Tuesday, 4 August 2020

TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2020

TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers

Prayers

SPEAKER: Kia orana. Members, because it’s Cook Islands Language Week, I’ve asked the Hon Alfred Ngaro to say the prayer in Cook Islands Māori.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Ka pure tatou ki Te Atua. E Te Atua mana, te akameitaki atu nei matou ia koe no toou takinga meitaki ta‘au e riringi mai nei ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata. Te akama‘ara nei matou i Te Ariki Vaine, e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri‘anga manako. Kia rave matou i ta matou anga‘anga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari, te tuatua tika e te aka‘aka no te meitaki o to matou basileia i Nu Tireni nei. Na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia amene. Amene.

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 all her Government’s policies and commitments?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Kia orana, Mr Speaker, and yes. While I know time will not allow me to list all of them, I’d like to highlight just a few, including the most significant investment we have seen in recent times into mental health, rebuilding hospitals, setting up our Cancer Control Agency; changes to make schooling more affordable and make school buildings more modern; cleaning up our rivers, introducing the zero carbon Act; support provided to New Zealanders through the Families Package—which has contributed to child poverty improvements against seven of the nine indicators—building more public houses, banning offshore speculators, lifting the standards of rental homes; and, of course, our economic management, which gave us low unemployment and low Government debt as a springboard to go hard, to go early, and to rebuild after COVID-19.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that her Government built just 101 houses, compared to the 1,000 houses originally promised by her and her then Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Twyford, for the first year of the flagship KiwiBuild programme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The most recent figures I have for KiwiBuild is that we have had 589 sold and 1,051 currently under construction. I would say that is 589 more affordable homes that families are living in than that last Government created, and a thousand more under construction than that last Government created. I would also add to that record that this Government is currently building more houses than any Government since the 1970s. Public housing places have increased by 5,103 and we currently have 3,000 public houses under construction. We stand proudly on our housing record.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, is it correct that her Government built just 294 houses compared to the 5,000 houses originally promised by her and her then Minister of Housing, the Hon Phil Twyford, for the second year of the flagship KiwiBuild programme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I have already given the figures for KiwiBuild and the figures for the Government’s building programme, and both of those combined, as much as the member may wish to critique our record, stand far in advance of anything that the last Government did. These are numbers which reflect real houses, not the mythical 30,000 that, apparently, National built, which would be closer to reflecting the number that was sold by the last Government.

Hon Judith Collins: When her Government promised to build 16,000 KiwiBuild homes in the first three years of the KiwiBuild programme, then delivered only 452 houses, as at 30 June 2020, was that a failure to deliver?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member may frame it like that, but that is still more than that Government did in nine years—in nine years. So what that member is criticising us for still far outstrips anything that her Government did. In fact, roughly 6,000 houses sold, stock reduced, left us with a crisis in housing that we are still fixing.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, why, under her Government, has the number of people waiting to go into a State house more than trebled from 5,944 in September 2017 to a whopping 17,982 as at May 2020?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Under this Government, we reflect and take on board all need rather than changing the lists and cutting entire sections of the waiting list in order to engineer the numbers. Had that last Government, under National, built houses at the pace that we are currently, we would not have a waiting list for housing.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that her Government’s $400 million progressive homeownership scheme has helped not one single person buy a home to date?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We only recently announced the progressive homeownership scheme—again, something that we have created and stand proudly on. Again, I would point out to the member that she’s choosing to critique a record that stands far in advance of anything that the last Government did. The largest Government building programme since the 1970s, half a billion dollars into retrofitting State houses to make them healthy homes, a support programme to sustain tenancy, increases in the Housing First policy. Every single part of our programme far outstrips and seeks to remedy a crisis we inherited.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether her Government has sold social housing or built them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, the fact that we hold the status of having built more than any Government since the 1970s, and the member is right to reflect that the last Government shed stock—up to 6,000 worth of homes were gotten rid of under that last Government—whereas we have built the housing stock we so desperately need.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it a failure to deliver for her to promise to build a strong economy when economic growth under her Government and before COVID-19 had already halved?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am happy to reflect on that record, because pre-COVID, our GDP growth averaged 2.3 percent, where it was 2.1 percent under National. Unemployment was 4 percent, whereas it was 4.7 when we took office, and we’ve had the highest private sector wage growth in a decade. I stand proudly on this Government’s economic record, including paying down our debt to put us into a position to weather the storm of COVID relative to what we inherited.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Prime Minister think it is a success story that we will have the first family moving into a home purchased under the progressive homeownership scheme in November of this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, because, as I said—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —it sits alongside sustaining tenants—

SPEAKER: No, Prime Minister, sit down. I know it’s the last week, and it’s sometimes a bit like school in the last week, and there’s a tendency for discipline to get slack. But we’re not having members shouted down when they’re attempting to answer questions.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and that policy sits alongside Housing First, sustaining tenancies, our increase in transitional housing, and, of course, our significant Government building programme where we added another 8,000 public houses just recently as part of our COVID response, recovery, and rebuild.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that, of the $455 million allocated for mental health in Budget 2019, her Government spent only around half of what was allocated for year one, and that the number of front-line mental health sites is behind her Government’s target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the member actually read the announcements at the time, she’d recognise that we have to rebuild our mental health workforce. At the time we announced it, we anticipated, for the 2019 and 2020 year, an early $40 million worth of investment. I can report that, at this point, $120 million has been distributed. We are having to train a workforce and build front-line mental health services as we go, but we’ve always known that.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is her Government’s billion trees programme only planting trees at half the rate it should to reach its own target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We consider ourselves to be on track with the billion trees programme. My memory, if it serves, is roughly 149 million trees. And, of course, we expect it to continue to scale up. I would point out to the House that all of these initiatives, all of the progress and environmental challenges on climate change, on mental health, and on housing, are more than that Government ever even thought about putting out or even delivering a press statement on, because they did nothing in any of those areas.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her commitment to provide university students with free fees when the total number of equivalent full-time domestic students in public tertiary education and training dropped by over 2,000 in 2018?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When you have a tight labour market and jobs aplenty, that is what happens. Again, we’ve delivered the first year free, and we’ve also made sure that those who’ll be seeking apprenticeships or vocational training in high-need areas are supported to complete that for free as well. We stand by our investment in skills.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did her Government not proceed with light rail in Auckland when it promised to?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the coalition Government could not agree on a policy there. But, again, there have been plenty of other transport initiatives, including plugging the $6 billion gap that Simon Bridges left for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project.

Hon Judith Collins: Is she satisfied that rapid transit solutions in Auckland have stalled over the last three years while her Government struggled to agree on a light rail project?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. Interesting the member would characterise it in that way when that’s not something that her Government at that time, or her party, has supported. But we have, of course, seen progress on the Eastern Busway, State Highway 20B, the Old Māngere Bridge replacement project, ongoing work on the City Rail Link, the Karangahape Road cycleway, and the Constellation bus station, to name a few in Auckland alone.

Hon Judith Collins: Is promising to build light rail from Auckland CBD to Mount Roskill, and then not even starting it, a failure to deliver?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It’s actually called democracy. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! If the members want their leader to have another question, they will be quiet.

Hon Judith Collins: When will light rail from the Auckland CBD to Mount Roskill be completed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m intrigued the member’s taken an interest, given she apparently doesn’t support it. But thank you for joining and agreeing with us that rapid transit and public transport in Auckland are necessary. We have sent it back to the Ministry of Transport, and we expect that whoever has the privilege of forming the next Government will be reporting directly to them with further proposals for rapid transit from the city centre to the airport.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn) 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): Mr Speaker, kia orana. On Thursday, Xero released small-business employment and revenue data for June, showing many Kiwi small businesses are recovering from the impacts of COVID-19. The data showed that compared to Australia and the United Kingdom, New Zealand has seen the strongest early rebuilding phase so far, despite having the largest drop in small-business revenue when lockdowns were introduced. June 2020 small-business revenue is on par with revenue in June 2019, recovering from significant drops in May and April. In Australia, revenue remains down 8 percent on June last year, and in the UK, it’s down 18 percent. At the end of June, the New Zealand small-business sector had 3.6 percent fewer jobs than pre-crisis levels. This compares to 6.8 percent fewer jobs in the Australian small-business sector and 8.5 percent in the UK. While we know that many small businesses are doing it tough right now, this data underscores the benefit of the less restrictive business environment that Kiwi small and medium sized enterprises are now operating in, thanks to the hard work of the team of 5 million.

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On Friday, the ANZ-Roy Morgan consumer confidence survey for July was released, showing consumer confidence remained steady in July after resurgence through May and June. The overall consumer confidence index for July was 104.3 percent, up from a low of 84.8 percent in April. It’s encouraging to see a net 31 percent of consumers expect to be better off financially this time next year. While households’ views of the next year’s economic outlook lifted another four points, it does remain very low. The proportion of households who think it’s a good time to buy a major household item did fall as well. We can see that our decision to go hard and early in both our health and economic response to COVID-19 has given Kiwi households confidence coming out of the lockdown, but it’s also clear that with the virus raging overseas and many areas reimposing restrictions, there is less certainty in the consumer environment. That’s why we’re committed to supporting New Zealand firms and workers to adapt to this one-in-100-year shock, and we have made significant investments to back this up.

Dr Deborah Russell: What actions has the Government taken to help the economy adapt to the impacts of COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, in light of your admonishments to me, I’ll try to keep this short. In the face of a one-in-100-year shock to the global economy, we have always acknowledged that we would not be able to save every job or every business, and we have not hidden the fact that this is a global economic crisis that is still going, but the Government is investing to cushion the blow on households and businesses to make sure that we’re in the best position to respond, recover, and rebuild. Our decision to extend the wage subsidy scheme was designed to help businesses keep their employees attached while they adapt to this unprecedented economic shock. Likewise, the COVID income relief payment recognises additional assistance is needed to cushion the blow for people who are looking for work or taking time to retrain. As we look ahead, there are a number of areas where the Government’s support will continue, including investing in our people through policies to close the skills gap, creating jobs, preparing for the future, supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs, and positioning New Zealand globally to continue to trade with the world.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: Is she confident in the systems at the border and in quarantine and managed isolation?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes, I am confident. Our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system is working well. This is demonstrated by the fact that 34,768 people have been through managed isolation since 26 March 2020. Since New Zealand returned to level 1, all positive COVID-19 cases have been picked up in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and there has been no community transmission of the virus in New Zealand for more than 90 days. We’re one of the few countries in the world that is successfully keeping COVID-19 out of our community. While I am confident in the systems, this doesn’t mean that human error won’t occur from time to time, and we’ve seen that play out in a handful of isolated incidents—all of which have resulted in improvements to the overall MIQ systems. Finally, while I do not have direct responsibility for systems at the border, I am working closely with my colleagues to ensure all systems are working well to keep New Zealanders safe.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How does staffing of New Zealand managed isolation facilities differ from those that caused community outbreaks of COVID-19 in Victoria?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Since the middle of June, since Air Commodore Webb and I assumed responsibility for the managed isolation systems, we’ve been going through a programme of change. What we have is an operational lead at all 32 of our managed isolation facilities from the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF). There are four to six members of NZDF on site at each of our facilities; there is one permanent member of the New Zealand Police force. We also have Aviation Security Service on site, and they are subcontracting private security firms. We also then have staffing of hotel workers that are there, and this is, of course, in addition to the health workforce that is on site at each of the 32 managed isolation facilities. In regard to the staffing levels, we have been carrying out a site security assessment on all of the facilities over the last fortnight, and that is due to report back to us this week. In that report we will be looking at a variety of factors, such as resourcing, the level of services, accreditation of security firms that are providing services, as well as technology that can be deployed in the facilities.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is there an over-reliance on private security in New Zealand and at managed isolation facilities?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No. Of the nine managed isolation facilities that I have visited now, we have anywhere between four and seven private security staff operating in those facilities. That is matched by between four and six NZDF personnel, as well as police personnel that are there full time 24/7.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What steps do private security guards working in managed isolation take to ensure that they don’t put their families and the wider community at risk from COVID-19?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This is an issue that we have been working through for several weeks with those workers and with their representative organisations—that we have rigorous steps in place at our managed isolation facilities to protect all workers, not just our security staff. That is the systems that are in place around the physical distancing that is required within our facilities, the safe operation from a health perspective around disease control within our facilities, and the appropriate use of personal protective equipment when it is required to protect those staff. I think the fact that we have had 34,000 people through our managed isolation facilities and we have not had community outbreak shows New Zealanders that they can feel safe, they can feel secure, and that our managed isolation facilities are offering a strong line of defence in keeping them and the gains they fought for safe.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has she heard of any instances where people who should not have been permitted to enter a managed isolation facility—such as to make a delivery to a guest—achieved entry because security guards failed to undertake appropriate vetting?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are a couple of instances of people trying to get into facilities as well. The reports that I have had and the briefings I have had is that the systems have worked. These people have not got past the common areas, they have not made contact, and this is a sign of the systems working. What I would like to reassure New Zealanders, and not create fear for New Zealanders, is that we have a robust system in place that ensures New Zealanders can be kept safe by the fact that we have a strong line of defence in our managed isolation facilities and that our systems are working in there and stopping people either entering or leaving when they should be.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What services, including food and beverage services, are provided to guests in managed isolation facilities?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: There are three meals a day, the member might be pleased to know—three meals a day—that are provided, as well as morning and afternoon snacks, from my understanding. These are provided on site at the facilities, and each facility operates—

Hon Grant Robertson: Release the menu!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —its own alcohol—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Both those comments are inappropriate, and both members should know better.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think I’ve said enough.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister as to how she would be able to cope, with all the assistance that’s needed, if there was, en masse, people coming from China as advocated by the National Party?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What we are—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, how can you allow a question that’s based on a speculative comment from the Deputy Prime Minister with absolutely no evidence to that effect whatsoever?

SPEAKER: Well, I think I was here in the House when—well, I certainly have a recollection of one of the former leaders of the National Party suggesting that a bubble be formed with Australia and, shortly after that, with China.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On this side of the House, this Government is committed to making sure that we are operating our borders in a managed way that protects New Zealanders from COVID but, importantly, also protects the gains that we collectively made as a team of 5 million. We will do this in a methodical, planned, and managed way to ensure we are not putting all of that at risk.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How many of the 452,425 people receiving the wage subsidy extension does he expect will become unemployed when the wage subsidy expires, and what is the Government’s plan if the majority of those New Zealanders lose their jobs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In Budget 2020 the wage subsidy was extended to give businesses certainty and time to make decisions and plan for the future as the economic recovery got under way. Decisions about the 470,391 jobs currently covered by the wage subsidy extension, when the scheme expires, are for each individual business to make, not the Government. Treasury forecasts net employment and unemployment levels across the economy, not individual projections for various schemes. At the Budget, Treasury forecast employment to be 2.463 million in the June quarter, 2.477 million in the September quarter, and 2.523 million in the December quarter. For the number of people classified as unemployed, Treasury forecast 222,000 people in the June quarter, 268,000 people in the September quarter, and 246,000 people in the December quarter.

In response to the second part of the question, I reject the premise of it, but, regardless, our post-COVID economic plan focuses on five key priorities: investing in our people; creating jobs and improving productivity; preparing for the future through digital transformation, decarbonisation, and research and development; supporting small businesses and entrepreneurs; and positioning New Zealand globally as a place to trade with and invest in, and, hopefully, eventually visit again. If the member likes the sound of all of that, he has the opportunity to back our recovery and rebuild by voting for that plan when the Budget 2020 legislation is debated in Parliament this evening.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just not quite sure how a Minister can reject the premise of a question when the question is “if the majority”—there’s no premise if you’re saying “if the majority of those people lose their jobs”.

SPEAKER: Well, he’s rejecting the possibility of that occurring. He can do it quite easily.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How was he so sure when he told Q+A on Sunday that the vast bulk of those Kiwis on the wage subsidy would be keeping employed?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, as I’ve just answered, I gave Treasury’s projections for what they expect to happen. The member will be able to work out how many people are out of work at the moment based on the statistics that are released every week. If you take that away from the number that Treasury projected, you’ll see that the vast bulk of people who are currently on the scheme are expected to be able to stay in work.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he saying that he’s not receiving weekly advice from Treasury as to exactly what’s happening on the ground right now in terms of an extraordinary situation where hundreds of thousands of Kiwis—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come to a question, please.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve heard some very long questions from other members of the House that you haven’t stopped.

SPEAKER: All right. The member will resume his seat.

Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. To the Minister—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How is that decision to terminate Mr Goldsmith’s questioning even slightly reasonable, given that we’ve sat here and listened to exceptionally long answers today from Government Ministers, presumably positioning ahead of an event later next month? It seems unreasonable when there’s only more one day of questions—

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I indicated to the member that he should stop. His question wasn’t terminated because his question was too long; it was because he argued with me afterwards on his feet without even taking a point of order. I mean, he knows that he’s not allowed to do that.

5. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Is the Provincial Growth Fund on track to meet the target of creating 10,000 jobs?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): We have outstripped the target. The Provincial Development Unit has undertaken a robust and comprehensive stocktake: 13,000 people have worked on Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) projects up and down the country; an additional 11,000 have enrolled also on skills and employment programmes—many of them have gone on to additional training, and a host gone on to work.

Mark Patterson: How else can the success of the PGF be evaluated?

Hon SHANE JONES: The actual applicants to the Provincial Growth Fund have reported they expect a further 15,000 people to work on projects. That gets us to 28,000 people in total. I would also say a key tenet of the PGF was to address low productivity outcomes and also bring the Māori community and the ongoing problems of training, land, and other resources—and a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report evaluated that the Provincial Growth Fund’s investment has led to an increase of GDP by $250 million per year, and the creation of 1,257 jobs just in those isolated provincial Māori communities.

Mark Patterson: What are some of the highlights of the PGF since it was launched in early 2018?

Hon SHANE JONES: Our Government believes in water storage. We know that in this post-COVID time it’s important that the productivity and the potential of land is expanded and enhanced so we can cope with droughts, floods. We’ve continued to invest in marine and coastal assets. Some, I must say, were projects initiated in terms of the last regime but funded by this Government. We’ve actually gone into the very difficult areas of the employee community and delivered meth addiction responses at the request of employers in our provinces. For fear of protracting the answer, it’s all on the website.

Question No. 6—Social Development

6. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made about supporting communities in the COVID-19 recovery?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On Friday just gone, Minister Williams and I announced that applications were opening for our new Community Capability and Resilience Fund. This is a $36 million community fund available from 1 August for community groups seeking funding for initiatives that support the rebuild and recovery from COVID-19 over the next two years. Our community groups have done a great job at supporting New Zealanders and keeping communities safe and resilient over time as we respond and recover from COVID-19. The Community Capability and Resilience Fund will enable groups to build on this work and implement locally led solutions in their communities.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What impact have community grants had so far in the COVID-19 response?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Community Capability and Resilience Fund builds on the success of the Community Awareness and Preparedness Grant fund, which was established by this Government to provide immediate support to communities during the COVID-19 lockdown. This fund was exhausted with over 900 groups supported. Communities were able to apply and receive funding quickly for innovative solutions and ideas that made an immediate positive impact for communities. We want to continue to encourage this through this new fund. Through the community awareness and preparedness fund, we supported community groups to share information, help people overcome the digital and technology challenges, provide essential goods, and check in to make sure that those isolated and living alone were supported.

Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is the Community Capability and Resilience Fund important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Community Capability and Resilience Fund is for community groups who are often different to traditional providers. They are made up of a cross-section of the local community and public or population-based interest groups. The fund will have a focus on community-led initiatives such as building and improving the provision of services, developing and implementing locally determined COVID-19 recovery plans. This Government is committed to supporting the wellbeing of our people, our whānau and communities, and this fund can help us achieve this in new and innovative ways, with initiatives led by our people, for our people.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How does he explain recent outbound air travellers who tested positive when they arrived in Australia, and how does this relate to community surveillance testing numbers over the past three months?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): I’m advised that of the three recent cases that tested positive on arrival in Australia, two had been in transit through Auckland Airport and never entered the community here in New Zealand. The other positive test is believed to relate to a far earlier infection during the lockdown period, and that individual is not thought to be currently infectious. As a precaution, however, contact tracing and testing is being conducted for these cases. So far, all related tests have come back negative. In answer to the second part of the question, testing numbers have fluctuated but I have been clear that I want to see more testing. I was encouraged to see an increase in community testing numbers over the last week, and higher numbers over the weekend compared to previous weekends. I’m also pleased to report that a pop-up testing site set up today in Queenstown had so far collected 600 samples by 2 p.m., after only a few hours of operation.

Dr Shane Reti: How many contact traces have been undertaken on these recent cases?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have the numbers for those specific cases with regard to the exact number, but with regard to the first two cases I mentioned, where they had transited through Auckland, CCTV footage so far has revealed that they had no close contacts while in New Zealand. They were literally here for a matter of hours and did not come into close contact with anybody. With regard to the case who tested positive after leaving New Zealand, my understanding is that the immediate household has been tested, and all have come back negative. There were a handful of other close contacts that have been tested and have come back negative, but that contact tracing, of course, will not be closed until all of those contacts have been contacted.

Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain the following statement from ministry officials regarding the person who flew from Auckland to Sydney on 6 July and then tested positive, “It appears the person may have been a previously unconfirmed case from March and this is responsible for the positive test result,”, and was that person then positive in New Zealand from March to July?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, what it’s a sign of is that people can test positive for COVID-19 long after they have recovered from the virus. That’s a well-established fact within the scientific and health community. There will be people in New Zealand who did not get tested during the lockdown who did have COVID-19 during that time, and who recovered. In some cases, people did not seek a test. They did exactly what we suggested, which was they stayed home and they got better. In other cases they may have sought a test and not had one, because—in some cases—I’m aware of people who went to get a test but were put off by the fact that there were long queues outside the testing stations. So there will be people who were positive for COVID-19 previously, who have had the virus, who have subsequently recovered, but who would still test positive if tested today.

Dr Shane Reti: What is the average time frame for people who have tested positive to test negative?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t think that there’s a specific—I don’t have that information around the overall time frame. Some people have previously tested positive and then some months later have tested negative. Others have tested positive and then some months later, after they have well and truly recovered, have still tested positive, even though they had well and truly recovered. So I don’t know. I can find out if there is an average time, but I’m not sure that that would necessarily tell us much.

Dr Shane Reti: Is it correct that the first that New Zealand health authorities knew about the positive 26 July Australian test was when she called the New Zealand health hotline from Australia, and what is the average time between a positive border test from a New Zealand flight arriving in Australia and notification to New Zealand authorities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would depend on the notification regime of the country that the person arrives in. Some countries are faster than others at notifying New Zealand about a positive test result. In some cases, people have contacted Healthline from overseas and it’s turned out to be that the information that they supplied to Healthline hasn’t been correct. There are reports—fairly regularly—of some of these cases that require investigation which are based on hearsay. So they’re based on New Zealanders thinking that they know of someone who’s tested positive overseas when, after it’s subsequently been chased down, that has proven to not be the case.

Question No. 8—Housing (Public Housing)

8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about improving the quality of State housing?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Last week, at Sinclair Grove in Naenae, the Government announced a $500 million boost to our State house retrofit programme. This will see around 1,500 older State homes in 30 towns and cities across New Zealand upgraded and renewed over the next 2½ years. This shows our Government following through on our commitment to not only add thousands of homes to the public housing stock but also improve the quality of public housing available to New Zealanders and their whānau.

Paul Eagle: What will the retrofit programme mean for tenants?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Tenants will be living in warmer, drier, and healthier homes. Their homes will be improved by the installation of wall, ceiling, and floor insulation, double-glazing of windows, improvements to ventilation and air tightness, new heating, and making these homes more accessible. I’m advised that tenants who live in homes that were part of a pilot are already enjoying the health benefits of homes that have already been retrofitted. For example, we’ve heard from one tenant in the Hutt Valley whose son had a respiratory condition which has improved since moving back into the retrofitted home, and this means fewer visits to their doctor and more days at school.

Paul Eagle: How will the retrofit programme support regional economies?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As well as being a significant investment in the health of New Zealand’s public housing supply, this $500 million is also a major investment in the regional economies where this retrofitting work will happen. Kāinga Ora will look to use contractors of all sizes to carry out this work, creating more opportunities for a range of companies in the regions. Many of these companies will be experiencing the economic effects of COVID-19, and the Government recognises how important programmes like this are to give local contractors certainty over their project pipeline.

Question No. 9—Tourism

9. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Why was AJ Hackett given a $5.1 million grant by the Government but outbound tourism operators such as travel agents were given no support in the recently announced $311 million COVID aid package?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): AJ Hackett and over 120 other tourism businesses all met the strategic asset criteria, they applied, and were approved to receive financial support. No outbound operators, like travel agents, applied to the strategic asset fund—that is why no support was given.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that travel agents continue to assist clients with refunds, without remuneration, and, if so, does he think the Government should support them as they have AJ Hackett?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Well, first of all, they received the wage subsidy scheme, but I’ve heard varying levels of support that the outbound tourism operators want. First of all, it was a billion dollars that they wanted support from the Government, then it was $180 million, then it was $30 million. Look, if they need support from the Government, then they need to come to us with a coherent package of the support that they need, not just plucking figures out of the air.

Hon Todd McClay: Has he requested any information on the number of jobs that would be lost in the outbound tourism sector when the wage subsidy ends, compared to the 20 jobs saved at AJ Hackett by his Government’s $5.1 million grant?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Specifically to that question, no, I haven’t asked about job losses in the outbound tourism sector, but I know that the $400 million package that we’ve announced—16 times bigger than the $25 million package a year that the Opposition are offering the tourism industry—will save 3,000 jobs directly, 7,000 jobs if all of those businesses post-COVID are able to ramp up, and then the positive spillover effects into businesses around them will mean thousands more jobs will be saved because of the wonderful $400 million package that this Government has put together for the tourism industry.

Rino Tirikatene: What reports has he seen in response to the support given to AJ Hackett?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Queenstown Lakes Mayor Jim Boult said the money would benefit the whole of Queenstown—“It is one of those businesses that is Queenstown and if somebody out of town was conjuring up a vision of Queenstown, AJ Hackett Bungy would certainly be there alongside other businesses.” He said restaurants, bars, hotels, and other operators all gain from bungy surviving.

Rino Tirikatene: What further announcements has he made regarding the tourism recovery package?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The tourism recovery package that I announced on Saturday includes over $230 million in grants and loans for 126 strategic tourism businesses that could help protect the jobs of around 3,000 people directly employed in the industry, $50 million for a regional events fund, $20 million for the inbound tour operator loan scheme, and $10 million to lift digital capability in the sector.

Barbara Kuriger: What similarities does the criteria use for assessing the AJ Hackett grant have to the criteria used to grant funding to Tourism Holdings Ltd in Waitomo sooner than small-tourism operators, such as Waitomo Adventures, Footwhistle Glowworm Cave, and local travel agents?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We moved quickly to support strategic tourism businesses that needed urgent help. At the time these decisions were made, the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme (STAPP) was going to follow a similar path and process. However, the economic conditions and reality have changed, and we had to adapt the support we’re providing other businesses. This was the only way we were able to support a broad range of tourism businesses in a sustainable way that made sense. The Tourism Recovery Ministers Group has a mandate that it can decide on urgent investments which are outside the application round, and it has done so on these occasions.

Hon Todd McClay: Is the Minister aware that the outbound tourism operators support thousands and thousands of jobs around the country, which are now at risk without direct Government support, and why has he prioritised businesses like AJ Hackett and those 20 workers over travel agents?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m not sure that the member understands that outbound tourism operators are trying to lure New Zealanders out of New Zealand into overseas markets, when our job is to lure overseas people into New Zealand to support our tourism industry. The fact of the matter, though, is that the borders are closed and there is no inbound or outbound tourism happening at the moment.

Hon Stuart Nash: Has the Minister heard reports that the $500,000 granted to Napier’s Art Deco Trust over two years will save their iconic festival, which was probably going to have to be cancelled without this announcement, will save lots of jobs, and contribute greatly to Napier’s economic recovery?

SPEAKER: Right. Order! The member may answer any two of those four questions.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We’ve heard reports from all around the country, from the tourism industry, about what wonderful support STAPP has been. As we’ve said, 7,000 jobs, and 3,000 jobs directly, will be saved if those businesses can amp up, as well as the positive spillover effects into other businesses around, because of the STAPP and the whole tourism package. I have to remind everybody: our $400 million we’ve invested this year is 16 times bigger than the package that the Opposition are offering to the tourism industry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In respect of tourism ventures, in the criteria is there the judgment which runs something like this: “It’s not likely to create an envy factor when looked at in the big picture.”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Our criteria were well-thought-out, and, as I said, the tourism operators, the 126 that got it met the criteria, unlike the outbound tourism operators who didn’t even apply. So they couldn’t meet the criteria, with no application.

Hon Todd McClay: Does the Minister think it’s good enough that he’s saying to the thousands and thousands of people that work for tourism businesses, to travel agents around the country who are about to lose their jobs, that it’s their fault that nobody applied, and he hasn’t even bothered to ask how many would lose their job, or sought to meet with them?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The other questions the member asked had some relevance to the responsibilities of the Minister of Tourism; the Minister of Tourism is not responsible for outbound operators.

Question No. 10—Regional Economic Development

10. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that the Provincial Growth Fund will “create sustainable jobs in the regions”, and how many new permanent roles have been created that did not exist prior to Provincial Growth Fund funding being allocated to those projects?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Yes, and I would point out to the House that we’ve always included part-time, full-time, and contractors in our jobs data collection because it reflects the number of people who have come into the labour work, especially in those sectors that rely on contractors. A job is a job. However, on the question of the number of permanent new roles, until such time as the full impact and roll-out of the fund is completed, it’s not possible to answer that question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, how, therefore, can his press release this morning say that the number of jobs created by the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) outstripped the 10,000 target, when the questions asked by the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) didn’t actually include a question on how many jobs were created?

Hon SHANE JONES: The member is slightly incorrect there. The compilation of the data was carried out by officials who got in contact by both phone call and email in terms of how many people had been employed at various points in the journey on different projects. The difficulty with the full accounting of jobs lies in the fact that a number of the projects have yet to kick off, such as the breakwaters at the mouth of the Whanganui River or, indeed, the iconic port, wharf, and harbour development at Ōpōtiki.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer and the answer to his primary question, how could he so boldly say that 13,217 jobs had been created by the PGF?

Hon SHANE JONES: That is a well-proportioned figure. It reflects an exercise undertaken, and COVID has had such an impact on the operations of this area of Government. As a consequence of the officials being asked to go back and re-engage, it’s actually given me the confidence to say that the figure will actually be 28,000 as the projects roll out. I need to repeat again: a sum of $700 million has actually been handed out in the form of pūtea—cash—into the accounts, into the pockets, of the employees, and I would invite the member to divide 13,000 into $700 million.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he think “sustainable growth” has been achieved when 6,648 of the 13,000 jobs no longer exist after just 2½ years?

Hon SHANE JONES: Therein lies a problem in the member’s logic. This fund has invested in infrastructure. As infrastructure is completed, tertiary and secondary investors with their own money follow up, whether it’s an improvement to rail, whether it’s an improvement in maritime infrastructure, whether it’s improvement in water storage. Many jobs will flow, but you don’t employ people permanently after an infrastructure project has been completed. Then you allow the genius of the market to come to play.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is he aware of a putative Provincial Growth Fund project at the University of Waikato marine centre in Tauranga that the Minister of Conservation has just declined despite its clear purpose of environmental research, and does he know why?

Hon SHANE JONES: A matter of that detail requires a very serious answer, and I invite the member to put that in writing. I am not aware that the outcomes that are contained in our coalition agreement to do with aquaculture are being frustrated at all.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the reason he didn’t announce the result of the question by the PDU on how many jobs were saved when they otherwise might’ve been lost because the answer was not many, if any?

Hon SHANE JONES: I shall endeavour to address that riddle. I repeat again: the allocation of $700 million has given us a figure of 13,000 workers being engaged in the delivery of projects to date. Now, the jobs will most certainly flow when the initiatives are fully rolled out, and that’s why we take a great deal of diligence as we move forward in the allocation of the remainder of the fund.

Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)

11. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): How is the Government supporting Māori health and wellbeing?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Last week, I was pleased to announce Whakamaua, the Government’s Māori Health Action Plan. This plan sets out the pathway towards achieving greater health equity for Māori over the next five years and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to improving Māori health and wellbeing.

Willow-Jean Prime: What specific outcomes are Whakamaua seeking to achieve?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Whakamaua has four high-level outcomes: firstly, that iwi, hapū, whānau, and Māori communities are exercising their authority to improve their health and wellbeing; second, ensuring the health and disability system is fair and sustainable and delivers more equitable outcomes for Māori; thirdly, it seeks to address racism and discrimination in all its forms within our health system; and, lastly, the plan protects mātauranga Māori throughout the health and disability system.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why do we need a Māori health action plan?

Hon PEENI HENARE: We know the health and disability system is failing Māori and, as a result, there are significant inequities between Māori and tauiwi. Whakamaua provides clear direction on how we can fix that. Many of the actions listed within the plan will help counter the influence of implicit bias and systemic racism in the system. I’m pleased to say that some of these actions have already begun, including streamlining patient pathways for whānau Māori, providing virtual consults, and a more inclusive approach to telehealth.

Question No. 12—Prime Minister

12. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: What are some of her Government’s policy achievements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Thank you for the use of the word “some”; I wouldn’t want to wish to keep the House longer than I am able. We’ve rolled out Mana Ake, a mental health support programme for kids in schools in Canterbury and Kaikōura; extended school-based health services; reduced the cost of going to the doctor for more than half a million New Zealanders; set up our Cancer Control Agency and the suicide prevention office; boosted funding for Pharmac; and replaced 12 radiation machines to take the pressure off DHBs. We’re rebuilding our health workforce, with 1,400 more nurses, 580 more doctors, 530 more allied health workers. We’re addressing major infrastructure issues at Auckland City Hospital, Greenlane, Middlemore, obviously Dunedin, just to name a few. I have a long list. I’ve just started on health; I’m not sure if you’ll oblige me to allow to continue with housing, education, and a range of others. Perhaps I’ll leave it to the member’s supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! All right, I’m going to remind people in the galleries that they are not allowed to get involved in this question period. As someone who knows the consequences of becoming involved from the galleries, I strongly recommend that people in the galleries don’t.

David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister perhaps forget to mention KiwiBuild, the public house waiting list, Auckland light rail—

SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked two supplementaries.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because the primary didn’t allow me to get past the first part of health, let alone get into transport, housing, and a number of other areas where I am very proud of our record.

David Seymour: Why didn’t the Prime Minister mention that after her intervention at Ihumātao, there are more houses cancelled that would have been built there than KiwiBuild managed to build in three years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I actually reject the premise of that question. If the member would like to give me another platform to talk about this Government’s record of building more houses than any other Government since the 1970s, of retrofitting our State houses to give them another 50 years of life through $50 billion—

David Seymour: Point of order.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Please sit down, I’m not finished.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m anticipating a point of order, and I think that the Prime Minister has gone beyond what was asked of her.

David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister perhaps forget to mention that her Government inherited a $6 billion surplus for 2020 and turned it into a billion-dollar deficit even before the COVID crisis hit?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You surely, very close to the end of this session, will realise that there is a rule where you cannot ask the Government member a patsy question and have that member attack the Opposition.

SPEAKER: I think the member has a history of not being helpful with his points of order. The one point that I’ll give him is this: consistency through this Parliament. David Seymour, ask it again.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Prime Minister, why did she perhaps forget to mention that her Government inherited a forecast $6 billion surplus for 2020, but by the end of last year, Treasury forecast a $1 billion deficit for this year, even before COVID hit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I only got to health. Let’s do the economy. I’m happy, of course, to stand on our record of delivering GDP growth close to an average of 2.3 percent, which was higher than the 2.1 of the last Government. We delivered $13 billion worth of surpluses and got our net debt relative to GDP under 20 percent. Were it not for that positioning, we would be in a much worse position going into COVID-19. As it stands, relative to many other OECD nations, our debt will be lower—even after our spending on things like the wage subsidy—because of the preliminary work we did and the position we put us in.

Hon Stuart Nash: Why did the Prime Minister forget to mention that over 2,250 more police have graduated out into our communities when we became the Government?

SPEAKER: No, no, no. I’ve had enough of those patsies.

David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister perhaps forget to mention her Government’s total failure to make any tangible progress on the highly confused Dominion Road light rail project, which runs right along the border of her electorate?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I didn’t get to transport, where I’m happy, of course, to report that over 2,000 kilometres of safety improvements have been made, and the $6 billion needed for the Auckland Transport Alignment Project to make sure that we’re delivering a range of modes for Aucklanders and reduce congestion. When it comes to the issue of light rail, which I don’t believe either that member or that member supported, but who seems very interested in it now, yes, we didn’t get agreement across parties, but that has not stopped other progress in the area of transport. [Seymour stands]

SPEAKER: No—no.

David Seymour: Why is it—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has had four supplementaries already.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just clarify—are you counting my repeat of a question—

SPEAKER: Well, in that case, I apologise to the member. It just feels like a lot.

David Seymour: Well, people might have to get used to it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! All members will settle down. I think all of us know that in the next three months there is going to be a bit of a turnover, and we won’t be focusing too much on it.

David Seymour: Why is it so difficult just to answer a question and accept that some of the things the Prime Minister—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He knows that’s not a question.

Hon David Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm the recent endorsement by David Seymour of the proposed repeal and replacement of the Resource Management Act, including Mr Seymour’s kind acceptance that this is more than the prior Government achieved over the prior nine years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I expect that that was the supplementary the member was going to ask, given that he’s given me so many opportunities this question time.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to ask an additional supplementary question at the expense of the Labour Party.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I hear some objection. I will put it to the House, but I think it’s fair to say that not long after the member completed it, I got an indication from his sparring partner that he wouldn’t get permission. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill

First Reading

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

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill

Second Reading

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

The third reading of the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill is the final stage in Parliament for passing the 2020 wellbeing Budget, by appropriating the various appropriations set out in the schedules to the bill and in the 2020-21 Estimates. I will have more to say about the 2020 wellbeing Budget in a minute.

The Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill provides interim parliamentary authority for expenditure decisions made or to be made by the Government through to April 2021 that are additional to the amounts in the 2020-21 Estimates. In normal circumstances, the second imprest supply bill for a financial year provides for any operating or capital spending decisions, such as against the between-Budget contingency or pre-commitments against future Budget allowances. It also provides for fiscally neutral adjustments that increase the amount of one appropriation but decrease the amount of another, but because of COVID-19, this is a larger than normal amount. Any increases in demand-driven appropriations are also included, drawdowns into appropriations from contingencies that were set aside in the Budget fiscal forecasts, and any risks that may materialise—for example, matters covered in the “Risks to the Fiscal Forecasts” chapter of the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update.

In this extraordinary year, the second imprest supply bill also needs to provide for expenditure in 2020-21 from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund that was included in the Budget 2020 fiscal forecasts but not in the detailed appropriations in the Estimates, and it also includes a larger than usual contingency buffer to account for the economic circumstances and potential for significant changes in policy that have appropriation impacts when, even if fiscally neutral, they would require imprest supply authority. I can assure the House that all expenditure incurred under the interim authority of this imprest supply bill will need to be appropriated by Parliament, as it always is, before the end, in this case, of the 2020-21 financial year. This will be done in the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, to be introduced on Budget day 2021.

I want to start my contribution reflecting on this year’s Budget, by thanking all members of select committees who have been a part of the Budget process. It is an intensive process, and it’s one that committees completed this year with alacrity, and the debate that we had in the House as we went through the committee stage of the bill, I thought, was a good example of the new approach to the committee stage working well, with Ministers answering questions as they were raised by members and exploring some matters of detail that perhaps had not been able to be done in the various select committee processes. So I thank all members of the House for that.

This was an extraordinary Budget delivered in extraordinary times. When we put together the beginning stages of Budget 2020, it was in the pre-COVID era. We were very conscious of the fact that, while the New Zealand economy continued to do well, we had seen slow-downs across the rest of the world. We prepared a Budget that was for its time. It was one that was going to keep up our investment in core services and expand our work in a number of priority areas that the Government had laid out in the Budget Policy Statement.

I am very proud that, even in the extraordinary circumstances, we continued that work of funding the core services of Government. That includes the largest ever increase in health spending that New Zealand has ever seen, and in particular for our district health boards, seeing them around about $980 million a year better off as a result of the investment in this Budget. What used to be called the standstill figure for Budgets, the amount that was needed to make sure that we kept up with inflation and population growth, has been significantly exceeded in the investment in this Budget, making it the largest ever investment that we have seen, along with continued investment in education, in transport, in health, in housing, and in all of the areas that are the core of the Government’s job. That investment continued.

I have heard, over recent weeks, people saying that investment in core services is optional. It’s not.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Who said that?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s the very thing that got us—Mr Goldsmith did indeed say that. That is the very thing that got this country in trouble and what we had to rescue it from when we came into Government—long-term underfunding of core services—and the proposal that Mr Goldsmith has would strip out around $80 billion from Budgets over the next decade. That is the operations that take place in our hospital; that is the pay for our teachers; those are the services that are delivered through our Ministry of Social Development and other agencies—all at risk from an austerity plan from the other side of the House.

But what obviously occurred here was a Budget that then had to be delivered in the shadow of COVID-19. I am proud of a Budget that took the efforts of previous Governments to save for a rainy day and put the umbrella up to support our people. We had got debt down to under 20 percent of GDP. We were in a strong position, with a strong balance sheet, to be able to borrow and still, at the end of that borrowing, have a level of debt lower than almost all advanced economies around the world. That is the strong fiscal position that we had put ourselves in, and this Government inherited net core Crown debt at 21.7 percent of GDP, and we brought it down to under 20 percent. So now we borrow to put up the umbrella to protect and support New Zealanders.

It is that borrowing that has enabled us to do the wage subsidy scheme, to help keep those 1.7 million New Zealanders attached to their employer, to make sure that there are jobs there for them when they go back. It’s what’s enabled us to support small businesses through the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme—over 100,000 businesses now being supported through that scheme. That is what it means to look after our people. This is a one-in-100-year economic shock, and it required a proportional response. We will work with New Zealanders to grow our economy, to be able to reduce down that level of debt, but for now the responsible thing to do, the thing to look after New Zealanders with, is to put that umbrella up and protect them.

What the Budget does is outline the actions we will take to grow the economy sustainably and to support New Zealanders to recover and rebuild. We do that, firstly, by investing in our people—a record $1.6 billion investment in skills: free apprenticeships; free trades training in critical areas, ranging from community and mental health right through to construction and infrastructure, the biggest boost we have seen for apprenticeships. We’ve seen the numbers already, where the number of apprenticeships in June has dropped to just slightly below the level last year. That is an extraordinary achievement when we compare it to the global financial crisis, when we saw apprenticeships lose their roles significantly. We are supporting businesses to keep their apprentices on and supporting more trainees.

The Budget is full of opportunities for job creation and job growth, through infrastructure, through the building of 8,000 new public houses, through our support for the Jobs for Nature programme. All of these things are about making sure more New Zealanders are in work, and the Budget will see, over the forecast period, around 300,000 jobs created. Then there is our support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). As I said, the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme and the wage subsidy extension have all been part of making sure that SMEs get through, and the proof is in the pudding. We have seen from Xero just last week, and as I said in question time today, that the New Zealand small and medium enterprise sector has bounced back far quicker than those in Australia and in the UK. We know there are still tough times ahead for our SMEs, but they know that we have backed them through this crisis, and we will continue to back them as they recover and rebuild.

But this Budget is not just about the immediate response and recovery from COVID19; it’s about futureproofing our economy. It’s about making sure we truly invest in sustainable energy systems and making sure that we invest in all of our populations being able to be part of digital transformation, of further support for research and development, the things that will add higher-wage jobs to our economy. Those issues that New Zealanders had around productivity and not being able to produce those higher jobs are still there, and it’s the investment in skills and in infrastructure and in R & D that will get us through.

Finally, the Budget continues to make sure New Zealand looks out to the world. Our exporters have done us proud during COVID-19. We have been able to lift exports in some areas—in horticulture. We’ve kept up in dairy and meat and wine. We are continuing to export to the world, and we have provided further support for that—over $200 million to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—and we’ve launched our free-trade negotiations with the UK.

I am immensely proud of this Budget. This has been a difficult time for New Zealand and New Zealanders, but this Budget is part of our commitment as a Government to ensure that we support New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods. The best economic response to COVID-19 was a strong health response. We now build on that to give New Zealanders confidence into the future.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to talk in this grave time for the country in terms of its economy and what we’re dealing with under the issues that are put forward in this Budget. We all know that COVID-19 is wreaking havoc with not just economies but people’s lives all around the world. Anybody tuning in to this debate will be fully aware, looking at their TV screens and reading the news around the world, of the impact that this is having in the US, in the UK, in Europe, and in Australia, and our good friends in Victoria are really struggling at the moment.

So we’re very conscious that this is a time for extraordinary measures, and that’s why National has been broadly supportive of the very significant increase in Government spending outlined in this Budget and the need to go further into debt. There’s no question about that, and I don’t for a moment acknowledge or respect the Minister of Finance for talking about some people calling for austerity measures. That is a falsehood and is completely wrong. Nobody in this country, right here, right now, is saying, “Oh, we should not be spending anything and we should be going back to austerity.” Nobody is saying that, and for the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to keep repeating it is outrageous and wrong and inaccurate and sneaky, and it is trying to avoid focus on what they are now not doing, which is actually providing a coherent plan to get us back on track and to get people back into work. The Prime Minister is so arrogant about the state of her support that she thinks she doesn’t need to come up with any policies in this Government, and then she is quite happy to come up with complete falsehoods on the way that National is talking about trying to get this country back into a reasonable position on debt.

So I want to talk about three things in relation to this Budget. I want to talk about jobs, I want to talk about taxes and debt, and I want to talk about infrastructure, and they’re all critical parts of this Budget. On jobs, there’s no question that New Zealanders are losing their jobs right now. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have lost their jobs because of the lockdown and the following economic disruption. We’ve got about 452,000 New Zealanders currently in receipt of the wage subsidy, and that’s ending in the next few weeks. There is a big question about how many of those people will, in fact, lose their jobs. This will have an enormous impact on them, their families, and their ability to look after their families, and it will have a real impact on their broader, extended family over a period of time.

So the critical question is: where do we get the new jobs to replace the ones that are being lost? How do we get people back into work? The story that we’ve had from this Government—the primary response that they have got—is that the Government will borrow lots of money and will go out and buy jobs. So there’s going to be $1.1 billion spent on paying people to go out and hunt possums and to plant flax bushes and to build pools in provincial towns and to do various other bits and pieces, and that’s all very useful and it’s good. At a critical time like this, Government spending can create a few jobs—temporary jobs. But we all know that it is actually the tens of thousands of business owners in this country—businesses large and small—actually choosing to expand their business and hire somebody and advance that creates sustainable jobs.

The big difference between Governments is the spenders versus the enablers. We in the National Party are focused on enabling that private sector growth to create genuine jobs to employ New Zealanders, like we did in the last two years of the National Government, where this country was generating 10,000 new jobs a month, and if we can return to that level of progress, we’ll be making great gains. So that’s why I’m disappointed not to see in this Budget things like what National’s been talking about, which is allowing people who have been made redundant and they’re having a big pay-out and they’re getting taxed on that pay-out—why don’t we, as National is proposing, allow that tax payment to be used as a tax credit for them in setting up a new business, throw in a bit of KiwiSaver savings and enable those people to get started in a new entrepreneurial scheme and create opportunities, and if they want to hire an extra person, we’ll give them a $10,000 JobStart payment as well, to encourage them to take on an extra person. That’s how you enable and create opportunities for the private sector to invest.

Then, the recipe for success in private sector hasn’t changed. It’s about keeping taxes low, it’s about pushing back the tide of regulation, and, throughout this difficult, difficult economic time, this Government has carried on and said, “Nothing’s changed.” It just keeps on piling on new costs for businesses—every day, every week, new costs to business. Last week, it was higher waste levies; a couple of weeks before, it was higher road-user charges; and right on 1 April, when businesses were absolutely locked down and had zero revenue, they still put up the minimum wage. They have no concept of the difficulty that businesses experience in trying to stay in business, and they keep on adding those costs. So not adding taxes, not adding regulations, being consistent about the rules, and allowing investment to flow both domestically and offshore are the key to getting private sector investment.

The second question is around tax and debt. We had the Minister of Finance banging on, as he always does, about the National Party having this horrendous goal of trying to get New Zealand’s debt level—having a plan to get its debt level—under control over the next decade or so. Well, how terrible is that? What a terrible thing—the idea that a party in this Government might be so responsible that they might think that it makes sense to have a plan to get debt under control. Every day, every speech that Mr Robertson starts off with is about how New Zealand’s in a great position to spend, spend, spend during this crisis because we came into it with low levels of debt. Well, why did we come into it with low levels of debt? Only because previous Governments have been disciplined with their spending and had got on top of the debt. The previous National Government had to borrow $50 billion to get through the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. We did that because we wanted to support New Zealanders. Then we continued to be disciplined with our spending and got on top of it, and we can do it again.

This Government’s only experience prior to COVID was to come in, inherit massive surpluses of many billions and billions of dollars, and what did they do? Within two years, they had squandered all those surpluses so that the Budget that we are talking about today, prior to COVID happening, was projected to be in deficit. So they inherited massive surpluses and, within two years, they were already projecting a deficit before we had the COVID situation. Now, after COVID, we’ve massively increased spending and massively increased the debt, and my worry is, and the worry of many New Zealanders, when they look around and they see all the spending from Shane Jones and all the different projects that are being lined up and all the Ministers trooping up in their high-vis for the latest shovel-ready announcement—we support getting those jobs in, but they’re delaying them an extra few weeks so that they can sort of line up the Prime Minister’s photographers and get the media all organised and get the hard hat on and get it all properly stage-managed.

All those announcements, and people are wondering, “Well, hang on a moment, how’s this going to work?” Is it the case that they’ll spend whatever it takes to put off the economic pain to 20 September, and then, on 20 September, if they’re successful, the smiles will drop and New Zealanders will be presented with the invoice? The invoice is higher taxes, and the Greens, at least, are honest about it, because they love higher taxes. They love taxes—“tax is love”, according to the Greens—and they want more of it. They can’t get enough of it, and so they want to have a wealth tax and they want to have higher-income taxes. They desperately wanted a capital gains tax and they missed out on that, but they want more tax.

Labour have been very cute. They’re hiding. They’re keeping their heads down. The Prime Minister doesn’t want to talk about new policies but just wants to sort of keep her head down and cruise to victory. Well, that’s not going to happen, because New Zealanders want to know what the tax policy is from this Government. They want to know how much they’re going to have to pay, because New Zealanders are struggling to get through the week and pay their bills, and they don’t want to be paying more tax to a Government that can’t control its spending. I’m sure there’s no question that Labour will come out and say, “Oh well, we’ll only tax higher-income earners.” Well, I can give you this prediction: a Government that can’t control its spending will eventually come after you—not just the higher-income earners but everybody—because if you can’t control your spending, you need more and more and more and more.

The third area, around infrastructure—well, we’ve heard all about it today in the light-rail down Dominion Road not happening. Big announcements but very little actually happening on infrastructure, whereas the National Party is determined to unlock the potential of this country by connecting, for example, the 2.5 million New Zealanders between Whangārei, Hamilton, and Tauranga in a visionary scheme to connect that region to become one of the most dynamic and exciting areas of Australasia, and unlocking the potential of that great Waikato region, connecting it properly with the great city of Auckland and the ports of Tauranga, and opening up that northern Auckland—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’m sorry, but the member’s time has expired.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): It is a pleasure for me to take a call in this debate. Budget 2020 is a Budget unlike any other that we have seen in recent years. We all know that it was set against the backdrop of the greatest health and economic global crisis of our time and the fact that we were able to deliver this Budget in a level 2 world is a testament to the team of 5 million who sacrificed to get us into the position where we are today.

We said at the outset that the best economic response to COVID-19 was a strong health response. Our strategy was to go hard and to go early, and, in doing this, we now find ourselves in a position that very few countries are in. Our children are back at school, we are able to have mass gatherings, we have crowds at our sports games, we have people at concerts watching live music and live theatre, but, most importantly, we have COVID contained at the border, and this has put us in a very strong position to bounce back. This Budget is the first step in our recovery, and our first priority is jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

I would like to take a moment of this speech to acknowledge the work of the Hon Grant Robertson for putting together this Budget. This was a Budget where he had to rip up the work that Governments start doing in the previous calendar year to put together a Budget to deliver in May. Clearly, that had to be thrown out the window as we entered into a period of history like no other that we had seen together. He did work tirelessly through that period of lockdown to ensure that, as a Government, we were in a position to deliver a Budget for New Zealanders that would take us on the road to recovery. It would be a Budget that could help us begin that very important task of rebuilding. The fact that this Budget was titled Rebuilding Together talks about the kind of thinking that lay behind the work that he put together to get us on that road to recovery. So I think it is important that we acknowledge that work, because it is a Budget that outlines our Government’s plans to create new jobs, to build roads and houses, to develop our hospitals, and to protect and enhance our environment. This is about us investing in infrastructure.

We are also, in this Budget, helping people to get the skills they need for the jobs that we need to rebuild New Zealand through free trades training and apprenticeships. We are investing in our people through this Budget. We are investing in our future through this Budget. We extended the hugely successful wage subsidy in a targeted way and made interest-free loans available to small businesses. We ensured the support was there for our businesses. This is how we get on with the plan to rebuild our economy together. As the Minister of Housing, I was incredibly proud of the Budget that we presented, to be part of a Government that is committed to delivering an extra 8,000 new public and transitional homes through Budget 2020, and this, of course, will be part of a programme of work to stimulate the residential construction sector, create jobs, and reduce housing shortages. As a Government, we are committed to a range of measures to ensure we do not see what happened to the residential construction centre post the global financial crisis—that being the collapse of the building of affordable housing. We are committed to working with our residential construction sector to make sure they have a secure pipeline of work, they can continue to build, and, importantly, from our perspective, they continue to build affordable homes.

Through Budget 2020, we funded a total of $670 million in Income Related Rent Subsidy, which means not only have we made a commitment to the number of homes that will be built as public and transitional houses but there will be families who have access to the subsidies required to move into those homes. Too often we have seen the announcement of houses saying “X number of houses are going to be built” without the appropriate appropriations for that Income Related Rent Subsidy, and I was proud that we put all of that into Budget 2020, because this will bring the total number of public and transitional builds in the pipeline or completed by this Government to 18,350 homes, and that is something we can be proud of. That is more houses than any Government has built in a generation. It is something that we stand with pride and talk about. I am proud of that record of delivery on public houses. We are building them; we are not selling them. We see that as the job of our Government.

We also provided, through Budget 2020, a $56 million boost to Warmer Kiwi Homes, our Government’s insulation and heating programme. We’re increasing the grant proportion available to low-income households from 67 percent to 90 percent of the costs to deliver an estimated 9,000 additional retrofits of homes. Insulation and heating helps to prevent respiratory illness, and the Warmer Kiwi Homes programme protects the most vulnerable people in our communities. We are a Government that started three years ago with a commitment to warmer, drier homes for New Zealanders, and that is what we have delivered.

I also recently announced the work that we will start on the business case for investigating pumped hydro storage options for New Zealand. This is a critical issue that a Government needs to show leadership of. This is the critical issue of dry-year storage and how we overcome it as we move on the pathway to 100 percent renewable electricity. If this business case stacks up, pumped hydro will be a game-changer for securing sustainable, cheaper, low-emissions electricity for the long term for our future. This could be and would be a truly transformational project. It would be a significant step to delivering on that 100 percent renewable electricity generation target.

As the research, science, and innovation Minister, this Budget also provided much needed support to our Crown research institutes. Critical scientific capability was an integral part of our response to COVID-19 and New Zealand’s economic recovery. I am proud, as a Government in the tough times, we didn’t do what we all too often see, and that is people look to the research budget and slash it. We invested in our science. We invested in our innovation to the tune of around $400 million through Budget 2020.One of the many things that we have learnt in recent months is the importance of clear and coherent science communications in a world of disinformation. We have seen the very best of our scientific capability on display. I want to pay tribute to those scientists in New Zealand who have stood with us and explained things to us throughout this year, and we are proud to be backing those scientists. This funding will also assist in attracting and retaining world-class talent in high priority areas such as sustainable forestry science, health research, resilience to natural physical hazards, and primary sector innovation for sustainable productivity.

We could not take it for granted the fortunate position we find ourselves in today. Many countries are still dealing with the immediate effects of COVID-19 on their communities. Budget 2020 is an important first step. Now we have an incredible opportunity to recover from COVID-19, and we are firmly focused on the opportunities in front of us. I am grateful that we have a leadership in our Government that chose to put the umbrella up when the tough times came, as the Minister of Finance explains it. Although the Opposition spokesperson on finance took umbrage at the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister calling out his call to return to deep, deep within 30 percent of GDP within a decade, as saying that austerity wasn’t on the table under the thinking from the Opposition, that was the language we heard very clearly from the speech he delivered. As the Minister of Finance has described it, $80 billion less borrowing means some of the harshest public service cuts we will have seen in decades. We are a Government that are proud that we have invested in our future, and Budget 2020 does that because we are backing New Zealand.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by a fake news alert from the other side, quoting outrageous figures. I’m proud of the fact that I’m part of a party that believes in fiscal responsibility, believes in setting debt targets, so that we can actually make sure as a country that we get back on track. Everybody knows in New Zealand the number of crises that our country has faced in the last decade. We need to ensure that the books are in a strong enough position to withstand the next crisis. So this side of the House is very clear about the fact that fiscal responsibility is critical, that the ability to spend money is only at the willingness of the taxpayer to accept the Government of the day can spend it better than they can, and that if debt is taken on there is a clear plan to get that debt back under control. That’s what households do. That’s why New Zealanders trust National with the economy, because we understand that, if you borrow money, you need to have a plan to pay it back. So I absolutely and totally refute the fake news, the disturbing fake news that we’ve seen repeated by the Government benches today.

I want to start my Budget appropriation speech by just providing a bit of context in terms of looking at where we were as a country earlier this year, because I think it is important, and we recognise the significant impact of COVID, but we must not shy away from what the state of play was before COVID. So let’s just have a look at some of that. So the jobseeker benefit, which most would understand as “the dole”—we had 30,000 additional New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit since this Government came into office. Emergency housing grants: now this is a really interesting one, because this is from a Government who said that every dollar—when they were in Opposition—on emergency housing grants was a waste of money and they would fix it with their comprehensive housing plan. Well, guess what? Guess what? In the quarter before COVID, there was $79 million in emergency housing grants—three times as many as when they came in; four times as much money being spent on emergency housing grants; over 18,000 people on the social housing register. That’s more than three times the number two years earlier. And do you know what’s worse, in terms of housing? This is a Government who said, in Opposition, that they would fix the housing crisis—they would fix it; they had a comprehensive housing plan—over 200 days someone is waiting if they’re on the social housing register.

Now, the other thing that the person before me claimed was the Government’s record on their amazing State house build programme: 3,000. Guess what? Fifteen hundred of those, half of them, were planned, started, consented under National. So thanks, National—thanks, National.

Kiritapu Allan: Sold down the State houses.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh, selling State houses. Great, because Labour said they would not sell State houses. Let me look at the number: 146 State houses sold under Labour. “Oh, but we’re stopping the sell-off of State houses”—$30 million brought in—$30 million. So, when National sells a State house and puts three in its place, that’s not allowed. Oh, but when they do it, it’s completely acceptable!

This is the party that was solving every element with their comprehensive housing plan! So what have we got? We’ve got what? Three hundred and eighty KiwiBuild houses, and we’re expecting what? Sixteen thousand—16,000 were promised. So KiwiBuild’s gone. Emergency housing grants were meant to be gone, but actually we’re now spending more than ever before. And this is before COVID—I’m talking before COVID. So it’s quite interesting that that side of the House likes to paint their own kind of picture of what they’ve done, but what we’re seeing is a very common thread. I think New Zealand needs to really pay attention to this, because what they are going to do, what they are trying to do, is blame everything on COVID. Well, I’ve just given you a bunch of examples of how things, particularly in the social policy space, were going backwards chronically under this Government.

Here’s another one: child poverty. So the Prime Minister herself took on the responsibility of child poverty reduction. She promised to reduce it by 20,000—reduce the number of children living in poverty by 20,000 by 2021. Do you know what? We have 11,000 more children living in material hardship, which is the worst type, pre-COVID—pre-COVID. So any time that side of the House talks about COVID having an impact on everything, I would just encourage New Zealanders to look back at their record before the health crisis hit, because as a country we were not in good shape pre-COVID. I accept now the economic and unemployment crisis is absolutely dire: 212,000 people currently on unemployment benefits. Oh, that’s right. The Minister of Finance pretends that those getting the COVID payment, the 20,000 of them, aren’t unemployed. No, no, no. I’m not allowed to call them “on the unemployment benefit” even though they’re out of work and—guess what—they’re getting a benefit.

So the challenge for the Government, my challenge to them, is to face facts. Don’t bury your head in the sand when you’re talking about the size of the economic crisis and when talking about jobs. We hear them talking about jobs—where are they? Where are the jobs? Jobs aren’t in an announcement. Jobs aren’t when you announce something. In terms of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), let’s look at the record of that. Are we at 1,400 jobs? Ten thousand were promised. Oh, but no, Shane Jones has been ringing around his mates to try and make sure there’s a few more jobs created out of the PGF. Created and employed and existing are not the same thing.

So, when this side of the House talks about creating jobs, let’s look at some of the jobs that were created through infrastructure projects, for example. The Cambridge section of the Waikato Expressway: 300 jobs; 30 of those were people on benefit who weren’t in jobs prior. So that’s what National means. When we talk about the ability through infrastructure, through a strong economic plan to create jobs, we know we can deliver. If I look at the people in my electorate who are in work because of initiatives we put in place, they struggled through the global financial crisis, but 10,000 jobs a month were created. They were real jobs, real jobs for real people, and I really worry—I really worry—about the next couple of months, particularly when we see the wage subsidy lift. I accept it was a great initiative and great to see money out the door, but there are now 452,000 people on the wage subsidy. Their banks won’t lend them money, because they say anybody supported by the wage subsidy is in a vulnerable job.

So what’s going to happen when that ends? They’ll go on to the COVID payment, many of them. Oh, but that’s not unemployment benefit. Yeah right! They’ve lost their job, and for every person who loses their job, that’s a family unable to provide for themselves. That’s why, unashamedly, this side of the House focuses on the absolute critical importance of real jobs, because real people, in real need, need the ability to earn an income. That’s why, in terms of our plan, it’s a strong economic plan, it’s based on fact, it’s based on reality, and it’s based on our ability to deliver for New Zealanders.

I want to finish on this, because, unfortunately, the Government has completely misunderstood what social investment is. Social investment is actually being able to change the lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Unfortunately, we’re going to see a growing number. This side of the House doesn’t believe that purely throwing money at things solves people’s difficulties. We must completely rework the way that we deliver services to those who need us most so we can change the lives of New Zealand’s most vulnerable. That is why I don’t support this Budget and I love this National Party.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): The Minister of Finance has opened up this opportunity for us to talk a wee bit about why debt has grown on the Crown balance sheet, the nature of the challenges that our economy faces, and the contrasting approaches being deployed by this side of the House, and what may come from other political parties.

First, I want to say that the member who’s just resumed her seat, Louise Upston, is identifying the fact that too many people have been in receipt of the wage subsidy, without dwelling on the fact that, of all of the options before any Government, this is the one that we were advised to take with great vigour. So why did the Government decide to use this approach and rack up $13 billion to $14 billion worth of debt? Because to have done anything else would have been to imperil not only the community and societal institutions but to have totally wrecked the economy. The team of 5 million followed the lead of the Prime Minister, moved into a type of social cocooning, parts of the economy were enabled to continue—called “essential services”—but there was absolutely no credible alternative other than to keep people connected with their place of work, to give them a sense of hope, confidence, and reassurance irrespective of how deep the fangs of COVID would bite.

This was a Government that was willing to move from the historical Calvinistic approach to fiscal management into pouring money into the economy. Yes, a lot of it has gone into short-term consumption; that’s because many New Zealanders do not have surplus savings to live weeks on end without regular income. I think why that is important is that, once we leave this House at the end of this week and go out and speak to Kiwis, they’re going to want to know, “Yes, but what exactly are you going to do?” How precisely are you going to replenish confidence in the economy or, indeed—because the economy is just people. The economy is not quadratic equations; it’s consumers, it’s investors, it’s NGOs, it’s firms, it’s institutions.

Now, I’d like to talk about what the Minister of Finance has opened up in terms of the opportunities. Successive Governments have talked a big game about productivity. I think it’s fair to say none of us, as parliamentarians—those of us who stretch back a few years—have seen the growth of productivity outcomes that we’ve always hoped to achieve. In the last 12 years, it’s taken off a bit at the moment, but historically we relied on migrant labour and large volumes of it, whether it came through international education or genuine visa applications, to plug the gaps in industries where they were either unwilling to train a suitably large number of Kiwis or they were unable to invest in more capital-intensive technologies and tools of the trade. The days of unfettered access to those pools of international labour are over. Whilst there may be 300,000 people in our country holding visas of some description, and it is important that they continue to enjoy a level of confidence, as has been the case with the extension, and it is important that we encourage and enable them to move around Aotearoa freely so they can take up roles while we transition ourselves out, the economic model where we outsource a lot of the responsibilities to international pools of labour, or to labour hire firms—those days are over.

Secondly, in order for us to really make productivity gains, let’s take two simple answers—simple remedies. I actually believed in quite a lot of what the old regime was doing in terms of irrigation. However, I accepted, when we formed the Government, that a number of those schemes had led to societal outcomes that were repugnant in many respects, because of the localised and intensive negative effect on the environment when you married irrigation to poor farming practices. But, unless we continue to invest in water networks, water storage, water resilience, we are not—in the post-COVID environment—going to capture enough economic surplus to plug the gap of $20 billion worth of foreign exchange earnings that have disappeared. Now, it hasn’t really disappeared at that volume, because Kiwis aren’t going overseas and buying foreign exchange; so the wedge is smaller. But we are going to have to look back to these legacy industries. So, for those reasons, the work that we’ve been able to roll out with water storage—not on the grand scale of the Waimea Dam, and I hope there’s a solution to that very, very shortly—is something that all parties are going to have to grapple with.

Thirdly, are we going to sit by and watch, over the next few years, legacy industries hollowed out of New Zealand? I, personally, am deeply concerned about that. I’m very persuaded by the notion that, if we’re going to have a transition in a post-COVID environment from legacy industrial investments, whether it’s the refinery near where I hail from, whether it’s the aluminium smelter in Murihiku, whether it’s the steel mill, there’s quite frankly an almost existential question about the character and the nature of our economy. If we’re not going to support, encourage, or maintain those industries, what is going to replace them? And, not unlike the fact that I grew up in a rural environment in the Far North, I look not only to technology; I look at the endowments that surround us in terms of what Mother Nature’s got on offer, which is why, if we are going transition out of these carbon-rich industries, it’s important that we do not end up in a position where we’re exporting jobs and importing carbon. This is going to be a challenge irrespective of who the Government is in the future.

So, for those reasons, if, for example, one of those industries is aquaculture, the leadership of Murihiku, of Southland, told Mr Patterson, myself, the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and I presume the Deputy Prime Minister has been told as well, that unless we put money aside to help underwrite the risk—and that’s an incredibly vital role for the Crown. Now, the other side may pooh-pooh that; they may say you’re endangering, you’re imperilling the Crown balance sheet, but, as with all major transitions in the past, the Crown does pick up the pieces, either through the welfare system or through retraining. The view that I’ve been pushing through the Provincial Growth Fund stewardship role that I’ve been privileged to hold is that, if we are going to transition, the Crown has to move and blend its efforts with the private sector so we de-risk the cost, we de-risk the challenges of the transition. And, as I said, if it is aquaculture, society has to ensure that it gets a return for its entitlement, its ownership interest in the commons. So we have a situation where, if we’re going to create a new multibillion-dollar industry—which I’m very enthusiastic about—in terms of ocean ranching, ocean farming, that we stop, as the last regime learnt, promising these things without making the hard decisions to reform the statutory processes and reform the actual regulatory frameworks.

For those reasons, the things that have been raised by Minister Grant Robertson are actually very accurate. He has set aside some pūtea, $14 billion to $15 billion, and a future Government can dedicate some of that pūtea to this de-risking exercise, because there is no way that we are going to transition without the Crown either being actively involved, helping to de-risk it, or indeed in some cases leading it in provincial New Zealand, which is what we have done. Which is why the Provincial Growth Fund—and it was only ever going to be around for three years, and it’s actually not $3 billion, it’s $3.3 billion; it actually grew under my stewardship. The point that I’m making, though, is that that is an incredibly active and valuable example of how the Crown can take a role of enablement and empowerment. It’s been widely acclaimed in the provinces, it is occasionally subject to shrewish behaviour from members on the other side of the House, but I assure you, whenever there’s an opening, wherever there’s an announcement, they elbow me out of the way to arrive and celebrate the occasion with my good self. Thank you very much.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this Budget and appropriations bill. I want to speak to some of the points that the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, has raised, particularly around the increase in the Vote Health Budget and the appropriation and the pre- and post-coronavirus situation, which he also described in some detail, particularly the contribution to the coronavirus response.

I want to set this, first of all, in a big-item summary of where we are with health: with burgeoning DHB deficits, $2 billion over three years; I think we’ve got more Crown monitors now, as we’re concluding this Parliament, than before the Parliament started; and we’ve got areas of contention around the health system, such as the Christchurch rebuild, which is making very small progress, and, I believe, was in an urgent meeting last night.

Now, the Minister has talked about the Budget appropriation for health and he’s talked about the appropriation for coronavirus. I want to talk to why the figure is so large in the Budget and in the appropriation, because it’s a consequence of previous decisions or, more specifically, it’s a consequence of us not learning as a country. We had three opportunities, three sets of infectious disease that we could have learnt from, that would make this Budget and this appropriation significantly different; we squandered that experience. We squandered the learning from those three episodes, which I’ll describe here now, that make this Budget and appropriation what it is—the Government did not learn from those.

Let me go through them. First, we had a meningitis outbreak, a Third World disease. Six children died. Unfortunately, it was in Matt’s and my electorate—a meningitis outbreak; Third World disease. There were some experiences which we could have learnt from that would have affected this appropriation. It would have been less, I would contend, if we’d have carried that experience forward, and I’ll tie it into coronavirus and the coronavirus appropriation as well, and I’ll tell you what those are.

First of all, we could have modelled the outbreak better. Again, I’ll tie that back into how that would have been useful for other outbreaks. Vaccine supply became an issue—we had a single supplier and, as you’ll recall, Pharmac kept 20,000 secret. Contact tracing for meningitis: really important. We had a training run with an infectious disease on contact tracing, vaccine supply, and modelling, before coronavirus hit us. We could have learnt from that and done better; this appropriation could be different.

Then, about six to eight months later, we had a measles outbreak. A different sort of disease but getting close to what coronavirus looks like, certainly from an airborne situation, and, again, having an impact on this appropriation. There were some things we could have learnt from this second infectious disease that would have affected this and the coronavirus budget that the Minister was talking about that he’s put on the Table, that we’re voting through here today.

It’s very interestingly the same three things that we could have learnt from meningitis: modelling and predicting the outbreak—again, I’ll come to coronavirus and tie this in also; vaccine supply, we ran out of measles vaccines; and contact tracing—really important parts to our coronavirus response. This was our second testing run. This was our second training run here in New Zealand. We had that information. It was our living laboratory, if you like. We had the opportunity to learn from our second infectious disease for this Government and look at those important aspects of modelling, vaccine supply, and contact tracing.

We knew that we needed to do better with contact tracing, because we had the backpacker who developed measles in the Bay of Plenty, who then hopped on Cathay Pacific after doing Air New Zealand, I think it was, to Auckland and then Cathay Pacific back to Germany, infectious all the way. Did we call Cathay Pacific? No. Did we call Air New Zealand? No. Our contact tracing was appalling. We knew that back then, and yet we didn’t seem to learn from it. That would have made a substantial difference to this Budget that’s being put on the Table here today. We did not learn from it. Did officials even call backpackers around New Zealand, saying, “Look, you’re in a high-risk environment for this disease.”? No, we did not.

I think the fourth thing that’s interesting is: modelling, vaccine, contact tracing, personal protective equipment (PPE). We didn’t have the right PPE for measles. We were late with PPE for coronavirus, and that had a huge financial impact on this appropriation that we’re now signing through.

We could have learnt from those two episodes. But, do you know what? We actually had a third run as well, because the flu vaccine 2019 also ran short of supply. Another infectious disease—our third one in the hands of this Government, all in this Government, our third opportunity to learn and do better; we didn’t know that coronavirus was coming. Our third opportunity to do better, and what happened? We ran out of flu vaccines again—the third infectious disease. It also showed us how poor our modelling store was, now 18 months later. It also created perverse behaviours and incentives, some of which I’m not very happy with, which we also saw during coronavirus.

For example, when the paediatric flu vaccine ran out—this is the one that you can pay for privately as a parent—what did big pharma do? Try and get more vaccines? No, they increased the price—they increased the price to manage their inventory. There’s something very wrong with that, and that’s only discoverable through an Official Information Act (OIA) request—with Pharmac, actually. There’s something very wrong with that—that, as the paediatric flu vaccine was running out, big pharma, the sole supplier, increased their price to maintain their inventory. They didn’t manage the children; they managed their inventory. Surely, our mission is to vaccinate more children. Their greater task was to get more vaccines in, not to increase the price—as Pharmac said in the OIA, they successfully managed their inventory by increasing the price. That’s a perverse behaviour; that’s not a good behaviour. I’m very uncomfortable with that, and I suspect we’ve seen parts of that through coronavirus as well.

Now, let’s move to the post-coronavirus situation, which the Minister talked about and said he had allocated a significant amount as part of this recovery. Again, no more than four or five months ago, we were running out of flu vaccines. What is it with flu vaccines and this Government? Why can’t they model? Why can’t we get this right? Why can’t we figure this out so that we have a logistics chain that meets the needs, so that we’ve modelled what the needs are? I accept that we used more vaccines because, by intention, we asked people to come in earlier, and so we gave more of them. That was the correct thing to do. But we must have had some robustness of the logistics chain behind that so that we didn’t run out like we did.

The solution? Well, the solution has been—and this is what part of the Budget will pay for—to get 400,000 flu vaccines from the Northern Hemisphere. That might seem reasonable, except here’s the problem: New Zealand experts at the beginning of the year—in fact, last year—said there are four strains that we’re going to need in New Zealand this winter: four strains in winter 2020. We run out of flu vaccines, what does Pharmac do? They buy the rejects from the Northern Hemisphere—400,000 of them; the problem is that they only cover two of the strains. The four strains that we were told we need—that, if you had your flu vaccine probably up to about June, you got—you do not get today. You get two of the four; you are 50 percent covered. Oh, by the way, I’m wondering if you’re consented for that and if, when you’re getting the flu vac, they say, “Hey, look, I need to tell you, we’re actually only vaccinating you for half of the effectiveness that you should have. Oh, and by the way, I’m actually consenting to give you two strains that will give you no benefit.” Oh, that’s going to raise interesting ACC and adverse reaction sort of questions. Knowingly injecting people with vaccines that won’t work—that’s going to be an interesting dilemma coming down the pipeline if we get problems.

But what it talks to is that we haven’t learnt from three instances of infectious diseases that brings us here today, that brings this appropriation to the size, figure, and type that it is. We squandered the learning we could have had that would have changed this. I’m not saying that it might have changed our overall coronavirus uptake, if you like—I’m not saying that at all, but our response could have been better. This Budget and this appropriation could have been better as well.

I think what I want to summarise, then, is to say that I think it’s been a challenging time for this Government in Government. I think, if we look at their infrastructure, I do quite like the inventory that they’ve done, and I acknowledge there’s work to be done there. It’s not clear to me in this appropriation where infrastructure—the purported $14 billion that needs to be applied into Vote Health to pick up infrastructure—I’m not seeing too much here in this appropriation that’s talking to that. So, yep, identified the problem, maybe, but then what’s your solution? We know that it was $598 million, I think, in the last Budget for capital improvements; I’m not seeing anything of late as a top up or any sort of notices. Maybe it will come down the trail somewhere in the next few weeks, but I just wanted to point that out: fine to identify the problem, but come with solutions as well.

That’s what you’ll see from our health manifesto somewhere in the next couple of weeks. You’ll see the problem well identified, well discovered, well authenticated, with solutions that make sense, that New Zealanders will get, and we’ll proudly stand behind that manifesto and we’ll do a more efficient job than this Budget. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, as everyone in this House has been saying today, we, as a country—as a world—have come through a time. So I stand to give the Greens’ support for the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.

Yes, while we have come through COVID, while COVID did absolutely shine a massive light on existing crises and problems and challenges that we have long had, we also recognise that this Government’s Budget 2020 was also a response to some of the new challenges that we have been made aware of, that we have a responsibility to confront face on, head on. So, in my summary of the appropriation bill today, I wanted to remind the House that we have been hearing from the people, from the world, from movements around the whole planet, and certainly here in Aotearoa, that we need to recognise now more than ever that actually right now is the latest possible time that we can recognise taking all action towards having a stable climate, making sure that we have a thriving environment, and making sure that everyone has what they need to live decent lives. So the Greens were pleased and worked hard with Ministers and as Ministers across Government to see some of the outcomes and some of the appropriations that we saw in Budget 2020.

I also did want to recognise and acknowledge that, as a global pandemic came upon us and came to our shores, a lot of quick work was done to pull this Budget back together. There was a lot of going right back to the drawing board that very urgently many of us, and across our parties, had been working on for a year at least—plus—and had been carefully planning all sorts of ideas about how we were going to make good spends with the people’s money. Then very quickly we had to change tack quite a bit. We had to step up very quickly; we had to respond. We also realised that, due to the global pandemic, we were spending up to 10 times more than what we normally would in any one Budget. So this was mammoth work—this was mammoth work.

For example, I was really proud of the quick work that the Greens were able to work with Government Ministers to announce the $1.1 billion appropriation for Jobs for Nature. I just would like to mention that I heard a bit of pooh-poohing going on from across the Opposition benches of the House tonight just now about these important jobs. So I just wanted to talk a little bit more about what these jobs and what this appropriation actually entails. It will make sure that we are restoring our wetlands and improving—they are the lungs of our earth as well—the health of rivers and estuaries and waterways.

The Jobs for Nature fund: that also works and supports councils, tourism, businesses, iwi and hapū, and communities to provide these nature-based jobs. It included an appropriation for enhancing nature and indigenous biodiversity, something that the world has been tracking downwards on, and the amount of indigenous species and the amount of biodiversity that our world has been destroying for decades at an alarming rate. We have to celebrate $154.3 million towards restoring and enhancing indigenous biodiversity. Really pleased to see $147.5 million for pest control and eradication, including advancing the Predator Free NZ vision.

What is not important about all of this work? That is crucial, not just as momentary jobs and employment—especially in the face of COVID-19 job losses—but it actually sets up our country for generations to come. That actually is able to provide decent jobs, to provide people with the ability to look after their families and feel like they are in control of deciding what they want to reach from their own lives and their own communities. At the same time, making sure we are protecting the most valuable asset that our country has ever had, which is our whenua, our waters, our soil, our ngahere, our place.

That wasn’t all. It includes $100 million for extensive wilding conifer control, something which for years many good people in our communities around the country have been battling, and not always successfully in light of the massive challenge. So putting more support towards doing that work—$40 million for pest and weed control on Crown land as well, and $27.5 million to get the ballooning populations of wallabies in the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Canterbury, and Otago under control.

I did want to spend a bit of time in my reply on this Budget appropriations bill speech because we cannot underestimate the infrastructure that these types of jobs are providing, including in our regions, where, yes, for some decades, if not centuries, we have neglected to see the potential for how our regions and our rural communities—which I have had the privilege of growing up in and belonging to—could actually be leading a modern response, a modern economy, a response to be able to help us all to confront the massive crises of climate change, environmental degradation, and inequality. It can absolutely come from the leadership and the enduring solutions that our people in our regions and our rural communities have long understood and know best about what their places are able to offer.

It didn’t stop there. In this appropriations bill, we also saw a focus put on housing to make sure that we in this House understand housing to be a core public good and a fundamental human right, and not simply just a tradable commodity to increase the wealth for those already wealthy while the majority of this country are finding it hard to put roots down in an affordable, warm, healthy, secure home where they can keep their families and their children connected and forming relationships in their own communities, because people can feel stable and secure in the place that they live. So I was very pleased to see $570 million set aside to support the delivery of 8,000 new homes—6,000 of which will be public housing, and 2,000 which will be transitional homes—and making sure that we are responding to those families and those people who at this moment are unable to find affordable and permanent housing.

We also made sure that there was significant investment in making sure that everyone has warm, healthy homes. So we put $56 million towards the Government’s insulation and heating programme. We know that around 600,000 households are unacceptably damp and cold, that that should not be a reality in this country, that we have enough to make sure this isn’t a reality. So I wanted to highlight, just briefly there, a couple of the initiatives that we were very proud to have worked on and supported this Government to be able to deliver.

I also will mention the extra funding boost for family violence services, led by our amazing MP Jan Logie, and how we will continue to support the Government to work towards its commitment to end family and sexual violence in Aotearoa in a way that works with people, that collaborates across agencies, business communities, NGOs, whānau, Māori, tangata whenua. This is a world-first way of working from a Government perspective. So I wanted to acknowledge the extra funding and the massive injection of that funding to support the essential family violence services, those at the front line who have been doing so well for a long time with barely enough at all.

So the Greens are very proud to have supported these initiatives coming through Budget 2020. We also know that there is a lot more to be done. So our first idea and plan out the door was our Poverty Action Plan, which provides a guaranteed minimum income so that everyone in this country not in full-time paid work has an income that they can rely on, and that we have what we need to be able to provide this security for everyone. It just simply needs to be shared better. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to speak on this and, as is customary, really to offer a few thoughts about the Budget—about, actually, the, I suppose you’d call it, “special” Budget that followed, where $52 billion - odd was spent by the Government—and thoughts from me and, I’m sure, Opposition colleagues about the issues they present. If I can offer a defence of my unsuccessful time as leader: when I gave speeches at both the Budget and on the $52 billion spend following that, I made a number of criticisms and critiques of the Government, and I think actually they’ve aged well. Those criticisms have been proven right. Where I made clear that the wage subsidy was defective, quite quickly after, actually, Grant Robertson, to his credit, made changes to the policies, and the Opposition, in that regard, made what the Government has done stronger, better, more fit for purpose. If there’s a theme, for me, on what we’ve seen over these three years and in the appropriations estimates through the Budget process, it really is simply this: this Government ultimately, after the kind words, the good words, the decent words are finished, doesn’t have serious policies and plans that they can implement for New Zealand.

We see that very starkly throughout this process. When we think about the economy that Grant Robertson talks about, we see a situation where, ultimately, the Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party, and the Green Party in Government are going to saddle this country with much more debt than is required. I’m not advocating—no one on this side; it’s scaremongering, frankly, from the Prime Minister to say so—for austerity. We’re just not making that point. We know, on this side of the House, because we did it—the global financial crisis and the earthquakes, borrowing some $50 billion more—what is required in these sorts of circumstances. But to borrow, as we’ve seen in the Budget and post-Budget decisions and announcements from this Government, $140 billion more is excessive, is bad for future generations, who will pay the bill, and, inevitably, and, I think, inevitably in the next term, will result in more taxes on ordinary, decent, hard-working New Zealanders who play by the rules.

That debt—I suppose there’s at least two points we should make there. The first one is this: if the spending we saw here was basically all, or even mostly all, good stuff, going on real things in the ground that made a difference for productivity, that helped Kiwi families, we might say, “Great.” But I have been flabbergasted by the way we’ve seen announcement after announcement from Minister Jones, from Minister Twyford, from Minister Woods, and from other Ministers on that side of the House—literally every day; $20 million here, $47 million there, $58 million here, $73 million there—with no business cases, with no sense of prioritisation, with no sense of the value of a dollar that has to be earned by Kiwis and paid in taxes for this Government to spend it. There’s just been no sense of that value of taxpayers’ hard-earned money through the Budget and the appropriations, and so on—lots of spend-ups, lazy spend-ups, that I don’t believe are good for New Zealand or are delivering good value for money. And so we say: you know what, on this side of the House, we would be more careful with taxpayers’ money.

It doesn’t mean austerity. It means more investment in health, more investment in education, more investment in infrastructure—

Hon Aupito William Sio: Come on!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And yes, William, sir, more investment in roads, maybe even in your electorate, because we know the value and the productivity that comes with those things. They haven’t delivered any roads in my electorate, but I would in theirs—that’s all I’m saying. So we haven’t seen that.

The second point I would make about debt, in addition to the laziness of this spend, the wastefulness of this spend, and the lack of delivery in real terms and real outcomes from this spend, is just to dwell once again on that quantity of it: $140 billion. We’ve seen nothing like that before in the history of this nation, and we may never see anything, in real terms, like that again. I mean, Bill English, in his best Budgets from that side of the House, when he had new additional spending, we never got much past a bill’ or two, and yet here we’ve got $140 billion over four years. And, by the way, that works out, broadly speaking, at $80,000 a household. So, for a mum and dad or a young couple who don’t have a mortgage, this gives them one. If they’re renting, they’ve already got a mortgage without the property. For that couple that does have a mortgage, this Government is giving them a second mortgage, and I say that’s not good enough. That will result in more taxes, and you mark my words, Madam Speaker: a year after the election, Budget 2021, if there’s a Labour-led Government, there will be more wealth and other taxes coming on New Zealanders. They say, “Well, no, but this person won’t have to pay.” Ultimately, someone does have to pay, and that is ordinary, good, decent, hard-working Kiwis who play by the rules.

