Tuesday, 1 December 2020

TUESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2020

TUESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2020

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk.

CLERK: Petition of Sophie Handford requesting that the House of Representatives support a climate emergency declaration, provide for net zero carbon, end fossil fuel exploration and extraction, invest in a sustainable economy, and honour its responsibility to the Pacific.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the year ended 30 June 2020:

Minister of Tourism for Vote Business, Science and Innovation

Minister of Customs for Vote Customs, and

Minister of Education for Vote Education

annual reports for 2019-20 for:

Kāinga Ora

Parliamentary Counsel Office

Crown Law

New Zealand Customs Service

Ministry for the Environment

Environmental Protection Authority

Ministry of Education

Education Review Office

New Zealand Qualifications Authority, and

Ministry for Women

statement of performance expectations 2020-21 for:

Te Kāhui Tātari Ture | Criminal Cases Review Commission, and

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

statement of intent 2020-24 for Te Kāhui Tātari Ture | Criminal Cases Review Commission

statement of intent 2020-25, Ministry for the Environment

strategic intentions 2020-24 for the Parliamentary Counsel Office and

Ministry of Education report on the compulsory schools sector in New Zealand 2019.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill, introduction.

COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill, introduction.

Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

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?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I have received many positive reports on the New Zealand economy since my last answer on this subject in the House. Just yesterday, we received very positive business confidence data from ANZ, showing business confidence had improved significantly, and that, as the ANZ put it, indicators relating to investment, employment, and profit were also higher. Evidence of this is seen in recent data on retail, with sales values recording their largest September quarter rise since the series began in 1995—up 7.4 percent.

The latest Statistics New Zealand labour force survey data shows unemployment at 5.3 percent. While we will never be satisfied with this, it is worth noting that this is nearly half the rate of unemployment that had been anticipated at Budget 2020, and it means that 117,000 fewer people are unemployed than expected by Treasury just seven months ago. Even more pleasingly is the very latest data from Statistics New Zealand showing that this strength is continuing with monthly filled jobs data showing an increase of 27,667 jobs in October.

Dr Duncan Webb: What do the reports on jobs data show?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, manufacturing saw 2,713 new filled jobs; retail was up 2,188 jobs; accommodation and food services rose by 2,019 jobs; and 5,048 jobs went to those aged 15 to 19 years, together with another 3,123 jobs in the next age group, 20 to 24 years. All regions in New Zealand had increases in the number of filled jobs compared with September. Auckland recorded the largest rise of 8,104 for jobs, followed by Wellington with 3,329, and Canterbury with 3,301. We do need to acknowledge that many people have lost their jobs, and some regions are still struggling with the effects of COVID-19, but the New Zealand economy is recovering.

Dr Duncan Webb: What recent reports has he seen on export performance?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I’ve seen recent data on trade from Statistics New Zealand which showed our annual goods trade surplus reached a 28-year high. Goods exports rose $734 million to $60.1 billion in the year to October 2020, despite COVID-19 reducing global economic activity. The annual value of our exports goods rose to countries such as China, the United States, Japan, Korea, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada. Overall, the value of our goods exports rose 1.2 percent, showing the continued strength, hard work, and resilience of those in our economy.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to accepting policy recommendations on housing, “The appetite for some of these policies also needs to come from the public”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by the full quote—which specifically, at that time, I interpreted to be regarding measures like capital gains tax—where I stated, “Well, look, I would say that actually the appetite for some of these policies also needs to come from the public. We’ve tried three times now to do things that specifically sit in that taxation category, and there hasn’t been wide support for that. But I would point out, again, that actually that is not the only lever that exists.”

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe voters have given her a mandate to implement her housing agenda, which specifically excluded a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do believe that we have been given a mandate from the public to roll out the manifesto commitments that we presented. Of course, some of those we’re seeing in the House today, because we’ve moved very, very quickly on those that matter most to the public in the middle of a pandemic—including, for instance, sick leave provisions; including those income tax increases so we can continue the provision of decent housing, health, and education services. We know, though, in a very short space of time we have seen extraordinary house price increases. We are not the only country experiencing that, and that is why, with the mandate we have, we are responding to concerns that have been raised by the public around that, and we’re waiting for advice that we will consider in the new year.

Hon Judith Collins: Will she rule out extending the brightline test beyond five years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, you’ll have seen during the course of the election that we were very clear that, obviously, a capital gains tax was not in our consideration. We equally ruled out any measures around a wealth tax. These are purely hypothetical questions beyond any of those taxes. However, I note the brightline test policy—introduced by National, extended by Labour—is something we’ve asked for some analysis on over the impact it’s having in the market, and in this current environment that is absolutely the right thing to do. We need to know what levers are and aren’t making a difference to house price increases.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree that more taxes will not build more houses?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I note that the member was actually in the Government that introduced the brightline test. My only assumption would be that there was some expectation from the Government of the day that it would have some impact on what were incredible house price increases under that Government. The big difference between that member and this side of the House is that we do not accept that those house price increases are OK. We do not believe that there is no lever that can be pulled to continue to stabilise what we’re seeing in the market, and we also don’t believe that the answer is selling housing stock, as that last member did.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain how—

SPEAKER: Sorry. A point of order—the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was “Does she agree that more taxes will not build more houses?” I did not hear anything relating to whether or not more taxes would build more houses in the Prime Minister’s answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I certainly thought that the general area was addressed. I thought the member was going to raise a point of order about the length of the reply. She might have been on sounder grounds there.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister explain to the public how extending the brightline test to 10 years would be different from introducing a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, at the time when ACT supported, as I understand, the brightline test, there was a very clear view put forward by the Government of the day—that was, I believe, supported by the likes of Andrew Bayly—quotes in this House claiming that it was income, not capital gains, tax. That was certainly the argument made by Chris Bishop. But, of course, what I only assume that side of the House intended to do was to deal with speculators. Of course, at that time there was a view that there were a number of people in the market who were purchasing homes and flicking them within a very short period of time in order to benefit from quick gains. We are seeking advice on what impact it has had on the market, and that may go to answer the member’s question.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the question was very clearly about the difference between two policies. We’ve heard an awful lot about who had supported a brightline test and speculation about the reasons they might have supported them but no attempt to explain to the public what the difference between the policies is. She didn’t address the question at all.

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister certainly did address the question—she addressed it by contrast and, from memory, she quoted someone.

Hon Judith Collins: Who was to blame for house prices rising 37 percent in her first term of Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Perhaps the member would like to tell us who’s to blame for the 65 percent increase we had under National. The difference is I do not accept that it is acceptable to continue to see house price rises that lift housing out of reach of first-home buyers. There are a range of issues contributing to this environment, and what I will not do is apportion blame to anyone. However, undoubtedly, what is happening in the market right now is there is an impact from low interest rates; there is an impact from the fact that we haven’t had the supply over consecutive decades that we have needed in this country. We have not had, for instance, the rating base in local government to provide for the infrastructure that is needed. We haven’t, for instance, had support for residential housing during economic downturns, like the GFC, where we did not see the development that we needed under that last Government. I’d say a big issue here is whether you take political ownership for trying to fix the problem. National never did.

SPEAKER: Order! I’ve alluded to it previously, but I’m now going to be clear to the Prime Minister: her answer was far too long.

Hon Judith Collins: Why have house prices risen faster in the last month than any time since 2004, according to CoreLogic?

SPEAKER: Order! That’s actually not an area that the Prime Minister has responsibility for.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh hold on, what’d she answer the other questions for?

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a good question. I’ve been going over that in my head for the last three or four supplementaries.

Hon Judith Collins: When the Prime Minister alluded to house price rises under a previous National Government, what’s her answer to why house prices have increased more in the last month than they did since 2004?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: This is actually a very good question. If you look back at the annualised increases under this Government in the last term, according to CoreLogic, they sat at 4 percent. You compare that, for instance, to the previous Government, where annualised figures sat at nine. In the last month we have seen extraordinary growth. Now, part of the issue is not just domestic. If you look overseas, nine out of 10 democracies that we compare ourselves to, and economies we compare ourselves to, are having exactly the same issue. Low interest rates are being used globally to stimulate growth in hard-hit economies through COVID, and members of the public—even in jurisdictions where they have things like capital gains taxes or their equivalent—are investing in property. And so that is part of the issue, but low interest rates are also benefiting first-home buyers. That is not to say there aren’t other levers, and we are investigating all of those to try and get it under control.

Hon Judith Collins: If the Prime Minister is correct, then why has Australia only seen a 6 percent increase in the last 12 months, and the UK a 5 percent increase if it’s “low interest rates”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I recommend to the member some analysis in The Economist just recently around, actually, what—in a very short space of time, even through lockdown—we are seeing from house price increases in the likes of the UK. I haven’t looked on the month-by-month analysis for those jurisdictions, so I’m not sure that that’s fair analysis, but we are not alone in this problem.

Question No. 3—Education

3. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to Government initiatives to support training and apprenticeships?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I’m pleased to report that the number of New Zealanders enrolling in apprenticeships has increased by approximately 85 percent and that the number of women signing up for apprentices has more than doubled. Since we made all apprenticeships free in July this year, there have been almost 14,000 new apprentices signing up nationwide, which is an increase from about 7,500 in the same period last year. In particular I want to acknowledge that we have had 1,785 women signing up for apprenticeships compared to 845 in the same period last year. It’s good to see women signing up for these roles. We’re making progress, but of course we still do have a way to go.

Jo Luxton: Have numbers also increased in other forms of training and, if so, why?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund doesn’t just make all apprenticeships free. It also makes certificates, diplomas, and programmes in targeted industries free until the end of next year, and people have certainly responded warmly to that. Since July more than 17,000 learners have started a programme that is covered by this in industries that are critical to our economic recovery. That’s an increase of around a third compared to the same time last year.

Jo Luxton: What else is the Government doing to encourage people into vocational education and training?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We know that one of the things we have to do is turn around the profile of trades and vocational education. We need to make sure that young people see these as the incredibly desirable careers that they are. So we have begun a substantial campaign to change public perception. It starts with a primarily social media campaign, moving into a more traditional media campaign as well, targeting a variety of different audiences to ensure that people understand the roles that are available and how many opportunities there are in those fields. That builds on the work that we’ve done over the last year to get around the country with trades expos and so on to ensure that young people know about the jobs that they could aspire to.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Is he considering further extending the bright-line test to have an effect upon house prices?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I noted last week, I’ve asked officials for advice on the existing settings and on measures to address the demand side of housing. We are yet to receive that advice and no decisions have been made, so it is premature to say we are considering any particular response. However, I would like to thank the National and ACT parties for passing the brightline test into law in 2015.

Andrew Bayly: Does he agree with the Labour finance spokesperson Grant Robertson’s comment on Newstalk ZB on 9 September that there will be no extension to the brightline test?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I find the Labour finance spokesperson Grant Robertson to be a man of immense wisdom, kindness, and compassion. I refer the member to the Labour Party’s policy on taxation that was released on 9 September. I note that, as I’ve said, we are looking to Treasury for some advice on the current settings in the housing market in response to the rapid escalation in house prices.

Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out an extension to the brightline test?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have asked Treasury officials for advice; it would be premature at this stage to say anything about that. But I would note that some learned commentators have spoken about the importance of the brightline test, including one who said, “It’s important that everyone is paying their fair share of tax, particularly property investors are also paying their fair share of tax.” That was one Andrew Bayly.

Andrew Bayly: Why was extending the brightline test off the table two months ago and now back on the table?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is getting ahead of himself. We are still to receive advice from officials.

Andrew Bayly: Would he consider it to be a broken promise to extend the brightline test, considering the Government’s position has been that there will be no other changes to tax beyond the new 39 percent income tax change?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As is consistent with the member’s portfolio title, he’s jumping at shadows.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement about the Government’s economic response to the COVID-19 shock that “we must also not allow inequality to take hold in our recovery”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do. I stand by the full quote which is underpinning all of this, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, “we must not allow inequality to take hold in our recovery. In fact we need to take this opportunity to improve the prospects of all New Zealanders and tackle those long-standing divisions”.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Are rapidly increasing house prices in New Zealand almost unprecedented during a time of recession and growing unemployment causing wealth inequality to get worse?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the very reason why we have asked officials to do work for us on what other options exist in terms of demand in housing is because we are concerned about those rapidly escalating prices. Equally, Minister Woods, as the Minister of Housing, is leading a work programme on how to further address the supply side.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with Governor of the Reserve Bank, Adrian Orr, who last week said in relation to controlling house prices that “monetary policy is a blunt tool” and that the Government needs to consider its fiscal levers, including tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly agree with the fact that monetary and fiscal policy both have a role to play when it comes to the housing market.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will introducing a new top income tax rate without an accompanying tax on capital gains or property wealth help or hurt attempts to get the housing market under control?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think that the increase in the top tax rate is something that has been welcomed by a lot of New Zealanders, because it will mean those on the highest incomes are paying a little more to help with the COVID recovery and make sure that we do continue to get debt under control. In terms of its overall relationship to the housing market, there are many, many factors at play there. I wouldn’t pick that one out.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is his Government focusing on taxing income and not asset values when the ratio of house values to income has risen from 6.2 to 6.8 in the last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What we believe is that we need to take a range of measures. There is no one silver bullet here when it comes to housing and how we manage house prices. It is a matter of increasing supply. We have been doing that. It is a matter of controlling demand. We have been doing that with the likes of the brightline extension that we did. The ban on foreign buyers—

Chris Bishop: How’s that going?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The ban on foreign buyers is going well, Mr Bishop. It’s a very popular policy and also the ring-fencing of rental losses. The reason we have asked officials for more advice is so we can see what other levers exist.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he acknowledge that there is significant risk that inequality will continue to worsen if the Government only focuses on taxing work and not taxing property wealth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We have a range of measures to help lift incomes that revolves around both our social development policy, our housing policy, the work we’re doing to improve productivity in the wider economy. What I would say to the member is that this has to be a comprehensive package of initiatives that deals right across the board. We are taking further advice on those matters at the moment.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement in relation to a COVID-19 vaccine that “At this point, our expectation that we’ve been running to is more around the March date”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

David Seymour: Why is her expectation for a vaccine roll-out in New Zealand as late as March 2021 when hospitals in countries such as the UK have been told to prepare for a roll-out as soon as next week?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, over the past couple of weeks even, I’ve had conversations with leaders in other countries that, like us, have entered into advance purchase arrangements. We do not yet, as nations, have exact clarity on delivery dates for vaccines. Some—in fact, the vast majority—are still in clinical trials. So that’s the first thing. The second issue is that each country will take their own perspective, or at least sequencing, around the regulatory approvals. Some countries, because they are experiencing a large-scale loss of life, may choose to accept higher risk in their regulatory process. Thirdly, there will not necessarily be the same delivery date for all countries, and I do, again, just reference the fact that some countries are experiencing large-scale loss of life.

David Seymour: When will the Prime Minister be able to lay out a time line for applying or making available the vaccine, given that it’s become available, given New Zealand’s perspective?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, firstly, as I say, the majority of vaccines are still in some form of clinical trial. So it is highly speculative as to when different countries will expect arrival dates, and, as I say, other leaders I’ve spoken to are speculating themselves. In terms of New Zealand’s time lines, we are still negotiating. We have already announced advance purchase arrangements with two companies—with two pharmaceutical companies. We are in commercially sensitive negotiations with others. As they are announced, we of course share those details. What I’m looking to do is, before Christmas, try and give a bit more certainty around what our current expectations are. But, as I’ve already said, they’re not all arriving at the same time. We expect smaller amounts of doses in the first instance, and we will need to sequence, then, vaccination across the country over the course of the year.

SPEAKER: Just before the member goes for his next question—and it’s an advisory thing, and I let that one run because everyone was interested in the answer—one’s not meant to use a “given” in a question. It actually added nothing.

David Seymour: Thank you for the reminder, Mr Speaker. Supplementary: wouldn’t it be smart to start planning the roll-out of a vaccine before it arrives?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Absolutely. The suggestion we’re not is incorrect. Of course we have already put in place—for instance, for some of the vaccines they have different requirements around storage. We’ve put in place the purchasing arrangements to be able to assure that. The work will need, even on micro-credentialing, to have the staff across the country for a large-scale vaccination programme when it becomes available. We already have Medsafe working on approvals with the clinical data that’s being provided by pharmaceutical companies, even though the vaccination is not in-country. So it is all under way, as you would expect.

David Seymour: What percentage of vaccine uptake would be required before vaccination allowed New Zealand to change its policies at the border, opening up to more countries?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: A good question. One of the issues is that with the trials we have at the moment, there is not sufficient data to tell us whether or not the prevention of the onset of disease is going to have an effect on transmission—so being vaccinated does not mean that you will not still pass on COVID-19 to others. It may well mean that, but we don’t have enough data yet to tell us. What we do know is that there has been an observed reduction in asymptomatic infections, and so you can assume that it will have an impact. To answer your question, though, around what scale of immunisation, of course we want herd immunity—that’s the best way that we can protect our population.

David Seymour: What exactly, then, was the Prime Minister referring to when she said that her expectation she’d been running to was more around the March date?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course you’ll know, as I’ve said, we have advance purchase agreements with two companies at this stage. The first, early expectation around delivery around one of those—the suggestion has been that it could be March. Again, there is still some uncertainty there. I will caution: we’re not talking enough doses to vaccinate the whole country, which is why I’ve talked about the need for a rolling regime.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister tell New Zealanders anything concrete today about what to expect from the arrival of a COVID vaccine and its effects on the Government’s COVID response next year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, that New Zealand will have not just one vaccine. There will be many. Some will be more appropriate for different parts of the population than others. That the first arrivals are likely to be smaller numbers of doses, and that we’ll need to sequence the distribution of those for those who are in higher-risk areas of work. Secondly, that as data across the globe is provided, we’ll be able to see whether or not the vaccine also reduces the amount of transmission. That will help us know whether or not, for instance, a vaccinated traveller bears risk to New Zealand or not. And, thirdly, that we are doing everything we can to make sure that we can provide a safe vaccine, when it’s available, to all New Zealanders for free.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister tell the House and the public on what date she expects to be able to give a more specific time line for the roll-out of vaccination against COVID in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My expectation is that I’ll give an update before Christmas. But, again, there will be a certain degree of speaking in terms of quarters because we simply do not have firm arrival dates for some vaccines that, as I’ve said, are still in clinical trials, let alone large-scale production.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcement has she recently made about support for New Zealanders to take up seasonal work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Last Friday, I was pleased to announce that the Government has introduced new incentives to encourage out-of-work New Zealanders into seasonal work, like summer fruit-picking. These new incentives include up to $200 per week for accommodation costs if people are paying housing costs back home and at their seasonal job, for up to 13 weeks; and a $1,000 incentive payment for people who complete contracts of six weeks or longer—this will be paid in two $500 instalments halfway through and at the completion of the contract. We have also increased the wet-weather payment and the Seasonal Work Assistance Programme. This means that people who have left a benefit to do seasonal work will now receive minimum wage for every hour that they are unable to work due to bad weather, for up to 40 hours per week. This payment was previously capped at $940; however, we have lifted this to $2,149 over 26 weeks.

Angie Warren-Clark: What further support is available to help unemployed people in seasonal work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Getting New Zealanders into work is our top priority. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is working closely with the horticulture and viticulture sectors to ensure that Kiwis make up the majority of the seasonal workforce this season and beyond. We recently expanded the 3K to Work programme, which now allows MSD clients who relocate for a job that’s longer than 91 days to get up to $5,000. This has resulted in twice as many grants given in October and November this year compared to 2019 and covers things like moving costs, furniture, and the bond on a new rental. We’re working hard to provide the right incentives for unemployed New Zealanders to get into this work.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why are these incentives important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Government is acutely aware of the impact that COVID-19 is having on employment globally; New Zealand is not immune. We are also acutely aware of the labour shortages that exist in the horticulture and viticulture sectors every year but exacerbated this year by COVID-19. Even with the border exception of 2,000 Recognised Seasonal Employer workers that Minister Faafoi announced last Friday and the 6,000 who have remained in New Zealand over the winter, we acknowledge that there is still a gap. My announcement is part of a cohesive plan to address unemployment and workforce shortages and sits alongside the work being led by the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Agriculture. We recognise the immense value of our horticulture and viticulture industries and will continue to work with them to ensure the terms and conditions of employment are favourable to New Zealanders taking up these opportunities.

SPEAKER: Order! I think members are aware, with the change in balance in numbers of the House, that numbers of questions and numbers of supplementaries have changed, and it means that the member’s party has significantly more than previously. I don’t expect the lengths of answers to go up in the same proportion.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he agree with the statement from Professor Nick Wilson of Otago University’s Department of Public Health on 25 November 2020, “Well, I am concerned that unless we rapidly improve things, we are going to have more border failures because the system has just got too many persisting weaknesses”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I disagree with the assertion in that statement that every recent case of COVID-19 we’ve dealt with is a sign of border failure. Our protective measures at the border continue to strengthen rapidly every day. Every incident or event is carefully reviewed to identify where further improvements could be made. It’s worth recalling that since March 79,000 people have come through the border, 920 have tested positive for COVID-19, and in all but a handful of cases, that is where the matter has ended. Only a handful of close contacts have ended up being infected, and in every one of those cases, we’ve looked to identify where further improvements can be made. The one outlier was the August Auckland cluster, where we’ve still been unable to identify the source.

Chris Bishop: Will he introduce mandatory pre-flight COVID-19 testing as a further tool for all those coming to New Zealand from high-risk countries, as recommended by public health experts; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s not recommended by all public health experts, and I’d point out that some of the highest concentrations of positive COVID-19 cases that we have dealt with in our managed isolation facilities are amongst people who were tested before they departed and came to New Zealand.

Chris Bishop: Do all staff working in managed isolation and quarantine facilities have access to an N95 mask if they wish to wear one?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health has just issued new guidance on this, which will ensure that those who need N95 masks, because the environment that they are working in justifies it, will have access to it.

Chris Bishop: Will there be a Bluetooth option for contact tracing in place before the busy summer holiday period when Kiwis will be moving around the country?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll have more to say around Bluetooth very shortly. We have not made any announcements on that yet.

Chris Bishop: Has the COVID-19 Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group, led by Sir Brian Roche and Heather Simpson, reported back to him, and, if so, when will that report be made public?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, and once the recommendations have been considered by Cabinet.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made to set out how the Government is supporting New Zealand businesses?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Last week, the Hon Damien O’Connor and I announced that the Government has approved 2,000 experienced seasonal workers from the Pacific to travel to New Zealand to address labour shortages in the horticulture and wine-growing sectors during the peak season. They will begin arriving in January, following the Christmas rush of Kiwis returning home, and we expect these Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers will be fully onshore in time for the next year’s harvest season. The Government has already announced measures to attract New Zealand job seekers, as the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has outlined. The Government has listened to the concerns raised by the sector and understands the importance of their sector for the COVID economic recovery. These changes will help support their ongoing success.

Jamie Strange: What were the considerations in coming to this decision?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government has been clear that its priority is protecting New Zealanders from COVID-19 while supporting New Zealand’s economic recovery. This is why we have such a stringent quarantine system and control the numbers of people coming across the border. The intake of RSE workers is the largest group of economic exceptions to our closed border, which recognises the unique challenges that the horticulture and wine-growing sectors are facing in order to harvest what is expected to be a bumper crop. These will be experienced workers and as such they will be paid at least $22.10 per hour. This is also important for helping New Zealand’s Pacific Island neighbours, whose economies have been hit hard by COVID-19, as their seasonal workers provide important remittances back to their homelands.

Jamie Strange: How is the Government responding to calls from business for more economic border exceptions?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Businesses have been very clear with the Government that they are facing difficulties in attracting workers. Where appropriate, we are prepared to listen to these calls and have granted exceptions for the likes of veterinarians, deep-water fishing crews, agricultural mobile plant operators, and shearers. We’ve also approved over 5,000 individual essential worker applications where these workers have a skill set that is not readily obtainable in New Zealand. These are difficult times and we are willing to be pragmatic, but the border is our critical defence in keeping COVID out of New Zealand.

David Seymour: Why did the Government wait until crops such as strawberries and courgettes had rotted on the ground before letting these 2,000 RSE workers in?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I disagree with the premise of the member’s question. From the outset of our closure of our borders, we have been telling sectors that have traditionally relied on migrant labour that they have to come up with a different plan to meet the labour shortages that they are facing. We will continue to work with sectors like the horticulture and viticulture sector to make sure that their harvest grows. It might come as a surprise to the member, but the border is closed for a very good reason.

Question 10—Housing (Public Housing)

10. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): What is the total number of applicants on the Social Housing Register and how does this compare to September 2017?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Housing is and has been a top priority for the Labour Government. That’s why Labour has pledged to build 18,000 public and transitional houses, and over the last three years we’ve already delivered 6,000 public homes. The Government wants to make sure people in need get access to warm, safe accommodation and we’ve encouraged people to come forward and ask for help. As of August 2020, there were 20,385 people on the housing register. In September 2017, there were 5,844.

Hon Louise Upston: What does the Minister consider to be an acceptable number of people on the social housing register by September 2022?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While I can’t speak forward to those numbers, what I can say is that we want to make sure we get people in need into safe accommodation, and we will help and encourage people to come forward when they ask for help. This is one of the reasons—one of the motivating factors—behind the register increase.

Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister accept, if the number goes up, that it’s a failure of this Government to support those who need housing?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: No, I do not accept that. What I do accept is that if the National Party in Government were to have built the numbers of houses that we are currently building—6,000 houses we have built already in the previous term—then our housing register waiting list would not be as high as it is.

Hon Louise Upston: What is the Minister’s response to Bernie Smith, who is the chief executive of the Monte Cecilia Housing Trust, who says if the wait-list continues to grow by over 6,000 per year, the Government “aren’t even meeting the growth in demand”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The increase in the public housing wait-list shows that there is a community expectation on us to deliver—and we are—but the reality is that we are playing catch-up. Where National sold off State houses for nine long years, we are building them, and building them at pace.

Hon Louise Upston: What is the current median wait time for the over 20,000 people on the social housing register, and does she consider this acceptable?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can tell the member is that the average time spent on the social housing register before someone is homed is 241 days.

Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety

11. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How is the Government delivering on its commitment to increase minimum sick leave entitlements to 10 days a year?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): We’re delivering on our commitment by introducing a bill to increase minimum sick leave entitlements to 10 days a year to the House today. As promised, we’ve introduced the bill before Christmas. It will go through a full select committee process. This will ensure that everyone can have their say on how we implement this important change.

Marja Lubeck: Why is increasing sick leave to 10 days important?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: COVID-19 has shown it is important for people who are sick to stay at home. Increasing the statutory minimum will mean that more people who are sick have access to paid sick leave. We also know that businesses benefit. When their staff stay home when they’re sick, it means that bugs don’t spread, leading to fewer absences and increased productivity. [Interruption] They could do with some more productivity over there. We need to move past the “tough-it-out” culture that risks infecting others.

Marja Lubeck: Is the Minister considering any further changes to sick leave beyond those in the bill?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has introduced and will refer to select committee a bill that adopts a straightforward approach to increasing sick leave entitlements from five days to 10 days per annum. We are open to considering further changes, and I intend to write to the select committee to request they consider issues that may be wider than the immediate scope of the bill, such as prorating the additional sick leave entitlement for part-time employees, providing some sick leave entitlement from the first day of employment for employees with an expectation of continuous employment, and changing the hours test for employees who do not initially have an expectation of continuous employment. We’re looking forward to striking a good balance, and I also look forward to engaging with the committee and key stakeholders on this important bill.

Marja Lubeck: What reports has he seen on this announcement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Some very good reports. Richard Wagstaff from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has said that “Working people are welcoming [this] announcement.” Kirk Hope from Business New Zealand said, “it’s pretty difficult to disagree with the sentiment … if people”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Hang on. There’s a certain predictable reaction from the first name. I would have thought the second might have got a bit more respect from my left.

Chris Bishop: Didn’t hear it.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s because you were yelling.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Mr Speaker, would you like me to begin again?

SPEAKER: No, I think you can just start from Kirk Hope.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Kirk Hope from Business New Zealand said, “it’s pretty difficult to disagree with the sentiment … if people are sick, they should stay at home”, and “This will impact [half of] businesses not at all.” Michael Barnett from the Auckland Chamber of Commerce said, “It’s about wellbeing … [and] doing the right thing”, and “If you manage [your sick leave] well, [that’s] a positive for you.”

Question No. 12—Housing

12. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Has the Government done enough to increase housing supply, and which new measures, if any, for boosting housing supply will she have up and running in the next six months?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, we have started work to boost housing supply, which has been an issue in the making for decades, but we are the first to acknowledge that the job is far from complete. So far, we have started work on the largest Government build programme since the 1970s, which will deliver more than 18,000 public and transitional houses by 2024. We’ve passed the Urban Development Act and introduced the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. We’ve boosted funding for housing infrastructure via the New Zealand Upgrade Programme and the COVID Response Fund, along with many other initiatives. In the coming months, I expect to announce further initiatives in the Government’s progressive homeownership scheme, a public housing plan setting out locations for the additional 8,000 public and transitional houses funded through Budget 2020, and the roll-out of a $350 million fund to support the residential construction sector. I’m also continuing to work with officials and colleagues on other matters relating to housing supply, and we’ll have more to say in due course.

Nicola Willis: When will the Government deliver on the commitment to increase housing supply by removing the Auckland urban growth boundary?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the member well knows, there is a comprehensive body of work being carried out around issues around land supply. We have the work that is being led by my colleague, the Hon David Parker, around the repeal of the Resource Management Act. Added to that we also have the fast-track consenting process of the COVID fast-track consenting processes; added to that, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. There are a number of measures under way to make sure that we are freeing up land for development.

Nicola Willis: Well, will the Minister consider boosting housing development in our major cities by bringing forward the deadlines in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As a Government, we are examining a range of measures that can boost supply. But I would point to the fact that the COVID fast-track consenting process is providing a way through for a number of housing developments, many of them in Auckland.

Nicola Willis: Is it correct that only 652 new KiwiBuild houses have been built, 4 percent, of the 16,000 target, and how many KiwiBuild houses will be built next year?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the number of KiwiBuild houses built has been a very well-traversed number, and I can confirm from the latest dashboard that is available on the ministry’s website that, indeed, 652 have been built. There are a further 916 under construction and the KiwiBuild and Kāinga Ora developments have resulted in 1,573 market houses being enabled with another 438 houses being announced. I will put those numbers against the 100 affordable homes delivered by the National Party when last in Government, through the special housing areas, over a period of nine years.

Nicola Willis: What additional measures will the Minister consider to help community housing providers get the finance they need to start shovel-ready plans for new housing development?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One of the initiatives that we have started with the community housing providers is entering into long-term contracts with them so they can have the certainty around finance raising. We now have the ability to contract up to 25 years and many of our community housing providers are taking this up. This is an innovative way that we are supporting the community housing sector. I do note that when something is measured as a proportion of a number, the bigger the number of the commitment and that is funded through the income-related rental subsidy, the more community houses that can be built.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 26 November.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this debate. Before I return to the Address in Reply specifically, I do just want to note that on this side of the House we stand proudly behind our Minister of Housing and the development of housing supply. This is a Government that built more houses than any other Government since the 1970s. This is a Government that on coming into office turned around a policy that saw, in the middle of a housing crisis, the mass sale of State houses. That was their response; it was a housing crisis and they decided to sell houses. As the Minister has already said today, if the previous Government had been building State houses at the rate that this Government has been building them, there wouldn’t be a waiting list. So if the members on the other side of the House want to look at the reason for our housing crisis, look in the mirror.

When the Prime Minister stood in the House last week to respond to the Address in Reply debate, she made clear that New Zealand and the New Zealand Government had three priorities from here. The first of those is to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID19. On that score, every member of this House, I am sure, would join me in thanking all 5 million New Zealanders, because while the Government can lay out a plan and a strategy for what we need to do, that only works if every New Zealander buys into it. That is something that has been quite unique about New Zealand’s response to COVID19: that New Zealanders have got in behind the strategy and they’ve stuck with it. They saw a Government that had a plan and stuck with it, didn’t flip-flop about what it wanted, didn’t change its mind about alert levels; it stuck to the plan and New Zealanders backed that, and I am very grateful to them for that. So, from here, it is a matter of the Government continuing that strategy on. The elimination strategy is built on multiple lines of defence.

While I’m on the subject of congratulations, I want to say “thank you” to those who work in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities. This is a very, very difficult job under trying circumstances. Many of them have had to put on hold critical parts of their lives, the work they do in communities, and the time they spend with their families. We have to be very grateful for them. In return, along with that gratitude, we will continue to strengthen what we do at the border: our testing regimes, our infection control mechanisms, and the staffing that we provide there. Also is the work that we do on contact tracing and surveillance testing; all of that has gone well and all of that must continue.

But what we do want to focus on as we move forward is the ability to deliver a free and effective vaccine to New Zealanders—and, as was traversed in question time today, a lot of work has gone into that. It will be something that will happen over time. We will need to prioritise our health workers. There will be population groups that we have to give that to first. But New Zealand is in a strong position to do this because of the response that we have taken to now.

We said from day one that the best economic response was a strong public health response, and that has proved to be true. Earlier in question time I ran through some of the economic data. Exports are doing well. Retail sales are up. All of that is possible because we took a strong public health response, because people can be back out in the community spending. Businesses know that; they are working alongside the communities to make sure that jobs are maintained and retained. That will be critical to any recovery. On this side of the House, we will always put people first in New Zealand when it comes to the way that we run our economy.

Our job now is to accelerate that recovery. We’ve done well but we can do better. We also have to acknowledge that there are some people who have lost their jobs, and some communities who are still struggling. We will be alongside them at every step of the way. That comes from investing in our people.

Minister Hipkins has already mentioned today the success of the initiative around apprenticeships. We were never going to repeat the mistake of the previous Government in the wake of the global financial crisis, because what they did then was stand on the sidelines and let apprentices be laid off in business after business. Not only did that affect those people, it also meant that when the recovery came we didn’t have the skilled workforce we needed to actually be able to build the houses and build up the businesses that we need. So that’s why we made apprenticeships free. That’s why we’ve invested in trade training. To hear about the thousands of New Zealanders taking that up warms my heart, and I want to that Minister Hipkins for advocating for that so early on in the piece.

In addition to that, we will be taking measures to support people into work, including the return of the training incentive allowance for those degree courses. On this side of the House, we will never pull the ladder up behind us, and that’s what we saw over there when the training incentive allowance disappeared last time. We want every New Zealander to be part of this economic recovery. We have got a comprehensive plan of investment there. These numbers can sometimes be mind-boggling, especially for a Minister of Finance: $42 billion going into infrastructure over the next few years to futureproof our economy and create jobs. That’s $9.6 billion for Waka Kotahi, the New Zealand Transport Agency; $3.8 billion on those education facilities that were left out of the plans of the previous Government. The same in our hospitals as well; we are making sure there are facilities being built right across New Zealand, along with the work that Kāinga Ora is doing, as the Minister has already said today, to deliver 18,000 public and transitional homes. This is about making sure that the policies that we enact not only accelerate our economic recovery but also start to address some of the long-term issues that New Zealand has. This is the opportunity for us to build back better.

Part of building back better is another part of our economic plan, and that is the preparation for a low-carbon economy. We can bring forward the 100 percent renewable electricity target for 2030. We will prohibit the building of new thermal baseload electricity. We will get those dry year storage options, such as pumped hydro, up. We will get green hydrogen going. On this side of the House, it’s not some kind of “or” when it comes to the environment and the economy; it’s an “and”. We only get a strong economy if we have a sustainable environment, and we will address those issues.

We will continue to back our small businesses. Again I want to give credit to the way that small businesses have dealt with the COVID-19 pandemic. They’ve pivoted, they’ve been innovative, and they’ve been supported by a Government that has got alongside them with the wage subsidy scheme and with the small business cash-flow scheme. On the other side of the House, they like to undermine things like the way we’re going to regulate merchant service fees. All that does is show how out of touch they are with small business, because every member on this side of the House knows that when we went around in the election campaign and you mentioned that policy, retailers’ eyes lit up because they knew that they were being ripped off, and we’re going to do something about it.

Alongside all of this, we can’t forget our position in the world. I want to give credit to both the current and former Ministers of Trade for the work that they’ve done to get us into a position now where we have the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership being signed, we’ve made progress in our upgrade of the China free-trade agreement, we’re working on the EU and UK deals that we see in the future, but we’re also out there in the world supporting our businesses to make sure they can get profitable and get more business in an era where they need to be in the digital space much more often. So we’ve put an extra quarter of a billion dollars into New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to be able to support all of that.

But none of that takes away from the issues that New Zealand was facing before COVID-19 arrived, around issues of climate change, of child poverty, and of housing. We must and we will be taking further action in those areas.

When it comes to child poverty, we all know that the Government that Jacinda Ardern leads will put that at the centre of what we do. What we also know is that the statistics that have been thrown up by the National Party over the last couple of years are actually about when they were in Government. When we see the full impact of the Families Package on those child poverty numbers, we know that that’s lifting hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty. We know that the winter energy payment has made sure not only that our low-income people have been able to keep warm but also that our older New Zealanders have as well. The dignity that is offered to New Zealanders by that should never be underestimated by a National Party who opposed all of that.

So we have a strong plan. We have a five-point economic plan that we are rolling out. We are focused on the long-term issues that have bedevilled New Zealand for so long. But as the Prime Minister says, it’s also about the way we work. This will be a Government that is marked out by the way we continue to improve Māori Crown relations and by the way that we support one another across all parts of Government to be able to improve the wellbeing and the living standards of New Zealand. I believe the agenda of this Government is something to be extremely proud of; it will change New Zealanders’ lives for the better; and it will ensure that we keep our people safe, we accelerate our recovery, and we make sure that we build the foundations for a strong and prosperous future for all New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: Andrew Bayly—a five-minute call.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, and, first of all, I’d like to acknowledge you reassuming the Chair, Mr Speaker; the Deputy, and of course, the Assistant Speakers—with our very own Jacqui Dean. I would also like to acknowledge all the new MPs—particularly the five from National—a great intake. Also, to all the returning MPs to the House, great to see you back here today. I just wanted to congratulate the Government. You have won a resounding victory and you now have a massive majority—but that means there are no excuses now. Not even with the Greens tidily tucked away over here, just on the sidelines.

The nation was gripped, waiting for the Speech from the Throne. We waited, we have waited, and the question that I’ve got to ask: what are the big new initiatives that this Government wants to do over the next three years? With all these new Ministers, with all the ambitions that they’ve got, where is the driving transformational change that they want to bring about in the next three years? When you looked at what the Prime Minister announced so proudly in 2017, she said lovely things: “This will be a Government of inclusion. This will be a Government of transformation. This will be a Government of aspiration.” But what has happened to the Government of 2020?

To me, it appears to be playing safe. We know the game. No doubt the Prime Minister’s already said to the Deputy Prime Minister: “Grant, stick in the middle, do not scare people, and let’s keep talking about COVID—because that means we don’t need to justify much. It doesn’t mean that we have to go out and do a whole lot of stuff.” Well, I say to you, let us not be shaped by COVID. Instead, let us use COVID as a platform for growth and change. This raises the wider issue: where is the vision for this term, for this new Government? We are in the grips of the largest economic crisis for some time, for so very long. We’ve seen our debt go from $60 billion to just under $100 billion, and it’s going to double again to $200 billion. We need leadership. We also need a clear vision.

The speech was full of slogans. I love this one: “Relentlessly pursuing progress.” And the other one, “We must continue to tackle these issues, at gathering scale, at gathering speed, and with gathering effect.” It’s almost Churchillian. Visionary words, but where are the actions? Where is the vision? How do we get out of this financial mess? This Government is focused on making some tax changes. In fact, we’ve got a bill coming through today which is going to seek to capture $550 million a year. It is tinkering at the edges. What is required is an economic strategy that assists our businesses to employ more people, to want to grow, and to want to take a risk. But what was in the Budget? Not much. A bit of training and a few other initiatives, but for our smaller businesses a nasty, nasty surprise—another five days’ sick leave, which they will have to pay; increase in the minimum wage, which they will have to pay. No doubt with our ex - trade unionist Minister now running the employment law, we will see further changes to that.

The question is: where is the vision? I think, with a country that’s piling on debt at $110 million a day, New Zealand has an issue, it has problems. What people don’t even realise is that we’re borrowing to pay for the interest. This is not a recipe for success. I welcome the opportunity for initiatives around trade deals, but with gathering scale, with gathering speed, and with gathering effect, we have a train wreck coming towards us in terms of a housing crisis and in terms of an economic crisis. We need a plan and vision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse, five minutes.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I’d like to add my congratulations to you and your fellow presiding officers on your election. A welcome to all new MPs arriving into the 53rd Parliament and my congratulations to the Government for the very strong mandate that they have.

I was reflecting on the comments from the Hon Carmel Sepuloni who also, on last Thursday in this debate, talked about the departing MPs and, in particular, those that weren’t planning to depart. It was a very empathetic comment—she has been there before—but I was quite connected, I think, to her comment that there was “no time for sad faces.”

She also rebuked David Seymour for his comments—criticisms, I guess, of the Prime Minister for what he called “slogans”, and she said, “Well, I don’t call kindness a slogan, actually, I think that we should be proud that as a country, as a party, that kindness is part of people’s everyday language now.” I kind of agree with that, but I’ve got a different definition of “kindness”, because she was talking about words of kindness, but for me kindness is a verb; it’s an act. We talk about acts of kindness. The opposite of an act is inaction and, sadly, we have seen too much inaction—lots of words, but too much inaction. Promises made but not delivered on. When a Government talks about child poverty but doesn’t actually take the steps to alleviate it, when it implements policies around employment and housing that actually make things worse, that’s not kindness. When it talks about housing prices as a crisis, but actually throws fuel on the fire of runaway house price inflation, that’s not kindness. And when it talks about—for nine years it bagged the previous National Government for its actions in the health sector and then spends three years overseeing dramatically reducing elective surgery, lowering immunisation rates, longer elective surgery waiting times, and cancer treatment, that is a disgrace. That is not kindness.

I accept, as the Government says—

Hon Willie Jackson: No one likes you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that it cannot do everything—oh, Mr Jackson, come up with a better retort than that. When it cannot do everything in three years, I accept that. But one would’ve expected at least a holding pattern, not the backsliding that we have seen in some key statistics. The fact that 4,100 more children are living in material hardship, the fact that there are 12,000 emergency housing special needs grants now being pushed out every month, that the State house waiting list is now over 20,000—a fourfold increase on what they inherited.

The Minister of Finance has just told us what they’ve spent three years telling, and what I would’ve thought, after three years and a significantly increased mandate, they would stop doing. They were saying: “It’s the National Party’s fault.” Well, guess what? With the mandate they’ve got, the time they’ve had, the promises they’ve made—to be kind—it’s time for this Government to step up—

Dr Shane Reti: Own it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —and either fix it or own, absolutely right, Dr Reti.

There’s another group that we need to be kind to, and it’s our future generations, because we are saddling them with an eye-watering amount of debt that needs to be repaid. I’ll be long gone—certainly from this House and probably from this Earth—before we even start to make inroads into that. Why? Because this Government does what it does best; it spends. It has a policy of spending more in the good times, because we’ve got more to spend. It has a policy of spending in the tough times because we have to pump-prime the economy. It is the world champion Government of spending. It prints money so it can spend it. But what wasn’t in the Speech from the Throne was anything like a plan for earning it. Governments don’t earn money, they take it off the people who do, and there is an absolute dearth of plans in here to encourage the innovation, the entrepreneurialism, and the sheer hard work of Kiwis to go out and earn the income that the Government then taxes, and that’s the biggest disappointment. So much talk—so much talk about kindness—but very little action.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Willow-Jean Prime—five minutes.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tuatahi, māku e mihi kau ana ki a koe mō tō tūranga hōu. Nō reira, tēnā koe. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa ngā mema Pāremata i roto i tēnei Whare. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou.

[Greetings, Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge your new role. Congratulations. Greetings to everyone. I would like to acknowledge all of the members of Parliament in this House today. Warm greetings to you all.]

Mr Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to your new role. Welcome to everybody here in the House, the members of Parliament. As this is my first time speaking as the new MP for Northland, I do want to take the opportunity to thank Northland. I am humbled by their support to be the MP for Northland, and it is an absolute honour and privilege. I also want to acknowledge all New Zealanders who voted for this Government. We are humbled to be the first majority Government under MMP in New Zealand. New Zealanders voted for stability and certainty at the election. We know it is a COVID election, and we know that this comes with huge responsibility. In the middle of a global pandemic, New Zealanders have put their trust in us to make sure that we continue to protect the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders.

I want to reflect on the speech just prior to mine, where there was a reference made to how we are going to pay for the borrowing that we are doing. If the member had listened to the Speech from the Throne, he would’ve heard that we have three overarching objectives, and in there, in accelerating our economic recovery, there is a significant spend on infrastructure investment, which is deliberately to create jobs. Those people who will remain in employment will in turn be paying taxes, which will continue to accelerate our economic recovery. So how they cannot connect those dots I don’t understand.

But if I can say, our three overarching objectives from the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister’s Address in Reply speech were to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. Thank you to the team of 5 million for the work that we have done so far. If I can just say, as we head into the Christmas period and the summer holidays, if everybody can continue to remain vigilant, continue to do the contact tracing, use the apps, continue to stay home if you are sick to protect your loved ones, because we have already done so much work. Our teams at the borders are doing a phenomenal job, constantly adapting to the new challenges being presented, and because of that we are able to now bring more people into the country to support in other areas. So continue to keep New Zealanders safe.

Secondly, to accelerate our economic recovery with a real focus on investing in important infrastructure for our future and the ability to build back better, we have a five-point economic recovery plan which focuses on jobs and people, positioning us globally but also laying the foundations for a better future. In terms of that, I want to talk about laying the foundations for a better future. Wellbeing will continue to be the priority for the Government this term, with a focus on reducing child poverty, tackling climate change, and addressing the housing crisis. In laying foundations in these areas, we will be guided by our values and by our commitment to the wellbeing of our people, looking beyond GDP as a measure of success.

I want to highlight child poverty, an issue that is very dear to the Prime Minister’s heart, also dear to mine and, I’m sure, others in this House. We have said in the Speech from the Throne that we will continue to overhaul the welfare system, that we will extend the free and healthy lunch programme to cover over 200 students, that we will improve access to free oral health care for our children and young people by adding an additional 20 mobile dental clinics, including into rural areas like Northland. We will roll out mental health support to our primary and intermediate students and continue to roll out nurses in secondary schools.

Finally, in the short time that I have left, I want to say what a huge honour and privilege it is to be the co-chair of the largest Māori caucus within the Labour Party. We will continue to strengthen Māori-Crown relationships and ensure that the Crown is a better Treaty partner. With 15 members in our caucus—six Ministers, five in Cabinet, one under-secretary, and a number of members available to be on all of the select committees—we know there is a huge expectation and obligation on us from Te Ao Māori to deliver for Te Ao Māori, and that is something that as a Māori caucus, we feel that weight of expectation and we are absolutely committed to giving it our all to ensure that we deliver outcomes for our people. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tuatahi, e tika me mihi ki tō tātou hoa, tō tātou rangatira, Rudy Taylor. Nō reira e te hoa e maumahara tō kaha ki te kōkiri i ngā kaupapa mō tā mātou kāhui Māori i ngā wā katoa. Nō reira e te hoa, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

Ka nui tēnā. Ki a koutou ngā mema hōu kua tae mai nei i tēnei rā. Ko tēnei te tino hōnore ki te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, it is only right that I acknowledge our friend, our distinguished elder, Rudy Taylor. My friend, I will always remember your endless strength and determination in supporting the Māori caucus. Rest in peace my friend, rest in peace.

I will leave that there. To all the new members who have arrived today, it is my great honour to congratulate you all. Greetings to one and all.]

I was reminded by our chief whip here that I have to be courteous today because this is the first day, so I wanted to welcome all the new members of all the parties, including the National Party—the very reduced, de-juiced, depleted, and depressed National Party. I wish them all the best for the next three years because they’re going to need a bit of luck. And Mr Seymour, who somehow brought 10 people or nine people in with him, well done. Well done to him too—shame he’s on the wrong side of the House.

The Speech from the Throne is very clear about our priorities. And our economic plan is perfect for the nation and particularly the Māori nation.

David Seymour: Tell us about it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m glad you’re listening, Mr Seymour. We prioritise health—the health of New Zealanders who responded to COVID-19. We knew that the best economic response was to protect Kiwis and now we must focus on the economic recovery. And I think the $42 billion investment in infrastructure over the next four years will see—will see the country thriving because we’re going to see and we’re going to have a boost in terms of hospitals. We’re going to have a boost in terms of transport. We’re going to have a boost in terms of our economy. Housing is obviously going to be boosted; but, particularly, in the area of jobs where we have free apprenticeships and training, we’re going to see a boost like we haven’t seen in previous years. The $42 billion will ensure the right type of future for this country and, of course, for the Māori nation who will benefit hugely off that investment.

It will add to our by Māori for Māori strategies that have been successful so far. What have those strategies been: Māori trade training—something very dear to our people, something that’s been invested in in terms of $50 million. As the Prime Minister said, we will continue going down the track. He Poutama Rangatahi—another investment from this Government. What we know is at the coalface, if you get behind some of these young people, if you give them an opportunity, you can change their lives. We’ve been able to do that through Mana in Mahi, through He Poutama Rangatahi, and we’ve been able to do that through Māori trade training. This Government will invest with iwi, will invest with Māori organisations in terms of the future of this country, and we’ll see firsthand what opportunity can do for young ones.

We’re a Government, I think, who have been brave and courageous in terms of Māori. Never before have you seen a Government, whether it’s National or Labour, invest in Māori the way that we have. We had record investment in terms of the Budget, but we also went down the oil and gas exploration side and we’re committed to stopping that. We’re going down the Matariki side in terms of a national holiday. Where before would you have had a Māori kaupapa right out at the forefront? We’re going to go down and we’re going to resolve the Ihumātao kaupapa—something that was totally stuffed up by the Opposition and, sadly, by the Māori Party. We’re committed to resolving Ihumātao. This is a brave and courageous Government.

