play in relation to biodiversity, climate change, and that one shouldn’t just think about the rows and rows with great monotony—similar, like the Kaingaroa Forest. There is an opportunity also to bear in mind the importance in terms of future investments in the forestry estate for biodiversity. It was not where I started, I must confess. However, that’s the value of a functioning coalition Government on the matter of forestry. So, having told the truth there, I shall now move on.

On the question—

SPEAKER: Ha, ha! That’s not a good way of putting it.

Hon SHANE JONES: —in relation to the need for the processing sector to enjoy a higher level of investment confidence, this day is overdue. Not all log mongers historically have been rascals, but far too many have enjoyed, to the detriment of the good name of this industry, laissez-faire powers. They’ve enjoyed the rights, but they have been unwilling to absorb the obligations. Well, tonight this legislation, God willing, when it passes and the regulations developed—obligations will be imposed on log mongers to not only look after the international purchasers but to address the concerns of the community, of the employees, and of the industry to ensure that this valuable endowment is made available not only for international purchasers but for domestic processes.

I’m going to wind this speech up by reminding us that forestry has a tremendous role to play when we think about the bioeconomy, when we think about a host of additional services and goods that can be derived from this sector. But no one will spend their precious capital if they are beset by doubt and uncertainty as to whether they’ll ever get access to a reliable and reasonably large supply of raw material. This bill represents a step in that direction. Yes, it does unsettle some of the people who have profited from the status quo, but no industry in the post-COVID context should imagine that their stakes or their interests are static. The economy is dynamic. The economy is organically capable of, quite simply, healing itself, because an economy is people, and people are looking for opportunity where they are not going to be gamed but they have a fair and reasonable opportunity to grow their business, the prospects of more jobs, and the prospect of better enterprise outcomes. This bill, which I’ve been completely privileged to bring to the House and shepherd through to this stage of a third reading, is an overdue contribution to those outcomes. My party, as a part of our coalition Government, are absolutely overwhelmed with pride with this bill, and I shall air its benefits widely over the next eight weeks. Thank you very much, sir.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I was quite quick to my feet on that occasion. This bill, I’m not going to be vehemently critical of it, because I think everything that’s brought to this House is brought with good intention. But, none the less, I’m not going to say we’re going to support it either, and we’re not going to.

There are some parts of this bill that I think, like many bills that come to the House, have a little bit of logic to them, depending on how they’re handled as we move down the track. Clearly, I think the registration of people who operate in the sector has some value to the sector and probably to those people who grow and participate in the forestry industry, right from the processing sector back to the person who plants the trees.

Of course, the most important person in the whole of this process is the person who owns the land that the trees are planted on, and, as we’ve seen with some of the decisions made during the COVID lockdown, if you don’t give confidence to foresters and people who plant crops to plant those crops, they won’t plant them, and that will create distortions in the market and all sorts of shortages.

One of the problems with this bill, I think, is that it’s imposing—or it has the potential to impose, because we don’t know what it’s going to impose—a regime on the industry which may well suppress prices. If those people planting trees don’t have confidence in where they’re going at the time of planting—and we’ve seen that on a number of occasions in the last 30 years with the forestry sector in New Zealand, where they’ve lost confidence in the ability to get a return from planting trees, because of various decisions of Government—that puts significant challenges in front of them and dents their confidence. The point is: they don’t plant trees, as a result of it. I think that the potential for this legislation to, effectively, legislate the price of logs down is a significant problem, and I think that will worry forest growers.

I do accept the Minister’s point that there are, really, three different types of forestry owners in New Zealand. There are the big multinationals, and it’s all very well for us to attack big multinationals, but one of the challenges that I’ll get to in a minute is this sector, like many others in our primary sector, is desperately short of capital. There would be ways you could free that up, which I’ll talk about in a moment.

So I think that the part of this legislation that sets up the forestry authority and that gives that authority the opportunity to, effectively, register logging exporters and consultants in the industry and people who participate in the advisory service in the industry isn’t altogether bad and probably has a place. It could’ve probably been handled by the industry itself, and, from my understanding of the Minister’s answer in the committee stage, that may well be how that bit of the bill works. The problem for us is absolutely the regulations and the fact we have no confidence in those regulations.

I think the fact that over 600 people submitted to this thing—and I don’t know how many submissions or emails we got as individual members of Parliament, but it was massively significant; it was of the proportions that I’ve never seen in a bill like this before, actually, so someone got very active. But over 600 people submitted to the Environment Committee on this bill—11 in favour. I’d lay odds that of those 11 that were in favour at the time, at least half of them are no longer in favour. I have talked to a number of those, and there’s no doubt they are no longer in favour of this, because they are very nervous about the way it might manage the thing.

Now, if you look at the industry, and if you look at the industry in my part of New Zealand—I have a pulp mill, I have a fairly large sawmill, I have a very large sector of forestry in the Rangitīkei electorate, and I have two big roundwood producers, and one big roundwood producer right next door, in Nathan Guy’s electorate. The roundwood producers are the ones that are challenged for wood, actually, in my part of the world, not the sawmills and the pulp mills. The reason they’re challenged for wood is because they want a type of log that’s not economic to produce.

In other words, they really want you to grow a tree to about 18 years and chop it down just when it’s putting it’s—I probably shouldn’t be trying to explain something that’s biological, but trees put on a whole lot more weight as they get bigger, like I tend to, actually. They grow much faster towards the end of their life, and the end of their useful life, for a pine tree, is about 30 years. After 30 years, they start to get lighter, for exactly the same reason that we start to get lighter—the calcium in their bones starts to disappear, and they get smaller and smaller! Well, they don’t get smaller, but the wood doesn’t weigh as much.

So what happens with the roundwood suppliers is they cannot get a supply of roundwood, because it’s not economic for a forester to, effectively, grow that wood specifically for them. Now, some of the roundwood operators—and they’re pretty big operators in New Zealand now. You only have to look at the growth of horticulture and pipfruit industry, and certainly the growth of development around the country in the form of roads and things like that, and the amount of roundwood that’s just used on the side of a road, for example—it’s massive. So there’s a very big industry in New Zealand. They’re challenged because there’s only a certain amount of roundwood, or potential roundwood, that comes out of a forest when it’s milled or cut for export at maturity.

So that’s the challenge that is faced in my part of the world. This bill won’t overcome that, because, effectively, it’s got to encourage the foresters to grow wood that they can afford to sell to those people at a price that’s economic for them to grow it. So that’s one of the big challenges.

The other challenge, I think, that this bill doesn’t address and that would solve some of the problems that the Minister has with the processing sector particularly, and also, to some extent, with the harvesting sector, is the fact that they’re short of capital and there’s just not enough capital to develop these industries and to get them going. The reason there’s not enough capital is because there’s not enough income in. So they can’t get the income out of it. So there are other things in New Zealand that need to be changed to enable that capital to be injected into the industry that will give it the equipment they need to compete on the international markets. The reason they can’t, as I said, is because they have not got the capital to do that job properly.

There would be other ways of fixing this other than putting in place a bill that creates regulation that the industry, right across the board, is very nervous about. I don’t think it’s only the big international forest owners that are nervous about it; it’s the people who are planting trees on a daily basis, it’s the farmers and the farm foresters, and it’s those New Zealand people who—and a large number of them do—invest in forestry for the future. They’re the people that are threatened by a lot of what goes on in a bill like this and worry about it. So I don’t want to see for a minute investment in the forestry sector drop off because we put in place a piece of legislation that has the potential to distort the market in the future.

That’s the reason, I think, that we oppose this bill. I was not part of the select committee process, so I’m probably going to be followed by some people who know more about it than I do. But I do have a lot to do with the industry, and I think it’s a great industry for New Zealand. I admire the Minister for trying to protect it and trying to fix it, but I don’t think this is the way to fix it. I think, were we to become the Government after the election—and I’ve counted the days; it’s 57¾ days, I think it is, or something like that, until the election’s over—we would not pursue the regulations and would likely repeal this piece of legislation. If it was necessary to put in place a piece of legislation to deal with the bits of this bill that I think are useful, we would probably do something about it. So we can’t support this bill, for that reason, but I do think the industry is worth the effort that we put into trying to make it work.

The very last thing I want to say is—and I have mentioned it already tonight—the moment Governments start to mess around in what, effectively, is a market situation, we almost always get it wrong. We’ve seen numerous examples of that in the past. So we cause distortions in the market place, and I talked about that earlier in my speech. We cause distortions in the market place, which create uncertainty, which get results that we don’t anticipate getting and cause problems for us. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes. Mr McKelvie, you are going to be followed by someone who knows more about this than you. I want to just rebut—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STUART NASH: What? Pardon, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: “You”.

Hon STUART NASH: The previous member. I’d like to rebut a couple of things that that member said. First and foremost, he said that there’s a lack of capital in the market, and that’s the reason why the industry isn’t growing. Well, I dispute that. I think one of the main reasons why people do not invest in the sector is because they cannot tie up long-term log supplies. When you’re investing a couple of hundred million dollars in a plant, you need to ensure long-term log supplies. That is really important.

It’s a real shame the National Party isn’t supporting this bill, and it’s good to see Minister Shane Jones actually taking a great interest in this. He’s the first Minister of Forestry this country has had since the Hon Jim Anderton who understood the industry and drove change. I remember attending a forestry meeting where a former National Minister of Forestry stood up and said, “I know about forestry. I’ve got a woodlot at the end of my farm.” And then he laughed, and everyone—it wasn’t you, Mr Guy. Everyone in the room rolled their eyes and went, “Oh, goodness me.” But that is about the level of interest that the National Party, a previous National Government, had for forestry, and the industry knew it.

The other thing I would like to talk about is—Mr McKelvie talked about roundwood. The reason why there is a shortage of roundwood at the moment, and the reason why I have a major concern around what’s happening in our industry, is because of a lack of silvicultural regimes. In the past, roundwood came about because people were growing for production and they were thinning, and they got a lot of poles out of thinnings. They weren’t growing specifically for poles; they were growing for 23-, 25-, 28-year-old wood, and, at 18 years old, you’d thin your forest out, and that’s where your roundwood would come from.

New Zealand is quite unique in the sense that about 75 percent of our forests are overseas-owned, and that does create challenges. What I would say is that when we become involved in this, we are not distorting the market. In fact, what we are doing is correcting the market.

Let me give the House an example—let me give the House an example. There’s a forest in Gisborne. It is called Hikurangi Forest Farms and it was overseas-owned. It’s since been sold to the example I’m going to give. What happened with that forest is the owner trucked logs straight past the front gate of a local mill that was part-owned by the Gisborne economic development agency and sent those logs to the wharf and straight overseas. That forest owner refused to supply logs to a local sawmill to the point that that sawmill closed down. The thing about Hikurangi Forest Farms when it was owned at the time is it put three applications into the Overseas Investment Office, making a whole lot of promises around what it would do. It never met one of those promises.

When I used to sell logs to sawmills, and I did this for Carter Holt Harvey, the thing that I know is not one sawmiller ever asked for a special deal. They never asked for a price that was cheaper than the forest owner could achieve overseas. What they did want is export equivalent log price. That is all these guys are asking for—not a special deal, not a special price, just a quality and a quantity of logs that allows them to operate at an export equivalent log price. What we have seen over the last 10 years is foreigners not supplying mills with logs but rather sending them overseas.

Now, don’t get me wrong, there are a number of very good forest owners who are overseas corporates, and the example I have given, whilst not unique, is a little unusual. Most of the forest owners in this country, be they domestic or overseas-owned, actually do the right thing, and they do supply logs to mills. But what Mr Jones is doing here is ensuring that our domestic mills do have a supply of logs so they can operate—not at a special price. That has never been part of this bill, and it was a red herring put up by the industry, and also, I believe, by the Opposition. There is nothing in this bill that says “Thou shalt supply logs to the domestic industry at a cheaper price.”—at a cheaper price.

The other thing I would say, with regard to the registration of log traders, is there is something called the New Zealand Institute of Forestry, which is a very reputable body; it does a fantastic job. It actually already administers a registration system of sorts that would be perfect for undertaking the registration of log mongers. That is set up. It is not a difficult thing to do. The last thing I would say: it is good to see a Minister of Forestry taking a real, true interest in this, protecting the rights and the commerce of New Zealand processors and driving the forest industry forward in a way that hasn’t been done for a number of years. I support this bill, thank you very much.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the Minister who’s just resumed his seat, I think, has given us the answer that we had been seeking for so long through the select committee process, third reading, the committee of the whole House, through the second reading, and now into the third reading, and the answer that the Hon Shane Jones, whose name this bill is in, didn’t answer. What we found from the member Stuart Nash is that we are correcting the market. That’s what it’s all about—we are correcting the market. This is what we said: we’re correcting the market. Now we’ve got to the nub of it. Here we are in the third reading of this legislation, and now we’re at nub of it. He wants to correct the market.

That was the challenge, actually, that came from all the submitters—so many of them that made submissions in such a short time, because this bill was introduced under Budget urgency, and then the Environment Committee had a very, very narrow window of opportunity and a short time frame in which to consider the bill. It was clear right from the very first few submissions that there were major flaws with the bill. Big chunks of it were rewritten by the hard-working officials, who had to try and make some sense of it, and now we find out the answer to the question: it’s all about correcting the market. That was the question that submitters were asking us at select committee—they were saying “What’s the purpose of this bill? What is it aimed to do? Why has it been introduced? What is the purpose?”

Then halfway through that process, we discovered, actually, that the intent of the bill is more to do with propping up a handful of inefficient, maybe unprofitable sawmills, mostly in Northland, and that a better name for this bill would be the “Northland Inefficient Sawmillers Support Bill”, because that’s really what it sort of came down to. Loggers and foresters from the sector couldn’t understand what the issue was, and then there was the sense all the way through that there was some kind of Trojan Horse, that there was some kind of purpose beyond what was stated on the label of this bill—what it was all about. Now the Hon Stuart Nash has given us the answer that we have been seeking for so long and that wasn’t forthcoming. “We are correcting the market.”, he says.

Erica Stanford: What could possibly go wrong?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That’s the way that socialists work—that’s the way they work. As my friend and colleague Erica Stanford from East Coast Bays says, “What could possibly go wrong?” Well, wait and see—just wait and see. When Governments dabble in a free and open market, when they dabble in areas that are rightly and properly the preserve of property owners to make their own decisions about what they do on that property, what trees they plant, what varieties of tree they plant, and, what’s more, when and how they log them—well, when they cut them down, at what level of maturity. Those are commercial decisions, and then decisions about who they will sell those chopped-down logs to, those felled logs—“felled logs” is the right term. So these are all crucial matters that are properly and rightly the preserve of the property owner, of the business person, of the entrepreneur. This is not the realm of the State; this is not the realm of a clipboard-carrying registered adviser.

There are provisions in this legislation that are very scary for property owners, for foresters, who feel very much that this bill will inhibit their freedom and ability to make commercial decisions on their own account, on their own advice, or from advice that they have received from people that they choose to seek advice from, rather than those that are regulated and controlled and told what to say by this piece of legislation that this Government wants to use to correct the market. Well, Erica Stanford is 100 percent right: “What could possibly go wrong?” Well, years and years of experience have taught us that when Governments attempt to try and correct the market, only ill will come from that.

Actually, the perverse outcomes of this legislation will not be a better outcome for the logging sector, it won’t be a better outcome for sawmillers, and it won’t be a better outcome for the economy of New Zealand—and we will all be the poorer for it. So a Labour Minister who comes to the House in 2020, talking about correcting the market—I thought that kind of comment went out back in, well, frankly, about the 1970s, it went out, but no; it’s alive and well on the Government benches right now.

We don’t support the bill. The very wise words of my colleague Ian McKelvie, I hope the Minister was listening to—I hope the Minister absorbed the wise words of Ian McKelvie, because he is a man that is experienced in these matters, he understands it, and I thought his contribution in this debate was well worthy of consideration by the Minister. We don’t support this bill.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. The National Party hates regulation. The National Party appears to dislike the forestry industry. We have a system with real estate agents who are licensed to practise. What this bill does—and the Green Party is very pleased to support it—is set up a forestry authority which is going to have oversight of a registration and licensing system.

What National has been talking about in its reasons for opposition fails to recognise that there are failures in the market, fails to recognise that the bulk of the wood supply in the 2020s is going to be from small growers. It fails to recognise that a lot of those small growers, the decision they make about when they harvest the timber on their land and how they market it will have quite an impact on the return they get from it. Having not had a lot of experience in that space, if they are taking advice from log traders and others who are not registered, they have no assurance about the integrity of that advice. So this bill, and the licensing and registration system that it puts in place, is about ensuring that the industry has a better future. It is about ensuring that those small forest growers have got access to people who have appropriate expertise and qualifications, and that we can make the best of that timber.

As the Hon Stuart Nash noted, where you have got big companies that are primarily interested in supplying overseas markets, they can sell timber directly to those markets, it goes on to the wharves, and it may mean that local sawmilling and wood-processing companies miss out. The bulk of the logs that are harvested here in New Zealand are sold as logs overseas, without the added-value processing that we can use in this country to create jobs and to make use of the climate and soils which are so good for growing trees.

The forestry industry has got a lot of work to do to lift its game to get a social licence back again, when we’re seeing the pictures that we’ve seen from Tolaga Bay, with all of that slash ending up on the beaches once again. It’s got a job to do to move away from the exotic plantation pine monoculture. It can do things as happening in Northland, where regenerating tōtara there is being harvested on farms and the return from those logs, which don’t need any chemical preservatives or treatment to make them durable, is providing an incentive for farmers to allow the tōtara to continue to regenerate rather than felling it for pasture. The industry needs to diversify into different timbers, into native plantation timbers, and not just rely on pine.

This bill is a step towards ensuring a better industry by having a registration and licensing system, and the forestry authority to oversee that. So I can’t understand why the National Party is so afeared of that when it has been, alongside 50 Shades of Green, raising concerns about areas of pastoral farmland which are being converted to plantation forestry. Here you have mechanism, through this bill, to ensure that farmers who have woodlots, those small growers, are able to access advice that is experienced, from licensed people, and yet the National Party opposes that. They don’t want a healthy industry; they don’t want regulation to ensure that the forestry industry has a better future. The Green Party supports the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): The forestry industry already has a healthy industry, and log traders have a very strong part of that. We were told through the very imperfect consultation period of this bill that the Government appeared to be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t actually exist. We had a number of points noted to us throughout the submission process, which was overwhelmingly against the regulation and the requirements which come with the provisions in this bill. For the Minister in the committee stage, the Hon Shane Jones, to note that on behalf of the submissions on the bill, this was a relatively uncontroversial process—that could not be further from the truth.

We were overwhelmingly told, across a range of interests in forestry, that there was simply an absence of an argument for the necessary imposition of future regulation on the forestry industry. They did acknowledge that there are some players—log traders, for example, and foresters—who were suboptimal and didn’t provide good advice. Well, point me to even a regulated industry where that is not the case. But, overwhelmingly, we were told that there was no great problem that they could identify—nor could the Minister identify—that needed remedying throughout this bill.

Just my final point is that, yup, National doesn’t like regulation, because with regulation comes cost and uncertainty and it diverts New Zealand business from doing what it wants to do, and that is getting on and being productive. I would have thought that in these post-COVID economic times, we needed foresters and every other business—large or small—in New Zealand focusing on their business, not focusing on a new raft of regulation that is going to come down on them. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this bill this evening. If ever there was a bill that was a solution looking for a problem, it’s this bill. I have to, firstly, tonight mention the chair of our select committee, Duncan Webb. He had a tremendously difficult job with this bill, and I have to say he asked more questions probably than even we did. His frustrations with this bill were absolutely clear in the fact that we had to keep pushing things out, allowing for more time in the very restricted time we had, because the bill was such an absolute incoherent mess. We had a really restricted time frame to do this in, and the frustration on the face of Duncan Webb was like I have never seen before. It took a long time and a lot of Zoom calls between us and officials, and I have to pay great respect to them because they worked really hard in a very short time frame to get this bill in some kind of a state that we can present it tonight.

We will be voting against this bill, as I think has become abundantly clear. It was so—I have to say—arrogant of Minister Stuart Nash, the Hon Stuart Nash, to come out tonight and say that we had no idea what we were talking about, that he knew everything, that it was all about correcting the market. Well, actually, I might not have any log traders or any of that industry in my electorate, but I sat on the Environment Committee and I listened to every single one of the submitters, and 95 percent of them were against the bill. No matter what the Hon Eugenie Sage talks about—failures of the market—not a single one of them came to us and said there is some great failure of the market that there has to be this intervention to correct it.

The only place where possibly there was some kind of evidence of that was in Northland—a couple of sawmills that hadn’t been invested in, that weren’t talking to the forestry owners properly, and that is where the problem lay. Not a single person around the rest of the country told us that there was a problem. The really interesting—and I know we always talk about submitters in the second reading, but I have to always come back to the one, New Zealand Forestry, who said, “Look, it’s OK if you have a registration programme for the industry. That’s not a problem. We’re happy with that.” But the point he was making was that isn’t the solution for the purpose—one of the purposes in the purpose statement is to “support the continuous, predictable, and long-term supply of timber and equity of access of timber for domestic processing and export.” Those two things—you know, one of those didn’t equal the other. What he was trying to say was you can have a registration process for the industry, but you’re not going to achieve that purpose.

So that is why every single one of the submitters that we saw saw this as a Trojan Horse and realised that to achieve that purpose, supporting the continuous, predictable, and long-term supply of timber—that purpose was going to be achieved by something that was hidden in regulations that they hadn’t seen. Then for the Minister to come up today in the committee of the whole House stage and say, “Don’t worry. We’re going to consult widely over these regulations. We’re going to talk to the industry. They’ll have the chance to talk to us. And when we develop these regulations, it will all be OK and it’ll all be fine.”—I made the point back to him that, well, actually, you could forgive them for thinking that’s probably not going to happen, given that it didn’t happen with this bill. They were completely blindsided. It was rushed through under urgency. They only had four working days to submit on the bill, which is atrocious. The state of the bill was appalling anyway. For them to understand it, respond to it, and come and then talk to our select committee in such a short time—every single one of them complained about the process, complained about the fact that they had no idea that this was coming down the pipeline. They hadn’t been consulted with. Then for them to sit there now and believe that the Minister is going to consult with them widely when it comes to regulations—if they’re watching, they’re probably sitting there thinking, well, that’s probably not going to happen.

I mentioned also in the committee stage about the fact that the regulatory impact statement also mentioned the fact that there wasn’t proper evidence or there wasn’t a longitudinal study that could be relied on for the basis of this bill. In fact, they talked about the only research that had been done, in fact, was “MPI commissioned Forme Consulting Group and Scion in early 2019 to examine the log supply constraints that were emerging in”—which part of the country? Northland—nowhere else but Northland. So the only bit of evidence that they have is from Northland, where there are some sawmills that haven’t been properly invested in that aren’t doing so well. But what we heard from the rest of the country is that there isn’t a problem. We heard from sawmills, we heard from processors, we heard from log traders, we heard from growers, and no one said that there was a problem, and they were all confused by the bill. So you have to agree with them when they said there has to be something hidden in this bill that we’re not seeing.

For the Minister to dismiss that when he was in the chair tonight is just not good enough. Every single one of them said, “This is a Trojan Horse.”, after they complained about the fact they hadn’t had very long to go through the bill and submit. The next thing they said was that in order to achieve the purpose of the bill, there’s got to be something hidden. That’s why they called it a Trojan Horse.

As my colleague Scott Simpson mentioned earlier when he talked about the Minister, the Hon Stuart Nash’s comment about the correction that was needed, it just rang these alarm bells, because, as I pointed out, what could possibly go wrong? There is a reason that we don’t intervene in these markets, especially when the people themselves, the stakeholders themselves, and the growers and the processors and the sawmills are telling us that there’s not a problem and there doesn’t need to be intervention. But this Government, for some reason, believes there is a problem and that the solution lies in this complete incoherent mess of a bill with a hidden agenda. For that reason, we will not be supporting the bill this evening.

Hon Stuart Nash: Stick to the North Shore issues.

ERICA STANFORD: That was uncalled for.

Hon Stuart Nash: But it’s true.

Hon Nathan Guy: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: I missed it. I’m just going to check that it wasn’t an unparliamentary remark.

Hon Stuart Nash: No, it wasn’t.

SPEAKER: OK. The Hon Nathan Guy.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll ensure that I don’t put you to sleep with my contribution. Regardless of that, this is a very—

SPEAKER: Don’t indicate to your colleague who just spoke that she did, because she certainly didn’t.

Hon NATHAN GUY: This is a very important bill and it’s worthy of a good, robust third reading speech, which I’m going to do. But I don’t have a lot of time to deliver a good, robust speech, so I’m just going to run through the highlights for me. I sat on the Environment Committee and heard this bill; it was very rushed. Erica Stanford did a great job of covering that off, so I won’t go through that process. But I think what we can glean is that the Minister of Forestry started at a point where he wanted to create an export levy on logs leaving the country. He couldn’t get that through Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). They all went ballistic—hated the idea of it. It was all redacted in the regulatory impact statement. So he did a workaround with his officials and he came up with this.

We still have concerns about this bill, and what this does is it means that it will restrict export logs and mean that a portion of those have to go into the domestic mills in New Zealand, and we don’t think that that is fair and proper. I heard Stuart Nash in his contribution say that the market’s broken and it isn’t working. Well, that’s not what I’ve heard from my mates in the industry. So it’s interesting that he is referring to that. I’m not sure where Stuart Nash is getting his information from, because he does have a lot of large foresters in his electorate.

The other aspect that this does is it forms a regulatory body to oversee the forestry advisers, and that will create red tape and costs, and I don’t think that there’s a massive issue for them to necessarily be regulated. The other aspect that I have real concerns about—and we, unfortunately, got blocked in the select committee from getting MFAT officials in to interrogate them on whether this bill could have consequences for the New Zealand Government—i.e., MFAT—negotiating a free-trade agreement (FTA) in the future, whether it’s the EU, whether it’s the UK, or other countries that we’re working collaboratively with to try and get FTA agreements. What we do know post-COVID is that there is more protectionism coming in around the world. It was the worst prior to COVID in the last 23 years. So we know now it’s probably up to being the worst in 30 years.

We know from all of the evidence from the Government that, currently, agriculture exporters face non-tariff barriers that cost them about $6 billion a year. That is a huge amount that’s not flowing through back to the farm gate, back to growers, back to foresters, and the like. So my concern is that—and I know that MFAT officials share this concern, but I’ve got that second- and third-hand because we weren’t, unfortunately, given our right to have them in front of the select committee. So we only got advice from MPI trade officials, and I wanted to hear it from MFAT. So what I have heard second- or third-hand is that MFAT are really worried about this bill and it could cause complications with us negotiating free-trade agreements in the future. We’ll wait and see on that one.

The other one that I asked the Minister about was the ability to effectively set up a code or standards in the future. That all sounds fine, doesn’t it? But there’s an aspect in this bill that really concerns me and that is around the sustainable land use where, potentially, forestry advisers will be the ones that could get caught in the crossfire for saying “This block of land is appropriate for trees.” and in due course it may not be. The real rub—not in this bill, but generally in forestry, in the primary sector, and rural heartland New Zealand right now—is that they see, literally, a sea of trees coming at them hard and fast. That means, potentially, there’s the hollowing out of rural communities: rural schools closed because the teachers might be hooked up with the farm manager, the shepherd who has to leave because their farm has been sold to forestry, the rugby club goes, the veterinary club goes, and it’s a downhill spiral. By the way, the roads get smashed in 25 to 30 years’ time. So we’ve got a real concern about the aspect of the sea of trees that is actually hitting rural communities quite hard right now.

But the reason I raised that aspect about the sustainable land use and forestry advisers is that I have a concern that the Minister of the day could bring in standards or a code that then puts those forestry advisers in the line of fire. The way that, in the future, I could see there being a real balance where we plant trees in the right place at the right time, etc., etc., is to ensure that steeper hill country is planted, but then there’s a real issue about harvesting those trees in the future—and we see right now a live example of slash on the beaches at Tolaga Bay. The forestry sector will say, “Oh yes, well, that’s under the old rules. We’ve ship-shaped up and we’re a lot better dressed now.” But the reality is we’re still going to have massive weather bombs in this country, significant rain events, and that means that slash, which is basically unwanted trees, comes down the river channels and ends up on the beaches. I’m horrified to think that the forestry industry is saying, “Oh, yeah, we’ll get on to it and we’ll clear that particular beach at Tolaga Bay leading into the summer.” I would have thought that their social licensing would have meant that they wanted to get the loaders and the trucks down there and clean it up now.

Anyway, in summary, I said, Mr Speaker, I wouldn’t put you to sleep, and I hope I haven’t. This bill is something that we can’t support. There’s a few aspect in the bill that we think are worthy of us supporting. But in summary, the aspects that I’ve outlined mean that we can’t support this bill.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this is just another example of Government knows best, and, actually, no one’s ever going to convince me that any Government knows better than an industry. So this Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill, in its current form, risks being excessively burdensome. I actually worry about what I’m hearing from my colleagues that sat on the Environment Committee. We have select committees for a reason. We have select committees so that the public and the industry can come in and tell us what is good and bad about a piece of legislation that’s going to be introduced.

The forestry sector has said they simply don’t want this bill and they view it as a means to pinning down the industry. In fact, the Forest Owners Association has labelled this new bill as an avalanche of clipboards. And what do clipboards do? They don’t enhance an industry. All they do is bog it down in red tape. We’ve heard tonight from the Green Party that the Nats don’t like regulation. Well, we don’t like over-regulation. There are some regulations—baseline regulations—that we need in any industry, but, actually, the only thing that is ever going to fix any industry is the industry itself.

So this bill was introduced in urgency. It was dropped on us just after we got back to Parliament, out of COVID. I think we were only at half capacity at that point. We weren’t all back. This is only the second sitting block where we’ve been all back. There were, out of 640 submissions, only 11 that supported the bill, meaning almost 98 percent of submitters opposed it. If I can say to the Minister, well, 640 minus 11 is 629 people opposing this bill. Now, what I don’t like about that is that shortened legislation can end up having unintended consequences. Shortened legislation is bad legislation.

I’ll give you an example. So oil and gas shortened legislation—Jonathan Young, my good colleague, and I tried to get a select committee day in Taranaki, the heart of oil and gas. But no, you know, the Government doesn’t want to hear what Taranaki people have to say about oil and gas. Well, Jonathan Young’s just informed me recently that there’s a new terminology out there and it’s called non-gas thermal capacity. That is code for coal, right? So now we are heading down the coal path.

So this bill is another recipe for failure by a Government who comes in, wants to over-regulate an industry, wants to know best, and wants to make sure that they have all the regulations and rules in place. I’m really disappointed, actually, that our members said the Government MPs blocked Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) officials from briefing the select committee on what the consequences of this bill could potentially have on New Zealand trade and that could negatively affect us through the World Trade Organization. Now, in my mind, any select committee that would ignore advice from an organisation, or not want to actually have a briefing from an organisation like MFAT, on a bill that supposedly is affecting trade in any industry, is just blocking its ears to what needs to be heard.

The last thing I’d say on this is that they’re talking about the shift to compulsory registration. There’s potential for practitioners with extensive industry experience but few formal qualifications to be disadvantaged. Then you’ve got the young up-and-comers coming through, who could be caught by this. It’s almost “Oh, well, if they don’t want to go down the registration path, we’ll go and find them another place here.” You know, there are some long-term people in this industry with skills, and just because they don’t have—there’s nothing wrong with qualifications. Qualifications are good, but, actually, some of these people learn from the university of life, and it just makes me mad when I see things like that. These people are going to be relatively discarded because they don’t have a qualification.

So it’s time to wake up. It’s time to show that the industry knows best, not the Government. We do not support this bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I often get in conversations with wool farmers who lament the lack of any coordination in the industry, which results in very low wool returns, and look for Government support to shore up that industry in some way—the same sort of support that actually will result in that same regulation around the forestry industry. So it’s a matter of a little bit of consistency here—that there is a belief that somehow Government intervention is going to be required to get the wool clip back into some sort of economic state, and yet here, when the forestry industry were attempting to do the same thing there, then it’s lo and behold, whoa, whoa, whoa. So you can’t have it every way. This is good legislation. I think history will show that it came in at a very good time. I commend this bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s fascinating to hear that last speech from that member, Greg O’Connor, who indicated that the Government sees its role in the agricultural and primary sector as an influencer and an active participator—

Greg O’Connor: Enabler, actually—enabler. Too big a word for you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Enabler, is it? Well, see, that’s the member over there. He’s talking about regulation and coordination from the Government. That is really typical of a left-wing Government that dictates what business should do. This is what we’re seeing in this legislation here today. Industry does not need Government to tell them what to do. That is the fundamental premise of the success of the New Zealand primary industries. No other primary industries around the world are as competitive as ours, because we work off the basis of market signals.

Now, if we take this bill here and we look at forestry, the big market signal that was sent to the forestry sector when this Government came in was the billion tree promise. Then they change the Overseas Investment Act to make sure that people could come in and buy New Zealand land from overseas, against all of the arguments those Opposition parties had ever made in this House, and publicly, just so as to facilitate their promise of more trees. Now we get this legislation, which is another example of Government intervention to prop up a promise. That is inefficient, in the end, for the industry. I implore the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green members that talk big talk now about the importance of the primary industries, and they talk about how they can save this economy—the actions of that Government are doing the exact opposite. Legislation like this will make forestry inefficient. It will make forestry having to meet the guidelines of the Government of the day.

Then we get more promises, because, as my good colleague the Hon Nathan Guy registered in his last speech, you know, there is the problem of land-use change now, as forestry is being given that free ride through the Overseas Investment Act. People and communities on the East Coast of New Zealand and Wairarapa are genuinely worried around that change of land use. And yet the Government then has to come out with another promise to try and mitigate that. It’s a promise that has no basis. They were talking about resource consents for councils—having to do that for certain areas, classes of land. Completely ineffectual promise—will make no difference. At the same time as they are going out there trying to cover their tracks through another promise, then they actually have to create a new problem. That is what we are seeing time and time again in the forestry industry. So just in those four examples, you can see how the forestry sector of the New Zealand economy is being distorted by this Government.

