Tuesday, 8 December 2020

TUESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2020

TUESDAY, 8 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 petitions have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019

annual reports for 2019-20 from:

Creative New Zealand

Department of Conservation

Predator Free 2050

WorkSafe New Zealand

New Zealand Productivity Commission

Reserve Bank of New Zealand, and

Regenerate Christchurch

statements of performance expectations 2020-21:

Creative New Zealand

Predator Free 2050, and

WorkSafe New Zealand

reports of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990:

Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill

Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, together with the National Interest Analysis and the annexes to the agreement.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Tertiary education institutions: 2019 audit results and what we saw in 2020, and the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament: Summary of amendments to annual returns and initial returns from newly-elected members 2020. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 4 September and 26 November 2020.

SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest ANZ Business Outlook data for November 2020 showed that general business confidence continued its improved performance since August. Headline business confidence improved by 9 percentage points from the October reading, with indicators relating to investment, employment, and profit all higher. Services and manufacturing improved their expectations on ANZ’s measures, and construction was the most optimistic sector of the economy. Both residential and commercial construction expected higher activity in the future. Pleasingly, and finally in this primary answer, the indicator showing businesses’ own activity levels rose by 4 percentage points. This measure is more closely correlated with actual economic activity. ANZ noted that the New Zealand business sector is “feeling increasingly upbeat” and that “Monetary and fiscal policy have undoubtedly done their jobs this year.”

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the construction sector?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand on Friday released their estimates of the value of building work put in place for the September 2020 quarter. Like consenting data, that data continued to show the resilience of the construction sector, with ASB analysts noting that “Building work completed over the September quarter lifted a whopping 35 percent, with residential building activity leading the charge and activities surging to above pre-COVID levels.” Statistics New Zealand noted that residential work rose 4.2 percent on the same period in 2019.

Barbara Edmonds: What support is the Government providing to the construction sector to continue this growth?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I won’t test your patience by reading out a comprehensive list, but suffice to say—

SPEAKER: I wouldn’t count on it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —that I am particularly pleased about the support the Government is providing to the sector through our training programmes: $390 million was provided to support the Apprenticeship Boost programme across sectors, as part of the wider $1.6 billion boost to training. The head of the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation stated, “For years, the building and construction sector has been calling for support from the Government for those firms that train apprentices. And this is the answer we have been waiting for.”

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she consider the over $4,600 increase in the median annual cost of renting a house since she became Prime Minister and the over 21,000 people on the State house waiting list signs of a housing emergency?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): We have long called the housing situation in New Zealand a crisis. I’m pleased the member now shares this view. New Zealand has a longstanding shortage of homes, caused by a lack of investment in the infrastructure needed for new housing and Government investment in new housing. This is why the Government has stopped the previous Government’s sale of State houses; has delivered 6,000 additional public homes since we came into office; and is investing in 18,000 more homes by 2024. It’s why we set up the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, commissioned the comprehensive review of the Resource Management Act, and are now implementing its findings. It’s why we’re investing in the infrastructure needs for new homes—such as the New Zealand Upgrade Programme—and shovel-ready projects, and legislated the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act. We’re starting to see some progress, with annual new home construction at its highest level since 1974. There is more to do, including for renters, and we’ve been upfront on that and will continue that work in the new year.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe an increase in the number of people receiving the hardship assistance emergency housing grant from 9,000 in September 2017 to now 44,000 is a sign of a housing emergency under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It is a sign of longstanding income inadequacy, and I now look forward, then, to the member’s support for increases in, for instance, ongoing support for those who are on Government benefits. We increased those benefits this year by $25 a week; I don’t believe they supported that. We removed the hours test for those who otherwise were previously ineligible for the in-work tax credit. We indexed benefits to wages. None of those changes do I recall the National Party supporting.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, if she’s done all of that, then how come everything’s got a lot worse under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The other point that I would make is that, alongside those changes—which were necessary; which that last Government did not support—we also have eased the access to that support, as well. We knew during COVID-19, in particular, we needed to make it easier for people to access Government support, and we have done that.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe increased rental costs are partly to blame for the more than doubling of people receiving hardship assistance for food since she became the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve already said, we have eased the access to that support. We’ve also made sure that people who have genuine—that have housing needs—are able to join the housing register. I do acknowledge that under the National Government they, in fact, cut the register so roughly 4,500 were taken off it. What we have now is a much more accurate picture of need. Imagine the situation had we not continued to increase Government support. But what I would say is there is need out there, we will likely see that increase over Christmas, and we’re working with social agencies to make sure we continue that support.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Prime Minister in her answer seriously suggesting that people receiving hardship assistance for food are now receiving it and they wouldn’t have received it prior to her becoming the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I am saying is that we have made it easier to access; you don’t, for instance, necessarily need a face-to-face appointment with someone at Work and Income. Now, I cannot say—hand on heart, Mr Speaker—whether that would have meant that people wouldn’t have got that support prior, but what I can say is we have made it more straightforward.

Hon Judith Collins: What actions will her Government take to urgently increase the number of private rental properties in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we have heard a number of economists state, some of the issues we see in our housing market are down to housing supply and housing demand. We have tried to address both supply and demand by making sure, for instance, that we’ve put a stop to foreign buyers in the residential housing market. We’ve also done things like close tax loopholes, and we’ve, with urgency, tried to address the inadequate supply. We’re seeing, now, that come through, with consents at the highest level since the 1970s. Our hope is that, over time, that will make a difference, unlike the global financial crisis period, where we saw housing construction halve.

Hon Judith Collins: Can she now advise us why it is, then, that everything’s got so much harder for people renting, under her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I’ll come back to the fundamental point. That is: economists in the Reserve Bank have identified rents are primarily driven by supply and demand. So, if the member would like a period of introspection, the fact that we inherited a housing market that was shy roughly 70,000 houses that were needed is having a significant impact on the housing market.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps does she plan to take this term to continue the welfare overhaul so that everyone in New Zealand can live in dignity?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: As the Prime Minister said in the Speech from the Throne, the Government will continue the overhaul of the welfare system, building on the changes already made, including the indexing of benefits to increases in the average wage. Additionally, we campaigned on lifting the abatement threshold for beneficiaries, reintroducing the Training Incentive Allowance, and extending Flexi-wage. Alongside this, we’re committed to tripling the emergency dental grant to $1,000 per year, expanding lunch in schools to 200,000 children, lifting the minimum wage to $20 per hour, and building an additional 18,000 public and emergency houses. These actions will go a long way to improving lives for our families on low incomes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What is the time line for this Government to deliver on all of the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG)?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: There is already work under way on 22 recommendations of the WEAG report’s recommendations, and there is advice that has been sought on the remainder.

Hon Louise Upston: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: The member always gets two supplementaries; that’s the standard thing, and then we cut round to someone else.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Kia ora. What are the barriers to immediately raising the incomes of the poorest New Zealanders by 47 percent, as recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The Government has committed to lifting benefits at April every year by indexing them to wages, which was one of the recommendations of the report as well. If the member wishes a response to that specific question, I would request him to put that in writing so that the Minister responsible can give him a more fulsome response.

Hon Louise Upston: Will the Minister change the principles of the Social Security Act that currently state “the priority for people of working age should be to find and retain work” this term?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: This Government believes in supporting everyone who is able to get sustainable employment that pays them a decent wage so that they can actually live with dignity. Thank you.

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a straight question that I didn’t get an answer to.

SPEAKER: And it got a very clear answer, which was not supportive of the principle that the member put.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she received or requested any advice on whether increasing benefits to at least the levels recommended by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group would reduce the growing need for discretionary hardship grants, particularly for food costs?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I said in a response to one of the previous questions around the WEAG recommendations, there is work under way on 22 of them and advice being sought on the remainder of those recommendations. In terms of hardship grants specifically, I can tell the member that the Ministry of Social Development has distributed 1,275,228 hardship grants since May this year and also allocated $32 million over three years to fund services that provide that support that many of our community members need at this time.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has she received or requested any advice on options to provide additional income support in the lead-up to Christmas, whether permanent or temporary?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: On behalf of the Minister, the member will know that specifically lifting core benefits has been already ruled out. However, the Prime Minister has responded to a letter from NGOs around this issue last month and highlighted the work that has already been done to lift benefits, including the establishment of the Families Package, the COVID income support package, and additional programmes like lunch in schools. The combined effect of all the changes that this Government has made is substantial. For example, 85,000 sole parents are on average $101 a week better off as a result, directly, of the changes that this Government has made.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What further steps, if any, are planned to support migrant workers unable to meet housing costs on the emergency benefit alone?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: On behalf of the Minister, the member will know that there was a substantial programme in place for migrants who were experiencing hardship that was actually administered through the Red Cross. The member will also know that although benefits are generally only available to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents, there is one exception: under section 64 of the Social Security Act, during a pandemic, foreign nationals can receive an emergency benefit, which is paid at a similar rate as main benefits and will support them to address or to meet the demands of the needs that they have when they’re experiencing specific hardship, as they are now.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Will he rule out any further changes to income taxes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As I said to the member on Wednesday last week, every Government makes changes to tax and it would be foolish for a Minister of Finance to rule out changes such as automatic tax refunds or simplifying rate calculation to avoid the need for secondary tax, which are examples of changes the last Government made to income tax in the interests of taxpayers.

Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the 33 percent tax rate on trust income?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As was stated last week in the House, we did not increase the trust rate, because there are legitimate uses for trusts. What we have clearly said is that if we see misuse of trusts, we will be prepared to act on that.

Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the five-year brightline test after which a gain from the sale of a house would be treated as income for tax purposes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we covered in the House last week, we have asked the New Zealand Treasury to look at how the brightline test is working and to see whether or not it needs to be changed in any way whatsoever. What I would say is I do again thank the National Party for the introduction of the brightline test.

Andrew Bayly: Will he rule out increasing the top portfolio investment entity income tax rate of 28 percent?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There are no plans to do that.

Andrew Bayly: Is he aware that—

SPEAKER: Order! Hang on. I’m not sure that that’s quite the answer to the question that the Minister tried to give. There are no plans to rule it out?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, there are no plans to do the thing he said.

SPEAKER: OK. All right, it’s clearer now. I’ve helped the Opposition a lot, I think. I’m sorry.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Is that counted?

Andrew Bayly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he aware that any additional income taxes will further increase the cost of rents under this Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That question is based on—it was purely hypothetical and what I would say to the member, as was traversed in question No. 2 today, is that rents, as we know, are a product of supply and demand and if the previous Government had actually done something about increasing supply, we wouldn’t be where we are today.

Andrew Bayly: Why should the public not believe it is a broken promise if he increases the income tax rate on trusts or extends the brightline test, considering—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s asking a question about something that the Minister has no responsibility for.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order. Repeatedly in debates last week and the many statements made to the House and, indeed, the Speech from the Throne, reference was made exactly to the promises made by the Labour Party in the election process. So why would it be ruled out asking a Minister if he’s on board with that?

SPEAKER: I wasn’t actually referring to anything to do with a party matter. It was a question of the responsibility for public opinion, which the member based his question on, and this Minister has no responsibility for that.

Andrew Bayly: Why would it not be a broken promise if he increases the income tax rate on trusts or extends the brightline test, considering Labour’s manifesto made no reference to tax increases beyond the new 39 percent income tax rate?

SPEAKER: Order! The member still hasn’t got to the point where he’s got a question of Government responsibility.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It seems unreasonable that Ministers in many of their speeches in the House so far can claim their mandate from a political manifesto but then not be responsible for their view on how it’s delivered.

SPEAKER: It’s one of the essences of question time, and the difference between questions and debates—members in debates can say more or less what they want, you know, more or less. But when it’s question time there has to be a link back to something for which the Minister has ministerial responsibility, and a party political document is not that.

Andrew Bayly: Does he agree that the public may believe that it is a broken promise if he increases the income tax rate on trusts or extends the brightline test, considering he said on Newstalk ZB that he would not be increasing any taxes beyond the new 39 percent income tax rate?

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask the member whether he said that in his role as Minister of Finance.

Andrew Bayly: It was stated on 9 September, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this will be helpful. Last week in the House, when Mr Bayly used that question, he did quote the Labour finance spokesperson, Grant Robertson, and you’ll recall I made a very humble and modest statement about that gentleman.

Andrew Bayly: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Robertson was also asked a similar question about the trust tax rate in an interview on Thursday last week on Newstalk ZB and he—

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: You could have put that in the question then.

SPEAKER: I think it’s getting close to Christmas and it’s excessive kindness on my part, but I will allow the Minister to answer the question on the basis that by next year we get our questions a bit tidier.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The premise of the member’s question is hypothetical. As we have stated in the House, we have asked the Treasury to take a look at existing measures around the demand side of housing and we await that advice.

Question No. 5—Education (Māori Education)

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education): He aha ngā panui kua puta i a ia mo te reo i ngā kura?

[What initiatives has he announced for te reo Māori in New Zealand schools?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)): I te rangi nei, nā tōna tino pai i ngā tau e rua, nāku tonu i whakapāho kia horahia Te Ahu o te Reo Māori ki te motu hei ara whāinga mā te 10,000 kaiako, kaihautū, kaiāwhina anō hoki e hiahia ana ki te whakapakari, ki te tuitui i te reo Māori ki roto i ngā akomanga huri noa i Aotearoa. Ko te whakatinanatanga o tō mātou taunaki ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi hei whakapakari i te rāngai kaimahi mātauranga. Ā, ko te mea nui kei te tuwhera tētahi ara mō te hunga taiohi ki te ako i tō rātou reo, kia manaakitia hoki rātou kia angitu ai i roto i te ao mātauranga hei Māori.

[Today, because of its effectiveness over the last two years, I announced that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will go nationwide as a path for 10,000 teachers, leaders, and support staff who want to improve and also integrate te reo Māori into classrooms across New Zealand: the implementation of our support of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to strengthen the education workforce. Also, the main point is that a path is now available for young people to learn their language, in which they will also be supported to succeed in their educational career as Māori.]

Willow-Jean Prime: He aha ngā kōrero kua rangona e ia mō te whakarewatanga o Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?

[What has he heard about the launch of Te Ahu o te Reo Māori?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Kua tata ki te 1,000 kaiako, kaiāwhina hoki kua whai wāhi ki te kaupapa nei. Āianei, kua māia ake rātou ki te whakamahi i te reo Māori i roto i ō rātou kura, i ō rātou akomanga. Nā ngā whānau, ngā mātua, ā rātou tamariki, tae noa atu ki te hapori whānui i kī e hiahia ana rātou kia whai wāhi ai te reo Māori ki ā rātou akoako katoa, ā, mā Te Ahu o te Reo Māori tēnei karanga e manaaki.

[Almost 1,000 teachers and support staff have participated in this initiative. Now they are more confident to use te reo Māori in their schools and their classrooms. Whānau, parents, their children, and the wider community all said that they want the Māori language to have a place in all of their learning, and Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will answer this call.]

Willow-Jean Prime: E mea ana ia ki te tuku i Te Ahu o te Reo Māori kia hora i te motu ā ngā tau e tū mai nei?

[Is he saying that Te Ahu o te Reo Māori will spread nationwide in the coming years?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko te whāinga matua mai i te tau 2021 ki te tau 2025, ka eke ki te 40,000 te rāngai kaimahi mātauranga ka puta nei ō rātou ihu i Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; 10,000 ngā tūranga e wātea ana ia tau. Mā tēnei kaupapa e rangona ai, e kōrerotia ai te reo Māori i ō tātou akomanga, ā, ka whai wāhi ia ki roto i ngā akoako a ngā tamariki katoa i Aotearoa.

[The main goal from 2021 to 2025 is for 40,000 of the educational workforce to graduate from Te Ahu o te Reo Māori; there are 10,000 places available each year. It is through this initiative that the Māori language will be heard and spoken in our classrooms, and it will have a rightful place in the learning of all children in New Zealand.]

Rawiri Waititi: Ka pēhea te Minita ki te hiki i te pūtea ki ngā kura reo Māori, pēnei anō ki ngā kōhanga reo, ngā kura kaupapa Māori, me ngā kura ā-iwi?

[How will the Minister increase funding to Māori-medium educational facilities, like kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa Māori, and kura ā-iwi?]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: E $232 miriona kua tukuna atu ki te kōhanga reo i ngā tau e rua kua pahure ake nei. Mehemea ka hoki ōku whakaaro ki te wā e moe tahi ana Te Paati Māori me Te Pāti Nāhinara, e iwa tau, kīhai rātou i whiwhi i tētahi paku pūtea.

[$232 million has been granted to kōhanga reo in the last two years. If I think back to the time that the Māori Party and the National Party were together—nine years, and they didn’t receive any funding at all.]

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: When he said last week in question time in relation to the COVID-19 Surveillance and Testing Strategy Group report, “I did receive earlier drafts”, how many unique draft versions of the report has his office received, and on what dates were those drafts received?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As I indicated in my response last week in the House, my office was sent a copy on 30 September. I asked the review panel to go and consult with the Ministry of Health before the report was finalised and they did that. My office received the final report on 27 November. I also asked two members of the advisory committee to review the contact tracing performance during the August outbreak as an appendix to the group’s main report and my office received that on 1 December.

Chris Bishop: Why did he say last week that he’d received “drafts”—plural—of the report when in reality he just got sent a copy of the report on 28 September, as he’s just stated?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member thinks that that’s the big issue of the day then that’s up to him, but whether I used the word “draft” or “drafts” is really immaterial. I received a copy of the report on 30 September; I received the final report on 27 November.

Chris Bishop: What has happened between 30 September, when he first received a copy of the report and 27 November when he received the final copy of the report?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A new Government has been sworn in.

Chris Bishop: When he said last week in relation to the review panel, “They made some recommendations around how the reporting and monitoring of the testing could be improved. Obviously, people are affected by that;”, is it fair to say that during that two-month interregnum he’s just referred to, the people affected by that have provided feedback on the report?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that’s certainly one of the things that’s happened during that time.

Chris Bishop: Does the Ministry of Health disagree with aspects of the report because the report identifies failings in the ministry?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health did disagree with some aspects of the report. That is one of the reasons why I asked the review panel to go and consult with them. I think there’s a natural justice process here—that’s only fair that they have the opportunity to respond.

Chris Bishop: Will he give a commitment to the House today that the report will be released before Christmas so that the public can see what failings in the Ministry of Health have been identified by the expert review panel that he and the Government appointed for that very reason?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated to the member last week, the report makes a number of recommendations, some of which the Government’s yet to consider. Some of them include budgetary matters. We will be looking to progress those as soon as possible, but I won’t put a particular time frame on that.

Chris Bishop: Is he seriously saying to the House that a report commissioned by the Government under urgency at a time of grave national crisis to do with testing at the border, that makes recommendations to improve failings—

SPEAKER: Order! A question, not a speech.

Chris Bishop: —will not be released before Christmas?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I didn’t necessarily say that. I say that I’m not putting a time frame on it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Whichever member said that will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I stand—sorry—withdraw and apologise, sir.

Question No. 7—Research, Science, and Innovation

7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What progress has been made on the Government’s Vaccine Strategy?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): The Government has made good progress on its vaccine strategy, having announced two deals with vaccine providers so far. We’ve recently agreed in principle to purchase an initial 750,000 courses from Pfizer/BioNTech and up to 5 million courses from Janssen. The Government’s COVID-19 vaccine strategy ensures that we are purchasing through a number of different avenues to access suitable vaccines as soon as safely possible.

Dr Liz Craig: What recent reports has she seen on how effective some vaccine candidates are?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Early indications from clinical trials of vaccine candidates show the effectiveness is higher than had previously been expected, which is promising. For example, one of the candidates we have secured—Pfizer BioNTech—has been reported at 90 percent effectiveness. However, safety will always be our absolute priority, and we will not be rushed into accepting the first vaccine that shows promise. Vaccine candidates will be assessed through our own regulatory processes before they are distributed to the community.

Dr Liz Craig: Is she confident that we will secure access to vaccines that will meet the needs of our population?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes. The vaccine strategy has sought to position New Zealand well to secure access to safe and effective vaccines as soon as is possible. Undertaking a portfolio approach means that we are looking at a range of different vaccine candidates and, in doing so, maximising flexibility and choice when it comes to what is best for the needs of our population. I am confident that our vaccine strategy has us well positioned to distribute vaccines, when they are available, which have met our own regulatory standards.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: What actions will the Government take in response to the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Firstly, I want to note that we know the release of the report today is a difficult and stressful time for our Muslim community, and I know they will be in the minds of all of the members of this House as we debate the report. Immediately after the attack, we, obviously, as the member knows, took swift action to ban military-style semi-automatic and assault rifles through stronger gun laws, and took action to prevent stockpiling. The royal commission report itself notes that these changes have addressed a number of issues that the commission identified. More generally, the Government accepts the findings of its report and agrees, in principle, to all recommendations. Implementing some of the recommendations will require further consideration. On many elements, we expect to undertake consultation with members of this House in order to reach consensus. There are, however, a number of areas where we can give an initial response: Andrew Little has been appointed as coordinating Minister for the ongoing work programme; the establishment of a ministry for ethnic communities to support and strengthen the work programme around social cohesion, which will be in conjunction with the Ministry of Social Development; the establishment of a national centre of excellence which brings together academia, civil society, and Government to research radicalisation and violent extremism; amending the Terrorism Suppression Act to strengthen counter-terrorism legislation. As I said, this is not a comprehensive list and I do expect there will be plenty of debate and dialogue in this House as we work to form consensus where we can.

David Seymour: Has any Government employee lost their job for the failings identified in the report, and, if not, will any?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely appreciate that, with such a significant report, the member may not have had a chance to go through this significant 800-page report, but he will see, certainly from the summary of recommendations, that the report does not find that there were any failings from Government agencies that could have identified the preparation of this attack on March 15, and does not go to individuals holding individual account beyond, of course, the terrorist themselves.

David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the policy of Government action to engineer social cohesion amongst New Zealanders with the foreign origin of the terrorist and the extraordinary way that New Zealanders united in the wake of the tragedy, that was admired around the world?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because I think there is a general acknowledgment, I would have thought, within New Zealand that whilst, of course, this individual, as you’ve pointed out, did grow up in Australia, he had an ideology that was not unique to him. Of course, you see within the report references to the fact that there are those who hold extreme ideologies in New Zealand that were of a similar nature to the terrorist in this case and that there is work to be done if we as a nation are to address the origins of that ideology and work to prevent that manifesting in terrorist-style activity.

David Seymour: How does the Prime Minister intend to hold public sector agencies accountable for failings that were identified in the report, before establishing new agencies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, I think, to be fair to the report itself, the report identifies where there has been a lack of clarity around accountability. So in the national security landscape alongside the security intelligence agencies, the New Zealand Police, who take an operational role you also, of course, have the Combined Threat Assessment Group, the National Assessments Bureau, and the role of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. What the report finds is that we do need much greater coherence and clarity around the organisation of our security intelligence agencies. So that in itself does not necessarily lend itself to looking for singular accountability in this case, but it does point to learnings that should make for more cohesive intelligence-gathering agencies and a framework for the future.

David Seymour: Will the Government follow the royal commission’s advice and implement British-style hate speech laws without the exemptions for free and open debate present in that country’s laws?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection of the discussion in the report actually identifies some issues with the UK legislation, and so, I think, within the report it traverses those issues. Our intention, of course, is that we need to respond to both the existing framework that we have and some of the elements that are missing from within it. The member will well know, for instance, already within the human rights legislation there is coverage over certain groups but, for instance, religion is not included. So the report points out that you are covered by the human rights legislation if you identify as being Jewish or Sikh but not, for instance, if you’re Muslim. So there are gaps in the legislation. What we will be seeking to do is to work across Parliament. We do want consensus where we can build it, because, of course, that will stop this debate becoming divisive and potentially leading to the targeting of certain communities.

Question No. 9—Police

9. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding the seizure of illicit drugs by the New Zealand Police?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I have been advised that police have recently made a major bust in Kawakawa last week, resulting in the seizure of a significant quantity of methamphetamine with an estimated street value of almost $90,000. In addition, 50 kilograms of iodine pellets were also located, which is used in the manufacturing of meth, with a street value of around $125,000. Police also recovered a firearm and more than $100,000 in cash. Illicit drugs like meth are destructive and have no place in our communities. I thank our police for their fantastic work.

Ginny Andersen: Has the Minister seen any other reports on police disrupting illicit drugs trade in New Zealand?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes. As part of the ongoing Operation Cincinnati, police have disrupted gang operations involved in the importation, distribution, and manufacture of methamphetamine and MDMA, along with other illicit drugs throughout Auckland and Christchurch. This shows the impact of our 700 new cops focused directly on organised crime, and what that’s having.

Ginny Andersen: How has the Government supported police in this important work?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We’ve supported the police by putting more officers on the beat: 2,500 new constables, 1,300 new FTEs, 700 alone focused on organised crime. We have banned military-style semi-automatic weapons, magazines, and parts; taken 62,000 prohibited firearms out of circulation; and passed the Arms Legislation Bill. This Government delivers for police.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of any reduction in illicit drug consumption as a result of this police activity?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can speak to is the fact that police are delivering for our communities, and what police efforts are doing is disrupting gangs and continuing at pace. Seizures and forfeitures of assets are also continuing to increase, as I’ve noticed in my previous answers.

SPEAKER: I think the member can have a bit more of a go at the actual question. Does the member want the question repeated?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, please.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of any reduction in illicit drug consumption as a result of the police forfeitures and otherwise which she has outlined?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The whole point is if the drugs are off the streets, they cannot be consumed.

Question No. 10—Children

10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister for Children: Does he have confidence in the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki following her admission that structural racism is a feature of the care and protection system?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): E whakapono ana ahau kua tika ngā whakataunga a te tumuaki o Oranga Tamariki. I rangona ahau he maha ngā kupu mihi e pā ana ki āna whakataunga, engari e tika ake ana i te whakapāhatanga. Ko te mea nui rawa, mā Oranga Tamariki e whakatika ngā hapa ō mua. Koinei te wero kei mua i a mātou.

[I believe the decisions made by the CEO of Oranga Tamariki were correct. I heard many complimentary words about her decisions, but it is even more correct due to the apology. The most important point is that Oranga Tamariki corrects the mistakes of the past. This is the challenge before us.]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he have confidence in the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki when report after report has highlighted serious failings under her watch?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: E whakapono ana ahau ka whai te tumuaki o Oranga Tamariki i ngā tohutohu hei anga whakamua a Oranga Tamariki.

[I believe the CEO of Oranga Tamariki will follow the advice so that Oranga Tamariki looks to the future.]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How does the Minister intend to unravel the structural racism at Oranga Tamariki, as shown in report after report?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Koia taku tino whāinga, ki te takahi i te kaikiritanga ki raro, ki te whakapanoni i ngā pūnahatanga kia mutu ai te kaikiritanga.

[That is my primary goal, to stamp out discrimination, to transform the systems so that discrimination is ended.]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has the Minister read the report of the Children’s Commissioner, who went as far as to say that the system is so broken that there should be a by Māori, for Māori agency established?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Āe.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How long does the Minister expect tamariki Māori to wait for this Government to get its act together and fix the structural racism at Oranga Tamariki?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ko te mea nui, e hia kē ngā tau kei raro i tērā atu o ngā Kāwanatanga kua haere wēnei āhuatanga? Engari ko tēnei Kāwanatanga e wero ana i wēnei kaupapa.

[The main issue is, for how many years under that other Government did such things go on? But this Government is challenging these topics.]

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question wasn’t answered.

SPEAKER: One of the points of order could’ve been that it wasn’t addressed. There’s not a requirement to give an answer to the satisfaction of members in our Standing Orders—possibly unfortunately, but, you know, that is the case. The question was addressed.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Minister accept that presently there is a separatist system running our child care and protection services—Oranga Tamariki is a Pākehā organisation from top to bottom?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Kua tino mārama ahau. Ko tā te mema e taunaki ana ko te huarahi ngāwari noa iho, ki te whakawehewehe i ngā pūnaha. He pakeke ake tā mātou e hiahia ana, ko te tūmanako, ko te rāngai tūmatanui kia whakapakari ai i ngā pūnahatanga hei painga mō te Māori, ki te mahi ia rā, ia rā i te taha o Ngāi Māori nā te mea kāre e taea e te Karauna te horoi ōna ringaringa i tēnei kaupapa.

[I have been very clear. What the member is supporting is merely the easy path, to separate the systems. What we want is more difficult, that the public sector hopefully strengthens systems for the benefit of Māori, to work each and every day alongside the Māori people because the Crown cannot wash its hands of this issue.]

Question No. 11—Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities

11. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What actions has the Government announced to promote social inclusion in New Zealand?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): As part of our response to the findings of the report by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques, the Government has announced a suite of measures today, designed to promote social inclusion. We are significantly upgrading the Office of Ethnic Communities to create a new ministry for ethnic communities. This ministry will have greater mana and standing, with a better ability to support and respond to the needs of our increasingly diverse communities. Alongside this, we’ve announced a national centre of excellence to bring together academia, civil society, and Government to research the prevention of radicalisation and the promotion of social cohesion. We’ve also announced a range of other initiatives, such as the new Ethnic Communities Graduate Programme. These are designed to ensure that Government better reflects the increasingly diverse populations we serve.

Ibrahim Omer: How does this announcement build on the work that the Government has done to promote social inclusion since the 15th March attacks?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Since the 15th March attacks, the Government has undertaken significant work to promote social inclusion. The Office of Ethnic Communities has doubled in capacity, the largest expansion in its history. We’ve also made an eightfold increase in the Ethnic Communities Development Fund, from $520,000 to $4.2 million—that’s money that goes directly to our communities. This complements a whole-of-Government piece of work, such as the Give Nothing to Racism campaign, and ensuring that the education system teaches our children to value diversity and enhancing the capacity of the Human Rights Commission.

Ibrahim Omer: Why has the Government undertaken these actions?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the trauma experienced by the survivors of the March 15th mosque attacks and whānau. This Government stands with them and will work to implement the recommendations from the royal commission report, to make New Zealand a safer place. New Zealand is an increasingly vibrant and diverse nation, and this diversity is one of our greatest strengths. It is important, though, that everyone in New Zealand is able to access opportunities and to participate fully. These actions are a step in that journey.

Question No. 12—Education

12. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: What are his three top priorities as Minister of Education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government actually has five priorities, as set out in the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities in the tertiary education strategy. I share these priorities. They are: putting learners at the centre; barrier-free access; quality teaching and learning; the future of learning and work; and world-class, inclusive public education. I can also assure the member that I will make it a priority to ensure my numbers add up.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn’t ask the Minister what were the five objectives in the National Education and Learning Priorities. I asked him what his three priorities are to get a sense of what he was up to.

SPEAKER: Well, I think if the member had listened very carefully at the beginning of the answer, he would have worked out that it was in order.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Where does improving student achievement fit in amongst his priorities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Right the way across. But, of course, if you’re putting students at the centre of education decisions, then, of course, that covers student achievement.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How are students likely to be at the centre if only 58 percent of them are turning up regularly to classes before disruption from COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member has highlighted a very important point—that student achievement is intricately linked to student attendance. Students who don’t show up do not achieve as well in education, and we do have a worrying trend in New Zealand—which started under the last Government—of increasing numbers of students not showing up at school regularly. Government can take some responsibility for contributing to that, but, of course, parents have the ultimate responsibility to make sure their kids are attending school.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he have a target for regular attendance, and, if so, what is it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I want all kids to be attending school regularly, and I won’t accept any target that’s below that. I do acknowledge that there are occasions where students can’t attend school for a variety of reasons, including when they’re sick, and we would encourage them to stay home in those circumstances. But the level of non-attendance in New Zealand schools is completely unacceptable.

Jo Luxton: How have the Government’s actions over the last year advanced his priorities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m incredibly proud of the way the education system as a whole rose to the challenge of COVID-19, especially during the lockdown. Just to name three particular things I think we should all be proud of: we established two television channels to broadcast education-related content, we increased the number of students who have access to the internet and digital devices at home, and we made changes to make sure that this year’s NCEA students weren’t unfairly disadvantaged.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, no. The member’s party has used its supplementary questions.

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACK ON CHRISTCHURCH MASJIDAIN ON 15 MARCH 2019

Report

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I move, That the House note Ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei: Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terrorist attack on Christchurch masjidain on 15 March 2019.

Today, the Government tables the report of the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack on the 15th March. Before we begin with the findings and the steps we must take, let me first speak directly to the Muslim community in New Zealand. Nothing in this report, nothing that had happened in the courtroom, nothing that we have done in this Parliament, or nothing we will do in the future of this Parliament will take back what happened that day, but I hope each of those acts takes us one step closer to justice and one step closer to change. Till that day, I say as-salamu alaykum—may peace be with you and may peace surround you.

Ten days after March 15, we announced the royal commission. It is reserved for matters of the gravest public importance. We wanted to ensure that this independent inquiry was able to ask the questions that we all had, but that, most importantly, the Muslim community had.

Those questions included whether there was any information provided or otherwise available to relevant public sector agencies that could or should have alerted them to the attack, whether there was any failure in information sharing between relevant agencies, whether public sector agencies failed to anticipate or plan for the attack due to an inappropriate concentration of resources, whether any relevant public sector agency failed to meet required standards or was otherwise at fault, and any other matters relevant to the purpose of the inquiry. These were the questions being asked and, 18 months later, those are the questions that were meticulously answered in this report.

Over 1,000 people made submissions, hundreds met with the inquirers, and international experts shared their insights, and the result is 800 pages’ worth of findings. Now, we will not be able to summarise it all in this House today, but I do want to place the key findings on record, and also then respond with some of the initial response from the Government.

The report finds: “We conclude the concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism before the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service’s baselining project began in May 2018 was inappropriate because it: … was not based on an informed assessment of the threats of terrorism associated with other ideologies; and [it] did not result from a system-wide decision that, despite the absence of such an assessment, counter-terrorism resources should continue to be allocated almost exclusively to the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism. We find that: … the inappropriate concentration of resources on the threat of Islamist extremist terrorism did not contribute to the individual’s planning and preparation for his terrorist attack not being detected. And for that reason, the Public sector agencies involved in the counter-terrorism effort did not fail to anticipate or plan for the terrorist attack … No Public sector agency involved in the counter-terrorism effort failed to meet required standards or was otherwise at fault in respects that were material to the individual’s planning and preparation for this terrorist attack not being detected.”

On the firearms licence, the report found: “New Zealand Police failed to meet required standards in the administration of the firearms licensing system” and that “the Arms Manual, the Master Vetting Guide and the Firearms Licence Vetting Guide did not provide coherent and complete guidance … New Zealand Police did not put in place arrangements to ensure that firearms licensing staff received systematic training and regular reviews of their practice; … in dealing with the individual’s firearms licence application, New Zealand Police did not adequately address whether gaming friend and their parent knew the individual well enough to [act] as referees.”

The report goes on to consider “what might have happened” had the licensing policy and process been appropriate and how this may have impacted the events of March 15. While hypothetical and speculative, “if the individual’s application had not been granted, … We think it possible, and perhaps likely, that he would have been able to obtain a licence eventually,”. But this is a message I wish all of this House to hear, particularly those who take diverse views on gun laws: “It is also possible that he may have formulated a plan to carry out the terrorist attack using different means or abandoned his planning for a terrorist attack in New Zealand” were it not for our gun regime.

This is only the beginning of the report’s findings. It traverses our security and intelligence arrangements, counter-terrorism framing, and information-sharing provisions, but it’s important to take a moment of pause because while the royal commission found no failures with any Government agencies that would have allowed the individual’s planning and preparation to have been detected, it did identify many lessons to be learnt and significant changes that are required.

For many years, Muslim community members have raised concerns over issues like the disproportionate scrutiny by security and intelligence agencies. This report confirms there was that inappropriate concentration of resources.

It also identifies, as I’ve said, the failings within the firearm-licensing system. The commission made no findings that these would have stopped the attack, but they were failings none the less, and for that, on behalf of the Government, I apologise.

This report also identifies a permissive firearms regime—for that, we must all take responsibility. It demonstrates why we took those steps immediately on military-style weapons, why it was so important that we made the changes we did, but it also tells a story of, over decades and decades, a lack of action in an area where there was much-needed reform.

There is much work to do. I don’t want the response to this report to be political. Many recommendations, of which there are 44, relate to issues that we will seek consensus over. We will work hard to achieve that, but let me start by outlining some of the plan that we can announce from today. Firstly, we agree in principle with the 44 recommendations. Secondly, Minister Andrew Little will coordinate the cross-Government response to the recommendations.

Thirdly, some of our immediate responses include: in line with recommendation 30, we will establish a ministry for ethnic communities—long called for. Following recommendation 35, we will establish an ethnic communities graduate programme within our public sector. Recommendations 25 and 26, which suggested to us that we needed to continue to support victims and survivors of the attack on that day, and we will do that through wraparound support—directly walking alongside those families.

Recommendation 14: we will establish a national centre of excellence to prevent violent extremism and promote those preventative actions that are known to reduce radicalisation—and they do fall in the space of social cohesion. I do not call them social engineering; I call it prevention.

Recommendation 42, which establishes an organisational response within the police to recording and managing hate crime. Also, early intervention programmes across agency to address risk factors that we know lead to radicalisation.

Recommendation 44: we will work with parties across Parliament on the gaps in hate speech legislation. I know this is a contentious area, and we will work with determination to try and form that consensus if we can.

In recommendation 18, we see calls to strengthen counter-terrorism legislation. That was something the Government had started work on prior to March 15, and we will now bring those amendments to the House.