We’re committed to investing in Whānau Ora—something again that was sidelined by the previous Government. In Māori broadcasting, also—an integral part of Māori development—you will see a whole new vehicle in terms of Māori broadcasting. And today I want to salute the Stuff people who have apologised to the Māori nation for their disgraceful and historic writing that has been very biased and very prejudiced and racist against Māori. That balance is what we want to do in Māori broadcasting too, in terms of giving Māori a voice in that area. This Government is committed to balancing things up, but well done to Stuff. It would be great if Mike Hosking and the New Zealand Herald and the other friends of David Seymour also gave an apology so that Māori can get a say in society.

But in summary, we are committed to change with this Government. Kia ora.

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

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to start by congratulating you on your reappointment as an Assistant Speaker for the coming term. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the work—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Deputy Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW: The Deputy Speaker. I beg your pardon. See? We’re off to a good start already! The firm and guiding hand that you gave us in the last term—I’m looking forward to more of that. I’d also like to congratulate the other Assistant Speakers and, of course, the Speaker himself.

I would also like to take a moment to congratulate those new members of Parliament who have joined us here in the Chamber for the coming term. No matter which party you’re from, it is a great honour to serve in this House.

I would like to say I am delighted that three of those new members, of course, are members of the Green Party. The first time that we have managed to expand the size of our caucus in the last 10 years, since 2011; the first time, actually, that we’ve won an electorate seat since 1999, so 21 years; and the first support party in the history of MMP who started at the beginning of a term of Government above the 5 percent threshold and also finished the end of that term above the 5 percent threshold—in fact, in this case, actually increased our support. So, for us, it was a hugely successful election.

Obviously, our success was slightly overshadowed by our friends and colleagues in the Labour Party, who did astonishingly well, and I would like to congratulate the Labour Party for, again, an historical win under MMP at this election and the vast numbers of new MPs who have joined us in the Labour Party. I would like to say, “Of those to whom much is given, much is expected.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: Let’s do this.

Hon JAMES SHAW: So, given that—let’s do this, even more, even faster, even further. Let’s do more of this, to coin a phrase. So congratulations to you on joining.

Now, I’d like to get into the debate, the Address in Reply and the Speech from the Throne, by picking up on some of the points that were made by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his earlier contribution, where he pulled out a bunch of Thatcherite slogans and threw them around completely devoid of meaning. I mean, one of the reasons that we were very proud of our, kind of, low deficits and our low debt-to-GDP ratio over the course of the last couple of decades in this country was because we actually failed to invest in our infrastructure. So whilst we might have been carrying a low debt-to-GDP ratio, we were carrying an astonishingly high deficit in virtually every category of public infrastructure that you can imagine—whether that is transport, where in every category of transport, whether it’s roads, whether it’s rail, whether it’s light rail, whether it’s cycleways, whether it’s walking and cycling, we have a chronic under-investment—and the results of that are being felt in our sclerotic cities at the moment. Of course, the previous National Government, as was well advertised at the time, essentially strip mined the transport budget to put in a few short but astonishingly expensive four-lane highways, leaving a huge deficit for this Government to cover.

In housing, clearly, that deficit is making itself felt again and again and again, and the chronic shortage in housing—whether it’s public housing or housing in the private market, whether that’s for people who want to own their own home or to rent—that is absolutely chronic, and that is a result of failures over many decades.

The fact that our schools and our hospitals, many of them are crumbling, are mouldering away—again, that’s public infrastructure that should have been invested in over the course of the last three decades. We have another multibillion-dollar problem in terms of the pipes under our feet that are making ourselves sick. If you remember just prior to the previous election in 2017, of course—a couple of deaths and several thousand illnesses in Havelock North due to the poor nature of the water infrastructure there. Wellington, my home town—where we literally have sewage pouring into the harbour as a result of crumbling infrastructure there over the course of the last 30 years.

We have tens of billions of dollars’ worth of backlog in every category of infrastructure. That is a result of the fiscal settings over the course of the last three decades. The National Party, who are complaining about the lack of action of the Labour-led Government, are as much responsible for their denuding of the public estate as anybody at all. And that is why—that is why—I completely reject the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s pithy, empty sloganeering in his contribution in this debate earlier, because all of those chickens have come home to roost at precisely the moment when COVID-19 hit. So we have this combination, this confluence, of events, which is the fact that our ageing infrastructure is absolutely at the end of its life or past the end of its life, and an absolute need to inject vast amounts of liquidity into the economy at this time in order to stimulate the economy, to keep people in their jobs, to keep things rolling. So it makes absolutely perfect sense right now to address that 30-year infrastructure deficit using the capital that we have to spend anyway in order to keep the economy going through this astonishing pandemic-led downturn.

Now, there was something I was looking for in the Speech from the Throne that I didn’t hear a whole lot about, and so I’m very keen to hear from the Labour Party what their intentions are in the domain of oceans. So there were some clues in the appointment of the Hon David Parker in the role of oceans and fisheries Minister as opposed to just fisheries Minister—that’s quite a good hint about the sense of direction. Another hint is in the appointment as the Associate Minister of Rino Tirikatene, in terms of, obviously, the very important interests that Māori have in the fisheries industry. But as yet, it’s unclear what the programme of action is in this domain, and I would have liked to have heard more about that in the Speech from the Throne, because we know that the system that we have had for the last 30-odd years, in the form of the quota management system (QMS) and the regulatory approach that we’ve had towards the fishing industry, has actually failed to do the job that it is intended to do, which is to make sure that we are able to sustainably operate a fishing industry that actually preserves the biodiversity and marine life in our oceans. It has actually failed to do that.

Now, it would probably have been worse in the absence of that system, when you look at what’s going on in most of the rest of the world, but the rate of decline is measurable and it is only going in one direction. So, you know, during the course of the election campaign, the Green Party did call for what a lot of other countries around the world are doing, and that is putting a third of our exclusive economic zone into marine-protected areas. We’d like to see that on this agenda. We do think that the QMS does need to be reviewed, not just because, scientifically, when you look at the ecosystem health, it hasn’t delivered what it’s intended to do, but also there is some evidence emerging that it actually hasn’t delivered value for Māori as quota holders equivalent to other quota holders as well. So we do think that that needs to be looked at. We do think that we need to move away from simply slicing and dicing fisheries into looking at a whole-of-ecosystem approach to how we manage our marine environment and marine spatial planning. I mean, this is, kind of, not leading-edge stuff. This is what some of the leading countries around the world are doing, and so we hope that the next Government tackles that. If they don’t have a plan, they’re welcome to use ours.

Finally, I do want to turn my attention to what was one of the things that was in the Speech from the Throne that I am very delighted about and has been made obvious over the course of the last week or two: that climate change is still very much at the forefront and at the heart of this new Government’s agenda. There have been some huge developments in recent months. China have come out and said that they intend to be net zero carbon dioxide by the year 2060. That is huge in terms of its impact, not just at the year 2060 but between now and then. With Japan and Korea and others all committing to net zero emissions across all gas categories by the year 2050, every member of the G7 now has a target in place to be net zero in all emissions—I’ll say that, including biogenic methane—across all of their emissions by the year 2050, which is further than this House was prepared to go last year when we unanimously passed the zero carbon Act. So the landscape is shifting hugely, and there is a risk that where we were leading a couple of years ago, we may now be falling behind. There’ll be more on this tomorrow.

Now, it is important that these targets aren’t just empty language and that they’ve got to be backed up with solid action, and that is true of us here in Aotearoa as well. So whilst, in the last term of Parliament, we are very proud of the work that we did collectively as a House, across the aisle, to ensure that we have a long-term strategy, that we have goals and targets and an institutional framework, we have to make sure that this is the term when we bend the curve on our emissions downwards. First task: transport. We’ve got to get our transport emissions under control, our agricultural emissions, our industrial heat emissions, and the technologies and the approaches are there for us to do it. And that is what I say when I say, “Let’s do this.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Dr David Clark—five minutes.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, can I start by congratulating you on your appointment. You are respected across this House and we look forward to working with you in the role.

I also want to congratulate all the new members. They have been referenced by many of the speakers today, and I particularly do want to welcome the two other new members who are resident in the same city as me: Ingrid Leary, who is the new member for Taieri—we welcome her to this House—and also Rachel Brooking, who is resident in Dunedin. It’s bringing the number of local representatives to three, and that’s exciting for our city for the period ahead. So welcome to this House. I look forward to working with you and with all new members across the House.

New Zealanders voted for stability and certainty this election, and ultimately, on this side of the House, we are humbled to be the first majority Government under MMP in New Zealand. We know—it’s been referenced today—that with this responsibility comes, too, huge responsibility with this privilege.

I want to speak a little in my contribution about our five-point plan for economic recovery that will help New Zealand bounce back faster in the COVID period. We of course have an overarching objective of keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, but then the next thing on our list is keeping our economy in good shape, accelerating the recovery, and then laying the foundations for our future.

I heard Mr Woodhouse contribute to the debate on debt. There were some comments there about spending and so on—the usual tired refrains from an Opposition that seems not to have any ideas of its own—and I would like to point out to this House that the net debt that we are projected to have as a country is likely to be at the level that many other countries would like to have started the COVID period at. Relative to those other countries in the OECD that we like to compare ourselves to, we will be keeping debt much lower through the COVID period, and that’s due to the careful stewardship of the Hon Grant Robertson as Minister of Finance.

I referenced at the outset that New Zealanders voted for stability and certainty at this election. That is what the Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, represents to many people I spoke to through the campaign. People who had only ever voted National for their whole lives told me that they were voting Labour this time, in part because of the leadership that our Minister of Finance has shown, for his careful stewardship of the economy, and for his ability to keep that debt down, despite the need for investment as well.

That careful balance that he has maintained with Jacinda Ardern’s leadership for our economy has been crucial to many in the decisions they made in the election, and, of course, the irony of Mr Woodhouse’s comments is that his own party were making spending promises through the election campaign like drunken sailors. They did not say where the money was coming from. They promised money to be thrown about all over the place, but would not commit to scaling anything back. Well, of course, the voters of New Zealand saw through that, and they elected for that stability and certainty of Jacinda Ardern’s leadership and the careful economic stewardship that Grant Robertson has brought to the economy under his tenure.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I recognise the time is evaporating fast, so I’m going to very quickly speak to our five-point economic plan. The first part of that plan is investing in our people, and so we’ve already made investments in apprenticeship schemes, that first year fees-free that supports trades training, and so on.

The second part of our plan is a focus—a relentless focus—on jobs. In my own town, Dunedin, obviously the Government’s bringing the investment in the hospital there—a $1.4 billion investment—that will make sure we have a modern healthcare facility but also it will provide jobs locally, a shovel-ready project that’s going to have 200 jobs attached to it during construction. We’ll build a trades training centre, purpose-built for the city; 200 people will be working on site, then 350 people will be working on the out-patients building; and then, eventually, a thousand people on the in-patients building that will be built in Dunedin. That project is huge for jobs locally. There are infrastructure projects across the country that this Government is investing in to make sure that there are jobs for our people.

We are preparing for the future, a sustainable future, and that means things like bringing forward the 100 percent renewable target in our electricity sector and making sure there’s no new baseload thermal generation, and making sure we listen to what the independent Climate Change Commission brings back with its independent carbon budgets. We want a sustainable economy into the future.

We’ll also be supporting small business. We’ve extended the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. I’m looking forward to making announcements around regulating merchant service fees, and we also want to focus on trade to make sure we’re positioned well for the future—high-quality trade deals. We have a plan—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. I call the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—five minutes.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my colleagues have said before me, can I begin my contribution by offering my congratulations to you, and other presiding officers as well, and also say that I look forward to working with you over the course of this term.

As my colleague who has just resumed his seat, the Hon Dr David Clark, said, New Zealanders have clearly voted at the recent election for stability and for certainty, and it is with humility that we on this side of the House stand, being the first majority Government under MMP in New Zealand. That election also has seen a turnout that has increased in 2020, and it grew the most for our youngest voters, many of whom would not have been eligible to vote back in 2017 and were in 2020. Of course, we made it much more accessible and, you know, improved their ability to be able to vote at the election. This year, 60.9 percent of estimated eligible voters aged 18 to 24 voted, up from 50.1 percent at the 2017 election. As the Minister for Youth, that makes me really happy.

Can I also say that one of the results of this election is one of the most diverse Parliaments that we’ve ever had. The diversity on this side of the House also makes me feel incredibly proud. We have an incredibly large Māori caucus, Pacific caucus, and for the first time ever, an ethnic caucus as well. Can I extend my congratulations and welcome to all our new members of Parliament across the House, but make particular acknowledgment of the fact that we do have now seven members of Parliament from Labour who identify with an ethnic minority community in New Zealand. And it is important. It’s important that our House of Representatives actually reflects the diversity of the people that we are elected to serve. While the Leader of the Opposition made a comment last month around the diversity of thought that is important, I just want to make the point that thought comes from experience and contexts and perspectives, and that’s what’s important. It’s important that all of us here, when we make decisions that impact the lives of people around Aotearoa, that we are able to understand their different contexts, perspectives, and experience. That’s why I am so proud that on this side of the House we are beginning to look like the communities that we are here to represent.

It’s also important because many have said we can’t be what we can’t see. So it’s important that people across New Zealand can actually see themselves represented at every level of leadership, including here in Parliament. That makes me happy as the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities, but we need to go further.

I pivot now to the Speech from the Throne, where there is a distinct recognition of the fact that this Government will have a focus on wellbeing and creating a fairer Aotearoa, and that we will continue to strengthen social cohesion in New Zealand, which is incredibly important. It’s about supporting the diversity that I spoke of and creating a New Zealand where all people feel safe, have equal access to opportunities, and don’t experience discrimination.

I just want to quickly clarify, because I have been asked over the last few weeks, why the change in the portfolio name from ethnic communities to a focus on diversity and inclusion? I feel very strongly and our Government feels very strongly that not only must we acknowledge the importance and the value of diversity and the diversity of skills that we see but we must work to remove the barriers that prevent all New Zealanders from feeling like they belong as New Zealanders and from being able to participate in our society, in our economy, and our politics as well. So I’m pleased that there is that change, and signalling that change in the work programme, as well.

Finally, the three overarching objectives of this Government this term are to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, to accelerate our economic recovery, and to lay the foundations for a better future. I want to just end by thanking, as the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, our charities, our communities across New Zealand—our charitable sector—that demonstrated their aroha, their resilience, and their ability to adapt and respond quickly during lockdowns and various alert levels. They are critical for the success of New Zealand, for a strong and well-functioning community to support all New Zealanders. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Louise Upston—five minutes.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations to yourself and the presiding officers, for the new Ministers who’ve taken on portfolios, including the Minister who’s just resumed her seat—and to the many New Zealanders who’ve joined us in this wonderful House of Parliament. It is a responsibility and we have a proud tradition of serving our communities.

One of the things I want to touch on, as others have mentioned, is it’s the first time in New Zealand’s history we have a majority Government under MMP. I see that brings with it not just responsibility but obligation, a clear obligation to deliver results for New Zealand. And I want to talk about a couple of those areas, because in the Speech from the Throne this year, actually it was quite similar three years ago and, you know, almost felt a bit like Groundhog Day listening to the Speech from the Throne. But what’s talked about in this year’s one is jobs and a focus on jobs. I think it’s really important when we talk about jobs that there’s been nothing said about where those jobs are, how many jobs they are, what those jobs are, and when they’ll be created. So as a majority Government with an obligation to New Zealanders, I’m expecting to see—and I will hold the Minister accountable for delivering that plan, that detail, and those results. As we know, spending money is easy, really easy, especially when it’s other people’s money. Getting results is much tougher, and now, more than ever, those jobs are needed.

We’ve seen an increase in the number of people on jobseeker benefits—65,000. Actually, half of that was pre-COVID, so we can’t have a Government that continues to blame everything on COVID. Yes, it’s been a particularly challenging time, but guess what? New Zealand was facing challenging times and the Government was failing to get results pre-COVID. So now we have a majority Labour Government, there is an obligation to deliver on jobs. There is an obligation to deliver on housing. There is an obligation to deliver on child poverty.

I’m proud to be a member of a constructive Opposition who supported the then Government in getting climate change legislation through and improving the child poverty legislation, but we must always talk about results. I was quite staggered today, asking the Associate Minister of Housing about the social housing wait list—241 days someone is waiting on the social housing register. That is eight months—eight months! And not only that, if we want to talk about results, the figure has gone up fourfold in the last three years, and the bulk of that was before COVID.

So for those who are watching this debate, listening to this debate, just remember that the statistics were going in the wrong direction pre-COVID. And so as a constructive Opposition, we will focus on the issues that matter. If you look at child poverty, for example, we talk about material hardship because those are the children who live in the worst conditions. And yes, we talk about jobs, because you are far more likely as a child to be living in material hardship if you are in a benefit-dependent home. If you want to talk about lifting incomes, you’re earning three times as much in the minimum wage job as you are on the jobseeker benefit.

So the focus in terms of lifting children out of poverty has to be, and must be, about getting one of their parents into work. That’s what this side of the House is going to focus on when we talk about results, when we talk about jobs, when we talk about child poverty, and when we talk about unacceptable levels of the number of people waiting for housing under this Government, because anyone can talk and make big pronouncements and big statements, but there is absolutely zero excuse and zero tolerance for a Government that doesn’t deliver results when that Government has a majority.

So if you look, for example, at children living in material hardship, the Prime Minister had said she would be reducing the number by 30,000, by 2021. It actually went up 11,000, going in the opposite direction. And I know, for those bright, shiny new MPs, you’ll want to know you made a difference in your community. So it’s about getting results.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Todd McClay—five minutes.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. May I start by congratulating you on your election to this role, and the Speaker himself and other presiding officers. I look forward to working with you. Can I also congratulate all members of Parliament who are here in this House today. It is a great honour, one of the greatest honours and privileges that anybody can have, to serve their constituents and their country, and I believe all of us come here for the right reasons. The challenge we have is over a period of time whether those right reasons are delivered on. I am quite concerned that it’s going to be difficult for so very many New Zealanders over this next year and these next two years, and even more concerned it’s going to be so very difficult for so many more New Zealanders than it needs to be.

Fundamentally, the Government has an absolute obligation to come up with a plan that’s going to make people’s lives better. It is a good thing that they care, but caring itself is not helping the mum who’s finding the prices at the supermarket are too much for her to meet because the costs have gone up. And the bit the Government can do something about—the costs they pile on businesses that are passed on to consumers—they are not. It’s important that they say they care about small businesses in New Zealand who are struggling under debt they took on during the lockdown of COVID through no fault of their own, but all that has been extended to them is an extension of more debt, as opposed to real policies that are going to help those businesses get out from the weight of that debt and help more of them survive than is likely to be the case.

So for the next three years, the Government will be judged on how hard it is for New Zealanders and whether, actually, they are able to do more things for them in this three years compared to the last three years, when actually the progress was not what the Kiwis deserve. But we’re seeing this week already that the first thing they’re going to do is some tax.

Hon Dr David Clark: Stop talking down our businesses.

Hon TODD McCLAY: What we won’t see is tax on pushbikes—that’s why you’re sitting back there and not up the front any more, so that’s a good thing—but largely what will happen is the top tax rate is going to go up. And the Government signalled that, but it was nothing more than signalling. Actually, what they should be doing is being careful with the spending of the $200 billion that they will borrow—not necessarily sending a signal they want to tax Kiwis more.

The second thing they won’t rule out is around that capital gains tax, or that brightline test. They said before the election they wouldn’t tax Kiwis more, but today we hear in this House that actually it’s not off the table, it’s on the table. With the top tax rate going up to 39 percent, even if they don’t touch the brightline test, Kiwis will be paying more, because it will be based on their actual tax rate, and in many cases it will be a higher rate.

And, of course, that comes directly back to the cost of living. We’ve seen the Government signal that they’ve started an inquiry for the Commerce Commission into supermarket pricing, and that in a year’s time the Commerce Commission will report back to them. But the Government actually doesn’t have to wait for a year to see why some costs in supermarkets have gone up. There are things that they can do right now to make sure those costs don’t escalate and are reduced, and those are the costs they’re putting on businesses and small businesses in New Zealand. So we’ll see this week the start of a process to double sick leave. Everybody wants an employee to be looked after if they’re sick, but the direct implication of doubling of sick leave; of a new public holiday the Government says they’ll bring in in a year’s time; of the increase of the minimum wage, if it goes too quickly; and of some of the other things they’ve signalled around workplace relations is a cost of $2.8 billion on New Zealand businesses.

Now, when a small business in New Zealand has costs imposed on it by the Government, they have to do one of two things. They have to pass those on—and where they can, that increases costs to consumers—or they have to absorb those costs, and over the last two years of extra costs imposed by the Government and the debt with COVID, so many of these small business can’t absorb any more costs. So ultimately, what they do is when somebody leaves their workforce, they’re not able to replace them. That means job growth slows at a time when we need more jobs, not fewer, and that’s a leading indicator of what’s going to happen with unemployment.

A lot of people have lost their jobs in New Zealand as a result of COVID. The Government needs a plan to help businesses grow the economy and create jobs, not piling burden of cost upon those businesses, particularly small businesses, because too many Kiwis that deserve to be in jobs won’t be, too many businesses that deserve to survive won’t, and, ultimately, what that means is the recession that we’re seeing and the harm that’s done to the economy will continue. The Government needs a plan to get off the back of small business, which gives them a chance to create the jobs that they need so Kiwis can work hard. It’s hard work that will get us through the recession, not more tax and not more costs.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. May I echo the congratulations from many speakers who have already spoken before me on your selection as the Deputy Speaker. We are honoured that you bring much mana to this role. It would be remiss of me to respond to the speech that has just happened, but I think I will just leave that for another time.

The question I want to ask, really, is how did we get here, to an MMP environment where the majority of the voters have voted in one particular party? If we ask the question again—how did that happen?—perhaps it is because of its leader, the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. When we talk about being guided by our labour values or our enduring New Zealand values, we ask the question: well, what are those values? Well, actually, it is about the values of equality, ōritetanga; sustainability, kaitiakitanga; opportunity, whakaōritetanga; solidarity, kotahitanga; and the one I love the most is freedom, rangatiratanga—the right to fully participate in a society and to exercise choice about how we live our lives. These values recognise that people can only exercise the freedom when they can fully participate with the freedom in a society that actually supports strong personal, social, and economic rights for everybody. I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister when she describes our Government as a Government that represents all of New Zealand.

Perhaps the voters voted for us because we have a five-point plan, and I want to remind the House of the objective of those plans. The objective of anything is knowing why we do what we do, and what does that look like? I just want to remind everybody, reflecting on the challenging of COVID-19 and the need to tackle New Zealand’s long-term issues, this Labour Government on this side will have three overarching objectives. Before I get into our objectives, I want to acknowledge the many, many lives throughout the world who are affected by COVID-19 and that we are in a very privileged position because of the leadership of this Government, of Jacinda Ardern and our Deputy Prime Minister, Grant Robertson.

Those three objectives are to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, to accelerate our economic recovery, and to lay the foundations for a better future. So how do we get there? Keeping New Zealand safe from COVID-19, we have got five-point action plans, and the five-point action plan is about investing in our people, putting people at the heart of our plan. I can say I have been honoured and privileged to be selected by the Labour Party to be Labour’s candidate in Papakura. When I talk about people voting for this Government, the Labour Government, I want to acknowledge every person in Papakura, because I have met people who have said to me, “It is the first time that I have given my party vote to Labour, and it’s the first time that I’ve done that because I believe New Zealand is better off in a Labour Government.” I want to remind us of why that is. They remind us that it is about investing in our people and it’s about jobs, creating jobs not just for today but for our future, preparing for our future, supporting small businesses, and, of course, positioning us globally.

I’m almost running out of time, but I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the role that I have been privileged to be voted into by our Pacific caucus. We now have 10 members of Pacific in Labour, and I want to thank New Zealand for that. Last night, we had an ‘ava ceremony, which is a Samoan traditional custom of reminding those who have been voted in of their responsibility to the people, and I want to congratulate all five, including the one first ever member of the Green Party who is Pacific. I want to acknowledge that. New Zealand, it’s come far, and as the chair for the Pacific caucus, I am privileged to contribute to the Government’s plan. This is a Government that will have every New Zealander’s wellbeing in mind. Mālō.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Marja Lubeck—five minutes.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Like those before me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your elevation to Deputy Speaker, the other presiding officers, and also all my new colleagues—in particular, the two members of Parliament north of the bridge, Vanushi Walters and Shanan Halbert, who both won their electorates, and I’m looking forward to having some more troops in that area of the country. I know there’s something about reflecting at the end of the year, and as I’m sure we all do at this time, we are thinking back on 2020 and how tough it’s been on many people.

So, as these are my first words back into the 53rd Parliament, I would like to use the opportunity to thank our essential workers who kept New Zealand going under the most stressful of circumstances. I’m talking about our cleaners, our supermarket workers, our health workers, our security guards, our rubbish collectors, our bus drivers, and many, many others. Also, of course, the businesses and the workers who had to go through the most challenging circumstances to keep themselves going in a changed world. A special thanks also to all of our flight crews, our cabin crew, and our staff in the isolation facilities. Now, they have been mentioned before, but these groups of workers make a lot of sacrifices to keep us New Zealanders, and also New Zealand, safe. They follow the protocols, they are isolated from their family and from their friends, they have more tests than the average worker out there, while they’re waiting for the results they have to distance from their family and from their friends. Yet many of those workers feel demonised by the community. So I would just like to acknowledge the sacrifices that these people are making.

At a time when other countries are still reporting thousands of COVID-related cases every day and many, many deaths, we are here able to pretty much lead normal lives. We saw it when we had the Speech from the Throne, we’re all sitting together in this room, we hug each other when our new colleagues are doing their maiden speeches. This is something that many, many other countries couldn’t even dream of. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I worry about my family on the other side of the world in the Netherlands where COVID is still claiming so many lives every day. Nine thousand people have died so far in a country that’s the size of Northland; it’s only about three times the population of New Zealand. So we should really be counting our blessings.

Now, when we look at the three objectives that my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki mentioned beforehand, this is very much in line with keeping New Zealanders free from COVID-19 as a first objective. We went hard and early with our health response, and that basically gave us a really good opportunity to kick off our economic response. That gets to the second overarching objective, which is accelerating our economic recovery. But that recovery plan is not really just about getting back to where we were before, but about building back better. It’s also about addressing some of those long-term challenges that we have had in New Zealand, and that plan is already under way. It’s based on five core points. It’s based around jobs, it’s based around people, it’s based on preparing for the future by taking on those challenges that I mentioned so that we can build back better. It’s about supporting small businesses, about supporting entrepreneurs, and it’s also about positioning ourselves globally so that this is a place that people want to invest in and trade with.

The global economic impact will be felt through New Zealand, but we are placed very well because, as our finance Minister explained previously, we started paying down debt and running surpluses from the very moment that we came into office. That’s given us a head start, and so we are able to keep accelerating our economic recovery.

That really brings me to the third objective, which is to lay the foundations for a better future. Minister Robertson mentioned this in the Budget speech, and he mentioned it in his speech just earlier on when we kicked off this part of the debate. He said the sentence—and it stayed with me because it really goes to the core of what we’re about, and it talks about a “glimmer of silver lining on the darkest of clouds”, and that is about our country having an opportunity to build back better. What our response to COVID-19 does is give us exactly that opportunity.

Now, New Zealanders voted for stability and certainty this election, and it’s absolutely humbling to be part of the first majority Government under MMP in New Zealand, which obviously is led by a Prime Minister who unites and has led our country through so many crises and tough times this year. We won’t solve all of our problems overnight, but what we have done is we’ve laid the foundations for change in our first term, and we are heading in the right direction. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Melissa Lee—five-minute call.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin this session by congratulating you, Madam Assistant Speaker Dean, on your elevation to the Chair, and to also extend the congratulations to your fellow presiding officers. I look forward to fair adjudication in this House, as we expect from good speakers like yourself. Once again, congratulations.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan on her elevation to Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities. However, I’m a little bit saddened that it is the first time in this House where the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities is outside Cabinet. I’m a little bit sad about that, but I know that she will be very able in her execution of her role, and I will support her, as a member of the ethnic community. I look forward to meeting her at many ethnic community events, which I’m sure will actually keep her very, very busy indeed.

I’d like to now go to the comments that were made by some of the members opposite, and also I’d like to congratulate all of the new members of Parliament, by the way. I heard some of the speeches last week, and I just wanted to congratulate some of the members who are present in this House.

Earlier, the Hon David Clark was talking about how there were five-point plans that this Government had, but I didn’t quite hear the five-point plans, actually. What he went on about was investing in people. He talked about our students—you know, we needed to invest in our people, and that was one of the tenets of this Government. I think what the Speech from the Throne was talking about, futureproofing of the economy, accelerating the recovery—these are words; these are not actual plans. To me, when people talk about investing in the future and our students, it is talking about education outcomes, and we can say that the fact is in the last three years, when our students graduated from high school, they did worse than the cohorts that went before them. They are worse off in their reading, writing, and maths, and this is something that we need to actually focus on. They are getting worse, and this Government has actually failed in their attempt to do better.

Earlier, the member from the Green Party—the co-leader the Hon James Shaw—was talking in his speech, and I found his speech rather ironic. He talked about the lack of infrastructure, including the mouldering schools, he said, and yet he was part of the Government—he was a Minister of the Government—that actually delivered, apparently, on those infrastructures, or lack thereof, to those schools that he was talking about that had failed. He is actually making a judgment of his own performance for not delivering for New Zealanders, and yet he’s also responsible for the $12 million of funding to the Green School, that is growing crystals. How many of those infrastructures that he thinks that we should be funding could have been funded out of that $12 million that he actually gave out?

Sinking millions on consultants is something that this Government actually does well. You know, they sank millions—actually hundreds of millions—on consultants and working groups and advisory panels. They sank millions on the slow train to the airport on Dominion Road that I’m still wondering what’s happened to. That’s the kind of advancement that this Government is talking about. The plan should really be a plan, and I have not heard details of their plan; just fancy words.

How are they going to reduce debt—the debt that we’re going to be lumping on our children, our future generations, which this Government seems to think is actually OK. Debt is fast-growing. It is one of the most significant things that we need to worry about in this country. Government doesn’t make money. Government does not earn an income—well, they do, actually, through taxes. The hard-earned taxes that people actually pay is how Governments spend, and this Government is set on spending millions and billions of the hard-earned cash of our taxpayers and completely wasting that. I hope that they will stay focused and do some work.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to talk about a grave and serious challenge facing New Zealand that was not addressed in anywhere near the substance New Zealanders have a right to expect in the Speech from the Throne, and that issue is housing. In a time of crisis, with some of the most unaffordable house prices in the world, rapidly reducing rates of homeownership, and more than 20,000 New Zealanders waiting in urgent need of a State house, with an average waiting time of more than 240 days, what did the Government have to say about its plans for housing in this term of Government? Well, I’m afraid to tell you there was an absence of fresh thinking, and it is instructive to compare the Speech from the Throne from this Parliament with that from the 2017 Parliament.

In 2017, housing was described by the Labour-led Government as a top priority. Well, I’m afraid to let you know that it’s now just a priority. In 2017, 12 specific commitments were made to address the housing crisis; in this year’s speech, just nine, and let me tell you what was absolutely missing from that Speech from the Throne: a mention of KiwiBuild. Is it any wonder, because Labour came into Government saying that KiwiBuild would be the solution to New Zealand’s housing woes and, as I stand here today, only just over 600 KiwiBuild houses have been built. That’s less than 4 percent of the 16,000 that were promised—a demonstrable and disgraceful failure. Labour said that a capital gains tax would be a solution to New Zealand’s housing woes, and that, of course, didn’t even get off the ground.

So what have we had instead of new ideas about housing? Well, this week, we have had the shameful spectacle of the Prime Minister playing the blame game. First, it’s National’s fault, then it’s foreigners—because foreigners were investing too much in the housing market, apparently—then it’s people with Chinese-sounding names, and, actually, this week we’ve learnt that the public should bear responsibility for the housing crisis because they didn’t like Labour’s tax plan. Well, this is not the attitude that the people I speak to want to see in a newly elected Government. What they want to see from a newly elected Government is fresh thinking, a sense of responsibility for constructively addressing this major challenge, and what they don’t want to see is a Government that whenever faced with the question of housing, thinks this is an excuse for another sneaky new tax. That is absolutely not what Labour were elected to do.

The scale of the challenge is immense. In the three years since Labour were first elected to Government, the median house has earned more than the median earner—that is, median house prices have gone up by $200,000, and those who own those houses have earned more from them than workers on the median wage earned. We have seen houses get more and more out of reach, so what I commit to do is to help the Government out because what they need are constructive ideas, not just recycling old plans for new taxes.

The Government should be pursuing innovative ideas to encourage a surge in new house building: strengthening the national policy statement on urban development to bring urgent rezoning in our major urban cities forward; removing the Auckland urban boundary, as promised in the Speech from the Throne in 2017, but conspicuously absent this time around; making Kāinga Ora capital available to community housing providers—because it is not just the State that can build and supply social housing; why not partner with proven providers such as the Salvation Army to get those shovel-ready plans under way right now?

Establish a housing infrastructure fund: let’s help local government finance the pipes and roads needed to get new subdivisions under way straight away, and let’s be creative and implement new finance models. We are spending literally billions on the accommodation supplement and income-related rents. Let’s repurpose them to drive new housing developments.

You want ideas? Come see National. They were absent in the Address in Reply debate.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s been a wet few days in Wellington, and I feel sorry for those who’ve had their houses flooded. I have to say, I feel like I’m drowning in crocodile tears in this place here. Those speeches, the last two speeches from the National Party talking about housing—this is a former Government that sold State houses. It ignored the crisis, and then it promised to reform the Resource Management Act and did nothing. I’ll keep swimming in these crocodile tears.

I just want to take the opportunity in the first time to speak in this new Parliament to, firstly, say thank you to a whole lot of people. We are very lucky to be here. We are lucky to have had a robust election process. We are lucky to be able to interact as a country in a way that very few other places in the world can do. I have to thank, firstly, New Zealanders for behaving through lockdown, for adhering to the rules that we asked them to adhere to. To the essential workers, and we can’t thank them enough—many who continue to work through into the managed isolation and quarantine facilities—thank you very, very much.

Can I thank the Kiwis who trusted the Labour Party to take them forward because they want certainty, they want security, and they believe that we are the best party to do that. We have said—as the Prime Minister has said in the speech—we will be here for all New Zealanders, not just for the select few that are often the beneficiaries of a National Government.

I just want to take the opportunity to thank all my colleagues, my former ministerial colleagues and their oversight, and the Prime Minister, of course, and one other person—Norm—who has been thanked, actually. Norm is Sarah Stuart-Black, who’s been head of emergency management in our country for some time. She’s moving to the Red Cross. There’s a thankyou going on in Parliament now. I want to also say thank you for her work and to her family for giving her to us and her time.

He tangata, he tangata, he tangata—Māori have taught us what is the most important thing in the world, and when we get got hit by COVID, that is indeed what we did. We firstly looked after the health of New Zealanders, and we continue to focus on that as the number one priority for this Government, because all the criticisms that we had in those times that we had to look after business and we had to make sure that people can move around and all the other things—well, you can go and look around the world and see the countries that didn’t put their people first. I’m proud to be part of a Government that did and still does put people first. We’ll continue to work to keep people safe from COVID. The world is full of it. We’re thankful that there is a vaccine or some vaccines in the wind—that’s great—but until that time, we have to keep our borders secure. We have to ensure that our health system is not overrun by infection from COVID.

We have to prepare for a better future. It’s not just good enough to think that we’d get back to where we were; we have to get ahead of the game. As a country that is now respected internationally for what we have done, we have a huge opportunity ahead of us to say that we can be, if not the best country in the world—and many of us think that—but the best country for the world, showing and leading by example. As we move into 2021, the year of APEC, we will be hosting 21 economies coming together to look at the challenging issues ahead of us, not just in the areas of COVID but in trade and protectionism, working through how we share the best knowledge to tackle climate change, to tackle the issues of poverty, and to ensure that people have security as we go forward. We are well positioned to do that off the back of what we have done. Thank you, New Zealand—thank each and every one of you—for what you are doing.

We will need to support small business. We need to ensure that it’s not just the big players who seize the opportunities from a crisis. Crisis has impacted many, many New Zealanders and we’ve stepped in with direct support and indirect support. The people who might benefit as we go forward must be those people who committed themselves to a better future. We have to ensure that New Zealand is positioned in a global world in a place of respect and with a reputation where people want to knock on our door to buy our goods because they want to be a part of us and because they want to understand how, as a bicultural nation, we can succeed through the challenges, and there have been many of those challenges. I believe that the APEC year next year—300 meetings with the world’s leaders and with other ministers around—will provide us with that opportunity to put us on the stage.

I have to say that I’m honoured to have a couple of new areas of responsibility, and the one of trade, of course, is a very important one for a small trading nation. We rely absolutely on trade. As Minister of Agriculture, we’ve always been very proud of our position and our export earnings. In spite of all the best efforts of many Governments over many years, the primary sectors continue to be the largest single part of our export and wealth creation. That’s wonderful, and what we are doing in the areas of agriculture and primary production is moving to more sustainable practices. We’ve seen rapid growth, and we’ve all benefited from that, but there have been pressures on the environment, pressures on the workforce, and pressures on local infrastructure. We need to make some improvements to ensure that those people who invest their lives and their capital and their expertise and their families in the areas of private production can see a sustainable return on that into the future.

We’ve got to sell what we produce, and so can I firstly acknowledge the former Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon David Parker, and all the great work he did. In a very short time after taking over that role, he managed to negotiate and get over the line the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive agreement that was stuck prior to his intervention and the Prime Minister’s intervention in Da Nang—thank you for that work. We’ve continued to move forward to the point where, a couple of weeks ago, we signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, an agreement with a third of the world’s population to put in place some fair trading rules that mean that those entrepreneurs who want to invest in new services or goods to export to a third of the world’s population, where over 50 percent of our existing trade goes to, know what the rules are and can have them upheld. I think we’ve made some great progress.

I want to thank the primary sectors for increasing their export revenue through challenging times. In the year to the end of October, we’ve seen a 6.5 percent increase—sorry. Sorry, I go back—that’s just for dairy, actually. Can I go back to a 1.2 percent goods increase in the October month. That is really, really important, because elsewhere around the world, we are facing some protectionism. We are seeing countries in the face of COVID say that we’ve got to protect our local people—and, indeed, we can understand that—but when it comes to issues like food security, then New Zealand plays a key role in supplementing what some countries can’t produce for themselves. I’d like to acknowledge Singapore and, again, my colleague Mr Parker for negotiating an agreement early on in COVID that gave food security for them and pharmaceutical products for us. It’s through those trading relationships that we can have more security as we move into the future.

Very briefly, I said about the agricultural sector moving into a more sustainable space. We, over the last three years, have set out a vision and planned for agriculture: Fit for a Better World. That plan is timely and it’s well positioned to ensure that every one of those people who operate and work in those primary sectors can move down the same path to coordinate and cooperate all their efforts. We’ve put $200 million extra into New Zealand Trade and Enterprise offshore, so that they can help the very people who are creating those jobs, creating that wealth and those export products, and sending it offshore. We have, I think, as a country and as a Government, done very, very well, and I think there is international recognition of all of that.

I want to round up again by coming back to the challenges that we face around child poverty, around housing, and climate change in our own country. We have a programme. We have a plan. The laissez-faire approach that the National Party takes—and ACT—will sit back and leave it to the market, as some kind of head-in-the-sand stuff that has been disproven and discredited time and time again. What we need is a good plan going forward, and this Government has a plan to tackle the issues of climate change to ensure we have a robust and a very good reputation, with integrity, offshore to make sure that our people in the country get good returns for their efforts, whatever place they play in the horticultural sectors or in any of our industries. People need a decent income to have a decent life in this country.

He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. This Government will always focus on what is most important, first and foremost. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith—a five-minute call.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker Dean, and congratulations on your high office this evening. It’s my pleasure to speak in this debate and to be back here in the Parliament.

I want to start with congratulations to the Labour Party. It was a great result for them. You have gained the support of the public in this election and you have to carry the burden of expectations that comes with that, and this country faces real challenges right now.

We’ve got through towards the end of what has been a very difficult year for many New Zealanders. They’ve put their faith in this Government, and they will be hoping to see some real progress on the big challenges that we face, particularly on the economy. It’s all very well to have a false sense of security when we’re borrowing a billion dollars a week and the printing presses are running very quickly over at the Reserve Bank. That may give a short-term sense of security, but, ultimately, we have to have a strong economy that’s really creating jobs and is genuinely internationally competitive. This Government has chosen to increase taxes, and so it will be interesting to see how that works out.

We’re also going to be relying on private sector investment to grow the economy and create jobs. What we’re seeing in so many places is additional costs being added on to those businesses, making it more difficult for them to create those jobs, and so we’ll be watching that very closely.

Then we’ll be thinking about the infrastructure that needs to be built during these difficult times. We’re just hoping that the new Minister of Transport—up in Auckland, anyway, we’re hoping that the new Minister of Transport isn’t quite so obsessed with the funny light rail scheme that his predecessor had as the number one priority for Auckland. Anybody living in Auckland is still scratching their heads as to why a slow tram down Dominion Road should be the priority for the biggest investment in infrastructure in our history.

On housing, what we’re seeing, of course, is a real challenge for, particularly, young New Zealanders as they look and see the yard being lifted higher into housing affordability. We have an unseemly episode of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance pointing their fingers at each other for responsibility. There’s no question that increasing the supply of houses is the best solution, but you can’t do that overnight. You can’t do it in a year. It takes time, so, in the meantime, our flooding the country with cash at very low interest rates is adding fuel to what is a raging fire already.

So I’ll be very interested to see how the Minister responds effectively to that issue—which they were so, so critical of the previous National Government about; yet, after three years, have not made much progress on—and we want to work constructively to make some of that progress. At the same time, the Reserve Bank is flooding all this extra cash in order to encourage investment when the Government is making it much more difficult for businesses to actually grow and to hire people.

In the meantime, I’ve been granted the wonderful privilege of working in the education sector, and coming from a household of teachers, I have a keen sense of it. My father was a maths teacher. He had three siblings. Of the four children in my father’s family, three were teachers and one was an anaesthetist, and, of course, there was always a bit of a joke as to who put you to sleep faster of those four.

But, nevertheless, I have huge respect for the teaching profession. It is a very difficult profession, trying to inspire children, young men and women, girls and boys, to love learning and to learn. I think of some of the inspirational teachers that I had. Bob Hunt at Auckland Grammar had a glass eye, and you were never quite sure where he was looking. But he was the one who turned the light on in me and, for the first time, made me passionate about learning a particular subject—Japanese, it was.

So I’m looking forward to working constructively with the sector in what is such an important area for the future of the country: making sure that our young men and women, when they leave school, are able to contribute and succeed in the modern world with basic literacy and numeracy. One of the things that I’ll be very focused on is the absolutely appalling attendance records at school at the moment. It’s an astonishing fact that only around 57 percent of school kids are actually at school on a regular basis. We need to do much, much better, and so that will be an initial focus of mine. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon Scott Simpson—for five minutes.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a pleasure it is to follow a former Auckland Grammar old boy in the shape and form of the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and I can remember actually being taught—or Paul Goldsmith’s father actually did try and teach me—maths. I’m not so sure whether he was successful—

Hon Member: It’s his fault!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —or not, but maybe it was Goldsmith Snr’s fault.

But look, Madam Assistant Speaker Dean, can I commence by congratulating you on your appointment, and your fellow presiding officers. You’ve got a big job to do in this 53rd Parliament, and here on the Opposition benches we’re looking forward to working cooperatively with you.

I want to pick up on the theme that several of my colleagues have pursued, which is to congratulate the Government on their election victory. We’ve seen in the term of my lifetime some very significant political swings and cycles over a period of time, and New Zealand voters do produce results like this from time to time. But one thing I can assure the current Government is that cycles do turn and they turn quite quickly, particularly if Governments don’t perform, and this Government now has no excuses. This Government has no excuses for the lack of delivery, the lack of performance, the lack of vision, their lack of aspiration, and the lack of hope for New Zealanders that they produced during their first three years in office.

So it was with some excitement and anticipation that we marched out of this Chamber last week to hear the Speech from the Throne, a speech that is designed to present to the nation and to the Parliament the Government’s agenda for the next three years, and what did we find? Almost nothing—almost no detail, no aspiration, no hope, no sense of transformation.

Transformation’s gone. Transformation used to be the catchcry of this Government, and now the catchcry appears to be little more than tinkering. They’ve gone from aspiration to air dancing and that’s really all they’re good for—a little bit of shadow-boxing, but nothing specific; no detail, no aspiration, and nothing to sort of hang their hats on—and, unlike the first Speech from the Throne from this Labour Government, there was no mention of the Kermadec ocean sanctuary. There was no mention of cameras on fishing boats. There was no mention of a ban on mining on the conservation estate. I guess that those are things that have simply slipped through their fingers, no more to be of concern or hope for them.

There’s no action on reducing waste to landfill. A lot of warm fuzzy words from the previous Green Minister who had delegated responsibility through her associate environment spokesperson-ship, but nothing in the Speech from the Throne about those sorts of things, and, particularly, no mention at all about the need for technological, biological, breakthrough technology in terms of predator control and the sort of science and technology that is now available to us. Nothing ambitious, nothing on the horizon at all, to solve some of those important issues.

Yes, there was some talk of Resource Management Act reform, but we’ve heard all that before. I want to again reiterate the comments of the National Party leader—the Leader of the Opposition, Judith Collins—who has said that on this side of the House, we actually do want to work with the Government on Resource Management Act reform. We want to do that because we know how important it is to get it right, not just for our natural environment, but also for our built environment. Right at the minute, we all know in this House that the current legislative framework isn’t working for either our natural environment or our built environment, and we can do so much better. But that’s a big job and the risk that this current Government has is that under the Minister for the Environment, David Parker, it’s likely to be a situation where we end up with a bundle of statutes that are worse than we have now. So watch out for that.

I want to just take a minute to finish in talking about the workplace relations scenario that confronts us. Small businesses, in particular, in New Zealand are being bashed relentlessly by this Government, who insists on inflicting more and more costs upon them. This Government seems to have a view that businesses can have an infinite capacity to absorb cost. Well, the sad news is that they don’t. So an extra week’s sick leave, an extra public holiday, fair-pay agreements—these sorts of things that are driven largely by the agenda of the trade union movement and that now appear to be on the work programme of this current Government all add cost. None of it adds to productivity, and these small businesses, rather than taking on new staff, are at risk of putting staff off because they can only adjust their costs if they have to.

So I’m looking forward to this Parliament.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon Kiritapu Allan—a five-minute call.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Madam Assistant Speaker, he tino hōnore ki te mihi ki a koe mō tō tūranga hōu mō tēnei Pāremata. Anei he mihi maioha ki a koe mō tō kaiwhakahaere o tēnei Whare. Nō reira kei a koe, e te mema o Waitaki, ānei he mihi ki a koe. Otirā, ki ngā mema hōu o te Whare nei, tino harikoa te ngākau ki te kite i a koutou kua haramai ki te whakapūawai ngā hiahia o tō koutou whānau, o tō koutou iwi, o tō koutou hapori katoa. Heoi anō, māku e tautoko te kōrero o ngā mema ki mua—nau mai, haramai, whakatau mai. Horo mai ō whakaaro, ō ringa ki te whiu atu, whai atu, tautoko atu tō tātou nei whānau. Nō reira ki a koutou. Nau mai, haramai, whakatau mai.

[Madam Assistant Speaker, it is an honour to congratulate you on your new position in this Parliament. This is my heartfelt congratulations to you for your running the House. Well done to you, the MP for Waitaki, congratulations. To the new members of this House, I am very happy to see all of you who have made it here to fulfil the wishes of your family, your tribe, and your community. I support what previous speakers have said—welcome, welcome, welcome. Bring with you your ideas and your hard work to throw forth, to pursue, and to support our families. So, to you all—welcome, welcome, welcome.]

I am so excited. I don’t know if you can start this way, but I don’t care. It’s my first speech of the 53rd Parliament, and I am so excited to be here, in this House. It is such an incredible honour to be able to take your place in this Whare.

For me, it is my first time on my feet as the member of Parliament for the mighty, mighty, mighty East Coast. I must say, I couldn’t be more delighted than to hold that title. I want to thank the constituents of that pito o te ao—that place that is my home—for putting their faith, their trust, and their confidence in me.

I look across this House, and, indeed, during question time today, and, again, the new members that have joined us—they impress me incredibly, the walks that they come from, whether they be from that side or this side of the House. But I am so excited about the lives that they have lived before coming into this place. I am so excited about the contributions that you will add to this House. I have done nothing but skite about the new talent that, in particular, has been added to this side of the House, and I must say that I still feel giddy, although it feels like the election was a long time ago now.

For us on this side of the House, we lost a couple of people that were really near and dear to us. I want to acknowledge the whānau of my good friend Rudy Taylor and, in particular, the new member here, Shanan Halbert, who will give his maiden speech today—the new member for Northcote. He was an incredible mentor to my good friend but, indeed, he was a mentor and colleague to all of us. I want to acknowledge his wife, Kaye Taylor, and all of their whānau up there in the Hokianga.

I too want to acknowledge the passing of the mother of my good friend Tane Phillips, the day of the election—actually, it was just the morning after the election. Tane Phillips is the Māori vice-president for our party. He is a constituent in my electorate from the mighty place of Kawerau, and his family are all members of my Labour electorate committee. But his mother’s passing was indeed a shock for all of us, so I want to throw my thoughts to him as well, and, again, to the passing of the father of our good mate here, Shanan: Winston Halbert, who passed the day of, I think, the election. So, my friend—who will commence his journey in this House in a couple of moments’ time—just know that he has left a huge impression on all of us, and I know that he will guide you as you commence your journey here.

Hoi anō, here we are in this 53rd Parliament, and as the Prime Minister gave her speech the other day, there was a clear mandate that has been given to this House, and that is not something that this side of the House takes lightly. The voters of Aotearoa New Zealand, they have voted for stability. They have voted for certainty. They have voted for cohesion. They have voted for a team with a plan. We went to the electorate with a very clear plan about how we would rebuild as a nation from that which has been the last year of COVID19.