The decisions being made are being made on the basis of currying favour with the Government. For example, can you seriously see that those councils that will have to dictate those resource consents would say no, when at the same time they’ve got Ministers coming to their areas with buckets of money for Provincial Growth Fund applications? The forestry aspect of it is a big part of the Provincial Growth Fund—

SPEAKER: Just saying “forestry” doesn’t get the member into the bill, all right? The member has got to speak about the bill.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the bill is the regulation of log buyers and forestry advisers. It’s another one of those examples that I’m pointing out where the Government has tried to protect its political promises and, in doing that, has distorted the total market. That will be to the detriment of the forestry industry over time. That is why a Government made up of left-wing agendas and political promises like the New Zealand First Party can never be in charge of business, because they do the exact opposite—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Second warning now. Back to the bill, or I’ll terminate the member’s speech.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: That is why a Government like that cannot be in control of this economy. I understand your concerns about the bill, but the fundamental problem in this legislation is that it is a distortion that is to back up a promise that has been made to a sector. That is the fundamental reason we are having this bill in front of us. We’re not having this bill in front of us from any economic analysis that’s come forward and said it needs to happen. This is only coming forward because of a political promise that’s been made, and they can’t make it work, and so they have to change the rules around that sector time and time again to try and make it work. That is the nature of this bill. It is the fundamental premise of why we are having this bill, and in this House, we should be debating the fundamental principle behind the legislation. That is the important part of why we are here today. So I encourage the Government to act in a principled way and to work with the sector, not by creating promises and then having to make a series of regulations to enable those promises to happen, because they are going in a cycle of more and more promise. Thank you.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 40; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move, That the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

The bill makes a discrete and targeted change to the Rates Rebate Act to make it easier for eligible people to apply for a rates rebate. It removes the need for people to make an unnecessary statutory declaration as part of their application. Instead, they will be able to verify the information on their application form without it being witnessed. The bill also reduces the costs to territorial authorities of administering the Rates Rebate Scheme. There will be less need for home visits to applicants, saving staff time, and councils can design application forms that better suit their internal processing.

While the bill may be targeted and seem like a small change, it offers important benefits to rates rebates applicants. This bill means that a known barrier in the Rates Rebate Scheme is removed. People will no longer need to travel great distances nor experience unnecessary physical discomfort just to apply for a rebate that they are entitled to. Instead of having to find and travel to an authorised person to witness a statutory declaration, or spend time waiting in line at a council office, applicants will be able to complete their application forms on their own. We know this will be an important and welcome change for those who do not have access to easy or affordable transport options and who live a long way from someone who can witness a statutory declaration. It will also be important for the many applicants who have declining mobility or a physical disability, because travelling and waiting in line is difficult. It does not make sense to make them do this for an unnecessary requirement.

To give you a sense of how many people will benefit from this, by the end of the 2019 rating year, there were 103,000 people who had successfully applied for a rates rebate. We know that many applicants to the Rates Rebate Scheme have declining mobility or a physical disability. Research into the rates rebate application process suggests that the statutory declaration requirement is the biggest barrier for applicants with a physical disability. For example, for some bedridden applicants, council staff will come and visit the applicant in their bedroom to witness the statutory declaration. This can be uncomfortable for the applicant, and may put some off applying entirely. The changes in this bill will remove this barrier.

Some people may be concerned that this bill increases the risk of fraud in the Rates Rebate Scheme. It has been said that removing the statutory declaration requirement will make it easier for people to provide false information to gain access to the rates rebate. I want to assure the House that this will not be the case. Under this bill, there is still a legal requirement for applicants to provide accurate information to the best of their knowledge, and the same fraud prevention mechanisms are in place. Applicants that provide false or misleading information are and will continue to be committing an offence under the Rates Rebate Act. The bill is simply about removing the need for someone to be witnessed when they complete their application form.

This bill will also benefit local councils and reduce the cost of administering the Rates Rebate Scheme. Many councils have been sending staff to applicants’ homes to witness statutory declarations, particularly for those applicants where travelling to complete the statutory declaration is too much to cope with physically. This is costly to councils and intrusive to applicants. As I’ve explained before, some applicants must be visited in their bedrooms to complete their statutory declaration. This bill removes the unnecessary statutory declaration requirement and reduces those costs.

As I mentioned before, territorial authorities will also be able to design their own application forms, if they want to. This will allow them to develop forms that suit their internal processes and allow for processing efficiencies. For those councils who do not wish to design their own forms, the Department of Internal Affairs will continue to provide a standardised form.

This bill also paves the way for an online application process to be established alongside the existing paper channel in the future. It has not been possible to implement an online application process because of the statutory declaration requirement. While there is further work required to create, develop, and implement an online application process, this bill provides the legislative changes needed to bring that possibility one step closer to reality.

It is clear that this bill was needed before COVID-19 struck Aotearoa New Zealand. However, it is also clear that this bill will support this Government’s response to COVID-19. The bill will also allow people to apply for a rates rebate remotely, and it provides for a more flexible verification method that can be adjusted as needed during a similar time of crisis. This Government has made a temporary modification to allow people to complete statutory declarations remotely during COVID-19 restrictions, and the bill will ensure that vulnerable applicants will continue to be supported long into the future.

I’d like to thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their scrutiny of the bill and their recommendation to change its commencement date. Of course, the select committee’s consideration of the bill is greatly supported by the public submissions, and I’d also like to thank all of the submitters who took the time to submit on this bill and provide their thoughts to the select committee.

I’d also like to thank the service innovation lab within the Department of Internal Affairs for their contribution to this work. The service innovation lab ran an online application trial with several local councils throughout 2018 and 2019. The analysis part of this trial identified the statutory declaration requirement as a barrier, not just for the development of online applications, but for existing paper applicants, as well.

I’d also like to extend my thanks to those councils who participated in and provided their time and expertise to this trial, including the Tauranga City Council, Auckland Council, Wellington City Council, Hutt City Council, and Kāpiti Coast District Council. The work of the service innovation lab and these councils has been an important contribution to this bill.

This bill represents another change this Government has made to improve the Rates Rebate Scheme. As well as removing the unnecessary barrier, we’ve enabled retirement village residents to access the Rates Rebate Scheme like other households and ensured that winter energy payments are excluded as income for the purposes of the Rates Rebate Scheme. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): I rise to lead the National Party’s contribution to this piece of legislation. We are opposing this bill, not necessarily for the reason that the Minister, Hon Jenny Salesa, has just outlined in terms of some efficiencies, but really for the opportunities that have been lost in this piece of legislation. Statutory declarations have been used as a requirement to ensure that the information given to the council and then given on to the Government for funding is accurate and real and that people are entitled to the rates rebate that has very generously been given by several Governments to people to help with their costs.

Rates are a significant burden for our elder generations, and many of them end up, in many ways, asset rich and cash poor. The Rates Rebate Scheme was brought in to try and deal with some of those anomalies, and generally it’s worked pretty well. In my previous role, we were very active and sent officers out into the community to meet with people to get the forms filled out. We had open days and people came. I do want to just reinforce one of the benefits of doing that, for the Minister, because one of the greatest risks that a lot of older people face is social isolation. One of the things that I found in my previous role was, actually, when we went to people, even if it was because we had to give a statutory declaration, they often appreciated the visit, the interaction, and all the things that went on with that. Often, council staff found other things that could be of assistance to that person in that home. So while I understand the reason to try and reduce compliance costs and to stop people seeing a barrier, there are really other benefits that come from the system as it operates currently.

If you look at some of the submissions that were given to the select committee, particularly from the likes of the Productivity Commission, who have a view that the Rates Rebate Scheme should be abolished fully and replaced by a rates deferment scheme—in other words, the rates are sort of set in a buffer as a deferment. That is because they don’t believe the Rates Rebate Scheme is necessarily fair in who it targets, in what place, and by what amount.

But one of the important findings from the Productivity Commission was in their view, the Rates Rebate Scheme wasn’t advertised enough, wasn’t promoted enough, and wasn’t simply put out there. So the notion that somehow you can send some forms out or send an email to somebody and they’re going to apply online is, in my view, slightly naive. A whole lot of people—my own mother included—would actually need help in getting the Rates Rebate Scheme. She doesn’t qualify, I don’t think, but she would need help—she couldn’t do it herself. So there is a requirement for an agency to help people complete this, and many councils do that. Most old people that I know in that space that require this appreciate that support.

There is also a risk here—and I’m not saying it’s a great risk, but there is a risk that people don’t necessarily tell the truth, and that a statutory declaration generally makes people think before they go down that path. But in the departmental report—and the select committee looked at this—we did ask the question whether the IRD could share information with the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) to make sure that there was an electronic way, for want of a better word, of making sure that the income that was given was real, based on the income tax provisions. Now, what came back was that the definition of income in the Rates Rebate Act is different from that from the Income Tax Act, and for a meaningful contribution, the Rates Rebate Scheme would have to be taken from DIA and put into IRD. That’s one of the opportunities, in our view, that has been lost. What we have now is no statutory declaration requirement, online applications, filling out a form that’s sent to you, and very little checks and balances in the mix.

Now, I accept that most people who are getting the rates rebate will be normal, law-abiding, good citizens, and the risk of fraud is possibly lower than in other parts of society necessarily. But what we do need to make sure is—and we got no satisfaction, to my view, during the committee of the whole House stage that there was going to be any more monitoring or understanding. It was simply from the department: “No, we think everything’s going to be all right. If we find something, we’ll do something about it.”

So our side of the House would probably be supporting this bill if it had gone the whole hog, it had looked at data matching with Inland Revenue, and it had changed the provisions to make Inland Revenue responsible for this, because that would have been a very easy thing to do. In fact, it almost could have been automated, because if Inland Revenue knew all your financial details, they could pretty much—like they do with tax—make that arrangement through that process, and people could automatically get it, rather than an opt-in provision.

So as the Minister said, over 100,000 people are getting the rates rebate. A combination of more publicity, a combination of people reaching out to people, and a combination of making things easier will no doubt make a difference. But what we’ve simply done—and I regard it a little bit like the census. The census is “Let’s go online. Let’s be more hands off.”, but we’re going out to a population that is not necessarily comfortable doing everything online. Often it needs family members to help fill out the forms. In my experience, council officers, even though it is a cost to them, have brought real value to that community by providing advice and information. As I’ve said previously, often they found other issues in that household.

So we are worried on this side of the House for two reasons. First of all: without a statutory declaration and without a data-matching regime, there is an increased risk of fraud for a small number of people in this scheme. Secondly, the issues that the Productivity Commission raised when they said that this whole scheme should be abolished was not that this type of support is not warranted—it is, and I support that—but it was, “Is there a better way of doing it?” In our view, rather than just tweaking and taking out statutory declarations, if we actually transferred this over to IRD, used the proper data-matching, then it probably could have been done with minimal input from local authorities. If somebody was eligible, they would receive it and it wouldn’t be an opt-in provision. In our view that would have been a better solution. So in our view we are simply tweaking around the edges by taking away a statutory declaration, which is a pretty important provision. For that reason, we’re opposing the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s actually an absolute pleasure to rise and take a call on the third reading of the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill, because it was a bill that the Social Services and Community Committee considered. We heard from a number of submitters. And, given that it’s a third reading, can I just at the outset acknowledge the Minister for the work that’s gone into the bill to get it up to where it is today, officials who helped members on the select committee, and submitters who took time out of their day to give us their view as well.

Now, as has been said before, this is a bill that makes actually quite a small change, in a sense, to the Rates Rebate Act to make it easier for those who are eligible to apply for a rates rebate—well, easier to apply because they don’t have to go and make a statutory declaration, as the Minister said. We know from the research into it that the application process is actually—one of the biggest barriers to it is the requirement to make a statutory declaration. And this bill requires that need.

Now, the previous speaker mentioned that it potentially, then, opens the process up to fraud. I refute that because, although there seems to be some concern from across the House, really, there is still a legal requirement for applicants to provide accurate information to the best of their knowledge and the same fraud prevention mechanisms that exist today will exist when this bill is passed, as well. Applicants that provide false or misleading information are, and will continue to be, committing an offence under the Rates Rebate Act.

So really, this bill is about fairness. It makes the process that much easier for those who want to apply for a rates rebate, especially those who have mobility issues, for example, can’t travel all the way to get a witness for the statutory declaration process or can’t wait in line, as well. It makes it easier, it reduces costs for our local territories, it allows local councils to tweak the process to suit the needs of their people, and, at the end of the day, it also stands up to the fraud provisions that are currently in the bill. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. The member who just sat down, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, has tried to paint this piece of legislation as quite a rosy piece of legislation. In fact, it’s actually a very small piece of legislation making very minor changes. As my good friend and colleague Lawrence Yule said, essentially it’s tinkering around the edges without actually focusing on some of the issues which could be looked at in regards to our rates rebates system here in New Zealand.

The issue that the member opposite referred to was the issue around fraud. That is an issue that we have raised consistently on this side of the House, and whilst acknowledging it may be a smaller issue, by removing the statutory declaration, this bill does, in some regards, open up the ability for there to be increased opportunity for fraud and reduced legal oversight over the Rates Rebate Scheme. This is a scheme which does cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year and it is important that there is oversight, the ability to monitor this information, and the ability to ensure that those who are entitled to receive the money are the ones who are receiving it.

The question does need to be asked over how much additional administration is now going to need to be put in place by local government and by other Government institutions to ensure and monitor the information and the accuracy, now that there is a lower legal threshold which is being imposed by this piece of legislation as to those who are qualified and the application process.

The member opposite talks about how this is going to make things so much easier, but fails to actually mention that people still have to go through the application process. All this does is simply remove the requirement for a statutory declaration. But this small piece of legislation will be the catalyst for a large increase in the number of people actually making an application, a large increase in the number of people who do qualify actually making an application and receiving the rates rebate.

As my colleague Lawrence Yule referred to, there are much bigger issues that could have been looked at in regards to our rates rebate system: solutions put forward by the Productivity Commission, where they recommended looking at different ways that this could be managed, whether that was around a deferred payment or integrating this into the tax system so as to ensure that those who are qualified are automatically able to receive their rates rebate, or the tax system being able to look at all the relevant information and knowingly being able to ensure that those who do qualify are given the rates rebate for their rates bill.

This piece of legislation in many ways embodies a lot of what this Government has become well known for, which is simply tinkering around the edges and failing to actually address the real issues and trying to claim some form of success along the way. Well, I challenge members on the other side of the House as to whether this is a moment where they can stand in this House and claim that after three years in Government this is something which is going to be the catalyst to support New Zealanders, older New Zealanders, those who do struggle with paying their rates bills, or whether this is simply just a tinker and a little change and a talking point which they’re going to try and use on the campaign trail to justify their continued existence in Government—it does seem to think it’s going to be the latter—when they could have used this opportunity to actually make some more decisive, more long-term changes based on what the Productivity Commission had provided and is providing through their report.

The National Party does not support this piece of legislation. It does not address the real issues, and we do not support particularly the loosening of the criteria around the system whereby statutory declarations do provide a much higher legal system, rather than an honesty-based system, which this bill does put in place.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to offer New Zealand First’s continued support for this Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill.

As has been well traversed, this bill removes the requirement for the statutory declaration when applying for a rates rebate, and 102,000 Kiwis applied for this rebate. It’s an incredibly important mechanism to help our lower income and particularly our seniors. Some 79 percent of the users of the scheme were seniors.

I had a young guy come up to me last weekend, actually, that I think encapsulates why this is a good bill. He’s a guy that worked for Kiwibank, and he was pitching for the SuperGold card to have photo ID because he said that there’s so many of our seniors coming to the bank, they no longer have a driver’s licence, they no longer have a passport, and he often cannot help them because they haven’t got the required ID. He has to send them out the door. I think that is an absolute example, and I’m sure that happens around some of these statutory declarations.

Lawrence Yule talked about the seniors struggling online and his mother, and I think my mother—if you’re watching, Mum, I think it’s fair to say that you would, and you bred me so I’d probably struggle to do it online as well, being famously technophobic. But a lot of our seniors, and Tracey Martin talks about this a lot as the Minister for Seniors, are actually very savvy online. The witness to that is the SuperGold card and the new app, which has had massive uptake. So I think we shouldn’t underestimate how advantageous that will be for those particular seniors that are technologically savvy.

So New Zealand First has no issue at all with supporting this. We think it’s a good, sensible bill. Simeon Brown pointed out it’s probably not the biggest bill that’s gone through the House, but it is an important one for those 102,000 people that it would’ve supported last year and will support this year. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill—there’s not much to it, let’s be honest, and I sort of almost feel obliged to fill in a few gaps, really, so bear with me, please, as I do that.

Lawrence Yule: You do that, Penk—you do that.

CHRIS PENK: I’ve been encouraged to do exactly that—thank you, Lawrence Yule. Rates are a necessary evil. I think if we accept that services that we expect to be provided by local government need to be funded in some way, and if we accept that, pending a more sensible way of collecting such revenue or at least a different way of collecting such revenue—I shouldn’t speak above my station—then in the meantime, we’re stuck with rates. We’ve got them as a method that is clearly established in this country for supporting and funding the work that territorial authorities—aka councils—and local government in general perform.

So if we accept all that, and we accept also that there is the need for a regime where we have a rebate such that New Zealanders who are on a lower income or perhaps have a fixed income, perhaps relating to a time of their life or other circumstances such that they can’t pay the full rates—fair enough, and, indeed, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that that shouldn’t be the case. So what we’re really looking at in this bill is a question of whether it should be necessary to prove—one ratepayer, one resident, as compared to another—that they are not required to pay the full set of rates that their neighbour is. So that’s a reasonably serious matter as far as it goes. It’s justifiable, but it should be justified, and the current mechanism we’ve got for that is by way of statutory declaration, the good old “stat dec”, as they’re known on the street.

So we’ve got a system that, so far as I can tell, works pretty well. I don’t say it’s perfect—nothing in this life is, without getting too philosophical about it. I think we can say that there are other probably more pressing problems in the world of local government, let alone the world in general, that we could say we would attack before we turned our mind to different ways of attesting one’s qualification for a rates rebate. So I haven’t particularly been convinced by arguments—and I say this with all due respect to Mr Patterson of New Zealand First, but the problem of a person who is unable to prove that they are the appropriate recipient of the largesse that is the Rates Rebate Scheme, that’s a more fundamental difficulty for that person than the existence of the current legal framework, where we have someone sit down and sign in front of someone else to say that that’s so.

I’ve done extensive research into this bill, by which I mean I looked on the website just before I came on. I’ve read the whole thing as well, but luckily, that didn’t take long because there’s not much to it. But having actually gone to no more nor less trouble than looking up on the website to see how one does this currently, there’s a form one fills in, and to be honest, it’s not the hardest of all Government forms. We all, sort of, roll our eyes a little bit at the paperwork; I certainly do—confession time—but, you know, to be honest, it’s not the worst of them, and I think if you can save several hundred bucks by doing that, I think that’s a reasonable step to be required to take. To turn up and sit down in front of a lawyer—you know, I know that’s not always the most pleasant thing to have to do, and I say that having been one, of course—or a member of Parliament; again, guilty. But anyway, that’s all that’s involved, and I really don’t think that it’s particularly helpful for us to be occupying ourselves too deeply in circumventing that. So my attitude is that as expressed by colleagues, and I don’t think I can get much more excited about it than that.

Ian McKelvie: Mr Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Ian McKelvie.

Matt Doocey: Oh, look at that! Off the sub bench—impact player!

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Just as well I got up quickly, wasn’t it. We heard earlier on tonight from Stuart Nash that if you’ve been involved in a business, you’re an expert on all things. Well, I can assure you that I was involved in this funny business of local government for nine years and I don’t know anything about it at all!

But one thing I do know is that local government has to set rates. They have to charge rates and you get a rates bill in the mail. The thing about this business in here is we set the taxes. You never get a tax bill. You just get it nicked off you before you get to see it, so you don’t understand you’re paying the tax bill. That’s the difference between the flak that we get for setting tax rates and collecting cash to run the country and the challenge that local government’s got, setting a rates bill and then having to send the bill out to collect the cash to run local government. The Rates Rebate Scheme is one of those tools that this Parliament has given to local government to ease the burden for some people who struggle to pay rates.

The challenge, of course, is that in this country we don’t have enough income as individuals to pay the bills that we need to pay to survive. And we see that with things like rates rebate provisions, with things like Working for Families—all sorts of tools that the Parliament has instituted to enable people to pay their bills equitably. The accommodation allowance is another one of those. It would be much more preferable if we earned enough money not to have to make these kind of distributions—I suppose, for want one of a better word—from Parliament.

The Rates Rebate Scheme doesn’t account for the people that are most in need with respect to rates. The accommodation allowance does some of that, but that also doesn’t account for it entirely. And one of the challenges that we get in the rental situation, particularly with some of the legislation that’s been introduced in recent years which has, effectively, forced the cost of rentals up, is that the rates bill and the rental situation is quite a significant contributor to the cost, but the person who’s paying the rent has no ability to get that rates rebate back. So it’s not an equitable scheme.

It certainly does play a part for those people who have a small freehold house in suburban New Zealand primarily and don’t have sufficient income to get past the cap. So that’s the issue with the rates rebate. I don’t think it’s sufficient or adequate. It’s very difficult, however, as it has proved over the years with numerous reviews of rates schemes and how we might charge people and how local government might raise income—it’s very challenging to find a better solution, and we always talk about the better solution, but it’s not always evident.

In the course of the discussion on this, of course, the New Zealand Productivity Commission talked about the ability to have a national rates postponement scheme, which I, frankly, think is verging on evil. Because what effectively happens in that situation is you eat up your income or you eat up your equity, and the problem we’ve got—and I don’t know the exact figure, but I know when I was 30 my life expectancy wouldn’t have been much greater than what I am now. But I sure know now that I hope I get a few more years. The problem with the rates postponement - type schemes in this situation is that they eat up equity and you could well outlive your equity. That’s the reason I don’t like them. I think they creep up on you from behind. So I certainly don’t like the alternatives in that respect.

I do think it’s a shame that this bill’s come to the House and deals with a very, very small segment of what is quite a large challenge. Were it to be given more thought and more time, we could have introduced a rates rebate amendment bill which would have come up with a much better proposal than this one has.

The other thing is, I’d just make the point very quickly, that most people—well, not many people nowadays come into the council office and pay cash. But I certainly remember not that many years ago sitting in the foyer of a council building—because it’s not a bad thing for a mayor to do, to go and sit in the foyer of a council building when people are paying their rates, because if you want to get a complaint, you sure get them there—and watching the number of people that paid their rates in cash. It was pretty significant. But back to the point I was going to make, and that is the fact—

Andrew Bayly: That’s why we shouldn’t get rid of cheques.

IAN McKELVIE: That’s right, Bayly. That’s quite right. Well, cheques, of course, are very valuable for—

Andrew Bayly: Yes, particularly for older people!

IAN McKELVIE: —those who can still write them. I don’t even have a chequebook—ha, ha! But back to the point, there’s often nowadays—in fact, in all of the six councils in my part of New Zealand, in the Rangitīkei electorate or that verge into the Rangitīkei electorate, they all provide JP services in the council building on at least one or two days a week, and some of them more than that. So a lot of the issues that this bill tries to address are actually overcome by councils anyway.

The other thing that happens to people that are looking to claim rates rebates is a lot of them are older and they love to have a chat with someone. And if they can go down to the council and have a chat with that JP that’s helping them to do stuff, or doing whatever they do, that makes a much better day for them. It brightens their day, gives them something to do. I did listen to the point that was made on the other side of the House earlier about the people that can’t leave the house easily to do this sort of thing. That is a bit of a challenge and this bill does help to address that.

But we don’t support it for all the reasons that particularly Lawrence Yule outlined earlier in his speech. I think it’s a shame this bill wasn’t given a much better airing and given a lot more thought before it was introduced to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s a privilege to give a very brief contribution to the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill. At the end of 2019, 103,000 people applied successfully for rates rebates. This bill will make it easier for those people to receive their claim. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I commend this bill to the House.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a very short contribution from me as well, which hopefully will draw some applause. This bill, obviously, will provide efficiency and cost reductions and remove unnecessary burdens. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 40; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

First Reading

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): I move, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

This bill changes the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and the Land Act 1948 to end tenure review and ensure Crown pastoral land is administered in a way that maintains or enhances its ecological landscape, cultural heritage, and scientific values for present and future generations. Crown pastoral lands extend over approximately 1.2 million hectares, largely in the South Island high country, making up almost 5 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand’s total land area. Most of this land is leased by the Crown for pastoral farming in 169 pastoral leases. It encompasses some of Aotearoa’s most dramatic landscapes from the developed grassy river flats to low tussock and matagouri shrublands to scree slopes. Some leases are in big braided river valleys such as the Rākaia and the Rangitata, being farmed beneath big skies and against the backdrop of Kā Tiritiri o te Moana, the Southern Alps.

These landscapes and this land are important to New Zealanders and to the leaseholders who farm and also operate other businesses on it, especially leaseholders who live there. Crown pastoral land is important to Māori, in particular Ngāi Tahu, as the majority of Crown pastoral land lies inside their takiwā. Traditionally associated with merino farming, large high country stations now support a mix of sheep, beef, and deer farming, producing high-quality food and fibre products, while others also host commercial recreation activities such as walking and guided hunting. And it’s the wetlands, drylands, tussock lands, and beach forests on Crown pastoral land and their inherent values which are also important. They are home to distinctive native plants and wildlife: gentian, celmisia daisies, tussocks, moths, grasshoppers and other invertebrates, skinks, and birds such as harrier and kakī.

There’s been a longstanding public interest in the management of Crown pastoral land, particularly in the large-scale land-use change that resulted from tenure review. Tenure review has involved freeholding thousands of hectares of former Crown pastoral land, often without adequate recognition of its significant inherent values and once in private ownership, this land has often been developed for more intensive farming or onsold and subdivided. Other former Crown pastoral land has been restored to full Crown ownership as conservation land, resulting in the creation of new high country parks.

So in 2018, there was a review of the Crown pastoral land regulatory system, which found that the system is overly focused on operational considerations and transactions without a clear sense of the outcomes it seeks to achieve, and that it has a limited understanding of accumulative impacts of decisions by the Commissioner of Crown Lands over time. The review recommended that Government more clearly articulate the outcomes it wants from Crown pastoral land, so this bill amends the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and the Land Act 1948 to introduce a new outcomes-based approach. It seeks to ensure that Land Information New Zealand, or LINZ, and the Commissioner of Crown Lands administer this land in a way that maintains and enhances its ecological landscape, cultural heritage, and scientific values for both present and future generations while providing for ongoing pastoral farming. The changes are intended to better manage and control any further development or intensification of pastoral farming and to encourage sustainable use of land for pastoral farming and activities such as commercial recreation.

The single most important change in the bill is that it ends tenure review once the bill becomes law. Then, only those applications that have received a substandard proposal from the Commissioner of Crown Lands will continue to be implemented. All other tenure review applications will cease. With the ending of tenure review and this privatisation process, we also need to change the regulatory system to deliver these improved outcomes for the Crown’s ownership interest and to support leaseholders in the stewardship of the land. So the bill makes the following changes to the way that Crown pastoral land is administered to do this. Firstly, it includes Schedule 1AB, which classifies pastoral activities based on their likely impact on the land’s inherent values. Pastoral farming activities such as controlling exotic plant pests will be classified as permitted, while other activities such as burning or clearing indigenous vegetation are classified as discretionary, and the commissioner can either decline or agree to them. Some activities, such as draining or cultivating wetlands, are proposed to be prohibited.

This schedule is intended to improve the timeliness and efficiency of the decision-making process for discretionary pastoral activities. It will enable LINZ and the commissioner to focus their resources on applications with a higher risk of impacts while allowing leaseholders to undertake activities which are part of normal farming practice and which only have very minor impacts, such as fencing within existing cultivated paddocks, without need for a consent. This schedule will be regularly reviewed in consultation with leaseholders and the broader public.

Secondly, the bill introduces a new statutory decision-making process that the Commissioner of Crown Lands must follow when making decisions on applications for discretionary pastoral activities. That process includes assessments about whether the effects are minor, whether the activity is necessary to enable a leaseholder to exercise their rights and obligations under the lease.

Thirdly, the bill provides for clearer, more transparent decision-making, stronger accountability, and more opportunity for public and leaseholder involvement. This includes new reporting obligations which strengthen the accountability on LINZ and the Commissioner of Crown Lands, requiring the publication of decisions on applications for discretionary pastoral activities and introducing new enforcement tools with the focus on promoting the achievement of the outcomes.

The bill also aims to support the Crown in its relationships with Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. It does this by requiring the Crown to recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, mahinga kai, wāhi tapu, and other taonga when considering applications for discretionary pastoral activities and when considering any protection mechanisms over Crown pastoral land. The bill also requires the Crown to consult with iwi in developing a strategic intentions document, any regulatory instruments, and the monitoring framework for Crown pastoral land.

Let me be very clear. None of the proposed changes in the bill are intended to prevent pastoral farming on Crown pastoral land. There are no changes to leaseholders’ tenure, their right to pasturage, the quiet enjoyment of leasehold properties, their rights of renewal, or their responsibilities for pest and weed control. Rather, the changes in this bill are intended to encourage leaseholders to manage the land in a way that reduces impacts or, better still, actively enhances the inherent values of the land that they lease from the Crown.

Can I acknowledge the valuable impact in the development of the bill from iwi, particularly Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, stakeholders such as the High Country Accord trust, Forest & Bird, Federated Farmers, the Environmental Defence Society, and the wider public. Their involvement has helped ensure that the changes in the bill are practical. I’m also grateful to those who took the time to submit on the public discussion document, Enduring stewardship of Crown pastoral land, which was released last year. There were some 3,248 submissions on that document and the issues that were raised in those submissions helped shape the bill.

So I look forward to the further public submissions and comment and analysis through the Environment Committee process. This Government will take a pragmatic approach to developing any improvements to the bill as it’s introduced to ensure that we have a very effective regulatory system for Crown pastoral land. The changes in the bill are significant. They’re being done to ensure that LINZ, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, leaseholders in their responsibilities for managing these important lands do that well and so the public can have confidence in our regulatory system. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this bill, it’s really hard to know where to start to express the outrage that I feel, at the introduction of this bill, on behalf of a very rich cultural history of a group of New Zealanders who are much maligned, and those are the high country farmers. I’m afraid that the Minister the Hon Eugenie Sage has not shucked off her former close affiliation with Forest & Bird, in that, from my point of view, the Minister would prefer to have no humans on the high country. So it should be for nature only, with no humans. I really believe that that philosophy, that ideology, which underpins much of the Minister’s work, and the sheer chip on the Minister’s shoulder at the fact that farmers—how dare farmers farm the tops; how dare farmers farm in the high country of New Zealand.

Well, I’ll tell the Minister how the farmers can do that. They do that because in 1948, or thereabouts, Crown perpetual leases were introduced. The history is worth going through, because the history didn’t just begin when the Hon Eugenie Sage was a member of Forest & Bird and then a failed councillor of Environment Canterbury, who failed in their duties at the time, and then became a member and then Minister in this unfortunate New Zealand First - Greens - Labour coalition Government.

In 1948, when perpetual leases were established, they were done with the specific aim of encouraging investment in Crown pastoral lease lands. High country farmers at the time had no tenure on their leases, and so they found it very difficult to access funding from banks to address some of the issues that they faced in farming to do with soil erosion and management off of their lease areas. In 2008, I believe, tenure review was introduced, and that is the first provision of the bill.

Hon Eugenie Sage: 1998. Get it right.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Gosh, so good to have Eugenie Sage’s dulcet tones ringing through the House! But when National was in Government in 2008, tenure review was a process which picked up speed, and a lot of gains were made in this voluntary process. We have to remember in this House that the tenure review was a voluntary process entered voluntarily both by the leaseholder and by the Crown.

So let’s not forget the history and the contribution that high country farmers have made to agriculture in New Zealand. We all love wearing our icebreaker merino, and there are other brands which are our Italian woollen suits, and I’m sure I’ve seen one or two of those over the other side of the House. The wool from those—Raymond Huo is nodding; he is sporting one himself. How wonderful. And where does that merino come from? It comes from the high country.

So let’s make no mistake that high country farming not only has a basis of tenure in New Zealand but also brings with it a rich cultural history—and that is to be valued—and a rich cultural contribution to our economy, not only through merino but also from the wool they produce and the other diverse activities that now happen on high country farming.

So I reject that the end of tenure review is anything but a land-grab by this Government. I will back that up, and the rationale for that can be found hidden in plain sight in Schedule 2 of this bill.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I’ll go through those schedules. That was a very nervous laugh, actually, from the Minister, who’s under a little bit of pressure at the moment, is Eugenie Sage. But in Schedule 2 of this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill there are classifications of activities on Crown pastoral land. So the first part of this bill puts an end to tenure review. In other words, it’s a land-grab. No more—no more of this voluntary negotiation between farmers and the Crown. So that’s the first part. The second part is the part where the Crown squeezes the high country farmers out of farming by making it unsustainable.

They talk about sustainability in this bill and how farming hasn’t been sustainable. What nonsense, quite frankly—what nonsense. Try telling that to Andrew Simpson at Balmoral Station. Try telling that to a number of the high country farmers who have covenanted special areas of their land and who are doing everything they can to become very sustainable farmers because their livelihoods depend on it—it is as simple as that. They also feel a very strong stewardship towards that land.

So let’s just go to Schedule 2—Part 1 of new Schedule 1AB, permitted activities. OK. So you can dig in posts, you can lay electric fences, you can bury dead animals, you can dig rabbit warrens, and so on and so forth. That doesn’t require a consent.

However, Part 2, which is the discretionary pastoral activities, will or may require a consent from the commissioner: “(a) new or additional irrigation: (b) burning vegetation: (c) clearing … vegetation … (e) cropping”. Well, that sounds like farming to me—“cultivating”. That sounds like farming to me—“draining, or ploughing: (f) top-dressing: (g) sowing seed:”. Why does this need a concession from the commissioner? I’ll tell you why: it’s because this Minister and this Government are absolutely bent on driving out farmers from the high country on the pretext that the land is not being managed well enough.