There is much to do, but I want to leave my final words as words of thanks to the commission for its enormous work. I can do no better than summarise the path ahead than using their own words: “We accept political engagement on these issues will not be easy. But facing up to the hard issues and having open public conversations are critical. … We hope our report will encourage members of the public, officials and politicians to engage in frank debate so that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities in keeping New Zealand safe, secure and cohesive. There is impetus for debate around the kind of country New Zealand aspires to be.”

May that objective guide us in this House, but may the memory of the 51 who were lost, the survivors, and witnesses remain with us as we embark upon this journey. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with the Prime Minister in thanking the commissioners for their work. It’s obviously been an extremely onerous, difficult task for them. They’ve clearly, with the 800 pages of their report, shown that they have taken it incredibly seriously and they have listened to everybody who has spoken to them.

We received, as the Opposition, an embargoed copy of the report at 10 o’clock this morning, but we have had an opportunity to certainly look at quite a lot of the report in relation to the recommendations. We think there’s a great deal of information in the report which needs to be carefully absorbed and considered, and we’ll be spending some time over the coming months and weeks doing exactly that. This is a wide-ranging report that must be treated with utmost respect, but the recommendations within it must be also properly scrutinised.

The atrocities committed on 15 March 2019 were the actions of an evil terrorist in that they were designed to spread fear and to silence those who did not share his world view. However, the actions of New Zealanders following that in their denouncing of him and what he stood for has shown that he failed miserably if his outcome was to change our way of life and our way of thinking. We have shown, as a nation, that we are not prepared to give in to fear, that we are not prepared to tolerate extreme hate, and that we are not prepared to let anything like the wickedness that took place on March 15 to ever happen in New Zealand again.

The Opposition stands ready to work constructively with the Government on this, and we will learn from this experience and make New Zealand a safer place in which to work and to live. I think that shows the value of having a royal commission and its ability to probe very deeply into issues like this.

I’d like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the 51 victims who lost their lives that day, the dozens more who witnessed and survived the attack, the brave police officers who rushed in to help, the doctors and the nurses and the paramedics who worked tirelessly to save lives, and the people of New Zealand, who rallied together to say that this is not us. I’d like to acknowledge, again, everyone involved in the royal commission of inquiry, not just the commissioners but all of those who worked—all the secretariat—and all of those who gave evidence in their submissions to the royal commission, and to acknowledge the tremendous support that New Zealanders received from all over the world in the wake of the attacks.

The world was horrified, just like we were, because we’re not used to seeing ourselves as a country where this happens, and that’s because we just haven’t seen this level of terrorism attack that I can ever think of. Certainly, it is something that we have had—issues of terrorism and proposed terrorism in this country—but they have been able to be foiled or various things have taken place, and they very seldom see the light of day in the media.

Ultimately, no matter the failings by various people or departments or agencies, there is one person who is utterly responsible for the actions of that day, and that person is now serving a life sentence without parole in a New Zealand maximum security prison—a very good place for him to be. But it appears that certain systems within Government could have and should have performed better in the lead-up to that extraordinarily brutal event. I would not like the people who were involved in those agencies, though, to feel that they were the people responsible for that person’s actions. We always know that there are failings in any system and that people make judgment calls that sometimes are shown to be wrong, but there was one person responsible, and that one person is the terrorist.

In principle, we support strengthening the role of New Zealand’s security intelligence agencies to safeguard against any repeat of these terrible actions. I think that in many ways, many New Zealanders have become extremely complacent to the view that we live at the very bottom of the world and nobody takes much notice of us, but we are, unfortunately, a country that can sometimes be seen as ripe for attack, and this was one of those times. But we must tread very carefully in this area because we must safeguard New Zealanders’ rights and liberties, because otherwise we will end up creating the very society that this terrorist eventually wanted us to create, which is one which is not a liberal democracy, and not one where other people’s views can be different from our own and we don’t resort to violence.

We have an obligation to safeguard our liberties and our rights. It’s worth remembering that we will not be able to completely stop terrible crimes like this, but we can certainly do some things to assist. We must do everything that we can to suppress it, but we cannot sacrifice our freedoms, or otherwise we will lose so much of what we hold dear.

We acknowledge in the National Party that this report found our security agencies’ concentration on the threat of Islamic extremist terrorism was not the reason this terrorist’s actions went undetected. What is clear from this report is that even though there were clear failures from organisations that could have put roadblocks in the way of this individual, he was not part of some wider group or larger movement. He was, in fact, a terrorist hiding in plain sight.

Turning now to firearms, it would appear that police guidelines around firearms licensing have fallen well short of expectations. It’s clear that this terrorist should never have been able to obtain a firearms licence. It shows the value of having a royal commission that we were able to come to this conclusion with the full facts in front of us. We support moves by the police to improve their training and firearms licence - vetting, and we expect that this will make New Zealand a safer place. We supported the first tranche of firearms legislation that followed this attack, but we are concerned that moves since then have largely been regulations that will burden law-abiding New Zealanders with more cost, rather than getting guns out of the hands of criminals, and we believe that it is time for us as a Parliament to adopt the firearms prohibition orders to take guns off gangs and other criminals.

We also want to acknowledge the work of those who worked with the victims. We acknowledge that the report recommends ongoing recovery support for affected whānau, survivors, and witnesses. I don’t believe anybody could ever overcome such an enormous tragedy in their lives and to their communities, so, in principle, we believe that a victims’ commissioner should be considered. We’d certainly put in place an adviser on victims to the Minister of Justice, and we believe this is something that should be continued with and extended.

We must always remember that New Zealand must be a place of safety for everyone: for people who come to live in New Zealand, for those of us fortunate enough to have been born here, and for people who have come to see New Zealand as a refuge. They and we deserve New Zealand to be that place. We are the best little country in the world, and we deserve to have every New Zealander know that this is a safe place for them.

So, in principle, we support many of the recommendations. We want to work with the Government to bring about a better outcome for our country. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with other leaders in thanking the royal commission for their report. I want to start, though, by saying al salam alaikum to the 51 shuhada, to those that they have left behind, and to every Muslim New Zealander. Today is a day that I suspect nobody wants to be talking about this topic, but all of us must, and what we must say, first and foremost, to those victims and those they left behind them is that we are one with you, that we reject the actions, the incomprehensible barbarism, of this terrorist, and that this is your home and you should have been safe here.

It’s difficult for New Zealanders, as other speakers have noted. Normally, the bad news is confined to the world section of our papers, and we found 20 months ago that we’d supplied the bad news to the papers of the world. We will never erase the scars on the heart that this tragedy has left, but we can choose a better way forward, and that’s what this royal commission of inquiry has chartered for us to do.

We should acknowledge the exemplary rhetorical leadership that our Prime Minister supplied for New Zealand and the world in the wake of our nation’s tragedy. Her call that “He may have chosen us, but we utterly rejected him.”, I think, was exactly the right thing to say.

Now, we must turn to positive, practical solutions that will ensure that such a thing cannot happen ever again, and, as the Government seeks to respond to this royal commission report, I believe it will face some paradoxes. I do not believe it is possible to say that it is nobody’s fault but that, somehow, new entities will be more accountable. There has to be accountability when 51 people are slain. There cannot be simply an excuse that no one person was in a position to do so.

It is critical that we face up to the paradox that this terrorist came from without. It is not acceptable, in my view, for New Zealanders to flagellate themselves and believe that we must have a form of social engineering led by the Ministry of Social Development when, actually, the response of New Zealanders to this tragedy and this hatred was united and exemplary and a beacon to the world. In particular, it would be wrong to introduce British-style hate speech laws without even the exemptions for free and fair debate that those laws have in Britain.

I hesitate to bring up the case of firearm laws today in this debate, but, unfortunately, the Prime Minister chose to make a number of political points about them. The sad truth is that the Government’s response was ineffective, divisive, and—without the benefit of this royal commission of inquiry report—premature, and one only has to look at the fact that the Government banned around a quarter-million firearms and collected 60,000. How does that help keep New Zealanders safer?

This report calls for—and the Government has responded positively to—the idea that we must build social cohesion and capital. Nothing this Parliament has done in the six years that I have been here has been more divisive than the rushed firearm laws with no consultation. That’s not the way to show leadership.

Those 51 shuhada deserve much better. They deserve a Government that holds those accountable to account before shifting to new agencies, and one that recognises that the terrorist’s intention was to create chaos and disruption. We must remain united around our common humanity and the freedoms of our liberal democracy that make New Zealand so special. That is the way to honour those lost last year. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Al salam alaikum. The release of this report brings us back to that day on March 15th last year, when our nation’s heart was broken. I think of the families of the 51 shuhada and the witnesses, the paramedics, and the community in Christchurch, who will have the turmoil and the pain returned to them today, and I want to specifically thank them for their courage in engaging so fulsomely with the creation of this report.

What I remember of that day, almost immediately after the first reports of the terror attack happened, was the outpouring of messages that I received from the refugee and migrants of colour communities, who were fearful and wanted to reach out to an MP and share our experiences of hate crimes and hate speech—the fear that they felt. They shared the number of times that they’d reported the more minor attacks leading up to this to this act of terror, inconceivable in its scale, but they did say, “We saw something coming.”

I want to acknowledge that it was Māori who raised the voices of our Muslim community in the days following the terror attack in saying that a hate crime, mass-murder prejudice has existed in this nation before, because it was Māori that had experienced it. They warned that losing the lessons of prejudice will only mean that our nation remains in a state where marginalisation happens and none of us are safe.

So this report is the beginning, and the other memory—the most distinctive memory that everyone in this House has actually acknowledged, as well—is that there was also an incredible outpouring of love across our whole nation as we wrapped our arms around our Muslim community. I will never forget that the city of Dunedin ran out of flowers on 16 March because they were all at the mosque. Those beautiful people, that incredible love, is what will hold us to account as a Government, as a Parliament, as we heed those warnings and we take decisive action to implement every recommendation of this report, and I’m so heartened to hear our Prime Minister say today that we will do just that.

We will update our hate speech laws to be inclusive and effective, as the Green Party has campaigned on for over two years. We will acknowledge that our national security agency—the agency that was entrusted with keeping us all safe—disproportionately and wrongly, without evidence, was targeting our Muslim community without looking into far-right, white supremacist terror. I know that the report didn’t identify that failure as directly leading to this act of terror, but we will never know what could have been had that agency ascribed resource to looking into white supremacy, and our marginalised communities will never feel safe while that system is not fixed.

We know that our police failed in applying our gun laws, and that did directly contribute to this act of terror happening. We know that the report recommends better systems be put in place and we know that the report writers were not mandated to look at gun law reform, but I am proud that our Government did act decisively in banning military-style semi-automatics—which never had a place in our society—that we did work to make it more difficult to obtain firearms, and that New Zealand is not a nation, like others are, that looks on while mass violence happens and won’t change our gun laws for pressure from a gun lobby.

Now is the time to centre the voices of the victim communities. Now is the time to listen to them as they react to the recommendations, and as they call for different types of reparations for mental health, for ongoing support of young people who have lost parents. Their thoughts and their ideas about how we can make New Zealand more safe and inclusive will have to be centred in order for us to uphold the promise of all of that aroha from across our nation so that we can weave it into an enduring fabric of our society. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kei te tautoko ahau i ngā mihi ki te Kaikōmihana, nā rātou tēnei rīpoata. Kei te hoki atu ngā mahara ki te wā i aituāhia tēnei parekura nui ki Ōtautahi, Maihe 15, 2019.

[I support the acknowledgments to the Commissioner, the authors of this report. My thoughts are with those who were taken during the tragedy in Christchurch on March 15, 2019.]

Firstly, I acknowledge the loss of life, particularly in the sacrosanct place of worship in which these cold-blooded murders took place.

Our security services are so engrossed in watching Māori activists that they overlooked white supremacists. The total criminal justice and security system must acknowledge the over-regulation and over-policing of Māori. We will never forget the massacre at Rangiaowhia, or the invasion of South Taranaki, in the non-violent community of Parihaka. But it never ended there. The attack on Tūhoe and Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu and the atrocity inflicted on Tūhoe again, nearly 100 years later, over the Tūhoe raids of 15 October 2007 shows there is still something deeply wrong.

This is our home—ko tō tātou kāinga tēnei. This is our reality—the use and abuse of the power of the State concentrated on race rather than rights. Here, the full powers of the State allowed a white supremacist to commit an atrocity on a scale in New Zealand history that will position us in the worst of times, but it brought out the best of times in our collective response.

The report concludes that there was an inappropriate concentration of counter-terrorism resources on the threat of Islamist terrorism. More must be concentrated on white racists and white supremacists, because the only multiple killings carried out in Aotearoa in the last 150 years have been by Pākehā, in addition to what the report found—not gangs.

Firearm laws will only marginalise Māori. The New Zealand Police had degraded and, from 2015, was not carrying out strategic terrorism threat assessments. That is an issue of police prioritising resource.

The report recommends the setting up of a new intelligence agency—our own homeland security, if you will. Māori have a right to be suspicious about the set-up of any new Crown intelligence and security agency. Why? Because six months ago, in this House, under the cover of COVID legislation, our marae—our sacrosanct places of culture and worship—were named to allow police fishing expeditions to enter at will. Mosques were not named. Churches were not named.

Thankfully, the Māori Party has returned to this House to shine our light and to speak our truth. We will be cautious and vigilant. Nā te mea, nā tātou tēnei kāinga. Kia ora tātou.

[Because, ultimately, this is our home. Thank you.]

SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I am—I didn’t want to interrupt that member before he spoke. But I will indicate to him that the requirements for business attire will be applied to him before he is called to speak in this House again.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Over the days and months since March 15, I have had the privilege of working alongside our Muslim communities in Christchurch to see close up, on an everyday basis, the impact of the loss of 51 lives. The reach of that loss of those 51 lives stretches into the hundreds of people who are left affected today, and I want to give my love and my thoughts to all of those people today. I know what an important milestone the publishing of this royal commission report is for this community today.

I also know how difficult the very act of giving evidence to the commission was for many in the community. It meant a reliving of the trauma and remembering a series of events that they could never have imagined and that they really didn’t want to revisit, but none the less they believed and understood the importance of this royal commission into what happened, and so were prepared to do that. So I really want to thank the members of the community who did that. But I do know what an important part of the journey giving that evidence has been.

I also know, seeing this laid bare over the course of 800 pages collected together into four volumes, how difficult and confronting it has been to read, and, having spent the weekend with many of the affected members of the community, what a traumatic ordeal it was again, reading this laid here in black and white. But I want to thank all members of the community for what they have done because I know that there existed within this community an utter commitment that they needed to do whatever was necessary to ensure that this never happened in their country—New Zealand—ever again, and so thank you for that.

One of the things that has always touched me the most every day since March 15 is the way in which members of these communities regard the atrocities of March 15, not just as an attack on them in their places of worship, in their mosques, but an attack on New Zealand, the country that many of them have chosen to call home and that they are proud as New Zealanders to call home.

For many years, and certainly in the months following the attack, the concerns that the Muslim community have had around the feeling like there was a disproportionate level of scrutiny on them is something that I have heard many times. The report does confirm that there was an inappropriate concentration of resources and it does also identify failings in the firearms systems, and these are the very things for which apologies have been issued today. But it also—importantly—identifies that there was not one single thing that would have prevented this attack, and I think that is really important to remember.

There are 44 recommendations contained in this volume, and I am conscious of how much we must treasure each of those 44 recommendations, because those recommendations are born out of the evidence and the grief of a group of people that were prepared to retell their stories so that we in this country would never have to relive that. As a Government, we have agreed in principle with all of these, but I think it is important that we realise some of these changes have already begun, such as the gun reform. The commission report acknowledges that while there was a permissive firearms regime, that certainly was something that could have made New Zealand a more attractive location for the terrorist, and that work has already begun and is under way in this area. But some of the changes we need to make are long term, such as education.

It is also true that some of the recommendations and the considerations we have to give will be hard and they will be challenging, but this is not a reason not to do them. As a group of politicians in this House, it is our duty to ensure that we are willing to do what is hard and what is challenging and to not resile from it, because it will make a difference.

Our failure to address the firearms regime over decades is an example where we didn’t do what was required because it was hard and challenging. I think the best monument we can leave to those 51 who died is the fact that as a group of members of this Parliament, we are prepared to do what is hard and challenging.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Can I begin by, once again, expressing my sympathy, my empathy, and aroha for all of those who survived this horrible attack, those who were the relatives and families of the 51 who died or the 40 who got shot, or the many, many friends and associates of those communities who have been so deeply affected by this particular abhorrent attack.

On the day, news of what had happened grew over a period of hours, and reports came through with, initially, a shooting and then perhaps five, then seven, and then, I think, 17, and, ultimately, the numbers going up to the horrific 51 that was the eventual toll wreaked by this terrorist. The city itself developed an eerie silence. We had seen something similar with the earthquakes, but that was different. That was a geophysical phenomenon that could be understood; there was no understanding for this. There was also a great deal of uncertainty about the why, about the who, and about the how.

While we’ve talked over the last hour or so about the great outpouring of love and empathy for the affected communities, I think we need to also recognise the extraordinary statement of forgiveness and of love for this country expressed by the imam and many others subsequently in the wake of this whole tragedy. As many of those people were dealing with it, they had already defined how they wanted to react to it, and I think that speaks to the deep commitment that they have to this country, to the values of this country, and to why they want to live in this country. For many of us who cannot understand how it could ever have happened here, that is, remarkably, a comfort when it should be we who are comforting them.

This report is a good one. It has in many ways confirmed the good aspects of living in a country like New Zealand, in that there can be a pretty honest, deep consideration of something that is so horrible and that there is not too much left unvarnished in it.

But I would say that there are aspects of this report that are slightly vague, and while it is clear that there was no responsibility being particularly sheeted home to any Government organisation, the suggestion that there had been a wrong focus, etc., tends to ignore the history that we had seen post the Terrorism Suppression Act of 2002. That Act was in response to the Twin Towers attack in the United States. That was an event that saw all of the security arrangements around travel in New Zealand change—massive changes—and, on top of that, we saw the emergence of ISIS and its absolute perversion of the greater good that comes from the adherence to the Islam religion. In that environment, I think it’s a little bit of a harsh criticism. It’s also a worry that in this new look, we might miss something once again.

The National Party, obviously, wants to work with the Government to get as good a structure as possible around the security services that operate in this country. We do want to see the licensing of firearm owners strictly adhered to, and some of the story that’s told in this report needs to be aired a little bit further because there is a failing there that I think cannot be overlooked.

When it comes to some of the recommendations—remember that in the 44 recommendations, I think 19 of them relate to the security services—we do, as others have already mentioned, have to be careful that we do not end up with a pernicious regime that affects the freedoms that New Zealanders value so much and that affects the freedoms that caused the outpouring from the imam and his followers and the many of those who were victims in support of the lifestyle that we have here in this country. This, I think, can be a document that will lead to a better arrangement for New Zealanders, an arrangement that will protect the freedoms that we all expect to live by but that will also make sure that part of that freedom is freedom from the threat of this sort of lone wolf terrorist action.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Al salam alaikum. As other speakers have done before me in this House today, can I begin by acknowledging the horrific attacks on the mosques in Christchurch, the loss of 51 lives, those who were injured in the attacks and those who witnessed the unfolding of those horrific attacks on that day, and the whānau of all those people.

Can I also acknowledge the work of the royal commission and all those involved in the process. It is a substantial report. I want to also say that this week will be a difficult time for all those who have been involved as a result of these attacks. I want to begin by acknowledging their courage and strength, and—as has been mentioned by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, the speaker who has just resumed his seat—the leadership of the Muslim community in the wake of those attacks, where many members of our Muslim community here across Aotearoa spoke about reacting with compassion and forgiveness, and also wanting to acknowledge the aroha extended by New Zealanders across New Zealand.

The report encourages us to take a holistic view of the changes that need to be made to ensure that New Zealand is a more socially cohesive nation and a safer place for all of us. The report adopts a useful definition of a socially cohesive society as being one in which all individuals and groups have a sense of belonging, inclusion, participation, recognition, and legitimacy. In New Zealand, social cohesion also includes upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and those are some of the principles that the Government will base our response on.

I want to focus much of my contribution today in the House on the issue of social cohesion—as is mentioned by the report—both in my capacity as the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities and in my associate social development role, where I will be leading some of that work for the Government. I want us to be a society where everyone feels safe, valued, and heard and is able to participate fully and where we treasure the values that unite us while celebrating our diversity, and a society where we protect our taonga of te reo Māori, but where we also value and celebrate the 160 different languages that we speak, and where we feel safe in dressing in particular ways that may make us feel comfortable, even if it identifies the faith that we belong to.

Our Government accepts, as has been mentioned, all of the findings of the report and agrees in principle to all 44 recommendations. Some of the principles that will guide our ongoing work include our vision for Aotearoa to be a diverse, inclusive, and safe nation, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles. The survivors and whānau of those at the centre of that attack will be integral to our response as a Government, and we will strive for safer communities and a New Zealand that is more inclusive, with equal protections for us all.

I want to, in the time I have remaining, just focus on a few specific initiatives that have been part of ongoing work that this Government has rolled out since March 15th last year but to also speak to some of the specific recommendations made in the report. One of them, in line with recommendation 30 of the royal commission report, is that this Government is establishing a Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and that has been long called for. The new ministry will take the place of the Office of Ethnic Communities, and it will increase the standing and the mana of this agency. It will improve the leadership of the agency across the Public Service and include a direct reporting line to the responsible Minister—in this case, myself. It will provide a greater ability to deliver on the ongoing programme of work that this Government has to better support and respond to the needs of our diverse communities, and I want to acknowledge the voices that have been calling for this for a while. We will also provide meaningful work experience and pathways into the Public Service through an ethnic communities graduate programme. This in line with recommendation 35, that recommends greater diversity in the Public Service at all levels.

Finally, I want to speak to the collective impact board that comes out of recommendations 25 and 26 to ensure that our survivors and whānau have the ongoing, wraparound support that they need to navigate their way across various Public Service agencies. This has been called for by the group at the heart of these attacks. I just want to acknowledge that this is a Government that will ensure that support continues, and will stand alongside them and work with them to design that support. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Al salam alaikum. It is with heavy heart that I take a short call in this debate in response to the royal commission report on the tragic events of March 15, when one individual committed an evil act taking away the lives of 51 fellow New Zealanders, and attempted to kill 40 more. Nothing can underline how these events have left a dark stain on our country’s history.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. No report will bring them back to us. No report will ever wipe away the tears or the pain.

Not only was this a tragic act but it took place in a sacred place: a place of worship, a place meant for peace, and a place meant for prayer. As a country, we are proud of our freedoms, and particularly of our freedom of religion and our freedom to worship in peace and without fear. This right was taken away, and for that we must truly condemn it.

As the National Party spokesperson for police, I wish to acknowledge the heroic actions and the role our police undertook on March 15 last year. Within moments of being notified of what was taking place, they responded with speed and with haste and put their lives on the line to apprehend this individual, with a profound sense of duty to protect New Zealanders. Not only did they act on the day but in the days following, where they dutifully ensured that their presence was felt, not just in Christchurch but across New Zealand, to ensure people worshipping or praying at mosques, churches, or other places of worship could do so in peace. I say to our policemen and women, thank you.

It is clear, reading the royal commission report in the brief time that we’ve had it, that there were a number of failures committed by the police regarding the licensing process which approved the licence for this individual, and I would wish to acknowledge the Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster, who has said that the systems were lax and open to easy exploitation. There were a number of recommendations put forward around how this process could be improved. They were around ensuring that the coherent and complete process for processing firearm applications was done, and the report acknowledged that the training and review processes were not adequate.

Part 5 of the report goes into these issues in significant detail. It is clear that this individual should never have had a firearms licence. Issues regarding whether the referees were suitable were raised, as was the close relationship between the referees, as outlined in the report. Red flags were also raised to say that the referees didn’t know the individual well enough, and the report says that more investigation was warranted, our training of police staff was not regular and not reviewed frequently to ensure good practice and consistent practice, and the guidelines should have been kept up to date.

The royal commission makes a number of very sensible recommendations about this licensing regime, and the National Party will support changes which mean that these processes are improved and that the training for police staff who process these licence applications is adequate. As a country, we need to take all gun violence seriously, but we must also ensure we uphold and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens. Future changes must be targeted at the people perpetrating harm—criminals and those who intend to commit harm—and ensuring the licensing system and processes are adequately robust. National supported the first tranche of firearms legislation, but have not supported further reforms which seek to put more regulation on law-abiding firearms licence holders.

This report outlines that there is now need for improvement in the police processing as well, and this is exactly what the Government must ensure takes place. We need better training. We need to ensure police staff administering these are better trained and that there are better policies, but we also need to ensure that we have firearm prohibition orders to take the guns out of the hands of gangs—a crucial tool which this Government must also pick up and take on.

In terms of our national security, this report also outlines that partisan opposition has reduced the social licence for our national security services to do a better job, and we do need to take up the call of the Prime Minister to ensure that we do work together. We do ask that the Government works closely with us on those issues.

This is a serious and comprehensive report. I wish to acknowledge the Hon Sir William Young and Jacqui Caine and all those who contributed to it. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Kia ora and al salam alaikum, Prime Minister. Today is a very difficult day for our community, so to speak, as the report of the royal commission into the March 15 attacks comes out. But also I can’t help but go back to March 15, to the day that the attack was carried out. I was just in a quick meeting when I got a text from a friend, who said, “Have you heard what’s happening in Christchurch?”, and I said no. She said that there was a shooting. I thought it was just this random shooting, and I didn’t think there was an attack that potentially was going to take 51 precious lives. Like Imam Gamal Fouda said, it was an attack on a beautiful image of New Zealand; it wasn’t just the Muslim community. The Muslim community might have been a direct target, but it was an attack on an image of our beautiful country.

Across New Zealand, the Muslim community leaders have raised concerns of the potential attacks to mosques and other Islamic centres for many years. Those warnings, they were ignored, and the security agencies chased Muslims, some of us because we were suspects, and some of us because they wanted us to work with the agencies. I was one of the people who was contacted by the security agency. My answer to them was that I do love and care about this country and that if I were to see anything that potentially could hurt this country, then I would report it, and that was the last time I spoke to them.

So now we see in the report that there was nothing that could have been done to stop that attack. But also, as we move forward, I just spent a couple of days with the Muslim community and the affected whānau down in Christchurch, and their resilience, their strength, is just as it was on March 15. Now, as we move forward, what the families want is they do not wish this kind of attack to either the Muslim community or to anyone in New Zealand. Primarily, this is the assurance, and this is what they’re looking for, alongside, of course, other supports and the other stuff.

So it was an attack on our identity. To me and to many other Muslims, as well, it was the day that we doubted our sense of belonging to this country, and that was the intention of the terrorist in the first place—so he can make us feel that we don’t belong to this country and so he can make us react with revenge. His intention was primarily to divide the country and turn us against each other, but he failed.

Today, it’s heart-warming to see that the Government has accepted the 44 recommendations in principle, and they will be acted upon. Some of the things that have been mentioned in the recommendations are some of the things our communities and all the ethnic communities and the Muslim community, in particular, have been asking for. So it’s really good to see that this detail has been mentioned in the report. I’ll be looking forward to seeing the implementation of this.

The last two days I’ve spent with the Muslim community and the affected whānau down in Christchurch. Primarily, they are looking forward for those recommendations to be implemented, as it’s being demanded by the royal commission.

So today, we acknowledge the 51 shuhada. May Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala grant them the highest spot in Jannah, but today the real work starts. The real work, not just to protect the Muslim community, but also to protect every New Zealander—those who are vulnerable to these kind of attacks. So as we pay our tribute to those who passed away, we also want the security agencies to focus not just on a specific group, but also on every threat that could potentially hurt New Zealand. Kia ora.

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

Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 3 December.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I’m absolutely delighted to speak in this Address in Reply debate and—I can say—for the first time as a member of the Government. I would actually like to start my address here today by congratulating you on your re-election as Speaker. It’s something that many others have done in this debate so far and I wanted to have my opportunity as well.

New Zealanders voted for stability and certainty in this last election. It was a fantastic campaign. I enjoyed going throughout the electorate that I live in and work in and hearing about what impacts upon our voters within that electorate. And certainly I got the sense that New Zealanders felt really stable, felt really strong, and, really, lots of comfort in the work that we are delivering as a Government. They said a lot to me during that campaign, but what I got a lot right throughout it is “We believe in you and we trust you.” So I’m really humbled to join my team on this side of the House to be part of the first majority Government under MMP in New Zealand.

But we know that we do not take this lightly. It is a huge responsibility. As overseas the global pandemic is raging, we continue to see the health and economic outlook worsen. So we have priorities as a Government—first and foremost our priority is to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. It is a huge responsibility but it is something that I heard time and time and time again during the election campaign, “Please keep us safe. We like what’s happened so far. We trust you and we believe in you.”

We also have a priority of accelerating our economic recovery—again, because of the trust that New Zealanders have seen and put in us. Time and time again I heard, “We trust you with the economic recovery.” Actually, some of the times throughout the campaign, I heard this coming from quarters that I hadn’t heard it in the past. I heard it from people that I have engaged with widely in the past, but not necessarily have they ever said, “We put our trust in your economic abilities to take us through this campaign.”, but I did hear it a lot during the campaign. I was really heartened to hear that from people from our chambers, from our business community, from—much through the wider public, as I said, that I’d hadn’t heard it from in the past.

And the third area that we are focusing on as a Government is to lay the foundations for a better future. Again, during that campaign, I heard people say, “We need to take the opportunity. We have a window of opportunity to actually make things better for New Zealand.” And time and time again, I heard from people, “We need to jump through that window. Let’s not let it close before we actually take that leap.” Now, again, I’d have to say that I heard from people in the campaign saying, “Take that opportunity.” that I hadn’t necessarily heard from in those terms before, people that I hadn’t heard from—people in the business community, my local business community, people and our chambers saying to me, “You know, we really do need to think outside the square to tackle those things that are rife in New Zealand like child poverty.”

So I want to cycle back to the start, with looking at keeping New Zealand safe. As I said, this is something that New Zealanders have actually seen us achieve and they want to see it continue and continue and continue. Time and again, I heard “We’re fully aware of what is happening overseas. We don’t ever want to see that happen in this country. We appreciate what has happened here in New Zealand.” We know that no system is perfect; we’ve seen that. We know that this is a tricky virus; we’ve heard that. We’ve seen that this virus takes us by surprise all the time, because that’s exactly what it is; it’s a virus. But we know that we will be evidence based in everything that we do. We will continue to improve our systems of keeping us safe at the border.

We will learn from that evidence and we will put those lessons in place. As we learn about the virus and as new technologies are developed, we will actually implement those lessons and we will learn from what is happening around the world. We are in a position that we can take the evidence of what is happening and actually use that to ensure that those terrible events that we are seeing on a day-to-day basis don’t happen in this country.

Now, the second point that I talked about was our economic recovery, and as the Minister for Women I want to use this part of my reply to focus specifically on women and the recovery. Now, this Government will continue to take action to support a strong economic recovery and get people back into work. But we’ve seen in the past, in times like the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, that women have been negatively impacted by those economic shocks. Now, we need to ensure, and learn from those lessons, that we can mitigate that for women in this labour market shock. So we’re looking at the COVID recovery in terms of what it means for women.

I have heard it said to me that maybe some of the things that we’ve been focusing on have been a little bit male-centric. However, I challenge that—I challenge that. We are putting women at the heart of what we do and ensuring that they have the equal opportunities to participate in the recovery as males do. We are ensuring that women are having equal opportunities to enter into our vocational education and training. Indeed, our campaign around that has focused on upping the number of female apprentices who take up that opportunity, and we have seen this go over double.

Now, there is way more work to do in that area. But there’s also a conversation that I want to have as a country around the fact that if women are a little bit hesitant about going into those areas—why is that? What is the culture of those vocational opportunities that needs to change to make it a safe place and a desirable place for woman to go into? We need to ensure that we are setting up conditions for women to ensure that they are protected from any future labour market shocks. It’s not good enough to say that in history this has happened and it’s going to happen again. We know there will be future labour market shocks. Let’s ensure women aren’t the most vulnerable next time around.

So the Government launched a $320 million free Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund, which makes all apprenticeships as well as certificates, diplomas, and programmes in targeted industries free for New Zealanders of all ages from the 1 July 2020. What has that meant for women? We’ve seen that 14,000 new apprentices have started in their apprenticeship nationwide. And of those apprenticeships, we have seen that women—over 1,800 as opposed to about 700 this time last year—have taken up those new apprenticeships. So we are moving in the right direction, but with way more to go. As I said, we are laying the foundations for a better future and we have the opportunity right now to build back better. Tackling New Zealand’s long-term issues as part of this recovery has to be a major focus of what we do. We need to think outside the square.

I want to spend the last minute of my Address in Reply speech here, talking about something that I am absolutely passionate about, and that’s child poverty. We need to continue that welfare system overhaul. But the one area that I really want to talk about and that I’m really proud about is the extension of the free lunches. Not only does this make the biggest difference to young people and their learning—and I have seen that happen firsthand—it is creating jobs for their families, for the people in their communities. It’s giving them mana. It’s giving them hope. I have had people come to me with tears in their eyes saying they have got a job at their young people’s school for the first time, and they have that mana.

We won’t solve these problems overnight, but we are a Government for all New Zealand and we will keep moving. Thank you.

SPEAKER: I call Chris Baillie for his maiden speech.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak as a proud ACT MP residing in the beautiful city of Nelson. We develop our political affiliations as a result of our experiences in life. Our work, our interests, our friends, and our family all contribute to the views we have of the world and the way we think things should go. I’m sure we all want the same things—or similar things—it’s just how we get there that’s different.

I’ve always been interested in politics. I vividly remember meeting member of Parliament and Speaker Stan Whitehead when I was 10 years old. A towering figure with a booming voice; the impression he left on me was huge. A few years later, I was introduced to Prime Minister Sir Bill Rowling. You could tell he was just a lovely man and, dare I say it, kind. They were very different men, but both commanded a great deal of mana. My being here makes the memories of these encounters even more special. But I’m sure, like my father, they would have been much happier if I was sitting on the opposite side of the House.

A marine engineer, my father was very persuasive and a staunch unionist. But as a 12-year-old, I began questioning his judgment when he supported marine engineers on the Cook Strait ferries going on strike over one school holiday period because their beds weren’t being made. That just didn’t seem reasonable to me. But ironically, my father gave me what I believe is the greatest thing a parent can give to a child: a work ethic. Some people might say love is number one, but I’ve always thought that if you have to say you love your child, then something’s not right. Surely that’s just a gimmie. A good work ethic prepares you for life, develops personal responsibility, a sense of community, empathy, resilience, and an understanding that money doesn’t, in fact, grow on trees. As a child and teenager, I mowed lawns, poured petrol at the garage, babysat, and sold pine cones. I paid for everything I got, bought a car when I was 15, saved to put myself through university and to buy a house soon after. I didn’t expect—and didn’t get—anything handed to me on a plate.

My mum’s love was unconditional so my parents were a good match, and I had a great childhood. Mum passed away 12 years ago, aged 67, and I know she would love to be here now. I’m proud of my family, proud of my heritage, and I’m proud of my ancestry. My forebears were good, honest, caring, hard-working people. On my father’s side, well documented since 1840. Mum’s side is a bit more complicated, and I could be anything.

New Zealand’s history isn’t perfect, but we must be mindful that when looking at it with the benefit of hindsight through a 2020 lens to always have 20/20 vision. I’m proud to be part of a party that embraces diversity and unity and encourages and believes in success for everyone.

I’d love to be here talking about my 30-year rugby-playing career or my lifetime career as a musician, but Pōneke Thirds and Stokes Senior Bs don’t quite cut it, and I’ll keep practising my trumpet in the hope that one day I’ll improve. Instead, I’ll touch on a couple of topics that I know a little bit about.

The great boxer Muhammad Ali once said, “He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.” This is true in many aspects of life, but none more so than owning a business today. It takes courage to often put everything on the line: house, family relationships, job security; all to employ staff, work hard, and try and get ahead in life. Small businesses are the engine room of our economy and can’t be taken for granted, and they carry disproportionate risk. The risk of employing people, giving people a chance, but paying the price if they aren’t up to the job. The risk of the biased personal grievance process being abused and mediated unfairly—lawyers do very well, and it’s cheaper for businesses to just pay the often unjustified demands. The risk of increased compliance, leave, and taxes being heaped upon them because of the misguided view that businesses can afford it. I’m no health nut, but I’ve had one sick day in the last 10 years. The current environment actually discourages employment.

We must not fall into the lazy thinking that if people are paid lots, they’ll work hard. People should be paid lots if they work hard, and that’s just common sense. I recently offered to split any profit I made with my employees. The only catch was that they would be OK to split the losses as well, including the loan I had to take out during lockdown in order to pay rent, rates, and other fixed costs businesses had to pay so their employees would have a job to come back to after they were well looked after by the Government. They declined my offer. The assumption that businesses can just keep on absorbing extra costs is naive and unrealistic. Productivity must increase at least at the same rate, and this can’t be ignored when striving for better conditions and more money for employees. It is time to end the ideological dogma that business owners are somehow the enemy. US President Thomas Jefferson once said, “I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have.” Jobs build self-esteem, self-reliance, and purpose. We must stop the tailspin of welfare dependency and that sense of sitting outside the community that flows from it.