Madam Speaker, you heard that there were three very clear objectives for this Government as we come into the 53rd Parliament: first, to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, and that will be an ongoing journey for all of us. Now, as I cast my mind out to my colleagues living across the world right now, they will be saying to me, “Kiritapu, you do not understand what it is that you have in Aotearoa New Zealand. You are walking the streets, you are playing sports, you are breaking bread—you are in communion with your community.” That is something we have vowed: to do our valiant best to take care of our community and keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19.

Secondly, the Prime Minister gave a very clear indication that our priority was on accelerating our economic recovery. That is something that we went to the electorate on. In the mighty East Coast, my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri and I—we stomped up and down our electorate in the mighty East Coast looking at where this Government has invested in our future generations so that we can accelerate our economic recovery. I want to turn to that in a moment because it’s something I’m very passionate about: Jobs for Nature, in my portfolio as Minister of Conservation. So I’ll come back to that in a second.

Thirdly, there was a very clear directive that we have that is about laying the foundations for our future. Now, there’s one thing that I think we got a really clear direction from, and that came through the Speech from the Throne. This Government is not about doing business as usual (BAU). We’re not here to do BAU, because it’s always easy and it’s been done and it’s been done; we have been given a clear mandate to make radical change for our communities that need it the most. With such incredible turbulence and change that COVID-19 has brought, so too, in turn, must we all pivot.

Now, I want to speak specifically about what we are doing in, particularly, the portfolio of conservation. I want to acknowledge my good friends the Green Party—Te Roopu Kākāriki o Aotearoa. I want to acknowledge my good friend the Hon Eugenie Sage, who put her hand to the till, alongside my colleague the Hon David Parker, and supported, again, by the Minister of Finance. They have invested $1.3 billion in the Jobs for Nature programme, and I see that as fulfilling two key components in, one, our economic recovery and, two, investing in our future, and I want to walk briefly through that.

We have been given an opportunity with this particular fund to create what I see as a new generation of environmental warriors that we can clad and support. I guess we all know climate change is on our doorstep. Papatūānuku is demanding something different from us right now. It is demanding that we change the way that we have lived in days gone by. We’ve committed to those things like no more extraction of fossil fuels offshore and we’re committing to climate targets, but, in turn, we have an opportunity with this fund in Jobs for Nature to create a whole generation that is passionate and that we clad with the skills, the abilities, and the technical expertise to come into a new career and new future that is based around the sustainability of our taiao, and I am incredibly excited by that.

Just last week, I had the opportunity of supporting the aspirations of Te Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai, just north of here, in and around Ōtaki. The mana whenua—and my good friend the new member of Parliament for, what’s it called?

Barbara Edmonds: Mana.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Mana. I’m sure she’ll be very proud that this is in her patch, as well. But what we are doing is we are taking that investment from that Jobs for Nature fund. We are working on the partnership alongside the stewards of the whenua, working alongside those that have expertise in the area, and we are building up and we are investing in the future generations that can come, by creating jobs—by becoming kaitiaki to those places that they call home.

I mentioned just prior that alongside my good colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri, just recently—oh look, and we’re almost at an end. I want to quickly end on Titirangi Maunga, the incredible work that has been done there stewarded by Charlotte Gibson, but investing in 17 young people to be kaitiaki of Titirangi.

This is an exciting time. Tēnā koe.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It’s a pleasure to be talking in this Parliament, again, and it doesn’t seem like so long ago we were doing that. Can I just acknowledge and welcome the new members. It’s very exciting to see so many new faces. Can I acknowledge the last speaker, the Hon Kiritapu Allan. I thought she was full of energy. A very kinetic presentation, I thought, and—

Hon Kiritapu Allan: I like that.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —that was good to see. Look it up, I think I’ve got the right word. Could be wrong—we’ll see.

Could I also acknowledge you, Madam Assistant Speaker Dean, and congratulate you on your role. I know you’ll do it with aplomb. You’re a very experienced member, and we really, as I say, wish you well in it.

I want to speak and have a conversation, really, about the context in which this Government finds itself and the next three years that we have before us in this Parliament. I think the truth is that we start this Parliament with the economy stronger than most economists thought was going to be the case at the start of the year. The $14 billion in wage subsidies probably had something to do with that—I don’t know—but there’s been a lot of money pumped in. The pundits weren’t right, and that’s a good thing. But I do wonder, when the finance Minister and the Reserve Bank Governor are literally printing $100 billion—one third of our economy’s GDP—

David Seymour: Why didn’t we think of it earlier?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Exactly—when they’re doing that, where’s it all going to end? You know, as my good friend David Seymour says, why didn’t we think of that earlier? Well, maybe it’s because, actually, Social Credit weren’t right. What we’ve seen in the past shows that it doesn’t work, and eventually—maybe not this term, maybe this term, but some time this decade—it’s going to catch up with the world.

I was reading a thing. They’re calling it modern monetary theory, and I think the reality is that if it sounds too good to be true—borrowing yet more money; billions and billions and billions—actually, it is. My great fear is that with a Government on that side of the House that says they’re about inequality and dealing with hard issues like housing and poverty—actually, with policies like that, they will be entrenching inequality in this country.

On this side of the House, we, or certainly I, believe in smaller government. I think the reality is that it’s businesses—not them over there—that make this country great. They get out every day, work hard, take risks, and respond to incentives, and bills like this one this evening put up the tax rate and bills like later this week that simply slap on more cost on small and medium sized business around this country aren’t going to work.

Ronald Reagan said a long time ago—well, it must have been a long time ago—that “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” were the scariest few words in the English language. I’m not sure if that’s true or not, but I do think, actually, a Government that’s got less red tape and less tax and that isn’t borrowing so much in the long-term interest of our country has got to be a better thing for this country, and I worry, actually, that we forget our freedoms sometimes. We’re very complacent about them economically and also politically.

I want to say, look, there’s some big issues in the world today. COVID-19—heaven forbid, don’t sort of stone me—I don’t think that’s the biggest issue in the world today, actually. I think the reality of it is that it’s a big issue, but there’s a vaccine on the way, and we’re very optimistic about that.

Dare I say it, I don’t even think that climate change is the biggest issue in the world today. Don’t get me wrong—and don’t call the Human Rights Commission, all right? I mean, I know that’s probably hate speech, or it will be by the end of this Parliament, but I think that issues like China and the US and the real potential, given a more aggressive China, for the misunderstanding in the room for that—it’s a real issue. I look at what’s happening with Australia and their wine tariffs with real concern, and, actually, I think, for countries like New Zealand, it’s a case of united we stand, divided we fall.

So predictions: I think there are three scenarios for this Labour Government. They might be bold, but I think we can discount that straight away. I don’t think there’s really any chance of that, given our Prime Minister and Grant Robertson’s temperament, and, actually, dare I say it, a bunch of New Zealanders—farmers and other middle New Zealanders—who lent them their vote will be watching them very carefully. I don’t think they’ll be bold.

There’s a chance they’ll do nothing, and, actually, if we look at this week, when we’re going to be debating climate change—it’s so urgent that they didn’t do it last week. Actually, they put it off today and we’ll do it tomorrow, and, when we get round to it, all we’ll do is have a chat, right? That’s literally what we’re going to do, because the reality is that the Government hasn’t done much on that.

I think the reality is something in the middle. They’ll roll along not doing much, but with spurts here and there, and let me tell the members opposite something: the National Party will be there to hold you to account in the interest of New Zealanders.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon David Bennett—five minutes.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker Dean, and I’d just like to acknowledge you in your success in attaining that role. It’s well-deserved, and I know you’ll be a fair and impartial Speaker and we look forward to working with you.

I remember three years ago, I took this moment in a 10-minute speech to talk about socialism, and I mentioned it about 56 times. I won’t try and mention it as many times today, but I’ve got another word—capitalism—which is a much better word, which we will mention a lot more times in this speech.

The history of the world shows that in times of a crisis like COVID, the last thing a country needs to do is revert to socialism as its answer. Look at Japan, Germany, South Korea, Vietnam—all embraced capitalism and they are the most successful countries in the world. Countries like New Zealand and Britain, which embraced socialism, have now the problem that they go through a spurt every 20 or 30 years where they have to do a major capitalist reform to pick up where they’ve lost out. Otherwise, they fall further and further down the track against other comparable countries. New Zealand is about to embrace the last period of socialism before we have to have another capitalist reform, because the socialism on that side will create the problems that will force a capitalist revolution in this country. That will happen, and there will be a new type of pro-capitalism, a new form of capitalism which will evolve in New Zealand in the next period of time. It may well come from the housing market or it may well come from those overseas pressures, but there will be a new form of capitalism coming, and it’s not far away.

It’s going to be a country that’s going to have open immigration, where we value and we bring in people that bring skills to this country, and we don’t stop people, like the Labour Party over that side has. New capitalism will welcome people. New capitalism will actually build the infrastructure for our country. We won’t have the Soviet-style roading projects under this Government, which are taking 10 years to build something that should have been built in three years. We will actually have a new capitalist environment which will build things, and a new capitalist environment that looks at Hamilton, Auckland, and Tauranga and sees that as an economic vehicle that can compete with the eastern seaboard of Australia, and Sydney and Melbourne, and we create a golden triangle between those three places.

We’ll see a new capitalism that has more technology, where we embrace technology. We welcome technology into this country, and we make this country the most technologically smart and successful country in the world, and we don’t hold back on it. A new capitalism which actually supports our farmers and works with them and our growers to make sure that they are the economic engine of this country. We realise our economic potential but we also realise our competitive advantage, and we don’t cut them off at their knees—we actually let them perform. They will meet market desires and needs, but they need to be given the chance to do that in a productive way.

A new capitalism would reduce government significantly. There is no need for big government like we have now. There is no need for this country to borrow endlessly just to support government and the wishes of the Labour Party.

In a new capitalist environment, we would actually have lower taxes. There should be lower taxes for New Zealanders going forward. We shouldn’t be increasing taxes at a time when we need to encourage people to invest, to take risks, and to be aspirational for this country so that they can provide the jobs that actually provide the future for New Zealand.

In a new capitalism, we’re going to actually support Māori business aspirations so that Māori can take advantage of not only their people but also their land and the opportunities they have in the trade. A new capitalist environment would develop modern environmental solutions that are fitting for New Zealand but take our country forward and represent the views of our people.

We’d look at new trade agreements under modern, new capitalism but, most importantly of all, the new capitalism that will arise from this terrible Labour Government will be one that actually looks forward as aspirational for New Zealanders and that actually makes sure that we back our people to take a chance and move forward. That is the future of New Zealand.

Socialism will die with this Government. After that, we will have to go through that revolution we always go through each generation that brings us back to the situation where we actually can fight and compete in a modern world.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, ngā mema hōu o te Whare nei, tēnā koutou. Ngā mema katoa—ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the new members of this House, congratulations. To all the members—greetings and salutations to you all. Thank you.]

I’m pleased to take a call in this Address in Reply debate. Can I firstly acknowledge yourself, Madam Assistant Speaker Dean, and the presiding officers. I congratulate you all and look forward to your combined wisdom and your guidance in the 53rd Parliament, so ngā mihi ki a koe. To the new MPs, in my brief opening address, can I acknowledge you all. It is indeed a privilege, as you will find out—serving in this House—so I sincerely congratulate you all for being here.

Last night, I joined the Pacific caucus in acknowledging our Pacific new MPs, and I want to say it is pleasing to be part of not only a Labour Government but a very diverse Government on this side. I want to acknowledge all our new class of 2020 for the exiting experience, the energy, and, of course, diversity and inclusion they all bring to this House. I want to also acknowledge the returning MPs, for those that have made it back into this House for the 53rd Parliament.

Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—can I acknowledge the voters of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. We had three campaign goals in this year’s election: one, to retain this seat; two, to return a Jacinda Ardern - led Government; and, of course, three, to increase our party vote from 65 percent to 67. We achieved all those gains, and I want to acknowledge the voters of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

As is customary, I want to acknowledge those dear ones we have lost over this year, and I want to particularly acknowledge Hinemanuhiri Vercoe. I want to acknowledge Temple Isaacs and, of course, our beloved colleague Shanan Halbert’s father, Winston Halbert. These three people, particularly, were staunch supporters of Labour in my electorate. They are a big loss, and I mihi out to them and their whānau.

As the Prime Minister outlaid in her debate in this House, the Labour Government has three overarching objectives. Clearly, we are still very much focused on COVID and health and on protecting our nation and our borders, and the recovery—realising we need to accelerate the recovery aspect of our plan—but also with an eye to the future.

I briefly want to touch on the importance for me, as the Minister of Customs, on how the Customs Service are contributing to those three overarching objectives. In the health space, clearly Customs continues to work at our borders. One of the first and primary agencies to keep our borders safe, I want to acknowledge Customs for their work that they have accomplished over this very trying year, alongside all our other border agencies like Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry for Primary Industries. They have done a stellar job of ensuring that only the right people come in, and I want to acknowledge Customs for their work in that space.

They’re also responsible for the Maritime Border Order, an absolutely new role, as we move from airports into our ports. I had the privilege on Friday of visiting such a port in my electorate of Gisborne, alongside my colleague the Hon Kiritapu Allan, to meet some fine folk that are monitoring our ports, and so I want to acknowledge the work on the Maritime Border Order that Customs are administering.

In terms of the economic recovery, Customs are playing a role in terms of our long-term economic impacts by boosting New Zealand’s exports and competitiveness through increased trust in the supply chain. They’re also protecting and promoting New Zealand’s trade interests abroad, and they’re also supporting duty-payers and building assurances over e-commerce while building capacity to respond to non-compliance. The work of Customs is often under the radar, but in this particular contribution in the House, I want to acknowledge their stellar work over this year but also as we recover and we move into our future opportunities, as outlaid by the Prime Minister in her Address in Reply debate speech in this House and, of course, in the Speech from the Throne.

It’s really important that our economic plan, which is made up of five parts—which resonates with myself as a Māori Minister but also as a Māori MP—is about putting our people first and about investing in our people. It is about creating jobs. As an electorate MP of a large electorate—which includes the Tai Rāwhiti, through the East Coast of the North Island—creating jobs is really going to be critical for our future survival, and I want to acknowledge that is preparing for our future, because we’re a dynamic and transformative Government on this side. We want to invest in our young people, and we’ve got the plans and the policies to do that. We also want to acknowledge the important role small business will play in that recovery, and we’ve got a suite of plans to engage and be informed by the opportunity that small business will play.

Of course, as many nations around the world close their borders or are still closing them through COVID, we here in Aotearoa New Zealand still enjoy the freedom of movement, and I want to talk about our global positioning. That is the fifth part of our economic recovery plan, and who better to do it than us here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

I’m proud to be a member, in this 53rd Parliament, of the Labour Government. We have a plan that I’ve outlined and supported that the Prime Minister has shared in this House. I’m standing in support of it because I know for the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, of Te Tai Rāwhiti, and of the entire East Coast, we’ve got a plan to ensure that we come out of this COVID solid and building on the energy and the innovation that we represent in this House and the people that we’ve come in to be a voice for, to ensure that the gains are for all. That is what this Government is promising.

Nō reira, e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: I call Naisi Chen for her maiden statement.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Tēnā koutou e aku rangatira. Ki ngā mate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ka mihi ki te mana whenua, ki a tātou e tau nei, kia ora. Tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Distinguished members, greetings. To those who have passed on, rest in peace. I acknowledge the tribes of this land and I acknowledge those of us here today. Greetings one and all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I want to congratulate you on your election. It’s people like you that make it a little bit easier for people like me, a 26-year-old who has hopes of one day also being in this House and to form a family and have children of my own—so thank you.

To tangata whenua, I acknowledge you. I have always believed that as migrants, we need to build a stronger relationship with Māori and gain a rich appreciation of tikanga in order to truly understand the land to which we want to belong. I’m also really excited that a part of your history involves the Chinese people. Since the first Chinese person, Appo Hocton, came to New Zealand in 1842, our whānaus have been interconnected. This is a story which I look forward to telling more. I commit myself to you as an ally, as someone who upholds the principles of Te Tiriti, and, hopefully, one day as your whānau too.

I acknowledge the Chinese that have come before me, both in this House but more so in this country, especially the ones that have been here for generations. They have been a community, despite adversity like the poll tax, and have thrived in all endeavours, including the goldmining age, in agriculture, in the laundromats, and in fruit and vege stalls. I acknowledge you all for your spirit and hard work, and look forward to working together to help preserve that knowledge and history.

My journey to this House started with my father, who is in the gallery here today, arriving on the beautiful shores of Aotearoa in 1996 with just $200 in his pockets. After two years of hard work and lots of challenges along the way, like having his files lost by immigration—I’m sure Kris Faafoi is running a better department now—my mother and I joined him here in 1999.

My parents practised as an osteopathist and a gynaecologist in China, but didn’t even think twice when offered the opportunity to come to New Zealand. My dad had always had a soul that longed for freedom, and Aotearoa was his perfect little country.

Being new citizens of a country brought huge challenges. My parents were never engaged in politics. Being migrants, they could not understand the complicated MMP system or keep up with the fighting, adversarial ways we talk in this House. Unlike many colleagues, politics was not discussed at our dinner table, but our community was.

Whether it was how to better help a patient they saw that day, or the details of the next event they had to organise for our local church, I knew my parents were always focused on their neighbours’ needs above their own. Often, I’d wake up in the middle of the night to find that they had been called out to mediate in a domestic dispute—now that I recollect that, it was probably a little bit illegal. They installed in me a never-ending commitment to serving those around me. Despite sometimes facing betrayal and disappointment, they have always demonstrated to me how to persevere in hard times, how to hold on to integrity and stay true to the vision from above, and I acknowledge them in this House today.

Growing up in New Zealand as a young migrant was a bit like a social experiment. I was trying to balance the stereotypical Asian piano-practising and the good math grades—for those who know me, that’s a joke—against the really Kiwi side of always disappointing my mum when I came home barefoot and with no books in my bag, and all the while often playing translator for my parents, as well, in dealings with our landlord, utility companies, and at parent-teacher interviews. They stopped going once I reached intermediate school because they realised the information they had been getting was somewhat single-sided.

I am not unique in these experiences, as they are shared by most 1.5 generation migrants. I want to be able to celebrate and cheer on each one of them in this House as they take their rightful place in our community. Whether it be on the 6 o’clock news, being made partner in large firms, or in leadership roles within our community, we have been and continue to be bridges back to our families and our communities.

I cheer them on also because it is us who will be the people who contribute more fully to New Zealand and help shape a new New Zealand. I stand here today as the only MP of Chinese ethnicity, despite 5 percent of the population identifying with this ethnicity. So I say that with regret. There are huge barriers for migrant communities in getting into politics. Our stories are often not told by ourselves. With my platform, I will fight to have our voices heard and fight against the racism that we experience.

But the Chinese community needs to look within, as well. The Chinese language media is often selective in the information that it portrays, and has demonstrated, sometimes, a slight misunderstanding in our country and our system. What gives me hope is that I’m the first 1.5 generation Chinese standing here in this House and I can see a new tide coming in.

My, perhaps, most taken out of context quote is that “I have no interest in politics.” Taken at face value, it is still rather true. In fact, my whole entire journey of leadership was quite a passive one. All my life, I had one dream, really, and that was to become a housewife. I was always shoulder-tapped to get involved and to hold leadership positions. That started with our high school committee. My good friend Max, then a complete stranger to me, offered me the role of girls school leader when, looking back, the only leadership quality I possessed at that time was just a really loud voice to silence a room full of rowdy teenagers.

The Office of Ethnic Communities then approached me for me to join the young leaders’ programme, something that has shaped my passion for public service, and then, a year later, Max came back to me and said I should be joining the New Zealand Chinese Students’ Association (NZCSA). Thank you, Max, for always opening up new opportunities for me, for installing in me a love of all things strategy, for teaching me how to think rationally and independently, and for being my biggest critic.

Being president of the New Zealand Chinese Students’ Association was something I never wanted, but it was one of those “If not me, then who?” moments I often find myself in. In NZCSA, I realised that most Chinese students never really integrated into the mainstream. They come to New Zealand from their own country, but still hang out in their own groups, seeking employment from Chinese businesses, which I soon realised reflected the wider Chinese community.

I believe that every migrant needs to integrate into New Zealand by adopting Kiwi values. Perhaps the substance of those values requires further discussion, but I would like to suggest the principles Te Tiriti, kindness, and diversity. This does not mean we forbid people from practising their own culture or religion—far from it. Rather, we must celebrate every culture, knowing that it strengthens us as country. In a society as diverse as New Zealand, we shouldn’t ever condone racism, but instead be able to let each culture adapt to New Zealand, so that it becomes a uniquely Kiwi version of that culture. The harmonisation of New Zealand values and cultural heritage—that’s what I see as the biggest challenge in our society during the years I will serve in this House.

The passivity continued in the story of how I joined the Labour Party. I still think it was borderline reckless that Raymond Huo, two weeks after hearing me speak at a function, asked whether I wanted to be a Labour Party candidate. I still remember at our meeting at his law firm that I had a CV in my bag, thinking he would be offering me a job there and then. He laughed at me when I said I wanted to become a criminal lawyer, but I don’t know whether being an MP was anything better than that. Thank you to the Labour whānau. Thank you for accepting me for who I am, for being always so generous in your support, for trusting me to represent our values here in this House. Thank you to our leaders in the party—to Claire, to Nigel, to Andrew Kirton, to Paul, and the entire New Zealand council. Thank you for trusting me then, as a 23-year-old, and thank you for trusting me now.

I was lucky enough to have the Rt Hon Helen Clark as a Prime Minister growing up. The little bit of extra help my mother got from Working for Families was put towards my piano, flute, then eventually double bass and tuba lessons. Music played a huge part in my upbringing. It gave me a platform to build my confidence, to search for the deeper meaning of beauty, and to make lifelong friends. I’m deeply passionate about the arts sector, and, borrowing what my colleague Rachel Boyack said to the youth choir who sang so beautifully at our State Opening last week, when the arts are strong, then our nation is strong. Thank you, Helen, for the leadership you showed in supporting Kiwi talent. I hope to continue your legacy in the promotion of our unique New Zealand identity through music and the arts—and thank you for always replying to my Instagram messages.

Being the second youngest in this House—although I think Chlöe and I are four months apart, and we settled on calling ourselves the “young people of Parliament”; shout-out to Chlöe, because I know what I’m about to say, you are definitely passionate about too—I would like to leave this place seeing my efforts in supporting the next generation of young politics come to fruition in young politicians from all communities. My leadership philosophy has always been to facilitate excellence, and that means I will put in the mahi to make politics more accessible by taking the time to break down jargon, to actually explain concepts, and to model the behaviour I expect of leaders. I invited all my guests today to bring their young children so that at an early age they know Parliament is their Parliament too. I hope they are as fortunate as I am in their journey.

Being a young person means that we are the bearers of the decisions made today into the future. As this House makes laws to navigate through one of the biggest economic challenges in our lifetime, I want to bring new ideas to the table. I see the recovery period as being a unique opportunity to redefine our economy—build it up to be stronger and more resilient than before. I believe that high tech but green tech will lead us into economic prosperity. I believe this time the world is looking for inspiration and we need to push bolder policies that support these industries by attracting innovative firms to our shores, encouraging Kiwis to really think outside the box, and giving them practical tools to do it. Although we are a small country, we can influence. I hope this House never forgets that power.

Over the last few weeks during the induction process, we’ve been told how difficult it is to have good personal relationships while holding public office. So today I ask forgiveness of all my friends and whānau in advance, and tell you that your friendship and aroha means a lot to me. In the gallery sits my best friend since intermediate. Our friendship began with one single question: “Can we be friends?” She’s been backstage at all of my most important events. She was the first to cry when she found out that I got a really high list placing this year; my mum didn’t even bother! Thank you to those who stood with us over the many, many tough years, to Yingrui, Tracy, Ken, my 2017 team in Liangliang Bill, Martin, my new Botany family Ben and Judy. I acknowledge you also, Chris, and also Damien here, in Botany, and the whole greater east side—and Simeon; the east side whānau. And thank you to Song, to Ed, for all of the support that you’ve given me in hooking me up with all the coolest collateral in town and picking up the balls when I’ve dropped them. I stand here because of the love they’ve given me, and I want to pass that love on to all the people I come into contact with and serve.

Thank you to all my team and the team that will be coming on alongside me of Ming and Ben and every other person in my office. I know we’ve got a big job ahead of us. I’m privileged to serve in the largest ever caucus in MMP history and I’m extremely thankful to our leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, for the words of encouragement you’ve given me in the past three years. Jacinda, you’re the best boss any young girl could ask for. You look out for us, you encourage us, and you make sure that we don’t feel overwhelmed in this place.

At the end of the day, if there is any praise for anything that I am or eventually will become, then let it be reflected in my maker. May God bless our nation and let it be a beacon of light to the world and a haven from everything that’s been going on—all of the contrast that we will bring to a global perspective. Ko koe te hanga, e hiakai ana, e hiainu ana, ki te tika e mākona hoki rātou.

[Blessed are they that hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.]

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Helen White for her maiden statement.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Tēnā koutou katoa. It is an honour to be here. While I was preparing for this speech, I was forwarded an email with helpful advice from a member of the judiciary. It reads as follows: “Remind her what a special opportunity she has. She can say what she likes—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, section 14. It is a privileged occasion—Defamation Act, section 13. The ordinary rules of debate don’t apply, and the Opposition have no right of reply. Most new MPs do not realise the possibilities for anarchy and spoil it by talking about their ideals and what brought them to Parliament, but she should not feel constrained by a lack of precedent.” It is tempting. Likely to the relief of my party whips, I will not be defaming anyone today. But it occurred to me that it was likely no accident that this call to anarchy came from a person at the top of my profession who had taken on public office at the necessary personal cost of being able to freely express the frustrations that long experience in the law gives rise to.

I recognise the valuable opportunity I have been given to take partisan action, drawing on my experience. I get to say plainly what I think and advocate to fix what I think needs fixing. It is what I saw in my 27 years of practising employment law that drew me here and will guide me. I will get to that in a minute, but first I want to acknowledge that it is the wonderful leadership of the Labour Party right now that makes me thrilled to be here.

I am delighted to join a team which is at once diverse and unified. When I stood in 2017, the Labour Party was languishing in the polls. Low polls often lead to division, so I was delighted to find the Labour Party was, despite this, ridiculously unified. I have the greatest respect for the Hon Andrew Little, the leader at the time, because he is exactly that: honourable. So I put the unified culture down to good people leading with integrity. But I now think it was also the result of their unifying purpose, which I saw simply as seeking to redevelop basic respect between people, which is the essential building block of community. When we treat each other with dignity and respect, we listen, and we truly see each other, thus we foster genuine connection. What I have witnessed in the last term of Government was the impact of applying that resolve.

I consider that the Labour team from 2017 has successfully revitalised our sense of community. While it is a pity it didn’t happen earlier, it happened at a critical time in our history. The Government prioritised our vulnerable, and this value guided the response to the pandemic—it still does. I am so thankful for it. It came after years of policies which ignored the interconnections between us and entrenched disrespect for those who were vulnerable. This approach led many of our citizens to become overwhelmed, depressed, and alienated. It shattered our sense of community. It gave rise to things like chronic homelessness. I watched the reality of the impact of the growing gap between rich and poor in my city and in my area of law.

I grew up and stood in Auckland Central. I want to talk about why I’m committed to providing affordable housing in every community, including expensive places like Auckland Central and Waiheke, why, while it is no wonder that houses in such wonderful locations have gone up, I would like to see the older residents being able to afford to stay, and for these places to once again become places where people can live well no matter what they earn. I share with many others a vision of a well-designed, compact, affordable city which allows this rebalance, and I will work to this end.

My parents came from Kawerau to Freemans Bay in 1971 when it was affordable—just. They were not from wealthy families; there was no inheritance. My father told me once about his parents camping a whole summer on a Gisborne beach with a young baby because no one would rent them a house as they had too many children. Eventually, my grandfather lied about the number of children to solve that problem. Both my parents worked. While the inner city was more affordable and undervalued than other parts of Auckland at the time, it was still a struggle for my parents to pay the mortgage. I remember the constant anxiety about whether we would be able to keep our house. As the value of homes in the area rose, the leasehold and the rates went up, and it was becoming impossible to pay the annual land lease. My parents bought the lease when the interest rates were in double digits. Everything they had went into keeping that house. This had nothing to do with astute investment—it is still the first place most struggling families put their money. But as house prices went up, I watched most of the poorer families I grew up with in Auckland Central move out. When I went to primary school, I was one of a few Pālagi kids at a Pasifika-dominated school. Many in the Pasifika community left Auckland Central during my childhood; most working class families did.

My experience is that affordable housing is a major building block of healthy relationships with each other, because it means we really know each other as neighbours and as equals. When there is an increasing gap between rich and poor, it is very possible for people on different incomes to live in a physically separated world, and they quickly lose empathy with each other. In the last decade, I frequently heard talk of “losers” by those on high incomes when talking about poorer people. This language betrays a lack of empathy, and it demonstrates how disconnection leads to dangerous contempt. During the campaign, the Opposition complained that Labour’s progressive income tax punished hard workers; this is plainly out of touch with reality. The reality is many low-income workers work the hardest of all New Zealanders, and I saw that in my practice, not to mention that many on lower incomes are doing jobs which help others rather than themselves. It is less likely anyone would think such things if their neighbours proved otherwise.

In my work in the same time, I saw that there had been a personal grievance procedure meant to protect the rights of blue-collar workers that had become prohibitively expensive for those very workers. I have seen the exploitation of our most vulnerable workers by the side-stepping of employment law through the adoption of a contracting model. I was frustrated that those who took a case seeking reinstatement had to settle it because they feared a costs award against them and had to trade their job for whatever compensation they could get, often so they could pay their lawyers. I saw wages get lower and work get less secure. Most importantly, as a result I saw good people who had done nothing wrong and their families break under the pressure.

I have been given more outlet for expressing and acting upon my frustrations than most lawyers. A highlight was taking an important case about collectivity in front of a full court, thanks to Maurice Davis and the wonderful Amalgamated Workers Union NZ, here today in the gallery. It reinforced the value of unions in a society that seemed to have forgotten them. I also recognise that I have been working in a field that has had many redeeming features, including fantastic colleagues and judges. I am aware other areas of the law have been more extremely impacted by the lack of affordable access to justice.

One of the most positive changes I experienced in employment law was the introduction of an expectation of respectful treatment in the interactions between employers and employees—what we call good faith. Good faith was introduced by the Rt Hon Margaret Wilson in the Clark Government. It was introduced after a decade of the application of an individualised contractual model. My experience was everyone, including employers, breathed a sigh of relief when good faith was introduced. Combat is exhausting. Most of us will know from our private lives that it simply does not work in any long-term relationship.

What I learnt from this was the power of good legislative change. This standard of respect may be frequently broken, but it is a standard that Parliament set and it has shaped the values and guided those who genuinely seek to be good employers and employees. I do not discount the many injustices that still harm many New Zealanders in our workplaces; I wouldn’t be here if I did. But the legislative change that successfully engendered greater respect between people in the workplace was us.

In the first COVID shutdown, workers and employers faced a frightening experience together. There was no real precedent for what to do when a business is severely curtailed by factors beyond the control of either employer or employee. I was surprised at how many employers and employees came to practical compromise over payment and hours. I think that is a testament to the good-faith relationship. However, it also proved how unrealistic a system is which relies on individual negotiation in large workplaces. Is it really practical for 7,000 workers in one workplace to attempt to negotiate individually with their employer over a dramatic pay cut, in 48 hours? Does it really work for the employer or the employee? Isn’t it time for us to recognise the value of a good longstanding relationship between such employers and a union?

Many have clung to their dislike of unions by considering they are anti-competitive. All that has been achieved is the depression of wages and a greater gap between rich and poor. I want to see competition fostered where it will reinforce growth, including income growth—for example, to see a more certain and concrete prohibition of restraints of trade in employment agreements of low-paid workers. Our law already says that restraints of trade are prima facie illegal, but herein lies the value of my practical experience in the law. Restraints are habitually included in individual agreements for workers on wages close to the minimum wage. The poorer the worker, the more unlikely they are to challenge them. The possibility of litigation is too frightening. This means low-paid workers are afraid to go and set up their own cafe or move to the competition who might offer them a pay rise. It stifles their capacity to move from, say, $20 to $25 per hour. It means their employer has no incentive to pay them more, because they do not fear losing them to a competitor.

It is time for me to thank those who have worked their socks off to get me here and who have given me wonderful support. I will never get over the generosity of those willing to actually work for no self-gain. I would like to make special mention of my parents, both of whom are here today. I am so proud of them. My mother, Carol, was the first co-principal in a secondary school in New Zealand, and during that time she welcomed the Tampa refugees into her school. They in turn had, of course, been welcomed by the Clark Government. Those people were better off for the care she showed them and other New Zealanders took of them after a traumatic experience. She set up several creches which flourish today—her first in Kawerau so I could go there. She is a brave and clever woman I much admire.

I would also like to thank my incredible children Max, Eva, and Imogen. Eva lost her job in recruitment due to COVID and immediately found work in a drive-through testing station, then as a medical receptionist. She is now back in her chosen career, but I acknowledge that she and many others like her had a really hard year. My brother Gabriel also lost his job as an English-as-a-second-language teacher. Despite this, they have both helped me enormously at every turn, and I’d like to thank them. I would like to make a special shout-out to Archie and my family in the UK, who are having a pretty challenging time in lockdown there too.

Finally, I would like to thank all those who love me despite disagreeing with me. You have brought me so much happiness and it is never boring. I have been very lucky to have you all in my corner and I couldn’t be prouder. Thank you.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call Shanan Halbert for his maiden statement.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tupu te toi, whanake te toi, he toi ora te toi, he toi i ahu mai i Hawaiki. Tō purutanga, tō tauwhanga, tō taumuri ki te mana atua. Ka puta ki te whai ao, ka puta ki te ao mārama.

Ki te pāpā, e tangi tonu ana te ngākau ki a koe kua riro nei. Ko koe tēnei i mate i te wā o te pōtitanga. Ko te tohu Māori e kī ana—nāu ngā tatau o te ao Pāremata i huaki, anei ahau tō tamaiti, e tomo atu nei. Waiho ko taku kawe i ō akoranga me taku mahi i ngā mahi hei mihi māku ki a koe. Moe mai e Pā, moe mai, moe mai, moe mai rā.

Ka huri atu, e te iwi. E ngā rangatira—te iti, te rahi, e tau nei—tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Grow the treasure, develop the treasure, it is a living treasure, the treasure that stems from Hawaiki. The call to wait, the call to summon, the call to the ancestors. Let us emerge into the world of light, the world of enlightenment.

To my elder, the heart still mourns your passing. You left us during the election. I say, in our own uniquely Māori way—you opened the doors to Parliament and I, your protégé, have walked inside. Let the things that I achieve with the learnings you have imparted to be my acknowledgement of you. Rest in peace Pā, rest in peace.

I return to those in this room. To my distinguished colleagues and distinguished guests, to the few and to the many, greetings one and all.]

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am proud to stand here as the new member of Parliament for Northcote. I’m here to be a strong local voice for my community. I want to share my future vision for Northcote, but I want to start with my personal story. It’s one of modern Aotearoa. While Auckland is my home now, I grew up in Napier. My family didn’t have much money, but what they did have was a whole lot of love. My mum was the main breadwinner. She worked at the local fish and chip shop, she picked fruit, she worked at St Joseph’s Māori Girls’ College, and for the past 20 years as a checkout operator at Napier Pak ’N Save. She worked tirelessly for her employers, despite the long hours and demands of raising a family. She is my example of why we should all support our essential workers. She’s here today. Thank you, Mum.

And my dad. He served with the New Zealand Defence Force in Malaya, and then worked in seasonal jobs, including at the freezing works in Whakatū. He learnt te reo Māori at the age of 35 and later trained as a teacher at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngāti Kahungunu ki Heretaunga. This is where I found my love of education. A devout Catholic, he brought me up to love unconditionally. He was generous. In October last year, dad was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer. We were told it was most likely caused by an exposure to asbestos back in his freezing works days. Dad was my biggest supporter, and I dedicated my 2020 campaign to him and, in return, he promised he’d fight the cancer to be with me until election day. I last spoke to dad the night before the election and I was able to tell him again, “I love you, Dad”. Mum called me the next morning with the sad news that he had passed away in the night, but he had kept that promise.

What I am reminded of in this month is that even with the honour of being elected as a member of Parliament, one is still human. I am still a son, and grief impacts us all. My dad played a positive role in my life, and supportive fathers don’t always get the recognition they deserve. Today, I also acknowledge all of the dads and parents in the room as well as those that are looking down upon us.

Dad was laid to rest in the Moawhango Valley amongst our tūpuna, amongst Ngāti Whitikaupeka, who are here today and I honour them. I honour those that have carved this space before me. I stand on their shoulders, cloaked with their struggles, and I will continue their work. Today, I especially mention one of my tūpuna Hiraka Te Rango, a gifted leader who was a part of the Kotahitanga movement to establish the first Māori Parliament in the 1890s. My iwi, Ngāti Whitikaupeka, are proud that 115 years later we are represented here too.

I’d also honour Rudy Taylor who recently passed. Rudy was the chair of our Labour Māori Council. He believed in building relationships and bringing people together, even in our most challenging of times.

My parents taught me to work hard. Mum lined me up with a paper run at the age of 10 with the Daily Telegraph, and at the age of 12 at the Continental Fish Supply in Napier. I joined the Labour Party because of the social values that my parents taught me: that everyone, not just those at the top, deserves a good education and a job afterwards; that everyone has a warm, dry place to live, and access to good healthcare when they need it. I am a beneficiary of growing up in Māori housing in the 1980s with my parents in our family home, and years later buying my own home because of the KiwiSaver fund that enabled me to establish a deposit.

With a Māori father and a Pākehā mum, being Māori is an intrinsic part of who I am. I bring those values to this House: kotahitanga, whanaungatanga, manaakitanga—unity, kinship, kindness. These are also the Labour Party values and they are values that I believe will form strong, vibrant communities in Northcote and in Aotearoa. In 2018, the Hon Kelvin Davis delivered this Labour Government’s commitment to Crown Māori relations using the concept of a bridge, te arawhiti. For the longest time, Māori had to cross over that bridge just to talk to our counterparts on the other side, just to justify their place and aspirations in modern New Zealand. But under this Government, the Crown is required to meet us on that bridge—that we make steps to come together. That’s the leadership that I bring to our community and I invite all of my constituents in Northcote to join me along that bridge, to build an even richer culture and identity and an even more inclusive Northcote.

But my election was never my journey alone; it was also testament to the relentless, positive energy of our local Labour team led by our electorate chair, Hilary Chidlow. To all of our supporters, our donors, and our volunteers, all of my aroha to you, and thank you. I want to acknowledge my partner, Anthony, who is a front-line doctor at Auckland Hospital. I thank him for his support, and I thank him for the relentless drive and faith that he has had in me.

Thank you, also, to other family that are here, and friends, and colleagues from Auckland University of Technology and Te Wānanga o Aotearoa—many of whom are here today. I also acknowledge a few of our local heroes in Northcote who lift me up and whose causes I will take forward: former Labour Northcote MP Ann Hartley, who is with us today; former MP Marilyn Waring, an icon of our rainbow community; John Marsland, honoured this year for services to community; Bella Powell, who is fighting for lifesaving drugs for herself and others living with cystic fibrosis; and Anil Nathoo, who runs a three-generational family business and is still active in supporting our grass roots community. Like these local heroes, I hope to be a strong and brave local voice, and I will never take my seat in this House for granted.

I ran for Parliament to lead our community, to lead our causes and strengthen the role that central government plays in our daily lives. Northcote is the perfect example of what New Zealand’s future looks like: diverse and multicultural, urban and green, a local economy tied to a larger market. My vision for Northcote is based on living, on learning, and on earning; a strong local community where we can live, learn, and earn without crossing the Harbour Bridge unless we choose to.

There are five things that we need to make this vision real: first, everyone living in Northcote needs better transport solutions. Each family and each day presents unique transport requirements, so what we really need are multiple options. I am committed to progressing affordable and accessible buses, ferries, and rail. For some groups, there is a need for free transport. We need a toll-free SkyPath. An additional harbour crossing is a long-term yet urgently, urgently needed project too. These are needed for Northcote residents to get to the rest of Auckland, but also for the rest of Auckland to visit our incredible hospitality, our retail, and our green spaces.

Second: healthcare, including mental health support. I know the issues and sometimes tragic stakes in this area all too well. We recently lost one of our talented young men at our local Northcote rugby club, and New Zealand still has one of the highest youth suicide rates in the world. As an electorate MP, I will champion better access to primary healthcare in our community, in our schools, and in our poorer areas—including mental health services and Whānau Ora. I will also respond to something that is very personal to me—meth addiction—that has had an impact on both my family and Northcote’s community.

Third: as Northcote’s wealth and population grow, we need to fight growing inequality. To achieve this, we need to build strong neighbourhoods, welcome people with diverse ethnicities and incomes, and maintain our proud history of social and affordable housing. I will champion for North Shore communities who need Government support and services, and I will build on my work as the chair of the Birkdale Beach Haven Community Project.

Fourth: learning on the North Shore should be attractive and accessible. I’ve spent over 15 years working in the business of education, supporting others into higher learning, and ensuring that everyone has the same educational opportunities that I did. I am passionate about extending beyond our university provision on the shore and bringing more tertiary education options to Northcote, including polytechnics, wānanga, and trades training.

Finally: earning in Northcote is essential. I am a huge supporter of our local retail and small businesses, which are a big employer locally. As we build back from COVID-19, I want our businesses to prosper, to train apprentices, create well-paying jobs across our electorate, and build our local economy. Supporting local, retail, and small businesses is going to be a central focus of my time in Parliament. The last Government made huge progress to make Northcote a better place to live, learn, and earn: rebuilding Onepoto Primary School, our only decile 1 in Northcote; a $60 million investment to improve facilities at Northcote College; SkyPath—there are too many examples to list. The last Government launched this work, and it’s now my job as the new local MP to see it through.

The class of 2020 are proud to be a part of this progressive, inclusive Labour Government, led by Jacinda Ardern, Kelvin Davis, and Grant Robertson. We will continue to take action on the big generational challenges, from inequality to climate change. We will be a Government for everyone, and I will be a local MP for every constituent. My personal leadership style is about bringing everyone together and I have always felt a sense of urgency to seek new pathways, new opportunities, and to get things done—and my time in Parliament will be no different. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

SPEAKER: I call Steph Lewis for her maiden statement.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): E rere kō mai te awa nui, mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangaroa. Ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā waka maha o tēnei motu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The ancestral river flows, from the mountains to the sea. The river and I are one.

To the leaders, the representatives, and the descendants of the many ancestral canoes among us, greetings.]

Mr Speaker, congratulations on your re-election. It’s an honour to be in the House today, making my maiden statement. I was born in Whanganui, the eldest of Bob and Kim Lewis’ five children. Dad was a prison officer at Kaitoke, and we lived in the village next door. My earliest memory is of prisoners escaping. Dad woke me in the middle of the night and took me into our lounge, where our neighbours were huddled together. I can recall the sound of the prisoners jumping the fence into our backyard and the thud of their footsteps as they ran. They didn’t get far, though, because they tried to swim a lake and needed to get fished out.

When I was a bit older, I remember asking the grown-ups around me what a prison was and being told that it’s where bad people go. “Why?”, I asked. “Because they did bad things.” “Why?”, I asked again, and was never given a satisfactory answer. But I’ve learnt that the answer is more complex than “because they did bad things.” Many in our prison system have been hurt themselves, often as children by people they trusted. We must break the cycle of children growing into adults who harm others.

Dad’s dream was to become a full-time farmer. When I was four, my parents bought a 1,200 acre hill country bare block on Omahina Road in Waverley. They dreamt of building a home for us there, but those dreams slipped away because the road to the farm was a path, a track too dangerous to use when it rained. The money they saved to build a home for us went on lawyers’ fees, trying to fix the road. I still remember the look of defeat when my parents came home from court one day. It was then that I resolved to do all I could to help people like them get a fairer go.

Growing up, the cost of living kept increasing. Mum’s contract wasn’t renewed. Dad’s salary didn’t go far to feed and clothe five children. I was bullied at school for wearing hand-me-down clothes on dreaded mufti days. Some mornings I would go to make my lunch for school and realise that there wasn’t enough bread for us all to make sandwiches; without telling anyone, I chose to go without so that my siblings would have something to eat that day. Sadly, my experience was not unique. I was a child of the 1990s who bore the brunt of the austerity of the times. While things were tough for us at times, for many others their situations were far worse.

Government decisions do make a difference. Initiatives like Working for Families, under Helen Clark’s Government, made life better. I remember in my last year of high school, we had what felt like the first proper Christmas in years, with a roast meal and presents for everyone—a welcome change from the Christmas where I cooked my family fish fingers for dinner. The reforms we made last term through our Families Package will have equally benefited people’s lives, but there is still more work to do.

One thing we need to remember in politics is the power of our words. I worked hard at school but I knew my parents couldn’t afford to send me to university; my only way to get there was with a scholarship. So I spoke to one of my teachers about taking scholarships exams. He said he wasn’t interested because they were for gifted students or kids who went to schools like Collegiate, and I was neither. His words hurt, but with my parents’ support I went to Whanganui City College, where I finished as dux. With the help of scholarships, I completed a Bachelor of Arts and law degree, becoming the first person in my family to graduate. I still believed that with a law degree I could fix the farm road and Dad could live his dreams; sadly, he passed away before I finished. I was just 21 and my youngest sister was five.

Like many professions, being a prison officer is hard. It takes a toll physically and mentally. Many of my dad’s workmates died before they were old enough to retire. Dad was 54, having served for 32 years. That’s why it’s important that we provide universal super at 65.

I finished university following the global financial crisis and moved home. It took me seven months, nearly, to find a job. I picked up casual work at the Waitōtara dairy, but I couldn’t find anything full-time or permanent. I made the difficult decision to go into Work and Income. They looked at my CV and said that they had no work for me. Deflated, I went to Community Legal Advice Whanganui (CLAW) to volunteer. Thanks to Sandra, I left CLAW with three days a week paid work as an employment advocate. Since then, I’ve been a lawyer, an investigator, a privacy adviser, and have resolved disputes between individuals and large agencies.

In 2017, I had the privilege of being Labour’s candidate for Whanganui. We ran the campaign of our lives, and came close but missed out by 1,700 votes. Last term, I was elected to Labour’s Policy Council, where I chaired the economic development policy committee. I applied the lessons I’ve learnt from talking to people in Pātea, Hāwera, Whanganui, and Stratford to develop policies to help our regions grow.

I haven’t shared my story today to seek pity. I’m not claiming to have grown up in severe poverty. There were hard times, but there were good times full of love and laughter. I have shared my story so that those listening today know that I understand what it means to have to choose between paying for food or petrol or power. It is exhausting having to fight every day to survive. My hope, though, is that in this House it doesn’t always have to be a fight, and that we can work together to put people first. I fought my way through and so can you. No matter how hard things get—and sometimes they get bloody hard—there is always a way through. It doesn’t matter how much your parents earn, it doesn’t matter what clothes you wear, and it doesn’t matter if you live in a flash house or drive a fancy car—those things don’t matter. Take risks, pursue your dreams, then it matters how you treat people and how hard you work.

I’ve come here to fight for people like the three-year-old boy at a kindy I saw in Whanganui, whose teacher told me that he’s been sleeping in a car with his mum and dad at the local cemetery. I’m here for the year 9 students I met in a math class one day, who were sitting slumped in their chairs, heads bowed or in their hands. They already looked like they believed they were failures at 13 years of age because they had heard again and again that “you don’t meet the standard; you haven’t achieved.” I’m here for the solo mum I door-knocked this campaign who had been struggling for years to make ends meet and, thanks to a Labour Government, could study to build a better future for her kids. During the campaign, I met Ruby, a 10-year-old girl interested in learning about politics. It’s our fundamental duty to support the next generation to reach their dreams. I want girls like Ruby to grow up knowing that they can do anything.

My electorate encompasses the great Whanganui awa. It spans from the Whangaehu River to Monmouth Road north of Stratford. It includes Whanganui, Stratford, Kaponga, Manaia, Eltham, Hāwera, Pātea, Waverley, Waitōtara, Fordell, the outskirts of Ōpunake, and the settlements up the river. It is a true privilege to represent Whanganui, New Zealand’s most beautiful city for two years running, and Taranaki, which was named the second-best region in the world to visit in 2017.

I’ve been asked if I’m excited to have the biggest-ever majority in the Whanganui seat, and I am, but I also feel the weight of the responsibility that comes with it. That is to advocate for everyone in my electorate, to help them achieve their potential so as, hopefully, they get a better ending to their story than my dad got to his. I know that to work here, you’ve got to be prepared to do some long hours. My grandpa, Frank Lewis, worked here as a security guard. I have some of his notes from that time. His final entry, in June 1984, after dealing with a midnight prank call, starts “Just my luck to start my retirement.”, and ends “Third floor cleared. Complete search of the area. Nothing unusual was found. I can relax again. Police departed the complex at 10 past midnight.”

I’m not here to make bold promises; I’m here to work every single day to make sure we get the basics right, so that no family falls through the cracks again. We need to keep putting our people first, and that means keeping investing in our regions, making sure that no matter where you live, you have access to quality health services, that our tamariki and our rangatahi are getting a world-class education, and that all our people have healthy, affordable homes to live in.

In our regions, we need to keep building more affordable housing to take the pressure off that’s been created by the influx of people. We need to make sure that we’re attracting and retaining health professionals in our regions, making sure that they’re connected through broadband, cellphone reception, and our roading networks. Places like Pātea on State Highway 3 should have, at the very least, cellphone reception.

This Government’s investments in the Whanganui Port, Hāwera’s civic hub, Stratford’s community pool, and the green hydrogen plant in Kapuni have made a difference. Although COVID-19 has been devastating, it’s presented us with an opportunity to build back better. I’ll work with my communities in my electorate to ensure that they thrive as we recover and rebuild from COVID.