Well, if they really were concerned about land management, they look no further than their own backyard and the weed burden that is on Department of Conservation land. Birchwood Station has just grown worse and worse over the years. Wilding pines—let’s have a conversation about that. So the Department of Conservation, under this Minister, need to look at themselves before they start casting aspersions.

Hon Eugenie Sage: $100 million.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh, she’s upset—she’s upset. She’s shouting at me. Well, I will keep speaking because it’s my turn, Minister. This Minister is getting so exercised because she does not like hearing the other side. Why does she not like hearing the other side? Because she doesn’t like listening to the high country farmers. I understand she has not been to have a look for herself, and so how can that be honest engagement with the farmers?

So I’m just going to continue going through these schedules. Soil disturbance for the construction of buildings needs a consent. New fencing needs a consent. Clearing drains needs a consent. These provisions that are proposed—

Andrew Bayly: That’s outrageous.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —well, they are outrageous and, regrettably, will become the law—are put in this bill for one reason and one reason alone: because the Minister and the Government do not value farming in New Zealand. They do not value high country pastoral farming. They do not recognise the value and the contribution economically, environmentally, yes, and also culturally that the high country farmers of the South Island have brought to us in New Zealand. They want all that to go. They want to squeeze them off the land so that Eugenie Sage can have her dry land park, they can have the walking track across the Mackenzie Basin, and they can have all of those things that they covet so badly.

They do not see the farming community as their allies who can make a contribution. Despite all efforts—all efforts—on behalf of farmers to make that happen, they see them as the enemy. And this bill—this terrible bill—which has the one intent of getting rid of high country farmers and all they represent, all they bring to the New Zealand economy and to New Zealand culture—they want that gone. We do not support this bill.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It will be useful, I think, to bring some facts to the debate. The South Island high country is iconic. It’s iconic New Zealand. It’s a landscape and an environment that is unique and inspiring to most of us who go down and enjoy it.

Crown pastoral leases make up almost 5 percent of New Zealand’s total land area, and I want to start by acknowledging the leaseholders who have cared for and nurtured this precious land over generations. Since 1851 leaseholders have invested time and resources into protecting and enhancing the high country and its biodiversity. This includes controlling wilding pines, gorse, broom, briar, Hieracium, along with managing rabbits, stoats, rats, and wallabies. Not perfect, but they’ve done a huge amount.

I’m pleased to have worked with the Minister for Land Information on developing aspects of this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. My primary focus has been to ensure the bill recognises that Crown pastoral lands supports a prosperous high country pastoral farming industry and I’m confident that this new regime proposed by the Minister will ensure that sustainable pastoral farming on Crown land will continue to thrive.

The bill will ensure that the Crown and leaseholders work together so that, firstly, pastoral farming on Crown land continues to benefit surrounding communities and the wider economy. Secondly, that low-impact, business-as-usual pastoral farming is subject to fewer restrictions from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). Thirdly, the regime is practical and makes sense on the ground, and, lastly, that leaseholders can continue to take advantage of innovation in sustainable pastoral farming practices.

The Government has agreed to end tenure review, and I have to say that most of the lessees that I speak to now agree with that decision. The tenure review process has more lately been slow and costly to both leaseholders and the Crown and has not achieved the desired outcome. While tenure review was introduced over 20 years ago—1998—which allowed a lot of the tops to be retired, contrary to the views of the previous speaker, it was intended to see the Crown exiting its role as lessor, ultimately. However, this has not been the case, and approximately 1.2 million hectares of the Crown pastoral estate remains in Crown ownership. While tenure review has enabled the creation of new conservation parks, it’s also resulted in about 350,000 hectares of high country land moving from Crown ownership into freehold private hands. Once the land is freeholded, special values—whether ecological, cultural, or scientific—can be lost and can be compromised, as we’ve seen from time to time. But the public can be reassured that this bill will enable the land to remain in Crown ownership, with Crown and leaseholders working together in enduring stewardship towards the desired outcomes, and that’s the sustainability of the high country and its people.

I have worked with the Minister for Land Information on developing a clear outcome for pastoral land, and I am confident that we have found the right balance between protecting the land and ensuring that sustainable pastoral farming continues. The bill proposes that the key outcome for the Crown pastoral land regulatory system is “To maintain or enhance the inherent values across the Crown pastoral estate for present and future generations, while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of Crown pastoral land.” This outcomes-based approach will allow LINZ to recognise and focus on activities that are high risk to the inherent landscape, cultural and biodiversity values, while making it easier for leaseholders to undertake sensible, low-risk activities.

I think it is appropriate that the Commissioner of Crown Lands will need to consider both maintaining or enhancing inherent values and providing for ongoing pastoral farming as an integrated whole to best achieve both aspects. That is, the outcome that the bill seeks does not prioritise inherent values above pastoral farming, nor does it prioritise pastoral farming above inherent values. This outcome will encourage sustainable pastoral farming. Our domestic and overseas consumers want greater assurances that the high quality food and fibre they buy is produced in a sustainable way without wasteful use of resources or harm to our unique environments.

The bill is not intended to change the lessee’s exclusive right to pasturage and quiet enjoyment of their leaseholder properties. The proposed new system will acknowledge these rights and enable leaseholders to carry out the pastoral farming activities under their lease agreement in accordance with good husbandry of the land and other obligations. The system will also enable leaseholders to undertake other uses on the land where these uses are consistent with the overall outcomes.

I’ve also worked with the Minister to enable some greater flexibility for leaseholders to make decisions on sensible, sustainable activities without the need for a consent from the Commissioner of Crown Lands, within reason. The bill proposes that activities on Crown pastoral land are classified as permitted, discretionary, or prohibited. The addition of permitted activities, which have no more than a minor impact on the inherent values of Crown pastoral land, means leaseholders can undertake many pastoral farming activities without having to apply for a consent. Currently, leaseholders need to apply to the commissioner to undertake many business-as-usual pastoral farming activities, such as undertaking pest control or maintaining existing drains, roads, or fences. These permitted activities have low impact and are necessary for sustainable farming. This new approach will give clarity to both leaseholders and the Commissioner of Crown Lands about the activities that can occur on Crown pastoral land, rather than the commissioner being involved in every farm management decision. This change will reduce the administrative burden currently imposed on leaseholders, and I’m pleased that leaseholders will no longer have to go through a LINZ consenting process before undertaking these activities.

The bill also classifies discretionary pastoral activities, which will need to be submitted to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, who may consent or may decline. The commissioner will grant consent to discretionary activities that are necessary to enable the leaseholder to exercise their rights and obligations under the lease. Again, this provides clarity to leaseholders, the commissioner, and the public about the types of activities that can be undertaken on Crown pastoral land. Some farming activities in the high country need to be carefully managed by the Crown, such as burning or cultivating new land. It is appropriate that leaseholders go through a consenting process before undertaking these discretionary activities, and many, many high country lessees understand the need to do this. The process for considering discretionary consent applications also ensures that the ability for leaseholders to carry out pastoral farming in accordance with their lease is respected.

The introduction of this bill complements our work on action for healthy waterways, another policy package which acknowledges the long-term sustainability of our environment as being essential. Not just high country farmers but all farmers in New Zealand appreciate the importance of freshwater health, and many have done a huge amount of work to improve their practices over the last 20 years or more. Many are leading the way in restoring our waterways. The Government is delivering on its commitment to clean up our waterways with reforms that deliver environmental gains, jobs, and benefits to our economy, while recognising, of course, the impact on our rural sector.

In addition to the significant funding that we’ve committed to these programmes, I have to say that the Government has provided $1.1 billion to create 11,000 environmental jobs in regional New Zealand, doing meaningful work that will complement the initiatives and the progress that will be made through this bill. I, like many other New Zealanders, love the high country. It is, indeed, inspiring and I have to acknowledge the tenacity of the people who live in it. I have many cherished memories, and indeed plan to—over the next summer—spend a bit of time in the high country riding through and enjoying it. I know the outcomes of this bill will ensure that, for many generations to come, leaseholders can continue to sustainably farm this land and continue to make their valued contribution to the New Zealand primary sector and our economy. All New Zealanders enjoy the high country. They will have greater certainty that our unique cultural landscape and the biodiversity features in it will be protected and enduring.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): There’s a whole group of people on the National side of the House tonight that would gladly grant the Minister of Agriculture’s wish. The Minister said he would like to spend the summer riding his bike through the high country. We would gladly like to take over the Government position and give him all the free time he wants to be able to do that.

So what’s really interesting tonight is I’ve actually taken speech No. 4. It’s 10 o’clock at night. We’re doing things in urgency. We’re doing urgency on a bill that describes something that’s been a long-term high country value of New Zealand, and here we are rushing it through again, at 10 o’clock at night, under this Government. I almost wish that I’d gone in the next speech, No. 6, because I’d really like to hear what Mark Patterson has got to say, because I’ve listened to Minister Eugenie Sage’s speech and I’ve listened to Minister Damien O’Connor’s speech, and I think about this Government that pretended to be coordinated for so long, and, actually, I don’t even think that Minister Sage and Minister O’Connor were talking about the same bill. So it seems to me, like, you know, Minister Sage really wants to take control over this because the Government knows best, and we’ve been hearing about this and forestry and a range of other things tonight. Then Minister O’Connor comes and says, “Look, isn’t it wonderful—the sheep and the high country and the merinos?” This is what farmers have been doing for a very long time.

This bill makes changes to ensure that Land Information New Zealand will administer Crown pastoral land “in a way that maintains or enhances the ecological, landscape, cultural, heritage, and scientific values of the land for present and future generations, while providing for ongoing pastoral farming of the land.” What does the Government think farmers have been doing all of this time? All this bill is doing is again adding more regulations, more restrictions on farmers. Under Crown ownership, this land was neglected and consequently eroded, and through permanent tenures on the land, farmers have been repairing it and tending it for generations now.

When I think about some of the quotes and slogans that I’m hearing out there now like “Let’s keep moving.”, I reckon this sounds like we should “Let’s keep moving backwards.” Right? So we’ve gone through a stage where farmers have done some fantastic stuff. Do you know the romantic view of the high country? If our visitors come here, part of that romantic view is seeing merino sheep on that country, because they know that’s the culture and the heart of New Zealand. Farmers have the heart for this; a Government does not have a heart for this sort of thing.

According to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, public concerns have focused on three issues: the loss of lower altitude ecosystems, the impact on landscapes, and public access. Now, the interesting thing for me is that we go through a whole lot of times where we talk about, you know, “Farmers are bad for this and farmers are bad for that and farmers are having an effect.” Well, I can tell you, during lockdown, when people were in their houses, you go out into the landscape and there was very little rubbish. To me, the biggest devastation—and we had to come out of lockdown and we need to because we can’t stay locked up for ever. But, actually, sometimes people are our own worst enemy. The rubbish that I’m now starting to see lying around the landscape is devastating. Sometimes we don’t get what we wish for.

In contrast, groups like the High Country Accord are worried about the following issue. The land has to be purchased at a great cost to the taxpayer. It has to be maintained, managed for weeds and pests, and such work is carried out by the farmer. But now, in light of how the Department of Conservation is struggling for funding, the fear is that this won’t be done. So many times, if you look at these significant natural areas on farms and all of the language around that, about how this has to be taken over because it has to be protected, one of the best things in this country around land protection is the QEII National Trust. There are farmers out there who are putting land in perpetuity and they’re looking after it. This whole thing is just absolutely another Government grab, as my colleague Jacqui Dean said.

Land that’s currently used for economic activities will be locked out of use for ever, in the merino industry. This is something that will be severely impacted by this move. The merino industry is the successful part of our wool industry, and if I’ve had more feedback than anything else lately, it’s what are we going to do with the wool industry? We need to pick up the wool industry and we need to get it up and running. We talk about Government procurement. We’ve heard all the promises about that in the last campaign and it never happened. It absolutely never happened. So merino is a success story. And now we’ve got a Government that is here putting a bill in place that actually has the potential to damage our merino industry, which is actually the part of the wool industry that’s extremely successful.

So, at this point, I’m going to conclude my speech by saying we absolutely oppose this bill. It’s just absolutely frustrating to think about the regulation, the red tape, the takeover, and everything that this Government’s trying to do. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to offer New Zealand First’s support for this Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. I would say at the outset that I’m offering our qualified support, through to the select committee process, and I’ll explain why.

We are strongly supportive of Part 2. We do believe in the end of tenure review, which saw the freeholding of these iconic New Zealand stations—often for relatively low or modest sums—to the Crown, which then subsequently, when freeholded, were sold off, often to the foreign, wealthy, rich, and famous who would come in and buy these iconic properties, often locking them away from access to New Zealanders, and also the ecological side of that. Often the high country was retired, and there is evidence that we have seen an increase in pests and things like wilding pines getting away when we haven’t got grazing in some of those higher pastures into the tussock country and the intensification thereof of the freeholded land, which was often around lakes and waterways. So we don’t think it was a good outcome for the taxpayer, and we don’t think it was a good outcome for the environment. So we are strongly in favour of ending the tenure review process, the Part 2 of this bill. So that is the basis for which we are supporting the bill.

Where I find myself in the unusual position of supporting some of the speeches from over the other side of the House is we have genuine concern for the first part of the bill and the potential for heavy bureaucratic overreach into stewardship of these iconic properties, which, for the most part, as much as I can tell and from the information that I’ve got and what I’ve seen, have been farmed beautifully. In fact, tourism is now one of the big income earners, and, obviously, hit just at the moment by COVID. But even more, they’re incentivised to look after these landscapes and look after these properties.

We’ve got to remember here, too, that these are leases but these are perpetual leases, back to that 1948 Act, the Land Act 1948, so they do have some rights that might be over and above someone leasing a block of land off you or I. So we have to take into account that they do have, probably, enhanced rights over a normal leasehold—these are perpetual leases.

We’re also concerned that there’s the potential for the rentals to be lifted to an unsustainable level, maybe to cover for some of the extra costs of administering some of this consenting process. We think it’s important that these properties remain profitable, because a lot of the good environmental protection that’s going on needs a profitable farmer to be able to afford to do those things.

So we New Zealand First, as I say, do have valid reasons, and with some conviction we want to see the end of tenure review. But we will be looking incredibly carefully through that select committee process, and we know the farmers will come to that process in some numbers to make their case. I know they were frustrated that they were not consulted more through the development of the bill, and that’s certainly a view that they’ve expressed strongly to me. They will get their day in front of the select committee, and many of them will come, I’m sure, from those magnificent high country stations, and we will be listening very carefully to what they have to say. So, qualified support for this bill to the select committee. Thank you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I’ve come down to the House tonight and asked for a speaking slot on this particular legislation because of my lifetime interest in the high country of, particularly, the South Island, and my interest and involvement in legislation that has passed through this House during my time.

I say to that member who has just resumed his seat, Mark Patterson of New Zealand First, that if he wants to be involved in the select committee process, the only way he will be involved is if he makes a submission as a member of the public. Because I give that member an assurance: I’m going to spend my campaigning time telling every farmer in New Zealand that New Zealand First voted for this legislation tonight, and if they had not, this legislation would not be proceeding. It is proceeding because of New Zealand First, and it is nothing but a property-right grab by this Government. The high country, as various speakers have said tonight, is a particularly attractive part of New Zealand but a particularly difficult environment to farm in. I know the farmers that farm this country very well. They are tough. They show tenacity in an environment that is difficult both environmentally and climatically.

We did the tenure review in 1998, and I was involved in that. That legislation properly recognised the property right that each and every one of these leaseholders have, which is called a lease in perpetuity. What we see regularly from the Greens, Christchurch’s The Press with one particular reporter, and from one particular university lecturer at Lincoln University is malicious reporting on the tenure review process and the fact that it involves too much money going to some farms who have gone into tenure review. What that actually recognises is that the farmers had this strong property right called lease in perpetuity. So tenure review was a good process that went about trying to recognise the farms that had strategic land that should be remaining in agriculture and strategic land that should go back into the conservation estate. The farmers entered that process willingly if they wanted to enter into tenure review.

What that legislation in 1998 was doing was updating the Land Act 1948, which had simply grown past its use-by date, meaning the commissioner had to get permission for all sorts of things beyond simple sheep and cattle grazing. By that time, we had an industry around deer farming. If you owned one of these leases, you had to go to the commission and say, “Please, can I put some deer on my farm and put some deer fencing there?”. It was ridiculous legislation that needed updating.

But this Labour Government’s dislike of high country farmers became very obvious again in 2005 and 2006 with the then Minister Hon David Parker leading the charge to up the rents on these farms to an unsustainable level, on the basis that you pay for an amenity value. I well remember one farmer who came to me. He had a farm on the shores of Lake Benmore. His parents had owned the farm before him. They had land taken from them through this Think Big project to create Lake Benmore, and then David Parker’s scenario was that because their sheep had a view of Lake Benmore they should pay a higher rent because of it. That was the logic of the Labour Government trying to drive these farmers off this land.

We changed that legislation. We got the rent back to being what it should be on a productive value. It doesn’t surprise me at all that in the dying days of the New Zealand First - Labour - Greens Government, here they have another crack at the high country farmers; forget that they’ve got a property right called lease in perpetuity.

I won’t be in this Parliament to fight it through the select committee, but I guarantee it will get a thorough airing. If Mark Patterson wants to be involved—thank you for his valedictory speech tonight—he comes back and makes a submission. He should front up and acknowledge before that select committee that he made his mistake in encouraging New Zealand First to support this legislation tonight, because if he had stayed true to his own thoughts, he wouldn’t be supporting this legislation, and it’d be dead in the water tonight as it should be.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is an absolute disgrace. It is hugely disappointing to see the support it’s achieved on the other side of the House. The Minister Sage, in her first contribution tonight, mentioned that nothing here is intended to impact farming. That just shows how totally disconnected this Green Party is. They have no concept of what farming entails—the activities you undertake in normal farming operations and the difficulties that those farmers face. It is a disgrace that they would suggest this bill will not impact on their ability.

Then to see the Minister of Agriculture stand up and back that up just shows how disconnected he is as well. Quite frankly, I am hugely disappointed in that. He said that farming will continue to prosper, that farming matters; they’re doing great. It’s easy to say words, but you can’t talk your way out of something you’ve acted your way into. This Government have acted their way into a position of absolute mistrust with the farming community. They have no respect for them. They don’t value their contribution to our economy, and they are out to grab that land back here and to get rid of farming out of New Zealand. It’s a disgrace. I’ve said that; I’ll keep saying it, because, quite frankly, I’m outraged that they would put forward a bill like this before this Parliament with such total disregard for our rural communities.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Have you read the bill?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I have read the bill, Minister, and there are a couple of points that I’ll highlight for you within there. So when we look at Schedule 2—and I’m glad the Minister’s asked me about this, actually, because Schedule 2 outlines what is a permitted activity and what is a discretionary activity. A couple of the permitted activities: all earthworks—well, that’s appropriate on farming. There’s always a range of earthworks activities undertaken. All earthworks, sowing of seed, or top-dressing—those are all good, standard farming activities. Planting pasture or crops, you’re putting some fertiliser on. So earthworks, sowing of seed, or top-dressing—that’s a permitted activity, provided it’s within the existing curtilage of dwellings.

So I’m not sure how many farmers I’ve spoken to about this, but I don’t know too many farmers that top-dress their house or their garden, or that carry out extensive earthworks beside their shed. Those are the only criteria in which you can carry out those tasks. Otherwise, on the rest of the farm where you actually do those tasks, they are a discretionary activity, under this bill. It just shows the total disconnect, and to see the Minister of Agriculture stand up and say, “This is a good bill that won’t impact on farming activities.”, when any farmer is going to have to go cap in hand asking for consent to plant some pasture, to plant a crop, to disturb the soil for the construction of a small building—which, actually, they won’t need consent for now under 30 square metres. Removing of any exotic timber—there are a range of factors here that are standard farming activities that are no longer permitted under this. They will require a consent. That is totally out of touch, to try and farm by consent. It is impractical and totally unworkable.

Farmers are great stewards of the land, and this is a fundamental difference in opinion in this Parliament. We understand that farmers care for their land, because that is fundamental to them having a successful business. Without that focus on maintaining and growing your asset—i.e., the land, and, you know, crops, and whatever else—animals—you’re growing—you will not have a successful business. So to suggest that farming is destroying our countryside, as we’ve heard numerous times from the Green Party, and we’ve seen no opposition to that view from New Zealand First here tonight either, is hugely disappointing. They could have kicked this to touch right here. Yet, we are seeing a continued focus, a disregard for farming activities. Farmers across the country, but particularly down there—it’s a beautiful landscape. The majesty of the place—it’s incredible country. To suggest that farmers go out there and just pillage it is totally disrespectful to them.

Hon Eugenie Sage: No one suggested that.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The Minister’s trying to say, “Oh no. We’re not doing that. Oh, we care about farmers.” Well, actually, your bill here disagrees with those comments. So to stand up and say lovely things and then try and push this through is, quite frankly, deceitful.

This, fortunately, is not being proposed for a shortened report-back, so we will see this come back before the next Parliament. As Mr Carter said, New Zealand First won’t be here to support it; it’ll get kicked to touch. We will be absolutely working with the farming community. I hope that every farmer involved down there—and, actually, farmers across the country—see this for the absolute injustice that it is, and make a submission against it. We will be fighting hard for the rights of those landowners and opposing this bill. It is simply outrageous that the Government will put this forward, and the National Party cannot support it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill be read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 42

New Zealand National 40; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to start by thanking the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall, and all of the members of the select committee for your diligent work on this bill. This is a large and complex bill that amends the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 in order to better regulate vaping and heated tobacco products in New Zealand. I’d also like to thank and acknowledge all the members of the public who submitted on this bill. I know that taking time to make a submission would have been more challenging during COVID-19.

It’s been clear to me that this is a bill that the public cares deeply about, and the select committee process has proven no different. The committee received over 1,200 written submissions—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry. I wonder if members could show the Minister some respect and talk to each other in the lobbies or really quietly—both sides of the House, thank you. Sorry to interrupt the member.

Hon JENNY SALESA: The committee received over 1,200 written submissions and heard 84 oral submissions from a wide range of submitters. This included submissions from vaping consumers, businesses, Māori and Pacific organisations, health academics, practitioners, and the health sector in general. The bill was generally welcomed by submitters, and it was clear that most believe that these regulations are important, necessary, and generally were striving for the same goals.

It would be fair to say that we all want to see New Zealanders who are suffering from and dying from smoking-related diseases as something that is decreased in our country, that we’d like our children and young people to have healthier parents and grandparents who stay with us for longer, and that we all want to prevent our young people from using vaping products—and this means ensuring that they aren’t attractive to, or easily accessed by, our children and youth.

So the committee had a difficult task of trying to ensure that this bill strikes the right balance between supporting smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives, like vaping products, while, at the same time, protecting young people and non-smokers from the risks associated with these products.

I won’t highlight all the changes recommended by the committee, but I will just briefly summarise some of the key changes that I believe will be of interest to most submitters and the House tonight. Many submitters were deeply concerned that generic retailers, such as dairies and supermarkets, would only be able to sell vaping liquids in tobacco, menthol, and mint flavours. They felt that reducing smokers’ access to a range of vaping flavours would negatively affect their ability to transition and maintain their transition to vaping, and may have significant negative impacts as well on generic retailers.

These are valid concerns. However, we must remember that we have the difficult task of balancing two goals within one bill: supporting smokers while, at the same time, protecting our young people and children and New Zealanders who are non-smokers and who have not taken up vaping ever before. The committee reports that it’s necessary to keep the restrictions on flavours if we are to reduce the attractiveness and accessibility of vaping products, especially to our young people. However, if any future Governments wish to make changes to the flavours that can be sold by generic retailers, they can easily do this through regulations.

I’ll turn now to advertising. I’m glad to see that the bill continues to prohibit major media advertising of vaping and smoking-tobacco products. It is not appropriate for our young people to see these addictive products being advertised on television, radio, or billboards. I’m also pleased to know that some submitters provided helpful comments and suggestions on advertising. Submitters stressed that quitting smoking is hard and a personal journey that is challenging and that we as Government need to ensure that smokers have access to accurate and tailored information to tools and support that will help smokers successfully transition to less harmful products, including vaping. The committee has also listened to these concerns and suggestions, and responded by making some technical and practical changes to the advertising provisions in the bill. For example, the bill has been amended to clarify that regulations will prescribe the information that can be provided to customers by both generic and specialist vape retailers, which was the policy’s intent. The committee has also added exemptions to allow specialist vape retailers to communicate to their customers about vaping products and for manufacturers and importers to provide information to retailers about how to use vaping products.

It was not intended that the bill would prevent research, expert opinion, or commentary that encourages smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives. So the committee has also added additional exemptions for these purposes.

There were some submitters that had other concerns about the bill, namely the implications that it would have for vaping retailers. They believed that specialist vape retailers should be able to sell their products online and that requiring specialist retailers to derive at least 85 percent of their sales from vaping products may not be realistic for some of these stores. These are fair comments, and the committee has clarified in the bill that specialist retailers can indeed sell their products online if they also have a bricks and mortar store. The committee has also lowered the sales threshold for specialist vape retailers from 85 percent to 70 percent. Stores that derive 50 percent of their sales from vaping products will also be able to trade as specialist vape retailers for a transitional period of 12 months. This will provide retailers with enough time to decide if they would like to become a specialist vape retailer after 12 months and adjust their business model accordingly.

I understand concerns were also raised about the impact that the bill has on the vaping market more broadly. Some submitters felt that the industry needs more time to be able to comply with the bill and were concerned, in general, about the extent and range of powers that the Director-General of Health will possess in relation to product safety, to ingredients, and to a small number of advertising provisions. The committee agreed that it is fair and reasonable for the obligation to comply with the product safety notification regime to come into force 12 months after the Royal assent, rather than six months, in order to ensure that the industry is in a good place to comply with the bill.

In terms of the powers given to the director-general, they are necessary powers. For instance, we need the Director-General of Health to be able to act quickly to protect the public health if he is satisfied that a product or an ingredient may be causing harm. This is ultimately an issue of safety, so the powers given to the director-general must remain. The committee has also accepted, however, that there is a need for greater transparency, consultation, and safeguards to protect the industry, given the impact that the Director-General of Health’s decision can have on the livelihoods of people working in the industry. A number of amendments have been made to support this. For example, where the director-general has suspended or cancelled the sale of a vaping or smokeless tobacco product, the manufacturer or importer of that product now has a right of appeal to the director-general’s decision. Another amendment enabled the director-general to establish a technical advisory committee to assist in their decision making and exercise of powers.

Finally, I want to bring it back to our aspirations as a Government and what this bill is trying to achieve. We’re an ambitious Government and we have high aspirations for the wellbeing of our tamariki, children, and young people. We’ve even set ourselves a goal of making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child and would like our children to be New Zealand’s first smoke-free generation. I strongly believe that this bill moves us further along that path in helping to reduce the number of New Zealanders who smoke and die from tobacco-related diseases and ensuring that our young people don’t find vaping products attractive and easily accessible. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. National supports this bill because we believe that vaping is a real game-changer. It’s a game-changer in terms of helping smokers to quit, but also it’s a game-changer in moving us forward on the New Zealand Smokefree 2025 goal. I first discovered vaping back in 2016, and after taking advice from the Ministry of Health and reviewing the use of e-cigarettes and vaping overseas, I prepared a bill to regulate vaping—I was the Associate Minister of Health at the time. What we discovered was that e-cigarettes and vaping had been available in the UK, Europe, and the US for over a decade, and because they are significantly safer than tobacco, they’d helped millions of people quit smoking.

We also overseas saw overseas that where vaping had been regulated—regulated with an R18 restricted purchase age, quality controls, and minimal advertising—it had mainly been embraced by smokers, and young people had not been attracted to the product, and we saw this particularly in the UK. However, where they were societies that had few rules, such as in some of the states of the US, and young people had easy access, they were bombarded by advertising, and that had encouraged them to take up the habit. So I absolutely support the Government’s move. It is our job in New Zealand to regulate the sector so that vaping is still attractive and available to smokers to help them quit, but it must be less attractive to young people, and I think this bill mostly does that.

The timing of the bill is unfortunate. Firstly, the select committee process was truncated, and also it was held during the time of the COVID-19 lockdown. I believe that the legislation as written has several parts which have got unintended consequences which will actually weaken the bill, and I have provided three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to correct these unfortunate, and I think unintended, consequences. So I just want to talk through those SOPs so that when we come to the committee of the whole House, people will be able to vote for them.

The first is SOP 536, and this concerns the qualification of becoming a specialist vape retailer. You’ve heard from the Minister that specialist vape stores can promote and sell a whole range of vaping products, including a full variety of flavours, but non-specialist vape stores—and they will tend to be local stores, petrol stations, and dairies—can only sell tobacco, menthol, and mint flavours. These are the flavours that actually are not the best-selling flavours, and they’re not the flavours that necessarily appeal to young people. The policy intent of this is to reduce the attractiveness of vaping to non-smokers.

Now, to qualify to be a specialist vape store, 70 percent of your store’s turnover must come from vape products. I agree that this is appropriate in most cases, but there are a number of well-established specialist stores that also sell other products, and so it’s difficult for them to get that 70 percent turnover for vape products. I’ll just give you an example of one of the chains, the Cosmic group, which was one of the very first stockists of vape products. It was the first store to voluntarily bring in an R18 age restriction, and it is a respected expert in the sector, so much so that the Minister actually sought advice from the company when they were seeking to regulate the vaping sector. At the moment, they provide vaping products and advice to over 250,000 New Zealanders, so they are indeed a specialist store, and I think it really is an unintended consequence that these types of responsible, experienced, and expert vape businesses are not considered specialist vape stores in the legislation.

So I have come up with a solution. My SOP 536 says that the 70 percent threshold should remain because it makes sense, but there is an alternative mechanism to allow businesses that meet 50 percent vape sales but are considered responsible retailers. There’s a series of things that they would have to be able to tick off to be a responsible retailer, and that would be approved by the Director-General of Health. I really don’t believe we should be excluding experienced and responsible specialist stores just because they don’t fit the cookie-cutter retail model that we are normally dealing with.

I think it’s interesting, because the way the legislation is written, any ratbag supplier or retailer who wants to open a store with no history of being responsible, no history of any knowledge, or advice, even, can open a store and sell 100 percent vape, and that’s not what we want. That threshold is really a proxy to say that these cover enough turnover, that they are respected and can give good advice, and that they will be part of the sector and support people to give up smoking. So I think it’s really important that we do actually allow somebody with a slightly different retail model to be able to trade.

The next one, which is SOP 537, concerns alternative non-tobacco nicotine delivery devices. Now, during the select committee process, 53(2A), in clause 26, was inserted in the bill, which bans oral nicotine products. Now, when you consider that the stated purpose of the bill is to support smokers to quit by providing less damaging alternatives to cigarette smoking, it seems rather odd that this would be the case, that we would ban these alternatives. Interestingly enough, because this clause was not in the original bill, there were no opportunities for submissions on it, and the issue was not discussed or debated. So it’s been put in out of the blue, and it seems to be at odds with the purpose of the bill.

So my SOP deletes this section, because there are already products in the market that are helping people quit which would be banned. For example, these nicotine pouches—they are used by at least 10,000 New Zealanders, and there is absolutely no evidence that they are attractive to young people. Now, nicotine pouches are placed in the mouth next to the gum, and the nicotine is absorbed through the oral mucosa rather than inhaled, so it’s not damaging, and the New Zealand Ministry of Health has already agreed that nicotine pouches are far less damaging than smoking cigarettes. Now, it’s interesting, because a similar product used in Sweden is directly responsible for that country having the lowest cigarette consumption in Europe, by far the lowest lung cancer mortality, and the lowest percentage of smoking-related deaths in any developed country. So why in the world would we ban a product that can do that? Nicotine pouches also have specialist users. They were introduced to New Zealand by military people because they are useful and significantly safer than cigarettes for soldiers when they’re in action. In talking to the Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark, he has confirmed that he believes soldiers should be able to have access to the product.

My final SOP is 545, and this is about community help groups, which have been particularly successful in promoting vaping to help smokers quit. A good example of this kind of group is a programme called Vape2Save, and that’s been working very closely with Māori women. Māori women are a cohort that has the highest smoking rate in the country, and it is difficult to reach those people through traditional quit smoking programmes. Vape2Save has produced spectacular quit rates. Now, the current bill only allows the promotion of vaping to help people quit smoking to be done by a qualified health worker, so Vape2Save would not be able to operate because it uses volunteers and peer supporters—and I think that’s why it’s been so successful. My SOP 545 provides an exemption for community health groups when they have been authorised by the director-general and the message has been approved by a qualified health worker. We don’t want to lose these community programmes, especially when they’re getting great, quick results in communities that have stubbornly high smoking rates.

I think this bill is extremely important to public health. With nearly 5,000 New Zealanders dying every year from smoking-related diseases, we need to make every effort to help smokers quit. I support it passing as soon as possible. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand in support of this bill. This is an incredibly important bill, particularly for our children and young people, but also for older New Zealanders. I think the fact that over 1,200 submissions were received during this period shows that it’s really important to New Zealanders as well. We heard 84 oral submissions and we heard these during lockdown, and, actually, as a process it worked incredibly well. We had some wonderful conversations with a whole range of people, ranging from retailers to public health experts to people working in vape shops, and they told us a lot of important things around vaping and how we could improve the bill.

The issue with the bill is that it tries to balance, and does it quite well, two separate aspects. One is that it wants to prevent young people taking up vaping and taking up smoking. So what it does is it bans sales to those under 18, but it also restricts advertising and it also restricts the flavours available in generic retailers like dairies to three flavours: menthol, tobacco, and mint. But on the other hand, what we also need to be thinking about is how we can assist those who are smoking to transition to less harmful products. So in that respect, what we heard is incredibly important, again, for smokers to have access to a whole range of different flavours and also to the expertise in specialist vape shops to take them through the different products and what would suit them best.