The effects of this disconnect are none more obvious than in many aspects of police work in New Zealand. The rise in antisocial behaviour, the appalling domestic violence statistics, and the increase in drug use are all blights on this wonderful country. The meteoric rise in mental health associated offences highlights a failure that must be addressed. I have attended tragic incidents involving young women, old men, and all those in between where the pressure of life has got too much. It is unfair and wrong to expect police to bear the brunt of accountability as a result of failures in other departments and entrenched social issues. I learnt a lot during my time in the New Zealand Police. It’s a hugely rewarding job, and I have enormous respect for front-line officers. I learnt that things aren’t always as they seem.

When working in a team policing unit in Wellington, we attended a large protest right here outside Parliament. Hundreds of angry people wanting to get up the steps and through the doors—maybe just to watch question time, but I’m not sure about that. The front line of protesters were organised. On command, they would all lift the steel barriers and move them gradually forward towards the steps. Six times they were told by a sergeant with a very loud voice helped by a loudhailer to not touch the barriers or swift action would be taken. The front-page photo in the Dominion Post the next day was of a distraught young woman holding a broken finger and an article on police violence. I learnt about the influence a member of Parliament can have when, a few months later, during another protest, I watched an Opposition education spokesperson stir up a large group of angry students into a frenzy. This resulted in an attempt to smash the doors of Treasury to gain entry. I thought then that he was very irresponsible. He went back to his cosy office, and, once again, police were portrayed unfairly in the inevitable aftermath.

Police are the engine room for upholding law and order, but yet again, there is an attitude and an environment that makes it hard for them to do their job. Yet again, they are too often taken for granted. Sir Robert Peel was the founder of modern policing back in 1829. One of the core principles he established is, and I quote, “The key to preventing crime is earning public support. Every community member must share the responsibility of preventing crime as if they were all volunteer members of the force. They will only accept this responsibility if the community supports and trusts the police.” Putting police in unwanted situations because of political agendas and ideologies has seriously compromised this trust, epitomised by the recent firearms legislation debacle. Increasing violent offences against police and burgeoning gang crime is a very concerning problem that needs to be addressed. The inevitable criticism police receive every time a young person does something stupid and illegal is very unhelpful—criticism that is often given by people in positions of power or those who hide behind keyboard anonymity. Support for police is essential, and not just with empty rhetoric.

But ultimately we need to address the underlying social issues, and this starts with looking after our kids. The good news is that kids haven’t changed. They are the same awesome, impressionable know-alls as they were 10, 20, 50 years ago. As the Greek philosopher Hesiod said in the 8th century B.C., “I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words”. The pressures young people have today are different to other generations, but they’re no more challenging. What has changed is the way we bring them up, the way we educate them, and the way we allow them to grow and develop into good, independent, contributing members of society. Teaching is a wonderful career, and there are some great people teaching our kids, but we need to constantly evaluate content and outcomes to ensure our young people are prepared for the great wide world.

To be here, I had to resign from the best job in the world, teaching fantastic students at a great school that embraces diversity and free thinking—the school that I left as a sixth former way back in 1979. I had a poster in my classroom that said, “Just because you’re offended doesn’t mean you’re right.”, and this is becoming more relevant every day. The increasing inability of young people to listen to a different opinion, debate ideas, challenge beliefs with fact, preferring to condemn all opposition, is concerning. Unfortunately, this is too often encouraged and demonstrated by adults, including teachers, hung up in their own world of woke conformity and self-righteousness, and those who are actively trying to strip away our rights to speak freely.

My granddad was barely out of his teens when he fought for this country in World War I. He watched the bombs being dropped that killed his 22-year-old brother in France, two weeks before the end of the war. They fought to protect the democracy and freedoms we enjoy today, and we need to cherish and protect every one of them. For the sake of our kids, we must reject any attempt to stifle our freedoms, especially our freedom of speech. Bullying is not OK; we all know that, but we must educate and not legislate, and adults must be role models and not just role players, cowardly hiding from face-to-face, uncomfortable situations. We must help students build resilience to face the real challenges of life in becoming an adult, not encourage a culture of delicate sensitivities. The oldies here will remember being told, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” Our parents knew.

The toxic and false reality of social media, the increase in drug acceptance, and welfare dependency are challenging issues. Teachers have to recognise their role is to inspire and encourage discussion and debate while helping young people to develop the skills to persevere through hard times. Young people are finding it harder to stay in school. There are increasing depression rates, and New Zealand’s appalling suicide statistics show that what we are doing now isn’t working. The climate of fear has a lot to do with it—bombarded daily with messages of doom and gloom. I think we’re letting our children down. Young people need hope and a reason to work hard and succeed.

I began by saying I believe we’re all here for the same reason but that our life experiences determine the philosophies we have and how we think things should be achieved. Should a teacher give students the answers to an exam and teach only what the students want to learn to make them feel good, or should a teacher give students the resources, knowledge, and confidence to take responsibility, work hard, and succeed? Or, an analogy I alluded to at the start: which parent loves their children the most, those who give their child everything, protect them from all unpleasant experiences and reward them for mediocrity, or the parent who gives their child the skills to succeed and to cope with an ever-changing, sometimes difficult, and unpleasant world? I know which philosophy I think is right, but I’m sure there’s a happy medium.

I’d like to acknowledge the fantastic support I’ve received in this journey. My incredibly patient and supportive partner, Tanya, who’s been with me through all this and some pretty tough times over the last few years—thank you so much. My beautiful girls, who now think they might give politics a go because they reckon if Dad can do it, anyone can. My extended family, who understand how important this is to me. My dear auntie rang me on election day and said, “Well done, Chris. I’m so proud of you, and your mum would’ve been proud, too—but you know I’ll never vote for you, don’t you?” Teaching runs in the family. To my mates, who have supported me from the start and now can’t believe it, I know they’ll keep me well informed of the important issues of the day, and to those friends and colleagues whose life experiences have been different from mine but value friendship over political ideologies. Thank you to my Nelson electorate committee, who are the most enthusiastic and dedicated group of New Zealanders I know, and to our supporters everywhere who voted for ACT because they’re concerned at the current direction this country’s heading. And, lastly, to the ACT Party and the team with me in Parliament today, the values and principles we all believe in—freedom, equality, and personal responsibility—are more important now than ever before, and I’m proud to be part of this extraordinary whānau to represent those New Zealanders who put their trust in us. Thank you.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Nicole McKee to make her maiden speech.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mr Speaker, I stand before you, before my whānau, my friends, and my party colleagues, in New Zealand, as a newly elected ACT MP in this, the 53rd Parliament. Before I begin my maiden speech, I would like to congratulate you on your reappointment as Speaker of the House and congratulate my fellow members of Parliament for earning your seats across and around this, the New Zealand House of Representatives.

I have not had any political aspirations, nor any intention, of becoming a politician—maybe this is my mid-life crisis. I am but a humble wife, and a mother of four; a New Zealand sporting representative; and a small-business owner; a hard worker; and a community volunteer; and now I have the privilege of standing within this House as a representative of the people—a role which I respect and I’m proud to have achieved. So thank you to all the voters that have put me here.

My gratitude goes out to the board of the ACT Party, to the hard-working candidates, and the volunteers that made our 2020 election campaign so successful—without you all, we would not be in the position that we are in today. We have 10 voices in the House. I am thrilled to be a part of a team that values individualism; less Government interference; and advocates for freedom of speech, personal responsibility, and property rights. A special thankyou to you, David Seymour, for your trust, your confidence, and your persuasiveness to get me into Parliament.

As for me, well, I proudly stand before you all as a product of my upbringing, which I owe to my very strong mother Christine Fernie, who sits in the gallery today. You see, my Pākehā mother married my Māori father, but she raised my sister and I on her own. She worked two jobs, night and day, to afford to buy her first home for us. She worked those two jobs so that her two daughters could play sport, have food, be clothed, wear school uniforms, and have a home to return to each day. She told us, as we were growing up, that we needed to work twice as hard as everybody else because we were Māori and we were female. In the 1970s, a single Pākehā mother with two Māori kids did not fit into society well, but, nevertheless, my mother’s example taught us to stay true to what we believed in and to stand up for those less fortunate. I remember, as a teenager, bringing street kids home so they could have a safe place to stay at night, and mum tripping over strangers in the living room when she returned from her night job. Mum’s aroha was extended to all of those that needed help, and all she asked in return was for enough milk to be left in the morning for her coffee. She is proud of me and I am proud of her. I take this opportunity to thank you, Mum, for the life that you have given me, for the empathy that you have taught me, for the aroha that you have always shown me, and for your patience with me—I have been known to be a bit of a handful at times.

I would also like to pay my respects specifically to four of my tipuna—those that have passed but who have shaped me into the person that I have become. I pay tribute to my grandfather Richard Summervale and acknowledge his service in the Second World War. He always gave measured amounts of wisdom and thought, encouragement and love, and he often reminded me “You can have everything taken from you in the blink of an eye, but no one can take away what you have in here [Gestures toward head]; only you can own that.” Well, Grandad, I see a real potential now that with hate speech legislation around the corner, what we have in here [Gestures toward head] looks set to be restricted when coming out of here [Gestures toward mouth], and our ability to speak our minds may, as a result, be taken away.

My de facto grandparents Din and Viv Collings were stalwarts of the firearms community, and I pay my respects to them in the House today. Exceptional people, both New Zealand shooting sports representatives, with Viv breaking the mould and paving the way for women’s participation. It was a sad day for the firearms community when Din passed away; even sadder when Viv left us three weeks later, having quite literally died of a broken heart. The pioneering spirit of these two helped develop within me the confidence to step outside of my comfort zone.

My stepfather, Ian Fernie, he was a chef and he gave me the love and support of the father that I was sorely missing. He completed our whānau and introduced three step-siblings into my life. He was a wise man with lots of aroha and who taught me how to cuddle; although Ian didn’t have the same patience with me that Mum had—I only lasted one driving lesson and one cooking lesson with him. But Ian did truly complement our whānau and was the best father figure a young girl could have.

I’m grateful to be a part of, and to have learnt from, the lives of my tipuna, and I recognise and know that life is just one big classroom with many lessons awaiting all of us.

I would not be standing here if I did not receive the blessing of my husband and my children to join the campaign to enter Parliament—my biggest supporters. My endeavours have impacted on all of them, but to their credit they stood beside me on this journey, often at personal expense. To my husband, Duncan McKee, I thank you for supporting our whānau and allowing me the privilege of being able to be an at-home mum for eight years, bringing up our tribe. You kept a roof over our heads and you helped me learn the skills I needed to navigate through this university of life. Thank you for teaching me to debate issues—and here I was thinking you just liked arguing because you’re bored! My motorcycle-racing husband, the builder with a law degree, who insists on the race bike being housed in our living room, you can be the most incongruous man, but you have the biggest heart of any that I know. Thank you for insisting that I followed my instincts, to back myself, and for being the rock that held me in place during some stressful times over the last few years. Thank you for picking me up, and tripping me up, when I needed it the most. I love you dearly and more every day.

Our four children, they have also taught me much, and I still learn from all of you. Thank you for showing me the love and the respect that you have for our whānau as a unit. I’m so proud of you, of the choices you have made, the learning that you still undertake, the support that you give to your siblings and to your communities, your sense of humour, and of the beautiful young people that you are. You’ve always shown respect to your elders; are well-rounded, opinionated, and confident individuals. Jakarna, Kiriahi, Rex, and Brereton—I am truly blessed to have you. You are the four walls of my whare, and your father is the roof that holds us all together. I am a very lucky mother and wife.

I also take this opportunity to thank the firearms community, especially the entities that make up the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners: 12 of New Zealand’s biggest sporting and representative organisations that make up the council known as COLFO—the bodies that provide Olympic, Commonwealth Games, and world championship competitors—the largest NGO representing licensed firearm owners in New Zealand. You have persevered for a rational approach to firearms legislation wanting to be part of the solution. You have never been the problem, despite such accusations by the police, the Government, and the media. You held strong in your approach through the adversity of not having any meaningful involvement in the legislative process. You represented on behalf of so many affected by the rushed legislative changes and kept calm despite the bias—rational, thoughtful thinkers who I have been lucky to work with over the years.

The korowai that I wear today was presented to me by COLFO. I wear around my shoulders their hopes and expectations that they will be respected as a part of the New Zealand community and be able to take part fully and properly in the democratic process. They have elected me the task of advocating on their behalf in the manner that I have conducted myself over recent times. The weight of their expectations rests upon me, but their respect and support also embraces me, tied around my shoulders in a shroud. Two feathers from this korowai fell on to this chair when I first wore it on the day of swearing my oath of allegiance in this House. I keep these feathers in my cabinet here as a constant reminder of the oath I have taken and the community I have sworn to represent.

What happened in Christchurch on the ides of March 2019 has caused this country to mourn the loss of innocence, of lives, and of peace as we knew it. The first tranche of legislation that immediately followed did not bring us together; it drove a wedge through parts of New Zealand society, not for the banning of guns but for the blame that was directed at the law-abiding and the way in which it was conducted. The second tranche was also rushed through, and this confirmed the Government’s attack was aimed at those that comply with the law—whitewashing the failure of police’s own processes and procedures in giving a foreign-national terrorist a firearms licence in the first place. The rushed legislation was followed by rushed policy implementation, regulations, and mountains of errors.

Legal firearm owners became the new outlaws, fruitlessly justifying their legitimacy while the real outlaws continued with their crimes. Throughout this process the firearms community had not been properly consulted, spoken to, or asked to sit around any table. I personally attended around 90 percent of the select committee hearings, which were, quite frankly, a joke and a stain on the select committee process. The failures of the rushed arms legislation needs addressing.

The reality is the Government has not taken guns off the streets as they claimed they had. We are no safer, and the escalating gun violence by criminals remains unchecked. What Government did do was take legitimately owned firearms not from the streets but from police-inspected, secure facilities, and used taxpayer money to pay for them. What they did do is not wait for the details to explain where the failings occurred but laid blame on members of the team of 5 million for the actions of a foreign national.

I would like to believe that, in this House, we all actually have the same end goal of keeping New Zealanders safe. We may have differences on how to achieve this, but with good strategy and fair laws we can reach our mutual goal. My advice to the Government is to take the time to listen to all sides before making decisions. Hear the real stories and don’t be wooed by the fairy tales. Represent all, not just the majority that got you here to govern alone. Show respect to the full team of 5 million, and stop hammering the minorities. Working for the end goal as a collective, recognising there is a little give and take if you are to truly have a democracy.

I will be a part of the ACT Party that will hold this Government to account over this coming term. Be prepared to hear the voices of 10, not one, over the next three years, not only opposing but proposing new initiatives and ideas in the expectation that we can achieve the same end goal on many issues. I am humbled to stand here amongst my peers, in front of my whānau and friends, in a room that commemorates our battles so we never forget what was endured to keep us free. I promise to do my best and give my all for my country: Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.

[Applause]

Waiata

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuatahi, me mihi ka tika ki ngā mana whenua, ki te ngā iwi, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā uri o ngā maunga whakahi. Tēnā rā koutou katoa, e manaaki mai ana, i a mātou, ngā tauiwi, ki te whenua nei. Ki a rātou, kua whetūrangitia, tēnei te mihi. Nā rātou te huarahi i para. Mā tātou, ngā tapuwae e whai. Ki a tātou te hunga ora—e mihi ana, e mihi ana, e mihi ana.

[Mr Speaker, greetings. Firstly, I acknowledge the tribes of this land, the sub-tribes and the descendants of the ancestral mountains. I pass on my thanks to those of you who protect us, the people from afar, in this land. Those who have passed on, we acknowledge you. They forged the way forward during their time. We follow their footsteps now. To those of us here today—greetings, greetings, greetings.]

I have spent a lot of time leading up to this thinking about what I would say in my maiden speech. They tell you it’s the moment where you can say anything, but now I find myself standing here, I can’t help but feel like I just want to rush it and get it over and done with, to get on with the work. However, I keep thinking this isn’t just my journey, but the journey of my village, my loved ones, my family, those who walk with me in times of adversity and joy. So I want to pay tribute to us.

I want to start by acknowledging everybody who has ever had to lie to Work and Income to survive. In our queer community there is a saying that I love. It goes, “Be gay, do crime.” To me it means to be transgressive, to acknowledge that decision makers have created rules that criminalise our survival and our existence. For many migrant communities, finding legitimate ways to stay connected to their new homes is a crime that results in an overstayer status. For sole caregivers, it means lying to Work and Income about their relationship status in order to have enough income to feed their children. The rules were simply not made for us. They were made to uphold a system where the wealthy few keep getting richer at the expense of our planet, and this House is enabling it. When your ability to be who you are—and therefore your survival—is criminalised, it is an act of love to break the rules to allow others to thrive.

I whakapapa to the Istmus Veracruzano and Cataluña. I stand here as tauiwi and tangata Tiriti, committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and mana motuhake Māori. Like many people in Mexico, I grew up entangled in the messy politics of blood quantums, ethnonationalism, and living with colonial ideas of caste. My identity growing up was in relationship to the State, a product of the ongoing colonisation perpetuated by successive Governments. Growing up, I identified as a mestizo, but as contemporary thinkers like Yásnaya Aguilar remind us, and I’ll say this in Spanish: el mestizo es el Proyecto que necesita el estado para mantener su hegemonía, para mantenernos desingenizados. Yo Todavía estoy reconstruyendo mi identidad, descubro mi historia familiar y mi posicionalidad con el estado Mexicano. Pero mientras tanto lo que sé es que las luchas colectivas por un sistema en el que todos vivan con dignidad me dan fuerza y esperanza: ya sea Mexicali resiste, los movimientos de mujeres indígenas en Jalisco, o las luchas al sur de México que se imaginan una sociedad donde vivimos en harmonía con el ecosistema del que somos parte. Y los paralelismos con las luchas en Aotearoa por justicia climática me recuerda que somos parte de un movimiento global.

Identity is pretty messy, and simply being “Mexican” barely covers the truth—there are so many threads that make up my messy tapestry, and there are so many that I still need to unfold to find their meaning. I was born in Mexico City, but I grew up in Tijuana until I was 18—a city receiving the internal displacement due to neoliberal politics, the war on drugs, and colonisation. Living in Tijuana was constantly living at the crossroads—navigating several languages, cultures, and spaces. Sometimes, we were guests in Turtle Island, but a few hundred metres away we were aliens, beaners, and illegals.

It was not until later in life that I realised that the extreme violence that was part of everyday life in Tijuana was not a universal experience. It was only after I had lived in Aotearoa for several years that I came to the realisation that—for many people—it was not normal to grow up discussing what you would do if your parents got kidnapped, or seeing mutilated bodies hanging from bridges, or having classmates murdered by the cartels. Still, I grew up surrounded by love from my family and an incredibly supportive group of friends who allowed me to blossom into the proud socialist, transgressive queer that I am now. Tijuana taught me what love in the face of adversity can look like.

I grew up with stories of my grandmother Carmen, who I never got to meet, but who lived on in the bedtime stories that my dad told us. She taught me to be transgressive, because she chose to divorce her abusive partner, which resulted in her having to flee her hometown to save her life. She was cast away from her support networks because she dared challenge patriarchal norms of the time that prevented her from not only being safe but allowing herself and my dad to be their authentic selves. She did it out of love, while dreaming of a future where everybody was free, and I’m happy that the love and courage of my grandmother lives on with me now.

I arrived in Aotearoa in 2006—at a time when the war on drugs in Mexico was deteriorating and the xenophobic discourse in the US was escalating. My parents made the sacrifice of putting whatever savings and loans they had into offering me the opportunity to migrate—and while it was a heavy responsibility to carry, I also acknowledge the privilege it was to even be given that opportunity. After arriving in Aotearoa as an international student, I soon found out that the international student fees were far too expensive to cover. We were expected to be able to afford at least $20,000 a year in fees, while only being able to work 20 hours a week to sustain ourselves. We international students, after all, have been used by the Government to patch up the lack of funding they gave to tertiary institutions.

In 2010, I had to drop out of university. I was broke, unemployed, and my mum had died of suicide. My world was being torn apart around me. And while I would love to pander to the idea of model minorities, of taking personal responsibility, the truth is that I only got through that part of my life because of the radical love and collective care others showed me. My best friend, Tom, and my colleagues at the Capitol Cinema held me at this very vulnerable time and gave me the resources and space that I needed to heal and to thrive.

For almost eight years, I worked at the Capitol Cinema as a cinema attendant and projectionist. I owe a lot of the skills that led me to Parliament to my time at the Capitol. Being able to deal with a busy crowd, telling people at the end of the night they had to leave, never being above doing domestic labour like cleaning the toilets. For a few years, I ended up being a projectionist, a trade that I was pretty proud of. Being a projectionist at work was one of the few pathways to climb above the minimum wage. The role of a projectionist also taught me the realities of automation. When digital projectors were introduced, my role became obsolete—now that I was being reduced to clicking a few buttons instead of meticulously putting film reels together and keeping the projector in shape. As a result of automation, I was put back into the role of cinema attendant—and my wages subsequently stagnated. The amazing technological advances that meant a machine could do my job should have meant my freedom, not an excuse for my employer to not pay me livable wages.

Over the years, I had to put up with politicians consistently calling my line of work low-skilled and, in fact, it was politicians dismissing the labour of low-waged workers as low-skilled and low-value that made me tune into local politics. I remember in 2011 watching the election results at the back of the cinema counter while the last film of the night was playing. I clearly remember seeing clips that night of the Winston Peterses and Bob Joneses of the world scapegoating immigrants for the housing crisis, for unemployment, and for inequality in general. While we were being blamed for buying up all the houses, we were also being blamed for bringing low-skilled, low-wage labour that didn’t contribute to the economy—or so they claimed.

It was personal—to be told that billionaires like Peter Thiel could, effectively, purchase a residency, have access to bring his family to Aotearoa because of his wealth, while the rest of us had visa conditions that left us open to exploitation and few legitimate pathways to residency. At the time, I didn’t have the exact words to describe what was happening, but I felt both anger and frustration hearing politicians talk about me and my communities like that while I struggled to make ends meet. I realised that for far too long we had been reduced to economic units to exploit. I think of the many workers—migrant and local—who have been made redundant during the pandemic while CEOs rark up huge bonuses and their companies make millions of dollars in profits.

Now, after years of being involved in political work, I am learning that capitalism and colonialism are systems that thrive on these narratives that divide us. I’m learning that our worth isn’t determined by our salary or by our degrees. I am learning that we all have an inherent right to a life with dignity despite the wealthy elite actively trying to strip that right from many of us. I see that our immigration system is still a white immigration system, a tool of the coloniser to exploit us, but until we achieve constitutional transformation and true Tiriti justice, this House will continue to be a beacon for these oppressive systems.

While, for some politicians, the discussion about low wages, the rights of migrants, benefit levels, having enough water to drink, climate change, and public housing is abstract stuff to be debated in the House, for some of us, it’s clear that we are not solely theoretical when we talk about why having livable incomes is so urgent. We talk about increasing incomes and public housing for all because we know what it is like to count your dollars before the next pay cheque. We fight for overhauling the welfare system because we know what it is like to be sitting for hours at Work and Income, having every single receipt scrutinised in order to get a measly food grant, while corporates easily accessed millions of dollars of subsidies during the pandemic in a high-trust model. It’s not abstract because it is a fight for the survival of the communities we serve and we belong to.

I come into Parliament grounded by the shared experience of my village, the experiences of struggle, but also a radical love for one another and our communities; the willingness to unpack our judgments, our biases in order to uphold each other’s mana. When I first came a few years ago to my role at Auckland Action Against Poverty, I had very little knowledge of the Social Security Act but I knew the feeling of shame when I reached out to others and admitted that I didn’t have enough to cover my basic expenses. I carry with me that knowledge of my mentors and my colleagues: people like Kathleen Paraha, who had the patience to teach me how to do welfare advocacy; Pat Hanly, who took the time to explain to me the ins and outs of the ministerial directives; Fred Anaru, who emphasised the importance of working across generations; and many others who have given me so much throughout the years. None of my struggles, victories, and experiences are walked alone.

I guess radical love is becoming a theme. It’s corny AF, but we’re here for it. I believe love is a discipline and action. The love we have for our communities makes us angry when we see injustice; gives us the strength to persevere, the humility to accept we can learn from one another, and the patience to have the difficult conversations at the dining table so that we can carry the important work for future generations to come. I also owe this privilege to our grassroots Green Party members, networks, campaigners who gave Teanau Tuiono, Elizabeth Kerekere, and I the mandate to join our amazing caucus. It’s great to belong to a movement where our members wield real power.

The work ahead is an extension of the work I’ve done on the ground. I’m really honoured to have been trusted with the social development portfolio to follow on the important work of Sue Bradford, Metiria Turei, Jan Logie, and Marama Davidson, who have been staunch Green champions on this issue. I am thankful to those in the union movement who have been unapologetic about supporting the unemployed as well as workers. All of these groups and people understand that addressing climate change requires tackling the extractive practices that drive inequality, that workers’ rights are intricately linked to climate justice, that we can’t have a livable planet if we don’t uphold the rights of indigenous groups already protecting most of the Earth’s biodiversity. The idea that you have to focus on social or environmental issues is an outdated construct, and we won’t stand by it.

Finally, to my family watching across the Pacific, to my dad, to Margarita, to Javier, and to my fam who can’t join me today because of the pandemic: thank you for allowing me to grow into this role. Thank you for your guidance, for your counsel, for your constant unsolicited commentary over the last few weeks over social media. Thank you for making me feel loved across the world. I look forward to honouring that love. Kia ora.

[Applause]

Waiata

SPEAKER: I call Teanau Tui-ono—

Teanau Tuiono: Tuiono, yes.

SPEAKER: —for his maiden speech.

Teanau Tuiono: Yes, that’s what I’m here for.

SPEAKER: Ha, ha!

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Atiu Tumu e, Atiu Tumu e. E rere taku manu kota‘a. Kua pāngia ta‘au takurua. E ‘apai i te karere o te papa kainga. Te rongo o taku tiputa. Me kura te rangi i te a‘ia‘i. Ka ma‘ara au ia koe.

E te mana whenua, Te Āti Awa, kei te mihi ka tika. Kei te tautoko katoa au i ngā mihi kua mihia, tēnā koutou katoa. Rātou ki a rātou, rātou anō ki Ōtautahi, e okioki ana i tēnei wā. Tātou ki a tātou e karapinepine ana ki raro i te whakaruruhou o tēnei o ngā Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Ko wai tēnei e tū ake nei? Ko Ngāpuhi, ko Ngāi Takoto ngā iwi. Ko Te Ururoroi te hapū. Ko tō mātou awa ko te Waipao. Ko Whatitiri te maunga. Ki te taha o taku pāpā, nō te pāuni o te Kuki Airani, nō te Oirea o Areora, ko Ngāti Ngutu, ko Ngāti Toki me ōna pānga ki a Ngāti Paerangi ngā iwi.

[To the tribe of this land, Te Āti Awa, it is only right that you are acknowledged. I wholeheartedly support the kind words that have been spoken about you today. At this time I would like to acknowledge those who have passed, including those in Christchurch. To those of us who have gathered within the protection of this House, greetings one and all.

Who is this person who stands before you? I descend from the tribes of Ngāpuhi and Ngāi Takoto. I descend from the sub-tribe of Te Ururori. Our ancestral river is Waipaoa. Our ancestral mountain is Whatitiri. On my father’s side, I descend from the Cook Islands, from Oirea o Areora. I descend from the tribes of Ngāti Ngutu, Ngāti Toki as well as its connections to Ngāti Paerangi.]

Nō reira [Finally], kia orana kotou katoatoa i te aro‘a rānuinui o te Atua.

Mr Speaker, Atiu tunu and the Tai Tokerau are in the House today. I have been thinking about the places that have defined me to get me to this place, and two of those places are Manurewa and Palmerston North. To coin two phrases at once, I’m Palmy-proud and ’rewa-hard. I would like to give a shout-out to everyone who is connected to both of those great two places. So to everyone who has rolled in from Palmy and the ’rewa, and everywhere else in between, to my campaign team from Palmerston North, and also the Greens wider whānau, we have put in all the hard years, after a very, very long campaign, tēnā koutou katoa. I thank you all for your effort.

I also acknowledge Tangi Utikere, the MP for Palmerston North, and note that two-thirds of the Cook Islands parliamentary caucus comes from Palmerston North. I actually asked a cousin of mine recently if that qualifies Palmy to be the 16th island of the Cook Islands, and he said, “No, that’s Tokoroa.” I said, “How about 17 or 18?” And he said, “No, that’s probably Porirua or Ōtara.” Also, the Cook Islands already has an island called Palmerston, which means you would end up being called South Palmerston North South, which would probably break Google Maps.

I am both tangata whenua and tangata moana, a descendant of both the land and sea. Like the tide ebbing and flowing onto the shore that doesn’t know where the land begins and the sea ends up, moving between these two communities is seamless for many of us who have the shared whakapapa. This connection always reminds me of a saying by poet and intellectual Teresia Teaiwa, who said, “We sweat and cry saltwater, so that we know that the ocean is really in our blood.” It reminds me that before there were borders and lines that carved up the Pacific, that whakapapa connected these islands, and that there is a deeper and richer tapestry of history that has been woven over centuries of interaction, interactions that cannot be confined by borders, but share linguistic, ancestral, and cultural roots, from Aotearoa to Hawaii, over to Rapanui, and with connections with every island in between.

Some people often ask me if I’m half Māori or half Pasifika, and I’m always like, “Nah, bro. I’m not half anything; I’m whole.” And I don’t think anyone is half anything—if anything, I’m double. If I was a beer, I would be Double Brown. If I was a flavour down at the dairy, I’d be Twice as Nice, but at only half the price. I am two peas in the cultural pod. Growing up Māori and Pasifika means growing up biculturally and having neither of those as the dominant culture, which meant I had to go to school to learn about Pākehā, and to be honest, I’m still learning about you people.

This is not a story unique to myself, but it is part of the story of places like South Auckland, Porirua, Aranui, Highbury—anywhere where our peoples have put down roots. My parents met in the tradition of that story. What I mean by that is they met at the pub where my dad was the bouncer and my mum was trying to get in. My parents weren’t the richest, but we were rich in the things that matter: love. We would sometimes work in the school holidays helping my dad mow lawns for a living, but I never went without. Education was really important to my parents. I remember once my dad saying to me, “Hey boy, you want this encyclopaedia set?” and I remember saying to him, “No, thanks.” And just like magic, I owned an encyclopaedia set.

My father was born in Areora on the island of Atiu, Enuamanu, also known as the land of birds. I acknowledge all the Atiuans here today. We are from Ngāti Ingatu and Ngāti Toki, with connections with Ngāti Paerangi. It is from my grandfather, Papa Teariki Tuiono, that I inherit my commitment to my communities. Today I acknowledge my aunties, who are here today. Although I join a growing number of MPs who think we should have the option of pledging to the Treaty of Waitangi as opposed to the Queen, I know that the old man wouldn’t have minded, because he got a medal from her—a Queen’s Service Medal for services to community. Back in the day, I would spend time at his place in Ōtara, discussing left-wing politics and about the olden days back on the islands, like when he was 14, working on the Makatea just over the border in French Polynesia, where young Atiuans had gone to mine phosphate. His commitment to community, and through that, the workers, continued when he migrated to Aotearoa. I think my colleagues in the Labour Party would have liked him. He was a member of their party. He would often give me helpful advice, which also sounded a bit mandatory, if not compulsory, like the time he said to me, “You know what, boy? You talk a lot. You should be a minister at the PIC or a lawyer.” That is the story of how I got a law degree.

My father was about the same age as I am now when he passed away in 1996. He worked too many jobs for too many hours. My grandfather passed away in the year 2000 and my grandmother passed just last year. They leave me with enduring lessons that I will carry into this House. Over the many years, I have been inspired politically by many people. But way before I had ever heard of Angela Davis, Emma Goldman, Eva Rickard, Fanon, Chomsky, or Marx, my first political role model was my mum. People often say that I am my mother’s son, which is very accurate because she was there when I was born. One of my earliest memories is my mum explaining to me about the Māori land march, in our lounge. My mum also took me on my first protest, in 1981 against the Springbok tour, when I was in primary school. I remember marching down Queen Street with the multitudes chanting “Amandla, amandla, amandla!” When she was a cleaner, she organised pickets and the workers, and when I was in my late teens, she dropped me and my brother off at the marae and told us to learn Māori, which we did.

My mother is never short on advice, even if you don’t want it—eh, Mum?—but there was always that reminder. She would always say to me, “Remember you’re from the North, boy.” She actually said that to me last week. So yes, it is northern blood that flows through these veins. To all the other Northerners in this House, and I think we’re in all the parties, I say kia ora, cuzzies. I look forward to agreeing to agree, agreeing to disagree, and, because this is Parliament and anything could happen, disagreeing to disagree.

My mother’s father is from the Te Uriroroi in Poroti, where the watercress is fresh and the vibrance and intellectual rigour of my people is fresher. It is through Te Owai that we are connected to people across the Tai Tokerau. My grandmother is from NgāiTakoto. Our marae there is Paparore—you have to drive past Awanui, and if you don’t drive fast enough, you will be pulled like a tractor beam into Hone Harawira’s house for a cup of tea, because you’ve got to go past his house to get there.

I referenced Whatitiri earlier as one of my maunga. Whatitiri is the word for thunder, and the reason it is called Thunder Mountain was because the kūkupa, or kererū, were so abundant that when they collectively flapped their wings, it was like thunder. Now it is silent up there. All the trees have been chopped down—environmental devastation. This silence is what happens when we do not remember our history, when we view events as isolated occasions and not part of the wider arc of colonisation. This dispossession of indigenous peoples correlates directly with the environmental destruction of those lands, and I stand and continue to stand with indigenous brothers and sisters from the Arctic to the Amazon to Australia, across Turtle Island, as we push back against extractive industries and against the destruction of this planet.

Climate change is an outcome of colonisation, which has removed indigenous communities’ ability to defend the land and the water. And here in the Pacific, our island homes are on the front lines of climate change. The struggle to protect the environment is also the struggle for self-determination. That struggle here is the struggle for tino rangatiratanga. For me, tino rangatiratanga could be a radically democratic alternative to capitalism in which the flax-roots local communities would be constantly and actively involved in making the decisions about the allocation of society’s resources in a collective way. It should embrace a system in which our entire economy is geared up to satisfy the needs of whānau—our tikanga, cultural values, and aspirations—not the profit margins of a tiny elite. It would encapsulate our role as kaitiaki, guardians of the earth and ecosystems. It would be based on a vision of society that affirms mana wahine; that is free of racism, class exploitation; and embraces our rainbow whānau.

I have always worked at the intersection of movements, and I believe that it is in solidarity with each other that we are stronger. I see our work here in Parliament as Greens as a part of the wider Green movement, which, when woven together with other movements, like a kete can hold together our collective aspirations. I will also remember to turn my face to the streets. I acknowledge all of the activists past, present, and yet to come who have and will put body and soul on the line for social and environmental justice—tēnā koutou. One thing I have learnt, though, through the years is that although ideas and ideology don’t change, people do. People either change or sometimes are not what you expect—soldiers who oppose war, dairy farmers who are opposed to intensive dairy farming, devout Christians opposed to Islamophobia. I have learnt over many years to expect the unexpected, that common ground can exist if we are open to finding it, and I wonder perhaps if there are unexpected friends and allies in this place.

If there was ever a time in which we need to reach for alternatives, it is now. The planet is heating up. Every year is hotter than the year before it. We started this year with the Australian bushfires—fires so hot that they even stained the skies here. We are facing ecological collapse and the mass extinction of species, and all of this layered with the COVID crisis and deepening poverty. The powers that hold this power in place seem inevitable, but I am reminded of the words of the writer Ursula Le Guin when she said, “We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art.” Artists help us to dream about what could be and what might be and help us to consider unexpected perspectives. I want to acknowledge all the poets, the writers, the dancers, visual artists, carvers, the singers and composers, and those who defy definition because of the very nature of who they are. I know this personally about artists because I married one.

Nō reira, e te tau o taku ate, taku toka tū moana, tēnei te mihi ki a koe.

[To the apple of my eye, to my source of strength when all else is uncertain, thank you.]

Terri, thank you for your strength and wisdom, for being the calm in the storm—and the storm in the calm, when needed. Thank you for always supporting my political adventures and also my political misadventures. I’m still figuring out which of those two this is yet. Thank you especially for helping me to view the world in different and unique ways. That is the gift that artists everywhere give to us all. If there is a time that we need to re-imagine the world, it is now. That re-imagination must challenge the way things are to look beyond the systems that hold in place power.

Science fiction has always been a medium for futuristic imagination, and, no surprises, I’m a bit of a fan. Possibly this is the reason why I was given the science, research, and innovation portfolio, because they probably figured, “Well, he’s good with science fiction; let’s see how he deals with science facts.” I was reflecting on this as I stepped into the inner core of the Beehive, where the lifts are. And I want all members to listen very carefully, because I want these words to follow you whenever you step in there, and that’s this: it looks like the Tardis. It looks and feels dimensionally outside of space and time. But here’s the thing: a Tardis is much bigger on the inside than it is on the outside, and that is what this place needs to be. Our ideas need to be bigger than this place—much bigger. We cannot go back to the way that things were. That world is disappearing fast, and it is our role to ensure a future for our tamariki and mokopuna. As Arundhati Roy said, “Another world is not only possible; she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”

Nō reira, e te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huri noa i te rūma, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Finally, to the House, to everyone in this room, thank you.]