I’d like to finish with some thankyous. Firstly, to the voters in Whanganui, South Taranaki, and Stratford, thank you for the faith that you have placed in me. I will represent everyone in our electorate, regardless of who they voted for. My door is open. I acknowledge all of the mana whenua in our electorate, and I look forward to working with you. Thank you to our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, for all that you’ve done to support the people of Aotearoa in the last three years and for showing us there is a place for kindness in politics.

I’d like to acknowledge some of the teachers from the nine different schools I went to. They helped me to grow and to find my voice. Adela Stiles, Rae Karipa, Lia Tuffield, Tara McIlroy, Sue Marr, Bronwyn Bullock, Jenny Shaw, Doug Davidson, and, although not actually a teacher, Jason Tamm.

Thank you to the Whanganui Labour electorate committee for your incredible support over the last four years—in particular, to Rhona, who suggested I stand. I acknowledge those who have contributed over the years, like Dave Vallely, Bill Walmsley, Jocelynne Labrum, and Neville Pollock, who can’t be here, and also Murray Wright and Dave Fieckert, who are no longer with us. To my campaign team, David, Katrina, Craig, Jude, Irving, Rosemary—happy birthday, by the way—Barbara, Emma, Jo, Josh, Bob, Diana, Steve, and Helen, you’ve stood by me through two gruelling campaigns. You’ve run a marathon at a sprinter’s pace, and I can never thank you enough for your support. To our volunteers who helped door-knock, make phone calls, staff our campaign shop, run street corner meetings, run events, deliver leaflets, take up and down signs, donated, or had a sign on your property, I thank each of you. You are the heart and the soul of our campaigns. We could not have achieved this result without you.

Thank you to the members and supporters who have come here today to see me. To my predecessors, Russell Marshall and Jill Pettis, I acknowledge you for the efforts and sacrifices you made for our electorate. To Hamish McDouall, thank you for mentoring me at CLAW, for your friendship and support. You started this journey by chipping away at National’s majority. I also acknowledge Chester Borrows and Harete Hipango. I wish you and your families well. Thank you to Nicole, Jane, Tiffany, Carla, Emma Kean, Sakura, Ben, Andreas, Jennifer, Kelly, JP, Dean, Yvonne, Jackie, Mike, and Nimmi for being part of my support crew. To my mum in the gallery, and my dad, thank you for your unwavering love and support, for teaching me to dream, to be humble, and for the sacrifices you made for us kids. It’s hard to believe that as of Saturday, Dad’s been gone for 11 years. I’d love to know what a National-voting farmer would make of his daughter being elected as a Labour MP!

To my brother, Robbie, and my sisters, Vicky, Catherine, and Mikaeyla, thank you for your ongoing support and love and for keeping me grounded. To my husband, Rob, you are my rock. You’ve stood by me through thick and thin and always have a hug and a smile ready at just the right moment. I love you, I adore you, and I’m proud of you. To my wonderful daughter, Scarlett, you are and always will be my number one. You give me a reason to smile every day. I love you. I’m so proud of you, and I hope that in the future, you’re proud of your mum, too, and that you look back and don’t just remember missed bedtimes but lots of love and laughter, too. Kia kaha, kia māia, kia manawanui hoki. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Be strong, be courageous, be steadfast too. Greetings to one and all, thank you.]

[Applause]

SPEAKER: The sitting is suspended until 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.04 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded:

the passing through all stages of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill

the first reading and referral to select committee of the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill

the passing through all stages of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill

and the introduction and passing through all stages of the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill.

Just taking each of those bills briefly in turn: the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill, it’s the Government’s desire to have that passed before the summer holiday period when there are a number of festivals where we want that activity to be able to take place.

The Government has made a commitment to increase the amount of sick leave that is available. We want to get that bill to a select committee prior to Christmas, hence including it in the urgency motion.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill is a very simple bill. It creates my job as Minister for COVID-19 Response—one of my other jobs as Minister for COVID-19 Response. But particularly important, it allows us to step down alert levels faster, which is important as we go into the longer summer adjournment, should we need to use that.

And then finally, the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill implements the Government’s tax policy that we campaigned on. In order for those tax rates to be in place at the time we committed to putting them in place we need to pass that bill before Christmas.

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

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;

Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

This bill is fairly simple. It changes two pieces of legislation: the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Psychoactive Substances Act. It makes those changes for, again, a quite simple purpose, and that is to allow the checking of illicit substances at festivals. The reality is, with the music festival season upon us, we know that some people who attend those festivals partake of recreational drugs and substances. They purchase those substances and sometimes they do not know exactly what they are getting when they purchase them, and there are risks associated with that. In music festivals around the world, we have seen the same thing happening: substances being sold and lives being put at risk, some people getting very seriously ill, and, in fact, some people dying. We saw it in Australia last summer, exactly that happening. This is just a reality that happens when people go to music festivals; these substances are available.

The measure that this bill represents is a safety measure. It means that those who wish to partake of those substances but who have doubts about the safety of it can get them tested and that those who are carrying out the testing are not, therefore, liable to criminal prosecution. It also means those who are organising the events or otherwise hosting them—if it’s a landowner or the event organiser—are also not liable to prosecution. They would be under the Misuse of Drugs Act, in section 12 of that Act, if this legislation is not passed.

This continues the approach that this Government has taken, which is about treating drug issues—particularly possession of some drugs—not as a criminal matter, but as a health matter. The truth is, in this day and age, in some places and in some communities, some people partake of drugs and substances that are classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the possession of which would otherwise constitute a criminal offence. Well, we can carry on criminalising people for what they’re doing or we might want to better understand why it is that they’re doing that—why it is that they’re taking those risks. The content of this bill and what it seeks to do is about accepting the fact that what people are doing in these circumstances is not actually a criminal matter; it’s a health matter.

Now, if I go to a music festival, I don’t particularly partake of a whole swag of drugs—there’s probably one, which is alcohol, which I admit to, but I don’t partake of other substances. I don’t have a particular interest in it. That’s just me and that’s my choice, but others make different choices—

Simeon Brown: To break the law.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —and they have been doing that for some years. The member opposite says, “But they’re breaking the law.” But Mr Brown, they’ve been breaking the law for many, many years over many, many substances. The whole head in the sand approach, which is “We should just catch up with them and we should come after them with a big book and put them before the court and we should prosecute them and charge them and do all those sorts of things.” Actually, we’ve been doing that. We’ve been doing that for decades, and it doesn’t work. It’s not changing. If we want to change behaviours, then we’ve got to take a different approach.

Victoria University in the next couple of weeks is going to release some research on just this issue about testing drugs at festivals. What their research shows, or the interim results that I’ve seen show, is that about two-thirds of those people who use the services change their behaviours as a result—change the way they think about the ingestion of those substances—and it is much safer for them. Having drug-testing services around with the drug-testing personnel not susceptible to prosecution means that they can actually have a conversation with those drug users, provide some education, provide some information, and provide some advice. It is time for us to consider alternative approaches because, for far too long, what we’ve been doing year after year, decade after decade, has not been working.

When we changed the Misuse of Drugs Act last year, we took the approach that it was time to abandon this criminalise everybody approach and actually take a health approach, and that’s what we’re doing here. What is very clear in the debate that we have only recently had on drugs and on illicit drugs is people want to know that those who use it are safe. That’s what New Zealanders want.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: New Zealanders said no.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: New Zealanders said no to legalising cannabis. That’s all they said—that’s what that referendum result said. But what New Zealanders actually want to know is that young people are kept safe. Talk to any parent of a teenager who goes to music festivals or goes to music events. Talk to any parent of a young person who goes to those activities and ask them what they want. They want to know that their child, their young adult, is safe. And that’s what this does. The testing makes sure that those who choose to use substances that they’re not sure about and are otherwise illicit can have them tested to make sure that they’re safe. That’s what this allows.

There are outfits in the community who do this testing. KnowYourStuffNZ is one of them, the New Zealand Drug Foundation is another, and they are able to do the testing and now they will be able to do it knowing that those providing this service, which is about safety, can do so without risk of prosecution. And that is a good thing. So, on that basis, with this bill doing those very simple things and providing safety for New Zealand, young New Zealanders over the forthcoming summer festival season will be safe.

I might just foreshadow, too, that this is an interim step. It is my intention for us to develop a permanent response to this situation. This bill is self-repealing in 12 months, but by that time we will have a permanent response to this very situation after having had a good quality consultation, engagement with the community, about what is needed to make sure that those who would use substances that are illicit but that might cause harm can have ways of having them tested so that their safety can be preserved. That is the next step, but for tonight this bill is an interim step to provide safety for young people going to music festivals or otherwise using illicit substances in places to do so knowing that those services that do that testing can do so themselves without liability to prosecution, and that will be a good measure for the safety of young New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. National opposes this bill, which legalises the testing of illicit drugs—mainly ecstasy or E or, as it’s chemically known, MDMA. I want to make two initial points. I accept—and I heard the groan from the other side—that National’s against the zeitgeist of most of our press and this Parliament. We’re on the unfashionable side of the debate—which is something, given that Andrew Little is on the other side. I also acknowledge that those for this always say we have to be evidence led and focused on harm reduction. They go on to say that in opposing this, National is ideological and not evidence led. Well, my view is that on the evidence, the opposite is true. Indeed, that’s the main reason for my personal opposition to this bill.

I acknowledge there will be conflicting evidence from different countries and even within them, but there is clear evidence that use and harm will increase through pill testing. At the very least, I say it’s clear that harm won’t reduce and there won’t be more people saved—that is, doing less harm. And that’s even before we get to the message this bill sends to our young. Use will go up. Personally, I would have thought that’s obvious, given that the bill allows you to get an all clear—and the Minister said it himself: tell the parents that it’s safe—on your pills. But it’s also backed by clear evidence.

While the statistics are poor and equivocal in parts of Europe, in the United Kingdom, actually, the statistics are very good and pretty clear, in my view. The Loop is an organisation which pill tests in the UK and began expanding its work in 2013 with Government approval. Over that time, ecstasy use has gone from 1.2 percent of the population of England and Wales in 2013 to 1.7 percent by 2017 and 2018. That’s a significant increase and the best evidence I’m aware of that since testing, use can go up; it doesn’t go down.

What’s more: when the use goes up, the harm goes up. You might think that at least as testing went up and up in the UK, harm would decrease. In fact, deaths increased in the same period from 43 to 92. That isn’t harm reduction; it’s quite the opposite, Andrew Little. Why is that? Because it turns out pill testing legalised by Government gives confidence—false confidence. Tests don’t make ecstasy safe, even if they give an all-clear for impurities or contaminants that the tests detect.

In addition, those same impurities are not what causes the harm or, in the worst cases, death. The impurities aren’t the really harmful bit. Actually, Andrew Little, the ecstasy is. In a recent study of 392 ecstasy deaths in Australia between 2001 and 2016, no deaths were from impurities or contaminants in pills. No deaths were from other drugs that went alongside the ecstasy pills. The deaths in Australia were all from the ecstasy itself or the ecstasy plus other drugs consumed at the party alongside the ecstasy—alcohol, cocaine, or others, of course—creating a toxic synergy.

In other words, this study indicates that the pill testing had zero protective effect. Those hundreds of people died from the ecstasy.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s not legal in Australia, Simon.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I believe use and harm will go up.

The member opposite, over there, says that it was not legal. That doesn’t change the fact that it wasn’t the contaminants; it was the ecstasy, scientifically. This bill proposes a pill test that doesn’t go to what’s killing young people in Australia, in the United Kingdom, around the world, and in New Zealand.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What did the chief coroner of New South Wales say?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: But even if members point—and I ask the member who’s barracking to do so—to other studies, and this becomes a battle of surveys and studies and reports, it’s heroic to say use and harm will go down if more people take more ecstasy. Good luck with that!

I want to make two other significant points. Why are we rushing this bill when serious drug harm reduction initiatives haven’t been done? In the last term, the Government did, in my view—and I ask the members opposite to challenge me on this—incredibly little towards serious drug harm reduction.

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s because you stood in the way.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Where was the drug-driving testing? We were in support of that. Nick Smith and I begged the Prime Minister, in this House and other places, to get on with it—actually, from the very start of the Parliament. It’s now drugs on our roads that are the single biggest killer, more so than alcohol by a long way. The technology is up to date, and we can test for MDMA. Well, that hasn’t passed. I haven’t seen anything in months and months and months.

Next to nothing has been done by the Government regarding the number of beds, counsellor services, rehabilitation, and treatment that is required for drug abuse in this country. I know in Tauranga, in my electorate, which I’m privileged to represent, what a huge problem—what a crisis—it is. I say to the other side, actually, it’s a plague on both our houses. We didn’t do enough, but that side didn’t in the last term either.

Even if you disagree with me on the evidence regarding the use and harm of ecstasy, rushing this bill is wrong. It puts the cart before the horse—the harms before the treatments, if you like. Surely we shouldn’t be doing this if we haven’t geared up our health and social and police services to deal with the impacts.

The second thing I want to say is that this bill is part of a wider agenda by the Government to decriminalise illicit drugs. It’s soft thinking by a Government that’s soft on drugs. A majority of New Zealanders—as my friends on this side of the House said to Andrew Little, you didn’t seem to want to acknowledge this point—voted against the legalisation of cannabis very recently. I know Chlöe Swarbrick, for example, wants to disregard the will of the people. Well, we can’t on the election—we’re not Donald Trump—and I ask that she doesn’t, actually, on that very important referendum where a majority said they didn’t want to see the legalisation of cannabis.

My view, Chlöe Swarbrick, is that they feel even more strongly about harder illicit drugs—certainly methamphetamine, but also, when they think about it, ecstasy, which is a class A drug, at the top of our criminal calendar, because it is viewed, rightly, by the scientists, by this Parliament, and by the courts as a much more serious drug than cannabis. In short, most Kiwis, when they think it all through, don’t want to go soft on drugs. But that’s the agenda.

Last term, we saw the law change, upping the discretion, in my view—and I know the other side disagrees with this—mandating police around New Zealand to stop prosecuting for any illicit drug—cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine. That’s what that law, through the misuse of drugs amendment, did. For a few points of meth now outside a school, you will no longer be charged. If you say I’m wrong, on the other side, you find me one case—just one case—since that law passed.

Last week, in the suburb both Jan Tinetti and I lived in, the community has complained to both of us about meth dealing in cars outside homes by schoolkids. The police view is actually the identical view to one of their senior Ministers, Andrew Little. Their view was: we can’t arrest our way out of this—that is, we’re not going to do anything. So if you can’t beat it, join it, effectively. Well, I don’t think that’s the view of the majority of New Zealanders when they think about these issues. I don’t think it should be the view of the majority of this Parliament either.

This sort of law change at haste will be regretted by New Zealand at its leisure over the long term. I note, as its first law, this is the message the Government’s sending. It’s giving a false confidence, a message that it’s OK, on illicit, hard drugs. Like I say, it’s the wrong message to our young. Drug use will go up. More harm will, tragically, be done along the way to young New Zealanders. I’ll be opposing this bill every step of the way.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every year in New Zealand young people are turning up in emergency departments, because the drug they thought they were taking wasn’t what they were taking at all. So what this bill does is it keeps our young people safe over this festival season, because it allows drug-checking services to operate with legal certainty. Because the problem we’ve got at the moment is that drug-checking services and the events that are hosting them are at risk of prosecution under the current law, and yet we’ve still got services like KnowYourStuffNZ providing those drug-checking services because of the harm reduction potential. They’ve got the capacity to save people’s lives.

If you look at the Drug Foundation website, what they said is that in 2017-2018, over that festival season, 20 percent of samples that people had tested weren’t what they thought they had, and a further 11 percent of samples were adulterated with other psychoactive additives. So what they found was that if people ended up with substances that actually weren’t what they thought they were, 52 percent said that they weren’t going to take them and another 11 percent said they were thinking about it. I think when you present people with additional information, they will make the safer choice, and that can have a huge impact on young people’s lives.

What this bill does is it does two main things. The first thing it does is it enables the Director-General of Health to appoint a drug-checking service by notice in the Gazette. What that means is that that service has the certainty that it can receive controlled drugs and other substances, it can test them, it can pass them on to other laboratories for further testing or to the police, and it won’t be prosecuted under the law.

Secondly, what this does is it amends section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act so it’s not an offence for festival organisers to host a drug-checking service. This is important because under the current legislation it’s actually an offence to allow your premises to be used for the commissioning of an offence under the Act. And what this means is that if you’re saying, “We can have a drug-checking service,” it means that that organiser is knowingly saying, “We will have people that are using an illegal substance at our event,” and that puts them at risk of prosecution. So the problem with that is then it means that they don’t allow a drug-checking service on site, or if they do they don’t make sure that young people are aware of its availability. What this bill will do will make it much, much safer for those young people who have decided that they are going to go ahead and use a substance.

But this bill doesn’t do some things. What it doesn’t do is change the status of any drugs or other substances. So it’s still a crime for unauthorised people to possess drugs or to sell them to others. The other thing, though, is that by the same token we don’t actually want to make it easier to increase prosecutions. So what this bill also does is it says that you can’t use the results of this drug testing as evidence against a person who provided the drug, and nor can you take a lot of personal information from those that are having their substances checked and retain that. So basically what it does is there’s many things it doesn’t change with respect to status quo.

This bill is only a temporary measure, and basically it will automatically expire 12 months after coming into force. But in the meantime the Minister of Health early next year is going to return to Cabinet with a proposal for a more detailed drug-testing proposal, and that proposal will then go through the normal levels of parliamentary scrutiny.

This is an important bill and it puts in place some urgent measures that are going to protect our young people over the upcoming festival season, and it’s going to give those providing drug-testing services and the festival organisers who host them that legal certainty they won’t be prosecuted under the current law. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support my colleagues and to talk against this bill which I, and we, will not be supporting. We’re not in support of this bill and the underlying Government philosophy of “because it is, it should be.” For that, and for many other reasons—which I’ll outline here—we’ll talk against this bill. There’s five main issues that have with this bill.

The first is, I’m unconvinced with the ability to identify all the harmful products that are relevant to this discussion. I’m unconvinced with the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the drugs that we’re interested in, unconvinced—as my colleague, the Hon Simon Bridges has said—with the evidence. Certainly, it would seem to cut both ways, but not a clear benefit to this sort of process—and I’d say that it’s especially for those who are regular users. Arbitrarily, those who are first-time users—conjecturally—may well have some benefit. Again, conjecturally. But, certainly for those who are regular users, no clear benefit that they change behaviour once they’ve been through a pill testing process and been notified of what the contents are.

The fourth issue I have is the lack of a select committee process. Surely, where the evidence is unclear would warrant—even more so—a thorough select committee process, not a legislative process that forces through poor legislation in short notice and under urgency. Now, the Government has talked very proudly—and Mr Little said again today—about their health approach to drugs. I think it’s worth some scrutiny exactly how the success of their health approach to drugs has been to date, because what they’ve done in their past history probably reflects how well they will do in the future. I want to talk to an Official Information Act (OIA) request I got back last week, which looks at the much touted Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2) last year, which—as we all recall—said: if you’re caught in use or possession, instead of getting a conviction—one, if it’s thought to be beneficial, for a health approach, or two, if it was in the public interest—you would go down a health approach pathway. Well and good.

This legislation was passed on 7 August and it came into effect on 13 August. So how successful has that been? How successful has the Government been in implementing, so far, a health approach to drugs? Well, what is the health approach to drugs? In my mind, I’m thinking of something like the Portugal example for decriminalisation, if you like, where maybe you’re referred to a counsellor, maybe you’re referred to a medical practitioner, maybe there’s a legal person there as well. What has been the Government’s health approach to the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)? I’ll tell you what that is: the police send an automated text message. That’s it. That’s the health approach. That’s the health approach, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2): New Zealand Police send an automated text message encouraging people to contact the alcohol and drug help service line. That’s it. That’s the health approach from this Government. What a poor approach.

Furthermore, how many people has it applied to? Well, there’s been 565 referrals since the legislation was enabled for a health approach—565. How many of those people took up the health approach? Forty-nine. Five hundred and sixty—did they have a cell phone? Did they even receive the health approach automated text message? Who knows? Who knows, because there’s no data. We’ve asked, and we’ve got no replies to that. I’m referring to OIA H02007573, we received this last week. That, in no shape or form, is any form of health approach. Why would we have faith in this legislation further recommending a health approach when—no more than in this past year—we’ve seen this very poor implementation.

We raised this in select committee when we said, “Well, exactly what discretion will police have, and what is the compulsion, if you like, to participate?” Certainly, in the Portugal example of decriminalisation, there’s a sense of compulsion. You have to appear in front of the panel and receive the advice and rehabilitative actions. Not here—just to go over it again—the health approach for this Government, for the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2), is a text message. That falls well short of a health approach and doesn’t even cut it. As we could see, less than 10 percent have actually taken up that approach. And as I’ve mentioned, I’m really interested in who received the text message, do they even have a phone? There’s a whole lot of further information which I’ve asked for, which they decided not to put in the OIA.

But I would say, on this basis alone, their ability to implement this legislation is unlikely. I don’t believe it is sound. I don’t believe the evidence is there. I just think this is harmful, with a flawed philosophy from the very beginning, and I think this will do more damage than it will do good. So you’ll find this side of the House pushing back against this on many levels—I’ve identified five of them here—and we will fight this legislation.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise for the first time in this House for the 53rd Parliament. I want to acknowledge you, sir, for the rulings that you have spoken on over the last 52nd Parliament, and, also, I want to acknowledge that I look forward to the work that we will do together in this House.

So we’ve heard from the Opposition about the drug-use tests and how it will make things worse, etc. Well, I’m going to talk a little bit about the fact that I am a parent of young people, and let me say to you, Mr Bridges, it is the most horrifying thing to discover that the beliefs and values that you yourself may have about whether children will be taking drugs or not is actually not what is happening with your children. As a consequence, I want to know that if my children are using illicit substances—and I hope that they are not—I want them to know that it is safe to do so.

So what will happen with this bill is that we will have testing and that testing will occur to enable people to know, and what we do know from the study that was carried out in Victoria University is that when young people discover what is in those substances, they may make another choice, and that is a good thing. That is what we hope.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: When you buy ecstasy, that’s what you get.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Not necessarily. The member tells us, “If you buy ecstasy, that’s what you get.” I have no experience of that, so I appreciate your experience there. However, the important thing here is that we must ensure the safety of the people that are trying these drugs, and this bill does, so I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare—a pleasure to rise to speak in this House for the first time since the Parliament has been formed again subsequent to the election. I am incredibly stoked, as well, that this is the first piece of legislation that I get to speak on, because it is something that I have spent a few years getting down into the detail of. It is also something which I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, I could tell based on your disapproving looks earlier, kind of makes my blood boil, particularly because of the misinformation, the seeds of doubt, and the real false equivalence that the National Party Opposition right now are attempting to provide, and the way that they are trying to say that there is equal evidence on both sides of this argument. That is simply a falsity. I implore any of those National Party MPs to go and look at this research—to genuinely look at this research—and to tell me that there are countries that have been made less safe by the imposition of legal drug-testing services.

What this all actually kind of reminds me of—I remember being quite young—

Hon Simon Bridges: She still is.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and watching a film which was quite popular in its day—thank you, Simon Bridges. In that film—it was a 2004 movie—there’s this coach. His name was Coach Carr.

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s it called?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: It’s called Mean Girls, Simon Bridges. In that film this coach goes on to say, and I quote, “Don’t have sex, because you will get pregnant and you will die.” That is, effectively, the same kind of abstinence-based, insane approach that is being advocated for by the National Party, and Simon Bridges stands up and goes, “Why is everybody looking at us like we’re dinosaurs?” Well, it might be because they are light years behind where the research and public opinion is on this issue, because if Mr Simon Bridges wants to talk about that, he can refer to the recent opinion polling which shows that approximately 80 percent of New Zealanders are behind this. The reason for that is because New Zealanders—parents—want their kids to make the right decisions. We all want our kids, we all want our younger siblings, to make the right decisions. But when you pack them up and you send them off to their first summer festival, you want to be sure that if they do engage in risky behaviour—if they do make a mistake—they are as safe as possible.

Of course, this amendment to section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act is not going to be a silver bullet to solving all of the drug issues in this country, because you’re going to have to repeal and replace the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to do that. I would note here, speaking across the aisle to my colleagues in the Labour Party, that two Labour Ministers in the last term of Government received reports—both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health, with the Minister of Health receiving He Ara Oranga—saying that we need to decriminalise substances. Turuki! Turuki!, the Safe and Effective Justice Programme Advisory Group review, went even further, recommending legalisation of all substances to regulate those substances. I note that there’s an ACT Party member who’s booing behind me—so much for consistency of libertarian ideology.

Anyway, the way that section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act works right now—to make it really clear to the National Party, who I’m not sure have actually read this bill, section 12 in the Misuse of Drugs Act makes it illegal to knowingly provide a place for people to consume substances. Arguably, tonnes and tonnes, unknowable amounts—the majority of bar owners, of club owners, and of festival organisers in this country—are currently in violation of this law. I have spoken behind the scenes to many of those organisers, who have been terrified at the prospect of enabling NGOs like KnowYourStuffNZ on to their premises, into their festivals, because they would therefore be accepting the premise that they are knowingly having people consuming substances at their festivals, at their venues, at the places and spaces that they organise. But those same festival organisers, those same club owners, say to me—and I’m sure if the National Party sought to speak to them would say—that they are utterly terrified of having a young person die in a place and a space that they organised. Because this isn’t tiddlywinks. This is reality. New South Wales experienced over a dozen young people dying in the past year. The New South Wales chief coroner recommended drug-checking services as a way to ensure that these kinds of needless deaths do not happen in the future. But still the National Party would prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

I also just really want to leave a wero, a challenge, on the table for the next speaker from the National Party, because right now what they seem to be doing is drumming up, as much as possible, false equivalence between, “Well, I’ve got research, you’ve got research, so, you know, it’s all kind of—we’ve all got research”. It’s not quite the same thing. On top of that—

Hon Simon Bridges: You haven’t given us any research. She hasn’t given us any research.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If you’d like some research, there’s domestic, Simon Bridges. I’d recommend you go to knowyourstuff.nz. There you’ll find about six years’ worth of research from an NGO.

Hon Simon Bridges: Give me something from a university now.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: From Fiona Hutton—Dr Fiona Hutton. I’m not going to engage with you because you are barraging me and refusing to engage in the substance. But the point that I was getting to is that the National Party here have sought to place false equivalence after false equivalence, as the merchants of doubt that they are. On top of that, they have also sought to somehow invoke the Portugal model as something that maybe they might like us to look at. But last year or the year before, when we were passing through those changes to section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act in response to the synthetic crisis, which got so out of hand as a response to the last National Party Government’s approach that it was a matter of personal responsibility, they didn’t want to see the decriminalisation of substances.

Hon Simon Bridges: We’ve had three leaders since then—lay off.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So I’m not quite sure where they sit on this, but none the less, Simon Bridges, I would refer you, actually, to a programme that was instigated by the former National Government. It’s called Te Ara Oranga, and it runs by virtue of a collaboration between Northland District Health Board and police. There, if you speak to people on the ground, you will find that there is, effectively, a decriminalisation of methamphetamine. That has massively improved people’s lives, because people are no longer being thrown in jail cells, but provided with wraparound support.

The other thing that I would say is if the National Party really, genuinely want to engage in the research, as they continue to say that they do, they had the opportunity to do so approximately three years ago, when, in collaboration with the New Zealand Drug Foundation, I presented to Parliament the architect of Portugal’s model to decriminalise substances, which they now invoke as a matter of something that’s working well—or at the very least better than the infrastructure that they left us to inherit. I would also say that there is an opportunity to do so—to collaborate, to meaningfully engage in that research—should they choose to look at it. But we are not going to continue to pretend that there is this false equivalence here.

The final thing is, what kind of approach do the National Party want? Because we’ve tried the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. These drugs are illegal, folks. People are already taking them. People are going to continue to take them. They’re already illegal. Are you going to make them more illegal? Because if you’d like to—

Simeon Brown: You’ve given up.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No, Simeon Brown. In fact, what you’ll find we’ve done is taken a far more common-sense approach, because you do not get rid of something by pushing it further into the shadows and making it more harmful. I’d refer you here to the speech of Kevin Hague, a former Green MP, when the former National Government was passing the psychoactive substances legislation. He said at that point in time that pushing these substances underground would result in deaths and further harm, and, in fact, it did. This is what happens when you continue to neglect the responsibility of these halls of power.

So what do the National Party want to do? Do they want to go so far as, I don’t know, Portugal—no, actually, they’ve already mentioned Portugal—as Singapore? As Singapore, down the other end of the spectrum—Singapore, which invokes the death penalty? Because in Singapore, you know, some of those “hard on drugs” kinds of approaches that they’re talking about are invoked. But what Singapore has is some of the most questionable statistics on drug use in the entire world, based out of the UN. So what exactly does the National Party want to do? Because you’ve got the Portugal approach over here, you’ve got Singapore over here, and somewhere in the middle is what’s being proposed in this legislation. I do not endorse people having car crashes, but if they’re going to crash, I want them wearing a seatbelt. I do not endorse people taking drugs, but if they are going to do so, I want them to be as safe as possible.

The final thing that I would just say is that I’d highly recommend that some of these National Party MPs who are currently yelling actually go and visit the KnowYourStuffNZ tents at some of these festivals—as I know, actually, some in their ranks have, because some in their ranks do believe that this should pass; they just don’t have the courage to step forward and say so. If they do so, what they’ll find—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that might be out of order making that accusation.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I apologise—I withdraw and apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. “The integrity”—is that within—all right. I would hope that they have the convictions—that they would feel strongly enough—thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. Before I call David Seymour, I just want to make a ruling about the interjections coming from the same side of the House. I didn’t interrupt the Hon Simon Bridges when Chlöe Swarbrick was interrupting him, and I didn’t interrupt Chlöe Swarbrick when the Hon Simon Bridges was doing the same. Now I’m going to call David Seymour, and I’m going to warn members close by: don’t be caught coming through that member’s microphone.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill, and hopefully to dial it down a notch and have some slightly calmer debate about this topic.

If I’ll say one thing about this great country of ours it’s that people will go out of their way to help each other. They form clubs and associations—rugby clubs, girl guides, La Leche League, whatever—to help people out; to help each other. That’s one of the core values of this country. And we’re also a country that is known for our realism—that we’re prepared to accept the world as it is and choose how we behave and what to do about it. We’re also a country that has a keen sense of what the role of Government is, what the role of this Parliament is, and what it isn’t. We know that Parliament can’t solve every problem. We know that sometimes we have to solve problems for ourselves. And we also are a country where we believe that people have the right to receive and impart information, to think for themselves, and make their own choices.

I give that background to our proud culture as New Zealand because I think all of those characteristics of our country are important when deciding how to take a position on this piece of legislation. We face a reality where, regardless of what this Parliament does, people this summer are going to take MDMA and party pills and all sorts of stuff. That is a given, whether people like it or not. That’s the bit about facing reality. The question is what the role of this Parliament should be, and should this Parliament seek to prohibit those people who are trying to help each other by forming organisations and voluntarily going out to help their fellow New Zealanders make informed decisions and choices about how they act—that’s the question before this Parliament.

And before anybody makes a decision, they should also decide what the status quo is. What is Parliament doing now? Because too often this Parliament makes a law without asking what problem we’re trying to solve or what laws are already in place. Well, right now the truth is that this Parliament is actively prohibiting and stopping people from getting out and helping their fellow New Zealanders avoid harm—doing it voluntarily. We’re stopping them voluntarily helping their fellow New Zealanders avoid harm with a law that says if you run a festival or a concert and you let someone come on and test party pills for people who are going to take them, then you as the host are in, at best, a legal grey area—that’s the status quo.

And there’s another question that needs to be put: has this got anything to do with taxpayer money? No it does not. If the question was: should the Government fund pill testing, the ACT Party would be opposed. But that’s not the question before this House. The question before this House is: should this Parliament put in place laws that stop New Zealanders—groups such as KnowYourStuffNZ that voluntarily come together to provide a service to help people understand what sort of substances they’re taking so those people can make informed decisions and choose how to act—should this Parliament prohibit that from happening? The ACT Party says it’s very clear: we should not prohibit volunteers going on to festival grounds and helping people make informed choices about the kinds of drugs that they may be taking.

Now, let me make another couple of comments about that. This is not a question about whether we think drugs are good. I’m someone who is very grateful to have a mind through which I can experience the world—and it is a wonderful world with its ups and its downs and its challenges and triumphs and tribulations. I do not understand why people would wish to distort that experience of the world arbitrarily using chemicals. I’m even thinking about quitting caffeine just to keep it real—just kidding! But I understand that people are going to do that. In my world people would not take psychoactive substances. It’s not something I understand, it’s not something I condone, and it’s not something I support.

But I also live in a real world where we know that people will and where we know that people put themselves at considerable risk because the people providing them with these substances do not follow the Consumer Guarantees Act. They don’t have access to the usual remedies that people are able to access when they make sure that products like food or any other service that they like to buy or consume are safe. That’s why it’s necessary that these groups, such as KnowYourStuffNZ, are able to provide that information, are able to allow people to make informed decisions. To continue the law as it states is no more complicated than this: this Parliament, by the act of retaining the law made in the past, will ensure that some people are going to go to festivals this summer, and they’re going to take substances without proper information. The substances are going to do them harm that may lead to chronic, long-term conditions, that may lead to death, that, at the very least, are going to lead to chronic, short-term discomfort—that’s what’s going to happen. And this Parliament, if it opposes this legislation tonight, will be responsible for having done that.

I say to people that are sceptical about this: there’s a good chance that the person affected will be someone that you know. It’ll be parents who have sent their kids off to a festival. I don’t know if Rhythm and Vines is still going. I can’t remember a lot of being there to be honest. But they’re going to go off to festivals up and down this country over what will hopefully be a sunny summer. It could be your nephew, your niece, your son, your daughter—someone that you used to teach in your class—you just don’t know. And they’re probably not a bad kid. They’re probably not someone that gets into a lot of trouble, but without proper information in the heat of that moment, here’s the simple question: if they’re going to take a substance, would you like it to be a substance that you know is safe, where voluntary organisations have been able to go and do the testing and ensure it’s safe for them, or would you rather just take a chance that maybe it’s full of horse tranquiliser? Because that’s literally the choice that people—if you’re watching Parliament or at home listening to Parliament on your crystal set—are liable to make and people that you know.

For all of those reasons, in the traditions of a country where people get together, form associations, help each other, face up to reality, and make decisions with properly informed consent, the ACT Party says that supporting this legislation is the right thing to do. That’s why I’m proud to stand in favour of this bill tonight. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to contribute in the first reading of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill.

I heard a couple of speeches on that side, and I just want to remind members what this bill actually does. I heard the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, say that the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill is a time-limited and narrow measure to enable drug testing at festivals to operate within legal certainty this summer. To lose one life just because you went to a concert and took something that you thought would not kill you—to lose one life is one life too many.

I heard from the other side—I’m not sure whether I heard it correctly, but a member from that side said that “You buy ecstasy; you get ecstasy.” Well, actually, I haven’t bought it in my life, but I don’t think it comes with a label. That’s why we legislate labelling in everything—so that it is safe for the consumer.

This bill does not change the status of any drug. It does not change the status of any drugs or substance. It will still be a crime for unauthorised persons to possess and sell illegal drugs. What it does is it does not increase the risk of prosecution, because it does provide an avenue where if you do get a drug test at a concert, then that is not admissible as evidence.

So my advice to anybody who attends a festival is that if you are going to take a choice of taking a drug or something that you don’t know what it is, please get it checked, because your life matters. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Dr Nick Smith—five minutes.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Mr Speaker, it’s an incredibly poor start to the 53rd Parliament that the very first bill that we are to consider is to be tabled this morning and law by tonight. What sort of scrutiny are all those new members of Parliament giving, for their constituents to have a say on this issue? And it adds insult to injury that just 40 days ago New Zealanders voted against the liberalisation of laws and the very first bill is for this Government to give the fingers to the public of New Zealand and say, “No. We know better.”

Now, I was thinking that Labour has had a very successful result. They had a manifesto. I have in my hand over 200 policy commitments, and I assumed that if this was the first bill they’d want to pass they’d have a mandate for it. So I searched through Labour’s manifesto—224 promises and there is a promise on drugs—

Simeon Brown: Oh, what did it say—what did it say?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: “We will respect the outcome of the cannabis referendum.” and not a word about this party pills testing legislation, and I say that is an insult.

I want to challenge Chlöe Swarbrick, who ran all the same arguments this evening in the House that she ran on why we should legalise cannabis, but she has sounded horribly like her nemesis Donald Trump in refusing to accept that New Zealanders said no. She said there was a campaign of misinformation. She said that those that were opposed to it—but she will not accept the democratic outcome when the people of New Zealand said no to going soft on drugs.

But here’s my question for members opposite. There has not been a single death in New Zealand from the use of party pills at concerts. But we do know that last year 107 New Zealanders lost their lives because we have drug-drivers on the road—107 deaths last year; the year before, 93; the year before that, 80. If this Parliament was concerned about saving lives, why has not a member opposite been prepared to back the proven method of saving over a hundred lives a year by getting on and doing drug testing on the road to save lives? We know people are losing lives there. We know the Government have said that 107 people lost their lives last year, and time after time members on this side of the House, including myself, attempted to introduce bills to save lives and members opposite blocked it and dragged their feet.

So my question for members opposite is this: how is it acceptable, when we do not have a single documented case of a loss of life as a consequence of party pills, that we have to pass a bill through all stages on one day under urgency but we are not prepared to move quickly to address an issue that’s killing two New Zealanders a week? I’ll tell you why. This is not about the most rational approach. This is not about doing what will keep New Zealand safest. This is just another bill along the ideological lines advocated by both the Green Party and the Labour Party of a soft approach on both drugs and crime. That is what this agenda is really about, and I fear for my children who will be going to music concerts this summer that the signal that we are sending to New Zealanders is that drugs like ecstasy are safe. They are not safe, and the clearest message we need to give to New Zealanders—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time is expired. [Interruption] The member’s time is expired.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora e te Māngai. I stand up for Te Paati Māori and I will be less animated and probably a lot more calm. I do have to wonder, though, which concerts some of the members have been to lately. Te Paati Māori believe we should take a health approach to drugs and not a criminal one. This approach requires this Parliament to be extremely courageous in its decision making. Contrary to statements made tonight, the cannabis referendum was overwhelmingly supported by Māori, as must be decriminalisation. We recognise and commend rōpū like Hāpai Te Hauora within the drugs sector, working for the rights of Māori guaranteed within Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are also conscious of those who are working on the ground with the most affected and the most at risk of taking poor drugs. We know that Māori are most affected by drug harm and most criminalised by the use of drugs. Therefore, we are very open to solutions. We also know that the implications of law on the lives of those whānau who have to deal with the law and in the context of education, health, and community safety.

So let’s be very clear: for us, this is not about normalisation of drug use. Our rangatahi are going to make mistakes. They’re going to make decisions. This is about us as whānau doing the most that we can to keep them safe and mitigate harm. Therefore, we as a party will be supporting this and making sure we can do everything we can to help our rangatahi grow to be the best that they can be. Kia ora rā.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I’d like to take a brief call to talk about the importance of harm minimisation and how important that is in terms of saving young people’s lives and that’s why this bill aligns with those very principles. But at the same time as I’m taking the first call of my time in this 53rd Parliament, I think it’s important that we remember past positions in this House.

I’m going to point out a glaringly obvious U-turn on the side of the Opposition when the Hon Stuart Nash as the Minister of Police announced that Labour was pursuing a policy of drug testing, of pill testing. In fact, the National Party spokesperson spoke in favour of it, and that they were in support of drug testing at dance parties because that was the safe and the right thing to do. In fact, the spokesperson at that time, Chris Bishop, spoke strongly in favour of pill testing, so I am surprised—I am incredibly surprised—that right now we hear the complete antithesis from those members opposite. In fact, today, when questioned on the tiles, Chris Bishop responded that he was on holiday in the Coromandel at the time, and so he was therefore unable to caucus. Well, I think that the entire National caucus probably deserves a good holiday in the Coromandel at this point, because clearly they need to get their lines sorted. And if you’re going to support drug testing, please say so but don’t do a complete U-turn.

This is a bill quite clearly about supporting New Zealand to make harm a minimal part of our lives—and young people, when you see the chopper come in and pick someone up when their life is hanging on a thread, that’s why we need to pill test. That’s why we need to pill test. We need to pill test because it’s about the safety of young people and providing an environment where young people aren’t consuming toxins. And those members opposite have no opportunity to cast aspersions when they can’t even sort out their own lines.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I just want to thank the member opposite for a wonderful history lesson. But, actually, what we’re here to talk about is this bill which was dumped on us this morning and is being rushed through this Parliament as this Government’s number one priority after the election—the number one priority after the election is to help normalise drugs here in New Zealand.

This piece of legislation will not achieve a reduction in harm from drugs in New Zealand. So this bill will not, because this bill, and the evidence which is clear—the evidence is clear—is that the drugs which young people are taking do cause harm. A University of New South Wales study of 392 ecstasy deaths between 2001 and 2016 found no deaths from impurities or contaminants in drugs—and that is a study from the University of New South Wales. The reality is that it is an illegal substance, a class A substance, and it is a drug which kills people. It doesn’t matter how many times you test MDMA, it’s still MDMA—it doesn’t matter how many times you test it, it’s still a drug which will kill people. I’m not sure what Chlöe Swarbrick doesn’t understand about that. MDMA is a dangerous drug. By telling our young people that they have their MDMA tested and that “Yes that is MDMA.”, give them a green light and a little sticker to go away and take their MDMA does not make it safer—does not make it any safer.

This piece of legislation will not reduce the harm caused by drugs in our community. The public have just rejected the notion of more drugs in New Zealand with a referendum on marijuana, which did not pass, which failed, with the public rejecting the idea of more drugs and more normalisation of drugs in New Zealand. The first piece of legislation this Government has brought to this Parliament is something which will simply normalise drugs by sending the wrong message to our young people.

Researchers at the forensic international science journal fear that testing will place a false sense of security into the users’ mind. It is a dangerously misleading claim to say that testing will increase the safety of drug taking. We are playing with young people’s lives when we are saying that this is going to make their drugs safer. The drugs are dangerous. The drugs kill them. The drugs will not be made safer simply by testing them. I think that the members opposite, who have come to this House with great aspirations—and I’ve enjoyed listening to some of the maiden speeches about how they seek to have this new kind of leadership, this consultation, this ability to bring the community along, and, you know, this new type of leadership that they’re promising, and this piece of legislation won’t even go to a select committee.

If there’s evidence that the Green Party want to bring, if there’s evidence that the community want to bring, bring it to a select committee. Let the public have their say. Let the evidence be tested. But the very first piece of legislation which has been brought, the public are not even being able to have their say on, and the public are not being able to actually test the evidence in here. There are well-documented limitations with the accuracy with some of the testing site devices. A collaborative testing approach between on-site testing devices and laboratory-based scientists is recommended in order to improve their results. There is evidence which needs to be brought to the select committee to actually prove this stuff works. We don’t have that evidence here. We don’t have this in the bill. We don’t have any of that in the explanatory statement. None—

Hon Simon Bridges: The Minister didn’t give us any.

SIMEON BROWN: —of that evidence—the Minister didn’t give us; all we heard was hopes and dreams. Well, hope—

Hon Simon Bridges: Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t give us any.

SIMEON BROWN: Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t give us any evidence; we just heard the hopes and dreams.

Chlöe Swarbrick: New South Wales chief coronial report, six years’ worth of—

SIMEON BROWN: Well, bring it to a select committee—bring it to a select committee.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll email it to you.

SIMEON BROWN: We don’t have the select committee process for this evidence to be tested and for the evidence to actually be weighed up to see whether it will actually make a real difference.

Chlöe Swarbrick: We’re working with him, patron saint of the National Party.

SIMEON BROWN: Mr Speaker, I do wonder when the Green Party member continues to interject, as to whether their actual agenda is to simply legalise all drugs. I think the Green Party should actually clarify what their actual agenda here is. Is their agenda simply to normalise and legitimise all drugs? Because this is another step in that journey to simply say that drug use is OK and drug use should be legitimatised and normalised. On this side of the House, we don’t think so. We want to ensure that our young people are sent the very clear message that if you take these drugs, they are dangerous and they are recognised under our legislation for the danger that they do have, and we will not be supporting legislation which continues to normalise drugs in New Zealand. Thank you very much.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): We have just heard a saying that we probably, factually, should not hear for the rest of this term, and that saying is: “This side of the House”. Because that party no longer commands that side of the House. That side of the House is split in three. And two of those parties, three of those parties actually—because this side of the House goes over to that side of the House. Three of the parties on that side of the House are supporting this legislation. Why? Because this legislation faces up to some simple facts. No one here is saying that these drugs should be legal. No one here is saying that these drugs should be consumed, but what we are saying is that they are. And as long as they are being consumed, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are safe. That’s it; that’s the guts of it.

The National Party oppose this bill, why? Because it’s not their idea. That’s the guts of it. They are so desperate now for some headlines that they look at this bill and they oppose it. They don’t present any compelling evidence against it; they are happy—they are happy—for our young people to go to the festivals over the summer, and they are happy to accept the fact that these substances will be consumed, and they are happy to leave things to chance and increase the risk to these young people by not providing a simple service of testing those drugs.

It wasn’t that long ago that there were news reports and pushes from the police and other agencies warning young people not to take a particular drug, because what they thought was in it was not in it. That simple warning and measure of safety would be provided if these things were tested at music festivals as an interim measure, in the meantime finding a long-term solution. We can’t ignore this; we’ve just got to deal with it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; ACT New Zealand 10; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I earlier presented to the House a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I move, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

As we have heard in the debate already, this bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. As this House is already aware, this bill ensures that those who are providing drug-checking services at festivals can do so without the risk of criminal prosecution. Also, those who are hosting events at which drug-testing services are taking place can also host those events without the risk of criminal prosecution.

The way this regime works is that the Director-General of Health can designate an outfit to be a drug-testing service. The director-general can attach conditions to that permit to do so, and we expect it won’t take long to put that sort of machinery in place.

I listened very carefully—although I wasn’t in the House—to the contributions from the members opposite in this debate, and I listened very carefully to hear an argument about why we should not in this day and age, knowing about young people’s access to illicit substances, be taking measures to keep young people safe, because that’s what this legislation is about. I heard the Hon Simon Bridges make his speech about being soft on drugs, and all the rest of it. So he dusted off those tired old tropes, but didn’t make a great deal of sense.

I heard—let me see. I heard Dr Shane Reti, who brings, of course, considerable experience and knowledge to just this as a health matter. Not only that, but as an MP based in Whangārei, he will know the success of the Te Ara Oranga project up there, which is the joint venture between the DHB, the police, and others, in dealing with the scourge of meth in that area up there, and he knows that the benefit and the success of that approach is that we don’t judge people. We see people who are afflicted with addiction to meth and we offer them a health pathway to deal with it, rather than criminalising them. It’s supported by the police, it’s supported by the medical sector up there, and it is achieving great success. It’s so good, in fact, that we’re now seeking to roll it out in other parts of the country.

That is what a sensible approach to drug use and those who have problematic drug use looks like. You don’t judge the person, you don’t judge them for possessing and consuming; you deal with the issue. For those who are pushing it, for those who trade on the misery of others: different story—and we continue to do what we can to stop that kind of evil trade. But for those who are using, often people resort to psychoactive substances, to mind-altering substances for a reason. It often relates to other things in their lives, trauma in their lives, and those sorts of things—that’s what happens. So perpetually criminalising people in that situation is not an answer.

You would have thought that after decades of what we’ve done, we’d realise that that, in fact, is the response, and so I was intrigued. In fact, I was interested to hear Dr Shane Reti’s contribution, but I don’t think, with all due respect to him, that it addressed the issue that this bill is seeking to address, and, indeed, when we get on to a long-term solution, what that will ultimately address.

I heard some criticisms of the changes made last year and whether or not they’re working. They are legitimate questions to raise, and a review of the way the new provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act is working is under way and we want to know exactly how that’s being operated on the front line and the extent to which it’s making a difference to people. But that is not an answer to the challenge that we have of a festival season about to be upon us, young people getting their tickets to the various events around the country and going into an environment where we know as a matter of fact there will be illicit substances, and where we are saying to young people, “You don’t know. You’re going to take that risk and we don’t care.” Well, actually, that’s not the right response.

If people are going to make that choice—it’s not a choice I would make. But if they’re going to make that choice and we know there is risk—and, in fact, even the member Simeon Brown acknowledged that and said, “These are dangerous. These are dangerous drugs.” He knows that; he just doesn’t want to do anything about it. He just doesn’t want to help young people. I don’t know why members opposite don’t want to help young people and make their lives—their more challenging lives—safer for them. They know it’s unsafe. They know that young people are taking risks, but they don’t want to do anything about it. They know there is an easy step that could be taken—and this is it—that would help young people and keep them safe. That’s the disappointing thing about the contributions we’ve heard opposite.

We heard the Hon Dr Nick Smith dust off his speech that he’s given about 53 times in the last Parliament—

Kieran McAnulty: Every year he’s been here.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —and then I heard this long, slow thudding sound, actually, as he spoke, and I realised it was the leadership of the National Party in the headquarters and the strategists banging their heads against the concrete wall, thinking “Not again—not again!” Nick Smith, who did not speak to the bill, but talked about anything but—he talked about another bill that’s on its way through Parliament, which is the roadside saliva testing of drug users, and complained that his Government was unable to do that.

So no contribution at all, a sort of moralising, judgmental—and at some point, I suspect, in the next three years, members opposite will say, “Why did we lose so many votes in the 2020 election? Why did we lose so many seats?” Some bright spark amongst them—because I know they are there—will say, “You know what? We’re actually out of touch. We actually don’t know how New Zealanders live their lives any more. It’s time we learnt.”

I know it’s early in this parliamentary term, and I know I’m their political opposite and I shouldn’t really be trying to help them, but you cannot help but have a sense of pity. And we saw it trotted out tonight: more of the same. I just despair for those citizens who are represented by National MPs, who must also now be tearing their hair out, thinking “Really? We put them back in again?”