A lot of the debate within the select committee focused on how we balance that, and much of that focused around flavours. And in the debate really, we heard a lot of submissions saying, “No, we don’t want to be able to have any vaping products or flavours in generic retailers.” Others agreed with the three flavours that we have proposed. Others, though, said that fruit flavours and dessert flavours were important in assisting smokers to transition and we should expand the range of flavours. So there was quite a lot of debate there on where we needed to land, and as a select committee we transitioned this debate and felt in favour of preventing the uptake by young people. And so we ended up landing on wanting to stay with those three flavours as proposed, but also noting that regulations could be subsequently made down the line, which would expand those.

We also had quite a bit of discussion around what was a specialist retailer and what proportion of sales should be adjusted with vape products, because the bill as introduced was 85 percent. But where we ended up was saying, no, we can reduce that down to 70 percent, because the feedback was from many retailers that 85 percent was too high. And we also introduced a transition period so that vape retailers could, for the first 12 months, actually have about 50 percent of their sales with vape products, and then moving up to 70 percent after 12 months to allow transition.

This is an important bill, and I think we landed on the right balance between stopping young people taking up vaping but also allowing flavours and access for those who want to transition to less harmful products. So I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. How good is the Hon Nicky Wagner, I thought—a fantastic speech—who has clearly outlined the research she has taken in this area. She is someone who will be missed in the new term with her new-found knowledge of vaping, and she was able to clearly articulate to this House about the clear deficiencies we see in this bill that we are debating today in its second reading.

The irony is that if we accept the Hon Nicky Wagner’s three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that will be debated in the committee of the whole House, then we will be accepting the bill that the Hon Nicky Wagner first proposed 2½ years ago, if not three years ago. So then it poses the argument of why are we here two weeks before the House rises to, ultimately, it sounds like, accept the SOPs that Nicky Wagner has put on the Table, to end up with a bill that we had three years ago.

Hon Maggie Barry: Remarkable.

MATT DOOCEY: It is. It is very remarkable, and it’s not surprising. In fact, when you look at the dates for this bill, it was introduced on 24 February 2020, yet the Hon Nicky Wagner’s bill was put on the Table in around 2017. It completed its first reading on 11 March 2020 and was then referred to the Health Committee, and public submissions closed on 1 April 2020. So here we are, two weeks before the end of this term, and we are looking to end up with the same bill that we had at the start of the term.

Hon Maggie Barry: Near midnight.

MATT DOOCEY: Magic, I’ll call it.

I must say, though, in fairness that we are in the second reading, and, as you would expect, we should be talking about the bill that came out from select committee—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Good—novel.

MATT DOOCEY: —thank you, Madam Speaker—and the process it took. I must say, it’s had a rather thorough look at. We have lifted up the hood and had a look at this, because we did receive 1,271 submissions. So we did hear, largely, from the public. What was concerning, though, was that, obviously, with the dates I outlined, we did leave it to the last minute and, unfortunately, the public submission stage did coincide with the COVID lockdown. Although, I must say we were ably chaired by Louisa Wall, who is the chair of the Health Committee, and we were, effectively, marshalled on to Zoom, as most members of Parliament were, and we were able to dispense with many of the submissions.

But what was interesting when you thematically reviewed the submissions—and, I must say, full credit to the officials, who I think have put together an excellent departmental report that looks at the feedback that we received—it’s not surprising that we did have to wade through this, because many of the submissions were actually contradictory or were taking opposing views. Many of the smaller retailers were quite rightly worried that they would be excluded, and the highly regulated products, they would not be able to sell. Clearly, we had the voice of the consumers. Many of the vapers themselves were worried that they would not be able to buy the flavours that they wanted to buy if they were restricted to specialist services. Even when you looked at issues around the packaging, it was pretty much a 50:50 split where some of our submitters agreed with standardised packaging, and then the others disagreed. Even, interestingly enough, with the issue around vape-free workplaces, whether that be in childcare, schools, or other workplaces, there was a fair amount of submitters who didn’t believe that those establishments should be vape-free, and 60 percent who did.

So I think we had a good select committee process. The over 1,200 submissions were heard. I want to thank the officials, who I think have drafted up an excellent departmental report that goes into the hundreds of pages, and I will resume my seat now in anticipation of this bill passing in its second reading so that we can move on to the committee of the whole House stage and debate the very good SOPs of the Hon Nicky Wagner.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. I am standing in support of this legislation because it does balance really well the prohibition on young people, our children, vaping. It’s about taking care of their health and also, too, transitioning those who are cigarette smokers, who do take a bit of the old tobacco, bit of the old nicotine, to find a tool that will help them quit. It will help reduce the comorbidities in their health and wellbeing. When you remove smoking from a person’s life, their health generally does improve. Therefore, I am in support of this legislation.

We had great discussions in the Health Committee. But I’d first like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, for bringing the bill to the House; the officials who worked with us on this bill; and all those submitters as well. We had around 1,200, and 84 gave oral evidence. And, as other members have noted this evening, during the lockdown period, we conducted those hearings via Zoom. Our committee was ably chaired by Louisa Wall, and we had general consensus that this is a bill that does need progressing.

I’d just like to acknowledge the Minister, who said that it is necessary to keep the restrictions on flavours if we are to reduce the attractiveness and accessibility for these products, particularly for our young people. However, if any future Governments wish to make changes to the flavours that can be sold by generic retailers, they can easily do this through regulations. That’s an important note to make. We had much discussion about flavours, whether it was rainbow unicorn flavours or berry or dessert vanilla-type flavours.

Hon Maggie Barry: The unicorn.

JENNY MARCROFT: The Hon Maggie Barry’s favourite was the unicorn, yes. In fact, I think it was all our favourite—and, really, the attractiveness of those creative names, because inside the tobacco industry, back into the 1950s, it was the creative advertisers who basically developed a new style of advertising. It was called lifestyle advertising, and we’re seeing the incredible advertising that vape companies are doing—really attractive advertising, which helps to lure young people into taking up this habit, along with creating the biggest cloud possible when they vape. That’s another attractive quality of vaping. So restricting the ability of young people to be able to purchase vapes is a very important thing.

Prohibiting the advertising of vaping products and smokeless tobacco, restricting the flavours—and the reason for the mint and menthol flavours of tobacco is that those are the flavours that most people transition from when they are smoking cigarettes, when they first take up vaping. Often it’s that tobacco flavour, or the mint or menthol, that they may have smoked when they were smoking tobacco. That’s the flavours they take up when they first vape. Then they can go to their specialist store if they’re over 18 and try those other flavours, which they then transition from that tobacco taste into something more like a dessert or a fruit.

Limiting the general retailers, including dairies and service stations, to only sell those three flavours will help ensure that the vape stores actually will have business and customers who will go there. There was much discussion around the 85 percent threshold of those specialist stores. We did ask the officials why it was set at 85 percent. It seemed like some random number plucked out of the sky, but, actually, it was to do with tobacconists. When tobacconists had a tobacco shop, they had to have 85 percent of product, and that’s where that figure came from, but we did agree in the end to reduce that down to 70 percent, and there is that one-year transition period of 50 percent.

Actually, Action on Smoking and Health New Zealand has really been engaged in the whole process of this bill and I acknowledge them and their contribution. Their director, Deborah Hart, said that “We are delighted that the Bill acknowledges the role vaping has in dramatically reducing the harms of smoking … it also discourages children and [young people] from vaping.” They make a great contribution to society. They also mentioned that the rapid rise of smoke-free nicotine products, especially vaping, is the most disruptive influence on smoking in decades. It really is a game-changer. That is what we need, this quit tool to help us reach those smoke-free targets. These products are challenging the smoking tobacco stranglehold on the nicotine market.

I’d like to leave my contribution there. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner who has spearheaded this issue from the National Party by putting her own member’s bill forward, which the Government has then, essentially, taken up and is shortly going to fix to ensure that it is essentially a carbon copy of the piece of legislation that she put forward in the first place.

The unfortunate thing which has happened here is that the Government has dithered and delayed when it comes to regulating vaping products in New Zealand; has allowed the industry to grow substantially, has allowed our young people to get access to these products, and this has caused untold harm and caused all sorts of issues up and down our country. That is an indictment on this current Government, which is now trying to pass this legislation in its dying days of Government, here in July, only two months out from the election where they will be kicked out of Government.

This bill is being put forward as some way to achieve our smoke-free goals of 2025. Well, New Zealanders know there’s a referendum coming up at this election to legalise marijuana and to have smoking for marijuana. So we’re going to have a goal to get to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025, and on the other hand we’re going to be putting it to New Zealanders to legalise marijuana—

Hon Tracey Martin: No, nothing to do with vaping. Good on ya.

SIMEON BROWN: Oh no, well I hear some complaints. Well, maybe you’ll be able to vape marijuana as well. Oh, but you’ll also be able to have the edibles—the edible products. So it won’t just be vaping or smoking; it’ll be the edible products, and there’ll be the lollies and the cakes and there’ll be all the other products as well.

But anyway, this bill has gone through a robust select committee process, and I’m proud of the work that has been put into it. It is a pity, though, that it took so long for this Government to actually prioritise what was something which was needed. We’ve all heard the concern from parents, from schools who get attracted by these products, the issues that are being seen in our communities, and now we have a bill which will finally bring some regulation to this important area, and I commend it to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this legislation. It strikes a really good balance. It’s very important that vaping is able to be used as an effective tool to help people quit smoking. It’s also important that it’s properly regulated from a harm minimisation point of view so that we don’t have large numbers of young people targeted with advertising and finding themselves taking up a new addictive habit. So the Green Party will be supporting this bill. I commend it to the House.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to stand and talk on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. Obviously, this side is supporting the bill, but I, too, want to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for the work that she has done in preparing everything and moving this particular bill forward.

Anything to reduce the number of Māori smoking, I support. This bill states that it will be a step towards helping Māori to reduce the amount of cigarette smoking, tobacco smoking, that they are currently smoking, and it does concern me a lot, especially Māori women who have very high tobacco smoking rates. I want to acknowledge Nicky for all the hard work she’s done for the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that she’s put forward for the committee of the whole House process. I think that she has been really diligent, and I have sat through a number of meetings in our caucus listening to the work that Nicky has done, and it is pleasing to see that the Government has finally started to take notice of this bill. And, as my colleague Simeon Brown has said, it is almost a carbon copy of what the Hon Nicky Wagner had put together in her bill.

We need to make sure that young people do not find, and they have done, vaping as an attractive alternative to smoking. I think it does look awful, actually. I am a reformed tobacco smoker for many years now, and to ride along behind someone who is vaping in their car and seeing all these clouds of vapour coming out, it just looked very ugly and horrible. But anything to regulate the sale of vaping products and vaping has got to garner my support and that of this side of the House. So, without any further ado, I commend this bill to the House and look forward to hearing the debates around, especially, the Hon Nicky Wagner’s SOPs. Thank you.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Equal Pay Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s a real privilege to be here to discuss, in particular, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 548 to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. That will be the focus of my remarks right now, but I just want to start by saying, as Minister for Women, my role is to advocate for all women and girls in Aotearoa New Zealand, and this bill, and the amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper, represent a step forward for gender equity in the labour market.

The Government is committed to building an inclusive economy, particularly in the response to COVID-19. It’s very important that we maintain a focus on achieving gender equity and recognising the intersectional factors that are leading to substantial pay gaps, particularly for non-European women. The pay equity framework in this bill encourages collaboration and evidence-based decision-making to address pay inequity. Supplementary Order Paper 548 further enables this vision by aligning the bill more closely with the bargaining system in the Employment Relations Act (ERA). We have been making significant progress towards eliminating the gender pay gap in the core public sector this term—a priority for this Government—with several pay equity settlements finalised and in progress, and it’s now time to ensure that pay equity can be realised across all of New Zealand and the economy.

I want to briefly talk about the process we’ve been through to get to this point today, and then I’ll outline a few changes in the SOP that I believe will particularly benefit women and employees in occupations that have been subject to systematic undervaluation due to gender discrimination.

Following the select committee report back, our social partners, the Council of Trade Unions and BusinessNZ, approached us with the view that the pay equity bargaining framework should align more clearly with the framework for collective and individual bargaining under the Employment Relations Act. The Government agreed that closer alignment with existing employment bargaining practices would improve the pay equity process. So Cabinet then agreed to make these changes to the bill that will align the pay equity process further with the current bargaining practice that businesses, unions, and employees are all already familiar with.

So some key changes include enabling unions to raise pay equity claims on behalf of their members, and these claims will also cover employees who are not union members but are performing the same or substantially similar work. This is good for women because unions have expertise in resolving pay inequity, they have a stronger voice than one individual claimant, and this should lead to more robust settlements that fully correct pay inequity while allowing individuals who are not members to have a voice in the settlement.

Secondly: requiring employers to offer any pay equity settlement negotiated by a union to other affected employees. So these changes recognise that pay equity is an issue of systematic sex-based discrimination, which affects both union and non-union members. So, where a union settlement has addressed sex-based undervaluation in the remuneration for the work, it should be offered to other employees, all employees, performing that work. The bill will also continue to allow employees to bargain individually for pay equity where there is no union or where employees choose not to be represented by a union. These changes are more consistent with the approach taken to collective bargaining under the ERA and in international law.

We’re also enabling unions to raise single claims across multiple employers where the work is substantially similar. Several submitters asked for a more balanced employer and employee voice in the multi-employer consolidation of pay equity claims. This aligns more closely with multi-employer bargaining processes under the ERA, and this is good for women and employers because settlements can be reached with multiple employers concurrently, reducing the risk of multiple different settlements being reached for the same or similar work. For both employees and employers, it makes sense to have consistent pay rates and to reduce the costs of concluding multiple settlements within occupations.

We’ve also made some key changes to time frames for the progression of each stage of the process, and I could probably go into detail on that throughout this debate. We are ensuring that, during the assessment phase of the pay equity processes, parties will assess the nature of the work, terms and conditions of the work, and remuneration of the work that is the subject of the claim and those of one or more comparator occupations, the comparator occupations being the more male-dominated occupations, although it could also be other female-dominated occupations that have also been through a pay equity process. This is good for women, because relevant evidence will be taken into account to remove the undervaluation of the work, and it will also enable those existing resources and tools to be used so that claims can be resolved quickly.

We’ve clarified that a pay equity claim will be settled when parties have agreed remuneration that they consider corrects pay inequity. This is not necessarily just a pay rate or salary but can include elements such as annual leave or superannuation and anything else the parties mutually agree. We’ve also made sure that settlements must also include a commitment to regularly ensure pay equity has been maintained, and this is really important because our goal is to correct this systemic, longstanding gender-based or sex-based discrimination and, after a settlement has been made, we don’t want it to stop there. We don’t want it to lose that progress over time. So it’s important that we continue to review, that we have a process in place that employees and employers understand, just to make sure that we’re eliminating inequity over the long term, which is what this bill is about. There are also protections against unfair individual bargaining, similar to those provided for in the ERA.

These changes are reflected in Supplementary Order Paper 548, presented to you today. It has taken time to improve the bill, and we’ve done so at the request of our social partners. It is worth getting it right. A robust and accessible pay equity process will be a critical tool in helping to reduce the gender pay gap across the economy. This bill is an important milestone, but we still have more work to do, and it’s great that there are so many individuals and organisations working towards achieving pay equity for all women in Aotearoa.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to thank the Minister in the chair, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, for being available for our questions. Obviously, there’s a relatively significant Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—548—that has been made available for us, that I’ve got some specific questions to ask the Minister about. They’re quite technical; so I hope that she doesn’t mind that I’ve written them down. I’m going to read them out because I don’t want to get it wrong.

I want to specifically talk about new section 13DB. It sets out the requirements for a union raising a pay equity claim. These requirements are almost the same as the requirements for an individual raising a claim, but there is one additional requirement; that is, a claim that’s raised by one or more unions with multiple employers must include a brief explanation of how the work performed by the employees covered by the claim is considered to be the same or substantially similar. So my question is: does this explanation have to be taken as fact? What if the employers reject the premise that the work is the same or substantially the same? And if they reject that premise, can it be the basis for an employer deciding that the claim is not arguable?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Do you want to take another—

ERICA STANFORD: Oh, I’ll carry on in that case. Just a broader point for the Minister, while she’s getting some advice potentially: the SOP also provides for large multi-employer multi-union claims to be made. This is a far more general question. So these pay equity claims to date have generally been made when the State’s been the employer, but I guess I want to question the Minister on how manageable she thinks these claims will be when they have to apply to private sector claims, particularly occupations that are largely employed by a large number of small businesses—how she thinks that will be manageable.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I thank the member for her questions. With respect to the first one, as long as one party considers the comparator to be relevant it can be used. So I don’t believe both parties need to consider it. As long as one or both parties consider the comparator relevant, it can be used as part of a process. But, ultimately, it is a bargaining approach, and the final outcome will depend on what both parties get to, looking at one or more comparators. And I would say that, in most cases that I’ve seen undertaken so far, there has been more than one comparator used. So, usually, a settlement wouldn’t hinge on just one comparator, at least not in my experience.

With respect to the second question, my feeling is that allowing a more consolidated approach with multiple employers will be better for achieving pay equity, and I think it will be more manageable for businesses who have employees who are employed in similar or, you know, the same work, for them to be able to work together in this process. It will mean they just have to go through it once, that they’ve got the support of other businesses who are in the same position, and I think that ultimately that’s going to be a much more practical way to get good pay equity outcomes across the economy than if every individual small business had to deal with claims.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to ask the Minister some questions—well, a specific question relating to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 548. That SOP does, in many ways, change the bill that emerged from select committee. I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee, which analysed the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. I think we did some good work together. We took a lot of advice from officials and changes were made to this bill. So I am somewhat surprised at how significant this SOP is, and I would appreciate some background as to why such significant changes were required. It seems to me that one of the themes of the changes is about providing for union involvement and union joining of claims, but I’d invite the Minister to comment on that. But, most specifically, I’m interested in the removal, in terms of matters to be assessed.

If we go to proposed new section 13L, on page 35 of the SOP, we have the removal of what was going to be the ability for those involved in a pay equity claim to settle following an alternative process. So that is, there was an allowance within the bill that parties to a pay equity claim could enter a written agreement setting out an alternative process for agreeing to settle that claim. If you think about that in a practical sense, it’s not impossible to imagine an employer having a claim come before them; the employee and the employer sharing a view that the process set out in this bill is very heavy, is cumbersome, involves multiple steps, and that they may themselves say, “Well, let’s simplify things. Let’s think of an alternative way of doing it.” It is possible that those two parties could agree on a simpler way of doing things. This section of the bill had simply provided that they could enter a written agreement to do this in an alternative and, one would presume, simpler way.

So that was in the bill that emerged from select committee. This SOP specifically removes that. It seems to me like an extremely inflexible approach. Why wouldn’t we allow employers and employees or unions to agree on a different process to follow if they believe that it would be a quicker and more efficient way of reaching a resolution? Our goal here with this bill is to have pay equity claims fairly addressed, and it doesn’t seem to me that that section is a barrier to that. In fact, it could expedite it. So I’d invite the Minister’s comments.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Thank you for the questions. In response to the first, as I laid out in my opening statements, there were substantial changes made following the select committee process due to requests from our two key social partners: the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and BusinessNZ. Now, I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee. I think the select committee did a very good job, but the view was taken following that by the social partners that it would make a lot more sense to have the bill more aligned with the Employment Relations Act, and that’s why we took the time to make those substantive changes, but in very close consultation with BusinessNZ and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions.

In response to the second question, I have a lot of sympathy for the view that an alternative process would just allow more flexibility; however, after much discussion, the reason that it was removed is because there was the potential for it to undermine the very process that we’re setting out, and potentially an unscrupulous employer might approach a small group of employees and propose a different process that was not as robust, that would not achieve the good pay equity claims, and then would make it more difficult for the women or the people working in those jobs to achieve good pay equity outcomes. So what has been done is—and we have looked at this—there are a lot of ways in which the process can be streamlined and the work that’s done can be built upon throughout the bargaining process so that, once certain pay equity claims have been taken, other workforces in a similar position can take what has been learned from a settlement and apply it to their own claim.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This is not a bill I envisaged taking a call on, and I don’t have any problem with the parameters of the bill. I think the idea and the ideals of it are excellent. The thing that amazes me is that the Supplementary Order Paper is double the size of the bill. I don’t understand that, for a start.

The other thing I want to say is that, where I come from, I think equal work for equal pay is absolutely how the world should work, and I watch down on the farm, where you get the odd shearer that comes along who will get paid $3.20 a sheep or whatever it is, whatever they are, whoever they are, and I think that’s how it should be. The thing that absolutely amazes me and I want to ask the Minister about is what we are doing at half past 11 on whatever night it is—Thursday night, I think it is—dragging a whole lot of staff out in the middle of the night to discuss a bill that is, in my view, of significant importance. Now, whatever the economics of it are is irrelevant; the fact is that this is an important bill, and I’ve never seen the final of the Super 12 or the Cricket World Cup played in the middle of the night with no one watching it and no one listening to it.

So we’ve got this piece of legislation that’s probably quite important in the terms of New Zealand Inc. and we’re debating it at 25 past 11 on a Thursday night. That’s my question, Minister: what on earth are we doing with a piece of legislation that we think’s important, sticking it through the House with no one in the world listening to it but us and no one in the world taking any notice of what we say but us, at 25 past 11 at night? Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. I just want to thank the Minister for her really good, detailed answers. I’ve got another quite technical one, sorry. Now, new section 13FF is around the affected employers automatically covered by union claims. My interpretation of this is that there could be a case where employees have raised and/or settled a pay equity claim with an employer, which would’ve involved every affected employee being notified of the claim with an option to join it, and then, at some point in the future, a union could raise a claim against the same employer relating to the same work. Is that a correct interpretation? Am I right in assuming that? And why is the system set up so that an employer could have two consecutive claims laid—if that is the correct interpretation?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, just checking that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Does anyone want to take a call? Otherwise, I can put the question.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I do think it’s in the interests of the good flow and exchange of information that’s been occurring in this committee stage that we make sure the Minister in the chair, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, has an opportunity to address the question put by Erica Stanford.

My question about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and the discussions that have led to it relates to the question of which claims the Minister is actually predicting will be made under this bill when it’s passed, because I anticipate that, in the conversations that have been had with the social partners, with the union and with BusinessNZ, there has been discussion about how this will apply in practice. Earlier, my colleague asked, “Well, how will this work if it’s cutting across multiple small businesses?” Is this more likely to be claims that are made to the Government, to major employers? Has there been any discussion of which claims are likely to occur over the next 12 months, over the next 24 months? Is there a sense in any way that those have been tested against this process? Has there been a discussion about how this might work practically, because, of course, we haven’t had the opportunity that a select committee process would normally provide to have submitters say, “Well, this is how we think that process would work for us when it comes to this SOP.”?

So, what I’m testing here is: has this SOP been tested in the practical reality of some of the likely claims that could occur? And, if the Minister could give us some sense of what those claims might be and why this approach will work, I think that would be particularly useful in informing members about the robustness of the process outlined.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Thanks for the questions. In response to the first question, from Erica Stanford, my understanding is that it will be highly unlikely that an employer would face a subsequent claim. So, the way that this has been set up, a union raises a claim against an employer about a particular group of employees who do substantially similar work. Those that are members of the union and those who are not members of the union are automatically included in the claim.

It would be possible for employees to opt out at several different stages of the process if for some reason they felt that they didn’t want to be part of it. We felt that was really important because you can’t really compel people to be a part of this union process if they don’t want to be. In that case, they could potentially raise their own individual claim with the employer, but I think it would be highly unlikely because—yes, I think it would be unlikely. There is the possibility for that to happen, but I think it’s very, very unlikely and the way this has been set up is to kind of facilitate workers who are all in one type of work to be able to progress through the process together and to get the benefits of the settlement together, which is what, effectively, happened with the care and support workers. Although that was through a completely different process that was through the courts, it was extended to—in fact, the majority of the workers, I believe, who received the benefits of the settlement were not members of the union that raised the claim.

In response to Nicola Willis’ question, this process laid out in the Supplementary Order Paper has already actively been tested. For the last two years, the Government has been engaging in a number of pay equity claims with public sector employees, and these are claims that have been raised by unions, and it is very much working through this process; so, in a way, the legislation is mirroring the process we’ve already been testing. As for what would be likely future claims, I think that question would be best directed to the unions.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): The Minister for Women has, of course, outlined public sector claims that have been processed over the past couple of years and has suggested that they are a model for how these might progress in future. I think my colleague earlier outlined the essence of my question, which is: what about where it’s not quite so simple as having the one State employer, which is quite a defining feature of some of the claims that have progressed in recent times? What about occupations that are dispersed over multiple employers in the private sector—essentially, a more complicated scenario—and will this model apply so readily in those instances? Again, are there instances that have been considered by advisers and by the Government in developing this process that envisage a non-State employer in the bargaining process?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): I wouldn’t say that all of the claims that we’re currently working through that relate to public sector employees are simple or straightforward or just have one employer. You know, particularly within the health workforce, there are a number of different employers; so, you know, there are DHBs and there’s been a multi-employer pay equity claim that the unions are working on—and I’m just struggling to recall exactly what stage that’s at—clerical and admin, which spans across many, many different employers.

So I do think this process is world leading. The goal of it is to have a non-adversarial approach so that pay equity doesn’t have to be litigated in the courts necessarily. It’s to set out the kind of framework which makes it very clear and transparent what the expectations around the process are. And I think that we will continue to learn as we move through this about what works and what doesn’t. But I do think that it’s going to be a kind of living process. I think the aims of it are very, very good and so far we’ve seen some good outcomes, but I expect we’ll be seeing a lot more in the next few years.

For Ian McKelvie’s question—I forgot to address that. Well, you know, I wouldn’t say it’s ideal, from my perspective, to be the Minister in the chair at 11.30 p.m. on—yes, this is still Thursday, still Thursday this week. This is an important piece of legislation. That’s why it’s so important to us that the Government makes progress on this, particularly when there is support across the House, and that’s how we’ve ended up where we’ve ended up.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave of the House to apologise to the Minister. I’ve had three texts telling me people are listening to what went on in the House!

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I don’t think we need to have leave of the House to do that, but I’m sure the committee of the whole House thanks you. Are there any more?

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 548 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 40.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 548 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 40.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 548 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 40.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 548 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Schedule 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 40.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 548 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Clause 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Equal Pay Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: I move, That the Equal Pay Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This Equal Pay Amendment Bill marks an important step in the journey towards workplace gender equality, building on the Equal Pay Act to make it easier for women to ensure they are paid fairly for their work. Pay equity is about the principle that women and men should be paid the same for work that is of equal value. It’s a simple idea but, unfortunately, one that has not yet been achieved, despite it being a priority of Kate Sheppard so many decades ago.

This bill is not just about women and men who sit next to each other in the same workplace doing the same job; it’s about fixing the injustice of female-dominated workforces being paid less than male-dominated workforces to do work that requires a similar level of skill, effort, and education.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, we have had a long history of paying female-dominated workforces less. Because this has gone on so long, it has become normalised, invisible to many, and extremely difficult for any one woman to change for herself. To solve this, we need to rewrite the rules so that women are supported and empowered to negotiate equal pay for work of equal value.

While women have been able to take their employers to court in the past and win, the reality is this is too high a bar for many women and for many workforces. It forces employees and employers into a costly, protracted, and adversarial situation. This bill moves pay equity negotiations from the court to the bargaining table. It creates a framework and a set of rules to support female-dominated workforces and their employers to identify and correct pay imbalances.

This process is based on the evidence. It is fair and reasonable for employers and workers alike. We all do better when people are properly valued and supported to do their work, especially the caring work that has not often been highly valued in our society. I think we saw a perfect example of that during the level 4 COVID-19 lockdown, when many of our essential workers, it turned out, were some of the lowest-paid workers, and yet they were the ones who enabled our society to continue functioning in the middle of a crisis.

So this bill lowers the bar for historically female-dominated workforces to raise a pay equity claim by advising their employer in writing that they consider their work is undervalued. This process makes court an avenue of last resort for workforces and employers, rather than the first step, and I’m really proud that we’re progressing a bill that is fair to both employees and employers.

The process set out in this bill has already been used in the State sector, which has allowed us to see the impact it can have on people’s lives. Recently, teacher-aides—a hard-working, skilled, but historically underpaid profession—negotiated a settlement for over 22,000 employees. This settlement secured an extra $178 a week in remuneration for the lowest-paid teacher-aides.

Care and support workers also recently settled their pay equity claim, and the comments from those women highlight the real-world benefits these settlements have on people’s lives. One woman who benefited from this settlement told us “Now, I am able to save for my son’s future.” Another said, “It means I don’t have to work myself into the ground, and now I get to see my family.” Another said, “It has made it easier to pay the bills and has given me and my child a better quality of life.” We’re not talking about dramatic changes, but we are talking about change that is fair and that allows people to be paid to live dignified lives, and that is something all of us in this House should be proud of.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the expertise and work put into making this bill what it is today: the tripartite working group who agreed the principles that guide this bill; all those who made submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee, with some of them sharing what must have been very difficult experiences; the input from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and BusinessNZ; and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway, who did significant work on the bill; the officials and the many women who wrote to me to share their views on this important issue; and, of course, Kristine Bartlett, whose campaign for equitable pay laid the groundwork for this legislation.

There is still work to do to close the gender pay gap, especially the ethnic pay gaps, and to ensure all women and all people are treated equitably in the paid workforce. There is also work to do to recognise the unpaid work that is predominantly performed by women. This bill is an important milestone, and we can do even more. But, this evening, I’m very proud of where we have got to, and I look forward to the passing of this bill.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I’m proud to stand in this House tonight and say that National will support this final reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. And I’m proud that our party has contributed to crafting this legislation and bringing it to the House. We support the simple concept that people should be paid the same for the same work, regardless of their gender, and we support the equally important concept that, if someone has been doing work and there are reasonable grounds to believe that that work has been historically undervalued based on their gender and has been underpaid because of that, they should be able to make a pay equity claim. So we support this bill, but I do want to put on the record some regrets that we have about the way that this legislation has come through this House.

The first regret I have is around the unnecessary delay in finalising the framework that this bill provides. Because what it does, as the Minister outlined in her speech, is provide a more effective bargaining framework to resolve pay equity claims so they need not all go to court. Of course, this was a process that National kicked off in the last Government, with recommendations coming from the joint working group on pay equity in 2016. A bill was drafted, things were ready to go, there was a change of Government. So my colleague Denise Lee, who believes very passionately in the concept of equal pay and pay equity, took a member’s bill to this Parliament to progress pay equity in the absence of the new Government picking up where National had left off. And I think it is of continuing shame to the members opposite that, when Denise Lee’s bill was picked from the ballot and came to this House, and with the provision of a very sound framework for equal pay and pay equity bargaining, members opposite chose not to act in good faith.

What they could’ve done is pick that bill up in 2018, and they could’ve taken it to the select committee and made amendments to it. Instead, what they did was they rejected that bill entirely in what I think was a piece of unnecessary partisan politics on an issue that need not require that. What that meant was we then waited and waited for a bill to be introduced, and, of course, the bill was symbolically introduced at the anniversary of women’s suffrage, which is nice in terms of the timing of the press release but, actually, just amounted to delay. And what we have seen since is ongoing delay. So, here we are, in the last three-week session of this Parliament, and, finally, this bill is being passed.

I do also want to note—and it’s going to be at midnight when it passes, I think. I do also want to note that a very substantial Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) has been tabled, amending the bill quite significantly. I note the constructive approach of the Minister, who said that she has been working behind the scenes with BusinessNZ and the unions on that SOP, but I do want to put on the record my concern that that SOP hasn’t been tested via the select committee process—it hasn’t been tested by public submission, by public questioning; members of the public haven’t had the opportunity to have their say on what’s in that SOP. The reason I raise that concern is there is always a risk when legislation is passed in this way, late at night, with SOPs that haven’t been responded to, that there are remaining—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to interrupt the member. This is a third reading. The SOP passed through the committee of the whole House. This is the time to debate the bill as accepted by the committee of the whole House, not to relitigate the actual SOPs or the process. I’ve given the member a very long time to try to get all of that that she said—and she can get it in order, but she needs to do that now.

NICOLA WILLIS: The reason this matters is, in commenting on the final form of this bill, there is always going to be a concern that there is something in this bill that members on both sides of the House have missed that will create an issue into the future. So I want to put on the record that we are hopeful this process works as well as possible for all parties to it. We want to see women being able to progress their claims for pay equity as easily as possible, and we want to see employers being engaged in good faith in that process to address claims. But, should there be issues and should there be problems, I want it noted that the process may have contributed to those issues.

I want to end my contribution by saying that, actually, this is an important moment. Equal pay matters. We still have an outstanding gender pay gap in this country. We all, I believe, want to live in a country and a world in which men and women have equal opportunities, are equally rewarded for their work, and are able to progress and fulfil their own potential to the maximum extent possible. This legislation provides a further step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. I want to put on the Hansard the name of Rachael Baxter-Mackay, one of the women who actually signed the court action so that social workers would enter the process to create a standard of equal pay compared to their male counterparts inside the world of skills. It is 10 to midnight on a Thursday night and something of real importance is about to happen, and that is that women will finally see themselves and their skills measured against their male counterparts. The fact that we need legislation to make sure that they are measured for their skills against males who have the same distresses me. The fact that the National Party now finds themselves able to support that at third reading, even though at the committee of the whole House stage they voted against every amendment to do so, is a good thing. But they do so at 10 to midnight on a Thursday night.

We should not require ourselves to be measured against men. We should be recognised for our skills as women inside the workforce, but, finally, after a debacle in the last Parliament, where the National Party put hoops and barriers in the way of women to be able to be recognised and the value that they bring to society, finally, at 10 to midnight, we are finally going to pass a piece of legislation that will write what we have all known for decades. So I don’t know how to make this more important, but to say that New Zealand First not only commends this bill to the House, it commends every woman who has stood throughout the decades to get us to this point, including Rachael Baxter-Mackay, who put her name on a court case to take this forward to get the Government to recognise that women need to be paid equally for their skills. Kia ora.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I’m very pleased this evening to take what will be a very short call on the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, and I say “a very short call” because I understand that we want to get this bill passed tonight and I think that we should.