[Applause]

Waiata

SPEAKER: I call Tracey McLellan for her maiden speech.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. It is with a tremendous sense of pride and a great sense of awe and responsibility that I stand here in this House for the very first time as the new member of Parliament for the beautiful Banks Peninsula. May I start my first contribution, Mr Speaker, by adding my congratulations to you and to your fellow presiding officers. My aim in this House is to learn and I look forward with some trepidation to your guidance.

May I offer my first thankyou to the people of Banks Peninsula for affording me the opportunity to represent you in this House and to work with you and alongside you in our communities. I have enjoyed meeting many fantastic community leaders, volunteers, and passionate advocates. Thank you to the groups and the organisations who got together to support me, and to the people who simply called out things like “Go Labour!” or “Can you say hello to Jacinda for me?”

Hon Member: Go Labour!

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Yeah! The beautiful Banks Peninsula electorate—every member, I’m sure, has claimed that their electorate is the best electorate. It’s not up to me to dismiss or to diminish those claims, but, with a healthy dash of deference to those I wouldn’t dare dispute, I emphatically claim top 10—and I’ll let you work that out.

The Banks Peninsula electorate has been well served over many years and has seen some beloved and formidable women MPs. Elizabeth McCombs was the very first woman elected to this House in 1933. Dame Ann Hercus famously knocked on every door in Lyttelton. But I would like to pay special tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson, the outgoing member who served the people of Lyttelton, Port Hills, and Banks Peninsula so effectively, authentically, warmly, and selflessly for 27 years. I’ve been told many times that I have big shoes to fill, and while this is indeed true, it became clear as I knocked on doors throughout the electorate that it was not so much shoes but hearts that were full.

I feel very proud to join this amazing Labour caucus in the 53rd Parliament. This caucus not only reflects New Zealand, as many of my colleagues have already highlighted, but it reflects upon the work and the aspirations of the New Zealand Labour Party. I acknowledge our members, who are the lifeblood of our party, and I commend my New Zealand Council colleagues, both current and past, some of whom are here today—Claire, Tane, Dianna, Fleur, Beth, and brother Tolly—who prioritised a goal that this House should look like our houses. In achieving such a goal, we correct erroneous assumptions about the definition of merit, because merit isn’t elusive. We come from various walks of life and we may have different life experiences, but we share our values and we are here to effect those values together.

Growing up, I had a friend. His name was Burt. Burt had been a friend of my grandfather’s, whom I didn’t get the chance to meet. Burt was great fun. He never tired of playing board games, he believed with conviction and passion that chocolate biscuits could be for breakfast, and he let me drive and practise driving his maroon Toyota Viva on the back roads long before I should have. Burt didn’t always have a lot to say, but he would frequently impress upon me some sort of variation of the message that life isn’t always easy. It’s a simple enough sentiment, as was his solution: never waste an opportunity to learn and always vote Labour. Burt was the proud union rep for the Mataura paper mill, and every Tuesday he would drive down from Mataura to take my mum to the supermarket. This was his contribution to making life a little easier for Mum as she adapted to raising a young child as a newly single parent and a new life in a wheelchair.

I grew up in Southland and I started school in Bluff. One of my earliest memories is standing beside the electric range, watching my plate being loaded with crumbed oysters again and thinking, “Oh, oysters again!” One of my next memories was watching my mum being helped as she grasped her head in pain. After seven months in hospital, we moved to the big smoke of Invercargill when I was six years old. We were lucky to live in an excellent State house adapted for Mum that was warm, dry, and always made to feel like our own. If my friends had more than me, it wasn’t obvious. And when it was, it didn’t occur to me that it mattered. I recall my childhood in Invercargill as winterless—warm, sunny days spent tearing around with my friends on my red Cruiser. Likely inaccurate—sorry to the Invercargill people here—but we do remember details fondly when we’re happy and when we’re secure. It is my quest that all of our tamariki remember only sunny days.

My childhood also impressed upon me the need to continually strive for better accessibility for people who live with disability. Accessing the elements of everyday life shouldn’t be merely accommodated with workarounds sought. To do so is exhausting, and it becomes easier to simply make life smaller. All lives should be big lives.

After a stint in Australia and working at Telecom during endless rounds of redundancies, I decided to go back to school. I completed my degrees in psychology and picked up extra work, often as a bouncer—should that be any of service to you, Mr Speaker—and in 2002, my young family made Christchurch home and I completed my PhD. I’ve been fortunate to work within science and to indulge my love of the human being through psychology and neuroscience. I’ve added my contribution to what we know about dementia disorders and remain committed to the need to improve our societal response to what is a growing issue. I’ve added my contribution to what we know about traumatic brain injury. As I had growing up, I saw that vulnerability begets more vulnerability. It remains too easy for young people who sustain injuries to end up within the criminal justice system and far too easy when the socio-economic factors are not in their favour. We must do better.

My passion for people also extended to work within social psychology, and as a result I’ve authored a variety of papers. I was asked during the campaign whether a particular paper I once co-authored might help me deal with the egos in Parliament. It would be remiss of me not to emphasise that the paper was indeed a serious contribution to a men’s health issue, but the dreaded Google search was bound to catch someone’s eye—thank you, Sam Sachdeva. To answer the question, may I simply say that the short answer is no.

I want to thank Labour for recognising the importance of the training incentive allowance. It gave me a second chance at education, and I am grateful that thanks to the Labour Government, other people will no longer be denied the same opportunity.

Before entering this House, I worked as a union organiser for the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. I believe in the power of unions and that our whole society is stronger when workers are organised to fairly achieve better outcomes that improve the lives of everyone. In my role it was a privilege to see the myriad ways our nurses are at the heart of our health system. So I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge all nurses and to thank our nurses working in managed isolation and quarantine facilities. Your contribution towards keeping COVID at the border and keeping us all safe is immense, and I know that you and your families sacrifice much more than most people understand to do this work.

I like to think that Burt would’ve been proud to know that while my journey wasn’t always linear or easy, I can proudly say that I am a lifelong learner. And not only have I always voted Labour, but I stand here today in yet another role as part of the labour movement, a movement in which he placed so much trust.

My involvement in the Labour Party started when, coming home late and tired from work one evening, walking up the stairs, my son Jake responded to my question about whether the dishes were done by yelling out, “No, but I joined us to the Labour Party.” Within a month, I had a call from Elaine, a visit from Martin Ward, a delivery block, an invitation to join a meeting to plan the 2011 campaign, and a mental note to get a new dishwasher installed. There has not been much of my spare time since that hasn’t involved Labour, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I want to say thank you to Jacinda Ardern—this time, in particular, for declaring a climate emergency. Last Wednesday, I had the pleasure of welcoming the first school visit from Banks Peninsula. The students from Governors Bay School, who are passionate about climate change and their futures, asked to meet me on the steps of Parliament to share their thoughts and ideas. There’s no doubt that they want to see some more action, but your declaration not only acknowledged the next generation but specified directly to them that they are not alone. All of the great thoughts and ideas that they have are valid, and that is important.

I’d also like to thank and acknowledge Megan Woods for her support and friendship. Despite having one or two things on her plate, she always makes time, offers the kindest words of support, is astute, is loyal, notices the smallest cues, and with grace often says things like “Now, tell me if I’m interfering.” before offering what turns out to be just what you needed to hear. This thankyou extends to Lynley, John, and Nick as well—I am very grateful for you all.

Earlier I mentioned my mum. I want to thank my parents, Rayna and Russell, for never failing to show up for me. To my mum, Rayna, for a long time it felt like you and me against the world, but you were up every morning without fail, Milo and Marmite toast at the ready, determined that we would have a good day. To Russell, thank you for loving my mum—your “my sweet”—and for being such a lovely poppy to Jake and Taylor. My gorgeous cousins and my equally gorgeous Auntie Marleen are here today to represent Mum and Russell also, so thank you for being here.

My election to the seat of Banks Peninsula was a real team effort. I want to thank the many volunteers who pitched in, cracked on, and offered their expertise, support, and friendship. Special thanks to Jake, Kaitlyn and Jeremy, and their hoarding teams; Elaine and John, Kier and Caroline, and Jackie and Judy; Nicola, Ken, Chris, Sara, Marianne, Phil, Paul, Joe, John, Oliver, Sigrid, David, Andrei, several Claires, and Jill. Speaking of campaigns, I want to acknowledge my clever friends Hayden and Anaru.

About five years ago, we attended Russell’s parents’ 70th wedding anniversary, where the groom, Ben, at a mere 96 years old, rose to say a few words. He recalled the Depression, their service during the war, struggles, the cost of buying your house relative to wages, and the many accomplishments of every single Labour Government, carefully crafted to remain within the brief of an actual anniversary speech. He expressed hope that soon there would be other Labour Governments—ones that would tackle the unenviable challenges that the great-grandchildren gathered that day would face. A wee dram has since been raised in remembrance, but the impact that Labour has on real people’s lives and how much that impact means to people when they look back and when they take stock is what drives my commitment.

In closing, I’d like to say thank you and acknowledge my lovely boys, Jake and Taylor. I love and adore you, and I’m very proud of you both. We’ve found ourselves a family hobby, complete with family holidays to places like Labour Party conferences in Wellington, Auckland, Palmerston North, Dunedin, and Whanganui. I look forward to sharing this next challenge with you also.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: You go first—you say “Mr Speaker”, and then I say—

Anna Lorck: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I call Anna Lorck for her maiden statement.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): E te Māngai o te Whare, e mihi mahana ki a koe. Ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Otirā, ngā mema o te Whare, tēnā koutou.

[Mr Speaker, warm greetings to you. To the House that stands before me, thank you. Indeed, to the Members of this House, greetings to you all.]

Congratulations to you, Mr Speaker, on being re-elected to this 53rd Parliament. I stand before you as the final piece of the puzzle, joining together with my more experienced and fellow members in Parliament, who are now the red wave for the entire Hawke’s Bay and East Coast of the North Island. In doing so, I’m thrilled to be the one who has the opportunity to acknowledge this milestone achievement for all of us here today and to say thank you to those for their support and confidence in us to represent them and work for our regions in the Labour Government.

Congratulations to our team: MP for Napier, the Hon Stuart Nash; MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, the Hon Meka Whaitiri; MP for East Coast, the Hon Kiritapu Allan; and, especially for the Central Hawke’s Bay District, where I grew up and lived for 30 years, and MP for the Wairarapa, Kieran McAnulty. I am so proud to join you all here as the new MP for Tukituki, and, in the words of the well-known Ngāti Kahungunu waiata, “Tūtira mai ngā iwi”—speak to us—“Ki-a ko tapa-tahi, Ki-a kotahi rā, Tātou, tātou e.” This is our time to stand together, shoulder to shoulder.

Thank you, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, for your leadership and your positive impact that has been moving the Tukituki vote to Labour. I will always remember our visit to Kimi Ora Community School in Flaxmere, where we joined the students preparing and serving their own nutritious lunch programme, and the huge difference this was having on helping them thrive in their learning environment. The lasting impression Kimi Ora made went on to help feed in to our Labour Government initiative Ka Ora, Ka Ako, which will see over 200,000 children across this country enjoy free, healthy lunches in schools by the end of 2021.

What Kimi Ora and you, Prime Minister, demonstrated to me was that many of the answers to how we can tackle some of the big challenges in this country are likely to already exist in the communities we serve, and it is up to us as elected representatives to keep our eyes and ears open to them, by being engaged and staying connected with the people on the ground who are doing the real work. In this job, every decision we make will have an impact on the lives and livelihoods of others.

I grew up in Waipukurau, the home town of my parents—Mum, Vivienne, and Dad, Willie Peacock—along with my two younger brothers, Kendall and Guy, living on a small farm block. Along with being a rural contractor, Dad was also a Territorial soldier, having first served in Malaya, Borneo, and Vietnam. Strict but fair, it was the army values that Dad lived by and raised us up on that have helped me through life: courage to take action to fight your fears, commitment to give your best, comradeship to respect and look out for each other, and integrity to do the right thing, always.

It hasn’t always been easy, and we have certainly had our differences, Dad, no more so than in politics. But we’ve come a long way, because you are here today with me, even after saying you would never come, and you even lent me your big, red truck to brand us for the campaign.

We were one of those rural families hit hard by the removal of farm subsidies under Labour, which saw Dad’s thriving contract driving work come to an end. Looking back now, I rarely saw my parents together after that as they came in and out of shift work—Mum retraining as a nurse and Dad doing many different jobs—and, over time, they started drifting apart.

As the older sister, with both parents now working, I took care of my little brothers. I grew up very quickly, but with my new responsibility came a sense of independence. At 14, I had my first paid job, doing the dishes at the local Leopard Hotel, then moving up to waiting tables in weekends. I’d bike the 5 kilometres into town, and after work, I’d stay with my Granny Pam, who I adored. She was also the secretary of the first Waipukurau branch of the Labour Party, and I helped her sell the raffle tickets. We’d get up early to bake a sponge cake, which had to be filled with red jam and lots of red strawberries on top.

I was still enjoying school, but my education came to an abrupt end midway through my seventh-form year, when I was singled out in front of my peers, not for my academic potential, but for being mediocre. While the intent may have been to somehow focus harder on my grades, it had the very opposite effect. I went home believing I was not good enough to go to university, and that my best option now was to leave school and get a job. I heard the local community newspaper was hiring and I somehow managed to convince the editor to take me on as a cadet reporter. I thrived in this new training ground, covering everything from protests against closing our hospital, to council elections, and all the local issues in between. I began to realise very early on that if you wanted to be part of making the big decisions for your community, you needed to be prepared to stand up and put yourself forward. After six months of journalism school in Auckland, I returned home with a promotion to the regional newspaper, where I managed to work my way up to editor of the rural pages—a news round that would help me to establish a strong network of contacts and build relationships that eventually led me to setting up a business.

For the past 18 years, I have worked alongside my husband, Damon Harvey, championing the success of local business, enterprise, and industry while raising a very busy family of five daughters. Then, along the way, came politics. In our work, there have been times when we have challenged both sides of the political fence. In doing so, we have always agreed to stand strongly together, passionate about putting our home region first and foremost. But what triggered me to stand for the Labour Party came in a speech given by the principal of Frimley Primary School, Malcolm Dixon. In all the years I’d been attending the girls’ school prize-giving, I never once heard Malcolm be political—but this year, he never held back. He talked about all that was going wrong in our education system under a regime of standardising our children, and the detrimental impact this was having by taking his staff away from doing the most important job of all: having the time to teach. He called on us, as parents, to challenge the Government. I listened, angry, upset, and disappointed in myself for not being more aware of what was going on in my children’s education. For I knew what it was like to be told when you were only as good as average.

So I spent my holidays reading and researching in the New Year, I met with Malcolm again, and I promised him I would do everything I could to help support the Labour Party into Government so we could abolish these national standards. And, like a dog with a bone, and with an election just months away, I joined the Labour Party. Seven years later, and three elections on, it’s certainly been a rollercoaster ride. But I didn’t get there on my own, behind me I had an incredible, united, and committed team that’s gone from strength to strength.

To my campaign manager, Nick Costello, nothing will ever beat your good old-fashioned way of grassroots campaigning. To the Silver Fern Farms union members, who, on their Sunday day off, came out to support me in that first contested selection process—your presence and endorsement is what helped me build the confidence in local members to get me across the line. Mike, and especially to Sally Russell, I treasure your loyalty—a never-ending willingness to help and always be there. To the core Labour team of committed members and volunteers—Evan, Daniel, Beverley, Dolly, Vee, Les, Rion, Simon, Marjorie, Paddy, Anne, Rachel, and Liz—election after election, week after week, you turned up—along with Geoff and Don, our dedicated hording team—rain, hail, or shine.

Mardi, my dearest friend, who joined the party in sister solidarity; Catherine, who has been with me through thick and thin; and to Coco, Ali, Riz, and Stephanie, thank you for being here with me tonight. To Rick Barker and Kevin Atkinson, thank you for your mentorship, and for all your time you have given me, no matter what hour, day, or night. To the honourable Labour MPs, Andrew Little, David Parker, and especially Stuart, along with Dame Annette King—thank you for your support, help, and guidance over these years. To Damon, your hands always rest gently on my shoulders: calm, reasoned, and strong. You have seen me at my best, and at my most vulnerable. You have also put up with a lot, but not once have you ever suggested for me to walk away from this—giving up has never been an option. But who then, in the middle of it all, decided that along with standing as a second-term Hastings district councillor, he would also run for the mayoralty. Out came all the billboards again, and away we went. But it wasn’t to be.

Damon, and also to Mark Lorck, the fathers and protectors of our five children. Together, you made sure our family stayed the course. To Mark’s wife, Michelle—your words meant so much on election night, when you told me how this journey had brought our family closer together. And to our daughters, Tabitha, Brittney, Augusta, Greta and Livia, the greatest campaign a mum could ever dream of, I know at times you’ve had to put your girl armour on, but I’m amazed by your ability to take things in your stride, to not sweat the small stuff, and how you look after each other. I am very, very proud of you all. A big shout out to Granddad Norm, who at 101 is watching this from home on his TV; and to our family in Australia, who I know would have loved to have been here. Finally, to my mum Viv, who has been my lifelong supporter, when in that moment of doubt, when I wasn’t sure if I had the strength to go again, you gave me the gentle nudge to believe in me, telling me that hard work eventually pays off. Now, as I roll up my sleeves to get on with the job I’ve been elected to do, I know that the time it has taken to get me here, the experience I bring, and the issues I have led on will help me with the work ahead.

Hawke’s Bay is in a strong position to be one of the most prosperous regions to help lead our country forward. I am absolutely committed to building stronger and better working relationships with our farmers, growers, and rural communities. My time as an elected district health board member has given me a real insight into the needs of our community, and will shape me as an MP for ever. We must also keep leading on the housing front. We’re in Hastings, we’ve become the first district of New Zealand to deliver a place plan for building hundreds of more affordable homes, but there is still so much work to do.

I am told I am a hard worker; this is what my parents, friends and colleagues say about me. For the next three years, I will work as hard as I can to represent the people of Hastings and Tukituki so that when looking back on my first term in Government, they know, you know, and my fellow team mates here know I have done my very best to work as hard as I can for them. And in doing so, I hope to demonstrate as the first student from Central Hawke’s Bay College to be elected to New Zealand’s Parliament, that my reputation and record will stand as a hard-working constituent MP who is far from mediocre. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister for Food Safety): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ka tangi te tītī, ka tangi te kākā, ka tangi hoki ahau. Tihei mauri ora. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā maunga, e ngā awa, e ngā pātaka o ngā taonga tuku iho, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi atu ki te mana whenua o te Whanganui-ā-Tara, tēnā koutou. Huri noa i te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[The mutton bird calls. The parrot calls. I too call to claim the right to speak. I take the call. To the leaders, the spokespeople, the ancestral mountains, the ancestral rivers and those who retain the ancient knowledge that has been passed down, greetings. I would like to acknowledge the tribes of this land in Wellington. Thank you. To those in this House, greetings.]

Mr Speaker, congratulations on your election to the office of Speaker and I also thank you for this privilege you extend to new members of the House to present ourselves to the House.

I enter Parliament at one of the most challenging times in our country’s history. We continue to fight a pandemic and to accelerate our economic recovery. I know that the decisions we make in this House impact people’s lives. I feel the responsibility to keep our country safe acutely, let me tell you why.

My mother grew up in a poor family in a tropical island nation, the Maldives. She was orphaned when she was just two, when her mother died of typhoid. Now, I was born in Invercargill, and growing up in New Zealand I always knew I was lucky and protected from the catastrophic effects of illness. I can’t ever forget that lesson, because I’m named Ayesha after my grandmother, the woman that my mother never got to know.

Mum was educated in New Zealand under the Colombo Plan, and met my father at teachers’ training college. I grew up in Te Ānau, where my parents were teachers—or rather, as is typical of small towns, dad was my high school principal and running coach, and mum was my English teacher and debating coach. Mum and dad were always on duty for the school and for their students. Years later, as a doctor, their professionalism guided me whenever the phone rang in the middle of the night because a patient was in danger.

Dad was also determined to instil in me and my sister his love of the outdoors. My sister and I played spotlight in moonlit valleys and dared each other who was to jump first into snow-fed lakes. We crossed the Eglinton River, scrambled up to Dore Pass, and awoke in freezing Department of Conservation huts to see the sun touch the mountaintops. We grew strong, resourceful, and independent. I am pleased to join a Government that will protect our rivers and our biodiversity and that will preserve our wild and isolated places for tomorrow’s teenagers.

I left Southland for medical school at Otago. Even then, I had many opinions about public health, and I was lucky to have them tested by some of New Zealand’s best epidemiologists, Charlotte Paul, Nigel Dickson, David Skegg, and, later, Michael Baker and Philip Hill—yes, for us epidemiologists, the pandemic was a little like a family reunion. But seriously, over the last year, in particular, I’ve been grateful for the rigorous education I received.

At university, I also became involved in progressive politics through students’ associations. I look around the House and I see so many friends from that time. I remember the Hon Grant Robertson for the concern and tolerance he showed to those of us who came after him, and the Hon Chris Hipkins for his commitment to free education, even at that time.

When I graduated from Otago, I worked as a junior doctor at Wellington Hospital. To my patients, I want you to know what a privilege it was to care for you. I diagnosed your stroke and spoke to you every day until you learnt to speak back to me. I pulled back the emergency department cubical curtains and said, “Hello, I’m Dr Ayesha, and I’m sorry you’ve waited so long.”, and you embarrassed me when you said back, “I know there are others who needed your help more than me.” I told you the lump was cancer. I shocked your heart rhythm back to normal. I sat with you and a translator for an hour and explained what each medicine was for and if you took them, your baby would have a life without HIV. And I stayed with you when you died, because you didn’t have anyone else to call. I’m immensely proud to have worked in the health sector alongside wonderful colleagues. Our health system is often stretched, but our healthcare workers’ professionalism, compassion, and good humour always carries the day.

As a student and young professional, I enjoyed the very best education here in New Zealand and internationally, and I had several opportunities to put my skills to work for my community.

In the Maldives, my family’s life was very different. When I was 11 years old, my older cousin, Mohamed Nasheed, was imprisoned for his journalism, drawing attention to the corruption in the Maldivian Government. Anni, as we called him, was detained for months and tortured. The question “Would he come home?” hung over my aunt’s head like a guillotine. That year, Anni was named Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, and a global campaign eventually secured his release. Since then, I’ve lost count of the times that he was arrested, beaten, harassed, or exiled while campaigning peacefully for democracy.

As a final-year medical student, I did my placement in the Maldives to get to know my family better. I worked in the hospital by day, and by night I learnt of my family’s and others’ aspirations for a democratic Maldives. In 2008, Anni became the Maldives first democratically elected president. In this role, he campaigned relentlessly to protect his low-lying islands from climate change. Speaking at the Oxford Union on climate change, he recalled his time as a political prisoner.

I know it seems lonely to continue the battle when everything is against us, but the mark of true leadership is being prepared to stand alone for a cause in which you believe. I could spend my whole life wondering if I have the same courage as my cousin. For the sake of our democracy, I hope no one in this House ever needs to find out. What I do know is that I am lucky to be born with the freedoms New Zealanders have, and they’re freedoms we secure each day in this House when we engage with each other peacefully, rationally, and with restraint.

At university, I also met Alice. We’ve just celebrated our 21st anniversary. In 2013, we took our two-month-old baby to West Java’s sprawling capital, Bandung, where I ran a study tracing contacts of tuberculosis cases through the traffic jams and shanty towns. Alice and I had no idea what it would be like to be two women raising a baby in a conservative Muslim community—as it turned out, people mostly focused on the baby. Parenting is humbling and a daily reminder that I might not be as interesting as I imagine. Alice, I remember the grace with which you dealt with a new baby, a new language, and, yes, the new experience of sharing our home with bats at one point. I am so grateful for your love and support in everything we’ve done.

Now our beautiful daughter is seven. Laila, we have less time together now, but we’ve found new things to do. I love it when you leave your maths out for me to check when I get home late at night. New Zealand needs girls who are good at maths and science. They will be among our epidemiologists, our geneticists, and our disease experts when the next pandemic comes. Whatever you choose, I will work here for a science system that gives young women equal opportunities to develop their talents.

At the beginning of this year, I was a hospital specialist, a medical school lecturer, a district health board member, and a mum, and I thought I knew what busy was. Then the COVID-19 outbreak started in Wuhan. Looking overseas, it was apparent that failing to contain the virus would lead to a catastrophic outbreak. Based on my experience with other infectious diseases, I knew our public health systems lacked the capacity to deal with the threat. I vividly remember when I realised how serious COVID was. I couldn’t bear the thought of the deaths, I couldn’t bear the thought of my friends in the hospital being overwhelmed, and I couldn’t bear the thought of my daughter not seeing her grandparents again. I raised the alarm about the state of our contact tracing in early March, and kept up the pressure until I was asked to review the system. I argued for an outbreak plan that coordinated the efforts of our hard-working public health staff and information technology that joined up our fragmented system.

In the last year, we’ve gone from underprepared to one of the world’s most successful responses. While our response was based on science, science alone was not enough. Science can’t answer the question “How important are the lives of our seniors?” That is a question of values. Science can’t predict “Will people stay home if the Government asks them to?” That is a question of leadership. Prime Minister, I’m deeply privileged to serve in your Government and to bring my skills and experience to your mission to build a kinder, fairer, and more humane society.

By Anzac Day this year, it was clear our sacrifices during lockdown were paying off. I remember standing at my gate on Anzac morning, and I thought of my grandad Norman Verrall. He was orphaned in 1918, when the Spanish flu killed both his parents. I know he had a tough childhood in foster care in Auckland. He joined the navy for World War II and served on HMS Leander in the Pacific and Indian oceans. I thought about how our country had asked him to risk so much when he had so little. Grandad returned from the war to work stoking the boiler at Christchurch’s Firestone factory, a duty he shared with Norman Kirk. I often imagine Big Norm had Norm Verrall in mind when he said all people need is “to have somewhere to live, they have to have food to eat, they have to have [clothes] to wear, and they have to have something to hope for.” Us grandkids called grandad “Plum”, for the proud fruit tree he tended at the back of his mint green State house in Sydenham.

Grandad died in 1992. I was a teenager, and, around me, the safety net that supported working-class families like his was fraying. Benefit cuts, market rentals, and an end to collective bargaining undermined the security of working New Zealanders. Today, the pandemic has shone a light on the importance of essential work, like stocking the supermarket shelves, staffing our border, and cleaning our hospitals.

The first Labour Government enacted sweeping legislation to protect people from the hardship that followed a world war, a pandemic, and the Great Depression. It’s often forgotten that preventative health was central to the 1938 social security reforms. Improvements in housing and sanitation led Māori life expectancy to increase more than 10 years in just two decades.

I imagine a post-pandemic 21st century health system founded on the same sense of solidarity, science, and pragmatism, one in which we strive for truly equitable and accessible health care; where you find the help you need quickly in your community, from someone you trust; where the person caring for you can focus on you because modern technology has put your information at their fingertips; where you are seen for who you are—old, young, men, women, Pasifika, Asian, refugee, gay, straight, or trans—where our mobilisation to fight COVID leads a legacy of a strong immunisation system; where we apply well-established science to protect children’s teeth with fluoride and children in the womb with folate; and in which a vibrant and proud Māori health workforce improves the care of their own people and, in doing so, humanises the system for all of us.

We need to continue Labour’s work on housing, transport, justice, and violence. We will need to do all of this, and we will also, simply, need to fund the health system more.

I’m lucky to have a family that spans city and country, New Zealander, Maldives, gay, and straight, and I’m so grateful for the friends, campaigners, and colleagues here today. I’m proud to stand alongside my new Labour family here in Parliament, particularly my many brothers and sisters in the class of 2020. We can work together to give New Zealand families longer and happier years together.

Nō reira, huri noa i te Whare nei, e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

SPEAKER: As people are coming in, I just want to indicate that at the conclusion of the next speech the House will be suspended until 7 o’clock for the dinner break. That just stops me having to try and sort of get over the top of everyone to say it.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, from Taieri, an electorate way down south.

Last year on talkback radio, my former colleague broadcaster Marcus Lush put Taieri on the map when he launched a national debate about how to say this beautiful Te Reo word. It is frequently mispronounced Tiree, which is an island off the coast of Scotland. Many of us whakapapa to Scotland down our way, so it’s easy to see how this happened. However, I can assure this House that Marcus Lush was correct in his pronunciation. Our place is Taieri, which speaks to our awa, the fourth-longest river in New Zealand. So, Mr Speaker, I stand before you today, humbled to be the new MP for Taieri.

I was born in Germany, and on my dad’s side I whakapapa to the Irish immigrants who worked the scheelite mines of Arrowtown. My grandfather worked as a delegate for the Waterside Workers Union in the 1951 strike. My grandmother achieved dux of her school. After completing primary level, she dropped out to look after her siblings, as did so many girls in her day. My father knew what it meant to walk to school without shoes. However, he also enjoyed a roof over his head, the roof of a State house, thanks to the Social Security Act of 1938, passed by the Labour Government under Michael Joseph Savage. When my dad won a scholarship to medical school in Otago, he broke an inter-generational cycle of poverty, and the hairy issues that can go with it.

My mother’s childhood wasn’t easy either. Although born into wealth, my mother knew the insides of underground bomb shelters and being ripped away from family because of war. You see, my mother is a Dutch immigrant with Flemish and Jewish heritage. How those two lovebirds from opposite corners of the world found each other is a beautiful story for another time. What I can say is they worked incredibly hard to give my siblings and me the security that had been so scant in their lives. As I look to them in the gallery above me today, I feel overwhelming love and gratitude, especially knowing how much my mum hates flying—it took two flights just to get here and you’ve still got to get back, Mum.

It is my dad’s working class values and work ethic and my mum’s vision and compassion that inspire me about what’s possible for Aotearoa. These values of my parents have also shaped my children. Last year, my teenage son Marli made headlines when he courteously challenged his school’s rules about tattoos and tā moko—a cultural taonga that he was told to cover with an arm bandage. When the school wouldn’t change its stance, he changed schools. Feiaksia, Marli, you make me proud. So that’s why I swore my parliamentary oath of allegiance in the Rotuman language—for Marli, my songbird daughter Lily, and our Rotuman community.

As a family, we hold each other to a golden rule: no gossip. Taelyn, the seven-year- old, is the best at this. He mirrors his dad, Danny, who is the kindest person I know, and like our children Danny’s a true VIP—a very important Polynesian! Fa‘afetai lava, Danny. As whānau, we also try to reach out to everyone as brothers and sisters, and that’s why my family have had the heart to let me do my mahi, which has often taken me away from them and all over the world.

My parents are obsessed with the news, and I grew up to the soundtrack of Morning Report, so it’s little wonder I became a print, and then broadcast, journalist. I’ve worked across TVNZ, TV3, Māori Television, Fiji Television, and with crews from the BBC. What an adventure it’s been! I’ve founded my own production company and made many international documentaries. I’ve filmed with hidden cameras in the prisons of Cambodia.

My proudest achievement was starting the first indigenous language show for Fiji Television, when I worked there in the 1990s. That weekly programme, Talanoa, still screens today, some 24 years later. My most harrowing assignment was directing a documentary on George Gwaze, a black Zimbabwean vet who had immigrated to Christchurch and was tried twice for a “murder” that actually turned out to be an HIV-related death. George was a victim of confirmation bias in our health system, medical staff jumping to conclusions and then trying to prove themselves right, and unconscious bias in the criminal justice system—institutionally racist procedures with ignorant disregard for how others view the world. George Gwaze was eventually found not guilty. His life and family were torn apart, yet he never received an apology nor compensation. Mr Gwaze has never received justice, and I want to use my time here to help ensure we never have another case like this. My studies may help in that regard. I completed an honours degree in law from Otago University, and the legacy from my brief stint as a lawyer was setting up Russell McVeagh’s pro bono section.

While living in Fiji, I helped found a university journalism programme, and I completed a Master’s in sociology. I’ve also served as chair of the Pacific Islands AIDS Foundation, a role which included fighting to get HIV-positive people access to life-saving drugs.

In my decade as director of the British Council in New Zealand and the Pacific, I was privileged to work around East Asia and Europe with some of the finest people I have known, advancing youth voice and women’s rights, promoting access to justice and the rule of law, and setting up social enterprises and advocating for impact investing. I was employed by the British Government, so I know firsthand how Britain cherishes its relationship with New Zealand because of our common values. Now I’m a member of this House in another role that once again frequently takes me away from my whānau, and I thank them for their understanding and generosity.

This year, I stood for selection and then election because I felt that as a nation we faced a critical crossroad. I wanted to be sure that we resisted the tide of narcissism sweeping the globe and remained true to our values.

COVID has demanded much of us. We’ve gone through lockdowns together and it has challenged us to become better people. As a nation, I think we’ve chosen to put our most vulnerable first. I love the people of Taieri who cared for our seniors when they could not leave their homes to shop for food. We sprinkled some magic into the lives of our children with small gestures like the teddy bear hunt endorsed by our Prime Minister. You would be hard pressed to find an electorate with more soft toys peering out their windows than Taieri, and many remain to this day. Not only do we have the most teddy bears, we also have the largest ones. Created from hay-bales by the tireless farmers who kept New Zealand fed during the lockdowns, those kaitiaki watch over State Highway 1 between Milton and Balclutha, and that says something about our big, generous, caring, southern hearts. So it is humbling to stand before this House as the elected member for such a hard-working, community-minded place.

Taieri’s boundaries are new but the electorate has actually come full circle. The former electorate of Dunedin South first began as Taieri, based in Mosgiel during the 1870s, before women could vote, let alone stand for Parliament. It evolved into a very special seat for Labour: a champion for workers and the unions that founded our party. In my view, Taieri remains our social conscience, especially with MMP, which can force politics to the middle.

As the first woman MP for Taieri, I acknowledge all the wāhine toa who made today possible: the Rt Hon Helen Clark, who in 2005 awarded me a New Zealand Bravery Medal for my services to journalism after the Asian tsunami in Banda Aceh. Ka mihi for supporting my election campaign, Helen. Our incredible Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, whose relentless positivity inspired me to take the first step on my journey. Former Dunedin South MP the Hon Clare Curran—I’m so delighted to see you here today—who served her constituents so fearlessly and was thoroughly generous in her handing of the baton. My Dunedin-based colleague MP Rachel Brooking, it’s an honour to serve with you. Maiinga, my namesake, aroha nui.

As a breadwinner for my family, I pledge to all our women of Aotearoa, when it comes to pay equity, sisters, I will have your back, and I will fight for the rights of all workers who receive less pay linked to their ethnicity.

I also salute Sir Michael Cullen in what is an esteemed whakapapa in our Taieri branch. Thank you for joining me on street corners, Sir Michael. Thank you, too, to former Dunedin Cabinet Minister Stan Rodger and his wife Anne, for your unwavering support and guidance, and for travelling to be here today. Pamela and Dennis, tautoko for your wisdom. To Jim Kelly, my union the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, and to the meat workers whose hard graft contributed to my campaign, thank you. Most especially to the Labour Electorate Committee campaign committee and volunteers who got me here, you blow me away; thank you. I feel the gaze of all you good people upon me, and I will not let you down.

Taieri is urban and rural. Some of us experience heartbreaking poverty, yet you don’t often hear about that, because, well, we’re staunch, and we may seem far away. We need more houses, more jobs, better access to health services, and more support for our rural communities; yet, I’m excited. Dunedin’s new hospital will transform our region, not just through healthcare but because of the social impact approach of the Labour Government. We are uplifting our whole community through training, apprenticeships, jobs, and community outreach linked to the hospital.

Last month, I began my first street-corner clinics, bringing politics to the people in Milton and Balclutha.

To Waihola, Henley, Waipori Falls, Benhar, Kaka Point, Middlemarch, Waitahuna, Lawrence, you’re also on my radar. As for Kaitangata—well, just so it finally gets said in Parliament and written into Hansard—Kai rulz.

To everyone in Taieri, regardless of your politics, I am your MP, I’m here for you, and I’m listening to you, and helping are my parliamentary colleagues Nadine, Warren, and the amazing Larissa, who helped secure an election win of more than 12,000 votes, to prove that Taieri never was a so-called marginal seat. I am honoured to work alongside them and all the dedicated staff who so ably serve this House.

I feel proud to be in a Government that is working to keep New Zealand safe and accelerate our economic recovery and rebuild better than before. Economic justice is my kaupapa. I will fight for the widow in the Taieri retirement village who was forced to pay $10,000 just to move into the smaller unit next door after the death of her husband. I’ll seek creative solutions for our Muslim community who can’t access the housing market because our New Zealand banking models don’t align with some of those in our faith-based communities. May I acknowledge here that the royal commission’s report into the March 15 terrorist attack has become public today and that our thoughts are with the Muslim community. Al salam alaikum.

I’ll insist on climate and economic justice for the 10,000 people who live on the Dunedin flats. I’ll advocate to futureproof South Dunedin from flooding, in ways that create warmer, greener houses, ignite the local economy, and inspire our young people to stay living locally. Now that this House has declared a climate emergency, we have a massive imperative to get this right and lead the world on climate adaptation.

I will promote social enterprise. It’s a new story where buying and selling becomes about wellbeing, where the financial ecosystem supports those who can prove benefit to their communities not just through targets but through contracts, where iwi can provide by Māori for Māori and for others too.

I will advocate for impact investment. It’s a story where banking becomes a force for good, creating impact at scale and creating change because investors care where their money goes.