I don’t see a plan for jobs, and we know, and we’ll see later this week, the latest job figures. What they will show, those employment and unemployment figures, is—there’s just no question about it—they’re going up. By the way, we know that at the end of this year it will be much, much worse—tens of thousands of Kiwis who were in work who now aren’t in work and no plan for that.

And that leads me, really, in the remaining couple of minutes, to just this fundamental point—I started on it, I alluded to it, and I want to come back to it—about the Budget, about the plans economically and the appropriations and estimates that we’ve seen in this House over the last two to three years: there just isn’t a sense of policy development or plans for the future. We really don’t have, in the last days of this Parliament, any sense of what another term of a Labour-led Government will look like. It’s effectively a Government that is cynically relying on the feel-good factor, the health sense of COVID-19, without any real sense of the problems coming. I give credit for where we’ve got to on health. Look, I am deeply grateful that we are not in a COVID19 situation like Victoria, Australia, but I do say on the future issues: if you go by the track record of the last two to three years, Budget 2020, Budget 2019 and so on, and the decisions that have been made in spending, the debt that’s been piled on, the taxes that, sure as eggs, are coming on New Zealanders, so far we are very light on real policies and plans for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand. Our country, this election, deserves that real contest, and they haven’t seen from the Labour Party benches any sense of what they’re bringing to it thus far.

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

Hon Willie Jackson: Negative, negative.

TĀMATI COFFEY: Yes, very negative from that side of the House—very negative; too negative, in fact—which is why they’re going to be sitting in Opposition for another three years. Look, we’re here to talk about Budget 2020 and the investment that this Government has put into the people of New Zealand. We’ve gone through COVID-19, we had a strong health response led by this side of the House—led by this side of the House because we knew that the right thing to do was to go hard, to go early. We knew that we’d have to sort out the economic response as well. We are doing that, and when the member opposite, the member for Tauranga, stands there and says, “There is no plan for jobs”, he must have been living in a cave, because there has been so much investment into jobs.

When we talk about the investment, we’re talking about all kinds of things. The wage subsidy scheme: that’s an investment into the people, the many people that found themselves, through no fault of their own, without a job. We extended the wage subsidy scheme; that’s gone and helped a few more people to be able to get back on their feet. The cash-flow loan scheme was also a big help to small businesses that chose to take it up, really favourable conditions on that, and I know plenty—and have spoken with plenty—of businesses that have seen that and said, “Thank you to the Government for actually being able to stand here and help us to get through this incredibly tough time.”

When we’re talking about the Māori spend, there’s nothing that warms my heart more than knowing that we boosted support for Whānau Ora. Whānau Ora, which, during COVID-19, actually helped our people to be able to get through, reached out into small rural communities, Māori communities, and actually delivered for them the basics—the things like kai, things like hygiene packs, things like masks—to be able to give them some reassurance that actually the Government was on their side. Two hundred million dollars was appropriated in a Māori employment package, and that’s what the member for Tauranga needs to hear. He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, Māori cadetships and apprenticeships—all of these, when they’re layered together, are an attempt by this Government to be able to transition people who might find themselves without jobs. Whether or not that happened before COVID or after COVID, we still need to make sure that we’re graduating our people into good, worthwhile jobs, and that’s what we’ve gone and done.

But, I would like to briefly talk about the impact on tourism and the investment that this Government has put in: $400 million. We were pleased at Whakarewarewa, over the weekend, to have the Minister of Tourism there to be able to talk about the significant investment—$400 million—into our tourism sector, to be able to ensure that jobs were kept and people were looked after. This is a great Budget, and this side of the House is relentlessly positive.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suspect that when I look back on my life, it will divide into two periods: before 2020 and after 2020. The year 2020 has been an extraordinary year for all of us. Can anyone really believe that it is still only August and not, in fact, 2025? For my family and me, it hasn’t just been about the incredible effort of responding to COVID19 and the lockdown; there was the near end of our marriage, the death of my father, and now the end of my political career. We even had to put the dog to sleep a few weeks ago. It’s been a rough year. Just two weeks ago, I was not preparing to deliver my valedictory speech, but here I am, ready and happy to say goodbye.

I am leaving Parliament because I can no longer serve as a Minister, and I can no longer serve as a Minister because some of my actions have not been congruent with the expectations we should all have of Ministers or anyone in a position of power or leadership. As Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and as a leader in my office, it was not appropriate to have a private relationship with a staff member in a department that reported to me and who worked directly with my office. We must recognise not only the imbalance of power involved but also the impact such a relationship can have on a workplace. That’s why I have to go. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn’t been paying attention. Just because it was tolerated in the past doesn’t mean it ought to be in 2020.

I apologise to my family. The trauma they have experienced has been excruciating. First, there was the trauma of our own private business. Then there was the dehumanising trauma of being used for headlines and clickbait by an industry that somehow thought it was appropriate to publish images of their house when they were at their most vulnerable. Every attack, every thoughtless and uninformed commentary, cuts at the hearts of political families. We at least get to put our case; our families don’t.

I am sorry for the hurt and humiliation I have inflicted on my family and for the direct impact of my actions on so many others. My family is incredible. They are tough cookies, overflowing with resilience, and we will come out of this stronger together. My pride in each of them is boundless. Clare is a profoundly impressive schoolteacher, taking to her new career with gusto while exuding all the skills and knowledge of a seasoned pro. Laila is smashing NCEA level 1, with a string of merits and excellences. Last week, she won her school singing competition. Flynn is a leader at his school, and his football team is in an arm-wrestle to be the top junior team in Palmerston North. Scarlett is excelling at her new school and working hard to prepare for her upcoming dance competition.

A politician’s loved ones are vital to their career, and I thank them deeply for the many sacrifices they have made over the years. Also vital is an army of supporters and volunteers. I can’t name all the people who have contributed to my political work, but I do want to place on record the names of those who have committed considerable time and energy over the years. From the Labour Party in Palmerston North: Lorna and Craig Johnson, Mark Andrew, John Shennan, Liam Rutherford, Shane Field, Finda Hope, Therese McCrea, David and Katherine Chisholm, Ros and Russell Hallam, Zulfiqar Butt, and Frank Bolton. My parliamentary staff, both in Palmerston North and here: the late Graham Keenan, Joyce Squire, Helen Toner, Mark Johnson, Kerry Holden, Robyn Barnett, and Sonya Holm. And in my ministerial office: Jeff Sissons, Haidee Hemsley, Joy Gribben, Marie McCafferty, Lisa Kinloch, Phil Reed, and Semi Kuresa.

Thanks also to the stakeholders in my portfolios—in particular, the Council of Trade Unions and BusinessNZ. We have had a very constructive and genuinely tripartite relationship that has served us well as we navigated an abundance of unexpected challenges during this term. Of course, we didn’t always agree, but agree or not, it was always a friendly, respectful relationship that helped us get a lot done.

This term of Parliament will be remembered for the strength, kindness, and compassion of New Zealanders and the leadership of Jacinda Ardern in the face of three extraordinary events: the horrific terrorist attack in Christchurch, the eruption of Whakaari / White Island, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of those events demanded an extraordinary response in my portfolios. I pay tribute to Immigration New Zealand, WorkSafe, ACC, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for the exceptional way they responded to those events, for supporting and caring for people directly affected, and for the support they provided me as we made difficult decisions that had a profound impact on people’s lives at a speed that would ordinarily terrify public servants. At the beginning of the term, I would never have guessed that I would be the immigration Minister who closed the border. I mean, I knew we were going into coalition with New Zealand First, but it still never crossed my mind.

Even with those tragedies, we were able to achieve a lot this term. I was lucky enough to introduce this Government’s first piece of legislation: the extension of paid parental leave to 26 weeks. [Members applaud] Thanks to Sue Moroney, who should be getting the applause, for a ready-made bill, and because of that it was a relatively straightforward exercise.

The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was a different story. We inherited legislation that did not have the support of the working women it was meant to help, so we went back to the drawing board, gained a new consensus, and introduced fresh legislation. That bill went to select committee and came back with sensible amendments. At that point, key stakeholders who had submitted at select committee threw out the drawing board and demanded significant changes. I’m not going to follow the Hon Nikki Kaye’s lead and repeat my response word for word, but let’s just say it was brought to you by the letters “w”, “t”, and “f”. But given the importance of getting the framework right, we got to work. It took over a year of pain and patience on all sides to get the bill passed. The fact that the phrase “Minister, we’d just like to raise one more thing.” causes me to break out in a cold sweat is just an amusing side effect. More importantly, we now have a bargaining framework that should see thousands of working women get the pay they deserve.

If stakeholder relationships can be hard to manage, they’ve got nothing on coalition relationships. My first foray into coalition territory was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. Labour and New Zealand First agree that the lowest-paid and most vulnerable workers need to get greater protection, but we clearly have distinct views on how to achieve that. Even so, we have restored workers’ rights to rest and meal breaks. Vulnerable workforces are better protected by Part 6A of the Act. Workers are now in a stronger bargaining position when negotiating employment agreements, and the fire-at-will, 90-day trials now only apply to 29 percent of workers.

It’s no secret that immigration has been a point of difference across all three parties in Government. Despite that, we got a lot done. We increased the refugee quota to 1,500, and we got rid of the unjustifiable discrimination that meant almost no refugees from Africa and the Middle East were able to resettle in New Zealand. We also made significant changes to the way temporary work visas will be issued in the future. A poorly functioning system created too many opportunities for exploitation and undermined efforts to improve wages, domestic skill levels, and working conditions. Over the next 18 months, our changes mean the temporary visa system will become easier to navigate for both migrants and employers, will reduce the risk of exploitation, and will assist in Labour’s ambition to build a more productive, more sustainable, and more inclusive economy—Grant Robertson.

We have also just invested $50 million to prevent exploitation, protect migrants, and strengthen enforcement action against exploiters. We must not tolerate the abuse of workers. The recent conviction for slavery in Hawke’s Bay demonstrates that the most extreme exploitation does occur in New Zealand and that we were right to prioritise tackling it. That work must continue. I agree with the call last week from Walk Free that New Zealand should pass modern slavery legislation akin to that in the UK and Australia. Immigration sector agreements will play a part in building good workplaces. They will allow bespoke immigration settings in return for agreed improvements to wages, training opportunities, and workforce planning so that migrant workers and New Zealanders will benefit. When we are able to reopen the border, these changes will serve us well. One thing I was determined to do as immigration Minister was reopen the parent category. It took time to get consensus and the income thresholds are far too high, but we got the category reopened and that is a good start.

Twelve years of advocating for Palmerston North constituents has been one of the most rewarding parts of the job. There are literally thousands of stories of the people who have come to us for help. I would like to relay just one.

Early in my first term a woman came to see us because the medication on which she relied was no longer funded. It was an unusual case where the medication was being used outside its normal purpose and therefore not funded by Pharmac, but because it was working for her the DHB had provided it. But under pressure from the new health Minister to cut costs, the DHB decided to stop. To protect her privacy, I won’t go into the details, but the effect of losing that medication had a disastrous physical and psychological impact on my constituent. Her first disclosure of contemplating suicide was to be—long story short, we got the DHB to see sense and the funding for her medication was restored. When she came in to thank us, she wept on my shoulder for a full five minutes. We had changed and possibly saved her life. That’s why we all do this job.

Serving just one term as a Minister, there is naturally a little bit of unfinished business. Top of the list is fair pay agreements. While our labour market works well for many people, far too many people continue to miss out on the benefits of a well-managed economy. We are unusual amongst OECD nations for not having some form of sector level collective bargaining, and that contributes to unnecessary inequality.

I had the privilege of meeting some of our lowest-paid workers while we were consulting on fair pay agreements, people working two or three jobs or working 60 hours a week who still couldn’t always pay the basic bills to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothes on their kids. These are our supermarket workers, our cleaners, our security guards—the very people who were looking after us as essential workers during the COVID-19 lockdown, the very people we relied on every day. This must change and I challenge this House to take every opportunity to build a society where we value everyone’s work, pay them enough to live on, and treat them with respect.

We have worked hard to get the fair pay agreements policy in good shape, and with a little more work early next term and a Government made up of parties unequivocally in favour, it can be turned into legislation and implemented. We all know the Holidays Act needs reform. Previous Ministers shied away from what is an exceptionally difficult policy area, but with the support of both BusinessNZ and the Combined Trade Unions we decided to tackle it, and we now have a good plan that’s ready to implement next term.

One of my great disappointments is that it was not possible to get consensus around a coherent and fair way forward on issues relating to residency visas during this term of Government. However, I am confident that this can be addressed in the near future with a plan that will satisfy our migrant and business communities.

Some thoughts from someone with the luxury of not seeking re-election: ACC is a taonga and we don’t know how lucky we are to have it. But we politicians have decided that ACC should be limited to covering injury, whereas illness is covered by the health system. I will never forget meeting a constituent—the Hon Ruth Dyson may have more to say about this shortly. I will never forget meeting with a constituent who lost three limbs to meningitis, who rightly pointed out that if she had lost those same limbs in a car accident, she would have been considerably better off financially and would have received superior treatment and support. That is impossible to justify. Health should also be run as a social insurance scheme, and New Zealanders should expect the same support whether they are injured or they fall ill. Speaking of social insurance schemes, we should have one for unemployment insurance, a proper one, not the miserly scheme offered up by the ACT Party.

And, finally—colleagues, hold on—our universal superannuation entitlement is unsustainable. People just live longer. It’s true, though, that abandoning universality or just increasing the age of entitlement are both likely to hit the people who need the most support the hardest. So here’s a thought: a means-tested entitlement from age 60 and a universal entitlement from age 70. As I said, I don’t have to get re-elected, but I’ll leave that one with you.

A lot has been said recently about the culture of this place. It is a hard place to work and not somewhere that I actually plan to stay much longer. But the work is incredibly rewarding. Making a real difference in people’s lives, whether it’s at an individual level or as a local MP, or for thousands of people as a Minister implementing policy, that’s what drives us all, no matter what party we’re from, and that’s why we keep coming back even though it often feels like madness. So while I’m happy to be going, I’m also incredibly happy to have been here. And whatever the future holds, I wish every member of this House happiness and success.

The last two weeks have shown me who my true friends are, and a lot of them are here in this Chamber. I will miss working with you, especially my good mates Carmel Sepuloni and Deborah Russell. I look forward to spending more time with you away from here, far away from here, with my other friends as well, and with my family, who I have definitely not prioritised enough over the last 12 years. And on that note, I’ve got to get home. See you.

[Applause]

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for calling me by my name. Raymond is, of course, my English name. My Chinese name is 建 强—J-i-a-n-q-i-a-n-g. I learnt a long time ago from you guys that trying to get it pronounced correctly could be painful. I can’t Anglicise my last name, my family name, 霍—H-u-o. Many people get it confused and call me “Mr Hyo”, “Mr Hao”, “Mr Who”, and French people may certainly call me “Mr ’Uo”, because “h” is silent in French. Let me borrow the wisdom of the American-Chinese comedian Dr Joe Wong: “If my last name does get pronounced ‘Who’, that may well be my campaign slogan—‘Who cares’.”

Unlike the usual valedictory speeches about achievements, etc., I’d like first of all to reflect on what I have not achieved. I used to be Labour’s spokesperson for building and construction, and I had a good debate with the Government Minister about the building law review. I even accused him of taking a piecemeal approach. I chanted along with the sector that “CCC” is not a “CCC”, and a code compliance certificate should not be replaced with consent completion certificate without having other quality-assurance measures in place.

As recently as last week, I found out that if the clauses concerning CCC had not been implemented, although the initial time line for this change was later in 2012. Perhaps what we insisted on then was right, but I couldn’t convince the Minister, could I?

I sponsored at least four members’ bills. None of them were drawn from the ballot.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Seek leave.

RAYMOND HUO: Thank you, the Hon Ruth Dyson. The bill on export education was designed to give the New Zealand Qualifications Authority more powers to tighten rules about the lower end of the private training establishments having international or national titles in their business names. In China, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries, such names are only reserved for reputable institutes matching their national or international status. It’s important for us to protect our international education industry, which contributes about $6 billion every year to our local economy, and it is our fifth-largest export industry. I have full confidence that post - COVID-19, we will be doing better at competing against Australia, the UK, and the US.

The latest one is still in the ballot, and it’s about the rather unusual dual system in our insolvency law. Personal insolvency is called bankruptcy, while corporate insolvency is called liquidation. The anomaly of that is that individual specialists can be appointed to liquidate a company, but only official assignees, who are salaried public officials, can be appointed to manage bankruptcy. The Law Commission issued a paper in 2001, calling it a statutory monopoly.

Currently, about 34 official assignees employed by the Government administered less than 1,500 cases a year, operating on a budget of $17 million. Proposed changes under my bill would help save taxpayers’ money and would promote business efficacy and efficiency.

I thank the National Business Review for its report on “Aussie-style change proposes privatising bankruptcy practice”, and I thank my former law partner Kalev Crossland and the Office of the Clerk, especially Linda McIver and researcher Tessa Vincent, for their input into this complex issue.

On the bright side, though, in 2010, as Labour’s spokesperson for ethnic communities, I initiated the idea of New Zealand Chinese Language Week Charitable Trust, and I spent more than three years talking to relevant stakeholders nationwide, gaining consensus and support. In 2014, at the annual conference of the New Zealand China Friendship Society, I launched the language week jointly with David Bromwich, Pat English, and the Chinese Ambassador, Wang Lutong.

The New Zealand Chinese Language Week is a Kiwi-driven initiative designed to increase the awareness of Chinese culture and language. The first of its kind in any Western country, it has become a popular event in our national calendar. I want to acknowledge Jo Coughlan, the chair, and thank her for her confidence in me and for her contribution in promoting Chinese-language learning in New Zealand.

According to an earlier survey by the New Zealand China Council, for every $1 million of global economic activity, there are 63 school students learning French, 31 Spanish, 17 German, and 10 Japanese, but only two are studying Chinese, and China has become our largest trading partner.

I also want to acknowledge Professor Neil Quigley, Ambassador Tony Browne, Professor Paul Spoonley, Sarah Thomson, and all the other past and present trustees.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me and joining me to mark the occasion with a prayer in Chinese in Parliament.

As a list MP, I’ve given the job my all, and I’ve enjoyed my role, in particular, as the chair of the very busy Justice Committee. As a lawyer turned MP, I feel privileged to get involved in the reforms of some of the most important laws in New Zealand, such as the Trusts Bill, the Privacy Bill, and other bills such as the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill. I acknowledge the Hon Amy Adams for the very bill she introduced as the Minister of Justice under the previous National Government. I had the privilege of having her as my deputy chair, but following her departure, things got bumpy.

There is a book called Do You Think You’re Clever?: The Oxford and Cambridge Questions. On page 73, there is a question: “Smith sees Jones walking towards a cliff. Smith knows Jones is blind, but doesn’t like him, so allows him to walk off the edge. Is this murder?”

Our initial reaction is that Smith’s deliberate silence is shocking—he must be guilty. He’s not—if we reframe the story that the reason Smith doesn’t like Jones is because Jones is a murderer who likes to kill for pleasure. Then, Smith begins to look more like a hero than a villain. Of course, if it is Smith who is the murderer and Jones the saint trying to stop him, it all looks very different again. The point from the story is that we must have real, not circumstantial, evidence to judge someone, and why we must be extremely careful not to imagine motivations.

Applying the story to what happened to the Justice Committee last year, should that good professor have not been critical of China but full of praise for China, would that have affected the way we voted procedurally? The answer is no, because the submissions had been closed some six months ago, and the rules should not be bent or overtaken by other political factors. To be fair to that National member, if he moved a motion to reopen the submissions to invite the professor in and I voted against it, then feel free to hold me to account. He didn’t do that. Instead, he leaked a story to the media, and the rest is history.

Surely, allegations were made that I—along with almost all active Chinese community leaders—was featured in that professor’s paper. One of the reasons why I was featured was because I translated Labour’s 2017 campaign slogan “Let’s do this” into “撸 起 袖 子 加 油 干”. It is a combination of two well-known Chinese phrases meaning “Roll up your sleeves” and “Work hard”. The only problem is that it happened to be used by China’s President at some stage. Therefore, I was accused of promoting their agenda—how bizarre. The story did not stop here. According to a New Zealand Herald report dated 20 September 2017, the professor also suggested a creative interpretation of the phrases, implying that it had undertones of sexual innuendo.

Much has been said about the importance of the good relationship between New Zealand and China, but this is not to deny real differences in our values and political systems. That’s why we need a quality and independent debate about our differences, challenges, and any issues concerning foreign interference. The Chinese community is supporting it. But if we allow the sweeping generalisation to sink to that level, the value of the debate, if any, would be diminished, and opportunities to look at real issues would be lost.

One such issue concerns the local Chinese-language media in New Zealand, and I have long been calling on them to adapt more to New Zealand standards and values to fulfil their role. The Chinese media plays a very important role, as a significant number of Chinese migrants rely on translated information to understand what’s going on in our society. Under our Privacy Act, news media is largely exempted from the privacy principles to enable them to undertake news activities, subject to certain conditions. I’d be surprised if any of the Chinese media entities meets the criteria for the exemption. Other allegations made against them include self-censorship, journalism of opinion, and partisanship, and those factors would make the Chinese-language media in New Zealand susceptible to external influences, including foreign interference. At some stage, the two regulatory bodies—the Broadcasting Standards Authority and the New Zealand Media Council—may consider establishing a separate arm for ethnic media. Civics education and regular induction programmes for new migrants are also long overdue. But that has nothing to do with scaremongering or conspiracy theories. I support what Professor Paul Clark said in the New Zealand Herald that “we need to work across borders, not put up walls”.

The anti-China narrative is an easy story to tell, but, as Stephen Jacobi cautioned, it may, however, “unintentionally tap into a prejudice against Chinese people which has raised its head several times in our history, including in the form of a poll tax once applied to Chinese immigrants”. Many Kiwi-Chinese people have made New Zealand their whānau. They’re not even interested in geopolitics. So please leave them alone. To protect them from the sweeping generalisation, I have deliberately skipped all the Chinese names—as you can tell from the gallery, none of them were invited. But I do want to thank them, thank my family, thank my team, and thank the Chinese community, and especially those business leaders who over the last four terms have given—using their own words—their party votes to Labour “against their conscience”.

I owe my presence here to many people whom I consider to be my friends and mentors. To name names may unfairly omit others, but I do want to acknowledge Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson. Our health and economic responses to the COVID-19 pandemic are greatly successful. New Zealand is one of the safest countries in the world, thanks to the team of 5 million.

I’m a proud Kiwi-Chinese. Sometimes “Made in China” or “Originated from China” may not be that scary. Instead, it can be benefiting, productive, and healthy—just look at kiwifruit.

Kia kaha. Thank you, 谢 谢 ! And goodbye 再 见 !

[Applause]

GARETH HUGHES (Green): I’ve started almost every single speech in this house in Te Reo Māori, and, for a last time, kia ora, ngā mihi nui, ki a koutou katoa.

Hon Members: Kia ora.

GARETH HUGHES: Kia ora. It’s been such a privilege to serve here. Growing up in Gisborne, politics seemed distant. I never ever would have dreamt that I’d be an MP one day, let alone be one here for more than a decade. I arrived here dead broke. I’d been living on an NGO salary and I even had to borrow money off Jeanette Fitzsimons to buy my first suit. Embarrassingly, I could tie knots to climb tall buildings but I didn’t know how to tie a tie. I entered at the age of 28, taking Jacinda Ardern’s place as the baby of the House. The next year, Jacinda and I shared the award of the New Zealand Herald’s backbencher of the year. If politics was a race, though, I think she’s lapped me a couple of dozen times since then. I am so proud, though, as a New Zealander at such a time of global uncertainty, that she is the one leading us and inspiring the world.

I love our country, our beaches, our rivers, our forests, and our mountains, and protecting our beautiful but fragile planet has motivated my life’s work. Coming from the activist world, I described my previous career at Greenpeace as banging on the outside of this place. I like to think I’ve spent the last 10 years banging on about the environment from the inside. In my maiden speech, I was a little bit critical about the previous Labour Government’s environmental track record—I acknowledge you, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen—and I actually remember there was a member, Trevor Mallard, who actually walked out in the middle of it with a loud “Harrumph!”. Mr Speaker, I hope you’ll stay for this one. Can I thank you, can I thank the presiding officers like Ruth Dyson, the Parliamentary Service, the cleaners, the security, and the Clerk’s Office for their amazing support. But I’d like to especially single out the Parliamentary Library. I consider their research the greatest perk a politician can have.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer once said that being a member of Parliament was the best education you could have into your country, and it’s true. I’ve been welcomed into people’s schools, farms, factories. I’ve learnt about people’s lives, their struggles, sitting around their kitchen tables. Thank you very much for this education. Across my career, I’ve been party spokesperson for and thrown myself into researching energy and resources; climate change; transport; housing; tertiary education; economic development; ICT; oceans; fishing; animal welfare; biosecurity; agriculture; forestry; food; commerce and consumer affairs; broadcasting; tourism; building and construction; science, research, and development—sorry, it goes on—libraries and archives; and Wellington issues. It feels like I’ve studied multiple degrees. I didn’t come here just to eat my lunch. The Parliamentary Library advises me I’ve asked 512 oral questions; thank God only a few of them were patsies.

To try and show the Greens weren’t anti-rugby at the time of the 2011 Rugby World Cup, I even played on the parliamentary rugby team. In my first game, I cracked a rib. In my second game, I broke my nose. There wasn’t a third. As part of my campaigns, I’ve swum with sharks, designed and launched a video game, crowd-sourced internet rights legislation, worked with an artist to paint a two storey - high mural, sent thousands of citizen-made origami whales to Japan to oppose their whaling, and organised rallies at Parliament and protests at the Russian Embassy. I scuba dived to launch an election policy, and protested under water. I even, rather ambitiously, once put in a formal bid for all 189,000 square kilometres of oil permits on offer with 14,000 supporters. Simon Bridges didn’t give them to me. I remember passing the Red Peak bill in all stages under urgency, then literally after my speech hopping on a plane bound for the hipster capital of the world, Portland, Oregon. I’ve tenpin bowled in the White House basement when Obama wasn’t home as part of a young political leaders programme and danced off against Kawarau’s hip hop dance champion; I lost. I’ve had a blast, and I leave here with a treasure trove of memories, but, most importantly, my values intact. I’ve stuck to my principles, I’ve spoken my mind, and I can look at myself in the mirror knowing I haven’t sold out.

Something I’ve tried hard to do here is always play the ball, not the person. I came here to protect the environment, not to play petty politics. I’ve given speeches that have gone viral, but I’m proud I’ve never resorted to name calling or cheap blows or insults. For 20 years now, I’ve campaigned for climate action, because this danger is the greatest challenge of our age. I focused here on keeping fossil fuels in the ground and encouraging clean energy. My proudest achievement was, after years of work, being part of the historic ban on offshore oil exploration. I helped negotiate the ends of tens of millions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, and, alongside who I call New Zealand’s Erin Brockovich—Taranaki farmer Sarah Roberts—we uncovered scandalously light-handed fracking rules, and bringing that to the light of day led to serious improvements.

In our confidence and supply agreement, I’ve had responsibility for working on the massive sustainable farming fund, school energy project, and home insulation scheme. Achieving the 100 percent renewable electricity goal by 2035 was deeply satisfying and sets us up for a cleaner, cheaper, smarter energy future. After 16 years, it was great to finally pass Sue and Steffan’s country of origin food labelling Act. Something new I learnt this term was the power of drafting amendments and, rather than waving them about, sending them privately to the Minister saying I was soon going to be waving them about. It’s because of this and the mahi of others we got climate change in the Resource Management Act and interest rate caps in law.

I love our oceans, I love to scuba dive, and I love to sail. Protecting marine mammals and stopping seabed mining have been priorities for me. In opposition, I led the campaign that ended shark finning in New Zealand, I persuaded the previous Government to become a party to the successful International Court of Justice illegal whaling case, and, working with Pew, I launched the campaign to create the Kermadec Marine Reserve—but that one’s still a work in progress.

History is a passion of mine, and I remember one day sitting in here sort of daydreaming and listening to some dreary debate. I was looking around the walls at the 33 memorials to famous battles where New Zealanders have fought. I noticed, though, that one was missing—our foundational conflict: the New Zealand Wars. I researched, I wrote, I lobbied and worked through committees, and I’m so glad that one now sits in pride of place above the main door. It’s part of the movement to redress our collective amnesia and, for me, remind us that sovereignty wasn’t ceded in a treaty; it was taken at the point of a musket. So, in terms of my impact on this place, history will judge if I’ve left a mark, but at least I can tell my kids I left a plaque.

Any credit I have is shared with an amazing team. I’d like to thank my executive assistants Holly Donald, Jessie Dennis, Simon Tapp, Jeremy Short, Gina Lockyer, Jonathan Martin, as well as key advisers Babs Lake, Robin Campbell, Hamish Clark, and—hey, Clint. You’ve got to be around here a while to know that one. I want to thank party members for their support. I’ve tried to repay their confidence with hard work and scrapping for every win. I joined the party in the year 2000 as an 18-year-old inspired by the breath of fresh air represented by MPs like Nandor Tanczos. Sue Kedgley, in particular, is a wonderful person, and I wouldn’t be here without her. They say you shouldn’t meet your heroes, but I was lucky enough to work up close with mine, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and she became a true friend. My parting message to the Green Party is: constantly ask, are we inspiring a new generation with a bold vision? Are our ambitions and work matching the scale of the environmental crisis? And are we following Jeanette’s courageous example to challenge sacred cows like capitalism, colonialism, and, well, frankly, too many cows. Marama, James, “JAG”, Eugenie, Jan, Chlöe, and Golriz, I’m so proud of what us eight have achieved this term.

It was a hard decision to leave now, when I believe we will be back in Government pushing further and faster next term. But I’m going because all I want to do is spend time with my family and be closer to nature. I lost my mum and my brother-in-law Stephen Nicholls last year. They were both big supports and having loved ones pass makes one re-evaluate your life. As a family, we have moved to Kamau Taurua / Quarantine Island. In the midst of a global pandemic, Quarantine Island does sound pretty appealing. It’s a taonga in the middle of the Otago Harbour, and we’re the only permanent residents there on this amazing ecological reserve. I plan to do some research, some writing, and take a more hands-on approach to environmental protection.

My beautiful wife, Meghan, is the new island keeper and my new boss. We’ve been together 20 years, and I’m so glad I get to share my life with her, now on an island far, far away from this place. She’s been such a support, a rock, a counsellor, a speech writer, a critic. Thank you for stopping me from sending so many bad tweets over the years. Kids, I love you so much and I am so proud of you. Thank you, Dad, Jill, Mark, and Kerry. Arlo and Zoe have spent their entire lives only knowing Dad as an MP, always working, often travelling, and, if I’m honest, invariably distracted. Whenever I’d leave home before they were awake or came home when they were asleep, my heart broke another little piece. We had our fun times too, though. I used to have inflatable little pool toys in my office to play with the kids in the parliamentary pool. I remember, once, Barry Soper walking in while I was riding an inflatable killer whale with my son, Arlo. He just walked in and he just walked out.

Another time I arrived at work with my office surrounded by security guards investigating what looked like a break-in. There was stuff all over the floor, files scattered everywhere, paper all over the show. No, it wasn’t a modern day Bowen House - gate; it was a few minutes of a toddler unsupervised. It’s funny, though, because hardly anyone ever has asked me what it’s like to be a father and an MP. I never saw parenthood or domestic duties as my wife’s job. We purposely moved to Wellington when I was elected and I often took the kids to school and I tried to go home every night that I could to help put them to bed. I used to put a smile on and pretend that being an equal parent made me a better MP. But in all honesty, it’s been hard to balance fatherhood and politics, and it’s gotten even harder as I’ve gotten older. This job is all-consuming, especially for our partners who don’t get any of the kudos. I hope this place can seriously consider how we can make it more family-friendly.

For most of my time here, I’ve been the Green Party musterer—“whip” is too much of a violent term for the Greens. I loved being part of the inner workings of Parliament and supporting my team. I’ve worked hard across numerous committees to try and modernise Parliament and improve democratic engagement. Nikki Kaye, Clare Curran, and I, we worked together on a trial of live streaming of select committees. I’m glad that it’s just business as usual now. People no longer have to fly to Wellington to attend hearings. The public can see MPs working outside the theatre of the Chamber. As we saw over the lockdown, we had the technology to continue functioning.

This term I’ve enjoyed chairing the Social Services and Community Committee. I thank the members and the staff. I think we’ve had an amazing atmosphere. After so many long, long, long Green Party meetings trying to find consensus, I think it helped me a little bit to be a fair and constructive chair. I am disappointed, though, that we couldn’t get the numbers for a full inquiry into forced adoption. I believe New Zealand’s lack of an inquiry and apology and counselling support for the tens of thousands of mothers and children does slow the healing.

Across my career, I’ve had failures and setbacks along the way, but I’ve always tried to approach this job positively, energetically, ethically, while always focusing on the issues. I now honestly reflect after two decades campaigning for progressive change that a lot of this has been diligently fighting the symptoms, not the source. I’ve protested, petitioned, organised, and lobbied. I’ve got myself arrested and got myself elected and sometimes I’ve won and changed a policy or law. But after 20 years of campaigning, it feels like I’ve been fighting the Hydra. Often in this House, we spend our time debating if it should be a State-run, a corporate, or an electric ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. We need to think deeper into the systemic reasons behind growing homelessness, child poverty, the mental health crisis, plastic oceans, vanishing species, and unswimmable rivers. I believe these things aren’t designed bugs; they’re actually designed features arising from the neo-liberal operating system installed in the 1980s.

My challenge to the country, the Greens, and the wider progressive movement is that if we aren’t focusing on transformational change, we are simply arranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Our wealth, health, and survival are imperilled if we continue with a system that encourages greed, corporate power, and excessive consumption. Fortunately for us in Aotearoa, we have an alternative value system focused on collective wellbeing, long-term thinking, and a strong connection to nature in mātauranga Māori. I believe if we truly became a Te Tiriti o Waitangi - respecting nation, we could escape the fatal embrace of short-term, individualistic, environmentally damaging thinking that has dominated our politics.

I’m optimistic about our future. I believe we can restore our environment, heal our society, and grow a richer Aotearoa. Kia ora koutou.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: Order! While this process is occurring, can I ask the supporters of Gareth Hughes to move out of the galleries moving to your right to allow for the supporters of Clare Curran to take your places. Thank you.

Waiata

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is with pain and relief that I stand to give my final speech. It’s also with a continued sense of wonder and awareness at the sheer privilege of having had this opportunity. For that, I thank from the bottom of my heart the people of Dunedin South, who continued to put their trust in me as their representative for the last 12 years.

The Dunedin South Labour Party has been my ballast; you have stuck with me through all the triumphs and disasters. Mine has not been an easy ride. Audrey Young once referred to me as a “Trouble magnet”. I don’t disagree, though it wasn’t intentional. I was part of a group of new MPs in 2008—called the “class of ’08”—determined to do politics differently, with fresh ideas and perspectives. I helped start a blog for Labour MPs, which had never been done before. “Red Alert” was truly innovative and groundbreaking, as well as a bit wacky and controversial. It also provided fresh meat for that emerging subterranean species we now call right-wing—and some left-wing—trolls. After five years, it ceased, but it provided a genuine platform for open discussion between elected politicians and actual people about priorities, new policy thinking, and ways of engaging with voters.

Over 12 years, I’ve been promoted and demoted too many times to count. I fiercely represented my constituents and their issues, which sometimes put me at odds with powerful forces. I had ideas, I had passion, and I was utterly committed to changing the existing political paradigm. I tried to progress some of those ideas in Opposition for nine years, and as a Cabinet Minister—and I’m truly grateful for that opportunity. In caucus, I sometimes used my voice at critical times. I spoke my mind. Sometimes, I spoke out of turn and, occasionally, I spoke wrongly and harshly. For that, I am truly sorry.

I made a public spectacle of myself in this House, which was portrayed in a way that is the stuff of our worst nightmares. I made mistakes. I paid a price. I was targeted. I’ve discussed the impact that this had on me. And, yes, there was a moment when I counted the number of sleeping pills I had. Thankfully, I sought help instead. I’ve recently called out the behaviour in our Parliament and described our political culture as toxic, for our political system is sick, and we all know it. More on that later.

I was ejected from the House three times by three different Speakers: for wearing a Highlander’s jersey, which was a badge of honour; for standing up for victims of sexual violence, a badge of honour; the third time, I don’t really know what it was about.

The Labour Party has been my tribe, my religion, for half my life. The union movement has been my greatest love since my first cleaning job, when I paid my first union dues at age 15. All of us who make our way to this place bring a set of values. Most take them seriously. The values that most resonate with me are compassion, justice, and plain old fairness. Giving people a voice and empowering them to live their best lives—that’s what the Labour Party stands for. In Opposition, as spokesperson, and in Government, as digital Minister, my priorities were to ensure access for all to new technologies and to put fair frameworks around them. There’s much work to be done inside Government to stimulate digital innovation with a common set of standards and services across Government. We continue to be stuck in the 20th century on this. It’s not rocket science but it requires breaking through the silos of Government departments and agencies. I tried—I championed openness from open-source software, open standards, open procurement, open government, digital equity, transparent algorithms, and for ICT to be New Zealand’s second-largest contributor to GDP by 2025.

The COVID-19 lockdown highlighted some stark digital inequality in our country as we rushed to ensure that children had the tools to continue to learn from home and that older New Zealanders who did not use internet banking could stay home and yet still pay for their groceries and medicines. Access to technology is a social necessity as well as a social good. Yet tech and digital is still seen as a portfolio on the edges worth around $10 billion to the economy, with $2 billion in exports in 2019. There are some one-off successes: the massive replacement of the IRD system, ordering a new passport online, and registering a business. But where are the initiatives that grow innovation within Government? We have burgeoning agtech, biotech, and fintech sectors. Where’s our govtech—the methodologies and applications that enable fast, agile, adaptive solutions to our most pressing social and economic issues? Why aren’t we building scale from our own IT talent through leveraging our $4 billion Government IT spend locally and embedding better practices within and across Government?

I acknowledge Don Christie, NZRise; Brenda Wallace and Pia Waugh, who led the Service Innovation Lab and government; and Kate MacDonald and Professor Colin Gavaghan for their work on digital rights and algorithmic transparency. I also acknowledge Nat Torkington for his championing of tech and his peculiar way of drawing together people from different backgrounds to address the pressing issues of our time. And Fabiana Kubke, you’re awesome. There’s too many to name, but special mention of Julian Carver and Chris O’Connell, both who died in recent years and provided me with friendship, mentoring, and ideas. There are just a few members of Parliament who understand and champion the tech sector. After this week, there are two fewer. I acknowledge Gareth Hughes and the work he put in over 12 years.

As I said, Government procurement is a powerful lever to shift local industry development. For years, Labour has championed the importance of using its considerable spending power to leverage the flow-on effect to our local economy. We can do better. Jim Kelly helped take that fight to the National Government for rail engineering at Dunedin’s Hillside Rail Workshops, alongside Dave Kearns, Stu Johnson, and Wayne Butson, the Rail and Maritime Transport Union’s general secretary. Don’t give up that fight; it’s too important. And, Jim, I wish you were here today, but I know you’re watching at home with Liz, and she won’t mind if I blow you a kiss.

I want to turn to the role of media, which is powerful for a reason. In non-democratic countries, it’s a propaganda tool to create and maintain a narrative that suits the Government or regime. In democratic countries, a free, independent, and vigorous media keeps democracy clean and safe. Therefore our media is precious. Edmund Burke recognised, in 1787, that the press played a key role in political processes, acting as a civic watchdog to maintain the relationship between the State and civil society. He said, “There [were] three estates in Parliament but in the reporters’ gallery yonder there [sat] a fourth estate more important far than they all.” Declining trust in our fourth estate is a fact and cuts to the essence of our political system, our way of life, our democracy. It’s time to have a serious discussion about how we practise politics in this country and how politics is reported.

Is the adversarial, centuries-old Westminster system fit for purpose in Aotearoa? I don’t believe it is. For a progressive country, highly respected in the world, we practise this system, in my view, in an immature and destructive way. Politicians and the news media focus on conflict, perceived or real slip-ups, rather than substance and the quality of ideas. The objective is to catch people out and take them down, rather than providing a platform of discussion for and against the best improvements to the lives of New Zealanders. Politicians should be held accountable, but we are not prey. The accountability lacks perspective—if you don’t believe me, go ask the public.

I address our news media today, particularly those in the press gallery. You are not unaccountable, though you act as though you are. Your mandate derives from the citizens of this country. Please use it wisely and maturely. You are neither judge nor jury. Remember that your power, and the notion of media freedom that you protect so fiercely, rests on a promise of service to the democratic public—you are accountable to them. To be credible, you must turn the mirror on yourselves. There is good journalism in this country. There are emerging green shoots that provide hope. State-funded media not controlled by but at arm’s length from Governments remains essential so that accurate news analysis and information is provided to citizens to maintain the social contract. The UK has the BBC; Australia, the ABC. We have a much smaller entity, RNZ, which I fear has lost its way in holding all media to a higher standard.

The declining state of our media is well known, but successive Governments have either ignored it or partially and unsuccessfully attempted to address the decline and the causes. In our first term of Government, some progress has been made, but it is again on hold due to what are considered greater priorities. Until public good media reform becomes core policy, our democracy continues to be at risk and our toxic political and media culture will worsen.

There are many who have travelled this journey with me. First, Parliament staff: you serve us, you put up with us, you clean up after us—security, VIP drivers, cleaners, messengers, the Clerk’s Office, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, the library, the Cabinet Office, Parliamentary Service, even IT. Jane McKenzie, you are a treasure.

I don’t know whether to curse or thank David Parker for putting the idea in my head to stick up my hand for Parliament. At the time I was elected, my boys were eight. I used to duck out of the Chamber in the evening into that little meeting room over there and read them a story each over the phone. Captain Underpants featured a lot, and Alex Rider books. It was bloody hard being a mum and a politician. I know you all relate to that, especially when your relationship breaks up and you have to make parenting work. By 2014, I was the primary caregiver. I simply could not have done it without my best friend and right-hand woman, Helen Lob, who cared for my kids when I wasn’t there, campaign-managed me, and ran most of the local Labour Party. Your fierce loyalty to me has kept me going through many difficult times.

I thank the Dunedin South Labour Electorate Committee, well served by chairs Richard Good, Don Pryde, Jim Kelly, Rebecca Williams, and now Simon Wilson; the Dunedin South branch; the women’s branch, Beryl Maultby, Lindsay Rackley, Linda Smilie, Carol Jess, Pamela Gordon, and Ros McCreadie; Ruth Chapman in the Region Six hub; Daryl Carran in the Meat Workers and Related Trades Union; E tū, my union; the Dairy Workers Union; and the Council of Trade Unions here today. Kevin Hale moved heaven and earth to get me from home to the airport and back for 12 years. One morning, so determined to pick me up, he and his car ended up hanging over the cliff at Broad Bay, on the Otago Peninsula, due to ice under the snow. A cow literally ran in front of his car and totalled it after he left me at the airport one morning, putting him briefly in hospital. Then there was the large hay bale that fell off the truck on to his car on the motorway. Note I wasn’t in the car for any of those incidents. I’m amazed you’re still with us, Cuddy; you’re a legend with the biggest heart.

I’ve had, and continue to have, incredible staff, both in Dunedin and Wellington. In my Dunedin South electorate office, Gemma Sattherwaite, Lauren Hourigan, Simone Hourigan, Judy Firestone, Hazel Davies, Georgina O’Reilly, Jessie Manning, Larissa McStay, Nadine Simpson, and Warren Chambers, who now run my office with humour and compassion, and who I depend on for everything. In Wellington, Gareth Hancock, Sarah Austen-Smith, Lauren Hourigan, Andrew Robinson, Sue Piper, Rebecca Brierton, Jessie Manning, and now the faithful Josh Livingstone. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, you have always encouraged me. Thank you.

Despite my short time as a Minister, I tried to do a lot and was blessed with amazing private secretaries. Kate MacDonald, Bruce Donaldson, Meghan Bray, and Leigh Huffine, thank you for your service, the bonds we formed, and your embracing of my ideas. My colleagues: Chris Hipkins, who does understand what I was trying to achieve in opening up Government to be more transparent to the public. The proactive release of Cabinet papers and key policy documents is just the beginning. You lead the way with public sector reform. Please keep going on that open Government strategy and ensure our Official Information Act is applied properly across Government. The journalists are right on that—and, Jade, thank you for you friendship at a critical time.

Andrew Little, lots of respect to you. Please keep on with the electoral reform, and if we could achieve State funding for elections, our democracy would be so much healthier. Trevor Mallard, full marks for your work on how citizens can better engage with their Parliament—could do better on practising kindness and consistency. Grant Robertson, whether it’s the introduction of the wellbeing lens for economic performance, your strategic focus on planning now for the jobs of the future, or steering us through the most difficult period in our history post-war, you are values-driven, immensely capable, and with seemingly endless energy and enthusiasm for your huge job—and sport. Jacinda Ardern, you once said to me that I wore my heart on my sleeve and had more courage than you to speak my mind. I say that to you—that you have the courage of a warrior, the heart of a woman, and the soul of our nation within you. You are a leader like no other, and our country is so lucky to have you.

To my caucus family, thank you. Respect to you. Stick together. Look after each other. You’re all good people. I believe in you.

My family: Shirley Curran, my mum, who has stood beside me and stood up for me countless times. You couldn’t come today because it’s too painful, but you are watching at home. My dad, Kinney Curran, died eight years ago today. Dad, I continue to try to do the right thing. Judith and Katherine Curran, sisters and supporters: I know I’ve tested that support at times—thank you. You are strong, intelligent women. Callum and Riley, you probably don’t remember much about life with mum before politics. Well, that’s over now. I’m immensely proud of both of you.

From 2009 till 2012, I fought to keep the Hillside Rail Workshops open. I never gave up. Today, they are being refurbished, apprentices are back, and staff numbers are growing. In 2015, I filled sandbags alongside others to fight back a terrible flood in South Dunedin, sparking an intense debate about how climate change affects a densely populated, low-income, low-lying community. Things are better now. There’s a lot of focus on South Dunedin’s future, and a body of scientific evidence building. Be vigilant and strong, though.

In July 2017, I took a tent to the Octagon in winter and camped to force attention to the terrible attitudes of Work and Income to people in precarious living conditions. Everyone deserves a home. Work and Income is much kinder and more responsive now. Thank you, Carmel Sepuloni. To all the people of Dunedin South, now the Taieri electorate, my people: you will be in strong, capable, caring hands with Ingrid Leary should you elect her. I gave you my life for 12 years, and now it’s time to pass the baton. Ngā mihi nui. That’s a wrap.

[Applause]

Waiata

SPEAKER: Could I now ask Clare Curran’s supporters to leave, preferably by coming this way, in order to make room for the family and close supporters of Ruth Dyson.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I had thought about beginning with remarking on the fact that I’m standing between a lot of my friends and a party, and I was going to seek leave to table my speech. But I heard from very reliable sources that it would be denied.

Rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Distinguished guests. Greetings to you gathered here for this purpose today. Greetings once, twice, three times to you all.]

[Uses New Zealand Sign Language] This is my last time speaking in Parliament, and I thank everyone who is sharing this moment with me. I want to especially acknowledge the deaf community for the support they have given me. I am proud to have been involved in achieving New Zealand Sign Language as an official language in New Zealand. [Uses New Zealand Sign Language]—and that’s a bit of an in-joke with people who think the South Island’s above the North Island.

E le tuua fa’apo evaga le tatou mafutaga. Oute le sola foi fa’atama o le po. E ao ona momoli atu se matou fa’afetai i tagata Pasefika o Kalaisetete. Fa’afetai mo le tou tapuaiga. Fa’afetai mo lo outou alolofa. Fa’afetai mo la outou lagolago mai ia te a’u i tausaga e tele. Fa’afetai, fa’afetai, fa’afetai tele lava. Malo ‘aupito. Metaki maata. Fakaue lahi. I shall not depart like a thief in the night, nor shall I simply disappear into the shadows. I am moved to express my heartfelt gratitude to the Pacific people of Christchurch. Thank you for your spirit of solidarity. Thank you for your love and compassion for me. Thank you for your support for me over many years. Thank you.

I was elected to this House in the last first-past-the-post election in November 1993 as only the 37th woman to ever enter our Parliament. I gave my maiden speech in March 1994, three months before Chlöe Swarbrick was born. In that speech, I talked about the dignity of employment and a secure home, my personal experience of domestic violence, and my concern about the growing inequality in New Zealand. I came into this House as a community political activist, and I hope I leave as one.

I thanked our party team in Lyttelton and those who supported me to come to this place, and I want to do that again this evening. I would not be here if it was not for the extraordinary level of organisation in the Lyttelton / Banks Peninsula / Port Hills Labour team, plus the confidence that my constituents have placed in me, and the fantastic work of my parliamentary and electorate office staff over the last nearly 27 years—I wish you’d had the election in November so I could have done that 27 years. Marie Davis started in Parliament with me on day one and only left my office last year but—thank goodness—is still working in the building. Marie, thanks for heaps of stuff you’ve done. You are the best. And to all the staff who have worked with and for me over many years, thank you.

I want to acknowledge my buddy MP and long-time friend Lianne Dalziel, who supported me as a candidate and continues to do so. My love goes to you, Lianne, and to Robbie. To two other long-term friends, Fran Wilde and Annette King, both Dames, who have been amazing cajolers and supporters, thank you. And to all the council and community board members with whom I have worked, there has never been a time when I couldn’t pick up the phone or email or text with information or requests for help or support. It has been a great partnership.

To my Astoria buddies, Mark, Mark, Steve, Pete, and Trevor: we set ourselves some big challenges and we achieved them. Thanks for your enduring friendship through some really hard times. To Michael Cullen, one of my colleagues who’s always had the deepest understanding and commitment to change which made a long-term difference to the benefit of people, the legacy of his many policies and laws will remain, including such fundamental shifts in people’s financial security and wellbeing such as KiwiSaver, the more often talked about creation of the portfolio investment entity tax regime—I liked it—and the establishment of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. To Helen Clark, one of the two amazing Prime Ministers I’ve had the privilege to serve with, thank you for your vision, your leadership, and your support.

Thanks to my family, who have always been such consistent supporters, including my sister and brother-in-law, who are here this evening.

My biggest thanks goes to my husband and campaign organiser, Martin, who has supported me throughout this time. Since I entered Parliament, we’ve got married, when I inherited two adult stepchildren, who have gone on to give us amazing partners and five wonderful grandchildren, the oldest of whom started university this year—that’s very ageing. Some people have described Martin as my rock, but I’m a water person, and I always think of rocks as sinking. He has just the opposite effect—he’s more like my massive helium balloon. Thanks for everything.

I came in here at the start of the Labour revival, following the devastation of the 1990 election, when Labour had just 29 MPs out of a Parliament of 97. There were a lot of new MPs in our 1993 caucus. During the 1993-96 term, the number of parties in Parliament went from four to eight, in preparation for MMP.

My maiden speech opened in Te Reo and Samoan, acknowledging our first-nation language and the election at the same time as me of the first ever Pasifika member of Parliament in New Zealand. The diversity of our representation has improved significantly.

We’re surrounded by crests, representing wars in which New Zealanders fought and died so that we could enjoy the peace and democracy we value so greatly. I want to acknowledge the work of Gareth Hughes in his determined campaign to have a crest for New Zealand Wars added and also, alongside our Government’s decision, to again teach New Zealand history in our schools. Both these initiatives will make our country better educated and stronger.

When I first arrived, I was interested in the advocacy portfolios and how they worked alongside the primary portfolios. I noticed we had a Minister for women, for senior citizens, for youth, for Māori, for Pasifika, and, of course, for racing, but there was no voice for disabled people. So, with the encouragement of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, I became the first disability issues spokesperson in our Parliament and went on to become the first Minister for Disability Issues. I’ve been pleased to see that all parties now regard this as a vital part of their line-up.

New Zealand is seen as having played a leading role in the development of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was the fastest ever UN convention to be developed—I’m sure because of our leadership. We ensured that disabled people were always included as part of our delegation that I led, and that became the benchmark for other countries to follow, and they did. So the UN changed to be a more inclusive place, and I was very proud to play my part in that change.

Passing legislation to make New Zealand Sign Language an official language was also a significant achievement—literally world-leading, in fact—but I regret that it wasn’t more prescriptive in its implementation, because its roll-out has been slower than it could have been. That should be fixed.

New Zealand was awarded the prestigious Franklin D Roosevelt award in 2007 for our leadership on disability issues, and the award remains on display on the reception desk on the tiles.

I enjoyed working on the Working for Families package, the most significant change to our social welfare system for decades, and also the It’s Not OK campaign, an important part of ridding our country of family violence. I spent eight years improving our ACC legislation, including moving private insurers out of the scheme after Murray McCully’s disastrous attempt to privatise it, and—the best—changing the absurd Bill Birch medical misadventure, medical mishap regime to a fair treatment injury regime which also contributes to healthcare improvement. Fortunately, Nick Smith as Minister didn’t get to unravel all my improvements during his time as Minister, but he certainly did his best.

As Minister for Senior Citizens, I recall making an offer to the executive of Grey Power that I would attend any branch meeting to which I was invited. To be honest, I didn’t know at the time that there were 77 Grey Power branches, but I did get to 74 of them.

I was the Minister responsible for introducing paid parental leave for self-employed new parents for the first time in New Zealand—not available in many other countries. I won funding to completely eliminate the adult cochlear implant waiting list, introduced caregiver qualifications which were matched with wage increases, developed a new model of aged care which was driven by quality of life rather than cleanliness of floors, moved disabled people from institutions into homes in their community and from sheltered workshops into fairly paid work, and—thank you, Michael—I won funding to increase the contract level for all essential social services to 100 percent rather than the 60 or 80 percent they were getting. Unfortunately, that money had only just started being put into contacts when the Government changed, and Bill English and Paula Bennett reversed the policy and left the services at less than full funding.

In my time here, I have been privileged to hold a wide range of positions, both in Government and in Opposition, including being a Minister of quite a few portfolios—about 13—and being the chief whip and now Assistant Speaker. I haven’t been the Speaker of our Parliament—yet. I’ve chaired several select committees and have enjoyed all my roles. I’m proud of the work I’ve done on behalf of my constituents and New Zealanders. Chairing the marriage equality committee and the abortion reform committee have been a huge privilege. Seeing significant law change such as these two pieces of law and the End of Life Choice Bill pass have been very satisfying, as will the two successful votes on the drug law reform and end of life choice referendums in September.

Thank you to the many chief executives and public servants who have worked with me on my portfolios. We properly challenged each other and ourselves. Your work has been extraordinary, and I thank you for your service. I also thank all the many others who make our jobs possible: our cleaners, our messengers, our clerks, our parliamentary staff team, our travel office, library, VIP drivers, and especially the team at Copperfield’s—everyone who works so that our Parliament can function.

I’ve been in Parliament for 9,768 days, more or less, and I haven’t yet had a day’s sick leave. I thought that sick days were able to be accumulated, until quite recently. Elizabeth McCombs, the first woman MP—elected to represent the same electorate that I was elected to represent—was the first “out” vegetarian woman in our Parliament. I was the second. When she died after only 15 months in this place, her vegetarianism was speculated as contributing to her early death. I hope I have restored the balance in consideration now!

I’ve been kicked out of the Chamber only once during my time here, which I think is extraordinary given my inability to be quiet. It was for interjecting on a point of order from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt was the Speaker. Do I hold a grudge? Yes! I have been sent to the Privileges Committee only once, for criticising then Speaker Rt Hon David Carter. Mr Carter kicked Marama Davidson out of the House when it felt like she had only been elected five minutes before. I thought it was unfair. A media commentator—Russell Brown, I think—asked on Twitter, “What is it about David Carter?” I replied: “Incompetent. Biased. Doesn’t like the job. Lazy. Sexist. Doesn’t give a toss.” I remember Gerry Brownlee thundering about how outrageous it was that I’d called him biased.

Our lives in Canterbury have been very different since September 2010, when our series of earthquakes started. In our electorate, the worst started on 22 February 2011, when we lost so many lives, homes, and jobs. Our worlds were turned upside down. Our communities reached out to each other and offered so much support and hope to people who were left in deeply distressing situations. My two volunteer fire brigades, Lyttelton and Sumner, alongside the Woolston crew, did extraordinary things and won respect for ever as a result. They left their own wrecked homes, not knowing where their families were, to help others. Nothing could make me prouder than our response and their response.

When we debated the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill in the House, giving wartime powers to Gerry Brownlee, I asked for three things. I asked that the voice of our communities be heard and that people in our community be the drivers of our recovery. I asked for the process to be open and transparent, and I asked for the recovery to be at a good pace. Sadly, my requests were not agreed, and we ended up with a disempowerment and frustration that remains with many even today. In August 2020, we still have inadequately or unrepaired homes.

But for me, the worst inaction by the then Minister was to deny people support to build rockfall protections for their homes. Because of a political decision, people had their perfectly good homes demolished. They didn’t need a wrecking ball; they needed rockfall protection, and then they could have continued living in their home safely. I admire those who stayed and wouldn’t leave their home, and they were rewarded by the Christchurch City Council, who finally gave them the support they needed. The council’s decision to support rockfall protection saved money and saved homes, but more than that, it respected the local residents. Then, because this massive series of earthquakes wasn’t enough, we had significant flooding, on more than one occasion, on the banks of the Heathcote. Again, the council stepped in to offer retreat to some residents, who gratefully but sadly took the money and moved.

A near tragedy was a human-induced one: the proposed closure of Redcliffs School. After all we’d been through, the then Minister of Education decided to make this announcement to the stunned community. As one senior school student said, “We thought the earthquakes were bad enough, but then along came something much worse.” It was Hekia Parata. But her proposal generated a call to action, a sense of unity and pride, and a flurry of prolonged and relentless activity from a community which knew that our school was at the heart of our community and it was going to stay there. Just six weeks ago, Prime Minister Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern opened the brand new school in Redcliffs. It was a magnificent celebration of the strength of the broader school community, and the best day ever.

Then there were the Port Hills fires in February 2017. I have never witnessed before, and hope to never again, the raging power of wildfires such as we saw then. Despite heroic efforts of firefighters on the ground and in helicopters, 11 homes were lost, and tragically we lost the life of Steve Askin, fighting the fire from a helicopter. Then, of course, there was the unbelievable terrorist attack that stunned our city and our country. Once again, our response was so telling and so powerful.

It’s a bit of a tradition in valedictory speeches to do a list for future MPs to implement, and I wouldn’t want to walk away from that tradition. I know that Chris Hipkins would be devastated if I didn’t give further “advice”! Here’s a few, Jacinda, for you and the next Government to get your teeth stuck into after 19 September. I hope that you’re joined by the Labour candidate for Banks Peninsula, Tracey McLellan, as part of an even stronger Labour team in this House. But before I give the House my list, can I say that it’s been a massive honour to work alongside Jacinda Ardern, who leads our country with integrity, determination, and empathy. She lives and breathes unshakeable values, and we are very fortunate to have her as our Prime Minister. Long may that continue.

OK, so let’s do this: extend the ACC scheme to how it was originally intended—Iain’s mentioned that—to cover impairments regardless of cause; ensure our social security system is fit for the current century by moving to individual entitlement rather than people being financially disadvantaged because they planned badly and got married; end the farce of the independence of select committees or ensure they are genuinely independent; seriously and continuously promote the value of disabled people as part of the paid workforce and as contributing members of our community. Ensure that all members—all members—can get home to their families on a Thursday of an ordinary sitting week by granting additional travel leave for this purpose to those who can’t get a plane home after close of play. The agreed early closure on a Thursday is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. Mr Faafoi, have every movie in our theatres captioned and put a true value on the worth of unpaid work.

No, that’s not my complete list, but it’s just a start.

Can I end with a final tip. I’m a big fan of Samuel Parnell, who pioneered the eight-hour day in New Zealand. Can I recommend that members take a hint from the name of the “dinner break” and not always fill it with meetings. When I first came to this place, I developed a habit of walking for an hour during the dinner break. I’ve kept it up on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, with colleagues. We later formalised our walking group and have steadily developed helpful rules like no jogging—it’s so undignified—and no talking work. It’s fun and it’s something we all need as we navigate this institution we inhabit, away from homes and our families and for long hours. I recommend it. Jan Tinetti, Willow-Jean Prime, and Kris Faafoi are coordinating the walks from now on. If you don’t like walking, follow Kris. I hope you join them. It leaves at 10 past 6 from the Bowen House foyer.

When I first came to this place, I felt the responsibilities of representation and I have continued to feel those responsibilities. I promised then to work hard, to lead, to listen to, and to learn from the people I represent and to get stuff done. I believe I’ve done justice to that ambition. It has been an absolute privilege and I really love the role; I will miss it. But I leave you now to carry on the work of our Parliament. Be bold. Be brave. Leave a legacy. And go well. Thank you.

[Applause]

Waiata

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

Bills

Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this Budget 2020—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Five minutes, thank you, Madam Speaker. [Interruption] It is. The first thing I would say is that I recognise without a doubt that as a nation, we responded and we’ve managed to put ourselves in a very strong position in terms of how we’ve dealt with COVID-19. There’s no doubt about that at all. And I want to acknowledge, you know, the Government for the response around their health response. But now we’re moving into an even more critical phase, and that is the economic recovery. We keep talking about the economy, but actually the economic recovery is what’s going to drive our social wellbeing. It’s what’s going to drive our mental health issues in this country for the next two or three years, and it’s all going to come down to how well the incoming Government is able to deliver a plan—a plan that needs to be clearly laid out and articulated for the country in the coming campaign.

I can’t believe—I find it extraordinary—that the governing party at the moment, the Labour Party, has come out and told the country that they will not be bringing any serious policy forward during this election. So they’re basically either waving the white flag and realising that it’s just too much and it’s beyond them, or they’re going to sit back, at best, and be complacent about our health response—which, by the way, was a team of 5 million; it was the whole country that put us in this position—or, at worst, it’s a very arrogant way to treat the country, to say that during the upcoming campaign—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind the member that we are actually on the Estimates.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker, which brings me back to the Estimates. It is that Budget 2020—it brings me back to the point that I was making. Where is the plan—where is the plan? Where is the investment going? Because I can tell you right now, in both my portfolios—the first one being defence, and I want to acknowledge our defence forces. I want to acknowledge the work that they’ve done both overseas in advancing our international interests and protecting those—but especially back home. When the chips are down, it’s often our New Zealand Defence Force that we call on to step up and take a leadership role. And they had to do it this time as well, because we saw very clearly that our protection at the border was not working.

The budget for defence forces was OK. It’s what I’d call a zero budget. They’ve adopted our plan, which was the Defence Capability Plan, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark, because fundamentally—at the start of this term, I said if he can stick to that and you can keep the investment funnel going in terms of our personnel, our equipment, and our property, then we will support that. And fundamentally, they have been able to do that, with a couple of little slip-ups. I notice that they’re just starting to renege a little bit on investment into defence property, and that’s one of the priorities in terms of defence and where the investment and where the spend has to go.

In terms of sport and recreation—and I want to come back to this Budget and say there’s been promises made, there’s been money allocated, but there’s no detail around it. Sports clubs don’t know where the money is going. We know that they’re suffering. We know that COVID has actually had a massive negative impact on our local clubs and our grassroots sports. They need to have some clarity. They need to have some certainty in terms of what they can do, in terms of what they can deliver, in terms of getting our kids back out on the sports field. I come back to the fact that without a clear plan, in terms of what we’re going to do now as a country in the next three years, without, you know—

Greg O’Connor: Did you sleep in on Saturday morning?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Greg seems to think that it’s not important to have—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Full names.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Mr O’Connor seems to think that it’s not important to have a plan. If he’s got a plan, stand up and articulate it for the House. Tell the country what it is, because we sure as hell don’t know what the plan is. There is no plan. So the Government—it’s incumbent upon them in the upcoming campaign to actually stand up and lay out a plan in terms of Budget 2020 and how that actually translates into where the investment is going, who can expect to get the investment, where it’s going to be best spent, because I can tell you one thing: the party opposite has got a very proud tradition of splashing money everywhere. It’s never targeted. They never actually can show an asset or a result for it. And actually, as a country, when we’ve borrowed as much money—

Greg O’Connor: Sports fields are full of kids.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —as we are, Mr O’Connor, you actually need to be able to articulate a clear plan in terms of where that investment’s going. So I would challenge one of the members opposite—maybe Mr O’Connor—to stand and take a call and outline for us in detail what their plan 2020 means for New Zealand in the coming general election. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): On this side of the House, we’ve said that the best economic response is based on a strong and excellent health response to the COVID-19 crisis. We went hard and we went early; we locked down tight for four weeks and nearly as tight for another three weeks. It was a huge shock to all of us and a huge shock to our economy, but it worked—it worked. Our health response was perhaps the strongest in the world at the time in terms of the lockdown. Other countries didn’t go as hard, didn’t go so strict, and we’ve, sadly, seen some of the outcome of that across the Tasman, and, like all of us, we really feel for our Australian whānau, for the people who are now locked down again. But it’s not just people returning to their homes again there; there is an economic consequence as well, with businesses shut down again, with the economy faltering. That is why the best economic response was indeed driven by a strong, strong health response.

Nevertheless, when we shut our economy down—shut it virtually all the way down for four weeks—we knew that it would have a strong economic impact. During those four weeks of the lockdown, the Budget was rewritten to respond to the COVID crisis, to give a strong economic response. We can see that strong economic response in action now. We can see that economic activity is picking up. We can see that the rural sector, which kept us all going, is coming back strongly through exports, that the shops are open, that buildings are going up, that friends can gather at cafes and at pubs, and that we can stand and watch sports games. Our economic response is coming off that strong health response.

But there is, nevertheless, still a strong economic response, and as we have said many times, now is the rainy day, the time to respond. So the Budget does have the core Budget response, as we always have, to health, to welfare, to education, but it also has a strong economic response to the COVID crisis in a five-point plan, which is embedded in this Budget—a five-point plan where we are investing in our people.

The wage subsidy kept people in touch with their jobs. The wage subsidy means that people still had money coming in. We responded to beneficiaries and we doubled the winter energy payment. Why? Because it enabled people to survive that intense COVID crisis. We are investing in our people by making all apprenticeships and trades training free so that we are training people for the trades that we need as we recover. We have extended the wage subsidy to ensure that businesses can get through this tough time. The whole point of that wage subsidy and the wage subsidy extension is to give businesses time to rethink, to regather, and to decide what they will do in the future. That’s the first step: investing in our people.

The second point of our plan was: protecting and creating jobs. That’s what the wage subsidy did: it protected jobs. But we also have the shovel-ready projects, which will create jobs in construction. In my own electorate is the North-Western busway and the Whau walkway, which will bring jobs and economic activity to West Auckland. We’ve got 11,000 new environmental jobs in this Budget, responding to the needs of our economy and ensuring that people stay in employment and that the employment they stay in builds New Zealand. So that’s the second part of our five-point economic plan.

The third point is: preparing for a post-COVID future and tackling our long-term challenges in housing and in climate change. So we are providing 8,000 new places in public and transitional housing. We are building, building, building State houses—about 300 dwellings going up in my electorate, and that is repeated across Auckland and throughout the country. We are starting to deal with our waste better as part of an environmental response to COVID, and we’re investing in our hospitals. So that’s the third point: preparing for a post-COVID future.

The fourth point of our plan is: backing small business. That’s what the wage subsidy does. We’ve provided interest-free and low-interest loans—a minimum of $10,000 for a business and up to $100,000, depending on how many employees each business has. That’s an extraordinary thing to do. The whole objective of that interest-free or low-interest loan is to give businesses the cash to tide them over. We know that cash is king, that getting cash in the door really matters to a business. This low-interest and no-interest loan provides that cash that a business needs. Sitting in here is a strategy around tax refunds, where instead of having to carry a tax loss forward and set it off against future profits, as a one-off temporary measure, businesses could pick up a tax loss and carry it back and write it against previous years’ profits. It’s a timing difference only, but the effect is to get cash into businesses faster, to help them survive. So we are backing small business by doing that, by making sure they get the cash they need.

And our fifth point: we are positioning ourselves globally. We’ve had a brilliant health response here in New Zealand, a health response that means that people are interested in New Zealand and that our exports are growing because our reputation has been enhanced by our response to COVID-19. We are backing those exports with further funding to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, giving practical support to our exporters so that they can access markets and grow markets. We are negotiating trade agreements with the UK and with the European Union, and the work continues.

So there it is—the five-point plan: (1) investing in our people, (2) protecting and creating jobs, (3) preparing for a post-COVID future, (4) backing small business, and (5) positioning ourselves globally. These are the things that we are doing as part of the economic response to COVID-19. It’s great work.

What do I hear from the Opposition? Carping and complaining and digging out the old bogeyman attacks. And they say, “Well, we’ve had to borrow to respond to the COVID crisis, and how are we going to repay it?” Let me just give the Opposition a little bit of an education on how debt works and why we need to engage in debt and how we will repay it. Now, when the previous National Government came into power, debt was at 6 percent of GDP, thanks to the judicious stewardship of Dr Michael Cullen. But the Opposition, the then Government, was quite quickly hit with the global financial crisis, and properly—quite properly—they borrowed to get through the global financial crisis. In fact, under the former National Government, debt rocketed up to about 26 percent of GDP—a 20-point increase in debt. That was the proper response. Over time, it worked down gradually, until we’d managed to pay off some of that debt, until in 2017, debt was down to about 22 percent of GDP, and this year, before the COVID crisis, under this Government and under Grant Robertson’s stewardship, we had worked it down to about 19 percent of GDP. That’s what happened to debt: rocketed up, along came down, and it was the right thing to do. We are borrowing again in a crisis.

We anticipate, as is set out in this Budget, that, in fact, debt will reach about 54 percent of GDP. But how does that compare? Well, it compares very well indeed—it compares very well indeed. The OECD average of debt as an extension of GDP, it’s sitting at around about 86 percent—this is before the COVID crisis. In the UK, it’s about 80 percent of GDP. In Australia, before the COVID crisis, about 45 percent of GDP. In Germany, about 60 percent of GDP. That is before the COVID crisis. So you can see that our borrowing after the COVID crisis is well within reasonable bounds and well within bounds that can be repaid.

But here’s the interesting bit. During the years when the former National Government borrowed money and then repaid it, tax hovered at around about 25 percent of GDP. In 2006, it was about 32 percent of GDP, but the tax take by 2012 was around about 25 percent of GDP—25, 26. In 2018, it was about 26 percent of GDP, and there it hovered. All during those years when debt went up and came down again, it hovered at that level of GDP.

So we do not need to drag out the bogeyman of tax increases in order to manage the debt. I’m sure that there will be some adjusting in due course, but there is no need for a rash response, there is no need for a bogeyman, and there is no need for fears around it. As has been shown by the previous Government and will be shown again by this Government, that level of debt can be managed and repaid, and it is a necessary and needed part of this Government’s response to the COVID crisis. This is an excellent Budget, and I commend it to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m not sure what to make of the end of that speech. I think we’ve just heard the Government’s tax policy having just been announced. Only I don’t think Grant Robertson would be that fond of the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee either announcing the Labour Party’s tax policy going into the election in this debate or committing to no new taxes, because, frankly, they haven’t said that. The Prime Minister hasn’t said it. The Minister of Finance hasn’t said it. Frankly, I don’t think it’s true. I think there are tax increases on the way, because that’s all the Government knows how to do.

Now, the one thing I will agree with Deborah Russell on is this: that the Budget was somewhat rewritten during the lockdown, but there was part of it that I don’t think the Government paid close enough attention to. We’ve been hearing a lot of speeches about the cost side of the Budget, but I want to focus on the revenue side, because unless we get the money into Crown coffers, it’s going to be very difficult to deliver the spending programme of this Budget and maintain the debt levels—eye-wateringly high though they are—as what Ms Russell says is up to 54 percent of net GDP. My concern is that the revenue projections are frankly heroic.

Now, last year, the actual Crown revenue was at $93.5 billion. If this Budget was rewritten as recently as March, remember, before the lockdown, there was a projected fall in Crown revenue of at least $4 billion to $89.5 billion in the 2019-20 forecast. Despite that, despite all of the drops in tax take that is likely to be the case—and I’ll go through why that is—they’re only forecasting a $2.5 billion further drop in Crown revenue before it recovers by a massive $7.6 billion.

Now, in the face of thousands if not tens of thousands of companies going to the wall over the next few months and years, even those that survive will survive—

Dr Duncan Webb: Where’s your evidence?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It’s called realism, Dr Webb—it’s called realism. The evidence is in every single small business that every single one of my colleagues has visited to hear of the trauma and the fact that they survived the lockdown by the skin of their teeth. But let me tell you what they’re not saying. They’re not saying, “Guess what! We’re going to make a profit this year.” It’s only on profit that tax is paid by companies. In fact, many of them will sustain thumping great losses. The tax loss offsets for that will go through into out-years. The GST take is already down; it’s going to go down even further. Jobs are being lost, and people who lose their jobs can’t pay PAYE. In the face of all of that, they’re telling us that Crown revenue is only going to drop next year by $2.5 billion. I say phooey. Indeed, the Minister of Finance acknowledged that in the 13-hour debate on this appropriations bill in saying that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update is going to adjust Crown revenue. What that’s going to mean? This is a Government that doesn’t know how to cut spending or reprioritise spending or take a value for money lens to spending. That means debt must go up in order to sustain the spending path that they’re on.

There’s another reason debt’s going to go up: because the health sector is in a terrible mess. Now, the Minister of Health has acknowledged that the $643 million deficits projected across our DHB sector in March isn’t going to be met. It’s going to be even worse than that. That’s going to be about 30 percent higher than it was last year. Now, this Budget does put a big dollop of money into DHBs. But listeners should be under no illusions that there is going to be a single extra treatment or procedure or visit to the doctor as a consequence of that nearly billion dollars a year going in, because they’ve firstly got to recover the deficits, which could be approaching three quarters of a billion dollars before they even account for health cost inflation, which runs at about twice the rate of general inflation. So there is every likelihood that one of two things will happen: either DHBs will continue to plunge further into deficit or services will be cut under this Government.

Now, there’s one thing that they will be able to draw on, and that is the underspend in the mental health commitments that they made in Budget 2019, because despite the nearly half a billion dollars they said they were going to spend in mental health, I think, Mr Doocey, they’re up to—what—about $40 billion, if we’re really generous.

Matt Doocey: Million.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Forty million dollars, rather, if we’re really generous about the new spending that’s gone into mental health. Big announcement, not big delivery. In fact, no delivery. Very little, if any, new mental health services have actually been put into place as a consequence of that commitment. So there will be some offset, but there’s no doubt that the budget for health in Budget 2020 will not be met. There will have to be a supplementary appropriation just to fund the deficits before we even get to extra care for population growth and inflation.

I want to touch on the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF), because we’ve had an extraordinary revelation over the last few days from the Minister for Regional Economic Development, who talks about pūtea. Well, I think it’s more like kete poaka. It’s a pork barrel. He is running around the country, embellishing the number of jobs that he thinks is being created, and today had the audacity to issue a press release estimating that there were 13,217 jobs created out of the Provincial Growth Fund on the same day that the Auditor-General issued a damning report into the management of the Provincial Growth Fund that said that the fund’s authorisation processes lacked transparency, it lacked coordination across the four organisations in Government that were managing the fund, that there were no measurements. They didn’t even know how to define job growth.

Yet the Minister comes to this House and trumpets the fact that they’ve exceeded the target of 10,000 jobs created out of the PGF and accuses me of plucking figures out of the air. Well, that is the master of plucking figures, I would suggest, and that there is no more likely to be 13,000 jobs than I am to be 6½ feet tall. It just ain’t happening. We want it to happen. We want there to be measures in place. We want to know how many jobs are being created, because that is a core task and target of the Provincial Growth Fund, but we are none the wiser. The Auditor-General cut through the spin of the Hon Shane Jones, the Minister for kete poaka, and said, “We don’t know.” That’s not good enough. When $3 billion is being earmarked for Provincial Growth Fund initiatives, we should know better about the sustained economic and job growth that comes from it.

I say $3 billion. The Minister will say $2.7 billion of it has already been appropriated, but if one reads the fine print, there’s only $339.5 million that has actually been paid out. So for every dollar of commitment that the Minister has made and every ribbon that he cuts, for each dollar, only 12.9 cents has actually reached the regions. Those regions of Northland, of Tai Rāwhiti, of Hawke’s Bay, of Whanganui, and of the West Coast, those high priority regions—all they’ve heard is grand announcements, while Mr Jones walks in, cuts a ribbon, and leaves. The money is not flowing into those regions at the speed and in the rate that he portrays it to be.

I want to finish briefly on Pike River, because I now have responsibility for Pike River re-entry on behalf of the National Party. The Minister for Pike River Re-entry has made it clear that the $54 million—

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Fifty-four million dollars, Mr Bakshi, that has been earmarked for re-entering the drift will be the limit of the taxpayer’s commitment to that. I support that. I wish the Pike River re-entry team the very best over the next five months as they head down to the drift and try to recover important electrical equipment that may provide answers to questions that the families of the Pike River miners and the community right across the country have. But I agree with the Minister that it’s time to put a cap on that and do the best with what we’ve found.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, I feel very honoured to be able to speak and stand in the House this evening to be able to give my reflections—or my contribution, rather—on this Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill.

It was not even six months ago, I think, that anybody in this House could have envisaged what 2020 would bring us. I know that this Budget is probably not the Budget that we thought we would be all debating in the final week of this House sitting, before the end of this 52nd Parliament rises, but here we are. Here we are in the oddest year that has been, 2020, and we are now—like the world has globally been—forced to quickly and fundamentally shift ourselves as a nation.

Now, I want to thank, first and foremost, every single person that has worked tirelessly in Aotearoa New Zealand to get us to the position that we are in today, to be able to say that here we are, this team of 5 million. Collectively, we will be leading New Zealand through our COVID recovery. Collectively, we will be building back our economy. Collectively, we have put ourselves into a position that is the envy of the world. It is something that, wherever I go in our electorate of the mighty East Coast—and I’m sure that wherever any member of Parliament in this House goes, in the places that they call home—whatever ilk that people are, whatever colour that they adorn on their chest, people are proud of the way that we have responded. People are cognisant of the privileged position that we are in to now turn to building our economy, and I could not be prouder of the plan that this Government has to keep New Zealand moving.

In March, it was about responding to the unfathomable, and we did that. That was through two different lenses. The first was the health one, as we’ve discussed. But for us in Te Tai Rāwhiti, we started to see the economic impacts of COVID-19 a lot earlier than the rest of the country, because we were heavily dependent on forestry export. Almost one in every four families in Te Tai Rāwhiti had their incomes directly or indirectly impacted by forestry, and the fact that China was starting to shut down—it didn’t need our logs and it started to shut down. Our community rallied, and we were supported by this Government. We were supported by the Hon Grant Robertson. We had the Hon Phil Twyford come up into our patch. He met with the people. He could see the desperation, the looks on our community’s faces when it was very apparent that we were going to face some economic turbulence, well before we went into lockdown.

We were the first cab off the rank to secure a regional COVID-19 economic recovery package, of $29 million. That is something that really leads into the way that our Government has responded, because that led to the recovery, which leads to our rebuilding. Now, there are five key areas of our fundamental economic plan. We are investing in our people—investing in our people. Our Government has invested $1.6 billion into training. We are investing in those people that want to and need to—out of necessity, because of the situation that we collectively find ourselves in—retrain and be redeployed. If you want to become an apprentice in this country, we have the opportunity to do that completely for free as a consequence of this Government’s investment. Whether that’s being a tradie, whether that’s being a sparky, whether that is working in an area that has been completely under-resourced—mental health support, whatever it is—we are providing that resource.

Now, last week, or the week prior, we had some big flooding up in Tolaga Bay, up the East Coast. We were up there assessing some of the damage. I was actually meant to be up there looking at some of the investment from last time: in the 2018 floods, the Provincial Growth Fund invested over $30 million to building and strengthening particular structures up some of our most flood-prone roads. I was supposed to be looking at that, but we had another flood.

Now, one of the chaps that I had the opportunity to meet—he was a young fella. His name was Angus, and he was the first point of call as we sort of went up into the dangerous area. Angus was a young gentleman. I’d say he’d be no older than 22, 23. He was in his young 20s. He had just completed a three-week course: Wheels, Tracks and Rollers. It was a three-week course that was a recipient of funding that came from our COVID recovery funds to enable retraining and redeployment. Now, after his three-week retraining course to get him up into the civil engineering type of work, a local chap by the name of Kim Cranswick—he is a founder of one of our local companies up there, Cranswick Enterprises. Well, Kim had taken on, just the week prior to the floods, about six new grads who had come off this course. Locals employing locals who had been trained locally to work in our patch—that is a story that is familiar for over 400 young locals up in our patch. They had been picked up, retrained, redeployed into areas that we need. Now, I could not be prouder to see that level of investment into a region like ours.

I heard, just prior, quite a derogatory framing, I thought, of a fund that has been transformational for rural and provincial New Zealand. I heard them refer to it as something like the poaka kete—the pig basket fund. How derogatory, because if any of those members would like to come up to a place called Ōpōtiki—I would love to invite you all to come up to Ōpōtiki. This is one of the centres of our universe. Now, this used to be a thriving, incredible town. It’s been a little worse for wear—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As much as I enjoy the member talking about my electorate, it would be really good to focus on the Estimates just for the last couple of minutes.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: The Estimates have a substantive—over $3 billion was invested into that fund that has invested in your electorate, the mighty East Coast. Your electorate of the mighty East Coast has been a benefactor: $236.5 million on the Tai Rāwhiti, $228 million into the Bay of Plenty. That funding has not gone to pork-barrel politics, and we both know this. It has gone into fundamental investment in our people.

Last week, I was sitting literally with 80 young people—young, old people—from our community that had been employed in a local project. It was the Whakatōhea mussel factory, a massive, big development. It has been invested in by this Government as a consequence of this Government’s commitment to rebuilding our regions, investing in our people, and that is something that has been neglected for far too long.

Now, as we find ourselves on the precipice of what could be a gravely challenging economic environment ahead, I am heartened. Just earlier, I saw Sir Michael Cullen sitting in this House for some valedictories of some of our good friends. I reflected on his foresight in terms of thinking far beyond a three-year political electoral cycle. It’s that type of vision that I see emulated in the Hon Grant Robertson and in these Estimates that we are debating here today.

We have a critical economic situation—the globe does. So what he has done and what this Government’s done has looked at the long-term future. We are investing in tomorrow’s economy, whether that be through over $1.1 billion that was invested into sustainable jobs—I’ll acknowledge our friends over there in our team Kākāriki: it was $1.1 billion into nature-based jobs. That is about investing in our land and our young people, and again Te Tai Rāwhiti has been a massive benefactor. I want to acknowledge the work of Rena Kohere and Charles, who have secured substantive funding for over 60 young locals to plant trees and to do pest control up in the backblocks—for 60 young people that haven’t had the opportunity to work on their land.

I want to conclude with the words of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: “We are focused on protecting jobs and creating new ones, on upgrading our infrastructure, and putting people at the centre of our recovery. We’re focused on keeping New Zealand moving.” and that is this—[Time expired]

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I guess that actually sums up the Government: a lot of talk, hot air, and delivers nothing. That member, Kiritapu Allan, talks about how offended she was, and she actually talks about certain things that we have apparently said that were derogatory. She is offended. I suppose I am offended that she actually thinks that pork-barrel politics is something that she supports, that after three years of doing nothing as a Government, finally they’re throwing money into communities, purely for the purposes of an election year.

Earlier, my colleague Michael Woodhouse was very articulate in his estimation and his analysis of this bill. In terms of the imprest supply bill, obviously that is something that we need to make sure that we pass, because the Government expenditure needs to continue, but the Budget, the Estimates, is something that we need to seriously look at. We need to collect revenue as a country, and how does a Government collect revenue? Taxes. How does the Government actually pay for things? The money that the Government spends on everything, including the Provincial Growth Fund, the $3 billion that the Hon Shane Jones is actually very proud of and that member who just sat down is actually very proud of, apparently, and offended that we’re calling it pork-barrel politics—it is done as a result of collecting taxes and, in this instance, borrowing huge amounts to pay for them.

One of the things that I’d like to highlight to the House is that, often, when the Hon Shane Jones actually dishes out—what did Michael Woodhouse call it? Kete poaka. I quite like that: kete, the basket of money that he—and Shane Jones actually talks about pūtea. He talks about pūtea quite a lot. He does like that word, and I think it’s actually a good word, because that could be used for good and well-meaning and well-purposed spending by the Government, but apparently it’s not, because even the Auditor-General has actually criticised the transparency issue.

But that transparency issue has existed in this Government for a very long time. I, in my portfolio, wanted to find out what that Minister was spending $50 million on for enhanced digital connectivity in the infrastructure investment package announced earlier on 1 July, and the reply I got today—if I can actually enlighten my colleagues in the Chamber—actually says, “Final decisions are still being made around the exact breakdown of projects to be funded by $50 million for digital connectivity.” That’s typical of the answers and lack of planning that this Government dishes out with the money, the huge amounts of money that they’re dishing out to the communities. Apparently, they’re planning this. If they were planning it, they should’ve researched it, just like the Minister of broadcasting when he was talking about merging Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand. When he took it to Cabinet, he hadn’t even done the business plan. He hadn’t even done the business case. I am still waiting to find out what that plan is. That was last year.