The dreams I have for my daughter and my grandchildren—one day, when I have them, hopefully—is that they will grow up in a country where the work that they do is equally valued and compensated equally to that of their male counterparts. This bill sets out the framework that we will achieve that outcome.

I want to acknowledge tonight the Minister, Julie Anne Genter, who has done an exceptional job. She did an exceptional job earlier answering our questions and has done a great job shepherding this bill through the House, and I commend her for that. She’s been outstanding.

I also wanted to do a mention of my colleague Denise Lee, who has done an exceptional amount of work on our side of the House on this bill. We know, as was noted earlier, that she brought a member’s bill to the House in her name to try and progress this legislation more quickly through the House. It was a frustration of hers that this wasn’t being progressed as quickly as it could have been. We note that the gender pay gap has remained the same for the last three years, which just isn’t good enough.

But we are here tonight to pass this bill so that we can address that imbalance so that, for women of today, our children and our grandchildren will grow up in a country where their work is valued and paid and compensated fairly and in accordance with that of their male counterparts. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at the third reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill, as I have at the other two readings. I think that the bill is, as many have said, one whose time has come. These have been very slow, very small steps towards something that is inevitable. This bill makes a contribution to that.

As far as I’m concerned, when I look at the way in which this country has managed its pay equity, this is another step along the way in the right direction. It’s been a long time coming. It’s taken quite a lot of time. I find it extraordinary that, in the midst of COVID recovery challenges and the issues facing the economy, a bill of this kind is—in the same way as the previous three bills—being done under urgency at six minutes to midnight on a Thursday night. It is unnecessary and bizarre and reflects badly on the way that the Government has organised its legislative programme.

Hon Tracey Martin: It could have been done in nine years under a National Government, of course.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Is that a Chihuahua I hear in the corner of the Chamber? We’ve heard enough of that strange noise, and I guess after the dinner break and at this time of night, some members have become tired and emotional. We’ll ignore them as we always do. But equal pay—

Hon Tracey Martin: Nice way to devalue contributions.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —is the principle here, “Madam Chihuahua” on the other side, and that is a principle that is worth doing and worth talking about.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! I’m on my feet. No, you cannot refer to another member of the House in that manner. I don’t know who you were speaking about, but if it’s a member of the House, you must not do that.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Duly noted. Thank you. Getting back to the substance of this bill, which we support—we don’t support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) or some of the nonsense that has been said around the bill. But the principle is there: the unlawful discrimination claims—the things that we’ve all fought and talked about for a number of years. This is not a bill that needs to take up any further time; it has taken quite enough time thanks to the slackness of this Government to get to the stage where it is today. So I commend the bill to the House, but we oppose SOP 548 for very good reason that has been extensively covered already, and we will leave it at that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an absolute privilege to take a short call on this bill. The member who just resumed her seat, Maggie Barry, in a previous debate commended Kristine Bartlett on her tenacity going through these years of court cases. That was more than a little disingenuous, because the National Party previously prevented Kristine Bartlett and her union from actually settling. So that comment from that member was an absolutely disingenuous comment.

But I would like to focus on the positive. This is, tonight, a very historic moment. This bill has been a very long time in the making, and I’m glad that at midnight we are passing a bill that is a start to addressing the unacceptable gender pay gap that still exists, after decades of discrimination and prejudice in female-dominated industries. Luckily, we’re not passing the National Party’s bill that they tried to pass, push through, in 2017, trying to prevent women from ever getting to pay equity, because that’s what that bill would have done, and the member’s bill was an exact copy—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! We are debating the third reading of this bill, not another bill.

MARJA LUBECK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is absolutely the right way to start addressing that unacceptable pay gap that still exists. So, in this bill, we are now seeing a tidy-up, where we’re setting a lower threshold to get claims through in a simpler and more accessible way for women to progress those claims.

I would like to congratulate all the women and all the people that have been fighting for so many years for pay equity—the Ministers and officials who have worked tirelessly on this piece of legislation, tidied up all the many complex issues that there were to tidy up. They have done excellent work in this legislation, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): In light of the very good progress that the House has made, I would move that the House duly suspend for the evening—I would seek leave.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes, but you realise that will end urgency?

MICHAEL WOOD: I do now, but it may be that by this time—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you seeking leave that we—I will put the House in—we’re almost at midnight. I think the way forward is that I will put the House in committee, and the committee will resume at 9.00 a.m.

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3)

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The committee is suspended until 9 a.m.

Sitting suspended from 12 a.m. to 9 a.m.

WEDNESDAY, 22 JULY 2020

(continued on Friday, 24 July 2020)

Bills

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3)

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one through the committee stages.

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

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Just a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, on the way through in this committee stage, and one of them is a question around the person who is deemed to be put on the milk price committee. I just have some questions around that person and to how the Minister sees that role being enacted; and, secondly, does that person have deemed director responsibilities?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to answer any questions that come from the committee. Can I just say up front, look, I appreciate the process through the select committee, and after the select committee, actually, dealing with parties to get general consensus on the passage of this dairy industry restructuring legislation.

On the milk price panel, there is a view that it needs to be more robust and more independent. I guess the view and the—I guess—suspicion of independents is that it has been driven very much by Fonterra influence. I think it’s important both for Fonterra and for the whole dairy industry and for the milk price that there is a clear understanding that there is an independent, who will be appointed by the Minister, who has obligation to the process first and foremost. That is to just ensure that the information brought to the panel is considered objectively and the process of consideration—not to determine what the outcome is. That is indeed for the panel, but having a clear independent, appointed by the Minister, I think will give some reassurance to everyone across the dairy industry.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you. So now on that note—because, you know, we do need some protections around a number of things, I think. My next question is—in this bill, there is a clause which helps Fonterra to be able to refuse a farmer if there’s an issue of environment or animal welfare. Now, I’m just wondering what protections there might be in there for farmers if Fonterra get something wrong, and also, you know, if there’s an element of Fonterra making a mistake around that issue, what protections there are for farmers, because a mistake can easily be made.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): This piece of legislation doesn’t provide a legal process for review or redress, but, of course, through normal commerce law, contractual law, of course, there will be the right of any farmer to go and challenge a determination. While the bill does give Fonterra discretion, then clearly the discretion, as laid out in—in terms of environmental judgment, then there would be a process through normal courts of law and contract law for a farmer to challenge that. I appreciate that it may not be clear enough for people.

We are offering Fonterra an opportunity to exercise discretion, but we expect that they would do that in all fairness to everyone involved. They are still a dominant player in the dairy industry. Independent companies have come to me, and they are not entirely comfortable with the passage of this, the Supplementary Order Paper 547 that, effectively, removes open entry, because that enabled an insurance policy for farmers who would opt to supply the independents and then had the option to come back. They are fearful that Fonterra, through this legislation, may, I guess, exercise its dominant position, be a bully.

We—that is, Parliament—will always be keeping an eye on Fonterra. I think it’s important that we state that clearly. They are an entity of legislation that—nowhere else in our economy would we allow a player to be 80 percent, or thereabouts, of a market. As the legislation was originally designed, some competitive tension is necessary, and, indeed, for Fonterra farmers, they need to have benchmarking with the independents. So we are trying to find the right balance of allowing Fonterra some discretion but then always qualifying that with oversight of normal commerce legislation and protections for anyone through our economy and commerce.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you. A question around—so I wasn’t on the committee when this legislation went through the committee, but I did sit on it for a fair proportion of the time. One of the major issues we had was around—I mean, I’m really comfortable with the way the open-entry thing has been dealt with, but there were questions around sharemilkers, and I’d just like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, to comment on whether he feels like—you know, we tried to define what it looked like for new entrants or people who hadn’t had a major share in our farming entity before, because sharemilkers are the life blood of our industry, and the last thing we want is for them to be blocked out.

It was quite a contentious thing to try and get—you know, we all agreed we wanted to do something, but if you define it, you start to leave somebody out. So I guess what I’m asking you, Minister, is do you feel that the legislation and the Supplementary Order Paper we’ve currently got will be—that there won’t be any issues with sharemilkers in the future with regards to new entrants being able to come into Fonterra?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. I said to the Primary Production Committee when we introduced the bill that there was no clear direction from this Government as to, you know, what we thought was the absolute best way forward. This is a complex area, trying to find the right balance between competitive pressure and not undermining, you know, what is our biggest investment in a New Zealand company and what is the most significant industry, particularly post-COVID.

And so the select committee went through that quite comprehensively, and came back with a recommendation that consideration should be given for new farms, for people coming into the industry. And that was a fair point. But they also—and their advice back to me said that this is a tricky area to define. We went through that with our coalition partners—New Zealand First, the Greens, and consultation with the National Party—and did, I guess, agree that the definition of a new farmer was so complex that it was likely to be gamed in the future and that we were better off, through what we have come up with, clearly stating in this House, with the passage of this legislation, that we expect that Fonterra won’t unfairly block someone from coming into the industry. If they were to purchase a farm from someone who had been a supplier of Fonterra, then that new farmer, under what might have been the new definition, that person coming in had a reasonable expectation that they would be able to continue to supply Fonterra.

And that is indeed what we have come—and there’s been some to-ing and fro-ing on the wording, but, you know, the ongoing viability of that farm and what someone paid for that farm is based on a reasonable expectation that they will continue to supply Fonterra. So we, I think, have come to a position, as best we can—and it may be challenged in the future, perhaps, we can’t prevent that, but I think we’ve got it about right, and new people will be able to come in, and if it was a dairy platform, there’s a reasonable expectation that, of course, given the conditions around environmental obligations, animal welfare and all of that, the person be a good farmer.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask two blocks of questions of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor. I do so acknowledging that the number of times the dairy industry restructuring legislation has been before the House, it’s been largely a bipartisan issue, whereby the two major parties, anyway, have a genuine interest in the importance of the dairy industry to New Zealand and the significance of Fonterra as our biggest company, and the fact that Fonterra’s performance actually affects the livelihood and standard of living of every New Zealander.

My first question is in relation to the milk price panel and the fact that, in this legislation, or the first time the Government has the ability to appoint somebody, one person will be on a panel, then, of five, as the milk price is determined. My questions are: what are the qualifications that the Minister has in mind for that appointment? What sort of person are we looking at? Are we looking at a person with an economic background, for example? What, then, is the process for appointment of that person? Is it just a normal Government appointment—Cabinet appointments and honours committee (APH) process initially? And, finally, before the appointment is finally made, what’s the consultation process? Is the Minister required to consult with the dairy industry, dairy farmers, with the company Fonterra, and, in fact, with other companies before that appointment is finally made? So that’s my first block of questions for the Minister.

My second issue is the issue which he’s just addressed in relation to questions from Barbara Kuriger regarding the tricky issue they had in ending open entry, open exit and ensuring that this did not disadvantage new potential entrants into the industry. Whilst I understand—I wasn’t on the Primary Production Committee, as I say—the select committee spent some time trying to come up with suitable wording, it went back from the select committee to the Government for them to have a look at it, and I think, correctly, the Government said, “Listen, this wording that you’ve arrived at, we know the intent of what you’re trying to do, but the wording you’ve arrived at in fact is too woolly. It’s not definitive enough.” Therefore, the Government, or the Minister, has tried very hard to come up with replacement wording—new section 73(3A) set out in clause 20B of Supplementary Order Paper 547. My question, in looking at this wording—I know exactly what the Minister’s attempting to do, but it is still, in effect, fairly undefined. Fonterra has to have regard to “(a) the effect … on the ongoing viability of the farm to which the application relates, if new co-op had a supply agreement in respect of the farm at any time in the previous season;”.

It’s not very exact wording, Minister. Fonterra has to have a look at the land-use opportunities available to the applicant. It means that somebody entering the industry expecting to be able to become a supplier to Fonterra—the very decision that person is making in buying the farm is with the expectation that he or she will be a Fonterra supplier, and then they’ve got to step through this regime, which, while I accept the Minister’s made every attempt to define it, still lacks exactitude. I’d like the Minister to comment on those couple of points.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Hon David Carter raises a fair question. It is virtually impossible to be exact in this area. The intent, of course, as we understand, is that if someone buys a farm and converts it and then says that, you know, “This is the best land use. I have an expectation of Fonterra picking it up.”—no, they shouldn’t. I guess that’s what we’re trying to achieve. But if someone buys a farm in a similar area that has been a dairy platform, they paid a price per hectare on the basis that it produces dairy, then there’s a reasonable expectation that Fonterra should. Can I say that, as officials reminded me, I referred to the Commerce Commission’s oversight, but, in fact, section 120 of the Act provides access to Commerce Commission protection and review of any decision by Fonterra. So it is in the legislation there. Look, I accept that.

Can I go back to the issue of the milk price panel. In fact, I nominate a person but it’s still appointed by Fonterra. That may not give comfort to all the independents, but the process is one still of Fonterra appointing the milk price panel, but a nominee will come from the Minister. I would notify probably through APH, but it’s not, strictly speaking, a legal appointment by the Minister; it’s a nominee from the Minister. The skills of that person, in my view, as the member would know, as a Minister—we make judgments all the time, and I would hope that any Minister into the future gets the right mix of skills. I imagine they are audit skills. They are commerce skills, with some knowledge of, perhaps, the dairy industry. It may or may not be appropriate, but trying to achieve a fair outcome in what is possibly one of the most contentious areas of the dairy industry, which is that milk price. The independents have said for a long time that Fonterra has adjusted the milk price to serve its own purpose. We want to make sure that, indeed, its obligation to establish that milk price is a fair process. Then the companies can build off the opportunities from that.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): A very quick supplementary question to that. What the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, is saying there is the Government appointee to the milk price panel is, effectively, a nominee of the Minister to the panel, the rest of the members obviously being appointments by Fonterra. My question then is, having made the nomination, I assume the panel or Fonterra must accept that nomination, so it’s an appointment rather than a nomination, I’d suggest. We haven’t really had confirmation as to the consultation process that’s involved in making that nomination. I accept it presumably goes through an APH process, but, more importantly, if the Minister was in the unlikely event in the position to continue after the election on 19 September, and he’s moving to make this nomination, what process would he undertake in the way of consulting with the industry before making that nomination? Or would he simply have a name, run it through an APH process, nominate it to Fonterra for the panel and then the expectation, in fact the outcome, is that person is then on the panel?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Just to clarify, thank you, Madam Chair. It doesn’t require an APH process—it does not. So it’s a fair question around consultation. In the end, it will be the judgment of the Minister, who, I would always hope, is doing the best thing for the dairy industry across the board and would appoint someone with the right mix of skills. Ultimately, that’s the judgment that many of us as Ministers, as you would know, make from time to time or, in fact, quite often. We must trust this democratic process here in the appointment by a Minister who has the right objectives for the dairy industry to appoint the best person for the job.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): So can I just have another supplementary on that? Does the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor foresee that it could be a possibility at some point in the future where the Minister nominates someone and Fonterra actually does not appoint that person?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Indeed, that’s a possibility, but I would assume that Fonterra should share the objectives of what we’re trying to achieve here. If they were to block that and the perception was that they wanted to dominate what should be a fair and objective process, then I’d suggest that would push back on them. In the end, we’re trying to find the right balance between what is a very dominant player and an industry champion, Fonterra—a national icon, I guess—but we have to keep some tension on them to ensure that they operate well. There’d be many across our economy who say that Fonterra hasn’t operated as well as it should have. We’re not reforming the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act in this situation, or the legislation governing the dairy industry, but we are changing it and making changes in the hope that we’ll get better and more consistent outcomes for Fonterra, for our economy, and for indeed the farmers’ suppliers.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that’s a really interesting point, and it’ll be interesting to see how that actually plays out if we do get to the situation where, for some reason in the future, Fonterra chose not to accept an appointment, and we would go from there. But look, I really wanted to come back to that new entry clause, because for me that’s a biggie. I’ve always been passionate about the young farmers entering the industry. There are a number of challenges. Over a period of time now, it seems to have become more difficult; that pathway is not quite what it used to be. So I’d be really concerned about restricting that any further.

I note the wording here. I just wanted to get some clarity from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor, around Supplementary Order Paper 547 replacement section 73(3A)(a), set out in clause 20B, where it says, “the effect of its decision on the ongoing viability of the farm to which the application relates, if new co-op had a supply agreement in respect of the farm … in the previous season;”. So is that saying that they only have to consider that if Fonterra had a supply agreement on that farm, irrespective of whether or not it was a dairy farm? So if a young farmer, for example, comes along, buys a farm that may not be a Fonterra supplier but has previously managed or been an equity manager, potentially—whatever structure they’ve come from on Fonterra farms—wishes to supply Fonterra, but the farm had been supplying another processor, does that mean that Fonterra no longer have to consider that in this situation because of the wording there saying that it is only in respect of a farm they’ve had a supply agreement with?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, that’s a very fair point. No, if it’s supplied another company there would be no obligation for Fonterra to pick that up; that’s clearly the intent of this. As I say, it’s a bit vague; it’s not exact. In my view, Fonterra will want every drop of milk it can get its hands on, as will most other companies. So I don’t think that there will be lack of demand for the milk from a farm that has been a dairy farm. But the reality is that if a farmer moves to supply another company, then there’s no legal obligation for Fonterra to take back supply from that farm. So someone purchasing that farm has to understand that. That’s, I guess, the issue: the independents.

I’d like to put on record the fact that they fear that the dominant position of Fonterra may lead to bullying, as I say, and threats to a farmer—and it may be realistic—that is, that if you leave Fonterra as a company and you go to supply an independent, then there’s no automatic right to come back to it. Indeed, that’s what the intent of this change is, but they fear that that might be overplayed, and that farmers who might be forced—and there have been many situations where banks, in fact, have told farmers to sell their shares and lower their debt and supply another company.

So that’s, perhaps, an unfair situation. Should there be an obligation for Fonterra to take that milk back? This legislation says no. In my view, Fonterra, in reasonable situations, will probably take back that supply, which is, I guess, some of the concerns of the independents. We don’t want farmers to be locked in either way. We do want some flexibility. But the situation that we’ve had with open entry, of course, is that Fonterra has been obliged to provide capacity for farmers who might come back.

One of the big challenges for the dairy industry is environmental management, and we have seen the odd season, of course, where milk has had to be dumped because there hasn’t been capacity to process. There will always be seasonal fluctuations in the volume of milk, so every company will have to have some headroom. What I would like to put on record is the hope that there will be cooperation between companies. Historically, we’ve seen Fonterra and its predecessors work with companies like Tātua that are smaller and, perhaps, more fragile and exposed. There’s been cooperation when seasonal variation has occurred—they’ve been prepared to take surplus milk into the plants and process that.

There have been incidents more recently where Fonterra hasn’t always been as cooperative and prepared to take some of the milk from other companies. I can refer to Westland when sometimes we have events where, actually, plants have to shut down. Ensuring that there’s fairness—of course there has to be, I guess, commercial returns. No one’s saying that shouldn’t occur, but I would expect this Parliament to look at the legislation again if we were to see a situation where a company, through no fault of its own, was unable to process milk, that they asked Fonterra, who had the capacity to process that milk, then Fonterra said no, resulting in, I guess, a degradation of the dairy industry’s reputation or an environmental impact or some other negative that was unnecessary.

This industry has been built on cooperation, on the companies that came together to form Fonterra. Just because it has about 80 percent of the industry does not mean that it should then start to dictate to other farmers and other companies. Yes, there are international companies that have come in, taken the 50 million litres of milk, and built up, and sometimes competed with Fonterra, but I’d suggest that there’s enough opportunity across the world in the supply of high-quality dairy products that they don’t need to compete with one another in that market place.

So we hope that this legislation, while providing more discretion to Fonterra, doesn’t result in a domination that undermines the cooperation that has given us the success to date and that will be needed into the future as we develop and as we see companies invest in high-value products and that we see us move up the value chain, which is what this Government and, I’m sure, all people in this Parliament would like to see from the dairy industry.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thanks for that clarity, Minister O’Connor. I guess the concern is that for a number of younger farmers, often that first farm purchase is not in the prime tier 1 country—it might be a little further out from an affordability perspective. So that may potentially raise some concerns for a company around distance to the factory from their desire to collect that supply, potentially. So that was really where I was coming from with that. I don’t want to see young farmers prejudiced and not able to get in off the back of that if, for whatever reason, the other company that may have been taking this supply agreement with that farm then chose not to continue with a new operator. I guess there’s an element of due diligence that has to come into play there for a potential purchaser, and we’ll certainly see how that plays out over time.

But just in relation to your second point as well around the capacity within different processing plants, I think that’s an important consideration. And certainly what we’ve heard and the reason we’re working through this process is that there have been a number of issues around getting that balance right—making sure that we aren’t over-invested in stainless steel all around the country, but at the same time matching the demand where necessary and those seasonal fluctuations are being catered for. I agree that if Fonterra’s in a position that they can take that supply, well, they should within reason. There’s still a commercial element to that as well. And if the other company is wanting them to process it on their behalf, the question would be: why? Is it simply a capacity issue? Well, then that’s maybe a bit different. But if it’s a cost or volume consideration, then I think it would be unfair to expect Fonterra to have to process that if their own view was also that it was not competitive for them to do so.

I agree though that fundamentally it’s that cooperative principle. So you would hope they would all be working together, but, at the same time, there are some commercial realities with that. So yeah, look, I just want to reiterate my concern, but also noting that it is pretty difficult to get to a position where we can have a defined answer for that, and I think it’s important that we are making clear our intent here in that, and we’ll see where it plays out, I suppose.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 547 in the name of the Hon Damien O’Connor be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3) with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to, firstly, acknowledge your tenure in this House and your contribution to Parliament. I apologise; I wasn’t able to be here for your valedictory, but I acknowledge that and say I don’t have any food in my mouth this time.

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

The bill represents a balanced approach to addressing changing circumstances in a dynamic industry and a changing global context. The bill was introduced in 2019 and considered by the Primary Production Committee, which reported back in March 2020. It was read a second time in July this year. I’d like to acknowledge the very good work and the cooperation of the Primary Production Committee.

As I noted in the second reading debate, the bill has undergone some substantial changes since its introduction. This is in part a response to a changing context. Since the bill was introduced, the world has undergone a major shock as a result of the COVID19 pandemic. That event highlighted the importance of New Zealand primary industries in supporting New Zealanders by providing food and new sources of employment and also in supporting our economic wellbeing. New Zealand’s food exports kept up the flow of export earnings, and the primary industries are now taking their rightful place in our economic recovery. It is therefore essential that the dairy industry has the right regulatory settings to support it.

We want to see a strong and efficient dairy sector that meets the needs of farmers, consumers, and the economy as a whole. That’s why the bill has evolved since its introduction. The Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (DIRA) regulates Fonterra. Fonterra is a key player in domestic and global dairy markets. We want to see a strong and efficient Fonterra with a strong and efficient dairy industry. We also want to ensure that farmers have pathways for their milk to reach domestic and global markets through an efficient dairy processing sector, and that they can make good choices about the use of their land, for the benefit of their farm business and the economy as a whole.

When the dira was passed, it included obligations on Fonterra that were intended to promote its efficient performance and to support new processors into entering the market. The open entry provisions in the DIRA required Fonterra to accept anyone who wanted to be a shareholder and to accept all shareholders’ milk. Over time, these requirements have created some inefficiencies. Fonterra has faced uncertainty over milk supply volumes, and, as a result, has had to invest in extra capacity to manage that uncertainty. We now have a number of other large-scale processors in the market and we cannot afford to impose continuing costs of this kind on Fonterra. That is why the bill, as it faces its third reading, has been amended to repeal the open entry requirements.

Fonterra will be free to decide, like other processors, whether or not it wants to take on new suppliers, with some conditions. At the same time, the bill balances this discretion with some of the expectations on Fonterra, as I’ve said. The bill requires that when Fonterra decides whether or not to accept an application, it must take a couple of important factors into account. The company must consider, firstly, the effect of its decision on the ongoing viability of the farm where a Fonterra farm has changed hands, and, secondly, land-use opportunities available to the applicant. The bill, therefore, balances the interests of both Fonterra and of farmers. It gives Fonterra the ability to better manage its milk supply and investment in processing capacity. It provides a pathway to a supply contract for new farmers entering the dairy sector while enabling farmers to make choices about land use.

The bill also recognises that the dairy sector has changed over time, and that regulation that made sense in 2001 is no longer required. We have removed the entitlement of large-scale processors, who are generally focused on export, to buy raw milk from Fonterra at regulated prices. This measure was implemented in 2001 to support the development of competition at a time when Fonterra controlled 96 percent of the market for farmers’ milk. We now have, as I’ve said, a number of large-scale processors around the country with their own raw milk supplies. They have demonstrated that it’s not necessary to provide large processors with regulated access to milk from Fonterra. So we have removed a requirement that is no longer needed. We have, however, ensured that processors who really need access to regulated milk can still get it. These processors are little companies that supply New Zealand domestic consumers, for the most part. They make a wide range of cheese, yoghurts, ice creams, and other speciality dairy products that provide choice and variety for New Zealanders. We want to ensure that they can keep doing that, because often the innovation comes from these small and dynamic companies.

We’ve also retained but updated provisions for Goodman Fielder to buy regulated raw milk from Fonterra if it needs to. I stress the words “if it needs to.” Since 2001, Goodman Fielder has been buying raw milk from Fonterra, but it has not been relying on the DIRA to do so. It has bought its milk under a commercially negotiated contract. So the provisions in the DIRA are there as a backstop if, in the future, Goodman Fielder cannot negotiate further contracts for raw milk or source its supplies.

I know that this has been somewhat of a controversial matter. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee questioning why we need to have some big regulatory protection for a large foreign-owned processor, and the answer is that we have to be pragmatic and to make a trade-off. We want New Zealand consumers to have reliable access to the basic dairy products—fresh milk, cheese, etc., at fair prices. So we need at least one large competitor to Fonterra. That competitor is Goodman Fielder at the moment, and the provisions in the DIRA are not there for the benefit of Goodman Fielder per se; they are there as an insurance policy for New Zealand consumers, and we will be keeping these provisions under review.

As for the remaining issues in the bill, I think that they have been well covered in the second reading, and we’ve had good discussion during the committee stage of the bill to clarify some of the points. We have tidied up some aspects of the base milk price to clarify its purpose and to make it clear that it’s a benchmark, not a regulated price that Fonterra must pay. We’ve also provided for one member, as was discussed, of Fonterra’s milk price panel to be appointed by Fonterra’s board on the nomination of the Minister of Agriculture.

The base milk price provisions in the DIRA are all about transparency. That’s why the process has to be robust and credible. The change in membership aims to strengthen that transparency, and the new member, as I say, will be nominated by the Minister, not appointed by the Minister. He or she is not the Minister’s representative but, indeed, someone who can be trusted to have a fair oversight and check on the process.

I consider that the bill provides a re-entry regime that meets the current needs and supports the role of the dairy sector in meeting the challenges that we all now face as a country. As I said at the outset, the industry and the context in which it operates is dynamic and subject to constant change, both domestically and globally. The dairy industry faces the challenge of changing consumer demands, competing alternative proteins, climate change, environmental limits, and new technology and practice. The regulatory regime will need to flex and adapt it to remain fit for purpose. For that reason, the bill reinstates provisions for a regular review that were removed in 2016, and this review is necessary as we move forward into the future.

Can I just acknowledge the good work of the Primary Production Committee in overseeing this. Can I acknowledge the cooperation of all parties in the House to get the final wording right, Finally, can I say that while Fonterra is our national champion and we are very proud of it, we need to ensure that it’s not a bully in the market place; that it does leave the door open for innovative evolution of our dairy sector; and that it does allow individual farmers or individual companies that want to, to go out and seek new markets, and that it works with them and doesn’t try to compete against them. So I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to, in speaking to this bill, reiterate what the Minister of Agriculture has just said, in that it is good to be standing here with cross-party agreement on where we’re heading with this piece of legislation.

I’d also like to just note to farmers out there, who are probably busy calving their cows at the moment rather than listening to us in Parliament this morning—and I hope it’s going really, really, well out there—that the main part of this bill is, in my mind, about repealing the open entry for farmers. That, in my mind, has been a really important thing for a very long time, because, you know, there has been this aggravation with farmers that people can leave the cooperative, which is fair—people should be able to leave the cooperative any time they wish—but that they were able to come back in but leave the other shareholders holding the baby while they left and actually come back and decide to return on the same terms. So this actually gives Fonterra a level of ability to stop people taking advantage of the good nature of the cooperative by actually choosing when to leave, but using it as a safety net to come back in. So I’m a great advocate that this has been a really good move.

We’ve talked a bit this morning in the committee stage, and we also talked about it in the Primary Production Committee, about retaining that open entry for new farmers, and while we did struggle to get absolutely the right wording around that—and it made it a bit of a difficult process—I’m really heartened with where we’ve got to in terms of the Minister stating a clear intent by this House of Parliament that that is the expectation that we all have on Fonterra, which is that new entrants will be treated fairly. At the end of the day, if we don’t have new entrants and don’t have sharemilkers and people like that being able to buy into our industry, we’re going to end up with a huge problem: we actually will end up without an industry, so it’s really critical that Fonterra goes down this path.

What I will say about this bill—there’s still a lot of good faith in this bill, and I think that’s why it’s so important that today in this House we do state some things and some expectations of Fonterra. We talked this morning about cooperation with other companies. If it got to the stage where a company had to spill milk or throw out milk and Fonterra refused to take that milk in the interests of the reputation of the industry, which should always come first, then I would be really, really disappointed. You know, there’s a level of trust going on here. We’re saying to Fonterra, “We trust you. But you have to prove that that trust is worthy.” So I wouldn’t like to see any milk spilt with games being played.

I’m concerned—well, I had a concern around the appointment to the milk price panel. I’m still a little bit concerned, and I’m heartened that the Minister talks about this person overseeing the process rather than being so fixated on the end price. I still do have a concern that there is a little bit of openness around this still, and I wouldn’t like to see the day where a Minister might nominate somebody and then Fonterra, for whatever reason, you know, plays games around—perhaps, turning that person down, unless they had some absolutely valid reasons, which they would probably put to the Minister beforehand, before the nomination was made.

I still do have some concerns in the space of Fonterra being able to stop supply of people around issues of environment and animal welfare, and it’s not that I don’t think that that’s the right thing to do—I absolutely think that if people aren’t living up to the standards, then Fonterra should have every right to do that—but currently they do have the right to do that in their terms and conditions of supply, and I have seen times when Fonterra had the ability to do that and didn’t actually operate their terms and conditions of supply.

So, you know, there’s a lot of trust in this about Fonterra getting the process right. Of course we would expect them to do the right thing, but we would also expect them to get the process right. I have some valid concerns when Fonterra goes through that process that, actually, on a lot of farms we don’t have one entity, so we have owner-operators on some farms, and on other farms we have farm owners who employ sharemilkers. Fonterra has to be very, very careful to get their processes right when they’re looking at issues of environment and animal welfare, to make sure that they have the right process and they’re actually targeting the right person when they start to make those decisions, because they can get it very, very wrong, and have done.

So with this piece of legislation, we’re giving Fonterra a bit more openness, and we expect them to be open and transparent. I think there’s not a high level, I will say, of trust in some parts around Fonterra. There are some really good people who work in our factories, who process our milk, who are our tanker drivers, but what I will say is that, you know, sometimes, I guess—I’ve been in the head office of Fonterra in Auckland, and walking in there as a shareholder, which I am—it sort of feels sometimes a bit disconnected from the farmers. So I think the onus is on Fonterra here to actually build that structure and actually build that level of trust back up, which sometimes has been a bit lacking.

So recently, Fonterra made an announcement that the chair’s successor going forward will be Peter McBride. He’s got a strong reputation in the horticulture industry, and I think this new level of trust that we’re putting in Fonterra, and this new level of good faith, we would expect to be, I guess, rewarded with an openness and transparency, building the strong reputation of Fonterra because it’s still 80 percent of our industry, and I hope it stays 80 percent of the industry. I have been concerned about dairy industry restructuring Acts in the past letting foreigners come in—we have no problem on this side of the House with foreign ownership, but I do have a problem when they have been able to come in and set up under rules that disadvantage Fonterra’s commercial operations.

So there’s some right moves going on here, but I do really, really want Fonterra to stay 80 percent of the industry, and I believe that is in the trust of their reputation—the way they treat these shareholders, the way they treat the general public, and the way they move forward. And that is more about our global reputation, so we can talk about these things, but it is our actions that speak louder than words.

The Minister spoke in his speech about the Goodman Fielder provision. Look, I worry less about the local market. We need Fonterra to be strong in the global market. Over the last few months, we’ve heard a lot about farming being the backbone of the economy. Look, it’s an essential part; it always has been, it always will be—we’re food producers in this country. It has really been disheartening over the last two or three years to find that farmers have actually felt like they’ve been targeted in so many ways over so many things. And then when COVID hits, all of a sudden farmers are the people who are going to save the economy.

So what I would ask every member of this House, in the cooperative spirit that we’re currently in over this dairy industry restructuring bill, is that as we go forward—and we’re all going to be out of this House in a couple of weeks and we’re all going to be having very big discussions with each other about how we think New Zealand is going to move forward as we go into an election process—I don’t want to see farmers be the targets in this election campaign like they were in the last campaign. So let’s move forward in the spirit and the intent of what we’re doing in this bill this morning: work cooperatively as a Parliament. I love now being the chair of the Primary Production Committee. We work well together, and let’s just work on behalf of farmers for ever in this country because they are the backbone. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): First of all, I want to acknowledge the Hon Damien O’Connor. When we first came in, I think this was one of the first pieces of legislation that we had to address pretty swiftly because there were regulations that were about to expire, and this had been a piece of legislation that had been kicked around by the Opposition. It had some very challenging political components to it. I was reading some comments earlier this morning by some dairy farmers who, basically, said that for about eight years the previous Government sat on their hands and didn’t get to a resolution on where this bill should land.