Let us be bold in acknowledging our wairua—our spiritual and cultural selves—so that our whole selves are not lost in the economy. I believe New Zealand has the heart and the imagination to make this happen. The Aotearoa Circle is already leading the change and I commend their work, likewise the Ākina Foundation, the Pacific Business Trust, and many iwi businesses.

To all tangata whenua in this House, I acknowledge that the inequities you challenge are painful and profound and that your kaupapa are urgent. Regardless of where you sit in this House, I respect Te Tiriti, and I will continue to walk across the bridges that divide us, even when that is uncomfortable.

New Zealand is the best place in the world to be right now, and the eyes of the world are watching us. Therefore, we must continue to uphold truth and sanctify the rule of law. I want to see civics taught in schools, so that my children can vote with confidence and integrity. I want the Pacific, home to my children’s tipuna, promoted through fair systems that promote climate resilience and women’s rights. We must stand for our values of kaitiakitanga, tino rangatiratanga, and aroha. As the geopolitics around us change, we must assert our independence, like we did with nuclear free. We can continue to role model to all our global friends east and west, wellbeing, protection from hate speech, fair and sustainable trade, and evidenced animal welfare. We can prove to the world that inclusive, evidence-based policies create greater prosperity for everyone. Internationally, it is our time to shine.

All these dreams I bring to this House today, and every day, along with respect for democracy, staunch loyalty to my Labour team, and the aspirations of the people of Taieri who will ultimately hold me to account. Thank you for the opportunity to present myself today.

Moa ta pulou ka ’uaf ta pulou—that’s a Rotuman proverb meaning change comes when we work together. I challenge all of us in this House, and you watching at home, to be the change that we want to see in the world. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.12 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020

Continuation

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is continued, and that the relevant period under section 3(2)(b) of that Act is the period ending on 16 April 2021.

This is the first of three motions that the House will deal with tonight relating to COVID-19. This one is a relatively simple one: it extends the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act through until 16 April next year. The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act was the subject of some quite wide-ranging and lively debate across the House when it was first passed into law. It creates new powers to allow the Government of the day to respond to COVID-19—in particular, it creates some lower level powers that wouldn’t be possible under the Health Act. When we’re dealing with more localised outbreaks, the existing provisions apply reasonably well in alert levels 3 and 4, but for the lower alert levels—around level 1 and level 2—where we need to put restrictions in place to contain a smaller outbreak or to have a lower level of intervention, this Act is a much more appropriate tool.

It also shifts the decision making from the Director-General of Health to a Minister—something that is better for the purposes of public and parliamentary accountability. If we did not extend the Act, the Act would expire just before Christmas. To give you an indication of what that would mean, it would mean that some of the orders that I have made, first as Minister of Health, and then as Minister for COVID-19 Response, would no longer apply—and that includes things like the protections put in place at our border in particular, and the requirements put in place around regularised testing of those who are most at risk. Those orders would no longer apply if the Act under which they were made was expired, so it’s important that we extend the Act.

The question is: why extend it to 16 April, rather than extending it for a shorter or a longer duration? Parliament will shortly debate something that will set in place some rules for how we deal with future extensions of the Act. In the future, when the Act is extended, the notice of motion to extend it will first go to a select committee, and there will be an ability for the select committee to have a bit of a public process—a hearings process—around whether or not the Act should be extended. Those rules are not currently in place, but later on tonight we will be putting those rules in place. So allowing for the Act to continue until 16 April means that we can ensure that when we next extend it we will be able to have a more transparent and accountable process, because the motion to extend it will go to a select committee. The 16th of April gives us several sitting blocks in the new year where we can bring that motion to the House, where it can be referred off to a select committee, and where it can then go through that process.

I think the Act is an important one. It is important that we continue to provide the powers necessary to ensure that we continue with our elimination approach to COVID19, and extending this Act will allow us to do that.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank the Minister for COVID-19 Response for those illuminating remarks. National will be opposing this motion because we opposed the initial public health response bill, which is now the Act, and we feel duty bound to oppose the continuation of the Act for that reason. We oppose it with the judicious remarks that we oppose the scope and the breadth of the legislation, albeit there are some very sensible measures, and I just want to make three very brief points in this call.

The first is that the history of this legislation, I have to say, is an untidy one for the Government. There are a few new members in the Chamber, and welcome to all and congratulations on your maiden speeches—but if you were here in the preceding Parliament, the 52nd Parliament, there was quite a bit of back and forth, it would be fair to say, about this legislation. We heard from the Government for quite a long period of time that the legal basis upon which the orders that were made by the then Minister of Health, David Clark, was totally fine, that there was no question. We heard the Attorney-General give fulsome public comments about how there was a wide-ranging legal background to the orders that were made and that people should have no concerns whatsoever about the legality of the various measures that were put in place, most of which the National Party supported actually—in fact, most of which the National Party supported before the Government did, by the way.

But the point remains—and it’s a fundamental one—that Government must act according to the law. That is what the rule of law means in New Zealand society. I’ve got to say, one thing that I was quite surprised by during the preceding months was that many people actually rejected that simple proposition. I had many people say to me, “What are you worried about? The Government’s done the right thing. Fantastic. They’ve done well.” And that is true as far as it goes. But the simple proposition that Government must act according to the law, which I would have thought was a non-controversial view, actually, it turns out it’s quite controversial. But that’s what the rule of law means. It means Government’s subject to the law, Government must act according to the law, and if the Government wants to act to a different standard of law, they’ve got to change the law.

In New Zealand, with our Parliament, it turns out the Government changing law is actually pretty easy, particularly in this Parliament. Because this Government’s got a majority, they do what they like. You know, Palmer called this Parliament the “fastest lawmaker in the West”, and he designed MMP to make sure it never happened again, and it turns out here we are again. So I hope that the Government doesn’t go back to the bad old days of the pre-1996 era and act like they can do what they like.

But that is a little bit what happened when it came to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act the first time around. As National said—as the Opposition said—“We’re concerned about the legality.” And a guy called Mr Borrowdale actually thought the same thing. He took the Government to court and he won, and that surprised quite a few people. It didn’t surprise me, and it didn’t surprise Christopher Penk over here, the shadow Attorney-General. It didn’t surprise those who’ve studied public law, because there were very shaky legal foundations for the Government’s activities. So the history of this is very untidy and eventually the Government was forced to act after insisting for month after month that there was no necessity. So the history is an untidy one.

Secondly, we feel duty bound to oppose the continuation of the legislation, because of the powers given to the Government, particularly when it comes to warrantless searches, which is something that—the Government would say to you that we have that power in legislation currently and that is true. But it is very rare, very rarely exercised, and not to the same extent and breadth that this gives.

The third point is a plea to the Minister to take seriously the concerns in the Brian Roche and Heather Simpson report, because this legislation deals with orders in relation to testing at the border and around our maritime border and around our aircraft and around the way in which COVID can come into New Zealand. The Minister said himself publicly—and we agree—borders are our first line of defence against COVID. I understand that there is a very negative review as to the activities of the Ministry of Health. I encourage the Minister to release that report soon so that we can see for ourselves and so can the public. We will be opposing this with the caveat that there are some sensible things in the legislation. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this motion. I think it’s worth traversing a little bit of the history of how we got here. ACT supported the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act at the first and second readings of the legislation, and the reason is similar to what we’ve just heard from Chris Bishop: that we believe in the rule of law, and it was certainly welcome that, instead of the circumstances in which New Zealand found itself in the early days of the first lockdown, where we had total lawlessness, where we had a, shall we say kindly, maverick police commissioner attempting to scare New Zealanders with innuendo and no legal basis for the restrictions put on New Zealand’s freedoms, we felt that that wasn’t the right way to be and that having legislation debated in Parliament and some clarity around what the law was was a better way to be.

We also said that, in return for continuing to support the legislation, we would like to see the time frame shortened and some instruments of accountability for officers empowered under the Act, so that people who felt that their rights had been trampled by people empowered by this legislation would have some recourse in complaint, because, as Chris Bishop said, the rule of law, the ability to read what one’s rights are and to be able to go and seek redress if they are violated, is fundamental to our free society. Unfortunately, the Government was not of a view to take that feedback on board, and ACT opposed the legislation in the third reading as a result.

I think it’s fair to say that, in the time since, the fears that we had that led ACT to oppose it have not been realised, and I think that is a basis to support this legislation staying in place for a further three months—of course, having the ability to oppose it if those fears were to be realised. I think that’s the sensible and constructive way to come at this legislation. There should be a framework and a legal framework consistent with the rule of law that allows the Government to put in place public health orders to manage what is a real threat to New Zealanders’ wellbeing.

Having said that, I also would comment that it would be a lot easier to support this legislation if the Government was prepared to use it in a more nuanced and sophisticated way to manage risk. This legislation gives the Government power to test and detain and issue orders in a small area to contain outbreaks, and I don’t believe that we’re seeing the level of sophistication in the Government’s response that we could.

Just this Friday, I hosted Mr Jeff Liu, who is the representative for the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Auckland. You’re not allowed to say it but he’s basically the Consul-General for Taiwan in Auckland. He described the sophistication of the Taiwanese response that’s seen them have twelve times fewer deaths per capita than us, with no lockdowns.

One thing the Government might consider, given the power it has to make sophisticated orders, is putting in place some proportionality in relation to quarantine and isolation requirements and the destinations from which people come, because the walls are coming down in Australia, and New Zealand risks being the poor cousin isolated from the other, what you might call, six states of Australasia. People who are tourist operators in somewhere like Te Anau, who are on the bones of their derrieres, would reasonably ask the question: why is it possible that Aucklanders, where Auckland has had community transmission within a few weeks, can come here and spend money—hopefully—but people from Perth, Western Australia, where there has been no community transmission for seven months cannot come here without two weeks’ quarantine? Why do we quarantine people from Taiwan, where COVID is completely under control, in hotel rooms next door to people from India and California, where it is rampant?

Those are the sorts of questions about proportionality that should be asked and that having the instruments in this law would allow the Government to introduce some proportionality and sophistication in its response, and sadly there is not. You can hear the barracking from the Government benches because they know that ACT is right about this. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is continued.

Ayes 84

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders

Sessional

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

COVID-19 PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE ACT 2020

1 Interpretation

In these rules,—

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

COVID-19 order is an order made under section 11 of the Act

day fixed for presentation is the day on or by which a committee must present a report to the House to comply with these rules.

2 Examination of COVID-19 orders

(1) The Regulations Review Committee must examine each COVID-19 order and report to the House before the expiry of the period that ends on the later of:

(a) six sitting days after the day on which the COVID-19 order was presented to the House:

(b) 16 working days after the day on which the COVID-19 order was presented to the House.

(2) Unless the Business Committee determines otherwise, no motion under section 16 of the Act relating to a COVID-19 order may be moved until after the earlier of the following:

(a) the presentation of the Regulations Review Committee’s report on its examination of that COVID-19 order:

(b) the day fixed for the presentation of the Regulations Review Committee’s report on its examination of that COVID-19 order.

(3) If the Regulations Review Committee recommends that a COVID-19 order be amended, then paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an amendment to that order or a further COVID-19 order that is made only for the purpose of incorporating the committee’s recommendations.

(4) Standing Order 330 does not apply to a notice of motion under section 16 of the Act relating to a COVID-19 order.

3 Disallowance or amendment of COVID-19 order

(1) This rule applies to a notice of motion to disallow or amend a COVID-19 order only if that notice of motion is given by a member who, at the time the notice of motion is given, is a member of the Regulations Review Committee.

(2) After a notice of motion to disallow or amend a COVID-19 order is given,—

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

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

(3) If more than one notice of motion to disallow or amend a COVID 19 order is available for consideration on a sitting day, then those notices of motion are set down as a single order of the day and are debatable together, with their questions put separately.

(4) Standing Orders 67 to 72, 76, 101, 329, and 331 are read accordingly.

4 Continuation of Act

(1) Any notice of motion to continue the Act under section 3 stands referred to a select committee. The notice of motion is allocated by the Clerk to the most appropriate select committee for consideration.

(2) The select committee must report to the House on any notice of motion that has been referred under paragraph (1) no later than the first working day 28 days after the day on which the notice of motion was lodged.

(3) No motion relating to the continuation of the Act may be moved until after the earlier of the following—

(a) the committee to which the notice of motion was referred reports, or

(b) the first working day after 28 days have passed since the day on which the notice of motion was lodged.

5 Select committee reports set down

A select committee report on a notice of motion under rule 2 or 4 is set down for consideration with that notice of motion.

This motion puts in place a series of rules regarding how we are going to be dealing with COVID-19 Public Health Response Act orders in future in this term of Parliament, and it mirrors one that was put in place in the last Parliament. The regulations review process that we have in this Parliament is a very good one. Those members who have sat in this House who have sat on the Regulations Review Committee will acknowledge that it’s actually a very thorough process, and it is one that brings some accountability to the making of rules that has been delegated by this House to a member of the executive through an Order in Council. But it does not move quickly, and, with regard to the orders that are issued under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, we do need to have a mechanism that moves a little bit more quickly than that. So this Sessional Order that we are putting in place means that each order that’s made under the Act will be reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee by the later of six sitting days or 16 working days after it is presented to the House, and the House would not be able to approve an order made before the Regulations Review Committee has reported on it.

An accelerated disallowance and amendment procedure is also put in place by the Sessional Order. That’s really important because, if orders are not confirmed by the House, they ultimately expire, and in the next motion that I’ll be bringing before the House, I’ll talk a little bit about the orders that we have made under this. I think members across the House would find it difficult to disagree with any of the orders that have been issued under the Act to date, and, in fact, some would probably argue that some of the orders should have gone further than they did. In fact, I think the contribution from Mr Bishop where he said that he opposed the ability for the Government to make the orders but didn’t think the orders had gone far enough illustrated that very point. But I do note that the Regulations Review Committee has members from the four biggest parties in the House. It does not have a majority of Labour members, and I do point out that any member of the Regulations Review Committee can in fact move the disallowance of a regulation made. So it is important that that process continues with the integrity that, I think, it has developed over the time that that committee has been in place.

The other thing that this motion, this set of rules, does is put in place a new mechanism to deal with any further continuance of the Act. I want to thank David Seymour for his constructive comments. One of the reasons that we have not continued the Act for a longer period of time is that I do believe that Parliament should have the opportunities to do exactly what David Seymour has suggested the ACT Party will do, which is to monitor the implementation and the use of the Act, and if Parliament as a whole feels that Government has gone too far, Parliament should have the ability to do something about that. So we have now just extended the Act until April. Under these rules, Parliament will then have to consider a motion to extend it through a select committee process, and we will then have to come back and we’ll have to have another debate in the House, where members will be able to do what David Seymour just did, and say whether or not they feel that we are using our powers in the Act appropriately. I don’t think that we should extend—even when we do it next time—the Act for a very, very long period of time, given that things can move quickly in the COVID world and, at some point, I think, we all hope we will be at the point where we can let the Act lapse because the risk will have gone and we can then start to revert back to normal.

Parliament, at that point, will need to turn its attention to what should happen with future pandemics, because I think we’ve discovered that our epidemic response legislation isn’t as good and as useful as it needs to be, and we do need to think about some enduring arrangements. They may be modelled on this; they may not be. But I think it is important that, while these extraordinary powers are in place, Parliament has the opportunity to check back in on them regularly. The procedures that we’re putting in place through this motion that I have put forward allow us to do that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Can I echo the words of the Leader of the House and say I wasn’t aware it was your first time in the Chair, Madam Speaker, and congratulate you for your elevation—well done. Thank you to the Leader of the House for that very sensible contribution, with which I agree wholeheartedly. You know, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) they—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Even the bit where I slagged you off?

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha! Oh, you can’t have it all your own way. In MFAT, they talk about hardship postings and postings that no one wants to go to, and, you know, the Regulations Review Committee has sometimes been called the hardship posting of the Parliament.

Hon Chris Hipkins: That is an outrageous statement.

CHRIS BISHOP: I said it’s sometimes been called that—sometimes been called that. When I became an MP six years ago, Gerry Brownlee rang me up. He was Leader of the House, and he said, “Mate, how do you feel about regulations review?”, and I was actually really excited about it, because as a lawyer—or at least someone who has a law degree; shouldn’t call myself a lawyer—someone who has a law degree sans practising certificate and someone who really enjoyed public law at university, I was really excited to be on the Regulations Review Committee. It was chaired by the Hon David Cunliffe, who—I think it was a hardship posting for him. He had been exiled to chair regulations review. The Hon David Parker sat on the committee as well, and it was a great committee.

The Leader of the House is absolutely correct that it does critical work, because Parliament actually, over time, delegates quite enormous powers to rule-making bodies—to bodies other than themselves—and the exercise and the scrutiny of those powers is of critical importance. It’s an under-appreciated and probably underutilised committee, I would say, and, basically, it operates like a court. You can turn up and, basically, take a judicial review claim before the Regulations Review Committee. What I don’t understand is—people don’t realise—you basically get a free judicial determination of your claim by lawyers acting for Parliament, and it’s a lot cheaper than going to court, that’s for sure.

David Seymour: There’ll be a rush now.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! If I can have your colleagues, please—I can’t really hear the contribution of Chris Bishop. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not entirely sure you’re missing out on much, Madam Speaker, but I thank you for your forbearance.

But this is just suffice to say that we support the motion which will give the Regulations Review Committee more power of examination, and we also support the move that the Government has indicated around the extension of the Act. So I concur wholeheartedly with what the Leader of the House has said. His commitment to parliamentary sovereignty and to the rule of law, in this occasion, is very welcome.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): This motion is a great opportunity for New Zealand, for this Parliament, for democracy, and for the Regulations Review Committee to take the mantle it has long deserved in our constitutional arrangements. I feel that with Chris Bishop’s recent advertisements of free judicial hearings, the Regulations Review Committee, which we now know no longer has David Cunliffe as the chair, may be about to reach levels of popularity that not even its most hopeful architects could ever have imagined.

But I do think the opportunity for future orders in relation to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act is actually a very good initiative. It will allow a greater amount of transparency, an understanding of why the Government is restricting New Zealanders’ freedoms, it claims, in the public interest.

It has to be said that that level of parliamentary scrutiny has not been a feature of the Government’s early COVID response. I feared that it might not be a feature of the Government’s future COVID response when I heard the Leader of the House speak earlier portending when we decide to extend this, and soon we will make the following decisions. It appeared that he hadn’t contemplated that the House actually needed to contemplate and make a decision. He seemed to be taking Parliament for granted, and doing it in a subconscious way, which is how the worst tyrants always start. So we were somewhat concerned at that point, but he’s made good with his later addresses and contributions, and commitment to making sure that the Regulations Review Committee can play an important role here.

Indeed, it’s worth noting that through the COVID period, in the initial lockdown, there were extensive debates, some of them behind closed doors in a previous Parliament that can now be more easily discussed, where the Speaker of the House came to a meeting armed with a list of dates when other Parliaments around the world would be shut, as if that was justification for our Parliament to be shut too. The argument was made by some members of that Business Committee that, actually, we shouldn’t aim to be average, we certainly shouldn’t aim to be the worst; New Zealand should aim to protect parliamentary democracy and scrutiny at all times, and fairly balance public health risks with the right of New Zealanders to elect a representative, to speak on their behalf and scrutinise the actions of the executive for them. That is the context and the contrast into which this motion passes today.

The Government has not always got it right in relation to the level of democracy and parliamentary scrutiny the New Zealand people deserve through the COVID response. But this motion today is an example of where they are rapidly improving. That is something that I think we should welcome as a Parliament. I am very pleased to say that ACT will be supporting this motion. It’s nice when we can all agree. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I hadn’t particularly intended to take a call, but seeing as we are entering the finest hour of the Regulations Review Committee as an integral part of our constitutional arrangements, I felt it incumbent upon me as the newly installed chair of that fine body to rise and make a contribution.

David Seymour: I take it all back.

CHRIS PENK: Mr Seymour takes it all back. I just wanted to get—

David Seymour: People would rather pay to go to court.

CHRIS PENK: Well, I’m disappointed to hear Mr Seymour is continuing this contribution, because we had almost a thing going where we had Chris Hipkins, Chris Bishop, and, with one non-Chris interruption in the form of Mr Seymour, we’ve gone to Chris Penk. I look to Mr Faafoi to, potentially, try and help us break some kind of record, and by my right is Mr Doocey, who’s not a million miles away from looking very much like another Chris—Mr Luxon.

So, anyway, speaking of names and forms of address, I will say it’s heartening to hear the Regulations Review Committee referred to as something like a court. I will be pitching to be referred to as “Your Honour” in future meetings thereof. But, in fact, on the subject of titles, we do have one person who boasts the title “the Hon”, so I acknowledge Eugenie Sage as a former Minister among our number. So I have said to her that her contribution in terms of that committee will be very welcome. She will have seen regulation-making power from the other side, so to speak, and just to acknowledge briefly, for the record, seeing as I have this opportunity, the other members of that august body that is the Regulations Review Committee.

As others have pointed out, we’ve had a pretty good dissertation on the role of that select committee and, indeed, all select committees scrutinising the actions of the executive. So I won’t comment further on the motion itself, except to acknowledge the importance of what we’re doing here tonight, despite all appearances, and look forward to the continued passage of these types of orders. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

COVID-19 Orders

Approval

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That this House approve the following orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020:

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order (No 2) 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 2) 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Amendment Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border and Isolation and Quarantine) Amendment Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Amendment Order (No 2) 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border, Isolation and Quarantine, and Required Testing) Amendment Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Amendment Order (No 3) 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Amendment Order (No 4) 2020

COVID-19 Public Health Response (Required Testing) Amendment Order (No 3) 2020.

This actually gets to the meat of the debate. This is actually where the rules that applied have been made. We’ve gone through several motions that I would describe as more procedural, and whilst this is a procedural motion, it actually deals with the substance of the restrictions that have been put in place. So to run briefly through the orders that are being confirmed here—I’m not going to go through all of the detail of each of the orders, but I will speak broadly about what they do. They deal with the controls that are in place at our air and our maritime borders to manage people arriving into New Zealand. They deal with the legal requirements around managed isolation and quarantine that are in place and set out how they can be enforced. They deal with testing of border and other at-risk workers, setting out how regularly they need to be tested and other steps that might need to be taken to protect their safety and wellbeing. And they deal with the rules that apply under lower levels—alert levels 1 and 2—particularly when it comes to things like face masks and QR codes.

There are some orders that have been made that no longer apply, and therefore are not being confirmed by this motion, including the alert level 3 order that was issued when we moved Auckland to alert level 3 for that period of time we were dealing with the August outbreak. Of course, we’re no longer at alert level 3, we don’t need to confirm those rules, so that is not included in this. I do also want to say to all members that I don’t exercise the powers under this lightly. This is a job that I take incredibly seriously. I do think that we need to continue to learn and evolve in our COVID-19 response. Members will note that, in addition to confirming the substantive orders, we are confirming a lot of amendments, and I think the reason that we have so many amendments is a reflection of the fact that things move quickly when it comes to COVID-19. We are always looking for where there are weaknesses and gaps in our system and we are always seeking to plug those very quickly. The orders are one of the ways that we do that.

Now, in a normal legislative or regulatory process, these processes would take weeks and months. Actually, the reality is sometimes if we identify something needs to happen, I’ll be asked to sign off an order on it within 24 hours to make that thing happen very, very quickly. That’s actually the great flexibility that the Act provides. But it also does impose an enormous responsibility on Government to exercise those powers very seriously, because the regular degree of scrutiny and process that would apply when we are putting in place the sorts of regulations and the sorts of rules that this Act allows for don’t apply in these circumstances because there’s a need to move with urgency, and there’s a need to continue to grow, and adapt, and evolve our response as we learn more about COVID-19, and as we continue to identify any residual weakness that exists in our COVID-19 defences.

So I want to thank members of the House for their support for the previous motion. I also want to, I hope, thank them for what I think will be their support for this. These orders are very sensible orders. There will always be a degree of debate about whether we should go further in some of those areas. But I certainly urge the House to confirm these orders, because without confirming the orders, then all of those restrictions that apply around controlling entry into the country, managed isolation, when people are in the country, the testing regime that we’ve now got operating very effectively at the border—those things wouldn’t be possible without them.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to confirm these orders—with the rider that we would urge the Government to think hard about, again, risk and proportionality when it uses them. It wasn’t so long ago that we heard the Leader of the House, I think at that time in his capacity as the healthcare Minister, when asked why he hadn’t used one of these, why he hadn’t used it to make sure that people who were working at the border were tested—you know, there’s no community transmission, there’s no COVID in the community, the only people in New Zealand that had COVID were people who had arrived from countries where it is. Surely, if there was going to be a priority for testing New Zealanders, it would be the ones who were in contact with the only people in New Zealand that we knew had it. They would be the people to test. And the Minister was heard to say, “Well, you know, making people get tested is a big lever to pull.” But of course, under alert level requirements, the order which is also being confirmed—he had decided to impose restrictions on the largest city in the country at a wholesale level. That was somehow not a big lever to pull.

I think that there needs to be some proportionality in the response where the Government uses these orders in a way that maximises people’s freedom and utility rather than being sensitive, for instance, to testing and then being prepared to use a sledgehammer on a whole city. So with that small rider, I support these orders being in place. The Government does need these to manage a public health crisis, but it also needs to start using them in a way that is proportional to the risk and minimises the costs to New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I just want to take a very brief call to say that we will support the order, and I do agree with some of what Mr Seymour has said. Generally, I think it would be fair to say that the Government’s promulgation of the orders has been late and haphazard and largely as a response and a result of Opposition pressure in some cases, pressure from the media in some cases, and from public health experts.

That’s as it should be in a democracy, and I, for one, don’t accept the view that has been put about by some that at a time of national crisis we should all sit around and sing “Kumbaya” and support the Government—that’s the constitutional duty of the Opposition. Frankly, that is a retrograde view. The job of the Opposition at a time of crisis is to support where necessary but to constructively critique where necessary, and I am utterly convinced that the spirited opposition from National in the last year has made the Government’s response better. I’m utterly convinced of that, and there’s any number of examples that you could point to, to prove that, and that is important. So we will continue to scrutinise these orders. We will continue to push for greater testing and push for policies that we outlined on the election campaign that are a good border policy designed by Dr Shane Reti.

We support these orders and with those caveats I’ll take a seat, thanks.

Motion agreed to.

Orders approved.

Parliamentary Service Commission

Membership

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That, pursuant to section 15(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, Kieran McAnulty, Matt Doocey, Brooke van Velden, Jan Logie, and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer be appointed as members of the Parliamentary Service Commission.

I don’t think there’ll be many on the edge of their seats at home listening to this one, but this committee is an important committee. In addition to the members that I have just mentioned, the Speaker, the Leader of the House, and the Leader of the Opposition or a nominee—in this case, I understand, Mr Bishop—are automatically members of the Parliamentary Service Commission. The Parliamentary Service Commission does have an important role in the running of the Parliament. It provides political advice on the oversight and administration of the parliamentary complex to the Speaker—that advice is sometimes taken. The committee does meet regularly. I think it is an important part of our parliamentary arrangements, and so I commend this motion to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the following rules relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee be adopted as a sessional order:

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the following rules relating to the Intelligence and Security Committee be adopted as a sessional order:

INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE

1 Definitions

For the purposes of these rules,—

Intelligence and Security Committee means the Intelligence and Security Committee that is continued by the Intelligence and Security Act 2017

intelligence and security agency means—

(a) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service:

(b) the Government Communications Security Bureau.

2 Conduct of committee’s proceedings

Subject to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, the proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee are conducted in accordance with the rules and practice of the House.

3 Attendance

Standing Order 38 applies and is to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

4 Referral of bill or other matter to committee

(1) The House may refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee any bill or other matter relating to an intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 295 to 304, 306, 308, 326(3), and 337(1) apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

(3) The Clerk may allocate to the Intelligence and Security Committee a paper presented under Standing Order 269 concerning the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

5 Referral of petition to committee

Despite Standing Order 379, every petition relating to an intelligence and security agency stands referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee for consideration and report.

6 Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for intelligence and security agencies

(1) Despite Standing Orders 345(2) and 350(1), the Finance and Expenditure Committee must refer to the Intelligence and Security Committee the Votes or appropriations contained in the Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for each intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 338(1), 346, 348, 350(2), and 351(3)(b) apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

7 Annual reviews of intelligence and security agencies

(1) Despite Standing Order 353, the Finance and Expenditure Committee must allocate to the Intelligence and Security Committee the annual review of each intelligence and security agency.

(2) Standing Orders 354(2), 356(1)(b) and (3), and 357 apply and are to be read as if the Intelligence and Security Committee were a select committee.

8 Examination of policy, administration, and expenditure of intelligence and security agency

In addition to its consideration of Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and annual reviews, the Intelligence and Security Committee may, at any time, examine the policy, administration, and expenditure of an intelligence and security agency, and may report to the House on such an examination.

9 Reports of Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) In addition to its reports on business considered under Rules 4 to 8, the Intelligence and Security Committee—

(a) presents an annual report to the House on the activities of the committee:

(b) may report at any time on a matter relating to intelligence and security that it wishes to draw to the attention of the House.

(2) Subject to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017, Standing Orders 247 to 256 apply to reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee and are to be read as if they were reports of a select committee.

10 Confidential proceedings of Intelligence and Security Committee

Standing Orders 115, 390(4), and 396(3), which relate to references to committee proceedings in debate, questions and replies, apply to proceedings of the Intelligence and Security Committee as if it were a select committee.

11 Restriction of select committee briefings and inquiries relating to intelligence and security matters

Despite Standing Order 191, no select committee may receive a briefing on, or initiate an inquiry into, matters related to an intelligence and security agency, unless the House approves that briefing or inquiry.

12 Copies of records of Intelligence and Security Committee

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Intelligence and Security Committee must provide to the House a copy of all records held by the committee in relation to the performance of its functions under section 193(1)(a) to (d) of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

(2) A copy of a record provided under paragraph (1) must be provided only after protected information is removed in accordance with the Intelligence and Security Act 2017.

(3) A copy of a record provided under this rule is maintained in the custody of the Clerk as a record belonging to the House. Standing Orders 11 and 12 apply and are to be read accordingly.

Very briefly, by way of introduction, the Intelligence and Security Committee is created by the Intelligence and Security Act of 2017. It sits alongside other select committees that the House itself creates, but at the start of every new Parliament we put in place this set of rules that enables the Intelligence and Security Committee to do the sorts of things that select committees do, including scrutiny of bills, hearing of petitions, Estimates, and carrying out the annual reviews. This motion is identical to the one that was put in place at the beginning of the last Parliament, with one notable exception: that it regards members attending one of these meetings, the Intelligence and Security Committee meetings, as being present for parliamentary purposes even if the meeting is being held offsite. One of the things that we have to acknowledge about this particular committee is it will, on occasion, meet in a secure location, and those members who are attending those meetings also need to be deemed to be present for parliamentary purposes. Other than that, these are the same rules that applied in the last term of the Parliament.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I welcome this motion, especially on this day where we have heard back with the report of the royal commission on the Christchurch terror attack, with specific recommendations and findings that relate to failures made by our security agencies, where we’ve seen that their focus has often been misplaced, where we found that rather than the national threat that we faced on March 15 last year, which was far-right white supremacy terror, their focus was, in fact, on the Muslim community. The royal commission found that to have been based not on evidence but something else.

I note also, in my own background, that I spent part of my childhood in Iran where spying was done often. Everyone knew someone whose phone was tapped. No one felt secure to speak on any kind of phone or street corner. We knew that tyranny was rife and politicised. But in New Zealand, though, we have this proud history of a democratic Parliament that oversees policing. We have a judicial system that oversees the work of the police force in terms of search and surveillance. Even here mass surveillance outside of the law and what the public expect has happened. We’ve had a Prime Minister who promised to resign if mass surveillance was happening. We found that it was happening, and that resignation did not come.

We in the Green Party have had members of our caucus, sitting MPs, find that they were being spied upon by our spy agencies to track their political engagement with protesters. That was Keith Locke, who stood firm against unlawful spying. So we know—we know—that the GCSB and the SIS conduct surveillance. We know that it’s outside of what most New Zealanders understand to be search and surveillance that relates to the criminal law. Because the police do that, and it’s overseen by judicial officers, by judges, by JPs, within a legislative framework that ensures transparency and accountability.

This is something else. It can be politicised. It happens often in secret. It’s amorphous and often unknowable. So accountability is crucial. This motion is about ensuring that accountability through a parliamentary body, which we absolutely support, and we hope will be not only sitting in name, not only something that’s a check box as part of our democratic system, as sometimes these systems become, but a fulsome forum to add proper democratic accountability. Because policing, and especially spying, that results in, essentially, quite serious results for both citizens and foreign agents—and we know our agencies of just last year admitted to spying on foreign embassies, which is outside of international law. Policing of that kind without oversight, without democratic institutions having input and holding those agencies to account is nothing more than tyranny.

So we do welcome this motion, and we hope that it does result in what the New Zealand public expects of us in this House, which is that we hold power to account. Thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): I wasn’t going to make any comment on this but I feel I need to, because yet again I find myself at loggerheads with some of what Golriz Ghahraman has just offered to the House. There’s nothing wrong with that. She enjoys debate; I know that. But you’ve got to keep it to a reasonable space. The reality is we have had that report today about the terrorist shooting in Christchurch, a terrible event, and, yes, there were criticisms in there about what the agencies were doing, but equally the agencies were doing what they thought was best at the time to protect New Zealanders, and that was against what was an international threat to world order from the Islamic State.

I think to somehow say that there has been a failing when you had, effectively, a lone wolf operator, and then also turn around in the same breath and say “But we do not want the tyranny of people dobbing each other in if they see behaviour that’s not entirely consistent with what they might like to have in society.” seems to be—and that is the thread of what we heard in the House this afternoon from the Green Party—just a little bit confused.

This is a good motion. The committee concerned is chaired by the Prime Minister. It is generally populated with Ministers and senior MPs who have an understanding of what New Zealand’s best interests are. I reject the suggestion that it is secretive. There will be some aspects, like all committees, that are heard in private, and that is for the security of all New Zealanders. This is a good motion. No one should be fearful of it. We support it.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5)

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I present a legislative statement on the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5).

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a second time.

It must be getting close to Christmas. Subordinate legislation bills generally come before the House at the end of the year. It’s normally one of the final things the House does before it breaks for the Christmas adjournment. The purpose of the bill is to confirm, by Act of Parliament, regulations that would otherwise lapse at a particular date. The process for this is set out in the Legislation Act 2019.

The second reading debate is the only opportunity that the House as a whole has to consider the bill. The first reading is without debate, as is the third reading, which will follow straight after the second reading that we are doing now. It’s important that the House passes this bill before the end of the year, because duties and levies that have been paid under a regulation that’s not confirmed by the due date have to be returned to those who have paid them, a potentially complex and expensive bureaucratic nightmare, particularly for our primary industries, where the majority of the levies that we seem to be confirming today seem to have been made—the commodity levies that are being confirmed by this.

Secondary legislation to be confirmed by this is set out in the legislative statement that I’ve just presented to the House. It therefore means I no longer have to go through all of the detail of that, which I’m sure members of the House will be incredibly grateful for. They are regulations made under eight different Acts of Parliament.

I want to acknowledge the work done by the Regulations Review Committee in examining the regulations covered by this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s interesting to see the innovation being employed, as referred to by the Minister, whereby a statement can be placed on record, and thereby keep contributions to the House reasonably brief and relevant and not need to spell out every detail. In that spirit, I’ll make a few remarks, only briefly. But without that particular mechanism available to me, I would like to make a couple of particular points for the record. One being just to acknowledge the purpose of the exercise that we’re engaged in; second, to make a number of acknowledgments; third, to deal with the real-world relevance of the regulations that we’ve been looking at; and, fourth, of course, to conclude on behalf of the Regulations Review Committee.

So I speak—as much as anything, at this the second reading; albeit the only reading, in effect, in terms of contributions to the debate—on behalf of the Regulations Review Committee. Of course, it’s a committee that has an important function, whereby we’re scrutinising the work of the executive. That much has already been traversed in contributions on other matters recently.

I will acknowledge—as well as the members of the committee generally, as I have done previously—in particular, the deputy chair, Rachel Brooking, who is a new member of Parliament. I wish her and those members of the committee—indeed, all new members of the committee who are in this place—all the very best for the 53rd Parliament.

I do also want to acknowledge the various Government agencies who engaged with us in this process, because we had to move quite quickly to this item of business at our first, and so far only, meeting of the Regulations Review Committee. We were somewhat reliant on the work that had been undertaken on our behalf by the committee clerk staff, whom I also acknowledge, and variously the New Zealand Customs Service, the Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Social Development, and the Ministry of Transport. So it was that they were able to answer a number of standard questions explaining the way that the orders—or rather the regulations; the subordinate legislation eponymously—have been carried out, and that was a helpful exercise.

I don’t need to traverse the detail, obviously, you’ll be pleased to know. But I do also just want to pause and thank them for the work that they do as a matter of course. The work of, for example, the New Zealand Police is something that’s appropriate to acknowledge today, in light of the role that they played as first responders in the tragedy that unfolded in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, along with the victims and their loved ones, of course. They were essential workers that day; they’re essential workers every day. And though we have coined that term particularly in the context of COVID-19, of course we should always acknowledge the work that they do and thank them for their service at every available opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I promised you the real-world relevance of the exercise that we’ve been engaged with. So just to give a bit of a flavour generally, one of the matters covered in these instruments was the continuation of commitments that have been made in relation to a trade agreement with Singapore. So that’s an international obligation that is appropriate that this House continues, to allow the Government to meet, along with the continuation of various other measures: an increase to the road-user charges for example, which won’t please everyone, but, none the less, does reflect, in essence, an extension of business as usual.