This year, the Minister announced $15 million to improve connectivity in the rural areas. COVID-19 has actually highlighted the issue of people who had lack of connectivity. It also highlighted the importance of connectivity and what a good deal of work the previous National Government actually did: the UFB that the National Government rolled out—the ultra-fast broadband—the Rural Broadband Initiative (RBI) 1 and RBI 2, and even the mobile black spots that we started and actually rolled out to the country, which the Government continues to grow in terms of the numbers of people who are connected. I actually applaud that, because we need to do more in that space.

I was hoping that in the Budget the Minister would actually announce a bigger, punchier announcement in terms of what he was in fact going to do, what this Government was in fact going to do, for the people who had major difficulty connecting. In the rural communities, we had many, many people who complained that when they’re trying to do their business from home, when they’re trying to educate their children from home, they did not have connectivity that was useful for them. The Minister and the Government should have responded to that, but no, $15 million, rural—

Simon O’Connor: How much?

MELISSA LEE: Fifteen million dollars only. They were planning on extending the rural connectivity issue, but I don’t know how far $15 million will actually go, because it really doesn’t go very far when you’re actually talking about rural connectivity issue. Even WISPA: in order for them to extend, it’s going to actually cost in excess of $150 million to do so. Extend fibre—it’s going to cost about $400 million.

I think the Government has lacked ambition when it comes to connectivity, and it is very important to think that there are many businesses in the sector of broadcasting and media that have actually failed. There are a lot of people who are out of a job. During COVID, I had to actually deal with a constituent who was a part of an employer of the Bauer Media Group who had lost their job. This young lady had just bought her first home, and she could not see the future—she had just bought her home and she lost a job and she was on a wage subsidy. She didn’t see how she could actually continue to pay her mortgage, and she was about to lose her job. There are many stories like that.

But this Government continues to talk about how they’re looking after New Zealanders. This is the Government that has promised so much, including the delivery of the light rail that goes down Dominion Road—yes? They were going to spend so much money, and yet it’s now cancelled. It basically shows the example of how this Government lacks the planning, lacks the foresight, and lacks the gumption and the honesty to deliver on what they promised. They actually talk about borrowing as a good thing. Yes, in a crisis, we need to borrow. We don’t have the cash to actually spread out to everyone and pay for everything. Yes, we know that, but there needs to be a plan when they are borrowing to spend. When they don’t have a plan and when the spending is actually not targeted, it is the future of our children and our grandchildren who will be indebted, and they have to actually pay that debt back. I would like to see the next National Government show this Government up by actually showing what planning, targeting, and responsible spending is.

One of the things that I wanted to talk about was that recently COVID-19 has actually meant there are many constituent cases that have actually come to all of our members’ offices—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It would be nice if they related to the Estimates.

MELISSA LEE: This Government talks about how they’re helping a lot of people through their spending, and it is very clear that there are some people who actually miss out on that Government spending. It would’ve been very, very nice if they actually considered that export education industry which a lot of New Zealanders are part of. It’s a $5 billion industry that many ethnic communities are involved in. We have actually suggested that the borders could be controlled better. We can actually work through the security screening, the testing, and maybe opening up to export education students, because they’re here on a long-term basis—often a year, sometimes two, sometimes here on a degree three or four years—and they could actually pay for the testing, come and do quarantine, and they’re going to be here for a long term. But they haven’t even considered that. It’s a $5 billion industry with tens of thousands of people who are ultimately going to lose their jobs as a result, and this Government are not even planning, are not even considering, because they say, “Oh, it’s COVID-19; it’s too dangerous.” Maybe perhaps if they put some thinking into it, perhaps if they actually consider the ultimate result, the outcome for these people who are in fact hurt as a result of COVID-19, perhaps they might have some plans for those people who are desperately in need of the Government’s help.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Fletcher Tabuteau.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First this evening in the Government debates on the appropriations, just to address a few issues raised by the previous speaker, Melissa Lee. They spoke about pork-barrel politics. The irony of that—am I allowed to use that word in the House? You’ll check me, I’m sure, Madam Speaker, if I use it inappropriately. The irony of that statement is that the only thing that the Opposition party has come up with thus far in terms of appealing to the electorate is roads and a little bit of rail, and how much it’s going to cost—that’s all they’ve been able to engage with the electorate—

Mark Patterson: No ideas.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Yeah, truly, no ideas—no ideas.

So let me just put the appropriations that we have been talking about this evening in context. What we are doing here is about smart and targeted investment in, particularly, our regions but across the country. What we’re doing here—

Brett Hudson: Vote buying.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —Mr Hudson, is about investing money in response to a pandemic that, unfortunately, is taking down the rest of the world. We here in New Zealand—I don’t think we actually appreciate it ourselves that we are able to move around and engage and hug one another, like we have tonight in our valedictory speeches, and congratulate one another. It’s amazing. In fact, I was at the US Embassy’s Fourth of July celebrations a couple of weeks ago, and the ambassador said to the crowd, 1,500 strong, that nowhere else in the world have the United States been willing to bring people together—nowhere else in the world have they been willing to bring people together—to have that celebration: the Independence Day, as it were, of the American nation. Only in New Zealand have they been willing and able to do that. That focuses the mind, and it gives you an indication of just how amazing New Zealand’s response has been to COVID—that 5 million - strong team.

But that has been our health response. I implore those people out in our communities right now who are worried about community spread and whose doctors are suggesting that they go and have a test: please do it, because it’s so important that we know what the situation is. But right now, we’re in an amazing position.

These appropriations give us an indication and an insight into what it is that we as a Government are trying to do in terms of an economic health response. I rebut the assertions from those members opposite on the Provincial Growth Fund. As the under-secretary of regional economic development, I have had the privilege of travelling around this country and seeing firsthand not only the people in the regions coming together as stakeholders and as members of a community, saying, “What do we need? What would make the most sense for our community right now in terms of regional economic development, growing our towns, growing our communities, putting more jobs in the regions?” That’s what they’ve been doing. They came to the Provincial Growth Fund, and they worked with our amazing team down there. I just want to put this in context for everyone in the House: those projects—that money that this Government has spent—has come from the people and the communities in the regions. They have come to this Government and said, “This makes sense in our place. This makes sense for us long term.”

I can speak about Rotorua for the next half an hour, about the difference that the Provincial Growth Fund has made and will make. I put it to this House very briefly, because I have such a short amount of time left, that we invested $55 million into Rotorua just recently, and that was simply about unlocking roading infrastructure and the three waters component so that housing in Rotorua could be developed and built. There are 1,200 homes, 1,200 properties, being developed by local iwi right now because of this Government and our investment in our communities, because that’s what our communities want and that’s what they needed, and it’s been a blessing for all of us. Thank you very much.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): It’s always a pleasure to follow my good friend and colleague Fletcher Tabuteau on matters of finance and the Budget. I wanted to start in this final appropriations debate for this year’s Budget by responding to some of the criticisms that we’ve received on the other side of the House. I heard the phrase “responsible spending” being used a lot to suggest that actually a lot of our spending is not responsible and that you can only rely on National to do responsible spending.

Hon Member: That’s right—that’s right.

Hon JAMES SHAW: So I just wanted to pick up a couple—how did it work out with Novopay? How did that work out? That was a contract awarded to an Australian human resources company with no IT experience, and it cost the country absolutely billions of dollars. That was good. How about that SkyCity convention centre?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: How about the Estimates?

Hon JAMES SHAW: OK. Well, it is a debate, Madam Speaker, and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know you’re responding to the points made in the debate, but it would be good to tie it into the Estimates.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I will absolutely do so. My point being that there is certainly no monopoly on the wisdom and on responsible spending on the other side of the House. I was also just going to mention the Saudi sheep farm. That was my personal favourite. That was a good use of public finances.

I want to turn my attention in particular to the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund (CRRF), the $50 billion appropriation that was made in Budget 2020 in order to deal with the various phases of the Government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. The first thing I’d actually like to do is to congratulate and to acknowledge the Hon Grant Robertson, Treasury, and actually the whole Public Service, because the Budget effectively got written twice. We went through the whole normal business-as-usual process, got right to sort of pretty much the end of the process as the last packages were being drawn up, and then, of course, the pandemic crisis hit our shores and everything changed. What that meant is that the Budget essentially had to get rewritten again in a very short period of time. I know that Grant and the Treasury team and the Public Service did an extraordinary amount of work under incredible pressure, at a time when we were also shutting down much of the country to go to level 4. The COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, that $50 billion appropriation, is kind of the centrepiece in terms of Budget 2020 of how we were going to respond.

We did cop some criticism for not saying up front how all of that would be spent. But the whole point here is that we are in an evolving crisis where new information is being revealed on a daily basis—certainly at that point—or several times daily basis, and we also don’t know how it’s going to evolve in the future. There’s about $14 billion left of that appropriation that hasn’t been committed, and the reason for that is that if there is another outbreak and we have to go into some other state of lockdown and, God forbid, another state of emergency and level 4, then you’ve got to have some money in the tank to be able to deal with that the way that we did the first time around. So in terms of responsible spending, that is entirely the appropriate response.

The other thing that I wanted to point out is that the economy needs liquidity at a time like this. One of the things that the previous Government did during the global financial crisis is they actually turned the screws on a bit much for a bit too long, and actually it prolonged the economic downturn. So, you know, putting cash into the economy via the CRRF is an entirely appropriate response.

The one thing I’d like to say about that, though, is that it does have to get paid back. It is tens of billions of dollars, and it is going to take a very, very long time to do so. Therefore, we have not just an economic duty but a moral duty to future generations of taxpayers to make sure that that stimulus spend in this year’s Budget—that every dollar available of that is put to work on resolving the long-term challenges facing this country, because otherwise we present future generations with a double whammy. Not only do they have to pay their taxes to pay back the debt that we’re running up in order to get ourselves through this crisis; they’re also going to have to pay additionally to get themselves through whatever crises are facing them. And we already know what those crises are. First amongst them is the climate crisis. That is the omni-crisis that affects housing, it affects inequality, it affects public health, it affects local government, and it affects infrastructure. We have an absolute responsibility to ensure that this stimulus spend is a green recovery and sets us up for the long term and reduces that future burden on future generations.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The last speaker in this debate, the Hon James Shaw, mentioned the moral journey that future generations may have to pay off, and the moral obligation that we have, and that we need to set the solutions to long-term challenges. That’s an admirable sentiment from a member of the Government, but we haven’t seen a lot of that in action. Indeed, when it comes to the challenge that future generations will have in paying off the significant amount of debt that will be run up in the coming years, the absolute obligation on this Government is to spend as little as is necessary and to spend it very well—

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s called austerity. It’s called kids going hungry. It’s called homelessness. We’ve been there. We’ve done it.

Hon TODD McCLAY: —to do so on things that will deliver for the economy today and in the future and to come out and tell New Zealanders, honestly and up front for once—and the member can take a call if he wants to—how they’re going to pay it back without raising taxes.

What we’ve seen in this Budget is that debt in New Zealand will go to $250 billion over a four-year period. This Government will borrow $140 billion, additionally, to spend in four years—more debt than we’ve ever had before. The challenge that we have when it comes to debt is that, actually—

Mark Patterson: You’ve got no idea.

Hon TODD McCLAY: —it’s other people’s money that’s being spent here.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I have quite a few ideas.

Hon TODD McCLAY: It’s other people’s money that’s being spent here. So Mr Shaw is correct: it is future generations, children and grandchildren, that will pay this back, and they will do it in one of two ways under a Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government. There will have to be fewer services, which means less money for teachers or for doctors or for nurses or for policemen, or there will have to be higher taxes, because the country knows that a Labour Government with the Greens and New Zealand First under their wing is very good at spending money and then raising taxes to pay it back. And if it’s not going to be paid back through higher taxes, every member of the House on the other side, and the Prime Minister, has the opportunity to stand up and say that taxes won’t be increased, but when they’ve been offered that opportunity, they haven’t taken it and they haven’t said there won’t be more taxes. But what they have said is “Our policy will come.” Well, New Zealanders know what it means when $140 billion is borrowed and spent in a four-year period, and it must be paid back.

But here is the challenge—because, of course, we live in times when there will have to be borrowing, irrespective of who forms the next Government. So a National Government will also have to borrow, but what we will do is borrow more carefully, and we will make sure that we spend taxpayers’ money more carefully than has been evident under the last three years under this Government, and we will look at things that will grow the economy, invest in infrastructure that actually will get built. So when we announce that we would want more houses, it won’t be a few houses under the equivalent of their KiwiBuild, which has been one of the greatest failures of this Government over the last three years—such a failure that they don’t call it KiwiBuild any more. We’ll look to back New Zealanders and make sure that we can have the Government agencies and departments working more efficiently and more productively for the taxpayer resource that they are given, and that will mean the economy can grow more quickly, that we will be able to borrow less, and that there will be less burden upon New Zealanders today and going into the future.

There’s $250 billion worth of debt, and you only need to look at actually some of the spending over the last three years under the Provincial Growth Fund, or other things that the Government have spent money on, to give a bit of insight into what would happen. So the big announcement last week of the Provincial Growth Fund was a swimming pool and a library. Well, that’s going to change things, isn’t it, around the country. Look, good on that small community who want a library and they want a swimming pool, but do you know what they want more than a library and a swimming pool? They want some hope, they want some jobs, and they don’t want to be saddled with debt in the future and have higher taxes to pay that back. Less services and higher taxes is what this Government is promising but not admitting to.

There are 200,000 New Zealanders on the unemployment benefit as a direct result of COVID-19, as a direct result of the lockdown when the Government closed the economy down. We know there are likely to be more than 300,000 additional New Zealanders who will lose their job and go on the unemployment benefit. These are everyday, hard-working Kiwis that have done what the Government asked of them, which was actually a great sacrifice to themselves. The Budget doesn’t look widely at how to help them get back on their feet. So we know that there’s been a wage subsidy there, which the Opposition, the National Party, supported. It was important through lockdown that New Zealanders didn’t have to worry about where the paycheque would come from, but, actually, since they’ve been able to go back to work, businesses have relied upon that. The Prime Minister has said that it will run out in a few weeks’ time, and that is a hard cliff that businesses run up to when it comes to employment. [Interruption]

Now, members opposite can scoff at that, but wait and see what happens over the coming weeks as business after business has to lay people off because they don’t have the resource to keep them on. When the Prime Minister says, “Actually, it will be OK, because we are expanding the criteria around the Government-guaranteed loan scheme offered to businesses, and particularly small businesses.”, what members opposite don’t realise and what the Prime Minister forgot to tell New Zealanders is that for very many businesses in New Zealand, they can’t get access to those loans, because the Government has offered an 80 percent guarantee and the bank needs to give a 20 percent guarantee for that loan. In many cases, the banks won’t lend the 20 percent, because they don’t have certainty of when the economy will fix itself, they don’t have certainty around the Government policies, and, when it comes to the tourism industry, they have no certainty of when the Government is even going to start talking about things that will help the industry get back on its feet, even safe, short-term things today that would make a difference.

So when the Prime Minister says, “Don’t worry; unemployment won’t go up when the wage subsidy finishes, because businesses can take on more debt and the Government is guaranteeing it.”, she’s out of touch, because, actually, most businesses I talk to are saying they don’t have a debt problem; they have actually too much debt. It’s a turnover problem, and they need help for a shorter period of time as the economy fixes itself, supposedly. But secondly, their banks won’t lend to them. So what we’re going to see, as of last week and this week and next week, is businesses that want to rebuild their business. They want to keep their workers there working for them as they strive to make things better, but when the wage subsidy is over, they know they can’t afford to keep those workers on, and they’ve started the discussion already about unemployment, and they’ve started the discussion already around redundancy.

When the member opposite said, “What would this member do?”, well, we’re going to go and get every single vote, because here’s the thing: on 20 September, for the tourism sector—the tourism sector, and every travel agent in this country—20 September, it will be too late, because for five months those travel agents have had no income at all.

Mark Patterson: So what’s National going to do about it? What’s National going to do about it?

Hon TODD McCLAY: And when Kelvin Davis, who rarely is on top of his brief, stands up in this House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mark Patterson.

Hon TODD McCLAY: —and he says that actually it’s travel agents’ fault for not applying or asking for too much or for trying to actually sort the things out themselves, what he does is a great disservice to these small-business people, who have been scrapping for five months to try and rebuild their businesses, with no remuneration. They’ve been looking after New Zealanders who are owed a lot of money around the world, because they’re not able to travel, and, actually, the Government has done nothing for them.

So come 20 September, it will be too late, because long before that, those businesses will close. And the members opposite say, “Well, actually, it will be OK with this loan.” There’s not a single travel agent in the country who’s said they’re able to get that loan, because of uncertainty, and there are thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who have done what was asked of them, who have sacrificed, who are about to lose their jobs. The Government needs to take action on this long before the election, because by the time the election comes around, it will be too late.

The final thing I want to say, as my time runs out, is how the Government really has its priorities wrong. It is a good thing that there is money in tourism—and there’s $400 million that they’ve given to about 120 companies—but the sad thing about that is there are so many thousands of other businesses in tourism who are deserving of funds as well and haven’t been given it. And here’s a question: why has AJ Hackett been given $10 million by the Government to save 20 jobs? And the reason for that is just down the road, there is a business with 50 jobs, and those jobs are about to go because they didn’t get $10 million. So the problem the Government has is they picked some things that are a great press release and look good on TV, but the hard-working New Zealanders that graft every day have been left behind.

Good on AJ Hackett for getting $10 million out of the Government to save 20 jobs. That’s a great achievement, but the person down the road with 50 jobs that are about to go didn’t need $10 million, didn’t need $1 million; they actually just needed a few hundred thousand dollars over the next few years to keep those people on, and they didn’t get it, because the Government is picking people they perceive to be winners. Why did they go and give money to the Waitomo caves and not the small businesses around them that depend upon tourism in exactly the same way? The Government has lost its way. It doesn’t have the right priorities. Come 20 September, a solution is on its way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call, possibly.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I think that last speech—anyone sitting at home, sitting in the gallery, just have a listen to that last speech, and it sums up the ridiculous situation that the Opposition find themselves in, because you’ve had speaker after speaker lamenting how much has been spent in this Budget, and then the last speaker spent the last five minutes chastising this Government for not spending more on an industry which, sadly, is an industry which has suffered probably the most, heavily involved in tourism, involved in getting New Zealanders overseas. Admittedly, I have had people from that same industry come into my office; I’m sure every electorate has. I have nothing but sympathy for those people, because not only that, they are also the only people over there at the moment who are actually getting money back for New Zealanders who have money invested in travel companies overseas, and these are the companies that have to get it. So I do feel some sympathy for them; however, we cannot save everything.

Can I go straight to the appropriations. The appropriations—$50 billion this year. Now, we’ve been absolutely chastised for spending that money—“It’s a terrible thing.” Just imagine if we hadn’t. Just imagine if we hadn’t brought in the wage subsidy. Just imagine if we hadn’t made the decision at the beginning of this COVID-19 pandemic, if we had said we’d do what the last three speakers have said we do—“Sit, wait, don’t spend money, because we can’t afford to.” Well, where would we be? Have a look at our cousins across the Ditch. Have a look at the Victorians. How many times in this House have you sat in that Chair, have I, have we sat here and listened to us being told, “Be more like the Aussies.”? How many times have we been criticised, whatever leader, whoever’s over there—“Why aren’t you more like the Aussies?” Well, we’re not like the Aussies; we’re New Zealanders, and we’re taking a broad view.

The whole idea is that when we start to come out of this COVID downturn—and we are, because we are the one country. I heard a statistic this week that said Auckland Airport is as busy as Heathrow Airport. That’s the sort of thing that’s happening in this country. Every one of us here will have friends overseas—even mentioned by my colleague from New Zealand First about how there’s an American Embassy everywhere in the world. New Zealand was the only one that had an unregulated crowd at that embassy. That tells you something. That’s how successful we’ve been.

I go back to the appropriations, Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be good!

GREG O’CONNOR: Well, I’ve hardly ever left them, actually, but I know that you do run a very tight line on these things; so I will run very strictly down—so I’m in a sheep pen, with fences put up by yourself, in your second to last day in the Chair, but you’ve been consistent right the whole way through, I do have to say. But can I just say I’m reminded that I was cleaning out an old uncle’s belongings after he died, and I found a slip that this uncle had been given during the Depression—1938—and it was to go to a work camp to plant trees. That was at the time when the Labour Government had started spending some money at the end of the Depression. Originally, in the United States and in New Zealand, it was all shut down and there was no spending done.

I also remember driving from Westport to Nelson through the Golden Downs forest, and that area was planted by those same people, and it was only a little bit later in the United States, during the New Deal—when Roosevelt started spending money—that the Americans came out of the Great Depression—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t want to interrupt your story—well, I sort of do—but just to let you know that ACT is not here to take the other five minutes; so there are another five minutes available to you to continue.

Hon David Bennett: No, not him!

GREG O’CONNOR: And the crowd went wild, that they were once again ashamed at a speech like mine. But what I’m focusing on, and going back to the appropriations—not that I feel like I’ve ever really moved far off of them—spending the $50 billion. Again, I just want to warn that we’ve had plenty of evidence that if you do stop spending, and a very good example of that—and if you just want numbers, and often when those members opposite are debating they say, “Let’s count the numbers. We’ve got to have targets.” Well, just what happens when you stop spending? I’d like to go to the police appropriation. What happened when you stopped spending—or not you, Madam Speaker; I’m sure as a Minister you were only too keen to spend more money, but certainly, your police equivalent at the time—the fatalities on the road, a number that we can actually go for. In 2013, there were 253 fatalities on the road. That was at a time when police numbers were cut, as a result of Budget cuts, by 111. By 2017, those numbers had gone to 379, which was almost a 49 percent increase in numbers. That was a direct result of failing to spend.

While I’m still on the police appropriation, I could almost go to the gang policing at the same time. That was at a time when you may have heard, in fact, the current leader talking very tough when the Rebels Motorcycle Club arrived in New Zealand—how she was going to stop that from happening; she was going to invest and there was no way that they were ever going to be allowed to establish. They were going to be—I think “crushed” was the word used. Well, the Rebels motorcycles are one of the most successful gangs in New Zealand now. And the reason why? You can talk as tough as you like, but if you don’t actually put the investment in it—and today we are paying the price for that. We are paying the price for that reduction in investment at the time.

This is an opportunity, because if we get this right—and I believe we are getting this right—those generations that will come after us will look back and say, “This was a time when New Zealand invested heavily in its future.” I heard one of the speakers opposite talk very proudly that Bill English never spent more than a billion at once. Well, can I just say, the evidence was clear. If you don’t pay the bills and do the maintenance, someone has got to do it down the track. If we did what those members opposite are advocating now, if we stopped spending, if we sat here waiting to see what’s going to happen, exactly what would happen is that we would end up—someone would have to pay the bills further down the track, which is exactly what our Government has had to do. We’ve had to pay the bills and do the maintenance for that stopping of spending that actually happened at the time.

The important thing, too, as we do go forward with this appropriation, it’s really important that you have a broad plan to ensure that you know that you have a context in which every dollar you spend is being contested. So is this dollar we’re spending within a plan that is designed to improve New Zealand, to make New Zealand better for the future? Let’s just go through that five-point plan. Investing in our people: one of the things I’d really like to focus on there that’s in the appropriation is the free apprentices and trades training in key areas. Tell me, anyone who is in this House, who hasn’t had a local business—whether it be air conditioning, whether it be any sort of a trade—approach saying, “We haven’t got any people. We haven’t got any tradespeople coming through.”? We stopped training in 2008, 2010, and as a result they were demanding that we open the borders, demanding that they be able to get people imported so that they could actually have this work done. It’s incredibly important we now have an opportunity to make sure that doesn’t happen, and this is when I point to investing in our people. What better way to ensure that we have got our young people into apprenticeships and trades training, that they are coming out work-ready, job-ready, as they will be as the work picks up. The work is picking up. The work is very much picking up.

We then go on to the second part of this, and it’s barely raining outside at the same time. Jobs, jobs, jobs, and this leads firstly into this, that there are going to be 1,100 new jobs. Well, what better way to ensure that the jobs that we are investing in are ones that our children and grandchildren are going to thank us for, and what better way than the environment? Eleven thousand new jobs that are going to be out there, whether it be out on the farms, out in the provinces, where those young people are going to be out there not only doing useful work but actually learning how to get a job, how to work, and ensure that in the future.

In the time left to me, I won’t go through the other two but I would like to go to the last one, which is to position us globally. Again, I challenge everyone in the House: we will all be speaking to people overseas, and the one thing they do is to talk about our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Now, it’s not just the fact that they’re talking about her individually; what it is they’re talking about is New Zealand, and how good is that going to be to ensure that our produce, that brand New Zealand, that New Zealand Inc. is on the world stage as we come out of this, as we produce more produce that needs to be sold on the world stage, that at a time when borders are slowing down, we have that opportunity to make sure that New Zealand Inc. is high on that world stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): That was a speech from one of the more moderate members of the Labour Party that does value his economic credentials and thinks that he is of moderate economic persuasion for a left-wing socialist party. Now, he did tell us that at the moment, the Labour Party is investing in our future. They’re not investing in our future. The Labour Party is spending hand over fist on social spending to keep New Zealanders in some kind of utopia so they don’t have to worry about the election campaign. That’s what the Labour Party is doing. They’re not investing in our future. They’re not borrowing to build infrastructure. They’re not borrowing to make the country go faster in the future. They’re only borrowing to save themselves in six weeks’ time. That’s all it’s about. So it’s pretty rich for that member to come to this House and then talk about the road toll as some failure to spend money. He has got no idea. In regard to tourism, he said we can’t save everything. He’s quite happy for some people to go to the morgue. He’s the moderate one in that party. Imagine if we let the madness in the second row have a go, what they would come up with, and we don’t even want to know what the first row would think.

So it is implorable on this House to consider a very special thing that is happening in New Zealand at the moment, and that is the Labour, Green, New Zealand First parties are saying the right things around our primary industries. They’re actually saying they believe in them. They have actually been booting them for years and now saying, “Oh no, we need you. We love you. We want you to contribute to the future of New Zealand going forward.” Should we believe that? Should we take that? Should we understand that they genuinely think that? Well, I think we have to take them at their word, because we know that the primary sector is the future of New Zealand. We know that they will deliver the jobs, they will deliver the export earnings, and they will deliver the future for this country. That party can never understand that, because they don’t believe in freedom of enterprise, they don’t believe in aspiration, they don’t believe in hard work, and they don’t believe in investing your money and making something out of it. They believe it’s all dictated from a group of people in Wellington that are some kind of academic elite that can determine the future of a country, and the COVID crisis is a perfect opportunity for that academic elite to show their credentials. That’s what the Labour Party stands for.

Now, I believe in the agriculture and horticulture sector. I know they will deliver, and we will have to take them at their word that that is what they believe in. But if we take them at their word, let’s look at the document that they put out a month ago around the future of the primary sector. They want to double the export earnings of the primary sector by $44 billion. “We’re going to double the export earnings.”—and that’s the first category.

The second category is that they’re going to restrict the primary sector, predominantly the dairy industry, to emissions targets, which would cost the New Zealand dairy industry $5 billion to $12 billion. So on the first side, there’s a $44 billion increase in primary sector, right? Of that, we asked the Minister last week, and he said $4 billion of that comes from the dairy industry, which is currently 40 percent of our exports. So we’re going to get $4 billion in through growth, be from organics and regenerative agriculture. Now, no offence to those forms of agriculture—I’m an organic dairy farmer so, you know, I understand what that means—but there is no price point for regenerative agriculture in the dairy industry at the moment. We do not get paid a premium for it. So how they are going to get that increase in production from something that is not even paid for is a virtual impossibility at this stage.

But then their second criteria is that they will whack on $5 billion to $12 billion of costs on that very sector and then they’re still going to have a $4 billion increase from that. How does that work? The Minister couldn’t answer it. The Minister’s got no calculation. He just thinks it’s going to happen. It’s like what we’ve seen out of that party for the last three years: all these glorious promises, these glorious ambitions of what can happen, and no delivery. And the primary sector is the next one to face that.

Well, let’s look at the horticulture sector. That’s an even bigger example of what you’re talking about. Now, the horticulture sector does have ambitious growth plans, you know, very ambitious growth plans of $6 billion to getting to that $10 billion or $20 billion that they can get to in the next decade.

Dan Bidois: How are we going to get there?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Those plans—and exactly. As my colleague says, how would you get there? Well, you can’t grow fruit and veges if you don’t have water. You just can’t go find a farm and plant it in kiwifruit and think it just happens. You need water for fruit and veges. It’s that simple. And what did they do? They cut all the water storage programmes out when they got in. The only water storage programmes we’ve got now are a couple little projects we’ve got in the last six months to try and placate the residents in Auckland—an election campaign. They have got no intention of doing anything decent on water storage.

So how do we get this glorious goal for the horticultural sector when there’s no water? Let’s look at the second big issue in the horticulture sector, and that’s labour. We need people that are going to pick that fruit, and we’re going to need people that are going to do the work on those farms and prune those vines.

Michael Wood: I’m looking at some people who are going to need some work later this year.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: That member over there—he’s a funny guy, isn’t he? Well, he’s never picked a fruit in his life. He’s never picked a vine. He’s sat in that chair while other people have gone out there and done the work. And that member is a true reflection of the Labour Party: self-entitled, comes here and thinks he can go and tell people what to do. Become a real New Zealand manufacturer or income earner that actually did anything.

Michael Wood: As nasty as it is ignorant.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Oh, nasty? But what was his comment before? It was a great comment, wasn’t it? But that is the love of being a liberal Labour Party member, because you can throw stones and then you can hide behind this veneer afterwards that you are better than that. I know. You’re such an upstanding member of the community.

But if we look at that plan, what are they going to do around labour supply? I reckon that the Labour Party will determine that they want to stop people coming into this country, to unionise the workforces of New Zealand. That is their grand plan. That is what their intention always has been. They don’t want contracted labour; they want unionised labour all the way. And they will use COVID as an excuse to go towards unionised labour on our primary sector. That will destroy the efficiency of our primary sector. That is the number one thing that we can see will come out of that plan, because they are going to stop that labour supply.

But actually, it gets worse, because our primary producers have very high asset values and very low incomes relative to their asset values. The biggest risk to our primary producers is the Labour, Green Party, and New Zealand First that want to tax the guts out of those people. The Greens were silly enough to go out there and tell us their tax policy, give us some numbers. There’s income tax rates and an asset tax. Where’s the capital gains tax that the Green Party’s talked about for decades? Gone, because they know the Prime Minister won’t agree to it. They know the Prime Minister will agree to an asset tax. If we take an average dairy farm in the Waikato—say, $8 million. You take off the $2 million for the house and all those exemptions, $6 million at the 2 percent that the Green Party is talking about—that wipes out that dairy farm. It wipes it out—wipes it out.

The Labour Party tax policy—I can write it now for you. And if anybody wants to have a look, just have a look in a few weeks’ time when their tax policy comes out. It will talk about equity and fairness. We will have a tax policy based on equity. We want a fair and reasonable tax policy. We’ll give no numbers, will not talk about the asset tax that they intend to bring in, will not talk about the increase in income tax that they intend to bring in. Mark my words: anybody that votes for that side of the House and is in business will pay the price next year. Between September and Christmas, they will have passed the biggest tax programme in New Zealand’s history, because they’re borrowing only for social spending; they’re not borrowing to invest in the country going forward. And that comes back to our fundamental starting point of the difference between these two political parties.

The National Party will invest in New Zealand’s infrastructure, will invest on the way forward. On that side of the House, it will all be about spending to the election and then taxing the guts out of the productive sector. And New Zealand farmers will end up paying an asset tax, which will destroy the productivity of our most competitive—[Time expired]

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, and kia orana. Look, it’s just sad. I’ve already heard two things today. One is the National Party again trying to drive a wedge between farmers and Government, and it’s not there to be driven. The other thing I’ve heard is the arguments for austerity—to not spend, to pare everything back—and do you know what? We’ve been there before, and we don’t want to go back.

The fact of the matter is that there is no trade-off between the environment and the economy. The economy is a subset of the environment. Without a healthy and flourishing environment, there is no economic prosperity and there is no effective farming, and we know that good farmers are totally on board with that. Rivers and farms, in fact, go hand in hand when properly managed. Our farms depend on our climate, and that is why this Government, in this Budget, has a comprehensive strategy to address this. If we’re going to hypothesise an economy, we must first assume a flourishing, healthy, and effective environment, and this Budget sets out numerous steps across the board to effect that.

Our environment needs to be one that sustains health and sustains a healthy population, a population that can work and recreate in the environment; an environment that provides effective supply of food and trade and all kinds of exports, and we want to do that; and one that also—and sometimes we forget this when we’re talking about the environment—provides an effective urban setting, somewhere where we can live and flourish. This Government, across the board, through this Budget, has done exactly that.

We look at the freshwater package that David Parker, the Minister for the Environment, has set out. It’s something that strikes a balance—a balance to the farmers I’ve spoken to—that is recognised as fair and effective, one that limits the amount of nitrogen that’s going into our waterways, and one that requires the offsetting of stock away from the waterways, but, equally, one that recognises that farming is an important part of our economy and that it is possible to effectively and sustainably run dairy farms, which are a critical part of our exports. We can do that effectively, and a good farmer knows that to do that effectively, we must do it sustainably.

It’s no good having adverse environmental outcomes that are just paid for but that someone down the road has to pick up. That’s what we are picking up now. We’re picking up the neglect of our waterways that the last Government oversaw—no action at all on cleaning up our waterways. They sat on their hands and watched as nitrates leached and algae grew in our rivers. But now, with David Parker’s freshwater plan, genuine steps. A plan which sees hard bottom lines and which actually sets rules in place—that’s what we’re seeing, and that’s what we saw when we examined these Estimates.

The Resource Management Act reform, which is part of this process, is a huge leap forward. These proposals, which the next Government will be able to implement, see not just the effects but they are also looking for positive outcomes. It’s actually changing the way we think about environmental outcomes. We’re saying that we mustn’t just say that minor effects are OK and slowly see the environment sliced away by inches, but that we want positive environmental outcomes.

Of course, the huge leap forward under this Parliament, and one that this Budget will actually see, is the emissions trading scheme reforms, which James Shaw came and talked about in front of the select committee. At last, we have a cap-and-trade scheme with a cap, one where we can effectively price carbon. Carbon is not costless. If you look at coastal communities that are being inundated with flooding, they’re the ones that are bearing the costs of carbon emissions elsewhere. It’s only right that we now have a cap-and-trade scheme, an emissions trading scheme which correctly prices carbon, and that we have a sinking lid on carbon emissions where, finally, the genuine price of carbon will, in fact, be paid.

As for the response to COVID, the environment is a huge part of that, and, in fact, Eugenie Sage, our Minister of Conservation, has made some important initiatives there such as the $1.1 billion initiative which will see money spent now which will have returns for generations to come. Whether it be insuring our biodiversity through the predator-free scheme and by using that money so that people can get out there and hunt, trap, and otherwise eliminate the predators which are absolutely wreaking havoc in our conservation estate, or the wilding pine scheme, where people who have previously been working in the tourism sector—many of those people who are working in that scheme now are out there cleaning up our environment, removing these weed pines, and making huge leaps forward. Of course, we can see, looking across the board, that in terms of the environmental sector, we’re making massive leaps and bounds which previously have been absolutely neglected, and we’re making great steps forward.

Really, what we have here is, at last, a Government which sees that left unregulated, people will take. They will abuse the environment in a way which is nothing more than the tragedy of the commons that’s been identified 150 or nearly 200 years ago. What we need are genuine rules in place, national policy statements which set out some absolute dictates which say that, no, we can’t privatise this—we can’t privatise these gains and socialise the environmental losses—but we need to actually have rules in place which set bottom lines, whether that be a freshwater policy or an urban development policy.

The work that’s been going on in this sector—in urban development—is really important as well to recognise that Government has a significant part to play in stimulating urban development and in absolutely indicating where urban development ought to occur, enabling the finance of it, and partnering with business and private sector, where appropriate, but also making sure that where there are uplifts, there’s an ability to ensure that the people who get the value uplifts pay out a reasonable price for it, whether that be through targeted rates or other means. What we’re doing there is making sure that we’re integrating environmental outcomes, urban design outcomes, and transport outcomes, and the work around Kāinga Ora has been real. Urban development and urban design has been critical in doing that, and it’s all part of this Budget package.

Another thing we’ve seen in this Budget is, for example, the progress being made on waste. The fact is that we need to understand that waste is a problem in New Zealand, and, of course, Angie Warren-Clark has made some significant gains in respect of food waste. But we’re also looking at our recycling and the fact that our recycling framework in New Zealand hasn’t really worked for a long, long time, and we need to address that.

The waste levy is going up to properly reflect the cost: one, the cost of disposing of that waste and, two, ensuring that we have innovation. Only recently, there’s $124 million dedicated to improving our recycling outcomes so that we’re not simply trying to dispose of our problems overseas and that we’re not sending all of our recycling and waste materials overseas, which raises huge problems. It raises huge problems about us being able to manage, in times like the present, our own waste problems. So having a framework where we can do that is very, very important.

Of course, we’ve seen recently the Green Investment Fund making investments into the Wellington port and making sure that the Wellington port can, in fact, go carbon-neutral—another fantastic step forward. It’s not a grant but a loan, because we know that when industries make steps like this, there are longer-term gains to be made—along with the grants made also for schools and hospitals to become carbon-neutral.

So this is a Government, and this is just one example. This is just one tiny sector of all of what’s going on in Government to show that we’re a future-focused Government—not one that’s here for immediate gains and not one that’s here to immediately placate the electorate, but one that’s here to make the tough decisions to make sure that future generations don’t bear the costs of what’s going on here today. Whether that be the environmental costs or the wider costs, we’re a Government which is committed to spending the right sums of money now to avoid austerity, to avoid environmental disaster, and to look after the prosperity of our nation and our people today, tomorrow, and for ever. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Honourable members, there’s one minute to go, if someone wants to have a go for one minute.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Social Development): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I want to do is talk about this Government’s investment in social development, specifically around reducing the impacts of family and sexual violence. I mean, this Government recently announced $183 million, and we have been unprecedented in our response to family and sexual violence, and our Prime Minister has absolutely led the way. Not only have we looked at some of the more traditional ways of reducing violence but we looked at some of the other systemic issues. We’ve invested in perpetrator services, supporting people who use violence to change their behaviour—hugely important. The other big investment that we’ve made—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Sorry, the time for this debate has expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time and the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

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

Appropriation (2020/21 Estimates) Bill read a third time and Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill read a second time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2020/21) Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Following agreement at the Business Committee, I seek leave to include the following Government notices of motion in an urgency motion, despite Standing Order 97: a notice of motion on adjustments to Vote Audit; a notice of motion on the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act; a notice of motion on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order; a notice of motion on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order; and a notice of motion on the adoption of amendments to the Standing Orders. Copies of these notices of motion are on the Table of the House.

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

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill and the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2); the passing through the remaining stages of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, the Fuel Industry Bill, and the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill; the passing through the remaining stages of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill; and the consideration of notices of motion on adjustments to Vote Audit, the extension of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order, the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order, and the adoption of amendments to the Standing Orders.

The Parliament lost around 55 to 60 hours of time for Government business during the COVID-19 lockdown period. As a result of this urgency and the other urgency motions that we have put before the House in recent weeks, we have claimed around 41 of those hours back. That is time that allowed the Government to progress legislation it would otherwise have been able to were it not for the lockdown. Two of the seven bills included in this motion relate directly to COVID-19 and to the response to COVID-19. The remainder of the legislation is items of business that the Government wants to see progressed before Parliament breaks for the election period, and the notices of motion are all things the House needs to work its way through before we leave for the election campaign.

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 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

New Zealand’s fight against COVID-19 continues. We have successfully eliminated the disease from our community, but we can never be complacent. Our border is our first line of defence against COVID-19. Managed isolation and quarantine has proven to be a highly effective way of preventing COVID-19 from entering the community. There is no known domestic transmission of COVID-19 at present, and there have been no locally acquired cases for over 90 days. All confirmed cases in June and July were linked to international travel and stayed in managed isolation and quarantine.

Since 26 March, over 34,000 people have entered the country and completed their stay in Government-managed isolation or quarantine facilities. We expect many more people to return home as the global situation worsens. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities—the New Zealand Defence Force staff, the police, the Aviation Security Service, security staff, the health workers, hotel workers, the cleaners, the cooks, and all of those that are making this isolation and quarantine facility that we never expected to have to stand up in our country. It is the largest quarantine operation we have ever run in our history—the people that are working tirelessly to make this work.

New Zealanders have strong international connections. People will also want to resume overseas travel for work or personal reasons. We also know that COVID-19 is growing, not slowing. Because of this, the managed isolation and quarantine system must be sustainable. Although financial sustainability is part of this, it is also critical that the system is sustainable in terms of capacity to allow New Zealanders to return home safely. I want to make it clear that this legislation is about the sustainability of the managed isolation and quarantine system in the broader sense, managing the flow of incoming people over the border so that we can manage capacity as well as recouping part of the cost of running the system.

This legislation recognises the important public health function that managed isolation and quarantine facilities play in our collective fight against COVID. The Government has been very clear that people should avoid, wherever possible, leaving New Zealand or coming to New Zealand for short-term visits. There are ongoing travel advisories that warn against travelling and leaving New Zealand. Returning raises the risk of bringing COVID-19.

In the past weeks, we have increased capacity in our managed isolation and quarantine system to ensure that more New Zealanders can enter the country, but we are now close to exhausting our nationwide available safe capacity. Even if there were large numbers of fit for purpose facilities, there is a limit to how many facilities we can safely and responsibly manage at any one time. We need to ensure that our managed isolation and quarantine facilities are just that—managed. We also want to ensure that spaces in the managed isolation and quarantine system are available for New Zealanders and their partners and dependants to return home.

Currently, taxpayers bear all the costs of managed isolation and quarantine. These costs are substantial and growing. This is not sustainable. Managed isolation and quarantine facilities will be needed for a sustained period as part of our longer-term public health response to COVID-19. In recent weeks there has been a lot of discussion about when the Government would start charging for managed isolation and quarantine. It is important that this legislation is passed before the House rises in order to provide certainty to people planning to come to New Zealand and for New Zealanders who have to travel out of the country. The bill currently before the House provides the Government with the legal authority to charge people entering managed isolation and quarantine facilities. If this bill is passed, I intend to seek approval of the regulations soon. I intend for the charging system to come into force at 12.01 a.m. on the day the regulations come into force.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill does two things. It’s main change is to introduce the legal framework to allow charging for managed isolation and quarantine. It also makes minor improvements to the existing provisions about orders that can be made under section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. The bill allows the Government to charge people entering managed isolation and quarantine. It allows for certain people to be required to pay charges for managed isolation and quarantine, unless they are exempt or the charges are waived. Under the bill, certain classes of people will be exempted from the requirement to pay charges. The bill allows regulations to set the level of charges and the manner and timing of payment. It also allows for regulations to provide for exemptions, waivers, and refunds.

Much of the details of the charging system will be in the regulations. This provides flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing environment and ensure our settings are properly balanced and calibrated based on what is happening here and overseas. I’d like to thank the stakeholders who provided me with feedback on the content proposed in the regulations. I have considered this feedback carefully when making recommendations to Cabinet on those regulations.

The Government has carefully weighed up the impact of charging on New Zealanders wanting to return home. I intend for the regulations to provide that New Zealand citizens and residents currently overseas will not be liable for charges if they are returning home permanently. Temporary visa holders who were ordinarily resident in New Zealand before our border closed on 19 March will not be liable for a charge on their return if they were out of the country on 19 March, unless they are returning as a critical worker, in which case I expect their employers or sponsoring agency will meet their managed isolation costs. I am proposing that New Zealanders who are currently overseas and come home temporarily and those New Zealanders who go overseas after regulations come into force will be charged for managed isolation and quarantine on their return, unless they are exempt or qualify for a waiver.

Under the bill, charges must relate to the cost of managed isolation and quarantine facilities, and they must not be more than the estimated actual and reasonable costs for that class of person. I intend to seek Cabinet agreement to a charging structure in regulations that is less than half of the average total costs. For a single person in a room, the proposed charge is $3,100. Additional adults or children over three years old sharing that room will be charged $950 and $475 respectively.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affirms every New Zealander’s right to leave New Zealand and to come home. The introduction of charges for managed isolation and quarantine may impact people’s ability to exercise that right, as it makes coming home more expensive. I also recognise that Māori may be disproportionately affected by charges for managed isolation and quarantine. It is important that Māori can travel to and from New Zealand for whānau reasons such as tangihanga, and to be able to exercise tino rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga rights and responsibilities. The charge for managed isolation and quarantine may make this more difficult for some individuals and whānau. This is an important consideration of part of the Crown’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Any limitations on people’s rights need to be proportionate to the risks posed by COVID-19. Therefore, the Government will put in place mechanisms to lessen the impact of charging on these rights. Charges will not have to be paid before someone comes to New Zealand. There will be adequate time for people to pay the charges, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment may agree to accept payments in instalments. People could apply for a full or partial waiver if they are experiencing undue financial hardship or in other special circumstances.

As mentioned earlier, the bill is also amending section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Under the principal Act, the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health can issue orders to give effect to measures to manage the spread of COVID-19. The bill will clarify that orders made under section 11 can require a person to undergo as well as report for medical examination or testing. It will also allow for orders to impose conditions on people before they enter the country to support and coordinate an orderly public health response to COVID-19. This could include requiring people to be registered to enter a managed isolation facility before they come here. COVID-19 will be with us for a while. All aspects of the managed isolation and quarantine system will be kept under regular review to ensure it is proportionate and necessary. We need a managed isolation and quarantine system that fairly represents the benefits to both the New Zealand public and those that enter the country.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I appreciate your indulgence in allowing the Minister to finish her speech, notwithstanding that she had gone over time. I think it was important to hear that last bit, but I would encourage her speechwriters to perhaps time it a little better in the future, because that last comment that was being made about section 11 I think is quite relevant, and I will touch on it later.

I just want to join with the Minister in acknowledging the work of those people who are working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, whether they are hotel staff, nursing staff, Ministry of Health, Defence Force, police now. I have been critical—critiquing, rather—the managed isolation process since 8 April - odd, when it was first put into place, and there’s no doubt that the processes were too porous. The testing regime was insufficient. But there has been a response by the Government that has served to tighten that up, and I think that’s entirely appropriate.

Can I also just segue into the issue that the Leader of the House raised in respect of the urgency motion, because he quite rightly pointed out that the urgency that has been taken has recovered all but probably one sitting week of this year in order for the Government to get through its legislative programme. What he didn’t say, and what I think is important to acknowledge, is that the consequence of urgency is that the public, through the select committee process, does not have the same level of input into the lawmaking that we are doing, and I think that has to be borne in mind when we think about the catch-up that we’re doing.

Now, when the Epidemic Response Committee was in place, there were two bills that did get referred to it, and the committee and that marvellous group of officials right across Government departments did an excellent job in scrutinising it, making improvements, bringing it back to the House within a week, and passing it through. We don’t have that luxury here, and I do think it’s important to acknowledge that while urgency is appropriate, the select committee process is being compromised.

I also acknowledge the need for Government to act in regard to emergencies to pass legislation from time to time. Previous Governments have needed to do that, and including the Government I was in, around earthquakes and other natural disasters. But I think it’s really important that we exercise caution in the manner in which primary legislation is used to create a regulation-making power, the details of which are not well articulated through the bill or understood by this House before it passes legislation, and particularly when there isn’t a select committee process. I acknowledge the need for haste, but in that haste there is often error, and it does behove us to scrutinise this bill in so far as we can, because, actually, there’s quite a lack of detail around what those regulations will look like.

The Minister of Housing has provided a reasonably good summary of what the regulations might look like and what the charging regime might look like, but I would point out that there remains, I think, a lack of detail about that regulation, and the Regulations Review Committee, frankly, is not a very good control but is not actually the right place to be scrutinising the sorts of charging regime—effectively, the Government reaching into the pockets of New Zealanders, albeit returning New Zealanders, and taxing them in a way that doesn’t have the same level of scrutiny. I contrast that with, for example, the appropriations bill, where we’ve spent 13 hours in a committee stage and three hours in a third reading analysing that bill, because it is about the amount of money that the Crown is taking out of the pockets of New Zealanders. This is a smaller example of that, but there is no scrutiny by the public on that point, and that worries me.

So I want to go to the regime as it has been described by the Minister both before and now in her first reading. It’s fair to say that although the Minister is quite a few years younger than me, she may be familiar with the term “a Clayton’s charge”. Clayton’s was a drink that you had when you weren’t having a drink, and this is kind of like a charge you’re having when you’re not having a charge. We are now getting to the point where we could be between $500 million and $1 billion, depending on the measurement and the charging regime, of costs incurred for managed isolation and quarantine, and this is going to raise about $10 million. It’s a drop in the ocean, and it shows that this Government has actually been aware of the fact that there is an overwhelming support by the taxpayer in New Zealand to say, “Look, managed isolation is important, but it cannot continue in the way that it is, for as long as it is, without there being some kind of charging regime.”

I don’t think this Government actually has its heart in that charging regime, and they’re doing as little as they can, the least that they can do this side of 19 September, to look like they are responding to that public opinion, which is growing. They are the bill payers, ultimately, up to the thick end of a billion dollars, and they’re saying, “You know what? For those people who haven’t been in New Zealand for a long time, who haven’t made that contribution through their earnings and taxes, it’s only fair that they should be charged when they choose to come home.” And the National Party has been very clear about this—that it would charge at a greater level for those people, albeit that there would need to be some exceptions. I’ll be interested as we go through this bill, because the Minister talked about Māori and tangi, whether or not there will also be an exceptions regime for all New Zealanders returning for bereavement or whether somebody whose loved one passes away while they’re overseas and they want to get back to be with their whānau—if they are non-Māori, would they be required to pay? I think that will be an interesting point of clarification.

I also point out that we are currently in the situation where the Minister talks about $3,100 of reimbursement, but we now know that the costs of managed isolation in the facilities that we are using is now exceeding $5,000 per person. So if you’re a family unit, a nuclear family with a couple of adults and a couple of children, that could be going into the area of five figures. You know, that’s talking about $700, $800, $900 per day in a five-star hotel. Even in a five-star hotel, that seems to be an eye-watering amount of money to be reimbursing—at least to be expending; the reimbursement is going to be something less than that, because it’s part of the Clayton’s charge the Government wants to do.

But when we are imposing these sorts of charges, I think it also behoves the Government to have a look at the nature of the accommodation and whether or not there could be other facilities that could be used that aren’t the Pullman, the Crowne Plaza, the Novotel—these very fancy hotels in Auckland. The Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre is there. It’s empty at the moment. The Whangaparāoa defence facility that we used for the Wuhan returnees—we must have hundreds of campervans around the place. I mean, we seem to be fixated on the only way to be doing this is in five-star hotels. No wonder it’s costing a lot. No wonder the Government is having to slow down the return of New Zealanders as a consequence of that. But it does need, I think, to think a little more imaginatively than it has.

I want to touch on those section 11 changes, because it strikes me as very interesting that, almost as a “by the way”, the Minister is slipping in a couple of belts and braces amendments to section 11 of the COVID response Act—for example, to confirm the fact that the Ministry of Health can require somebody to submit themselves for testing, or that they are required, even, to go into managed isolation on their return, which suggests that they’re not absolutely sure whether or not the legal framework has been in place to require people to go into managed isolation since they implemented it on 8 April. Now, in terms of testing, I’m quite clear that section 70 of the Health Act, even at level 1, perfectly entitles the ministry to require people to submit for testing if there is either a pandemic or the risk of one. So I’m not quite sure what legal advice they have received in order to require those amendments.

There’s a lot more to be said about this bill. It does, on the face of it, look quite straightforward, but it is, I think, important that this House scrutinises this bill as much as we can in urgency, because it’s important to get it right. Nevertheless, and despite those caveats, the National Party will be supporting this bill at this point, and unless we see any material impediments to that support continuing, we’ll support it right through. But I am concerned about the manner in which it is being introduced and passed.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I rise briefly in support of the bill, and I do so for a couple of important reasons. As the Minister of Housing pointed out in her speech, this is a bill, the primary object of which is to set up a legal structure within which it is possible to establish a charging regime. The details of the charging themselves actually occur through regulation. This is a fair and reasonable thing to do, in my view, and, as the Minister has outlined in terms of her intentions with the regulations, a careful balance is being struck here. It’s a balance which accepts the important right of New Zealand citizens to return to their country, but does also ensure that those who exercise some discretion about their travel arrangements after the lockdown occurred and those who perhaps planned to come back to New Zealand only on a temporary basis do make some contribution towards the significant cost of managed isolation, which we know is incredibly important.

I do note briefly, in response to some of the comments opposite that were just expressed now, that the proposed charge is not a tax in the way that we think about a tax; it is a specific levy which is levied to meet very particular costs related to the quarantine requirements created by the person who is engaging in the travel. Levy costs are, in general, set by regulation, so I don’t quite think that some of the arguments put forward there do hold too much water.

As I say, this is a balanced piece of legislation. It appears to have wide support in the House and I commend it to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak tonight on this bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, which has the primary purpose of setting up a regime for testing in managed isolation and in quarantine. Clearly, hurried legislation—again, we’re here doing this under urgency, and, furthermore, if we look at the documents that support it, we can see how hurried this is.

It’s kind of interesting to see several ways through the document that people can elect to go into quarantine. I’d be interested to know quite how that works—how you would elect rather than be required to go into quarantine—oh, I’ll call it isolation, actually, and mean managed isolation and quarantine. There must be some purpose for that to be there. I’d be interested to here that. No regulatory impact statement, which is commented on in the departmental disclosure as well. And, if we look at all the other absent evaluations through the departmental disclosure, again, that very clearly confirms how hurriedly this was put together.

Maybe as an extension of what my colleague was saying, testing the legality of all of this, I’d be interested to see the background work, because it’s noted in the departmental disclosure statement that there is a risk that charging short-term travellers for isolation may not be consistent with the World Health Organization (WHO) International Health Regulations. The argument here being made is that if other countries are doing it, we should be OK too, but there must be a body of material behind that, and I note that without the regulatory impact statement, that’s absent. So I’d be interested, maybe in the committee of the whole House, to hear the response to that. How big is the risk of us breaching our WHO regulations?

The parts of the bill that alter the primary Act are quite clear. I want to turn to an interesting proposition here. Fundamentally, the Government is delivering a service—yeah?—and it’s a service that you’re paying for. Now, any other service, including Government services that you’re paying for, comes under the Consumer Guarantees Act. If I’m unhappy with it, I have recourse. So what is the recourse in this bill? What is my ability to complain for the service I am paying for—be it delivered by Government or anyone else? What is the ability for me to get recourse if I’m not getting the sort of service that I’m looking for—that I’m paying for?

I thought I’d jot down what I thought that service was. That service is to be in isolation to keep you personally safe from infection, to keep others safe from infection, to test for confirmation of infection or otherwise, and for the basic essentials of life that would support you while you’re in isolation. That’s the service that you’re buying. What if that service is not suitable? What if that accommodation does not provide you with those guarantees? What if I’m put at risk in the accommodation and isolation facility? What are my rights for the service I am paying for to say I’ve received a poor service? Where does the Consumer Guarantees Act sit over the top of this legislation?

What if I’m not happy that I’m being told the policy is that you’ll be tested on day three and day 12, and we know day three testing is optional? In fact, if we look back at all the positive coronavirus tests over the past month, 50 percent or more of them were day three tests that tested positive, thus showing how critical that day three test is. I’ve paid for that; I didn’t receive it. How does that work? What is my recourse for a poor service?

What is my recourse for a poor service which I have paid for, where I might legitimately expect the isolation staff to wear personal protective equipment (PPE)? What is my recourse? I am paying for a service, and I’m happy to pay for it, but I want a decent service that protects me and guarantees, for the initial services I said I was purchasing, that they’re delivered appropriately, which is what the Consumer Guarantees Act said. Now, you could contest: no, staff in isolation facilities are wearing PPE. No, they’re not. How this works is, if you’re a returnee, you’re required to wear a mask outside of your room; if you’re staff, you’re required to wear a mask unless you’ll have more than 2 metres distancing from the returnees. I would contend, from what constituents have said to me and, indeed, what I’ve sent to the Minister in the past few weeks, that that is not happening—that staff members at a number of isolation facilities are well coming inside that 2 metre distance and very clearly not using PPE. I’m getting a poor service that I’m paying for; what is my recourse? I’d ask the Minister to consider whether that is something that needs attention.

Look, I think the bill in itself is relatively simple. We can see the purchase. My colleague explained the issue of: is the funding, is the costing, enough, is it accurate, and is it appropriate? He’s also raised the question of: what about the exemptions? Do they apply to everyone equally and fairly? I think that’s a discussion we can have across the House. But I would commend the Minister to have a think about—and think about whether there’s something in the committee of the whole House that she needs to address—the service I am purchasing and, if that service is not adequate, if that service is not up to standard, what is my recourse, first, just to complain anyway—it’s not clear to me there’s a complaints procedure—and, secondly, what is the remedy if it truly is found to be unsatisfactory.

So I look forward to the rest of the discussions as this bill progresses through the House. Thank you.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call supporting the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. Just to make some comments with regard to the contribution of the member who just resumed his seat, Dr Shane Reti, I do hope he’s spoken to Gerry Brownlee, because this piece of legislation, just to be clear, sets the capacity for a framework for a Government to put in place regulations that set the charging regime. So the legislation is very clear: it gives a Government the capacity to set regulations around a charging regime. That is why the Opposition is supporting it, even though, from the contribution from the member that just resumed his seat, that wasn’t necessarily clear.

I would caution the member around the articulation of these concerns with regard to the consumers Act and so on and so forth that, if Mr Brownlee finds himself in a position post the election that he will use this piece of legislation to put in place regulations that he and the National Party have articulated they want to do, the member may find himself trying to actually counter the concerns that he is addressing today, and with the attitude of the National Party if they end up in Government and what they say to the New Zealand public they are prepared to implement. At this stage, all this piece of legislation does is give a Government—this one has set some regulations; the next one could set some others, and if New Zealand First is part of any future Government, we will renew, we will review the regulations that have been put into place here. This is literally the minimum that can be put into place on the spectrum around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and some bill of rights advice that we have had as a Government, but it has the capacity.

What this piece of legislation does is give any future Government the capacity to build on top of those, and the National Government—sorry, you’re not the National Government anymore—[Interruption] Well, it’s late and, you know, it’s fantasy rules, but if, if, if, if, for example—and, on current polling it’s way out, but anyway—if, for example, they were in a position to make any decisions after the election, this would give them the capacity to do it. But that member has just now highlighted for the rest of New Zealand that he’s not necessarily concerned about the ability of taxpayers to gain back from people who are coming into the country, who should contribute—and it is a contribution at this stage—to the costs of their quarantine and isolation. That is not what his concern is; it is not for the taxpayer of New Zealand, which is different to what Mr Woodhouse articulated when he was on his feet, but his concern is actually around the ability of people to complain, which I find fascinating. In a global pandemic, when you look at what is beyond our gate and what this Government has done to protect the team of 5 million, the member who has just resumed his seat is more concerned around people’s ability to complain about what we need to do to keep other New Zealanders safe than he is around the piece of legislation that we’re putting into the House today.

So New Zealand First will support the legislation. If we had our way, we would be going a little bit further than what we have got here, or the regulations that are in play, but the reality is that this is a circumstance we haven’t had since 1918—since 1918—and I think the Opposition forgets that when they decide to be flippant with any piece of legislation that is dealing with COVID-19, and perhaps they just need to continue to look beyond our borders, at what is happening in other nations, and see how paramount it is that, whatever we need to do to make sure that we can stop community transmission inside New Zealand, that is what a responsible Government does. And that is what this responsible Government is doing tonight.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate in what has been—no doubt we’ve all received correspondence from New Zealanders abroad and in New Zealand concerned about this issue, so really happy to take a call in this debate. I certainly want to start out by acknowledging all of those in our quarantine and managed isolation facilities who are serving, whether it’s police officers, military personnel, the raft of staff that are involved. Thank you on behalf of all of us here in our Parliament for the work that you’re doing.

But I do want to just raise a story that I had from a constituent who I spoke to the other day. This constituent had just come back from overseas and was put in the quarantine isolation, and I asked her, “How was it?” and she said, “Oh, it was pretty good, actually. They flew me down to Christchurch. They put me up at a four-star hotel. I had three meals a day. I had gluten-free options and nice bed sheet changes and all the facilities I could ever dream of.” I thought to myself, “Well, that’s pretty good—a pretty good experience for most.” Then it was made clear the other day just how much that bill costs the New Zealand taxpayer: as we know, $5,700 per person per stay. Right now, the bill is running just over the $200 million mark.

So I think this is an important aspect to set the framework to help recover some of that cost. I mean, I think going out there to the average punter on the streets in New Zealand and saying, “Well, do you think that New Zealanders coming home should bear some of the burden of their managed isolation?”, most New Zealanders would say yes. That’s what the public polls say, and certainly that’s what the mood is on the street of Northcote, where I am a member of Parliament, certainly is. So I think that the idea of this to set the framework to enable that cost burden to be reduced for the taxpayer is something that, ultimately, we’re here to look at today, because unfortunately, it’s not any time soon that the borders are going to be open.

We were talking to some major airlines recently and, you know, it’s going to be another year or two before international routes open up. So we’re going to be dealing with managed isolation and quarantining for some time, and in that time, the cost is going to mount up. So whatever we can do to help recover that cost, and on this side of the House, we’re actually fine with that. If you have the ability to pay and the willingness to pay and you receive a service, as my colleague down here was talking about service, then you should pay. That’s what our position has always been about in the National Party, and that’s why we’ve fought very hard to get ideas like this brought to the House. I certainly acknowledge the work that Judith Collins and Simon Bridges and Todd Muller have done over the last few months to raise this in the public debate, because it has been important, and this is why we’re actually here talking about this today.

But what has been announced in this bill we certainly have some issues with, and we do think that we can strengthen it. We hope that the member that was just speaking before will consider our Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we’ve got lined up later on this evening. These SOPs would do the following: would enable high-income people who possibly could get exemptions to actually not get those exemptions and pay some of the cost and burden of that managed isolation. Another SOP seeks to make sure that if you escape managed isolation, you actually bear the cost of that isolation and the costs involved with escaping as well. I think that that is fair and equitable. That side of the House always talks about fair and equitable policies. I think—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to let the member know that he’s mentioned the SOPs—they can’t be debated until the committee stage, so we’ll just move on.

DAN BIDOIS: OK, excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. So as I said, we’ve got some changes that we want to make to this legislation. Of course, we would’ve liked to see more uniformity, less chances for exemption. As Michael Woodhouse, my colleague here, made very, very clear, the very small cost that is actually going to be recovered is minuscule compared to the costs for the taxpayer—$10 million versus the $200 million that taxpayers have already spent, and the other more than $250 million that will be spent by the end of this year. So we do hope that these will be debated and considered later on.

Certainly, the other thing to note is around the shortness of time that we’re here. I must say that this is at least the 10th or 11th time since I’ve been a member of Parliament in this House where we’ve debated stuff far too late. This Government has had a lot of time to consider this legislation, and here we are on the second or third to last day of Parliament having to rush this through in urgency, having no due process for a select committee to hear from various groups that may be impacted adversely from this legislation. I just think that it’s an affront to the democracy that we have in New Zealand that this House is considering such rushed and poorly drafted legislation in such a short time frame.

So we’ll certainly support this in the House. It’s been something that we have been pushing for some time. We hope to get some more discussion and debate later on around how to strengthen this bill, but National commends this bill to the House.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I just wanted to start by saying that the clue is in the title—that it is a public health response bill.

I’ll just start with a couple of points made by some members of the Opposition. Dr Reti asked the question about whether the Consumer Guarantees Act would apply to this, on the basis that this is a service that is being delivered to the individual. That’s actually an argument against this bill rather than for it, because people are being quarantined because they have to be quarantined. If they’re being quarantined in particular types of hotels it’s because they are the ones that enable us to actually manage the public health outcomes, not because we’re shouting everyone a two-week holiday in a four- or five-star hotel because we want to but because that is the level that is necessary in order to ensure that we can actually keep people safe.

Dan Bidois, who just sat down, was talking about, essentially, the cost of this and how we need to recover the costs from New Zealanders who are coming in. This is a complete reversal from everything that we’ve done up until this point, of course, because we’ve laid out tens of billions of dollars, actually, and we haven’t recovered the costs of those. It will come back via the tax system over time, and people who are moving home pay taxes. People who are returning from overseas will move here and will pay taxes and will contribute to the public health response, not just for their quarantine, but the tens of billions of dollars that we are outlaying to support all New Zealanders through this crisis. So the very premise of what they’re talking about—the question is: why are we seeking, as part of a massive public health programme affecting every part of the economy, why is it that we’re singling out one group of New Zealanders for cost recovery and not everybody?

I want to turn—Tracey Martin mentioned the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I think it is worth just sort of mentioning a few things. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to every New Zealand citizen the right to enter New Zealand—that’s section 18(2). It doesn’t say “the right to enter New Zealand if you pay a $3,000 fee.” It also says that New Zealanders have the right not to be subject to torture. It doesn’t say that “you have the right not to be subject to torture if you pay a $3,000 fee.” It says that we have the right to freedom of expression. It does not say “you have the right to freedom of expression if you pay a $3,000 fee.” It says “the right of peaceful assembly”, not “the right of peaceful assembly if you pay a $3,000 fee”.

So the New Zealand Bill of Rights, and I know that this House does pass legislation—unfortunately, fairly frequently—which contravenes or is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights. That doesn’t make it a good idea, right? Just because we do that, because we have that facility under our legislation doesn’t mean that we should. And I think that we should seek, where at all possible, to uphold the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Otherwise, it’s not worth the paper that it is written on.

Regardless of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, I think that this is a matter of fundamental fairness. New Zealanders who have left New Zealand prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, or prior to understanding that there would be compulsory quarantine with a cost attached to it, it’s fundamentally unfair to retrospectively—and remember, we do try and avoid law that is retrospective, to say to people, “That’s bad luck. You left New Zealand perhaps 10 years ago. You now find yourself in a situation where you’re returning to New Zealand and because there’s a global pandemic, we’re going to charge you. But we’re not going to charge other New Zealanders. In fact, other New Zealanders, we’re actually paying their wages for them.” It’s only this group of New Zealanders who live overseas at the moment who are forced to return home due to the pandemic that we’re saying, “Well we’re not going to support you the way that we’re supporting everybody else. We’re going to charge you instead.”

That’s fundamentally unfair. I mean, it creates two classes of New Zealanders: those who live in New Zealand and those who are currently outside the country. I have to say, that I think that the treatment of New Zealanders living overseas in relation to this debate has been appalling. The expat community has been the subject of abuse and denigration for daring to return to their homeland. The team of 5 million, I have to say, is all of us, not just those of us who live in New Zealand versus those of us who live overseas or are currently overseas. I would like us, as we go through this debate, to return to some of the fundamental principles—where we started as we were moving into the pandemic crisis, into the state of emergency—where we said, “Look out for each other, be kind, support each other. This is about all of us, not just some of us.” I will support this bill through the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill in this short time. This bill is, essentially, about trying to recoup the cost of managed isolation and the quarantine facilities. As the speaker before me has said, it is not fair; it is not fair to the New Zealanders who are overseas but it is also not fair to all the New Zealanders who have been here during lockdown, who have sacrificed so much—their jobs, their businesses, the ability to connect with family, to attend funerals, to have weddings. Everybody has carried the burden of this. This is an extraordinary situation we would normally not—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the evening. The House is suspended. I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Kia ora mai tātou.

Debate interrupted.

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

TUESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2020

(continued on Wednesday, 5 August 2020)

Bills

COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A pleasure to pick up on my contribution to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. The bill aims to provide a framework which is about recouping the costs of managed isolation and quarantine facilities for New Zealanders coming back home, returning home. Before I go on, I would like to acknowledge all the personnel, the staff, who are working at the various isolation facilities—health personnel, hospitality workers, the cleaners, security, the army and police personnel. Thank you for all that you do.

As I was listening to some of the earlier contributions to this bill, there was a lot of talk about fairness—that we needed to be fair to the New Zealanders who are returning home, that this is their home country. This bill is actually about fairness. In fact, the National Party introduced, absolutely, this concept that New Zealanders returning should make a contribution to the cost of the quarantining and managed isolation.

COVID-19 and the period of lockdown for us as a country has just been one big wrecking ball through this country, and nothing has been fair about it. We know many families and businesses have been hit so hard, and some businesses will not come back from this. We know that we’ve got 200,000 people on the unemployment benefit. We know that business confidence is down. Nothing has been fair. The debt is mounting, too—another $150 billion.

So in terms of fairness, of course it hasn’t been fair, and we have to acknowledge the thousands of New Zealanders who’ve been impacted in so many ways. It hasn’t been fair to those who’ve lost their jobs. It hasn’t been fair to those businesses who have faced complete ruin. It hasn’t been fair to people who are struggling to make ends meet, people that perhaps may be losing their homes. It hasn’t been fair to those who have missed out on seeing their loved ones in their last days, attending those family events, funerals. It hasn’t been fair to people who’ve had to cancel wedding plans or have missed attending the birth of a grandchild.

It absolutely hasn’t been fair, and under normal circumstances we would never think to charge New Zealanders who want to return home. But this is not normal circumstances. It’s extraordinary times. Most New Zealanders are feeling it, and they do feel that they want some fairness in terms of the costs, the burden that we as a country are facing currently, but also the cost to taxpayers for New Zealanders returning home. As we’ve heard, the cost to New Zealanders per stay is $5,700. That is a lot, at this time—to ask taxpayers to shoulder that full cost of New Zealanders returning home.

We support this bill. We support a framework to recoup the costs. We don’t believe that the bill goes far enough, and we will provide some Supplementary Order Papers in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee to that effect. Ultimately, as Minister Woods has announced, the Government expects to spend $479 million by the end of the year on managed quarantine, and the amount that is expected to be recouped under this bill is about $10 million, or just under $10 million, which is—that’s just 2 percent, 2 percent of what it would cost to fund the managed quarantine facilities. I don’t think that’s fair to taxpayers, to New Zealanders who are already shouldering so much of the cost of this post-COVID period. I think it’s very reasonable—and, actually, New Zealanders have stated quite clearly that they don’t believe it’s fair and they do want New Zealanders who are returning home to shoulder and to wear some of that cost as well.

There will be some exemptions set out in this bill in terms of personnel that may have to go out and come back in, but there is an expectation that if you are going away on holiday, you will be on the understanding that you will pay for the cost of your managed isolation on return.

So the other thing is that we don’t know how long we’re going to be in this position of having these facilities, so we do need a solution that is practical and fair. As I said, everybody will say, “We’ve got to be fair to the New Zealanders coming back.” We also have to be fair to the taxpayers that are here that are already shouldering the cost of the debt that’s rising, the job losses, and the impacts on families. Madam Speaker, thank you very much.

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

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’m delighted to have a call on this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. We’re in extraordinary times and we know that, and there is no playbook for these times. So there’s a lot of work that we’re having to do, that any Government in the world is having to do, as we go through and face these extraordinary circumstances. But what we do know is that our managed quarantine and isolation facilities are working. They are keeping COVID-19 at the border and they are stopping community transmission.

What we also know is that this bill strikes a fair balance for what must happen. It allows New Zealanders the right to come home, and we don’t know the circumstances—until that hits them overseas—of why that hasn’t happened before; whether there have been no planes or their jobs have suddenly disappeared. They have a right to come home. This bill strikes the balance between those people and not paying for people who want to take their overseas holidays as the world opens up.

I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): My apologies, Madam Speaker. I was just looking at the Hansard record of your fine speech in the House last evening and got quite engrossed in it, so I was momentarily delayed—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): I thought it was a more generalised apology.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, in the spirit of your valedictory statement, take it any way you like.

This bill does not strike a fair balance between the cost being borne by the taxpayer and those who are returning to New Zealand. We need to be very, very clear that there is no impediment to a New Zealand citizen or resident returning to their home country other than physical barriers that might be put up by way of airline availability, etc. But there is no reason for the team of 5 million, who have sacrificed, to pick up all of the costs or even a substantial part of the costs of the many who will choose to return to this country.

It’s very hard for many to understand how we can charge our students a big portion of their education and think that there is no rights issue around that, that we can charge for things like visas or passports, or anything else that could be seen as an impediment to returning into this country or coming to this country. But when someone comes back to New Zealand and needs to go through managed isolation, knowing they have to go through managed isolation to show that they are not a carrier of COVID-19, then why would we not have a regime that enables them to contribute to the huge costs that are being borne by taxpaying New Zealanders at the moment? $479 million has been budgeted out to 31 December this year. But I’m quite sure that figure was calculated on the $4,000 per head price that was quoted in the House earlier in the month.

Since then, it’s been revealed that the real cost is about $5,700 per head. So the idea that the National Party had of charging people $3,000 for the first family applicant, $1,000 for the second, and $500 for children after that is incredibly reasonable given that that unit is going to cost the taxpayer in excess of $22,000.

Hon James Shaw: They are taxpayers.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Now, I can see the Green Party over there muttering and saying it’s only money—and that’s the problem with the Government.

Hon James Shaw: They are taxpayers.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That’s the problem with the Government—like that person on the other side of the House. Last week, the Minister was asked, “Well, why are you having such a low amount of recovery?” Why only the $2.2 million to $8.8 million—as she quoted—recovery on $479 million? That’s a derisory 2 percent recovery. And the answer was, “Well, at best, we calculated it could be somewhere between $93 million and $125 million and we didn’t think it was worth it.” Well, go and tell that to the 212,000 New Zealanders who are out of work. It may be a bigger number in about an hour’s time. Tell it to the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are on reduced incomes or the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who’ve lost part-time work and casual work, because they are the people, Mr Shaw, who are taxpayers and who are paying for these people to come back into the country. The head shakes again. “No, no. We shouldn’t charge them. We just want them all to come back. We want them all to be contributing here.” Well, I hope they are. I really hope they are. But at some point, that dries up and there’s a bigger economic question that the Government has to answer.

So while the National Party will support this bill, we do so because it provides schedules that enable the Government of the day to set the recovery price, to set the parameters for who pays and how much they pay. And we think the proposals that are out there by the Government at the moment are incredibly light—saying to family returning to New Zealand after perhaps years and years of being away from this country that they are up for a $22,000 or $23,000 cost to the taxpayer and the Government is only going to be recovering around about, oh, what, a very small amount of that if they fall into the very narrow band of people who the Government intends to place a charge on. We think that’s unreasonable. It’s unfair to the taxpayer, but the structure of the bill is something that we will use in Government. Therefore we support it.

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

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think I may end up being the only person in the House who plans to vote against this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I voted against the principal Act. I notice the National Party did too, but they’ve changed their view now on this amendment bill. I think the powers in this bill are equally as Draconian as those in the primary legislation. If anything, they are worse in this particular piece of legislation. I will be consistent and I’ll vote against this bill.

Mr Brownlee’s actually wrong. There are now restrictions being put in this legislation, restrictions on New Zealanders returning home. Whilst we’ve talked a lot about the charging regime and what will be allowed for under this legislation regarding charging people in managed isolation facilities, there’s a new power being inserted in the section 11 orders; the section 11 orders, of course, being those orders which pretty much give the Minister or the director-general power to do pretty much anything if it’s in the name of COVID-19. Now the Government is giving themselves the power to ensure that any person returning to New Zealand, whether it’s a New Zealander or a non - New Zealander, has to satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand. That means, if a Government—if a National or a Labour Government—wants to seek restrictions even on New Zealanders returning home, they can do so under these orders.

Now, I’m sure people will say, “Yeah, but the bill of rights—you know, they can’t restrict people under the bill of rights.” Well, now there’s an override of the bill of rights in here as well. The Minister has to be satisfied that orders don’t limit the bill of rights or that there is a justified limit. But who makes the decision? It’s the Minister. Parliament usually is the only body that can override the bill of rights, by passing a piece of legislation. Now we’re here passing a law which will give the Minister the ability to make a determination around the bill of rights, and I think that’s absolutely wrong.

I also think that the people in this Parliament who have been talking about the managed isolation facility charging regime and the law being a balance between the rights of individuals or about the need for taxpayers to be let off the hook for some of these particular costs—this bill does not contain any restrictions. This bill does not contain any rights for individuals. All it does is outline a regime for the Government of the day to implement any particular regime they like. So when the Labour Party or Green Party say that they are opposed to those awful charges that the National Party want to put in, actually, the law here is the Government passing a regime which would allow the National Party to do what they want. So please don’t make videos for Facebook saying you’ve protected New Zealanders and you’ve come up with a great regime that’s good for returning Kiwis. Actually, the Government, they’re passing a law which allows the National Party, if they’re in Government, to do whatever they particularly want.

I also take exception to the expectation that people should have to pay for their managed isolation when there are also in here some new powers around requiring people to undertake medical examinations and testing. Now, these COVID-19 tests aren’t just some simple swab of the mouth. It’s a deep insertion of a swab right into someone’s head, which is very invasive. In fact, the original regulatory impact statement identified, by the lawyers, that that was akin to a medical procedure. We no longer, under law, have the ability for people to refuse medical procedures, because the section 11 orders make that almost impossible.

But we’ve also got the Prime Minister who’s on record saying that if you do not undertake a test, you can’t leave managed isolation. By putting in place on top of that a charging regime, we will be inserting financial penalties against people who refuse a medical procedure. Let’s just think about that for a second. The law will say you have to undertake a medical procedure. The law will also say the Government can charge you if you are in managed isolation. If you are someone who wants to conscientiously object to a medical procedure being performed on you, you won’t be allowed out of managed isolation and you’ll be charged for the privilege of that detention. If we as a country are saying that managed isolation is important, we’re saying that’s a public health response. We’re saying that’s a public good for New Zealanders. It’s not just a public good for those returning; it’s a public good for the whole country. Just as we don’t require people to pay for the public good of normal healthcare, we shouldn’t be requiring people to be charged in this particular circumstance.

For many months, we have said this is a public good and it should be funded by taxpayers. We should continue doing that and we shouldn’t be restricting New Zealanders returning home to their own country.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call on this bill, the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. Extremely proud to be part of a Government that had a very strong response to get in control and on top of this virus, but now we need to do, of course, everything possible to ensure that we keep on protecting the health and wellbeing of everyone in New Zealand. This bill, as has been mentioned, does strike a fair balance when it comes to the right of New Zealanders to return home, as well as the cost involved in that exercise, and I commend it to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m quite pleased to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I keep hearing the words “it strikes a fair balance”. The bill doesn’t strike any balance. This bill is just a framework. It is the idea that we need to be recouping some of the costs of people returning to New Zealand. It is simply a framework, a method of receiving those costs—how we do it, who we exempt, how much we charge, how we collect it—and it’s all down to regulation. So there’s no detail in this bill to strike any kind of balance. The only way we can look to see whether or not it strikes a balance is to figure out which of the different parties’ press releases on what they would do would strike a balance, and I’ll come back to that. But as has been mentioned by my previous speakers, there are no details in this bill. We only can go on what the different parties have said.

The other issue that we have is that we’ve known since April. We’ve had, since April, people in isolation. That’s a relatively long amount of time to understand the issues around costs and recovery of those costs, yet here we are in the final couple of days of Parliament sitting here going, “Oh, crikey, this is a problem.” The only reason the Government are doing this under urgency in the last throes of this Government is because the National Party have been saying for some time that we need a cost recovery mechanism. We have to be able to recover costs because we can’t keep paying for billions of dollars’ worth of costs for ever. It pushed this Government into a position where they realise that, actually, we’re right, and here we are, in the final throes of this Government, setting up a regime to do exactly that. But what has happened in their lack of attention to detail over this issue is that there’s no real detail in this bill. There is no regulatory impact statement, so we have no idea about the impact of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or any other detail before we start debating this bill. Under normal circumstances, we would have a regulatory impact statement that would give us that detail, and yet here we are having to rush this through in the last couple of days without that detail, and yet we have known since April that this is an issue.

Even this week, the final week, here we are finally starting to understand the actual real costs of that isolation. We’ve been told up until now that it’s $3,000, $4,000, and we find out this week that, actually, it’s closer to $6,000. So it seems that this Government have dropped the ball on this and are finally trying to fix it up because they’ve been under pressure from us and the rest of New Zealand, who are actually sitting up and going, “Actually, this is a huge problem. We can’t keep throwing billions of dollars at this. We need to be able to recoup the costs.” I think it was about 70 percent of New Zealanders that actually agree that some of these costs need to be recouped, and this Government have finally realised that.

As I said, the bill just sets up a framework. It doesn’t actually give the detail of what’s going to happen. The speaker, one speech ago, was actually quite right in the fact that there are no wins for any political party on the other side of the House. Winston Peters can’t win by saying, “Yes, we’re going to charge everyone.”, which he wants to do. The Greens aren’t winning by saying, “Well, everyone can come back in for free because that’s what we believe in, love and hugs and it’s all fine—it’s someone else’s money.” They can’t have a win either. The Government have, through this bill, basically got no detail. It is simply a regime for us to do something in the future, and if we have the privilege of being the Government after 19 September, we’ve made our intentions clear.

All we can take from the other side of the House is the few bits and pieces we’ve picked up from the media about what they would do, and they have made it clear that they will only charge people who are here and who are leaving the country for business or for a holiday. I don’t know who’s going on holiday at the moment—I can’t imagine anyone is—but if you decide to go on holiday, you have to pay when you come back, or if you go for a business trip or if you’re coming here for fewer than 90 days. The Prime Minister has said on multiple occasions that if you’re coming back to stay for good, then you shouldn’t have to pay, but the only time frame she’s talked about is more than 90 days, so in her mind—and we have to talk about this at committee stage, but coming for 91 days means that you don’t have to pay. You can leave again and come back in for another 91 days and not have to pay, because in the Prime Minister’s mind, if you come back for 90 days, well, that’s just coming for good. That’s something that we need to explore.

My colleague Agnes Loheni made some very good points before, and my thinking is much the same, when we talk about the price that we pay. We’ve heard from the other side of the House, especially from the Greens, that it’s very unfair to charge people who are coming back. There isn’t any fairness when it comes to COVID, and I’d actually like to reflect on Grant Robertson’s famous quote at a stand-up—I remember quite vividly when he said, “This is not about fairness.” when he was talking about which businesses are allowed to stay open and which businesses have to close during lockdown. It’s not about fairness—we just have to do what is practical and what is right. So you had businesses who weren’t allowed to open, who weren’t allowed to operate, who are now forced to close because of that time that they weren’t allowed to operate. Many people have lost their jobs. Many businesses have failed. Nothing is fair when it comes to COVID, and charging Kiwis coming back is just part of the unfairness of COVID. Everyone in this country, the team of 5 million—and, if you take into account the people overseas, the team of 6 million—it’s going to cost us, if you look at it, about a billion dollars next year to bring people home, if you extrapolate out what we’ve spent already. We cannot continue to keep doing this. It’s just a fact. We can’t keep paying to bring people home if it’s going to cost us over a billion dollars a year. We’ve seen what’s happened in Australia: we’ve got 600,000 Kiwis there that, you know, may want to start coming home, and we want them to come home, but it’s only fair that they, like everyone else, have to pay a price, like we all did.

Now, obviously, these details aren’t in the bill—that’s just a framework, as I said—but those are our intentions. The intentions of this Government we will explore further at committee stage, but we will be supporting this bill because it’s a tool that we will use, and for the reasons I’ve mentioned. But I think that the thought that I will leave on—and I mentioned this at a public meeting that I had in my electorate the other day, and people seemed to agree—is that the cost of bringing people home, that billion dollars a year, when you take that and look at the opportunity cost of what we could be spending that money on, is huge. We can’t keep spending billions of dollars to bring people home. It’s only reasonable that they pay some of those costs, with, of course, exemptions for compassionate reasons. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are one of the few countries in the world that’s fortunate enough to be able to pursue a strategy of community elimination, and what that relies on is strong borders. I think our approach has been very effective to date. Over 30,000 people have gone through managed isolation, and at the moment we are very fortunate that there’s no evidence of community transmission. However, with the borders going to be closed for the foreseeable future, we need to make sure that this system is also sustainable. In this, we need to make sure we balance the needs of those who are returning home permanently and often have had difficult circumstances where they’ve lost their jobs, they’ve paid a lot of money to come with expensive airfares, and have struggled to get through with limited flights, versus those who may choose to leave the country again to pursue either a holiday or some business travel.

So what this bill does is it allows us to create a framework where we can recoup fair costs for the costs of their managed isolation while at the same time making sure that those going through undue hardship are not unduly penalised. This is a really important bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 1

Ross.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 1

Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 117, Noes 2.

Second Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill supports the public health response to COVID-19. The main purpose of the bill is to allow the Government to recover some of the costs of managed isolation and quarantine facilities through prescribing charges and regulations. There is a secondary purpose to reduce demand for managed isolation and quarantine from short-term travel.

The bill places four requirements on the Minister responsible for the administration of the managed isolation and quarantine facilities before they can recommend the making of this regulation. The Minister must be satisfied that the prescribed charges relate to the direct and indirect costs incurred by the Government for managed isolation and quarantine facilities, the charges recover no more than the estimated actual and reasonable direct and indirect costs of managed isolation and quarantine for the classes of persons being charged, that there is appropriate provision to grant relief from payment and circumstances where payment would cause undue financial hardship, and that the charges do not limit or are a justified limit on the rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. These requirements ensure that the charges are reasonable, proportionate, and do not prevent New Zealanders returning to New Zealand.

The bill sets out a range of methods by which the costs of managed isolation and quarantine could be recovered. It allows for different charges for different classes of people, persons in different circumstances, different types of facilities, and different regions. These provisions provide flexibility in the future to use different types of facilities anywhere in New Zealand and will help ensure the charges reflect the estimated actual and reasonable costs. Under the bill, certain people who arrive in New Zealand and who are required to or elect to be in managed isolation or quarantine will be liable to pay a charge unless they are exempt.