So when the Hon Damien O’Connor came in, by dint of necessity he had to introduce some very quick pieces of legislation just to fix a gap and now has undertaken a very comprehensive review of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act that has required him to make some very politically challenging decisions. To that end, I want to acknowledge my colleagues from across the aisle and from our coalition parties, who have worked diligently to be rather constructive. But I don’t want to take away from the fact that it actually took real leadership, because somebody had to make the tough calls, and he’s done that, and he’s done that across a whole range of areas.

I wasn’t going to turn there but I will because my colleague from across the aisle just mentioned a range of issues that impacted rural communities and farmers. I think that the line in her speech was, you know, “I don’t want to see farmers be the target of political campaigning”. Well, on this side of the House, I couldn’t agree more. So I would ask that in the nature of how we have worked constructively on this piece of legislation, which was an absolute requirement for dairy farmers—I ask that all sides of this House take out that fire that somehow it’s our side of the House that is out there to destroy the livelihood of our primary producers, because it’s absolutely incorrect.

Whether that be on labour issues—we’re working very constructively with industry. Just this week, I’ve sat down with Federated Farmers, DairyNZ, the Meat Industry Association—I mean, that’s just in my little small component, let alone what the Minister has been doing day in, day out, working with leadership from across the primary sector, but not just the leaders and the sector leaders. I know, because I see it all over the work that he’s doing, he’s out there, out on the backblocks, in farms, up in the highlands, doing what he can to ensure that our food producers—and particularly those of our food producers who have undertaken exceptional practices—are really highlighted and promoted on this side of the House. So I must dispute that.

Whether it was in the emissions trading scheme, whether it was in fresh water, let’s be very frank: there have been substantive and monumental wins for our food producers under this Government. But most specifically, apart from everything, that side of the House left our rural infrastructure behind. But anyway, I didn’t mean to go into this debate to be political.

We have worked very constructively together, so to that end I want to acknowledge the submitters that came before us, whether they were from some of the newer milk-producing companies or from those more established sharemilkers, farmers, and so on. There was a real recognition across the sector that there needed to be a raft of changes.

As the Minister just said prior, when Fonterra was last reviewed, it held about 96 percent of the sharemarket. That has been reduced to about 80 percent now. That was about where the Commerce Commission recommended that at that point, things like those open entry provisions could be reviewed, and that is what has occurred under this piece of legislation.

I don’t want to take too much of the House’s time, but I do really want to acknowledge the officials that worked with us and worked very hard. I think I heard in some of the earlier comments in the committee of the whole House around—we really, as a whole committee, wanted to ensure that new entrants to the dairy milking sector could be ensured an open entrance. Getting the legislative framework together was very challenging, so I want to acknowledge the extremely diligent work of our officials, and again, just the cooperative nature of those that sat on that committee, so Barbara Kuriger, Amy Adams, Nathan Guy, Andrew Falloon, and Hamish Walker from that side, and David Bennett—and I think we’ve got McKelvie now—and from our side, Rino Tirikatene, Kieran McAnulty, and Mark Patterson. We’ve been the tight four. We’ve had too much change, but—we’ve seen a little bit over that side; hopefully, it’s nothing in the water. But here we all are.

Just finally, I just want to say that it has not just been over the course of the lockdown. Our food producers, they do what they’ve always done. They work hard and they get the job done, and that’s what we saw. I know that our Minister here worked hard to make sure that the requirements and the regulatory environment over lockdown was there, that the mechanics were there so that they could just do what they needed to do, but let’s be clear: it wasn’t just an overnight revelation that we had that, oh, all of a sudden, our primary production sector is key. We’ve always been champions for our primary producers. Fonterra, in fact, is a creation of this Government, as is Zespri, as are many other very key components to our primary producers.

So, look, without further ado, may I thank again the nature of the collaboration. I hope we see that continue to endure over the election campaign, because I would hate to see that our primary producers are seen as the football that everybody continues to kick around. So without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Speaker, I just want to take a very brief call in the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3). I want to acknowledge the committee stages we’ve just been through, and the contribution from Minister Damien O’Connor. I thought the questions were good, but I equally thought his answers were constructive, concise, and certainly allayed some of the fears I had with some of the legislation, and I just want to acknowledge that as well.

Can I also acknowledge his third reading speech, where it was pleasing for him, as a Labour Minister of Agriculture, to acknowledge the importance of the primary sector to New Zealand. His speech certainly did that—in fact, he gave a far better speech today than he did for the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill that was before the House last night. But it is important that this Parliament recognises the importance of the primary sector to New Zealand. Despite the contributions we’ve just had from Kiri Allan, I think—sadly—the primary sector became a kicking ball in the last election. And I think there was an attempt by some political parties in this House to help increase a divide between urban New Zealand and rural New Zealand. Of course, now we’ve had—

Greg O’Connor: And one of them’s standing right there now.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, if the Minister is suggesting I’m standing and created a divide between rural—or the Minister, that was the interjection from Greg O’Connor, who suggested I created a divide between urban and rural New Zealand, that is absolutely incorrect. I came in here with a passion for New Zealand agriculture. And I want to say to that member, Greg O’Connor, that whilst we have the challenge in the economy around COVID, it is challenging this economy, and the thing that has become the foundation for New Zealand’s economy is agriculture. It always has been and it will be.

Greg O’Connor: Well, don’t weaponise it.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: And for that member to suggest that I’m threatening that stability is absolutely wrong. I remember well the campaign last year with the now Government, the Labour Party, trying to create an issue—particularly around swimmable waters, for example. It wasn’t the National Party that did this. This National Party has always recognised the importance of agriculture to New Zealand.

Greg O’Connor: Weaponised the divide.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s the fourth time. It doesn’t make it any better. Don’t bother repeating it.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: I had the privilege, as a former Minister of Agriculture and as a former Speaker, to travel overseas on numerous occasions. During my time meeting politicians all around the world, there was one word that nearly every overseas politician recognised, and it was the word “Fonterra”. You could be giving a speech which was clearly being interpreted in other languages to people, and you could sense that when the word “Fonterra” was mentioned in any language it was recognised as an international brand, and a New Zealand brand. I say that because this House needs to continue to recognise the importance of the primary sector in New Zealand’s economy, particularly in light of COVID; it then needs to recognise that, within the primary sector, the giant of the New Zealand primary sector is indeed the dairy industry. And within the dairy industry, the giant company is Fonterra, and the performance of Fonterra affects the standard of living of every New Zealander.

So, as this 52nd Parliament concludes and we embark on an election campaign, I say to the House—although I won’t be actively campaigning for re-election—I certainly hope we don’t see a repeat of the election campaign of 2017 when some political parties quite deliberately went out of this House to create that urban-rural divide. I think most New Zealanders, particularly in light of the effect of COVID-19 on, for example, our international tourism industry, now finally appreciate that the industry that will bring this country back out of trouble is the primary sector. And of that, the dairy industry is the giant, and within that giant dairy industry, Fonterra is one that all New Zealanders should be proud of.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I too would like to take this opportunity to thank you very much for your service to the nation and to put on the record my admiration for the way in which you’ve always conducted yourself and the portfolios that you’ve had responsibility for, and, in particular, the work that you’ve done in the space that I am quite passionate about, and that’s caregivers and fostering children. So thank you—thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It’s quite an interesting moment for me to stand and to make a small contribution on this Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3), and I say so because, right now, firstly, New Zealand First has been an absolute winner in having Mark Patterson join our ranks not just as an MP but as our rural spokesperson on all matters rural and farming. I just want to acknowledge Mark for the way in which he’s steered New Zealand First’s interests through the passage of this legislation—and not just New Zealand First’s interests, those of our party, but those of the farming community, in general. Mark is a true champion for the rural sector, rural communities, and we in New Zealand First are that much stronger for having him on board.

For my part, the dairy industry isn’t actually that new to me. As a foster child who was taken in by Gordon and Sylvia Thorburn in Pahīatua, I came to know about dairy farming then because Gordon was the company secretary of the amalgamated dairy company of Pahīatua. He built that company up. In the time that I was at school and living with that family for five years, I watched him—I just thought he was crazy. He got up at, like, 4.30, 5 o’clock in the morning, he worked at home, he did his chores and things that had to be done, he was gone, and he was in the office in Pahīatua at 6 in the morning. My foster mum, Sylvia Thorburn, worked as his personal assistant. She sort of split her time: time at home, looking after us kids and doing things, and then time in the office with Dad. In his time there, Gordon amalgamated every dairy company from what became South Wairarapa all the way through the Wairarapa up into the north, up to Woodville, and then he continued on. He created, for his directors and for his shareholders, the Tui Dairy Company.

Tui went on, and I recall coming here to Parliament, and one of the phone calls that I got from my foster father at the time that I was sworn in as an MP, made junior Government whip, was serving alongside of the Hon David Carter in those days. He made a phone call, firstly, to tell me he was very proud that I had made it into Parliament, but, secondly, to give me some advice. He talked a little about Jim Bolger at that time, because Jim had been, in his time, a Minister for, I think, labour relations, and Gordon had had a lot to do with Jim Bolger back then, had done trade missions for him. He said to me, “One thing you should always avoid, Ron, is creating monopolies. Don’t ever allow a monopoly to be created.”

Well, of course, we had the legislation to put through in that time, which saw the merging of Kiwi Cooperative Dairies and New Zealand Dairy Group (NZDG). In around that time also, I had been appointed by the Māori Land Court to be a director on the Pouakani 2 Trust, which had large shareholdings with NZDG. Henry van der Heyden was the chair at the time, and I got to learn and see firsthand how the dairy industry was now operating quite differently from when I was at school and seeing it through the actions of my foster father. This monopoly thing played on my mind quite a bit, and we went ahead with the legislation that allowed Kiwi and NZDG to merge. It was controversial, Minister Carter knows, in some sectors, but we went through with that.

One of the things that gave me comfort was the open entry provision clauses and the clauses in there that actually prevented Fonterra acting like what Gordon Thorburn didn’t want to see. That allowed other milk processors to be established; it was guaranteed that they could have supply of milk so that they could. The funny thing was, fast forwarding a few years, I ended up as the deputy chairman of the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation (WMI), taking advantage of that very clause when we set up Miraka. We could not have set up Miraka without the guaranteed supply of milk from Fonterra. We had brought in a whole bunch of shareholders—Māori; we had a Vietnamese shareholder, 20 percent shareholding—and we knew we could get up and running, but the issue was around absolute assurance that we could get the milk that we needed. This legislation, as it was, guaranteed that.

We had seen some companies, like Tātua, a superb company, led in those days, I think, by John Luxton—I’m not sure if he was the chairman, but he was definitely the director of Tātua at that time. They found a niche in the market that Fonterra was not interested in, and they became very successful. In fact, we watched them and thought, “Crikey, the shareholders of Tātua are getting far better pay-outs than Fonterra.”, and it’s because they found a better way of operating. They weren’t just focused on the bulk supply of cheese, the bulk supply of milk powder; they went in for niche products. We had watched Westland, and we made our decision at WMI to go ahead and have a crack at building our milk. Well, time’s moved on; Miraka is successful.

Time has moved on and the need for the open entry provision is now passed. We do take on board the comments of the Hon Damien O’Connor, and other speakers on the National Party side, that there’s a high level of trust now being put in Fonterra. It does now behove them to demonstrate that they are an honourable and ethical corporate entity and that they will behave appropriately—Parliament is entrusting them.

I think what is great is that having had those warning signals put into the Hansard for the future, should there ever be a question, because we all know that things move and change, we’ll all be gone from this House—well, not all of us; some of these young ones will still be here—

Hon Member: You and I won’t be.

Hon RON MARK: We’ll be gone. Some of us will be gone and we’ll be watching on telly. I have no doubt that 10 years from now, with different people leading Fonterra, there could well be a shift in culture and a shift in attitude. The words that have been expressed here today by both the Opposition and by the Government members are a clear warning and an indicator to Fonterra: please honour Parliament’s intent. You’ve been entrusted; please do not repeat the behaviours that some of us have seen in the past.

Cooperative models are wonderful. You look at kiwifruit and you look at the dairy industry, and I go right back to the days of the amalgamated dairy company and Tui Dairy Company—they’re wonderful and they’re wonderfully successful. But they can fall apart. I look at the wool sector and I worry as to how that’s going to be put back on its feet again. But Parliament’s trusting you, Fonterra; Parliament is now leaving it in your hands.

I want to also endorse the words of, particularly, the National Party spokespeople who said, “Let this point now be the point from which we parliamentarians back off and start treating the rural sector with respect.” People are saying that the rural sector are the backbone of our economy; they have always been the backbone of the New Zealand economy, and they are the ones who will carry us through the COVID recovery period and bring us out the other end to a higher level of prosperity. Respect them.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I acknowledge the previous speaker, Ron Mark, and agree wholeheartedly with his sentiments. In fact, I have a view that many in New Zealand only love the agricultural sector when they need them, and now they need them more than ever. I know there’s recognition across the House today, but let’s hope it’s more—and I know, certainly from the member that just took his seat, it’s certainly heartfelt. I hope the other speakers actually reflect on what’s being said here. Don’t just talk about it, live it, because this is the sector, the whole agricultural sector, that does pay our bills, does allow us to have the standard of living that we all enjoy in New Zealand, and, indeed, gives us a higher place amongst other countries in the world because of the respect that our agricultural sector—or the high regard it’s held in around the world.

However, this dairy restructuring bill, this is an important bill, and I want to focus particularly on the terms of supply and particularly the price differential provision that’s been put in in this bill. I think my colleague Barbara Kuriger pointed out, quite rightly, that Fonterra’s always had the ability to differentiate in their terms of supply for poor environmental practices. This was a stick approach, and it was a very big stick and a stick that Fonterra were reluctant to use, for many reasons. However, I hope this provision is used with the intent that it was put in there so that Fonterra can use this as a carrot approach: to reward good behaviour rather than to punish poor behaviour. I think, certainly from experience in other sectors, we can see that, actually, people do react to that very positively. If we could see dairy farmers and suppliers being rewarded for good behaviour, you can bet everybody’s going to be jumping on that very quickly.

We have to remember, as I said in the second reading on this bill, that, in fact, we’re not judged by our best; we’re judged by our worst, and the worst suppliers are the ones that make the headlines, and quite rightly so. That has been at the expense of the vast majority of dairy farmers that do a fantastic job environmentally, have invested millions of dollars improving their environmental practices, water quality, all those things that we all aspire to. But there are outliers, and the best way to deal with that is to reward the good ones. The other ones will follow along. They won’t like to see their neighbour getting a little bit more for their milksolids than them, and they will follow along accordingly. So I applaud that provision in the bill, and with that, I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise to take a short call on this bill. It essentially seeks to modernise, and make more efficient and effective, an older bill on the dairy industry and Fonterra’s ability to regulate and function. As the Green Party, we were pleased with this bill, and we were pleased, in particular, with the changes that came after the Primary Production Committee’s hearing of submissions. The Government has taken extensive consultation on this bill with the dairy industry, with Māori stakeholders, with experts, and with other affected communities.

We are pleased to say, as a party that does stand for environmental issues, that this bill indicates a willingness to take that industry along with us as we come into modernising our economy and our industries to be more sustainable and to make transformative changes, hopefully, as we go forward—as we need us all to do in our fight against climate change. So it is good to see that our law is modernising and that regulation is coming along with our biggest industry at this point, and our biggest stakeholder in that industry, Fonterra. So with the changes made, and with the intention of this bill being put in place today, we do support this bill.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise here in the final reading of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill (No 3). Now, the key aspect that I really want to touch on is the open entry provisions. That has, for a number of years, been an area of concern, and it’s great to see that we’ve got to a position now where I think we’ve got a more workable solution for the rural sector. Representing Waikato, the largest dairying region in the country, I’ve certainly had plenty of views shared around where we need to get to with this legislation, why it’s needed to change over time, and had a number of frustrations expressed around the inability to progress that change, to get that difference in place, I suppose, of where people want to get to.

So the key aspect with that had been around the ability for people to come in and out of the co-op, significantly adjusting milk volumes as a result of that; effectively, derisking their business decision to look at supplying an alternative to Fonterra because they knew there was always the option to come straight back again if that new supply agreement didn’t work out for them. So this takes that away, gives Fonterra the ability to have a lot more say in who actually supplies milk to their co-op, which then enables them to align those decisions with what their direction might be taking, particularly in relation to environmental policies; for example, some of the remoteness of pick-ups depending on the location of the properties. So some of those aspects are important changes that have been allowed here.

But it has not taken out open exit, the other half of that consideration—open entry and open exit. So open exit continues to remain in place, which is appropriate given the scale of Fonterra, still being 80-odd percent of the milk supply. It is important to enable those suppliers to have the flexibility to exit and look at other options if they wish, and that’s as it should be. But now, of course, they have to consider that they may not be able to come back if that doesn’t work out. So it requires a bit more due diligence, a little bit extra risk on those suppliers as they look to shift out of that.

Now, one concern I have within that, though—and I raised this during the committee stage—was around the potential impact it may have on new suppliers, as in first-time suppliers, young farmers getting into farm ownership, if they are unable to supply Fonterra. That would, in my view, be disappointing in most instances—not every instance, of course—and there’s some exceptions to where and why that may be the case. But broadly, if a farm has previously been a dairy farm, then it would be my expectation that a young farmer buying their first farm should be able to have some confidence that they can supply to Fonterra, but certainly to supply in general. And as I mentioned, the risk with the rule that’s being proposed is that often young farmers or first-farm purchasers, they’re not buying the most pristine farm. It’s often in those second- or third-tier locations. So there are some elements of that that may cause Fonterra to consider whether supply is appropriate in relation to the distance, to pick up maybe some of their environmental focus around contoured properties, soil types—all those aspects that come into play as well. So that would be concerning if young farmers are unable to get in.

So I just really want to place on record here that the expectation from this House—whilst it has been difficult to clearly draft the requirements or a definition of what may be a young farmer and how that might fit in, it’s important to note that our intent is that Fonterra acts in good faith to work with new suppliers, first-time suppliers, or young farmers, first-farm owners, whatever classification you wish to give them, to support them as best as possible to come in and supply milk to the co-op.

So that’s really the two aspects that I wanted to touch on. It’s good to see this progress being made now. And I would like to thank all members on the select committee, particularly our side: Barbara Kuriger, who’s the chair now; David Bennett, who was the chair prior to that of the Primary Production Committee, who have done some great work in shepherding this through. We look forward to seeing it implemented and giving Fonterra a little bit more control over their business. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill

In Committee

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this debate to be taken as one part.

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

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

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I saw the Minister for Urban Development looking to rise with some enthusiasm earlier, so I just wonder whether he might have liked to continue with that vein. But that’s all right; I’m happy to take the first call on this.

It’s good to see this bill and, actually, I think we’ve got to a pretty good space on this. It’s reasonably uncontroversial in bringing in, I think, an appropriate mechanism to enable the investment in additional infrastructure around our country. You certainly know there are a number of areas where this could play out. I just wanted to, I guess, query with the Minister around the eligible infrastructure aspects definition there and whether he has confidence that’s tight enough, that covers what he wants, in particular eligible infrastructure. Something that for our side has been important—and we’re seeing a lot of value derived from this—is around water storage projects. I would ask whether he sees that as fitting in within the meaning of eligible infrastructure.

Of course, we have four types there, that can be covered as water services, as transport, as community, as environmental resilience. Water storage definitely fits those criteria, but it isn’t specified under the water services infrastructure being related to what is supply, sewage treatment and disposal, although there’s certainly an argument to say it is related to water supply, of course. So I just wanted to clarify with the Minister—if he could please clarify whether water storage projects could be accessed under this particular bill.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I thank the member for his question. I want to acknowledge the support that we’ve had for this bill from all sides of the House, and I note that it builds on work that was started under the former Government with the Housing Infrastructure Fund to provide new finance for infrastructure. We’ve taken this to a new level, building on the work that Crown Infrastructure Partners has done. The bill before us today really is the fruit of all of that work.

In response to the member’s question about eligible infrastructure, we deliberately have cast the net widely. The mechanism that we’re setting up here is specifically designed to lift the burden on local authorities. So it’s designed to provide a new and additional funding and financing mechanism for infrastructure that has been in the past the preserve of local authorities, and, for the obvious reason, to take pressure off the overstretched balance sheets. So water services infrastructure, set out in clause 8, is intended to include all of the three waters—including waste-water treatment—transport infrastructure, community facilities, and environmental resilience. In relation to water storage, which the member asked about, which is a real need right around the country, the answer is that, yes, it could be included here if it relates to the supply of water for residential, for horticulture, or for whatever.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. If the Minister might indulge, I wasn’t part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that scrutinised this legislation, but he just made the comment then about, obviously, what the funding and financing model permits, and he mentioned transport. So I’d just like to clarify it with my understanding, looking through the bill. So this bill permits an entity, and let’s call it a public entity, to basically finance, or borrow, against future revenues—in this case, the special rate levy—in order to fund transport works. Is that correct?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Yes, that’s correct.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, just go.

BRETT HUDSON: I thank the Minister very much for that confirmation. I’d be very interested to hear why that should differ for a local road versus, say, a State highway.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): Well, to the member’s question, the financing mechanism that we have set up is—let’s give you an example of a project where there needs to be the provision of local roads that would normally be the responsibility of the local council in order to enable a new subdivision or a new development. It’s not uncommon as a developer tries to stack up the revenue and the financing arrangements to make a development work that they struggle to get it up to a level where it’s going to be affordable for the developer and affordable for the people who are going to buy the properties. The real problem that we have in so many of New Zealand’s high-growth areas now is that the council simply can’t borrow any money because they’re right up against their mandated debt limits. What this would enable a developer and a council to do, using this mechanism, is to create a special purpose vehicle that could borrow the money and pay for the local roads and have them built by borrowing against the future revenue stream of the levy, which is like a targeted rate.

So that is borrowing against that revenue stream. Councils do that. Really, it’s just another version of what councils currently do, and it’s just another version of what the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) currently does. NZTA already borrows and has the ability to borrow against future revenues. This legislation and the approach that it embodies reflects my view that in government, both local and central, we’ve got to use our balance sheets more aggressively to support urban growth, and I think we are, not only with transport but in housing and urban development.

Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Urban Development): I move, That the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill be now read a third time.

It’s with pleasure I rise for the third reading of this bill. It’s a bill that has achieved cross-party support in this House, and I want to acknowledge the efforts of all parties in ensuring that this piece of legislation has reached its final reading today. I want to conclude the Parliament’s consideration of the bill by talking about one of the most pressing public policy failures in our national life and how this bill supports the efforts to address that public policy failure.

The housing crisis has many interrelated causes. However, it’s our Government’s view that one of those causes is the failure to ground land-use planning in economics. Over the last two decades, our housing market has experienced an accumulation of demand pressures—mainly population growth but compounded by tax settings and lower-cost mortgage credit—that have together encouraged a generation of investors to see rental properties as a uniquely desirable asset class. Now, if our land and housing markets were elastic, as they would ideally be, and able to respond to demand when it occurs, we might’ve seen the supply of new housing ramp up. Unfortunately, those markets have not responded to demand.

Now, for our cities to grow, there needs to be land that is ready to be developed in order to build houses on it. We need to remove restrictive planning rules that stop our city expanding on the fringes, which creates an artificial scarcity of land and drives house prices up, and remove height and density rules that stop the city growing up, which, effectively, rations floor space. Local authorities need to plan ahead and make room for growth.

This newly zoned land needs to be serviced by core infrastructure such as three waters, roading, and infrastructure for environmental resilience, and yet the provision of infrastructure by local government in New Zealand has been heavily constrained, particularly in our high-growth areas such as Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, and Queenstown. Hamstrung by financing constraints, local councils’ inability to zone sufficient land and invest in infrastructure to meet housing demand is driving up the price of urban land and compromising housing affordability. These financing constraints are exacerbated by community opposition to borrowing for growth and mandated debt covenants. High-growth councils are, in large part, already up against their debt ceilings, and that stymies the efforts of our cities to keep up with the population growth that they’re experiencing.

What this means is that our cities are not building the houses that we need. That’s why, fundamentally, we have a shortfall of 70,000 homes in New Zealand right now, and over the last decade we’ve seen a housing cycle that has seen housing prices in a number of our communities double in the last decade. Last year, PricewaterhouseCoopers released a report on cities that showed that Auckland was the only city in Australasia to have experienced a significant drop in discretionary income at the household level over the last decade—an average drop of some $5,000 per household per year—at a time of sustained economic growth, and that is largely because of increasing housing and transport costs. The upshot is that it leads to increasing homelessness and rising rents, and it pushes the dream of homeownership further and further out of reach. It all is driven by a failure to let the market respond to growth.

This bill is part of our Government’s policy response to that public policy failure. It’s one step towards fixing a broken funding and financing system to support more and better urban development. It’s complemented by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development gazetted this week, joint spatial planning work with local government in our six high-growth metro cities, and the Hon David Parker’s review of the Resource Management Act.

Now, to make progress on housing, we need to give councils and developers a range of tools to support them to efficiently deliver the infrastructure that is so desperately needed in our high-growth cities. This bill is another tool in the tool kit for funding and financing urban growth. The flexible and permissive nature of the legislation allows its use to evolve over time. It provides a framework that can coordinate multiple landowners and developers, along with the local councils, to deliver the infrastructure their communities need.

Allowing for a third party other than a council to finance the construction of infrastructure will overcome the constraints of debt limits and high upfront infrastructure costs. Instead, under this law, a special purpose vehicle, or an SPV, will be responsible for raising the necessary finance and building the infrastructure. Once constructed, the infrastructure, whether it’s community facilities, whether it’s three waters or roads, will be transferred to the council, who will then be responsible for its operations and maintenance.

The raising of finance will be possible because of a long-term levy paid by beneficiaries of the infrastructure to the special purpose vehicle over the life of the asset, which is very similar to a targeted rate. Flexibility of beneficiary identification and the levy liability within the bill means that the costs of each project are allocated on a case by case basis, with options to ramp up or vary the levy over time, depending on the extent to which a homeowner is affected by the development project. These levying powers are not provided lightly, and I want to reinforce the extensive monitoring, reporting, and disclosure regimes within the bill which will ensure that the SPV’s use of these powers is appropriate and is monitored.

The success of this programme won’t be seen tomorrow or the next day—success will take time. By overcoming technical financing constraints and speeding up the provision of housing-related infrastructure, we’re tackling one of the fundamental problems that have been 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 bringing down the cost of urban land. The bipartisan support in the House on this bill’s introduction and the general support from submitters and local government sends a strong signal that resolving local government funding and financing challenges are a priority of this Parliament, and that is something we can be proud of.

Ultimately, this bill will support a system where the viability of a project is a key determinant of whether it proceeds—that is, is it commercially viable and is it environmentally sustainable, and not whether or not the council’s balance sheet can sustain it. That will be the key determinant. It’s part of a suite of reforms which are, in my view, the most substantive changes to land-use planning in a generation.

I would like to make several acknowledgments with respect to the development of this bill and its progression through the House. First, I want to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for its work on the bill, and those individuals and organisations who provided submissions. It was fantastic to see support from all sides of the House during the bill’s first and second readings, and the bill is stronger because of the work that was done by the select committee.

I also would like to acknowledge the efforts of the local government and the wider infrastructure sector in developing this legislation, especially Crown Infrastructure Partners, whose work with Fulton Hogan at Milldale, north of Auckland, along with the efforts of Auckland Council, was the proof of concept for this reform. That experience was invaluable in developing the policy and this bill. The high-growth councils—Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, Christchurch, and Queenstown—have partnered with agencies to help develop and test this legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

All in all, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill represents a first for New Zealand. It will provide increased certainty to councils and developers about their ability to provide the infrastructure needed to support growing communities. It will be instrumental in the improvement and functioning of urban land markets, with a long-term view to bringing down the cost of serviced urban land in high-growth cities. This will deliver homes and communities sooner than would’ve otherwise happened and will give New Zealanders greater opportunities to be decently and affordably housed, and that is something I know that all sides of this House strive for. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill, here we are, third reading—well done, we’re all in agreement. But I wanted to touch on a couple of points, I suppose, and this bill really is providing that platform now and I’d like to acknowledge what the Minister said there. There is a real need for this sort of vehicle, and, actually, under the last Government as well, we had the Crown Infrastructure Partners, the special purpose vehicle, and also the Housing Infrastructure Fund really trying to develop more of a pipeline. I think that pipeline is something that is critical for giving a bit more certainty to industry, and to the construction sector as well, when they’re looking to get on board and do some of these projects, and to the local territorial authorities—I mean, they’re trying to plan the path of investment over the next 10, 20, 30 years, and when we look at that, I think we can all accept we haven’t got that balance right in the past.

Just last week, or I think it was only a week ago as it goes so fast here at the moment, Judith Collins announced a massive infrastructure plan for the National Party of $31 billion over the next 10 years. That sort of vision is exactly where we need to be—

Hon Phil Twyford: Relevance.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —in giving a bit more confidence to the sector. The relevance—the Minister’s not quite sure about the relevance of investment in infrastructure. But I can absolutely assure him that there is huge relevance. Giving that confidence to the sector is a critical part of that, and this bill helps with that. So I do commend him on the work he’s done in this space, as well.

There is a massive need, particularly now, particularly in the situation we find ourselves in—this is not where we thought we would be as a country only six months ago, yet here we are. We have a massive economic challenge ahead of us, and infrastructure will be a part of the solution to that: investing in infrastructure, creating jobs, and stimulating local communities as a result of that infrastructure investment as well. We’re well aware of that on this side of the House—the party of infrastructure—and always have been. It’s great to see the Government now trying to claim that mantle as well. It’s quite cute—good on them—but the reality is it sits strongly here with the National Party.

But with this particular model, there were some concerns raised around whether it was going to end up with projects popping up ad hoc without the planning or support of those local authorities. But with the mechanisms in place for the different levels of process or structure that an applicant has to go through to be able to proceed under this bill, I think it puts the right measures in place to limit that, so you’re not going to end up with someone raising a private group to go and build a particular project, whether it’s water storage or a rail or a road project, or any other community infrastructure or environmental infrastructure. Those will be more closely aligned, obviously, with what the territorial authorities expect.

The other aspect of concern alongside that was around, well, these special purpose vehicles—if they’re having to do their own thing, they’re borrowing at a slightly higher cost because of an increased risk profile. They don’t have the same ability to achieve funding that local government and central government does, and therefore the overall cost of that infrastructure goes up as a result. Yep, I understand that argument. Fortunately, we’re in a situation now where interest rates are at historically low levels, and so that margin is much lower than it might have been previously. That is a consideration. But I think, on the balance of it, the ability to get these projects up and running to actually get them across the line outweighs what may be a relatively minor cost increase in the scheme of the overall value that a project like that would provide.

There were just a couple of key changes that were made through the select committee process as well that I thought were worth mentioning. One of those was around the eligibility of infrastructure, including the land purchase price for whatever particular project it is, and that’s often a major part of a purchase, depending on the type of project, but a roading project, for example, would require a significant amount of land purchased through that corridor. So it’s good to have that now included under the eligible costs, and also to have it tidied up—or tightened up, I suppose—around what happens with surplus levy and the excess levy as we progress through.

So the intent of this vehicle, really, is to get some new infrastructure happening. Once it’s done, we’d shut that special purpose vehicle down, and invest that infrastructure in whichever is the appropriate authority to have it. So it’s a case of tightening up those surplus and excess levy requirements in regards to investing them back to council if there’s a surplus or a requirement to actually chase up some that haven’t been paid yet, and then the local authority, or whoever it is vested in, can pick up that mantle.

So, overall, I think we’re in a good place. I agree with the Minister that there is a need to give some clear indication around infrastructure investment. I think this bill does it. It certainly shows there is a strong intent to see more investment in infrastructure, and just signalling that alone, I think, is a great move. We need to be giving those sorts of indications to industries so they can get on and start gearing up with their workforce and their equipment to provide some of these projects, so that the local authorities can plan alongside that, and—just coming back to that huge suite of projects that Judith Collins announced—that sort of vision then enables others to start looking at, again, “Well, how do we fit in with that? What sorts of models or vehicles or infrastructure might we need to piece in to work with a longer-term vision like that?” So I’m delighted we’ve got that plan in place, and this mechanism will enable others to support that investment as well. Thank you.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member Tim van de Molen, who just resumed his seat, spoke of a visionary infrastructure plan that is being touted by the Opposition. It’s a pity that that plan is completely uncosted, largely revolves around building houses to ease congestion—which has never worked before—and won’t even be started for the next 10 to 15 years. That, to me, is more of a pipedream than a vision, and that’s largely why we are where we are today, which is a housing crisis that we’ve experienced for many years—for way too long—and there are, of course, different interrelated causes for that.

One of the most fundamental reasons that we are experiencing a housing crisis is, as the Minister mentioned, that we are short of about 70,000 houses across the country. One of the fundamental reasons for that is that supply of housing just hasn’t kept up with demand. One of the factors that compounds this, though, is that our current infrastructure funding and financing scheme presents a range of constraints that actually make it difficult for the market, local government, and central government to come together to plan and to meet this demand.

Now, this is where this bill comes in. It creates a new tool to fund and finance infrastructure without being hindered by a council’s financing constraints—some are at their borrowing limit and some can’t increase rates because ratepayers are against investing in infrastructure there—and it also mitigates that issue of high upfront infrastructure costs.

So this is actually a bill that I’m incredibly excited about, because this is an issue that we’ve been wanting to fix for such a long time, and it fundamentally speaks to the fact that we, on this side of the House, believe that everyone deserves a warm, dry home that they can call their own and has the right to live with dignity. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, the excitement was palpable from the other side from that speaker Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who has resumed her seat—slightly facetious, of course, because she knows that this is a Phil Twyford bill and she knows that there has been a failure of delivery, unfortunately. It doesn’t matter if it’s been KiwiBuild, in housing in general, and now around transport and infrastructure, there is a nervousness—I can feel it. It’s palpable from this side. There’s a nervousness.