So I just simply invite members opposite—I know it’s hard. I know it’s hard, and it’s been difficult times, but I think that if we just focus on the issues, there are risks. There are risks that some in our community are taking. We are not going to stop young people experimenting, trying new things, trying other substances—we’re not going to stop them doing it. But what we can do is keep them safe, and this is a measure that keeps them safe. The members opposite know, and they can describe those people as breaking the law and as criminals as long as they like, but they’re not going to change the patterns of young people of the last 50 years or 60 years or 70 years.

At some point, it’s actually the role of the nation’s conservative parties, and conservative parties around the world, to accept reality. That’s actually what defines a conservative party. They’re so bedded in the reality of today that they sometimes forget how to make progress. But, actually, on this issue—on this issue—I would have thought it was time for them to accept the reality that this stuff is out there, young people are using it, they’re taking risks, we know those risks, and we can do something about it.

For those who say, “Well, we’ve never had a death”, actually, it was only a term or so ago that members opposite—and Simeon Brown was one of them—were lecturing us all about the peril of synthetic cannabis and saying that we had to do more about that because that was compromising lives. All of a sudden, he’s changed his tune. His factual basis has changed, and there is no risk any more—people aren’t in danger using substances and chemicals that they don’t know the origins of. Well, actually, you know, sometimes you’ve actually just got to focus on the facts. You’ve got to accept reality and you’ve got to say that where there is risk and we can do something about it, then maybe we should help to mitigate that risk.

Our moral duty in this Parliament is not to stand there moralising about citizens of New Zealand and it is not to stand in judgment of the citizens of New Zealand, but it is to accept that where we see, on public policy grounds, that there is activity that is putting people at risk, we take the practical step of mitigating that risk. That is what this bill does, and, once again, I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You know, listening to that speech I’ve got no idea why the Labour Party rolled Andrew Little. I mean, you know, he’s a charmer! He’s just such a charmer! He didn’t condescend us at all! He didn’t condescend us at all! He didn’t talk down to us! He didn’t moralise! No, no—he’s a charming individual! And I say in all seriousness to Andrew Little, the shame of it is, actually, he and Chlöe Swarbrick, dare I say it, have come along to this House with that tone that’s quite personal, putting down members on the other side rather than actually genuinely engaging in the argument and the issues.

I’ll tell you why I think that is. I think the real reason for that is they know what they’re doing is trying to come in on a zeitgeist and a feeling but actually without the evidence, the hard evidence, and the reality of the studies, and what is happening, and the long-term effects of this bill—without any of those things on their side. I think that’s why actually we saw the fun and games from Andrew Little. We get the same tone from Chlöe Swarbrick and from other members of the Labour Party because, actually, the arguments aren’t on their side. They’re smiling right now, they’re laughing, but, actually, they don’t refer to any studies. Kieran McAnulty, give me one right now. He can’t. He can’t. I actually wonder if he can even give us the title of this bill—

Kieran McAnulty: Who’s “Kieran McNulty”?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I don’t know. Whatever his name is—the list MP who’s now an electorate MP, whatever. [Interruption] Yeah, and congratulations.

But, actually, on this side of the House we come to this debate armed with the facts, and, you know, it seems quite clear to us use will go up. You see, we heard from Andrew Little and from others. We heard from Angie Warren-Clark. Her reason for supporting this bill she says, and the Labour Party, is she wants to know her kids will be safe. The problem is she won’t know that through this bill. She won’t know that and so that’s a real problem. People are going to say to other people, “You know what, actually Parliament said it’s safe. We’ve had this test.”, so use will go up and the studies show—

Chlöe Swarbrick: That’s not what happens.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Chlöe Swarbrick says that’s not what happens. Well, I think that’s absolutely what happens. You go along to a concert, a party, and the guys next to you say, “Come on, take one of these. Why won’t you?” and you say, “No, look, it’s illegal.” “But, look, even Parliament says this test is safe. That’s what Angie Warren-Clark said. That’s actually what she said.” That’s the signal we send. Use will go up. Actually, in the only study referred to in this House on what’s happened to use when pill testing has been legalised in the United Kingdom—well, what happened? Use went up—right—from 1.2 to 1.3 to 1.7. By the way, deaths went up as well.

That’s the second point. If use goes up, harm goes up. I don’t think, actually, that’s a particularly difficult, controversial statement to make. And it has to be made, because for all the sneering that we’ve heard on the other side, all the mockery of the good-faith positions that the National Party are taking, if the pill is tested and has ecstasy, that’s where the harm is. It’s the ecstasy. Actually, it’s not the impurities. It’s not the other things. By and large, in the overwhelming majority of cases that are harming and killing, it is the ecstasy. And we’ve seen that again from the very clear, hard data of the hundreds of fatalities in Australia. So there is a false security that comes from going along with this.

I mean, the third point really is this. We’re rushing this. We’re rushing this. If the evidence is as I say it is, it’s shameful. But, actually—and Chlöe Swarbrick tries to make light of this point—if it is at any level equivocal and if she’s so confident, despite the fact she didn’t refer to a single scientific survey or study in her last contribution, if she’s so confident, why doesn’t it go to a select committee so these things can be thrashed out?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Stop lying, Simon.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: So civil society, so the scientists—point of order, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member just said to me to stop lying. I take offence at that.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Responding to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, no, no—you sit down. I didn’t hear the comment myself. I will take the member’s word. If the member Chlöe Swarbrick did use that term, she knows it’s out of order. She should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Responding to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you either stand, withdraw, and apologise, or you haven’t done it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I stand, withdraw, and apologise. Mr Speaker, point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, and if this in any way questions the ruling, be careful.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I please request your guidance on how best to approach you?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not a point of order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: An absolute mischaracterisation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not a point of order. No, it’s not.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Looking forward to debate. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I was just saying, the point is this: if Chlöe Swarbrick is so confident of the evidence, why isn’t this going to a select committee? As we rush this through this Parliament as quickly as any law in any country in the world can be passed, we haven’t done the serious harm-reduction work that needs to be done. Andrew Little says, “Look, you know, don’t judge this. Deal with the issue. Don’t judge people who take drugs; deal with the underlying issues.” The Government hasn’t done that. It’s reaching for this non - evidence based, unscientific bill that’s just trying to capture the sentiment, the feeling, the feel-good feeling out there rather than having done the hard mahi.

Fourth, I say, this bill is part of a wider agenda that’s soft-headed and soft on drugs. And we saw that from Mr Little’s mouth. He was quite clear himself. He said, and I’m paraphrasing, but this is in his first contribution, “It’s a health matter. The fact is some take it. We can carry on criminalising or accept it.” That’s what he said. The Labour Party, the Government of the day, is accepting hard illicit drug use in New Zealand. And then he said this: “It’s not a criminal matter. It’s a health matter.”

Rachel Boyack: It is.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: And the member over there, the member for Nelson, says it is—it’s not a criminal matter; it’s a health matter. Except they’re wrong—it is a criminal matter. The Misuse of Drugs Act makes quite clear it is criminal to take and consume class C, B, and, in this case, ecstasy, an A drug. And the issue there is this. You say, “Well, it doesn’t matter. Why are you going on about that?” Well, because that’s the honest truth of what Andrew Little says and thinks he wants to decriminalise. The actual agenda here is to decriminalise, except what he knows is we’ve just had a referendum on a much lighter drug, cannabis, and New Zealanders wouldn’t stand for it. And so because they know they don’t have any mandate—in fact, quite the opposite for decriminalising wholesale drugs in this country—what they do is through the side door in a de facto way, and they did it in the last Parliament and they do it in this Parliament: they keep winding along with their soft-headed, soft on drugs approach, decriminalising. Andrew Little’s true view is we can carry on criminalising or accept—and he accepts—that it’s not a criminal matter; it’s a health matter. Of course it’s a health matter. But, actually, we need to take these things seriously and the Government clearly isn’t.

Minister Little also said parents want to know their kids are safe and I dealt with that, really, when we talked about the point Angie Warren-Clark’s making. But Parliament needs to face up to the fact—and I say it again—that this bill won’t make young Kiwis safe. It sends the wrong message. It’ll ensure more drug use. It gives a false confidence that they’ll be safe when they won’t because the ecstasy is what in the vast majority of cases kills.

I want to come back to Chlöe Swarbrick’s contribution. She berated us on the evidence and, as I said, apart from referring me to a website, she doesn’t refer to any case studies, evidence, surveys, and now I’m sure she’s on Google. She’s got—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I seek leave to make a personal statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Look, thank you. That member will resume her seat and will wait until Simon Bridges’ speech is concluded.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: All there is, frankly, from every single speaker on the other side is a bill, is law, by anecdote. What they feel real life is and what they think works—they impute bad faith on the National Party but, actually, we come to this Parliament with good faith. We put forward what we think are serious arguments and serious views that we genuinely hold.

I want to finish with something Nick Smith said, which I thought was a phenomenal point. There hasn’t been a single death from party pills in this country at dance parties and the like—the things that we’re talking about here today—so far. And yet this is what we’re spending all our time on today. And yet over a hundred die from drug-driving and this Parliament is on go-slow on that. If that’s not posturing, if that’s not playing politics rather than dealing with the real harms and the real issues on drug use, well, I don’t know what is. And so the National Party’s going to continue to oppose this and do all we can to make sure this goes through the night, because what’s happening tonight is wrong.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal statement.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK, thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: My understanding of the convention of the personal statement is that I cannot use this time or this space to, obviously, attack the Opposition, and I have no intention of doing so. However, I think that it is really important—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Sorry. Order! Sorry to interrupt—the member will resume her seat. Sorry, I’ve very much got my training wheels on this evening, and so, in terms of procedure, I must put leave to the House for the member to make a personal statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes, there is. OK.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Reading this bill this afternoon brought back some memories of my time working in emergency departments at the weekends. Often we’d see young people coming in having ingested an unknown substance. I think the issue was having to spend time with those young people with often quite frightening symptoms and working out what it is that they’d taken and how best to look after them over the next few hours or days that they were in hospital. It made me reflect on the two options we’ve got in front of us: one is to have drug testing at festivals and other events, and the other is not to do so.

Just looking at the New Zealand Drug Foundation website, it describes what actually happens if you do go to a festival and turn up to have your drugs or substances tested. What it says is you will receive a one-on-one service, and it takes about 15 minutes. So what will happen is trained volunteers will take a very small sample of your substance, and they’ll divide it into three piles. Two of those piles are tested with reagents, and what that does is it’s got acids and it makes colour changes if certain substances are present. Then one of the piles is tested with a spectrometer and what it does is it compares your sample against other known samples of known substances and it can detect the presence of unexpected substances, adulterants, or additives. Then what you get in that 15 minutes is you get a report, and you also get some harm reduction advice. As I was mentioning in my previous contribution, about 20 percent of people’s substances don’t turn out to be what they thought they were and another 11 percent have got additives that were completely unexpected. So then it’s your choice whether you go ahead and you take that substance or not. In many cases, if there’s a difference in what you’re expecting, you don’t take the substance—harm reduction and issue averted.

If you actually, though, think about what happens if you don’t go down that route—you can do a quick google and if you put “MDMA” into the search engine, what comes up is a range of headlines. For example: “13 hospitalised in Christchurch after taking drugs they thought were MDMA”; “Substance behind mass hospitalisations was three times stronger than MDMA”; “Dodgy batch suspected in Christchurch Hospital emergency admissions spike over the weekend.” And they go on to talk about the spike of cases where nine patients turned up in the emergency department over a very short period of time, patients with agitated state, dangerously high blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and the health team was so concerned that they started to put out warnings talking about how serious this stuff could be, talking about the fact that permanent damage to the heart, long-term mental health problems, severe kidney failure, heart attacks, and seizures may occur. So it’s just weighing up 15 minutes—basically getting your pills tested to find out if they contain what you thought they did, versus the risk of turning up to a hospital department with long-term side effects potentially on the radar. So I think what this bill does today is make sure that our young people can be kept safe over summer when they start to attend their festivals, if they do choose to take drugs and have those tested.

But in the longer term, Andrew Little, Minister, will be going through and putting a more detailed proposal through to Cabinet so that over the next year we can go through and create the legislative framework we need that’s got more time. Thank you, I commend this to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure, in the legislative process, to then have the report back from the select committee, and this is that report. Yes, this is the report from the select committee—because there was none; because there’s been no select committee process. I’ll talk to that in this hurried legislation that’s going to give us problems in the future—exactly as to what some of those problems will be. I want to identify five of them.

The first is we’ve heard the statement made that the country is not less safe after pill testing. Well, we’d make the point that that false sense of security that young people may have may well indeed make us less safe.

Also, there was some discussion around decriminalisation and the health approach. No one actually wanted to discuss the facts we put on the table from the Official Information Act request—the failed decriminalisation health approach with the Misuse of Drugs Act and the fact that that health approach is just a text message, as I alluded to earlier.

Now, Te Ara Oranga was commented on. That is indeed a very good Northland programme. It’s actually a methamphetamine reduction programme modelled on the Matrix—it’s “Matrix-lite”—which is an intensive outpatient programme, fundamentally. But, quite in contrast to what was commented here, the Matrix programme, in its full implementation, actually has a urine-testing, or a drug-testing, component as well, and it goes like this: you urine test or you drug test; if you’re positive, there’s a consequence: you’re kicked out of the programme. This is quite different. You have a test. If you’re positive, you give the drugs back. I don’t see quite how you could map those two programmes together. By the way, the magic in Te Ara Oranga is what’s called the pouwhenua, which are the lived-experience community people who have often had a drug experience themselves, and so they’re excellent teachers. If you speak with the people there, that’s actually the magic to Te Ara Oranga.

David Seymour emphasised it was a funding issue. I found that kind of interesting. The principle would seem to be that if it needs Government funding, then it’s not good legislation, but, if it doesn’t, it’s OK to pass. I hope he’ll reflect on that and think if that’s really what he wanted to convey.

I think, though, as is often the case with this Government and with hurried legislation, you can hang them with their own policies. I think the policy that’s missing here from the table is a regulatory impact statement, and it shows the hurried nature of this legislation. Let me read a few parts from the departmental disclosure statement: 2.3. “Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill? NO”, and, as it says here, there was insufficient time to revisit parts of this question.

If we look at part 2.4. “Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill? NO”. We had a member over here saying the evidence is not controversial, it’s incontrovertible, it’s really clear, and there’s lots of it, and here we are with their own departmental disclosure statement saying, no, the evidence isn’t available—no, it hasn’t been done. Remember, this is the Government’s own policy.

3.3. “Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill or Rights Act 1990? NO”.

3.6. “External consultation”—“Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect”. “YES. The broad policy has been discussed with KnowYourStuff, a drug checking organisation.” Is that the limit of external consultation on this bill? KnowYourStuff—do you think that could possibly be a biased piece of advice in this consultation?

3.7. “Have the policy details to be given effect by this bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete? NO”.

With the Government’s own departmental disclosure statement, they, fundamentally, say we’ve been out to an external organisation who is in keeping with the intent of this bill—there’s no real balance to that. Do they think it can be deployed? Has it been tested in any way to show it can be deployed? No. Are there external articles, external provisions? They make a comment that Victoria University of Wellington is due to come up with some policy, but, at this point in time, no, there’s not particularly any evidence that they can bring to this.

By the way, it’s dated 30 November—so dated yesterday. It makes a mockery of all the evidence that was available and how incontrovertible it was. No, it wasn’t. With their own departmental disclosure statement, it says there’s no evidence, we don’t know if it’s going to work, but we’re just going to do it anyway.

So I think, really, that just adds weight to the point that we’re making: hurried legislation. We remain unchanged from our first views in the first reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to see you sitting in the Chair. I look forward to working with you this Parliament.

The Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill, and it amends two Acts: the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Psychoactive Substances Act. This bill does not change the status of any drugs, and it does not make any changes to possession or supply. It does none of those things. These things stay in place. What it does do is enable a regime of testing to support the safer use of these drugs.

We would hope that at the time that those drugs are being tested, the conversation with the person having that drug tested would help them make a decision not to take it. They are still going to take these drugs, or if they do, we know prohibition does not work. We know that harm is occurring, and it is, therefore, a good bill and a useful bill, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As we have gone about debating this bill through its first reading tonight and now into the second reading, and the theatrics from the National Party on the notion of a select committee, I’ve been working through in my head how best to articulate the history that brought us to this point. I want to begin by referring to a situation in our relatively recent history.

So I want all MPs to put themselves in this situation. There are hundreds if not thousands of New Zealanders who are contracting HIV/AIDS from intravenous drug use. Heroin usage is becoming rampant throughout the country and we know, based on international research and what is being recommended by domestic experts and professionals and academics and those who work in addiction services, that the best way to deal with this spiralling out of control issue of HIV/AIDS being contracted amongst intravenous drug users is to legalise needle exchange services.

Well, we did just that in 1987. We were the first country in the world to do just that, and as a result we have amongst the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS amongst intravenous drug users in the entire OECD. But if that same decision were confronting the National Party of today they would be standing in the way of that drug harm reduction procedure in the same way that they are standing in the way, or at the very least attempting to, given that they are a small minority in this House—they would be standing in the way of it in the same way that they are today.

The National Party also keep riling themselves up about the notion of consultation. And on this I’d ask them where they were in October of last year when I presented to the Health Committee—which the National Party was supposed to make up approximately half of—a petition on behalf of 6,200 New Zealanders, those New Zealanders that they claim to represent, calling for the legalisation of drug-checking services at festivals ahead of the summer festival season. Yet they decided to leave empty seats and not turn up. Yet here they are yet again railing against the lack of opportunity to engage in this debate in a thorough way that they pretend to want to.

This isn’t at all about anything to do with any form of progress or conservativism at least as far as I can tell. It’s just that the National Party want to take a position of opposition. They just want to stand in the way of the inevitable direction—

David Seymour: Simon Bridges has crossed the floor!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —towards harm reduction. And Simon Bridges was also asking about other forms of research—where else this has been happening. So I’d refer the National Party to the Netherlands, which has been doing legal drug-checking services since 1992. I’d refer them to Austria, which has been doing it since 1997; to Switzerland, which has been doing it since 2001; to Spain and Portugal since 1999; and to the UK, which they invoke in quite a cheeky way, having done so since 2013. And here I’d like to give them another spin on the research that they are dubiously putting forward through a very specific, very niche, and very interesting lens, which is that study from the University of Durham in 2018, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, that showed demonstrably that in the years subsequent to the implementation of legal drug-checking services provided by The Loop, which they invoke, there has been a 95 percent reduction in hospital admissions for those who have used illicit substances.

Simon Bridges also spoke about me not using research or evidence, and I sought to respond to that point by way of a point of order or otherwise. I understand that the processes of this House do not enable such things. However, what was so frustrating about that is that we have multiple National Party MPs standing up tonight and saying that they want to do this by virtue of good faith. I think they demonstrated just how little good faith there genuinely is in a debate like this, when they are willing to stand up and say the complete opposite of the reality, which is that I have, multiple times over, referred them through to six years’ worth of domestic research out of KnowYourStuffNZ.

I have also referred them to the New South Wales chief coronial report, which came out after more than a dozen young people had died. We also had the Hon Simon Bridges saying, “There hasn’t been a death yet. Waah!” You know, what are we supposed to do, Simon? Are we supposed to wait until somebody does die? Because that’s exactly what they’ve done, and that’s the impasse that they have seen in New South Wales. Over 13 young people have died in the past year. The Chief Coroner has reported on top of multiple coronial reports that legal drug-checking services will save lives and they need to do it. Yet you have the Premier of New South Wales saying exactly the same things that the National Party is saying right now.

So it would seem as though it doesn’t matter if we have a death count or not. In fact, the National Party just don’t want to see this change occur for the same rationale that would have seen them opposing the changes to legalise needle exchange services in 1987, which has resulted in us having the lowest number of HIV/AIDS amongst intravenous drug users in the OECD.

I don’t know what that is, when you are unwilling to engage with the research and the data on that level, but purely ideological, purely retention of the status quo for sake of holding on, clinging on to some life raft of how the world works. Well, I just really, really hope that those National Party MPs that I know for a fact want to vote for this tonight are really looking into their consciences. I really, really appeal to those MPs, including some of those who I know sit along the front bench, right now to really think about what you believe in, think about the research, the data, the evidence, your past statements, the conversations that you have had, the tents that you’ve gone into with Wendy from KnowYourStuff.

And on that point, on this second reading tonight, I also want to say thank you to those who have stood up constantly—Wendy Ellison from KnowYourStuff—despite constantly being shot down, talked down to, patronised for continuing to persist in building the evidence base that is bringing this to the House tonight, that is enabling us to pass a measure that will reduce harm.

Just finally, if I may—because it seems as though many National Party MPs who are speaking about this tonight have not engaged with this process and have no idea how it occurs—when you go in to get your drugs tested at these currently legal grey area drug-checking services, the first thing they say to you is “Don’t take drugs. Do not take these drugs. The best way to reduce harm is to not take drugs at all.” That is far from the green light that the National Party Opposition is mythologising tonight and, to be honest, I’m just thoroughly gutted. I mean, I’d hoped that with this new term, we’d have the opportunity for some good faith, evidence-based debates, but it would appear as though the likes of the Hon Nick Smith are just really keen to lean back on old behaviour.

I am incredibly proud to have worked alongside those grassroots activists, those who have been pushing to build the evidence basis for the past three years, to bring legislation like this to the House tonight. And I hope that it definitely leads to a complete repeal and replacement of the absolute demonstrably unworkable Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. I commend this bill to the House.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I support the bill’s primary objective, which is this: to reduce the harm of illegal substances by allowing drug and substance checking services to operate legally in New Zealand. It’s pretty straightforward. This is not a debate about whether drugs should be legal or illegal, nor is it a moral question on whether people should or should not take drugs. Drugs do exist and, even though they’re illegal, people do take them.

This bill doesn’t seek to change whether these drugs are illegal. This legislation simply seeks to clarify a legal uncertainty over whether testing services provided can operate or not. It will make it legal for someone to handle illegal drugs for a few minutes, simply to test them.

It might not feel like summer’s coming any time soon to Wellington, but as we head into summer, as happens every summer, young people, school kids, and university students will head out to festivals and music concerts all around New Zealand. Many of these young people will be presented with illegal substances. Most parents would hope that their kids wouldn’t be the ones taking these illegal substances, especially when they don’t know what’s in them, but it does happen. These are not bad kids. Young people just take risks—some with adverse consequences. No one wants to be the loved one of a tragic fatality that could have been avoided. This bill will reduce a lot of that risk. Passing this bill will reduce harm from drug use.

The present situation is that people are likely to consume substances with less information than they could have about its potential to do them harm because the origin, composition, and toxicity of the substance is unknown. I think it’s useful to acknowledge, when we’re discussing how to address this issue, what actually happens now. Drug testing already occurs, but it does so in a grey area. The testing sites are used, but they’re far and few between—operating through volunteers unable to touch the drugs themselves, rather allowing young people to use the drug machines and avoid touching them because they face the risk of prosecution through possession or supply.

This simple law change makes that operation clear. It will take away that uncertainty for a drug-test site, gives a person better information about what drugs and substances they’re using, and allows a person to make a potentially life-saving decision not to consume it. I believe that this change is needed and the ACT Party will support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the opportunity to take the second contribution to this bill. I want to acknowledge the last speaker who just sat down, Brooke van Velden. It’s refreshing to hear a youthful voice from that side of the House.

The Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill—what it also does is that if the concert organisers find substance in a certain pill that is dangerous to the population, what they can do is publish on their social media warning signs that this drug is circulating at this festival, and that would warn festival goers not to use that particular drug. That is something that this bill would do, be a warning sign at festivals of the dangerous harm of whatever is circulating at that festival. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): We are at the second reading of this very first bill of this Parliament, and our Standing Orders tell us this is where we talk about the evidence that we heard at the select committee. This is the debate where we look at and consider every one of the clauses, and members will be thinking, well, what did happen in the select committee? What evidence did we hear from officials and experts? The answer is absolutely diddlysquat, because the very first bill that this Parliament is passing under urgency hasn’t gone anywhere near a select committee, and it’s impossible for any member to have a thoughtful contribution.

Now, the job of this Parliament is to scrutinise legislation. I know we’ve got many new members in the House. It’s a 34-clause bill. Here’s my question: how many members in the House have read the 34 clauses?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Chlöe has. I’ve got three. So here we are, a Parliament of 120; I can see at least 15 new members who are voting for a bill and they haven’t even bothered to read it. Are they taking their responsibilities as members of this House appropriately when they are prepared to just nod and agree and slam a piece of legislation through all three stages when the bill has only been introduced to the House today?

Now, I’ve been once bitten, twice shy on the sorts of arguments that have been put forward by those of the likes of Chlöe Swarbrick. This Parliament, eight years ago, passed legislation for psychoactive substances. We were told that it was better to regulate those party pills, that it was better if we had a proper regulatory regime, that we would make it safer. Within eight months, every member of this House was confronted with situations in their communities where, actually, that psychoactive substance had made our communities a lot less safe, our accident and emergency departments were full of people who had used substances that had been approved by this Parliament, and, actually, over 200 New Zealanders died.

So I say to this Parliament this is a life and death issue and deserves far more scrutiny than being introduced and rammed through on a single day. I would love to have the sort of evidential challenge that the Green Party’s Chlöe Swarbrick wishes to have, and so I say to the Green Party and I say to the ACT Party: why won’t you support this bill going to a select committee? If they want to have a detailed evidential debate, let’s hear the evidence. Why do we bypass the very processes of this Parliament and not give a single opportunity for that expert evidence?

Now we come to the issue of making drugs safe. They say that if we pass this bill, we’ll make them safe. Well, here’s the evidence—

Hon Member: You’re not interested in the evidence.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —let’s have some evidence—392 Australians died as a consequence of using party pills, and the research by the University of New South Wales found that not one of those deaths were due to impurities. Yet every member says this is all about making sure that our people going to concerts are only going to have access to safe drugs. Actually, it’s not the impurities that killed 390 young people in Australia; it was the drug itself. So when members opposite say that we must pass this law to make party pills like ecstasy safe, on the basis that it is the impurities that are leading to people dying, that is not backed up by the evidence. The evidence is that the use of the drug, the ecstasy itself, is causing those deaths.

The last point is that when the Government, as with the psychoactive substances, says something’s safe, there will be an increase in use, and with that increased use will go increased harm. That’s the sort of evidence that I want to test and I want to scrutinise at a select committee, and members opposite are denying that sort of robust process on this bill.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on this bill. I’m not going to canvass many of the arguments, but I am going to respond to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is asking the question: why is this bill not going to a select committee? I would like to raise an important point that I think it’s important for the House to know and for people who are listening at home to know—that at the end of 2019, Chlöe Swarbrick took a petition to legalise drug-checking services to a select committee of this House. It had support from the Ministry of Health, over 6,000 petitions, and the National Party didn’t turn up to that select committee to look at that petition. So that petition was suggesting exactly what this bill is doing, and the National Party showed no interest in it. Now, all of a sudden, they’ve got interest. Are the National Party playing politics here? I’ve just put that question out there. That’s for them to decide. I hope they aren’t, but I put that question out there. This is a good bill. It’s an important bill. I commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Madam Speaker, is mine a 10-minute or a five-minute call? Ten minutes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I just want to say thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the second reading of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I must say, that was a bit of a strange call from the member opposite around a petition which came to a select committee back in 2019. Not a lot of detail about that petition, some people didn’t turn up, but the point is: it wasn’t a bill going through Parliament. This is a bill which is going through Parliament, and the process which we follow when legislation goes through Parliament is we put it to a select committee. Sometimes we only put it to a select committee for a few days or a few weeks—standard time is six months. This isn’t even going to a select committee for one minute, it’s being rammed through this Parliament as the number one priority for this Government after the election, which they won. The number one issue that they are ramming through this Parliament is the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill.

I wonder how many New Zealanders out there are actually wondering whether this is their number one priority for our country at the moment. Because when I was campaigning up and down my electorate in Pakuranga I didn’t have one single person come up to me and say, “The number one issue that needs to be solved is we need to legalise pill testing at music festivals. That’s what I want you to go down to Parliament for; that’s what needs to be done.” I didn’t have queues out the door of my office this Monday, when I had my constituent clinic, of people saying, “Simeon, when you go to Parliament this week, can you please pass legislation to legalise pill testing?” There wasn’t one single person saying that this Monday morning at my constituent clinic, but this is the Labour Government’s number one priority coming into this term in Parliament. And let’s not mistake it, it’s the Labour Government’s number one priority, because they control the majority in this House. For the first time under MMP, the Labour Party controls the majority in this House. So the Labour Party and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s number one priority coming into this Parliament is to make drug testing of drugs legal in New Zealand. I would’ve thought it would’ve been something to do with COVID-19. I would’ve thought it would’ve been something to do with addressing the issues facing our country with the pandemic.

Barbara Kuriger: Housing.

SIMEON BROWN: I would’ve thought it might’ve been to do with housing, the Resource Management Act, that’s right, or the issues facing our agriculture sector, law and order, all of those important issues—the health system—which matter to New Zealanders. Here we are facing a piece of legislation to simply legalise drug testing so that people can get their drugs tested before this summer’s festivals. Well, surely this could have gone to a select committee and been considered prior to that actually taking place.

The bill will not reduce harm. We’ve heard lots of arguments—well, not arguments. We’ve heard lots of slogans. “This will reduce harm—this will reduce harm.” It doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it doesn’t prove it. Actually, we want to see the evidence. At a second reading, we’re meant to be considering the submissions from submitters. And as Dr Shane Reti outlined from the departmental statement, the only people consulted on this issue has been KnowYourStuffNZ, the organisation which does and has an interest in this issue. No one else in New Zealand has had their views taken into account, and the departmental statement doesn’t even articulate the view that this will even work or that there is any evidence that this will actually work.

When we look overseas and we do look at the evidence around the world, we do not see that this will reduce the harm caused to young people because the reality is that the drugs which are being tested are harmful. The argument getting put across is that these drugs are full of impurities and if only we can find out those impurities, young people won’t take them. Well, the reality is that the drugs themselves are dangerous. Ecstasy is a dangerous drug. The evidence we see from Australia where they examined 392 ecstasy deaths between 2001 and 2016 found that none of those deaths came from impurities or contaminants in the ecstasy drug. The deaths came from the ecstasy or from people taking ecstasy with alcohol or cocaine or another substance. That is the evidence that we see. So by testing the drug, or testing it multiple times, you’re only going to find out that it’s ecstasy and that ecstasy is dangerous, and we need to be telling our young people it’s a dangerous drug which kills people and that they shouldn’t be taking it. It is illegal.

The other issue in this is around dosage. It’s one thing to test it and say, “This has X, Y, Z substances.” It doesn’t tell anybody anything about dosage in the amount of drug that they have. It simply tests for what type of substance might be in there. And dosage is important because dosage will make a difference because people’s bodies will react differently to different drugs in different quantities of drugs. This bill does not address that very important issue.

We’ve just had a referendum in New Zealand in regards to drugs. We’ve just had a referendum on the topic of whether we should be legalising marijuana. The decision made by New Zealanders is that they did not want to see drugs being legalised. But the people now coming to this Parliament to push through this bill seem to have some sort of Trumpian way about them where they don’t want to accept the will of that referendum and want to instead bring this through as the consolation prize for the people who voted Yes to marijuana. This seems to be the agenda which is being brought here today.

So what should be done? What should we be looking for in New Zealand? What are the things that we should be looking for and what would be talked about at a select committee? We’d be talking about drug rehab. Have we got enough drug rehab spaces in New Zealand? Do we have enough addiction treatment services across our country to help young New Zealanders who are facing addiction to these types of drugs? These are the issues which we would have been able to address if this bill had actually gone to select committee. We would have been able to look and examine as to whether the Government’s $1.8 billion that they’ve put into our mental health and addiction services is actually having an impact and whether it’s delivering the services that we need to help reduce the harm of drugs in New Zealand. We’d be able to hear from the public and hear their perspectives on this issue. But are we able to have that conversation? Are we able to stand here at this second reading and have that debate and debate the evidence to and fro? No, we can’t, because it’s been rushed through under urgency without being able to have that conversation.

So the National Party will be opposing this piece of legislation and is deeply disappointed that this has not had the opportunity for New Zealanders to be able to have their say so they can put their input in so that this Parliament can look at the evidence fully and have a full debate on it at the second reading. We will oppose this legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with a little bit of sadness we come back to the House and hear the usual scaremongering and inaccuracies on the issue of drug safety. The fact of the matter is that the National Party is standing between someone trying to make something safe for a citizen. Under the current law, the moment a person takes a drug, takes ecstasy, and says “I will test it to make sure this is what it says it is”, they’re committing the offence of possession of a drug. These people would have our law keep it that way. Well, on this side of the House, and around the rest of the House, we say, “No.” We say, “If people are going to make decisions—decisions which might not be the wisest decisions—we want to make that as safe as we possibly can.” That’s really all you need to say about this piece of legislation. We will make people as safe as we possibly can. This bill is part of that, and I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Bill read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion for the bill to be referred to the Justice Committee.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is objection. The Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. Oh sorry, I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill—you know, I was just giving my new assistant a bit of time to get here. Madam Chair.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is in committee on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. Members, we come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 16, Amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 1 deals with amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. So this is the part of the bill that gives the power of the director-general to effectively give a permit to any outfit that wants to offer drug-testing services. The director-general has to be satisfied that they can do so, and the director-general can attach any conditions to any permit that they give.

The effect of it, then, is that the person providing the service is protected from liability for prosecution. It also means that the host of an event in which a drug-testing service is carried out is also protected from liability for prosecution. So these provisions deal with that, which is the cornerstone, really, of the legislation, as we seek to provide these services and provide protection to young people going to festivals and the forthcoming summer season.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): In speaking to Part 1, the first question I have for the Minister of Health and sponsor of the bill is that in the comments that he has just made and in the press release and all of the information that the public has is that the testing of these drugs—whether it be meth or ecstasy or whatever drug might be used—is going to be for music festivals. The problem I have in Part 1 is that there is no limit on where that drug testing were to occur. I can’t find the word “festival”, I can’t find the word “event”, I can’t find the word “concert”, or any of those there. So the only interpretation I can reasonably take is that the drug-testing services that are proposed in this part could be applied anywhere—for instance, I know in my home community, one of the scourges not just in Nelson but up and down New Zealand is the issue of P, meth use. And, yes, there will be those who argue that those who are buying and trading and use meth in communities all over New Zealand should—just as at a music concert or festival will have it tested to make sure that it doesn’t have impurities or that it’s pure meth or that it’s what people are selling—that, indeed, this part would provide that you could have such a testing service at the street corner, in the local area where gangs might be dealing with drugs, or any old where.

Now, it is quite a—

Dr Duncan Webb: What’s the question?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, my question that I put to the member opposite—and it would be helpful if he could do it—is: does the bill limit the testing to that of music festivals and concerts? Because all of the public dialogue has been that that’s what the bill is about: making festivals and concerts safe. But that is not what the part says. The part makes no restriction to it being a particular event. It makes no restriction on it being for music festivals. So, effectively, Parliament is giving the authority for whether it be in Trafalgar Street, Nelson or in Cashel Street in Christchurch or in Gore or in any other part of the country—

Hon Member: Rathbone Street, Whangārei.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —for drug testing services to be able to—even in Epsom, on Remuera Road—as I—

David Seymour: That’s not in Epsom.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —read this bill, Mr Seymour—maybe Mr Seymour knows; I know he’s supporting the bill. Is it the intent that the drug-testing services would be limited to concerts and festivals or could they, in fact, be anywhere?

David Seymour: Well, the tester would have to be authorised by the Director-General of Health.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So does Mr Seymour and the ACT Party apply the same philosophy that testing drugs at a concert or festival, but equally so it could occur in the community, and that, actually, if you believe in the philosophy behind this bill—and that is that you are going to make drug use safer in New Zealand for illegal substances like P or like ecstasy, which is probably the most common drug that is intended behind this bill, but it may well be cocaine or some other service—that it is not limited to simply a music festival or event? Actually, the part provides the authorisation by Parliament for that testing to occur anywhere, and that may well be the Government’s intent, that may well be what ACT is intending to support. But my question is: why should it? Do we really think we are going to make the use of drugs like P, like cocaine, like meth safer if we test it not just at music festivals and events but otherwise? And can they, please, if it intended to limit it to music festivals—why would your philosophy be different?

We know that drug harm actually is biggest in our communities not at music festivals, and if you were going to apply the logic that by testing these drugs you’re going to make them safer at festivals, then why would you not apply the same logic in our communities? And doesn’t, in fact, Part 1 of this bill make no mention of music festivals, no mention of concerts? In fact, it is a regime that provides for the authorisation of illegal drugs, drugs that this Parliament has determined are illegal, and for all of those to be tested and actually for them to be tested anywhere and there’s no restriction in this part of the bill that it should only be music festivals and such events.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I understood that the question that the member has taken a considerable amount of time to ask is whether or not the bill, on its face and in the language that it uses, limits the place where testing might be carried out just to festivals and music festivals and the like. The answer to that is clearly no, because there is no reference to festivals. But then the member might want to—look, my invitation to members opposite is to get into the real world and understand the context of this.

So we know that there are one or two outfits that do pill testing for the safety of consumers of them. One is KnowYourStuff and the other, as I understand it, is the New Zealand Drug Foundation—I stand to be corrected on that. They typically operate around festivals and events like that where young people gather. Their big risk that they face is the risk of prosecution when they are carrying out a service that is about trying to keep young people safe, people who choose to use substances that are mind altering, that can have an effect on the body, but mixed with others could cause even greater harm, and they want to keep them safe. We want to make sure that it is possible to have testing services available at events where young people gather, and this is a way of doing that.

Now, the member will also know, having studied the bill and seeing the media releases and what have you, that this is time limited, that this is self-repealing within 12 months. Because the other public announcements that have been made is that we do actually need to have a more considered examination of a law change that will do this on a permanent basis—I know members opposite have raised, in the first and second reading speeches, their concern about there being no select committee process and no examination—there will be a full parliamentary process when we come up with a long-term solution for this problem, and members can dust off their old speech notes that they’ve been using tonight, and run them all out again, but there will be a select committee examination and all of that.

So I just invite that member who’s resumed his seat, and other members, to look at the context in which this is happening and know that, in the practicality of the real world, it will be limited in application, because that is the only way in which these services will be carried out, in the foreseeable period contemplated by the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Before I take the next speaker, I just want to remind the House that in the previous Parliament we had instituted a new way of running the committee where the member asking the question doesn’t necessarily need to take the full five minutes. In fact, asking a question succinctly then really requires the Minister, if they have a mind to, to provide an answer. So can I encourage the House: that was a system that was beginning to work quite well in the last Parliament, and could well work in this Parliament.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I sincerely hope that your reminder to the committee about the need, or the lack of need, to fill the complete five minutes was in no way a reflection on the contribution of Dr Nick Smith, because I thought that what he said was well and truly worthy of taking up five minutes. It was a very good contribution that we’re very grateful to have heard.

But I would like to ask a question of the Minister, because, in the absence of a regulatory impact statement and a select committee examination of this bill, I think that there are things that people will wish to know. For instance, if we take clause 8, which appears to amend section 12, it says, “It is not an offence against subsection (1) for a person to permit any premises to be used by a drug and substance checking service provider” for the purpose that’s defined later in the bill. Now, that’s for a person to permit any premises, so I assume the intention is that that’s the person that owns the premise, or at least has control of it—has leased or rented, perhaps, a vineyard in Marlborough where they’re doing a festival. I guess the question is: what if it was, say, a gang? Would they be able to do it? Would they be in any way excluded? It does say any person and any premise.

Just to sort of tease out what this means for people, let’s say, for instance, a great place where I’ve spent some great nights is the Powerstation on Mount Eden Road. That is a place where young people gather. It’s private property. It’s owned by some very passionate business people. I wonder if they would be able to permit a drug-testing service to be used there at the Powerstation. Now, I don’t have a particular problem with that. I believe in the principle of the bill, and I think a lot of the parents in that part of our country, just the same as parents up and down New Zealand, would want this kind of security and information to be available. But it’s worth just clarifying. It could be, for instance, the Powerstation.

Then, the next question I’d ask is, OK, just for total clarity, for people interested in this bill, it’s still illegal to possess those substances. You know, it’s still illegal to have illegal drugs, by definition, at that location or any other venue. All this bill is doing is saying that it’s not illegal for the property owners, for the venders of the Powerstation, to allow a pill-testing service to operate on their site. Now, I think I’ve got this right, but I think there’s a reason for this committee stage, and it’s important that we actually tease out what exactly the legislation says and what the meanings of it are in that case, and perhaps some of the unintended consequences.

So, to wrap up, the question is: could this be, for instance, a music venue in central Auckland—number one. Will all of the other laws about drugs continue to be enforced at that venue for possession and supply and so on is question number two. I guess question number three is: what if, actually, that venue—not so far from the Powerstation, in the north of Mount Eden, is a very well-known gang patch that I won’t name, because I don’t want to get myself in any trouble. Is there any—

Hon Simon Bridges: Why? Are you on the CCTV?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, you never know. There’s no application. I’ve been delivering my pamphlets outside, and they could have them pointing out there, couldn’t they, Simon Bridges? You are in a boisterous mood tonight, Mr Bridges. I hope the member hasn’t been taking anything himself!

And what about people that are involved in organised crime? Is there anything in the bill that excludes them from being involved in pill testing? Perhaps, with somebody who was on the police gang list, is there any way that they would be excluded from being engaged in a pill-testing business. I think those are some of the questions that people at home would like to be clarified as they watch this legislation go through.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to that member for his questions. He’s referred to clause 8 and the proposed amendment to section 12, and he rightly points to the words “person to permit … premises”. So this relates to the person in control of premises—whether the owner or the lessee or someone with a licence in charge of the premises or in charge of the event. They will be the person who is entitled to, I guess, the protection of this particular law.

But, in terms of the dangers that he raises—what about other drug laws, and what if a venue was not just a music venue but gang headquarters—I refer the member to clause 10 of the bill, in particular the proposed section 35DA of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also proposed section 35DB, which sets out the functions of the service provider. Now, in terms of proposed section 35DA in clause 10, the director-general has to give a permit. The director-general appoints the drug service provider. I think it follows that the director-general, in making that appointment, has to be sure that the person who they’re giving the permit to can perform the functions set out in section 35DB. The director-general is not going to appoint somebody who is incapable of performing those functions. So there’s going to have to be a level of competency and capability required.

The other thing the director-general can do is specify reasonable terms and conditions of an appointment. It is well within the powers of the director-general to say, “Well, I’m going to allow you to do this, and, by permitting you to do this, you are protected from criminal liability, but, to limit that, I’m going to make sure that, when you are discharging these services, they are at appropriate events or venues.” The director-general has it in their power to define that and, I expect, probably will. That contains the extent to which these services will be provided. If the venue was a gang headquarters, the director-general might ask the applicant for the permit and say, “Well, where do you propose to conduct these services?” If it’s going to be at gang premises, I expect the director-general—not I expect; I’m almost certain that the director-general—will decline to grant the permit. So I think there are, in the scheme of the bill in total, sufficient safeguards that mean that the risk of drug-testing services popping up all over the place, including at a gang headquarters, is so minimal—so negligible—as to be virtually zero.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Actually, I want to follow on from that with the Minister, because he’s been talking about particularly the requirement of who it will be that will be doing this testing, and I also want to touch on and ask him a question or two on the “what”. Perhaps we’ll wrap them up in this contribution.

On the “who”—I’ve just heard what he said—I’d make the point to him that we’re talking about, as we’ve heard in the committee, parents wanting an assurance that this is safe. And so surely it’s more than simply a question, I’m asking him, of competency; isn’t it also a question of good character? And is there a good-character requirement in this? Because we could envisage—and some may say, “Well, they’re far-fetched”; I doubt they actually are—scenarios where people with a background in and with a connection to drug offending, or those who may be engaged in those things, could be involved here. Not only could that colour their advice but potentially there’d be other ramifications from that, as well. And will there be, in terms of those people who will get, under new section 35DA in clause 10, the tick from the Director-General of Health, training? Because we’d want to know that actually there’s more than just a once over lightly. How will that competency be assessed? Because, you know, I come back to it: parents are wanting an assurance of safety here, and surely you want to make sure that information that’s going to them is of the best quality, isn’t coloured, isn’t too relaxed, but is serious, given we’re not just dealing with class C and B drugs; we’re dealing with class A drugs, as well, with serious harms.

To wrap this up in one go here, I’ll also ask the Minister not just about the “who” but about the “what”, which we get in new section 35DB, in clause 10—the functions of the service provider. I’m particularly interested in not just the information and harm reduction advice, which I’ve already touched on, but also this question of the outcome of the testing, and when the testers will return or dispose, and what advice they will be giving around that, and any sense he can give us of what that guidance will be from the director-general—if there’s anything in this bill, or if he envisages any further regulatory instrument to do that.

And I say that because if I take a simple perspective on this—I’m not in any way an expert on MDMA; I’ve done jury trials in that area, but they’re a long time ago. I’ve done a lot of jury trials in the area of cannabis, which was rather more common in the Bay of Plenty, but the issue with cannabis, of course, is we know that the THC can be at a low level or a very high level, and the buzz at the high level is much more dangerous. And so, for example, where impurities are found, will there be a list? Where compounds are found, will there be a list? Will there also be guidance on at what strengths, in a sense, the harm thresholds should be being applied here? I accept entirely these are not areas I have expertise in, but I would be interested in asking the Minister, given this bill is going through urgency without a parliamentary committee, what the story there will be.

And finally on all of that, in terms of that returning and disposing—even when they’re not disposed of and they are returned—if there aren’t going to be limitations for certain strengths, or buzzes, if you like, will it nevertheless be the case that there will be warnings for the ecstasy or other drugs in those? I really want to get some assurance from the Minister on those matters.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his questions. I understand his first question related to who is doing the testing, and how that can be determined or controlled, and he raised the particular question about the good-character nature of the tester. I again refer the member to clause 10 of the bill and the proposed section 35DA. Again, when the director-general comes to appoint drug- and substance-checking service providers, the director-general has to be sure that this is an output or a person who can carry out the functions provided for in new section 35DB in clause 10. I think the member can be sure, and the committee can be sure, the director-general will want to know that this is someone who has the means, the capability, and the qualifications to carry out substance testing. And, in fact, if you look at proposed section 35DB(1)(b), one of the things that the drug-testing service has to do is to “ascertain the composition and likely identity of the drug”. So they’re going to have the means, the equipment, the chemicals—whatever—to carry out that function.

So the director-general, in appointing someone to that role, has to be sure that they can do it. So this is not going to be any old mug off the street waltzing up their application to the director-general and saying, “I’ll do it,” and thinking they’re in for a good time. These are going to be competent, qualified people who do the job, as, indeed, the people who do it for KnowYourStuffNZ are. So I think the scheme of the bill gives the reassurance that this is going to provide a level of safety and therefore assurance to parents of young people who might be availing themselves of these sorts of services.

The member raised questions about what the owner of the substance who surrenders it for testing will be told. Well, again, the scheme of the bill makes it clear: they will be given information and harm reduction advice. So they will be told regardless: “You might want to use this; it might be your choice; do you know what this might do?” Once it’s been tested, they will then be given advice on the composition and likely identity of it, and, again, it’s an opportunity for the drug checker to give advice on ingestion of that particular substance. And then there’s a range of other things that the tester can do, which also includes that the substance provided for testing, if the person who’s provided it doesn’t want it any more, is for the drug-testing service to dispose of. So the dangers that I think the member is raising, quite legitimately, are, I think, satisfactorily covered off in the full scheme of the bill, as laid out, particularly, in clause 10 of it.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in the committee stage on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I’ve got a couple of questions in regards to how this bill is going to work. My first question is around how a young person who’s attending some festival somewhere, when they turn up to the festival and someone’s there saying, “I’m going to test your drugs”, how to know that they have been certified under clause 10, new section 35DA. The ministry has to have a website which lists the people who have been certified, but there’s no information required—from what I can see—for the service provider to actually put it in front of that young person their certification, the fact that they have been certified by the Director-General of Health. How are they going to know that this person has been given the lawful authority to do this drug testing and that they are doing it in accordance with the law and therefore meeting the standards and the conditions imposed upon them by the Director-General of Health?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Again, the director-general, in giving somebody this permit to provide drug-checking services, can also specify reasonable terms and conditions of that appointment. My expectation is that one of the conditions will be that the person who was given the permit to carry out drug-testing services must display the permit authority from the director-general. So that is covered off in the bill; it is there and it allows, therefore, that person to carry out that testing.

Again, when we think about the practical reality, the situation that we are now in, we know that there are outfits—of one at least, called KnowYourStuff, that has been around for a while, is well known to people, has an established track record of carrying out drug-treatment services. They will, no doubt—if given the authority to do so under this legislation—be able to establish themselves in a relevant event, or be known at the event, or display their permit, as a trusted provider of these services. That is what the bill provides for.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to ask a little bit about clause 19, which contemplates somebody who is operating a pill-testing site, tests drugs, and returns them to a person. Of course, it contemplates that they’ll give it back, but what if—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. We are debating Part 1 at the moment. Part 1 contains clauses 1 to 16. The member was addressing clause 19.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): I want to speak to the amendment that’s been moved in my name and tabled, because I think it’s important, particularly when we are being asked to rush legislation through the Parliament, that we keep it to the very narrow purpose that has been publicly stated. And if you look at the press release in the Minister’s name, if you look at both newspaper articles and media coverage, this bill is meant to be all about providing for drug- and substance-checking services specifically for summer music festivals or concerts; yet this very part provides no such limitation. It says that the drug-testing service could be provided on Trafalgar Street on any day of the week or any other part of New Zealand.

The reason I’m concerned is because when I hear the advocate for this bill, Chlöe Swarbrick of the Green Party, she makes absolutely plain that she, indeed, believes that this drug-testing service should be equally available for the P dealer or the meth dealer or the cocaine dealer that are selling drugs in our communities every day of the week and not just at music festivals and concerts. And so I seek the support of the committee for an amendment that ensures the bill only does what we say it would do, and that is that this is solely a narrow bill that is going to provide for the testing of drugs at music festivals and concerts. Shouldn’t we put in the legislation what we said?