The exemptions in the bill include diplomats and consular staff and their families, and official foreign Government representatives. Further exemptions can be made through regulation. This allows the Government to exempt classes of people where it might not be appropriate to charge or where a class of people is likely to be in a position where they are experiencing financial hardship and are unable to pay charges.

The bill also allows for regulations to enable the Minister or the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to exempt, waive, or refund charges in part or in full. I consider waivers an important mechanism to assist anybody experiencing undue financial hardship or who is travelling because of other special circumstances, such as for compassionate reasons.

The bill also allows regulations to set the timing and manner of payment of the charges. It allows unpaid debts to be recovered through the courts if necessary. I intend for the regulations to allow for payment by instalment at the discretion of MBIE in cases of financial hardship. This type of payment arrangement would help people who might not be able to pay a lump sum, upfront payment.

In addition to the charging system, the bill makes two amendments in relation to orders made by the Minister of Health or the Director-General of Health under section 11 of the principal Act. The first amendment allows the Minister or director-general to make orders that impose conditions on people arriving in New Zealand. These conditions could include being registered to enter managed isolation before entering New Zealand. The Government is currently working on a system to ensure that anyone coming here has an allocated space in a managed isolation facility. This change supports a coordinated and orderly public health response to COVID-19, and this ensures our managed isolation facilities are just that: managed.

The second change clarifies that orders made under section 11 of the Act can require a person to undergo as well as report for a medical examination or testing. I also note that I have tabled a Supplementary Order Paper which makes minor and technical changes to the bill. All of these changes support this Government’s public health strategy to stamp out COVID-19 and to protect our communities over the longer term through a sustainable managed isolation and quarantine system. I look forward to further discussion in the committee of the whole House stage and exploring with the Opposition the sentiment that was coming through from the last speaker, Erica Stanford, that we can’t keep spending on these facilities. So I would like to know if there is a plan to no longer have managed isolation at our borders.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): We also look forward to that discussion in the committee, because what has just been put on the record by the Minister of Housing is an utterly ridiculous and preposterous suggestion—that anybody would be making any suggestions at the moment that our borders should not be managed at a time when there is a pandemic of this nature affecting the country. While there will be questions about the quality of that border management, there is no question that, firstly, those people who want to return to New Zealand who have a right to, New Zealand citizens and residents, should be able to do so unimpeded, but recognising that in coming to this country, coming back to this country, having chosen to live away generally for quite an extended period of time, then there should be some contribution to the costs for the privilege of re-joining the team of 5 million. That is not an unreasonable position to take.

While the Minister gave a speech that would make a lot of people think that there were some hefty and serious charges coming, the reality is that it’s a schedule-based bill and that those charges are somewhat discretionary on the Minister, and the signalling so far has been that very few are going to be required to pay. One of the most annoying things about the Government’s position is that it is very much an attack on the productive sector of New Zealand. If a business person takes the risk, leaves these shores, goes to market, tries to establish a new line of sales that will be to the benefit of New Zealand, then when they return, they have to meet the costs, according to this Government, of their isolation, even though the benefit of their activity falls to the team of 5 million. The reality is that someone returning from a long life in the UK or Britain or anywhere in Europe, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, is coming here because they see benefit in returning home. The benefit accrues to them, and for them to be required to pay a relatively small amount of the $5,700 costs incurred by the taxpayer for each person going into managed isolation seems perfectly reasonable.

I don’t know how the Government can justify making people who are adding to the productive value of the country pay, and those who are coming here to take advantage of the COVID-free nature of the country, currently, not paying at all. I just really think that in the committee stage, there will be quite a teasing out of that. There are some other aspects of the bill that we find very useful. It is, as a mechanism for being able to enact our policy, a good bill, and we will be supporting it for that reason.

I think there is a limited understanding by New Zealanders about how long this may go on for, and part of that is caused because of the international situation being somewhat uncertain. For the Government to suggest that somehow an Opposition party is going to take a position on how long that might go on for is utterly ridiculous. Our point has simply been that in an environment where this may go on for quite some time beyond even the discovery of a vaccine—quite some time beyond that—therefore looking at some future date in the 2020s before our borders return anywhere near to what they were prior to the March lockdown, then why wouldn’t we want to have a more permanent regime that was going to ensure the costs that are borne internally by people who are contributing to the economy here are not spread or exacerbated or grown as a result of people wanting to come here to make their lives back in New Zealand—remembering, at all times, many of these people are people who chose to make their lives outside of New Zealand?

When it comes to the issues around seasonal work, particularly, you would say, some of the more highly skilled agricultural workers, when it comes to various other aspects of input into the New Zealand economy, then, clearly, having some flexibility about who should pay and where they should pay is reasonable. What is unreasonable is the Government’s outright position that a New Zealander leaving this country to travel for business purposes must meet all of their costs upon return. I think those are things that we will want to discuss further in the committee stage.

We also believe that there is a problem when people abscond from their quarantine. It seems to me that if there is no price on quarantine, then there is no value put on it by some people—very limited numbers, but when they go, they end up costing a heap. They will always get caught and they will always be a massive amount of expense chasing around after where they’ve been to protect the people who they’ve come in contact with. Well, why shouldn’t that fall as a charge on those people? It doesn’t seem to me that it’s unreasonable. And yet this bill, while it might allow that to happen, is silent on that particular issue.

We intend to put up a Supplementary Order Paper that makes it implicit that if someone absconds from managed isolation, they will be encumbered with the costs that are met by the taxpayer to ensure that their reckless behaviour does not unduly affect the rest of the community. There’ll be other matters that come up in in this committee process that’s coming, and we look forward to having those discussions with the Minister, but I state again: so far, $479 million has been allocated for the cost of border management right out to 31 December. You have to ask: if you translated that into community facilities, or something like that, what would the country be able to get for the $479 million? A great deal—we’d get a stadium in Christchurch completely paid for, you’d get all sorts of other facilities around the country covered off. It’s not an insignificant amount of money; it’s huge. Remember, just divide that amount of money by $5 million, and you’ll get a figure that is put on the head of every single New Zealander to meet the cost of this isolation. For the Government to have said that they will interpret the schedules of this bill to recover only about 2 percent of that cost, I think is somewhat reckless—I think it’s unreasonable and quite unfair for the vast majority of New Zealanders.

The other point is that we were told initially that the cost per head of managed isolation was around about $4,000. That’s already gone out by $1,700 to $5,700. As the facilities come under more and more pressure and there is a limited number of places to go, it is for anyone to speculate just how that figure, per head, might go and how much over the half a billion dollars for the next few months that big $479 million might go. If that figure’s annualised, we’re talking about over a billion dollars for managed isolation, and we all know that it’s going to be more than one year that this goes on; it could be many, many years, so as a sunk cost for the taxpayer of New Zealand, it is a massive problem.

Let’s be clear, though: asking people to pay, even if it’s through some payment scheme for some of their own managed isolation, does not prevent New Zealanders returning to this country. As long as they are open and they are able to come in and they are required to comply—not a problem. The problem comes when it comes to paying for it, and our view is that the individuals, the families, should be paying more of a contribution to those very large costs. I say again: $479 million allocated till 31 December—annualise it, and it’s approaching a billion dollars. This is not a small cost and is should be more widely shared.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I stand to commend the bill to the House, to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this piece of legislation forward, and can I also note the pretty widespread support across the House for the legislation itself.

Much of the debate from the Opposition so far hasn’t actually been focused on the legislation itself but on the regulations that the Minister has foreshadowed in the speech, which would set out the details of the charging regime, who it would apply to, what the amounts would be, and that kind of thing. So I just want to take a moment to respond to some of those comments, because what they reveal is that the Opposition’s position on this issue is totally shambolic, all over the place, and completely disorganised.

I sat on the Epidemic Response Committee for a period of time, where, at every twist and turn of the Government’s response to COVID-19, we had a National Party which was arguing, effectively, to loosen the borders and to loosen the controls that this Government so effectively put in place to beat back COVID-19. We had leaders of that party—I can’t remember which one, because there have been so many—arguing at different times that we should be opening up to China and other countries during our highly successful lockdown period. And now, in the debate about our border controls, we have them complaining about the fact that the Government is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in quarantine control to keep New Zealanders safe and, at the same time, arguing that we’re being too soft, but, at the same time, in the speech we’ve just heard from Mr Brownlee, arguing that we should have a looser and more generous regime for business travellers, for example.

What is clear to any New Zealanders listening to this debate is that the National Party’s position on this issue is totally confused, totally shambolic, and totally disorganised, just as their party in general is at the moment, and that it is this side of the House, this Government, and the Labour Party, which I represent, which can be trusted to keep New Zealanders safe as we rebuild and recover from COVID-19. I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Ah—“shambolic” and “disorganised” says the member of the Government who is passing legislation in the dying days of their Government, knowing that this has been coming for months and months and months. The only reason we’re here is because the National Party put out a really solid, good argument for a number of weeks—possibly months now, even—saying that, actually, it’s fair and reasonable to expect people to pay some of the costs of their managed isolation. It pushed this Government—well, firstly, into a chaotic shambles. We had one side of the Government saying, “Oh, we need to charge everybody the full amount.”—Winston Peters—and we had the Greens over here saying, “Oh no, we can’t charge anyone; it has to be completely free.”

So don’t lecture us about “shambolic” and “disorganised” when the three parties across the House can’t even get their stuff together to sit down, sort themselves out, and come to a position on this that they can all agree on. This bill is an acknowledgment of the fact that they can’t do that, because all it does, as has been mentioned by a few people, is just set out a framework; it doesn’t go into any detail. They can’t go into any detail because they know if they do that they’re going to have a huge tiff on their hands between the guys over here and the guys over here who couldn’t, by the way, even sit together let alone come to an agreement on this bill. That’s “shambolic” and “disorganised”, I would put to you.

Now, I’d also put to you the fact that Michael Wood can’t get his head around the fact that all that Gerry Brownlee was saying was that, in fact, the proposals that this Government have put forward—not in this bill, but in their press releases and what the Prime Minister has said about who gets charged and who doesn’t get charged—are, in fact, shambolic and disorganised, because it’s unfair to say to some people “You have to pay.” and other people “You don’t have to pay.” If we’re going to put in a regime, it has to be well-thought-through, not shambolic and disorganised like the bits and pieces we’ve heard from this Government in their bits and pieces of press releases.

I want just to go back to the previous speaker, Megan Woods. You have come to expect from this Minister of Energy and Resources a general misunderstanding of the issues, and today—a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of what I, in fact, said. I was very clear in my first reading speech that we cannot continue to cover the cost of what will, if you extrapolate it out, be a billion dollars a year in bringing people home. I never at any stage said that we shouldn’t be quarantining people—as much as she’d like to believe that and go and have a press release about it; I was saying we cannot continue to meet that cost. It is huge. It is ballooning. As Gerry Brownlee said, we don’t know how long this is going to go on for.

It is reasonable to expect, like the rest of us, how we’ve all had some kind of cost that we’ve had to bear in this, whether it’s people who’ve lost their businesses, lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, had to take out huge loans, or had to spend their retirement savings to prop up their business—everybody in this country has paid. Is it fair? No, it’s not fair. Grant Robertson made that very clear—this is not about fairness—when he said very early on in COVID it’s not about fairness, unfortunately. This whole thing is very unfair. But the practical reality is we cannot continue to spend a billion dollars a year. We have to put in place something that is as fair as we can get it to recover some of those costs, and that’s what this bill does, and which is why we’ll be supporting it.

I would also like to point out that the Minister in her first and second reading speeches glossed very quickly over the section 11 changes to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, which will be interesting. I’m looking forward to having her in the chair when we delve into these a bit. She said in her second reading speech that—clause 7(2) says, “Replace section 11(1)(a)(viii) with:”. In fact, that is already in the bill. There’s only one new word—well, there’s two new words: people must report for “and undergo”, because I guess there was a problem with people reporting for but not wanting to undergo a test. It also includes “of any kind”. So, previously, I guess, there was one type of test; now they’ve included any kind of test. So we’re going to delve into that a bit more. What does that mean? She didn’t mention any of that in her speech; she just glossed over the top of it.

And then the other part of section 11, which will just be interesting to go into—again, there was no detail given to us by this Minister about people having to register potentially for a quarantine place before they come into New Zealand. But new section 11(1)(a)(x), set out in clause 7(3), says here, “satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand from a place outside New Zealand, which may include [having to preregister].” But what else could that mean? Could that mean having a test before you come in? Does it mean being vaccinated before you come in? It’s very broad: “satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand”. It’ll be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about those. There was no detail given in her speech. I’d be keen to know what those things mean, as I’m sure many New Zealanders would.

In the final couple of minutes—I won’t go on too long—I want to just remind the House that if you extrapolate this out, it’s a billion dollars, all of the cost of bringing people home. All this Government have told us that they would like to do is cost recovery of around about somewhere in the realm of $8 million. It is—I think that someone said—2 percent. It’s a drop in the bucket. The cost of administering the scheme alone—who’s exempt, who’s not, how much do you charge, when do you charge, cost recovery, and all those bits and pieces—would suck up most of that. We have to have a regime in place that is seriously recuperating the costs of managed isolation and quarantine in New Zealand. It’s the right thing to do, it’s a practical thing to do, and I commend the bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise to offer New Zealand First’s continued support for this bill, and, like the other parties in the House—or the vast majority—acknowledge the framework that it delivers or brings to cover some costs of the managed isolation or quarantine facilities. This is quite a complex space. It is the right of New Zealanders to return, it is a right of citizenship, and it is a very complex issue with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications.

But New Zealand First are on the record as hoping that this would go somewhat further in terms of cost recovery for the New Zealand taxpayer. Those of us that are here and paying tax are up for a significant bill up against the backdrop of significant Government borrowing in this COVID response, and an economic downturn, so we are clearly on the record as wanting this to go a bit further in terms of the cost recovery. But we do acknowledge that those returning and seeking only to return for a short term, or those undertaking short overseas trips, knowing what the rules are before they leave, and the terms of engagement, and that being fully factored in to the decision-making process, that that particular set of circumstances is covered here, and appropriately so.

So New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In my first reading speech, I talked about the risks inherent in hasty legislation being passed and the lack of a select committee process, and I note already we’re not through the second reading and we now have a Government Supplementary Order Paper on the Table that has made minor amendments to the bill. My question, really, is the degree to which further amendments might be needed, either before the bill is passed or, more concerning, after it.

I also expressed concern at the lack of rigour around its preparation, and I’ve now had an opportunity to review the departmental disclosure statement, and those concerns, actually, rather than be alleviated, they were concern. When we look at the regulatory impact analysis—well, actually, we can’t, because there wasn’t one. There were no regulatory impact statements provided to inform policy decisions that led to the bill. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this bill? The answer is no. For the policy to be given effect by the bill, are the potential cost-benefits likely to be impacted by the level of compliance or non-compliance? The answer, obviously, is yes. If people don’t pay their bills, there will be an impact. The question then is to what extent will the policy objective be undermined if people don’t meet their obligations. The answer to that question is: that depends, and it depends (a) on how much they’re charged and (b) how much non-payment is made.

Well, the answer to the question is almost certain to be: not very much. Because, as my colleague Erica Stanford has just pointed out, we are approaching a billion dollars of cost and this bill seeks to recoup about $10 million of that cost.

Erica Stanford: Chicken feed.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is chicken feed; absolutely, Ms Stanford. I was fascinated to note the comments from Mark Patterson of the New Zealand First Party, whose party actually supported a more comprehensive charging regime. Well, I say to Mr Patterson: join the National Party—no, sorry, I’ll rephrase.

Erica Stanford: He already did that.

Dan Bidois: It didn’t work out well.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah, that’s right. We’ve been there. Join with the National Party in supporting amendments in the name of Gerry Brownlee that will do just that. I noticed that the New Zealand First Party has been very diligent in unhooking itself from the coalition over the last few months. It wants to portray itself as separate from and different to the Labour Party and the Government. Well, this is a really good opportunity, Mr Patterson, because this is actually what the New Zealand taxpayer wants. They want a more comprehensive charging regime, and the Government isn’t giving them one. The member’s party is part of the Government in coalition; so this is an excellent opportunity to both do the right thing and create the very separation that his leader desires.

I want just to touch again on the question of the section 11 powers that are being amended by this bill, because I do want to express further concern at what—and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to have a look at the departmental disclosure statement, because, clearly, the Government has had some advice that either the section 70 powers under the Health Act or the section 11 powers that we’ve already passed and that we’re now amending and tinkering with are not sufficient to require a person to undergo a medical examination or test, and to provide that an order might be required to satisfy that criteria. I don’t agree with that; I’m quite comfortable that not only section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act provides that, section 70 of the Health Act also did, and that there was no need for the hasty passage of certain sections of the Act that we’re now amending again. But we don’t know what that advice was; we haven’t seen the advice, because the Government hasn’t released it, and that’s consistent with a pattern that has been right the way through the COVID response, from the Attorney-General, from the Minister of Health, and now from the Minister of Housing, which is, effectively, “Trust us; we know what we’re doing. We’re basing this on advice but we’re not going to disclose it.” And, once again, this most open and transparent Government is anything but.

So I maintain the concerns that I expressed in the first reading. I am worried that we’re already getting to the point where we’re making amendments to a bill that hasn’t been embarked on with sufficient scrutiny, and I worry that, when it is passed, we’ll be back here—obviously not in this term of Parliament, but at the earliest opportunity. When the National Party leads Government, actually we’ll probably dispense with it altogether and do what was necessary, which was to actually change, if needed, the Health Act, because that Health Act has endured. It was there to prescribe for what needed to be done in the event that there was a public health emergency or pandemic outbreak. Section 70 was, in my view, sufficiently robust to be able to provide for that, and, if it wasn’t, amend section 70. But we’ll have that opportunity to do that in October and November, and I look forward to it.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill, and, I think, to bring it back to what this bill is about, it is a public health response. What we’ve all experienced and what we’ve all learnt over the COVID crisis is that we do have to come together and take care of all of us, or else none of us will be safe from this virus and none of us will come out of this as strong and well as we would hope.

Also, to bring it back to the human stories, the Green Party has been proud to stand with our Kiwi whānau overseas who do wish to come home and live now in the face of this crisis, with their circumstances changing every day, with the stress of job losses, with the stress of visa losses, with immense anxiety of this virus itself and even just the logistical preparations to come home, and then they are then faced with the possibility of a $3,000 shock, an extra charge, per person, to even enter the country. What we’ve heard from people overseas are stories of families with multiple children, families who had thought at first that they would stay because they had employment elsewhere, and they might have faced an uncertain future if they’d moved back, but then they’ve lost their visas and now are in an extremely anxiety-riddled situation and they are faced with delaying their homecoming in a situation where COVID is rampant and their very health and safety is at stake. We weren’t willing to leave them stranded.

So this bill does put forward a framework for cost recovery, but it also, as the Minister has outlined, in regulations will exempt all Kiwis who were overseas at the time that the pandemic hit and wish to come home to live. It is a fundamental right of citizenship to be able to live in the country of your nationality, and we weren’t willing to put a price tag on a fundamental right. We don’t do that with any other rights. We don’t put up our fundamental rights for sale to the highest bidder and we won’t do that with this.

It does, however, strike a balance, as we’ll introduce in regulations, in that if anyone leaves New Zealand now, after the payment regime and after the quarantine regime has been made clear to them, and is coming back in, they will be expected to build the cost of their travel, whether it’s for business or tourism, into their trip. If Kiwis are coming home for tourism purposes, for a short visit, they will be expected to build the costs into their travels, but others will be exempt and there will be room for both a payment plan for those who need it and for compassionate exemptions, and that may mean people who are coming home for funerals, to take care of very sick relatives, or even for the birth of a child. The circumstances will be varied, so we won’t specify them, but there will be a compassionate exemption built into this as well.

We do think that that’s the right balance. We do think that fundamental rights will be upheld in this regime, and that it will reflect our overall COVID response as a Government, which was focused on science, on a public health response that is taking care of everyone, and one that is compassionate. So I do commend the bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, if anything demonstrates the shambolic nature of this Government, it is this debate that we’ve got today, because just before, we had a member of the New Zealand First Party stand up and say, “Actually, we would like all people coming into New Zealand to be charged.” Now what we’ve heard from the member Golriz Ghahraman is “Actually, no, we wouldn’t like anybody charged. It’s their God-given right to return to New Zealand under a free-of-charge nature.” And here we have, in the middle of all of that, the Labour Party. They’ve had to manage the shambolic nature of that, and that is why we’ve got the bill that we have here today and we’re discussing it in its second reading.

Now, normally, in second reading, we’re discussing the outcome of the select committee and the submissions that were received in select committee and what changes were made as part of that process. Now, let me discuss this select committee report. There were zero submissions in that select committee report. We heard zero people in New Zealand and the impact that this legislation will have on them. I do raise that because this again outlines the shambolic nature of this Government. We are now in second reading. We should be discussing, in fact, the select committee process and the submissions that came from that to help inform the legislation and strengthen that; instead, we are here in urgency discussing this legislation and the shambolic nature of that, as we have outlined.

So, as I said in my first reading speech, this is an important topic for New Zealanders, both those living in New Zealand but also the one million New Zealanders living overseas. Of course, we’ve all had correspondence from New Zealanders home and abroad, and to and fro, whether you’re for it or against it. But what it comes down to is simple economics. We know that every person that comes home into New Zealand gets managed isolation for two weeks. They get put up in a four- or five-star hotel, three meals a day. They get catered for for all of their various dietary requirements. If you’re gluten free, they’ll give you gluten-free meals. You get Sky access. You get a change of your bed sheets every day. You get COVID tests, all inclusive. And that adds up to the taxpayer costs of about $5,700 per person.

As was outlined by Gerry Brownlee, that cost has skyrocketed. Already we’ve spent just under $200 million and the tune of just under $500 million between now and the end of this year. So that cost is going to skyrocket. If you think we’re going to be in this position for another year, that will add up to about a billion dollars of taxpayer funding for managed isolation. What we have said all along is that we actually think that if you’re coming home to New Zealand, you should bear the brunt of that cost and help recover that cost, because no matter how long you’ve stayed overseas—and I speak from experience, having lived overseas for seven years, having paid tax overseas, having not contributed to the tax take in New Zealand, and I think it’s actually very fair. I think most New Zealanders would agree: if you’re overseas and you come home, you should bear the burden of that cost instead of the New Zealand taxpayer, because that right now is what is being burdened.

The previous speaker, Golriz Ghahraman, spoke about the right to come home and the right to access your country—of course that right is intact. All we’re saying is that if you want to come home, you bear some of that cost, that burden. So I don’t think that, actually, your average New Zealander disagrees with that approach. I think that it is fair and reasonable to assume that if the taxpayer of New Zealand is having to bear the burden of that cost—it is a free and fair decision to come back at any time; you should bear that cost and help bear that cost for the New Zealand taxpayer.

My colleague was discussing, she and Simeon Brown, that, actually, this bill that we’re discussing has been watered down a lot. It is a lot about platitudes and being able to go out there and say, “Yes, we’ve made action on this.” But if you look at the numbers, you see loud and clear: the only cost that is going to be returned to the taxpayer from this legislation is miniscule. It’s $10 million. So here we have a bill that will cost the taxpayer, on average, a billion dollars a year, and we’ve got this bill that we’re discussing that helps recover $10 million of that cost.

Simeon Brown: One percent.

DAN BIDOIS: One percent, as my colleague Simeon Brown says. So all we can deduce from this legislation is that it doesn’t make a big impact to the difference of the cost; this is the Government’s way of shoring up their offshore votes for the election.

Hon Member: That’s right.

DAN BIDOIS: Right? To say to people, if you’re in London—it’s to shore up the London vote. If you want to come home, don’t worry; we’ll get you all these exceptions, all these exemptions. You won’t have to pay—you won’t have to pay the burden; it’ll be New Zealand taxpayers that will be paying the burden of this cost.

Simeon Brown: They’re playing politics with COVID-19.

DAN BIDOIS: They’re playing politics, as my colleague Simeon Brown has said, with COVID-19.

So I think it’s a shame—a real shame—that in the second reading I cannot stand before this House and talk about some of the submissions that have come before and talk about the changes that came through the select committee process, because all we know is that there was zero submissions to the select committee process and that we’ve heard from zero—zero—people as part of that.

I look forward to the committee as a whole House. We looked to discuss the changes that National has proposed, and we hope that the New Zealand First Party, because they broadly want to see a strengthening of this at the border, consider and vote accordingly, because I think the New Zealand taxpayer deserves to have as much cost recovered, as part of this process, to protect New Zealanders but also to protect future New Zealanders, because, unfortunately, the cost of this burden will bear the brunt on the future taxpayers of New Zealand, not the current and not the ones overseas in London that want to come back and retire in New Zealand; they will be borne out of the future New Zealanders that, unfortunately, will be paying through increased taxes and increased rates going forward.

We will support this bill at this stage, of course, but we look forward to discussing and debating at later stages how to strengthen this bill. We commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Thank you, Mr Speaker. After having to endure eight minutes of the last speech, just one suggestion for that member: I’d be more worried about the voters of the North Shore, if I were him, than the voters of the Northern Hemisphere—just a wee piece of advice for the member.

I’d like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Megan Woods for navigating this piece of legislation through the House, because it does set up a framework for charging for those isolation facilities in New Zealand to keep New Zealand’s borders safe. There is a non-negotiable in that: anyone who comes into New Zealand will have to go into isolation for 14 days to make sure that we keep people on the other side of those fences safe, as the Government has put us in this position.

There are some situations, though, where there is some flexibility for compassion for people who can come back into the country. We’ve heard about instances where people might travel overseas to be tourists, and, of course, if they come back, then they should be forced to pay, via this piece of legislation, to cover their costs. But there will be some situations where people may have to be forced to travel for family circumstances, where there should be, and will be, compassion.

So I would like to thank the member, and for those who’ve worked on this bill, to make sure there is that release valve, because, unfortunately, people will be forced to travel either to see or look after loved ones, and then come back after this piece of legislation is passed. And, again, I think that is another way that our Government is showing compassion during very difficult times, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Agnes Loheni—five minutes.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this contribution, we’ve heard in the House again about fairness. It is really rich for the Government members to come in on this bill and talk about being fair and about fundamental rights of New Zealanders wanting to return. Actually, New Zealanders overseas who wanted to return had plenty of time—they’ve had plenty of time to get back before the border restrictions began, and also there were repatriation flights put on as well that were organised by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So it’s actually rich for the Government members to say that we should be fair to those New Zealanders coming back in, when, as New Zealanders, we actually expected that the border quarantine facilities were going to be well managed to keep us safe—the New Zealanders who did their bit, who made those sacrifices. As we know, there are significant job losses that we are facing, significant debt, businesses collapsing. New Zealanders here made those sacrifices and so it is actually fair—they are asking for it to be fair and actually that they do not have to carry the burden of the cost for those New Zealanders who wish to return.

There are absolutely no fundamental rights that are being impinged upon here. We are not stopping them from coming back into the country. There are always costs to travel and having to return to a country, and we are not impinging on those fundamental rights, but New Zealanders are asking that we here, our families—and, actually, the future, because we know the debt that we are currently facing—are not being burdened with this extra debt. As we know, it’s been very clear and noted today in the House, it is about $5,700 per stay for a person to be in two weeks of managed isolation, which, as we’ve heard, is a billion dollars—a billion dollars annualised—and this Government only wants to recover about a fraction of that.

Simeon Brown: One percent.

AGNES LOHENI: One percent. How is that fair? How is that fair to the families who are struggling right now to just put some food on the table? They’re worried about their job security. They’re worried about the ability to pay rent. They’re going to have to pay extra in petrol costs—particularly for those families on the margins, that extra in petrol costs, that extra in rent a week, is adding up. And here they are; they’re given a Government who wants to be compassionate to New Zealanders who return—we’re not stopping them from returning. They are absolutely entitled to return. What they want is some fairness in that they are not having to shoulder the costs of them being here in isolation. They’re in good accommodation. They’ve been fed well, my understanding is. There are security costs to that. There are also the health costs in managing those facilities and making sure that people are being tested.

At the end of the day, we want every single person that comes back into our country—whether they are a New Zealander returning or not a New Zealander returning, every single person coming back into the country places a risk on us here, and we want to make sure that those facilities are well managed. Clearly, it’s been a bit shambolic there from the Government as this started, but, actually, we think also that New Zealanders should be paying the cost of that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have family overseas in the Netherlands, where they now have hundreds of new cases of community spread come up again, and that is in sharp contrast to, of course, our coordinated and orderly regime that we have here in New Zealand to stay on top of this virus. But the Opposition arguments all seem to be centred around it being too expensive to keep this managed isolation and quarantine, and I do wonder if there have been discussions by the Opposition to actually getting rid of it. We have heard a lot about the cost, and they also have mentioned that they cannot continue to cover the cost of this managed isolation and of the quarantine. So I do wonder if they have plans to no longer keeping New Zealanders safe. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well, that was quite extraordinary. I can’t quite join those dots somehow—no one on this side is calling for not having quarantine; not at all. We understand that we need quarantine—absolutely need to get it right.

Hon Member: Needed something to say.

STUART SMITH: Well, absolutely, and unfortunately they haven’t got it right yet—they haven’t got it right yet.

Matt Doocey: Government bill and she had to make her speech up.

STUART SMITH: Yeah, ha! Well, exactly. We heard from my colleague Michael Woodhouse about the shortcomings in the process around drafting this bill—in fact that goes for a lot of stuff that the Government has brought up.

We heard, actually, last week, I think it was, Minister O’Connor in response to a question from my colleague Lawrence Yule about Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers and whether RSE workers returning to New Zealand, or coming into New Zealand, would be faced with the cost of quarantine, and he said that they wouldn’t have to worry about it. What does that mean? What does that mean? Does that mean they don’t have to do quarantine? Well, I would argue that probably they don’t if they’re coming from a country with no COVID. But we’ve got a name for that, it’s called “a bubble.” Actually, there’s a lot of people calling for a bubble now with Rarotonga, and quite justifiably so. Why aren’t they doing that? You have to wonder. The only conclusion that I can come to is that fear is the only thing they’ve got to run their election campaign on.

They’ve got nothing. They’ve failed to deliver on every single thing. You know, housing’s worse, child poverty’s worse, everybody’s got less money to spend. It’s all worse as a result of them. It’s quite a pity—it’s a great pity. One example is in the immigration area, they passed a bill under undue haste to allow the Minister to deal with a lot of immigration issues—took him two months to do anything, and they still haven’t done much with that bill. A lot of people are experiencing significant issues because of that. So they can’t deliver, we know that.

But I think one of the things that struck me through all of this—and we talked about compassion, that was one of the points made on the other side. I think there is absolutely no doubt that the Prime Minister does compassion incredibly well; so well, in fact, I’m reminded of a quote from the American author E B White, and he says, “[Her] words span rivers and mountains, but [her] thoughts are still only six inches long.” I think that sums it up—that absolutely sums it up: sums up the Prime Minister and sums up this Government. With that, I’ll leave that and commend the bill to the House, with reservations.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it’s first important to acknowledge that managed isolation is our number one defence protecting New Zealanders from COVID-19. I think, to date, the Government has paid the cost of that because of the importance of that to our country, but what we need is a fair and balanced approach. Just listening to the arguments on the other side, what I see absolutely reflects a lack of compassion. When we think about those who are returning to New Zealand, they are a very, very diverse group. I think of many people that have been overseas, established lives, had rental properties, businesses, homes, and what they’re having to do now is up-sticks everything and return to New Zealand, and the costs they’re facing are significant.

We need a framework that allows us to take that into account. We need a framework that allows us to take into account the fact that many people are returning temporarily, but they’re returning for the deaths of loved ones—either to be with them for a period beforehand, but also for funerals. We need to take into account the fact that many New Zealanders need to be having some compassion in that respect. However, there are also others who will be going overseas for business purposes or just to visit friends and family in future, and also the framework needs to make sure that they pay their share of the costs. So this is an important bill that creates a framework where we can decide and work out how we pay that fair share. I commend this bill to the House.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 117, Noes 2.

In Committee

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): 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 appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair, Megan Woods. The first is in respect of her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 566, and I note that clause 9, which inserts new section 33A, inserts further subsection (4), which reads, “Any regulations made under this section may not be held invalid just because they confer a discretion, or allow any matter to be determined, by any person whether or not there are prescribed criteria.” I’m a little confused by the Government’s intention in respect of that addition, and I would appreciate—the committee would appreciate, I think—just an elucidation into why that was necessary and what that was intended to do.

The second question is—with apologies to the Minister if she touched on this in her second reading speech, but she mentioned this in her first reading speech, and that was in respect of the intention of the regulations to provide for a compassionate exemption for Māori returning to attend a tangi and to acknowledge the special relationship through the Treaty that Māori have. I support that entirely; I have no question with that, but I am interested in whether or not it’s the Government’s intention to pass a regulation that is more broad than that and actually provides for a compassionate exemption for all New Zealanders who suffer a bereavement and are required to return home to be with their loved ones, or whether there will actually be some kind of distinction made on the basis of iwi affiliation. So there are just two questions to kick off.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the member’s first question about the SOP, clause 9, it is just there to be consistent with section 17 of the principal Act re the section 11 orders. So that’s the purpose of that amendment. In respect to the second question that the member posed around the reference I made in my first reading speech around the importance of making sure that Māori are not disproportionately affected and that we are not breaching our Treaty of Waitangi obligations, this will be in the context of a broader exemptions and waiver regime that will allow compassionate waiving and exemption from fees for all New Zealanders returning on compassionate grounds, whether that be for funeral or for tangihanga or whether it be for a very ill or dying relative. It won’t be separate provisions; it will be under a broader set of provisions around the ability to waive, but part of what we did have to do in checking the legality of the regime that we were setting up was make sure we were consistent with Treaty of Waitangi obligations.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for those answers. In respect of the first one, it’s pretty quick to come back with an answer to that question, but I’m afraid I’m none the wiser about the addition of subsection (4) into section 33A, so if there is time in the committee of the whole House, perhaps we could get a slightly fuller explanation of regulations that are made that won’t be held invalid because of a certain thing that might have occurred.

The answer to the second question in respect of bereavement, that’s great. It does raise the question—and I apologise if this has been addressed—of whether or not this bill has gone through a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 6 vet and what the outcome of that vet was.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to that question in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, yes it has, and it is seen as consistent with the Act.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Very good—thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I indicated that I would ask these questions in my second reading speech. I’m just keen to get some answers from the Minister Dr Megan Woods about the changes to section 11, in clause 7, just to get a little bit more detail around those changes, what they were there for—I’m just genuinely interested.

Section 11(1)(a)(xiii) is now having a couple of insertions of new words: “report for and undergo a medical examination”—I’m keen to know why we’ve included the word “undergo”, and what were the problems that we were encountering that have meant that we need to now have that extra word inserted in there. Secondly, in that same sentence, “testing of any kind,”—that’s been inserted as well—that’s brand new. So I’m keen to know why that’s being inserted and what that means.

At this stage, the only type of testing that we have, obviously, is the one we’ve heard about, which is the very invasive one that goes down your nose. But is she intending to have other types of testing done, and does that include blood tests? I’m just interested in why that’s been included in there. That’s the first part of my question.

The second part of that question is the other amendment to section 11, and I mentioned this in my second reading speech as well. It says that to “satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand”, and then it gives us an example, “which may include being registered to enter” a quarantine facility in New Zealand. I understand that. In terms of the places, you’ve made that really clear in your speech. But that’s just an example—“which may include”—so what else do you think that might include? Are we, here in this part, talking about potentially testing people before they come home or vaccinating people before they come home?

I’m just keen to explore what else could be included in that section, because it only gives that one example. It’s brand new and it says “any specified criteria”, so I’m keen to know what other examples the Minister might be thinking of when we read those words “any specified criteria”. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 563 and 564 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, and in particular commend the amendment to clause 8 being prescribed by SOP 564. We’re in an interesting situation at the moment where we have the two main parties in Parliament supporting the bill the bill and the intention of legislation broadly, but disagreeing on the extent of the charging regime.

We’re also some six weeks or so away from a general election that will determine who gets to give effect to the legislation we are passing, and what Mr Brownlee’s SOP 564 does is provide for, but not require, a broader range of charges to be laid, including that those people who intend to reside in New Zealand for 90 days or more are not exempt from the charging regime. That doesn’t bind this Government to do that under regulation if it has the privilege after 19 September of doing it. But the failure to pass his SOP would constrain a National-led Government in delivering its intended charging regime, and so what Mr Brownlee’s SOP is doing is avoiding the need for us to come back to Parliament and make amendments under primary legislation should it be the next Government’s wish—and I can tell you that it is the Government’s wish that a more comprehensive regime is put in place.

I think SOP 563 is also something of a belt and braces amendment that will enable a future Government to provide for a more comprehensive charging regime. And, therefore, if the Government is committed to the principle of flexibility in primary legislation and is nimble in writing regulations that do give effect to whoever is in Government in three months’ time, then it would, I think, behove the Minister to think carefully about whether or not this is an appropriate amendment to make to the bill. It doesn’t bind her to do something she doesn’t want to do if she has that privilege in a couple of months’ time. But it certainly means that the House will not need to spend precious time.

We are already a week behind the legislative programme this year due to COVID, and so it will enable a future Government to be able to do that should it wish. And I would add, actually, that I shouldn’t rule out the possibility that, on reflection, a Labour-led Government might also want to be a little more assertive in its charging regime because it’s certainly been recently mousy in its approach so far. When we look at $10 million as opposed to a billion dollars, I’m confident they won’t have that choice. But should they do, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that they should be a little more bold in providing for greater charging regime than they’re currently committing to.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just keen to explore with the Minister—those questions I asked before, it would be great if they could be answered, but I’m also keen to explore whether or not the Minister has had any advice, because we haven’t seen any detail, about the cost of recovery and the cost of administering this framework. The reason that I’m asking that is because we’ve had an indication from the Labour Party about the kinds of exemptions and the kind of regime that they want to put in place, and we understand that that may recover up to $10 million. Obviously, we know that the total cost of this could blow out to over a billion dollars next year alone, not including this year, but what I’m keen to explore is what advice this Minister has had on the cost of running the regime, of figuring out who’s exempt, doing those individual exemptions, the cost of recovery of money that’s unpaid, part payments—there seems to be quite a large department of people who are going to be required to put this in place and figure out those exemptions and to then go and collect that money.

So given the very small amount, relatively, of money that is being potentially collected under this Government’s—or the Labour Party’s, at least—suggestion of what we should recover, it’s only a very small proportion of the total, and I’m keen to understand what the figure might be of collecting and imposing this regime so we can see what we’re actually getting, because if it’s going to cost us $5 or $6 million to recoup $5, $6, $7 million, then what is the point in putting this in place?

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Chair, thanks for allowing me to take a call in this committee of the whole House debate. I want to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my colleague Gerry Brownlee’s name, SOP 563. It relates to escapees, and I want to get a clarification from the Minister on whether she’s had any advice on the costs—we’ve had a number, of course, of reported escapees over the last few months, and I want to get an indication from the Minister of the costs of actually going out and getting them back, and what are the costs of actually looking after these escapees, and then whether that cost should be borne on the taxpayer or whether there’s potential to actually charge the escapees for, in fact, breaching their quarantine conditions.

I think, actually, SOP 563 seeks to address that. It seeks to amend the framework that allows for charging where you possibly break your quarantine or managed isolation and you’ve got to actually help recover the cost of that. So I want to get the Minister’s thoughts around any advice that she’s had, her party’s view on that, whether she’s willing to possibly support that SOP. And why not SOP 563? I think the New Zealand public certainly would be of the mind—at least people in Northcote, who I represent—that in fact, if you do escape from a facility, and there’s a huge cost in actually looking after you and taking you back, then, actually, most people out there would say, well, you should bear the cost of those things.

So we’d like to get some clarification from the Minister on SOP 563.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just got a quick question on the charges and the cost recoveries for late payment of the fees. On what basis will that be calculated? It’s not prescribed in here. Are the regulations going to recover it at the market rate? Is it going to be some sort of discount rate? Is it going to cover the debt recovery costs as well? For debt recovery officers or companies that are employed, will those costs be recovered out of the people who are paying late, or does that go on top of the other costs? So just an explanation around that would be helpful, I think. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I raise a point of order under Standing Order 111(2), which relates to relevance in terms of debate. What I ask you to consider is that some of the debate is actually considering the content not of the bill that is before us but of the regulations that have been foreshadowed. It seems to me that that may not actually be relevant to the question that is before the committee. I ask for your consideration and ruling on this.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s entirely up to the presiding officer. We are in urgency and this has not gone through a select committee. I’m going to allow it to the extent that it’s relevant to the bill. They become debating points within the whole debate on this bill. It’s up to the Minister whether she addresses it or not, and other members.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ll respond to some of the questions that have been put. One was around section 11(1)(a)(viii) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act and the amendments that have been made there. They have been made to make it more clear that its meaning is not changing as a result of the amendment, and it makes sure that it also aligns with similar powers in section 70 of the Health Act.

In response to a question that was put by Erica Stanford, the second change in relation to section 11 is to enable and require people to have a booking in a managed isolation or quarantine facility before they arrive in New Zealand. So this is the system that we’ve been talking about for some weeks now where we will be making sure we’re having complete alignment between demand and supply by setting up a system where people will have a place already assigned to them in a managed isolation and quarantine facility before they arrive in New Zealand, and this will be a critical tool that we do to ensure that we are keeping our managed isolation and quarantine facilities just that: managed.

Also, under the Minister of Health’s works order under section 11, they must be satisfied that any limitation on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is justified, and this was a key requirement added to the bill. So this is one of the things that we have to make sure that we’ve got proportionate and justified—limitations on the normal kinds of rights that would be there.

There were also some questions around clause 9. Clause 9 inserts new section 33A(4) and this is the provision which is aimed at preventing cost recovery regulations being overturned just because they allow a decision maker to exercise a discretion or do not set any criteria for exercise of the discretion.

A question was put around whether I’d received any advice around the cost of collection of the fees under the regime that we’re looking at standing up. The answer is yes. The advice that I’ve had to date, and I’ve spoken about this publicly, is that the cost of the regime that we’re standing up in terms of collections will be around $600,000 a year. In terms of the complexity of administering the additional waiver and exemption scheme that will need to sit alongside that, obviously that will be much lower, because this scheme will not be charging those New Zealanders who are returning home permanently. What I’ve also spoken about publicly is the $30 million - odd that it would cost to stand up a scheme more akin to the scheme that the Opposition are talking about, as set against the kind of modelled recoveries of somewhere in the low scenarios of around $125,000, that would be under the scheme that the Opposition are talking about.

Then the member asked me to respond to the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s Supplementary Order Paper in terms of seeking cost recovery from those who abscond from our managed isolation and quarantine facilities. This is an area that I have received advice on, and something that we did explore with officials. There are a couple of components to the answer to this. The cost of policing and the cost of making sure that the police are bringing back escapees, of course, are enforcement activities and are part of the existing Public Service, and hard to separate out, and we’re not anywhere proposing user-pays policing; it’s not something that we see as a way to ensure the security and safety of New Zealanders in any realm, let alone when it comes to making sure we’re keeping COVID out of our country.

What there is is already provision under section 26 of the principal Act, which makes it a criminal offence to escape from a managed isolation or quarantine facility, and that includes a fine of up to $4,000 or six months’ imprisonment, and the advice that to seek further cost recovery because someone had absconded would actually constitute double jeopardy and would not be something that legally could be done.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I just want to go a little bit deeper into amended section 11, set out in clause 7—the second change. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Megan Woods, in her answer made it clear as to what this change is, as set out in new section 11(1)(a)(x): “satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand from a place outside New Zealand,”. Now, in her answer, she made it very clear that that is about making sure that we are managing the amount of people who are coming into New Zealand so we can make sure we have places for them. I totally understand that. It makes absolute sense. I get that. This bit that we’re inserting doesn’t say that. It’s pretty ambiguous. I mean, it gives an example: “which may include being registered to [enter a quarantine facility]”. But I want to know why the Minister just didn’t say that in this change, because it’s actually very wide and very broad. It says, “satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand” and you’re going to have people who say, “Well, what does that mean?”

You’ve given an example: “which may include being registered to enter [a quarantine facility]” and I totally understand that. But the fact is that this section—or this new part of it that’s being inserted—doesn’t do exactly what the Minister said. It’s far broader than that and it seems to be sloppily drafted and would lead people to think that there may be other things—in fact, it does allow other things. It says “satisfy any specified criteria”, which will lead people to think that before you can come home, there will be other things that you have to undertake, whether it’s testing or quarantining or vaccination or whatever it is. I mean, we don’t know because not here. But wouldn’t the Minister not agree that that is very broad, quite sloppy? If that’s not the intent—if her intent is just to make sure we’ve got enough places in New Zealand, as she said, why doesn’t it just say that? Why is it so broad to say “satisfy any specified criteria”? And would she, potentially, look at an amendment that would tighten that up?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Look, I’m happy to answer that. I think the member’s probably answered the question herself in the course of her contribution—that this is a framework piece of legislation for which secondary instruments, regulation, will set specifics. But the critical part of this legislation is making sure it is futureproofed. This is a rapidly evolving global situation. It could in the future include the requirement that someone is vaccinated, for example, if there is access to a vaccine in the future and that is something that the legislation will have the legal framework to allow for.

Erica Stanford: So just to be—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Erica Stanford.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Oh, sorry, Mr Chair. I apologise. Just to be absolutely clear: this legislation in this part lays the potential future groundwork for people to be required to be vaccinated before they enter New Zealand.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I think I’ve answered that quite fully and addressed it—that it would allow the legal instruments if that was a requirement. I’m not saying it will be. I’m saying it does allow the framework. We at this point, obviously, do not know if there will be a vaccine, when there will be a vaccine, or what the efficacy of a vaccine will be or what the evolution of efficacious vaccines around the virus would be. So there does have to be an element that allows for the dynamic situation we’re dealing with, or it could be that we have more medical understanding of the virus and the way in which it operates and there could be ways in which people could be required to isolate before getting on to an aeroplane.

At the moment, the bottom line is everybody has to do 14 days’ managed isolation in a quarantine facility in New Zealand with testing around day three and testing at day 12 showing negative before they are released from a facility. But we want to set up a framework that does allow for the evolving nature of our medical understanding of the virus.

There was also a question that was put to me—while I’m on my feet, I will answer it—around how we will handle late payments under the system, how that will be calibrated, and who they will be recovered from. This, of course, will all be covered off in regulations, and that is the design of the framework that we’re putting up.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 566 in the name of the Hon Dr Megan Woods be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 563 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand National 54.

Noes 64

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 564 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to.

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

Ayes 54

New Zealand National 54.

Noes 64

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

Amendment not 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 117

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 2

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 COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill makes an important contribution to our public health response to COVID19. New Zealand is one of the few countries where we have stopped the spread of COVID-19 in our community. It has now been over 90 days since there was a case of community transmission in New Zealand. We are in a unique position because we went hard and early to eliminate COVID-19, but we must be vigilant. We are continuing to detect cases at our border.

An integral part of our public health response is a requirement that people arriving in the country go into managed isolation or quarantine for at least 14 days. Managed isolation and quarantine helps protect our people’s health and wellbeing and allows our economy and communities to operate without restrictions in place as they are in many other countries when we look around the world. It allows people to safely travel to New Zealand. Since 26 March, over 30,000 people have been through managed isolation and quarantine. Without managed isolation facilities, we would either need stricter border measures or see a return to alert levels 3 or 4.

The proposed charging system seeks to strike the right balance between being fair to arrivals and not preventing New Zealanders from wanting to return home, to come back to the safety of their own home. I think each and every one of us want to know that wherever we are in the world, there will not be impediments for us returning to the safety of Aotearoa New Zealand, our home.

The Government cannot start charging for managed isolation and quarantine before regulations are put in place. I intend to seek approval for the regulations soon so that the charging system can be implemented as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, a bill that sets up a framework for cost recovery of the quarantining system that we have in place. And if we are so lucky to be in Government after 19 September, then we would be using this Act, once it’s passed today, which I’m sure it will be, to implement a regime in which we recover some of the costs of that quarantine regime.

Now, it’s been said before, and I’ll say it again, that it is disappointing that we are doing this under such urgency. It has been known for a number of months that this was coming. The National Party have been indicating for a number of weeks, if not months, that some kind of cost recovery mechanism was going to be required. The figures that are coming through are eye-watering, and I think they’ve certainly exceeded the Government’s expectations. They’ve exceeded the expectations of New Zealanders. And when we extrapolate out what we’re spending at the moment to next year, we are looking at a billion dollars in terms of our quarantining of Kiwis returning home.

The reality in all of this is that that is a cost that we cannot continue to bear. There needs to be some form of regime where we claim some of that back from the people who are returning to New Zealand. It is a position of the National Party that everyone returning to New Zealand, regardless of whether they’re coming to stay for good, coming to visit their mum, or going on a business trip, should all contribute to the cost of quarantine. Of course, there are going to be situations, and that’s why it is an important part of this bill to have an exemption regime. There will be people who are in circumstances where they’re unable to pay. There will be people who are coming back for reasons for which they should not have to pay. This bill lays out a good framework to make regulation, to create classes of people who would be exempt from paying this, and that’s a very good thing in our opinion.

Obviously, the debate on this will come down to what those regulations will be. They’re not in the bill. The detail is not in the bill about who will pay, how much they’ll pay, what kind of recovery there’ll be, how it will be policed, how it will be managed, how you will pay, and can you pay after. None of that is in the bill for now. We can only go on what the Government have said in press releases and said in the media about what they assume they will do. We’ve obviously heard differing opinions from Mr Peters and his party about they’re more on the side that we’re on, which is everyone should be charged. And then we’ve got the Greens on the other side, who don’t believe that anybody should be charged. So I presume that if these guys are back in Government after September 19, it will fall somewhere in the middle.

We’ve had indications that this may only recover a very small part of the overall cost, and we’re looking at it in the range of under $10 million. We heard from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Megan Woods, during the committee of the whole House stage, that the costs of recovery that she’s been told might be incurred are upwards of $600,000. She admitted—or she didn’t bring into account any of the cost recovery of the people who didn’t pay, so there’s a significant amount of cost there as well. Potentially, we will be looking at well over a million dollars in just having this regime in place. So to then recover somewhere between $2 million and $8 million or potentially $10 million—it’s not a lot of cost recovery for a fair amount of cost that we’ll be incurring.

One of the issues with the rush in this bill is that although the Minister said she has seen evidence, the fact is there was no regulatory impact statement for us to see any evidence as to whether or not this would impact the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We will have to, obviously, take her at her word that it doesn’t. But it just highlights the fact that this was done in such a rush in the last couple of days of this Parliament. And given that we’ve known since April that we’re going to be incurring these costs and people would be coming home, there is no excuse for us to be doing this now. We could have done this a number of weeks, if not months, ago. It just shows the lack of attention to detail by this Government that not only are they not on the ball with implementing this regime but also the fact that we didn’t even really understand or comprehend exactly how much this is even costing us. A few months ago, we were talking about $3,000, the $4,000, and now, today, we find out that it’s upwards of $5,500 heading up towards $6,000 per person. So it’s a significant cost that, when extrapolated out to next year, is potentially going to cost this country a billion dollars.

When you look at that in terms of opportunity cost, I mean, we’ve seen just recently, for example, on the news the girl who had cystic fibrosis and the drugs that would save her life—$250 million, I think it was, to fund that for all sufferers in this country. So when you take that into consideration, over the billion dollars that we’re going to be potentially spending next year, it really highlights the opportunity cost of funding other things: hospitals, classrooms, drugs that should be funded by Pharmac.

I want to go back to that statement that I made in my second and first reading speeches where Grant Robertson said himself that this is not actually about fairness. It’s never been about fairness, because we had, right from the start, decisions around who could open, who couldn’t open. And he said this is not about fairness. Well, it would be wonderful if we could afford to bring everyone home and pay for it all. But the fact is that a billion dollars a year is not something that is sustainable, given we don’t know how long this is going to go on for. It is reasonable that we expect New Zealanders who are coming home, whether that’s for 90 days, for a year, for good, for a visit, for a business trip, for a holiday—all of those people—to contribute in some way to the cost of the isolation. They are part of the team. They are part of that team of 6 million, when you include everyone who’s overseas. And when you consider what’s happening in Australia with what’s happening in Victoria and Melbourne with that explosion of cases and you think about the number of New Zealanders that are in just Australia alone who could potentially want to come home to escape what’s going on there—the cost of delivering that service of quarantine and isolation facilities is eye-watering. There’s a huge opportunity cost. It is reasonable and it’s really the only option that we have to recover that cost, not just $10 million dollars of that cost but a significant chunk of that billion dollars that we will be spending next year, and who knows how long for?

This is, as I mentioned, a piece of legislation that the National Party will use, should we be in Government after 19 September, to implement what we have described as the regime that we would want in place. With that being said, I commend the bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. It has fallen to me to take this very short call in support, as this bill will establish the enabling framework that will allow the Government to charge a small subset of those entering the mandatory managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system upon entering into New Zealand.

We know that people are wanting to come home. People are wanting to resume their life, whether that’s travelling out for business or a small holiday, but coming back in and ensuring that that managed isolation and quarantine continues, and this bill is establishing that enabling framework that we absolutely support.

The bill provides the framework that will require prescribed charges for managed isolation and quarantine facilities to be paid by certain people who are required to be, or elect to be, isolated or quarantined at a Government-designated facility unless, of course, they’re exempt or the charges are waived. There is a small caveat, though. New Zealand First has acknowledged that we are in support of this bill. However, in the passage enabling this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, we have invoked our “agree to disagree” provision of the coalition, and I just needed to state that in response. In the view of the leader of New Zealand First, the right honourable Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and in New Zealand First’s view, it would have been preferable for all returnees to be charged partial MIQ costs via IRD in a similar arrangement to the student loan scheme. However, that said, New Zealand First does support the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment bill. I commend it to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill and to deliver some good news to New Zealanders overseas living with all of the anxiety and stress that they’ve let us know, over the past few months, they’re living with, whether it’s unexpected job losses, whether it’s visa losses, or whether it’s the stress of even finding their way home, and at the foreground and the backdrop to all of that is a once-in-a-generation health crisis across the globe that is creeping closer and closer to them as they battle their way home.

The Green Party has said from the start that we stand with them, that we won’t leave New Zealanders overseas stranded if they wish to move home to live, that it is a fundamental right of their citizenship and residency, and that if they are in the situation where they are finding their circumstances have changed and they’re finding that they now do need to move home to live, they won’t be slapped with a shock $3,000 per person fee. We know from their very human stories that have been pouring out—I think all of us across this House have probably been receiving those stories—that these are families with children, that they are New Zealanders who are now in very precarious situations, that they weren’t expecting this fee, and that it’s adding exponentially to their stress. Some of them would not be able to afford to come home, or, at least, as quickly as they would like to, as they try and save desperately for this fee.

Now, leaving them stranded in a situation where that could mean becoming vulnerable to a deadly virus was just something that the Green Party was not willing to do, and we’re so proud to have worked with our Government partner, the Labour Party, to come up with a scheme that the Minister has outlined, where we think fairness is struck. So New Zealanders who wish to move home—back to Aotearoa to live—will not be charged for the public health response of quarantine, and we need to remember that that is the lesson of this pandemic for us.

There have been a few lessons, and I hope that we will hold tight to them. One has been to follow the science, and the other has been to put people first. We know that unless all of us are taken care of in our public health response, none of us will actually be safe and well in facing this virus, and that is something to remember.

We want the quarantine regime to work and we want to apply it for all of us, not just for those who are now in a position of moving back. It’s not a privilege; it is part of our public health response.

I’ve heard members from across the aisle talk about, you know, “This money could be invested in Pharmac or in other types of public health good.”, but this is all the same thing. We all pay for our hospitals and our medicine and all of the things that we need when those of us who are sick need it. We don’t put the cost on the individual who needs it, because we want to live in a nation that takes care of everyone when they need it and where our fundamental rights are upheld when we need them. It’s not a user-pays system, and $3,000 per person is a high fee that would, in fact, leave people stranded. It would leave them stateless for those who have lost their visas.

The other thing that’s been puzzling me has been hearing from members across the aisle talk about how the Green Party doesn’t want anyone to pay, when we’ve been very clear from the start that we do accept that for those who are coming home for short trips, business or tourism, the cost of this will be built into their visit, and that is fair.

Hon Member: Why—why is that fair?

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Those who go overseas from now on and who decide to take on that travel cost now will also pay, and that is fair because it’s not an unexpected fee that has then been slapped on them that will mean that they will be stranded overseas.

But we also accept and acknowledge—and it is incredibly important, and Minister Woods has outlined this as well—that for some, it will mean that even for the temporary visits, they may need to access a payment plan or the compassionate dispensation, and that will include tangi, it may include funerals, it may include other health issues that people may have, or family issues. It is absolutely right that there is a dispensation mechanism, as well, which we will apply.

So, as with our entire Government COVID response, this is about fairness and it’s about compassion, and we are so proud, as the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, to have stood for those values. We do commend the bill to the House.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): That was a good speech from Golriz Ghahraman, and I respect that’s her view, but that’s not what the bill actually says or does. The bill that the Green Party and the rest of the Government—and, in fact, the National Party—are voting for is completely different to the speech she just gave and the speech from Jenny Marcroft and others.

This bill doesn’t contain the current Government’s policy around how they’d like to charge. It sets up a regime that they could put their policy in. It equally sets up a regime in which the National Party could put their policy. In fact, Gerry Brownlee said they’re voting for it because the $3,000-odd charge that the National Party supports could fit within this regime. So when the Green Party says, “We’ve stood up and we’ve protected you and we’re going to make sure that your human rights are protected.”, they’re actually voting for a law that allows the National Party to do whatever it wants if it’s in Government. You’re enabling, actually, what they call “breaches of human rights”.

Most of the debate around this bill has been around the charging regime, but I actually think the more egregious parts of this legislation are the changes to the section 11 orders. Now, half the House—well, just under half the House—voted against the primary legislation, because it felt the section 11 orders and other infringements on people’s human rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act were going too far. It felt some of the warrantless entry powers were going too far. It felt some of the orders that could be made under section 11 were going too far.

Dr Duncan Webb: Conspiracy.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: And now it’s going even further with this particular piece of legislation. It’s not a conspiracy, Duncan Webb. Your own Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, stood there in the chair and said that part of the considerations around this were around the evolving medical situation and what we know around vaccination. Goodness me! The good people in Botany that I represent—many of them have said to me that if there’s a requirement around taking a vaccination that’s rushed through, that hasn’t been looked at properly, that hasn’t gone through the normal checks and balances, they would be concerned about having that forced on them. And yep, sure, other parties say we’re never going to force that type of thing on them, but actually here in clause 7(3) it says, “After section 11(a)(ix), insert: (x) satisfy any specified criteria before entering New Zealand from a place outside New Zealand,”.

The Minister herself said, in response to a question from another member, that that’s one of the very things that is being considered. New Zealanders that want to return home can have Government Ministers, under this law, place restrictions on them wanting to come to their own home. Sure, you say you might not do it, you might not want to do it, it might not be your policy, but a law is being passed that allows that to happen—that is what’s happening, that’s what they’re voting for: these huge powers that are being given to Ministers and bureaucrats under section 11 orders, whereby the Minister gets to determine whether they’re breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or not; it’s not the Parliament. It’s Parliament usually that determines to override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but no—

Dr Duncan Webb: Thank God it’s the last two days!

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Well, Duncan Webb, you call yourself a lawyer. Go and look at what the changes are in clause 6. If you can’t see what’s happening in clause 6, you should hand back your LLB or whatever else you’ve got—oh, you’ve got a doctorate, sorry. He’s a doctor of law—can’t read legislation. So I think that we should be taking very seriously the particular clauses in here which are doing what I believe is going too far in overriding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The other change that’s in here that I think hasn’t been discussed enough in this Chamber is the way in which the section 11 orders are changing with regards to medical examination. See, there are some new words that are being inserted in here. Previously, it just said people had to “report for” a medical examination or testing. Now it goes further and says “report for and undergo” a medical examination. No longer is there the ability to conscientiously object to some sort of medical procedure or medical examination—that ability is being taken away and it can override people’s rights, and it’s absolutely wrong.

I’m also of the view that when it comes to the charging regime, the proposal put forward by the Government will collect very little money in terms of the overall costs of doing so. Why are they even bothering? They’re doing so because this is just before an election and they’ve been embarrassed into doing that by the Opposition. Is the Opposition policy right? No, I’d say it’s not. I think they’re going too far. I think they’re going too far also in saying—and this might be policy they want to implement later on—that if you abscond from isolation, you should be charged for the cost of that. That’s like saying to people who run away from prison that they should pay for the cost of recovering them. It’s actually a public good for the country, and if there’s something that’s determined to be a public good, then we pay for that through our normal taxation.

I’m also of the view that where people—I’m not suggesting people should be leaving managed isolation or they should be trying to get around the restrictions, but the charging regime places financial penalties on people if they are unhappy or don’t want to undertake a medical examination or they don’t want to undertake the testing. There are now coercive mechanisms by way of financial penalties because there will be charges in place if they end up staying in managed isolation longer because they, for some reason, don’t want to undertake the testing regime. That’s going too far. That is a huge overriding of human rights in this country. We’re doing so under legislation where Ministers get to make all of these decisions without the real scrutiny of the Parliament.

These laws go too far. I voted against the primary legislation and I’ll be voting against this amendment bill here too.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, the member who’s just resumed his seat, Jami-Lee Ross, is not a lawyer, and that showed because he clearly didn’t know what the legislation said about vaccinations and testing. But I have to say to the member that there aren’t enough anti-vaxxers in Botany to save him in six weeks’ time. He’s going to have to get a much broader constituency if he wants to still be here in a couple of months, and I know that won’t be the case.

I think this bill is actually a metaphor for the performance of the Government over the last two years and nine months. Let’s start with the Labour Party. This is a bill that is high on grand plans but low on detail. In fact, true to form, as the member who resumed his seat has said, there is very little detail about what we’re actually passing here. What we’re passing is a law that allows the Government to go and do something else of their own volition without returning back to this House, and we’ve had plenty of examples of that.

Then, the New Zealand First Party say that they want it to go further, but they’re going to support it anyway. I don’t know what Jenny Marcroft was thinking about when she said that there was a right within the coalition agreement to object and to disagree with the Labour Party, because they’re not disagreeing with the Labour Party. In fact, they had an opportunity to provide a belts-and-braces amendment to this bill in the support of Gerry Brownlee’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and they didn’t take it—they did not take it. So lots of talk there by New Zealand First, and not a lot of action—that’s been consistent with the last two years and nine months.

I say to the Green members: we know that if they were not in Government, or the supporting Government, they wouldn’t be supporting this bill at all. They have a very strong objection to any charging whatsoever for returning New Zealanders—Golriz Ghahraman, effectively, said that. But because they are in a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, they’re going to roll over once again and support a bill that they would not do if they had the chance. But Ms Ghahraman was very interesting, reinforcing again, I think, this somehow money-grows-on-trees philosophy of the Green Party, because we’re talking about a billion dollars, and the merest smidgen of collection somewhere in the region of $10 million over the same period, and they don’t like that anyway. They’re holding their nose and supporting this bill.

But the reality is that someone has to pay. We are talking not only about those who are coming back for a short period of time but people who have potentially been away from New Zealand for years and years and years and not contributed to the tax base, possibly earning very good money in Australia or the United States or the UK, and when those countries have the sorts of problems that they have, they are seeking a safe haven back in the country of their birth or citizenship. That’s their prerogative as citizens of New Zealand, but it comes at a cost. It’s a cost that, presently under this Government, is going to be borne by the taxpayers who have been here and are going to be burdened with billions and billions of dollars. We believe, and the New Zealand public believe, that it is not unreasonable for people in those circumstances to pay more or to pay something towards the cost of their managed isolation or quarantine—more than this Government is putting in place.

Disappointingly, Mr Ross is not correct: the National Government, when it is returned in a couple of months’ time, won’t be able to do exactly what it needs to do and may need to amend this legislation in order to broaden the regime. So that’s disappointing because the Government had an opportunity to provide the sort of flexibility through Mr Brownlee’s SOPs that would have enabled that to happen.

So we are disappointed that the Government isn’t going to be bolder. It talks in grand, bold statements, but then actually passes pretty mousy legislation with little detail and leaves it to regulations—that’s lazy, in my view. We’ve had months to think about this, and the only reason that we’re actually here under urgency is because of the focus groups and the opinion polls that the Labour Party have seen, and they say, “Oh, actually, 75 percent or more of New Zealand taxpayers who are footing the bill for managed isolation don’t like it, so we’re going to have to look as if we’re doing something.”, and this is that something. So while we support it, it is insipid, it is weak, and it emblematic of this Government.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Look, just a very brief observation. It’s a little pernicious of the member for Botany to start speaking about human rights and the so-called infringements of medical testing. We all know, as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that any limitation that is proportionate and justifiable in a free and democratic society is legitimate and is legal, and when we’ve got a global pandemic which is ravaging nations around us, it’s entirely reasonable, entirely proportionate, and entirely appropriate that we have things like this piece of legislation, including medical testing.

I note section 6 of the bill actually sets out that any regulations made must be only as are appropriate as a justified limit on the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And that’s because in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in section 18(2), every New Zealander, every New Zealand citizen, has a right to be in New Zealand and to return to New Zealand. To have any global charging regime would be an unjustifiable fetter on that freedom, and we welcome home any New Zealand citizen who chooses to return here where we are safe, where we are well looked after, where we are well governed, and where we have a response to COVID-19 which has been timely, comprehensive, and appropriate. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be read a third time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 54; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 1

Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Back in May—if we can remember back in May—the House passed the first COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill. It was an omnibus bill that contained a very wide range of measures designed to enable businesses, local government, and others to more effectively manage the immediate impacts of the response to COVID-19 and to mitigate unnecessary and potentially longer-term impacts on society. It was a bill that largely dealt with administrative matters, as does this bill.

This is the second COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill that I’ve been bringing to the House. It is a smaller bill, mainly administrative in focus, and it amends eight existing Acts of Parliament. The amendments are grouped into four schedules. The first amends the Local Government Act 2002 by extending deadlines relating to the financial reporting that the COVID-19 lockdown has made it difficult—if not, in some cases, impossible—to meet.

Schedule 2 concerns tax legislation. It addresses a number of issues that have arisen related to tax matters in areas including research and development and in-work tax credits. It extends the Inland Revenue commissioner’s powers to vary the time scales by which certain actions have to happen. It also allows remissions of interest on terminal tax for the 2020-21 tax year for provisional taxpayers that have been affected by COVID-19.

Schedule 3 addresses issues that fall within the domain of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. It offers continuity and certainty regarding the levy rates and groups determined by Accident Compensation (Experience Rating) Regulations, and extends reporting time frames for Crown research institutes.

The amendments to the Crown Entities Act, the Public Finance Act, and the State-Owned Enterprises Act are grouped together under Schedule 4. These amendments extend reporting time frames for a wide range of public organisations. It’s become clear that the disruption caused by COVID-19 means that it would be impossible for the usual quality of these reports to be consistently sustained across the public sector, so for this year only, the deadlines have been extended.

None of these provisions are going to grab any headlines. They’re common-sense solutions to the administrative issues that COVID-19 has brought about. But they do need to be in place before we all go our separate ways for the election, as many of the deadlines that are being moved fall before the House next sits. I don’t think these will be particularly controversial. During the committee of the whole House stage, of course, I’ll be happy to answer any questions that may arise. I commend the bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to kick off this debate from this side of the House, and I want to thank the Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins for bringing this bill before us today. As we have heard from the Minister, this bill is an omnibus bill seeking to change eight Acts of Parliament to help make life a little easier for businesses and Government agencies that have struggled through COVID-19. I want to signal to the House today that National will be supporting this bill, and we want to explain exactly why we’re supporting it. Certainly, the purpose of the bill was to support businesses as they struggle through COVID-19, and we want to acknowledge the scale of what has been felt right across New Zealand from businesses large and small, and also Government agencies, after having to deal with lockdown and then the various levels of the alert system, and then now also faced with the challenges where, you know, we don’t have tourism back in New Zealand—and we’ve got deep challenges that we’re facing there.

Some of these changes—in fact, a lot of these changes—are reasonably uncontroversial and will help the businesses that are struggling, and the Minister outlined a number of those changes related to Schedule 1, that deals with the extension of reporting time lines, mainly for Government agencies, but those will be no doubt welcomed. Also in Schedule 2 the changes to enable R & D to be possibly treated as a tax credit and to now allow those tax credits to be applied, and also allowing IRD—I think this will be a really good change, actually—to have the discretion to change the due dates and deadlines to help supporting businesses through that. So this is a reasonably uncontroversial bill.

I do want to raise the issue that I don’t think that this is enough support for the business community. The challenge, just going back to some of the challenges that we face in the next 12 to 18 to 24 months, is extremely large, and Treasury predictions—and no doubt those will be updated as time goes on—indicate that there’ll be deep employment cuts that will be coming, particularly after the wage subsidy comes off later on next month. I like to say that we are in the eye of the storm. We had the first round of challenges and redundancies and business closures immediately post-lockdown and after the alert system went from level 3 to level 2, and now, actually, if you asked a lot of businesses throughout New Zealand, a lot of them are busy. Restaurants, cafes, real estate agents, DIY businesses, wholesale retail operations—they’re actually quite busy. I think it masks the challenges that we’re going to face in the next few years, because once that wage subsidy comes off, we’re going to have about 470,000-odd employees that are affected by that. Businesses will have to make those hard decisions and to lay off staff right across New Zealand. So whilst this bill addresses some of the, kind of, administrative burdens, I would say, that businesses will be facing as a result of COVID-19, this is by far not sufficient to address some of the challenges that these businesses will face in the next few years.

I do want to outline National’s position on what should be done to help address those challenges. One of the things that we’ve got to think about is anything we can do to make it as easy as possible to bring back those unemployed into the workplace, and that’s why we’ve got things that we’ve talked about, which is JobStart, which essentially gives employers the chance to get 10 grand, or $10,000, for hiring an additional staff member. Beyond all the tax and administrative burden, ideas like that, ideas like JobStart, will have a meaningful difference to the lives of small businesses and those that will be directly impacted by COVID-19.

Other things we can look at are around starting a business. There’s going to be a lot—tens and tens of thousands—that will be unemployed: white collar, blue collar, you name it. Now, what can we do to actually give those people an incentive to go out and start businesses and hire people?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to caution the member that you need to relate all that to the bill that’s in front of the House.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll definitely do that right away. So, look, why I raise this is because the changes we’re dealing with in this bill seek to help ease the challenges facing small business and businesses right across New Zealand. I raise this in the context that that is part of the challenge that small businesses face, but it is not in any way going to make a substantial difference. So I raise that in context because, yes, we’re supportive of these administrative changes, yes, these changes will help ease some of the burden that these businesses will face post COVID-19, but we need to be realistic that in the next couple of months, in the next six to 12 months, these businesses will face even greater challenges, and that’s why we need bigger policy ideas and legislation that is going to help those changes.

So we’ll be talking more about those changes throughout this process, but I do want to signal that National is supportive of these changes. We want to help businesses out in any way we can, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That was a very long speech by Mr Bidois, that didn’t really touch on the bill—a nice list of “if I was on the other side of the House”. But the fact of the matter is that what this bill does is really important, and it shows how—what appear to be minor rules throughout the administrative system, in relation to deadlines, tax, and the tasks that our bureaucracy must undertake, in a timely and effective way—important in fact they are. Of course they’ve all been disrupted. Of course we need to make sure that the important functions of reporting are still discharged in a timely way, but one which takes into account all of the disruption that has been caused. That’s simply what this bill does. It’s an administrative response to the disruption that’s been caused. It’s highly effective. Of course it’s going to be supported. I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and make a contribution to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Bill (No 2). National are happy to support this bill because, ultimately, we want to do all we can to support businesses who have faced severe hardship due to the impacts of COVID-19. There was no way that businesses could have prepared themselves better for the impacts and the aftermath of what’s happened. Many businesses were scrambling, and I know that many members in this House were dealing with a number of queries and supporting not only workers but business people who were just trying to understand what kind of support they got. And, of course, businesses, business owners, were very grateful also that they had access to the wage subsidy, but at the end of the day the wage subsidy wasn’t going to be able to support them in terms of some of the operational and fixed costs that they had that were still coming in even under lockdown, a time when they were having zero sales and zero revenue. I can speak personally on that. I have a small business, and it is a tough time, but I definitely appreciate that there was a wage subsidy to help mitigate that.

It is unfortunate that it’s taken so long, because, of course, businesses were calling out for help a lot earlier, and, actually, what would have been very, very handy was for many of our small businesses to get that cash injection in, and it’s unfortunate that the Government didn’t take on a scheme that we suggested, which is the GST refund scheme, which would have been based on the GST for the previous six months, up to 1 January. That would have been a fantastic way to support businesses—it was tied to the size of the business—to get some cash into their hands and help them through this time. But, ultimately, we do support the changes that will come under this omnibus bill, and we do welcome the extension of these statutory deadlines for the financial and auditing reporting by the Government agencies. It will relieve some pressure. It’s not, you know, support in terms of cash, but it relieves some of the pressure on businesses at this time.

We also welcome the amendments to the ACC regulations so that existing base levy rates will continue to apply next year and provide a bit more certainty to users. Businesses do want as much certainty as possible as they navigate in the coming weeks and months. Also, particularly, they want some certainty because they also understand that they will have to navigate the state of their businesses once the wage subsidy ends on 1 September. And I know that many businesses are mindful of what will happen and whether they can sustain their businesses through that period.

In terms of some of the changes, the National Party did suggest that the minimum wage increase be delayed for some period just to help relieve some of the pressure on small businesses, but, unfortunately, that did not happen. But we do welcome the amendments to the tax legislation which supports the R & D loan scheme and some changes around Inland Revenue, around dates and deadlines, to support businesses. And I do know that some business people I have met in recent times—actually, just in the last couple of weeks—have commented very positively on the Inland Revenue Department and how they have been very open and receptive and supporting of small businesses through this period. I support this bill to the House.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this COVID Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). Of course—this has been noticed—it’s an omnibus bill with a series of technical amendments, but they are actually really important amendments and there is some urgency in bringing them forward, particularly at this stage of the parliamentary cycle. So whilst this is not some of the big announcements around infrastructure and the like, in terms of the Government’s overall COVID response, it is a tidy up to the primary part of this legislation. It has been such a massive and complex response on such an unprecedented level both within the business community but also within the machinery of Government, and there are several Acts that we just need to provide some clarification on, particularly around the reporting deadlines and audits for the likes of our State-owned enterprises and local authorities. It gives the Auditor-General some ability to have some flexibility or extension of time lines, which is absolutely pivotal. They don’t have the option of just ignoring the law; they’ve got to keep within deadlines to make them more user-friendly and workable and appropriate, given the circumstances. It is a very important function that this bill provides.

I also note, as the previous speaker, Agnes Loheni, said, the R & D tax clarification is there. IRD is able to share information with Callaghan Innovation to ensure that loans aren’t treated as a Government grant for tax purposes and to ensure that the loan doesn’t prevent that businessperson claiming the R & D tax credits that this Government brought in, which is a very important part of driving innovation in research and development, which we know is such a critical part to raising the productivity of this country’s economy, which, of course, has lagged many of our OECD peers. One of the more important things I think we’ve done economically is to give those tax incentives to lift R & D up towards 2 percent of GDP. So that is important within this bill.

But most of these measures are pretty uncontroversial. They’re sensible, they’re necessary, and they’re common sense. So New Zealand First will support this bill. Thank you.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): National is supporting these changes, albeit they are so very, very modest. I wonder whether there’s any business person in New Zealand today who has read that the Government is doing this and put it on the Order Paper, or who is listening to this debate, who is saying “Hallelujah! They’ve saved my business.” I really don’t think that’s that case. Whilst there is some assistance here, it’s actually just extensions and a bit of tinkering.

What would have been much more worthwhile is a bill before the House that actually addressed the significant harm that’s been done to so many businesses in New Zealand as a result of the lockdown and the Government having closed the economy down. The reason we should be looking at that and doing that for these businesses—it’s about the people that work for them. We know that so many of them are only there because the wage subsidy has a few more weeks to run, and there are businesses up and down New Zealand today who are not sure how they will keep their employees on. They’re having to talk to them about redundancy, and tens of thousands—in fact, Treasury says hundreds of thousands—of them are about to lose their jobs, and nothing in this—nothing in this—actually helps one of those businesses keep a single employee on.

We are supporting it because, actually, it does relieve some of the burden and give a touch more certainty to companies, but, ultimately, what really is necessary is some real action—not policies to keep pushing the problem further down until after the election, when the roosters will really come home to roost, but something that will deal with these challenges right now.

I tell you what I really would have liked to have seen in this bill is something, actually, for the tourism industry and all parts of the tourism industry, at least to give them some hope, if nothing more. We heard in the House yesterday the tourism Minister blaming travel agents—blaming travel agents—for the plight they find themselves in and accusing them of not being good New Zealanders because their job is to help New Zealanders go overseas and take money away. How naive that is—how short-sighted. I guarantee that the emails I’m getting thanking the National Party for raising the case and the challenges of travel agents are very different from the ones he’s getting in his inbox—I’m quite, quite sure of that. He has a chance to come back to the House and fix this, because I know we’re going through very quickly. What about a Supplementary Order Paper in later stages that fixes this bill that we see in first reading that actually does something for these businesses to give them hope?

So we’re supporting it because, actually, at the moment, any hope at all, any help at all, for businesses to keep going so they can keep people employed is worth considering, but, actually, it falls woefully short of doing anything that’s going to make any material difference for our businesses in New Zealand who continue to struggle and are facing redundancies and unemployment for their workers, and, in many cases, mounting debt, and, finally, businesses that will close.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. As I think has been well elucidated by speakers on both sides of this Chamber, this is a relatively non-controversial bill, and it appears as though we will have unanimous support for it at this first reading. I do, however, just feel as though, in rising to speak on behalf of the Green Party, it’s important to respond to some of the allegations or points of debate that were put forward by the Hon Todd McClay, who’s just finished speaking now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as it relates to the bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. That is with regard to the harm that the Hon Todd McClay was stating this Government did to businesses during the lockdown. This is, obviously, a bill pertaining to the COVID-19 response, so therefore falls broadly within that ambit. We are here talking about jobs. We are here talking about the ability for businesses to continue on and to employ people, provide that opportunity. So I really put it to other members of the National Party who will get to their feet and probably allege similar things to the Hon Todd McClay to offer some alternative—what they think could or should have been done differently. Because they frequently in the weeks prior to, and actually during, lockdown sought to reference the Australian approach. I really wonder, looking at the results of the Australian approach, whether they continue to advocate for it or, with the value of hindsight, are coming to reflect on that advocacy and the importance of the public health approach that we did take.

The Greens are obviously joining with the Government in support of this bill. We’ve been involved in the negotiation around changes to, for example, tax legislation, the Income Tax Act 2007, the Tax Administration Act 1994, the Public Finance Act 1989, the Crown Entities Act 2004, the Public Finance Act, the State-Owned Enterprises Act 2004, the Local Government Act 2002, the Crown Research Institutes Act 1992, the Accident Compensation Act 2001, and the Accident Compensation (Experience Rating) Regulations 2019. This is why this form of legislation is called an “omnibus” bill, because it does affect all of those different laws. That is the substance of what we’re debating today and, in the words of that member of the Opposition who just resumed his seat, it is relatively modest but none the less important to provide that sense of security and certainty for folks as the House seeks to finish its business this week, as we head into the election season.

Madam Speaker, just finally, this is probably the last time that I’ll be speaking prior to this House adjourning, and I just want to acknowledge the mahi that you have brought to your role as Deputy Speaker and to say thank you for that. I want to say thank you to all of my colleagues as well for what has been a very robust first term in Parliament, and I do appreciate the work that the Opposition has done in holding this Government to account. So I look forward to another term in Government, I hope, as we move towards this election season and put it to the general public, to New Zealanders, to reflect on this COVID-19 response. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think this will be the last time I speak in this House. Like Chlöe Swarbrick—she’s pretty sure that this will be her last time. I thought I had my last time earlier in the week, but you can see me standing here being whipped to speak for a few minutes on this bill. But I’m very pleased to have this opportunity to have another crack at the Government—any chance I get, it’s very welcome and I’m very happy to take that opportunity. I also wish you well, Madam Speaker, in the time ahead of you outside of this House, and I look forward to seeing you out there in the real world.

This bill, as has been mentioned, is a bit of a lost opportunity. It does some certain things, it extends some time limits, and it tinkers around the edges, really. There was an opportunity here to, for example, do something about the minimum wage—postpone that or extend that rather than increase it. We could have introduced some tax breaks to support those earners, those taxpayers, and, of course, we could have increased and changed some stuff in the Income Tax Act relating to depreciation rates, because depreciation rates are very important when it comes to people’s decisions around what they might or might not invest in, and investing is what needs to happen. Confidence of the investor is so important in this time when interest rates are so low, people continue to save money. In an economic crisis, we need people to reach into their pockets, feel confident about themselves, and invest, which will eventually create more jobs and have this country on a road that we will be very proud to walk on.

So, Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. Tim van de Molen, I do expect this to be the last time I get up to stand in the House. I wish all members well in the future. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The Opposition might have a point if this bill was the Government’s only response to business, but in order to make their argument go through, they simply have to ignore the wage subsidy, the wage subsidy extension, the small-business loan scheme, the extra depreciation write-off, the tax carry-back scheme, the support for New Zealand exporters, and the extensive tourism relief package. This Government has put a great deal of effort into supporting business, and it will continue to do so. We cannot save every business but, by golly, we can make a jolly good effort at doing the best we can to help as many businesses as possible to get through.

So in the light of that—all the work that this Government is doing to support business—this bill contains a suite of tidying-up measures, measures to enable the business of Government to continue given the slowdown posed by COVID-19, and some important legislative requirements on various Government entities, which they simply could not meet because of the COVID shutdown. This bill enables them to meet that as a one-off with a special extended deadline. But it’s also got some measures that do help businesses very directly.

An amendment to the Tax Administration Act enables Inland Revenue to have a lot more discretion with respect to deadlines for filing, for paying taxes, and so on—a measure that takes the worry and stress off business, alongside all the other excellent measures we have in place for business. It also has, in this bill, a change to the ACC rules, so enabling the ACC levy for the next year to be held at the same rate as the current year. That’s an important measure as well, giving business certainty in uncertain times, and we anticipate keeping their costs at a reasonable level.

So this bill, along with the many, many, many other measures that Government has put in place to support business, works to ensure that everything keeps ticking over. It’s an excellent bill, and I commend it to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In contrast to my parliamentary colleague Chlöe Swarbrick and my National Party colleague Alastair Scott, this isn’t my last contribution in urgency. I will be delivering some potboilers between now and midnight, I have no doubt, and then into the morning, and we will be debating right the way through to the end of the session. So I’m going to save the tearful farewells till later on for you, Madam Speaker.

I’ve got to say, in respect of this bill, a bill we support and particularly in respect of the elements that support businesses to sustain themselves through a difficult period—there is a theme emerging from this Government, and it’s all about COVID. It’s everything to do with COVID. I haven’t yet heard a satisfactory explanation as to why, because of a five-week lockdown, the massive machinery of State-owned enterprises cannot deliver their annual reports within the statutory deadlines already prescribed in law. Because, on the face of it, it looks like this is an important thing to be doing, but nobody’s actually explained why it is that these multi-hundred-million-dollar companies don’t have the wherewithal or the machinery to actually meet their statutory obligations. They kept going through the lockdown and we have been out of lockdown now for months. And so we’re now saying that a financial year end of 30 of June for our council-controlled organisations, for our councils, for our State-owned enterprises—they are in such parlous shape from a financial reporting perspective that they can’t meet their statutory deadlines.

I would be very interested to hear from the Minister in his second reading speech actually why this is, because we’ve heard an awful lot of the “because of COVID” excuse from the Government for delay. I note that the Auditor-General in his report on the management of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) said that because of, effectively, a five-week lockdown, a plan to analyse the benefits of PGF projects is going to be delayed by 15 months. Well, I mean, nobody’s actually got under the bonnet of this and said “Why?” Why is it “because of COVID”, when we’re now free and clear and we’re back into the rugby stadiums and we’re back into our workplaces, we’re back into our bars and restaurants, and it is, effectively, on a day-to-day basis, business as usual? Do we actually need all of the technical amendments that we are providing? We’re doing it under agency, so we’re not going to get the answers from officials, necessarily, but I do think it behoves us to not just say “because of COVID”, which becomes an excuse for every single delay the Government wants to put in place.

It may be appropriate. As an accountant, I can’t think of a reason why these very large organisations—with machinery that went through the financial reporting process and all of the other statutory obligations that they have in companies law and in the Public Finance Act—actually need the sorts of extensions that we’re granting them. So my support for this, and my party support for this, has to be caveated with an approach that says: when we do this stuff, we have to do it for a reason, and haven’t seen a good reason yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon—oh, I call Greg O’Connor.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Oh, Madam Speaker—the same anticipation we have of Mr Woodhouse coming back into the House—very little. I just rise to take a brief call. I’m just reading some comments by an ex - Prime Minister of New Zealand, who was just saying that one of the first rules in a situation like this is that you throw out the rule book. What we are determined to do is to ensure that business, along with the rest of New Zealand, recovers and thrives in lieu of this COVID crisis. It’s legislation like this which is an enabler to do just that. To ignore what this once-in-100-year event is would be folly and foolish. So I have no hesitation in recommending this to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

I don’t intend to go through all of the arguments, again, that I made in my first reading contribution about why the bill is necessary or what it does. I’m happy to answer any questions during the committee of the whole House stage should there be any further questions.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and talk to the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Bill (No 2) and here we are on the second reading. As has been traversed already throughout this debate in the previous reading, we support this bill and we support the measures that this bill seeks to outline in the eight pieces of legislation that it seeks to address.