However, I’m here to be nice to the Minister. He knows that National is supporting this bill and is acknowledging the work that he has done, but part of the reason we’re supporting this bill is, of course, it’s a National Party idea. We just didn’t have quite the opportunity. Through a series of confusions, I think, in 2017, we didn’t have the opportunity to implement it.

Hon Phil Twyford: The electorate are so unfair, aren’t they?

SIMON O’CONNOR: But this is a positive—yeah, that’s true. Elections are unfair, but, you know, there’s always the chance every three years to try and right a wrong, if the Minister would like to help me with that.

However, we do think the overall intents of this bill are very, very positive. Setting up these special vehicles of funding, trying to provide more flexibilities to councils—that’s a good thing. The only element I would note—and it’s an encouragement around some current funding—is for Government to give certainty to the councils around what funding is available for them. There’s been a lot of discussion around the infrastructure and the shovel-ready products. There’s no point in putting forward an infrastructure funding and financing bill if the Government doesn’t use it quickly and appropriately.

I know in recent weeks the likes of Auckland Council and others have been crying out for some certainty to understand how much of the billions of dollars that central government intends to spend they will have—

Hon Phil Twyford: They’re getting $500 million in Auckland.

SIMON O’CONNOR: $500 million?

Hon Phil Twyford: In Auckland, yep.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Five hundred million dollars—only $500 million. OK, before the Speaker tells me off that I’m deviating, actually, it’s a start—it’s a start. But the encouragement is to provide that certainty and, certainly when it comes to Auckland, to provide a little bit more. With that encouragement, I do commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just would like to take a very brief call in support of this legislation, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill. New Zealand First does support this bill. It’s very sensible to make sure that we can build the infrastructure that we need, not just now, but yesterday we needed it. In fact, we needed it many years ago, so thank you to this Government for ensuring that we build on the work so that we can then get homes built and people living in the homes that they need for now and tomorrow.

Elections, as the former—the member who just resumed his seat—

Simon O’Connor: “Former member”—what just happened?

JENNY MARCROFT: Sorry, the former speaker who has just resumed his—my goodness, was that prophetic? We only have a few more weeks to go. But the member who’s just resumed his seat, Simon O’Connor, the former speaker to myself—elections are wrong, the member said. No, in the election in 2017, the people were not wrong. They made their choice, and here we are today. Thank you very much to this Government for moving this bill forward.

The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill establishes a new way of funding and financing housing infrastructure. This makes sense to enable councils and developers to overcome those council debt limits so that we can just get on with the job of building. It makes sense, and I’ll take up no more time of the House. I commend this bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on this, actually, very good bill, Minister Twyford. I can say that because, fundamentally, it’s legislating the same idea that National took into the 2017 election, and he knows it—he knows it. It makes good sense—it makes good sense. Our councils are under enormous pressure on their balance sheets, their debt limits are pressing hard up against them, and there is an absolute certainty. They say there are only two certain things in life: death and taxes. So when we’re saying that there is a future revenue stream through rates, and, in this case, a special rate levy as well, that ensures that revenue stream to allow them to borrow now to get infrastructure in place so that we can continue to build as we need to for now and in the coming years, it makes completely good sense.

I’d like to commend to the Minister, and I have asked my question or two in the committee of the whole House stage, to have a chat to the Minister of Finance, because I actually agree with him—as I just have—that this idea of borrowing against those future rates and rates levies to build the infrastructure now, including local roads, is a very good idea. It seems the Minister of Finance doesn’t quite appreciate that when National released its first of the transport packages last week, we said that, well, we’re going to pay for a lot of this by allowing the New Zealand Transport Agency to borrow more against the future revenues of the fuel excise tax—which makes complete sense—and, in fact, the Minister here is doing exactly that same principle in terms of helping councils to build infrastructure today and tomorrow for the houses that we will need against the revenues that will come in over many years. So—fantastic—he agrees with it. If only the Minister of Finance could see sense, we might have a road to Damascus moment there as well.

This is a good idea. It was National’s idea, and it’s pleasing to see that this Government actually hasn’t thrown all of them out. It threw out too many of our very good roading ideas only then to reintroduce them, but it’s very good it didn’t throw this idea out.

We do support this measure. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and to take a short call, as others have. Effectively, infrastructure is expensive and funding it has been obstructed by lack of this streamlining, and this bill introduces that. We want to support councils and we want to support our communities to get going.

Just to bring it back to what infrastructure really is, because it isn’t just roads, it is transport but it’s also community facilities, water services, and environmental resilience infrastructure, as well—that come under this bill—and, of course, housing. We know that we did inherit a housing crisis of some magnitude and we are getting on to solving that, and this is just one piece of that puzzle.

It is good to see the country is moving forward in this positive way to build infrastructure where and when it is needed, effectively and efficiently. So I do commend the bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill at its third reading. This is an important bill. Of course we are very committed to investing into infrastructure in our country—it’s so critical. It is the foundation of economic activity and, of course, the Kiwi way of life. So these are very important.

We believe in transport infrastructure, of course. There are all the issues around the pressures, particularly that local government is facing in terms of water supply and reticulation. In order to support all of that, this bill was presenting some mechanisms such as a special purpose vehicle, which is going to assist local government to be able to address some of those very long-term challenges that have been before our country and that have been across successive Governments, and, of course, this is probably one of the biggest challenges that local government faces. Certainly, it’s good to see that we have a mechanism in place that is going to support infrastructure in the water space.

Of course, transport and associated infrastructure in local roads, State highways, and public transport—all of these are incredibly important, and we must not ever lose sight of the fact that our economy strongly depends on having a significant infrastructure base in our country. It’s a little bit like the skeletal system that a human body has—you know, without that skeletal system, it’s so difficult.

We have been committed to infrastructure in the past in previous Governments. The ultra-fast broadband roll-out that the previous John Key - led Government established in the country has been so important for us to engage in in the 21st century economy, not just here but right across the world. We all know that during the times when economies are locked down because of concerns around pandemics, etc., that infrastructure has been absolutely critical to maintain communications and viability for so many businesses that rely upon that, but when it comes to issues such as electricity networks, we have got some great challenges in front of us. We’re a country that is reasonably lowly populated compared to other countries. We’re long and skinny, and our roading network, our electricity network, and our gas network—all of these come at a very high price per capita.

So we are having the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission—which was in legislation that was passed through this House prior to this—and we are having a funding and financing mechanism to enable these pipeline projects to be able to actually be built, and I doubt whether we’re going to see anything happen in the next six months. We absolutely know that the challenges around this in terms of consenting and the preparation of the workforce—all of these particular areas are very challenging.

Hon Phil Twyford: We’ve got all that.

JONATHAN YOUNG: Yeah, but we’re not seeing anything. We might see a shovel in the ground, but we’re not seeing dirt being dug, and I doubt whether we’re going to see any of that, Minister, before 19 September—much to your disappointment.

But, anyway, Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to support this bill here in its third reading. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all provisions in this debate to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Therefore the question now is that Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Let’s go for value over volume in questions, Minister. I’d just like—because, again, another bill I wasn’t on the committee on, or I was, actually, very briefly, in the very early stages of the select committee. So just a clarification. It’s my understanding that in effect—if not as explicit as possible, but in effect—a change in this bill will give the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) authority to require a road-controlling authority to create a speed management plan, whereas previously the law was about empowering them to be able to do so as they saw fit for their respective areas of control. Firstly, is that the case that there is, in effect, at least, the ability to require that? If that is the case, was that intentional, to make a step from empowerment to requiring? And the third part to that, as they start to get the information for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Phil Twyford, is if it does enable that requirement or requirement setting, under what circumstances is it envisaged that the NZTA might use that mandating authority?

I think, you know, road-controlling authorities, as they head into this slightly revised world, would probably like some degree of certainty as to when they might be instructed to do things that they possibly haven’t given consideration to yet or have on a work programme that might be stretching out some months or years yet to come. I’m sure they’d like the confidence and certainty that what might be empowered under the amending legislation won’t actually be forced upon them—or at least, if it is forced upon them, will be forced upon them in circumstances they can foresee and prepare for.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Now, Mr Hudson, I think, has picked up probably one of the key points here, and it’s one that I wanted to touch on as well, because, broadly, with this bill, we are in agreement with it. Setting up the new director role is an appropriate response to some of the regulatory challenges or missteps that have occurred over the last few years, and it actually more closely aligns, obviously, with what they have in the Civil Aviation Authority and Maritime New Zealand as well. So that side of it is fine. We support that.

The speed limit process changes, though, is an area that I have some concern about, and I understand the intent is to try and provide more consistency for those territorial authorities, having a national register—that’s all well and good. My concern, in particular, comes to the ability for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to mandate what those local road-controlling authorities set those limits at, and whether it is for certain roads being a named road or it is certain types of road. So I’ll just repeat that for the Minister: what I’m looking for is clarity around whether NZTA can require those road-controlling authorities to set speed limits for a certain type of road as opposed to a specific road, such as this road named X, Y, Z, or is it all types of road that fit within a particular criteria in that particular jurisdiction?

The reason I raise that is that particularly in rural areas—and we see this a lot in the Waikato, where I come from, a lot of those rural areas can experience quite different road settings across the areas, and what might be appropriate for a speed reduction on one road that fits a particular type may not be the same need for that same road type in a different location, based on different parameters within that geographic area. So, for example, the complexity of road conditions, whether it’s how winding it is, whether it’s a gravel road—some of those aspects in instances may be appropriate for reduction but not always. So I’m just wanting to clarify if it’s a type or is it named roads in particular.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): In relation to a speed rule?

Tim van de Molen: Yes.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: OK. If I could just ask the member to just give us a moment and I’ll seek advice from the officials on those very specific questions.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): In the meantime, is there anyone else that—with the committee’s indulgence, I think we will wait for the Minister.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thanks for the member’s patience. So on those specific questions, the provisions in the bill allow a rule to be established that could require a road-controlling authority to set a certain speed limit, but it’s only there in relation to schools and zones around schools. Otherwise, the general enabling effect of the rule remains the same. So it’s only in relation to setting speeds at schools.

Tim van de Molen’s question about the New Zealand Transport Agency requiring either specific named roads or categories of roads within a certain area—the effect of the bill here is that in a plan that’s been consulted, it could, in fact, be certain kinds of roads, categories of roads within a certain jurisdiction, but when the plan is finalised and promulgated, then it would result in specific named roads or stretches of the roading network. I hope that answered the member’s question.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Yes, thank you for that clarity, Minister, it does. I guess that unfortunately probably doesn’t ease my concern, particularly in coming back to that rural setting, because it can often be the case where a road can change vastly. I understand that within an urban setting, having a classification of a type of road is generally pretty consistent across that urban location, but I’d suggest in rural—and I’m not saying that rural is special, although we probably are, but, you know—there is often more complexity or more varying factors, and so, yeah, perhaps trying to seek some reassurance that the local authority would be able to give some insight to add in and whether there’s then any flexibility to say, well, that classification of road in these locations will make named roads but then we might not name those other ones where it’s not appropriate. Or would it still have to then come across the whole gamut of those roads?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I think the intent of the bill is for this to be a better, more streamlined and clearer enabling mechanism so that road-controlling authorities—it’s easier for them, and if there’s a clearer process for implementing the outcome that we’re seeking here, it is a much better, more refined, and granular setting of the right speed for the right bit of road right across the network. That’s the intent, and other than the more prescriptive element, which is confined to setting speeds around school zones, it’s still, effectively, enabling, and there is a process of negotiation and consultation built into the planning process. So I hope that reassures the member.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 557 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 546 in his name be agreed to.

Amendments to the amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 546 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

Parts 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 5, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I brought this bill to the House following the review into Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency’s (NZTA’s) regulatory capability and performance. I commissioned that review in response to a backlog of 850 regulatory non-compliance cases that, over a number of years, had not been adequately managed by the Transport Agency. One of those cases involved the tragic death of Mr William Ball. Mr Ball was killed when the car in which he was the front seat passenger lost control and crashed into a ditch near Dargaville in 2018. That vehicle, which had just received a fresh warrant of fitness only one month before, had not been properly inspected and was found to have frayed seatbelts. The inspection agent who issued the vehicle warrant had a history of non-compliance. In spite of this history, the agency had allowed this agent to continue operating and to issue warrants of fitness for several years.

In response to this regulatory failure and the tragic death of Mr Ball, I commissioned a comprehensive review into the regulatory capability and performance of the New Zealand Transport Agency. The review and the final report found that the Transport Agency had failed to properly and safely regulate the land transport sector. This failing was the result of a number of shortcomings, including a weak focus on its regulatory role and function, a lack of clear accountability for regulatory decision-making, and inadequate resourcing of the agency’s regulatory role.

Safety is this Government’s top transport priority, and I want to make sure that we are putting people and their safety first, and safety lies at the heart of this bill. To ensure this, we have prioritised changes to Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency so that it exercises its regulatory functions to promote a safe, efficient, and effective land transport system. The objective of this bill is to strengthen and clarify the Transport Agency’s regulatory function and leadership role within the land transport regulatory system. The bill seeks to achieve this by establishing a Director of Land Transport role, clarifying the role, its objectives, and the functions of the Transport Agency, and supporting key regulatory interventions.

The bill also provides a platform to give effect to the new speed management framework. This will provide for a more transparent and effective approach to the process of setting safer and more appropriate speed limits on our roads, outside our schools, and in our urban centres. It’s one of 15 actions in the initial action plan under the Road to Zero road safety strategy announced earlier this year. The changes proposed within this bill will ensure that Waka Kotahi has the tools it needs to do its job properly and to keep people safe.

I want to briefly acknowledge that, although the proposals within this bill are not law yet, Waka Kotahi has already taken a number of important steps to improve its regulatory performance. This includes the recent release of the agency’s regulatory strategy, Tū Ake, Tū Māia, which responds to the requirement in clause 9 of the bill to develop and publish a regulatory strategy. I am committed to ensuring that Waka Kotahi, and indeed every transport Crown entity, has the appropriate governance, resources, and regulatory expertise in place to deliver effective regulatory outcomes and, ultimately, to keep Kiwis safe when travelling.

Before I conclude, I would like to take the opportunity to thank those who have supported this bill through the Parliament, and contributed to the quality of the legislation. I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the submitters for their suggestions and recommendations to improve the bill. Notably, the changes proposed in this bill were prompted, in part, by the tragic death of Mr William Ball, and so I would like to acknowledge the family of Mr Ball as I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we’ve got to a good place on this bill, and I want to reiterate some of the comments that the Minister mentioned and particularly the sad circumstances that led to some of the provisions within this bill being put forward, particularly around that regulatory aspect and the now subsequent establishment of the director role within the land transport framework. It actually makes sense, because if you think about it, well, we have a director of the Civil Aviation Authority and also Maritime New Zealand, so having one for land transport now is an appropriate alignment across those. But it also reflects that there were some issues, there were some regulatory compliance failures, and that shouldn’t have happened. It did, and we need to make sure we address that; this bill does that. So from that perspective, we’re in a good space. We’ve landed, I think, pretty well in relation to those.

It’s also establishing a register around land transport records such as speed limits, which normalises or makes easier access to those for the public as well, which is important. One of the aspects that we do have a couple of reservations on was around the speed limit zones or setting changes—so, in particular, New Zealand Transport Agency, effectively, being able to require those road-controlling authorities to set a particular limit, as opposed to empowering them to create the limits as necessary for them. I understand the intent there is, again, to try and standardise or get consistency across those different territorial authorities to have more appropriate limits that align so you’re not having to worry about whether you’ve crossed a boundary and where that’s sitting. But the risk is—particularly, I think, in rural settings—that a type of road could be classified as needing a particular limit, which is appropriate for part of that area, but is not appropriate for many other parts. So that is a concern I do just want to note.

In urban settings, that’s probably not such an issue, because generally a particular type of road is reasonably uniform throughout that location if you’re in a town or a city. But when you get out into the countryside, those roads can be quite different and can change depending on which part of the countryside you’re in, as well. So it may be appropriate for a gravel road to continue with a speed limit of 100 kilometres an hour if it’s a flat gravel road that’s pretty straight. But then there’s plenty of other gravel roads that are quite winding, undulating, and may indeed be more appropriate to have a lower speed limit. Of course, the reality is, throughout all of this, we do rely and expect our drivers on the roads to make appropriate decisions, so we can’t regulate away responsibility. So that’s something we do need to be mindful of as well. But that is just one of the concerns that I did have and wanted to put on record around the blanket approach to that.

Having said that, I think it’s good we’re moving on. Most of those changes will come in promptly around those speed limits, etc. The director role, though, actually doesn’t come in until, I think it was, 1 April 2021. Actually, that makes sense when we think about transferring some of those functions and responsibilities; it will take a little bit of time to set up that structure, so having a bit of lead in to that is appropriate.

So, on the balance of it, I think we’ve landed in a good space, just with that one caveat—we’ll see how that plays out. Obviously, we can come back and address that in time, if necessary. But at this point, I’d just like to thank my fellow members on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work in this, particularly the officials for all of the work that they did as well, and, of course, the Minister for bringing this forward, unfortunately triggered in those particular regulatory aspects by an unfortunate incident. I do want to acknowledge that man’s family, as well. Having said that, we support this bill, and I look forward to it passing through.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill, the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill, that is all about safety. It strengthens the regulatory function of the New Zealand Transport Agency. It is a great bill and I commend it to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I didn’t quite realise I’d be standing so quickly, but what a deep and meaningful contribution from the member that’s just resumed her speech, Priyanca Radhakrishnan. It’s probably one of the better Labour speeches we’ve heard over these past three years, if we’re truly honest about the situation. But let’s actually get on to the actual piece of legislation, the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill.

Broadly, let’s be very clear, we support the bill and we broadly support the provisions in it. We’ve supported the recommendations that have come from the MartinJenkins report into the regulatory practices in the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). I would make the point for the Minister of Transport—I don’t think he was too pointed with his comments, but, you know, people could be interpreting these—that the review into the NZTA didn’t find any lack of focus on safety; in fact, they found that the people there were passionate and dedicated to road safety and our land transport system. But, none the less, there were still areas that needed improvement, in some cases quite significant improvement, and so here we are with this bill.

I just want to talk about the speed management aspects of it. I welcome the register and particularly the idea that the public will be able to know and look up what limits will apply in any given section of road that they may traverse at times, or even frequently. I’m a little bit worried, though, about—well, I appreciate that it makes it somewhat easier for road-controlling authorities, shall we say, local authorities, to manage speed management plans in their areas, areas, obviously, which they know better. What I worry a little bit about is creeping inconsistency across the country on where or on what type of road and what environment and what sort of mixed setting, what speed may or may not apply. New Zealanders do like to travel. At the moment, we want New Zealanders to travel all throughout their country, to help other regions, in domestic tourism. I think it is important that there is consistency of approach and, therefore, consistency of speeds that New Zealanders can anticipate as they travel through their own regions, but also across others.

I’d also note that the NZTA themselves are not without some blame here as well. I could give one example. I won’t take too much away from my colleague Stuart Smith, who I’m sure is going to talk about this also. But, for instance, this proposed speed reduction between Renwick and Nelson, down largely in his patch of Kaikōura. It’s one that’s very difficult to justify. In fact, he might talk about a non-scientific test that he undertook with, I believe, our transport spokesperson in the car, illustrating just how safe that road was to drive at the current limit. So what we don’t want for speed management plans—or the ability for the NZTA to overrule them—to result in is a creeping reduction in people’s ability to get around at reasonable pace—a lot of people and goods—and that they can do so safely. We don’t want to see a creeping excuse to simply reduce limits because one or two people inside a Government agency or a road-controlling authority want to believe it’s a good idea.

Where we do these things, they should be purely for reasons of safety, and they should be things that can be evidenced and accepted. Because the reality is, the NZTA with speed cameras, or police with their roving patrols, cannot patrol every motorist across New Zealand doing what speed at what time on what stretch of road. We actually need voluntary compliance. I would contend we get voluntary compliance when the motorists can see the practical connection between what they’re being asked to do and their perception of the road, the conditions at the time, and what, to their mind, is a very reasonable speed to travel at. So we need to make sure that what we make easy to do, for good reasons, doesn’t creep into the sorts of practices which might erode voluntary compliance, which we actually need to help promote safety on our roads. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I seek leave to clarify a detail on an answer I gave in the committee of the whole House.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to go back to a question that the member Tim van de Molen raised on the provisions in this bill in relation to Waka Kotahi using a more directive approach in relation to using a rule in relation to speed limits. Mr van de Molen asked in what circumstances a more directive approach, as opposed to kind of an enabling approach, would be used. My answer, if I recall correctly, was that it would be used in relation to school speed zones. I just wanted to clarify, because I would hate—just for the purposes of getting it on the record, the bill itself takes an open and enabling approach. It’s the policy intent behind the bill that that more directive approach with road-controlling authorities would be used in relation to school speed zones, but the bill itself is open and permissive in relation to that. So thank you, Mr Speaker.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On Wednesday night, I gave the longest speech I’ve ever had to this House for my valedictory note, and today I give the shortest one: I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will indeed talk about the little scientific test that I did in my electorate. As Mr Hudson pointed out to the House, there is a plan to lower the speed limit from Renwick right through to Nelson. A significant section of that through to Havelock is quite unnecessary to have any change in the speed limit. So I invited a journalist and Chris Bishop, our transport spokesperson, to ride with me to Havelock and back. So on the return from Havelock to Renwick, I set my cruise control at 100 kilometres an hour, and I didn’t touch the break, and nor did the car slow for traffic in front of me all the way back to Renwick. So I never had to touch the breaks or take any corners—took them all very safely.

Hon Tracey Martin: What are they going to lower it to?

STUART SMITH: As the Hon Tracey Martin could appreciate, I would not want to do anything dangerous with a journalist in the car. So that demonstrated the pointlessness of lowering that speed limit. In fact, further to that, I note on another section of road, through the Hunderlies, the speed limit has been lowered to 60 kilometres an hour on State Highway 1—quite unnecessarily. The local fire chief Ian Walker from Kaikōura is on the public record as saying it will make no difference and the only difference it will make is to make it more dangerous because of the risky passing behaviour. In fact, he pointed out to me, the other day, that all the serious accidents that they’ve attended on that section of road have been on 45-kilometre-an-hour corners where trucks, in particular, roll over, and they cause other serious accidents as a consequence of that.

So the speed limit of 60 kilometres an hour is not going to change that. It could be 100 kilometres an hour; it should be 100. It’s absolutely crazy to have these variable speed limits all over the place when they’re totally unnecessary. If we wanted to actually reduce the road toll as a reduction, we would reduce the speed limit to probably 10 kilometres, and it would be just absolutely crazy to do that. No one would ever think of doing it. So you follow that rationale through: 100 kilometres an hour is actually a safe speed for our roads. I think that this bill should ensure that, let’s hope at least, good sense is brought into this argument, not some crazy policy wonk that wants to impose their own views on us. Let’s hope that doesn’t—

Hon Phil Twyford: That’s a slur on policy wonks!

STUART SMITH: Well, I’ve gone outside my remit on that one, Minister. But I think it’s absolutely the feeling of people out there—the motoring public—that they’re sick of these silly speed limits being imposed. The rule only works when people respect it, and they do not respect these. So bear that in mind for those people out in policy land, if they’re listening to this speech. Thank you. I recommend it.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is very pleased to support the Land Transport (NZTA) Legislation Amendment Bill. It does respond, as the Minister of Transport noted, to a regulatory failure which resulted in a tragic death; it strengthens the regulatory leadership of Waka Kotahi; it centralises the regulatory authority; and, particularly, it strengthens their role in relation to speed management and enforcement. The work that this Government is doing to improve road safety and to get the death toll down is a key part of the Government’s programme, and this bill assists that. I commend the bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I have to say, the Government speakers are ripping through this. If only this would also apply to some speed limits where we could get a little bit more speed going there safely. I might add, the 110 kilometres, Minister Twyford, would be fantastic on some parts of our motorway system, and certainly in Auckland—coming back there—to see it sped up a little bit more.

This is a good bill. I think it actually, in some ways, shows the system working rather proactively, if you will, in response to the MartinJenkins report. The Minister—I think, rightly—highlighted the sad catalyst. You don’t want sad events like that to have happened and death to have occurred unnecessarily, but the system begins to work that a report is done and the Government of the day takes those learnings and implements them, and from what I’m hearing, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was working cooperatively and putting forward some very practical changes, which are important.

I think the role of the Director of Land Transport is an excellent one to actually provide that almost singular focus on to the regulatory requirements of our transport system. It will be incredibly, incredibly useful.

So I’m not actually going to take up too much time on this one—you know, I don’t want to fall behind in the speed of others. That causes congestion and problems, and people start honking horns. But I’m very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill

In Committee

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

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you very much—my apologies for being a little bit previous there. So, Minister, thank you very much for joining us today. I’ve just got a few questions I’d like to run through, and given what we saw in the previous committee of the whole House, if there is a need to consult with officials, we’ll take a few orders for long blacks and flat whites and pause for a bit. So new section 149B, particularly subsections (4) and (5), outlines the levy being proposed and that it may be a uniform or a differential basis. So I’m interested around how the fee will be devised, what an anticipated flat fee is likely to be, and what you have received from video on-demand providers about preparedness, shall we say—we know legally they’re going to have to, but preparedness to pay the levy—and are they particularly more supportive of a uniform or differential levy basis?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): One moment, caller.

Brett Hudson: That’s all right. Hands up for flat whites?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Does the member have any further contribution, or—

Brett Hudson: I do, but that just adds to the congestion of questions.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I thank the member—sorry. Thank you very much. I thank the member for his patience. So what has happened is around the annual fee, there’s been a recommendation that the annual fee is based on a measure of the provider’s market presence in New Zealand, which would be based off the provider’s number of subscribers and active users. The Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) also recommended that this information be compelled from providers and to amend the bill via Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to require this—and that SOP’s on the Table. The CRIS reflects initial analysis following consultation on options to ensure that the proposed commercial video on-demand activities are appropriately funded. However, the thinking has moved on from that analysis that was originally set out. Officials will be doing further work as part of amending regulations to ensure that the new labelling regime is appropriately funded. This will be in close consultation with providers and with the Classification Office. Amending the bill to allow for the setting of a levy will allow officials to explore all appropriate funding options to help futureproof the new labelling regime.

The SOP allows for officials to consider a menu of options, not a specific option in itself, because I think what—well, if I was to paraphrase all of that, what I would say is that the officials have been working incredibly closely with the sector here. We don’t want this to be a barrier, at the same time as we protect children and give parents tools to be able to make sure they know what their children are watching.

BRETT HUDSON (National): So I think, following on from that, really—and particularly new section 149D, inserted by clause 19 in Supplementary Order Paper 554—is the risk. I do take the Minister’s point about trying to find a balance, that the requirements may compromise the availability of overseas content, particularly on multinational platforms—not just the Netflixes, but that’s the most commonly referred to, at least, platform in this country at the moment. I mean, we did see when Netflix first arrived that for commercial licensing reasons in that case, there was quite a curated collection in New Zealand. We wouldn’t want to see a regime that either took us back to that tightly curated environment or which just led to more titles and matters of interest—perfectly reasonable to view—that weren’t made available, to New Zealanders’ concern, which indeed would then lead to them seeking to use technological workarounds to get around the measures that would otherwise prevent them viewing it.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I thank the member for his question. I think, from memory, there were around three of the submitters that did actually raise this in their submissions—that it might lead to them restricting some of the content that they might bring to New Zealand if the regime was too onerous. What I think has been, you know, admirable work by the officials and by the chief censor in the Classification Office is that there’s been real collegiality across the providers of video on demand and the officials and the Classification Office to come up with a structure that we all agree will be better to protect our children but, at the same time, not so burdensome that it will stop them bringing content to New Zealand.

So all I can say is that it was raised as a concern. At this stage, those who are the providers of video on demand are working so constructively with officials around this to make sure that there is a system whereby either the Classification Office can make sure they have the appropriate classification or there is an approved self-classification system that would be faster and less onerous and less costly for those providers. We’re not predicting that that will therefore mean that there will be content unavailable to New Zealanders.

BRETT HUDSON (National): So a question on information transparency, particularly in clause 14 of Supplementary Order Paper 554, amending new section 77(ac): the chief censor to monitor the operation and the results of the use of those approved self-rating systems. Is it intended, or is it stated, that that information will be proactively released publicly for purposes of transparency, and, if not, what would be the reason?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Just to address the member’s question—and the officials are just going away now to double-check on that, because, actually, it’s not an issue that’s been raised previously. Can I ask the member to clarify: does he mean that he wants transparency for the sector, or is he asking for transparency across New Zealand—

Brett Hudson: To the public.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: To the New Zealand public?

Brett Hudson: Which would include the sector.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Right. Obviously, yeah. OK. One moment, please.

Thank you. My understanding is that a database is required and it is required to be in the public domain, so, therefore, the public as well as the sector, obviously, will be aware of all of the issues.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Just a small point of clarification on that: will it be available if requested, such as under the Official Information Act, or will it be available for the public to be able to search on or look at?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Publicly available—be able to be searched.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 554 in the name of the Hon Tracey Martin be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will ensure that commercial video on-demand providers listed via a schedule display clear labels on the movies and shows that they make available in New Zealand. It will support New Zealanders so they can make informed decisions about what they choose to watch for themselves and for younger members of their families. Before this change, picking a show or movie to watch was like picking from a box of unlabelled chocolates: you never knew what you were going to get.

The bill amends the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. It will require listed providers to comply with new labelling requirements set out in Part 3A of the Act. This means that listed providers will have to display a label on their content. These labels will have a rating that recommends the suitable audience for the show and a warning for any mature themes like sex and violence. New Zealanders will be familiar with these labels. Commercial video on-demand providers will have two options to meet the new requirements. They can either choose to follow the current process for films or they can choose to use a self-rating system that is approved by the chief censor. The new requirements will only apply to providers listed in the schedule to the Act. This reflects how these services are accessible by a considerable number of New Zealanders. However, the bill also provides a transparent process for when the schedule needs to be amended. This will be done through an Order in Council and consideration of specific criteria for any significant new entrants to the market.

The bill does not aim to stop or prevent people from watching movies online. It makes it efficient for listed providers to label content, so there should be no delays or blocks to content being made available in New Zealand. The bill is an important step toward supporting New Zealanders, especially younger people and their families, to make better-informed viewing choices. It is also very important to ensure that the new labelling regime is workable for industry, listed providers, and regulators. The updated commencement provisions will give officials enough time to undertake detailed consultation to make sure that the new processes work. It will assist all parties to get it right. Officials will also need to work closely with industry and the sector to develop and test a funding regime for the new labelling processes. The new funding regime needs to be fair for both regulators and listed providers, as our classification system needs to be sustainable and appropriately funded. The bill enables this detail to be set and prescribed in regulations.

This upcoming work for regulations may not be straightforward or black and white, so it is good to know that it will be done collaboratively so that we can all work through any shades of grey. I’ve acknowledged that significant work remains to be done in relation to modernising our media content regulation system, but this bill moves us in the right direction. It will help New Zealanders make informed choices about what they are choosing to watch on streaming services for themselves and for their children and younger family members. It is about minimising the risk of harm to New Zealanders by making sure that these shows or movies display adequate information so they can tell the good from the bad and the ugly.

I’d like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for their very careful consideration of this bill. I would also like to thank the Department of Internal Affairs, the chief censor, the Classification Office, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the important work they did to get this bill to this stage. I would like to thank those who submitted on the bill. The intention of this bill is recognised by all parties, so thank you for your support for the bill. I’d like to thank whoever wrote this speech to work in as many titles of movies as they could inside this document. I’m pleased to commend the bill to the House.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I shall make a contribution that will last From Here to Eternity. Now, just to be very clear, National will support this bill. We do actually support the intent, and that is to seek to have a broader catalogue of content available for New Zealanders to consume, while looking at how to keep New Zealanders, particularly our younger New Zealanders, safe. So we will support this bill, as we have done through the process.

The reservations that we do have are around some elements which we understand the intent of but are not yet able to have been resolved, such as how onerous either the existing system would be, given the volume of content on these platforms, or, indeed, what the self-assessment might mean in terms of the processes they have to go through to achieve that, and, of course, because it is yet unknown, the funding model.

So exactly what that will mean—ultimately, the provider either has to swallow that cost or pass it on through an increased subscription, and there is always a risk. There is always a risk because the reality is New Zealand is a small market compared to so many others, and a provider might decide, whether it’s just burdensome or expensive, to tightly curate content so that New Zealanders might end up with a bit less than they could otherwise have. That’s something that we have to trust now to officials to get right. There was a previous bill, which I’ve just referred to in passing, which did raise the point that sometimes people in policy parts of Government can be a bit disconnected with what the public think, and I think there’s a challenge here to make sure that doesn’t happen in this instance, because no one is arguing with the intent behind what’s happening—just ensuring that it doesn’t have adverse results.

Another area which was raised but they wouldn’t dwell on too much but is a relevant item, particularly after recent global events, is ensuring that the practices and the self-assessment don’t, I would say, inadvertently begin to censor or curate elements of history, tastes that we might consider now to be very poor taste—old cartoons are an example, not just cultural references but also, some people might say, in terms of violence or modelling of behaviours. It’s important that we don’t see ourselves curating and censoring our history, but instead, to the extent that any assessment is required, that it’s practical and reasonable, and if it’s marked, it’s marked appropriately, which I would say is what did happen overseas. An initial reaction to global activism was some elements of history were removed and then re-established with some tag system. So we wouldn’t want what we’re doing here to lead to a censorship of history, and we trust the censor but we also trust parents, given the right information, to make the right decisions, particularly for our children.

So in conclusion, we support the intent. There is stuff that needs to be worked through. Some of us are less fond of regulation-making powers than others, but, look, as long as we get it right, hopefully we can strike the right balance, so we will commend this bill to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to support this Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. Obviously, this is a good bill, and the Governance and Administration Committee actually spent some time considering various provisions and changes. In the end, we believe the bill has been improved. So I thank the committee. I thank, particularly, Melissa Lee, the spokesperson for National, and I thank the Minister of Internal Affairs for her constructive approach towards some issues. This is a good bill.