Turning to my final point, which is the conclusion we reached: “After considering the responses, we found no reason why the orders and regulations should not be confirmed.” A neat little double-negative there that I suppose counts for an enthusiastic endorsement in the language of the Regulations Review Committee. We weren’t unhappy, and so it was that we said that the House of Parliament—as a whole, if they were to be advised by us and take their lead from our examination of these regulations—should allow them to remain in force, effectively, or be retrospectively validated for the period that they were in force up to 30 June 2020, which was several years ago, at least according to the way that I feel, and probably a lot of New Zealanders feel! But, in any case, that time has been and gone. Not really a matter of retrospectivity, in a sense that these matters were covered by regulation. They now are also covered by legislation—primary legislation. And so it is that we commend this bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT rises in opposition to this bill and on a very specific ground. In Part 2, clause 7, there are two regulations being confirmed in this bill: the Arms (Prohibited Ammunition) Amendment Order 2019 and the Arms (Prohibited Magazine) Order 2019, the first one of which raises great concerns for the ACT Party.

These two orders were part of a process we believe has been unjustifiably imposed across the country, not because of the intent of this House to keep New Zealanders safe, but because of the process it took to try and achieve that aim. These orders assisted in the establishment of a scheme that saw the Government prohibit and seize ammunition without compensation. The basis of this scheme was taken to the High Court and, regarding the prohibition of ammunition, Justice Cooke referred in his judgment to a statement made by the then Minister of Police in an affidavit where he says, “The Government decided not to offer a buy-back regime to persons who were in possession of what had become prohibited ammunition. They would have an amnesty only. I confirm that in this respect the Government proceeded on the understanding that there is no legal obligation to provide compensation from public funds for property that becomes prohibited by law.”

ACT believes that this shows two intents. The first is to prohibit product, some of it originally purchased from Government sources, and then, two, to justify not having to pay for it. They pulled the rug out from under the feet of people who have done nothing wrong and they have been justifying it ever since. Much like the significant natural areas on those that own their own land, this is a devious way to impinge on a person’s private property rights. How can the fundamental right to own what you have purchased be secured in an environment of confiscation? This is a fundamental principle that the Government decided to ignore and trample over. They did not need to do this. They chose to do this.

High Court Justice Cooke also made some further criticisms in his decision. He goes on to say, at paragraph 125, “It is certainly true that there is no such obligation in the sense that Parliament can always legislate inconsistently with the right to receive compensation for a deprivation of property. But on its face the Minister’s view goes further, and suggests that because the measures involved prohibiting possession of the property no such right to compensation arose.” At paragraph 126 he goes on to say, “For the reasons already addressed at some length, that view is not correct. Moreover, had this been a view formed in relation to a statutory power of decision, there would have been an expectation that the decision-maker would have addressed the common law right more directly. For this reason [he saw] some merit in the applicant’s criticism. It also gains force given that prohibited ammunition has been treated differently from prohibited firearms without apparent justification. The Minister’s statement that there is no legal obligation to compensate for prohibiting possession of the property does not provide a justification.”

ACT have to oppose this bill to the House purely on Part 2, clause 7, as our clear property rights are compromised by the original Order in Council, which is now in this bill seeking confirmation. Going by the judgment of a High Court justice, I think it’s important—the ACT Party thinks it’s important—that we actually should be looking to compensate those who have private property that has been confiscated by the Government. We therefore oppose this order. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 5) be now read a third time.

Ayes 109

New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the first readings and referral to select committee of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill, the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill, the Water Services Bill, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, and the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.

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

Ayes 74

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This is the second of the trilogy of Reserve Bank bills that this Government has brought in the past and will bring in the future to this House. For those who haven’t been following along closely at home, the first of these bills, which became an Act, was the one that changed the objectives of the Reserve Bank to focus not just on price stability, as important as that is, but also on the concept of maximum sustainable employment. That first bill also changed the decision-making process of the Reserve Bank from the single decision-maker model of the governor making monetary policy decisions to a monetary policy committee. And that particular process has been in operation for a couple of years now and is working very well.

The second part of the Reserve Bank review was to look at other matters, in particular matters to do with financial stability, policy, other organisational matters, and the regulatory framework for banks and other deposit takers. Such was the volume of work created by this review that it required not one but two further bills to be able to capture what has been done in the Reserve Bank Act review.

So today I introduced the bill that is essentially about the institutional arrangements that will govern the Reserve Bank from here. Shortly into the new year, we will introduce the third bill known as the Deposit Takers Bill. That particular piece of legislation will look at the way in which we regulate banks, what the regulatory perimeter is for them, how we work with other deposit takers, and, importantly, it will also introduce a deposit insurance scheme—but that is for another day.

What is in front of us today is, essentially, a piece of work to put in place better governance arrangements for the bank and a better process around it at achieving its financial stability objectives. What most people, if they are thinking about the Reserve Bank, think of is the official cash rate, which is the manifestation of its monetary policy role. We have a monetary policy remit—it used to be called the policy targets agreement—which is negotiated between the Government and the Reserve Bank to govern that work.

But what’s happened over the 30-odd years that the Reserve Bank Act has been in place is that more and more tasks have been given to the Reserve Bank and they, broadly speaking, fit under the heading of financial policy—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: By that Minister.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Some by me, Mr Woodhouse, that’s true, but, in fact, some by Ministers such as Bill English and others as well. So this role of how they regulate, for example, the insurance industry, how they achieve their financial policy and stability roles has in fact—actually, certainly up until now—been shared across the House. Perhaps Mr Woodhouse might have something different to say in a minute.

That area of work—[Interruption] Oh, that’s true—has not been governed by the same kind of rules that govern monetary policy. So this bill is an opportunity to do that. Firstly, as I say, it’s about strengthening the role of the board. The board of the Reserve Bank is going to take on a role more similar to what you see in other Crown entities. So it will have a greater level of responsibility for making sure that the bank is achieving the objectives in the Act. This has been welcomed by the Reserve Bank, and, indeed, by those who do follow this closely, as giving a greater level of assurance around what governance means—still always protecting the operational independence of the bank, but making sure that the board plays an important role in governance.

The second significant thing being done in this bit of legislation is the creation of a financial policy remit—and, as I said, we have one of those for monetary policy. Now, the companion on the other side is a set of criteria, an agreement between the Government of the day and the Reserve Bank on how they will go about their work when it comes to financial stability. And, obviously, this is a topic that’s been in the news a little bit lately, because one of the core elements that is often discussed when it comes to financial stability is the issue of the housing market. Clearly, within the work that the Reserve Bank does, it already considers those issues, and those, again, who follow closely, read the Financial Stability Report that the Reserve Bank puts out, will notice that it is the bit of their work that is really about whether or not our financial system is robust, what are the risks to it, and how do we manage those risks. And so we will now have a financial policy remit that sets out the matters that the board has to have regard to given its role now in monitoring that work.

The other area that this piece of legislation covers that is extremely significant, in my view, is legislative statutory recognition for the Council of Financial Regulators. I acknowledge my ministerial colleague the Hon Kris Faafoi in this regard, who, when he held the portfolio around commerce, did a great deal of work to lift the role of the Council of Financial Regulators—that group, its two major participants are the Reserve Bank and the FMA, the Financial Markets Authority. This is the opportunity for us to ensure that the regulatory work we do is coordinated.

While that might not sound that significant, it has been extremely significant. In, for example, the work that was done in response to what happened in Australia with their royal commission on banking, we were able to bring those ideas over and bring the Reserve Bank and the FMA together to be able to work on those matters. So the Council of Financial Regulators has existed for some time. What this bill does is actually give them statutory recognition, give them more ability to be able to work across the system, get cooperation, make sure our regulation is actually fit for purpose, and ensure that they work closely with other regulatory authorities, such as the Commerce Commission and so on.

There are some other matters in the bill that are tidy-ups of the regulatory roles that the bank has, giving them adequate recognition. We’ve had a bit of a piecemeal approach, over the last couple of decades, of adding bits and pieces. This brings them all together in one place.

This kind of work around financial stability is very important to New Zealanders’ lives. It is very important to their wellbeing. All of us entrust the money that we have to institutions to look after. We need to know that those institutions are working in a framework that prioritises the wellbeing of our people, but also their security and their stability when it comes to financial services. So this is something that matters to people’s lives.

In the last term of Parliament, in Cabinet, from time to time, we found ourselves discussing some institutions who were struggling. And when we talked about those, it was really important to remember the individuals, the whānau, who have money in a financial institution. They need to know that that is being secured and supported. That is primarily what this bill is about. It is about setting the framework for that, having an arrangement between the Government and the Reserve Bank to make sure that those systems are developed well.

So I commend this bill to the House. I invite members to read the statement, to work their way through the technicalities of it. But I believe it is a good bill. I look forward to the select committee’s consideration of it.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill 2020. With an institution like the Reserve Bank—which, as the Minister of Finance just identified, plays a crucial part in managing monetary policy in New Zealand—I think it’s particularly important that decisions to change the institutional arrangements, or, in fact, even the remit around the Reserve Bank, should go through a process of consultation with all parties to this House. I think it’s very disappointing that this is the second in two pieces of legislation—and, as the Minister said, we’re about to get a third, in due course—which contain changes that have not been agreed by the Opposition. Just to put on record, we will be opposing these changes.

The context for that is the first round of changes that the Minister imposed on this House in the 52nd Parliament—back in 2018—was one which, first of all, gave the bank a dual mandate and added to the existing and long-held view that the bank was principally there to manage price stability—in other words, keeping inflation low, between 1 and 3 percent, over the medium term. The change added the dual mandate—the second mandate—around maximum sustainable employment.

As an Opposition, we expressed our displeasure and disagreement with that approach and noted at the time that we thought there would be potential that there would be a conflict, depending on the economic circumstances. I don’t think, given the life of time since 2018, we have actually achieved much from the dual mandate, and others would argue even more strongly against that move. So that was what was put forward at the time, and there were a couple of other changes that were proposed. I think the most disappointing thing was it wasn’t done with the blessing of the whole House.

Of course, the first step in the change of the governance structure was the incorporation, or establishment, of the monetary policy committee (MPC), which has now been in operation for a couple of years. At the time, we were concerned that that had the potential to be full of appointees—political hacks, ex - political hacks, and people who would not bring the sufficient expertise to that role. Now, I’m not casting aspersions on any of the members of the current monetary policy committee, but this second bill is the ongoing corporatisation of the Reserve Bank. I use the word “corporatisation” because we are now going to end up with three levels. We’re now going to end up with a fully fledged board, which will have its own riding instructions issued by the Minister of Finance and will be appointed by the Minister of Finance. We still have a governor who is appointed by the Minister of Finance. And we still have this relatively new creation called the monetary policy committee, appointed—not all the members, but most of the members—by the Minister of Finance.

I noted in the speech from the Minister earlier that he talked about the importance of independence. Well, I think we are seriously diverging from that concept. I know from wider conversations that we’ve been having in very recent times—the last couple of weeks, where it’s been suggested that we may need to be clear about our instructions to the Reserve Bank—someone has claimed that I, personally, was imposing on the independence of the Reserve Bank, and went so far as to call me “Muldoon-like”. I would suggest to you that if you ever want to be Muldoon-like and you want to have control of the Reserve Bank, just have a Minister of Finance who appoints the board, appoints the governor, and appoints the monetary policy committee. That’s the problem with this bill. It’s not a good put.

We should not be debating this in the House, and we should not be debating it in select committee, because this is the type of thing which spans multiple Governments, over much time, and should involve all of us in this House in making sure we get the right outcome. But here we have a Government who has got outright control of this House, who’s going to ram through this legislation like they did last time. I think this is something that’s cutting to the core of how we manage the financial system in New Zealand, and I think it’s wrong—I think it’s wrong. That’s my first principal concern, and I’ve only got four minutes, so I’m going to have to leave some of this to my good colleagues here.

The other side of this is there is a move in terms of the overarching new financial stability objective. Previously—or currently, until this bill is rammed through the House by the Parliament—the objective was to protect and promote the stability of New Zealand’s financial system. Now there is a new clause, and it’s quite nuanced wording, but it now moves to a new objective around efficiency, and that replaces the existing requirement to have regard for the efficiency and soundness of the financial system. We are now at an issue that talks about efficiency, which means something quite different from what is in the current wording. Efficiency should be a critical consideration of the Reserve Bank, but this change is quite significant in terms of what it means for the governor, for the monetary policy committee, and also, essentially, at a board level. I think this is something we need to understand more from the people behind the bill and the officials who have written the bill, because, unfortunately, we haven’t had a briefing on it, but it does have potentially quite wide-ranging implications.

The last thing I’m going to talk about—because I’ve been talking about this issue in the last couple of weeks—is that in the current situation, where we’ve got a significant level of liquidity going into the banking market, I have been promoting that it may be appropriate for the Minister to write a letter of intent to the Reserve Bank Governor under section 68(b) of the existing Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. So I find it slightly perverse that one of the things in this bill is that that option, which is sitting latent in the existing legislation, is now being turned, in this current bill, into a requirement. Even though the Minister was, only a matter of a few days ago, saying we shouldn’t be doing that and it’s wrong and we’re interfering, we now have, in this bill, provision for the Minister of Finance—yet again another level of interference. This is a requirement; it’s not optional, as currently section 68(b) is. The Minister is required to send to the governor the financial policy remit.

I just think that’s a wonderful contradiction—and a perverse outcome, given where we’ve been over the last couple of weeks—that here we are with the Minister at one stage saying we’re full of independence and we want to protect all that, and here they are taking the very clause that could have been a way for their finance Minister to influence the direction of the Reserve Bank from time to time and enshrining it in legislation as a requirement. I just think that is a wonderful piece of inventive thinking by the Minister of how to achieve something and call it something different.

Todd Muller: Sleight of hand.

ANDREW BAYLY: Sleight of hand, my learned colleague tells me beside me, and I think it is.

We will be opposing this bill on the principal grounds that it’s blurring the level of accountability between the Minister of Finance and section 68(b); of the blurring of the lines of accountability between the governor, the MPC, and the board; of the increased Treasury influence—and I’m sure my other colleagues are going to pick up on it—and of this new financial stability objective, particularly around the efficiency. It is going to be a very interesting select committee.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I should start by saying this is the first time that I’ve spoken in the House while you’ve been in the Chair, and it’s a delight to see you there. I’m sure you will guide us with wisdom and insight in your role as Speaker.

I’ve been trying to think about what exactly the objections from the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly, were to this bill. If I can summarise it in the nutshell, the objections raised by the previous speaker seemed to be that the Government is going to govern.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: That’s right. It’s a very curious concept—that the Government would actually govern. He was concerned that perhaps this particular bill was not—first of all, he was concerned that it was not going to be subject to consultation, and then he had some concerns about how the board was going to be appointed, and so on. I just want to address that quite clearly. This bill is going to a full select committee process. It will be examined thoroughly in the select committee process, and I’m sure that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will do an excellent job.

Kieran McAnulty: Top committee.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Top committee, especially with its new chair, Dr Duncan Webb. So I think it will do a great job and, of course, it will be subject to the full debate in the House. So there is plenty of opportunity for discussion on this bill, and improvement if needed. So that’s the first point: there is a full parliamentary process going on with this bill, which is fantastic.

The second thing that I wish to raise is just to think about what has happened with the Reserve Bank over a few years. Of course, part of what was brought in with the monetary policy, and the reason why we had the Reserve Bank taking up the role of implementing monetary policy and having quite a lot of independence from central government, was because of the monster of inflation, which was rampant. It was rampant when the Reserve Bank was given real powers to control monetary policy and inflation. But I’m just going to say that the monster of inflation has largely been slain, so monetary policy has been very, very effective.

But there are other matters that the Reserve Bank is concerned with—in particular, it is concerned with the stability of our financial systems. So what this bill does is actually creates the capacity for the Reserve Bank to increase its insight over the financial system, to engage in better regulation, but it also increases the political accountability around the Reserve Bank—in particular, the Minister of Finance, who sets the financial remit, is subject to elections every three years, is subject to scrutiny in the House, is subject to the select committee process, and is subject to all the processes that this House has to hold people accountable for the policies that they set. So it actually increases—it increases—the accountability of what happens over at the Reserve Bank—it increases the accountability because of the scrutiny of this House.

So I think, again, there’s work to—obviously, the bill needs to go through its select committee process, but this seems to me to be a good outcome from this bill as it goes through. So I’m going to invite the Opposition to recognise that the Government does get to govern, but to engage in the process of the select committee, to engage, to raise their objections there, to make the alternative suggestions, and that, after all, is what the discussion in this House is all about. I’m sure that they will have some excellent input to make in the very full process of scrutiny that is to come.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Congratulations on your appointment, Madam Assistant Speaker Salesa. It’s nice to see you in the Chair.

Last year—no; actually, halfway through this year—I gave a speech that caused quite some chagrin across the House, when I described the Prime Minister as like Rob Muldoon with slogans and kindness, and I stood by those comments in the face of that criticism because of what I believed was the creeping executive fiat that’s been going on over the last 10 months that looks very much like a Muldoonist approach. Then, Dr Deborah Russell absolutely nailed home the confirmation that this Government looks, acts, and sounds exactly like a Government of the 1970s and 1980s. She said that our primary objective is that there is a Government that is going to govern, and then she says that this will increase political accountability. Well, actually, it won’t. It might increase accountability, but it reduces independence, and in the post-Muldoon period, the passage of the Reserve Bank Act was designed as a handbrake on executive fiat by maintaining and protecting the independence between the Government—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who brought that Act in? Labour.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Labour did. That very fine fourth Labour Government that they will never talk about—never once will they even mention it. The best Labour Government this country’s ever had, and they don’t want to talk about it.

But the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 did exactly what this bill is attempting to undermine: it maintained the important independence between the executive and the Reserve Bank by setting a set of criteria that the Reserve Bank is bound by law to follow, without fear or favour. There’s no doubt that there has been some tinkering at the edges, and in my interjection to the Minister of Finance, where I said that most of it was being done by him, he acknowledged that.

But he also said, “Oh well, Bill English did a little bit of that as well.”, and I think that’s worth deconstructing, because some of the things that the previous Minister—sorry, two Ministers of Finance ago—did were designed to meet the goals of the Reserve Bank Act in the financial remit, and that is to improve financial stability and manage any risks to the economy—for example, the deposit guarantee scheme, the insurance schemes that the Reserve Bank now follow, all were consistent with the mandate that the Reserve Bank had and the requirements that the Government set for it. What they didn’t do was change that mandate, and the first thing this Government did was throw the responsibility for maximum employment on to the banking system—on to the Reserve Bank.

I’ve got this picture in my head of Adrian Orr as the classic one-man band, with the trombone under one arm, with accordion under the other, and with the tambourines between the knees.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They tried to give him housing. What did he do with that?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, we’ll come to housing, Mr Brownlee. That’s a very good point, and, actually, that’s not the picture I have any more, because Minister Robertson didn’t like the tune that Mr Orr was playing. He didn’t like the tempo and he didn’t like the fact that he couldn’t change the tune. So now I’ve got a picture of a puppet—a marionette—and Robertson’s on one end and poor old Adrian Orr’s bouncing along in the wake of these things that the Minister doesn’t like.

Now, when it comes to housing, there is a problem. It is a problem of the Government’s making, and that’s exactly what the Reserve Bank Governor pointed out in his reply to the Minister on 24 November. Now, the Minister wrote to Adrian Orr—actually, under pressure from the shadow Treasurer, Andrew Bayly, who pointed out, quite rightly, that, actually, if you wanted to pull a string, the Minister of Finance had one under section 68B of the Reserve Bank Act. What was really interesting about that was if you look at the remit of the monetary policy committee, when it talks about price stability, the Government—and this was written by the previous Government—requires the Reserve Bank to discount events that only have transitory effects on inflation, setting policy with a medium-term orientation. What that means is that the Government has given up on any kind of short-term control of house price inflation. In the remit, we’re now going to add house prices—not just inflation generally, but house price inflation—so I wonder what happens when the price of bananas goes up, or the price of fish or the price of fruit and vege.

Whatever the Government doesn’t like, it, effectively, is going to tinker with the Reserve Bank Act and throw the responsibility of the things that this Government has on to the Reserve Bank. That is entirely against the principles of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989, and, as Mr Bayly pointed out, there is far, far less independence than was envisaged when that Act was passed 31 years ago.

Dr Russell talks about strengthening—and the Minister mentioned this, as well—the role of the board. But who appoints the board? Who appoints the governor? Who appoints the monetary policy committee? Every element of independence by the Reserve Bank—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Gone.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —is now being undermined, and could well be gone in the future, Mr Brownlee. That is the opposite of what we need. Actually, Dr Russell talks about—I was gobsmacked at this—the monster. She said, “The monster of inflation has largely been slayed.”, as if it is a creature that cannot rise again—that it’s gone for all time. Well, in the 1980s, during the fourth Labour Government, I was working for a retail bank in New Zealand, in the mortgage department, giving out mortgages in the Hutt Valley. The A rate for the best mortgages was 19.5 percent and the B rate was 20.5 percent, and people were still picking up mortgages because they knew house price inflation was going to mean that that investment was worthwhile.

We don’t have that now; in fact, we have the house price inflation, but we don’t have the interest rate inflation. That is not to say that with the level of quantitative easing that is being employed by the Reserve Bank right now to stimulate the economy, inflation is not a monster that cannot rise again. It absolutely can, and I have confidence that the Reserve Bank knows much, much more about those risks than the Government does, because if the former chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee believes that the inflation monster is dead and buried for ever—and that’s the level of financial acumen from a former senior lecturer in accounting—then I’m afraid we’ve got a problem in terms of the financial literacy of the Government.

She aspires to ministry. She’s probably—well, there’s no “probably” about it. She has a far better pedigree than the current Minister of Finance has when it comes to understanding financial matters—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Who’s that?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —Dr Russell—but what staggers me is, despite that, she still believes that inflation has been defeated, as if that’s it. It lurks like a virus, and it can come back if we don’t take the sorts of prevention measures—how about some social distancing, or some economic distancing then, between the Government and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand? There’s no masks, there’s no social distancing, there’s no COVID Act here for the Reserve Bank. They’re at risk, and the virus of inflation will come back if the sorts of interventions, interferences, and a lack of separation is allowed to continue.

This is a slow creep towards a very, very poor situation—a dangerous situation, dare I say it—and it saddens me that we cannot support the bill. Reserve Bank bills should be bipartisan, but at least at the first reading, it’s not going to be possible. So when we go to select committee and when we hear from submitters, I think there is a very good opportunity to make this bill better than when it came in, and we will certainly keep an open mind about whether or not those changes are sufficiently robust to maintain the independence of the Reserve Bank in order that we can support it. The last thing we want is the marionette master continuing to tinker, and a future Government having to undo that, because what worries me is that by then, a significant amount of damage could be done to our banking system and to our monetary policy framework. I hope that’s not the case.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. There were some great things that came out of 1989, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was one of them. So was When the Cat’s Away. Now, When the Cat’s Away remains a great band and great music; the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, however, has not aged quite as well.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That’s not what the Minister’s statement says!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The member over there still is standing up with 1989 thinking, with a single-target Reserve Bank.

Now, the independence of the Reserve Bank was the huge leap forward made, and we all know that New Zealand was ahead of the world in that. Our economists are still regarded as world leading in terms of identifying inflation targeting as a robust and effective economic tool. But times do move on, and, whilst that was a great innovation then, it doesn’t mean there are not still better ways to do it—still better ways to manage money supply and to supervise our financial institutions in a way which is good for the New Zealand economy—and no more so than now, when we have extremely volatile international and local financial conditions and the Reserve Bank has at its disposal a range of tools. The question is: how should it use those tools? Should it use them in some kind of economic isolation, or should it use them taking into account the conditions on the ground, informed by what’s going on around them, including what’s going on in fiscal policy as well?

We only have to look at what’s happening to our economy to know that there is no one single tool that can be used—that there are a range of tools, both monetary and fiscal, and it’s no good using one out of coordination and out of sync with the other. What this piece of legislation does is it improves the governance of the Reserve Bank so that it’s not a single Reserve Bank Governor making decisions but that it’s made in a way which is, frankly, widely recognised as having a higher-quality decision-making process, with a group of people with a range of skills and backgrounds, so that we come with a higher-quality decision that doesn’t ignore the wider ramifications of what’s going on.

The Reserve Bank is not an island—we know that; we’ve seen that. The Reserve Bank must have a relationship with Government, but it must, at the same time, maintain its independence. So having those lines of communication which are transparent and robust, like the remit, is really important so that clear, legitimate interactions can be had, but the ultimate decision-making has to be left in the hands of the Reserve Bank and outside of political interference. This bill strikes the right balance. It’s the next step forward on a road which is to strengthen our financial system so that we’re protecting the assets and positions of all New Zealanders and, in accordance with the remit as it stands, reducing inequality. This is a good, strong, robust move forward for the Reserve Bank. I commend it to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill. Indeed, some of the reforms that it’s proposing are things that the Green Party has long advocated for, in particular the shift to a broader range of people in the board being responsible for some of the decisions as opposed to just the one single Governor of the Reserve Bank—although I know in practice they have been operating that way for a while.

I guess I wanted to just step back for a moment and just talk about monetary policy and fiscal policy, which sound really quite boring and technocratic, probably, to many people, but, ultimately, the decisions that we make around these—it’s really important that we understand that it’s not a purely technocratic thing, monetary policy, and neither is fiscal policy. Ultimately, they reflect the values and priorities of a society, and they are tools with which we can work together for the benefit of all of us or we could, you know—I think in the 1980s and early 1990s, the view was that somehow this was a value-free, technocratic approach that was superior and going to lead to the perfect functioning of the economic machine. But the economy isn’t a thing separate to us; we are the economy. The economy is what we do. It’s the goods and services we pay each other for, and, in fact, we do a lot more than just the economy. A lot of the things in our society that enable us to have an economy or a market where services and goods are traded commercially are things that are unpaid and the things we do for the value of it. So we can’t pretend that there’s some ideal technocratic solution that is fully independent of politics, because politics is how we work together to make decisions that affect us all collectively.

So I think it is appropriate that there is a broader mandate and that we look beyond really just purely narrow goals, because one of the things that I think was overlooked in the economic revolution of the 1980s and 1990s was how some of these decisions that were done supposedly for the good of the economy weren’t actually that good for everyone, and they entrenched a certain amount of inequality, including here in Aotearoa New Zealand, in the name of a GDP growth rate that was seen as success. I think most of us would agree that extreme inequality of wealth and income is not a good thing, and it’s not something that we support, and that, ultimately, whether Government’s making decisions about how we budget, how we spend money, laws and regulations that influence how people live their lives, or whether it’s the Reserve Bank making decisions around interest rates, all of these things will have some impact on people in our society, and it’s important that they are democratically accountable and that we recognise and are explicit about the values that are underlying those decisions.

The Green Party has for a very long time advocated for a different approach to economics that isn’t just solely focused on GDP, because GDP doesn’t measure a lot of the things that we value in life and it doesn’t measure all of the costs, necessarily, as costs. Things can increase GDP that are increasing inequality or increasing pollution, things that we actually don’t want more of. So looking beyond that really narrow, technocratic vision, I think, is going to be valuable. Of course, there is a case for having strong institutions and making sure that they are transparent and accountable, and a certain amount of independence, but, yeah, just recognising that, ultimately, nothing is free from politics, because politics is the way that we make decisions about the things that we value.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party. We’d like to propose some positive solutions around the bill. This bill introduced by the Government and the Minister will provide an updated focus on reform and transparency and overall governance, and we think accountability arrangements of the central banks are clearly defined. We think it has a lot to recommend to it—ACT wants to support it in its first reading—but there are some points we’d like to make.

Through policy that the prosperity and financial wellbeing of all New Zealanders, there are some gaps in the system and this needs to be reviewed with the bill. Its main focus at the moment sees the maintenance of price stability supporting maximum sustainable employment and inflation management. But the banks’ challenge will be to contribute dynamically to a future-focused economy which is productive, with transparency—but there is an element of modernisation, we believe, that needs to happen in these challenging times. The institution is nearly 100 years old, and ACT wants to see and to promote an even more stable, well-governed, and managed financial stability at a micro level from New Zealand. So there are five points we’d like the Minister to review, and these are ones that we see in the bill probably haven’t got world-class benchmarks and are a concern to our country.

ACT believes, on payment systems and cyber-security, that there’s a critical role here in the payment system to be played. We need a Government structure which actually will improve our cyber-resilience and ensure that outages that occurred recently with the payment system, and at the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX), won’t ever occur again. We’re not convinced that there is a world-class solution in place there, and certainly it seems to be by consultation to information management companies. So there are significant challenges to deliver on that task. Realistically, given the breadth of the Reserve Bank’s responsibilities for management payments system within New Zealand’s largest clearing system—which is bigger than the NZX trade in the financial markets—and managing the distribution of cash, and managing foreign reserves, we’ve got a simple question: we ask how a single governance board or a committee can have all those skills and capacity to do this. And I want to focus on monetary and prudential policy. So we believe there’s work to be done in that area, to separate and define that constructively so the risks are taken out.

So the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) consultative process needs to be modern, relevant, and bulletproof to maintain confidence. The second area we’d like to bring forward is an area that has been neglected, and it’s the difference between banking and non-bank lending. Banks have performed well in this period, and done well. We want to ensure and include the system in a wider financial system—and it’s not just that banks are good for everything, which seems to be the RBNZ’s approach, and everything else is bad—banks have ample funds, liquidity, strong balance sheets, and total access to the RBNZ’s programmes. We’d like it to be considered that it would be more equitable, as well, to provide for less well-off, underserviced communities—like the Māori community and the Pasifika community—which banks won’t service, and communities should be able to have access to fair financial products.

So ACT wants to propose that the financial policy remit will also enable the Government to ensure the prudential regulation does not disadvantage locally owned institutions and prevent the ongoing decline of the New Zealand financial sector, particularly its mutual and credit union sectors—and those are the people that would normally bank the poorest members of the community. At the moment, those organisations don’t have the same access to liquidity and to the long-term funding programmes, and we think that that playing field needs to be levelled. And even though in the reports, the monetary stability report, it looks like it’s the long end of the tail, it’s actually really important in terms of the community. So we’d like that to be taken into consideration and addressed and solved. So we think this deserves to be canvassed at the select committee.

Also, in terms of modern technology and peer-to-peer lending, in terms of institutions like Harmoney, we need to also incorporate into this bill the facilitation process for modern technology, and for future practices that we can’t envisage yet, but certainly will be happening in the next 10 years.

Point number three is around the monetary policy committee. We believe in transparency and accountability in decision making at the ACT Party, and we’d like to see more transparency around the decision making and the decisions and the names of the members of that committee. They should be totally responsible and on the record as a committee, as individual members, for the decisions they make. So instead of a monetary stability report which says the committee agreed on this, every single individual should have their names and a tick beside it on what they actually decided, because we don’t want to encourage groupthink, and we want to have a difference of opinion and skill sets on that committee.

Point number four is around monetary policy and prudential supervision. One of the things that I think the bill is ignoring is there are learnings for New Zealand to take the approach that the English and Australians have done to prudential supervision and create either a separate organisation as supervisor, or a separate committee with independent members to ensure there is the appropriate focus. By doing that for monetary policy but not prudential regulation, is the Minister, effectively, saying one is more important than other—we’d like that question answered—and, if so, isn’t that a backward step?

Finally, on house price inflation, ACT’s position that the RBNZ should take housing costs into account when making decisions would be welcome during its decision-making policy and processes. We also note from today’s release of the November 2020 monetary stability report that there is a concern that increases in highly leveraged borrowing, if continued, could lead to emerging risks to financial stability longer term. So we encourage the monetary policy committee to reflect on this area of policy, and we would like to see a risk management framework around that which improves governance, transparency, and actually delivers the objectives of the RBNZ.

So, in conclusion, ACT supports the reading of the bill at this first series, but we believe there’s work to be done. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): In 2008, we had a global financial crisis, which took all our attention around monetary issues. Before that time, Reserve Bank Governors and central bankers were really not that well known—they certainly weren’t the rock stars they’ve become today. Essentially, the world looked at what had happened when the derivative market collapsed with the house of cards effect around the world, and so at a meeting in Switzerland the powers that be, essentially, pointed to their reserve bank governance and said, “Save us.” And as a result, monetary policy, which in the past was ever-present but not seen as the panacea, became just that. So things like the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill, which we’re looking at now, and Reserve Bank Governors all of a sudden were given a power and a remit that they really hadn’t had previously. So that’s why, when we come to looking at a Reserve Bank bill like we’re looking at today, it becomes so essential.

A little history lesson: many won’t realise that the Reserve Bank used to be a Government department, and we had a Prime Minister—a well-known Prime Minister, Rob Muldoon—who, essentially, took over the running of the Reserve Bank and set all the policy directly. It wasn’t even policy; it was orders—and as a result, the country nearly went broke. So that’s why we have a Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which must be constantly updated, because, as a result of the reliance on central bankers now to keep the monetary flow going, we have to have good regulation behind it. And that’s, essentially, what this bill is about, and why it’s essential that we do take it through its various parts and get it through select committee and the committee of the whole House to make sure it is what it needs to be, because this is a very important piece of legislation in ensuring the financial stability of New Zealand. For that matter, I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee—five minutes.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): That speech, I think, was a little sad, because it’s sort of suggesting that there has been no history to this particular bill or its predecessor, which is still operational, which is the 1989 Act.

No one could forget the confusion that existed in New Zealand after the 1984 election, and the decision by the Government of the day to devalue the New Zealand dollar, the refusal by the incumbent Prime Minister, at that stage, to do it, and the powerlessness of any of the bureaucracy to be able to act in the best interests of New Zealand at that time. That’s why, over a period of years, a Labour Government did consider what would be the best arrangements for the Reserve Bank, what would be the best arrangements for monetary policy in New Zealand, and came up with this Act. I think it’s worth noting that for all of those 31 years since that time, this has been a success.

Alongside the passing of this Act, there was also the floating of the New Zealand dollar, so that we did not have a finance Minister able to go on to television and dictate to the nation what the value of our dollar would be against other exchanges. We know that the crisis of 1984 cost this country hundreds of millions of dollars because of that intransigence.

So a bill like this is extremely important. But we are not going to support a bill that, effectively, on the one hand, gives us the sort of sheep’s view of it, all nice, fluffy, and woolly, but underneath is, in fact, just a wolf dressed up. Because if you look at what the roles of the Minister are, it’s abundantly clear that the independence of the Reserve Bank substantially disappears with the passing of this bill. It’s the Minister who appoints the governor. It’s the Minister who appoints the monetary policy committee. It’s the Minister who sets out the financial policy remit. It’s the Minister who sets out the monetary policy remit. It’s the Minister who appoints the board of the Reserve Bank, and it’s the Minister who does all the unappointing of all of those positions as well.

So what happens if there is a board that doesn’t agree with a Minister? Then I think you see recourse to what is in this bill, and most people won’t have got to it just yet, clause 121, an “Order providing a different economic objective or objectives”. Well, this may well be described as the Muldoon clause, because this is where the Minister himself can decide on a different course from what the monetary policy committee might have decided, the governor might have decided, and the board might have decided by simply issuing a new set of objectives, which, as it makes clear here, state what the board, what the monetary policy committee, what the governor, and what, effectively, the Reserve Bank must deliver.

So I listened carefully to the speech just delivered before, and anyone could think from that speech that this policy only dated back to 2008, the global financial crisis. It doesn’t; it goes right back to the 1980s in this country, and it served us very, very well as a response, no question.

Hon David Parker: He said that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Did he say that? Well, it was confused by his concern that not enough New Zealanders, or not enough people throughout the world, knew who Reserve Bank governors were. Well, I could just about list for him all of the New Zealand Reserve Bank Governors back to that time. And, of course, also—a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for an extension of time to further discuss this particular bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave, the House can decide. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There you go. So there is confirmation that I’m on the right track. This is a removal of the independence of the Reserve Bank bill, no question about that.

It is also a bill that reinstates the capacity for the finance Minister to direct the Reserve Bank, on particular policy issues. They are the very things that the Reserve Bank Act, in the first place, was passed for. It’s well known that the monetary system, the financial status of the country, rolls on well past any one Government—and for that reason there should’ve been a great deal more consultation over this.

I think the speech from the ACT member was extremely valuable because it pointed out things that we will discuss in the select committee. We look forward to that process, but will not be supporting this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Far from being a dictatorial bill, this is one that’s very modernised. You can see it in many indicators in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill, one of which is, of course, the movement from a single person to a board. It’s a very different approach which actually balances the independence of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand with the actual true and important role of the Minister. In this, you have a bill that’s modernised in its approach in several significant ways. The first is that it is absolutely a response to the lessons learnt by past mistakes. It will provide a board structure from a single decision maker. It will add an overarching objective that is financial stability, and actually talk to values and politics and put them in the right places. It will provide a remit to the Minister as to what is required when setting and implementing a strategy to meet that objective. That is hardly dictatorial. It will support the structure by redirecting operational independence. It balances it by accountability. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): This bill, in the current context, simply adds to the Government’s confused messaging regarding monetary policy. Various speakers in this debate have reminded us about the 1980s and the context in which an independent Reserve Bank was born. I’m reminded by my colleague Simeon Brown that, of course, he wasn’t even born when that happened. It is instructive to recall the context in which the Reserve Bank has had its powers developed, but it’s also very significant that we look at the more recent history, and that’s what I intend to do in this contribution.