I do just want to touch on a couple of issues, of course, from the Green Party—you know, what else we could have considered. Well, I think in this bill, again, looking at the GST refunds, which would’ve made a dramatic difference to the business community—up to $100,000 based off the GST that they were paid in the six months to January. The other thing which Alastair Scott, my colleague, in one of his final addresses talked about was the depreciation of fixed assets. I think, actually, that’s a really important issue—to encourage businesses to continue to invest, to continue to upgrade at a pretty tumultuous time. The depreciation of fixed assets could have been another measure where we could have looked at the way in which that depreciation was depreciated over the lifetime of that asset.

Those were a couple of things that we would have liked to have seen addressed that relate directly to the bill. Now, also on the other side, they talked about the other measures, and Deborah Russell talked about the other various measures that have been implemented by this Government to address issues for small business. She talked about the wage subsidy. Well, that comes off this time next month. So as far as we can see—and we were absolutely supportive of that wage subsidy—but in one month’s time, that is a policy that’s going to be no longer in effect.

The second is around the support for the export and tourism support package. Well, Mr Speaker, I don’t know if you have gone and spoken to a tourism business, but I’ve got many in my electorate and they’ve told me that the support’s not been enough. And we’ve heard there’s just been a petition that was submitted on behalf of the many thousands of people that were caught up in the changes that were made in the lockdown who are directly affected in the tourism sector, particularly the travel and tourism operators. And they are calling out for more support and more help during these tough times. So to say that the Government’s actually done a lot for business, well, we haven’t quite seen it in the real world.

So those are the remarks that I have. As I said, we support the changes that have been proposed, but they don’t go far enough to addressing some of the deep-seated challenges that the business community will face over the next 12 to 24 months and we’re going to need to see a lot more from this Government on that. So we commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to make a final contribution to this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). We support this bill because the National Party supports jobs. We know how important jobs are to our communities, to our families, and it is the businesses that have been impacted that create those jobs. So we, of course, will support any measures that will go into giving them some extra support.

As I’ve noted earlier in my contribution, businesses needed the support a lot earlier, and, of course, we welcome the changes that are in this bill in terms of taking off some of the pressure in terms of the auditory reporting and also in terms of the ACC regulations. But, ultimately, businesses did want some support earlier and they wanted some support in terms of what would have been helpful. Instead of giving them support with getting more into debt, they actually wanted some support just to cover that period.

The wage subsidy, I have noted—and as a previous Government member has said, there were other supports that were put in place, and I did acknowledge the wage subsidy. Of course, business owners were very grateful for that, but, again, if you understand how a business works, the wage subsidy is there to ensure that the employee is looked after, but there are also a significant raft of other costs that the businesses have to cover as well that are not covered by a wage subsidy. So, as I said also, it would have been a sign of support for businesses to have done some other things like delay the increase of the minimum wage, just to give them some breathing space and allow them to just get back up and to recover. Sadly, a lot of businesses haven’t been able to recover, and we have seen in recent weeks more businesses folding and significant job losses.

So again, it would have been good to have some support earlier, but we do welcome some of the changes that have been included in this bill around tax, around ACC, and around reporting, just to take some added pressure off, but we believe that there could have been more done to support businesses. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In order to allow there to be a reasonably constructive debate, I seek leave for all of the provisions of the bill to be debated as one question and put as one question at the end.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So you’re seeking leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate—

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —and one question. Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There appears to be no objection.

Clauses 1 to 3 and Schedules 1 to 4

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Madam Chair. We had a brief debate on the first and second readings of this bill, the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2), and in my first reading address, of course, I set out what the bill does. There were a few questions raised during the run up to this committee stage, which I thought I’d address now, particularly around why the necessity for some of the time frames that have been provided for.

The bill provides to extend certain deadlines for the 2019-20 financial year by up to two months, including those for annual reporting and auditing by public sector agencies, local entities, local authorities, council-controlled organisations; amending the Public Finance Act, the Crown Entities Act, the State-Owned Enterprises Act, the Local Government Act 2002, and the Crown Research Institutes Act; and it extends from November 2020 to no later than September 2021 the deadline under the Public Finance Act 1989 for Treasury to appear before the Minister of Finance and for the Minister to then present to the House of Representatives the statement of the long-term fiscal position.

Taking that last one first, I think the reasons for that are obvious. Our long-term fiscal position has changed quite dramatically as a result of COVID-19, and some more time to digest that and to make sure that that plan is as robust as possible is required. In terms of extending the deadline by two months, the issue was raised by Michael Woodhouse where he said, surely, big organisations like State-owned enterprises should be able to adapt. Of course, many of the functional activity that is undertaken within them—they lost two months’ worth of time for that, if you combine level 4 and level 3 together. That was about two months of time that they lost. It wasn’t just the enterprises themselves but the others that they rely on, including those who conduct the audits, for example.

The Office of the Auditor-General has indicated support for this, because the office itself won’t be able to complete all of the audits that they are required to do by the time frames that they are required under the current law to do them. So this, basically, just reflects the reality that having lost two months to the lockdown, we’re simply extending the deadlines out by two months.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to take a call in this committee of the whole House debate. I don’t intend to ask too many questions, but I want to ask the Minister directly about an amendment here in the name of my colleague the Hon Gerry Brownlee. It has just been tabled. I’m not sure exactly of the number of the amendment but, essentially, the it relates to the fact that because we are dealing with this in urgency, we haven’t had any select committee process and we haven’t had time to really process the implications of these, we, in fact, insert clause 2A, which, essentially, makes sure that any amendments to this bill should be reconfirmed by Parliament before April next year.

I think that this is an important thing to talk about, because we’ve got a lot of changes in this legislation, but the situation will look very different in six months’ time when the wage subsidy will be off. So I think it’s more appropriate to be able to come back to Parliament within the six months and to reconfirm that, in fact, these changes are still valid but possibly look at other changes too. And we’ve talked, in the first and second readings, about some that we would have liked to have been considered in respect to the tax changes in depreciation. But the situation will look quite different, so I think it’s not unreasonable to ask that in the dying days of this Parliament—

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Dying hours.

DAN BIDOIS: —dying hours of this Parliament—we, in fact, ask that the next Parliament reconfirm these changes and potentially look at other changes that can help reduce the compliance and burden for small businesses throughout New Zealand.

I do have a question for the Minister as to whether we can insert clause 2A, which, essentially, gives effect to the provision that would mean that Parliament must reconfirm these changes by 1 April next year.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I think there’s a certain irony in the Opposition tabling an amendment that creates more bureaucracy into a bill that is designed to help people navigate the bureaucracy as a result of COVID-19. The Government doesn’t support the amendment. It is unnecessary. It will result in an additional parliamentary process to do something that everybody around the House, including the Opposition, thinks is a common-sense change.

All of these changes are designed to simply provide a little bit of greater flexibility for a defined period of time. This bill doesn’t have an ongoing effect. It is only as a result of the response to COVID-19. So, for example, in the time frames we’re talking about, by the time they’re seeking reconfirmation of the bill, most of those time frames will have already passed or we would have already gone past those time frames. So it would be completely unnecessary to reconfirm the bill.

Of course, the Parliament, at any point in the future, has the opportunity to revisit these matters if the Parliament chooses to do so.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to add further to the points made by my colleague Dan Bidois. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have this amendment in terms of actually just setting down a reconfirmation day. I don’t believe that it is actually going to add more bureaucracy. As my colleague has stated, we know that actually there could be some changes in any of these areas in terms of Inland Revenue or ACC, and having the ability to have that date down just to come back and to reconfirm that in this Parliament is actually very reasonable. Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to:

insert after clause 2 the following new clause:

2A Confirmation of Act

This Act and the amendments made by it are repealed on 1 April 2021 if no resolution is passed to continue the Act by the House of Representatives prior to that date.

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3 and Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

We’ve already canvassed the content that’s in this bill quite well during the first reading and the second reading and, very briefly, during the committee stage of the bill. I do want to thank members of the House for their goodwill towards this process. The bill is unanimously supported across the House, and I welcome that support.

We do have to acknowledge—and I do just want to take a moment to do that, now that we’re through the technicalities of the bill—the significant effect that COVID-19 has had on so many New Zealanders up and down the country: on our business community, our local government, and on all of the other organisations that are going to be affected by the changes that are outlined in this piece of legislation the House is now passing. Sometimes we forget the lockdown period. It seems like a long time ago now, though it was not actually that long ago, where the country did, effectively, go on hold for a period of a month, for most people, and then for two months for a significant proportion of our population as we moved through level 4 and then level 3 lockdown.

We can all be very proud of the results that we achieved through that period, but we also have to acknowledge that that came as a result of a lot of sacrifice by many, many New Zealanders, and there are some simple things that we can do as a Parliament to ease a little bit of that burden. Making sure that the administrative processes of Government are able to continue and that businesses are not unduly penalised for not being able to meet the timetables set out in law because they were unable to do the things they would normally do during that lockdown period—these are sensible and pragmatic changes that we can make as a Parliament.

So this will be the last time I get to speak on this particular bill, so I just want to acknowledge, again, all those who were affected by the COVID lockdown and the effect that it had on their businesses, their livelihoods, and their way of living, and I hope that these small changes—and they are just small changes, they are part of a much broader package of measures the Government is taking to support people through the COVID-19 recovery phase—I hope that these changes will at least make a little bit of a difference to those who are affected by them.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call at the third reading of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). As we have traversed in this debate in this short time today, National will be supporting this legislation through because we support anything that helps businesses cope with the lockdown and the effects from COVID-19. As has been raised, of course we would have liked to have seen more changes in this around the capital asset depreciation requirements and the GST refunds—would have been a start. But nevertheless, this piece of legislation will help ease the burden for businesses who are struggling through COVID-19 with respect to the ACC regulations, with respect to making sure that businesses who do have legitimate R & D expenditure can apply for the tax credit, and also allowing for greater discretion with IRD to change the due dates and deadlines, and also extensions as well.

So, of course, it’s been a tumultuous time for many in the past few months with the lockdown and everything that’s happened since then, and this piece of legislation is a small step to help ease the burden. All we’ve talked about is that the fight is not over. We’ve got a challenging situation in the next 24 to 36 months in this country, and we’re going to be supportive of any piece of legislation or any policy that makes a difference to help ease the burden for businesses, to help provide a circumstance where these businesses can stay in business but also have a sense of security and incentive to hire new staff, because that’s what’s really going to matter.

So, look, without really diluting the impact of this legislation, I do want to say thank you to the Minister for addressing some of these issues that, in fact, go a long way to easing the administrative burden for businesses. But we do look forward to seeing far more ambitious plans around how we’re going to keep businesses in operation, to keep them aspirational for the next few years, and to give them the confidence that they can go out and employ staff and conduct their business in a way that is going to improve our economy. So I won’t take much more of the House’s time. National commends this bill to the House.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a brief call on this COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). As the Minister of Health in his opening remarks mentioned, there have been a lot of effects on businesses and all New Zealanders, and this bill will bring some relief to the businesses in the short term.

As has been mentioned by the previous speaker from our side, Dan Bidois, it would have been good if the Minister could have considered National’s proposal for a GST cash refund scheme. That would have given up to $100,000 to the businesses, in their pockets, which could have gone a long way. It is what is required at this time. I go out and about in the community and meet a lot of the small businesses. They are really struggling for cash, because what happened in lockdown, in levels 3 and 4, is there were no sales for them. They could not do anything because everything was under lockdown, and everyone understands that. I commend the Government for bringing this bill. But some more may have been done to better improve this and which could have made a lot of differences for the businesses. I hope that in the next few months, after the elections, the Government of the day will consider revisiting this bill and making more provisions for small businesses to ensure that they have got more opportunities for how they can survive and hold on to jobs.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for forgetting to start the clock. I close my speech here, commending this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take this call for the third and final reading of the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill (No 2). The National Party supports this bill, because, ultimately, we support any kind of relief to small businesses at this time, even though I do think this is light relief in terms of the scale of devastation that has hit many businesses in our country, which has resulted in thousands losing jobs.

As I said, there is no way that businesses could have anticipated or planned for what would happen to them under lockdown, having those four to seven weeks of no revenue—absolutely no revenue—coming in. Whilst, as I’ve said in this House, businesses have appreciated—and, of course, New Zealanders have appreciated—the support that comes out of a wage subsidy, that, ultimately, was not going to save many businesses. Timing is also important in terms of support. For many businesses who have complex supply chains, cash flow is king. Ultimately, getting support further down the track is probably too little, too late for many businesses.

Ultimately, as has been traversed in this House, not every business can be saved, and that is the tragedy of this time, but we do support the measures that have been included in this bill around taking off some of the burden for small businesses—relieving some of that pressure at this time. I’m hoping that more businesses will be able to survive the next six to 12 months, which is really, really crucial. National supports this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Bill read a third time.

Covid-19 Public Health Response ACT 2020

Extension

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move, That, under section 3(2)(b) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, the relevant period is the period ending on either 1 December 2020 or the tenth sitting day following the first meeting of Parliament after the 2020 general election, whichever is the later, so that the Act continues in force until that time.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act provides the essential legal framework for New Zealand’s continuing response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. As members will be aware, it replaced for the purpose of the COVID pandemic the 1956 Health Act, and it was necessary because the powers under the Health Act, whilst appropriate for levels 3 and 4, didn’t give the nuance that is necessary in respect of level 2 and below, and also was of a formulation some decades old and didn’t have the accountabilities that one would expect in respect of those sorts of powers, even in respect of levels 3 and 4, should it—while none of us want this eventuality—ever be necessary to go back to levels 3 and 4.

The 1956 Health Act is predicated on quarantine and keeping people apart from each other rather than on finer controls, and once you get to level 2 and below, and you’re letting people go to work and to mingle and you’re left with things like restrictions on large gatherings, it doesn’t fit within the framing of the Health Act, which was predicated on more strict forms of quarantine. That’s why the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was necessary. So the new Act, which we’re discussing the extension of, includes a sunset clause to give Parliament control of the regulation-making powers that are enabled by that Act, and Parliament agreed that this would have to be brought back to Parliament periodically in order for consideration to be given as to whether it should be extended. The motion proposes that this be extended to the later of those two dates in the motion to allow for the election and the putting together of—whoever it is—the Government selected by the people of New Zealand.

So the Act provides the legislative framework for the Government’s response to COVID-19, and it does provide a fit for purpose framework for responding to COVID19 at all alert levels. The Act is needed at alert level 1 as it provides the legal basis for the two orders that currently provide for measures needed to control the border, including testing, isolation, and quarantining, to minimise the risk of another outbreak of COVID-19 within New Zealand. The measures that are in these orders, currently, can only continue and need to be updated, and they can only be either continued or updated while the Act continues to be in force.

If the Act is not continued, then there will be a gap in measures that could be applied legally at alert levels 2 or lower, and the higher alert levels would also require, then, to be reverted to the Health Act 1956 framework, which doesn’t have the improvements included in this current Act, such as greater safeguards, the infringement regime, or the change of decision making to the Minister of Health, rather than the Director-General of Health. The ACT Party made valuable contributions in respect of that improvement in this COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, when it was passed a couple of months ago.

We’ve been at alert level 1 now for nearly two months, and the orders under this Act at the border have ensured that returning New Zealanders are in managed isolation or quarantine upon their return to New Zealand. The bespoke Act narrows the powers of the Crown compared with the powers that were available under the Health Act and the civil defence framework that we used for the first two months of the COVID response.

We all know that the pandemic continues to grow internationally and that this is not a time for complacency. There are currently 18.5 million cases of COVID-19 worldwide. When this Act was first passed three months ago, there were just over 4 million. This pandemic continues to increase apace. It’s global and we’re not out of the woods yet. We just need to look across the Tasman and see the risks that we face. This is a time for responsible Government, and it’s not the time to put things at risk through inappropriate politicking.

Without these powers, New Zealand would be at greater risk of community transmission that would necessitate a second lockdown costing millions, if not billions, of dollars of damage to the economy and many deaths. That’s why this House should all support the continuation of this Act. If some MPs do not, voters will rightly ask why those members support the risk that would then ensue of having a regime that would not be fit for purpose under the Health Act.

A select committee considered the Act after it was passed and found it was necessary, appropriate, and balanced. They did—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: By majority.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —by majority—suggest that during health emergency responses that more enduring health emergency response legislation be developed to replace the outdated sections of the 1956 Health Act. That’s a worthy proposal, and it’s something for the next Government to consider, but they found that this legislation is appropriate.

I understand that the Opposition, again, stated at that select committee that they were upset that we didn’t take longer to pass this Act in May. They said the process should have been commenced earlier and that delays were occasioned by that delay. Even if they were right on that—and I don’t accept that—they should be now in a position to accept that this legislation is appropriate, and they should understand that any further delay in the passage of that Act or its extension would have meant greater health risks in New Zealand and larger social and economic costs.

It’s disappointing that some Opposition parties have participated in spreading baseless conspiracy theories about the Act. I think it’s appalling that some members of this House have asserted that the warrantless powers under level 2 and higher used under the COVID Act to break up mass gatherings are some grand taking of powers. That is wrong and has always been wrong, and it has been well described in this House.

It’s poor that some members of Parliament, outside of this place, continue to make those assertions, because they risk undermining the social consensus that lies behind voluntary compliance behind whatever words they are—and I see a member of the National Party go “Pah!” at that. It is absolutely correct that those warrantless powers are limited, essentially, to breaking up mass gatherings, and the idea that there aren’t other warrantless powers of entry that pre-existed—they were already in existence under the Health Act at the very time we debated this bill. They also exist under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act, the Search and Surveillance Act, the Resource Management Act, the Building Act, the Land Transport Act, the Dog Control Act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, the mental health Act, the Arms Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, and the Immigration Act, and—

Erica Stanford: So defensive.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I’m not being defensive. I’m actually describing this for the benefit of New Zealanders because there has been some appalling misrepresentation of that fact, which does no credit to those people that do it.

The most obvious example is that council officers have the ability to go and break up a noisy party and take a stereo. Surely, people can understand that with this circumstance, it can be necessary for the police to have the power to go and break up a party that would otherwise be putting at risk at different levels the ability of the country to control those events.

So I would hope that we have absolute unanimity and support of this motion. I hope that National has moved past this nonsense that they spouted when the Act was passed and will support this motion, because otherwise they’re in the same category as Jami-Lee Ross’ social media conspiracy party, and they do this country no favours at all.

I commend this motion to the House. It is necessary that this new framework continue in force until a new Government is able to be formed so that if—forbid—we do need to move up the levels again because we have another instance of community transmission, we need the finer powers that are authorised by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. I commend the motion to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, that 10-minute speech from the Attorney-General summed up his character, I think, absolutely perfectly: pleasant, polite, and then, at the same time, railing on anybody that disagrees with him, calling anybody that doesn’t support that Act or this motion inappropriate politicking, saying that the public should rightly ask why members of this House do not support it if they don’t, and saying that they’re baseless conspiracy theories—all of those criticisms that we heard when this bill was being passed under urgency were all from a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Well, there must be hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them right around the country, because we heard from a lot of them, and they did not like what was being done to their personal freedoms and, not only that, the manner in which it was being done. Mr Parker calls that baseless conspiracy theories and says that it would be nonsense not to support him and his Government.

Now, months have passed since the Government deemed that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was necessary, and we are in a different time. We actually went to level 2 at that point and there were notices made under section 11 of the Act that did provide constraints on the freedoms of New Zealanders, and we’re now out of that time.

So, just as the Attorney-General has reminded the House and the public why this Act was necessary, I think it’s also appropriate to remind this House and the public why my party felt that this was executive overreach, inappropriate use of the powers of Government, and the wrong process. The lack of public involvement in this and the scandalous sidelining of the Epidemic Response Committee in favour of a committee with a majority of Labour members on it to review the Act literally 72 hours after the Act was passed—now, in 170 years of parliamentary democracy in New Zealand, that, as far as I can tell, has never occurred. Acts are reviewed. We often build review clauses into bills to ensure that there is an appropriate scrutiny, but that’s usually after they’ve gone through the appropriate scrutiny of a select committee process.

Now, the Epidemic Response Committee did consider two pieces of legislation in short order. I was a member—I chaired, actually, the bill submissions and the consideration of those bills. We reported back to the House within 10 days, and we made bills better as a consequence of that. We still don’t know, because the Attorney-General will not share the advice that he was given, that either section 70 of the Health Act was appropriate for levels 4 and 3, or that the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was appropriate and necessary for levels 2 and 1. The Epidemic Response Committee had to go through the extraordinary step of, effectively, summonsing the advice, and the Attorney-General not only vetoed that but came to this House late one night and quietly passed a motion to kill off the Epidemic Response Committee, because that kind of pesky democracy thing was getting a bit inconvenient for him.

Darroch Ball: Because the House had started sitting again.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now, I want to—well, we did it in the House. So Darroch Ball says, “Well, the House was sitting, so it was OK to get rid of the very committee that should have been examining this bill.” Not only did the bill not go to it; we got rid of the committee, and I remind the member that the committee had not concluded its business. There was still much to do, otherwise, why not have any select committees, Mr Ball? I bet that would be good for Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party: “Just get rid of all those pesky select committees because the public, they just ask annoying questions and make annoying comments about what the Government wants to do.” Well, that, Mr Ball, is called democracy—it’s called democracy.

Now, Mr Parker described this as an essential legal framework. I challenge the use of the term “essential”.

He talked about this Act replacing the 1956 Health Act. Actually, it doesn’t. The 1956 Health Act is still there, and my reading of the 1956 Act is that it could, even with some minor amendments, have satisfactorily addressed the situation that the Government found itself in as it was moving to level 2 or level 1. We don’t know what advice the Attorney-General got because he won’t release it, but I say to the Attorney-General—and he should know this better than anybody—something created in the 1950s doesn’t necessarily make it out of date. It has stood the test of time. It does need updating, and that’s a much, much larger body of work, but I’m yet to see any compelling advice that that legal framework was not sufficient to manage the situation that we had, and I think we need to remind ourselves what this Act gave the Government powers to do.

Mr Parker said it was limited, warrantless powers to break up mass gatherings. No, it wasn’t. It was a power to enable the police and authorised officers to go in the private homes of individuals in New Zealand and do a headcount.

Darroch Ball: They can do that now.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: No, they—only because of this Act, Mr Ball. They have no without-cause reason—a warrantless reason—to go into houses for any other purpose.

Darroch Ball: They can do it now.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: “They can do it now.”—well, the member needs to listen more carefully. If they have reasonable cause to suspect that a crime is being committed at that time, then they can. So what they’re saying is gathering in numbers greater than 10 is the same as attempted murder, arson, violent assaults—that’s what we want, do we? Do we want the police to be able to go into our houses and go, “One, two, three, four—11. You’re breaking the law.” Marae, the same. That’s what got the public so upset.

Darroch Ball: What nonsense.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah, OK—go out on the campaign trail, Mr Ball, and tell the New Zealand public they’re stupid, because that’s what your interjection is just saying.

You know what? I support the rule of law, but I also support the process of lawmaking. This has been an absolutely appalling, appalling process, and we still don’t know why it was necessary.

Section 11 powers were massive executive overreach, and then they told the public their views weren’t important enough, “But we’ll pay lip service to them after the Act has passed, only we won’t do that through the Epidemic Response Committee. We’ll give it to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.”—as if this is a finance issue. The only reason it went to that committee was because the Labour Party had a majority.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee was extremely busy. They were flat out getting a number of other things through, and yet—and I see Dr Deborah Russell over there. She probably was shaking her head when she heard that she had to take on that body of work, and she probably thought, “Well, hang on. Haven’t we got a perfectly good committee?”—a committee, incidentally, that through the lockdown and afterwards was credited worldwide as the exemplar of how representative democracy could continue through a pandemic. I remember Derek Cheng from the New Zealand Herald wrote that “If one watches question time, viewers would have a very jaundiced view of our parliamentary democracy. But if one watches the Epidemic Response Committee, faith could be restored because it was such a good process of examining dispassionately what the Government was doing and what could be done in an emergency.”

I went on a World Bank parliamentary global forum online in the early hours of Anzac Day, April 25. We had some excellent submissions from around the world about what parliamentarians were doing, and the biggest comments that were being made in the chat rooms that were the sidebar to the virtual conference were the concerns in modern democracies that the executive was putting aside the role of Parliament in making decisions, and this is exactly what happened here in New Zealand.

Darroch Ball: Oh, that was National’s idea, was it?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, dear, oh dear.

So we can’t support the motion. If we could not support the Act when it was passed and we were appalled by the process that was followed before, during, and after the Act’s passage, then it stands to reason that we stand with the public of New Zealand, who were not baseless conspiracy theorists. They were actually advocates of freedom and personal responsibility to act appropriately, without the long hand of the executive and its constabulary to reach into their houses without warrant to do a headcount. That alone is a reason not to support this Act. It’s certainly the reason why the National Party continues to oppose its extension.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn’t come to the House with the view of taking a call today, but Minister Parker’s comments have spurred me into action. I’ll just take a short call, because I spoke in opposition to the original piece of legislation that was put forward. I made a number of comments, and I—as I often do—put my speech on my social media page. I didn’t post it; I just put it there. Within a couple of weeks, it had had 141,000 views, thousands of comments, and thousands of shares. There’s a reason for that, and it’s not because there is a minority of baseless conspiracy theorists out there; it’s because there is a huge number of very concerned New Zealanders.

The reason that Minister Parker came to the House today and was so very defensive about his position on this bill and had a good jab at us and a good attack—probably at me, in particular, because I made that speech and I had such a great reach; he probably watched it—was because he knows that he has a problem. He knows that he’s got a problem with his own Māori caucus. I’ve spoken to members of his Māori caucus when I’ve been walking around these halls, and they said to me themselves that this was the single biggest issue that was brought to their attention by their constituents in the whole of this Parliament.

Now, what does that tell this House? That tells this House that these guys have got a problem. The majority of New Zealanders believe that you have a right to privacy in your own home without the police being able to come in and do a headcount in case there’s 11 people at your kid’s birthday—which was the case that I pointed out in my first reading speech on this—because your neighbour is so terrified of COVID because this Government’s put everyone into a state of panic. There might be 11 people at a birthday party, 11 people at a lunch, or 12 people at some gathering, and the police can come in and do a headcount, and that is exactly what this law does. That is exactly why every member of the Māori caucus of the Labour Party has been lobbied on this for the last few months. They know it’s a big problem. They have told me themselves how big an issue this is, and that’s why those members are so very defensive. They come to the House today and try and explain it away as some conspiracy theory.

Well, actually, I think we need to give a little bit more respect to the people of this country—that they are allowed to have concerns over this bill. The concerns that they hold are well founded, because they know very well that these powers are likely to be abused, especially in certain communities—because they’ve experienced it in the past and they will experience it in the future—and they have every right to ask questions. It’s not anti-democratic. It’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s what we do in a democracy: we ask questions around parts of law that we think are a massive overreach and, in this State, are turning New Zealand into what I described in my speech as a police State.

You have the right to enjoy the freedom and privacy of your own home without the police coming in to conduct a search and a headcount based on the amount of people you may have in your house. I spoke to a number of police officers around this. I said to them, “In what circumstances would you go into someone’s home without a warrant?”, and they said, “Well, actually, we hardly ever do that, for good reason, because if we ever do, the judge always pulls us up and it hardly ever goes through.” They said that you’ve pretty much got to be chasing someone into that house with a gun. You can walk past someone’s house, see that there’s a pipe in the window, and you still wouldn’t go in without a warrant. They said, “We hardly ever do it.”

I remember very well in the House, when I gave my speech, we had the Labour members getting up and saying, “Oh well, you know, noise control officers have warrantless powers of entry.”—which is absolute rubbish. They don’t. They have warrantless powers of entries to the property, but not the house. But that was the rubbish that was spouted by the other side of the House.

This is a massive overreach. The Māori members of the Labour Party and people around New Zealand are correct when they think that this is a massive overreach. They are right to be asking questions, and it is absolutely despicable that the Minister would come down to the House and call them baseless conspiracies and say that these are all conspiracy theories. Well, actually, we have a little bit more respect for these people. We believe that they have the right to ask these questions, and we will put these questions in the House as well.

Like I say, 141,000 people who watched my video and the thousands of people who commented and the certain sectors of this community out there who are very worried about this bill have absolutely every right to be worried. We will stand up for them, which is what we are doing, and we continue to oppose this bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That, under section 3(2)(b) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, the relevant period is the period ending on either 1 December 2020 or the tenth sitting day following the first meeting of Parliament after the 2020 general election, whichever is the later, so that the Act continues in force until that time.

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.

COVID-19 Orders

Approval

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the House approve the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order 2020 in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

The order that is the subject of this motion was made under section 11 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. It came into effect on 22 June this year. Under section 16 of that Act, it has to be approved by the House within 60 days of the order being made, so that has to be done before the House rises.

The order is critical to New Zealand’s defence against COVID-19. It underpins the managed isolation and quarantine regime that has been successful in containing COVID-9 at our borders. It sets out the obligations for people arriving in New Zealand by air, and this includes requirements around medical examinations, testing, isolation, and quarantining. It covers the required period and place of isolation and quarantine, and it sets out the circumstances under which people are allowed to leave that place.

The managed isolation and quarantine system established in part by this order has proved an effective defence against COVID-19 at the border. It enabled us to live our lives in a way that is very near to normal—something that has made us admired and envied across the world.

It is right that the executive has to seek parliamentary approval for these powers, which are unusual and far-reaching in a parliamentary democracy like New Zealand. I ask the House to support the motion.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Firstly, I think, in terms of process, this is actually a very good process. I like the idea that secondary and tertiary legislation does get referred back to the House for debate and consideration. There is an opportunity, I think, for the Government to do a lot more of this. We have the Regulations Review Committee, but things like confirmable instruments or disallowable instruments, I think, are things that should be used a lot more.

I must say, I am confused by the fact that this order was first passed, I think the Minister said, in June. What date in June was it?

Hon Kris Faafoi: 22 June.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 22 June. So we were actually quarantining and isolating people from 8 April. We had self-isolation up until then for returning people into New Zealand. Self-isolation simply did not work because police admitted that they weren’t able to monitor it. There was no tracing system, no movement management system, and no technologies that were being used by other countries around the world here in New Zealand—they weren’t being used here—so we actually went into a situation where the Government required people returning to New Zealand to go into managed isolation or quarantine from about 8 April. I remember that date well, because from 8 April to about 9 June, there was absolutely no testing going on, and the Director-General of Health announced very proudly that they were going to test, and then they didn’t test, and that was the subject of a criticism by the Minister that he was severely criticised for.

The issue, and my question, is: if it were necessary to pass a piece of legislation on 13 May and give effect to an air border order in June, and if the Government was so sure that this legislation and the order is necessary, by what legal power were they requiring people to be in managed isolation or quarantine prior to that? Were they just asking them nicely, because people who went into managed isolation from 8 April until this order came into force didn’t believe they had a choice, and if there was a legal power to be able to do that, why do we need this?

So this further underscores for me the pig’s ear that’s been made, actually, of a legal authority to be able to do certain things. On the one hand, we’re told, “We’ve acted lawfully all the way along.” and on the other hand, we hear that section 70 of the Health Act isn’t fit for purpose.

We have an order now that confirms a process that was in place for about six weeks before the order was actually made. So this is, once again, I think an example of, yes, the Government is doing the right thing, but is it doing it in the right way and at the right time and in the right order? It doesn’t appear to me to be the case.

On the other hand, and despite the fact that the order itself is made under the powers provided by an Act that we strongly disagree with, we do support the concept of managed isolation and quarantine. As a consequence, the National Party will be supporting this motion.

Motion agreed to.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the House approve the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order 2020, in accordance with section 16 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.

This motion mirrors that to which the House has just agreed and puts in place an isolation and quarantine regime that applies to people who arrive in New Zealand by sea. The order came into effect a week or so later than that applying to air travellers, but must also be confirmed before the election is held if it is to remain in effect.

It is vital for the economy that some ships continue to arrive in New Zealand while COVID-19 restrictions are in force, and the order allows, among others, cargo ships and fishing boats to continue to operate in and from our ports, but it is essential that COVID-19 does not find its way back into New Zealand by this route. The order sets out isolation and quarantine requirements that are the equivalent of those that apply to air travellers, taking into account that ships are by their nature subject to a degree of quarantine as they travel between countries, and may themselves serve adequately as quarantine facilities.

The number of people affected by this order is considerably lower than those arriving by air, but it is essential that the maritime border is as tight as the air border. I ask that the House support this motion.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I really wish the Minister had gone on just a little longer in his very informative speech. We have a short time before the adjournment, and I’ll just reflect on a couple of points, but I say at the outset that the National Party will be supporting this motion as well.

The Minister is quite correct that ships are, in themselves, bubbles. We know from the quite concerning revelations around cruise ships that very large passenger ships can be harbours for viruses—coronaviruses, in particular, and COVID-19 specifically. We’ve seen some pretty dramatic examples of where ships have been kept in harbours in, say, Tokyo and Sydney, where there was widespread outbreak, and that has caused particular problems.

But on the other hand, as the Minister points out, they are indeed their own bubble. If there is no COVID on them, then, generally speaking, the risk is much, much lower for international arrivals transiting through that place.

I do think there is a need to be very cautious around ship-to-shore movement, and there have been concerns around the country. But this is an appropriate order in the circumstances, and we will support it.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) 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): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This morning Stats New Zealand released the latest labour market statistics for the June quarter, showing that the labour market is weathering the immediate impacts of COVID-19 better than expected. Stats New Zealand said that New Zealand’s unemployment rate in the June quarter, which includes the period that the economy was in lockdown, was 4 percent, down from 4.2 percent in March. This compares to Treasury’s Budget forecast for the unemployment rate to hit 8.3 percent in June. This is a good result, but we have to be aware that the full impact of COVID-19 is yet to be felt. The increase in the underutilisation rate and the number of people indicating they had stopped looking for work due to COVID-19 are both signs of the impact. But the good news was that the number of people in employment fell by only 0.5 percent during the quarter and was up 1.2 percent from a year ago. While we’ve always been clear that things will be more difficult in the face of a one-in-100-year shock in the September quarter, today’s data shows that the Government’s plan to protect jobs and cushion the blow for businesses and households has protected the labour market from the worst effects of COVID-19.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did Statistics New Zealand say about New Zealand’s labour market data compared with international counterparts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: According to Statistics New Zealand, New Zealand’s unemployment rate ranks at seventh in the OECD, above the OECD average of 8.4 percent and well ahead of Australia at 7 percent, and the US and Canada, both at 13 percent. In addition, our employment rate of 76.8 percent is currently fifth in the OECD, well above the average of 68.6 percent. This shows that unlike what we are seeing in many countries, the Government’s decision to go hard and early, and put the wage subsidy in place quickly while getting on top of the virus, was the right approach. The best economic approach was always going to be a strong public health approach, and this is bearing out in terms of our comparison with the rest of the world.

Dr Duncan Webb: What is the Government doing to support employment in the New Zealand economy in the face of the global COVID-19 pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Treasury expects unemployment to rise further and peak in the September quarter, as the impacts of the global recession caused by COVID19 feed through to the domestic economy. Many countries are now experiencing second waves, which will lead to a deeper global recession. As part of the economic plan announced at Budget 2020, the Government is making significant investments to support New Zealanders into jobs, including free trades training to help New Zealanders get into work; providing businesses with up to $16,000 to help cover the costs of an apprentice’s first two years; boosts to He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, trades academies, careers advice, and the new Māori apprenticeships fund; significant new infrastructure investment, including for 8,000 new State houses and regional infrastructure projects; and support for small to medium sized enterprises to receive up to $5,000 for business advice and support them to shift into e-commerce. The Government has a comprehensive economic plan to see Kiwi workers and businesses through the crisis, and we have made the critical investments to back that up.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Provincial Growth Fund that “this programme, in one way or another, plays a fundamental role in every element of our economic strategy”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by the speech I made on 23 February 2018 launching the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF). The Provincial Growth Fund has provided crucial investment in our regions after a decade of under-investment under the previous Government. I note that since that time, the Government has also announced a number of other initiatives that have also played a significant role in our economic strategy, including delivering our first Wellbeing Budget; a 15 percent R & D tax credit; reform of vocational education; the launching of the EU free-trade agreement and the release of our Trade for All agenda; our investment in infrastructure, including the $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme; a number of employment strategies; and the lifting of the minimum wage. That does not touch on the range of initiatives that I note the Minister of Finance mentioned in his last question.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she accept all of the findings of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report on managing the Provincial Growth Fund; if not, which findings does she not accept?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Auditor-General has made three substantive recommendations, one of which I note is for a review of the PGF itself, which is something that we were actually undertaking before COVID struck and do intend to complete. So all of those recommendations—all three—we will be taking forward.

Hon Judith Collins: Did she agree with Shane Jones’ 2018 description of the fund as a “bloody big risk”, and, if so, what specific measures did her Government take to ensure that the $3 billion fund is well managed and fully accountable in light of the Controller and Auditor-General’s finding that it was difficult—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s had at least three questions there—she’s allowed two.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, do what you want me to start again?

SPEAKER: No, I don’t, because the member’s finished.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What Minister Jones was referencing is that no Government had attempted before to make such significant direct investments into regional economies in this way, and therefore that did mean that there was no model for what we were establishing. That has meant that, actually, the work that the Auditor-General has consistently done, alongside the Provincial Development Unit and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and on the PGF, has actually proven useful for us. They have produced a number of recommendations over the course of their reviews, which were in 2017 and 2018, which the Auditor-General themselves have noted departments responded positively to. There have been things that we’ve learnt along the way; that is why we will implement the recommendations that were made, but we stand by the overall principle of this programme of investments, which was to stimulate growth in our regional economies.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the Auditor-General’s finding that it was difficult to find evidence of how projects had fully met the normal criteria for the fund?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe what the member is quoting from is a specific part of the report which relates to manifesto commitments, not the entire fund itself. If the member is actually referring to another section of the report, I’d welcome the reference, but from that element what the Auditor-General was pointing out was there was a specific part of the fund that went to things like Tuia 250, the Rotorua Museum, and a sports facility in Northland, which were commitments made by us before coming into Government that were facilitated through the PGF. What the Auditor-General pointed to was whether or not those projects went through a specific PGF process or not. Our view is that all of them were still worthy investments.

Hon Judith Collins: So was the Auditor-General wrong?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If the Auditor-General was, then, indeed, Todd McClay would be, because he supported the investment in the Rotorua Museum as well.

Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to the Controller and Auditor-General’s finding that “The public is entitled to know how well the Fund has met its objectives and what benefits have been achieved for the public money spent.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely believe that the public are entitled to know the huge benefit that comes from making investments directly in community infrastructure that are aimed at creating local jobs. One of the ways, of course, we can do that is by making sure that we have reporting and public information that allows for that. The Auditor-General themselves did say that that reporting is being undertaken, that there has been significant additional public information, that we’ve met the requirements of the Public Finance Act and completed select committee hearings, but they have asked that we do more. We’ve accepted the recommendations they’ve made, and we’ll be taking them up. Ultimately, though, I do think the response from local communities does point to the fact that they know what those projects are, they know the impact for their communities, and they support them.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, then, is she concerned at the finding of the Auditor-General that “given the different way these projects were considered, ‘manifesto commitments to the regions’ were in effect operating as a ‘fund within a fund’ ”, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the member is actually referring from within a $3 billion fund actually closer to a $40 million aspect of the Provincial Growth Fund. So I just want to be clear that the Auditor-General’s comments are applying there, not specifically, and the member’s questions are slightly misleading in that regard. Coming back to that issue, though, as I have already set out, those were commitments that we made prior to the election. We happened to fund them through the PGF. I note that one of them was the Te Hiku sports centre, of which Matt King said, “Very happy to hear that the Te Hiku Sports Hub received government support to get it off the ground. This is great news for the Kaitāia community.” Similar was said by Todd McClay, who was in support of the Rotorua Museum, which also was supported through that fund. And I would note that you could say roads of national significance also could have been considered a fund within a fund by the way the last Government treated them within the National Land Transport Fund as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister as to whether she considers it a rather parlous state of political affairs when people are being accused for keeping their manifesto commitments?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is a fair point to make—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we have that question again? Because it was very hard to hear what the Deputy Prime Minister was actually saying?

SPEAKER: And the bits that I heard I hadn’t quite got to the point of working out the Prime Minister’s responsibility for, but let’s go. Try again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not she thinks that things have reached a rather parlous state when people are being accused in politics for keeping their manifesto commitments?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do think it is a reasonable point to make that simply because they were things that we’d committed to that somehow they had less value or worth. That is simply not the case. In fact, they have moved towards being also emerging priorities. Northland drought relief, for instance, was one of the elements that was funded, and so was Tuia 250 because, unfortunately, not all the funding required to deliver that programme that was started by the last Government was left, and so we had to make sure it was fully funded and properly rolled out.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has the evaluation of the fund, originally timed for 2020, now been delayed until mid-2021 when the Auditor-General has said the evaluation is “critical, given the Fund’s ambition, size, and profile”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The Auditor-General, if I recall the section correctly, also noted, however, that that work was due to be under way. The member will recall that, of course, those officials who would be involved in that work were also being redeployed and utilised in our COVID response and recovery, so there was a delay but we still intend to do that work. The member should also do well to remember the Auditor-General has looked at the PGF several times before as well, and we’ve implemented those findings too.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How many of the 452,425 people receiving the wage subsidy extension does he expect will become unemployed when the wage subsidy expires, and what is the Government’s plan if the majority of those New Zealanders lose their jobs?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I refer the member to my primary answer to the exact same question yesterday and would like to add that I look forward to being able to continue the exchange today that was ended prematurely yesterday.

SPEAKER: Order! I hope that’s not a reflection on me.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is the Minister getting weekly briefings from Treasury on the state of employment during this one-in-100-year crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Not only am I getting those briefings; the entire New Zealand public is, via the Weekly Economic Update available on the Treasury website.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: And what is Treasury telling him about its latest projections for the job losses following the end of the wage subsidy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While Treasury have not yet updated their formal forecasts that were in the Budget, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update will occur on 20 August. The member can look at weekly updates on the Treasury website.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Since there are around 67,000 more Kiwis on a benefit since before COVID, how many more does he expect to be on a benefit by Christmas?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can go back over the forecasts that I talked about yesterday that mean that in the employment numbers, which is what Treasury do forecast, they said that there would be 2.463 million in the June quarter, 2.477 million in the September quarter, and 2.523 million in the December quarter, meaning that by the December quarter there will be 246,000 people unemployed. I do, however, note that today, with the release from Statistics New Zealand, at this equivalent point, Treasury were forecasting 222,000 people unemployed, and, in fact, it’s 111,000.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Will he adopt National’s policy of allowing workers made redundant to use the tax paid on their redundancy as credit to start a new business and to have a go?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government will not be adopting that policy, no. Individual political parties will make their announcements about policies in the election campaign. But I am struggling to keep up with the number of policies that the member has promoted that his new leader has thrown overboard—we’ve had two in two days, I think.

Question No. 4—Education

4. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What measures has the Government put in place to support employers and workers to focus on skill development during the economic challenges due to COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Excellent news. I’m proud to report that the Apprenticeship Boost initiative begins operating today. The Apprenticeship Boost provides a subsidy of up to $16,000 per apprentice for employers of new and existing apprentices. It’ll help to keep first- and second-year apprentices employed and training towards their qualification. The boost comes on top of the extra funding to ensure that people in apprenticeships and other targeted areas of training don’t have to pay fees up until the end of 2022. Supporting employers and their apprentices now will mean that New Zealand continues to build a strong pipeline of skills that we will need to support our economic recovery.

Jan Tinetti: What indications has he seen that these policies are having a positive impact on people taking up apprenticeships?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is very good news. I am advised by the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation that it had 2,145 apprenticeship sign-ups in July—double the number it had in July last year. The Primary Industry Training Organisation has advised of a doubling of its July sign-ups this year from last year—from 160 to 380. Even more dramatic though, the Skills Organisation, which covers areas like electrical and plumbing apprenticeships, has gone from 129 starts in July last year to 538 in July this year—a 317 percent increase. I’m advised that industry training organisations have been careful in checking through with new employers that they are committed to supporting their apprentices through their whole apprenticeship journey, and they have confirmed that they are.

Hon Willie Jackson: What other support for apprenticeships comes into effect today?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: An excellent question. I am advised by the very good Minister of Employment that the expanded Mana in Mahi scheme comes into effect today, with the support that employers are being offered doubling from 12 to 24 months dependent on the employee’s training pathway. These changes will also better support a wider range of people, including workers of all ages who may have to retrain due to the economic impacts of COVID-19. Mana in Mahi has exceeded targets each year to put people into employment and for more training since it started in 2018, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Employment for his leadership in that area.

Question No. 5—Regional Economic Development

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: Does he agree with all of the findings of the Controller and Auditor-General’s report, Managing the Provincial Growth Fund; if not, what findings does he disagree with?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Page 7, recommendations, yes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t about the recommendations; it was about the findings—all of the findings in the report—and he hasn’t addressed that.

SPEAKER: I think the member asked for something that the Minister disagreed with, and he’s given something. You don’t make a recommendation if it’s not based on a finding, and if the member says that the recommendation is wrong, he probably almost certainly thinks that the finding was, as well.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, speaking to that, there are a plethora of findings; there are only three recommendations. I don’t think mathematically they stack.

SPEAKER: Right. Supplementary question?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the report’s finding that “The integrity of data about job creation is even more important now given the effect of Covid-19 on unemployment.”, and, if so, does he have confidence in the job data he announced via press release yesterday?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, obviously, such data is dynamic. I think it’s important for us to bear in mind, week by week, projects are advancing and firms are being engaged. Data of this character is not static.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If the data is dynamic—it was 10,000 last week, 13,000 this week—what’s the number today?

Hon SHANE JONES: Given that there’s one more question day, if you’d like to put that down in writing, I’ll go and find out from the officials.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the statement of Auditor-General, John Ryan, that “There is some reporting on jobs, although we mention in the report that it is a very hard number to verify and to see whether it meets the requirement of the fund.”, and, if so, how is he able to issue press releases estimating the number of jobs?

Hon SHANE JONES: The stewardship of this fund has been driven by optimism and confidence—qualities that I exude. I think it’s very important that the member bears in mind—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just made up.

Hon SHANE JONES: —that throughout the life of the fund, the—

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Withdraw and apologise.

Hon SHANE JONES: As I was saying, the Auditor-General has been engaging with the bureaucracy over the life of the fund, and there are a host of improvements that have been secured as a consequence of the ongoing involvement of that office. As I’ve said before, the nature of the jobs number will evolve as the projects mature.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can the Minister be confident in his claimed number of new jobs created, when the report of the Auditor-General states the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) is still “Considering matters such as: What counts as a job”?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, it’s such a dynamic area. It’s important to bear in mind that that is a snapshot, that reflection that is in the report. The most important thing is we have continued to approve and projects are evolving. I mean, there have been lots of jobs for others, given that my office has actually answered 8,630 written questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not there have been some seriously respected businessmen and women—with a record of serious achievement, as well—associated with the PDU, and that is why $700 million only, thus far, of the $3 billion has been paid out, because it’s properly accounted for—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I’ve been shortening the others up.

Hon SHANE JONES: In the architecture and the governance of the fund, myself, the Minister of Finance, Mr Twyford, and David Parker were well and truly supported by an independent appraisal committee led by the redoubtable businessman from the South Island, Rodger Finlay. It would be very unwise for anyone in the House to cavil against a man of such mana.

Question No. 6—Tourism

6. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by all his statements made yesterday regarding the tourism recovery package and travel agents?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Tourism): I stand by my statements but acknowledge the tone I used has caused concern amongst the industry. I acknowledge that New Zealanders working in outbound tourism are struggling as a result of COVID19 and are doing their best to secure refunds for their customers. I also acknowledge that Kiwis working in the industry are stressed and doing their best in these uncertain times. Minister Faafoi and I have asked our officials to engage with the outbound tourism sector. We understand New Zealanders are still awaiting refunds and that agents are working through that process. We need to better understand the challenges travel agents are facing in regards to refunding customers before making decisions around Government support.

Hon Todd McClay: Does he stand by his answer yesterday that the reason travel agents did not receive any Government support is that they didn’t apply, they asked for too much, or they’re luring New Zealanders overseas, and, if not, will he apologise to them?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The question the member asked me was very clear: why AJ Hackett got Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme funding and outbound tourism operators did not. I stand by the answer I provided the member yesterday.

Hon Todd McClay: On behalf of all of the travel agents in New Zealand who are about to lose their jobs or businesses when the Government’s wage subsidy expires, will he offer them an apology in the House today for the upset and concern he caused them yesterday as a result of his ill-chosen comments?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve already said that my tone could be better and, as I’ve also said, Minister Faafoi and I have asked officials to engage with the sector. I expect they’ll come back with more information regarding the current and future state of outbound tour operators.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that travel agents are trying to process an estimated $2 billion of refunds from 150 countries for cancelled trips of New Zealanders and that this money could be spent on domestic tourism, meaning more support for the tourism sector; and when is he going to—

SPEAKER: Order! Answer the first two, or either of them.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: My job as the Minister of Tourism is to grow our tourism industry and, as a response to COVID-19, get New Zealanders taking full advantage of the domestic tourism we have here at home. That will help our New Zealand tourism businesses get through the effects of COVID-19. Their livelihood, their businesses, and the contribution tourism makes for New Zealanders are my priority. I acknowledge the role that outbound tourism operators have played and the effects they are feeling from the closure of borders because of COVID-19. That is why the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and I have asked for options and advice on the situation.

Hon Todd McClay: Since he won’t take the opportunity to apologise to the sector, will he make support available from the $400 million allocated to the tourism sector in Budget 2020 to travel agents, or have all of these funds been committed, leaving agents and their employees to fend for themselves?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The fund has been totally allocated: $21 million has gone to Māori tourism, supporting 18 Māori tourism businesses; $20.2 million has gone to regional tourism organisations; $25 million has gone to concessions; $50 million has gone to events so that we can grow the number of events around in the regions and get New Zealanders visiting more regions; $10 million has gone to digital support for tourism businesses; $20 million has gone to the inbound tour operator loan scheme; and $311 million has gone to over 120 strategic tourism assets to make sure that when the borders do reopen we have a tourism industry for people to visit.

Question No. 7—Social Development

7. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What work-focused initiatives has the Government implemented to improve the support offered through the welfare system?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): We invested an additional $59.6 million into industry partnerships, which includes initiatives like our partnership with Auckland Council and partnership with Turners and Growers; $12.5 million towards strengthening employment services for disabled people; $12 million into supporting offenders into employment. We invested in 263 more work-focused case managers to increase our work-focused engagements. We’ve rolled out employment zones and hubs across a number of Ministry of Social Development (MSD) sites. We have enhanced our online offerings so that people looking for work can more easily access the support they need, and MSD implemented and expanded Mana in Mahi to support people to find and stay in work while gaining a qualification—thanks to Minister Jackson for his leadership on this. These are just some of the work-focused initiatives that MSD has led over the past three years. There are more, in particular more investments and initiatives that have been put in place due to COVID.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Pātai tāpiri. How has the Ministry of Social Development supported people to find and stay in work in response to COVID-19?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We supported employers to keep people in jobs by administering both the wage subsidy and leave support schemes, supporting more than 1.7 million jobs. We bolstered our capability to respond by investing $250 million into income and employment support staff, including an investment into 500 more front-line staff. We initiated rapid response teams across the hardest-hit regions to coordinate employment, redeployment, and income support. We broadened our product offering, establishing a free Keep New Zealand Working online recruitment tool and initiating a rapid return to work service for people coming on to benefit. We committed $150 million to provide more employment support products like Flexi-wage and pre-employment training, and today announced an additional $54 million towards this.

SPEAKER: Order! That is excessive.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Pātai tāpiri. Why has this approach been important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Supporting people into work is a central part of our welfare system and has been a priority for our Government, even prior to COVID-19. That meant we were in a strong position when COVID hit. However, New Zealand will not be immune to the global headwinds and ongoing impacts of COVID. We have not been, and cannot be, complacent. Our approach has seen Kiwis getting into work despite the challenging circumstances. June this year saw 2,000 more exits off benefit and into work than June 2019. It is important to keep in mind that MSD is not the only agency focused on jobs. Multiple agencies and Ministers are working in collaboration with businesses, unions, local government, and NGOs to keep New Zealand working.

SPEAKER: Order! Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just going to draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Speaker’s ruling 179/8, about replies being concise, and this is not the first instance—

SPEAKER: And the member knows well that he’s not allowed to, and, frankly, that’s getting disorderly.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Transport: What components, if any, of the Recommended Programme of Investment for Let’s Get Wellington Moving were not included in the final Indicative Package announced by him on 16 May 2019, and why were those components not included?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to note the Opposition’s endorsement of our Government’s Let’s Get Wellington Moving projects after two years of opposing them. Our Government is taking a balanced approach. We believe in integrating road, motorways, public transport, walking, cycling, and rapid transit, which is the only lasting solution to congestion. I know that the member was disappointed that the extra Terrace tunnel and the undergrounding of Te Aro were not included, but the Ministry of Transport calculated that those two projects alone would cost $1.8 billion—nearly a third of the cost of the package that our Government is getting on with delivering.

Chris Bishop: Like Melling.

Nicola Willis: We’ll get it done.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bishop—the other member may wish to have a supplementary, but she needs to stand up and call.

Chris Bishop: Has he seen recent reports of congestion caused by the closure of the Terrace tunnel in Wellington, and will he now look at advancing plans to duplicate the Terrace tunnel?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have seen reports of congestion, but, as I said to the member in my earlier answer, the Terrace tunnel and the trenching of State Highway 1 at Karo Drive would have cost an extra $1.8 billion. This Government has committed itself to a $6.4 billion integrated transport project for Wellington City. To add additional projects, as the member seems to want to, would actually be tantamount to taking transport funding from other regions. Now, the member has promised $31 billion of transport spending over and above—over and above—the $46 billion our Government has already fully funded. He needs to tell the people of New Zealand how he is going to pay for it.

Chris Bishop: Has he received advice on the benefits to Wellington of the Te Aro undergrounding project, and why is this project not part of the indicative package he’s announced for Let’s Get Wellington Moving?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it is an interesting project, but I have to say that the benefit-cost ratio, if I recall correctly, doesn’t even break one—it doesn’t pay for itself—and, actually, if the member wants to be the Minister of Transport one day, he’s got to understand that, actually, transport is all about choosing priorities. You can’t just go out there and promise $31 billion without telling New Zealanders how you’re going to pay for it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, when he used the phrase “endorsing projects”, does he mean announcing projects that the Government’s already planned, paid for, and has under way, and can he give us an example of one?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, it was very touching to hear the Opposition announce that they’re going to build the Ōtaki to north of Levin expressway, a project that we have fully funded and committed to and are already doing the work on—and already doing the work on.

Chris Bishop: That member cancelled it.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s very touching—no, the work is under way. It’s actually happening. The geotechnical investigations are under way as we speak. But our Government has very prudently set aside $14 billion of the COVID recovery budget allowance. The Opposition has already spent that twice over, and that’s just on transport.

Chris Bishop: Well, just in relation to that last answer, does he accept that the Ōtaki to north of Levin project, like the Melling interchange project in the Hutt Valley, were both projects re-evaluated following the $5 billion cut to the State highway budget, only to be brought back after National Party pressure?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, unless you believe in the resurrection, you can’t bring back a ghost road.

Kieran McAnulty: Kia orana e Te Vaa Tuatua. What recent announcements has he seen about Wellington regional transport projects?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I’ve seen two that are worth mentioning. It’s great to see the National Party finally coming to the party and committing to upgrades and safety improvements in the Wairarapa that are currently being designed under this Government. It was also good to see them finally catch up and commit to the big New Zealand Upgrade Programme that we announced in January, including the Ōtaki to north of Levin expressway that’s fully funded, and rail upgrades north of Wellington that are also fully funded under this Government. I want to congratulate the Opposition on finally announcing—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I was hoping the member might come to something that he had responsibility for, but he didn’t.

Nicola Willis: Kia orana. Will he commit to breaking ground on a new Mount Victoria tunnel by 2023, or is he content to delay this congestion-busting project for a decade or more?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, obviously I reject the premise of that question. There’s no delay. Our Government has committed and fully funded a second Mount Victoria tunnel, unlike the former National Government, who for nine years did nothing in Wellington, except try to impose a giant concrete flyover on Wellingtonians, and they failed at that.

Brett Hudson: How does the Government’s decision to not implement or to delay the components of the Let’s Get Wellington Moving recommended programme of investment from Ngauranga through to Te Aro benefit residents of Wellington’s northern suburbs?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the Let’s Get Wellington Moving project, it’s true, does actually make a major investment in integrated transport projects in Wellington City, but it sits alongside a major programme of investments that this Government has made, not only Ōtaki to north of Levin: the Melling interchange, safety improvements at State Highway 58, and the Ōtaki to north of Levin expressway. The Wellington region is seeing far more money and far more attention under this Government than it ever did under nine years of National.

Question No. 9—Health

9. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: How is New Zealand prepared for a second coronavirus wave, and how are recent community surveillance testing numbers a part of that preparation?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Health): New Zealand’s now gone 96 days without any evidence of community transmission of COVID-19, but we cannot afford to be complacent. The virus continues to rage around the world. We’re putting huge effort into containing it at our border, but we’re also preparing for possible new cases in the community. On 15 July, the Prime Minister and I set out the framework for our ongoing approach, with its focus on containing and stamping out any new cases. Central to that is the continuing work we are doing to constantly strengthen our testing and contact tracing capability. We currently have the capacity to process around 13,000 tests a day, but that could surge to up to 23,000 tests per day if needed. We’d also see further use of pop-up testing surveillance sites, like the one that we saw in Queenstown yesterday, which gathered more than a thousand samples in a single day.

Dr Shane Reti: When the Director-General of Health describes a second coronavirus wave in New Zealand as “not if, but when” and “inevitable”, when does current modelling suggest the timing of that second wave and how will reinfection likely occur?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There is no specific timing. I think the director-general is stating the obvious: that we cannot be complacent. This is something that the Prime Minister, myself, every Minister of the Government, the director-general, and all of the health experts who comment on COVID-19 have all been saying—that we must be prepared for the fact that a second outbreak of COVID-19 could happen at any time. The secret to avoiding that becoming a big problem for New Zealand is making sure that our contact tracing system is robust, which is what the Government has been doing, so that we can isolate it and stamp it out quickly before widespread community transmission takes off.

Dr Shane Reti: Which of the 10 personal protective equipment (PPE) recommendations from the Office of the Auditor-General report in June have been fully implemented in preparation for a second wave?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That work is ongoing. One of the things that I’ll have more to say about tomorrow is some of the findings around face masks; there’ll be more on that. We’ll be issuing clearer guidance around face masks tomorrow. Work has been under way to ensure that the stocks of PPE have been increased, and that work has been very successful. We’ve got very strong levels of PPE in storage now. I can say that in addition to that there is PPE available for the public to purchase, and I’d certainly encourage them to do that. As they have an earthquake preparedness kit at home, they should have a kit at home to prepare for any further outbreak of COVID-19 as well.

Dr Shane Reti: Which of the 14 recommendations from the Waitakere Hospital incident report in May have been fully implemented in preparation for a second wave?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have that with me. If the member wants information that’s as specific as that, then he should give some indication of that in his primary question.

Dr Shane Reti: Which of the three critical recommendations in the Ayesha Verrall contact tracing report in May have been fully implemented in preparation for a second wave?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: All of the recommendations in the Verrall report have been fully implemented.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Has the Minister indicated in the House today that tomorrow there might be an announcement requiring New Zealanders to make greater use of face masks?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, the announcement tomorrow will be around the conditions on which we would ask New Zealanders to use face masks. That is something that we have had a number of questions on and we’ll be providing greater guidance on that tomorrow.

Question No. 10—Climate Change

10. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change: What announcements has he made recently highlighting the risks Aotearoa New Zealand faces as a consequence of climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): This week, the Government released the first national climate change risk assessment. The risk assessment sets out the risks to New Zealand in a warming world. The report identifies 43 distinct threats associated with climate change and highlights the 10 most pressing. The report tells us where we need to focus our efforts to ensure Aotearoa is resilient and ready for the future. It’s sobering, but it is a call to action.

Marama Davidson: Now we know the scale of the risk, what is the Government doing to respond?

Hon JAMES SHAW: We are already working on our response. The national adaptation plan, which will set out how we’ll work with communities, councils, iwi, and the private sector to create a safer and more resilient Aotearoa, is already under way.

Marama Davidson: What is the legal status of the risk assessment and adaptation plan?

Hon JAMES SHAW: The risk assessment and the adaptation plan are requirements of the zero carbon Act, which was passed by Parliament unanimously last year. The Climate Change Commission has the job of updating the risk assessment every six years, and the Government has the responsibility to respond with an update to the adaptation plan. The Climate Change Commission is responsible for holding the Government to account on its commitments under the adaptation plan.

Marama Davidson: Does this mean we should focus all of our efforts on adapting to climate change, not reducing emissions?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Absolutely not. We need to tackle the root cause of the climate crisis, which are greenhouse gas emissions from energy, transport, building and construction, agriculture, and so on. If we don’t deal with the structural causes of the problem, we will find ourselves needing to adapt to an ever more warming world. There are people in this House who say that we are too small to make a difference, but nations producing less than 1 percent of global emissions, including New Zealand, collectively make up a third of total global emissions. We have made some good progress in this term but we cannot let up. New Zealanders want to see ambitious action on climate change and need to elect a Government up to the challenge.

Question No. 11—Defence

11. Hon NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister of Defence: Does he support the NZDF’s initiatives to support smoking cessation?

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Short answer is yes. Service personnel are encouraged to quit smoking as part of a holistic approach to health that puts the individual at the centre of their care with the necessary tools to make healthy choices, whether those choices be around eating healthy, keeping fit, smoking, or, in fact, drinking.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, that rules him out!

Hon Nicky Wagner: Is he aware that many New Zealand servicemen and women—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat, and I think it’s fair to say that there’s a bit of “who cast the first stone” here.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Is he aware that many New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen use non-tobacco nicotine pouches in order to quit smoking?

Hon RON MARK: Yes, I am.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Will he then vote for my Supplementary Order Paper 562 to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill, that would keep non-tobacco nicotine pouches legal to help people quit smoking?

Hon RON MARK: As the Minister of Defence, which is where my ministerial responsibility lies in this space, I take advice from the Chief of Defence Force and I read all of the recommendations that he might put to my desk. On such matters, he has put no such recommendations or policy options before me.

Hon Nicky Wagner: Will he accept my recommendation?

Hon RON MARK: No.

SPEAKER: I thought I heard that twice then.

Question No. 12—Police

12. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that the Government’s policies are keeping New Zealanders safe?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you to the member for the opportunity to celebrate our achievements in the police portfolio. Crime prevention measures and safer communities are enhanced by record-breaking investment in front-line police numbers, which are now more than 14 percent higher than three years ago—it is the largest and most diverse police service we’ve had in our nation’s history; record-breaking investment in family harm and police assets in successive Budgets, all of which that member voted against; the seizure of over 3,000 illegal firearms in the last year and tougher penalties on gun crime, which that member voted against; tougher terrorism suppression measures through control orders for returning citizens, which that member voted against; record-breaking organised crime busts and seizures, including a staggering 1.8 tonnes of meth last year, which was three times the amount of the previous year; the introduction of the drug driving bill that the previous Government failed to deliver in nine years. I could go on, but I’ll respond with a resounding yes.

Brett Hudson: How does that answer reconcile with the increase of nearly 17,500 victimisations to the end of May 2020?

Hon STUART NASH: As the commissioner says, when you’ve got more police on the ground, you find more crime, because people now have confidence in actually coming to police and the fact that they’ll actually solve it.

Brett Hudson: Why, when he said, “I’m saying more police on the street allows us to solve more crime.”, have victimisations increased, if more police are on the front line?

Hon STUART NASH: Because a lot more crime has been solved, with a lot more police on the streets.

Brett Hudson: How does he explain the increase of nearly 14 percent in assault victimisations over that 12 months to the end of May, when New Zealand was in lockdown for seven weeks of that period?

Hon STUART NASH: What I can explain is a record investment of police—2,250 new police are in our community thanks to New Zealand First and this coalition Government. This is a record number of new police into our communities. Thank goodness for a Government that invests in law and order.

Brett Hudson: Does he consider the increase in victimisations and the increase in the number of gang members measures of success?

Hon STUART NASH: What I would say about the increase in gang members is, as the commissioner said, it’s fluid, and when you get more police out there working closer with communities, you identify more bad people, so you can arrest them when they do something wrong.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its consideration of the 1,436 submissions on the bill from 1,246 submitters. Many of these were also supplemented by oral submissions, and I also want to thank submitters for their valuable contributions. Mr Speaker—or Madam Speaker; that was quick—the select committee held hearings during the alert level 4 lockdown via Zoom, and I appreciate submitters taking the time to be involved under these unusual circumstances.

Since the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) came into force over 30 years ago, our homeownership rates have declined and the proportion of households living in the rental market has increased significantly. More people, including families and older people, are renting for longer or for life. This bill aligns New Zealand’s rental laws with the present-day realities of renting in New Zealand. It ensures that there are appropriate protections in place both for tenants and for landlords. The changes in the bill will improve tenant security and stability while continuing to protect landlords’ interests in their property. The changes also balance the rights and responsibilities of tenants and landlords and modernise the legislation so that it can respond to the changing trends of the rental market.

The committee has by majority recommended the bill be reported back to the House with proposed amendments, and the Government has accepted these amendments. I will briefly outline these changes today, and I would again like to thank the select committee members for their productive and thoughtful contributions. Firstly, I want to outline an exemption that the committee has added to the Residential Tenancies Act so that it does not apply to transitional and emergency housing where this housing is funded either by a Government department or under a special needs grant programme. Emergency and transitional housing is a short-term safe place—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Sorry to interrupt the—I’m finding it really difficult to hear the contribution from the Hon Kris Faafoi. Could members please have a conversation in the lobby. Thank you—sorry.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —thank you, Madam Speaker—to stay while longer-term accommodation can be found. There is an existing exemption in the RTA for temporary or transient housing, but the length of time that some clients are now remaining in these services make it unclear where the exemption does and does not apply. This change to the bill clarifies the legal position of emergency and transitional housing. The Residential Tenancies Act notice requirements do not align well with the purpose of transitional and emergency accommodation, where the intention is for clients to move to more permanent housing as soon as this can be arranged. The new exemption helps ensure that providers can continue to provide this valuable service to people who need a safe place to stay.

I also intend to address some further issues through a Supplementary Order Paper in my name. Some of the submitters to the select committee drew attention to family violence as an area where tenants’ rights could be further improved. The Government has listened to these concerns, and we intend to add further amendments to the bill to allow a victim of family violence to leave a tenancy quickly by providing the landlord with a family violence termination notice. As I’m sure everyone in this House will agree with, family violence in all its forms is unacceptable. I also intend to include further provision in the Supplementary Order Paper allowing landlords to issue termination notices where the tenant has committed physical assault on either the landlord, a family member of the landlord, or an agent of the landlord.

As part of a Supplementary Order Paper, I also intend to extend some provisions from the COVID-19 legislation. The RTA was amended to provide greater flexibility for the Tenancy Tribunal’s operations in recognition of the need to hold tribunal hearings by teleconference during alert levels 3 and 4. I intend to extend these provisions for a further six months from the current expiry date of 25 September in order to allow the tribunal to hold a greater number of hearings and therefore reduce waiting times.

The committee had also made some more minor technical amendments to the bill, and these optimise the bill and will ensure that it will be effective to achieve the outcomes we’re seeking in the rental market. Employers offering a serviced tenancy as part of an employment agreement will now be exempt from the obligation to state the amount of rent when advertising, and the requirement for a landlord to permit and facilitate the installation of fibre in certain circumstances has been improved through some minor technical changes. Some amendments have also been made to the provisions for termination by notice so that an action showing that the ground is being exercised must now occur within 90 days—one example of this is where a landlord wishes to terminate a tenancy to allow a family member to move in, that family member must move in within 90 days.

Provisions for termination and transfer in social housing tenancies have also been clarified and the ability to transfer a social housing tenant to another tenancy has been amended to align it with the Public and Community Housing Management Act of 1992. An amendment has also been made so that where the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment takes a case to the Tenancy Tribunal as the regulator on behalf of a party, that party’s name will automatically be anonymised. In some cases, tenants may not be aware that a case has been taken up on their behalf, and we would not wish them to be potentially disadvantaged for future tenancy applications.

The bill also provides that landlords with six or more tenancies would be subject to higher infringement fees and pecuniary penalties, and amendments to the bill will clarify who counts as an associated person and whose tenancies will therefore count towards the landlord’s number of tenancies. The amendments reflect submitters’ concerns that the original definition of an associated person in the bill was too wide. The Regulations Review Committee recommended that the bill should include guidelines as to the exercise or the regulation-making power to specify infringement notices, and the committee has therefore added a requirement that the Minister responsible for the Residential Tenancies Act consult with the Minister of Justice on any new proposed infringement offences before recommending any regulations.

This bill, along with the changes made by the committee, will improve security and wellbeing for approximately 600,000 households that live in rented homes in New Zealand. In conclusion, I recommend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party does not support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I’ll go into the reasons why, but I need to draw the House’s instant attention to the absolute disrespectful and shoddy approach—unfortunately, while I respect the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing) as an individual—of this Government to have literally tabled in the last 20 seconds, I kid you not—to those thousands of people who have submitted against this bill, be very clear, the Government in the last 30 seconds now has tabled an SOP of over 15 pages of which the Opposition has never laid eyes upon. In fact, it was only five minutes ago—five minutes ago—that the Minister announced that there was an SOP making substantial changes. Some, from what the Minister’s indicated, this side could accept; most probably not. But in terms of an absolute affront and an arrogance to this Parliament—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Under urgency.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —under urgency, as the shadow Leader of the House has rightly pointed out. I probably do need to take a slight step back, because I am somewhat indignant.

This House—this Parliament is under urgency. It is rushing this bill through all its remaining stages this afternoon, and an SOP has literally only just been tabled. Sorry, for the public at home, an SOP—or Supplementary Order Paper—is a series of amendments which are made to the primary legislation. These are 15 pages—15 pages of proposed changes—which the Government has known about, and I would suggest has deliberately withheld from the Opposition. We will have only a matter of a couple of hours, if that, to discuss, think, and debate before the Government rams it through. This is a complete affront to the democracy of this House, but I would like to suggest this is an absolute illustration of a Government that does not care about those they purport to—in fact, I might put it this way, because the other side likes to babble on with the “k” word, being “kindness”. This is not a very kind thing to do.

Hon Tim Macindoe: It’s completely the opposite.

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is a complete—it’s absolutely absurd. We’ll have to come to that.

But, look, unfortunately this sits within the framework of the way that this entire bill has been handled, including through the Social Services and Community Committee. The select committee continued during the COVID lockdown. The meetings had to be conducted via Zoom. That’s not to take away from the committee members who worked hard on this bill, but this was pushed through at a stage that the country was not only distracted with COVID but members of this Parliament were coming to grips with a new way of working. The bill was rammed through, I would suggest, a committee process which ultimately leads to flawed situations. I need to remind the House: just about every piece of social legislation which this Government has put through has been flawed, conceptually and practically. We’ve had to return to this House multiple times to fix up errors which the Government has created by rushing the process.

I’m actually quite angry. As far as I do emotion, I’m actually quite angry that this has been foisted on us. The primary bill itself, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, is a bad bill, and I’ll come to the reasons why. But, again, the fact that literally at 2.56 p.m.—again, to the thousands of people who have written in to me and the Opposition, please take absolute note that not only has the Government ignored your—as in the public’s—view on this, but now they are dumping more amendments literally four minutes ago. That’s the affront, and that’s ultimately how much the Government cares about the views of other people: not a bit.

Why does National oppose the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill as it stood? It’s important to say that now—“as it stood”—because it’s about to change comprehensively. Why we oppose it is a matter of principle and a matter of pragmatism, if you will. In principle, National remains the party of private property rights. We expect that there’s a rightful balance between landlords and tenants, but the fundamental aspect is that the landlord owns the house. We’ve heard it several times from the other side that believe that, actually, housing needs to be a social service. The Government has said very clearly at times that private landlords are really acting as a social service. That is wrong. That is an affront to private property rights. It is up to the owner of the property to decide how they want to use their property, and not to be told by a Government of how to use it.

Now, that probably is a difference between the left and the right of politics. The left are very keen on telling people how to live their lives and how to run their homes. But why National’s pragmatically against this bill is not because it believes in a balance between tenants and landlords; it’s that this bill completely throws out of whack—for want of a better expression—the balance. It tilts it completely against the landlord—the owner of the home. But sadly the changes in this bill—and I’m happy to have it on Hansard—will harm tenants more. A big part of this is this is classic leftist behaviour which believes that a little bit of writing on paper and black and white ideals are just going to make major, major changes.

What we will see with these changes are fewer landlords operating in the market. How do we know that? The Minister will know this from going through the submissions. Landlord after landlord in the committee, and those that have been contacting certainly MPs on this side of the House are saying, “It’s no longer worth being a landlord; it’s time to get out.” Our constituents already write to us, email us, call us, and complain to us about all these ghost homes, these empty homes that sit around our towns and cities. That’s probably because landlords are already tired of all the extra requirements and costs which this Labour Government has foisted on them. This is probably going to be the final straw for many of them. Why that’s actually going to harm tenants—and it’s simple mathematics; it’s simple market dynamics—is fewer private rentals will see an increase in rents. Just remember, rents have already gone up about $50-$60 a week on average across the country—even higher in Auckland. Rents have already gone up under this Government; I would suggest, because of this Government, it’s going to get even worse.

But the Government, being a bunch of theoreticians, think that they can solve it by putting a clause in this bill which says you can only raise rents once every 12 months, because that will solve prices going up! Well, as I noted in a video last night, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a mathematician to work out that all landlords will do—those who remain in the market—is make a steeper increase every 12 months. If they’re not able to actively compete for who the tenants shall be, it’s not the tenant who’s going to benefit at the end of the day because some Minister or Government’s written a whole lot of words on a piece of paper; it will be the tenant who suffers as the landlord uses what they can to provide what they believe is the rightful rent.

Fundamentally, as I said at the start, it is the landlord, not the Government, that owns that property. It is the landlord, day after day, who is paying for the cost—be that a mortgage, you name it, they’re paying for it. They need to recoup their costs. The irony of the leftist thinking on being a social service is that the social service is meant to be there to serve the tenant, but there’s no social service, if you will, or support of the landlord who is attempting to provide something.

Fundamentally, we have a Government already—and we brought this up during the select committee process—that is failing in the housing of New Zealanders. The Minister knows this: 18,000 Kiwi families are currently waiting for a State house. There were about 5,000 under National when we left Government—that was 5,000 too many—but now it’s at 18,000. Why National opposes this so aggressively—why National opposes this so aggressively—is that number will get worse because of this bill. It’s a theoretician’s bill. It all looks wonderful on paper, and all the advocates who came in arguing for it from the pro-tenant’s side think that simple words and intentions are going to make a difference.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Is that all you’ve got?

SIMON O’CONNOR: But at the end of the day—oh, no, we’ve got more readings after this. The Minister’s saying is that all I’ve got? No, I’ve got a lot more. I’m actually pacing myself. As the Minister might remember, he and his Government are rushing all parts of this bill through this afternoon. To end where I started, not only are they rushing it through as they’ve rushed the entire bill through, they have literally dropped an amendment only a few moments ago, providing the Opposition and myself absolutely no chance to engage it. That’s exactly symbolic of what they think of landlords, and landlords will take note in the election.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, Extension

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next speaker, I have a correction to a vote. When the House was considering the Government motion relating to section 3(2)(b) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, the result of the vote was incorrectly announced as Ayes 63, Noes 55. The correct result is Ayes 63, Noes 56. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is actually with great pride that I rise to take a call on this bill, because this is a bill that ultimately will rebalance some of the power imbalance that we see between landlords and tenants.

I want to begin, though, by responding to a couple of points made by the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor. One of the things he went on and on about was the idea of kindness, and that somehow on this side of the House we were being unkind because we were intending to make some changes through Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that the Minister plans to table, and for some reason that was incredibly unkind. The member mentioned that, even though members opposite didn’t actually know what were in the SOPs, they were likely to vote against them. What they would be voting against are provisions to help victim-survivors of family violence to actually be able to leave a tenancy. So that is an incredibly disappointing attitude for members opposite, and I would urge them to perhaps reconsider what kindness actually means.

We had a number of submissions, we had over 1,400 submissions that were made, and there were a few submissions in there from the likes of the National Collective of Women’s Refuges and also Rural Women New Zealand, who made the point very clearly that there were other jurisdictions that had some very strong provisions in legislation to ensure that the rights of victim-survivors of violence were protected through similar legislation. I don’t think, to be fair, that there were any members on the Social Services and Community Committee who would oppose that, but there were some of us on the select committee—particularly those of us who have worked in the sector—supporting victim-survivors of violence who were very keen for those changes to be made as a result of the submitters’ oral and written submissions. I, for one, on this side of the House, am incredibly pleased, and I commend the Minister for taking those changes on board and incorporating them into the legislation.

So we might quibble about the way in which it’s being achieved, but the fact that it’s being achieved through this legislation is the point that I want to make, and it will make life fairer for those who are trying to get out of tenancies but couldn’t do so, because they were victims of family violence and their name was on the lease. Because of the way in which legislation stands at the moment, they are actually unable to get out. So this will actually make things better for them.

Just very quickly, because I think the Minister has outlined the changes that will be brought in as a result of this, the point of this legislation is that we’re seeing an increasing number of people who are renting. Long-term renting needs to become a viable option for them. It is not currently, and to be able to achieve that we need to improve security of tenure, and that’s what this bill does. It aims to achieve a better balance between the rights, responsibilities, and protections for both landlords and tenants. So while members opposite might want to paint or build a narrative that Government members are doing this to somehow be punitive towards landlords, that’s absolutely untrue.

The changes that this bill will bring about—and they’ve been outlined already by the Minister—I’ll just point to one. The ending of no-cause terminations, because we have heard from submitters during the select committee process that many of them are being asked to leave tenancies and landlords, because of legislation that currently stands, don’t have to give a reason for that. So we don’t have data on how many people have been thrown out of their houses for reasons that are possibly not reasons that we would consider fair in the current day. So that’s the kind of change that this bill will bring about. At the end of the day, it’s about the right that everyone has to housing—to have a warm, dry, safe home, and that’s what, on this side of the House, we believe in strongly. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak against the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill in the second reading, and I want to go through the National Party’s reasons why not. But I want to just put on record, you know, our serious concern around the process in this instance, because what happens with a piece of legislation in the first reading is it’s introduced, it goes off to the select committee, submissions are heard, and, as part of the process within the select committee, the select committee has the ability to improve the bill. The member before me talked about a couple of submissions that were part of that process. So it’s somewhat disturbing that if that member was advocating for it so strongly, why that change wasn’t made in the select committee, because that’s where, through that process, Parliament has the ability to ensure, through officials’ advice and through detailed assessment, in some instances, the referral back to submitters so that they have the opportunity to also present their view on the additional changes. So instead, what we have here, 3 o’clock, second to last day of the sitting of the 52nd Parliament, we have a 15-page Supplementary Order Paper dropped on the table literally seconds into the first speaker of the Opposition party. So it is particularly concerning, under urgency, that the Government continues to follow shoddy process around lawmaking, and we’ve seen, unfortunately, on far too many occasions, that’s resulted in legislation coming back to the House for further changes to fix it.

So I do want to start my comments by just reiterating Simon O’Connor’s concern about a shoddy process. This particular piece of legislation, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, in the National Party’s view, unfortunately, alters the balance quite significantly between landlords and tenants. That is a really important relationship and it’s an important relationship to have in balance. What we don’t disagree with is the fact that tenants need to have—because there are more people renting, we do need to have a situation where there is longer rental tenures available. But the difficulty is, with legislation like this, unfortunately, it is tilting the balance too far the other way.

I, actually, had a conversation with a constituent at the airport the other day. He and his wife have one rental property, they’ve saved for a long time to get it, and, unfortunately, this piece of legislation will force them out of the market. Now, this is a landlord. They’re not the fat cats that the other side always says. This is a typical New Zealand landlord—what we call “mum and dad investor”.

Tāmati Coffey: A business owner.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Might have one property, one rental.

Tāmati Coffey: Business.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Oh, the other side don’t like businesses. They hate the idea that anyone could be in business. This person’s not in business; no, they’re a mum and dad investor. They’ve got one property. They pride themselves on their relationship with their tenants and they go above and beyond to support the tenants in that property that they own.

Unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation, 71 percent of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand members were opposed to the one clause—

Hon Member: Surprise, surprise.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Wait, but wait—71 percent of landlords opposed ditching the no-cause 90-day notice. Same survey, 45 percent of tenants also didn’t agree with it. Their concern was antisocial behaviour of the neighbours of the house they were renting. So this particular bill—and I want to tell you about one of the unintended consequences that I find really disturbing, because what it means is landlords will be far more careful in terms of who they rent their property to, and it is their property—it is their property. So, unfortunately, some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders who are trying to get into a rental property will be shut out of the rental market because of this policy.

So let’s just have a quick look at the housing situation at the moment. So we’ve got 18,000 New Zealanders on the waiting list for the social housing register. On average, they will be on it for 213 days. That is more than three times what it was when this Labour Government came in, and they’ve got their heads down now. Emergency housing grants—the now Minister of Social Development had said the Labour Party’s comprehensive housing plan would mean that there wouldn’t be funding spent on emergency housing grants; four times as many—

Hon Peeni Henare: Who sold the State homes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —pre-COVID. Oh, and the State houses, 146 by the Labour Party who said they would stop the sell-off of State houses. And those that you want to claim have been built, it’s great that we’ve got more State houses built; half of them were started by National so you can’t claim credit for them.

So, unfortunately, this piece of legislation does nothing to support vulnerable tenants getting into a new property. The balance has been tilted too far the other way. We’ve been listening to landlords, we’ve been listening to tenants, and, unfortunately, this legislation will mean there are fewer properties available and rents will continue to go up.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First, and once again find myself sitting between Bill and Ben, listening to some of the arguments to and fro. I have to say that New Zealand First, being a party of common sense, finds sense in both sides of the House’s argument. When we talk about both sides of the House, I’m talking philosophical beliefs between our coalition partner, Labour, and the Opposition, National. You’re not entirely wrong, either of you, I say to both those parties, but there has to be some common ground found and decisions have to be made. You know, operating as part of a coalition Government, particularly when one is as outnumbered as New Zealand First is currently—we’re going to change that—requires parties to be sensible, requires compromise, and requires respect. If we can’t do that, we would fail in our prime promise, and that is to deliver stable, coherent, reliable, and consistent Government to the nation. That is a greater problem.

So New Zealand First has expressed reservations in this legislation. We’ve been engaged for a number of months with the fine Minister, Minister Kris Faafoi, a Minister whom I absolutely respect for his work ethic and for his commitment. It’s fair to say that we’ve had some strong conversations. There are some areas where New Zealand First has won a few concessions in these negotiations and where we’ve had to accept that to move forward, we have to accept the Minister’s preferred positioning, and we do support that.

We do feel, though, we have a responsibility. From my caucus’s view, the caucus believes we need to ensure that where there are issues that we believe may cause a problem—and one of them’s just been alluded to by the member who just resumed her seat, the Hon Louise Upston—we need to call those out, because these, in a post-implementation review, would have to be the areas that a future Government, whether New Zealand First is part of that or not, must look at. Those are the issues around the 90-day notice question. Those are the issues around whether or not some of the things that we are doing as a Government—and I’m part of that Government and I support the legislation—deliver those business benefits or they fail.

It is a fact that the Government cannot provide all the housing necessary to meet the needs of the people of New Zealand. The last Government—and I listened to the last member’s contribution, and I have to say that for all the National Party Opposition would like to say about the housing situation today, there are a couple of things that are very, very clear. This Government has reduced the waiting lists of people waiting for a doorstep in a shop front to sleep in. This Government has reduced the waiting lists for those New Zealanders living in a Toyota Hiace van. Well, the last Government’s greatest contribution to the homeless was the Toyota van. The greatest contribution was the back seat of a car for a mother and her three children. If that is the type of New Zealand that the Opposition believes is acceptable, then I’m sorry, we, New Zealand First, do not agree.

So no Government is actually able to stand up—well, the Opposition cannot stand up and criticise this legislation on its track record. I’m sorry, you can’t. But, likewise, this Government has to put aside some of its philosophical views and accept that private landlords are an essential part of the overall solution of providing housing for New Zealanders in need.

My caucus has specifically asked me to put on record a concern, and we’ll be clear, we are voting for this legislation; we are supporting Minister Faafoi. But we have a concern that some aspects of this bill may have a counter-effect that some New Zealanders will find themselves shut out of the market because landlords will err on the side of protecting their asset. They’ll be more deliberate in scrutinising who they rent their property through. I can see a windfall for single women in their 50s and 60s. In Carterton, in my office, I have had a large number of women who live alone, whose tenancies have been terminated because their house has been sold. The landlord sold up. There are no community houses in the Wairarapa because the previous National Government sold the entire stock of 585 houses to Trust House for a bargain basement price of less than $20,000 a house. Kieran McAnulty knows; he sat on the board of Trust House. I don’t know what he was—but the National Government sold them, so we have this problem. We depend and rely on private landlords filling some of that gap.