If that is the area that the Government and the parties that are supporting it, around specifically providing that drug-testing service, where there may be some level of risk, let’s do as we say and constrain Part 1 specifically to the issue of providing music festivals or concerts. Or is this really a Trojan Horse? Is this really about providing a far wider drug-testing service?

David Seymour: He’s on to them.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’d be interested, does the ACT Party—is it your party’s intent that for the dealer of cocaine or meth or ecstasy in Auckland, Nelson, Christchurch, Dunedin—if you accept the logic that drug-testing services make things safer at the music festival, do you accept the logic of the Green Party that equally it would make it safer if the drugs that are purchased anywhere else is also tested for impurities?

David Seymour: Where could this informed choice thing go?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, indeed, I would fear to know how liberal that party might go. But I’m just old fashioned and say that we should do as we say. If the press release says it’s about music festivals and concerts, if the members opposite in every one of their speeches says it’s about solely providing this service at music festivals and concerts, the explanatory note of the bill specifically says it’s about providing testing at festival venues and for festival organisers, well, if that’s what we’re saying publicly, let’s do that with the law. Let’s limit the testing service to those specific music festivals or concerts where people are concerned that there is risk.

So I invite the Government, who has used those specific phrases in its press releases and its comments and the explanatory note, and the other parties, who have all referred to that being a concern, I invite them to support my amendment to clause 35DJ that says that a service provider will be limited to providing that service at such music festivals or concerts. And if members from the ACT Party or Labour or the Greens are not going to support that amendment in my name, could they please provide an explanation as to why they want the broader testing service available?

My view is that this country has a serious problem with drugs like meth, not just at music festivals, actually right through our country, that we should not be providing the testing service for the general dealing in those drugs, that we should limit it solely to those music festival events, and I seek the support of the House for the amendment in my name that does just that.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a simple question to the Minister in the chair. The regulatory impact statement says Victoria University has conducted research into drug-checking services and that the Ministry of Health has been provided with interim results. What are those results with respect to the actions of the clauses in Part 1, please?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. Look, it would be desirable if the research were released fully and properly. As I understand it, it is expected to be released in the next couple of weeks, but the interim results of that research, I am advised, led to the conclusion that two-thirds of people using drug-checking services at festivals or events changed their behaviour as a consequence—either didn’t consume the substance that they had submitted for testing, modified their consumption of the substance for testing, or in a subsequent period changed their drug-consumption habit.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I have two questions also on Part 2, primarily—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Part 1.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Part 1, I’m sorry, Minister Little—new section 35DD, in clause 10, “Supplying or surrendering controlled drug to service provider”, an individual may supply or surrender the control drug to the service provider. My question on this is a point David Seymour made, which is that, of course, it is still an offence in this land to possess an illicit drug within the classifications of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the service provider, of course, is immune, has immunity through this part. What, though, about the individual who is supplying or surrendering? Is there, for example, a safe space for them? If they are there, just about to hand those over, is there any guidance or anything there to stop police from simply arresting them at that point in time? Because, as the Minister knows, we don’t agree with the bill, but that would seem a ridiculous proposition and against the spirit of this. So it’s a question about the safe space or how that will work.

Secondly, and relatedly—and I confess, if I’ve got this wrong, that is that—but I don’t see in Part 1, where I think it would logically flow, any provision about the disposal of the drugs. I’m wanting to understand that, because it seems to me, again—and the Minister, effectively, by his omission made clear—that, whilst it’s up to the director-general, it’s not necessarily the case that there’d be good character requirements around the service providers. One could envisage a bad egg who is approved and who slips through this having a defence a week later, three weeks later, with that big bucket of—

Hon Member: Drugs.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —drugs surrendered to him or her. I was thinking of the avocados in my kitchen, frankly, that were in the bucket, but they don’t need testing. But those pills, which were, in fact, for the purpose of something else, obviously illegal purposes—surely there should be, and I ask is there, or, if there isn’t, what is his view on what the disposal situation should be?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Mr Bridges for his questions. Can I just deal with his last one first, which was to do with disposal of drugs or substances provided to the drug checker for checking. So if we have a look at proposed section 35DB, in clause 10, which lists as the functions of the service provider, it includes not only in paragraph (e) disposing of any sample of a controlled drug or substance used in testing, but in paragraph (f) disposing of or arranging for the disposal of any drug or substance surrendered by any individual for disposal.

So one can anticipate there’ll be situations where the drug checker says to the person, “You don’t really want this. This is so bad. It’ll do you so much harm.” And the person says, “You know what? You’re right. I’m going to give it to you. Can you dispose of it and I’ll go off and have a drug-free enjoyable period at my concert, listening to Roger Whittaker.”—or whatever concert it is that I’m at. And then if we have a look at proposed section 35DH, in clause 10, which are the protections from liabilities of the service provider, it says “An employee or a volunteer of a service provider is not liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance or intended performance of the service provider’s functions”, unless it was shown to act in bad faith. So they’re protected from liability for disposal of it, and they will therefore dispose of it.

Going back to the first question I think the member was raising, which was that point in time in which the possessor of the drug or substance waltzes up to the place where they’re going to get checked and all the time committing a criminal offence in possessing it, then hands it over. There’s that little point in time—or, in fact, there’s a point in time when, having handed it over, they’re no longer in possession, therefore not committing a criminal offence anymore; the drug checker has it in their possession, protected from criminal offence under this bill. And so I have to say in the early drafts there was consideration given to some sort of protection for the possessor of it, of the substance or drug, but it was difficult to define at what point that should sort of stop and start. The reality is we are not stopping people who possess drugs or substances from being criminally liable; they are. They remain that. It’s only if they’re carrying out testing services they’re free or if they’re the controller of the premises or the place where it happens they are protected from liability for criminal prosecution.

So the person who possesses it then falls back to the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act we made last year, which is to give a signal about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to the police. So the police might stand there and see all this happening, but the police know that, when they come to exercise their discretion, if the only criminal offence they see committed is possession of the drug, then they’re actually going to have to fall back on a health referral anyway. So the scheme in total, I think, makes sense for what we’re trying to achieve, which is knowing there are people who have illicit substances in circumstances where they have bought an illicit substance, don’t really know what it is, know there’s a risk, and get it tested—we want that person, if the police are concerned about them, to have a health referral, not to be treated through the criminal justice system, and this helps to achieve that.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I refer briefly to the amendment on the Table in the name of Dr Nick Smith, which would, as he tells us, restrict the testing to be done at music festivals. We’re listening—ACT is listening—but we would like Dr Smith to tell the committee how a music festival will be defined. Will there be a required level of musicality or festivity in his amendments, and how will that be enforced? Because it could be quite useful if those things were indeed measurable and practical to measure. Perhaps Dr Smith would even give a demonstration of the musicality and festivity required to the committee, but I suspect it’s going to be difficult for us to support that.

I’d also like to ask the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, about new section 35DH, the amendments that would say, “An employee or a volunteer of a service provider is not liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance”. In the scenario where some drugs are tested and it turns out they’re bad and somebody is harmed by taking them but the service provider has in some way failed in their duty, are they liable under the Health and Safety at Work Act? Because surely they’re a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU). Now, this leads to an interesting question: is there a carve-out? Because a lot of people up and down this country would love a carve-out from the liabilities of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Being a PCBU, if you’re a director, if you’re somebody on one of these service providers, if you’re on the board of KnowYourStuffNZ, you’d want to know that you are not going to be liable for some kid that takes some drugs. You tell them—you don’t communicate properly, whatever, and they harm themselves—have you taken all reasonably practicable steps? Because that’s the bar that people operating farms and businesses up and down this country face.

So, you know, we’ve got to be very careful here. It may well be that, with regard to workplace health and safety, service providers like KnowYourStuffNZ are already operating in that kind of legal grey area and this legislation will actually have no effect on the situation. If that’s the case, I don’t think we should concern ourselves with it tonight, but on the other hand, you’d want to be pretty sure—and I know the Minister in the chair has only recently become the Minister of Health. He’s got a very, very rich background in labour relations and workplace health and safety; he’s in a very good position to address this, and I’m sure there will be people who would very much like to have some reassurance about how the new section 35DH, particularly subsection (1) of that new section, is going to interact with the laws that apply to people up and down this country when they are operating a business as a person conducting a business or undertaking—you know, what sorts of rules apply to them, and does this section actually create a carve-out from the Health and Safety at Work Act, because if that’s the case, well, this is something the ACT Party wholeheartedly supports. There’d be a wide range of people—employers and people in organisations, rugby clubs, up and down this country—who would love to know that Parliament can give them such an exemption. But certainly, to date, it seemed very unusual—in fact, unprecedented—that that has been allowed to happen.

So I hope that the Minister, drawing on the expertise that he has and has built up over many decades in his law practice and as a Minister in the previous Government and as a member of this House, will be able to give some clarity, because I know that there’ll be people who are very much in favour of this bill, people who would otherwise be operators, who would actually really, really like to be able to get some clarity. I think, particularly in a scenario where there is the absence of a regulatory impact statement, where there is the absence of a select committee process with submissions and so on, and where all of this is going to happen very, very fast with guidelines set out by the Director-General of Health—given all of that, it would be very, very helpful if the Minister could rise to his feet and give clarification about the interaction between the Health and Safety at Work Act on the one hand and this legislation before us tonight on the other.

Now, I don’t know what’s happening, Madam Chair—I was fairly certain that at 10  o’clock the committee would actually rise, but it looks like we’re going into extra time, and I’m looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say all night long.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that last comment around the procedures around the end of play for the day. The Standing Orders have changed for this Parliament and we do have a five-minute window on either side to allow members to make a contribution. So, members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.03 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)

TUESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 2020

(continued on Wednesday, 2 December 2020)

Bills

Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Kāti rā, tēnei te mihi ake ki a tātou. Members, when we suspended last night, the committee was debating Part 1 of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 16, Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chairman. When we adjourned last night, David Seymour had asked a searching question about the application of proposed section 35DH in clause 10 of the bill, and he had wondered whether, in the references to an employee or volunteer of a service provider not being liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance or intended performance of the service provider’s functions, that meant they were off the hook for, for example, health and safety breaches. I am pleased to advise the member that no, they won’t be.

It’s important, of course—as former member of the House the Rt Hon Winston Peters used to say, words matter. So you have to look at all the words of a provision. If the member looked at the rest of the words in subsection (1) of the proposed new section 35DH, where it says “unless it is shown that they acted in bad faith or without reasonable care”—now, that’s in relation to the performance of the functions as defined in the bill, and those functions are set out in proposed section 35DB. Providing an employee or volunteer of a drug-checking service provider carries out those functions in good faith and with reasonable care, they won’t be liable for any act or omission on their part. It does not absolve them of the responsibility to comply with the requirements of the health and safety and employment legislation, which, of course, will apply to the host of the event and any other person conducting a business or undertaking that is operating around the event.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I’m sorry not to see Dr Smith take a call; I hope he will soon, because I’m particularly keen to hear his explanation of just how musical and festive a music festival would have to be to qualify under his amendment. Upon further examination of Dr Smith’s amendment, I’ve also noticed that it is an amendment to section 35DJ. That is the amendment that requires the testing to be done at a music festival—so, hey, 35DJ! We’re looking forward to hearing Dr Smith get up and explain his amendment.

But I would like to just drill down a bit further into the more serious matter that’s being discussed and that the Minister’s just very helpfully given a partial answer to, but I do wonder about the remaining liabilities for both the host of the venue and for other people who might comprise a person conducting a business or undertaking—for example, a testing service that the directors or management, that the volunteers and workers, have certainly absolved. But what liability do they have in the case where somebody avails themselves of a testing service and still goes on to be harmed by impure drugs? Because I just think it’s—you know, given the absence of a regulatory impact statement, given the absence of a select committee process, can we just tease out and understand what liabilities people—who I support, who I think should be offering their services—will face under the Health and Safety at Work Act, given this law? And the answer may well be no different from what they face now. If that’s the answer, I think hearing that from the Minister in the committee would be very helpful.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thanks again to that member for the further question. I do go back to those words at the very end of that proposed subsection and proposed clause, or new section 35DH: “unless it is shown that they acted in bad faith or without reasonable care”. So there is an expectation that they will exercise reasonable care. We know, as a matter of law, reasonable care will differ depending on the qualifications, competency, or capability of the person. A medical professional who volunteers to assist with a drug-checking service will be held to a higher standard than somebody who has got a basic science knowledge, knows how to run the testing equipment, and can interpret a result and advise a person of the result. That is the reality. So I think the expectation with these testing services is that they conduct the test, they get the result, and they provide that to the person who has provided the sample or the drug for testing. There will be some advice or counselling about—first of all, advice about the content of the substance, then, second, about the health effects of ingesting it. Provided that is happening, consistent with the person’s skills, competency, and capability, then they have discharged their obligation.

If there is an adverse reaction further down the track, well, then, the person in the drug-checking service won’t be held responsible for that, because, in the end, it will be the choice of the person who has acquired the substance, sought testing of it, and then has knowledge of it, and what they choose to do with it after that will be on them. That is the regime that has been set up, and I think that member would accept that this is about saying to those people who do choose to use mind-altering substances, that is a choice that they take regardless of the lawfulness of the substance. We know that there are health effects, and the purpose of this is to allow an opportunity to provide health advice at that time, but if they make that choice, they make that choice. We want to seek to minimise the negative health effects, but I think reality and life tells us we won’t stop some people, or people within a cohort, from experimenting, trying stuff out, even if it has a predictable and obvious effect on them.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The part in which I entirely agree with the Minister is firstly about the fact that Parliament needs to be focused on minimising the harm, and the second is that words matter. I want to pursue a little further with the Minister the practical implications of Part 1, along a similar line as David Seymour raised, and that is its interaction with the health and safety workplace laws.

The reason I ask these questions is that when I talk to festival operators in the Nelson region, they are incredibly and properly risk-averse around the issue of drugs at such music festivals, like the Bay festival and the like, and rightly so because they are really nervous that if there is tragedy during their festival in which a young person takes one of these psychotic recreational drugs and dies, they will be legally liable. So they actually go to quite a lot of effort to try and keep those venues drug-free.

Here’s the tough question for the Parliament. I’d like a colleague to address it. I’d like Chlöe Swarbrick to address it as well. If we provide for a drug-testing service at those festivals, does that in any way shift or alter the legal obligations of those festival organisers? In other words, if I’m a festival organiser who at the moment is quite risk-averse, and rightly so—whether they’re running White Island volcanic tours or building sites, factories or music festivals, we want them focused on safety and that’s the very purpose of that Act—is there a risk in Part 1 that as a consequence of providing for this drug and substance checking, I as a festival organiser am going to be able to say, “Hey guys. I had the drug-testing service there. I’ve met my obligations.”, and, effectively, turn a blind eye to those that are peddling the meth, the ecstasy, the cocaine at these sorts of festivals? In my view, if that is the legal effect of Part 1, we actually run a risk of increasing the harm, not reducing it—on which we agree.

The second point I want to address is my amendment to section 35—coincidently—“DJ”, and no I’m not going to indulge my colleague David Seymour by singing an item, although I do note that the member of Parliament for that, Chris Baillie, may like to give us a maiden number as a band member with musical talent. If I was to test my musical talents in this Chamber, I assure you that I would probably get disciplined and named by the Chair. But there is a serious point, and the serious point is this: if the logic of this part, that providing drug-testing services at music festivals is going to make them safer, why would you not equally, Minister, run that argument in the broader community? The reality is the bulk of our illicit drugs are not used at music festivals and such events; they are actually used out in the community every single day in homes and all over the country. If the logic is that there is a risk at music festivals, is it the Government’s intent to also apply that testing to The Octagon in Dunedin or Queen Street in Auckland and every other nook and cranny of New Zealand where, sadly, there are high and increasing levels of illicit drug use? If you apply the logic that you’re going to make it safer at a music festival, do you also apply the logic that says that it would so too apply to others? As Part 1 is currently drafted, this drug- and substance-testing service could be applied anywhere.

I have proposed an amendment to try and narrow the focus of the bill. I’d be interested in the Green Party view. Is it the intent that the drug-testing service would apply only at music festivals or is the intent actually to apply it at other places where illicit drugs are used? If there is a difference in public policy view about those different circumstances, please explain, because I am unconvinced. I would stress to this Parliament, particularly when it is passing urgent legislation in a hurry, that we keep it narrow, and let’s at least keep it to those music festivals and those sorts of concert events, and let’s see how it goes for 12 months before we throw the net more widely. I would be interested both in the Minister’s response, the Green Party’s response, and I’d be particularly interested in the ACT Party supporting our amendment so that we can keep this urgent provision to the very specific issue that has been in the public arena, and that is the issue of music festivals and concerts.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m thankful for questions posed by the Rt Hon Dr Nick Smith. Can I deal with the second question first, which flows from his amendment and his proposal to add proposed section 35DJ—coincidently—and say that I’d be very clear: it is the intention of this Government through the next phase of legislation it will bring to Parliament, which will go through the full parliamentary process and a full select committee examination, to ensure that there are drug-checking services available beyond just festivals, because the member is absolutely right: there are substances available on the street, so to speak, that are unsafe to people. There is all sorts of peddling of substances and wares on the streets in cities around New Zealand, which are a hazard to youth, and which people ought, if they get the opportunity, to better find out what is contained in those substances.

Because that is a significant policy step—a health policy step—it is right that that comes under the full scrutiny and examination of this Parliament, and that member and other National Party members who will be on the relevant select committee, the Health Committee, will have an opportunity to go through in detail the policy considerations and the pharmacological information that informs that policy.

But right now this particular provision is conceived to apply for the forthcoming festival season. It is based around the Director-General of Health being able to give a permit, and the basis on which the Director-General of Health will give those permits, bearing in mind that the Director-General of Health can put conditions on it, will relate to the music festival, music concert, sort of, regime that happens around this time of the year anyway. Given that the concert season, the festival season, is about to kick off this month, we want to make sure that that is in place for there. That is what the policy intention is confined to.

In terms of the member’s proposed amendment I might just add—and I think David Seymour referred to it yesterday. The difficulty with this proposed amendment is: what is a music festival or concert? Does a music festival that has all sorts of other offerings—food, other beverages, entertainment—constitute a music festival for the purposes of the member’s proposed amendment? I think that has the potential to create more confusion than to provide assistance.

On to the member’s first point that he raised in relation to interaction with health and safety and employment obligations; look, I’ve met festival organisers who say, “The reality is, we know that at these events people are going to turn up with substances and some of them won’t know exactly what is in the substance they have.” From their point of view, they consider the bigger risk is that they don’t have the means available to better ensure safety for those who do want to consume those substances. The event organisers I’ve spoken to welcome the ability to have drug-checking services available in a way that means that they are not criminally liable. So they see that as discharging their health and safety obligations as opposed to going in the opposite direction.

I’ve yet to meet a festival organiser, dealing particularly with the kind of summer rock festivals that we get, who aspires to drug-free events. They know that with the cohort and the demographic that turns up to those events, there is a high probability that there will be illicit substances circulating within that group. What they want to do is make sure that those who choose to ingest those substances do so with a level of information and education and knowledge and do so safely. So I think that is a fulfilment of health and safety obligations for a person conducting a business or undertaking, not contrary to it.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): The Minister has not specifically addressed the question that I sought about the legal liability of festival organisers. Just to keep it very short and sharp to the Minister: will the provision of drug- and substance-checking services at a festival reduce the liability that a festival organiser will face in the event of a tragedy at a festival event? In other words: has he had any advice from officials about the interaction of this bill and our health and safety and workplace laws around the obligation? And here’s the rub of it for the Minister—why I’m concerned—the core of the argument this morning is everybody wants to reduce harm. That’s not the question. The question we have as a consequence of providing the substance testing is that you make the organisers of festivals less cautious about trying to prevent drug dealers getting into their festival events, that you get people getting less cautious about using the substance, because now it’s got a Government testing - approved agency that’s doing it, and, as a consequence, you’ll get increased use and you get increased harm. So the reason for the question is that these provisions might be counter-productive to reducing harm, if, in fact, we have organisers saying, “Good, this law reduces my liability and risk.”, and that’s why I’d specifically ask the Minister what advice he has received, what assurances he can give to the committee that that is not a risk that we should be concerned with.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I thank the member again for his further clarification, and I think the point is this: the only exoneration of liability, if you like, for the event organiser is exoneration from section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. They won’t be liable for prosecution by having the drug-checking services at their event knowing that that means that there will be people at an event that the event organiser controls who are in possession of illicit substances. So they are off the hook for criminal liability for that. They are not off the hook for the range of other duties that they would be expected to exercise in terms of the safety of people.

Now, if an event organiser knows that somebody is turning up with, you know, volumes of illicit substances that can cause great harm, then that person with great volumes is acting criminally, and if the event organiser knows that, they would also be liable for not taking steps to remove that person from the place or take steps to prevent such a person from entering that place, and they do that through security checking—people coming into their premises. The only point of liability that this legislation prevents the event organiser from being susceptible to is allowing a drug-checking service onsite knowing that that drug-checking service will receive illicit substances. But they must take every other step to ensure people are safe. I might add too, for the drug-checking service, if they have somebody who comes and surrenders a substance for testing and it turns out that it is highly toxic and very dangerous, then the legislation makes it clear in terms of the requirements to act reasonably, they will be acting unreasonably if they don’t take every step to say, “You should not be taking this. This will kill you, or come close to it.” We, you know, tell you not to take it. If it is a soft message about “Well, you’re really taking your chances here, but it’s up to you.”, that won’t be enough for the highly toxic substance that comes to the knowledge of the drug-checking services and subsequently the person.

I am satisfied that the regime that is in place in this bill covers off all those risk areas, for the safety not only of the drug consumer but for others attending the particular event.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s tabled amendment to clause 10, inserting new section 35DJ, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Part 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 84, Noes 33.

Part 2 Amendments to Psychoactive Substances Act 2013

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 17 to 23, Amendments to Psychoactive Substances Act 2013.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I won’t take too much of the time of the committee on my comments on this, except to say that the operative sections of this part are clause 19 and clause 20, which set up exceptions to the criminal liability provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act and simply mean, as was provided for in Part 1, that a person who provides to a drug-checking service a psychoactive substance otherwise unlawful under the Psychoactive Substances Act is not—the drug-checking service, at least, is not criminally liable for having possession of it while they’re carrying out the testing and until they return it to the person who has given it to them in the first place.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): My questions on Part 2 of this bill relate to what Government has learnt relevant to this part from the disaster that followed the Psychoactive Substances Act that was passed back in 2013, with the Hon Peter Dunne. Let’s just recite quickly what occurred there, because it has a very close parallel and is one of the reasons that National is cautious of the broader drug- and substance-checking proposals that we’re passing under urgency in this bill. We were persuaded, as a Parliament, unanimously at that time, that if we regulated these psychoactive substances, that would make New Zealand safer. I remember being hauled into the accident and emergency department by specialist doctors at my own hospital within a few months of us passing that law—

Dr Duncan Webb: Wrong bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —and seeing the—yeah, yeah, what I’m saying is that we’re amending that psychoactive substances legislation—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Which you screwed up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And my question—well, I’d be interested—does the Green Party accept that Parliament erred in 2013? Because if we look at the number of fatalities that follow, if we—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll send you an article about how you screwed up, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’d be interested for the Green Party MP to explain, because Parliament was persuaded in 2013 that if we regulated these substances, we would make New Zealand safer than if we prohibited them. And what happened? What happened was that right through New Zealand there was a scourge of deaths, of admissions to hospitals, and Parliament unanimously repealed that law within—

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, it didn’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually—

Chlöe Swarbrick: The Greens abstained.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Greens abstained. Now, that’s really strong, isn’t it? So what happened was that Parliament passed the law in a hurry around psychoactive substances, it turned to custard, and Parliament then had to revisit it urgently and there wasn’t a member of this House that was not moved by the tragedies that occurred around the country.

And I’m simply asking: has this Parliament learnt? Have we actually taken on board—you’re allowed to make mistakes once, but to make mistakes twice would be extremely foolish, particularly when we’re dealing with life and death issues for our young people around drug use.

So my question for the Minister in the chair: what does he think are the learnings from the experience of 2013 when the Psychoactive Substances Act was passed? At the core of that issue was the issue of the testing regime, and where the caution was—effectively what Parliament did at that time was say if things already in the marketplace are already going to be used, then we’re going to allow them to continue to be used while we put a regulatory regime in place. What this is proposing to do is to allow for the drug- and substance-testing of those same psychoactive substances—and without being too crude about it, because it’s broader, but, effectively, we’re talking about synthetic cannabis - type products. Does he expect as a consequence of passing this bill that we will see a re-emergence of those synthetic cannabis - type products which caused so much harm then? And if—

Chlöe Swarbrick: They’re already out there, Nick.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I’d love the member for the Greens, who’s repeatedly interjecting, to actually take a call and to address the issue of what Parliament did in 2013, how we made a mistake, why Parliament repealed it—albeit I acknowledge that the Green Party decided to abstain on the repeal—and explain it, because, in my view, I do not want to see a repeat of what occurred at that time. Parliament got it wrong and needs to accept it got it wrong. So how will the provisions in this part to provide for the testing of those synthetic cannabis - type products actually improve the safety, and are we falling back down the same track we did then?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the call, on the last vote that we had for Part 1, the numbers given were incorrect. The Ayes are actually 86 and the Noes are 33. So the record will be amended.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you to the member who’s just resumed his seat. As I recall, the problem with the psychoactive substances legislation, as passed in 2013, was that it set up a permitting regime under which no permits were given, and all that meant was that the stuff that up to that time had actually been on shop counters and stuff just went underground, and, worse, other substances entered the underground market and nobody knew what it was—and that’s what put people’s health at risk.

This does the opposite. This says if you are getting stuff and you don’t know what it is, what the substance is or what it contains, particularly when it comes to things like synthetic cannabis, you can get it tested, so you are safer. That option wasn’t available under the psychoactive substances legislation as at 2013—not available, even now, lawfully. This is about making that process lawful to keep people safe, and the message will be very clear. I don’t think it’s a good idea for people to be taking a whole heap of mind-altering substances, but people do that, and what we want to know is that if they are going to experiment with it, if they are going to try stuff out, that we have a regime that does the best we can to keep people safe. The psychoactive substances legislation didn’t do that; this will do that.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): All right. So, Nick Smith may be professing—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Dr Nick Smith.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Hon Dr Nick Smith may be professing that Parliament got it wrong, but, in fact, it’s Dr Nick Smith and the National Party who got it wrong at that point in time. So when it comes to the history of the psychoactive substances legislation, which Dr Nick Smith lived through, but he doesn’t seem to remember all too clearly, let me run Parliament through a really truncated chronology of how all of that got so deeply messed up.

In approximately 2008, we had the emergence of substances like benzylpiperazine on the underground market and Parliament was moving as fast as possible to continually categorise and classify new substances as they appeared, and at that point in time had to move to constantly make amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It was a really slow process that did not work fast enough, and I would have hoped that, at that point in time, it also showcased the failures of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975—as ended up being demonstrated in the 2011 Law Commission review, which actually advocated for a complete repeal and replacement to, effectively, decriminalise all substances. But none the less, that aside; then you saw the emergence of the synthetics that Dr Nick Smith is speaking to. They continue to get around the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 classification process and the slow movement of our Parliament by constantly changing the chemical, the molecular structure, from the slight tweaks of that which was put forward in the Misuse of Drugs Act amendments.

You then had the establishment of what was called the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which, ironically, could only recommend where substances could be classified in response to the harm of other substances. In reference to those other substances, they literally—this expert advisory committee—could only recommend how much to punish people for the use or possession of those substances. Not any better approach to how we can reduce the harm of those substances. But none the less, all of that aside, that meant that all of a sudden you had this ubiquity of synthetic substances, particularly synthetic cannabinoids, which I’m loath to call cannabis, because it’s far molecularly different, but nonetheless, it’s plant matter, sprayed with a number of chemicals to, effectively, mimic the look of cannabis. You then had this appearing on effectively dairy counters under the former National Government. You then had a situation whereby Parliament couldn’t move fast enough to outlaw the stuff. You had a huge number of people who were consuming it. This became a problem primarily because of the whistle being blown by those who were on the front lines in communities.

Parliament then moved to pass the psychoactive substances legislation in 2013. Interestingly, this was lauded around the world at that point in time as a potential massively progressive framework to enable the legal regulation of all substances to reduce harm. However, the major flaw in it is that it immediately outlawed any substances that were currently illegal for jumping through those hoops to prove their safety, which in turn meant that the only psychoactive substances that could be legally regulated under the psychoactive substances legislation as passed by the former National Government were those that were synthetics, i.e., potentially more dangerous than their natural cohorts.

On top of that, you also had—in the original psychoactive substances 2013 legislation—a temporary licensing framework which enabled approximately a dozen of the substances which at that point in time had not been linked to any harm, to any deaths, or to any problems. There was nobody who died at that point in time. The temporary licensing scheme, as prescribed under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, meant that those substances went from being incredibly ubiquitous on dairy counters, to in stores which had to be R18 by way of access. They also could not sell alcohol. That meant, in practice, that they were being sold at adult shops. So the problem became visible—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to interrupt the member and just ask her in the last 60 seconds to relate what she has said so far to the actual Part 2 of this bill. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Mr Chair, in relating all of what I have said in attempting to bring the National Party’s understanding to the flaws of the psychoactive substances legislation which they passed, which my former colleague Kevin Hague spoke to, as it would, and I quote Kevin here, “Prohibition takes supply out of the hands of regulated, controlled retailers and instead puts that supply into the hands of criminal gangs and other illicit suppliers.” And I move forward, “We should expect that the supply of products that are a high risk will increase as a result of this bill.”—that being the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013—“Those people, those illicit drug dealers will, in addition to having a range of psychoactive substances … have, in another pocket, other drugs like methamphetamine. So the product of this bill will be that the demand, which will not go away as a result of this bill, will also be met by an increased supply of currently illicit drugs.”

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate the history lesson we’ve just been able to learn. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to take a quick call on Part 2 of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. My question to the Minister, in relation to how this impacts on the Psychoactive Substances Act, is: is the Minister envisaging a situation here where people will be able to find, potentially, incredibly dangerous synthetic drugs—we’ve just had the situation in New Zealand, AMB-FUBINACA; it’s been just recently, in this last Parliament, classified as a class A substance, responsible for the deaths of dozens of individuals, including Calum Jones, a young man who was given a freebie by the drug dealer. If he’d been able to go and get it tested, down at one of the testing services which is going legalised under this, would he have been able to get it tested and got a green ticket to say, “Yep, that’s AMB-FUBINACA, it’s exactly what you wanted,” and then he’d be dead with a green ticket in his pocket?

Is that the point? Is that the point of this? Because what we see in some of these incredibly dangerous synthetic drugs is that they are deathly. They are something which people react to incredibly differently. I fear that this is going to actually lead to a situation where we’re going to be giving young people green tickets to say, “Yep, you got what you wanted, you got what you paid for, and now go take it.” Yes, maybe some information along the lines of the harms, but if that’s what the young person wanted, and he’s been given a green ticket, and we know as parliamentarians how dangerous it is, shouldn’t we be taking a different approach?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Mr Chairman, thank you. Can I just acknowledge our young guests in the gallery there, too, for whom this, I hope, will be an educational part of their visit. Just to explain for their benefit the process that we’re going through at the moment, this is the part of making law where we have a detailed, clause by clause examination of the piece of legislation that is before Parliament. We’ve already had a first reading, where we have a general debate about it; we’ve had a second reading; and now we’re at what’s called the committee stage, and all members are entitled to pose questions to the Minister who’s responsible for the piece of legislation—that’s me, and we’re going through some of the clauses in it.

The question we’ve just had from the honourable member Simeon Brown is the one that you’ve heard about whether this piece of legislation will deal with synthetic cannabis. I might add, this piece of legislation—the proposal in it—is to allow testing of drugs and substances, largely at music festivals and the like, over the forthcoming summer, because we know there is a real issue about young people turning up to those places with substances that they’re not necessarily sure about and taking real risks with their health. We don’t think we can stop that behaviour, but we think we can make it safer. So that’s the objective of the exercise.

To respond to Mr Brown’s question, I might add that when it comes to synthetic cannabis in the form that was described by the member Chlöe Swarbrick, which is dried matter sprayed with chemical substances, the testing regime that outfits like KnowYourStuffNZ operate will not be able to test synthetic cannabis; it’ll be able to test pills, powders, and fluids; that’s what it will test. So to the extent that there is concern—and there still is concern—about dried matter sprayed with toxic chemicals, that is a question we ought to consider for the long-term solution, but this legislation won’t provide an answer to that problem.

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

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, we now come to the debate on clauses 1 to 3, which are clauses on the title, commencement, and repeal.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Mr Chair, Minister, the commencement and repeal clauses seem to me to actually assume significant importance in this bill, given that—as I understand it—what you’re, effectively, doing here as a Government, and we as a Parliament, is to put this in place for a finite period of time and then repeal it, at which time you as Minister will bring to the Parliament a further, I presume more significant or something, bill. So I’d like you to explain that more. I don’t think I have a particularly good sense of that, and I don’t think it’s been set out so far in this Parliament—why the finite period? It seems to me quite clear that the Government’s position is that pill testing of hard illicit drugs will make people more safe, and that that’s a good thing, is the Government’s position. We’ve got a bill to do that, so why is it being repealed? What’s going on here, and does it mean that, in fact—as has been the contention of the Opposition, or certainly the National Party—that the Government’s rushed this, that it feels that it needs to see how it goes, because there are clauses that may need a bit of a tidy up, or it’s incomplete, or, indeed, you’re just not entirely sure? Because, to not put too fine a point on it, New Zealanders wouldn’t want to have a sense that there’s an experiment going on here where the Government’s just not quite sure and so it’s going to come round and do it right a little bit later in the law.

So I’d like to get a very clear sense of just precisely why this bill is being enacted and then repealed. My tentative position—I say tentative because I haven’t talked with any colleagues about this—is that firstly, and this isn’t tentative, do it once, do it right, but secondly, if you are sure, well frankly, why waste the time of the Parliament to come back and do it all again? Is it a case of actually getting rid of the repeal provision in this bill and going with this, as much as I disagree with the bill, rather than wasting Parliament’s time another time?

And then I come to something the Minister said in this committee a little earlier about what follows, where in an interchange with Dr Smith he made the point that, well, what’s going to happen here is we sort of are—I apologise if I’m not putting this phrase in this exactly right—kind of interested in the music festival side of all of this, but you know what? We’re going to come back and put this everywhere in due course. Well, I’d like to understand, as best the Minister can, a sense of what is coming, because it seems to me that is very relevant to what we are voting on in this bill today.

So, really succinctly, there’s two points I’d appreciate the Minister’s clear view on—why the finite period, and what is coming next?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. And, again, for the benefit of those in the gallery who are rapidly being educated on what lawmaking looks like, they used to say about lawmaking that it’s a bit like making sausages. You really don’t want to see it happening, but sometimes the product can be magnificent, so we’ll see what happens.

So the first question that the Hon Simon Bridges asked is, “Why the repeal provision at all?” Totally legitimate question. This is because it has been pretty clear from the organisers and owners that we’ve heard from—including outfits that have been doing drug-checking services for some time—is that they feel an increasing risk they take when they offer these services, and they do so because they’re dedicated to the safety of people who are ingesting these substances, that they are liable to prosecution, and that by doing something that they see a public interest and public benefit in, they are afforded some protection for that. We think, in principle, that is right. We are on the cusp of the next summer music festival season, and we wanted to get something in place that affords that protection because we know, particularly in the year that we’ve had COVID-19, a whole lot of bottled up need for exuberance and happiness and joy that we think would be expressed awesomely this summer by a lot of people going to music festivals, we want to make sure that the services that do drug testing or drug checking can operate without fear of prosecution, and likewise the host of the events can encourage drug-checking services to be available at their events without the risk of prosecution.

But the member is right, and the members in the National Party who have spoken in this debate have legitimately raised the issue that this is a significant policy shift in the way we approach drugs—particularly illicit drugs—and the way we manage them in the community. We do want a regime that goes beyond just music festivals. We know that there are substances available on the street that are being sold and handed over, and people consuming substances they don’t really know the safety of, so we want a regime that deals with that element as well. But we want to take time, as Mr Bridges himself said, to do it right, to do it properly, and that will need a little more time to do that. We do want all of Parliament to provide the full scrutiny that Parliament would ordinarily give to any law to allow that to happen. Again, I’ll just take a couple of minutes to educate our friends in the gallery. We’re in a process called urgency at the moment, so we are putting a law through all of its stages in a very short space of time—

Maureen Pugh: Point of order, Mr Chair. Just some clarification, if you will, sir, about the now three references to members in the gallery from the speaker in the chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what’s your point of order?

Maureen Pugh: The Speakers’ rulings 9/6 and 9/7 that it is not appropriate to refer to members in the gallery.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think the issue is that the Minister’s speaking to the people in the gallery like he’s speaking to the whole of New Zealand. In terms of if the Minister in charge of the bill thinks it’s important enough on this bill to speak to whoever’s in the gallery, without naming them—which he has not done—then I think that’s OK. Members can take a call and dispute what he’s saying if they like.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: And, of course, my comments apply to those who are looking on their television sets around the country and around the world.

Hon Simon Bridges: There’ll be hundreds of thousands; possibly millions.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m sure there’s calls from CNN right now, wanting follow-up interviews. The point is that we’re passing a law very quickly, it’s called urgency, and members are quite rightly saying there needs to be more scrutiny, because ordinarily in the law—particularly on an important issue like this—there would be a lot more scrutiny. We want to make sure that when we make a permanent change to this law that it has the full scrutiny of Parliament, and I commit to that happening in the next phase of this lawmaking.

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

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I earlier presented to the House a legislative statement on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I move, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

As the House has heard, this bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. It makes amendments to enable drug-checking services to operate and to operate without the threat of criminal liability for both those operating the drug-checking services and also for those who host events or organised events at which drug-checking services are available.

The reason we’re doing this and doing it under urgency is because it is December. The music festival season for the forthcoming summer is upon us. We know that there are festivals organised, music events organised. We know that the cohort of people who go to those festivals tend to be younger people, and many of them are at an age where they are experimenting with substances, many of them illicit substances, and some of them are substances the safety and security of which is not really known. So we accept the reality that this is going to happen. People are going to turn up to these events with illicit substances. We know that some of those substances are at risk of a lack of safety and causing harm to the potential user of them, and we want to minimise that harm and we want to make the ingestion of those substances, or the risk being taken with the ingestion of those substances, as low as possible and therefore promoting greater public safety. That’s the motivation for it.

This is a time-limited bill, so it will self-repeal within 12 months, but my commitment to the House is that within that time we will bring back a piece of legislation that is a more thoroughgoing solution to that particular policy problem, with a view to having that passed in time for this time next year, and that will come under the full scrutiny of the House. Members opposite have raised legitimate questions about whether this is the appropriate way to go about this with this particular policy challenge, and I get that and I do make the commitment that we will have a draft law that will come back to the House which they will be able to give full scrutiny to. But, in the meantime, we have to deal with the very real challenge that that festival season is upon us. We have outfits that have operated already in previous summer seasons as drug-checking services, but they are facing a heightened risk or a growing risk of criminal prosecution—or, at least, the volunteers who operate the actual services—and we want to take that risk away from them. We also want to take the risk away from the event organisers because we think it is important that more event organisers, particularly those who are attracting that young cohort—that young demographic—make these services available to provide greater safety for young people who are prone to wanting to experiment with and ingest these substances.

Members opposite have raised a number of concerns, some of which, in my view, are not relevant to what we are trying to achieve here. We can all cast moral judgment on those who would use illicit substances. We can all be horrified that some people might actually want to engage in activities that are on the edge of or outside the law, but I think, when it comes to the consumption of drugs and the health effects that go with that, I would rather that we focus on taking a health approach, not criminalising more and more people. We’ve done that for far too long and criminalised far too many people whose only crime, really, if you like, is they’ve taken a risk, a risk with their own health. For some of them, they do fall into a bit of a hole of addiction and other kinds of reactions on their own part and, actually, what they don’t need is a criminal prosecution; what they do need is some help, and this is a further step in the direction when it comes to drugs in our community, illicit substances, mind-altering substances—to say actually offering help for health responses is way more effective and way more beneficial than simply another criminal prosecution, another bed in another jail, over another extended period of time.

So that’s why we have introduced this law and, on that basis, I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. On my stroll home last night, immediately after this debate, I might say, reflecting on the debate, it seemed to me really what we’re debating is one big issue—the safety of our kids, and what makes our kids, our young adults, if you want to be more modern in this vernacular, more safe. The Labour Party’s view is, well, it’s happening anyway, and this bill when law means that parents can sleep easily, they can have confidence that their kids are safe when they’re out at their raves and parties and whatever it is that they’re doing. The problem is, in National’s view, that that’s not so.

We referred to studies and actually haven’t, despite all the protestation and, frankly, anger—woke anger—from Chlöe Swarbrick, been seriously challenged on any of those contentions or studies. The facts of testing and the message that it sends will see more use, and I refer again to the clear evidence of the United Kingdom, since testing, of use going up and up and up—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Ninety-five percent less hospitalisation.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and more harm—you’ll get your turn, Chlöe Swarbrick—and more harm.

That’s the reality of it, and we’re seeing again, just in that UK example, where from 40-something to 90-something fatalities a year are occurring. More of our kids, as a result of this bill becoming law, will take drugs like ecstasy and more will be harmed. Dare I say it, and I don’t like to be alarmist about it—they scoff over there—I don’t like to be alarmist about it, but that includes that harm, more fatalities, given the morbidity rate with ecstasy. Parents of kids just can’t be confident. Actually, if they are, it’s a false confidence, because no ecstasy pill is safe—not a single one of them. People respond differently to them, and, in fact, differently to different ecstasy pills. MDMA, right from the start, is harmful. What’s more—and again I challenge Chlöe Swarbrick because she’s such an expert about all of these things; just ask her! I challenge her to find me studies that show that it’s impurities and compounds that are the big deal, because, actually, they’re not. They’re not the things within the pills that are killing young people, and, again, we referred to that much earlier.

What’s also worrying here is the context of this Government’s drug agenda—I repeat again. Andrew Little—I mean, I credit him at a level in that I think he is being more upfront and direct than your average Government Minister in this Government and, dare I say it, the Prime Minister about what’s really going on here. He’s quite explicit: it’s happening anyway; let’s go with it. He makes clear: “It’s now a health matter, not a criminal one.” That’s his clear position. Well, actually, Andrew Little, it is both, and this is not a moral contest. Morality doesn’t come into it at any level, right? That’s the law of the land. It is illegal in New Zealand. It is a criminal offence to consume and possess classes A, B, and C drugs, as listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act schedules. So you’re wrong, Andrew Little, when you say it’s not a health or a criminal matter.

The reality is they could change that law. I’m hearing squawking from the other side. They could change those laws if they wanted to, but Kiwis rejected the legalisation of cannabis. That was a class C drug. Ecstasy, which primarily is what we’re dealing with here, is a class A drug, and Kiwis are even less keen, and they know this. Kiwis are even less keen, the harder the drug, to see a liberalisation, whether decriminalisation or legalisation. So knowing this—and, again, I credit Andrew Little for his candid talking on these issues at a level—this Government isn’t going to come out and do what their convictions, in their view, tell them, and that’s decriminalise or legalise classes A, B, and C drugs in New Zealand. They know that’s political kamikaze, right? They know that. So they do it through bills like this—the bill in the last Parliament which, effectively, directed police not to arrest for possession of any illicit drug in New Zealand.

If members of the public don’t believe me—and I say with respect to our press, they won’t, but they should be, frankly, reporting this, because it is a big story; it is a significant thing that is happening in this Parliament right now. We’ve heard from Andrew Little, clear words in committee, that his intent is to come back to this Parliament with a bill when this one runs out. With what started as just pill-testing at the festivals, the One Love and the one in Gisborne that Angie Warren-Clark goes to—I can’t remember what it’s called. I don’t know that, by the way.

Angie Warren-Clark: I wish I did!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: She wishes she did. I could see you there, right? I could see—anyway, let’s not go down that rabbit hole that takes us nowhere. From that, they will move from those festivals to pill-testing all over New Zealand on our streets.

Dr Duncan Webb: God forbid!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Now, see the member over there says, “God forbid!” Well, why don’t the Government have the courage of their convictions and do the honest thing and decriminalise? Well, they won’t. What they will do, though, is actually just do it through laws like this, because they don’t have the courage of their convictions. They won’t say it, but it’ll be on us, and this bill and what is coming is part of a wholesale decriminalisation of drugs in New Zealand. By the time it’s done, New Zealanders will say, “What? We didn’t like that. We weren’t sure about that.” But that’s what’s happening today under urgency.

Finally, you know, actually, whether you agree with what I’m saying or not, this bill—the first bill of this Parliament—is being rushed and there’s no chance for the contest of evidence that Chlöe Swarbrick goes on about but never produces studies on. There’s no chance for any of that. This bill comes to us flawed, I think, actually, and what the Minister didn’t say when he was in the chair in committee—that’s quite clear—he’s going to have to come back and do it properly. The evidence of this comes, actually, just—the other members did a great job fleshing some of this out as well, but just from my questions, from a cursory look at this bill, we see there’s no provisional process for the disposal of the bad illicit drugs. You could drive a truck through that as a criminal lawyer in a jury trial, by the way, at good hourly rates, dare I say it. There’s no provision there for disposal.

There’s no good character requirements, given that we’re dealing with class A drugs, around any of this. David Seymour, and fleshed out by Nick Smith, made, I thought, an excellent point around the health and safety ramifications that have not been thought out, and, yet, this will be law very shortly—actually, by the end of today. We’re rushing this, and all the while we rush it, on the other side, where there is proven fatalities from the blood tests of over a hundred Kiwis every single year, by being hit and killed for drug-driving on our roads, where there’s proven technology, where we could get this up and running very quickly, that bill languishes on the Order Paper. No deaths from music festivals in New Zealand from this. There will be, as the numbers rack up, because that’s simply statistically what’s happened overseas, but on the other side, proven over a hundred fatalities, the biggest killer on our roads and the Government does nothing. It’s got its priorities wrong. Nick Smith’s point about that—the lack of fatalities at the festivals, the roadside deaths—I think is a very powerful one.

We’d support real harm reduction initiatives—drug-driving law, more beds, more counselling services; none of that is happening. This is a law which has passed with haste but which New Zealanders, when they wake up, will repent and disagree with at their leisure.

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

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is an incredibly important bill because it’s going to ensure that young people are kept safe this festival season by putting in place a time-limited solution to make sure that drug-checking services and the festival organisers who host them can operate with legal certainty. That’s because, at the moment, those that are operating these drug-testing services and those that are hosting them are at risk from prosecution under the current law. The issue is that services like KnowYourStuffNZ are actually going out there and they are doing the checking services because they believe that those services have the potential to reduce harm and save people’s lives. Now, this is only a temporary measure; so it expires 12 months after it comes into force because, in the meantime, the Minister of Health is going to go back to Cabinet with a more detailed solution. At that time, Parliament will be able to debate in detail and will have a full select committee process so the people of New Zealand can come in and provide their feedback on that more detailed solution. Important bill; important to get under way before Christmas; and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll let you get back to your desk! I call the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): I was just checking to see if I was up now! I haven’t had the chance to speak on this bill, but I’m glad that I’m being given the chance. Mr Speaker, first of all, can I just take my first opportunity to say congratulations on taking up the role of Deputy Speaker. I always enjoy when you’re in the seat. You are very fair. I would ask that you, maybe, advocate for removing the sanctions around the use of “you”, because I seem to be the one that gets most heavily penalised in this House for that.

But, anyway, I’m very pleased to stand and take a call on this bill. I think the reality of it is that all of us come to this House because we want to make New Zealand a safer place and, in particular, we want to protect our young people. We do understand and we do know that we have got a drug problem in New Zealand—methamphetamine, these party pills. It’s becoming a growing industry, unfortunately, because we are being the recipients of serious criminal organisations like these 501s, these gangs, the Comancheros and the Mongols, that are coming in from Australia, and they’re taking us to a new level in terms of violence and organisation around the drug trade and the supply chain. So we’ve got a big issue—we’ve got a big issue in our country; there’s no doubt about that.

I can see why the Government would want to be focused on tackling that, but I feel very strongly in my heart of hearts that this is the wrong pathway to go down. I’m just going to step that through quickly. I think I’ve listened carefully to the evidence and the data that Chlöe Swarbrick has put up. I’ve listened carefully to the evidence and the data that our own team has put up. The one thing that’s become very evident to me is that we needed a select committee process, and we needed to go through that because, actually, we need to sift through all that information, that data—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You didn’t turn up, Mark. There was one for my petition.

Simeon Brown: That was a petition.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well—yeah, that’s right. That was—

Chlöe Swarbrick: There was Ministry of Health advisers and officials.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: And, like they said, that was on a petition. But the reality of it is that this is a serious, serious piece of legislation as we come into the summer break. Make no mistake about it.

I just want to run through the concerns that I have from an operational level. Maybe the next caller, or even, Chlöe, you could stand and respond to this—that, firstly, we’re going to send a message as a Parliament. We should be the responsible ones. We should be the ones that are actually studying and making very, very clear decisions, because what we do here does matter, and the signals that we send to the rest of the country and our young people do matter. The reality of it is, passing this bill today, it’s going to change the conversation amongst young people. There are good young people out there, actually, that won’t take drugs, and the reason why they won’t take drugs is that it’s illegal and they don’t want to break the law. But the conversation is now going to change—and trust me, the conversation will change. Now they’re going to have a lot more peer pressure and they’re going to have people saying, well, you know what, the Government said that it’s OK; we’ll test your drugs. But—

Hon Member: We haven’t, though.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I know that you keep putting up the argument that you’re saying that it’s not OK and it’s making it safer. That is a false argument, because the way that the young people see it is—

Hon Simon Bridges: They won’t get that advice.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They won’t, and they’ll see their Parliament as quite simply saying that it is OK—it is OK to take these drugs. And, by the way, when they hand the drugs over and they are tested and they receive them back, they will think—they’re not going to be involved in a nuanced debate about what the ingredients are or what’s actually in them; all that they’ll know is that they’ve had their drugs tested and they’ve got them back and they’re safe. And they’re not safe; they can kill them. I can tell you what, I had a long conversation with Simon Watts, who’s a new MP, the MP for North Shore, who’s come into our caucus. He’s a paramedic—he’s a paramedic that actually attends these concerts. He incubates people that have taken these drugs. I’ve got no doubt at all—the chemical product inside these drugs that’s harmful is the MDMA. That’s what kills young people. So that’s the first thing.