As the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, outlined at the outset, this is one of three bills relating to the institutional arrangements of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that this Government has introduced. Of course, in passing any legislation of this sort, the balance that is required to be struck is that between democratic oversight of the Reserve Bank’s functions and the need for its operational independence. The very fact that we are standing here debating the frameworks in which the Reserve Bank makes its operational decisions underscores the fact that this Parliament has an incredibly significant role in setting the institutional frameworks for the Reserve Bank, and that those are distinct from operational decisions. And, of course, this is important, because the very cute conceit that the Minister of Finance has tried to run in more recent weeks is that somehow any gesture towards actually thinking about what the Reserve Bank does is somehow Muldoonist and interventionist. I would put to you that the very fact we are debating the frameworks in which the Reserve Bank operates makes it very clear that, in fact, these sorts of debates can be had.

In 2018, we had the first step away from the formal independence, with the introduction of the maximum sustainable employment goal and the creation of the monetary policy committee (MPC). Concerns about that were well canvassed at the time, and there are commentators today who would put to you that that extension of the goal around maximum sustainable employment has potentially contributed to some of the issues we’re seeing in the housing market now.

But this bill, in particular, looks at the governance and accountability arrangements. Our main concerns are about the blurring of the lines between the governor, the monetary policy committee, and the board. And, of course, we need to be very clear: this new board that’s being introduced isn’t some completely independent entity; the board members are to be appointed by the Minister. Now, we are very hopeful, on this side of the House, that the Minister of Finance will be very careful with who he appoints to that board and the way in which those appointments are made. But, of course, it would be very wrong for us not to raise the risk that those appointments could become incredibly political, and could thus erode—

Hon David Parker: You mean like Don Brash? Dr Brash—

NICOLA WILLIS: —the independence of the Reserve Bank. It is vital that we note this because it is quite a shift in structure, and I don’t see—

Hon David Parker: —the man who was governor and negotiated a place on the National Party list.

NICOLA WILLIS: —in this bill as it currently sits—and you’re welcome to point the measures out to me, the Hon David Parker, that provide safeguards that would ensure that there wouldn’t be politicisation in the appointment of that board.

Now, the second issue that we see, and that we are concerned about in this bill, relates to the financial policy remit issued by the Minister of Finance. Again, the financial policy remit being issued—this is something that has not existed previously in the way that the bank operates, and it does provide potentially for a much larger influence. The bill, in many ways, actually increases Treasury influence, and, of course, Treasury is the department that operates at the behest of the Minister of Finance, reports to him, and goes to him for their daily bread—with all respect to Treasury advisers reading the Hansard. So Treasury will now have a much-expanded role with regard to the Reserve Bank; it’s both an observer on the monetary policy committee and it’s a formal monitor of its duties—a formal role as a monitor. So, again, we raise our concern about the influence that Treasury will have on the independent way in which that group of people are able to make decisions and the potential for this, again, to be an arm through which the Minister influences the decision making of the Reserve Bank.

Coming back to the new financial stability objective to protect and promote the stability of New Zealand’s financial system, that replaces the existing requirement to take regard of the efficiency and soundness of the financial system. So this is a significant change. To remove that language around efficiency does change the framework within which the Reserve Bank is making decisions.

But, as I said earlier, a key concern that we have, apart from these three levels of decision-making accountability—governor, MPC, board—and the potential for interference, is the context in which all of this is happening. I want to put on the Hansard the record of what we have been seeing in recent weeks in relation to the conduct of the Reserve Bank and the Minister of Finance’s influence on it, because it is absolutely pivotal to the way in which this bill will operate. So just a few weeks ago, Andrew Bayly, National’s spokesperson, said that he was concerned about the Reserve Bank’s funding-for-lending programme—$28 billion to be pumped into the economy in order to keep things going—and he said, “Well, wouldn’t it be better if that went towards productive uses rather than simply into housing?”, and he gave some example of where that had been the case offshore. The Minister could suggest this through a letter of expectation. Now, what we then had was this huge overreaction from the Prime Minister, saying that that was Muldoonist, which it strikes me as very relevant to this debate, because here we are changing the very institutional settings in which the Reserve Bank operates, allowing the Minister of Finance to appoint a new board, to change its remit, and to change the way it operates, and yet the National Party, through suggesting a letter of expectation, are somehow the ones that are encroaching on independence.

So then what we had from Grant Robertson, the Minister of Finance, was that, actually, this all got a bit embarrassing for him, because, as members of this House know, house price inflation in New Zealand is completely out of control, and so he wrote to the Reserve Bank Governor and he said that he was looking at the remit of the monetary policy committee and that he would be making a suggestion around change, specifically to b(ii), which at the moment requires the Reserve Bank to avoid unnecessary instability in output interest rate and exchange rate. Now, there is a lot of debate in the financial community about what this part of the remit actually means in effect at all as it is. So when the Minister of Finance suggested, “Well, let’s add into this house prices”, there really is a question about what effect that would have at all. So then we had the slightly unedifying situation in which the Reserve Bank Governor then shoots back a letter in which he politely highlights that, in fact, it is the Government, through its regulatory and fiscal settings, that has the most influence on house prices—that, actually, if we were to look at the underlying issues with land constraint in the Resource Management Act, then that would be a better way of addressing these issues.

Now, we’re yet to hear the final say from the Reserve Bank on the suggestion from the Minister of Finance. We’re yet to see where the Minister of Finance will land on any final changes. The reason that I put all of this on the record of the Hansard is that here we are in 2020 making significant changes to the governance arrangements of the Reserve Bank, and we are doing so in the context of a tit-for-tat, back and forth letter exchange between the Minister of Finance and the governor about the very core purpose role and functions of the Reserve Bank in relation to, arguably, New Zealand’s most significant current public policy challenge: that of house price inflation. So is it any wonder that in that context, members on this side of the House think that we need to be both careful and judicious, and consider very deeply the potential that these changes have to allow the Minister to further encroach on the independence of the Reserve Bank?

So this bill in its current context adds to the Government’s confused messages regarding monetary policy. It proposes fundamental changes to institutional arrangements, and we in the National Party will be listening very hard indeed in the select committee, because we believe that the independence of the Reserve Bank is critical.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): I wasn’t going to take a call on this, but I do find it a little bit galling to be lectured on political independence of the Reserve Bank by the National Party. I’m going to read an extract of a speech by the then Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Don Brash, who’s a great fan of Friedrich Hayek. In 1996, he gave a speech about labour market policy. Now, the labour market by that time had been quite deregulated in New Zealand, and he said—this is as Governor of the Reserve Bank—“The deregulation is not complete. The Act provides for certain minimum entitlements that must be observed and employment contracts, including a minimum wage, minimum holiday entitlements, parental leave and equal pay for men and women.” He was a man who, as Governor of the Reserve Bank, had a very extreme view of deregulation of the labour market and pushed it as Governor of the Reserve Bank, and then, whilst Governor of the Reserve Bank, in what should be one of the most apolitical roles of any role appointed by Governments, he negotiated a position on the National Party list whilst he was Governor of the Reserve Bank, and did not resign from the position of Governor of the Reserve Bank until his position on the National Party list in the 2002 election was secured. It’s for that reason that I won’t put up with being lectured on the importance of political neutrality and freedom from interference from politicians by the National Party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion—

David Seymour: Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is it a point of order?

David Seymour: No, I’m calling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, there are no more calls left.

David Seymour: No, Mr Speaker, there’s a speech 12; anyone can call for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.

David Seymour: Yes, they can—they absolutely can.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry. No, my ruling is, according to the Business—I’ll stand up. The ruling from the Business Committee sets out the order of speeches. The only call that was not taken was by the Māori Party. The decision of the Business Committee is, when the Māori Party do not take their call, it reverts to the Labour Party, OK? So we have had all calls.

David Seymour: Point of order. There may be some confusion. As I understand it, David Parker had taken speech 11. There are 12 calls available. Now, you are correct that the Business Committee does give an indication of calls. However, frequently in this House, a person stands up and takes a call who may not be in order to speak according to the Business Committee’s guidance, and you as the Chair have absolute discretion to call somebody. Now, of course, also, you have a role under the Standing Orders to ensure that people are heard and that there is as much debate as possible. If I as a member seek a call that is available in a debate, then it’s not clear why you wouldn’t call me to facilitate further debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to make another ruling. I’m going to rule now on what Mr Seymour has said, that there was some confusion over whether or not the ninth call was fully taken. When Helen White took the call, there were 10 minutes on the clock—I made that a 10-minute call—so by my calculation, there’s a five-minute call left, if someone would like to take it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I greatly appreciate your willingness to be involved in a discussion with the officials, and I thank the Deputy Clerk of the House for talking to you about the ruling and for allowing me to take this call. I certainly hadn’t intended to speak in this debate.

I think the ACT Party member Damien Smith made a very fine speech presenting, I thought, actually, the most thoughtful contribution in the debate, and the contribution that was most tightly focused upon the content of the legislation that is before the House, and it was acknowledged by other members what a good contribution Damien Smith made. However, I can’t say the same for the contribution by David Parker.

Now, we could all point to the considerable irony of the National Party talking about the many errors, evils, and ills of Sir Robert Muldoon’s governance of the Reserve Bank and the rather unseemly transition of power that occurred shortly after I celebrated my first birthday, in the later weeks of July 1984. But the way that David Parker chose to stand up and impugn Don Brash, a guy who has done a lot for this country in many different fields, and to attack his opponents in the National Party who sit in this House today via somebody who is no longer a member of Parliament, unable to defend himself, I thought, was very unfair, and, frankly, it reflected more on the character of David Parker than it does on the character of Don Brash. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 84

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

Noes 35

New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I move, That the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill as this bill amends the Social Security Act 2018.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who is the Minister responsible for the Act, for her engagement in the development of this bill.

First of all I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin—the former Minister for Children. I’d like to acknowledge her for the work that she did. It was her that kicked off the review of the financial assistance for caregivers, which found that the financial assistance that we do give to caregivers is wanting and it is fragmented. It was her that got this bill to this stage now where it’s being read for the first time. I know that she would have loved to have been here to be the Minister in charge and the Minister making the statement that I’m doing now.

This Government has the aspiration that New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child. It is everybody’s dream, I guess—or wish—that every child in New Zealand has a safe, secure, loving whānau, and preferably their own family; however, that’s not always the case. For whatever reason, there are a number of children who, sadly, cannot be looked after by their own family and therefore have to be looked after by other caregivers. Across New Zealand, there are about 15,000 caregivers who have stepped up on a day-to-day basis to look after some 24,000 New Zealand children who are not able to be cared for by their parents.

There are two types of caregivers: one are caregivers who look after children in State care, and on the other hand there are children who are looked after by caregivers who are not in State care. This bill is about the discrepancy between the support that those two types of caregivers get. For example, those caregivers who look after children in State care receive the foster care allowance, and they receive it immediately. Now, this allowance is used for such things as, obviously, living costs, food, clothes, school fees, sports, camps, and hobbies that the children who they are looking after may wish to participate in. For those caregivers who look after children outside of State care, they don’t receive an immediate allowance. They are entitled, if they can present a case that the children will be left with them or in their care for over 12 months, to receive the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s allowance.

Now, these caregivers of children not in State care—more often than not these children are probably whānau. Their parents may have passed away or, quite simply, the parents might not be able to cope with looking after them. They may be imprisoned. They may have a long-term disability. There may be some family breakdown or illness, hence the reason these children are looked after but not in State care. So, in other words, they haven’t been uplifted by the State. Because the caregivers have to present a case that the children would be with them for 12 months, we call this the “12-month rule”. It’s not fair that the caregivers have to prove that they’ll be looking after them for 12 months before they receive an orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s allowance. It’s not fair, because these people have taken on the care of someone else’s child. Often they have no financial support, and often they have their own whānau, their own children, that they have to look after as well. This puts pressure, of course, on their own household finances, such as paying for the food, the power, the electricity. Of course, their own children may be wanting to participate in sports, hobbies, and those sorts of activities, and it is unfair on those families in their entirety. So what this bill does is it removes that 12-month rule and it ensures that the caregivers receive that appropriate financial support so that they can receive either the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit.

The second change that this bill is making is to support the children and their caregivers not under State care to receive the Christmas and the birthday allowance. Now, most of us in this House would have grown up in households where we would, before Christmas or before our birthdays, probably be lying in bed excited—the anticipation of knowing, when we get up in the morning, that we’ll probably receive a gift or there will be a birthday party put on by our parents. Most of us will remember that excitement from our childhood. Unfortunately, there are a number of children who don’t have that. At Christmas time and birthdays, they don’t have something to look forward to. They probably know that they might not receive a birthday present. They probably won’t have a party. They won’t have friends around. What this bill does is give those caregivers of children not in State care the birthday and Christmas allowance so that they can actually provide for those children on those very special days. Really, this is just making the system a lot more fair so that those caregivers of children not in State care receive a similar sort of support to those children who are in State care.

So, just to go through what exactly is changing in it, the bill removes the requirement that applicants are likely to be the principal caregiver of the child for at least a year by repealing the relevant eligibility criteria from sections 44(e) and 47(e) of the Social Security Act 2018. It’s removing the minimum time-period requirement for an arrangement to qualify for the orphans benefit or the unsupported child benefit and associated payments, and it would allow caregivers to receive the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit when the expected duration of the care arrangement may be short-term, unknown, or uncertain. So the applicants would still need to meet the remaining eligibility criteria, including that there must have been a family breakdown or that the parents have died, are missing, or have a long-term disablement. This will continue to be investigated and evidenced through the family breakdown assessment processor through a family group conference.

Again, why the change? The review of financial assistance for caregivers found that, in many caregiving situations, the expected placement duration may be short term: for example, when a parent is sentenced to prison for less than 12 months and an alternative caregiver will be looking after the child for that period, or the placement is unknown or uncertain: for example, when family members take on care of a child for an unknown period of time, such as while a more sustainable living arrangement can be found or when an intervention has been put in place that may address a root cause of the family breakdown. So, in some of these cases, what is expected to be a short-term care situation following a family breakdown can become a long-term or permanent placement.

In practice, it means there are caregivers who take on the care of a child, often in difficult and/or short-term situations where there is little other choice, who are unable to access financial assistance to help them to provide care. This is despite the fact that they, like other caregivers, have taken on primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child when that child’s parents are unable to care for them. Again, the second part that we’re changing: the caregivers in receipt of the foster care allowance receive the two allowances to cover the costs of celebrations and a gift for the children in their care on special occasions. The birthday allowance is paid in advance of a child’s birthday, and the Christmas allowance is paid in December of each year. The amount of the payment is half the amount of the weekly base rate of the foster care allowance that the caregiver receives, and it currently ranges from about $100 to $130. These two allowances are not currently available to the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit caregivers.

So the bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 to establish these two allowances for orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit caregivers. Kia ora.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in this first reading of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill, and I want to start my comments this evening by just saying what an extraordinary job the 15,000 caregivers in New Zealand provide for 22,000 children whose parents are unable to care for them for a range of reasons. Those caregivers, whether they are caregiving for children who are in the care of the State or looking after children within their immediate whānau or extended whānau, take on quite a challenge, and National accepts that there are some issues that need to be addressed; so we will be supporting this bill to select committee, but I do just want to raise a couple of areas that will require consideration by the select committee.

I think the other thing that I want to say from the outset is we recognise that the children who are being cared for by people other than their own parents have a number of challenges, and so what we have seen through the evidence presented through the select committee in the last term of Parliament was actually the ongoing financial hardship that the children themselves can experience. So I do recognise it’s really important that children who already have some challenges don’t remain permanently behind, and that we do give them the opportunity, through this system of support, to ensure that they come out of this on equal footing with any other New Zealand child. So I do think there are some issues that do need to be addressed. But it’s also looking at the reality that, when a family member is taking on the care of a child within their family, there might be some families who do have financial means to be able to support that child. So there is an area there in terms of at what point, or what is the line at which, taxpayers or the State should universally provide support, as opposed to providing financial support to those families who need it.

Can I say in my own electorate, having met with extraordinary organisations like Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and Kids in Need Waikato, there are families who experience extreme hardship, and in many cases the families that take on caring for others’ children actually, in some cases, have greater challenges than the parents who are not caring for their own children. So we’ve got to recognise that, and I do want to put on record in this House the extraordinary work that Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust do, and other organisations like Kids in Need Waikato, which provide practical support for those who are raising other people’s children. In some cases it’s short term, but one of the things that we have learnt—and I want to put on record the work that the Hon Anne Tolley did in the significant changes to the organisation and the way in which we look after children in State care; part of that was addressing the children’s concerns about the stability and the certainty and the security in the family that they went to. So, if one of those challenges is providing financial assistance to that family to make sure that child is able to stay there for a longer period of time and have less movements, then that’s absolutely going to be better for that child. So, where there is a family who has a need, then absolutely we want to make sure that they get financial assistance that supports them raising that child, either on a short-term basis or, hopefully, for a longer-term basis, because we know from listening to the voices of those children they don’t want to continue to be moved from house to house. That’s why the Home for Life was set up.

There were two surveys that were undertaken by the Hon Tracey Martin when she was the Minister for Children, and it was her work that led to this bill being introduced. The first was a survey in 2019 that was conducted on behalf of Oranga Tamariki. That survey revealed that 32 percent of the participants believed that the allowances they received were inadequate to meet the financial costs associated with caring for a child. Interestingly, though, three months later, in December 2019, another survey was published by Oranga Tamariki, and that survey revealed that caregivers were divided on whether the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit were sufficient. So, even within Oranga Tamariki, the jury’s out, if you like, in terms of whether the financial support is enough or whether it’s sufficient. So, in the select committee process, we do actually want to hear from caregivers who are able to present their arguments in terms of whether it should be universal support or whether it should be targeted.

I would argue that there’d be some families who take on children, literally, within an hour’s notice, and they might require greater levels of financial support. One of the things that National’s really proud of is making sure that support should be targeted to where it is needed most. What that might mean is that for some there’s a greater level of support, particularly at the start, rather than a universal application. And, of course, it goes without saying that, actually, any investment by the taxpayer and by the State should be much earlier on. That’s why National has committed to investing in the first thousand days of a child’s life, to support a family, so that hopefully we will be able to prevent some children being taken into State care or being required to be in this situation where they are being raised by people other than their own parents.

So, with the removal of the 12-month rule, we do accept that will be required for some, and we want in the select committee process to hear from submitters about whether that’s the majority, whether it’s some. We want to make sure that it couldn’t be abused in any way and just to make sure that there is some robust scrutiny around how that would work. In terms of the Christmas rule, or the Christmas and birthday allowances, that is a bit of a no-brainer. It does seem unusual that those allowances are paid to the foster caregivers and not to others. As we all know, and some will remember and be dealing with families who are in desperate circumstances right now, Christmas and the holiday period come with additional costs and pressures and stress, and that is never good for a family. We know that, actually, the long-term impacts on a child can be devastating; so we do think that the change to the Christmas and birthday allowances makes sense. We do want to make sure that children in care have very similar experiences in their childhood to children who are raised in families with their own parents.

So we do want to make sure that there is a good number of people who submit on the bill, and I do hope, in terms of addressing this comment to the Minister for Children, that, given we are going into the Christmas period, there is sufficient time and consideration for people to be able to submit on this legislation, particularly families that have challenges. They deserve to have an equal opportunity, if not more, to provide a submission, and I hope in the select committee process there isn’t any suggestion that their opportunity to do so is reduced. As I said, National supports this bill. We support the intent of it. We do want to make sure, as in any instance where taxpayer funds are committed, that there is sufficient scrutiny, and that there’s a balance between universal support and targeted support to those who may need it more. So I’m pleased to announce National will be supporting this bill in the first reading to select committee.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m quite delighted to stand and take a call on this bill. I’d like to thank the member who’s just taken her seat, the Hon Louise Upston, for her very thoughtful speech and the things that she added to the debate. I’d also like to acknowledge our Minister, the Hon Kelvin Davis, for bringing this to the House. I acknowledge that this is not necessarily work that you have started, but it is definitely work that you will be finishing, and I appreciate this work coming to the select committee; so thank you for that.

Essentially, this is a bill about fairness. It’s a bill, quite simply, around two lots of children, often in very similar circumstances: one group of children who are under State care, the other group of children who are often under family or whānau care, or family members’ friends’ care. Essentially, what this bill does, very simply, is try to rebalance some of that inequity that is existing. The Minister and the Hon Louise Upston have both discussed well the changes to the bill and what will be happening. So I wanted to take a brief call to talk about the personal experience of my own family and why this bill is so important to us here in this House and also to those carers out there.

First and foremost, I also do want to acknowledge absolutely the amazing work that our caregivers do. It is not an easy job to do. It is often blood, sweat, and tears to raise children, and the work that people undertake is just amazing, and I want to also put on record my thanks for that work.

So, in my family experience—and I think I have spoken about this in the past—my whāngai brother came to us as a small child, a baby, three months old. He received the unsupported child’s benefit and did so until he was no longer eligible. He’s now 21, and he’s a family member of ours. He’s never returned to his birth family. The circumstances I won’t go into, but it is what it is, and he’s our family member. At the time that the unsupported child’s benefit was granted, my mother was required to give up work because he was a little baby and she needed to care for him, and that was incredibly financially difficult. I do know how much she saved and scrimped to support him and how she often planned for Christmas and birthdays in advance and saved the money that was paid from the State in order to support him. And I know what a difference it would have made to our family.

She later in her life became a foster carer and, during that time as a foster carer, a couple of things that were remarkable in comparison were the fact that when the children—our whānau children—came to my mum, she needed a set of bunks; that was immediately supplied by Oranga Tamariki because there wasn’t appropriate bedding in the household. The children were supported with pocket money. The children were supported with birthdays and Christmas allowances, and the difference was really remarkable in terms of—these are children that we love. These are family members, and it just helps. It is just a little bit fairer for us here in this House to change this legislation to enable our children who are in these difficult circumstances to have some support.

So, with that, I would like to commend this bill to the House. And I thank the Minister once again for bringing this to the House. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I join the chorus of congratulations on this bill being in the House in front of us tonight for its first reading, the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to recognise the work of former MP the Hon Tracey Martin for the effort that she put in, in progressing this bill to where it is today.

I too will start by acknowledging all the carers that bring children into their homes and provide them with stability. They provide for these children the basics of life: food, shelter, clothing, and those intangibles like love and safety. I recall a trip that the Social Services and Community Committee did together. We visited several NGOs and providers in Australia providing these kinds of social support to families. There’d been quite a lot of research done by one of these groups where they had actually interviewed some of the children that were in care, and one of the most amazing outcomes of the research that they did was that, in terms of priority for what children were looking for, it was to feel safe. So I do acknowledge all of the work that happens by those carer families when they take these children into their homes and provide that feeling of safety for them.

Now, we do know that often they are extended family members and they provide a very valuable service not only to those children but also to this country, because without the selfless gift that carers give to these children—and we’re talking about 22,000 of them in this country at the moment—they would undoubtedly face even more hardship and upheaval in their lives. So a huge shout-out to the effort that they put in on our behalf.

We have heard that this bill seeks to address some anomalies in the payments that go to these families. And, as we have a look through some of the progressed legislation, over time we’ve got the orphans benefit, we’ve got the unsupported child’s benefit, and we have foster care allowances. There is no synergy between them with regards to these payments for support for families that have these children in their care under 12 months and also for the Christmas and birthday allowances. So this bill is seeking to synchronise those aspects of those various other pieces of legislation.

But, as my colleague the Hon Louise Upton alluded to, there are fiscal implications in this bill and it does deserve the scrutiny of a select committee process, and it does deserve the input of those people who are at the coalface of the services that are provided. Some of, I guess, the most tangible feedback that we got from some of the other social service legislation that has been worked on in this House has come from the care-experienced children themselves. As part of that, we know that those voices are very real and deserve to be heard, and as part of the select committee process, we do hope to hear from some of those care-experienced children.

We heard briefly about the social investment approach that National has evolved over some time over the last term of our time in Government, and we know that the investment in children in those early days makes absolutely perfect fiscal sense, it makes great social sense, and it is the right thing to do. So we are very supportive of investing in those early years and supporting children and the families that care for them. We know that, by doing that, the long-term outcomes for those children are far more enhanced. For instance, for children who have those advantages, we know that they are about 50 percent more likely to have better paying jobs and be in more stable relationships as they grow older. So it does make very good sense to invest in these families early on.

We know that some of these families who have them for less than 12 months are now supporting these children out of their own pockets. That is not feasible now, given that we have identified the anomalies between the other benefits that are available. And, simply because a child is in State care and is entitled to all of those other benefits, even though they have had those children in their care within 12 months, it does not seem fair that those other children who are on the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit should miss out on those advantages. So we will be seeking to improve those inequities as this bill progresses.

Extending the Christmas and birthday allowances, of course, is also a bit of a no-brainer in this piece of legislation. We know that not everything that is important to children takes money. In fact, I know a lot of children would prefer time rather than gifts. But, at the same time, to be able to give a child a special treat at Christmas or on birthdays is usually a very memorable time in their life and is well worth that investment.

I’d just like to conclude my contribution by looking at some of the background work that has been done on this bill and looking at how it impacts on New Zealand’s international obligations. It was really pleasing—and we’ve had this conversation in the select committee many times in the past about our international obligations, and especially this one, which is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). So it was very good to read that this particular piece of legislation will address three of those policies and conventions within the UNCRC, article 3, which is relating to ensuring children have the protection and care necessary for their well-being. It addresses article 20, which relates to the entitlement to special protection and assistance for children who cannot remain in their family environment. And it also addresses article 27, which relates to children’s rights to a standard of living adequate for their physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development and the State’s role in providing material assistance in support programmes. So this piece of legislation clearly looks to address some of our obligations under UNCRC, and, of course, that’s always a very good thing.

Going back and talking about the birthdays and Christmas allowances, if this bill does pass, there are dates—and I, obviously, understand the Christmas allowance will start in December of 2021, but the proposal is for the birthday allowance to begin in January 2022. I look forward to the select committee process, where we can tease out the rationale for that, because it does seem to make very good sense that this would be in a budget bid that could actually begin on 1 July 2021. So we will look forward to some discussion around it. With that, I have pleasure in commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and privilege to stand and give a contribution on the first reading of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill.

When I speak on a bill that has something to do with children, I remind this House all the time that 32 years ago John Rangihau and the ministerial committee on a Māori perspective for the Department of Social Welfare published its landmark report Puao-Te-Ata-Tu (Day Break). In those 13 recommendations, it speaks clearly that whānau who are looking after mokopuna need to be financially supported.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister, Hon Kelvin Davis. I want to thank him for bringing this to the House today so that we can refer it to select committee so that New Zealanders can contribute to this bill. But I also want to ask whether we continue to call children “unsupported child’s benefit” or whether we still continue to call children “orphans benefit”. I want to acknowledge kuia, kaumātua who’ve looked after mokopuna, grandparents raising grandchildren, but the fact of the matter is that every child wants to be with mum and dad. Over 22,000, we hear today, are not with mum and dad. And, in this case, if the State happens to make an assessment that you are in need of care and protection and the State takes over your care, then you are entitled to get a birthday allowance. You are entitled to get a Christmas allowance. But if you are cared for on another benefit, called unsupported child’s benefit or orphans benefit, then that carer has to actually say that they’re going to look after you for over a year before you can get the benefit.

So I say, in the spirit of Puao-Te-Ata-Tu, that we waste no more time of this House and refer this to the select committee, because discrimination in all its forms needs to be eliminated. And, in the spirit of Puao-Te-Ata-Tu, I commend this bill to the House. Mokopuna, regardless of where you are, need to be financially supported by everybody. Malo.

JAN LOGIE (Green): What a pleasure to follow that speech. I really feel the energy and the sentiment of it. It is about time, and it is really great to see this legislation in the House to rectify a very longstanding, quite incomprehensible to me, wrong. I too want to add my voice and to acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin for her work in developing this legislation and providing the case for it, and also to recognise that, before she was the Minister, she was starting on this kaupapa and through a member’s bill to ensure that young children receiving the orphans benefit were able to access the clothing allowance, which, at that time, they weren’t. So this is a very natural and obvious next step from that piece of work as well, and it is about time we got it done.

I also, when I was reading this again, too, was looking at the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit and putting myself in the place of those kids. I don’t think anyone feels comfortable, that I know of, referring to themselves as an orphan. It’s one of those things where, actually, you try and not connect to that reality. I think it’s a very difficult thing, and I also have a concern that we are reinforcing that reality, that many people try and find other ways of coping with, through the name of that benefit. Maybe it’s not this piece of legislation—it’s possibly out of scope—but I do think it’s about time to review those. I personally can’t see any reason, apart from historical precedent, for the separation. When it’s the same amount of money, I don’t understand why we have two separate benefits, with different criteria, one being family breakdown and the other being death, missing parents, or long-term serious disablement of parents, which I also think needs examination around our commitment as a country to properly supporting people with disabilities to be able to actively fulfil their caring duties when parents are wanting to do that. We have a gap in that area that, I think, also needs attention.

So the point of this bill is a pretty simple thing that we’re doing. It’s aligning the financial entitlements for people in the State care system—so where they’ve been formally made to be foster caregivers—with the support provided to—actually, it’s the other way around: aligning the support that goes to people who step in without the State telling them they have to, to care for our babies. And this is usually family members. Significant numbers are Māori—around the orphans benefit, of the caregivers, 40 percent are Māori, and 46 percent of the unsupported child’s benefit caregivers are Māori. These are people who are not doing it because they’ve been told they have to; they are doing it because they’ve seen the need and they have that sense of connection. And this is what we all want. We don’t want the State to be intervening and removing children. We want families to be in a position to step in, and the fact that families who may be struggling financially themselves have been actually penalised in comparison to those families who are in the State system doesn’t make sense to me. It’s always seemed really odd to me when it has disincentivised people from being able to step up and care, because they’re worried that they’d be able to provide less for their kids, for their moko, than those kids would get access to in the State system. That’s just wrong, and this is a step towards fixing that. And it’s really, really important for us to do that.

I hear from the National contributions talking about the need for targeting and not being convinced that this is necessary. I think the core principles of what has been tried to be done here is about just standardising and streamlining and removing that disparity between the two systems, and that’s a completely separate question to targeting. I don’t think targeting is an appropriate consideration in this context. I think removing that disparity and disincentives for family to be able to step in should be our priority at this time. I did support them, though, in having an interest in looking at the implementation time frames, particularly around the birthday allowances coming in from 2022 and whether it would be possible to bring that forward. I thought that was interesting.

I also am quite interested in, at some stage, whether it’s through this bill or not, examining why we’re privileging Christmas over other religious celebrations that may be significant to other communities in this country, where Eid is a time when there is traditional outlaying that has a financial cost, and if children are not able to participate in that way, they lose out in the same way that children living in communities that celebrate Christmas do. I think, it feels to me, that in this day and age it’s time just to share and even that out a bit to all of our communities, particularly today when I’m thinking about the marginalisation of some communities in our country.

But, really, I’m not going to stretch out the time unnecessarily—I think it’s been pretty well canvassed—but just to bring it back again to saying thank you to the whānau for stepping in, and to those kids, just to say that, from the Greens and the other speeches I’ve heard in the House tonight, we want the best for you, and this is us taking another step to ensure that you get the lives that you deserve.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it’s come time for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

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

TUESDAY, 8 DECEMBER 2020

(continued on Wednesday, 9 December 2020)

Bills

Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT has always supported helping people in genuine need and providing support to children who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in need of care. In saying that, I listened yesterday to speeches, and lots of good points were made. To the average person, or even to the politician sitting in the House today, this bill seems pretty simple—no big deal, a few small changes here and there—to the point where there wasn’t much to say, so the nit-picking began on things that were completely irrelevant to this bill. I can tell you, as a child in care, the name of the benefit I was on was not my major concern; it was whether I had food and a roof over my head. No words can describe how big of a deal this bill really is. Sometimes the simple things make the most changes.

We have talked about how the disparity exists between the different benefits. As a child, I lived through that and saw the sacrifices that my caregivers made to provide me with the necessities of life in a time where I needed it the most. Until you have been in care and seen what these amazing people do, you can never truly understand or appreciate the sacrifices they make to provide for the children in their care. I saw how hard they worked to provide not only for me but for the many children that came into their home, some for a few days and others for a little longer. Please hear me when I say, from the bottom of my heart, thank you to every caregiver and foster parent that has given their blood, sweat, and tears to make a difference in a child’s life.

We believe that this bill takes a small and positive step towards improving the support that is provided to those in genuine need and we will therefore be supporting the first reading of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. This bill recognises the need to increase financial assistance for children outside of State care, but it also highlights the importance of the caregivers and the service that they provide. So in saying that, I commend this bill to the House, and ACT will support the first reading.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. First of all I just want to tautoko the speeches from last night, and also Karen’s heartfelt speech around the great work that our caregivers do in quite often challenging situations.

It’s a real honour and a privilege to take a call on this bill, which amends to remove disparities in the current legislation to make it equitable for all caregivers and therefore the tamariki in their care. Extending the eligibility for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child benefit, for which I would also like to see a name change, to caregivers with tamariki outside of State care, means all caregivers will be able to support tamariki to celebrate their milestones by accessing birthday allowance and the Christmas allowance.

Removing the current 12-month eligibility rule will make it just that little bit easier for our wonderful caregivers and the tamariki that they care for. I have a grandmother who was raising her grandchild in my electorate, who said that at times she really struggles to save anything extra after paying for school fees and school uniforms. So this amendment bill will ensure that this grandmother and her moko can now make sure they have something to celebrate his birthday with and something to open on Christmas Day. Without it they would really struggle.

I know this bill will make a real difference to our fantastic caregivers and our tamariki. Therefore I’m honoured to tautoko and commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Since it’s the first time I’ve actually spoken in the House, can I congratulate you on your appointment. I think you’ll make a fantastic presiding officer, and I think it’s an important part of the parliamentary process that we have good referees during the match. So I wish you well over the coming term—and the other presiding officers as well.

So it’s good to be back in the 53rd Parliament, it’s fair to say I spent probably parts of the election night not thinking I was back, so it’s good to be here. I think, as I reflect on this bill today, what an important bill, because I think what it does is it grounds us. It’s very easy in our job to assume some self-importance, and that we start to believe in ourselves that we are important, but in fact for me—as an electorate MP—some of the biggest wins that you can make are the small ones that mean the most for the people that we represent.

This isn’t a big bill, it’s fairly technical—a large part of it is reducing the 12-month rule. But I tell you what, for those people that it does affect, this is big news. I want to acknowledge the Minister, Kelvin Davis, for bringing this into the House, but also the former Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin. You know, I did value the Hon Tracey Martin’s inputs to the House over the previous few terms. I hope she’s listening today—if she is, she’s got real problems and needs to switch off. But, in fairness, you always knew with the Hon Tracey Martin that she brought her heart to her work. And when you look at some of those other New Zealand First MPs, you know, let’s not forget Richard Prosser—from my part of the world, Waimakariri. And who would forget Denis O’Rourke, with his rousing speeches in the House? We miss Denis; bring back Denis.

One thing that I took a key focus of, when I read our notes about this bill—I’ve underlined it here—which I was quite alarmed: by age 24, people who grow up in foster care are earning, on average, around half the income of those who are not. People who have been in foster care at the age of 24 earn about half the income of those who did not grow up in foster care. That’s a damning statistic, and it’s incumbent on us, as legislators, and in people who develop policy that ultimately translates into practice in the real world, that we address that. On this side of the House, and I acknowledge the Hon Bill English for social investment, because what social investment was—and I think if you look at the example of teen mums, classically, decades ago, they would be put on a benefit, we’d wave them goodbye, and they would stay on that benefit, I think the data said, for about 35 years.

Now, thanks to flexible education models, teen mums and dads—there’s no underachievement, their aspirations are high. They can go to flexible education units, get the education they need, as well as look after their young children and go on to succeed. So it is concerning when you read a statistic that now we know that those in foster care at the age of 24 will go on to earn half the income as an average person at the age of 24—and that needs to be addressed. This bill is not going to be the silver bullet, but it goes some way in acknowledging that, and acknowledging the entitlements for those who are giving up their time, their love, and their resources for some of the most vulnerable in New Zealand. This is a great Christmas present. Let’s hope the bill will get the royal assent as soon as possible and make a real difference for some of the most vulnerable people in New Zealand. That’s why I wholeheartedly support this bill. Thank you.

Dr Duncan Webb: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just before I take the call, can the member confirm whether he is taking the five-minute call or the following 10-minute call?

Dr Duncan Webb: I am seeking the five-minute call, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Duncan Webb.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker and congratulations on your role here. You’ve graduated in more ways than one. I’m sure you’ll be a fine, fine Assistant Speaker. And thank you, Mr Doocey, for that traversal of all kinds of things other than the bill before the House.