So New Zealand First’s caucus has made it very clear to me that they are going to watch how this legislation actually rolls out on the ground. If there’s a need down the line, and if our fears are proven, there may be a need down the line to look at that again. If our fears are disproven, then Mr Faafoi will be seen to be correct and we will be correct in supporting him with this legislation.

New Zealand First has had a number of gains. We agree with the Minister that the current legislation does not give enough protection to New Zealanders who are renting. But as I’ve just said, we also note that landlords are an essential part of meeting this nation’s housing needs—private landlords. We accept that the economic impact of COVID-19 has put pressure on renters and landlords. One of the things that we’re very pleased about is the allowance for tenants to make minor fitting changes to their properties, such as earthquake bracing, and the requirement for tenants to put the property back to the state it was in prior to the start of their tenancy. We believe some of these things are just common sense.

I want to highlight some of the additional tools that it gives landlords and owners that we made particular effort to support and advocate for during the consultation of the bill. The bill adds an additional option for landlords to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy where a tenant is in minor, but repeated, rent arrears. If a tenant is only five days in arrears three times within 90 days, and the landlord gives him notice of the arrears each time, the landlord can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate that tenancy. This is a significant improvement over the current situation where landlords can only apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end the tenancy where the tenant is at least 21 days in arrears—that is a clear improvement, and the House should acknowledge that.

On antisocial behaviour by tenants—and New Zealand First had strong consultations with the Minister on this—the current legislation has provisions that enable a landlord to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to end a tenancy where the tenant has committed serious antisocial behaviour, which is detailed in the Act. These provisions are retained under the bill—retained. The bill introduces new provisions to deal with repeated antisocial behaviour that won’t meet the same serious threshold as in the current provisions of the Act. That is a clear improvement that advantages the landlord. If a tenant commits three instances of antisocial behaviour within 90 days, and the landlord gives him notice of their antisocial behaviour each time, then the landlord can apply to the Tenancy Tribunal to terminate the tenancy. This shows a pattern of persistent antisocial behaviour that may not meet the same threshold under the current Act. I think this is a valuable tool for landlords.

The other area is in the place of domestic violence. We think we have made serious improvements in that space. There are many reasonable reasons that a landlord can terminate a tenancy: (1) selling the property; (2) moving into the property; renovating the property; allowing a family member to move in; allowing an employee of the landlord to move in; changing it to a commercial premises; allowing for the demolition of the premises; responding to antisocial behaviour; responding to rent arrears; responding to assault; responding to threats of assault; responding to damage or threats of damage. I think, on balance, the New Zealand First caucus has made the right decision. We support this legislation passing through. We will keep a watchful eye on some of those negative consequences that we fear might emerge, but let’s just address that when the evidence is in front of our eyes and at that time.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana. Kia orana kia koe i Te ‘Epetoma o Te Maori o te reo Kūki ‘Āirani. So it’s Cook Islands Language Week, and I thank you. It’s an honour to speak on this bill, but, alas, for us in the National Party, we oppose this bill. I want to explain the reasons why. First of all, I want to acknowledge the speech that has been made, the parts in which we would totally agree with, by the Hon Ron Mark, and, in particular, the concerns that he’s raised.

If I was to look at this bill with the submissions that have been made, heard those submissions—actually, they go to the weight of the evidence that the member has made in his speech. This should be called the “Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill: I Hate the Landlords”, because that’s actually what it is. The fact is that when we’ve heard some of the submissions, we’ve heard what they’ve been talking about, this so-called balancing the act. But, instead, what it is doing is basically weighting the responsibility back on to the landlords and taking all responsibly off the tenants, and we will prove that point, because, it’s quite clear from the submissions, it was clearly highlighted, the need for this bill was not balanced. It goes to the heart of the comments that were made by the Hon Ron Mark: there is a concern around those tenants.

So we see that, from this bill, what’s actually happened? Has there been an improvement in regards to the tenancies and to the rental incomes and the payments? No, there hasn’t; rents have gone up $50, almost $2,600 more for every tenant that’s currently renting in New Zealand. That’s the average—and that was before COVID-19. So things have not improved; in fact, they’ve got even worse.

I wanted to correct some comments that were made by others on the other side about the great State sell-off that was made there. It wasn’t the great State sell-off. What it was, was a devolution of stock into the community housing sector. This is the sector that’s in our community and, as Ron Mark made the comments about in Carterton—I think it’s called the trusts over there—that was made, and what it did: as a community housing provider, they could provide a better service of wraparound, bespoke means to those that were in that community. We can talk about up in Auckland, out in Tāmaki, and the Hon Peeni Henare would know because he’s been to those homes. The Tāmaki regeneration—over 2,500 homes, they weren’t sold off to private; they were devolved into that housing provider who could provide a better service to them. We think about in Tauranga—what’s been the difference there? Nearly 1,200 homes, again, gone into the asset trust. Why? Because community housing providers could do a better job than what Government could do.

So I want to put that out on record, so that the public could hear: this was not a sell-off of State housing; this was the devolving into a community housing provider who could make a difference. That’s right—who could make a difference; and we know that’s what’s happening there.

But let’s get to this bill. Is it making a difference? The answer is no. Why? Because we know tenants have quite clearly said that this is not making a difference. In particular, it’s the concern—that was also raised by the Hon Ron Mark—about the antisocial behaviour; the 90-day clause that was inside there that gave a protection to tenants who were around, and landlords as well, where there was an antisocial behaviour. I want to read some of the comments that have come out. The New Zealand Property Investors Federation added their disappointment. I’m glad that the Minister has re-entered the House, I look forward to the banter for the brown brothers on the backbench to be able to hear these comments as well.

Here’s what they say—here’s what they say: “the Bill specifically allows tenants to be mildly antisocial.” But the Minister said, and I record this—actually, I want to read his comments first. In his comments that were made on 17 November—that’s last year; last year—2019. So if there were any changes to be made, why were they not made then? We had almost a whole year to see these changes. Five minutes ago, they dropped on our lap. Why? Because there was pressure, I believe, that was made from the outside saying that these changes to this current bill are not worthy. They’re not good enough. They’re putting more pressure on landlords as well. But here’s what the Minister said in his press release: “This is a balanced approach. This will do all things good. That’s really important.”

So why is it, if this is a balanced approach, that the Minister, five minutes in, would decide to drop a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), 15 pages, of all of the changes that could have been made, should have been made, but they weren’t? I won’t use the words of “being, maybe, lazy and inconsiderate” and “not following due process”; that would be unkind. But it seems to be that something’s gone wrong here, and in urgency, finally, we’re getting some of the changes. But are they enough? No, they’re not—they’re not enough because they still do not deal with some of the critical issues.

Here’s what they talk about from the landlord’s perspective. Private landlords will no longer be able to protect people living next door to loud, obnoxious, and potentially violent privately housed tenants. It can already be difficult to manage tenants behaving badly, and this proposal will make it even harder, potentially impossible, while putting neighbours at risk of bad neighbours. But here’s the bit that really cuts: these are private landlords with private homes and private dwellings. But, you see, when it comes to the Government itself, when it comes to Kāinga Ora, here’s what they say: however, this is not the case for Kāinga Ora, Housing New Zealand, and social housing providers who will still be able to end a tenancy without having to give notice—without having to give notice.

So to the public out there, how is this fair, that the implication of this bill will make it harder for private landlords with a private dwelling to be able to give a 90-day notice, but when it comes to Kāinga Ora, Housing New Zealand—at the whim of a choice, without giving due cause as to the reasons why, they can terminate a tenancy just like that? So how can it be just? That’s the reason why this bill should be called “I Hate the Landlords Bill”—“I Hate the Landlords Bill”. How do we prove that? New Zealanders want housing solutions but what are we getting? We’re getting the situation where we’re pitching the landlord versus the tenant. It’s meant to be balancing this, but it’s not. We want change, but this is the sort of change that is impacting the cost.

I’ve been talking to landlords over the weekend. Here’s what they said: this Government, with what it’s imposing there’s more cost, more imposition upon them, making it harder and harder. They’re not seeing anything any different that’s coming through for them.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Stick up for the brothers, Alfred.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: Oh, I’m sticking up—ha, ha! Landlords will not be able to end a periodic tenancy without reason. The legislation sets out specific, specified reasons that a landlord may use to end a periodic tenancy as well. It just seems to get worse.

The case is this. The proof is in the pudding when you look at the numbers. Still today, what we see happening in this country at the end of 2017, at the end of nine years of National, the waiting list was 5,000.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: People were sleeping on the streets.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: There were 5,000. That’s right, people were sleeping on streets. And you know what? Homelessness has only increased. So you can say it all you like. What’s happening—[Interruption] You can put him in a motel, but guess what! That does not solve the problem. But here’s the bit that you got to suck up—and here’s this: 18,000 people are now on the waiting list—prior to COVID-19 lockdown. How does that now sit with you? There were 18,000. You’ve had three years to prove the point. Nothing’s happened. Rents have gone up $50 on average; $2,600 to the cost of a tenant. Has it made a difference? Of course it hasn’t. So that’s the reason why when we look at this bill, this bill is not only inconsiderate right across the board to landlords but it is also not making a difference. There is nothing in here to tell us why it’s going to improve the conditions, and the only way you can improve the conditions is if you create greater capacity and supply into a market of demand.

We’re not seeing that. We won’t see that. Why? Because even the Hon Ron Mark, one of the coalition members of your Government, said it, and I noticed as soon as he was speaking, there was silence of the lambs. No one could speak—right?—because he was speaking truth into that situation. What’s going to happen? We’re going to have less private dwellings into the marketplace and the Minister knows it—he knows it, too.

So these proposed changes include the ability for tenants to modify their houses. Here’s another one. So now they’re going to be able to modify their house, right, and, again, without seeking permission of the landlord—of the landlord. Is it going to make a difference? Is it going to make a difference? Don’t worry, we’ve got the committee stage; we’re here for the long haul like you are—we’re going to keep going on this. This is just the entrée. This is just the entrée. It’s got to get better. There’s more to come—there’s more that’s coming.

So, this is just the start. We are concerned. We are now going through some of the amendments. They don’t look like this SOP is truly making a difference. I just want to put on record that if we had had, inside the select committee, throughout that process of over a year, that the Minister had put on there the conditions around family harm—what do you call it? Family violence—of course, we would have supported that amendment. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. When Priyanca Radhakrishnan talked about that and she championed it, why was that not put in then? Why are we here now? You see, we support that initiative but, again, a little too late—a little lazy—a little bit of slumber, and now we’re at this place in urgency not doing the right thing. We cannot support this bill. It won’t be good and, again, all it is is hitting on the landlords, and I think that will not bode well in our communities.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill is vital to help to rebalance the power imbalance that has stood its ground for far too long in this country, that has seen harm for far too many people. Everyone should be able to live a life of dignity whether they rent or own a home. Choosing to rent and having to rent should not mean that we create a whole entire second-class citizen community in our country simply because those people are at the whim of a ramped-up housing market, which has seen unaffordable house prices, which has seen insecurity; people having to move from their communities, move their children from school several times over a few years if not during the year; people not having any sense of security whether they are going to be able to live in their home for very long or not; people not being able to put down roots in their community, form relationships and networks in their very own neighbourhoods. That imbalance has created that impact on thousands and thousands of people, in fact, for generations and decades.

We believe that housing is primarily a home for people to live in and put down roots. We recognise the benefits of cohesive and connected communities of healthier quality lives for everyone, and this means treating housing as a fundamental human right and a public good, and not just as a way for the rich to get richer while we have thousands of people who can’t even find a home to live in at all. So this is an essential and important necessary step to rebalancing that power, to moving us away from a country that has let rampant speculation harm the lives of thousands and thousands of people who are already struggling in our communities.

So, yes, I’m very proud to stand here in support of those people. And that does not mean creating the false divide that the previous speaker was also alluding to. That side of the House likes to create these false divides, likes to drum up the hating this bill and hating that bill, when, in fact, they are the only people, the only group of MPs in here, who are drumming up that divide. This is about supporting communities, not hating on other communities. This is about recognising that we have got some work and some fixing up to do that. We all should surely understand and have that social contract amongst ourselves that we can indeed be a country that supports people to live in affordable and secure homes, that sees the benefit of families being able to feel and breathe out a sigh of relief that they can plan their lives and can at least rely on the home that they are living in, whether they rent or own it. So this bill is absolutely part of and an essential first step in the solution to rebalance that.

I understand that we had 1,436 submissions on the bill from 1,246 submitters, and I appreciate the work of the select committee during lockdown to allow the hearings and the oral submissions to continue to be heard.

I wanted to acknowledge that this is the second reading of this, the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. After having come through the Social Services and Community Committee, some amendments were made to improve the bill to make sure that, yes, we are making sure renters, people who rent, have a fairer go, have an actual decent shot at living a decent life, as well as balancing the requirements for property owners to be able to maintain a reasonable security for themselves in the property that they own.

So what the bill actually does—some of what the bill actually does—that is positive for everyone is increase the security of tenure for tenants who are meeting their obligations—I will repeat that: who are meeting their obligations—by removing a landlord’s right to use no-cause terminations to end a periodic tenancy agreement. That is one of the most substantial changes that we should have been working through in this House decades ago. So I’m celebrating that we have arrived at this place.

We want to prohibit the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. There are too many stories about how that has been pushing rentals up, rental prices up, where families knowing they can’t even afford to pay any rent that might be advertised, but knowing that they’re at the back of the line—who are the families who have been most harmed by rental bidding? It is the very families who know that they will be the last choice, whether it is a mother with young children, whether it is a person with a disability, whether it is simply because they know that they are at the whim of whatever race favour that landlord might prefer—and, by goodness, yes, that has absolutely also been happening. So those families who feel that they will not get to the front of any rental line will be protected by outlawing that rental-bidding ability in our current law.

We are limiting rent increases to once every 12 months to give, again, some certainty for people who rent, who know they won’t be whopped more regularly by an increase in rent. I want to make one particular thing very clear. Alongside this Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill, which is helping to make things fairer for people who rent—that’s it. That’s what this bill is doing. It’s not hating on property owners; it is making things fairer. We cannot defend the power imbalance that we have let lie for far too long. That is indefensible. So we are wanting to support people who rent more—a good thing.

Alongside that and to help prevent—so there’s a couple of things. Alongside this bill, we absolutely do need to and have been ramping up the provision of public housing. In this not even three years yet, in this term alone of Government, we have built more public and State homes than any term of Government has since the 1970s, and that is what will help to mitigate the availability and the incentive for property owners to move on and to get out of owning property for rental purposes.

Now, another thing is that, actually, we do, as a country, need to move away from our massive reliance on homes as a tradable commodity. There are far more productive uses for people to be able to invest their funds in. It has not been good for social cohesion to allow homes and houses to be used as that nest egg. There are far better progressive causes that are going to equip us for a modern economy that we need to be moving our country and our investors towards. We cannot continue to rely on housing and investment speculation for that cause, because housing is a fundamental human right. Once we get that sorted, yes, then people may want to continue to invest and use housing as a tradable commodity. But we’ve got to get the provision right first so people can just live a decent life. That’s what this bill is about.

I will pick up—last little bit—and salute the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing), who I believe is going to bring forward an improvement again regarding domestic violence and making sure that people who are living with violence are able to end and leave their tenancies quickly and more urgently than they would otherwise under an ordinary contract arrangement. Now, that is incredible, and I am so pleased to see that we will be making that amendment. All homes should be safe. All families should be able to live free from violence. And where we can support people to be able to transition from violence and into safety, we absolutely should be doing everything that we can. So I applaud the Minister for bringing that to us and I look forward to supporting that clause and that amendment officially.

What else did I want to—oh, look, it’s nearly finished. I think I’m just going to say again that we cannot be a country that defends the power imbalance that has dominated the way we treat housing for generations. That power imbalance has harmed people. That is a reason for us to be able to correct that power imbalance. And that is what this legislation is about—

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

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia orana, Madam Assistant Speaker Dyson. Very quickly at the start, could I acknowledge you for the very entertaining and, at times, moving valedictory speech that you delivered last night, and I wish you well for whatever lies ahead. We may be on opposite sides of the political fence, but I always respect people who come here to serve their country well and who serve their constituents well, and I acknowledge that you have done that.

That speech that we’ve just heard from Marama Davidson, the co-leader of the Green Party, was absolute nonsense from start to finish, and she began, insultingly, by suggesting that members on this side of the House are, in some way, haters because of our opposition to this legislation. Well, what I hate is a measure that will do great harm to those whose interests it is supposedly designed to protect, because the fact of the matter is that many New Zealanders need to be able to access rental accommodation. We all want that accommodation to be of a high standard, to be livable, to be healthy, and to be well heated, and we all want the relationship between the landlord and the tenant to be a constructive one, reflecting mutual respect where each meets their obligations to the other. But the fact of the matter is that this bill substantially tilts the balance away from that particular outcome.

Minister Faafoi acknowledged, when he moved the second reading of this bill in his speech about half an hour ago, that a large number of submissions have been received: almost 1,500. Well, whenever that happens, it tells you that the measure is controversial and that many people are alarmed about its provisions.

He also noted that the members of the Social Services and Community Committee who worked on the bill had to do so during the COVID lockdown via Zoom. Now, that is very difficult for the submitters from around the country, because they don’t have the benefit of the body language and the rapport that can be established by all being together in a room. But, more importantly, it went absolutely against the indication from the Government when they put us into suspension, when they adjourned the Parliament—and all members of Parliament voted for it on the grounds that no non-urgent business would be dealt with while Parliament was suspended under a state of emergency—and they then flagrantly broke that promise. Even though the Leader of the House had told us that there was no public appetite for business-as-usual, and we all agreed with that, they went ahead and did exactly that.

Well, I only joined the select committee after they had completed their work. It was the beginning of June when I took on a new responsibility, so, unfortunately, I didn’t have a chance to hear the submitters and to ask questions of them. But I have read many of their written submissions and I’d like to read some of the subsequent correspondence that we’ve received into the record shortly, because Government members are here this afternoon trying to categorise this as a good day for tenants, but even some of them can see that perhaps it’s a worrying day for landlords, and I acknowledge in particular that the Hon Ron Mark, I think, was trying to be balanced in his contribution earlier.

Well, in fact, as a result of this bill, it’s a very grim day for all New Zealanders. It’s bad news for landlords and a very dark day for tenants, especially those who are not yet in the market but who will, after this bill is enacted, need to go looking for rental accommodation, because many of them are going to find that that rental accommodation market has shrivelled up considerably.

This bill does not balance the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords, and the fact of the matter is that this Government—particularly one party within it—has been hell-bent on targeting landlords right from the start. As I’ve said, National wants everybody living in a healthy home, and we support measures to do that, but you don’t do it by enacting punitive legislation which is ideologically blinkered and that will deter good people from making the investment that we all need them to make in rental accommodation. Putting too much too quickly on landlords, as this bill will do, without any incentives will only lead to fewer people being willing to be landlords in the future, and it will mean that those rental properties will become more expensive and, therefore, less attainable for the people who most desperately need to access them, and there will be fewer rental properties on offer.

I’ve spoken to a number of people who have a little bit of discretionary income—people of my age who have had a few decades of work experience behind them and who might have put a bit of money aside, who are looking towards their retirement and are wanting to find a good way of investing it. I know some very good people in Hamilton, in my electorate of Hamilton West, who do just that. They are fine people, and they have one or two rental properties. They do everything they can to look after their tenants—and in almost every case of the ones I’m talking about here, the tenants respect that and appreciate the relationship and look after the home, and that’s good.

I’ve been a tenant back in the day. In fact, I think I’ve been a tenant in at least three different properties. We always looked after the property, we always respected the landlords, and we valued the relationship we had with them, and that’s the norm. But, unfortunately, under this bill, it’ll become less of the norm because there will be fewer properties available.

Now, as I’ve said, MPs have been inundated with emails and correspondence on this issue, and the Government must listen to them. I know they’re not listening to us, but I do hope that they just might listen to the many New Zealanders who have written to us, pleading for some changes to be made.

I will start with the opinion piece that was released today by Duncan Garner, who is reasonably well-known to people in this House. He is the Newshub breakfast anchorman, and he gave an opinion today headed “New Zealand landlords are under attack like they have never seen or felt before.” He said that this bill “significantly strengthens the hand of tenants … Landlords can’t kick tenants out for displaying anti-social behaviour. No, no, no they will have to prove it not once, not twice, but prove the tenants are kicking in the walls three times in a 90-day period with written warnings issued.” Well, by that stage, most of those properties would probably be beyond repair.

He went on to say, “You’ll need a legal department and an HR department just to be a landlord. … In trying to achieve their end goal of perceived fairness, Labour could fail miserably. If people bail from providing rentals, our housing stock doesn’t grow. Fewer rentals hit the market, and prices skyrocket. Figures already show rents are now $60 a week higher than two years ago.”, and this Government was in office two years ago.

He went on to say, “I regard Ashley Church as one of the voices we should be listening to when it comes to property and especially when he says: ‘This is the most anti-landlord Government probably in the history of our nation’. We should all sit up and listen because in trying to shut down the odd bad landlord,”—and, yes, there are some there and, yes, they should be dealt to, but nevertheless—“the Government has thrown a ‘guilty’ net over all rental property owners.” Mr Garner concluded by saying, “I think the approach lacks sophistication and any sort of insight or knowledge as to the risk of providing a rental. We’ve had dozens of property owners and landlords write into the show in recent days saying they’d love to help someone who’s struggling to rent but it’s just not worth the risk right now. … Labour should press pause.”, said Mr Garner.

Now, as I say, I’ve got dozens of such messages, and there isn’t time to read many, but I’m going to cherry-pick a few. This is to all MPs from a man who has considerable experience to share, and he began by saying, “I have never written directly to voice my opinion and concerns regarding the passing of any legislation whatever previously. I am a long-serving landlord of 23 years that within a family trust, owns or manages and looks after a portfolio of 28 residential properties in the lower North Island in what has been historically a lower socio-economic area.”

Hon Peeni Henare: A mum and dad investor—a mum and dad investor.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh now, we’ve got the Hon Peeni Henare criticising this person because he’s not a mum and dad investor. We have got them from people who own or have investments in large numbers of properties, down to those who have one or two. Their concerns, Mr Henare, are exactly the same, and it does him no good whatsoever to dismiss the concerns that have been expressed by being disparaging about the writer.

He should, instead, take notice, because this gentleman said, “I very early on learnt the value of having good quality housing. I was years ahead of the game with insulation, ventilation, etc.,”—presumably, Mr Henare would welcome that—“and also with having fair and favourable terms and conditions and attitudes to attract and retain good tenants. I value good quality tenants, and our intent and aim at all times is to retain tenants as long as possible, and also to establish and maintain a reputation as a good landlord. I have never ever, in 23 years, terminated or not renewed a tenancy without good reason, because it is just not good business to do so. The current RTA regulations are adequate to protect all involved tenants and landlords, and even at times in execution and interpretation, adjudicators have erred to favour tenants to the detriment of landlords. I am gravely concerned that the proposed amendments of this bill will currently”—sorry—“while primarily bad legislation will make for an unfair and unworkable situation that is not a level playing field.” There is much more where that came from.

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

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to talk on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. Let’s be very, very clear here: one of the goals of the Labour Party, of this Government, is to make sure that we have people in their own homes. Ideally, homeownership has got to be the goal, for people to be able to have their own castle, their own kingdom to be able to do whatever they want in them, but, unfortunately, in this day and age, homeownership is actually just a pipedream for many. Therefore, we have to look after people that are in tenanted arrangements. We all know—many of us have been tenants before; some of us have even had the privilege of being landlords—for the majority of landlords in this country, nothing will change. For the majority of landlords, where there is nothing to worry about, where there’s a good, convivial relationship between landlord and tenant, they will have nothing to worry about. But there are some out there for whom we need to make sure that we’re sharpening up our tools to make sure that we’ve got a fair, balanced situation going on.

So what does that mean? It means some good policies in favour of the tenants—absolutely. Let’s make sure that we’re looking after tenants that are in houses like this. Limiting rent increases to once every 12 months—that is absolutely fair. That is fair—one rent increase every 12 months. To improve tenant security by removing a landlord’s ability to throw people out of their homes without giving them a valid reason—that there is incredibly fair; good for landlords as well, giving landlords new tools to deal with antisocial behaviours and rent arrears. That was something that many landlords came forward and said, “We need a mechanism to be able to deal with this.” That’s what this bill does. And here’s something that’s actually good for both parties concerned: making rental properties safer, making them more livable by adding minor fittings such as brackets to secure furniture against earthquake risks, or even baby-proofing—putting up a baby gate. Many tenants live in fear of hanging a baby gate up, in fear that they’re going to get offside with their landlord.

So that’s exactly what this does, and it’s also going to improve compliance with the law by introducing new tools so that direct action can be taken against parties—either party—who aren’t meeting their obligations. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to make this contribution on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill.

What a shocker of a bill. This is absolutely the politics of envy—very clear and evident in this bill. Not only is it a shocker of a bill, what a shocker of a process that the Minister has just tabled in the last hour, this 15-page Supplementary Order Paper. Look, no one here would dispute that we want to address the issue of domestic violence, but to put this down at this last minute is absolutely shocking—shocking to the process and shocking to our democracy.

I would just like to outline what the current situation is that renters are facing at the moment. It has already been traversed in this House that rents have gone up on average by $50 a week more, under this Government. That’s $2,600 extra a year that renters are paying. Not only that, but the Government has not even raised a comment about the social housing register wait-list of 18,000, under this Government. The Government wants to quickly claim credit for the 3,000 social homes, but fails to mention that half of those were signed or under way under the National-led Government.

So, again, as I said, this bill is very, very clear. It’s actually not about trying to balance, as the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, said, a power imbalance—trying to address a power imbalance. What actually will happen is that this bill will penalise, actually, the most vulnerable in our society—those members, those families, who want to get into rental property. This bill, which is supposed to—you know, the Government’s plan was to address the housing situation and to make housing more affordable; this bill actually does the opposite of that. So they will force rental homes off the market, in this bill, but, actually, this bill is heavy on stick and has absolutely no carrot in it whatsoever. If we look at some of the changes that were made, the biggest one, I think, that had the biggest opposition from submitters, was the three-month termination period. It is absolutely unreasonable, the changes that have been made under this bill.

I just want to touch on the submitters. There were just under 1,500 submissions made on this bill. I, as a member of the Social Services and Community Committee, was party to the Zoom submission process during lockdown. So during lockdown, while everyone was at home with their families, concerned, the submitters had to dial in to Zoom to make their submission. It was very, very clear—and there are members in this House who were also sitting in on those submissions—the frustration that was voiced by many of the submitters at having to go through this process on this important piece of legislation whilst they were in lockdown. Actually, these were just mums and dads—they were mums and dads who rang in to make their oral submission on this bill.

I remember one in particular was a mother who actually had her baby on her lap. She was trying to rock her baby and make her submission, because we all had our children at home with us at that time. So it was a stressful period for many families at that time during lockdown, and then having to make a submission on a very important piece of legislation that affects them and their property—it affects their property rights. Because, ultimately, this is what it is: it is an attack on private property rights, and the worst thing, the scariest thing, about this bill is the socialism creep. It definitely is an example of that—politics of envy creeping in again, under this Labour Government, on hard-working New Zealanders, working hard. They’ve got property rights but, clearly, are being undermined, under this Government, and it will not serve those families that we know are vulnerable in the community. It will not help them in any way in getting any closer into getting a good rental home for themselves. I do not support this bill.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Hon Tim Macindoe quoted Duncan Garner as someone who has written in about this bill, about his objection. Now, let me say what Duncan Garner quoted this morning on The AM Show: “Tenants will be able to pass their tenancy on to their friends or whoever is standing over them demanding the use of the house to set up a tinny operation, and the landlord gets no say in the transfer.” Does it sound like fearmongering? Perhaps the members opposite can refer him to clause 43B, where that clearly says “prior written consent [needed] of the landlord”, so the Opposition members are better at doing their homework and reading the Supplementary Order Papers, reading the bill properly, rather than getting their supporters to allow this fearmongering. I commend it to the house.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s kind of the time of the electoral cycle when you look across the House and you don’t know who’s going to be here next week and who’s not, but I want to acknowledge you because I know that you and Clayton Mitchell and Gareth Hughes are in safe territory, because for the next six weeks you’ll have a very peaceful time not having to worry about where you’re going to be on 20 September. But I do think that there are plenty in the House and some of us who may well not be here, and we’re at the mercy of the population for the next six weeks.

I just want to comment on the Minister, as well, because I’ve noticed in my time in this House that Ministers are usually pretty confident when they put legislation to the House, and so they don’t generally have to barrack the Opposition every time they criticise it. I notice Minister Faafoi is a little nervous about this, so perhaps he’s not quite as confident in this legislation as he should be.

I suppose I wanted to just comment on one or two other things before I get on to the bill itself. I listened to Ron Mark with interest. I’ve noticed Ron Mark sitting on the fence on quite a few of his speeches in the last few weeks, and he was firmly on the fence today. I didn’t know which side he was going to fall on for quite a while. He did fall on the side of the Government in the end. I don’t know how he got to that point, though, because his arguments certainly didn’t back that perspective.

Last of all, I want to just comment on a couple of comments that Marama Davidson made which actually are absolutely pertinent to this bill, because she made the comment that the New Zealand investment market lacks opportunity to invest elsewhere, and I think she’s right. I think that’s what’s driven the kind of penchant we have in New Zealand for investing in residential rental property. Private investors have for a long time been attracted to residential investment property as a proposition, because it is a much easier and more understandable form of investment than any other we have in New Zealand. It’s created some of the challenges we have today, because most of the people who invest in this sector—I think something like 70 percent of them—are what we might term mum and dad or family people who have a little bit of money left over who want to invest for their retirement. They buy a house and they put it into the rental market. Now, we have a system in New Zealand now which we didn’t have some years ago, where we have a large number of property managers in that rental market. Many people use them, but, of course, there’s a cost to that, and so when you’re sailing a little close to the wind, as many people do who invest in rental property, it makes it more difficult.

The other thing that’s happened in the course of this Government’s term is that they put two or three pieces of legislation in place which I think have had perverse effects on the rental market. One was the Overseas Investment Office changes, which, effectively, prohibited overseas purchase of houses in New Zealand. That, effectively, dampened the market and created a much tighter rental market. The next thing was the ring-fencing of losses, which certainly tightened the market up again, and the other one was extending the brightline test. All these things put more pressure on the rental market and, to a large extent, have caused some of the increase in rental prices that we’ve heard about already today. I think this bill will do the same thing, and the reason it’ll do the same thing is because almost all rental—most commercial things are calculated on a risk-based proposition, and I think this bill puts more risk at the hands of the property owners. That will inevitably, in my view, lead to higher rentals being charged.

There is another clause in this bill which I think will lead to a higher rental price being quoted, and that’s the fact that you can no longer—and I’m not sure it’s a good or bad thing—change the rental quote during the course of a negotiation. I think that’s a reasonably strong thing. The problem is it will cause landlords to put a higher upfront price on those rentals. You’d have to think, as a consequence of some of those changes, it will lessen the number of landlords in the market.

For those electorate MPs in the House—and there aren’t that many—we get a lot of inquiry—or complaint, I suppose—about rental properties of varying types through our offices. Most of them, interestingly, in my case, relate to the Government or community housing trusts; they don’t relate to private landlords. So we’ve got a bill here which in some ways has created two types of landlord, the private landlord and everyone else, because the rules don’t necessarily apply in the same manner to the housing corporation or to community trusts as they do to private landlords. That’s really differentiating between the two, and I’d have to say that, in my time, I’ve seen many more people mistreated by Housing New Zealand than I have by private landlords in this sector. I think that that’s one of the challenges we have, and I think that it’s very hard to put in place legislation that tidies up the mistreatment of people when we’re dealing with probably 1 or 2 percent of both tenants and landlords in this instance.

Most people are never going to have a problem with this piece of legislation, because if you think about the objective of a tenant and a landlord, the objective of almost every good landlord—not all of them, but almost every good landlord—is to have a tenant in residence for as long as you can. It costs no money to change, and from a tenant’s perspective, if they’re happy with the house, they want to stay there as long as they can. That’s the perfect situation. So this piece of legislation should have no real impact on those people. The problem is it’s the problem landlords and the problem tenants that are challenged in this situation, and it’s very hard to put in place a piece of legislation that equally protects the landlord and the tenant, and I think that’s where this bill struggles. I also think that it would be difficult to put a piece of legislation in place that satisfies everyone with respect to that. I do, however, think, though, that this puts a significantly greater risk on the landlords and, as a consequence of that, is going to lift the cost of rental even further.

I also listened to Ron Mark with interest because, as I said, he sat on the fence and he wasn’t sure which side he was going to fall, but one of the things he talked about was the issue of community housing trusts and how poor they were as landlords, and I don’t agree with that. I mean, as I said earlier, we do get a little more complaint through our offices around community housing and Government-provided housing, but I don’t agree with his point, because, actually, we have some very good community housing trusts. He talked about the Wairarapa trust, which owns a large number of housing in the Wairarapa, all of them run on a community basis. They, like many other community trusts round New Zealand, provide a very good structure in behind which gives support to those tenants, gives support to the people around them, and I think they do a pretty good job—I think it’s a pretty good model for a rental process. But back to the point of this bill, I do think that there’s some challenge in this, and I do think we’re going to see landlords leaving the market. As Ron Mark again said, the Government cannot provide all the things for all people.

Just the last comment I want to make—and a couple of people have commented on it—anyone who thinks that the Government’s lowered the number of people sleeping on the streets should come for a walk with me round Wellington in the morning. I’ll tell you what, there’s a large number more people sleeping on the streets now than there were some seven or eight years ago, and I don’t think we’ve done anything yet to improve that situation. I also don’t think we’ve taken the people, as someone said earlier, out of the Toyotas, because they’re still out there.

So I think we’ve got a long way to go with respect to providing a better environment for renters and for people in the industry, and we need to in future look after those landlords who provide good opportunity for tenants. I think that this bill doesn’t do that; I think it creates a threat to some of our landlords, and I think it’s very unfortunate. So that’s really my contribution. I think that it’s unfortunate that we go to this length to try and achieve something, and I don’t think it will succeed. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand in support of this bill which is going to make a huge difference to many New Zealand families. Over a million New Zealanders are actually in a rental, and about 43 percent of New Zealand children are growing up in a rental home. In the context of the acute housing shortage that we’ve inherited, what we find is a huge number of New Zealand families are paying a huge amount of their family income in rent. What we also know is that when a property is advertised, we get many, many groups turning up to view the property, and that extra $10 a week, $20 a week, $30 a week that sometimes tenants have to commit to in order to secure the property then has to come out of the family income week after week as time goes on. I think, in the context of families on low incomes with children, what that means is that income has to come out of things like the food budget, things like turning off the heater over winter, and it has a huge impact on family wellbeing.

So what this bill does is it, basically, provides more certainty for tenants, because what it means is that they can only have a rent increase once every year. It also means that the landlord has to advertise what the cost of that rent is when they rent the property out, and, basically, they’re not allowed to encourage or invite people to enter into bidding contests, which means that you can turn up to a property viewing and know the rent that would have to be paid for that property. So it’s an important bill, and I commend it to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee by majority 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 result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63, Noes 56.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63, Noes 56.

In Committee

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I move that this debate be taken as all parts in one debate and one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You’re seeking leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate?

Hon Kris Faafoi: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I thought if I opened proceedings just with a number of thanks—first, to the two colleagues from the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party who I’ve liaised with most in order to get the bill to this stage that it is in now. So can I acknowledge the Hon Ron Mark and Marama Davidson for their pragmatism but also sticking very close to the principles that their parties were pushing for with this bill as it is now.

A number of people have made comments that there is a need for change—I think I’ve even heard that to my left. But the fact of the matter is that this piece of legislation is well over three decades old, from an environment where 25 percent of New Zealanders were renting, and we’re now, as I say, in 2020, where over 30 percent of people are now renting homes—600,000 households—and it is time for change.

So to the Hon Ron Mark and Marama Davidson, can I thank them for their pragmatism and their patience during the process to get the bill to where, I think, we have struck the right balance in ensuring that we have made sure that security of tenure for tenants and security of peace of mind around rents is secured for tenants, but also making sure that the protections that most landlords would like to have enforced when they do have trouble with tenants is within this piece of legislation.

I don’t want to get Mr McKelvie in any trouble with his whips, but he was right: the vast majority of people will have no problem with this piece of legislation, because despite this debate being had at the extremes, most people who live in rented accommodation and most landlords have extremely good relationships. But there is no debate that this decades-old piece of legislation and the conditions within it needed to be amended.

So in that respect, too, can I acknowledge those who have advocated both for tenants and for landlords. Andrew King from the Property Investors’ Federation—who I met with a number of times and disagreed with on many occasions—I would like to point out, for those who are opposed to this legislation, fought hard for the landlords. At the end of the day, we disagreed on quite a number of points, but he was reasonable during those conversations. For the likes of the tenants’ organisations—I don’t want to single out any, but they, obviously, have been fighting for decades to make sure that these amendments that we’re making within this bill are right.

I know a lot of the debate in this committee stage will be focused around the removal of the 90-day no-cause terminations. So I just wanted to get on the table nice and early that the stats that we have available to us say that 3 percent of terminations use the no-cause termination ability through the current Act—3 percent. So 97 percent of terminations of tenancies happen when a reason is given.

Now, I can understand why landlords might want to protect that, but, in all reality, a small minority of cases where there are terminations use this course, and, I think, in 2020, when more people are renting and are going to be lifelong renting, on this side of the House, we believe if they are going to have their termination ended, they deserve to know a reason why, and it should be a valid reason why. Because while only 3 percent of people might have this thrust upon them, 100 percent of people who are in tenancies have that hanging over them at every moment that they are in their tenancy. So that security of tenure for those tenants is not there, and 35 years after this piece of legislation, when the situation has changed, on this side of the House, we believe that that needs to change.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I want to acknowledge one of the comments from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi: “It’s time for change.” I suspect he was referencing the bill; I might like to think it was about something else.

Secondly, I think it’s fundamentally from this side—I know it’s committee stage, the Minister is absolutely right that this is only a few people. But our concern on this side, to the extent that this is a statement and a question, is that, in attempting to address the very few, the bill is actually going to affect pretty much everybody and, arguably, landlords disproportionately.

My question, though, is around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 565. If the Minister could explain to the House why he tabled it at 2.56 p.m. today, a little over an hour ago.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Quite simple. I’ve been waiting for this stage, or the bill to be debated in the House, and that’s when the Government saw fit.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Is it not usual and a courtesy to the democracy of this Parliament that, actually—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: And there we go: the Government couldn’t care less.

Hon Peeni Henare: The House is still sitting, chief.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Couldn’t care less, and someone else has said the House has been sitting. It may have failed that Minister’s understanding that the House has been sitting since 9 a.m. this morning.

So maybe I could ask when, Minister—and your officials will certainly be able to tell me this—was the Supplementary Order Paper ready?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): The Supplementary Order Paper was ready for tabling roughly during my speech.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Is the Minister, therefore, confirming his supernatural powers that he’s able to write 15 pages of documentation, have them tabled and printed, within seconds of his speech?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): For the member, I don’t possess any supernatural powers.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): So, again, would the Minister like to confirm to the committee, when the Supplementary Order Paper which has been properly formatted, drafted, and was in the hands of the Table Office, when it was ready?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): To address the member’s question, we’ve been working for some time on the amendments within the bill, trying to match up the time frames with the termination of the rent freezes around the COVID rent freezes that were brought in under emergency legislation; also, to make sure that that matched up with the 12-month rent increase and bringing that forward in the bill to make sure that they are aligned. Otherwise, there would have been a gap between the end of the COVID rent freeze and the beginning of the 12-month rent freeze that was already within the bill. The family violence components of the SOP, we’ve been working on for some time; it certainly was something that I was watching very closely from the Social Services and Community Committee and asked officials as to whether or not that could be changed, and I do think it’s an extremely good component of the SOP. So to answer the member’s question, we’ve been working on it for some time because I wanted to make sure that we get that right.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Could the Minister confirm to the House who he or his officials may have consulted around the SOP. Was there—obviously, tenant groups, landlord groups—wide consultation?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I don’t think I can give you particulars, but I understand there was limited time in order to consult with appropriate stakeholders, obviously especially around the family violence component of the SOP. Again, some of the issues that are within the SOP came from the select committee, but also some of the issues arose because of the concern the Government had around particular components around rent freezes and the introduction of the 12-month increase of rents within the bill as it stood.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): To thank the Minister, obviously, I’m not particularly thrilled that an SOP, to me, feels like it was withheld from the House when it could have been put in front of us earlier, because, actually, there are elements within it, Minister, that I think this side is comfortable with and supports. The question, though, is: is he able to give the House—and this goes much broader than the SOP. Have there been any projections done by his officials around how many private landlords might exit the market as a consequence of this legislation?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Look, I wouldn’t necessarily take for granted that that is going to happen. Certainly, the data that has been afforded me over the last just a little over a year has suggested that, in the time that we’ve been considering these changes—obviously, the consultation first happened under Minister Twyford as the Minister of Housing, and then this piece of legislation was introduced. So this has been no surprise. The data that has been given to me is that, actually, the number of rental properties available on the market has increased. Again, using the contribution of Mr McKelvie, he has said the majority of landlords and tenants will not have to worry about the changes in the amendments within this bill, and I agree with Mr McKelvie. But, again, there are, over the last 3½ decades, issues that have compiled that need addressing, and we believe we’ve got the balance right here, in this bill.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): I do want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi, as a hard-working Minister. When he stated his integrity that he actually has been working on it for some time, it’s a pity that it wasn’t included during the select committee process, because here we are now—and I’m bringing this question to the Minister because the fact is that we haven’t had a chance to deliberate in select committee, which I think is critically important. If I can draw the Minister to his Supplementary Order Paper 565, and, in particular, the new section 56B(3) “If there are other tenants (remaining tenants) under the tenancy at the time of the withdrawal,—(a) the tenant withdrawing from the tenancy (the withdrawing tenant) ceases to be responsible to the landlord for obligations under the tenancy agreement and this Act,”.

Now, further on down in new subsection (5) there’s a calculation there. Now again, because of the shortness of time, I’m just trying to work out this calculation. I wonder if the Minister, with the help of his officials, can help us understand this calculation, because it is quite confusing to understand this. We’ve got “a”, which is rent that’s payable over a two-week period, then “b” is the rent that would otherwise have been payable for the two-week period. So is that the reduction of that? Then it’s got divided by “c”, which is the number—say there’s two tenants and one withdraws because of this subsection, leaves one, times the one. So if the Minister can give us just, I suppose, an example of what that would look like so that members of the public would know what this actually means for them, that would very helpful. Thank you.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I thank the member for the question, because it is a very good one. Just to inform the committee, what this is about—the new component of the bill—is that we’ll allow victims of family violence to leave that tenancy under two days’ notice if they are feeling unsafe. So that obviously leaves a situation where you’ve got remaining tenants who might be liable for the full rent.

The calculation within the section that the member speaks to—sorry, I’ll just put my glasses on—might look complicated, but I think it’s relatively simple. I’ll give the example: if five of us were on a tenancy and weekly rent was $500, we would divide the $500 by five. Then the rent that the remaining tenants would be liable for for a two-week period would be $400, because we would all be liable on an average for $100 of rent. That is only a responsibility of the remaining tenants for two weeks, and then they would return to full rent, giving some time to either sort themselves out or get another tenant in. So, again, it depends on the number of people who are on the tenancy, divided—I’ll start again. So if five of us were on the tenancy agreement at $500 a week, we would divide the $500 by five. The remaining tenants would pay—if it were, obviously, four tenants left—four times the $100. So that’s how the formula for that relief for the remaining tenants for two weeks is calculated. Then it’s back to normal, because we don’t want that to have an undue burden on the landlord.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): So another question then to that. So who incurs the cost or who wears the burden? Is it the landlord, then the shortfall, and in this case over the two-week period, would be $200. Is that the case, because, again, I’ve just been looking through the other sections that are here. I can’t quite see, with some clarity, who then wears the burden of that cost of the $200, given the Minister’s calculation?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Yeah, look, given some of the situations that tenants who might be in this sort of situation might be in, there is, obviously, a sharing of the burden. We’re working on averages here, but some people have different rental arrangements. But the reduced rate of rent is, obviously, what the remaining tenants would pay—again, only for two weeks. So, obviously, the tenants would pay the rent to the landlord, who would, for two weeks, forgo whatever the difference is in order, I think, to make sure that the remaining tenants can make up their minds as to what they want to do: either remain in the tenancy or, if they are forced to give notice, to end the tenancy. We believe that strikes, again, the right balance between making sure that the person who is leaving the tenancy isn’t leaving an undue burden or feeling like they can’t leave for financial reasons.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): One last question to the Minister then. So given the scenario the Minister has given, there are five that are in there, but one is leaving because, I take it, it could be an unsafe environment. So I’m looking into the new section. If this is to deal with the issues of family violence or domestic violence, if the perpetrator of that violence is inside that tenancy, then I’m just trying to see whether this would address that, because, in most cases, a tenant wouldn’t normally leave, because if there is no risk issues or unsafe place, it wouldn’t be the reasons that they would leave their tenancy in this case. So I’m just trying to understand from the Minister, because we know that these issues are quite complex, but in this case the potential harm to other tenants that are in there, if the Minister can hear the scenario I’m trying to play out here for the Minister.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Look, I don’t disagree with the member that situations would be complex, but the principal aim of the amendment that he’s referring to is the safety of the family violence victim in order to be able to give them the ability to leave the tenancy as quickly as possible to ensure their safety. So, again, depending on the situation that you’re in, the perpetrator may or may not be within the tenancy; if they were, then I’m making an assumption that the remaining tenants might have to think about their future. But, again, the tenant may not be party to the tenancy. Again, the overriding principle is making sure that we give the victim of family violence, who feels that they need to exit this tenancy to keep themselves safe, that safety valve in order to do that.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just a quick follow-up question: did the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi, consider the Crown, if you will, wearing the cost of this? I think no one in this House is going to disagree with the principle that we want family violence to end and that we want to get people into a safe space, but, in effect, what this bill is creating is a cost on a landlord whose got, in a sense, nothing to do with it—they’re not the cause, they’re not the agent, and they’re not the recipient. They’re completely not at fault, but now they’re wearing the cost, as small as it might be, hence the question: did the Minister consider that the Government or the Crown would step in and pay the cost?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): In short, no, there was no consideration of that, essentially because I think that would probably create bureaucracy that was probably unneeded in this situation, and the tenants have a direct relationship with the landlord as well. Again, when we were thinking through this, we were trying to get the appropriate amount of time, depending on how people might cycle their rent, but we landed on two weeks, as it is in the bill at the moment, because we’re trying to balance up the burden between the principle of safety for the exiting tenant, and not, again, wanting to put any uneven or unbalanced burden on the landlord.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. Could I acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi, for his willingness to engage with the Opposition as we ask these questions. He also acknowledged at the start of the second reading speech that there have been thousands of people who have expressed concern about this particular measure and, in particular, the fact that there are a large number of small investors and landlords who are warning that this bill will drive them out of the rental market. So I do have a few quick simple questions of the Minister and I hope he’ll be willing to answer them. The first is, very simply: what is his response to those submitters?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Look, I think there—and I’m not sure if I mentioned this in my opening remarks, a lot of this debate has been at the extremes, and, again, I’m going to get into trouble, because I like Mr McKelvie, for quoting him. Because the vast majority of landlords and tenants are not going to be affected by this, but there’s been a fair bit of debate stirred up in the community and the media. There are still legitimate reasons why a tenancy can be ended by a landlord within this bill. What we are removing and what we are steadfast in removing is the no-cause terminations, which for any tenant has hung over them for the last 35 years, that, essentially, means that regardless of your conduct and what you do in the house, or the property, sorry, your tenancy can be terminated for no reason whatsoever.

Now, if you are a tenant who isn’t paying rent on time repeatedly or if you’re a tenant that is repeatedly having antisocial behaviour, or if a landlord has a good reason to move on, like selling the property or renovations to the property, those mechanisms still are within this bill to end a tenancy. In fact, with the help of New Zealand First, we’ve added another way to finish a tenancy if a landlord is assaulted or their family’s assaulted, because obviously that will be the right thing to do.

So my message to them is: please, don’t necessarily listen to the hype around the changes within this bill, because if you do have tenants that are acting the fool repeatedly, then you still have the right, if you can prove it and evidence it, to end that tenancy. If they’re not paying rent, again, on a regular basis, you still have the right to end that tenancy. But what we don’t think—and, again, it’s only been used in 3 percent of tenancy terminations, no-cause terminations.

So the mass there doesn’t necessarily match up, because, certainly, landlords have been furiously emailing us, wanting to maintain that right—have only used it 3 percent of the time. Again, I would acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of landlords and tenants have good relationships, but we do need to make sure that we’ve got a regime that when there is trouble on both sides, we have remedies for it, and I would acknowledge that we have a Tenancy Tribunal that has been able to deal with these issues for well over 30 years.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I hope that the Minister is right in saying that the overwhelming number of landlords and tenants have good relationships, and I’m sure that is true. I certainly know of many who have and, as I mentioned, when I was a tenant, I believed I always had a good relationship with my landlord as well. But I do think that he’s fairly naive in his suggestion that those landlords and small investors who submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee, and who have subsequently written to MPs, haven’t studied carefully what is in the bill, because they have. They have looked very carefully at the provisions of this bill, and that is why they have expressed such a strong concern that they, and many others they know, will be deterred from providing rental properties in the future.

So my next question to the Minister, which is related to the one he’s just answered but is different, is: what is his prediction for this bill’s impact on the supply and availability of properties in the private rental market?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I don’t have a crystal ball, but what I do have is some data over the last couple of years—and, again, I’d just like to remind the House that this is not a process which started last week. Minister Twyford started quite extensive public consultation on this process and the amendment at the beginning of our term. I think it was over 4,000 submissions to that public consultation. So both landlords and tenants have known about this process for some time.

The best data that I have available to me is that during that period where landlords knew that this was our intent has actually seen the number of investment properties increase slightly. It’s not as high as 5 percent, but I don’t think it’s as low as 1 percent—somewhere around the 2 or 3 percent mark.

So in that time, property investors, despite knowing this Government’s intent around rebalancing the Residential Tenancies Act—the figures show—have continued to buy investment properties. So I believe we’ll have to watch it closely, but I don’t believe a scaremongering around a mass exodus of property investors in the rental market is going to happen. Let’s not forget, there are 600,000 households in rental accommodation at the moment, and I believe overwhelmingly, whether you’re a mum and dad investor or whether you’ve amassed a large rental portfolio, property investment is still something that New Zealanders hold dear. I think New Zealand landlords will see this legislation, once the dust has settled, is still giving them the power to do what they need to do in a small number of situations.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I know that people are filing into the galleries, and I just ask them if they could keep the chatter down to a minimum, please, because we are still debating in the House, and it’s quite hard for the person who’s talking if there’s other noise in the area.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always great to see the galleries full.

Minister, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of landlords and tenants are good people who look after the property and look after each other and respect their rights and obligations, the fact of the matter is—as all MPs, I’m sure, will be able to attest—that there are some dreadful situations out there. At the moment, the perception is that the law is already heavily weighted on the favour of tenants where there are issues of antisocial behaviour and damage to property. In my political career, I can think of a number of landlords—and they’re certainly not wealthy people. They’re mum and dad investors, as the Minister has just described them. They have done their best to provide a rental property for somebody or for a family who has needed it, only to find that that property is damaged, that the neighbours are abused, and that all sorts of terrible things are happening, yet their ability to evict those tenants and put right the damage and get a better family in there is already very challenged, and it is their strong view that this particular measure will make it even worse.

So my next question to the Minister is: what is his message to landlords who are already the victims of significant property damage and who will now face the prospect of that damage intensifying, because of the time frames that are built into the new bill, while their rights and ability to reclaim their property are eroded?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): What I would say to them is they’ve actually got more certainty now, because I think what they found is—

Hon Tim Macindoe: They don’t see it that way.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, if the member would like to read the bill, perhaps, then he may differ his opinion, because the amendments in the bill make it very clear that if there are three instances of either antisocial behaviour, for example, or repeated late payment of rent, then the landlord is able to seek the termination of that tenancy as of right. I think one of the frustrations that landlords have had for years is that going to the Tenancy Tribunal can be a bit of a lottery around the threshold for termination around some of those issues. So there is criteria now, quite clear for landlords, that if you do have three incidents of antisocial behaviour or three incidents of rent being late, then you have the right to go to the Tenancy Tribunal to say, “That’s it.”, because of the repeated behaviour. Frustration has certainly been one of the issues that has come through from landlords within the select committee process, and, obviously, correspondence through to us.

The member said “perception” in his question, and that perception of the Act as it stands now is incorrect that landlords are powerless to deal with some of these things, because the issue that has caused the most concern that we are trying to deal with is the absolute power of the landlord to say, “That’s it.” with no good reason. So they may have the perception, but the reality of the law is that they have the ability to end a termination without having to evidence any good cause.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I’m talking about people that have had that experience; it’s not a perception.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I would say—and the question was what I would say to them. It’s actually clearer in the legislation now, the threshold for termination. What we’ve had in the past is landlords, again, trying their luck in the lottery of the Tenancy Tribunal, dependent on what the behaviour was, or late payments of rent. Now it is codified within the amendment bill what that regime is. If the tenants don’t meet the regime, then, again, the landlord has the right to go to the Tenancy Tribunal and say, “I’m terminating this tenancy.”

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Changing tack, Minister, to your Supplementary Order Paper 565 around the new section 55AA regarding termination if there’s a physical assault by the tenant. Granted, I’ve only, literally, had minutes to read it, and I think the overall concept is good, but the question is: does he think allowing 14 further days of a tenancy is going to work?

In other words, a tenant has assaulted the landlord and they’ve got to give 14 days’ notice. Now, at one level that makes sense, but it’s going to open up a potential problem that if that tenant’s pretty annoyed already and has used physical violence, things are only going to get worse, either again with the landlord or to the property. Did he consider a shorter period of time?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): That was the amount of time that was suggested by officials was enough to do a couple of things. First of all, it gives the tenant enough time to leave the property, and also, if the tenant wanted to challenge that at the tribunal—which they do have the right to do—to lodge an appeal without having to leave the property. I’m not imagining that many might do that, given that it has to be a physical assault on the landlord, their family, or an agent, but I think making sure that there is the means to be able to exit the property in a timely manner, it takes some time to move out of a property, but also give a right of reply or appeal through the Tenancy Tribunal is where we landed with the 14 days.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Just a supplementary on the point that was made—just in regards to it. Is there not an inconsistency? Already, we’re regarding two days in regards to family violence for a tenant if they experience harm or there is risk, and now, when it comes to an actual landlord itself, we’re only giving 14 days. Surely there’s an inconsistency that officials have not given you the advice to protect the landlord, because they too, at the moment, are prey to the predator of violence themselves. Surely there should have been another way to address it within a shorter period of time?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): The issue with the two days was that the tenant who’s leaving lives at the property. It’s almost probable that the perpetrator of the violence might also be living at that property. The issue with the difference between the two and the 14 is, obviously, the landlord does not live at the property, so there wouldn’t be as much of an immediate issue between the landlord and the tenant.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): But that still is inconsistent with what the Minister had said. Regardless of where the perpetrator may be—whether they are tenant at the property or where they’re absent at the property—it’s still the risk factor of harm to the victim. So in this case the victim is the landlord. Surely the officials would see, again, this is an issue of violence. Irrespective of whether it’s family violence or domestic violence, it is an issue of violence.

The Minister has taken great care and has worked through a process, and we agree with the Minister that there should be some protections around the landlord. So, irrespective of whether the landlord is present—some landlords are actually adjacent to a property: they’ve subdivided a property; there’s a sublease—and so there is potential that the landlord could still be at risk. Surely the Minister would have taken some consideration.

I suppose this goes to the point that we were making earlier—five minutes into the speech in the second reading. We’ve not had a time to have a robust process to deal with some of the minor issues that are before us and before this House.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): It’s not that the consideration wasn’t had. It certainly was around making sure that there was consistency across a number of other measures or time frames within the bill. It’s just that it’s more highly likely that a victim of family violence has had that thrust upon them by someone who lives in the property. The best way, obviously, to prevent any further violence between a landlord and a tenant is for them to not be in the same place, and it’s very unlikely that that would happen if they’re not at the same property.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 565 in the name of the Hon Kris Faafoi, and the following amendments in his name to Supplementary Order Paper 565, be agreed to:

after the item relating to clause 5, insert:

In clause 25(2), replace “assignment,” with “assigning,”.

In the item relating to clause 31(1B), new section 50(1)(ac), after “fixed-term”, insert “tenancy”.

in the item relating to clause 31, replace 31(1C) with:

(1C) In section 50(1)(b) (as inserted by subsection (1) of this section), after “53B,”, insert “55AA,”.

after the item relating to clause 31, insert:

In clause 32(4), replace “After section 51(8),” with “After section 51(9),”.

In clause 32(4), new section 51(9), replace “(9)” with “(10)”.

after the item relating to clause 39, insert:

After clause 42, insert:

42A Section 64 amended (Possession orders)

In section 64(3), replace “section 55 or section 56 or section 56A or section 59 or section 61” with “any of sections 55, 55A to 56A, 59B, and 61”.

in the item relating to Schedule 4, replace “section 95A(1) to (3) and (6)” with “section 95A(1), (2), (3), and (6)”.

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 Parts 1 and 2, 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 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 to 4, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Voting

Corrections

SPEAKER: Before I call that as an order of the day, I want to indicate to the House that it’s come to my attention that votes have been cast in a way which has been inappropriate through the day, on behalf of Mr Seymour. I have asked the Clerk’s Office to find out which votes have been so cast, and then I will be looking to a member to seek leave to have the votes corrected.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): I move, That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

As I outlined in the second reading of the bill, since the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) came into force over 30 years ago, the proportion of households living in the rental market has increased significantly. More people, including families and older people, are renting for longer or for life. The Act was adopted in 1986, when 75 percent of New Zealanders lived in owner-occupied dwellings and renting was understood as a predominantly short-term arrangement for people without children, with renters moving frequently rather than settling down in their communities. Homeownership is now at a 60-year low, and nearly a third of all households, or approximately 600,000, now live in a rented property.

This bill aligns New Zealand’s rental laws with the present-day realities of renting in New Zealand. It ensures that there are appropriate protections in place for both tenants and for landlords. The changes in the bill will improve tenants’ security and stability, while continuing to protect landlords’ interests in their property. Improving security of tenure means that tenants who are meeting their obligations will feel confident that they can remain in their homes. Insecure tenure can have a negative impact on health, education, and employment outcomes.

This bill will improve tenants’ security by removing no-cause terminations. It’s simply not appropriate in 2020 for a person to be required to leave their home without knowing why.

Landlords will only be able to end a tenancy if one of the specific reasons in the legislation applies, or by order from the Tenancy Tribunal. Landlords will be able to terminate tenancies for a range of fair and justified reasons, such as antisocial behaviour, or someone who is repeatedly behind in their rent. In addition, if a tenant has been charged by the police with physical assault against their landlord or another relevant party, the landlord can serve a termination notice, and a tenant must then vacate within 14 days.

The bill mandates that fixed-term tenancy agreements must become periodic tenancy agreements upon expiry, unless both parties agree otherwise, or the justified reasons set out in the bill apply. This will flatten the inflated demand that is created in some regions by tenancies that all end at the same time.

The bill also enables a victim of family violence to withdraw from a fixed or periodic tenancy speedily, by giving their landlord two days’ notice, along with evidence of the family violence while on the premises. After the termination date, the tenant will not be liable for any further rent. These changes mean that victims have fewer barriers to exiting tenancies quickly in order to seek safety.

Tenants should be able to feel at home in their rental property. To this end, the bill makes rental properties safer and more livable by setting out clear processes for tenants to make minor changes to their rental accommodation, such as earthquake-proofing or baby-proofing a property. Landlords will be able to set reasonable conditions when agreeing to these minor changes, and tenants must reverse them when they leave the tenancy.

The bill also makes changes to ensure that a growing proportion of New Zealand renters have similar opportunities to access fibre broadband services as owner-occupiers. Access to fibre broadband is important for education, employment, and social outcomes.

The bill prohibits the solicitation of rental bids by landlords. It also includes a requirement that landlords must specify a rent amount when advertising a rental property. Rental bidding can exploit vulnerable tenants and drive up rental costs, especially in a tight rental market, and the bill also limits rent increases to once every 12 months, instead of the current provisions of six months in the Residential Tenancies Act as it stands.

The bill provides the regulator, which is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in this case, with a suite of new tools to take direct action against parties who are not meeting their obligations. The bill also increases the existing financial penalties in the Residential Tenancies Act. This package of amendments will improve compliance with the law.

I’m also aware of situations where tenants are reluctant to go to the Tenancy Tribunal as they fear being blacklisted by future landlords. For the tenancy system to work, people should feel confident that the Tenancy Tribunal can be used without disadvantaging them in the future. The bill clarifies the situations where names and identifying details can be anonymised. This includes when a party has been wholly or substantially successful in taking a case to the tribunal and applies for suppression.

The bill also clarifies that the RTA does not apply to Government-funded transitional and emergency housing. Emergency and transitional housing is a short-term safe place to stay while longer-term accommodation can be found. The new exemption helps ensure that providers can continue to provide this valuable service to people who need a safe place to stay. To ensure that transitional housing clients still have adequate protections, a code of practice will be developed that sets out the Government’s expectations of providers.

The bill will also extend some provisions of the COVID-19 legislation. The RTA was amended to provide greater flexibility for the tribunal’s operation so that it could consider cases just on the evidence of documentation or by teleconference. I intend to extend these provisions for a further six months from the current expiry date of 25 September in order to allow the tribunal to hold a greater number of hearings and, therefore, reduce waiting times.

The contents of this bill have been shaped through comprehensive public consultation. From August to October 2018, over 4,700 submissions were received following the publication of a discussion document. Over 1,400 submissions on the bill were received through the select committee from February to July of this year.

I would like to take a moment to thank all of the submitters—landlords, tenants, interest groups, and others—who have been involved in the various stages of the project. I’d also like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its excellent management of the challenges arising from meeting and holding hearings over the lockdown. The committee recommended several valuable changes to the bill, which the Government took up.

I’d also like to thank the officials who have worked on the policy and legislation process, and our coalition partners—New Zealand First and the Green Party—for supporting this work. On that note, I want to mention Ron Mark and Marama Davidson, who have been central to getting this bill through the House.

Lastly, I’d like to thank the committee of the whole House for their consideration of the bill. The bill will ensure that renters in New Zealand can have a place to call home and set down roots in their communities. I commend the bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’m sure the Minister the Hon Kris Faafoi is as thrilled as I that such a crowd has turned out, and I’d probably like to—looking at the crowd—reassure the Minister that it’s not a group of militant landlords, but be careful when you leave afterwards. We’re also very relieved to see that Jian Yang has actually made the House, with five minutes to spare. My final gift to my friend and colleague is that I will conclude at 10 past 5.

National continues to oppose this bill. That, Minister, will be no surprise to you. We remain disappointed that, less than two hours ago, the Supplementary Order Paper was tabled, of which—in effect—the Parliament’s had very little, if any, time to properly consider. I think, unfortunately, it is reflective of how this whole bill has gone. Minister, our objections to this bill remain. Well, fundamentally, the Minister’s drawn attention to “so few bad behaving landlords or tenants”, and that’s right. But this bill, effectively, will touch on and affect every landlord and every tenant. In order to address the issues of a few, this bill is going to cause problems for all.

As I’ve noted in previous speeches—which is why I don’t want to keep repeating things—in principle, the National Party is one of private property rights. Landlords are not a social service; if they choose to be, then all well and good, but it should not be legislated. But, practically, the issue, Minister, is that in trying to help the tenants, this bill is going to make their life a lot, lot worse. As I’ve said, I’ve explored this before—by reducing some of their freedoms, which this bill is doing, landlords will exit the market. They have, as I’ve said, mentioned to us in droves—even the New Zealand First Party acknowledged in their speech; I suspect they’ve had to swallow somewhat of a dead rat to vote for this. Landlords will leave the market. That will ultimately see rents increase. The idea that, somehow, purely limiting the landlords’ increase to every 12 months won’t cut it; they will simply double, or take it even steeper, as they so choose.

The bill, too, doesn’t go anywhere near to addressing antisocial behaviour. This side of the House, Minister, completely understands it’s a small number of people, but those who are landlords know that that action—those antisocial behaviours—is incredibly destructive. The idea that there should be three warnings over 90 days before one goes to a tenancy tribunal is completely unacceptable, and that’s before we’ve even gone into debates like methamphetamine and the rest.

This is a badly construed bill. This is a bill that, I would suggest, is simply academic. It looks fantastic on paper, I’m sure some tenants’ groups think it’s fantastic because it attempts to—or perhaps looks like it’s going to—tilt things terribly in their favour. It will not. National, therefore, cannot support this. We are worried and concerned that, as the weeks and months go by, we will see fewer people in that private housing market. It’s a problem the Government can ill afford—18,000 families are already on the State house waiting list, 18,000 families. I fear—I fear—there’ll be more.

So, ultimately, the National Party opposes this. We will look to address this if we have the privilege of being in Government. I think, fundamentally, the message I want to end on is that this side of the House does hear the voice of tenants, and we do hear the voice of landlords. We would be the party to put forward legislation which echoes those voices, and not ideologies which ultimately harm the very people the Government claims they want to help.

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): I just rise to put on the record New Zealand First’s continued support of this legislation through its third reading, and I want to thank Mr Faafoi for the amount of time that he’s spent. Clearly, there are challenges that present when parties that have differing philosophical views approach problems such as this. New Zealand First has noted in its speeches the concerns of landlords around the removal of the 90-day no-cause eviction notice. We are mindful, though, that it’s only really been used on 3 percent of occasions, and therefore wonder if the protestations are that much of an issue. That said, we have put on the record that the people who will pick up those tenants who are not taken up by landlords are worried about the risk that they will be presented with. Those tenants will fall to the Government, and we just want to acknowledge that that will put even more emphasis on Housing New Zealand in that respect. We support the bill.

Debate interrupted.

SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I’ll indicate that this order of the day is set down for a resumption following the break.

Members, it’s my intention to indicate that at the conclusion of the Rt Hon David Carter’s valedictory speech, the House will be suspended until 7 p.m. I’m giving notice of this now so I don’t have to interrupt the celebrations which will be occurring at that time. I call on Dr Jian Yang to make his valedictory statement.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Dr JIAN YANG (National): The 8th of August, just three days from now, will mark the ninth anniversary of my political career. Number eight is considered a lucky number by many Chinese. I’m supposed to be doubly lucky because the anniversary has double eights. I do think I have been lucky, but I’m not sure but I have been doubly lucky.

On 8 August 2011, I received an unexpected call from National Party president Peter Goodfellow inviting me to stand in the upcoming general election. The first sentence I said to Peter was “Thank you, but I have no interest.” Peter was somewhat taken aback but suggested that we should have a chat, and I agreed.

My wife Jane was horrified when I told her about Peter’s invitation that evening. At that time, I was associate dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Auckland. Jane was very much satisfied with our life and would hate being the wife of a politician. Her position was very clear: I would have to choose between her and politics. To me, the choice was obvious.

So I was quite sure what my position was when I met Peter a few days later. Peter was very genuine and explained to me the importance of a Chinese MP to the National Party. In the end, I said politely to Peter that I would consider his invitation. I briefed Jane about my meeting with Peter, and that was it—I declined the party’s invitation.

However, Peter did not give up. I subsequently had two more meetings with the party’s leadership. I was touched by the sincerity of the party. I then consulted with a small circle of my friends and colleagues. My former head of department, who was a New Zealand politics expert, said to me, “If I were you, I would grab it with both hands.”

I realised that my military academy background in China could be an issue, so I brought up the issue with the party leadership in my meetings with them. I also clearly named Air Force Engineering University and the People’s Liberation Army Luoyang Foreign Languages Institute in my list candidate application form. I have been transparent to the party from the very beginning.

As I said in my maiden speech nine years ago, I am a Kiwi made in China. I came to New Zealand in late February 1999. In 2004, I received my New Zealand citizenship and gave up my Chinese citizenship. I filled out my citizenship application form as required. Unlike it was being reported, I actually did not put down the civilian or partner universities in my citizenship application form.

However, I was not sure to what extent I had been accepted as a New Zealander until 2008. I joined a Track 1.5 security dialogue delegation to Tokyo and Beijing from late July to early August 2008. The delegation was organised by the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, or NZIIA. I joined the delegation as chair of the Auckland branch of the NZIIA and as an international relations scholar. Other members of the delegation included academics and retired senior diplomats.

At a meeting with our Japanese counterparts, the head of delegation asked me to introduce New Zealand foreign policy. I was puzzled and said, “I don’t think I’m the right person to do this. I’m Chinese, and we have a few former New Zealand diplomats here.” A retired senior New Zealand diplomat immediately said to our Japanese counterparts, “Jian is the new face of New Zealand.”

A few days later, the New Zealand embassy in Beijing hosted the delegation and invited some Chinese experts to the function. Again, I was asked to introduce New Zealand foreign policy to Chinese guests. I said, “I have an identity problem. You are inviting a Chinese to talk about New Zealand foreign policy to Chinese experts in front of senior New Zealand diplomats.” The New Zealand ambassador then said, “Jian, I’ll ask you one question: what passport do you hold?” “New Zealand passport,” I said. “Then you are a New Zealander,” said the ambassador. From then on, I have never been troubled by my identity. I am a New Zealander.

Nevertheless, there have been speculations about my loyalty to New Zealand, and we have seen various conspiracy stories. Last September, I accompanied the then National leader Simon Bridges to visit China. We told our Chinese host that we would like to meet a politburo member in Beijing. A few days before the meeting, we were told that Mr Guo Shengkun would meet the delegation. I did not really know Mr Guo’s portfolios. So I did a quick search online and discovered that he was in charge of justice and law and order. Back in New Zealand, conspiracy theorists, however, claimed that I had organised a meeting between the National Party leader and the head of the Chinese Communist Party’s secret police. Simon, I’m sorry that you had to defend yourself—things went slightly off the plan.

Recently, it is claimed that I have not talked to English media for two years and that I only talk to Chinese media. The truth is, as the National spokesperson for statistics, I have talked to Radio New Zealand, Newstalk ZB, Stuff, Newshub, and other English media well over 10 times in the past 18 months or so, more than many backbenchers in this House. I only declined the media requests—English or Chinese—whose sole purpose was to question my loyalty to New Zealand. I have made it very clear that I have been loyal to New Zealand. I do not need to explain again.

It has been a great honour to represent New Zealand’s Chinese community as a National MP. I have put heart and soul into serving the community. I am pleased that I have been able to assist numerous Chinese constituents. I am proud that I have set up the Blue Dragons to better engage the Chinese community to support the National Party. I am also proud that I have enabled the Chinese community to better understand and participate in New Zealand’s democratic politics. It has been tremendously rewarding to be warmly received wherever I go in the Chinese community, and I am deeply grateful to the Chinese community for its consistent support to me.

As a first generation immigrant, I feel extremely privileged to be able to participate in the making of national policies and laws, and to chair two important select committees, the Education and Science Committee and the Governance and Administration Committee. I also had the opportunity to meet numerous outstanding New Zealanders, including those from the Chinese community. As a member of Parliament with Chinese heritage, I made my contribution to New Zealand - China relations. My trips to China with Rt Hon Sir John Key and various Ministers and colleagues are some highlights of my political career. I enjoyed each of these trips. There are many memorable moments, from meeting the Chinese President and Chinese Premier to seeing Paul Goldsmith’s facial expression when he was served a whole sea cucumber.

In March 2012, I accompanied trade Minister Tim Groser to visit China. I helped organise a Chinese press conference before we left. Minister Groser happily announced to the Chinese media, “We will pay a visit to our old friend, Mr Bo Xilai, who signed the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement when he was China’s Minister of Commerce.” A few minutes later, he received a message saying that Mr Bo had just been dismissed. I am particularly grateful to Tim for his trust. While in China, Tim said that I could speak Chinese without being translated just to save time. “I trust you, and I want you to talk about your story to highlight the diversity of New Zealand society,” Tim said. It did work very well.

New Zealand, as a nation, should have an informed debate about China. Superficial, ill-informed, and biased reports and commentaries about China will not serve our national interest well. As Professor Paul Clark concludes in his article published in the New Zealand Herald just a week ago, “Scaremongering is not the way to get real about China.” We do have some outstanding China experts in New Zealand with the academic integrity of being evidence-based, fair, and honest.

China experienced some turbulent and chaotic times in its contemporary history. Like many Chinese, my grandparents and parents suffered. As I mentioned in my maiden speech, my grandfather was a general of the Chinese Nationalist Party, China’s ruling party at that time. He was arrested and put into prison with the change of Government in 1949. My parents were sent to the countryside to be re-educated by the peasants during the Great Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s. I myself would not be where I am had China not opened up and started its reforms in 1978. I am certainly not an exceptional case. A simple fact is that tens of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty since 1978.

It is time for me to thank those who have helped me in the past nine years. I cannot mention all of them. I thank all National Party board members, in particular, National Party President Peter Goodfellow for his support at every step. I thank my colleagues, particularly the year 2011 classmates. They have given me unfailing support over these years. I thank all Blue Dragons. Representatives from Auckland, Hamilton, Rotorua, Wellington, and Queenstown branches are here today. In particular, I thank Frank, Carissa, and James. I thank the vibrant Chinese community, which has made a great contribution to this country. Some representatives are here today. Ganxie nimen. 感谢你们.

I acknowledge my youth MP, Sally, who is here. She is following my path and is doing her BA majoring in international relations. I also thank my friends Tony, Phil, and Ambassador Browne. I thank my two assistants, Shu Kim and Shan. Not many MPs have not changed their staff for nine years. Shu Kim and Shan have been my loyal colleagues and most trustworthy advisers. I also thank Shan’s wife, Sisi, and Shu Kim’s husband, Blair, and daughter Isabel. They have become our close family friends.

My parents and brothers who still live in China have always been supportive of me. My father is 90 years old with dementia and my mother is in a wheelchair. I have not joined them for Chinese New Year for nine years. Hopefully I will be able to do so for the coming Chinese New Year. Finally, I thank my wife Jane and two daughters, Suzie and Evelyn. My two girls have got used to me not being around. Evelyn just made it today. Apparently her biological sciences lab is more important than my valedictory speech.

My wife, Jane, has been my strongest supporter during the most difficult time. This does not necessarily mean she liked my political life. She has always been a private person and values her privacy. I once told a shop owner that my wife often came to her shop. The shop owner later figured out who my wife was and asked Jane. Jane was so stressed that she stopped shopping there, and the shop closed down before long. Jane has come to Wellington only twice in nine years. Nine years ago, she was here for my maiden speech saying, “Take care.” Nine years later, she’s back for my valedictory speech, saying, “Welcome home.”

Before I conclude, I would like to wish the National Party all the best. In terms of values, the Chinese community is very close to the National Party, and the National Party has been firmly supportive of the Chinese community. To our new leader, the Hon Judith Collins, I’m here to say you have my full support, Judith.

I’m proud of my Chinese heritage. I feel fortunate to have had the life-changing opportunity to study in Australia. Most importantly, I am privileged to be able to live in New Zealand, a truly great country, and one I call my home. It’s time for me to put down politics and enjoy life with my family. History will be the best judge of my nine years in the New Zealand Parliament. Thank you. Xiexie. 谢谢.

[Applause]

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tīhei, mauri ora. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēnā koe. Ngā mate, hāere, hāere, hāere. Ngā reo, ngā mana, tēnā koutou katoa.

[I claim the right to speak. To the House that stands before me, greetings. To the land before me, greetings. To those who have passed on, go in peace. To the spokespeople and the decision makers, greetings one and all.]

Tonight, after 15 years, I say haere rā to this place. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak and thank you to everyone who’s come tonight. It means a lot to me. I’m delighted to celebrate this evening with my good friend David Carter. He was the first MP I ever met and he’s always encouraged and mentored me. He even delivers flyers for me at election time. Thank you, David.

Being an MP, of course, is an enormous privilege and it’s hugely demanding and it requires the support of many; thank you so much. Firstly, it’s just plain hard work. It’s physically exacting, 24/7 commitment, and it’s hard to get enough sleep. Emotionally, it’s challenging. I think it’s a treadmill of events, enormous adrenaline-fuelled highs and desperately mentally destructive lows, and always in the public eye. We need to look after ourselves here and look after each other. I do have to say, I’ve always had the support of the class of 2005 and my mates in this caucus.

I came here because MPs can actually make a real difference for the people in their communities. Working through our electorate offices, we can fix stuff. We can sort out housing problems. We can deal with health and education issues. We can remove barriers for disabled people. We can even diffuse neighbourhood clashes. You name it, we do it. I want to acknowledge all those constituents who have trusted me with their issues and every one of my staff who’s worked so hard to solve them.

In particular, I want to mention my long-serving office managers Heather Wellington and Nicola Olds. Now, Nicola’s wit is matched by boundless compassion for people, and she’s a true advocate for those who are in need. Now, Heather joined me when I first became an MP and she, her organisation skills, and her can-do attitude helped me get established in Christchurch, and then she moved to Northland, but she returned each election to volunteer to help me in my campaign, and I think that’s real dedication. Thank you very much.

And of course, Kirsten, who worked so hard on our communications during the earthquakes. You know, our newsletter really became a lifeline to so many. The same can be said of my current team, led by Karen Duff, with Marion Bishop and Boyd Becker. We tallied up the other day and figured that our office had worked with over 7,500 constituents and organised and hosted over 500 different events.

Electorate offices are the public-facing part of an MP’s job. They receive the good and the bad. They help people who are at their wit’s end. They support the vulnerable in our communities, but they also cop the abuse and deal with the threats. My team are extremely hard-working, enormously capable, and totally loyal, and I appreciate each and every one of them.

I never imagined or prepared myself to be a politician. As a local businesswoman, I was drawn into running in 2002 because I was incensed by the way that the Labour Government, I felt, was neglecting Christchurch and particularly small business and the small business community during the winter of discontent under Helen Clark. I was then elected on to the list in 2005, and that campaign, like all that’s followed, could not have been possible without the help of friends, family, and the wider National Party. Christchurch Central gave me the opportunity to stand and they have actively supported me ever since. I would like to thank my current chair, Brooke Law, and also a special thankyou to Stuart and Julie Laing and Murray and Joan Spackman. Those people have served continuously on the team since I was first selected and they’re still going strong, supporting our new hard-working candidate, Dale Stephens. So go well, Dale. I’d also like to thank the wider National Party, President Peter Goodfellow and the board, and our favourite regional chair, Roger Bridge.

Being a new MP was a steep learning curve. So much to do and so little time to do it. One of the issues that was vexing Christchurch Central at the time was boy racers. I worked with the police and neighbourhood groups on a member’s bill. It was never pulled from the ballot—none of my bills have ever been selected—but it was picked up by the then Minister, Judith Collins, when we came into Government. And, you know, the boy racers never saw it coming.

I also worked closely with the local Afghani community after a Christchurch taxi driver was stabbed to death. I supported his widow and family, but I also lobbied for the installation of taxi cameras. And, you know, it was CCTV technology that finally solved a longstanding issue of payment problems and horrible violence against drivers. We just don’t see it any more.

One of the most heartbreaking cases I had was the plight of a Kurdish family. One son had been left behind when they came to New Zealand and they sought my help because, in desperation, he had turned to people smugglers and had ended up in a boat that sank in the Black Sea. He survived, but he lost his wife and child. Of course, the whole family was distraught and eight of them practically camped in my office. Could we rescue him from Turkey? Could we bring him home? It was a really long and difficult negotiation, but the joy when he arrived really made it worthwhile. He got a job immediately and has been contributing to this country ever since.

The 2008 election was an exciting one. I became a Government MP and I soon learnt that it was infinitely more productive than being on the Opposition, especially under the leadership of Prime Minister John Key and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English. John was ambitious for New Zealand, full of energy, with a strong vision for a confident, successful, and outward-looking nation, and always driven to make the boat go faster. Bill was ambitious for New Zealanders, knowing that the system had to do better for those that struggle, and totally committed to social investment. He was convinced that the Government could do better to understand and respect individuals and families, and invest in them to help them get ahead. The drive to make New Zealand a better place for all New Zealanders underpinned everything our National Government did, and New Zealanders responded to the challenge. Despite the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, the economy grew and more jobs were created than New Zealand had ever seen before.

I feel enormously privileged to have been able to work with the National Government from 2008 to 2017. We worked hard. We were effective, the country prospered, and New Zealanders rewarded us with their votes. I felt a small taste of that success because, in 2011, I became the first National MP to win the electorate of Christchurch Central—with the smallest of margins; a draw on the night, and then a whopping win of 47 votes in the recount. I well remember the night in Premier House when John Key proclaimed that the most unexpected, the most exciting thing about the 2011 election was winning Christchurch Central.

The present Government is keen to rewrite history and say that the National Government didn’t deliver for New Zealanders, but the voters said otherwise. Each election from 2008 to 2017 National’s vote increased, and in the 2014 election, in response to the earthquake recovery work of Gerry Brownlee, Christchurch turned blue. Every electorate gave National their party vote, and I was honoured to be re-elected with a majority of over 2,400 votes. In the 2017 election, National gained 1,152,000 votes—the most votes that any party has ever received in the history of New Zealand. Now, you tell me. Was it a system failure, a miscarriage of justice, or a betrayal of democracy that National and Bill English ended up on the Opposition benches?

Life in Christchurch has been challenging over the last 10 years. We’ve had multiple earthquakes—with liquefaction and flooding—followed by the Port Hills fires, then a mass shooting, and now a pandemic. We are battered, and we’re still a little bit munted, but we’re still there and we’re still strong. So kia kaha, Christchurch.

It was those 15,000-plus earthquakes that really shaped my work as a local MP, getting out during the emergency, throughout the aftershocks, physically delivering water and digging liquefaction, or managing to connect people to the services they needed. They were long, tough, and dusty days. Back then, we wore masks for the dust, do you remember? We’re now wearing masks for the pandemic. Everyone had lost someone or something. We were all upset, but we were all together. We all had to unite as a community, and people were magnificent. I have never been so proud of my community. We shared a toilet among our neighbours, and if you ever want to test whether your street would unite or divide, make them share a Portaloo.

There was a constant circuit of public meetings full of people desperately looking for information, for advice, and for help, and together with my electorate team, we helped hundreds of people who had just run out of options. Then months and years of rebuilding, of insurance claims, of fixing and upgrading roads and services, restoring community assets—we engaged far and wide across the community, we worked with the community forum, we got their advice and guidance on the decisions that we had to make on laying out the blueprints for the city. I really thank all Cantabrians who came together to put forward ideas and took an active, future focus on the recovery and regeneration.

As a local MP, I was heavily involved in everything, but the highlight of my career was the opportunity to serve the Christchurch community, firstly as the associate Minister and later as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration. Our focus was on rebuilding homes, families, and communities, and to deliver the blueprint, the plan to rebuild Christchurch as a modern, people-friendly, and 21st century city. We wanted Christchurch to be a city of opportunity, with an energy that attracts, that encourages, and that inspires people to come, to live, to work, and to raise a family there. We can now see the shape of our new city, and I know we’re on the right track. That was confirmed for me when we recently welcomed home our oldest son and his Melburnian wife to Christchurch, and now we have another one-eyed Cantabrian granddaughter on the way.

One of my greatest challenges was to broker the agreement to reinstate Christ Church Cathedral. The cathedral in the square has long been a powerful symbol and heart of our city, and there was a real sense that, until its future was decided, Christchurch would feel broken. I worked with Bishop Victoria and city stakeholders, and developed a cross-party parliamentary group to deliver a recovery package. The journey was long, and it wasn’t until 9 September 2017, only a fortnight before the election, that we finally got the decision to restore. I think the whole city celebrated because, regardless of their opinion, everyone needed a decision so the city could move forward.

As a Minister, I’ve also held responsibilities for statistics—the only ministry that counts!—customs, disability issues, and associate roles for conservation, health, and tourism. I loved being the Minister of Customs. It’s the oldest Government department—180 this year—but, with Carolyn Tremain as its comptroller, it was forward-thinking and innovative. During my tenure, we rolled out SmartGates in our airports and completed the Trade Single Window, a world-first electronic platform for cargo and excise. But my most important work was to rewrite, modernise, and streamline the Customs and Excise Act. That was a huge job, but I’m really proud of the quality of work that was produced. Our customs officers are remarkable people, who do so much to protect our country, and their work is not often recognised. I always enjoy the story of a suspected drug mule who, when questioned by our perceptive customs officers, said he’d come to New Zealand to play golf and view our wildlife. Further questioning revealed he didn’t have golf clubs, he’d never visited a golf course, and he was really keen to see our native giraffes!

As the Minister for Disability Issues, I quickly learned that disabled people want more choice and control over their support services, and more opportunities to live a good life. But mostly they just wanted a job. And, supported by both John Key and Bill English, I developed a two-pronged strategy. With John Key and BusinessNZ, I launched the Disability Confident campaign. It was to empower and educate employers, and give them the tools to open doors and welcome disabled people into their businesses. That, coupled with the employability scheme that we rolled out across the country, enabled hundreds of disabled people to get jobs and for the employers to get first-rate, loyal employees—a win-win. Even today, people seek me out and thank National for supporting them to get a job.

With Bill English, I worked on rolling out the Enabling Good Lives programme. That’s a scheme that provides individualised funding and navigators to help disabled people design their own unique good lives. We believed that the scheme would benefit all disabled communities, and I do hope that this work will continue, because it has transformed the lives of people that have been involved. With the right support, disabled people can shape their own lives with enormously positive results. I’ve been privileged to watch Yaniv Janson develop as an artist. Supported and encouraged by his family and his support worker-cum-art teacher, his talent has blossomed over the years. His work sells readily—I bought a couple myself—and I was delighted to be able to help him mount an exhibition at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Yaniv’s work has achieved artistic recognition on the world stage, and he’s been able to build a satisfying and sustainable career. Congratulations, Yaniv.