Now, there’s a common understanding that we have a responsibility to try to reduce the potential for harm from viewing these commercial videos on-demand. This has been a growing industry, particularly after this COVID-19 stuff. We have seen the dramatic growth in terms of online viewers. So it is important for us to have a consistent policy towards identifying and labelling the content of these commercial videos on-demand. Now, we did have some kind of regulation, but we did not have a very well-developed or up-to-date regulation in terms of regulating this particular area. This bill is quite a big step forward towards better regulation of online content. It also updates the functions of the Classification Office to ensure that the new requirements for commercial video on-demand content are clearly within the scope of its operation or work.

Also, the bill replaces the definition of “film” in the Act to make sure that it will clarify that it includes the commercial video on-demand content. So the bill itself has made improvements in several areas, and for that reason we say this is a good bill.

But, on the other hand, content regulation is a major issue. It’s very broad. The bill itself is focused on a certain area, a certain part, and, therefore, there is actually more work to do. We believe it is important or it is necessary for us to have a broader review of the media industry, particularly to have a holistic approach towards this particular issue, to make sure that we are able to deal with not only just the commercial video on-demand but also issues relating to other areas to make sure that we have a better, more comprehensive understanding towards the regulation of the content. So this is an issue that should be resolved in the future. Although, while we agree that this bill itself is useful in terms of regulating content, we believe there is a broader issue that we need to deal with.

We also believe that the Office of Film and Literature Classification did a good job in terms of setting up a pilot project that is for self-classification. That is a useful tool, and the select committee actually had a good briefing from them, and we think they made a good contribution in that area. Overall, we believe that this is a good bill, and we support it. Thank you.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare i tēnei rā whakamutunga mō tēnei wiki, tēnei wiki mahi. Kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire ki Te Whare.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, on this day, the final day of the work week. I support this bill to the House.]

Hon Member: Well said.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Not only well said and short in the Reo, and I appreciate what the member Tāmati Coffey said, but I thought as—I don’t know—a return gift, I won’t speak for too, too long, but I probably will, anyway. This is—you know, we’re parliamentarians.

Hey, look, I’d say this is a sufficient bill—I mean, a number of my colleagues have said it’s good. So as not to be too heavy on Minister Tracey Martin, I think she’s doing the right thing. This is a very fraught space, to make sure that that which is offensive, wrong—ethically, morally, or otherwise—is blocked, particularly when we’re thinking of children. But it’s always that difficulty of when you begin to move into the spaces where, actually, it’s just objectionable to a group of people in society because they believe something’s outdated or inappropriate. So you’re into that sort of free speech side of things, and that’s some of my—

Hon Tracey Martin: But we’re just labelling it, Simon. We’re not blocking it.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh no, we know it’s labelling. The Minister is quite right that it is just around labelling, but even there, there’s just a few issues.

But, as I say, it’s a sufficient bill. I think it’s something which this side supports, because we do want to see it progress. We do want to make sure that legislation is modern, and, obviously, there’s the ongoing streaming services. So we’re pleased with that.

But I do, as somewhat of an advocate of free speech, just have a little bit of a concern that classifications on, particularly, elements of the past will kick in. I think the Minister would appreciate that there’s a bit of an allure out there at the moment in certain sectors that wants to ban everything that certain groups define as offensive to them. Our history is what it is, and sometimes the best thing that we can do is view in the full sunlight and learn from it.

So I wouldn’t want to see the system used in that way, and I know it’s not the Minister’s intention. With that, which is now a longer speech than intended—and, unfortunately, I can’t even think of any good movie puns at this time of the day—I commend the bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): The Green Party supports the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Commercial Video on-Demand) Amendment Bill. I have no puns on film titles, but I do commend the Minister and the work that Melissa Lee had done previously. We have Netflix with $15 billion worth of original content each year, and we have a voluntary system which isn’t working, and this is a move to ensure that we have a proper rating system that follows the one that is used for films in New Zealand and has descriptions in terms of consumer warnings. This bill is making sure that that happens for commercial video on-demand products to ensure that consumers, when they’re watching them, know what they’re watching. So I commend the bill to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, too, commend this bill to the House. The labelling requirements are useful. The more information the consumer has to make a decision, the better. If you can’t try before you buy—that would be the ideal—at least you will have a very clear understanding of what is in the video or the film that you’re about to view. As the Minister said, that’s a good thing. You can distinguish between the good, the bad, and the ugly. Whether it’s a colour coding or a star rating like we do with cars, for example, to understand the safety of the car, that’s good. That provides the consumer with more information before they even need to get in and try the car, for example. So maybe—I don’t know—it is a good idea to have a distinction between the good, the bad, and the ugly. I mean, good? Bad? Ugly? [Gestures at parties around the Chamber]

So that is a good thing. The more information we have, the better, for the benefit of the consumer, and I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I seek leave for debate on all provisions of this bill to be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I’m only going to take a very brief call on this and I wasn’t entirely sure which part to do it in, so I figured we may as well consider all of the parts at the same time and then I didn’t have to worry about that.

I have tabled some typescript amendments to this bill just now. The purpose of those is simply to update some of the wording and terminology in the bill to update it to reflect legislation that we have passed in this urgency session relating to the public sector. So there are a few phrases in here that need to be updated, because what is now the Public Service Act changes the way we refer to a few things within the Public Service, so this bill needed to be updated. So that is all the effect of those amendments that I have tabled. They are all technical amendments drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office to reflect other changes to other statutes and, therefore, hopefully I don’t need to add anything more to that.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Chris Hipkins to Part 1 and Part 2 be agreed to:

in clause 7(3), definition of Department of Corrections, replace “Public Service” with “public service”.

in clause 7(3), definition of Ministry of Social Development, replace “Public Service” with “public service”.

in clause 7(3), definition of Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children, replace “Public Service” with “public service”.

in the Part 2 heading, replace “Employment Relations Act 2000” with “other Acts”.

after clause 22, insert:

23 Amendment to Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020

(1) This section amends the Equal Pay Amendment Act 2020.

(2) In Schedule 1, new Schedule 1, Part 1, clause 5(b), replace “Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017” with “Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Act 2017”.

Amendments agreed to.

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

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I move, That the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s nice to be called before you’ve even asked for it, but I move that the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is a significant piece of legislation that’s broadly supported across the House, and I do welcome the support that all parties have indicated they will be giving to this particular piece of legislation.

The bill makes an important amendment to the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017. That Act was a very historic settlement, and one that was very well debated in the House at the time. That was the settlement for those workers in aged care, disability, and home and community support sectors. It addressed the historical undervaluation of the work in those sectors simply because they were being done predominantly by women. The Act, however, excluded those working in the mental health and addiction sector.

This bill implements the new pay equity settlements for mental health and addiction workers, and vocational disability workers who are employed by Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development. It ensures that the support those workers are providing, to support those experiencing mental health and/or addiction challenges, receives the same pay rates as those who are working in the aged care, disability, and home and community support sectors. It also corrects a formula within the existing Act, and formalises the ongoing payment of care and support workers’ rates to vocational and disability workers who are employed by Oranga Tamariki and the Ministry of Social Development.

This urgency has had a little bit of a pay equity / pay parity flavour to it, and I, for one, welcome that. I think it is appropriate that Parliament moves swiftly to ensure that people are paid a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and that they are not discriminated against based on their gender. It is simply wrong to suggest that, in a like-for-like comparison, some jobs are paid less than others simply because there are more women doing those jobs than in other sectors.

This bill goes some way to delivering the commitment that we have all made as a Parliament for quite some period of time now—decades now—to eliminate that practice. It is taking a while for that to flow through into actual practice, and so I think the fact that we’ve seen the changes to the equal pay legislation passed through the House yesterday—and I hope to see this bill pass through the House very, very shortly—I think that’s a good sign, and something that the Parliament will welcome.

So I want to thank the Health Committee for its consideration of the bill, and the amendments that they have made to the bill that have arisen from their deliberations. I think the select committee process did demonstrate that there is wide support for this bill, including across the House. The committee’s amendments have ensured that it better reflects the settlement that was reached between the unions, mental health and addiction service providers, district health boards, the Ministry of Health, and, of course, the separate agreement for vocational disability workers.

I don’t intend to speak for a long time on this legislation. I think it’s a good piece of legislation, it is an overdue piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party to take a call in support of this very important bill that will soon be legislation. Can I just acknowledge the Minister, as well, for his words, and agree with him totally about the sentiment of the importance of pay equity and pay parity.

This bill will, quite rightly, look after two groups of workers—that would be the mental health and addiction support workers, and the vocational and disability support workers. I think we can never underestimate the work of support workers across the board. Quite often we focus more on the acute end and on our medical staff, who seem to take quite a lot of the status and accolades in caring for vulnerable members of our community, but when you look at one of these groups—the mental health and addictions support workers—we do know that these workers provide valuable support on the ground with people with complex mental health and addiction needs. If they get it right, it prevents that group of people getting into a crisis and it prevents them going into secondary and tertiary care.

I do know from my own background of working in the mental health and addiction sector that it is predominantly a sector with a female workforce, and I’d like to think that experience for me has been for the betterment in my career and has helped me see the world differently. It is concerning with an issue around pay equity and pay parity that in today’s day and age we are still attempting to address that issue.

I do want to pay my acknowledgements to the many people who have worked hard to bring this issue to Parliament. In some way, I suppose, it does validate that Parliament represents people and the advocacy that those people have taken to get this issue to Parliament. I think it speaks volumes that we have full party support here today.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who did bring the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Bill here under the former National Government in 2017, as well as Louisa Wall, as chair of the Health Committee, who I think has done a fantastic job this term in shepherding a large number of very important bills through the Health Committee.

I won’t take up too much time of the House, other than to say that this bill will be significant for a number of people who care. When you talk to a lot of support workers that’s in fact what draws them to the profession—it is that they just want to care for other people in their community—and, quite rightly, they today should get full pay equity and pay parity. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. As the chair of the Health Committee, I can say it was our pleasure to shepherd through the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. This third reading allows us to, I guess, explain what the bill does, which is in fact to give effect to two pay equity settlement agreements between the Crown and, firstly, vocational and disability support workers, and, as my colleague Matt Doocey has spoken about, mental health and addiction support workers. This follows on from the Terranova settlement, which gave rise to the principal Act. Essentially, that established a matrix of pay rates, and I actually say they are akin to the living wage. They were exposed because of the Kristine Bartlett case, which highlighted that support workers were being systematically underpaid because the workers were predominantly women.

I want to acknowledge the E tū union. I want to acknowledge the Public Service Association. I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and I want to acknowledge the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. It has been the union movement that has advocated for our workers. Congratulations to our unions. They show how valuable and vital they are, and can I say to Muriel Tunoho that I know your work isn’t over, and you will continue to challenge the Government and extend the rights of workers, as you should. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak at this reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill, a bill that I’ve had a bit to do with over the years, being a part of Cabinet when it was put through. There were a lot of discussions about the affordability of it, and, at its heart, the fundamental principle here is that the people who care for our most vulnerable were not being recognised and not being valued in the way that they should. So, with a vast amount of discussion and argument, we got to the pay equity settlement in June 2017. That was an extraordinary and historic settlement of $2 billion. I think, from memory, the 55,000 or so aged-care workers around New Zealand were getting around $5,000 each a year, which is a big difference.

Those of us in this House who have had experience with being involved with aged care and with mental health and addiction care, as my colleague Matt Doocey has, will be well aware of the nature of the vocation of the work that these people do. It is not just clinical skills, it is not just doing what is supposed to be done, it is going that extra mile, showing compassion to people who are vulnerable and lonely. So, for me, it has always been something that is essential because it was almost as if all of that was being taken for granted.

So with the Terranova settlement, which really did change the landscape of the professionalism of this group of people who, you know, are in there for the long haul as carers and workers, this has given them a proper structure and a professionalism in terms of their wages. I think that’s really important. The yawning gap, of course, was the mental health and addiction services carers: they were not being recognised, there was a lot of discussion and compromise at the time.

So the background to it is that this has been something that has been a long time coming. I, personally, feel that the work done by the mental health and addiction services is every bit as needed and needing to be valued as those of the aged care sector. So this was a very important part of rounding off, if you like, caring for the carers at the remuneration level. I think, also, the disability support workers, who I had a bit to do with when I was Minister, are also people that just keep soldiering on and keep doing what they feel needs to be done. This is an extremely important signal to them—as well as literally valuable to them—that we, as a country, appreciate what has been done by highly skilled people who do their very best on a compassionate as well as a clinical level. So for all of those reasons, and for the length of time this has taken to get to this stage, I will delay it no longer. I commend this bill to the House.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): This is a very important bill and New Zealand First commends it to the House. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I won’t take too long on this. I was fortunate to be the chair of the Health Committee in the last Parliament that pushed through that major piece of work—the $2 billion worth of work. We knew at the time, as did the Government, the unions, and others, that mental health and addiction support workers needed to be included. For reasons I won’t go into here, all those groups understood at the time it couldn’t happen. So I’m pleased to see—granted it’s taken three more years—that we’re here, but it’s a good win, and, as I mentioned with an earlier bill, it shows that this House can work cooperatively to do what its single purpose is, which is to support the people of New Zealand.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I’m pretty stoked to be able to stand on behalf of the Green Party in support of the third reading of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. What a great couple of days for women and for justice in this country, where last night, just on the mark of midnight, we passed the pay equity legislation that creates a framework to make it a lot easier for undervalued, underpaid women to be able to turn over the exploitation that they’ve been experiencing for all of their lives. This is a really momentous time for us as a country in terms of righting longstanding wrongs.

As we’ve heard from other speakers, this piece of legislation that we’ve got today is, in effect, an add-on to the settlement that was initiated by Kristine Bartlett, supported by the E tū union, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, and a huge amount of work from those union members right across the country against their employers, who were supported by interventions from the previous Government, on the side of the employer, trying to block progress for those women to achieve pay equity. But they persevered and they won, and they got their $2 billion settlement. That is a tribute to the power of organising and being in the right.

It’s fantastic to now, today, see that being extended to mental health workers and vocational disability support workers, because last term when we heard what I think of as the Kristine Bartlett legislation, we heard from mental health workers about how it didn’t make sense not to include them in that settlement, because, in effect, it’s the same group of workers. They were really worried that their sectors would lose staff and be unable to keep providing for people, because they’d be going to the better paid jobs in the aged care and the formalised disability sector or non-vocational disability sector. So it’s fantastic to see this now, that problem being solved, and it’s a great day for justice.

Hon Jacqui Dean: Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Marja Lubeck.

Marja Lubeck: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry. I saw her go before. We’ll get to you.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to see the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill pass following, of course, the historic moment—as referenced by my colleague Jan Logie—of seeing the Equal Pay Amendment Bill pass last night, which has been decades in the making. Also great to see that the mental health and addiction support workers, who were left out of the settlement by the previous National Government, are now getting their invaluable work recognised. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you. I’m very pleased to take a call in the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Bill. I’m quite sure by this stage of the passage of this bill that the detail of the bill will have been well discussed by this House and by the Health Committee. All members in this House have an interest in the provisions in this bill.

So I’ll keep my contribution very local and note that the changes made in the select committee—which is wonderful news, to hear that select committee was able to bring forward some good substantive changes which will clarify the duties of individually funded clients. This is a local issue for me as an MP. I have a number of small to very small communities which are geographically very distant from each other, and support workers in the past have found themselves under enormous pressure getting from client to client. They love their work. I’ve met with a number of them a number of times. Support workers are very committed to their work. They just get very fond of their clients, often, and want the best for them. But the funding issues and travel issues have always been very problematic for them.

So the changes brought by the select committee now mean that support workers can be employed by clients who receive individualised funding from the Ministry of Health. These workers and their employers are included in the settlement agreement, but the definition of “employer” in the principal Act doesn’t cover individually funded clients. So the changes brought by the select committee would ensure that those care workers paid by individually funded clients receive the same pay and conditions, including both the minimum wage rates and, of course, back-pay.

As I said, this is an issue which has been dealt with initially by the previous National Government and now this current Government. It is for the betterment of support workers across all fields, but even more importantly, I think, it has great benefits to the clients who are in their care. I support this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Speaker’s Statements

Temporary Chairperson—Leave Sought

SPEAKER: Members, we’re moving relatively quickly. I’m going to seek the leave of the House for Stuart Smith to act as Chair of the committee for orders of the day Nos 16 and 17, if necessary. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Bills

Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave to put the bill as a whole question.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Stuart Smith): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be taken as one. There is no objection.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 559 in the name of Joanne Hayes to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 35

New Zealand National 34; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Disputes Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister for Māori Development): I move, That Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s with pride that I stand here today with this important piece of legislation. Māori land law is really difficult and anyone who tries to change Te Ture Whenua will experience a challenging time. But we want to improve the wellbeing and prosperity for Māori to create a thriving Aotearoa. As Minister for Māori Development it was important to ensure that we had the conversation around these particular amendments with those whānau who are most impacted. That’s why the amendments that we’re proposing are of a technical nature and very specific to help some of the practical hurdles that whānau are facing in relation to their whenua.

In April 2019, Cabinet agreed that there were opportunities to assist and improve the system for Māori freehold land owners, and, in doing so, additional economic returns could be achieved, delivering social and cultural benefits to Māori and their whānau.

Māori freehold land owners are presented with unique challenges to developing their land, including complex rules and regulations, multiple ownership in land blocks, and alienation of Māori from their whenua with large numbers not succeeding to their land interests. We listened to landowners, we heard, and we responded and initiated work on the whenua Māori work programme. The Whenua Māori Programme is an ambitious new approach to overcome the barriers faced by landowners to accelerate intergenerational wealth and wellbeing. It includes a number of key investments made to date, including on-the-ground whenua advisory services providing facilitation, brokerage, and education to Māori freehold land owners in three focused regions, and providing landowners with easier access to up-to-date information and resources, supporting their decisions about how to use and develop their whenua; also modernisation of the Māori Land Court system. The various integrated initiatives in the Whenua Māori Programme will ensure landowners can move more easily, connect to their whakapapa and whenua, govern their land, plan for succession to it, and take up sustainable development opportunities.

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is the primary legislation for whenua Māori, which provides the framework for Māori land tenure, supporting whānau to retain, develop, and utilise their whenua. Targeted changes contained in this bill will ensure that the laws governing Māori land will work better for whānau, by making practical and technical changes to reduce the complexity, compliance requirements, and costs that whānau and Māori land owners encounter when they engage with the Māori Land Court about their whenua.

This bill also confirms new and enhanced Māori Land Court services. The provisions of the bill will make it easier for Māori to succeed to land that they have an interest in, introducing a new process for simple and uncontested applications to be determined by the Māori Land Court Registrar, which will reduce time and costs associated with attending court and will encourage landowners to take up their interests and reconnect with their whenua. We hope that the simplification of this process will absolutely make it easier for whānau to succeed.

The bill will also provide a new free mediation service to speed up dispute resolution for whānau in accordance with their own tikanga and in a way that helps protect whānau relationships for the long term. In fact, what we’ve learnt over the period of time that we’ve engaged with whānau is that you try and rectify these issues causing as least harm as possible.

The bill will also enable the Māori Land Court judges to convene a judicial settlement conference to support and quicken the resolution of disputes, mandated in law. It will enable descendants who whakapapa to land to connect to their whenua immediately and have a say in its management.

It will also improve housing opportunities for whānau. It allows for occupation orders to be granted to beneficiaries of a whānau trust and removes obstacles to the development of papakāinga housing on Māori reservations. This all sounds so simple, but actually there are real impediments in the current law that restrict, for example, harmonising the occupation order, which currently stands at 14 years, with what the banks require in order to provide a mortgage. It also enables a lease or occupation licence to be granted for longer terms, as I’ve mentioned, which will help whānau to access the lending they need to realise their housing aspirations.

Further barriers have been raised by whānau, and we couldn’t address everything within the context of the Ture Whenua bill. Some of the work is under way. I introduced separate legislation to address issues with the rating of Māori land and targeted amendments to the public works legislation, which will be introduced as soon as practicable.

The Māori Affairs Committee has worked really hard on this bill. It’s been a contentious area of law for Māori for many, many years. But I want to commend them in their diligence and also in raising issues that have urged myself and advisers to really think about the practical impacts of the changes that we’re proposing.

Can I say briefly, in response to matters that Jo Hayes raised in the second reading of the bill, there are complex issues in relation to the way in which whāngai interact with whenua that they may be involved in. Can I say that I’m confident that the tikanga process, which we have included within the context of this bill, will enable whāngai to better engage with the whānau that they have been raised with, and where they have a connection to the whenua those matters will be observed.

Can I also thank the Te Puni Kōkiri officials who provided good advice, and the chair, Rino Tirikatene, of the Māori Affairs Committee, who has always acted fairly in ensuring members across the whole committee have been able to engage with the discussion around the changes that we’re proposing today.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to acknowledge the Minister and the work of the Māori Affairs Committee in considering this bill. Jo Hayes has kept us as a caucus up to date, up to speed, with the progress of this bill, and National supports this Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill.

Not having sat on the select committee, I can but perhaps give some of the background to the bill and some of the purposes of the bill. So this bill does form part of the Whenua Māori Programme, and I note the Minister mentioned in her speech that as well as the bill we are considering today, there are further bills to come. The rating of the whenua Māori amendment bill—now, that’s a local government bill and I don’t recall whether it’s had its first reading or not, but I certainly know it has been considered by our caucus. So there is a legislative programme in place which is co-led by Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Justice, the aim of which is to connect Māori with their whenua and provide Māori land owners with the tools to govern, manage, and develop their land.

One of the consequential benefits of this bill will, I understand, be to provide tenure for Māori land owners to then approach financial institutions to—as a basis to apply for a mortgage to build and develop their land. That surely has got to be a great outcome of this bill. The programme also aims to support whānau to increase the productivity of their whenua, with the goal of having the land positively affect their wellbeing and prosperity.

I mentioned the legislative reform. I just want to finish my short contribution by noting that the Hon Chris Finlayson had spent a considerable amount of time in the previous Parliament working on this very issue and had brought a bill to the House—I’m not familiar enough with this bill to make any comments at all on the similarity, but it does seem to me that the purpose of the work that the Hon Chris Finlayson did, together with Te Ururoa Flavell from the Māori Party, has the same aim as this bill. So with those brief comments, I commend the bill to the House.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand to wholeheartedly support this, Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill, at its third reading. I was delighted to be part of the Māori Affairs Committee that examined the bill, and we had some very helpful submissions from representatives right across the motu, which have been incorporated to improve this bill.

This bill is all about, you know, just making sure that our Māori land laws help our Māori land owners do things better, more efficiently, and ultimately can help unlock a lot of the barriers, I guess, that Māori land owners face, whether it’s through various processes, through the land courts, and just the mechanisms that are available.

So I commend this bill. I commend the Minister for her work. I thank the officials from Justice and Te Puni Kōkiri, who excellently took us through our examination of the bill. This bill is going to be fantastic to assist our Māori whānau out there, and this is just one part of the Whenua Māori Programme of a whole suite of legislative changes that will be coming through that will ultimately help whakamahana the whenua—help our whānau to warm up our land and make sure that we can unleash the potential of our whenua Māori. So I commend it to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I also commend this bill to the House. I’d like to make a couple of comments on Minister Nanaia Mahuta’s speech. I thoroughly enjoyed the language that she was using. It was extremely positive. It’s words that I like to see and should be used more frequently in this House—words like “reducing compliance”, words like “simplifies”, “sustainable development”, “opportunities”, “housing opportunities”, “removing obstacles”, “enabling”, “housing aspiration”, “complexity and compliance”—removal of the above—“resolution dispute systems”, “mediation programmes”, all for the benefit of this country as a whole, but particularly for Māori and the complexities relating to the landownership issues that are faced and are, you know, a hindrance to Māori development. So with those words, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Associate Minister for Māori Development): I just want to tautoko some of the kōrero that’s gone on. I’m really pleased this has gone through, because it clarifies the position in terms of partners—particularly, Pākehā partners. There’s always a lot of controversy, sometimes, in terms of rights and who gets rights—particularly when there’s a death—and all this sort of thing that carries on, and this gives some clarification in terms of what happens in terms of partners’ rights. So I’m really pleased about that.

I’m also pleased—and a lot of people out there said this to me—that the position of whāngai is being clarified a lot more here. Whāngai is so important in terms of tikanga Māori, in terms of their positions in terms of family. What rights do they have? Of course they have rights. Maybe they don’t have the toto—or have the blood—but they have rights because they’re part and parcel of that whānau and have made contributions, and they’re just as important as anyone who has the bloodline.

The third part that I’m particularly comfortable about is that we’ve brought in mediation, because things can get a bit volatile between whānau when we’re talking about whenua and we’re talking about whenua rights—land rights. We’ve incorporated some of the mahi that we do—particularly in the industrial relations side of things—into this tikanga process when whānau get into arguments about who owns what, who gets what, etc., etc. So I’m so pleased that we’ve got the professional mediation coming in to sort things out and to clarify things.

So well done to the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, and well done to our Minister for Māori Development. Finally, we’re going to get some light at the end of the tunnel for this very, very important kaupapa. I’m very happy to support the bill. Kia ora tātou.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Greens are proud to support Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution, and Related Matters) Amendment Bill. Along with all of the main points that my colleagues and the Minister have put on the floor, on this bill, I particularly wanted to pick up with enthusiasm further work with the Minister to protect whenua Māori under the Public Works Act, and will continue to have those fruitful discussions about how to make sure we are protecting the small bits of whenua Māori that we have left. We commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill

Third Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will create a new regulatory body called Taumata Arowai to oversee, administer, and enforce a new and strengthened drinking-water regulatory system and to perform additional functions relating to improving the environmental performance of stormwater and waste-water networks. The name Taumata Arowai is intended to convey the importance and authority of this new regulator. In fact, the way in which a regulator acts to oversee the compliance with drinking-water standards, source protection, and the way waste water is returned to its receiving environment will be a significant aspect of their role—also, the way in which te mana o te wai is factored into its operations.

The bill has a largely administrative focus to establish Taumata Arowai as a legal entity and to provide for its objectives, functions, and governance arrangements. Comprehensive reform through a new drinking-water regulatory framework will be provided for in a separate, complementary bill. This forthcoming legislation, called the “Water Services Bill”, will prescribe Taumata Arowai’s specific responsibilities and powers, as well as the duties of councils and other water suppliers. As a new stand-alone Crown agent, Taumata Arowai will have a dedicated, sustained focus on drinking-water safety, with the mana to recruit highly skilled individuals; an appropriate degree of independence for dealing with highly technical matters, with a significant emphasis on compliance and enforcement; and sufficient independence to protect the integrity of its decision making.

I’ve previously outlined to the House the systemic failure of the existing drinking-water regulatory framework, a framework that allowed the Havelock North campylobacter outbreak to take place in 2016, where, at a conservative estimate, 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking their household water every year. This is completely unacceptable, and we’re working to ensure that the creation of a regulator is the first step to giving New Zealanders confidence that no matter where they live, they will have access to safe, clean drinking-water.

The establishment of a new dedicated regulator delivers necessary step change, a national level oversight, leadership, and communication and coordination required to ensure the safety of drinking water across the country. In carrying out these functions, Taumata Arowai will provide a firm but consistent approach to monitoring and enforcing compliance with strengthened regulatory requirements for drinking water. It will also have a remit to provide much-needed central oversight and guidance of the operation of underperforming waste-water treatment plants and stormwater networks, while regional councils remain the primary regulator for waste water and stormwater discharges.

The bill sets the tone for Taumata Arowai to take a collaborative and outward-facing approach, including engaging and building relationships with consumers and regulated parties, including Māori; promoting public understanding of drinking-water safety, and the environmental performance of waste-water and stormwater networks; and working across councils and smaller water suppliers to build and maintain expertise and capability, including through sharing good practice, research, guidance, and training. This approach is intended to help build confidence in the safety of drinking water and the overarching regulatory system, and reinforces the importance of continual improvement across the three waters sector.

The bill also provides a number of provisions that individually and collectively recognise, respect, and provide for Māori interests as Treaty partners. These include, for example, requirements for Taumata Arowai to partner and engage early and meaningfully with Māori; inform how it can give effect to te mana o te wai; and understand, support, and enable the exercise of mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, and kaitiakitanga. The overall intent is to ensure that Māori interests and knowledge are embedded throughout Taumata Arowai. To this end, a Māori advisory group will provide support and guidance to the regulators board, chief executive, and wider organisation.

While outlining the key intent of this bill, I’d like to briefly draw to the attention of the House a minor amendment made at the committee of the whole House stage. A Supplementary Order Paper extended the bill’s commencement provisions to provide time for Taumata Arowai’s board to be appointed before the Act comes into force, ensuring a smooth transition to the new regime. I reiterate that the bill, along with our broader package of three waters regulatory reform, demonstrates our Government’s commitment to addressing the issues and opportunities highlighted by the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry and the three waters review. Importantly, these reforms are the result of extensive engagement with local government, iwi Māori, and the wider water sector, where we’ve received strong support for the establishment of a dedicated national regulator.

I’d like to again thank all the parties for their constructive collaboration in developing this bill and the wider regulatory reforms. I look forward to working further with them on the next steps in the programme, and I’m certainly looking forward to the partnership that we currently have with local government and the work of the steering committee that is currently engaging with the sector. I’d also like to again acknowledge my colleagues for their support and contributions to this bill—in particular, the previous Minister of Health, the Hon David Clark, and the Minister for the Environment, the Hon David Parker.

I am pleased to say that we’ve listened to the expert advice, including the recommendations of the Havelock North inquiry, and a breadth of national and international research. We’ve listened to the views of regulated parties, including local government, iwi Māori, and the water sector, and through the creation of this new water regulator and sector leader, we have delivered on decisive, transformational change to put the health and safety of our communities first, because it’s all about our people who rely on us to make the right decisions so that they have the assurance of clean, safe drinking-water.

On that note, I commend the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill to the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National does support the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill at its third reading. I was involved in the development of this bill through the first reading and the committee stage, and then left the role of local government spokesperson, and so I’m reacquainting myself with it.

I think the first comment I would have on this water services regulator bill is that it simply establishes Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator, as it is a new Crown agent, and it is true to say that the drinking-water regulator does enjoy the support of the local government sector, who, out of the Havelock North campylobacter incident, a very serious moment in local government in New Zealand, do recognise that a regulator, a Crown entity, will improve drinking-water regulation in New Zealand.

But I’m afraid that the support really begins to become a bit more delicate, and I wouldn’t agree with Minister Mahuta, who’s just spoken on the bill, that the Government’s programme on three waters reform enjoys wide support, as she noted, from the local government sector. I don’t believe it does. Pieces of legislation within the programme, such as the water services regulator bill, might enjoy support but I’m not so sure about the water services bill to follow. We haven’t seen it yet in enough detail to comment—but certainly not the stage after that, which has been signalled by the Minister as part of this programme, which is to, essentially, provide funding as long as councils commit to amalgamation of their water services. That is where this programme, I predict, will get very rocky for the Government, because what the Government fail to recognise through all of this is that these are not Crown assets they are considering and legislating for; these are community-owned, council-owned assets under the stewardship of councils.

I don’t think anyone’s arguing that there should not be improvement in the collective stewardship of drinking-water service, but what I hear from local government is extensive disquiet that the Government has been bent for the last three years on a programme which is effectively hitting the nuclear button in taking away the control of drinking water and ultimately three waters services from local authorities, under their own council-owned, community-owned infrastructure, and placing it, as long as the council agreed to amalgamate, into one of five water companies across New Zealand.

I won’t stray too far into that, because that’s a conversation for another day, but I would flag to the House that the words of the Minister in her third reading speech on the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill might come back to bite her in the future if she has the opportunity, which I hope she doesn’t, to then legislate to amalgamate water services. I don’t think the passage of that will come easily, and I do hope that local government finds its voice and lets its feelings be known on behalf of its ratepayers, on behalf of all of us who pay rates for our three waters infrastructure. And I hope it sends the message to this Government that forced amalgamation—which is what it amounts to, because councils are being held over a barrel—is not acceptable. Anyway, that is a conversation to come.

Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator, is going to be a Crown agent and does enjoy the general support of local government. However, also signalled by the Minister in her speech is that the water services bill gives effect to, and makes decisions on implementing, the nationwide reform to drinking-water services. Again, it has elements that we can support but—and it’s an often-used term in this House—the devil will be in the detail. I challenge the Minister to stay true to the comments she made today that she will engage with local government in a meaningful way on the next stage of this water reform, because we’re getting to the sharp end of this programme and there is a line—I can see the line—and I think that if it is to succeed and if it is to enjoy the support wider than one half, plus a little, of the House, then it really does need to go out and include all of the local authorities. At the moment, they have very real fears about where this whole programme is going to end up for them.

For some of the smaller authorities across New Zealand cities, it’s a different issue. Amalgamation and a centralised regulator and regulation that comes from Taumata Arowai is not an issue for larger cities in the main, because they have a greater corporate structure, but if you go into provincial and rural New Zealand and if you go on to marae, you are talking to the people that dug the trenches to put the water scheme in. Some of the older farmers around rural New Zealand are the ones that put the rural drinking-water scheme in, and their views need to be taken into account as this Government goes through this wider programme. With those comments, I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I’ll take a very short call on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. We’ve long campaigned for the rights of water in this country. This is a critically important piece of legislation because the regulation and the basic maintenance of the infrastructure have been neglected for a really long time. So this is an important part of the solution.

I do just want to very quickly respond to the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, and all of the talk about needing to work with the local government and acknowledge the importance and the ownership of water infrastructure in the local community. There’s a sense of irony for me of having gone through, in the last term of Parliament, local government legislation introduced by that side of the House that sought to enforce amalgamation on councils that all of local government rebelled against quite solidly in terms of National Party mayors threatening the National Government for doing exactly what that member was suggesting Labour would do. I’ve got to say that this Government has been showing a complete commitment to partnership in doing this work and it has to be part of it—and that is we also see in this legislation a commitment to partnership with Māori and a recognition of the importance of their rights in this area. We support this legislation.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill. I really just wanted to take this last call to say that I had the last word. I support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Friday)