The next thing that I want to know is—because I heard the Minister on the radio this morning saying that these drugs are still illegal, that people can still be arrested and charged. So if young people—or not even young people; if anyone, a member of the public, is coming into a concert—by the way, these concert promoters normally try to promote their concerts as drug free because a lot of parents, when they let their kids go to them, want to have a high level of confidence that there’s not drugs there, that there aren’t drug dealers there, that they’re not being peddled. So when people arrive and they’re coming in with their drugs and they’re being tested and they’re being handed back, are the police allowed to monitor and watch? Are the promoters of the concert allowed to watch those people, knowing that they’re coming in with drugs, knowing that probably an outcome is going to be that guys like Simon Watts and our paramedics are going to have to be incubating and trying to save them? Are they allowed to monitor them? Are they allowed to watch them? I don’t know.

In my view that would be common sense, wouldn’t it? Because you know that you’ve got people entering with a harmful product or a harmful drug that could ultimately end up with them in a seizure, frothing at the mouth, or even in a cardiac arrest with some brain damage.

Shanan Halbert: Simon Watts would want a health response.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, what was that? Simon Watts—

Shanan Halbert: —would want a health response.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So I’ve just had a response here from one of the new members. I’m sorry, I don’t know your name, but it’s a good question.

Hon Member: You know his name.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, I’m genuine. I’m sorry, I don’t. But it’s a good question. The member for Northcote—Shanan. So congratulations and it’s a good question. He said a health response—let’s have a health response. So if we’re going to have a debate in this Chamber that this is a health response and this is a health-related policy, then put up the evidence and the data that shows us that less people will use drugs and there’ll be less harm, because in this debate, not one of you—take a call, take a call and convince me and show me that, actually, you’ve got the data that shows that there’s less use and there’s less harm.

I’ll make a prediction—I’ll make a prediction—that this summer season at these concerts there’s going to be more use and there’s going to be more harm. And I’ll make another prediction, because what we’ve done is we’ve created a safe zone and we’ve incubated drug dealers from prosecution. You might raise your eyebrows. You might say, “Oh, he’s being alarmist.” No, I’m not being alarmist. I’m just providing you with feedback from our front-line responders, the people like the police. I don’t know if you’ve been and spoken with the police or whether you’ve spoken with our paramedics.

Simeon Brown: They haven’t been consulted.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I don’t know if they’ve been consulted on this legislation. Apparently, I’m told that they haven’t been. They are the ones that pick up the pieces. When we’re off on our summer holidays at the beach, they’re the ones that are actually picking up the pieces. They’re the ones that have got the kids vomiting in a comatose, semi-comatose, state. They’re the ones trying to contact parents or taking them to the hospital or trying to track down where the drugs are coming from and shut the supply chain down. They’re the ones that are actually dealing with it. Surely, on a piece of legislation like this, we should have actually been listening to them. We should have been listening to what they had to say and their feedback.

Hon Dr David Clark: Police have been supportive of a health response.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So what did they say? We’ve got the Hon David Clark in the House. Let’s listen—let’s listen. Let’s get some feedback. Take a call and give us the feedback on what they said, because I can predict something right now: you are going to have—I’m getting the wind-up message. So you are going to have drug dealers—

Chlöe Swarbrick: You have them now.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —that are going to come—no, you’re going to have drug dealers now that target concerts, because you know why? They are now incubated. Concert goers and drug dealers now will freely ply their trade. Not only will they freely ply their trade; their pills will actually be quality tested. So they’re going to have them quality tested and then people are going to go in there, they’re going to consume them, and they’re going to have the results of drug use and drug overdoses. That’s what’s going to happen.

So this bill is not a good bill. It’s not a safe bill. I’m pleased that it’s going to have to come back to the House, but I am concerned and I do flag—and I hope that we’ll all be watching to make sure this doesn’t happen—that there will be an increase in use of these drugs. There’ll be a new insidious pressure put on young people that currently say, “Our Government says that it’s illegal and we shouldn’t be taking them.”, and there’s going to be an increase in harm, talking to the health policy. That’s what I’ll be watching very closely this summer. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not quite sure how we are incubating the drug dealers, however—however. I’d also like to respond to the Hon Simon Bridges. I’m sorry, I’ve never been to Rhythm and Vines. I have never been to One Love, our own local concert, and—

Hon Simon Bridges: I’ll go with you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh, all right, it’s a date, Simon Bridges. It’s a date—One Love.

I would like to take a very quick call to refer to this bill. As we know, it is about harm reduction. What we all wish for our children and the thing that we teach our children is that we very much hope that they will not go down this path, but what we do know is that at a certain point our young people make their own decisions. Those decisions are being made with their peers in mind, and, yes, there is peer pressure. What we really want is for kids to say no, but what we do know is that they don’t—that they actually take the opportunity to try things out—and this bill is merely, simply about making it safer for those young people to try things. We are not encouraging them to do so. It is still illegal to take these drugs and to possess these drugs, but what we want is safety for these young people.

I’d also like to say very quickly a big thankyou to the volunteers who go to these concerts, who spend day after day and evenings in hot, stinky tents where they’ve got people, and they have those conversations which talk about the harm that can occur when they take these drugs. Whether they are having the ingredients that the person who purchased them wants to take or not, they’re having those conversations and they are persuading, or talking with people and saying, “This is the harm that will occur. Do you need help? Do you want an alternative to taking this?” That, in essence, is what this bill does. I commend it to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It is an absolute pleasure to rise and speak on this, the third reading of this bill, which will legalise festival drug-checking services. I have lost the name of the actual bill, but none the less that’s exactly what it does. I want everybody in the House and everybody who’s at home and all those who are in the gallery today to just imagine a scenario, to paint a picture the likes of what the Hon Dr Nick Smith did: you walk into a festival—there’s a music festival, there’s music going; I’m not sure what level of musicality is required, Dr Nick Smith, but none the less there is music going—you line up, and you’re in line for a socially acceptable drug. This socially acceptable drug has been tested for toxicity, and it is licensed, and it is regulated. You’re in line, and you get this drug, and that drug is alcohol.

We’ve been doing it for a really long time now, in terms of legally regulating substances to reduce harm. I absolutely will stand here in this House today, as I have multiple times before, and say that we need to do a whole lot better when it comes to regulating the harm that alcohol presently causes in our communities, because there’s a spectrum of approaches that you can take to any given substance. The likes of this legislation recognise, as I hope other legislation throughout this term recognises, that a substance is one thing, but the legal response that we have to that substance can either increase or decrease that harm. So, if the National Party want to talk about decreasing harm when it comes to substances, I’d absolutely invite them to collaborate with me on reducing the harm that alcohol can cause by removing alcohol advertising, glamorisation, and sponsorship. There’s a challenge for you.

Moving forward, the Hon Simon Bridges asked me to speak about the deaths that have been experienced in other countries, other jurisdictions, and states such as in the likes of Australia. There he spoke primarily to the instances in New South Wales, where young people—and, actually, there’s been a lot of talk about young people, about young ravers in particular, but I know that there are folks out there, such as the journalist Russell Brown, who want me to make a shout-out to the elder ravers, because there’s been a bit of age discrimination. There are a number of people who are experienced and have been engaging in illicit substances for a while now, many of whom have been doing so under the shadows of, effectively, the black market. But we’ll get back to that point later.

So the Hon Simon Bridges was asking about those deaths, which have resulted—again, primarily, not necessarily—when it comes to ecstasy, from a lack of impurities, but from excessive use of that substance. All of this has happened, I might add, without festival drug-checking services being legal. That is without people having access to the information and the education that festival drug-checking services provide. Notably, as well, New South Wales has experienced a number of deaths at festivals without those drug-checking services, which has led the chief coroner there to recommend the introduction of drug-checking services to end unnecessary, needless deaths. I also want to respond to the points raised by, particularly, the Hon Mark Mitchell around the likes of paramedics. Again, in the UK, where this has been legal now for around seven years—since 2013—there have been 95 percent fewer hospitalisations as a result of legal festival drug-checking services.

So here’s the simple problem that this bill, this soon-to-be law, will fix: section 12 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 makes it a crime to knowingly provide a place, an event, or a space for people to consume illicit substances. By virtue of currently providing drug-checking services on their premises or at their event, it could be argued that a festival organiser, that a bar owner, or a club owner is, effectively, providing tacit endorsement for the consumption of illicit substances on their premises. That is the legal grey area, the quandary, if you will, that NGOs like KnowYourStuffNZ have been operating in for the past six-odd years—risking criminal prosecution, as those festival organisers have been too. And I really do hope that the National Party go and speak to those festival organisers, who have, actually, actively over the past several years, come to me behind the scenes. I’ve had conversations with them about the moral rock and a hard place that they are between, where they do not want to be breaking the law by providing services like KnowYourStuffNZ whilst section 12 was in effect but they also don’t want to be responsible for hosting an event that a young person ends up using illicit substances at and dying. They want this law to go through so that they can reduce harm.

So the other thing that the Hon Mark Mitchell was saying is about the message that this sends to young people. First things first: I’m not sure which young people he’s spoken to about the messages that they care about that the Government is sending, because quite typically it’s young people actually doing the opposite of what those in authority are saying they should do. So, first and foremost, with regard to the messages that are presently being sent from a prohibition type of approach, they’re “Do it secretly. Just do it over there. We don’t really want to know about it, but we kind of tacitly know that it is occurring right now.” And all of that has actually been acknowledged, ironically, by the National Party. They know that it exists. I have constantly laid out the challenge to them to propose the alternative, but they keep saying, “Oh, this is happening, and the Government wants to acknowledge the reality that this is happening, but we don’t think that that’s a good thing.” Well, what is your alternative? Please outline how you want to reduce harm, because so far all I’ve heard is that you want to be an impediment to improvements in the law—to looking to the research, looking to the evidence, looking at what’s happening internationally.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Drug courts. Improved rehab.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Hon Nick Smith, drug courts occur after the crime has been committed. It does not actually help whatsoever when it comes to people’s consumption habits.

On top of that, I also just want to challenge the National Party Opposition here. Alongside the challenge that I have laid down with regard to collaborating on alcohol law changes, there also is, evidently—as they’ve identified, interestingly enough—a need to change the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, because it’s demonstrably unfit for purpose. I’m really interested, though, in whether the National Party just thinks that we should make the illegal drugs more illegal, as though people who are currently contemplating whether they consume a substance are cross-referencing it to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and thinking about, you know, “Do I want nine years? Do I want life?” The Misuse of Drugs Act has been found time and again to simply not stop people from using illicit substances, and, as I referred to in my speeches last night, we have a situation where the countries that have taken more hard-line approaches have not got rid of these substances. And, in fact, those that have taken the most hard-line approaches, such as Singapore, have amongst the least independently verifiable data on drug consumption habits in those jurisdictions.

When it comes to debating what this health approach actually looks like, I think we need to acknowledge the reality that, over the past several years, we have seen constant carve-outs of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. We’ve seen it for medicinal cannabis. We’ve seen it for hemp. We’ve seen it for drug-checking services now, and we’ve seen it for the section 7 changes that have been alluded to time and again during this debate—which, I note, the National Party also opposed but seemed to invoke multiple times during debates around cannabis legalisation over this past election cycle. When are we going to admit that this Frankenstein of a law is simply not serving its purpose?

Well, we have the 2011 Law Commission review, which says exactly that: the Misuse of Drugs Act is demonstrably unfit for purpose; decriminalise substances and provide a meaningful health approach. We also have two reports to Labour Party Ministers. Interestingly, the same Minister who now is the Minister of Health was formerly the Minister of Justice, where he received a report known as Turuki! Turuki!, the Safe and Effective Justice Programme Advisory Group review, which recommended looking to legalise all substances to regulate that harm. And just to really drive this home to the Hon Nick Smith, this doesn’t look like retail shops. I’d highly recommend that you look at the 1990 approach of Switzerland when it came to regulating heroin to reduce the harm thereof. There also is He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry, which said, again, we need to stop criminalising people for using these substances.

So, when the National Party genuinely want to engage in good faith, and if they genuinely will, then I’d love to start a working group with you. I’d love to just get on with the dang work that New Zealanders expect and anticipate from those who have the privilege of sitting in this Chamber. Quite frankly, I’m stoked to be delivering my last speech on this bill, because we are going to get it through and we are going to have to stop listening to the high-horse moralising from the National Party, who, by the sounds of the way that they are talking about substances, have never engaged in them. So I’d love to hear how the National Party seeks to resolve these issues. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this third reading of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I want to reprise some of the arguments that have been given in favour of this legislation and also address some of the arguments that have arisen during the debate over the three readings and in the committee stage. I finally want to just comment on what this debate means for New Zealand politics, the priorities of the Government, and the different positions that some political parties have taken on it.

First of all, it’s important to recognise what this legislation is and isn’t. All it does is temporarily allow voluntary organisations, filled with people who want to help others reduce harm, go about their business without the fear of prosecution that exists in the current legal grey area around pill testing. It allows people who are hosting music festivals, concerts, and so on to have people who offer a testing service for drugs to be able to be on their premises without fear of legal repercussions; that is all this legislation does. All it does is remove the threat of prosecution for those activities. It does not remove the prohibition on supply and possession of classified illegal drugs. They remain illegal, and people who supply, possess, and use them remain in the same legal jeopardy, which they were under before this legislation came about. It’s only for testing.

This legislation does not place any onus on the taxpayer to fund pill-testing services; it doesn’t do that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It will.

DAVID SEYMOUR: It doesn’t contemplate taxpayer funding. And I hear Nick Smith from the National Party saying, “But it will.” Let’s think about the logic of that. If that’s really the logic of the National Party today, that we shouldn’t legalise anything because anything we let people do might end up being funded by the taxpayer, then no wonder we need the ACT Party to stand up for taxpayers in this country. Because the ACT Party says that something can be legal and not actually require taxpayer funding. Isn’t it great that we still have a party in this House standing for that position? So this is not about taxpayer funding of pill testing.

And, finally, it is not about the encouragement of drug taking. The question that any sensible person should ask when confronted with an empirical question is: where’s the evidence? Now, if the opponents of this legislation had stood up and said, “Here is a survey of countries who have introduced pill testing, and, on balance, we can show, using robust statistics, that harm is increased, because not only do you have more people using drugs but the reduction in people using bad drugs is less than the increase.”—if they could show there was an increase of harm, using robust empirical evidence—then maybe that would be a justification for continuing the ban on voluntary organisations helping people know what they are putting in their body, maybe that would justify the Government continuing to prohibit people helping each other make better, more informed decisions, maybe that would be a justification, but I have not seen any member of this House who’s opposed to this legislation get up and show the robust empirical evidence that this change to the law will increase harm. They haven’t done it, and that, as I’ve heard in the barracking from some members, is to lose the argument. So it’s not about more people taking drugs; it’s about reducing the harm from people who are taking them.

What this legislation is about is something quintessentially Kiwi. It’s about Kiwi values: that when we see problems in our community—and there are problems in our community—people band together and form organisations and help each other.

Simeon Brown: No.

DAVID SEYMOUR: These should be, Simeon Brown, conservative values. Simeon Brown, if he knew what was good for him, would be standing up and saying, “I actually support people banding together and forming”—as one of his heroes would say—“the little platoons of Edmund Burke to go out and help other people solve problems for themselves.” But the problem with Simeon Brown is he doesn’t know his own intellectual tradition, let alone anyone else’s. We should be in favour of people like KnowYourStuffNZ getting together and helping out others make informed decisions. That should be the conservative position on this legislation, but, sadly, it is not, at least not on the heart of the National Party.

I want to say to people who have questioned the use of urgency that this is one of the examples of urgency being used for the right reason. Urgency exists in our Standing Orders that’ve been passed down to us through the ages by Parliaments—52 of them before this 53rd one—so that we can make better laws. Urgency should be used when there is time sensitivity about a law. Well, the use of these recreational drugs in music festivals is seasonal. I defy any member of this House to tell me they’ve been to an outdoor music festival in June. My birthday’s in June; I know all about the weather in that month. There is a seasonal component here. Now, personally, I wish the Government would use urgency to help out the horticultural industry by letting in some Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers. We’ll talk a bit about priorities later. But the fact is there is actually urgency, not just some political prerogative or need to avoid scrutiny, there is some urgency here.

The next thing I’d say is that this is a time-limited piece of legislation, and it is actually removing a prohibition, removing a Government prohibition, a restriction on people’s freedom, and I think that the bar for increasing freedom and reducing intervention in people’s lives should always be lower than, for example, banning contracts with only five days’ sick pay or increasing the amount of tax taken above a certain threshold. But this is not a bad law to put through under urgency, particularly when it is time limited.

Now, I’ll make a couple of comments about what the debate around this bill says about the state of New Zealand politics today. What it says about the Labour Party is that their priority is party pills, not the horticultural industry. It’s not any of the issues around reconnecting safely with the rest of the COVID world where possible. This is the first piece of legislation that they’ve put through in this Parliament, and I think people will reflect on that. It’s not about Pharmac for all those people short of drugs; it’s actually about people testing illegal drugs. But that is the Labour Party’s choice of priority, and people will reflect on that.

The National Party chooses to oppose something that I can tell them many of their potential constituents are worried about because their kids are good kids. They know that they are going off, and they know that even good kids take risks. This is an opportunity for the risks they take to be safer. Christopher Luxon knows that because he’s a sensible parent. He knows his kids are good kids, but he also worries about what some of their friends might get up to, and he wants them to do it in a safer environment.

Then there’s the Green Party, who are pretty relaxed about people selling and buying drugs, but, you know, I look at the Green Party’s economic policies and the problem is that they’re trying to stop people buying and selling just about anything else. Whatever it is you try to trade in in the New Zealand economy, the Green Party will have a tax or a regulation to try and prevent you, unless you’re planting crystals, in which case they’ll give you a subsidy to hurry it along, and that is a sad set of priorities.

That leaves the ACT Party standing on principle for a freer and more compassionate society, where people can make better and more dignified choices about how they live their lives, in cooperation with each other. In short, as Margaret Thatcher liked to say, we stand for freedom under the rule of law. This is an example of a piece of legislation where the ACT Party has come to a position with our small but growing caucus and decided that we should support a more compassionate, more informed society that allows people to reduce the risk and harms they face, in cooperation with each other. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Te Mana Whakawā, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge you—yesterday I had forgotten to do that. Thank you for also pronouncing my name correctly. So I look forward to future pronunciations from the rest of us. It is an honour and a privilege to speak on this Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister of Health, the Minister’s leadership in bringing this bill into urgency—because it is. It’s the reason for the season. We are going into the festive season, where we are having all these festivals and we want every person that attends the festivals to be safe. The Minister also had the insightful—we heard the other side talk about how there needs to be a contest of evidence, that it didn’t go to select committee, da da da, da da da; well, actually, they have the opportunity to do that next year, when the Minister brings it back. So I want to acknowledge the Minister for that.

So, just to remind us that this bill ensures that our young people who attend festivals have access to drug testing and the opportunity to make an informed choice, and, for the organisers—if they find a dangerous substance in these drugs—that they use social media, that they use every method that they have to warn festival goers and to warn the country of effects of the dangerous drug that’s circulating. Also, we know history tells us that Māori and Pasifika people are more likely to be arrested around New Zealand for certain offences. This bill ensures there’s no risk from prosecution. The evidence taken at the testing will not be used to prosecute anybody who uses the testing services. I want to again commend this side of the House, on my right—that we can all work together in this House, except for that side, together on something that will add value to the safety of all New Zealanders. Te Mana Whakawā, tautoko ahau ki tēnei pire ki te Whare. Kia ora.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill at its third reading—and what an interesting debate that we’ve had on this piece of legislation. I find the contribution from my Green colleague Chlöe Swarbrick to be Trumpian, to say the least, when she won’t answer the question whether she’ll accept the referendum result on marijuana. Her speech seemed to spend more time talking about her vision of more drugs in this world, not less, and she doesn’t seem to understand that no means no.

We also had a lecture from David Seymour in the ACT Party trying to lecture us on conservatism. Well, I would encourage him to consider this study by Andrew Groves, which said that there have been no studies which have fully tested in a controlled way whether pill testing reduces harm, and the actual conservative approach is actually to look at the evidence to see whether there is a need for change. There have been no studies which have fully tested in a controlled way whether pill testing actually reduces harm, and that is why here in the National Party we’ve been very clear that, actually, this should have gone to a select committee to actually look at the evidence, look at the facts, and actually have submissions and the public have their say.

This bill will not reduce harm. The evidence from overseas is clear. The evidence in the United Kingdom is clear that where they have had legal drug-testing at music festivals, the amount of people using MDMA, ecstasy, has increased from 1.2 percent of the population to 1.7 percent—an almost 50 percent increase in usage. Secondly, in Australia, we have seen that it is not the impurities in these substances but it is the ecstasy itself which is doing the killing. A University of New South Wales study of 392 ecstasy deaths between 2001 and 2016 found no deaths in those 392 deaths from impurities or contaminants. The deaths came from the use of the drug itself, and so what this bill is doing is giving young people the green light to go ahead and it’s saying this drug is safe. Well, I’m sorry, these drugs are not safe; these drugs are deadly, and what we are saying is we’re giving them a little ticket, which could be their ticket to their death. That is something which I think is incredibly dangerous, and we will see more harm from this law change.

There has been no evidence given from the departmental statement. The departmental statement on this bill is absolutely bereft of detail. The only people consulted have been KnowYourStuffNZ, the organisation in this country which has a direct interest in this issue, and the departmental statement does say that this will put the cost on to the Department of Health to have to fund this activity here in New Zealand. So I reject what my friend David Seymour says. This will have a cost on the taxpayer.

David Seymour: What cost?

SIMEON BROWN: And I wish he had read—I would suggest you read the departmental statement, because it’s probably good you read that before you come down here and make statements which are opposite to that. So, the National Party will be opposing this legislation.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s good to take another call on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. As I’ve listened to the debate as it’s progressed over the last day or so, it’s, essentially, been a debate on harm minimisation. So we know that any drug strategy or any approach to illicit substances has three areas: one being supply control, which is, for example, police action to remove drugs; the second being demand control, which is educating people about the harms of drugs; and the third being harm minimisation, and that is to acknowledge that there is a level of drug use that occurs, and to enable that to happen as safely as possible so people don’t die.

Now, the alternate—the argument that we’ve heard against harm minimisation from those members opposite—is to turn a blind eye. It’s to say it’s illegal, it’s not happening, we don’t want to know about it—by enabling safety and lives to be saved, we are somehow implicitly condoning illegal drug use. So that’s where the crux of the debate lies, and it lies right across many countries. We’re not the only one having this discussion.

This issue, I remember, was first raised by the Law Commission, right back under the last National Government when the Misuse of Drugs Act was first being reviewed. And, at that time, under the past National Government, it was declined, again, for those very reasons: it was perceived as not being able to be proven as reducing harm. It’s difficult to look at that evidence when it’s currently illegal, but we do know for a fact that those people who have had a pill tested and have been told that it is not in fact the substance they thought they were purchasing, they discard it. We know that happens. So we do know that it has an impact upon what people are ingesting.

My concern, to conclude, is that what this split in ideology has actually demonstrated is the split within the National caucus, because straight away when this idea was first touted by the then Minister of Police Stuart Nash, we heard the spokesperson from National in support of pill testing—in strong support—and what we’ve seen since then is the diminishing liberal voice within the National caucus, which has been subsequently subsumed by a very strong Puritan view that everything bad is wrong, and rule it out, and don’t talk about it. And that will come at the peril of the next generation.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. I’m very conscious that we’re about to debate the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill. The bill refers to regulatory impact analysis, though there be none provided on the Table. Now, members, of course, can find it online, but I just wonder if you could inquire: are we still putting all the documents on the Table, because it’s pretty important stuff for people to be able to read. It doesn’t appear to be there, unless I’ve missed it—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —and I wonder if the Minister might be able to say if he’s provided it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. I’ll just take a bit of advice. Thank you to the member. So the matter’s not been called yet. It’s not on the Order Paper. It’s part of the urgency motion, and so the matter will be tabled when the item is under consideration.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): There are three key concerns that I have in respect of the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill, the very first bill to be passed under this new Parliament. The first concern is that this is a law that’s being passed under urgency and it only arrived yesterday. What an awful precedent we’re setting with the very first bill—to ram it through overnight—and I say to all those new members of Parliament whose job it was to come here and scrutinise legislation that they are neglecting their duty. I bet you the bulk of them have not even read the 34 clauses of this bill.

My second concern is a lack of respect for the referendum in which New Zealanders rejected the liberalisation of our laws. I have to say to Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party that they sound horribly like President Trump in respect of their view of the referendum result. New Zealanders said no to liberalising drug laws, and that has not been registered either by the Government or by the Green Party.

The third part for me is a contradiction of mandate. There was only one commitment from Labour in their manifesto on the issue of drugs, and that was to respect the outcome of the referendum. Andrew Little, prior to the election, was specifically asked if drug testing would be legalised by a Labour Government. He said it would not, and the very first bill we have contradicts that position. Now, the key premise on which this bill is based is that people are dying because of impurities in illegal drugs being used at music festivals. Here’s the evidence: 392 deaths in Australia from party pills; not one from impurities—not one. Every one of those deaths was caused by the ecstasy, the cocaine, or the P, not from any impurities.

My last point is this, and it’s about priorities. It is a matter of evidence and fact that 107 New Zealanders died last year as a consequence of drug-impaired driving. We on this side of the House have tried and tried and tried to get the Parliament to pass a law to introduce roadside drug testing, and the Labour and Green parties have come up with every excuse not to progress that. In contrast, there has not been a single death in New Zealand from the use of party pills. We have repeatedly asked at each stage of this debate why the Government is giving enormous priority to ramming through legislation over the issue of party pills when there has been no documented evidence of death in New Zealand but is dragging its feet and doing everything it can to slow the introduction of roadside drug testing, something that we know will save dozens of lives—it’s costing two deaths every single week. The truth is that this Government is soft on drugs, and the contradiction in its approach to the issue of party pills and testing and in respect of the issue of roadside deaths actually says that it’s just about its agenda of wanting to soften the laws.

My very last point is that I don’t doubt that there is a uniformity of concern in this Parliament about protecting young people from the use of drugs. The difference on this side of the House is that we say that actions speak louder than words. Members opposite can say to young people as much as they like, “Oh, we don’t really think you should take ecstasy or cocaine or P; it’s just that we want to test it to make sure it is safe.” Young people are not foolish. They know it is actions that actually speak louder than words, and the action of saying that these pills have been tested and they are safe runs a very real risk of increasing harm. I say to members opposite that, if there is an increase in use and an increase in fatalities or harm from this bill, it will rest on your conscience for rushing through legislation on an issue that poses a very real risk to New Zealand.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): The honourable member Nick Smith wishes to talk about contradictions. So do I. Let’s talk about the contradictions of the position of the National Party on this bill. Here we have one faction of the National Party, such as it is, led by Simon Bridges and Simeon Brown and the Hon Dr Nick Smith, saying that the National Party opposes this bill, and yet their leader goes on TV and says that, personally, she does not have an issue with it. How is that for contradictions?

When the leader of a political party that likes to frame themselves as that side of the House—but I’d like to point out that we not only have the National Party on that side of the House now; we also have the Māori Party—welcome—and we also have the ACT Party, the Green Party, and some of the Labour Party. So it is not that side of the House that opposes this bill; it is the National Party—well, half of it, I suspect. Half of the National Party, or perhaps slightly half. If the leader of the National Party cannot lead them into a position that every other party in this Parliament holds in support of this bill, I think that we are in for a very interesting summer.

The reason that the vast majority of this Parliament supports this bill is because we accept a very simple principle: no one wants to see people take drugs, no one wants to see consumption increase, but we accept that consumption happens. We accept that consumption will happen over summer, and let’s take measures to ensure that we increase the safety of that behaviour. That’s what this bill is about, and I think it speaks volumes that not only are the National Party divided but they are choosing this issue—an issue of safety, primarily for our young—on which to desperately clutch at headlines to try and get themselves into the papers. I think it’s a shame, and I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 86

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I present a legislative statement on the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 6 April 2021.

At the end of what some of us termed “the year of COVID”, we have learnt many things, and one of the things that we have learnt is the importance of people who are sick staying at home to look after themselves and to not spread infection to others. COVID has been a reminder to us, in terms of dealing with a pandemic, but more generally looking after the health and wellbeing of our people, that people need time off work when they are unwell. It is important for their own health and their own wellbeing. It’s important for the health and wellbeing of their colleagues, who we do not want to become sick through the risk of infection. It is important for businesses, who want to have healthy and well-engaged and productive workforces, and it’s important in a broader sense, in terms of managing the increased risk in our country and around the world of infections such as COVID-19, which can have system-wide impacts on our economy. And what has become clear to the Government and to many people across New Zealand this year is that our current statutory minimum entitlement of five days sick leave per year does not satisfy those requirements and does not satisfy our ambition to ensure that the health and wellbeing of people and the risk of spreading infection is managed well.

I note that this is a realisation that many others have come to. Many businesses in New Zealand currently provide more than the statutory minimum for sick leave in recognition of these factors. Many of the countries with whom we compare ourselves currently provide a higher statutory minimum for sick leave. Australia, for example, provides 10 days’ sick leave per year for workers, which is what has been proposed by the Government in this bill. I was very pleased that the Labour Party manifesto that was taken to the New Zealand electorate this year made a very clear commitment to address this issue with some urgency, and that is what we are doing in the first sitting week of the House this year.

As I said, many businesses in New Zealand do currently provide 10 days’ sick leave or more per year. One of the things that I think is a relevant factor for the House to consider, as this bill goes through, is the equity impacts of our current system, because workers who are most reliant on the statutory minimums tend to be workers in the most vulnerable sectors, tend to be workers with less agency and bargaining power in their workplaces, and tend to be workers who are going to be less able to negotiate to have additional sick leave if that is needed. So we have a situation in New Zealand where many workers—the estimate is around about half of all workers—do have 10 days of sick leave or more per year. But the workers who potentially need it the most—workers who particularly are liable to have children and other dependents for whom they may need to access that sick leave, as well—are the workers who tend to rely on the statutory minimum of five days per year. If we think about the people in our lives who might have children, who might have dependents, who might be more vulnerable in various ways, pretty quickly you can see how that statutory minimum of five days per year may be used up. And that’s just in ordinary times, let alone those periods of time when we are strongly advising people, from a public health perspective, to be cautious and to stay at home if they are unwell with symptoms that may be related to COVID.

I think one thing that this bill and this issue have brought out is a need for the cultural mind-set in New Zealand workplaces to change. Indeed, I think it is changing. I think for a long time we’ve sort of had this attitude—and I’ve been as guilty as many other people—of toughing it out, of saying, “Oh, well, it’s just a bit of a cold. I’m not feeling all that well, but I’ll go in anyway.” We do need to move past that. We’ve learnt this year that there can be serious public health impacts if we don’t move past that. We’ve learnt this year that there can be productivity impacts if we don’t move past that. We’ve learnt that there are serious public health risks for the whole country if we don’t move past that attitude.

More broadly, my vision as Minister in this portfolio and the vision of the Government is that we move past that view of workplace relations where we say the best thing and the only thing we should be doing is to be minimising upfront costs. Actually, we’ve got a much higher level of ambition for workplaces in New Zealand. It’s about building workplaces that are fair, that are safe, and that are productive, and moving on from that 1990s mind-set which says that you trade those things off against each other, that the only way to be productive is to reduce the costs and reduce the investment in your workers down to the minimum possible level. Actually, I believe that those attributes of workplaces that are fair, safe, and productive are mutually reinforcing, that if we invest in workers, if we treat them well, if we ensure that through measures like this—for example, they have adequate sick leave, they have adequate annual leave, they have a voice in the workplace—that is going to lead to more productive workplaces.

A survey undertaken by Business New Zealand and Southern Cross Healthcare in 2018 found that a significant number of employers do already provide more than five days of sick leave per year in recognition of this. The same survey found that from 2012 to 2018 the proportion of enterprises with a clear policy stating that staff should not come into work when sick also increased significantly. Other research reveals that when workers are asked the question, “Would you come into work if you are sick?” in 2012, 49 percent of workers said yes, they would. That reduced to 35 percent by 2018, and, I dare say, that at the end of 2020 more workers also recognise the need to stay at home when they are unwell.

So I think there is a journey that is taking place across New Zealand workplaces that is reflected in the views of both employers and employees that it is incredibly important to ensure that there is adequate sick leave in place. And I’ve been very pleased this week to see a range of leaders from unions and business organisations also recognising this in their public comments about this issue.

I referenced, before, the fact that this doesn’t need to be a trade-off—that, actually, decent sick leave, supporting employees to stay at home when they’re not well, actually can be a boon to productivity. It’s a pretty simple equation, really. If people are coming into work sick with illnesses that are easily spread—of course, we think of COVID-19 this year, but those other bugs that are always around: the common cold, influenza, and other easily transmissible conditions. If more people pick up those conditions because workers come into work when they are unwell, that is a significant drag on the productivity of businesses in New Zealand, and we do not want to see that happening.

There’s good evidence on this as well. Respondents to the 2015 American Working Conditions Survey who reported working while sick, estimated that this reduced their productivity by around about 20 percent on average, and that’s not taking into account the other people for whom illnesses may have been passed on. The same study found that providing paid sick leave in the United States by employers could have saved between $630 million to $1.88 billion per year in absenteeism costs, by preventing the spread of illnesses.

This is a Government which has a balanced approach. We are committed to increasing sick leave to deal with the issues that I’ve covered. We’re also committed to continuing to support businesses in what has been a difficult period due to the impacts of COVID19. The COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme has been an important component of this work and I’m currently having a good look at that scheme to make sure that it’s providing the support to employers that they need during this period. And we have a range of other policies to support businesses as we navigate this period, including interest-free small-business loans; obviously we’ve had the wage subsidy scheme; and the Government’s ongoing programme to provide free business advice, support to get online, and tackling that issue of expensive merchant service fees. So this policy fits within a broader framework of making sure that we’re providing good rights to employees, we’re improving productivity, and we’re supporting businesses through a challenging process.

As part of that balanced approach, we’re also asking the select committee to have a good look at this bill, to consider a range of other issues that have been raised by stakeholders in the consultation. We will be running a full select committee process, and we’ve heard from businesses that a little bit of lead-in time for the implementation of this is important. So the implementation is proposed to take place two months after the legislation takes effect.

This is a bill which responds to some of the challenges that have arisen in 2020, but addresses a more fundamental issue about making sure that we have workplaces that are fair, safe, and productive through the provision of decent sick leave for workers who need to stay at home when they are unwell. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to commence my contribution in this first reading debate by congratulating the Minister on his appointment to the portfolio of workplace relations and safety. He’s a new Minister in this Labour Government, and he comes to his role, and, indeed, to this Parliament, through the well-trodden and well-traversed pathway that is the traditional pathway to Parliament for Labour MPs, through the trade union movement. In his time as a senior negotiator for Finsec, the Finance and Information Workers Union, which has now merged into part of FIRST Union, he was a staunch and very, very effective, I understand, advocate for his union members. But that’s nothing new for those of us who have watched Labour Party Governments come and go over the years. The traditional pathway is well known, it’s well-trodden, and those links and associations between the trade union movement and the Labour Party are historic and go back many, many years.

So it came as no surprise that virtually straight after this year’s general election, in a publication called Trans Tasman, the Council of Trade Unions president, one Richard Wagstaff, presented his wish list of things that he wanted from the current new Labour Government. He says, “Working people and their unions have expectations”—working people and their unions have expectations—of this Government and they are looking for some kind of implementation very quickly. And guess what was top of Richard Wagstaff’s list of expectations from this Government? Well, number one was safer sick leave: “as per their election promise, we look forward to the increase to 10 days sick leave being put into law in their first 100 days in office”. Well, the union’s wish list is being utterly complied with, sycophantically complied with, and the rest of the detail on the list, I’m sure, won’t be far behind as this Government unfolds its agenda. The mirroring of the Government’s agenda, we saw in the Speech from the Throne, mirrors almost exactly the wish list from the Council of Trade Unions, and that comes as no surprise.

This is a small bill—it literally is just a page and a bit. It seeks to amend the already complex and difficult to negotiate Holidays Act, and it extends the minimum provisions of sick leave from five days a year to 10. That comes as no surprise because, as the Minister said, that was the Labour Party’s slogan campaign during the election. But when they were campaigning on the election, they really didn’t pay much attention to the detail, to the unintended consequences, to the costs. I listened very carefully to the former senior adviser to the Finsec union, the Minister say—I heard him say almost nothing. In fact, the only time, I think, in his 10 minutes he referred to the employers was one when he referred to how some employers already give 10 days, and some do, because they understand that the relationships with staff are warranting that. There was no mention, effectively, of the impact on employers.

But in the regulatory impact statement, there are some frightening insights into the lack of detail and the lack of preparation that is going to impact on businesses, particularly small businesses, as a result of this legislation. Frighteningly, the reviewer of this impact statement says—and I quote—“The Impact Statement has been produced under tight time constraints which has led to limitations in the policy process … A lack of consultation with affected stakeholders, particularly small businesses and businesses in the sectors that are most likely affected by the change.” and “A limited range of options has been considered, particularly alternative sick leave duration periods and funding approaches (as [have been] adopted [in] other countries.” That should be enough to make most members of this Parliament sit up and take notice, because there hasn’t been the work and detail done.

The report goes further into looking at some of the likely risks and impacts, and, unsurprisingly, the risks and impacts fall disproportionately upon small to medium sized enterprises, those enterprises that are least able to absorb and least able to make arrangements for sick leave provisions when somebody doesn’t turn up. I’ve been in the situation where I’ve run and operated both large and small businesses, and I can assure you that big businesses actually do have capacity to cover when someone is away because they’re sick; small businesses don’t have that.

What is also said in the impact statement—and this is not covered at all by the Minister in his introductory comments—is the cost. The cost is estimated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to be close to $1 billion a year, added to the costs already being foisted upon New Zealand businesses by a Government that actually thinks businesses have an infinite capacity to absorb cost. Well, businesses don’t have an infinite capacity to absorb cost. Businesses want to stay profitable, and, ultimately, they want to stay in business, so that they can employ people. That’s the ultimate game, that’s the ultimate objective of all commercial enterprises, to stay in business, make a profit, employ people, and return, sometimes, a very modest return to the investors and shareholders who have put their faith into that business.

So a billion dollars, which actually represents close to 1 percent of the nation’s total payroll, is going to have to be absorbed somehow by businesses already under pressure. Those costs, the report says, will be borne—and I quote—“mostly by employers who currently provide between five and 10 days of sick leave. Employers in the manufacturing, construction and accommodation and food services sectors are more likely to only provide the minimum entitlement, [and] so [therefore] are most likely to be impacted.”

So if we go back to the manufacturing, construction, accommodation, and food services sectors, those are some of the most impacted services and sectors that have been impacted by this year of COVID. This brings me to the point about the rationale for bringing this in now. I’m sorry to say that I think this Government is using the cover of COVID to implement a policy that has long been wanted by the trade union movement, long been wanted but never actually previously been able to be got through in a way that is remotely acceptable to the wider New Zealand public and business sector. Yet now we have the cover of COVID being used as an excuse, as a rationale, for bringing this extra impost and cost upon businesses, particularly small businesses, in. If that was the case, surely—surely—there is then an argument for limiting this result and making it COVID- related so that, eventually, one day, and who knows when that might be, when we return to a situation of relative normality, the status quo could be returned to. But, no, this Government has no intention of time-limiting or impact-limiting this piece of legislation. It’s designed to be permanent for ever, for keeps, and ongoing, and that is a difficult challenge for all employers.

I’m delighted, however, that the Minister has at least foreseen to send this piece of legislation to select committee. That’s a positive, and I thank the Minister for that. But he’s given a report-back date that is 6 April. This Parliament rises next week and we go into the great Kiwi Christmas summer closedown. Many New Zealanders will be wanting to beat a retreat to the beautiful Coromandel electorate, where they’ll want to be spending time and money in my very nice electorate. They won’t want to be focused on preparing submissions for a select committee hearing on an extra week’s sick leave for their employees. What we will have, however, is probably, at select committee, a very long list of trade union representatives and members parading through the select committee, giving examples of what the Minister has referred to as enlightened employment arrangements. What we won’t have is the hard-working representatives from small businesses, many of whom will actually be working over the summer period.

So my concern is that although we’re going to have a select committee process, I’m not sure that it’s going to get to the bottom of the real issues, and I don’t think the time frame is particularly appropriate. In fact, I would call upon the Minister to reconsider the earlier report-back date, because I don’t think that’s going to allow a time for adequate and sensible submissions to be prepared and presented over the summer break, when many people are either on holiday themselves or, indeed, working. National will oppose this bill.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and also congratulations on your appointment as Assistant Speaker.

First of all, I think, I would like to thank the member Scott Simpson for recalling the proud work history of our new Minister. We’re absolutely proud of that. He referred to the well-trodden path via the union movement. I guess that is in stark contrast to the well-trodden path of the National Party, where $100,000 will do the job.

Now, the member talked about the fact that there was no consideration for employers in the ministerial speech, when the Minister very clearly referred to the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme. That was a scheme that was put in place very quickly by our Government to ensure that employers did have the support and the help immediately to work through the options that they needed to have and work through all of the different matters they needed to take to remain viable. Now, I am very saddened to see that someone can stand up and do a speech when they actually haven’t even listened to what the Minister was stating in his speech.

The Minister talked about how productivity doesn’t have to be one size fits all, “just working harder will do the job”, and this is how we see that the National Party is so stuck in the mind-set of just looking at what employers might like, in their view, and their absolute hate for employees. This doesn’t need to be a trade-off, as the Minister very clearly said.

Now, the study in the US that the Minister mentioned showed that there was actually a lot of cost associated with people taking their germs into the workplace, and consequently other co-workers get sick, and that has a huge cost on their productivity. The member also made an incorrect statement with regards to the cost in the regulatory impact statement. The cost that the member mentioned is a gross cost, and that cost does not take into account the fact that when someone gets sick in a workplace and goes to the workplace to spread their germs, other workers will go sick as well. So that cost needs to be taken into consideration, too.

Now, I would like to applaud the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. COVID, more than anything else, has shown us that it’s so important that we look after our workers. It’s so important that we make sure that people don’t go to work sick and don’t feel the pressure of having to go to work sick, because that is what we see. I see Christopher Luxon on the other side of the room, and I’m hoping that he will have a different story to tell and take a call on this bill, perhaps—not prior to the maiden speech. We worked at Air New Zealand under a high performance, high engagement workplace, and perhaps the member Scott Simpson can take some lessons from one of his new colleagues, because in that environment, we weren’t hating on employees; we were actually working with unions and we were working with employees. So perhaps that hatred of the union might get a little bit dissolved once there is a new member and perhaps a new leader in the National Party.

Now, with regards to businesses being aware of this productivity, there are already plenty of businesses out there that have implemented sick leave policies that give workers paid time off to address their basic health needs. In Air New Zealand, for example, and in many of the aviation collective contracts, there was, in fact, for a while, undefined sick leave. I don’t like to say “unlimited”, because that would sort of imply that people just took leave whenever they wanted, but “undefined” meant that the workers would make an assessment on when they needed to have that sick leave and would look after their health before anything else.

These businesses, they realise that what is good for their employees is actually good for the business, because it’s not only the employees that benefit from better sick leave provisions; it is actually the businesses. When businesses provide sick leave so that their workers can take the paid sick leave when they need, they will recover properly, they will not spread any illnesses into the workplace, but they will also come to work healthy, refreshed, on top of their game, and in that sense they are productive—and more productive than if they were to slog themselves into the workplace, be half fit, make everyone else sick, and make mistakes, because you make errors when you’re sick.

So the very short-sighted and narrow view from the National Party—you know, five days’ sick leave and for the rest you just have to make do with being sick in the workplace—is absolutely the wrong thing to take. It saddens me to see that they’re stuck in the same rut, like with everything else, throwing out the same old narrative, hating on employees.

But I think this is a great bill. It shows its importance that our Minister, Michael Wood, brought this bill to the House as the first item of business, and it shows the importance that our Government puts on keeping people and keeping New Zealand safe. I commend it to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): The word “productivity” has been used a lot in the House today. And if increasing productivity in the economy in New Zealand is as easy as they say, which is just spending more money, then New Zealand will be the most productive country in the world because this Government is borrowing $200 billion to spend when others are also having to borrow money in their businesses and in their homes to spend and nobody is actually earning more. The way we become more productive is to produce more for the average amount of work that is done. Now, the last speaker, Marja Lubeck, and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety purposefully oversimplify what this legislation is about because it will not increase productivity.

It doesn’t mean that on this side of the House, we don’t believe that when people are ill or they’re sick they should be forced to work. Indeed, they’re not—in New Zealand at the moment. But to come to the House and say to all businesses in New Zealand, “But you already know about this because we talked about it in the campaign and you’ve got a year or so probably to get used to it. And don’t worry, by increasing the cost upon businesses in New Zealand with this measure alone by $1 billion”—that they will have to find somehow—“you will be more productive.” suggests to me that actually the definition of “productivity” in the Labour Party is one that no business person in New Zealand shares.

For that last member and the Minister to come here and lecture about looking after employees versus employers, and who’s better at that and who’s not, misses the point that when you impose cost upon business and those businesses can’t absorb it any more because the Government continues to put cost on them—when employees leave, they can’t afford to re-employ again; jobs are not created. Here’s the thing. The way to make somebody better off is through work, not through not having a job, and before COVID we saw job growth in our economy slow significantly to some months when it was negative. The Government hasn’t got a plan to create jobs, because they’re not looking to work with businesses who help grow the economy and they’re also looking to pile cost on that, in the end, won’t be good for employees who haven’t got jobs.

So here’s an international organisation that studies this stuff around the world. The IMF has just produced a report that projects that on present economic settings in New Zealand, New Zealand incomes by 2025 will be lower than they are today. Yet in the House today, there is an announcement of doubling sick leave to increase productivity. Last week, we heard that actually the Minister, the new Minister, is not ruling out accepting the Helen Clark’s Foundation’s proposal to increase the minimum wage to the living wage next year with the concept of “predistribution”. But nobody knows what the predistribution is except a small-business man that is not making money this year that had to borrow during the lockdown through no fault of their own that’s seeing cost upon cost imposed on them by the Government. They’re not sure how they’re going to survive. They’re actually probably eventually going to have to reduce their workforce because they can’t keep increasing their costs because consumers can’t afford that. And the predistribution model that the Minister’s signing up to, because he said he’s going to look next year at moving the minimum wage to the living wage, is that you tax somebody and redistribute it before it has been earned, and that won’t do anything for productivity at all. Five years of no income growth in New Zealand is what the IMF is predicting based on current economic settings in New Zealand, and that means those that have the least will be able to afford even less come 2025.

There are 200,000 New Zealanders out of work. Those New Zealanders are more interested in how they’re going to get a job and how their job will be created than in a year’s time having an extra five days’ sick leave if they need it. They’re much more interested in how they’re going to get a job to provide for their families, those 200,000 people, than an extra public holiday in a couple of years’ time. They’re much more interested in how a small business in their community will be able to create a job to afford to pay them so they can provide for their families than a sharp increase in the minimum wage—and let’s not start on the 1970s style, union-friendly workplace relations proposals the Government has been talking about that actually will not drive productivity.

So here’s an opportunity for the Minister to answer a couple of questions on this. If increasing productivity in the economy is as simple as increasing the minimum wage without consequence, why stop where you have? Why not go to $50 an hour because all of a sudden poverty will be gone? But what will be the cost in the supermarkets and elsewhere of those costs being passed on? And if actually the way to increase productivity is through greater sick leave, why are you only doing five days? Why are you limiting it to 20 days over a period of time? The reason for that is it feels good and it sounds good but it’s not an economic plan to grow the economy. It’s not an economic plan to work and support small business people to be able to create jobs. It’s not going to do anything at all to help them get out from the debt that has been imposed on them because of the lockdown. And it will mean that job creation slows as we saw in the last term, before COVID, and when job creation slows it’s a leading indicator of an unemployment rate that will increase.

Actually, we started to see that before COVID, then COVID hit the economy and the unemployment rate went so very high. And this isn’t a plan to fix that. It’s not an economic plan. The IMF is correct that actually on present economic settings, New Zealanders’ incomes by 2025 will be lower than they are today. That’s an appalling record that the Government has set up. They say they care—and they do—but in five years from now there’ll be no income growth in New Zealand, which means those that have the least will have even less. They will be able to afford even less. And those that are middle-income New Zealanders who are sort of trying to do OK at the moment will have found that actually costs have gone up, including housing and rents and food and other things. And there will be fewer businesses because we will be less productive; we will not be more productive.

This isn’t a debate about whether or not people should have to work when they’re ill; of course, they should not. But the Government has dressed this up as a response to COVID, but is not a response to COVID because already if somebody thinks they might have COVID and they have to go and have a test and they have to self-isolate until then, the Government has a scheme of $50 million to help them already. So if they have thought or they think they have COVID or they could have and they want to go and get a test, they do not have to work today, except the Government scheme doesn’t work well enough. They are using COVID as a cover to extend this out. And if that’s their policy, which it was before the election, then they should own that aspect to it. But they shouldn’t say it’s going to increase productivity, because COVID didn’t increase productivity in the country, and actually piling cost upon business at a time when we should be finding ways for businesses to be able to grow so they are more productive and they can pay more—actually, that plan is something that’s needed much more than this.

The five days’ sick leave and the extra day’s holiday the Government has proposed to fix the problem of the tourism industry, but you’re not going to get it for two years, doesn’t do anything for the businesses that are struggling and are likely to close this year waiting for a public holiday with its extra cost. With the increase of the minimum wage and the Minister’s suggestion that he’s looking at whether he brings it up to the living wage or not will be a cost of more than $3 billion on businesses. Now, the Government gets to borrow that money and one day taxpayers have to pay it back through the tax system. But when a business has to pay extra costs imposed on it by the Government, it has to borrow that or it has to increase its costs—

Kieran McAnulty: What’s this got to do with the bill?