Of course, it’s the ministerial staff that makes things happen for any Minister, and I want to acknowledge all the various private secretaries who worked in my office, including Danielle from the Office of Disability Issues, Maurice from the customs department, and Mike from the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery. Also, all my press secretaries and ministerial advisers—you were a great team; thank you very much. I particularly want to acknowledge and thank Beryl Bright, my senior private secretary. Beryl has been in this place since 1984, and her knowledge of Parliament and the standing of Cabinet, and her reputation, is immense. She’s a legend, respected and loved by so many. Also Kath Bell—Kath started working with me as an executive assistant when I arrived in 2005, and stayed with me through thick and thin until she retired in 2017. A dear friend, she now lives in the South Island; so some new adventures ahead, I think.

I’ve done so much with so many wonderful people since I became an MP, but—as always—there’s so much to do and so little time. I wanted to talk about the fantastic work of the Department of Conservation—conservation boards, Predator Free New Zealand. I wanted to outline the steps that we’ve made towards Smokefree 2025. I wanted to reflect on the invaluable insights that I’ve learned about Te Ao Māori and hākari from being on the Māori Affairs Committee and, more personally, from working closely with Ngāi Tahu as we regenerate our city, but the clock is ticking, I am aware.

So, to my family, who should of course be first but always tend to be last when you have a job like ours. Tonight, I am missing my two brothers, Hamish and Jonathan, and their families, who are locked down in COVID in Australia and can’t be here, but I’m grateful to my husband’s four sisters, all who are here. Both sides of the family have embraced and supported me, our children, and now our grandchildren, over so many years. And to my husband, Billy—I hit the jackpot when I married you. You were a good man then, but it’s amazing what 47 years of training has done for both of us. We are better people for each other, and look what we’ve produced. Two fine young men who have brought their fabulous wives into our lives and, in turn, produced our two little granddaughters, with another one on the way. I used to be the only woman in my family, and I always felt that you three ganged up on me, but now the gender balance has reversed—so look out!

In the immortal words of John Prine, Billy’s favourite Country and Western singer, “Against all odds, honey, we’re the big door prize” and I’m never gonna let you go. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): The fascinating thing about a political career is that as it starts you never know when it’s going to end. Not even Winston!

I arrived here in unusual circumstances. Ruth Richardson suddenly resigned as the MP for Selwyn in a way that was designed to cause the maximum disruption for the Bolger Government. The by-election was a baptism of fire and lasted three weeks. Media immediately coined it the “mother of all by-elections”. It was short, sharp, and profiled nationally every night because its result was critical due to the Government’s then one-seat majority. The only humour providing any relief to the tension was the last minute selection of the New Zealand First candidate, Sir Tim Shadbolt, who was not too ashamed to say he had never read a New Zealand First manifesto and he had no idea of New Zealand First policies. Some things never change!

I recall the day I came into the Chamber to be sworn in. It actually wasn’t this Chamber. It was the Chamber used while this building was being renovated, now select committees one and two in Bowen House. As I returned to my seat, Lianne Dalziel, who sat about there, interjected with that awful shriek that the lefties often manage, “You won’t be here for long!” Well, 26 years may not be long for Lianne, but it’s long enough for me. I do know what led to that comment. We were moving to MMP, uncharted territory. No one at that stage knew the new electorate boundaries and what the future would hold. Luck was on my side. I won Banks Peninsula in 1996. So what may well have been a short 26-month career, the time between the by-election and the first MMP election, has become the 26-year stint.

I came with one driving ambition that had gnawed at me since my days at Lincoln University. I wanted to be Minister of Agriculture. This country’s primary sector is New Zealand’s economic jewel. It is the very economic foundation that has made this country the country that it is today. I had personally farmed through Rogernomics in the mid-1980s and hold no grudges whatsoever to the then Labour Government for the pain the farming sector had to endure. It had to be done. Labour should be proud of this era of reform, not dismissive of it. The last three years under this Government have been difficult. This Government seems ignorant of the way the farming sector wants to—and is willing to—grapple with the ongoing challenges of water quality, climate change, and market access. So as an industry, we will meet those challenges. So for the next Government, work with the sector, not against it.

My first promotion was to junior whip, a fascinating role and a way to really understand and appreciate the ambitions of your own colleagues. Parliament is a tough environment, but your own caucus is an even tougher environment. It was during the voting on the 140 amendments to the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill in 1998 that I realised how tenuous the National - New Zealand First coalition Government was. The level of cooperation from then New Zealand First whip, Ron Mark, was non-existent. We never knew whether we had their support on amendments or not, and their vote was critical. Little wonder that, only months later, the coalition imploded, delivering my next opportunity.

Under the Shipley Government, I was made Associate Minister of Agriculture. Nearly there—except she didn’t call it that. She appointed a Minister of Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control, and I was the Associate Minister for Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control—the first National Government ever without a Minister of Agriculture. No wonder farmers said we had deserted them. In hindsight, the electoral loss about a year later was inevitable.

The Opposition years were tough. I have a vivid memory of our first caucus after the 2002 election. We started the meeting in the caucus room with 39 people: the successful MPs, the retiring MPs, and those that had been beaten. As we farewelled those leaving one by one, our numbers finally dwindled to an Opposition of only 27 MPs. It was a slow, hard crawl back but we won under John Key in 2008 and I achieved my political ambition: Minister of Agriculture. I then proceeded to change the title: Minister for Primary Industries. No criticism this time. Farmers accepted it. They trusted me.

I came with a strong agenda and recall three things with some pride: water storage, getting science working to find solutions to greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, and improved biosecurity. I still can’t understand the resistance to water storage and irrigation. In any other developed nation, the vast resources of the Canterbury Plains and the Hawke’s Bay plains would have been irrigated generations ago. Yes, I accept that irrigation brings intensification. But again, with science and with the will of modern farmers, we can find a way to mitigate environmental impacts of more intensive agriculture.

I championed the establishment of the Global Research Alliance (GRA), an international initiative that brought together agricultural scientists from then 30 different countries to seek ways of reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists working in collaboration will find solutions far more quickly than scientists working in isolation. Now over 60 countries are involved in the GRA. The only problem with the initiative: my then Cabinet colleague Tim Groser claimed all the credit and he had bugger all to do with it!

Biosecurity is critical to this country. Disease incursions will continue to occur. We can’t stop them all, but we can certainly tackle incursions better by establishing a good working relationship between Government and industry. Mycoplasma bovis has been a good example of this. The discovery of Psa in our kiwifruit industry in November 2010 could have been one of my darkest moments. But it’s actually one of my proudest. I got instant support from Cabinet for a $25 million spend matched dollar for dollar by industry, and so started the industry’s effort to find solutions—and look at the strength of the kiwifruit industry today.

I do recall my darkest day: Tuesday, 22 February 2011; the day an earthquake destroyed my city of Christchurch. Within an hour I was in the basement of the Beehive, waiting for John Key as we were to travel down together by air force place. My phone went. It was Jaime Gilbert’s family to tell me that our friend Jaime was dead—crushed by falling masonry. The Prime Minister and I spent the day touring the devastation, standing for a long period of time in front of the smouldering CTV building, knowing there were people dead or dying in that ruin. But the toughest part: I didn’t get home till well after 9 o’clock that night to hug Heather and our four kids. They each had their own traumatic experiences of the day they wanted to share with me. I wanted to get home a lot earlier, guys; you wanted me home a lot earlier. I’m sorry, but it’s a cost of political life.

Chris Finlayson said there are two fundamental reasons for a valedictory: to say thank you and to give a lecture. The lecture first on two quick points: number one, the design of the emissions trading scheme. In hindsight, Parliament got it wrong in 2005 when it gave large emitters the opportunity to offset their emissions with the planting of pine forests. I know why we did it; we needed time for those emitters to find solutions. At the time, we thought that gave us a 30-year window to meet our international obligations. We ignored the fact that the majority of the sequestered carbon is released upon harvesting. Now in 2020, half that window of the 30-year opportunity has passed without any progress by emitters to reduce their emissions. In the meantime, valuable pastoral land was planted into forestry—a decision that won’t be for one rotation of pine planting; it’s more likely to be a permanent change of land use. In other words: we found a temporary solution that will have a long-term, permanent downside for New Zealand.

Number two: the continued lease of Bowen House. If common sense had prevailed, we’d be well on the way to finally being in our own fully owned parliamentary complex, rather than some MPs being housed over the road in a commercially leased Bowen House. To continue leasing Bowen House from an overseas investor is wrong and it’s expensive. To continue to use the vacant land behind this building for nothing more than car parking is wrong and an inefficient use of resources. During my time as Speaker, plans were developed for a modern, purpose-built office block immediately behind here and linking to this building, and I want to acknowledge the former Parliamentary Service officials who led this project: David Stevenson and Jim Robb.

My job was to get the political support necessary for the project to proceed. All political leaders, with the exception of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, agreed. It’s hard to see why they wouldn’t. The economics of this project were absolutely compelling. So in the 53rd Parliament, while MPs are decamped from Bowen House for its earthquake strengthening and double-desked somewhere in the library or in the basement of this building, don’t blame me. Instead, ask the question why the project didn’t proceed, and if it was nothing more than a personal vendetta against me by Mr Peters, that is shameful. What is beyond doubt is the greatest beneficiary of the decision to stop the project is the current owner of Bowen House.

Now for the thanks to the hundreds of people who have helped me through my time in Parliament. Over 26 years, there are a lot of them. I simply cannot mention them all. To those that make this building work: Parliamentary Service, security, the travel office, messengers, and VIP, that you so much. To the Inter-Parliamentary Relations team—and particularly you, Wendy Hart: the source of huge institutional knowledge on the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—thank you.

To members of the National Party, thank you for your commitment to National and to me. To the various electorate chairs, campaign chairs, office holders of the Selwyn electorate, Port Hills electorate, and Banks Peninsula electorate, I owe you everything. To all my staff over the years, both in Christchurch and Wellington, I couldn’t have done it without you. I want to particularly note Marion Bishop in Christchurch, and, of course, the fearsome, legendary Lisa Kinloch here in Wellington. To all the staff of my ministerial office, we were a great team, but I particularly note Vanessa Rawson, Gavin Forrest, and Thomas Pryor. To Juliane Jutz for your assistance over the last three years, and particularly with the logistics of leaving Wellington and organising today. Roland Todd: the glue of any Speaker’s office. To my political adviser, mentor, and friend, Roger Bridge: when I needed sound advice, you were there to provide it. Without it, I wouldn’t have survived 26 years in this place.

To Heather, I can’t really find the right words to say. I know my choice to enter politics was not where you thought our lives would head prior to that Selwyn by-election. I still remember the look on your face as I looked down at you from the stage at the West Melton hall on my selection night, having won selection. That look of apprehension, almost fear, is imprinted on my mind. You knew our lives had changed, but I hope for all the downsides there’s been some reward and achievement in watching me complete my political ambition. Thank you for on so many occasions being a solo mum. To Sophie, Laura, Isabella, and Morgan, I don’t think you’ve suffered too much without my daily guidance. In fact, I think you might have been better off without it. The irony of life is as I return home you embark on your own exciting lives, which I know will bring much pride to Heather and to me.

As I conclude, I want to make some comments on my almost five years as Speaker of this House. It was never a position I aspired to, but having been elected as Speaker, I realised the honour and the responsibility that this position holds in ensuring the democracy of our country. When I recall the other six Speakers that I’ve served under, all had their own individual style. I think the style of a Speaker is, in actual fact, a reflection of the personality of that person. The biggest challenge for any Speaker is moving from a career as a political operator to being truly apolitical. The job is to be Parliament’s person and not influenced by earlier political loyalties.

Of critical importance to democracy is the opportunity for an Opposition to hold a Government to account. The allocation of supplementary questions at question time is a valuable resource—a chance to ask those searching, probing questions that if asked and answered, will actually ensure a sharper, more highly performing Government. So I certainly hope the Speaker of the 53rd Parliament will reconsider the recent practice of taking supplementary questions off an Opposition or ruling out questions on some spurious basis, just because the question may be an embarrassment to a Minister. Having said that, I certainly accept that every Speaker at some stage is accused of bias—it goes with the territory. Indeed, it did here last night. As I reflect on my time as Speaker, I can say without hesitation I did my best for our democracy. In hindsight, I think I was probably tougher on Government members than on Opposition MPs. As to any accusation of bias, my conscience is absolutely clear, and that’s the important thing.

So colleagues, I wish you all well as you embark on your election campaigns. This time I’m thrilled not to be part of it.

[Applause]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.14 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Voting

Corrections

BARBARA KURIGER (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave to correct some votes that were taken earlier today by proxy on behalf of the ACT Party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

BARBARA KURIGER: The votes were on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, first and second readings; the motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020; and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill majority amendments recommended by select committee and second reading. I seek leave to correct the ACT Party votes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you very much. They will be corrected.

Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call—not a long call, because I think there’s been a lot of debate that’s been had in this third reading around this bill. So, as I stated in the second reading, I rephrased and reframed the bill the “Residential Tenancies (I Hate Landlords) Bill”, and that’s really clear. Now, some may say that that’s a bit harsh, but when you look at the comments that have been made from a number of landlords, when you look at the comments in submissions—we had 1,436 submissions—a number were opposed to this bill. Even the tenants themselves talked about the 90-day removal notice around properties, and, in particular, the recent Real Estate Institute of New Zealand survey showed that 45.4 percent of tenants actually disagreed with, and were against, the removal of the 90-day notice, compared to 40 percent that were in support. So it’s quite clear that this is a bill that hasn’t had the full support of the whole entire sector and community, and so that’s the reason why we oppose this bill.

We also, too, want to put on record the fact that the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing), the Hon Kris Faafoi, introduced, five minutes into his speech, a 15-page Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which, in effect, was talking about issues around family violence. We would have supported that provision if it was included in the process. The Minister cannot stand in this House and say that they have been working for a long time, when, in his PR, this bill came into the House on 17 November 2019. We’ve had almost 12 months in place to be able to do the work, and it hasn’t been done. Hence the point I made when we were in the committee of the whole House stage to the Minister, around clause 54 of the bill—the new clause that he’s put in there—that when there’s a tenant and it’s been requested that they be removed from the tenancy, within two days, they can be removed on the grounds of family violence. So we understood that there was a calculation that was put there, and what the calculation clearly showed was that discrepancy between the two-week period, the cost that would be incurred would be upon the landlord. Again, that furthers our point in the reasons why we believe that this bill is unfair in regards to the pendulum of responsibility for the landlord.

Now, I know that Marama Davidson spoke in the House on this bill. She talked about equalling the opportunities. But, actually, if she looked at the facts only 18 percent of tenants have been removed from properties in regards to those tenancies—only 18 percent in a period of over three years. We know there are bad landlords, we know there are those that have not acted appropriately in certain cases, but it is not the case right across the board. We have good landlords, we have good tenants who have been operating. But this tool is a blunt tool that will impact and affect a whole lot of other landlords and tenants that are inside of our communities as well.

So we do oppose this bill. It is unfair. It is unfortunate that the Minister could not have, during the select committee process, introduced this earlier on so that we could, through the process, put this through a select committee, a robust process.

Another point that was made through the SOP was in regard to the fact that if there’s an assault upon the landlord by the tenant, then the landlord has grounds to dismiss the tenancy agreement with their tenant, but the tenant has 14 days—14 days. Now, for a tenant where there was family violence, they have two days in which they can be removed. But for a tenant who actually assaults a landlord, they’re given a 14-day period of grace. Where is the equity of opportunity for the landlord? There isn’t one. So landlords now are going to be threatened by tenants, in this situation, who’ve assaulted them, and, again, what has this Government afforded to them? They’ve afforded them 14 extra days to the tenant.

Andrew Bayly: And you’ve got to still front up with the evidence.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: And that’s the difficulty that we’re faced with as well.

So we have to say on this side that we have reframed this bill the “Residential Tenancies (I Hate Landlords) Bill” for good reason. The evidence shows it in the submissions that are there, and we’ve seen this happen time and time again. I look forward to some of the speeches—I may not be here to hear it—but we oppose this bill in the House.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Mr Speaker, I think history will record that, for those members that vote in favour of this bill tonight, we are on the right side of history. It only takes a very quick walk down into any one of our communities that is of a lower socioeconomic circumstance to see the absolute strife that families are in. It’s no longer 30 years ago, when 60 percent of all adults owned their own homes, and this and that—the Residential Tenancies Act was created in another time, another place.

The reality is that, for most of us who walked the streets alongside those in our community, we know the trauma of what it is like to lose your home. We know that those kids that are growing up in those homes, without that certainty of having a roof over their heads, are going to go from school to school to school. We know that they’ll come from some of the most vulnerable backgrounds and some of the hardest backgrounds. And perhaps not all of us within this House have intimate knowledge of what it’s like to walk in those shoes.

But I can tell you, those of us who cast our vote to amend—fundamentally amend—the Residential Tenancies Act tonight see—that when our children look back and see what we’ve done, I don’t think that there’s going to be future generations of landlords that will storm this House and go, “Hey! You took away my landlord rights.” Because they would have taken that cash and put it somewhere else. But for those folks that are very much dependent on having a decent landlord—I was with a friend in the weekend; he didn’t know I would use this, but he’s a landlord, and he said, “Oh no, I’m going to have to kick the tenants out if you guys rush through this bill, it’s very anti-landlord.” My mate, he was the chief financial officer of a big company, and he lived in one of the wealthiest places in the area I live in. We only have two really wealthy areas in my entire electorate—he lived in one. The lifestyle that he can live is a wonderful lifestyle, it’s absolutely fantastic.

Andrew Bayly: What’s that got to do with it?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: That’s got everything to do with it.

Andrew Bayly: What? That he lives in a big house?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Fantastic for him. But he also chose to put his capital into housing others. He didn’t want to upgrade those homes. He didn’t care that he needed to upgrade those homes to make them of a minimum healthy standard. And I said that to my mate—

Andrew Bayly: Did he say that? Did he specifically say that he’s not going to meet the health standards?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Course we did. Of course, we say that. And I hope you’d say those same things to your friends, too. Of course we hold each other to account. We had a good old yarn about it.

Andrew Bayly: I don’t believe it.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Of course you do—if you don’t believe that, what’s wrong with you? Why aren’t you having those conversations in your communities, with your mates who are the most privileged in our country? They can buy multiple houses and not bring them up to a minimum healthy standard for families that rely—

Jonathan Young: How do you know?

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Because you guys are saying it to me right now. I’m just listening to you guys. I’m just responding to you. For those of us in this House who aren’t afraid to have those challenging yarns with our mates—and we all carry a bit of privilege here in this House. Well, I hope that we are having those yarns. I hope that if we’ve got mates that are rich enough to be able to invest in owning multiple houses, we can give them all a bit of a kick up the bum and say, “Hey, actually, the obligation is on us to be able to lift the standard on those homes, make sure that they’re of a healthy standard, make sure that we are proud to do that—if that’s where we choose to invest our capital.” And this will be a fundamental disagreement—and we’re going to hear some vitriol in the course of the speeches this afternoon, and I say “Shame!” Shame on that side of the House for that position, that you don’t mind giving a boot to those families that are dependent on us that do own homes.

We’ve got the capital invested in those homes. Get them up to a decent standard. And I am so incredibly proud of all of those that have invested their time into ensuring that our friends that are dependent on landlords are going to get those houses up to a blooming good nick. So I commend this bill to the House. And thank goodness we have the numbers to do that.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and kia orana in Cook Islands Language Week. Kiritapu Allan, the member who’s just resumed her seat, suggested she was going to hear some vitriol. Well, I spoke in the second reading and the committee stage, and now I’m taking my call in the third reading of this debate, all of which have happened this afternoon. We should not be dealing with this bill under urgency. But I say that as a matter of fact; I don’t believe it’s vitriol. She began her speech by saying this bill will put her on the right side of history and those on the Government benches who agree with her. It will not, but, in saying that, I’m not spouting vitriol. I am simply stating reality.

In particular, as she made the comment, because she resorted very quickly to the “old rich mates” mantra, which showed the real vitriol, the real prejudice, that comes from the other side of the House. I would like to invite Kiri Allan and any other member from the House to come to my electorate of Hamilton West and to meet, with me, landlords.

Kiritapu Allan: I will take you up on that honour.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: I’m delighted that Kiri has taken me up on that offer to meet with me the average mum and dad investor, small investor, landlord who I think is providing a vital service and, in my experience, works incredibly hard to ensure that there’s a good relationship between the landlord and the tenant. I also acknowledge that the vast majority of tenants are good people who respect the privilege they’ve been given of renting somebody else’s home and looking after it. We need to acknowledge that. But this particular bill that we are enacting tonight fundamentally shifts the balance, which should be struck evenly between landlords and tenants, firmly in favour of tenants and, unfortunately, in favour of some bad tenants.

Now, the Government has clearly stopped listening to us because they’re rushing this through under urgency. So I’m going to ask them to listen to the New Zealanders who are providing accommodation. I’m going to begin with a tertiary education accommodation provider and facilitator in my electorate of Hamilton West, who wrote to me to say, “We are very concerned at the proposed change to clause 60A of the Residential Tenancies Act, as it will have significant unintended consequences for tertiary education across New Zealand.”

We haven’t heard much tonight about students, we’ve been mainly hearing about families in houses, but think of how many tertiary students need to rent accommodation. Probably most of us who attended tertiary institutions during our younger days did that. I certainly did and so have my children. This particular person in my electorate said, “As well as operating halls of residence, we also work with landlords who rent their flats and houses to students. The universal feedback we have received from landlords is that they are unlikely to continue providing rental accommodation to tertiary students if the proposed change to clause 60A became law.”

Now, that isn’t an isolated case. We have heard that from several people who are providing accommodation to students. I feel desperately for prospective students of the future who might find that they miss out on the opportunity to study by not being able to find accommodation because of this issue.

The writer concluded by saying, “As most tertiary students across New Zealand, both domestic and international”—not so many at the moment here because of COVID-19, but they will come back—“live in rental accommodation while studying, the lack of availability of rentals for students will have a serious impact on many students’ ability to study away from home.” I say to the Government members: please listen to that person.

Here is the view of one of my constituents in Hamilton West who is the administrator for a property management company in Hamilton, my city—and this is a big operator: “We manage over 1,000 properties and represent more than 800 landlords. I believe this bill will end up having a very negative impact on the very people the Government feel they will be helping. We will be in a position that we will not give a chance to anyone who we deem slightly marginal.”

This is a very big concern, due to the high number of people we see in this category—and to those who are listening, I want to point out that the Green members are currently laughing as if this is a laughing matter. It is not. It is a serious issue for prospective tenants of the future.

Marama Davidson: Oh, what?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Oh, and now, yes, we’re getting more. “We currently can allow people the opportunity to have a second chance”—if they would stop squawking and actually listen. They should pay respect. These are not my words. These are the words of the providers who they are determined to force out of business: “Without the ability to give them a 90-day notice, unfortunately, we will be forced to stop giving these people a chance due to the risk this will have on the owners of the investment properties we manage. Only tenants with squeaky clean tenancy records and credit will be placed.” Again, this person also said, “This will also have a huge impact on students. Without fixed-term tenancies, students will be in the higher risk category as the risk of vacancy over the student holiday period will be very high.” The writer is pleading with MPs not to proceed with this bill, and National MPs have made it very clear that we share these concerns.

We are the ones, here in the National Party, showing genuine concern for current and prospective tenants by opposing this bill. But are Government’s MPs listening? Are they moved by this? No, they’re being insulting to the people who have sent these emails to us at the moment. Are they so ignorant of social and commercial realities that they will allow their dogma to prevail over evidence and common sense? Sadly, it appears that they are, and I have to ask them: what happened to kindness? Because their support for this bill is cruel and inhumane.

Unfortunately, I haven’t got time to read all of them, but I’ll go for another one and hope that they’re listening. This is, again, somebody from my Waikato region. “I am very dismayed that my submissions and the thousands of like-minded submissions opposing the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act have been ignored by this Labour Government, and they are now trying to pass these changes under urgency. I am an experienced landlord”—now, I know the writer of this letter. She is not a wealthy person. She is a decent, socially minded person with a heart for our community, and she says, “I’m an experienced landlord who is seriously considering removing my properties from the rental market due to the implications of the proposed changes. Along with many other residential property landlords, my submission to the changes appears to have gone unheard, and I simply cannot see how these changes give any balance of fairness to the property owner, landlord, as it appears to be weighted heavily in favour of the tenant. My tenants have been great,” she says, “and I am a good landlord”—and I know that that is true—“but these changes will not be fair to me. Many tenants are excellent, some are mediocre, and some are downright appalling.”

All electorate MPs have, unfortunately, met some of the appalling ones because we’ve had to help to try to resolve the issues that occur when bad tenants damage property and cause a social nuisance in their communities, and it’s very, very challenging and difficult to fix. I think of some elderly couples in my neighbourhood who’ve been through hell in the last year, and we fought like mad to try to get them the justice they deserved. Unfortunately, the problems tonight will be compounded by this bill passing.

As I say, I have a huge number of these emails and letters. I could stand here and fill up the next two hours reading them to the House. Unfortunately, it is clear that Government members are not listening. I deliberately put these on the record because I don’t want them to listen to me, I want them to listen to the people who are providing the tenancies. They are not, they will ram this bill through, and I look forward to being part of a National Government that will repeal it.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Almost half of our population in this country are renting a home and do not own their own home. For Māori, that is well over 60 percent, and for Pacific Islanders, it is well over that again. Where is the care from the Opposition and the pleading from the Opposition for those people, many of whom struggle to find a secure place to live? Where are the pleas from the Opposition talking about the actual difficulty of not having a secure home?

If we are wanting to focus on challenges and difficulties in this House, then we have an obligation to do that for the least empowered, for those with the least resources, and for those who do not have the capacity to send in some emails to every single MP across this House. If we wanted to extract the voices and the emails of people who have been pleading and living with unfair power imbalance for generations and for decades, we would have been swamped with those voices. They may not be as coherently organised as property managers, but you can bet your life that those voices are many, they are strong, and they are spread throughout our entire country, and they are far too busy trying to sort the real difficulty, the daily challenge and reality of just stressing about even having a house to live in, let alone trying to write emails in an organised attempt to keep that power imbalance as the status quo.

That is the campaign that the National Party are supporting and that they are using and weaponising. They are weaponising a few tenants who need to be supported to be better tenants. They are weaponising the small minority in order to smear the entire population of tenants—of people who rent in this country—when we know that those tenants are trying to do their best. They are trying to do their best, but the status quo of power and the rules in the system have been working against them for generations and for decades.

So, yes, some people will be feeling some discomfort right now at the suggestion of fixing those unfair rules. Yes, I expect that as we start to correct the power imbalance in this country—oh yes—we will see some complaints. Yes, we will see some complaints from those who are wanting to protect that power imbalance, and the Opposition MPs from that side of the House are trying to hide behind the guise that this bill will make it worse for some people who rent. That is not why they are opposing this bill. They are not here to put on the floor of this House the voices of mums with children who have to shift schools several times in a year, or several times over a few years. They are not here, reading out those stories in this House. They are using this legislation and trying to say that it is going to make it worse.

They’re trying to say, “Let’s not change it because it’s only going to result in some players pulling out of the market.” If people using housing as a business are not able to run a business in a way that is fit for human decency, then that is up to them to choose some other way to run a business—to choose some other pathway to make wealth. That choice is up to them.

We know that for the most part, property owners and landlords can actually abide by rules of human decency. We know that using this legislation as a weapon against rewriting those tenancy rules is an excuse to uphold the current imbalance of power.

The Greens are proud to support the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. We know that renting in this country needs to be a dignified choice and that renting in this country still needs to provide a secure, valuable, dignified life for anybody who chooses to rent or who is unable to own a home.

I want this House, despite the fact that there is literally only a handful of MPs who do not own a single property—only a handful of MPs in this House do not own their own property, and, yes, I am one of them. Regardless of what properties and portfolios of properties we might own across this House, I want this House to represent at least half of the population—and more if you’re Māori and Pacific and low-income—who need a voice in this House. Just because MPs are mainly not renting, that does not mean that people who rent do not deserve a voice in this House. So I am very proud of this essential start to correcting the unfair system. I will not budge and the Green Party will not budge from continuing on this start.

There is more to do. We know that alongside fixing the rental rules and helping mitigate against any people pulling out from running a house as a business—which, by the way, still leaves behind a house. It’s still there.

I know that ramping up public and community housing, which we are doing—and which this Government has done in a bigger quantity than any other since the 1970s—needs to happen alongside fixing our rental laws. It is unacceptable for this country to continue with that power imbalance. It is not acceptable that some people in our communities have to stress and do not know whether or not they will be moved on at any moment.

It is not acceptable that those at the back of rental application lines, who know that they have got almost zero chance of being preferred tenants because the market is currently so skewed towards favouring particular tenants—I know that we need to stop the ability to do rental bidding, because those very groups think that the only way that they can get a foot in the door is to bid higher than what is being advertised and to even bid outside of what they know that they can afford. But they are that desperate—they are that desperate—to bid a higher rent and to offer a higher weekly rent, because they know no one else will look at them.

They know that they are good tenants. They are good tenants and they just want to put down roots. They just want to be able to form support networks in their communities. They just want to be able to enable their children to attend the same school, to make sure that they can provide a network of support in their own neighbourhood.

We are proud to support this start to the change of legislation. We will continue to work to make more changes so that we can truly correct the power imbalance. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to start my contribution on the third reading by acknowledging the voices that did come out, and they did through the Zoom platform during lockdown, a difficult period for all of us but also for these submitters who wanted to contribute but under such stressful circumstances. I acknowledge their voices, and I am only sorry that their concerns that they raised—very well, and actually, if members took the chance to actually come in and sit in on those submissions, they would see that actually the landlords, the mum and dad landlords, the property owners, the property managers, the submitters actually don’t have horns sticking out of their head. They’re actually New Zealanders working hard, mums and dads, many of them with just one property, and they work really hard to do what they do for their family and to ensure—most of them are doing their best for the tenants in their homes.

The previous member that spoke just prior to me, Marama Davidson—how rich to speak about this power imbalance, this so-called power imbalance. And, of course, the member does have to create this burning platform—this burning platform—to try and create this burning platform so that you can pit one group of New Zealanders against another. It’s an important relationship, that relationship between people who have property that they can rent and New Zealanders who want properties to rent. It’s an intimate relationship and, by and large, mostly it works well.

For the Government to think that they’re so clever that they can change the levers on this relationship, they can move the levers around and effect a change that they think will make it better for the renters and New Zealanders, is absolutely wrong. Yes, they may not have taken into account the submitters during the select committee process, their concerns raised, the fact that it will become highly untenable for them to want to stay and be a landlord. Why would you want to if it doesn’t work out for you? That’s fine; they can sell up, but don’t think that that means it’s going to open up the market for first-home buyers. The evidence is not there that that happens. We need the private rental market in New Zealand because, clearly, the Government cannot provide housing. So we need to be able to support that market and support the relationship and not pit one group of New Zealanders against another.

We have the unintended consequences, but they’re actually not unintended consequences, because these are consequences that were laid out very well by many of the submitters. One of those consequences, as has been mentioned in this House a lot already, is that rent has gone up. It has already gone up. Where was that speaker who spoke before me? Where was her voice? Because I am in my community in South Auckland, and I know rents have gone up. It is getting harder and harder to get into rental properties. This bill is not going to fix that. It’s going to make it worse. The power imbalance is actually the power imbalance in the way this bill has been treated in this House—the power imbalance of this Government taking no heed of the many submitters who submitted on this, through this process, and thinking that they know better how to fix the situation. The consequences are that, actually, it is not going to fix housing; it is not going to provide more affordable housing for New Zealanders. It is going to be tougher for those families on the margins to get into property and to have something for themselves for their families, to have a rental home, because there’s going to be less on the market. The prices will go up because, as it gets harder for landlords, that will be reflected in the prices. The prices will go up, and so the opposite will happen. I do not support this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call—somebody?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E Te Māngai o Te Whare nei, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā mema katoa, tēnā tātou katoa. I’m really pleased to take a call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. I listened with great interest to the contributions from members in the House. Can I just share, as members across the way have talked about, mums and dads investors in the property market, and can I also talk about the tenants that I deal with who’re actually fair law-abiding tenants. There’s been some debate here around rebalance, and my experience is actually I’ve come up against tenants who have been in properties for 10, 15, 17, 20-plus years suddenly getting notice that they’ve got to move out. I understand and accept that that’s the prerogative of the homeowner, but when you constantly hear these stores being fed back through our electoral offices, you’ve got to beg the question—in a country, unfortunately, where we’re tenants in our own land, then we have a problem.

So this bill is attempting—and I have taken time to read the committee’s report; this is the select committee that investigated this bill. I particularly drew my attention to the National’s minority view, and they themselves, in their own minority view in the select committee report, talked about the biggest hurdle for them in this bill being, actually, the abatement of the 90 days’ notice. But in the same section of the select committee report in which the National Party put their minority view, they said “except for very limited reasons”. So we’re not completely dismissing the 90-day notice. We’re just ensuring that it’s a fair process.

I too have friends that have multiple rental properties in my home of Hastings, and they never ever mention that they have bad tenants. I’m not saying they don’t have bad tenants, but their biggest issue is about ensuring that they actually dialogue and have a relationship with their tenants. So here may rest an idea that property owners, particularly mums or dads or those that use property managers—we’ve all probably as MPs in this House come to Wellington and had to find our own accommodation. Some, we deal directly with the landlords; some, we deal with property managers, and we’ve had varying degrees of relationships with them. But the key here is, in response to the National Party’s minority view about removing the 90-day notice, that actually it’s still there; ensuring that the bar is lifted so tenants are getting a fair deal. I commend the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. It could well be—you never know in this day and age—the last time I stand to speak in this House. Who knows what’ll happen? I just wanted to make a point before I got through it, because the Hon Nathan Guy today gave me a sheepskin. He’s optimistic that I’ll come back, so I just hope I do and don’t have to leave that sheepskin here for someone else to use.

I’ve listened to the speeches from the other side of the House with interest, actually, and I just want to remind Kiritapu Allan that you’re only on the right side of history in this House when you’re on the right side of the House. The great thing about this House is that other than conscience vote bills, every piece of legislation that comes through this House seems to get changed. I’ve never seen a conscience vote topic changed in my knowledge, or reversed, I guess, in my knowledge, but everything else does. So you only have a place in history for a short time.

But I do think that our opposition to this bill—and I didn’t sit through the select committee stage—is much more around the parameters of what it might do to the market than what it’s going to achieve for its landlords and its tenants. I think we all share the aspiration that tenants and landlords alike should be able to operate in circumstances that are equitable and that give both a fair go, I guess, for want of a better word. I think the risk of this piece of legislation is that it will result in perverse outcomes, particularly applying to the tenants. I think that we could end up with higher rents, because, as I said in my second reading speech, one of the first things that gets factored into these sorts of discussions is risk, and the moment you lift the risk on a landlord, it’s going to lift the risk ratio that they need to calculate with the rent. So I think it could well end up in higher rents.

The next thing I think that could force rents up is the fact that we’re taking the—and I agree with it, to some extent—rental bidding out of the system. What that’ll do, in my view, is put a higher initial rental price into the marketplace. So that’s got the potential to lift rent. I don’t know whether it’ll happen or not, but it’s one of those sorts of things you’ve got to assume could well happen. So I don’t know whether enough consideration was given to these issues in the course of the select committee process. I know the select committee process was fraught simply because we were getting used to a situation which, interestingly, I think has become established now, and from my perspective, I quite like the ability to operate the select committees remotely because it saves a lot of time. To use a David Seymour term, it stops us flying around the country a fair bit as well. So there are actually some advantages in it, but at the time this was going through the House, I think a lot of us had difficulty getting to grips with that process, and I always think that it’s quite nice if you can see someone on the other side of the House so you know what you’re looking for.

So I think it was put through the House in a rush, under difficulty. It’s being rushed through the House now, and I just want to comment briefly on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because I think a lot of the aspiration of that SOP that was put forward by the Associate Minister of Housing, even though it was put on the Table as the Minister spoke, and, consequently, our first speaker, Simon O’Connor, had no knowledge of it other than the little piece of information he gleaned from the Minister as he spoke, which I think’s a little bit odd and probably unfair. But, none the less, a lot of the things that were contained in the SOP I think are worthy causes. It’s how you put them together that’s the important bit. Whether they’ve been put together in a manner that’s sustainable, I’ve got my doubts, and the reason for that is that they were never considered by a select committee. I think that’s unfortunate. [Bell rung]

So there are a few things that—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How many minutes have I got?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Fifty seconds—49 seconds; still going.

IAN McKELVIE: Oh, I apologise, Mr Speaker—I thought I had a full call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, this is call No. 9—a split call.

IAN McKELVIE: I’ll have to accept the fact that I’ve only got another 36 seconds, Mr Speaker. Given that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll give you an extra 20 seconds because I’ve used up a bit of time.

IAN McKELVIE: So we’ve had three—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve actually had three five-minute calls in a row.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no, we haven’t.

IAN McKELVIE: OK, thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll accept your ruling. With that, I will just reiterate the fact that we can’t support this bill, and I’ll sit down.

Kiritapu Allan: We don’t mind giving him another couple of minutes, at your discretion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Are you taking a point of order?

Kiritapu Allan: Nah, not really. Let him finish his speech.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. What we know is that over 30 years homeownership has decreased, and we know that more and more people are renting. I kind of want to flip this a little bit on its head, because I feel like there have been a lot of the more negative aspects of “What if. This might cause that. This might cause whatever.” I have myself been a landlord. I don’t consider myself to be—

Andrew Bayly: You must be rich then, according to some of your colleagues.

JO LUXTON: No, I don’t consider myself to be rich; I consider myself to be a mum and dad landlord. But what I do want to bring to this debate is the fact that I want my tenant to believe that that house is their home. I want the security of a long-term tenant. I want them to be able to hang a picture on the wall without having to come and seek permission. So I want them to have it as their home, because in turn, as a landlord, it gives me security in the fact that I know I’ll potentially have a really long-term tenant here and that they will in turn also look after the property.

I also just want to briefly mention the fact that when I think about this piece of legislation—what it will mean for our elderly. A lot of our elderly people, senior citizens, are renters. I think it’s really important that we give them the security of long-term tenancy, whereby we can’t have a landlord suddenly say, “Look, I’ve got family coming from X, Y, Z, and I want to rent the home to them now.” I hear the different arguments across the House, across people’s opinions, but I do think we need to think about that positive side of things as well. So I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I thought that was a very thoughtful speech, actually, from that member, Jo Luxton. And I think she would have actually—the member—would have received many emails, as we have. I can’t believe that the members from the Government side haven’t been inundated in their email boxes. You must have. You must have been. Is that right, Mr Henare? No, none at all. Any from any of you guys—no emails at all?

Hon Peeni Henare: Emails are old school.

ANDREW BAYLY: Old school? OK. Well, I think I’d be very surprised that you haven’t had that contact, because your electorates will be made up of many different types of people—some perceived to be wealthy as one of the members spoke about before, or actually a lot of people who are renting. And, of course, we have a lot of renters in New Zealand. We have about 600,000 homes that are rented in New Zealand—600,000 homes. The vast majority of these—Mr Speaker, I know you’re very, very attentive about this—are owned by very ordinary mums and dads who have chosen not to invest in the share market, but have looked for a valid alternative investment which they can see, they can manage, and also is an investment they can understand. Those 600,000 mums and dads, in the main, that own these types of rental properties are people like you and us—all of us. No different from anyone in Parliament. In fact—

Hon Peeni Henare: Shall we check the pecuniary interests register?

ANDREW BAYLY: Although we probably—so some of us will own lots of properties, Mr Henare. But they are—in the main—good, ordinary, decent New Zealanders who’ve chosen to put their money into a house and to provide rental accommodation for people. What is so pernicious about this bill, what is so assaulting about this bill, is that it almost assumes that every landlord is going to be a bad landlord. I just think that’s a fundamentally wrong premise to start with. We all know there are many good landlords—or everyone in this House knows that, in the main, landlords are good people. There are always examples of poor landlords as there are many examples of poor tenants.

But this bill just cuts across that. What this does is make a basic premise, which is that we need to protect all tenants and we are going to change the rules so that we are going to put the onus in the hands of the tenant. I think that is wrong, I really do. The rules that keep working away through this bill, about the 90-day clause—and many of the speakers have talked about this—is the requirement now for any landlord to prove what they’re going to do. They have to prove that they’re going to have put in a family member. They have to prove that they’re going to upgrade the premises, by either going to get a consent, or paying money for getting professional people to do it. All of this is just restricting their ability to be flexible in the ordinary course of business—and it is a business for many—of providing a good, high-quality standard of living for people.

Hon Peeni Henare: I thought you said mum and dad investors?

ANDREW BAYLY: And they are. It is a business for them. But many of us in this House, and our party, supported many measures to make sure that landlords are meeting the requirements and providing adequate standard of living for those tenants. We agree with that, we have no problems with that. We insulated about 300,000 under the John Key Government. I know that the Labour Government and the Greens also say they’ve done it—it doesn’t matter; as a Parliament we all accept the premise that these houses should be brought up to a minimum standard, but this bill goes beyond that. This cuts across into the rights of landlords. And it just imposes such restrictions on them that many of these people, many of these landlords, these mums and dads I speak about, will have a choice and they will make a choice. They will stop renting their property.

We’ve seen that already. We’ve seen all the anecdotes. We’ve seen all the emails. And that is going to be even worse for tenants—that, over time, will reduce the supply of these houses, and that, in time, will push up the rental prices. The very thing that we do not want to achieve, the very thing we do not want to achieve—and that’s what this bill is going to do. It’s going to drive up prices of rents over time. Because you’re going to take the mums and dads out of this and they will take their money and do something worse—something different with it. And your people—that you talk about in this House, the dispossessed—unfortunately, will be even worse off. And no one wants that in Government. No one in Parliament wants that. But this will be the unintended consequence of this bill.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I’m delighted to speak in support of this bill as its last speaker on its third reading. This bill is over 30 years in the making. The existing Act is long overdue. We now have over 600,000 households across Aotearoa who are renters, far different from the situation that was the case back in the mid-1980s, when three-quarters of the households of Aotearoa were actually owner-occupied dwellings. So the shape of the abodes where whānau are living is changing, and the laws need to change with it.

What we’re doing with this bill is just ensuring that there is a better balance between the rights between the landlord and the tenant to provide greater stability and some security for tenants. But what we’ve heard in this debate so far is that it’s as if we’re stripping landlords of all their rights altogether and they’ll be totally helpless. You know, it’s as if their property will be taken off them and they’ll be forced to actually have people rent from them. It’s quite the opposite. This is all about protecting landlords’ rights as well, and landlords have their interests, which are secured in this legislation. They are able to terminate tenancies, but there must be fair and justified reasons for that. We need to eliminate—and this bill seeks to do this—no-cause terminations and the absolute heartache and damage that that can cause people when they’re actually just turfed out for no reason at all. I mean, those practices have perpetuated and grown in the current environment.

So that’s all this bill seeks to do. It’s not as if this bill has just come along in the last five minutes; it’s been consulted upon publicly for over the past three years. There have been thousands of opportunities for public submissions. There was a public consultation document on this, which has gone up and down the country. So this has long been in the making, and it addresses some longstanding issues—for instance, the issues around victims of domestic violence and having to get safety and be able to quickly deal with their tenancy situations. I mean, these are practical measures, which are very welcome, and they will make a huge difference to the situations that tenants find themselves in up and down the country.

So this is a welcome piece of legislation, and I commend Minister Faafoi for his excellent work on this. The sky is not going to fall in for landlords. The sun will come up in the morning. Tenants will still be, hopefully, safely nestled in their warm rented accommodation or homes—their homes—and the rent will keep flowing through to the landlords. If something is to go wrong, there are protections, there are powers, that naturally rest with the landlord and with the tenant. So I commend this bill, and I commend all the work that’s gone on. With that, I really want to just hasten its passage, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Residential Tenancies 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 55

New Zealand National 54; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fuel Industry Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Fuel Industry Bill be now read a second time.

This bill introduces changes to improve competition in the wholesale and retail fuel markets. The bill is a much-needed response to the Commerce Commission’s market study, which concluded that fuel companies have been making higher profits than would be expected in a competitive market, and there is limited competition in wholesale markets, and this flows through to the retail market, where there is wide variation in retail prices, particularly between different regions. Taken together, the features of this bill are designed to increase competition in the wholesale market and, over time, lead to lower fuel prices to consumers. The bill introduces changes to wholesale market arrangements in the fuel sector to improve transparency of pricing and to ensure that wholesale contracts are transparent and fair.

The measures in the bill will allow dealers and distributors to switch suppliers more frequently, increase competition between majors and other importers, make entry easier at the wholesale level, and support the development of a more competitive fuel market. The bill also introduces requirements for the display of the price of fuel at retail sites and requires some fuel industry participants to collect and disclose information to the commission and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee has examined the bill and has unanimously recommended that it be passed with amendments. I’d like to acknowledge and thank the members of the committee and its chair, Dr Deborah Russell, for their hard work and consideration of the bill. I’d also like to thank all those who made a submission on this bill. I support all the changes recommended by the committee and I’d like to briefly comment on some of the more significant changes that occurred at committee.

The committee reaffirmed that it is necessary to allow the scope of the key term “specified engine fuel” to be refined via the regulations. The regulation-making power allows different fuels to be added or removed from the list of specified engine fuels and to be regulated by the new regime. However, the committee was concerned that the regulation-making power could be used to cover fuels that were never intended to be regulated by this bill. The committee proposed appropriate safeguards for regulation-making powers related to engine fuel. As a result, the committee recommended inserting a provision to stipulate that the Minister, when adding a new engine fuel to the list of regulated fuels, must be satisfied that a significant proportion of the relevant engine fuel is used by motor vehicles.

This change is important as it will prevent the use of regulations expanding the scope of the legislation beyond what Parliament has intended. Additionally, clauses 19, 21, 25, and 45 empower the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act to make regulations regarding various features of the bill.

Several submissions on the bill requested that it require the Minister to consult affected parties on regulations made under the bill. The committee has recommended clarifying in the bill that the Minister is required to consult with fuel industry participants and have regard to the purposes of the Act and its subparts where relevant before making regulations. This will ensure that regulations can only be made if they are necessary or desirable to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, including providing transparency in retail fuel prices and monitoring the performance of engine fuel markets where relevant.

Clauses 16, 17, and 18 of the bill provide exemptions from new obligations in relation to wholesale contracts, where a contractual provision is necessary to allow recovery of investments made by the supplier to support the reseller or to protect the reasonable interests of the supplier. Under the bill as introduced, the burden of proof would lie with the plaintiff, who would usually be the reseller or the Commerce Commission in proceedings related to one of these clauses.

The committee has recommended that the burden of proof be reversed in proceedings under the Act that relate to these clauses. If relying on one of these provisions, then the defendant, and not the person bringing the proceedings, must, in the event of a dispute, provide that the contractual provision is reasonably necessary. A wholesale supplier will be in a better position to satisfy this burden of proof than the Commerce Commission or a reseller, as it would have access to the necessary information to support the exemption.

The committee has also recommended clarifying that the bill does not enable price-setting through regulations. Submissions raised concern that the bill would allow the regulations to be used to control wholesale prices. The policy intent is to make price setting more transparent, but it is not intended to set prices through this legislation. Requirements prescribed in regulations will only include aspects such as the form, timing, and process for posting of terminal gate price and requires to make clear how prices are calculated.

It is important that this bill be passed without undue delay to signal to consumers in the fuel industry that this Government is serious about introducing more competition into the fuel market. Consumers should be able to expect prompt action on such a significant area of personal expenditure, and taking some action is a priority for our Government.

Regulations will be required to bring the provisions of the bill into operation and will be developed as soon as possible. The bill provides regulation-making powers to prescribe a significant amount of detail of the bill, including minimum requirements for supply under terminal gate pricing, details for contractual requirements, information disclosure requirements, and requirements for the display of prices, including premium fuels. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in the development of these regulations.

The changes proposed in this bill will increase competition in the wholesale market and, over time, lead to lower fuel prices for consumers. Accordingly, I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. People would have heard from the speech of the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, how complex this matter is—a multitude of regulations in a market that’s very, very complex. I’d have to say that one of the comments that was most common from submitters during the hearing process was “How is it we get one week to prepare our submissions for such a complex piece of legislation?” I’d have to say that with just one week of submissions and, essentially, one week to hear them, this is a piece of legislation written by the Commerce Commission and officials. It’s very, very difficult for members of Parliament to really do a thorough job on this.

Look, I commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they did do in trying to grapple with something which I think is quite complex. I’d have to ask the question: what was the big rush? Well, we know that New Zealanders don’t like to pay more than they ought, but I would say that when you look at the evidence and what has been submitted, not only through the select committee hearing process from submitters but also from the conference that the Commerce Commission ran for two days in, I believe, September 2019, there is actually quite a bit of dispute regarding the degree of competition that exists here in the country.

In fact, when the Commerce Commission came out with their report, I would have to say—as one person who sat through two days of that conference—I was quite surprised at what they had to say about competition in this country, particularly in the wholesale area, being weak. I think some of the comments that came through that hearing time and also following with the select committee were such as this, and we put it in our minority report from one fuel company: “If the wholesale market was broken, or if the majors enjoyed a structural advantage which impacted workable competition, we would not have expected to have seen a total of 76 sites from just the independent retail brands—being Gull, Waitomo, NPD and Allied—being built in the last five years alone.” So while I state those concerns, our position is that we reluctantly support this bill, because by and large everybody supported the terminal gate price mechanism that has been in Australia since 2007 to bring opportunity for new entrants to the market and to bring some transparency to the market. We believe in competition. Enabling new entrants and creating further transparency is not a wrong thing; it’s a good thing.

So on that basis we were prepared to support this bill, but we still have concerns about the process. We still have concerns about the assumption that the Prime Minister said in this House, or in this Parliament, that she believed that New Zealanders were being fleeced at the pump. In fact, about a month after that, we had the New Zealand Herald say in their editorial, “You’re probably not being fleeced at the petrol pump”, after they had some investigation—after they looked at the situation that was happening.

One of the other major fuel companies said this: “Margins and returns have increased at the start of this decade”—which is 10 years ago—“but we also observe that competition increased, and as a result, returns have declined.” That is the kind of standard way the market operates: if people see an opportunity, they enter into a market. But then, when competition rises up, people seek to be competitive; they drop their price. This is what was happening here in New Zealand. Look, this major company went on to say that across the 2016 and 2018 period, included in the draft report by the Commerce Commission as calculated by this company, they went from 12 to 10 percent margin. Last year, they declined to 8.5 percent margin. This year we forecast them to be about 7 percent. So those margins were already decreasing because of the active work of a competitive market.

So what we see here—and I’d have to say, I have huge suspicion around the urgency, around the rush not only of the select committee process, but here we are bringing this bill through second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and third reading all in one session under urgency because this Government wants to be able to say to the electorate, “We have addressed the issue of high fuel prices.” But the reality is, by evidence supplied by companies through the Commerce Commission and through the select committee process, that, indeed, those margins were softening and weakening because of a competitive market. It was already at work.

So we see that here we have just the potential of regulations being entered into. In fact, some of the submitters said, actually, the regulations that are being proposed in this bill could have the perverse outcome of increasing cost to petroleum companies that will increase the cost of petrol to motorists and consumers. We raised this issue with officials, and they came up with a degree of flexibility for the Minister in terms of regulations to be able to address those concerns that were raised. This is in regard to clause 45. Let me read it out to you—and it’s clause 45, “Differential regulations”: “(1) Regulations made under this Act may make different provision for different cases on any differential basis.” What does that mean? Basically, what that means is it’s an out clause for anything in the bill that has a perverse outcome of creating an opposite intention. It gives the Minister an opportunity to, basically, make different provisions for different cases on any differential basis.

It goes on, and it says, “(2) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations made under this Act—(a) may prescribe requirements for a particular engine fuel or a class or classes of engine fuels; or (b) may prescribe different requirements for different engine fuels or classes of engine fuels; or (c) may prescribe different requirements for different fuel industry participants or other persons, or classes of such persons; or (d) may prescribe different requirements for different retail fuel sites or classes of such sites.” What is this? I mean, yes, I think we welcome this because there are so many elements of this bill that actually work against the proposal of reducing the cost of fuel, and this proposed amendment from the Parliamentary Counsel Office, which the committee have accepted, gives incredible flexibility to be able to work around regulations or prescribe elements of the bill that may, in fact, lift the price of petrol.

The concern is that such a rushed process on such a complex matter kind of needs this major piece of intervention in the legislation to be able to get it through. In fact, I’d have to say in one session the officials said that, actually, the dispute resolution process prescribed in the bill is not really fit for purpose. We asked how long it would take to get it fit for purpose. They said, “We can’t do it within this term of Parliament; it’s going to require another Act of Parliament to come into this House.”

I mean, this is not what this Parliament ought to be doing: rushing through legislation for political purposes that then, later, has to be fixed up. I know we have amendment bills, but when you know it from the beginning, surely we could get it right.

Anyway, like I said, just in conclusion: we don’t think the market is broken. We don’t think motorists are being fleeced at the pump. They are paying significantly higher fuel taxes under this Government, though. I think the Commerce Commission did their best in a relatively short period of time, but didn’t get it right. The terminal gate price regime is broadly accepted; we support it because of that. The price is already coming down. We think it was too rushed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I wish to address some of the issues raised by the previous speaker, Jonathan Young. I note that, on the whole, they agree with this bill and that they are going to support it because of the terminal gate pricing mechanism. That is a good thing. I wish just to note that what this bill does is, in fact, prescribe that fuel companies must provide more information—they must provide more information to retailers, and retailers must provide more information to consumers. It’s hard to imagine a world in which more information is an evil; in fact, more information is usually a good thing. So this bill makes the wholesale pricing mechanism in the fuel market more transparent; so more information is very useful there.

It has rules in this bill to support fair contracts between wholesale fuel suppliers and their wholesale customers. It has a dispute resolution system. It requires fuel companies to collect and disclose information so that we can monitor the fuel market more effectively. These are all changes which create more information about the fuel market and make it more transparent. It’s hard to understand how that is a bad thing. What I invite fuel companies to do, instead of competing on the basis of differing levels of information, is to in fact compete on the basis of more efficient delivery systems, more efficient networks, and in fact better supply systems for fuel, rather than competing on information alone.

The previous speaker also raised concerns about the process around this bill, saying that it was rushed, but I point out that there was a Commerce Commission report; that, following the Commerce Commission report, there was extensive consultation by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials as to what should be in the bill; that, when officials first briefed us on the bill, they were able to predict with a high degree of accuracy what particular submitters would say, based on that previous consultation. So there has been an extensive process of consultation on this bill. Although it might have perhaps had a shortened process, there was no sense in which there was no consultation on this bill and no signalling as to what was going to happen. The entities that came and submitted to us were fully informed about the contents of the bill. So I am confident that the bill we have here is a good bill.

Finally, I just wish to thank all the people who were involved in the select committee process. In particular, I wish to thank the officials. The fuel market is complex, and they spent quite a serious amount of time explaining the fuel market to us, highlighting the points where there were issues, and helping us understand the bill. They were very patient with us as they did that. I would also like to thank all the people who made submissions on the bill and came and talked to us about the issues there, and to thank, of course, the members of the committee who worked on it with me. I would like to express here particular thanks to Mr Jonathan Young, who does have quite an in-depth understanding of the fuel market, and from the Opposition side of the committee, he brought that understanding to ensure that we actually did very well in terms of the process around this. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This morning, I was invited actually to an event in Dunedin from Waitomo fuels, who opened two service stations in Dunedin, and, unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend because of my parliamentary commitments. But I did receive their media release this morning.

Andrew Bayly: Hard-working MP.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s right—hard-working MP. Somebody’s got to keep democracy running. Certainly, this Government doesn’t appear to be doing much about it. I want to quote, though, from the press release that Waitomo sent out about the impact of their entry into the Dunedin market on the fuel price down there. It says, “We entered the Wellington market over 12 months ago and prices have dropped by up to 30 cents. As soon as we announced we were coming to Christchurch a year ago prices also dropped instantly. Now we’re seeing the same behaviour from our competitors in Dunedin—we reckon an 8-cent drop since our announcement.” So, if we needed any further evidence of the fact that the thing that is going to moderate fuel prices the most, it is the entry of competitors into the market, and my party strongly supports it.

There is a corollary to that, though. In my professional experience over a long period, one of the things that marks out commodities like fuel, like milk, things like that, is that from a competition perspective, pure competition and pure collusion look exactly the same. The prices go up and down almost immediately in pure competition because they want to be able to compete on price. But where there is collusion they do the same thing. And the reality is—and the Commerce Commission would probably accept this—that it’s very, very difficult to tell the difference between pure competition and pure collusion.

I, frankly, don’t think that anything in this bill—another lazy bill from the Government, which lays out a broad aspiration and then leaves two features. It leaves a lot to regulations to be written, and, as my colleague and friend Jonathan Young said, the possibility that a further bill needs to be brought back to this House in the next Parliament to give effect to some of its measures. But at the very least, it’s going to require regulations that may not see further scrutiny of this bill. That’s the first feature. And the second feature, of course, as Mr Young mentioned is the rushed select committee process.

Now, the answer from Dr Russell to that criticism was to say, “Oh, well, we had a Commerce Commission report and officials supported it.” Well, here’s the reality. The Commerce Commission are not accountable to the New Zealand public; we are. We are responsible for the legislation that we pass, not the Commerce Commission, good people, though they are. We also need to hear from those people who are going to be affected by that legislation and what they said when they came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was that this is being rushed.

As was mentioned, the Prime Minister has said that consumers are being fleeced at the pump. Well, actually, that may have been the case some years ago, but it doesn’t appear to be the case now. According to the submissions by Z, from 2016 to 2018, Z returns, as calculated by them, went from 12 percent to 10 percent. Last year, they declined to 8.5 percent, and this year they’re forecasting around 7 percent. That’s hardly the sorts of margins that one would expect from organisations that are fleecing their consumers.

But if anybody is actually fleecing the consumer, it’s the New Zealand Government because they are the ones that are imposing the biggest contribution to the price of fuel at the pump through its motor vehicle fuel excise. And of course, in Auckland, they are absolutely being fleeced by the regional fuel tax, which has collected over a quarter of a billion dollars, and less than half of that has actually been spent on its intended effects. So if the Government was truly, truly keen to ensure that motorists aren’t being fleeced at the pump, they would be a little easier on them in respect of the punitive taxes that have been imposed on them by this Government.

We do support this bill, but we are concerned both at the haste and at the lack of consultation. And I have no doubt that we will be back here making improvements to it when the National Government is elected on 19 September.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really pleased to stand and take a call on the Fuel Industry Bill, and I do so on behalf of my colleague Fletcher Tabuteau, who’s on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that looked at this bill—which was ably chaired, I might add, by Dr Deborah Russell. In fact, there is a cast of many on that committee, so well done to all of those who managed to progress the bill and took care of all those submissions. I think there were 13 submissions on this bill, and they heard oral evidence from 10 of those. I acknowledge too the good work by the officials. We have heard in the House this evening that the fuel market is complex, so I acknowledge the work that was done to progress the bill through now to its second reading.

The fuel market might be complex, but for people like me who just want to get in my car and drive, it seems to be a really simple thing that the aim of this bill is a fuel market that actually works for the consumer. So it is really the focus of that consumer that I speak from on this bill. A failing fuel market means higher prices for everyday New Zealanders at the pump, so this Government is promoting measures designed to bring competition to the market and drive better prices. The suite of measures introduced by this bill, and the Government’s non-legislative response, will mean competition can begin to flourish, in fact, in the wholesale and retail markets, and those benefits then pass on to end-consumers at the pump.

So just a short contribution on my part, just acknowledging too the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Megan Woods, for bringing this bill to the House. I’ll just finish with what she had to comment on in her reading: that the features of this bill are designed to increase competition in the wholesale market and, over time, lead to lower fuel prices for consumers. That doesn’t sound too complex to me. I commend the bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I have to disagree with that very last comment from that member. It is a very complicated issue—very complicated issue, actually. I think the big thing about this is it revolves around the issue of terminal gate price. Of course, what we’ve done is basically nicked the idea from Australia and said, “Well, hey, it works in Sydney. It works in Melbourne. It’s got to work in New Zealand.” Well, actually, it doesn’t quite work that easily. I think that’s the big issue about this bill—that, obviously, everyone agrees that we need to have low fuel prices in New Zealand, and the consumers shouldn’t be paying more than they ought to, to use Mr Young’s good phraseology. But the question is we’ve still got to have a viable petroleum market. That means we’ve got to have successful companies. But the issue—and the mechanism that has been proposed in this bill—has still got some work to work through.

The issue around the terminal gate price is—the way it works in Australia, there’s a very active spot price for fuel. I know, Madam Speaker, you’d be very cognisant of this issue. Why we are supportive of the terminal gate price—the issue is that in parts of New Zealand, there is no spot market and there is a lack of capacity. So if you go to Nelson, for instance, as one area, there is no competition. In fact, there is no fuel operation or storage there at all—I think I’m correct on that, Mr Young. So the issue around certain parts of New Zealand—because of the way we’ve set up with our arrangements, the operation of this will be quite difficult to achieve.

I know there have been a lot of comments on it. We heard it on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think the one thing I would highlight—and this is actually from the report, the regulatory impact statement. The first one is—this is the comment that the officials have written: “The terminal gate price regime may impose additional costs (e.g. stock holding, investment, increased shipping frequency, or shortages for own-supply) which could lead to higher retail prices”—actually the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve—“if wholesale competition does not increase.” Moderate impact is the assessment of it. Then they talk about the “increased transparency of fuel pricing may facilitate collusion.” I thought, Mr Young, that was actually the opposite of what we’re trying to achieve. So I think, as members have already commented tonight, and, obviously, this is the second reading, the officials have basically said we rushed this through far too quickly. It’s going to take a long time to work out the regulation. That creates uncertainty. That is a poor thing. But anyway, I am looking forward to exploring that in the committee of the whole House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to take a very short call on this to say the Green Party is supporting this bill. It makes sense to have greater transparency. We want the prices to be fair, and, of course, I know it’s very difficult for the Opposition to understand this, because they’re very keen on making up a long list of infrastructure projects they’re going to pay for, and yet somehow they don’t want to raise revenue to pay for it. So they’re constantly attacking a very, very fair and sensible petrol tax which enables us to pay for maintaining our roads, for our road policing, for building new roads, and for running public transport, which helps our entire transport network work better. So while the Opposition will demonise petrol taxes, we on this side of the House actually have a plan for paying for the things that we promise, very much unlike the National Party, and we’re actually taking action on the unfair pricing of petrol that that National Party refused to do anything about during the nine years they were in Government. So I’m very happy to be part of a Government that’s actually doing something constructive and has a plan.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for this debate to be had in one part.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): As one debate?

Kiritapu Allan: As one debate.

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

Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Madam Chair, thank you. I’m glad to see the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, and I hope she’s been following the debate very closely. She may have heard just before that I was talking about the issue of spot prices and the difference between New Zealand and Australian spot prices—the mechanism—and I ask whether, in fact, she feels there’s sufficient depth in the New Zealand spot price for petroleum products. So that’s my first question, because I think that’s a fundamental sort of issue around the effectiveness of this.

The other aspect is around the terminal gate price and how that is going to operate, and her observations around that, because, again, that’s a central sort of linchpin for the operation of this bill. Any observations around that I would really much appreciate.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): The officials did raise the question around the terminal gate price regime, which could impose additional costs, and the advice that was given to the Minister was simply that if the wholesale competition does not increase, then there is a possibility to adjust the industry code on a timely basis if required. My question to the Minister is: what is the time frame for that observation, and how long would it take for the Minister to adjust the industry code on a timely basis? Essentially, what I’m asking is: how responsive will be those adjustments to the code in terms of then being able to see a better competitive wholesale price be reflected into the market?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Point of order, Andrew Bayly.

ANDREW BAYLY: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify, we are in the committee of the whole House. I just want to clarify, we’re following the procedure that’s been adopted recently where we ask quick questions rather than do long speeches. Is that the protocol tonight?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson):Yes.

Andrew Bayly: Oh, good.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That’s not a point of order.

Andrew Bayly: Well it’s clarifi—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Great conversation.

Andrew Bayly: Clarification, at least, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): And you know that—all members will know that the Minister isn’t required to answer the question immediately, if at all. But the expectation is there that the Minister will answer questions, particularly when they’re proper questions—for want of a better term—as have been delivered. Any further questions to the Minister?

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): I know, I know, I know—I’ve had my valedictory and I shouldn’t be standing up, but I’m here again. I do have a couple of quick—because the spot market, the question that Andrew Bayly raises, is important. If there’s not the ability for people to compete in a market because of the illiquidity, or the lack of liquidity, in a particular area, that is a problem, and I think it’s a very good point that Andrew Bayly raised. I was interested as well in the same question and how that pricing mechanism would operate, and the Minister’s view on the issue of the spot price in a particular area being unavailable or different from a place such as Auckland, where there’s lots of storage and competition. That’s my question. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Can I just say, before I call Jonathan, I know it’s customary that we think of it like that, but there’s no restriction at all on members who have given their valedictory seeking further calls in the House.

Alastair Scott: Thank you to the—

Tim van de Molen: Please don’t encourage him.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you—you may have encouraged me, Mr Scott.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Look, Madam Chair, before I come to my question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Megan Woods, can I just express my appreciation for your service in this House—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Thank you.

JONATHAN YOUNG: —for 26 years, and also your role as Assistant Speaker and, obviously, Chair of the committee tonight. We will miss you from this place.

My question to the Minister is one which has been raised from one of the fuel companies, and perhaps the Minister can give us illumination on how the Government of the day would address this, and that is around the expectation requirements of this bill for retail outlets to have full signage of prices of their different fuels, whether that’s 91, diesel, 95, 98, or whatever it might be, and if a fuel company is providing what is called a “truckstop”, where the customers who pull into a truckstop are actually commercial customers that often will have a fuel card, will often have negotiated prices, and so what is on the price board may not be relevant. The concern that, I think, was expressed was that this would make it look like a normal retail outlet, and the concern would be that it’s actually not designed for that. Is there provision for some exclusion from those requirements? Because, as one fuel company said to me, for them to go through and put all the complete list of fuel prices—and in this case it was the premium fuel prices—on all of their signboards over the country, it was going to be $1 million, and that—just that—is going to be a cost to business that will get passed on to consumers, to motorists.

Andrew Bayly: Does that mean a higher price for fuel?

JONATHAN YOUNG: That means a higher price for fuel, it does. Or else what it means is lower margins and less participants in the market, which means a higher price for fuel whichever way you look at it.

So, look, what I’d just like for the Minister to be able to respond to is: is there capacity for exclusions that would enable those customers who are contracted, who have contract prices, and whatever’s on the board is not what they pay anyway, to be able to be excluded from the cost of that, which can be quite substantial? Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Another question?

Tim van de Molen: We’ve been going for 20 minutes, Minister, and you haven’t answered a single question. If you’re not interested in engaging, then we’ll finish.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’m pleased to be able to take a call on some of the questions that I’m more than willing to engage with. I think the question has been put to the committee around the spot prices and whether there will be demand from players. Yes, we know the likes of Gull. We know the likes of Timaru Oil Services. What we do know in terms of the spread of pricing around the country and what we have seen of this—I know that there is a lot of talk often from the Opposition about the impact of the Auckland fuel price, but as a South Islander, I am very keenly aware that, actually, even with regional fuel taxes, we pay higher prices for petrol in the South Island than you do in the North Island.

So what we are looking to is new market entrants to be able to enter the market, and this what this piece of legislation will allow. So that is an important part of it.

I will address some of the further questions in subsequent calls.

Parts 1 to 3, Schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Fuel Industry Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I move, That the Fuel Industry Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is a significant step forward towards a fuel market that works for consumers, which is a priority for our Government. The bill will bring in a suite of measures to boost competition in the wholesale fuel market, and the benefit will flow through to the prices that motorists pay at the pump.

I’d like to take a moment to reiterate the findings from the Commerce Commission’s retail fuel market study, which is a key reason that we are here today. The Commerce Commission carried out an extensive analysis of the state of competition in the retail fuel market and concluded that competition in the fuel market is not working as well as it could be. It found that fuel companies had been making persistently higher profits over the past decade than would be expected in a competitive market. Regional differences in retail fuel prices reflect variations in local competition and not solely differences in cost of supply. Premium petrol margins have grown faster than regular petrol and do not reflect actual cost differences in supply. Competition largely occurs in retail markets, and this is less intense than could be expected. The report confirmed concern over successive Governments that consumers are paying higher prices for petrol and diesel than could be expected in a competitive market. The changes that this bill make will address that, and we expect these benefits will flow through to motorists.

The introduction of a terminal gate pricing regime and a review of wholesale contract terms will increase competition at the wholesale level, which will filter down to the retail market, and, in turn, to prices on the forecourt. The Government’s focus on making changes at the wholesale level may mean low-cost brands, such as Waitomo and Gull, can access fuel more cheaply and in more locations, which will provide opportunities for them to further expand in New Zealand. This will force other retailers to adjust their prices or lose customers.

The Commerce Commission identified a need to enable consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions on fuel. They noted that fuel firms earn higher margins on premium fuel compared to regular fuel, and the gap has been rising. They also noted that the price of premium fuel is not commonly listed on price boards, which may be contributing to the trend. The bill provides for the regulation-making powers that can be used to require the display of this pricing information. I expect to make regulations to require the display of premium prices on price boards soon.

The bill also includes an information disclosure and monitoring regime. This will allow us to assist the effectiveness of the measures implemented in this bill and test whether they enable a more competitive market over time. There will be long-term benefits from improving the information available on the fuel sector. There is a high level of interest in the effectiveness of competition in the sector, and if higher quality information is held by industry or by Government this would significantly improve the timeliness and quality of decision making on the fuel industry.

It is my great pleasure that we are able to commend this bill to the House because motorists have waited too long for action on the entrenched problems that we see in our fuel market. We know that the cost of fuel is a significant issue for households and businesses, and we make no excuse for acting with speed, for allowing competition to flourish.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, we’ve gone through probably three years of studies from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Commerce Commission, officials—and thank you for your work—to come to a piece of legislation that we think our No. 1 job as parliamentarians was to try and stop it making the cost of fuel more expensive. And all we really needed to do was probably buy every motorist in New Zealand a smartphone and get them to download Gaspy. If I look at my hometown, New Plymouth, there’s a range of prices that are being displayed in all the different petrol stations for 95 from $1.98.9 up to $2.13.9, and I can then go and choose to buy my fuel at the cheapest place. And all it takes is seconds. I mean, we’re living in a time where technology is enabling people to be very selective in where they purchase their products.

But anyway, we’ve gone through a very convoluted process that took a long time at the beginning, but was very rushed at the end. And I’d have to say at the very end, when we came to the select committee process, I was quite alarmed at the concern that people who were fuel suppliers were expressing to the committee. And it’s easy to say, “Well, of course, they’re vested interests. Of course they would be saying that it’s all wrong.” No, I don’t think so.

You go back to what the officials said, in terms of their comments to the Government, in terms of the advising agency, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, and they said this—and this is going back months and months: “The terminal gate price regime may impose additional costs for stockholding, investment, increased shipping frequency, or shortages for own supply, which could lead to higher retail prices if wholesale competition does not increase.” We’ve already heard the comparison between New Zealand and Australia in terms of scale for that spot market, and that New Zealand is very small, and you’ve got cities that have terminals that are small provincial cities. And here we are. Here we are hearing from submitters a very high degree of alarm that actually this bill will actually do the very opposite to its intention. And it’s because, I think, in the end we went too fast.

OK, so everybody agrees that we want to have competitively priced liquid fuels. Nobody disagrees with that. That’s one of the reasons why we do support this. We do support the terminal gate price regime. But as we’ve heard, there are concerns that it needs to operate in a very efficient way, and if it doesn’t actually promote increased wholesale competition, actually it’s going to be quite counterproductive.

Of course, some of the fuel companies were saying, “Sure, we can put a terminal gate price on the gate of our terminal—that’s what it is—to say you can buy a tanker load of petrol at this price.” But if they keep rolling up week after week after week, they’re probably going to form a commercial relationship and have a contracted price, which will most likely be cheaper than what the terminal gate price is. So the terminal gate price exists for a new entrant, for somebody to come in who doesn’t have to form that commercial relationship, who just says, “By right, I can buy a tanker full of fuel off you at a certain price and set up my petrol station down the road.” or whatever they are.

That is a very kind of temporary mechanism, because if they are serious participants in a market, they’ve got to want a better price on that. They’re going to want to form a commercial relationship that would enable them to compete against those other participants in the market who have commercial relationships. And if the Government get upset about that, they’re going to make everybody disclose what price they’re paying in those commercial relationships, and that is not how business works.

One submitter, Mobil, said, “This bill should not proceed in its current form. At the very least, there should be a full six-month select committee process so the bill can be well scrutinised by Parliament and stakeholders be given an appropriate amount of time to make considered submissions. Stakeholders had less than one week from the time the bill was introduced to Parliament to prepare their submissions. Mobil remains very concerned that some of the proposed changes will bring to fruition the unintended consequences to which Mobil has previously given warning.”

So it’s not as if the Government weren’t told time and time again. But, you know, Governments know better—“These companies have vested interests”—but maybe not. Maybe they just understand how the market works. And as the Minister was saying, you know, making the comments about New Zealanders paying far too much—the Prime Minister said that a number of times. The editorial of the New Zealand Herald said a month after the Prime Minister inferred that people were being fleeced—the opinion piece was “Maybe you’re not being fleeced”, because they had time to look at it.

But Z said, across the 2016 and 2018 period—we’ve heard it. Michael Woodhouse said it. I said it in the second reading speech. Included in the draft report, the Commerce Commission: “Z returns, as calculated by Z, went from 12 to 10 percent. Last year, they declined to 8.5 percent. This year we forecast them to be about 7 percent.” And guess where the wealth transfer is going? It’s going to the motorist. They are getting less of a margin because the motorist is getting a sharper price because of competition.

So, look, we say that this competitive market does exist. We’ve seen a proliferation of independents. We’ve seen huge number of new outlets around the country. I know Mr Gareth Hughes probably doesn’t like that, but anyway. And just can I say, all the very best for your next step in life. I’ve really enjoyed being here in Parliament with you over these last 12 years.

We will support the terminal gate price, but we’re going to keep an eye on this to make sure it works. The Government are absolutely convinced that it will; we are not so convinced. The Government say that competition is not as good as it can be. We say that it is a competitive market and we can see that by the margins that are reducing and have been reducing over these last five years in particular.

We acknowledge the Commerce Commission. They ran a good process. I was surprised at the outcome of their report, but it was a very short process and a very complex area of commerce, so no discredit to them. They did their very, very best. I think, you know, time will tell. And let’s hope in the next year or two, three or four years, we can look back and see whether these provisions actually work or just make it more expensive, more regulation, more complexity that in the end could reflect in a higher price for motorists.

So as I just conclude, we reluctantly will support this bill because we do support any attempt to bring the price of fuel down for motorists. We know that we’re in very difficult, challenging economic times. We want New Zealanders—and I believe so do the fuel companies—to be able to get through it and to be able to afford things. We’re just not sure whether this bill will actually do it. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of this Fuel Industry Bill. Before I commence my brief remarks, I just really want to acknowledge the member who just spoke prior, Jonathan Young. This is a particular issue that has a particular impact in his region, and having had the opportunity to work with him and garner the learnings that he’s brought to the table, he’s engaged with our side of the House very generously. Just acknowledging too that we, across both sides of this House, have a collective desire to see those fuel costs come down for all. I note your hesitancies and acknowledge those, and am grateful that your side of the House will be supporting this bill. We listen, and we can hear the caution that you’ve reserved; so thank you for your remarks.

We’ve sat through a couple of readings of this bill in this House this afternoon; so the complexities of this particular area of regulation have been set out. From having had the opportunity to sit through the deliberations on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I too just really want to extend my gratitude to the officials who did an absolutely, stonkingly good job to ensure that we, as committee members who might not have been so fluent in the language of the fuel marketing pricing regime, could get to a place where we, hopefully, were able to contribute in some way, shape, or form.

The benefit of the bill that we’re introducing this evening is for the purpose of enabling transparency around pricing for those consumers at the terminal, and there have been a lot of people from industry, officials, and again, like I said, contributions from all sides of this House, that I think have worked collectively very well to get to the point that we have landed on tonight. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, we’re coming to a screaming halt after a process that started back in 2017 and here we are—virtually, the penultimate day of the 52nd Parliament—here we are rushing this bill through urgency at 10 to 9 and with certain comments from officials ringing in my ears, who said to us quite clearly that we are ending up rushing this legislation through the House because the work hasn’t been done.

I think that’s unfortunate. I think the issue around the substantial—well, the need for substantial regulations is going to be an issue for the industry. Everyone wants to see reasonable fuel prices, but we’re at risk of creating a market that has a high degree of uncertainty around it because we simply haven’t provided the clarity in this bill. And I think that’s only going to be bad for people—everyone who uses fuel, goes to the bowser and fills up their cars—because that may be the thing that we see, which is an increase in fuel prices because of that uncertainty. And I think that would be very disappointing.

But anyway, as everyone knows, we will be supporting this bill. I urge the Minister of Energy and Resources—and she made a comment before that she was looking at making a regulation around how fuel prices are to be signalled. I urge her to do that quickly. But there are substantial parts of the bill that need other regulations. That needs to be done quickly and as efficiently as possible having regard both to the interest of the fuel users, but also the fuel companies because they need to achieve a return on capital investment they make. So it is one of a balancing act but let’s bring it to a conclusion that everyone can live with and benefit from.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t intend to take too much of the House’s time to go through this speech in the third reading, but New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. The Minister actually outlined in good detail about the intent and the history of this bill and the importance of this bill, but it’s important to note that, I guess, the whole aim of this is to bring, as members have already said, transparency to the market, but also it surrounds the consumer at the end of the pump. It’s designed to bring competition to the market that ensures better prices, and better prices obviously benefit the consumer. It will particularly help, actually, the smaller retailers as well, with the competitively priced fuel, and in turn push larger retailers to lower their own prices, helping end consumers as well. So I think it’s important, although this has been a long process, and there are some issues that the National Party have and questions that they have raised—I think that in the end, if we concentrate on the fact that this is all better for the competition, for transparency, and for the consumers at the end of the pump, I think that it’s right that all parties in this House are supporting this bill. We commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill

In Committee

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.

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

Clauses 1 to 5

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Kia orana, Madam Chair. This is a short bill that will have significant effect on so many of our people with disabilities: our families, whānau, and carers. The repeal of Part 4A removes the discriminatory elements of the current legislation. Repealing Part 4A will enable future complaints about policies, especially funded family care, to be made to the Human Rights Commission. Repealing Part 4A will also allow the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the courts to hear complaints from families, carers, and whānau. This change will ensure consistency with the human rights law as well as our commitment under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

There’s also a technical Supplementary Order Paper that amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill to reflect the name of the Care and Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017, changing it to the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlements Amendment Act 2020, and it also repeals section 9A(3) of the Support Workers (Pay Equity) Settlement Act 2017. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s our intention to support this bill through to its conclusion. I really have one small question of the Minister—a question that was raised in some of the official documents—is there any sense of the quantum of the retrospective liability associated with this bill? There were several options. One of them did include putting a legislative bar—that wasn’t what was taken. So I’d be interested to know: has that been looked at? What is the size of that number?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): In the Wellbeing Budget of 2019 there has already been funding that was allocated for the next four years, including last year, of $32 million. We understand that that amount is adequate for funded family care. There are other provisions as well. There was actually an amount that was ring-fenced for some who had gone through the court system.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Madam Chair, thank you. That may well be for forward funding, but my question really is retrospective liability, which I believe, through some of the consultation in the Health Committee, was anticipated at maybe being in the hundreds of millions. Just looking if there’d been any further work done on what that figure could be.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): This legislation is actually not for retrospective funding. This legislation is to ensure that future families can actually take their complaints for these policies to the Human Rights Commission and through to the courts.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 568 in the name of the Hon Jenny Salesa be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 5 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. I move, That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

In 2018, this Government committed to overturning the discriminatory Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act, which has caused national and international concern. Today, we’re delivering on that commitment. I would like to thank all of our submitters for your valuable feedback on this bill, as well as the committee of the whole House for your consideration of the bill.

This is a brief bill that represents a huge victory for our disabled New Zealanders, their families, and their whānau and carers. For far too long, our disabled people, families, and carers have had a fundamental right removed from them. It is wrong that some disabled New Zealanders have been silenced from being able to challenge the carer policies that affect them in this way.

Today, I would like to thank the Health Committee for their consideration of the bill. I acknowledge and thank everyone who made a submission and those who appeared before the committee, especially during level 4 lockdown. I would also like to acknowledge the deliberation and input of all parties to this bill, which is one part of a three-part work programme to change funded family care, including legislation, policy, and implementation.

The Ministry of Health has worked with the sector in the development of the changes to funded family care since 2018. Positive policy changes have been implemented for funded family care policies administered by both the Ministry of Health as well as the district health boards. These changes will result in a fairer policy for people with high or very high care and support needs and their families, whānau, aiga, and carers.

With changes to the funded family care, we’ve expanded carer eligibility to spouses and partners so that they are able to be paid to provide care to people with high or very high support needs. We’ve expanded carer eligibility to 16- to 18-year-old family members, so our young carers are able to be paid to provide care to the people with high or very high support needs, and we’ve also expanded client eligibility to include under-18-year-olds with high or very high support needs. We’ve also removed the current requirement for an employment relationship to exist between a disabled person and their resident family member in order to receive paid care for disability support services, and we’ve lifted the pay rates for family carers from the minimum wage of $20.50 to $25.50 per hour.

Extending eligibility to these key groups will enable more people to be eligible and to receive care and support in their preferred way. Changes to the funded family care eligibility will pay rates that will help improve the health and wellbeing of people with high or very high support needs and their families and whānau and carers. These changes will be especially welcome for several groups, especially our Māori and Pacific people, and those who are on lower incomes and those who may not currently be accessing these services.

The disability sector has been eagerly awaiting the changes to funded family care and the repeal of Part 4A for a very long time. I’d like to acknowledge the contribution our disability sector have played in raising their concerns, providing input into the policy changes and the ongoing work in monitoring the implementation of the changes and the outcomes for those receiving care and for those providing care. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Minister for Disability Issues, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni; the Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero; and disabled people’s organisations for their work and advocacy in terms of repealing Part 4A.

I’m really pleased to commend this bill in its final reading to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National caucus and party to be able to give our support to this bill. We believe that the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill does address some concerns. I just want to raise, I suppose, for the House, and also for the public, that we are in support of this bill. Part of its history is that, actually, in 2013 it was the Hon Tony Ryall who had introduced the original parts of the bill which allowed for funded family care. In fact, it was the first time internationally that this was enacted in a way that gave legislation that began the pathway of exploring what that would look like.

Now, today, as this amendment bill is repealing Part 4A of the bill, which talks about the ability to be able to give the opportunity for kin carers, for family carers, to take on the roles to be able to be the carers of their loved ones and their family members. We think that’s the right thing to do. We are in support of that because that will allow, having given a period of about seven years—we were at that point where we matured in our understanding about the funding and the roles of opportunity that can be afforded to those family members as well. We see that as being critically important.

So the bill, as introduced, amends the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 by repealing Part 4A of the Act, as introduced under the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill in 2013. We believe that this is critically important. We heard from a number of submitters that this is a small, technical bill but a bill that allows us to continue on to provide that support that’s critically important. One of the things that’s important in the disability sector is that they often reflect that they are the poor cousin—in fact, even worse, they don’t get the support that they are needing over a period of time to provide for those services. In particular, what this will allow for them to do is to be able to have—what was introduced in 2013, the disability flexibility fund. This allows for them to provide a bespoke service. Often these disabilities are complex. They are difficult and they are challenging, both for family members and for other clinical carers as well. So we support this bill. It’s the right thing to do. It’s small and technical, but, at the same time, it does provide what we believe is the necessary pathway for kin carers, for family carers as well. So the National Party supports this bill in its third reading to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It’s my pleasure, as the chair of the Health Committee, to speak on this, the third reading of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill.

To begin, I’d actually like to recognise those families who were involved in Ministry of Health v Atkinson, which was a Court of Appeal case in 2012. Those whānau involved were Atkinson, Bransgrove, Burnett, Carter, Humphreys, Robinson, and Stoneham, and there were two adult disabled children who joined that particular suit against the Crown. They were Stuart Burnett and Imogen Atkinson. The basic premise of what they had gone to the Court of Appeal about was the ability of family members, as the Hon Alfred Ngaro has said, being recognised by the State as caregivers, and being remunerated for being caregivers. What it did expose was, I guess, a philosophy across the public sector that it was families’ responsibility to look after their disabled children—in fact, because it was families’ responsibility, they should do it without any Government support. Strangers, however, who stepped in and became caregivers of disabled children were supported by the State. I’ll quote what the judgment said—because, basically, the policy was prima facie discriminatory—“we consider differential treatment will be discriminatory if, when viewed in context, it gives rise to a material disadvantage.” It held that “the denial of paid work to the parent respondents performing the specified services and the denial of choice to the adult disabled children amounted to material disadvantage.”

So I want to highlight that this bill will reverse the piece of legislation that was rushed through in response to this Court of Appeal decision, and the other aspect that I want to highlight, in terms of response from anybody in our society who feels that they’re being discriminated against, is that they can use the institutions that are available to us—the Human Rights Commission, the courts—because that was something else that was taken away from those parents; they weren’t allowed to seek redress given the Government’s response. I want to highlight that.

And, just finally, as the chair, I’d like to thank my deputy, Dr Shane Reti, and also the Hon Alfred Ngaro, because, in the end, this bill was a collaboration across the House. We were affected by COVID, but we were able, after hearing from our 44 submitters—hearing from 13 of those orally—to progress this bill as quickly as we could. So I would like to thank them, particularly for allowing this House to consider this bill tonight. Finally, I just want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, for making sure that the Government followed through on its commitment. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, which, as previous members have said, we’ll also be supporting through. I want to acknowledge also the Health Committee, led by Louisa Wall. It has been a very productive committee through this Parliament and a pleasure to work with, actually. I also want to thank all the committee members, some who have come and gone. This has been a good experience, and I think we’ve been very productive.

This was a bill that in 2013 was progressive in its time, and the circumstances as they were were how we came to the conclusions we did. Here we are seven years later, and we’re saying it’s a different set of circumstances. We’re looking at this with new eyes and we’re making different decisions and are pleased to be doing that.

Fundamentally, what this does, as has been said, is it gives two options to people to have their home-care support. The first is individualised funding, where they can choose from a menu of providers what best suits them—so that very personalised delivery of care. The second is through a home and community support provider who will do it all for them. You can choose either/or—whichever of those two options best suits you. Fundamentally, what it does is it allows family members, where previously they have not been allowed to be in your employ, to be your funded family carer—that was the previous name for it, but to be your provider and be funded by the State to be your provider.

Here, today in 2020, are a different set of circumstances to 2013, and that’s why the National Party is supporting this bill through to its conclusion. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A privilege and a pleasure, in fact, to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this, the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. I’d like to acknowledge all those from the Health Committee for the collegial way in which we worked together on this bill. It was always—well, generally it’s a pretty collegial committee, and we have progressed a large amount of legislation over the course of this Parliament. So acknowledging my fellow members.

Interesting to note, the speaker who’s just resumed his seat, the good doctor from the North, Shane Reti—Dr Reti has now seen this piece of legislation after the 2013 bill that went through; he sees it now with new eyes. That’s really good to hear. Perhaps it’s because of his view from the front row of the bench. So well done to you, Mr Reti, for your promotion to the front row.

I would like to acknowledge the submitters that came to the committee. We heard oral evidence from 13 submitters via video conference; 44 submissions in total to this bill. When I first jumped into the political ring, I met a woman called Margaret, who was a woman who also came to the select committee with her submission. So I met her three years ago and then just recently heard her story again, which I have heard a number of times over the course of the parliamentary term. I know that Margaret will be really excited to hear when this piece of legislation has passed into law, because she has been affected by it as she is a woman in her 70s with a 50-year-old disabled son. So she will absolutely be pleased that we are passing this law to ensure that she is able to continue caring for her child and be paid accordingly.

Part 4A of the Act allows the exclusion of certain resident family members from being paid for providing support and prevents complaints to the Human Rights Commission about family care policies. We are repealing that here tonight. It is the right thing to do. It’s a small bill, but it will make a really big difference to the lives of those who have disabled people in their families and their whānau. So I’m very pleased to note that, as a result of this bill, disabled people and their family carers will be treated fairly; their human rights will be upheld; and, alongside our full package of funded family care reforms, family and whānau wellbeing will be much improved. I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to make this contribution to the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Bill. It’s been heard in the House tonight a number of times that this is the right thing to do, and I echo those sentiments. We are, effectively, repealing Part 4A of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act. It was absolutely clear that it was a discriminatory part of the Act in terms of who is valued in terms of the care that they give to their family members.

I would just like to also acknowledge the members of the Health Committee and the chair, Louisa Wall, for your work on this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge that there were 44 written submissions on the bill, and I didn’t come into those hearings, but, undoubtedly, for every family that came to share their story—and, of course, they would have been heart-breaking stories in terms of what they go through to care for their loved ones—there would be many other families that would also be behind each one of those stories. I’d also like to acknowledge a family friend—it’s actually a friend of my mother’s—and she was also caring for her disabled son. He’s a young adult now—he’s an adult man. I know very well the toll that that does take on the family and, actually, also on the marriage—on the mother and the father in terms of the care. It takes a toll on their work life and on their business life.

So it is right that those carers are supported. The National Party does see that that is such a crucial role in terms of providing that support to families who are caring for their disabled loved ones. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): I’d like to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party because this is an issue that first came to my attention from my colleague the former—retired now—Green MP Catherine Delahunty, who was one of the first champions in Parliament to stand up for the family carers, to listen to their stories, and to really understand the difficulty that they went through to get proper financial support to do an incredible service—one that, of course, they do because of love for their family member, and it’s selfless and compassionate. But it also benefits everyone in our society to have people with serious disabilities able to be looked after. Of course, family members should receive fair financial support for the care that they give.

My colleague Catherine Delahunty I think was an absolute champion of this issue, and I’m so pleased that we can stand tonight in the House and vote to repeal the discriminatory part of the health and disability Act that was put in place under urgency on Budget night in 2013 that prevented family members of disabled people from accessing the courts to access justice simply for a very mean-spirited approach of assuming that we need to protect the fiscal risk of the Crown, when, in fact, it’s the responsibility of the Crown and this place and our Government to support and look after people, especially the most vulnerable people in society. So as Associate Minister of Health with responsibility for disability, in the first year and a half of this term of Government, I had the privilege of working on this issue and championing it. My colleague James Shaw, who was Acting Minister in my stead when I took maternity leave, also fought very hard for this issue, and I’m really pleased to see the consensus that has broken out in this place, in the House. I know that all three parties of Government had campaigned on making this change, but it wasn’t straightforward to make it, and I’m so, so happy that we can be making this small step in the direction of justice tonight.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

This Government is committed to improving road safety outcomes on New Zealand’s roads, and improving safety lies at the heart of this bill. Over the last five years, the number of people killed and seriously injured in crashes where a driver has consumed drugs other than alcohol has risen. Some of those are legal prescription medications that have an impairing impact, and some are currently illegal. It is clear that our current approach to deterring impaired driving from drugs is not preventing this harmful behaviour. A driver who has consumed drugs not only places themselves at risk; they also risk the lives of other road users. Last year alone, over 100 people were killed in crashes where a driver was found to have drugs other than alcohol in their system. This represents about 30 percent of all road deaths last year. These are preventable tragedies, and we need to do more to stop drivers who are under the influence of drugs from choosing to drive.

Enhanced drug-driver testing is a key action in the Road to Zero road safety strategy this Government announced at the end of last year. This bill signifies our commitment to keeping road users safe from the problem of drug-driving. The bill establishes a regulatory framework to enable a random roadside oral fluid testing regime. What that means is that drivers, if they consume impairing drugs, will be able to be stopped and swabbed with a saliva test. If they test positive for the presence of drugs twice, they will receive an infringement. Currently, drug-drivers do face serious criminal penalties if they’re caught, but they often aren’t. This bill will allow police to test drivers for the presence of impairing drugs anywhere, anytime, just as they do for alcohol.

The roadside oral fluid testing regime will initially test for six drugs or drug classes, and these are THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis; methamphetamine; benzodiazepines; MDMA, also known as ecstasy; opiates; and cocaine. These drugs have been selected based on a combination of their elevated crash risk and the prevalence of their use by drivers in New Zealand. The bill proposes that drivers who fail two consecutive oral fluid tests at the roadside will face the same infringement penalty as the drink-driving infringement penalty.

It was important to me that the bill includes safeguards to ensure the regime is administered fairly and doesn’t unintentionally criminalise or present an infringement to someone who is not impaired or who hasn’t used drugs, so there will be cut-off thresholds built into the devices correlated with recent use. This means drivers who have very, very low levels of drugs in their system which are not likely to be impairing will not be penalised. Drivers who fail a first test will be tested again to avoid the risk of incorrectly penalising drivers, and drivers will be able to elect to take an evidential blood test to dispute the result of the oral fluid test. Drivers will have a medical defence available where they have consumed drugs in line with their prescriptions.

This new oral fluid testing regime will sit alongside the existing compulsory impairment test. The compulsory impairment test can still be used when police have good cause to suspect a driver has consumed drugs or if an oral fluid test shows the presence of more than one drug. However, there will be restrictions on when police officers can switch between an oral fluid test and a compulsory impairment test. This means police can still identify and penalise drivers who have consumed drugs that the oral fluid devices are not able to test for and remove those drivers from the road.

The bill retains and introduces some situations where a driver would be required or be able to elect to have a blood test. These evidential blood tests will be able to test for all qualifying drugs as defined in the Land Transport Act 1998. In addition to creating an infringement offence for failing two consecutive oral fluid tests, the new regime will introduce both infringement and criminal offences for drivers who’ve consumed drugs identified through a blood test, depending on the amount of the drug identified in the driver’s system. The bill proposes that drivers that are injured and have a blood sample taken are also assessed against the criminal limits, rather than only penalised for the presence of class A drugs.

The bill also recognises the significantly higher road safety risk posed by drivers who consume multiple impairing substances, such as drugs and alcohol or two drugs. We know that road safety risks are higher when drugs are combined, and they are the highest when drugs are combined with alcohol. To further deter this high risk behaviour, this bill introduces combination infringement and criminal offences. Drivers who are found to have consumed more than one substance will face higher penalties, both at the roadside through the oral testing regime, and following evidential blood testing.

Criminal limits will be set in legislation for some drugs, including the most prevalent drugs used by drivers in New Zealand, and blood tests will be used to determine which drivers are liable for a criminal offence. The intention is to align criminal limits for drugs with the equivalent blood-alcohol limits used in the existing drink-driving regime. A driver will be liable for a criminal offence if their blood test indicates that they’ve consumed drugs above the criminal limit. Below this level, a driver will receive an infringement offence. An independent expert panel on drug-driving will advise the Government on the setting of drug blood limits that will establish the criminal threshold. The criminal limits will be included in the legislation before it is enacted. The expert panel is continuing its work, and I expect that the criminal limits will be available to the select committee and the public to scrutinise alongside the bill.

The bill also includes a power that allows the criminal limits to be added and amended by Order in Council. I will be interested to hear the select committee’s view on whether or not this power should remain once the initial set of criminal limits have been added to the bill. To make sure drivers aren’t incentivised to consume less prevalent or new drugs that will not have criminal limits, the bill ensures that drivers who have consumed potentially impairing qualifying drugs without criminal limits set are still captured by the regime. The penalty that they would be liable for would depend on whether or not the driver had failed a compulsory impairment test.

The regime described in this bill does impact on some of the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This includes the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not surprising given proposals to introduce or change drink- and drug-driving laws over the decades have had similar impacts. On balance, I believe that the proposed regime is justified given the importance of the objective of the bill to improve road safety outcomes and to save lives.

The bill also includes several safeguards to help protect people’s rights and freedoms. Drivers will only be issued an offence after failing two consecutive oral fluid tests. This requirement reduces the probability of a false positive result. Drivers will be able to elect a blood test to conclusively identify the level of a drug in their system. The bill also includes criteria for the type of oral fluid testing devices used. Before approving devices, the Minister of Police must have regard to their accuracy, be satisfied that they will return a positive result only if the device detects a presence of qualifying drug at a level that indicates recent use, and as introduced the bill does not include details about the level at which a driver becomes liable for an infringement offence. Introducing an infringement offence threshold to the bill could act as an additional safeguard. Ministers have therefore agreed to consider whether these thresholds should be added to the bill at the select committee stage.

The bill introduces an oral fluid testing regime with a number of complexities that I expect will receive substantial public interest and benefit from scrutiny through the select committee process. In particular, I am interested to hear if the select committee has any recommendations on whether the bill should include a requirement for drivers to pay for the cost of an evidential blood test when they are found to be liable for only an infringement level offence.

This bill is about addressing the increasing prevalence of drugs in fatal crashes on our roads. I’d really like to thank the Minister Police, Stuart Nash, for the excellent collaborative work that his office and my office and our officials have put in to get the bill to the stage where we can have a first reading. We’re absolutely committed to improving the road safety outcomes in New Zealand. Too many people die and are seriously injured on our roads each year, and this level of trauma is not acceptable. Addressing the problem of drug-driving is one of the key steps to reducing some of these avoidable tragedies. I commend the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): National strongly supports the introduction of roadside drug testing as an absolutely essential measure if we are serious about saving lives on our roads, and our regret is that it has taken so long for this legislation to come before the Parliament. We need to get a grip about the scale of death on our roads that has occurred as a consequence of drug-impaired driving. Five years ago, the Ministry of Transport reported that we had 18 deaths from drug-impaired driving. Last year, that number was 107. That is carnage. That means every single week another two New Zealanders die on our roads because someone is driving under the influence of drugs.

I’ve been heavily influenced on this issue by a horrific tragedy that occurred on the Appleby Straight in Nelson on 31 December 2017. A young man 23 years of age, Matthew Dow, was innocently driving from Kaiteriteri to meet his family for New Year celebrations, and a reckless, drug-impaired driver who was under the influence of multiple drugs, driving so badly that there were multiple calls to the police about the reckless driving, came across on State Highway 60, smashed into the road in what’s been described by my emergency services as the most horrific accident that hardened ambulance officers had attended for 30 years. Matthew Dow did not have a chance.

The tragedy is that Matthew Dow’s just one of hundreds of New Zealanders. The family of Matthew, Karen and Peter Dow, organised a petition two years ago to try and get the Government to move on drug-impaired drivers. They gathered the support of families like the Porteous family and the Keene family, who lost their parents in a seven-death crash in Waverley in June of 2018. I could list name after name, tragedy after tragedy, as what has occurred, and I’d commend for all in Parliament to read the coroner’s report, Tim Scott’s strong plea to this Parliament over 18 months ago to make progress on this issue. I would also thank those thousands of people, over 5,000 from Nelson, who joined with the Dow family in signing the petition for action on this issue.

I’ve said the Government has been tardy. Let’s be clear about the paper trail: the Government received detailed proposals for introducing drug-impaired driving in late 2017. The Minister Julie Anne Genter, who gave the most unenthusiastic speech I’ve ever heard for a bill, rejected officials’ advice in February 2018. She said that roadside drug-testing was too intrusive. She said that it was far too expensive. She said that it breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. She said that the impairment test worked perfectly adequately.

Well, let me talk some facts. It is a matter of record that more New Zealanders today die from drug-impaired driving as compared with drunk-driving. Last year, there were 15,000 New Zealanders prosecuted for drunk-driving. Do you know how many were prosecuted for drug-driving last year? Forty-two, and every single one of those was, effectively, where there was an accident, a fatality, and as a consequence, there were blood tests that were taken. The impairment test that currently exists for our police officers is unworkable, and that is why it’s so important that we make progress.

I want to commend Wairarapa MP Alastair Scott, who 18 months ago brought an almost identical bill to this House, and members opposite voted that bill down on first reading. Members like Stuart Nash, members of New Zealand First, and members from the Green Party should reflect on the fact that in the intervening 18 months, over 140 New Zealanders have lost their life. It is not good enough to say that on some technical part of that bill they may have disagreed, because every member of this House knows in their heart that you can amend bills at select committee. That was the proper place to do it. It rests on their conscience that they rejected, for petty party political reasons, that bill that came from Alastair Scott. I have tried three times since with the leave of the House to introduce a bill, and members opposite every time have blocked the legislation that would save lives. Again, I put it down to petty politics rather than doing the right thing.

I was part of this Parliament back in 1993 when we introduced almost identical legislation around dealing with drunk-driving. It was hugely controversial for the National Government at the time. People said that testing people randomly without any due cause was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. People argued that the testing equipment was not accurate. People argued that, well, actually, different people helped handle alcohol differently, and it was an unworkable regime. The truth is in the road fatalities. Within three years of us introducing random drunk-driving roadside testing, we more than halved the horrific toll that occurred from drunk-driving, and this legislation has exactly the same potential. We know in the United Kingdom, we know in Australia, where they have such a regime, that they have actually been able to achieve better than a 50 percent reduction in fatalities.

On the Table of the House rests a report from the Attorney-General saying that this bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is actually a good test as to where Parliament puts people’s rights, because as much as people can claim that having to do a saliva test for drug impairment might be an infringement on their rights, I say this: having a drug-driver coming through your windscreen at over 100 kilometres an hour, as Matthew Dow faced, is a far greater infringement on people’s rights than someone having to take a saliva test to save the hundred-plus lives that are lost in New Zealand.

This is a poor form of a bill. I make the parallel: the Government says in this legislation that it does not set any of the limits for the five drugs it seeks to test. The Government says, “Oh, we’re going to add that later as a Supplementary Order Paper.” So, really, three years and they still haven’t worked out what the limits are? Imagine if you’d introduced an alcohol limit bill and you hadn’t worked out whether the limit was to be 80 milligrams or 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. That’s how poor this law is. The public actually should be submitting on a bill with that detail. This is being introduced at this late stage simply because the Government knows they’re vulnerable to losing the vote on the referendum with respect to cannabis. If the bill wasn’t introduced prior to the election, they would be vulnerable to that argument. The bill is deficient in having that gap. I’d love the next Minister to explain why the public shouldn’t, in their submissions, have the opportunity to have a say on those important limits that will be critical, and if so, can the Minister table them today, because for us to get on with it, that is detail that is required.

Again, I want to pay tribute to Karen Dow, the mother of Matthew Dow, who has championed this cause with the same passion that those Mothers Against Drunk Driving championed the cause of introducing random roadside alcohol testing. This is a much-needed road safety measure. I’d invite the Minister to move a motion to have the bill reported back by 1 December. Every month we delay this bill coming into effect costs another eight New Zealanders their lives, and Parliament needs to move with some urgency.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Let me acknowledge that every single death on our roads caused by drug-driving is an absolute tragedy. I acknowledge the pain and harm and heartache caused to friends, family, and loved ones. Because of that, I am sad that the previous member who spoke on this bill, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, has got so political about such an important issue. The previous member said that his greatest regret is that it’s taken so long to get a bill to this House. Well, can I remind this House that the previous member was in a Cabinet for nine years that did nothing about this issue. He knew about this issue.

The other thing I would say is that member was a member of a Cabinet that instructed a former transport Minister to bring a paper to his Cabinet that he was in. They didn’t. They did nothing about an issue that that member knew about for a long, long time. So instead of criticising this Government, that member should take a good, hard look in the mirror. He could have done exactly what we have finally got round to doing.

I would just like to start off by saying that in my role as a Minister of Police, it has been a real privilege and a pleasure to work with the Hon Julie Anne Genter to get this bill to the House. We have heard that drug-driving is a serious road safety issue, and in 2019, around 30 percent of all crashes involved a driver found to have drugs in their system. That’s a hundred Kiwis who lost their life last year in drug-driving crashes. The international research shows that consuming drugs and, in particular, combining drug use with alcohol can impair driving ability in a number of ways, including slower reaction times, increased risk-taking, and causing fatigue. All significantly increase the chances of accidents causing injury and death.

The Government is committed to reducing road trauma associated with drug-driving. This is reflected in the Road to Zero road safety strategy, being extremely competently rolled out by Minister Genter. While we have already had a regime to enforce drug-driving, we can strengthen our approach to further deter people from engaging in this high-risk behaviour and to remove drug-impaired drivers from our roads.

It’s quite alarming that only 26 percent of New Zealanders think that they will be caught drug-driving versus 60 percent of Kiwis who think they will be caught drunk-driving. This needs to improve if we want to see a reduction in drug-driving - related trauma. Hence we are going to go very hard against those who drive while impaired on drugs. The Government’s Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill will introduce a compulsory random roadside oral fluid testing regime. The regime aims to reduce drug-impaired driving through highly visible, high-volume enforcement with certain and swift sanctions—the critical elements required for deterrence. The majority of submitters supported the introduction of oral fluid testing and a zero tolerance, presence-based approach to roadside drug testing.

Let me talk a little bit about the proposed regime.

Chris Bishop: Oh, God.

Hon STUART NASH: It will allow police officers—you’re not interested in this, Mr Bishop?

Chris Bishop: No.

Hon STUART NASH: Not interested at all. Well, there you go. That’s what we have faced for a long, long time—no interest in this issue whatsoever. The proposed regime will allow police officers to require drivers to randomly undertake oral fluid testing similar to the current random drink-driving testing. A driver who produces two oral fluid tests—positive tests—will receive an infringement notice but has an option to elect an evidential blood test. Levels for drugs in blood will be prescribed in legislation, above which a driver will be liable for a criminal offence. These levels are being determined based on evidence from an independent panel of experts. This independent panel of experts was due to report back this month, however due to COVID and the inability for that panel to meet, the work has been delayed.

When the previous speaker said, “Will New Zealanders have the ability to submit in this?” Absolutely. A Supplementary Order Paper will be submitted to select committee which will allow Kiwis to have their say on this. That is the reason why the limits are not in the bill at the moment because of the interruption due to COVID.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You had three years.

Hon STUART NASH: You had nine years. An independent expert panel has been established. They are experts in this field and they will come up with recommendations based on international evidence. A range of issues will be canvassed during the select committee process. This includes how some of the issues raised in section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report could be mitigated, liability for the cost of blood testing for infringement offences, and continued inclusion of the power to allow for criminal limits to be added and amended through Order in Council after the bill is enacted.

We intend that the bill will be enacted before August 2021, and implementation will begin 12 months after enactment. Police will shortly be issuing a request for information to the market for oral fluid testing devices. The devices will be procured once the bill is passed and funding is confirmed, and we anticipate it taking a year to procure the devices, import them into the country, and train front-line staff in their use. It is expected that 33,000 tests will be delivered in the first year of use, rising to 66,000 tests by year three. Police has operational discretion to determine the most effective approach to introducing oral fluid testing.

The regime described in this bill impacts upon some of the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not surprising, given proposals to introduce or change drink and drug-driving laws over the decades have had similar impacts. The proposed regime is justified, given the importance of the objective of the bill to improve road safety outcomes.

The bill also includes several safeguards to help protect people’s rights and freedoms. Drivers will only be issued an offence after failing two consecutive oral fluid tests. This requirement reduces the probability of a false positive result. Drivers will be able to elect a blood test to conclusively identify the level of a drug in their system. The bill also introduces a criteria for the type of oral fluid testing devices used. Before approving devices, as outlined by Minister Genter, the Minister of Police must have regard to their accuracy and be satisfied that they will return a positive result only if the device detects the presence of a qualifying drug at a level that indicates recent use.

As introduced, the bill does not include any details about the level at which a driver becomes liable for an infringement offence. Introducing an infringement offence threshold to the bill could act as an additional safeguard. Ministers have therefore agreed to consider whether these thresholds should be added to the bill at select committee stage.

Finally, the message I want to send to all New Zealanders is if you drive under the influence of drugs, we will catch you, so don’t. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I have tabled a motion that would allow the select committee considering the bill, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to be able to report the bill back earlier. Now, that motion can only be put by the leave of the House, and so I am seeking leave for my motion to allow an earlier report back on this bill to be considered, and that motion would be considered in the normal timetable required under the Standing Orders, after the decision about the select committee is put. The reason I’m seeking leave at this point is to give members notice to then consider about how they would vote. So I am seeking leave for the motion in my name for an earlier than normal report back on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are some difficulties with the motion the member is seeking leave to put. The first is that Standing Orders really only allow for a Minister to. That Standing Order is 289, I think. Secondly, of course, the date is in another Parliament. However, the House is the master of itself, so I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is objection.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. This has been a bill long in the gestation of Parliament, actually, and you know, it’s funny. We’re at the fag end of the Parliament with one day to go, one question time, and just the adjournment debate coming down the line, and yet I remember the Hon Dr Nick Smith and other members on this side of the House talking about this issue very early on in the Parliament. I remember the promises from the Government: “We’ll take action.”, “We’re going to do something about this—it’s a real issue.”, “This is something that has to happen.” We’ve had petitions, we’ve had Alastair Scott’s member’s bill—who rightly identified the issue and put it to the Parliament, and we had the opportunity to debate this, and it’s only now, at the second to last day of this parliamentary sitting period, that we are considering this bill.

It’s been rammed into the urgency motion. We’re sitting here till midnight—it’s eight minutes to 10, and we’re here till midnight. We’re going through all the COVID bills and the COVID motions and the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill and all the rest of it, and the Government is trying to clear the Order Paper. Look, I know what it’s like—I know what it’s like. The Government is trying to clear the Order Paper, and because of the mismanagement of the House over the last few weeks, we’re having to go through this urgency process where the Government rams everything through and the Order Paper is going to be cleaned up. That’s all good. That’s fine. I know what it’s like, but we’re going to be here till midnight, and it’s just “Shove this first reading in, and we’ll get on with it.”

But, you know, the point I want to make is really just to echo what my colleague Dr Nick Smith said, which is that this should have been earlier in the process. It was December last year that Julie Anne Genter put out a press release, under pressure, may I say, from Dr Smith and Alastair Scott and other colleagues in the Parliament, and the Porteous family. We said, “Well, what is going on with drug-driving? We’ve got increasing numbers of people who are causing deaths related to drug-driving”—and various coroners’ reports show that—“What is going on?”, and Julie Anne Genter, the Associate Minister of Transport, said, “Don’t worry, I’ve got a bill coming”—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Early in the year.

CHRIS BISHOP: —“early in the year.” We said, “OK—early in the year.” Well, the House actually, I think, sat on 30 January last year. That could be “early in the year”—you know, it’s unreasonable to expect a bill to be introduced in January, but 30 January—OK. That’s the first day. February went by—OK. The House sits, we had the Prime Minister’s statement, we get under way—all good. No bill.

March, April, May, June, July—where are we now—5 August, and we’ve got the first reading of the bill. So, look, it’s taken a bit of time. I understand it takes a bit of time to get bills into the House, but three years?

The simple reality is—and we know this—there’s been dispute between the Minister of Transport, the Associate Minister, and the Minister of Police. We know that’s the case, because the Hon Julie Anne Genter is on the record bagging this proposal.

I don’t believe for a second that the Associate Minister of Transport actually supports this—let’s be very clear about that. I do not believe that she supports it, because she is on the record repeatedly bagging all of the various elements of the regime that she, as the Minister, is seeking to introduce. Actually, I think it was a bit unfair of the Government to ask Julie Anne Genter to be the Minister in charge of the bill, because it’s, I think, tolerably clear from past comments that she does not support it.

But anyway, we will support this bill because we think it’s urgent, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith said. We think it’s urgent. We think it’s important that we get on with it, and it’s a shame that our motion to send it to a committee for urgent report back has failed, but we do support it and think we should get on with it.

I do just want to make a couple of comments about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because it’s interesting that this has got a section 7 report. Not every bill that comes before the Parliament gets a section 7 report. There’s been a bit of debate, actually, in this term of Parliament about the role of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in our constitution. The current Government is seeking to introduce a bill to allow declarations of inconsistency when it comes to breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it would actually be a pretty significant constitutional change for New Zealand.

This is one of those bills which has attracted a section 7 report, and I would argue it is a perfect example of why we need a parliamentary bill of rights, rather than a supreme law bill of rights. In New Zealand we discuss and invigilate the appropriate limits on rights in the Parliament, and this is a classic example—just like the alcohol breath-testing was back in the 1990s—where the appropriate bounds of the right to be presumed innocent and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure rub up against the regime that we want to put in place to improve the safety of New Zealanders. I believe the limit on the various rights that are impinged by this bill are justified.

Now, there’ll be others who would take a different view, and, actually, the Associate Minister of Transport at various points has expressed that view. Others take a different view, but I think it’s important that the appropriate justification and the limits on the right are tested through the parliamentary process, rather than through the court process, and having a parliamentary bill of rights allows us to do this.

So the Attorney-General has averted Parliament’s attention to the breach of rights, and in his view, it’s unjustified. But the ultimate political test, or the ultimate test as to whether or not we’d consider that to be a justified limit on the right, is for Parliament to decide. That’s the appropriate point, and that’s right.

So I don’t know if I’ll be a member of the next Parliament, but I hope I will—I’m running for re-election. I really hope I will.

Erica Stanford: You’ll be fine.

CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you, Ms Stanford. You’ll be fine—you’ll definitely be fine in East Coast Bays. But I hope I’m a member of the next Parliament, and I may well be a member of the Justice Committee. I have been in the past, and it’s a good committee. It’s been a bit of an edgy in the last three years, it’d be fair to say. It’s been a bit back and forth, but sometimes you get that on a committee. But I may be a member of the committee, and I am sure that the committee will invigilate the issue properly and they’ll consider the section 7 report, and that’s the appropriate place to do it.

I just want to comment on what Stuart Nash, the Minister of Police, said about the Road to Zero strategy, because the Road to Zero is another classic example of this Government. A big fanfare—you know, $1.4 billion being spent over three years on safety limits and the introduction of drug-driving. Very few speed limit changes have happened. Only 18 out of 198 kilometres of median barriers has been implemented.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many?

CHRIS BISHOP: Eighteen, in three years—six per year.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Six kilometres?

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh no—median barriers. I reckon the whole National Party caucus could have built more median barriers in three years than the Government’s managed. There have been 151 out of 322 side barriers. So, look, it has not been a great record of success, and this is just another example of how it’s big talk, but very little action.

We support this bill. Drug-driving is an increasing problem in New Zealand, and, as the explanatory note to the bill says, it’s necessary to reduce road trauma and make our roads safer.

This is a bill that will require quite a degree of investigation at the select committee stage. We’re looking forward to that. We think it can be done quickly. It’s been extensively consulted on at various points already. The Ministry of Transport has done a very good job on the regulatory impact statement on the bill, so a lot of work that’s gone into this already. We do not believe there is any real need to hold it up.

Send it to a committee, get on with the job, get it in place, and bring New Zealand into line with other countries and try and improve the safety on our roads and protect New Zealanders’ lives. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. I don’t intend to take too much of a long call, but the first thing I want to do is just read out an article, a Herald article, and then I’d like Dr Nick Smith to try and guess what date it was written. The title is “Tests reveal most crash drivers had taken drugs.” It says, “More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have had drugs in their system, a study has found. The Ministry of Transport study used blood samples taken from 453 drivers who caused crashes. Drugs were detected in the systems of 258 drivers, analysis by the … ESR”. And they said, “We think the majority of drivers driving with illicit drugs are pretty safe from detection, unfortunately. … They may be caught. But the roadside saliva testing really sends a clear message that if you drug and drive, you could be randomly caught. But Associate Minister of Transport Simon Bridges said the Government would wait for saliva testing technology to improve before using it.” This is the story. It says, “More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have drugs in their system.” in 2012.

In fact, the information that was given to the National Party at the time, in 2012, was recommending drug-driving saliva testing. So it seems pretty ironic to me that we have Dr Nick Smith standing up on that side of the House, and so is Chris Bishop, saying this has taken a while to come to fruition. Well, they’ve got that one right—2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and then it goes, 2017. Is that five or six years? It was five or six years under the National Government, and they’ve got the temerity to stand up in this House and say we’re taking too long, when we’ve spent two years working hard to get it right, in a third of the time that they did. They did nothing. They did zero when they had all the information in front of them.

And then on top of that, what was worse was Nick Smith stood up and said why didn’t we support Alastair Scott’s bill, which, by the way, was a member’s bill that was put in in 2018, immediately after the National Party had just got out of Government. So if it was such a great idea for Nick Smith in 2018 and the rest of the National Party to stand up and demand that this side of the House support a member’s bill that was just put into the ballot, why did they not do anything over the six years that they had the chance to, from 2012, all the way through to the 2017?

Perhaps the next members of the National Party that want to stand up—and try to explain that without using the bullet points if it’s taking too long, without sounding ridiculous. Then Dr Smith tries to move to truncate the select committee process after he lambasts this side for trying to add the thresholds as a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the select committee, where the select committee needs to address those technicalities, where the public can submit on those technicalities and those additions to the SOP, and especially the advisers and the experts. So in no way do any of the arguments that Nick Smith or Chris Bishop are talking about have any legs or make any sense.

We are obviously supporting this bill, because drug-driving’s a problem. We’ve heard of the numbers of crashes that are caused by drivers with drugs in their system is increasing. It’s just common sense that we need to have a system in place to be able to detect those people, to create deterrence, to ensure that they don’t do it again, but then that no other person thinks they can get away with it and continue to do it. But also, most importantly, to make the roads safer and to stop these crashes and these deaths that are caused by drug-driving.

Of course you want to do that. But we need to ensure, and we have got to a point where we have ensured, that not only is the technology up to date and correct and usable, but that the legislation that we’re putting forward is workable, and that’s what a responsible Government does. If there’s any issues from the National Party about it, they just need to ask themselves why they didn’t do it when they had the information back in 2012. Because the exact same reason why they didn’t do anything about it is the exact same reason why we voted against Alastair Scott’s bill, because it wasn’t workable. We needed to ensure that we had the technology and the time and the correct legislation to make it work, not just come up with a piece of legislation that we think might work and put a title on it and make a political football out of it—what the National Party unfortunately has.

New Zealand First is looking forward to this piece of legislation going through to the select committee, specifically because it is a very technical bill and because there’s going to be a very important part added to it in the select committee that we need to ensure is robustly identified and submitted on by experts. One of the things moving forward, from New Zealand First’s perspective, is actually the question of whether any illegal drugs in the system at all should have any limit at all. The fact that they’re illegal means that they shouldn’t be in anyone’s system in the first place. So I think that needs to have a wider conversation at select committee and through the submissions, and we’ll be looking forward to that.

And just lastly, a question—and I’m sure it will be addressed through the select committee—is on the actual fee for the blood test scheme. I know that I’m not over the detail completely, but I am aware that it’s a lot more expensive than the drink-driving blood test, a lot more complicated. We’re just looking, particularly in regards to the equity issues surrounding the fact that the driver must pay for those blood tests.

It’s a very important bill and New Zealand First supports it wholeheartedly. We think that the Minister has done a very good job and this Government has done a very good job in ensuring that we’ve got a piece of legislation that is workable and in a timely fashion, and we commend it to the House. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A roadside drug testing regime could already have been in place for a year now, and when we think about how many lives are lost each year, that’s pretty disappointing.

Ginny Andersen: Or nine years ago.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I hear already members on the other side starting to interject. I think it’s appropriate to reflect on where we are now: the night before Parliament finishes for this term. Three years this Parliament has been conducting its business, and here we are, the final night before we finish, and we’re seeing this bill put forward.

When I came into this place, in 2017, at the start of this parliamentary term, as a new MP, I was very enthusiastic. I still am—

Barbara Kuriger: You still are.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: I still am. Thank you, Ms Kuriger; I agree. I came here confident that this was the place where we could make real change, meaningful change for New Zealanders. What we’ve seen with this piece of legislation, with this topic, is that, sadly, it’s been turned into a political football, and we’ve seen the other side of the House choosing to manipulate this in a manner that has resulted in Kiwis suffering. I think that’s the most disappointing part of this. This could already be law right now; yet it’s not. Why not? Because the Government didn’t agree with it. The Government changed their mind. Mr Ball just said, “Well, it should have been in in 2012. The same technology exists now. We disagree with Alastair Scott’s bill.” Well, if that’s the case, if that argument is what he truly believes, how can he now stand up and support this bill in its current form if he’s saying that there is no change to what’s been presented here in this piece of legislation to what was put forward by Mr Scott member’s bill in November 2018? It’s a total contradiction and does not stand up to scrutiny whatsoever.

Alastair Scott member’s bill in November 2018 was the perfect opportunity for all sides of this House to come together, to unite on a really important topic for New Zealanders. We’re talking about saving lives on the roads. We all know there are far too many lives lost every year on New Zealand’s roads. The Green Party—I think it was their initiative—have even come out saying they want a road to zero. Sadly, their actions on this type of legislation have just demonstrated that’s an empty slogan. They could have had a meaningful impact on reducing the deaths on our roads from drugged drivers if they’d supported that member’s bill. That could have been law by now. We could already have been probably 12 months into that law, and yet we’re not. Here we are having the first reading on a bill that doesn’t actually outline any of the parameters in terms of the levels of testing required.

The cynic would say, “Well, it’s an opportunity for them to say they’ve done something just prior to having a referendum on legalising marijuana.” Because you can absolutely guarantee that people around the country want to know this sort of detail. I’m hearing it back in the Waikato. People are constantly asking me “If we legalise marijuana, what happens on the roads? What happens in the workplace?”—some fundamental concerns that they have. This, I guess, is a cynical attempt to try and address—or show that this Government is finally looking at it. Actually, it reminds me a bit of Denise Lee’s pay equity bill that she put forward a couple of years ago as well—the same scenario: a member’s bill put forward by someone on this side of the House, opposed by that side of the House simply because it wasn’t their bill. They’ve now finally put through their own pay equity bill, which they introduced around the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage—well, there’s a headline-grabbing effort if ever there was one—whereas they could have actually supported that bill.

It is disappointing when I think about the number of people who come here to do the right thing, to see that petty party politics takes precedence over safety and progress for New Zealanders on really key issues like this.

Barbara Kuriger: We did that other one at a quarter to twelve at night.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: That’s right; that pay equity one actually was late at night as well. I think the key issue here is that, sadly, the other side will just not accept that members on this side of the House can have good ideas and put forward good pieces of legislation. So that’s really disappointing to see.

The Green Party, I think it was Ms Genter, also said that bringing in roadside testing—this is one of the arguments as to why they didn’t support our earlier bill—was too intrusive. What a slap in the face for every New Zealand family who has lost someone they love as a result of a drugged driver. Too intrusive to do a roadside test? What a disgraceful comment from that Minister. Then we saw Mr Nash saying that this side of the House was not interested. Again, it was just petty politics, trying to make a point in his contribution. Here we are now, passing this bill—it should have happened a long time ago; we’re finally doing it now—and he still gets up and tries to make a jab at this side of the House not being interested in saving lives, when clearly we’d introduced a member’s bill in November 2018. Subsequently, the Hon Dr Nick Smith sought leave to introduce it again, and again, and again, and each time leave was denied by that side of the House. So I think it’s a bit rich for them to be standing up now and trying to claim credit for bringing in a piece of legislation that should already be law, and claiming the glory for that this close to the end of Parliament.

So we do support this bill. It should already be law, as I’ve said. On that side of the House, we continue to hear these cynical comments at a quarter past 10 at night.

Hon Member: Angry—why are you so angry?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The member on that side talks about anger, and I think we have seen too much anger from Government members this evening. So I think it would be important for them to reflect on that when we are now at this position where we’re going to pass this at its first reading and start to make some progress. A cynical effort by the Government to claim some credit in the dying hours of their time in office.

So, on that basis, we support this bill. We support it on principle, as the Hon Dr Nick Smith says. On that basis, we look forward to seeing it progress. Again, the Government just voted down the opportunity to tighten up that select committee process, shorten up that window to allow this to be brought into law, and then they try to say they’re doing the right thing for New Zealand. Well, sadly, they’re not. On this side, we’re committed to that. We tried to get this through earlier. We’ll support it now because it’s the right thing to do. We just need to get it done. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call, I’m going to interrupt the member. Some of the quality of the interjections is not good enough. Rare, reasonable, and relevant, and please do not use the personal pronoun “you”, as it brings the Speaker into the debate. I call Louisa Wall.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It’s my absolute pleasure to speak on this first reading of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, and I want to commend Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter and also acknowledge Minister Nash.

So I had a look on the transport.govt.nz road safety progress in New Zealand, which actually outlines our history of road safety. In 1905 was the first known motor vehicle death in New Zealand. In 1929, we started counting the road toll, and we had 69 deaths. In 1937, we had our first national road safety campaign, and 1969 was the introduction of the breathalyser. When we introduced that, that year they tested 2,928 people, and 93 percent of them failed—and that was at the 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

In 1978, we lowered that amount to 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and in 1993—as the Hon Nick Smith talked about earlier—24 years after we bought in breathalysers, we allowed police to test people anywhere, at any time. In 2009, under a new transport law, we allowed the police to conduct a roadside impairment test for drugged drivers. If they had good cause to suspect that they had consumed drugs, then they could have an evidential blood test. The limit for that test was at 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres, to align with how we treated alcohol. Now, 11 years later, in 2020, we are establishing a regime that will allow police to test anywhere, anytime.

I do want to acknowledge Alastair Scott, who in November 2018 put a bill in the ballot, and we did have a vote on it. But what I want to say about that member’s contribution to the debate was he said, “Given advances in technology, to have roadside testing needed to be more practical.” So we’ve come to a point where it’s more practical. And, tonight—who did what—actually does it matter? Absolutely it matters, because if I look at the statistics, in 2014, 18 people were killed in crashes where the driver had consumed drugs. That was 6 percent of the deaths that year. In 2019, that had increased to 107 of 353 New Zealanders, 30 percent of those who died on our roads. So this is an absolute issue and it’s time that we all grow up.

It doesn’t matter whose idea it was; it doesn’t matter why. We just need some consensus and we need and we thank the National Government for supporting Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens. This is an important issue, and I know that in the next Parliament they will address this issue conscientiously. Like everyone else, I look forward to the public having their say on an issue that is incredibly important. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Smoke-free Environments Act 1990

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill in the committee of the whole House and I’d like, first of all, to acknowledge the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner in getting to this and to speak to some of her Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), which I’ll start one at a time.

The first Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner I’d like to speak to is Supplementary Order Paper 536. The purpose of this is SOP is to extend the privilege for some vaping retailers to be designated as specialist vaping retailers. Now, the privilege you get with a specialist vaping retailer is several things. First of all, you’re allowed to advertise, you’re allowed to vape in store, you’re allowed to run promotions, and you’re allowed to retail, basically, the full range of flavours that are able to be vaped. In the Health Committee we spent an awful lot of time trying to figure out what those flavours should be, what would be available to a specialist vaper, what that store might be able to do as opposed to a dairy or a petrol station. And we spent a lot of time figuring that out. Should we subcategorise the flavours? Where we got to was substantively to give our intention and direction to the Director-General of Health through regulations to finally quantify that and sort that out.

But we did have this dilemma as to what the percentage of retail products should be to be a specialised vaping store. We know you’ve got to be bricks and mortar because we didn’t want online proliferation. It was a challenging question to decide and there was no overseas precedent, as I recall, and we somewhat landed mostly on 70 percent. Now, it turns out that there are a number of very reputable specialist vaping stores who have less than 70 percent of their product that is retailed as a vaping product. And so what this SOP looks to do is to reduce that percentage down to 50 percent. But there’s a safety net here, and I’ll comment to that safety net on one of the other SOPs. That safety net is they need to be responsible retailers and the director-general has the sign off on that. So the director-general has the final say as to whether a retailer can qualify for the 50 percent rather than the 70 percent and be a specialist vaping retailer. And we know that this would apply to a lot of very reputable vaping stores, which is why the Hon Nicky Wagner has placed this on the Table as an SOP.

I want to just re-emphasise because it can otherwise be lost in the bill, that very important safety net whereby the director-general will be able to take into account the reputation of someone who’s requiring or requesting to be a specialist vaper—meet that 50 percent criterion. Furthermore, it’s actually more than just reputation because how it’s written is “any other matters that the director-general considers to be relevant.” That gives him or her a large amount of authority, a large amount of scope, to say yes or no. So it really is safety protected here.

So really then my question to the Associate Minister of Health Jenny Salesa is: can she enunciate any concerns that the Government may have with SOP 536 so that we can talk them out here?

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I apologise for my tardiness, but Mr Reti had jumped to his feet, so I—

Dr Shane Reti: Sorry.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, no, thank you, but I thought I’d just delay. I seek leave for all parts of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill to be taken together as one debate.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I go on to further elucidate the case for the amendment, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 536, in the name of Nicky Wagner, I want to just set out my relief that we’re actually having this debate now—we got there in the end. Minister, there was a high level of concern that we may not be able to pass this legislation through in this Parliament, and I’m very glad that we are. I understand that there was some nervousness about some of the amendments that could be passed, and potentially with the support of Government support parties. I don’t believe any of the amendments, should they be successful, should give cause for concern for the Government.

But I am very pleased we’re here. It’s taken a long time, and we now have an industry that is largely responsible, but which has, I think, got to the point where things like the advertising, the point of sale displays, the marketing of vaping products, is at a level that needs to be controlled. We heard in the select committee a number of concerns, particularly from young people, about the degree to which vaping products are now entry-level. They’re not only being used by people as a transition away from smoked tobacco, we’re actually hearing anecdotes from a number of young people that they are taking it up. I don’t believe the sorts of surveys that were being conducted by organisations like Action on Smoking and Health actually tell the full story; so I’m very pleased that we’re here.

Now, we did hear from a number of the vaping retailers about the degree to which their businesses would be negatively affected by the level of vaping products that need to be sold in order to be considered a specialist vaping supplier, and I think when the bill was introduced it was at 80 percent—is that right? I think it was—

Hon Jenny Salesa: 85.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 85 percent. Now, it was quite clear from the submissions that they could not continue to trade in the way that they were with that level of requirement for vaping supplies. Once the select committee had reported back, I think all parties also had some very good submissions from reputable vaping specialist suppliers that even the recommended level of 70 percent was going to cause considerable harm to otherwise reputable businesses, and I think one of the things we need to do is make sure that we do no harm (a) with the product but (b) with people’s legitimate businesses.

My colleagues Dr Shane Reti, Nicky Wagner, Matt Doocey, and I were very willing to listen to a sensible amendment that would be able to allow them to at least put their case to the Director-General of Health, and I think it’s really worth pointing out SOP 536 is not an automatic pass. For specialist vaping retailers to be able to be considered as such, with a 50 percent total sale from vaping products, they need to convince the Director-General of Health. So the amendment actually does maintain a 70 percent proportion for somebody to be considered a vaping product specialist, unless they can satisfy the director-general that they are a responsible retailer. I think that’s an excellent compromise. We’re not giving them a pass, but we are giving the opportunity to demonstrate that and to continue to trade, because they have been, in my view, almost entirely responsible in their self-imposed R18 restrictions that don’t currently exist in law and the importance that they place on ensuring that younger people are not lured into their stores by the attraction of vaping, and they will continue to do that.

But the bill as it’s currently shaped will prevent them from trading at all in many cases. So I do commend SOP 536. I know that the New Zealand First Party have been looking very closely at this issue, and I would be interested in an indication from them about whether or not they would support it, but I’m also very keen to hear from the Minister about why, if she doesn’t believe that SOP 536 has merit, that would be the case.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you. I’d like to begin by addressing Dr Shane Reti as well as the Hon Michael Woodhouse, because you both spoke about the Hon Nicky Wagner’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 536. Can I say that the Government has introduced its own SOP. There were over a thousand submissions made to the select committee, and, as you both said, quite a lot of the submissions were about the threshold. Can I say that the Government SOP, though, covers this.

We actually don’t agree with Nicky Wagner’s SOP, but what the Government has done is we are actually sticking with what the select committee report came back with, which was to have a threshold of 70 percent of sales from retail premises, and there will be power actually given to the director-general, as you say. The Hon Nicky Wagner’s SOP actually says that that should actually go down to 50 percent of a person’s total sales.

But can I just say that one of the main things that we’re trying to do here is ensure the balance between ensuring that our young people are not attracted to vaping, ensuring that those who are non-smokers do not take up vaping, but that actually it’s available for those who are smokers and who are using it as a quit tool. So, in striking that right balance, the Government doesn’t actually agree that lowering the definition of who a specialist vape store is down to 50 percent is the right thing to do, because it will not strike that right balance.

What the Government’s SOP 567 does do, though, and I’m referring here to replacement section 14A in clause 21, is it gives the director-general the discretion to look at several things. He can look at the geographic location of the retail premises; he can also look at the population around retail premises, as well as any prescribed criteria under regulations, and he will consider 60 percent of total sales from vaping products. So I wanted to just make it clear that the Government does not agree with SOP 536, but we do cover this issue.

AGNES LOHENI (National): I’d just also like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jenny Salesa, for finally being in this position to continue with this vaping bill. It’s been a long time coming, but good to be here.

I just want to add more, I guess, to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner, SOP 536, about that threshold. I’ve heard the comments from the Minister around why the Minister thinks the balance is 60 percent, when, in fact, there was plenty of evidence that came through as to why the limit should be 50 percent. In particular, I would just like to note a correspondence that was sent to me by Hāpai Te Hauora, who work in the coalface of supporting, particularly, Māori and Pacific communities who, as we all know, have high rates of smoking. The quote to me around supporting the SOP of Nicky Wagner, 536, to make the threshold 50 percent is around equity of access, so that whānau outside of the main centres are not limited. We have to make things equitable, and the better choice—which is vaping—the easier choice. That’s the quote from Hāpai Te Hauora.

I just want some reassurance, Minister, that the 60 percent threshold is not going to affect equity of access for those that do not live in the main centres.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): The bill that we are introducing here tonight about amending vaping is actually modelled on what is happening over in Canada. In Canada, they actually have their threshold at 85 percent, and they do not have any exemptions. What we’re introducing here is a threshold that is actually lower—70 percent—and we are also already giving the power to the director-general to include things including the geographic location, the population that live around that geographic location, and the 60 percent threshold of vaping products. We believe that we’ve actually covered this issue.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m just a little confused. I wonder if the Minister could just clarify where in the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) the threshold has been reduced to 60 percent, because I’m a little bit lost in my paperwork. Can she just confirm?

Hon Jenny Salesa: New section 14A(2)(b), page 15.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So that is in SOP 569?

Hon Jenny Salesa: Sorry, in the Government’s SOP?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yep. Is that in SOP 569? Can I just clarify: the Government only has one SOP for this bill?

Hon Jenny Salesa: So it’s the main SOP, yes—567.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: 567. Thank you. All right. While I’m working through that, I want to go on to one of Nicky Wagner’s other SOPs, and that is in regards to the issue of oral nicotine products. Now, we were somewhat talking past each other—Government to Opposition—earlier this week, and the Prime Minister was in the media on Monday or Tuesday morning saying that the reason that the Government would not support an amendment to allow oral nicotine products was that it would allow products like snus to be sold. Now, snus is a chewed tobacco product. It is not consistent with the definition that the Hon Nicky Wagner has in her SOP for oral nicotine products. I can’t remember—the Minister of Defence may be in a position to clarify this. I know that in the New Zealand Defence Force, there is another product that’s quite popular with Defence Force personnel which is oral nicotine but not tobacco. The Hon Nicky Wagner’s SOP would allow that product to continue, should the House prevail in that SOP, but it would not allow snus to be marketed in New Zealand, because that is an oral tobacco product. Her definition does not include oral tobacco, and therefore snus would not be allowed.

Now, regardless of whether the Labour Party is going to support Nicky Wagner’s SOP, I would like to hear from the Minister about whether she agrees that the definition of oral nicotine does not include oral tobacco and therefore would rule out snus, because that might clarify some of the misunderstandings from earlier in the week.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): Snus is actually an item that is illegal in New Zealand. Earlier on—actually, over a year ago, in the case of the Ministry of Health v Philip Morris, it was clear from that that in terms of the vaping products, we needed to look at regulations. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Health was not the winner in that particular case, but what it also said, clearly, was that snus is illegal in New Zealand. Oral nicotine, though—it was a bit of a grey area. One of the reasons why we’re here tonight to regulate vaping is to ensure that we provide clarity and that we regulate those products that are not currently covered in the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990.

When that particular legislation was passed, these products like vaping products and all that were not actually envisaged, and it’s not actually covered by the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. So it is really important that we get clarity and that we absolutely regulate these products that are currently not regulated.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m afraid that reply from the Minister was something of a red herring. She referred to the Philip Morris case. The Philip Morris case is not relevant to the question that is being posed by SOP 562. The Philip Morris case, effectively, ruled that heat-not-burn products were not unlawful, as the Ministry of Health thought, at that time. This bill is not actually going to change that. This bill, as it was introduced, and as it was returned by the Health Committee, would allow things like IQOS heat and other vaping products. What I’m talking about is oral products that are actually put inside the mouth. Now, vapes and heat-not-burn products aren’t that. So we’re not talking about that; we’re talking about oral products that are put under the tongue or in the side of the cheek.

Now, within that definition, currently nothing can be put into the mouth. That wasn’t how the bill was introduced, but that was how it was amended at select committee. What the Hon Nicky Wagner’s SOP will do is to, rather than distinguish between oral and non-oral, distinguish between tobacco and non-tobacco. So an oral product that is not tobacco would be allowed under SOP 562 if it’s passed, but it would not allow snus. What I asked the Minister was: does she agree with that definition? It’s a secondary question about whether the parties of Government would actually support the SOP, but I want to make sure that we know, as a committee, exactly what SOP 562 is designed to do. It’s designed to rule out snus but allow the non-tobacco oral nicotine products that are popular with the New Zealand Defence Force to be sold in New Zealand. They’re currently legal. This would make it unlawful.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I refer the member to page 39, section 53, in clause 26. So section 53(1) is actually where this particular SOP covers snus. So a person must not publish a regulated product advertisement that directly or indirectly states a suitable chewing or any other oral use. So that is actually where snus comes through. When we go through to section 53(2)(a), that is actually in reference to the question that the Hon Michael Woodhouse is about, which is oral nicotine products. Unless the Minister of Health has given consent or provincial consent for the distribution of that particular product, it is not allowed.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to speak now to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 545 in Nicky Wagner’s name, which we haven’t spoken to yet tonight. This would seem to be imminently sensible because fundamentally what Supplementary Order Paper 545 asks is that authorised community health groups be able to provide smoking reduction information to the communities. Furthermore, it needs to be approved community health groups.

I’ve spoken on a previous Supplementary Order Paper about the safety nets that we’re proposing in these SOPs, to the first Supplementary Order Paper 562, I think it was, we were talking to—no, here it is here; it’s to Supplementary Order Paper 536. I made the point that the safety net is the director-general, who had a wide range to approve who could become a specialist vaping retailer. Well, here in Supplementary Order Paper 545, again we give that discretion to the director-general—that’s the safety net. The director-general will be able to review and approve a lead support health worker assigned to a community-led group. It’s hard to understand why this is not a good thing. Here we are wanting to approve community-led groups to go out and legitimately be able to give smoking reduction advice. And so I’d be interested to hear from the Minister what, if any, concerns she has with this Supplementary Order Paper 545, or if she feels it’s otherwise covered in the bill, and if so, where?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): We don’t agree with Hon Nicky Wagner’s Supplementary Order Paper 545. We do cover it, though—the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper covers it. If you refer to Supplementary Order Paper 567, page 9, under the interpretation of who a suitably qualified health worker is, we actually provide clarity now that it also includes a person that has completed the Ministry of Health Stop Smoking Practitioners Programme, as well as someone who is working under the supervision of someone who has completed that programme. It would also include peer support workers who are supervised by someone who has completed the Stop Smoking Practitioners Programme. We then give the director-general powers to be able to—under noting of the Gazette—also include other folks in that category.

You would know, Dr Shane Reti, that we’re also going to go out and consult on these before the regulations are actually implemented. So there is time for NGOs and for our key stakeholders to also have input into this.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you. Dr Reti and I appreciate that answer, but I’m going to labour the point in respect of the amendments at new section 53(2A) and go back to Nicky Wagner’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). The Minister said, effectively, that these are unlawful because the bill will make them unlawful. We know that; that’s the point. So what this basically does right now is ban all oral nicotine products. Nicky Wagner’s SOP will distinguish between two classes of oral nicotine product: one that is not tobacco, and make that lawful, and one that is tobacco, and continue to make that unlawful. Snus is an oral tobacco product. It will not be lawful if SOP 562 is passed. What I’m trying to understand, and I still haven’t got this clear from the answers from the Minister, is whether or not she agrees with that description. We can argue whether there’s merit in the SOP, but what we haven’t got to the point of yet is where we have a shared understanding about what this SOP does. So I’ll ask the question in the simplest way I can: does the Minister believe that if SOP 562 is passed, snus would be lawful.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): The Government does not agree with any of the Hon Nicky Wagner’s SOP.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That’s not my question.

Hon JENNY SALESA: That is not your question, but can I say that with oral nicotine products, including gum, which is now sold over in pharmacies, there is a process of going through the Medicines Act 1981, and the Government’s SOP is as it is right now, and we do not agree with her SOP about oral nicotine or her SOP about the health workers—because we already cover it in the legislation—or her SOP about reducing the threshold to 15 percent. Again, we already cover it in the Government’s SOP.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I get that; that wasn’t my question. Before we get to whether or not the Government agrees or disagrees, I’m trying to work out whether the Government and the Minister, particularly, actually understand what the amendment will do. So it’s clear the Minister is not going to state a view about whether she believes snus would be lawful if SOP 562 went through, so I will make it very clear to the committee: if members are inclined to support SOP 562, snus would not be lawful. What the Prime Minister said on the AM Show on Monday or Tuesday morning was incorrect, and that has to be made very clear.

Now, I’m not going to labour the point any more, but I would ask the Minister this. There has been a legal opinion released, and I’m not even sure who to, but it came from the law firm of Russell McVeagh, and they’re no dummies. And I think, though, it relates to cigars and the impact of new section 53(2A) on whether cigars would become unlawful. Now, some of my colleagues who shall remain nameless are a bit concerned by that, so I would be, as a reassurance I’m sure I don’t need, keen for the Minister to check with officials to make sure that they are absolutely convinced that we’re not inadvertently banning cigars by the new section 53 of the bill, which replaces section 29 of the current Act and adds section 53(2A) to ban oral nicotine products—that cigars would not be part of that ban.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I do not see how cigars are going to be made illegal with this, when it is clear that it’s about oral nicotine. New section 53(2A), that the Hon Michael Woodhouse referred to, is about oral nicotine. Cigars, as far as I am aware, are something that is combustible.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I speak further to Supplementary Order Paper 562 in the Hon Nicky Wagner’s name and ask three very simple questions. Does she have any sense how many Defence Force personnel use non-tobacco nicotine pouches? Can you confirm that that number may be around 10,000? And does she think that non-tobacco nicotine patches in any way are an aid to smoking reduction?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I cannot confirm how many people are using oral nicotine pouches. I’ve seen reports being written, but I cannot confirm it because I don’t know how those numbers have been arrived at.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): My last question, please: are non-tobacco nicotine pouches an aid to smoking reduction in any way whatsoever?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): There have been reports of a variety of products that are helpful in smoking cessation and that are being used by stop-smoking, cessation services to assist people to give up smoking. They include vaping, which is why we’re actually talking about and discussing this particular bill today. We know from evidence from New Zealand, including evidence that the Ministry of Health actually collected just last year, that there are a lot of our Māori women who have stopped smoking utilising vaping. In terms of oral nicotine products, probably similar to gum and other products, they do have a part to play. What this legislation is focused on, though, is ensuring that we regulate vaping products.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 569 in the name of the Hon Jenny Salesa to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 567 in her 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 567 in the name of the Hon Jenny Salesa be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Nicky Wagner’s amendments to clause 21, new section 14A, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 536 are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 545 in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to clause 26 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 49; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 562 in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to clause 26 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 49; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to clause 26 be agreed to:

in clause 26, replace new section 53(2A) with:

(2A) A person must not import for sale, sell, pack, or distribute any oral nicotine product unless—

(a) it is a notifiable product that has been notified in accordance with Part 4; or

(b) the Minister of Health has given consent or provisional consent to the distribution of the product under the Medicines Act 1981.

(2B) To avoid doubt, subsection (2A) does not apply to cigars.

in clause 26, new section 58, definition of notifiable product, paragraph (b), replace “product” with “product; or”.

in clause 26, new section 58, definition of notifiable product, after paragraph (b), insert:

non-tobacco nicotine pouch.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 49; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 536 in the name of the Hon Nicky Wagner to Schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand National 49; Ross.

Noes 63

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

Amendment not agreed to.

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

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

In 1990, the then Minister of Health, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, began her third reading speech on the Smoke-free Environments Act stating—and I quote—“There has been [a] lengthy debate on the Bill. It is complex, with a very simple, humanitarian purpose: to combat the appalling death toll that is caused by the consumption of tobacco in our society.” Those words are just as relevant today for this, the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill, as they were when the Act was first introduced.

This bill amends the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to better regulate vaping products and smokeless tobacco products. It is the most significant change to the Act since the introduction, and it covers a range of issues from advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, to product notification and safety. A lot of thought, time, and care have been put into crafting this bill and bringing it to this stage.

I want to acknowledge and thank all of those that have been part of this journey: members of Parliament, the Ministry of Health and Government officials, NGOs, the tobacco control centre, academics, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, responsible vape retailers, and, of course, members of the public.

The Smoke-free Environments Act was primarily designed for smoked tobacco products and doesn’t adequately cover the range of regulated products that are available today. These products, which include vaping and smokeless tobacco products, need to be regulated properly to ensure that we protect our children and young people from the risks associated with these products, as well as encouraging smokers to switch to significantly less harmful products.

The bill will prohibit children under the age of 18 being sold a regulated product and will restrict access to a wide range of flavours to specialist R18 vape stores. The bill also reduces the normalisation of vaping and using heated tobacco devices, prohibits their use in legislated smoke-free areas, and prohibits the advertising and promotion of these products, including on TV and social media. The bill will also ensure that smokers have access to vaping and heated tobacco devices that meet safety standards.

I also want to pause and reflect on why it is that we’re here today, ready to pass this piece of legislation. We’re here because, on average, every year around 5,000 New Zealanders—or 13 lives a day—die because of smoking or second-hand smoking exposure. This is more than the number of people that we collectively lose from road crashes, alcohol, other drugs, suicide, murders, drownings, and earthquakes combined. That means that many of us at some point have experienced, or will experience, the pain that comes from losing someone we know and love—a family member, a friend, a colleague—due to smoking. We as a country do not want to continue this, including grieving for so many loved ones each year. We want to take every practical step that we can to reduce the number of people that smoke and die from tobacco-related diseases—this includes supporting smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives, including vaping products. We’re also here because we recognise that vaping products are not harmless and should not be attractive or easily accessible to our tamariki and our young people.

I’d like to conclude by reflecting on the progress that we’ve made today and the heart of this bill. Previous Governments of all descriptions have battled against smoking and tobacco for decades and pursued policies that sought to reduce the harm and death caused by tobacco. Today, with the passing of this legislation, we’re collectively writing the next chapter of our story. At the heart of it, this bill will help to reduce the number of New Zealanders that smoke and die from tobacco-related diseases by helping people to switch to less harmful products, while also ensuring that we don’t have a new generation of people addicted to nicotine.

The next step in this work will be to publicly consult on the regulations that will give effect to this bill. This will take place after the election and will provide businesses, members of the public, NGOs, and other stakeholders the opportunity to influence how it will be implemented.

I strongly commend this bill, in its final reading, to the House. I look forward to seeing the improvement that this bill will make to the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders in the near future. Mālō ‘aupito.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was fascinated by the Associate Minister of Health’s reference to the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the passage of the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, and comparing what we’re doing here with what was done 30 years ago. I think there are two quite significant differences to what we’re doing today compared with that time. The first is obvious—that legislation passed in a flurry of controversy. We were all going to resign our jobs because we weren’t going to be able to smoke in our offices; bars would empty out because people weren’t able to have a ciggy with their pints. And none of that happened. None of that had happened, and we look back now and realise that the sky didn’t fall in.

The big difference here, though, is that there’s actually broad support for this, not only across the House but across society. And I think the other significant difference with the 1990 Act is that that was designed very specifically to require and encourage people to do less of something. And, actually, what we’re doing with adding vaping products into that legislation is encourage people to do more of something, as well as less of something else—and that is to vape instead of smoke tobacco. So it’s a slightly unusual sort of a situation we find ourselves in, but it’s the right thing to do, and it does require a regulatory regime.

I do note, however, that the amount of harm that is understood to be caused by the products that we are now regulating is so low that the Attorney-General gave a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act fail on the prohibition on the marketing of these products, because there wasn’t sufficient evidence that they were harmful. And, actually, I’m quite encouraged by that. We’re doing the right thing, despite the Attorney-General’s opinion. But, you know, when you’ve got the likes of Action on Smoking and Health coming and saying, “Look, we’re pretty relaxed about this. We want a liberal regime, but we need a regime.”, and when the best evidence we’ve got is that these products are 95 percent less harmful than the alternatives that people are using now then we want to encourage smokers to use them. What we don’t want to do is create a back door for people who are not addicted to nicotine to think it’s sexy or fun or cool at a party. And, frankly, they are. So if we sort of denormalise it at that level while continuing to portray this product as an alternative to the deadly harm that tobacco, when smoked, creates, then we’re doing the right thing.

Now, I should just put on record—and I know we don’t dwell, at least at length, on the committee stage that we’ve just had, but I just want to put on record—that actually we accidentally supported the Associate Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 567. I would have opposed, because we wanted the vaping sale rate to be at 50 percent, not 60 percent, that but I wasn’t quick enough to call for a party vote. But the Hon Nicky Wagner’s SOP would have been ruled out as inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.

Despite that, I do appreciate what the Associate Minister has done right from the get-go. She did say that there was a lot of thought, time, and care—and I know there was a lot of thought and care. We think it took too long, more time than was needed. But I did appreciate as the health spokesperson at that time, the manner in which the Associate Minister was prepared to engage once she had finally done her bit to bring the bill into shovel-ready shape for first reading, that she did engage me. I was wishing that we could have done that sooner. But I think there has been a reasonably constructive process along the way.

I also want to talk about health issues, because this is probably my epitaph—certainly in this Parliament, who knows what might happen in the next—because I’m no longer in that gig. I want to acknowledge the Health Committee; your good self, Madam Speaker; and also the chair of the Health Committee, Louisa Wall; together with my parliamentary colleagues who actually worked really constructively on this bill, but also more or less on just about everything that we had coming through. And that’s the appropriate manner in which to approach issues where we all have the same goal, and that is to improve the health of New Zealanders. We may disagree around the edges, but we certainly agree on that goal. This will do that. This will make the health of New Zealanders better, and it’s a very good thing to do. I’m happy to commend it to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Congratulations, Minister Salesa. This bill has taken a lot of hard work and effort. In acknowledging your work, I want to acknowledge particularly my colleague Jenny Marcroft, who is a member of the Health Committee, who I know participated diligently in all of the select committee processes. And I, too, join with the Hon Michael Woodhouse in thanking all Health Committee members.

We were one of the committees that sat through COVID, and I know initially people weren’t very happy about that. But what I’d like the public to know was that we didn’t actually compromise our processes within this institution. We had 1,271 submissions. We heard from 84 New Zealanders who chose to make a submission on this bill. And so I think we did an incredible job in processing those submissions. So I want to acknowledge the advisers within the Ministry of Health, incredibly professional staff, who were obviously dealing with COVID, but the ministry made a determination that they could, whilst obviously catering to the COVID needs, also support the committee.

I’d like to acknowledge the Attorney-General who did provide some information that our committee was able to deliberate on, and also the Regulations Review Committee, who chose to provide some advice to us.

So the essential premise of this bill is that vaping products are tools to help people quit smoking, and that’s what this bill is all about: to give people tools to stop people smoking. Why? As the Minister articulated earlier, in New Zealand 5,000 people die every year because they smoke. That’s 13 New Zealand citizens every day. Globally, that’s 7 million people; 1.2 million from second-hand smoke. So the reality is vaping, if it’s a tool used to help people stop smoking, is going to save lives. And within that context, we did hear evidence to say that vaping isn’t risk-free.

I think what we’ll see over a few years of research is: how do we quantify the actual risk? So we had health professionals come in, particularly those involved in lung health, to say we have to be vigilant and we have to monitor. There were also issues about young people, young people vaping as a gateway to smoking. And I do want to acknowledge our Māori and Pacific whānau who submitted on the bill. Their biggest worry and concern is that our people are not going to give up smoking, and that we’ll actually end up with a scenario where they smoke and vape. And if vaping actually isn’t as harmless as we think, then we actually have to monitor the implementation of this legislation.

The only other thing I really wanted to highlight is that in the US there have been issues about people who have died after vaping cannabis oil. So we have to be really careful about our communication and the education we provide to New Zealanders about how to use this tool because we don’t want to inadvertently enable another issue to emerge.

Just finally, I want to highlight that included in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was a carryover from our smoke-free cars legislation. We are now making sure that our cars will be vape-free. And why? Because fundamentally we want to denormalise both smoking and vaping. While acknowledging that vaping is better than smoking, vaping isn’t good either. That is the issue. So I thank the Minister for her SOP, the changes that she made.

And just finally, I can’t not acknowledge the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner. She has dedicated the last years of her life here in Parliament in being an absolute champion for this kaupapa, and I thank her for her contribution. She’s obviously engaged in other activities right now, but I know her heart is with us.

So in that final acknowledgment, I just want to conclude by saying, as the chair of the Health Committee, I’ve been incredibly proud of the work that we’ve done. And with my colleagues, I want to thank Dylan and the team who have assisted us in our work. Finally, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see this bill finally to the House, because, on net balance, we do believe that the vaping products are effective—that vaping as a mechanism is effective—in smoking reduction.

We have taken on board the advice we heard from officials, and the cautions. In fact, if we look at one of their very early statements, the statement to us as a committee was “I would like to say that the evidence associated with vaping is still emerging and strongly contested. Particular areas of debate are the safety of vaping products, the effectiveness of vaping as a support for smokers to quit smoking, the role of flavours in supporting people to switch from smoking, and the extent to which we should be concerned about increases in vaping among young people.” We took these concerns on board, and yet we still believe, net, that there are advantages to vaping—to reduce the use of cigarettes, primarily.

I’ll come back, but before I forget, I do want to acknowledge that we were working during lockdown, and Matt Doocey and the Hon Maggie Barry did a lot of heavy lifting from our team during the lockdown, so I did want to recognise them.

Fundamentally, this was a balance we were trying to achieve in this bill between moving people down a pathway from cigarettes, to vaping nicotine, to vaping flavours. That’s the pathway we want to encourage. Our dilemma was not going the other way—not being a gateway from vaping flavours, to vaping nicotine, to then taking up cigarette smoking. In that pathway we—certainly, I—learnt an awful lot about flavours. Who’d have known that they could be regulated into the classes of nicotine, menthol, mint, dessert, and fruit, and that youth particularly are interested in the dessert and fruit? It was one of the discussions we had around whether a specialist vaping store should be allowed to have dessert and fruit flavours.

I’d like to also thank the officials, who did a lot of work to get us to this place today. We’re really pleased, this is an effective mechanism. It has taken us time to get here, but here we are, so let’s just keep moving and see if we can get this out, get it into the public, and get this effective mechanism—for young people particularly, where we’re most interested—where young people can find an alternative mechanism to reducing cigarette smoking. So we’re supporting this bill, thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am really pleased to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill in its third reading tonight.

As a member of the Health Committee, I would like to begin in acknowledgment of the chair, Louisa Wall; our deputy chair, Dr Shane Reti; and also all members who contribute to that committee. This was a piece of legislation which we were all supportive of, and we had some great discussions throughout our select committee. At the centre of our discussions was helping people who were smokers to transition away from that nasty habit, which consumes your life—and I say that as a former, born-again non-smoker. Had there been vapes around when I was much younger and I gave up cigarettes, I’m sure my transition would have been much easier, and certainly those in my family may have felt the transition a little less intense. So this is an amazing tool, and congratulations to the Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, for bringing this to the House. You have made a wonderful contribution to society, to the health of our young people, and for that I commend you, and working collegially with New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partner, the Greens, as well. It’s been a wonderful experience to do that with you.

This is all about making sure we have a tool, as we’ve mentioned and heard in the House tonight, that will help people transition away from cigarettes, and this product, even though it is considered 95 percent less harmful than smoking, is something that we will need to keep an eye on in the future. There are quite a staggering number of people who are using vapes to come off tobacco—150,000 to 200,000 people vape in New Zealand, and 47 percent of them are former smokers; 50 percent are dual smokers and vapers. So, even though they still may be smoking cigarettes, they are vaping as well; so their reduction in cigarettes has increased with their use of vaping. That is a great transition for them, and, as other members have mentioned, we want to see the pathway away from cigarettes, not from vaping to cigarettes. That has been a great discussion we’ve had, and I think, with the changes to the legislation—thank you to the Minister for the Supplementary Order Paper and the amendment to that—that will go some way.

I would just like to mention one of the discussions we had in select committee. There were a couple of themes that came through strongly in our discussions—1,200 submissions, 84 of them oral, and, as we’ve noted, we heard through the lockdown period via our Zoom conferences. We heard from vaping consumers, from Māori and Pasifika organisations, from the health sector as well, and flavours were a big discussion, because some of those flavours, with their creative names—creative writers dreamt up all wonderful names like “Unicorn Dust” and all this sort of thing—wonderful vanilla dessert flavours that were very appealing, maybe not just to young people, but certainly the advertising is an incredibly powerful tool in the way that it can change people’s minds. That can be not necessarily a good thing; it can persuade people. So, by having restrictions around advertising and restrictions around flavours, we can ensure that young people won’t be exposed to this product and thinking that it’s a normal thing to do. That’s something I am very pleased about in this bill.

Really, in essence, this bill is a bridge for smokers to quit, and that’s the most important thing—along with not encouraging or enabling our young people to get hold of a product. I’d just like to also mention, too, some schools, particularly a school that I live near. Some of the teachers have drawers full of vape that they’ve confiscated from their young people. Now, they’ll be very pleased that there are regulations that will stop some of those young people being able to buy them. This is a very good bill. Thank you very much and congratulations to the Hon Jenny Salesa for bringing this to the House, and along with banning smoking in cars carrying our kids. Well done. Congratulations. The public has asked for this, we have delivered, and I commend this bill to the House.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, a pleasure to stand and make a contribution on this, the third and final reading of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. I, too, stand and offer my congratulations to the honourable Minister Jenny Salesa and also acknowledge again the members of the Health Committee and the chair, Louisa Wall. I also want to acknowledge the officials for the great work that was done in a very collaborative way across the House to get this bill through.

It would be remiss, too, if I didn’t also acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for her work, and although we didn’t get quite through the changes there that we wanted in terms of how we felt we could strengthen this up, ultimately, at the heart of this bill, we are talking about the thousands of New Zealanders that die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses.

I am not a smoker myself, but I did grow up in a household where it was very normal to walk into the lounge and there’d be smoke everywhere, and it’s different times today. I just want to acknowledge the Minister and everyone for the work on this. Ultimately, this is a good bill, and we are finally here. Congratulations to everyone. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): It’s just that I am finding my shoes.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

MARAMA DAVIDSON: It’s 11.20 p.m. Kia ora, Madam Speaker. The Greens are proud to stand and support the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Bill. As my colleagues across the House have said, this is a bill to regulate what are currently grey areas, where we can allow ads to, effectively, target kids via YouTube, for example. We cannot trust harmful substances to self-regulate, so we work to make this about public health and safety of products as much as possible.

This is my first speaking and engagement on this bill at all. So the bill, of course, will broaden the scope of products regulated under the Smoke-free Environments Act to include vaping products. I was fortunate to hear directly from various Māori and Pacific smoke-free advocacy organisations. I was fortunate to hear directly about the positive impacts on whānau who have been able to use vaping as a successful and positive tool on the pathway towards smoke-free, to be able to cut down the massively harmful cigarette and tobacco smoking and going across to vaping, a lesser harm, on their way to smoke-free. It was also clear from those presentations that there was a call in the passage of this bill to make sure that we—and I did hear the Minister refer to it and acknowledge the call—continue to engage directly with Māori and Pasifika smoke-free advocacy groups and organisations and directly with communities, given that Māori and Pacific are disproportionately represented in people who smoke.

So we are pleased, after the careful consideration and work that happened at the select committee stage, to make sure that this absolutely is about public health and safety and a positive journey to becoming smoke-free, rather than vaping itself being an activity that stands on its own, and rather than people going towards vaping.

So, all in all, some helpful amendments were made, some helpful changes were made, to strengthen the protections and the regulations in the bill. Good acknowledgment has been made of the monitoring work that will continue to be necessary as we check to see how this will actually fly in the real world. So, with that, the Greens are pleased to support this bill. Thank you.

Bill read a third time.

Offices of Parliament

Alteration to Officers of Parliament Vote

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alteration to the appropriation for the 2020/21 financial year in respect of Vote Audit.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders

Standing Orders

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted, with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament.

We must be getting close to a general election, because normally when Parliament adopts its new Standing Orders for the next term of Parliament it’s one of the last things we do before we cease sitting for the general election campaign, which we will do tomorrow after question time and after the adjournment debate has concluded. The triennial review of the Standing Orders is an opportunity for Parliament to make sure its rules are fit for purpose. We do this once every three years, although we do have the opportunity to trial new changes in the intervening period, and we have certainly done that in this term of Parliament.

Parliament has its traditions—traditions we should be proud of—but that doesn’t mean Parliament should not continue to adapt and evolve as the world around us continues to adapt and evolve. If we don’t do that, Parliament will quickly become an irrelevant institution that people will stop listening to.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Who knew!

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: And in fact, there are some, a few, a rare few, who perhaps don’t find Parliament as engrossing as they used to, and I think that’s a tragedy.

This year’s report is one of the more progressive that I’ve seen in my time as a parliamentarian, and I want to thank all of the members of the Standing Orders Committee for what I think was a very collegial and constructive process where we were able to test out some radical ideas. Not all of them made it through the process, but we gave them a good go during the process, and I think that that was really constructive.

COVID-19 forced the Parliament to operate in different ways, and one of the things that that did was it forced us to try things that we might not have otherwise tried, which, as it turned out, actually are quite good. We used much more video conferencing and digital engagement through our select committee processes, and we found that that actually works quite well. It’s a better way of engaging a lot of the public, who can’t necessarily come and meet with us in person. It’s also quite a good way for committees to deal with some of the administrative business that they need to deal with during adjournment weeks where they might not always want to fly to Wellington just to deal with the more mundane administrative matters that sometimes select committees deal with, and that was a good thing. We discovered that we can actually lodge papers electronically rather than having to trot on down to the Clerk’s Office and hand them over in person. Who knew that that would be possible? But we have discovered that that is something that we can do, and that’s a very good thing.

There are some other innovations in this report which I think do deserve a brief mention. We have looked closely at the issue of petitions. We’re seeing more and more petitions coming to Parliament, and we do need a better way of managing that process, making sure that the petitions are ending up in the right place, that they’re being dealt with in a timely manner, and that those petitions that need a speedy response without an in-depth investigation get the speedy response that they’re looking to. So we are establishing a petitions committee that will, in the first instance, deal with all petitions, and they can refer petitions to subject select committees for further examination.

We have at long last had a look at the 15 hours that we spend on the annual Budget debate, and I think after some consideration there was a degree of consensus that perhaps 15 hours wasn’t the length of time that we needed any longer for the Budget debate, particularly given it often meant that the Budget debate would go on for three or four weeks in a row, and by the time we got to the end of the Budget debate, very few people could remember what was said in the first part of the debate, and, therefore, perhaps it was time for us to consider whether that should be shortened. So we’ve shortened that Budget debate down, and that’s a welcome development.

What’s also welcome is that we’re using that additional time not for additional Government business but, actually, to open up some of the other areas of parliamentary activity that wouldn’t normally get debated in this Chamber to the level of scrutiny, public transparency, and, of course, debate that we have if we can put them on the Order Paper. The Standing Orders report, right at the end, makes some recommendations about the sorts of things we might want to spend a bit more time debating, and I think that those are very good suggestions being put forward there. It gives us an opportunity to debate things like the performance of our Crown entities, rules made around climate change, briefings that have been provided on the state of the Public Service, the opportunity for us to actually look beyond things that don’t necessarily just relate to legislation or money, which is where most of Parliament’s time currently gets spent. It will allow that space for what we’ve been urged to do, which is to look a little bit beyond the horizon to some of the longer-term challenges we face as a country. I think additional debate provides us the opportunity to do that.

There are a couple of other very brief things that I want to mention. Ministers are being encouraged to attend select committees more often to talk about their bills, and one of the particular suggestions is that where a bill that the Minister should be engaging on is first sent to a select committee, it wouldn’t hurt if the Minister showed up for the initial briefing on the bill and had some engagement with the select committee at that early stage, and we certainly, as a committee, would unanimously encourage future Ministers to do that.

One of the innovations of this term of Parliament that I am really, really proud of is the revamp of the way we deal with committee stage debates in this House. They had become repetitive, boring, formulaic, and they were adding nothing to the quality of the legislative process. By moving to more of a question and answer approach during the committee stage, both for the committee stage of bills and also for the way we handle annual reviews and the Estimates process, I think we are making them much more relevant. We’re providing an opportunity for the Opposition to genuinely hold the Government to account, and I do mean that because, actually, I think this process will quickly highlight if Ministers aren’t on top of the bills that they’re bringing before the House or aren’t on top of their spending commitments that they’re bringing before the House, and I think that’s a very positive development. So I think that’s an innovation we should all be proud of. It took a while to get everybody on board with it, but we have proven in this Parliament that it can work, and there was next to no debate about continuing that innovation in the next Parliament, because we know that it works and that’s a very good thing.

One other significant thing that I want to highlight is the ability for members’ bills to be introduced automatically, rather than having to go through the ballot, if they have the majority support of the House of non-Ministers. That stops the Government of the day stacking the members’ days with Government business, or business that should be Government business, but it does give the opportunity for the rest of Parliament, out of the control of the executive, to have a bit more say over legislation coming before the House, and I think that’s a positive development.

The final thing is a minor thing but it will make a lot of difference to a lot of members of Parliament. Parliament will no longer sit until 6 o’clock on Thursdays regularly. We will now finish at 5 o’clock on Thursdays and we will do that without reducing Parliament’s sitting hours by reducing the length of the dinner break on Tuesday and Wednesday from an hour and a half to one hour. It will mean, particularly with these very constrained flight schedules that many members now deal with, that most members will be able to get home on a Thursday night to their families and not have to stay over for an extra night, with many having to wait until Friday morning to get home—a sure sign that we are making progress towards Parliament being a more family-friendly place.

So, with that, I commend these changes to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the National Party to provide our support for the motion, and I shall do so forthwith—[Interruption] Now, only one or two people in the House will laugh at that—it is definitely an in-joke with the Standing Orders Committee—but it does actually speak to one of the tensions that we have when we amend Standing Orders. I just want to touch on it. I think this is the third Parliament that I have been involved in the Standing Orders Committee process. One of the things that we often hear is that we’re somewhat reluctant to change or that we are very conservative in our approach. We look for consensus or near-unanimity in our deliberations on it, and that is exactly as it should be, but I want to defend this sort of measured pace that we go at to change the way in which this place operates.

One of the things we’ve heard in the valedictories over the last couple of weeks is a tremendous amount of respect not only for the traditions of this place but also for the support that we’re provided by the clerks and Hansard, and our public sector more broadly. I think we should be very proud, despite the fact that we occasionally fall below a very high standard, that actually this place works really well and it works well because we have a shared understanding about what the rules of engagement are, and they are largely set out through the Standing Orders.

One of the things the Leader of the House mentioned was a very good example of where a sessional order has been adapted into the Standing Orders—and we did so willingly—and that was in respect of the manner in which the committee of the whole House operates. But I would suggest to him and the House that that had its genesis in the last Parliament when one presiding officer, the Hon Trevor Mallard—now the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, our Speaker—changed the way in which the committee stage went by requiring Ministers to answer good questions, and if they didn’t, the committee stage would continue, but expecting scrutineers of bills in the committee of the whole House to ask good questions and if they didn’t, the debate would be closed down.

So while we’ve reached a point now where we have this much more interactive and really more meaningful examination of the bill, it actually started, I think, in the last Parliament. So that’s an example of why we need to make haste in a measured manner; I wouldn’t say slowly, because, actually, in the course of this place, actually doing that change over, say, a Parliament and a half is actually a reasonable approach. I expect that the other, what are on the face of it, minor changes—for example, to the hours of Parliament, which we only really got a small change, but we had a very wide-ranging discussion about what was possible. I think those ideas will continue to germinate in the 53rd Parliament and we may see some more bold changes to things like that.

I want to also touch on two of the matters that the Hon Chris Hipkins raised. One is petitions, and I really support the idea of having a petitions committee and a triage process. But I want to provide reassurance to members of the public that I don’t believe that will result in a diminishing of the importance of petitions. It’s one of the really, really important parts of the Westminster system that the public can come and tell us what they think and what changes could be made. In my experience, we treat them very seriously, but there is a more efficient way in which we can do it. So in creating that efficiency, it’s important that we don’t undermine the importance of the petitions process.

The last thing I want to touch on is in respect of the shortened—which one was it?—15-hour Budget debate, which now will free up what will be seven hours of debate time for non-Government business, which is a good start. But I hope it doesn’t finish there, because, actually, if we are more efficient with the committee of the whole House process, if we can better utilise this time with more meaningful debates, then those meaningful debates can include what I know Westminster does and other Westminster-type Parliaments around the world do, which is actually dedicate more time for non-Government business. I think that could well be a good thing.

The last one I want to touch on—I don’t think Minister Hipkins mentioned it—is the fact that Ministers are now going to be able to table their speeches and talk to them. So what we will have, I think, is a much more meaningful first reading debate as well, and that will add, I think, to the lustre of the dialogue. Because Minister Hipkins is right: he has been critical that we are not always treating this place with the respect it deserves and the robustness of our contest of ideas, and I hope that that’s actually another measured step in the right direction.

I want to conclude by thanking the people who supported us through this process, not only the submitters to it but also the clerks, particularly the two Davids, Wilson and Bagnall, but also, you know, the big team that was around them. They had a herculean task of organising the wide-ranging and detailed submissions that we had on the Standing Orders review, and they did a tremendous job in difficult circumstances because COVID affected their ability to be able to keep things moving. But despite that—in fact, even perhaps because of it—we have what I’m convinced is the best set of amendments to the Standing Orders in the five Parliaments that I’ve been in. I think that’s a testament to the Clerk’s team. So I just want to thank them on behalf of members of the committee and the House. With that, I’m very happy to support this motion.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.39 p.m.