Hon TODD McCLAY: —or it has to reduce costs, and they don’t get to do all of those things. In fact, they’ve already had to do most of them. And largely what it means is they’re going to have to reduce costs, which means fewer people in the workforce, fewer jobs, not job creation. “And what’s this got to do with sick leave?” a member on the opposite side of the House says. At a time when businesses in New Zealand need the Government to understand how hard it’s been to work with them with a plan to grow the economy and create jobs, they’re merely piling cost on them without talking to them, without understanding them.

Now if the Minister stands up and says, actually, this is a select committee process, we’re going through it. If we see from businesses a better way or it’s going to be too harmful, or it’s not going to create jobs at the moment or for a period of time, and he’s willing to then look at that and change some of the timing that employers of small businesses around the country, hard-working chippies and others have asked for already since the announcement, so be it. But I guarantee you, he won’t do that, because this is ideology at its worst. Everybody wants somebody when they’re unwell to be treated properly. If you believe you’re at harm of COVID, then the Government will provide an income for you as you self-isolate. To dress this up as something because we need it—because it’s COVID it’s there for a long time—will impose cost upon business at a time that it’s not needed, and it’s going to mean fewer jobs, not more jobs. And in five years’ time, these guys will turn around and say it’s not our fault that incomes haven’t grown because we care.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Point of order. I move an extension of time for Todd McClay. That was a brilliant speech. We need another five minutes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That is not a point of order.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with absolute pleasure, as a small-business owner, that I rise in support of this bill.

I think it’s time that members opposite hear a real-life experience from a business owner rather than the uninformed opinions that they seem to think are what every business and business owner agrees with, while those members of the National Party are wrong. I would like to talk about my experience as a small-business owner, in so far as that I would rather that my staff, if they were unwell, stay at home. I am one of those business owners that provides more than five days’ sick leave for my staff currently. I am looking forward to increasing it to 10 days for my staff, because there is nothing worse than having sick staff members come in to work because they feel that they have to because they’ve got no sick days left. They’ve been at home looking after their children during the year, because they’re sick, and they are desperately in need of those wages, that they’d come along, sick as a dog, and get on with it. However, then they pass on those germs to the other staff members. Then those staff members have to go away sick, and you are losing productivity. So I already do it as a business owner, and I am proud of the fact that I do it. I am proud of the fact that I am a good business owner and a good employer of my staff, and care enough about them.

It’s not all about this pie in the sky idea that because of this piece of legislation all of a sudden every staff member in every business is going to take 10 days’ sick leave automatically, straight away, and no one’s going to be working anywhere. That is what that party opposite, the National Party opposite, seems to think. It’s always a glass half empty rather than a glass half full with them. I am so proud to support this piece of legislation.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was a little earlier than I expected, but I am very pleased to get the chance to speak on this bill. It really does feel as if it has been a long time coming, so I would like to add my congratulations to the new Minister, Michael Wood, for showing that he’s getting down to business so quickly in this new parliamentary term. And also, Madam Speaker, my congratulations to you. It’s lovely to see you in the Chair, and I look forward to your wise ruling over this term.

So there’s been some debate about the relevance of COVID across the sides of the House, but really, for me, if COVID has taught us anything—and I’ve referenced a lot of lessons I’ve taken from COVID around, actually, the ability to make change at speed when required, and our interconnectedness with each other and our environment. They are very strong lessons. But, for me, if there is any lesson from COVID, it is the danger of, when you are sick, carrying on as if there is no consequence to that. That behaviour has put our entire country at risk. It’s one of the top-line messages from the Government and the public health responses: if you are sick, stay home. That’s the number one message to the country in response to COVID, because that behaviour keeps us safe. And the Government has initiated the COVID leave scheme as an interim measure, specifically responding to the failures of our sick-leave scheme at the moment, to enable more people to be able to take that advice and not to have to choose between being able to pay their rent and keeping their workmates and their community safe.

So at the moment we know that half of the employers in this country provide just the minimum: only five days. What that tells us is that a significant number of small and medium sized businesses provide more, despite what the National Party has been suggesting in their speeches. But it tells us as well that a huge number of people in this country right at the moment will be feeling as if they need to go to work, even though they are feeling sick, because they will have used up their leave or been worried about reaching that point and maybe their kids will get sick and they’ll need it for them.

The Greens have long called for an extension to sick leave. Our first motivation was recognising the pressure on, mostly, working mums, but mostly parents, around the ease of kids getting sick when they’re at school or kōhanga or early childhood education—kids get sick, right. You need—and we all want, I would have thought—their parents to be there with them when they’re sick. And for the parents, that’s part of women being able to stay in work, because we haven’t managed to share those roles out between men and women equally yet. So that’s part of what helps keep women in work.

So the discussion that we heard from the National Party earlier is that New Zealanders just want work and the jobs; that’s all they care about. They don’t care about whether they’ve got sick leave or not. But, actually, if that side of the House had listened to half the country at all, they would have heard that, actually, people don’t want to have to choose between caring for their families and putting food on the table. Actually, they want to contribute, they want to be in jobs that enable them to fulfil both functions. We know that people who are only getting that statutory entitlement are more likely to be young, they’re more likely to be women, they are more likely to be Māori, and have caring responsibilities. So this is a problem for us as a society. If we’re saying we’re a caring society, then, actually, our leave provisions are inconsistent with that. And if we care about public health and preventing outbreaks of sickness, of communicable diseases, then our sick leave provisions are inconsistent with that.

I do just want to quote—there was an op-ed in the paper from a woman that sounds like she works in a call centre, Halaena Mckeague, who I just thought put it kind of nicely that “five days goes really, really quickly. Especially when the … Prime Minister [is telling you] to play it safe and stay home if we’ve got any of the many … symptoms of COVID-19. Sore throat? Stay home. Runny nose? Home. Bit of a cough? Don’t come in.” That is our advice. We need people to follow that advice. Five days as a total? It’s not really consistent with that advice.

There’s academic work and analysis of our behaviour in workplaces that talks about the problem of “presenteeism”. We hear from what I would characterise as bad employers who talk about absenteeism as a real problem—as the main problem. But, actually, we have a bigger problem with people coming to work sick, in a compromised state. And we heard the evidence around actually a 20 percent reduction in their effectiveness when they come to work sick. But more than that, they’re making their colleagues sick, and that is reducing productivity in the whole workplace. So the presenteeism is a key problem. Part of the way we change that is by sending a very clear message through our legislation and increasing our provision of sick leave. And that is what we are starting to do today.

I also just want to say that while I speak to some of these key points, I do want to acknowledge that this legislation, from the Greens’ perspective, isn’t perfect, and actually doesn’t solve all of those problems, because there’s a lot of people in this country who are either in casual work or—when we have one of the highest rates of turnover in and out of employment in the entire OECD—many people will be at the stage of their employment where they won’t have been in the job six months, and they won’t be entitled in the current provisions to any of these protections. I really want people to think about that, and the fact that we also have a gap between our COVID leave scheme at the moment and the protection for those workers. They’re not covered by our sick leave entitlements.

And with the COVID leave scheme, really, it’s a limited number of people who are able to access it through their employers. So if you’re a horticultural worker who’s being employed for the season, or if you’re a retail worker who’s been brought in for the Christmas rush, or a hospo worker who’s only got casual hours and you are feeling sick, then at the moment in most workplaces, you will have to choose between being paid or looking after your community and protecting us from having to go into a lockdown. And from my perspective and the Greens’ perspective, as we head into the summer break, this is an urgent issue that needs resolution if we are to have security around our response over the summer period as we are all getting out and moving around the country more than we normally would. That is an issue that needs prioritising, and we’re a little sad to see that that wasn’t built into this legislation and that wasn’t being solved through urgency.

I would just say as well that we’re interested to hear from the Minister at some stage around why this framework won’t bring in the protections for some workers until mid-2022, when there could have been an option to have made sick leave balances 10 days minus any leave days taken since the work anniversary date from the date of implementation. It would have, I think to my mind, been a simpler implementation mechanism or framework, and would have brought forward access to it. If we’re buying the principle that this actually supports good productivity within workplaces, which I am 100 percent of that view, and that this helps build good public health initiatives and supports family and caring—things that we really believe in—then I think the sooner we do this the better.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill. This piece of legislation, more than anything else, shows the priorities of this Government. We’ve just rushed through a bill under urgency to deregulate pill testing—and a fine initiative it is—now, when it comes to employment, and business, and jobs, and growth, the Government is rushing through legislation to increase the regulation and costs put on people who choose to employ. That is the priority of this Government in a nutshell, here under urgency, plain for the people of New Zealand to see. It also shows the way this Government approaches problems. This Government is not interested in growing the pie, it’s not interested in productivity growth; its solution to every problem is redistribution. They never see the opportunity for New Zealanders to do more stuff smarter, with more investment capital and better technology. All they see is the opportunity to take what exists and give it to people who they think are more likely to vote for them. It is a sad and sorry way to lead a country.

It’s worth revising what people who seek to be employers have gone through over the past sad 13 years, because employers are not some sort of cash cow for the policies that the Labour Party front bench used to fantasise about as they ran student unions in their youth. They are actually people who assemble investment capital and an idea for a product, or a service, and customers, and if they do that successfully, they can make payroll every second Thursday and make sure that jobs actually exist. That’s what employers are. But employers have a big numerical problem in this country. There are only 154,000 of them, five percent, versus employees of which there’s 50 percent—interestingly, the same percentage that voted for the Labour Party.

This excellent opinion piece by Geoff Neal says here’s why it’s getting harder to employ New Zealanders. He says take the last 13 unlucky years that employers have faced, in 2007, the Labour-led Government lands a triple blow to business. Number one, an extra week’s annual leave puts up employers’ staff costs 2 percent in an instant. Then it says KiwiSaver, employers have to pay 2 percent of someone else’s retirement, later increased by a National Government to 3 percent. Then, in 2007, the adult minimum wage goes up a dollar an hour, actually a 10 percent increase in one go. How many businesses can do a 10 percent increase in productivity to pay for that? The fact is, they can’t.

All the way through, from 2009 to 2017, minimum wage increases were at least somewhat achievable through productivity growth, at 25c to 50c per year. But it didn’t mean that the National Party wasn’t prepared to Mondayise Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. That’s just another 0.2 percent on the costs of employing people in this country, just another little smidgen that gets added on to the cost of people who assemble capital, and products, and services, and customers to provide jobs. But hey, it all adds up.

In 2018, with a new Labour-led Government, the minimum wage goes up again, by 5 percent in one go. Then, in 2019, it gets worse again, a 7 percent increase in the minimum wage by $1.20; new domestic violence leave policies which say that employers—not ACC, not the taxpayer—are somehow responsible for paying, for the public benefit, for those who are harmed by those close to them to be able to have respite. Why anyone would put that narrow tax on to employers to achieve a wider public good is a question anybody who knows anything about public policy will never be able to answer sensibly.

They weren’t finished in 2019. Then they went and got rid of the 90-day trial for people who had the temerity to employ more than 20 other New Zealanders. These are the kinds of costs that have been put on to the Government, on to employers by this Government, and the last one, and the one before it. This bill comes at the end of 13 years of people who seek to employ their fellow New Zealanders having additional costs loaded on to them for purely political purposes. And here we are in 2020, looking into 2021: what does this Government have in store for people who have the temerity to give other New Zealanders a job? Well, we’re going to see another 6 percent increase to minimum wage. How many employers can get a 6 percent increase in productivity every year to pay that? I wish there were more, but sadly, there isn’t. It’s simply unsustainable.

Another week’s sick leave, another public holiday. These are the things that are going on to the costs faced by employers. And people wonder why we’re not getting productivity growth when it’s all been sucked up in redistribution for political purposes by a Labour Party that just doesn’t get what it takes to create investment, jobs, and growth. What about this bill before us? Well, I looked earnestly at the regulatory impact statement that was put on the table with a minute’s notice by the Minister, because it couldn’t be here because this Government is so—how do they say?—ass about face, they’re running to stand still and keep up.

Does it say anything about a problem to be solved that New Zealanders don’t have enough sick leave? Well, we look at the summary of the problem and proposed approach, does it mention anything? The closest it gets is—if you go through to, I think, page 3, it says if you look at the statistics, the Wellness in the Workplace Survey, actually 35 percent of workers surveyed said they’d gone to work sick, down from 49 percent seven years earlier. A problem that is solving itself, but no analysis of what the costs and benefits of the policy are. No justification, except for this—here’s the justification we’ve heard from the Minister, here’s what we see on the regulatory impact statement—it’s all about COVID.

Well, well, haven’t this Government heard the advice “Never waste a good crisis.”? What Government would possibly want to use an excuse of COVID that requires people, if they tested positive, to take off 14 days, a few thousand people potentially, if things get really bad. A few people might need to take 14 days off while they recover from COVID and prove they have no symptoms or infection from COVID. Instead of helping those small number of people get through COVID, this Government is giving five extra days’ sick pay to 2.7 million workers. Now, unlike Paul Goldsmith, my dad wasn’t a maths teacher, but maybe that’s not a bad thing. But I think I can do enough maths to understand that giving 2.7 million workers—at an estimated cost of a billion bucks a year to employers—five extra days off is not a solution to a problem that may see a few thousand workers requiring 14 days off.

So there you have it, we live in a country where we need an economic recovery that will depend on one Kiwi offering another Kiwi a job hundreds of thousands of times in the weeks and months and years to come as we come out of COVID. We have a Government whose priorities are to deregulate pill testing and then increase the regulation on employment, putting a billion bucks of costs, ostensibly because of COVID-19, in a way that won’t actually help people who need 14 days off for COVID-19. It comes after a 13-year litany of additional costs by the blue team and the red team put on to the cost of people who actually take the effort to assemble the capital, the products, the services, and the customer base to provide other New Zealanders a job. People wonder why it is that the IMF says this country will be poorer in 2025 than it was in 2019. Anybody seeking the answer to that question? I present to you the Labour Government and this myopic, stupid, disgraceful legislation that the ACT party proudly opposes.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I can say very confidently to the Opposition that as an employment lawyer who has worked for employers and who has worked for employees and who has worked for unions, this legislation is something we should be very proud of. You have been burying your heads in the sand.

I have been working in this field for so long that I have seen—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

HELEN WHITE: —the terrible things that have been done to people under—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member—

HELEN WHITE: —the old regime, and thank goodness—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, ma’am.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume her seat. The member does not bring the Speaker into the debate by saying “you” to a member.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, ma’am.

Kieran McAnulty: Just say “the member who’s sitting there”.

Hon Member: Like “The member’s wrong.”

HELEN WHITE: The member is wrong—the member is certainly wrong.

In the time that I have been an employment lawyer, I have seen large employers, who could certainly pay, actually performance-manage staff for taking under the minimum entitlement, because they saw it as a performance issue. It is an extremely unsustainable position, given what we have seen in COVID, that we are actually encouraging people to be in a workplace when they are sick. It is bad for our economy and it is bad for our humanity. I commend this bill.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Madam Speaker, I too would like to join some of my other colleagues in this House in congratulating you on your ascendency to—I was going to say, “throne”—the Chair and wish you all the very best.

It is at times like these that I always like to remind myself of that now infamous quote by the honourable Deborah Russell, who said, “We are seeing a number of small businesses really struggling after only a few weeks in a pretty bad situation, which must speak to the strength of those businesses going into this lockdown.” That was the honourable Deborah Russell—oh, she’s not “Hon”; hopes and prayers.

David Seymour: Why isn’t she?

ERICA STANFORD: Who knows. The reason I like to think about that quote is that it so perfectly encapsulates and sums up the view of the Government of business—that they are a pit of money that can continually afford more and more and more costs placed upon them. It’s really interesting actually, because we’re at a time when this Government, on the one hand, is doling out cash in terms of extending business loans and wage subsidies because they’re acknowledging that businesses are doing it tough, that they’re needing to borrow money just to get by, and in the very same breath they’re standing up here today and, on the other hand, piling on more and more and more costs on these businesses that cannot afford it.

We are seeing businesses who are laying off staff, reducing hours, not hiring when people leave, and taking on these massive loans and not paying themselves, especially the small to medium sized enterprises in this country. They are doing it really tough, and the Government acknowledges that. It acknowledges that, on the one hand, by offering subsidies if they employ more people, and by giving loans and extending loan schemes. And yet, as I said, in the very same breath they are, on the other hand, taking that away by imposing more and more cost. It doesn’t make sense.

And the Government has the audacity to lecture businesses today. They’re up here lecturing businesses, saying to them, “Well, it just makes sense. If you give more sick leave, it magically leads to more productivity, and some businesses understand that and they do it, and the rest, obviously, are just stupid. They don’t understand productivity. Clearly, they don’t know business. They perhaps even shouldn’t even be in business if they don’t understand productivity and how to increase productivity by simply giving some more sick leave.”

The fact is that even the regulatory impact statement (RIS) points out that there is limited evidence on this. There are some overseas studies. They talk about anecdotes and assumptions, and the reason, Marja Lubeck, that they are not able to say that the billion dollars in costs is offset by a certain figure is because they can’t. There’s nothing in the RIS that says that the billion dollars in costs will be offset by X amount of increased productivity, because they can’t. And further to that, there’s a whole lot of unintended consequences that are brought up in the RIS which the Minister didn’t talk about—things like what are these companies going to do in terms of making up that cost. Are they going to pass that cost on in their prices, therefore increasing the cost of living to New Zealanders, which is what’s been happening for the last three years of this Government in all the taxes and increased costs it’s been piling on people? Will they reduce hours? Will they not take on part-time employees? Will they not take on women? Actually, they talk about that in the RIS—will there be certain groups of people that they won’t take on because they have traditionally more childcare responsibilities and usually take more leave? Those are things that are brought up in the regulatory impact statement.

A catchy election slogan does not make good policy, and we’re seeing that in the RIS. “Oh, double sick leave; it’ll all be fine.”, and then we get to the RIS which points out that actually there are a lot of considerations, a lot of issues, that this legislation brings up that are actually just being shunted down the line to the very hard-working Education and Workforce Committee, which I sit on, which will be looking at it. There are all kinds of consequences around entitlements for people who are working part time and whether or not you should bring this leave in straight away. There’s a whole pile of work we have to now do because the work wasn’t put into this piece of legislation. They didn’t consult with business. They’ve talked about that in the RIS. They went out and had a catchy election slogan because they knew it would win votes, but they didn’t spend any time talking to business or actually developing good policy.

The problem is there—yes, there is a problem—but they automatically go to piling costs on businesses rather than looking at other mechanisms of delivering the policy outcome. They already have the COVID-19 support leave scheme, but they didn’t consider whether or not they could extend that or tweak that—they went straight to rich businesses, apparently, who can just afford it.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, thank you, and congratulations to you for your election to the position of Assistant Speaker. I find myself comically over-prepared for this first contribution that I make to the debate. I find myself also comically prepared in the face of an Opposition who would have us socialise the costs to all New Zealanders of the spread of the flu and colds and summer bugs, for the benefit of a minority of employers who do not already allow their workers to take the sick leave that they need simply to keep the germs to themselves.

I wanted to talk about a couple of the reasons why I think this bill, which was introduced very ably by the new Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, will be met with applause by my constituents in Manurewa, both workers and employers. By increasing sick leave, we’re supporting workers, and giving people who care for their kids and dependents more flexibility to be part of paid work. It’s important for people who I met on the campaign, like Flor. She’s a cleaner in the Manukau Westfield in the Manurewa electorate, and she’s a mum of two wee girls, a step-mum to another with complex health needs, and a carer for the elderly people in her family. As an employer myself, I know how much people like Flor contribute to their workplace. You give a busy mum a task and she’ll get it done by five, and the members on the other side of the House who are employers will know that well. Flor wouldn’t be able to contribute to the workplace safely and reliably without these 10 days’ sick leave in the current environment. Why? Because, like many working mums, she’s the pillar of her home, and her employers know that, too. But the reality in the workplace currently is without that statutory minimum, she’s not realistically able to take those extra days’ leave when she needs them.

It’s also an important part of the package to support what the Government is already providing to businesses and workers as we accelerate the economy—things like the free apprenticeships programme, which has doubled the number of female apprentices starting from 845 last year to 1,786 this year. They are themselves likely to be workers who are most reliant on the statutory minimums. It’s important to expand the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme so businesses can invest more in technology which allows people to work more flexibly in their house. Those are some of the reasons why I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker—very good to have you back in the Chair. I suppose the number one, sort of, issue that has arisen by this bill is just a question of timing, because I don’t think there’s anybody who thinks this isn’t a nice idea for New Zealanders to have access to more sick leave. Isn’t that nice? I think everybody would agree that it would be nice if New Zealanders could have access to higher incomes and higher minimum wages. The whole purpose of good Government policy is to increase wages and to make it easier for New Zealanders to live their lives and look after themselves when they’re sick and when their family are sick. So it’s a nice thing to have.

The question is: is this the moment in time when it makes sense to extend those rights and expectations of workers and burdens on employers? I think most people making a rational assessment of where we are as a country right now would have to say, well, hang on, maybe not. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! That’s not that much decorum, Mr Hipkins.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So what we’re facing right now is that the 500,000 small businesses in this country are facing very, very difficult times, particularly as a reflection of COVID, when they are struggling to keep their businesses afloat and employ New Zealanders. The economy is shrinking. This year it has fallen in economic growth at the fastest level, the biggest drop in the size of our economy in recent history—in fact, in any history that you can go back to. So we’re under incredible economic pressure.

Now, the Government has responded to this by borrowing a billion dollars a week and splurging money out across the economy. Now, that’s fine. You know, that may have been required during the COVID lockdown, but it’s not a real situation. You can’t keep on doing that for ever.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I’m now going to ask the member to speak to the bill. Sorry, I was slightly distracted and I came back and I thought he was talking about the next piece of legislation, the COVID matter. Let’s talk to the bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. I am providing the basic context to this bill, and this bill is, as I say, another example of this Government adding costs and regulations to employers at a time, as I was trying to explain, when they are under intense pressure. They are under intense pressure as it is at the moment; they will be under more intense pressure when the inevitable happens and this Government stops borrowing and at the rate that it is at the moment, because we can’t keep on doing that for ever.

So what puzzles many New Zealanders right now is that given the pressures that we’re facing, is it really the time to be continuing every week, it seems, to extend the burdens upon employers? It’s very easy for a politician, the Prime Minister, to stand up during an election campaign and promise to give some New Zealanders the money that is owned by other New Zealanders—to say, “OK, vote for us and we will make them give you more money.” Well, it’s very easy to do, but it’s not very easy for those businesses to stay in business if they can’t afford to pay the extra costs that are being imposed on them. It’s not immaterial. We get the impression from some speakers on the other side that doubling the sick leave is not a matter of any consequence; it’s just something that happens and it’s no big deal.

Well, the estimates from the officials, the best that they can come up with—and they’re probably not very detailed, and that’s what we’ll need to be investigating when we have a look at the select committee—is that it could be around a billion dollars. Now, that comes on top of additional costs in terms of the minimum wage increases, which have been very substantial, again, at a time when businesses are struggling, and a number of other regulatory impositions.

So the only question that I have, and I’d be very interested to explore this as the bill goes through, is how we expect that we will be able to grow the economy and create sustainable, higher living standards without businesses investing and growing. Right now it seems the Government is prepared to make it more difficult for that private sector to invest and grow. Look, it’s all right for, you know, the city councils and the Government departments and all that to keep on providing more and more generous payments and salary arrangements, but, ultimately, it needs to be paid for by the private sector and that private sector needs to be based on competitiveness. Ultimately, the export sector needs to be internationally competitive and our domestic sector needs to be able to provide goods that people can afford.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member is now getting a second warning, and his last warning, to come back to the bill. This is not a general economic debate; it’s a debate on a specific piece of legislation, and I’ll remind the member that there’s no obligation to fill a full 10 minutes.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. So I think I’ve made my point, and the simple point is that this piece of legislation, the doubling of sick leave requirements, is something that is nice to have for a country, and the question is: is this the right moment to be extending that thing, which is nice to have, given the incredible pressures that we have at the moment?

Hon Michael Wood: A nice to have—stay at home when you’re sick.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, if it’s nice to have, why don’t you just double it again, make it four weeks? We have to have some sort of arbitrary limit. So the question is: why is it right, right now, to double those requirements and put those, because it’s not a free thing that you’re offering? It needs to be paid for by somebody. If you’re saying that now is the moment to do it, well, OK, please provide us the evidence as to why now is the time to do it, at a time when businesses are struggling more than ever. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): Right throughout the National Party’s time in this House we’ve heard the same old arguments that we’re hearing in response to this bill. They opposed Working for Families, and yet they didn’t repeal it. They opposed increasing annual leave, and yet they didn’t repeal it. And today we hear them oppose the proposal to extend sick leave, and not once did we hear them say that they would repeal it. Why? Because when they’re in Opposition they make a lot of noise, but, actually, when they’re in Government, they realise in order to get there they had to give people what they want. And we’ve heard talk of a lot of costs, scaremongering of costs—the same arguments we heard around the minimum wage. “If we increase the minimum wage, businesses will fail!”—no evidence, of course, and despite the fact that every single year when the National Party were in Government they increased the minimum wage. Yet when this Government does it, they oppose it. Why? Because when it’s their idea it’s good—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat when I’m on my feet. The member’s had a good minute for his introduction; he will now get on to the bill.

KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a simple principle at play here: if someone is crook, they shouldn’t have to go to work. And what we find with five days, particularly with workers that have child dependents and have to look after their children when they’re crook, is they are forced to go to work when they’re ill. That makes other people ill. We learnt that from COVID. The question was posed: why are we doing it now? Well, I would say that we’ve certainly learnt a lot over the last few months, and productivity is affected when people go to work crook, and other people are crook, and therefore they have to take sick leave. But if the provisions are there to allow people to take the time they need to get better, less people get crook, less businesses are impacted, and we can all be more productive. It’s not very—

SPEAKER: Fewer. Fewer, not less.

KIERAN McANULTY: Right. Well, thanks for that, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. I’ll remember that next time you ask me not to involve you in the debate. So, Mr Speaker, thank you very much. I’ve said all I need to say. This is a good bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

SPEAKER: The question is, That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to the Education and Workforce Committee

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 6 April 2021.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 6 April 2021.

Ayes 76

New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: I understand it is the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.

CLERK: Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Bills

COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I present to the House a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

I hope that this bill will be a relatively non-controversial bill. It is a simple bill that does two things, and at the end of my speech introducing this bill, I am going to seek leave for a slightly different process to facilitate it through the House, following discussion amongst the parties on both sides of the House.

The bill, basically, does two things, as I’ve indicated. The first thing it does is relatively simple: it changes references to the Minister of Health to the Minister responsible for the Act, and that’s quite simple. At the moment, the Minister of Health is the Minister who issues orders and issues exemptions from orders under the Act. That is a power that I have exercised for most of the time that the Act has been in existence, first as Minister of Health, and, secondly, more latterly, since the new Government was sworn in, under section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986, where I have been exercising the powers of Minister of Health. This will tidy that up and make sure that I’m not exercising powers on behalf of another Minister; that I am, in fact, exercising the powers as the Minister responsible for the Act—a relatively simple technical adjustment that reflects the fact that there is now a Minister for COVID-19 Response, which there was not when the legislation was first introduced, and that power was vested with the Minister of Health.

To be clear, the orders that we’re talking about are things like the air border order, the maritime border order, our isolation and quarantine order, the orders requiring people to be tested, and any orders that are issued relating to alert levels. They will now be issued, once this is passed, in my name, as the Minister for COVID-19 Response, rather than in the name of the Minister of Health. Similarly, exemptions to those orders will be granted by me as Minister for COVID-19 Response.

The second amendment that the bill makes—that, again, I hope will be relatively non-controversial—is it allows the Government to remove restrictions made under orders with less than 48 hours’ notice. At the moment, if we escalate up alert levels, in order to de-escalate, to move back down the alert levels, we have to give 48 hours’ notice of that. In some instances where we’re simply removing restrictions, it makes sense to be able to move more quickly. For example, if at the moment I was to remove the requirement for people to wear masks on public transport, I would have to give 48 hours’ notice of that. In reality, once we get to the point where we’re satisfied that there is no longer a risk that would justify the wearing of masks, it should be possible for us to remove that restriction much more quickly than having to provide 48 hours’ notice. So this bill would allow us to remove restrictions faster.

I think there is good reason to say where we’re imposing new restrictions, where it is not a genuine emergency, then we should give 48 hours’ notice of introducing a new requirement, but we shouldn’t necessarily need to give 48 hours’ notice to remove one. So the bill allows us to move more quickly with regard to that.

So that’s the conclusion of my first reading contribution, and I seek leave, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Chris Hipkins, seeking leave.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave that there be no debate on the second reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill and that there be no committee stage on the bill.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The National Opposition will be supporting the passage of this bill through its particularly truncated passage through the House. We think it’s a, to the extent that it does anything, sensible piece of legislation. I do have to wonder at the utility of the change—essentially, the name change—from transferring the powers from the Minister of Health to the Minister for COVID-19 Response, as the bill statement, under the new Standing Orders, that has been issued by the Minister makes clear. Section 7 of the Constitution Act 1986 allows for any member of the Executive Council to exercise powers conferred on another Minister under legislation. So, yeah, for tidiness, I suppose, it’s useful to have the Minister for COVID19 Response in the legislation rather than the Minister of Health, but I’m not really sure it was absolutely required. The explanatory note says it shouldn’t be relied on in the long term and an amendment for flexibility and accuracy is appropriate. I suppose that’s true. So, if you’re legislating anyway, I suppose you may as well chuck it in the legislation as a minor amendment. But there’s only one other item in the legislation.

I should say also, sir, that we have a supplementary amendment to make the Minister of Health be added alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to the people who must be consulted mandatorily during the development of the orders under the Act, and that flows from the change I’ve just talked about. That makes sense, but the only other thing is the 48 hours’ notice requirement, and that’s, really, the sort of heart—to the extent this bill has a heart—of the bill and we support that. And I suspect, without knowing for sure, it was a drafting error at the time the initial COVID legislation was drafted, and no one’s going to be particularly hard on the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who do a very good job, for possibly a technical error because it was drafted in haste, I suspect, and again the exigencies of the situation demanded that and, of course, you’d expect perhaps an error or two. So we think it does make sense to allow the flexibility for when you’re going down the alert levels, if the Government decides—or the Minister, in this case, decides—to promulgate a change to the alert levels, for example, or a particular element of the alert level changes. The Minister has talked about mask wearing on public transport, for example, but people could think about other examples as well. Not having to give 48 hours’ notice when going down an alert level, we think, makes sense.

So, look, we don’t wish to hold up the House. There’s a tax bill after this, and I know that members on this side of the House are far more interested in talking about the taxation response from the Government than this very minor but useful bill. Thanks.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I rise to take a brief call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker for his enthusiastic and full-throated support for it. The issue that I just want to briefly focus on is the 48-hour stand-down changes. Just before I do that, the thing I do want to note is that this piece of legislation is an important part of the overall legislative infrastructure for how we have managed our way through an extraordinary year. I think the way in which the Parliament and the Government have been able to come together to ensure that we have legislation that’s fit for purpose, that enables quick decisions to be made in the public health interest, while also making sure that there is parliamentary oversight, has actually been a bit of a standout success story of our democracy this year. I acknowledge all parties and all members for that.

In terms of this particular bill, the removal of the requirement for there to be 48 hours’ notice when there is a movement down in alert levels I think is one that everyone would acknowledge is a sensible and pragmatic one. Of course, we all understand why there needs to be notice before alert levels are lifted. They do, by their nature, require an imposition on people, on businesses, and organisations, and it is only reasonable that there is a period before which people are required to comply with what are sometimes some quite major restrictions. But when it goes in the other direction and we’re shifting back towards a more normal mode for people, for businesses, and other organisations, there is no particular need on an ongoing basis for there to be a 48-hour period. Obviously, sometimes the changes in going down alert levels will still take organisations some time to implement, but there is no need for there to be a requirement around that.

So that change and the others reflected in this bill are all pretty sensible, all pretty pragmatic, and contribute to us having an ongoing piece of legislation that helps us to keep New Zealanders safe in these challenging times. I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister for COVID-19 Response: I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill

First Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments Bill) be read a first time.

This bill, which signalled to the New Zealand public before the election and which has been advanced as a Government priority and signalled through the Speech from the Throne, is an important piece of legislation to ensure that New Zealand has a tax system which supports our recovery from COVID-19 and which makes sure that all New Zealanders are paying their fair share as a part of supporting our public services and supporting the recovery in the wake of COVID-19.

The bill has a number of significant provisions. The first one is the introduction of a new top personal tax rate. The bill introduces a new personal top tax rate of 39 percent on incomes in excess of $180,000. This will apply from the tax year in 2021/22, and for most taxpayers that means that the new rate kicks in from 1 April 2021. There are a number of consequential changes to ensure that the new rate applies consistently across the personal income tax system, most of which will also apply from 1 April 2020.

This change in the bill is probably the one that will attract the most debate in the House and in public debate, and it’s one that this Government stands firmly behind. As we rebuild and recover from COVID-19, this is a Government that is absolutely determined that as a part of that recovery and rebuild, we will ensure that all New Zealanders have access to strong public services and that we manage the Government’s books responsibly to ensure that we manage debt and pay it down as quickly as we can.

I think all members in all parties—although they might vary in degrees around this—will understand that the Government response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, and the serious economic impacts, is one that has required the Government to draw down on debt to ensure that we have a strong economic response. Key policies which were critical to New Zealand making it through this extremely challenging year of COVID-19 include measures such as the COVID relief scheme; include measures such as the wage subsidy scheme, which by itself required around about $14 billion of investment. I think there would be few people around the Chamber who would not recognise that those investments have been extremely important in terms of supporting New Zealand through this difficult year and keeping many people in jobs and keeping them connected with their employers.

The reality of that situation means that we need to now have a fiscal plan which enables us to manage that expenditure, which enables us to manage the debt and move to a situation where we’re paying it down as soon as we can. There have been Governments in the past who in response to difficult economic times, and particularly external economic crises, have used the opportunity to reduce public services; this Government will not do that. The imposition of a new top marginal tax rate of 39c in the dollar above $180 million is one of the core pieces of this legislation which will support our objectives in that space. It has the capacity to raise several hundred million dollars of additional revenue per year, which will support both of those Government objectives, continuing the public services that we need and paying down debt in the longer run.

I just want to make sure that it’s very clear and on the record, because there has been some misunderstanding around this—that we are talking about a marginal tax rate here. So, to be extremely explicit, that means that the new marginal tax rate of 39c in the dollar applies to income that is earned above $180,000 per year. There have been people, including members in this Chamber, who in their comments have incorrectly given the impression that this creates a tax impost that applies from the first dollar that is earned. It is extremely important to understand that this measure applies to income earned above $180,000. The best estimates that we hold tell us that this will affect between 2 and 3 percent of people who pay income tax in New Zealand.

So this helps us to create a marginal tax system in which we’re asking those who earn a little bit more—the top 2 to 3 percent of income earners—to just contribute a little bit more to ensure the maintenance of those public services and the responsible management of our debt situation. It’s my view that after a year in which so many New Zealanders have given so much, so many New Zealanders have made sacrifices to help New Zealand get through, that it is not unreasonable for New Zealanders on the very highest incomes—including, I note, members in this Chamber—to make a small, additional contribution to ensure that we meet those objectives.

The bill introduces a number of other changes to the taxation system. The first relates to secondary tax codes. The bill introduces a new tax code, tax code SA, for secondary employment earnings for an employee whose total income subject to PAYE is more than $180,000—and that, in effect, is one of the measures which brings in the additional marginal tax rate. In terms of fringe benefit tax (FBT), to account for the introduction of a new top personal tax rate of 39 percent, the bill introduces a new top FBT rate of 63.93 percent applying to all-inclusive pay exceeding $129,680. There are further consequential changes consistent with the change of the top tax rate to resident withholding tax and to employer superannuation contribution tax.

One of the other important parts of this bill is ensuring that we have appropriate measures in respect of information gathering from trustees. Trustee income is subject to a 33 percent final tax rate, and the bill proposes increased disclosure on trusts to help ensure that trusts aren’t being used to avoid paying income tax at the rate of 39 percent. This is an issue which is usually explored when there are changes to income tax rates, to ensure that we don’t create incentives for people to misrepresent sources of their income. Currently, trusts are required to file a return of income if they have taxable income. The changes in the bill specify certain information disclosures required as part of the trust’s annual return of income. The amendments in the bill require trusts to provide information on distributions and settlements made in the income year, and financial information such as profit and loss statements and balance sheets. Those rules will apply for returns from the 2021/22 income year.

The bill does also include the ability for the commissioner to request the information from trusts for prior income years back to 2013/2014. This will allow for comparable information to be gathered where appropriate.

Non-active trusts, which are trusts that don’t have income or deductions, are not currently required to file, and this won’t change under the rules introduced by this piece of legislation. Charitable trusts incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act and Māori land trusts constituted under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 are also not affected by these changes. Foreign trusts are already subject to a robust registration and disclosure regime and are also not covered by these rules.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue has the power to request information from taxpayers when the information is required under Inland Revenue Acts or the information is required for any other function lawfully conferred on the commissioner. This bill contains a clarifying amendment to ensure that the commissioner can require information to be provided solely to assist with the development of tax policy. This is an important measure in the bill to help ensure the integrity of our tax system and to ensure that in the ongoing development of policy, we do understand how income is being reported and the ways in which people and entities may respond to changes that are made through the passage of this bill.

In conclusion, I do commend this bill to the House. It is a piece of legislation that was well signalled by the Government as part of the Labour Party manifesto heading into the election. It is part of our commitment to ensure that we continue to support the public services that New Zealanders rely upon as we rebuild and recover from COVID-19. It is part of our long-term plan to responsibly manage debt, and the way in which we are doing that is by asking those 2 to 3 percent of New Zealand income earners who earn the highest incomes in our country to make a small additional contribution to make sure that we have a tax system that is able to support those objectives. I look forward to the debate and I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to talk on the Taxation (Income Tax Rate and Other Amendments) Bill. I’ll just pick up on the first point, which is by the speaker who’s just sat down, the Minister Michael Wood. If this intent to put in place this tax change has been signalled so well, why is it that the papers and the actual legislation have only literally been tabled probably less than 45 minutes ago? I think it is absolutely outrageous that a major tax bill has not been tabled so the Opposition can have a proper review of it. It is a significant piece of legislation. I just think, in terms of procedure and in terms of good governance, especially as this piece of legislation is going to be rammed through by this Government under urgency, which means that it’s literally probably going to be passed by tonight—

Chris Bishop: Tomorrow.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Tomorrow morning.

ANDREW BAYLY: Or maybe tomorrow morning, right? But we’re going to have no input from any tax advisers, no consultation with the tax community or the business community. This is a piece of legislation that has been worked out by the Government in secret and tabled at the last moment so people cannot see what’s in it. If I went out to the tax community right now and said, “What’s in here?”, they would not know.

Just to raise the issue, it is a complicated bill, as set out in the legislative statement from the Minister. This tax bill will not only involve a new piece of legislation with that, but will have the impact on PAYE rules, fringe benefit tax, resident withholding tax, employer’s superannuation contribution tax, residential land withholding tax, retirement scheme contribution tax, taxable Māori authority distribution non-declaration rate. It is a complicated bill. This is how you end up with tax bills that create the opportunity for people to work their way around it, because it hasn’t been properly thought out, it hasn’t had the proper consultation, and it hasn’t gone through a proper select committee. I think it’s outrageous—absolutely outrageous.

But let’s just talk about the general intent of this bill. This bill seeks to raise $550 million—half a billion dollars. So just to put it in context. As a Government we raise roughly about $85 billion a year from tax revenue. So this is $550 million—it’s less than 1 percent. So here we are, we’ve got this piece of legislation, and we’ve got debt that’s gone from $60 billion to just under $100 billion over the last seven months, and which is forecast to double again to $200 billion—eye-watering amounts of money. In fact, the annual cost of the current debt is about $3.5 billion, projected. That is the same cost it takes to run the New Zealand Police force.

So $3.5 billion just to pay the interest costs. And, by the way, because we’re not making any money in the country, we’re borrowing to pay the interest, which is really bad. But here we are, we’ve got a bill we’re ramming through that’s going to raise $550 million. It’s a pittance in terms of the New Zealand Government’s tax revenue. But the issue about this is you cannot tax your way out of a recession. New Zealand is essentially in a recession. You cannot tax your way out, and raising half a billion bucks is not going to do it by any means. The issue about what this Government should be talking about today and what we should be debating is how we’re going to grow the economy of New Zealand.

I think the worst thing about this—because it’s going to be rushed through—is we’re going to, basically, create an environment where there are going to be unwelcome behaviours. There is such a thing as legitimate tax avoidance, and there’s a thing about evasion of tax. So there is an issue about minimising tax legitimately and when you do things illegally. And this piece of legislation has got the potential to lead people down a route of trying to minimise their tax—and they have a legitimate right to do that.

So the first question—even the half-billion dollars that they’re quoting that they’re going to raise out of it—is we have no indication whether, in fact, that $500 million is going to be achieved. I suspect that is going to be something we will be focusing on over the next three years, because the expectation that people are going to pay this tax and pay that amount of money, I think, will be maybe seen to be a bit of an issue.

But I think the other thing about this bill is the only beneficiaries out of it are, basically, going to be tax lawyers and tax accountants. We’re going to spawn another regeneration of those types of people, because they love it. The one thing about the New Zealand tax system at the moment is we are the envy of the world because it’s a very simple system. We have one GST rate, we have four personal tax rates, and we have one simple company tax rate. And here we are, we’re going back—this is back to the future, by the way, because we used to have a higher tax rate and, of course, that’s all been reduced over time. And here we are, we’re going to now go back to the future and raise the top tax rate. I think, as I keep saying, the complications around this are very, very significant.

So just to talk a little bit on it, I think the first thing is: what’s going to happen before the bill comes into play? So there is going to be a significant push to make sure those people in the situation will try to leapfrog before this legislation comes into play. So you’re going to see things like early payment of bonuses to employees, and you’re going to see early payment of dividends. So already in the tax system, there will be people sitting there and trying to work out how to minimise the tax, and they are legitimate queries and actions they can do. So we’re going to see behaviours even before the bill comes into play.

Once it comes into play, I think the biggest issue is we have now ended up with quite a complicated structure. We’re going to have a top tax rate of 39 percent, we are going to have a trust rate of 33 percent, we’re going to have a company tax rate of 28 percent, and we’re going to have a top portfolio investment entity (PIE) rate of 28 percent. And what we’ve done—and we are now going to end up with the biggest gap between a top personal tax rate and those other entity tax rates. That is the biggest mismatch in terms of having a high tax rate versus a low tax rate since, I think, the early 2000s. That is why there was a lot of effort put into simplifying the tax system. And what we’ve done here with this bill is we’re going to make it incredibly more complicated.

So the issue with trusts, which is an important issue—we’re going to have a rate of 33 percent versus 39 percent. So that will drive certain behaviours. And this bill has got some most Draconian aspects to it—particularly new section 17GB, where the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may require information or production of documents for tax policy. But, more specifically in relation to trusts, around new section 59BA there is a lot more information which is a way of the Government trying to deal with the issue of why the system will be at risk. So the simple raison d’être—the reason for bringing in this tax—is already compromising the tax system.

The other aspect to it is the large differential between the corporate and the new top personal rate. Just to highlight this—yes, this is the figure I’ve got: the biggest differential we have was 9 percent in 2009, and differential since the year ended 31 March 2012 was 5 percent. So we’ve got this very large differential of 11 percent now. That is really significant in terms of good tax policy.

The other thing is around family holding companies—what happens to them. The last thing is the PIE rates: how people are going to use those entities. So all we’re going to do is we’ve got a Government going to have to spend the next two-three years pushing through new changes and updating this legislation through the Finance and Expenditure Committee where, hopefully, we will start to get some experts turning up and telling the Government why they’ve done this wrong and why they should have actually paused and done it properly, and we’re going to spend a whole host of time actually fixing up a bad piece of legislation.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is an excellent piece of legislation—an excellent piece of legislation—that fulfils a key campaign promise made by the Labour Party, and as the party that was elected by over half of New Zealanders, we have a New Zealand that has endorsed this legislation and has accepted it, and we are implementing our campaign promise. So it is straightforward legislation that implements a campaign promise.

I wish to take issue with a number of things that the immediately previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, said about this bill. First up, the immediately previous speaker said that it was a complicated piece of legislation—a complicated piece of legislation. To the contrary, it is actually a very simple piece of legislation. What is does—very straightforwardly—is implement a 39 percent tax rate on income over $180,000, and in order to do that properly, it entails making sure that that particular rate change goes through all the relevant sections of the Act. It affects not just the income tax paid on, say, salaries and wages and business income and so on, but it also affects the rate paid on fringe benefit tax. So the fringe benefit tax changes in here—the rate changes in here—simply reflect the 39 percent rate. It is a simple change, which happens regularly when tax rate changes go through.

The same thing applies with respect to the employer superannuation contribution tax, the ESCT. The changes there simply reflect the 39 percent rate being applied across all the relevant types of tax within the Income Tax Act. And so on it goes, with residential land withholding tax, with retirement scheme contribution tax, with the taxable Māori authority distributions—any place where the rate is determined by the Income Tax Act, any place in the Income Tax Act where that occurs, any particular type of tax it applies to, that rate is simply applied right through those changes. So that’s what we see in this Act: that 39 percent rate being implemented right through the relevant tax types in order to reflect the change in the income tax rate. So it is not a complicated piece of legislation. It is a set of simple technical changes that are made every time a rate change is made. It is straightforward. It has been done many times before. It is not difficult to do at all. So it is a simple bill.

It is also a very, very important bill—a very important bill—because at its heart lies the concept of fairness and vertical equity in taxation; the idea that the way we do fairness in taxation, and this has been proven again and again in New Zealand, is we do it by using a progressive income tax scale. And a progressive income tax scale means that those who earn more pay a little bit more tax. In particular, in this case, what we are saying is that people who earn over $180,000 should pay just 6c more in the dollar for income over $180,000—just 6c more. So, if someone earns $190,000, they are simply paying 6c more in the dollar for those first $10,000—for that $10,000. It’s a change of $600. That’s it. And so on it goes, up through. If someone earns $200,000, they pay $1,200 more tax. So someone who earns $20,000 more than $180,000—which is a high income in the first place—simply pays $1,200 more tax. It is a small change. And the interesting thing about that $180,000 threshold is that only 2 percent of New Zealanders earn income above $180,000. Many members of this House do not earn that much. The salaries of backbench MPs fall below that threshold. That is how high the threshold is set. So it applies to only a very small percentage of New Zealanders.

In terms of fairness, it’s really worth considering income tax rates that have applied in the past. We remember, those of us who are old enough, and I appreciate that some people in this House are not, when, under the National Government led by Robert Muldoon, the top tax rate was 66c in the dollar—66c in the dollar under a National Government. I certainly remember that rate, Mr Speaker; I imagine you do too.

SPEAKER: I never paid it.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It was an extraordinarily high rate.

SPEAKER: I was an MP at the time.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: So I think it is not an outrageous rate. It is simply a rate that expresses our ideals of a fair tax system being a progressive tax system.

I wish to address the issue that Mr Bayly raised about tax avoidance. First of all, he said that tax avoidance was acceptable, which is actually not the case. If we look at section BG 1 of the Income Tax Act, it says that a tax avoidance arrangement may be struck down by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. A tax avoidance arrangement is an arrangement whereby someone sets out to exploit the tax laws in such a way that they pay less tax than they otherwise would have. It’s when people enter into complicated arrangements the purpose of which is avoiding taxation, and it is against the Income Tax Act.

Mr Bayly did raise the point that the last time there was a differential rate between the highest income tax rate and the trustee income tax rate, we did see some tax avoidance behaviour, and indeed that tax avoidance behaviour was caught and penalised by the courts. They did their job. The tax avoidance arrangement was famously ruled out. So our courts and our laws do have the tools to deal with tax avoidance. Of course, there are many very, very smart and able tax accountants and tax lawyers, and no doubt some of them will find some way through these rules; that’s what they do, and then we respond. It’s the way that the tax law grows and evolves. But, in order to manage this, we will be collecting more information to see if there is a need to make further changes, to see if there is a need to make a change to the trustee rate as well. So that’s part of what this bill does. It enables the revenue to collect some more information so that they have better information against which to assess whether or not they should advise us to change that trustee rate. So that information will be collected and used in order to develop better policy in this space.

I do just wish to point out one other thing here: that Mr Bayly was very concerned about the differential between the income tax rate and the company tax rate. That differential has existed for quite some time, and it is already well managed; the tools are there to do it. Of course, we can improve those over time, but there is not a screaming need to do that right at present.

I wish to draw attention to one other matter that is sitting in this bill, and that is an increase to the minimum family tax credit. Now, that is a tax credit that exists in order to ensure that people who are in work do end up just having slightly more income than people who are on benefit. So it’s set through a series of calibrations to make sure that people who are able to work do actually earn a little bit more than they otherwise might, given their family situation, if they were on benefit. It’s part of the structure of our benefit system. That minimum family tax credit does need to be adjusted most years, and this bill achieves that as well.

So this is excellent legislation. It achieves what we set out to do as a campaign promise, in a campaign when the Labour Party was elected by over half of New Zealanders. It is a simple piece of legislation that propagates that particular tax rate through the Income Tax Act, as needs to be done in order to keep the system fair. It is a piece of legislation that expresses our values as a country, where we have a progressive income tax scale. It enables us to collect a little more information so that we can understand better what is going on out in the world of tax specialists and tax advisers and people who do use trusts for various purposes. And it increases the level of the minimum family tax credit in order to keep that basic promise we make to ensure that people have at least livable incomes when they are in work. So, Mr Speaker, an excellent piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

SPEAKER: The Government has indicated to me that it’s not their intention to proceed further with urgency at this time. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 1.02 p.m. (Wednesday)