This is an excellent bill that really does iron out some inconsistencies, and it’s something that this Government is committed to doing: looking at the welfare system and not only improving it for all New Zealanders but getting rid of some of those inconsistencies which see people who are in fundamentally the same position dealt with in a different way. So this is a good bill: it’s pretty straightforward, it’s pretty common-sense, and there’s no more really that need be said. I absolutely commend it to the House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to take a short call on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I sat through the debate last night, and I want to commend the Minister for introducing this first piece of legislation in his new role as the Minister for Children. As I was listening to him presenting the speech from the Minister for the first reading, I really heard the genuine care of a pāpā in his speech, particularly when he talked about acknowledging those who are caring for children whose own whānau or their parents are not able to do so, and in particular when he referred to the payments for birthdays and Christmas. As today is our last sitting day and we are heading into that period, I think it was just really relevant to the feeling that we all have at this time of the year. I think it’s absolutely acknowledged that that is something that we want for all of our tamariki.

I want to also acknowledge all of those who have spoken in this debate and given their personal experiences of it from across the House. I think it’s been a really genuine debate on this first reading. I look forward to the select committee process and the submissions that we will receive, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to support this bill, which you’ve heard our previous speakers talk to. Several points to it: if we look at the key actions of this bill, the first action is to improve or make better sense of what was previously a 12-month eligibility rule whereby those carers who were looking after orphans—and I agree that maybe there’s a better word, but orphans—and unsupported children were ineligible for this sort of benefit if they didn’t commit to undertaking care for longer than 12 months. This is a significant number of people. We can see in the regulatory impact statement that the orphans benefit is paid to 300 caregivers—roughly, 400 children—and the unsupported child benefit to 11,000 caregivers or around 17,000 children and young people. I want to echo my thanks to all of those caregivers who step outside to help the families glue together in times of unexpected and undesired challenges. Thank you very much for what you do, and this bill partly reflects that.

If we look at the financial components to this, the birthday and Christmas allowance, it’s actually calculated on the foster care allowance through Oranga Tamariki. Roughly, the benefits we’re talking about here are about $200 a week, and the Christmas and birthday allowance is half of a weekly allowance, so it may be around $100 for those events, and in total its fiscal impact is $16.931 million. If we look at the increase in eligibility—not requiring 12 months’ commitment from a caregiver—the fiscal impact of that is $46.668 million, which, certainly—these are still numbers to take into account. We need accountability. But in the overall context of those social services, it would seem not quite so much.

We’re in support of this. I want to echo the work of Tracey Martin, who brought this forward. It just seemed like an inconsistency that didn’t make sense. Tracey led this out well, which brings it here to its first reading. I think it’s worthy, clearly, of going to select committee. It’s not clear to me why the foster care allowance isn’t mentioned in parts of this yet it appears in the regulatory impact statement, and yet there’s no fiscals to that and it’s not talked to otherwise in the bill. So we just need some understanding of that. Of course, that’s the benefit of the select committee process. We can do a deeper dive on that—have a bit of understanding why there are parts of the regulatory impact assessment that were not thought worthy of scrutiny. They thought that Oranga Tamariki, the internal quality assurance processes of Oranga Tamariki, would suffice. We know they’re struggling at the moment anyway. Again, this is an area that the select committee can delve into.

So I think most of what’s been said is traversing the key points of this bill, and it’s with pleasure that the National Party will be supporting it through to select committee. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It gives me great pleasure to be the final speaker on the first reading of this bill. Sometimes a lot happens in this House and those of us who come and go, we might pick up a bill, we might hear a debate going on, but every so often something happens that happened to me today. I came into the House not expecting to speak. I looked at this bill, picked it up, and saw what a fine piece of legislation it is, and then I sat and listened to the speakers that have come before me. I heard the universal agreement on the bill and some very moving stories. I missed the name of the ACT speaker, but it was the first time that I’ve sat here and a lump came to my throat, because that was somebody who was obviously speaking from experience.

Having come to this House as a police officer—we all come from different ways, but one of the things that’s common with the people I’ve dealt with is an alienation from mainstream society. That alienation measures itself out, manifests itself in so many different ways. We talk about the gangs. We talk about all sorts of societal failures. But it starts with the small things. So many of these young people that end up—the people we talk about in derisory terms have been alienated from the start. And little things like the people that have looked after them where they were in foster care—just no money for the small things that manifested the big things.

So just looking through the provisions of this bill, and the fact that we’ve had so much agreement on it, gives me absolutely no hesitation in giving this bill my full support and commending this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.

Bills

Water Services Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Water Services Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Water Services Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

In 2016 there was a water contamination event in Havelock North which really caused New Zealanders to think about the state of our water system. Five thousand people became sick and there were four associated deaths with that particular event, and then an inquiry started.

The recommendations from that inquiry told us a very significant set of salient points. Firstly, that the event in Havelock was not an isolated event. In fact, it was of concern that the way in which we monitor the compliance of drinking water quality is something that needed to be looked at. So the Government picked up this issue and embarked on a level of reform that would see greater certainty, in the first instance, for the quality of our drinking water, because we know that every New Zealander, no matter where they live, in rural areas, in urban areas, out in the provinces, along the coast—no matter where people live, they should have the assurance of clean drinking water. That was not the case some few years ago and that’s why we’ve embarked on this particular reform.

The Water Services Bill is the second pillar or pou in our water reform journey. The first one was establishing Taumata Arowai, which is a dedicated regulator that will be responsible for ensuring compliance, enforcement, and monitoring of our drinking-water system, and have oversight over waste water and stormwater. This bill in particular will set out the roles and functions of Taumata Arowai as it undertakes its task, but also make clear the obligations of water service suppliers. It’s a process that we’ve undertaken with and alongside local government. In fact, it’s a little bit like having a thousand cups of tea, because when we started the conversation, you can imagine it was challenging and confronting for many councils to really undertake the journey of the level of investment in water infrastructure, their obligations, and, importantly, what a system change would look like. But this bill, by and large, is a step change towards the type of future we want to see, which is robust, resilient waters infrastructure that underpins so many things in our regions.

The Water Services Bill provides the mechanics of a regulatory regime that Taumata Arowai, our dedicated drinking-water entity, will administer, and, as I said previously, it will contain the details of the powers that that regulator will have. It is a step change. It will ensure that we bring together the legislative obligations and regulatory functions into one place and will work alongside water service providers. I do believe that it strikes a balance between incentivising drinking-water suppliers to take responsibility for their supplies. But it also enables Taumata Arowai to have a tool kit to work with them.

I want to highlight significant issues that emerged during the consultation round, because this will undoubtedly be something that the select committee will need to consider, and that is in relation to rural suppliers of services in smaller communities. We’ve agreed that the transitional period for smaller suppliers, for very practical reasons and reasons which rural councils in particular advocated for, will have a transition period to come into this regulatory regime. And it will have the core elements of ensuring that all suppliers should have a duty to provide safe drinking water from the date of the commencement of this bill. All suppliers are required to be registered at the end of year one following the commencement of the bill. And small suppliers serving less than 500 people would come into the regulatory system by the end of year three following commencement of the bill, with full regulatory compliance expected by the end of year five.

As I went around and visited with councils and certainly heard a number of practical views from small supplier schemes and communities, it seems to me that we need to provide that transition period so that some practical decisions can be made in terms of how they can meet the expectation of higher drinking-water standards, but also ensuring that water going back into the receiving environment can be clean as well.

We also undertook to ensure that consistent with our freshwater expectations and source protection, which is a big issue in terms of drinking-water, we were applying the same approach as the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and that was recognising te mana o te wai. You’ll see in the legislation that we’ve carried over the same interpretation as has been evident there to ensure that when we think about water coming out of the source, down the pipes, through the tap, into your glass, and then back out into the receiving environment, it is a whole system. Te mana o te wai gives licence to that approach, a holistic approach in the way that we think about water.

Many of the things that the select committee will be asked to consider are complex in nature, but necessary. The reason why I’ve sent this bill to the Health Committee is because they’ve got some knowledge of the independent drinking-water regulator Taumata Arowai, and they’ll have some institutional knowledge of the complexity of the issues.

Can I make very clear that the bill contains in relation to waste-water and storm-water issues, the ability for Taumata Arowai to collect more information. Much of the information held by councils is variable. And in order to get better understanding about how to plan for waters infrastructure, the first obligation of Taumata Arowai will be to collect that from councils and provide some national oversight about the issues in relation to waste water and storm water. The regulatory responsibility for waste water and storm water, I must stress, still sits with regional councils under the Resource Management Act. Again, this makes sense for where we are in terms of our water reform journey.

The other issue that may come up with select committees is the issue of chlorination. The bill provides for an exemption regime. Without going too much into the specific councils, there are councils that hold quite strongly to the non-chlorination position. So what the bill sets out is an exemption regime that enables those councils who do not want to chlorinate but choose an alternative way of residual treatment for the assurance of their clean drinking-water to go through a process of securing an exemption. However, the cost that is associated with going towards an alternative other than chlorination sits on the ratepayer. That’s been very clear as we’ve expressed an approach that is consistent but provides for an alternative, and it is well understood amongst councils, but just to alert the select committee to that particular prospect, because I do think it will come up.

There are other smaller technical amendments, which I don’t think will provide too much difficulty. The last thing I will say is that it was important to me prior to the lifting of the House and the election that there was early exposure to this bill, because the sector needed to know the detail and be well prepared for the select committee process. I anticipate that there will be very well-informed contributions through the select committee process and very targeted in areas of specific concern by councils and by profile of their water infrastructure within their particular areas. I do hope the select committee takes the opportunity to gain some on the ground knowledge within their own council areas so that they can engage in this conversation.

There’s a Chinese proverb that says the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago; the next best time is today. Water infrastructure has been left to languish for far too long. We’ve got to do something about it and I’m glad that our Government is. This is the second pillar of reform. The next approach will be around how we consolidate the way in which water is delivered to our communities, and I’m looking forward to continuing with this journey. Kia ora.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Madam Speaker, this is my first time speaking in this House, and I just wanted to congratulate you on your appointment and to thank you in advance for your guidance and counsel to me over the coming months and years, as I speak more regularly.

We agree; we think this is very important regulation, and the National Party supports this bill through to select committee, where we can discuss it and explore it in more detail, as the Minister just discussed. It is incredibly important legislation, because we all watched the pain of a community in Havelock North go through that water contamination, and we saw 5,500 residents fall ill, we saw 45 people hospitalised, and it was linked to up to four deaths. So this can, fundamentally, never happen again. And, when you put that to one side, it’s startling to think that, in a First World country like New Zealand, every year there are 34,000 incidences of water-borne disease that impact our people. So the bottom line is, anywhere in the world—but, frankly, here in New Zealand—every Kiwi, as the Minister said, should have access to and the right to clean, fresh drinking water. It is time to address it, because we do have a patchwork quilt of regulation in this space, and we need to ensure, fundamentally, that all drinking-water suppliers do actually all work to the same and a common standard that raises the floor of water delivery and water regulation in this country.

National does take the safety of water incredibly seriously. That’s why we established the independent, two-stage inquiry into the Havelock North circumstances, and we clarified, through that first report, what actually happened. The second one really dealt with what were the recommendations and the principles that should guide future regulation as we go forward. Those principles, I think, are important—namely, firstly, to make sure there is always a high standard of care around water; to make sure we are protecting source water in particular; thirdly, making sure we’ve got multiple barriers to avoid contamination happening; and never ignoring change, because it’s often when change happens that it precedes an event like we’ve seen in Havelock North. I know, from my own background in aviation, the importance of a quality, regulated system, because inevitably it’s a series of what we call the “Swiss cheese” effect—a series of issues—that actually build up and create an opportunity for a tragic event to occur. So it’s important that we acknowledge that. The fifth thing, really, is about suppliers owning the safety of their own drinking water, and, finally, just taking a risk management approach and having quality risk-management protocols around that. This bill is, in fact, the third in a part of a broader package of regulatory reforms. The first, of course, was the national environmental standard for sources for human drinking water. The second is the water services regulator Act, which actually did create and form Taumata Arowai, the regulator. And this bill, of course, is giving it the powers that it needs to undertake that work.

I think this bill really does overcome the fragmented and weak regulatory system that we’ve seen, and it does impose, quite rightly, some really strong duties on drinking-water suppliers. It’s very practical things that really will raise the standard of water quality in New Zealand. It’s about providing safe drinking water and making sure that we meet drinking-water standards; making sure that water suppliers are ensuring there is a sufficient quantity of water available to a community; registering drinking-water suppliers with the regulator; and keeping essential details and records, which, again, has been part of the challenge of trying to understand where records are kept and where they are; that each water supplier actually has a drinking-water safety plan; and that we notify Taumata Arowai and take action when there are risks to public health. There needs to be a source water management plan—these are all very practical kinds of things—accreditation regimes, and minimum skills qualifications and experience for those that are assessing water quality, and, importantly, giving the regulator some real reporting, compliance, and enforcement powers. There is a consumer complaints framework in this legislation, and that’s really important so that, actually, consumers who have an issue with a supplier can actually appeal to the regulator, and there are some key processes around that. The Minister talked about waste-water and stormwater environmental measures as well, and, fundamentally, there’s a capacity to be able to take good practice that’s happening with one water supplier and to be able to share that through toolsets with others as well.

So, while we are supportive of this legislation, and we’re fully engaged with it, and we think it’s really important and a strong staring point, we, like the Minister, are also very keen to explore some things in the confines of our select committee and better understand and discuss, through submissions, a couple of key things. It’s good to see that there’s a staggered and practical transition of this legislation in implementation, but the sort of thing that we want to understand a bit more is that we note that the intention is that the regulation is proportionate to the risk, the scale, the complexity of each individual water supplier, but we’re interested to better understand what that cost burden looks like on small suppliers, in particular. Domestic self-suppliers are exempt from this legislation and from these requirements, but that exemption in itself excludes supply for more than one property. So there are circumstances where people may have a bore on their property, they have an easement, and that bore actually provides water to one or two, or even three, houses locally. We also see examples where we’ve got people with farms where they are providing housing to farm workers with a residence but they also have their own supply of water as well, and so just getting clear around what domestic self-supply actually means is really important.

The bill also allows for some classes of water suppliers to be exempted by the regulator’s CEO—at their discretion, essentially—and I think that some of our conversations should be focused on whether we think it’s actually better to build some of those exemptions into the legislation upfront so that we know what we’re asking of our citizens to comply with. And I think we need to explore even further with the councils any cost-burden concerns that they have in implementation, but especially there is a component in this bill about the fact that, if there is a local water supplier and they cannot meet the obligations of the bill, there is a responsibility on a local council to then take over those water suppliers who can’t meet those obligations. I think we just need to understand what that means practically for councils on the ground. I note that the Central Otago District Council has expressed some of those concerns publicly as well. And I think we, finally, owe it to ourselves just to reassure ourselves that the emergency powers that Taumata Arowai has are, in fact, appropriate and are fit for purpose. They are very important—that, in a crisis situation, they can step in and exercise those powers—but we just want to double check that they are appropriate and fit for purpose.

Finally, the bill amends the Resource Management Act and it requires consenting authorities to have regard to the actual or potential effects of a proposed activity on drinking water, and that’s something we really just want to understand what that could all mean in terms of how this legislation is actually implemented on the ground. I wonder whether wording like “likely effects” might be better language and we look into it. So they are, obviously, all considerations. As the Minister said, we will explore that all in select committee. We think this is a really important time for us to take action to make sure that we are raising the floor and the quality of water standards across this country of ours, and it’s my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise to take a call on the Water Services Bill, and, in doing so, can I acknowledge you and congratulate you on your appointment. I certainly support the sentiment of my colleague Mr Webb in saying that your experience perhaps will serve you well, and I’d like to think that as a fellow alumni of Freyberg High School, that is a quality that you have as well.

My experience in local government certainly tells me that this will be a welcome piece of legislation. Can I acknowledge the leadership of my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta in terms of the work that she’s doing in this space. I know that with local government, with iwi partners, this will be very, very welcome, and it will be welcome because the three waters component is really important to communities up and down New Zealand. This piece of legislation is around providing an ability to regulate drinking water and to do so safely. It provides some confidence but also some certainty for communities that drinking water and the provision of that will be safe and that the source from which that water comes will also be safe as well. The Minister in her speech touched on the management of the other two waters that complete the treble, and that is the waste water aspects and stormwater. They are key responsibilities of any local council, but also it’s important that Taumata Arowai will be able to collect information as it sees fit as well. We only need to look to the Havelock North inquiry to provide some basis for that.

This bill, in essence, will ensure that the supply of safe drinking-water to communities also meets water standards, and that is in line with best international practice as well. So I’m looking forward to this piece of legislation, working through the process, going next step to select committee, and on that basis, I’m happy to commend the bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, which is a partnership bill—as the Minister described—to a previous piece of work we did, Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Act 2020. That bill came to the Health Committee, and this is an area that’s much more complex than we otherwise might think.

The very definition—as my colleague has alluded to—of domestic self-supply is quite complex, and I don’t imagine will be relitigated through this partnership bill. But, certainly, in the first bill that came to the House, Taumata Arowai, we grappled with questions around rainwater tanks—is Taumata Arowai applicable to a rainwater tank attached to a house, or attached to a cafe? The answer was yes, because a cafe is not for residential purposes; it has a different set of regulations. Is there a difference between rainwater and bore water? That was another complexity, and we spent a lot of time in Health Committee trying to figure out the difference there, and fundamentally settled on: no, there’s no difference for the purposes of this legislation. Mobile homes that fill up their water tanks from a domestic supply: does it matter where they fill up their water tank? If they fill it up from a domestic supply, or if they fill it up from a commercial supply, suddenly do the water regulations around that mobile home change?

You can see some of the complexities we have to deal with in this whole discussion. I think we did a lot of the groundwork necessary for this bill to be able to move forward, but we may find—even as we’re progressing through this bill—that there are some definitions that might want to change. So a lot of complexities, and please, this is coming to the Health Committee. If we look at the fundamental actions of the bill, the commitment to drinking-water supplies is to provide safe drinking water consistent with standards, ensure there’s an adequate quantity of supply to register their drinking-water supplies, to have a drinking-water safety plan, and to notify Taumata Arowai when there are risks to public health—it makes sense. The source water risk management is also described in this bill—drinking-water supplies must have a source water risk management plan. It’s actually quite complex. We spent a lot of time on the risk management plans, and local authorities must contribute their information to the risk management plan as well.

I think the last thing I want to talk to on this bill is around some of the interesting points around the exemptions. I understand wanting to have that wriggle room, particularly around the example used in the bill, around chlorination. The Health Committee will want to explore this carefully, because on one level, fluoride can also be a disinfectant. We don’t want to commit ourselves down a pathway here that might lock out future legislation that we were wanting to come to this House. So as we look at exemptions in the Health Committee, we’re just going to be guided by official advice so that we do what we want to do here, which is, effectively, to give people exemptions, if it’s required, give authorities exemptions, if it’s worthy, and require—but not lock ourselves out of future legislation. I look forward to that coming to the Health Committee for further discussion. You can sense our support for this bill, and its progress through the House, and so we commend it to the House now.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Madam Speaker, congratulations on your election to the Speaker’s role, and all of your colleagues. I want to start my speech today in the House just to acknowledge all those who lost their lives in the Havelock North incident a couple of years ago, because I do think as Government and as Parliament, we do have to pay responsibility in terms of regulating our water. That’s why I’m very proud to stand in support of this bill in this House today.

A word that keeps reoccurring in my head is kaitiakitanga, which is our guardianship of the resources that we have on this land while we are here. I think this bill shows a great guardianship that we will have over the water resource which is so dear to our country. I came here as a migrant when I was five years old. I think one of the favourite things that I got to do was drink water straight from the tap. That’s something that I’m not able to do in a lot of countries. In fact, when I go overseas, the first thing I do is turn up at a convenience store and buy litres and litres of water to take back to my hotel room. So I think this is something that really needs to be preserved in this country, and I think, really, this bill will actually build the infrastructure and the oversight needed to keep New Zealand this way.

Throughout the whole entire bill that I’ve been reading, one particular phrase keeps coming up, and that phrase is “environmental performance”. I just really want to not only commend all that have worked on it but also just say to the Health Committee, as well, that this is a really, really important part of this bill, to actually make sure that we do monitor the environmental performance of our whole entire water system to make sure the footprint and the damage that we do to our precious land is kept at a minimal.

So on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Can I join with others in congratulating you on your election to that role.

The Greens welcome the comprehensive response by this Government, following on from the Havelock North inquiry to the whole issue of upgrading drinking-water supplies and to that big gap in our infrastructure, because, as the former president of Local Government New Zealand, Dave Cull, pointed out, the situation in New Zealand was not consistent with best practice internationally, because we didn’t have a regulator that was strongly committed to compliance monitoring and enforcement. Certainly we had drinking-water standards through the Ministry for the Environment, but the community and district health boards were quite variable in the way in which they sought to implement those standards, and I think the inquiry found that there had been actually no enforcement action between 2008 and 2016 of any of the standards.

So we have had a major gap in our law, and, as Minister Nanaia Mahuta noted, this is the second pillar of filling that gap. We’ve had Taumata Arowai established, and now this bill sets out its functions and responsibilities and the whole regulatory framework. Taumata Arowai is an independent Crown agency. It’s independent of Ministers, it’s had a chief executive appointed, and its role is quite massive. It’s the thickness of this bill, highlighted in terms of its responsibilities for the overall regulatory framework for setting the standards and ensuring that those standards are then monitored and enforced, and being able to take action against drinking-water suppliers that do not meet those standards. The bill contains a raft of tools for compliance and enforcement from infringement notices to being able to actually appoint someone else to take over the responsibilities of supplying drinking water if there has been repeated instances of non-compliance.

It also imposes quite significant duties on drinking-water suppliers, requiring them to meet the standards, requiring them to have a safety plan which has a multi-barrier approach to ensuring that drinking water is safe, and it also puts in place a due diligence responsibility and it has some strict liability offences, and for those offences there doesn’t need to be an intention to commit an offence but it is one of strict liability. So I really congratulate the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, for her really thoughtful work in developing this legislation and consulting with stakeholders.

In the last term, the Green Party pushed hard for much greater attention to protection of source water to prevent nutrient contamination, to prevent faecal contamination, and to significantly reduce the costs to councils and to ratepayers. If the supply is protected, then the treatment costs are less. So it was pleasing to see that in the bill there is quite a lot of attention now to the protection of source waters requiring suppliers to have this water risk management plan and also requiring local authorities to cooperate in sharing information about risks to water supplies and requiring councils, when they’re considering granting resource consents, to have regard to the potential risks to source water.

One of the things the Green Party will be interested in submissions is whether Taumata Arowai has sufficient responsibility to be an advocate for protection of source water in relation to resource consents. It’s something in Canterbury that I was enormously grateful to Community and Public Health and Dr Alistair Humphrey for their representation in a range of resource consent hearings about the potential need to safeguard our drinking water. In Darfield, the largest town in Aotearoa without a reticulated sewerage system, Community and Public Health pointed out that subdivision expansion, more septic tanks, was a potential contamination risk to aquifers which provide us with drinking water in Canterbury. So that advocacy role I think is critical for Taumata Arowai, and we’ll be interested in submissions on that.

On the whole issue of enforcement, which we haven’t seen in the past, the bill provides for Taumata Arowai to develop a compliance monitoring and enforcement strategy and to review that every three years and, of course, to publish it.

I notice in this bill too the first steps to also improving the delivery of infrastructure in waste water and stormwater, with the requirement for national level monitoring, reporting, and advisory functions in relation to waste water and stormwater resting with Taumata Arowai, and the development of a national public database and some environmental performance measures there, and the requirement to actually promote good practice, which I think will help ensure that across Aotearoa there is much more consistency in the provision of waste-water and stormwater services and that we don’t get things like the Kaipara District Council and the severe financial consequences for that council through not really having access to good advice on waste water, when they had commissioners having to be appointed.

I think there will be quite a lot of interest in terms of the community water supply schemes in a number of areas, particularly rural areas; the standards that those suppliers will have to meet; and then whether they want councils to take over the provision of those schemes because of their new responsibilities under this legislation. So the Minister noted the transitional period, which again recognises the potential issues there.

I also note just the huge infrastructure deficit we have in both drinking-water supplies, and waste water and stormwater; and the funding that is being provided—over $700 million—to local authorities if they are supportive of the reform to consolidate the provision of drinking-water services into regional entities, potentially between five and seven. The Health Committee would benefit from some comment in submissions on the nature of this consolidation and how appropriate people think it is for their regions and what sort of scale that consolidation should be at.

The Green Party supports the bill and looks forward to submissions. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party supports this bill at the first reading. This bill centralises regulation around drinking water and while ACT would usually be sceptical of policy that removed power from local communities and towards central government, in this particular context of drinking water in New Zealand and the way it’s been managed to date by both councils and local government, there is, in fact, a strong case for a new approach.

Now, the context of this bill is very important because it highlights a major issue that’s facing our country right now and we’ve heard it alluded to by other speakers, and that is the infrastructure deficit. The bill came before this House as a response to the Havelock North inquiry, and that tragic event underscored major costs that can be borne by our communities where there is a failure of infrastructure, especially when it comes to a critical part of our daily lives, like drinking water. The bill, therefore, seeks to provide just one part of a solution to ensure New Zealanders can feel safe when they turn on the tap by providing a regulatory framework around drinking water. It follows the recommendations of the Havelock North inquiry so, for that reason, ACT supports the bill.

It also highlights the fact that this issue has occurred because of the infrastructure deficit, and the duties and powers that it gives the new entity will be helpful. But in terms of waste water and stormwater, there is a big gap. The monitoring regime this sets up is designed to monitor councils’ compliance against their own consents and, fundamentally, that is still a major problem for water quality in New Zealand. This bill deals with one of the three waters, effectively—drinking water; potable water—but does not give any teeth to this agency to go after the poor performance of local government in managing waste-water networks and waste-water discharges and I think that needs a lot more work. So we look forward to hearing from submitters at the select committee stage about how they might propose to improve the controls set out in this bill.

The bill is only one part of the solution to address the way we manage our water quality and, hopefully, our infrastructure that will follow. There have been a generation of poor incentives and a lack of prioritising of that type of infrastructure. So further questions, hard questions, need to be asked about the management of that infrastructure and the investments required, particularly when local government can give itself 25-year consents to pollute urban waterways, beaches, and harbours in places like Auckland and Wellington, where we know that local government has a plan—it might be a 10-year plan or a 30-year plan—to repair that infrastructure. That is inadequate compared to the expectations of people in those urban communities. When families go to the beaches this summer, they don’t expect that that water quality will be unsafe for swimming. But it’s more than likely in some of those places, and particularly where I live in West Auckland, which have longstanding water quality issues associated with failing infrastructure. They can have little confidence and this bill does nothing to address that in the short or medium term.

We’ve also heard from people who’ve discussed the bill today, and from my discussions with others in the professional community who contributed to putting this bill together, that the infrastructure deficit is not starting with the $500 million to $700 million that we’ve heard about as an initial contribution. Potentially, the infrastructure deficit for the waste-water networks on their own is somewhere in the region of $10 billion to $15 billion and that doesn’t include all of the time factors and finance costs as well. So we’re looking at about $4 billion to upgrade water treatment plants for waste water and maybe another $6 billion to $7 billion on pipes. Now, you know, once you add up service relocations, land acquisition, consenting and additional costs, potentially, we’re talking of an infrastructure deficit of about $30 billion.

That’s a major constraint on housing supply. Councils can’t finance this new infrastructure when they’re up against their borrowing limits. So we need to consider what other mechanisms might be available to help close this deficit and to help fund this work that needs doing. The Government has suggested potentially three or five regional water entities to take over the management of the drinking-water, the potable water infrastructure, and what we know is those entities like Watercare in Auckland or Wellington Water in Wellington also have the additional function of managing the waste-water networks. So these entities are likely to have a multidisciplinary approach to managing three waters. And that needs to be taken into account potentially in amendments to this bill or in other legislation that we would hope would follow to address the infrastructure deficit.

Now, we understand the Government is proposing public sector ownership for these new three waters corporations, which, unfortunately, seems to exclude any private sector investment in these types of assets and networks. And when you consider the deficit is potentially $30 billion—the amount of money that would need to be applied in as short a time frame as possible to address urban water quality issues—it seems like there’s an opportunity there waiting to be taken. We know that organisations like the Accident Compensation Corporation and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund have expressed an interest to invest in infrastructure. So we believe that there’s an opportunity for public-private partnerships to add to the amount of funding that’s available to close the infrastructure deficit far more quickly than would otherwise be available through normal local government or central government borrowing.

So on that note, I’d like to conclude by confirming that ACT will support the bill to the first reading and we look forward to making a positive contribution to this discussion going forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and, also, I’d like to echo the comments that have been said this morning to congratulate you around your recent appointment—congratulations. I’m delighted to take a brief call on the Water Services Bill, and I’d like to begin by acknowledging the work the Hon Nanaia Mahuta has done in this space over many years. This bill is the first step in a suite of policies in order to futureproof our water supply over the coming years. This bill, as we’ve heard, basically sets up a new water service regulator. Our current system is very fragmented. If I look at the Waikato region, where I’m a member of Parliament, we’ve got around 15 councils, each with their own, sort of, rules and regulations, many of them with their own water supply infrastructure, and the reality is this fragmented system is not serving our communities or our economy well.

I would like to highlight the point the previous speaker, Simon Court, spoke to in terms of hard questions around infrastructure. I agree with what the member was saying there, and we need to have these conversations. As central government, working in with local councils and, potentially, various private providers, these conversations need to take place, and we need to ask the hard questions, because as our economy continues to grow and develop, providing opportunities for people, water will play a key role. It will be front and centre in that economic development.

So this is an excellent piece of work. I’m pleased we’ve got support right across the House. It’s certainly something that needed to happen, and I’m very pleased that it is happening. I wish the Minister all the very best following this bill through to completion. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Four years and four months since the Havelock North water contamination issues. That’s quite a long time, and I make the point not to criticise the Government for the slowness to act but the complexity of the solutions. The royal commission report into the water contamination outbreak made a number of very, very substantive changes, both to organisational structures, responsibilities, and standards, and then the big thing that we haven’t even got to, which Simon Court, the member from ACT who has just resumed his seat talked about, is the massive infrastructure challenge, both in term of structure and cost.

But this is a milestone and the National Party will support it, with some caveats. The one that I’m particularly concerned about is that I think the population of Havelock North is about 14,000 or 15,000, and one would expect, living in a town of that size, that water contamination issues and the standards for cleanliness of our drinking water should be high, but we are a quite large and geographically dispersed country with a large number of small hamlets, townships, villages, and so on. We’ve already heard from the Central Otago District Council, who have publicly stated that there are at least 27 communities that would struggle enormously to meet the standards that are set out in this bill when it’s passed.

Now, that is not to say that people should be unnecessarily put at risk—and I need to reinforce that point. But in, for example, the township of Hampden, I think it is, in North Otago, in the boundary between the Dunedin and Waitaki electorates, there is an issue that the community have responded to with treatment processes that would not meet this standard, as far as I can tell, and there are a higher number of boil-water notices during a year than other communities might find acceptable if they lived in large, metropolitan areas. That is the cost of living in little paradises right around the country, and to impose a single standard across all of those communities is going to be costly, difficult, and, arguably, very highly bureaucratic.

Now, the bill doesn’t actually do that. It does provide an exemption framework at clause 56. So, firstly, that’s been delegated to the chief executive. I think we need to hear from submitters about whether or not the primary legislation, or even secondary legislation, should set out the circumstances more prescriptively wherein exemptions would be appropriate, and I have no doubt that geographical isolation and the number of people who are connected to the water supply are two key determinants of that exemption framework. It’s not clear to me—and the committee will have a look at this—about the duration, the longevity of the exemption. So we have at clause 57, on residual disinfection—which I think speaks to a temporary contamination or problem with the water supply. But I hope that whoever has the final say—this Parliament or the chief executive—the exemptions can be longstanding, because those communities are prepared to live in places where there may be extra steps that need to be taken in order to keep water of a high quality.

The examples used in the bill don’t talk about townships like Hampden or the 27 communities in Central Otago; they talk about “backcountry huts”, “isolated campsites”, “marae”, “farm buildings on a bore water supply”—all important exemptions. But I would suggest that they’re not comprehensive enough and that they should go further than that to enable communities to make conscious decisions about the source, the transmission of the supply, and what needs to be done in order to make sure that the water is safe to drink, because it’s not those communities—it’s not an event in a small community—that we are responding to. This was a town of 14,000 people, and I hope that we are not imposing a very high urban standard on very remote rural areas, and the costs that go with it.

But with those caveats, obviously, I’m sure the Health Committee will look at those in some detail. I’ll be looking forward to what they hear.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’d like to take a brief call in order to speak to this bill. Water is a critical part of our lives, and perhaps it has taken something as sad as the incident in Havelock North for us to fully realise and take value of the value of water. It was only when I travelled overseas for a number of years, in the OE that all Kiwis used to be able to do, that you fully comprehend the value of being able to walk over to your kitchen sink and fill up a glass of water and drink from it.

The importance of this bill is that it continues the theme that this Government has set in place to put first people’s wellbeing and to put first the health of New Zealanders, and it’s important that we continue to invest in this space to make up for the deficit that has been left. It is true that we have had years of inaction on drinking water and that the infrastructure that we have existing right now is broken in many areas. So this bill strikes a strong balance between incentivising drinking-water suppliers to take responsibility for their supplies and also giving Taumata Arowai a modern regulatory tool kit to promote good-practice compliance and enforcement.

All drinking-water suppliers will be required to consistently provide safe drinking water to consumers through this legislation and meet drinking-water standards. They will be required to have drinking-water safety plans in place, and these are core elements of international best practice. I wish to commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to the submissions we receive in such a critical areas for New Zealanders’ wellbeing.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. This is a historical moment in this House, where a Tongan-speaking New Zealander is addressing Madam Speaker, who is also a Tongan-speaking New Zealander. I want to congratulate you, ‘Eiki Sea, in your role as joining the Speaker’s team, and it is definitely an honour and privilege for a Tongan New Zealander.

I want to take a short call on the first reading of the Water Services Bill. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. What I want to bring to this contribution is in her legislative statement. There’s a sentence there that talks about “Te Mana o te Wai”. I will quote the Minister, because I think it’s important that it’s repeated in this House—that it is more than just naming things in te reo Māori but actually being part of governance. And I quote: “The bill requires all persons who perform or exercise functions, powers, and duties under the legislation to give effect to te Mana o te Wai. As part of its governance arrangements, Taumata Arowai will have a Māori Advisory Group that is charged with advising on how to interpret and give effect to te Mana o te Wai; on how to enable mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori, and kaitiakitanga to be exercised.”

I totally support this bill. Ka tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki te Whare. Kia ora.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on this Water Services Bill. As many speakers have traversed, it’s a long time coming to get to this point today, where we have the introduction of a new bill which essentially puts in place a new regulatory regime. It’s interesting, when you go around the world, and I’ve been involved in water projects around the world, New Zealand has been a bit of an outlier in the sense that we do not and have not had in place good sets of regulations, or even independent oversight, of our water system. I think, in New Zealand, we’ve relied principally on the fact that territorial local councils, or authorities or councils, in the main do a pretty good job managing water supplies. But, unfortunately, that Havelock North example, showed that that is not always the case.

I think this piece of legislation brings New Zealand into the main with what we see internationally, and perhaps we should have had it earlier. For those who were affected by Havelock, I certainly express my best wishes for them and for those who lost their lives. It’s truly a tragic event. But this piece of legislation obviously is sort of a step towards, in terms of the continuum, of the different types of models we could put in place. It’s reasonably prescriptive in terms of what it sets out, and I think many people have gone through the various aspects of what the new authority will have power and oversight of—principally about making sure, approving, and overseeing the types of plans that have been prepared. But also, it puts an obligation on councils, particularly, and for regional councils to publish the results.

I think that’s all good stuff, and I think what we’ll see over time is making sure—particularly amongst our 64 councils, where we’ve got some that are more financially constrained—that the requirement to provide a certain level of quality of water is absolutely paramount in the decision making. That will stop the deferring of essential investment in upgrading, not only our water but our stormwater and our waste-water assets, because that requirement to meet a safety requirement, a health requirement, will be now a paramount objective for them. I think that will force, in some ways, expenditure in these smaller councils, many of whom, at this stage, are financially constrained—so it gives rise to a much wider issue about how they’re going to fund that, and how they’re going to meet their requirements.

But that is a different issue. What this is principally about is a health issue. I think that’s an excellent point to start, and a great way to drive organisational change if we are to see much better levels of quality of water across all of New Zealand. I think there are areas of debate within the bill, and no doubt the Health Committee will be looking at it. But I think the first one is the level of reporting that the councils have to do, and the management plans. Whilst it’s good in principle, and it’s great that it’s set out in legislation—and I’m not saying that that’s not appropriate—what I am suggesting is there will need to be care around making sure that we strike the right balance between what is necessary and what, over time, we get: scope creep. I think we just need to make sure the scope creep is—people want to make sure that they get every piece of information, which may not always be relevant, but we do not want to end up imposing on local authorities, particularly an undue burden that doesn’t actually deliver a better outcome. So I’m being careful, there is a balance. We certainly need the right information, but we need to make sure that we don’t end up in a situation where we overexpose councils to unnecessary requirements.

The other thing, I think—and I know my colleague beside me traversed this issue slightly—is the issue around those who supply less than 500 people. We do need to make sure that those small communities—and Hon Michael Woodhouse was talking about that before—are in a situation where they have good arrangements. In many cases, they would have been in place for maybe 100 years, or whatever, and we want to make sure that we don’t, again, start overlying sort of an Auckland-Wellington solution to something that is very local and actually the community is very happy with. I think that, again, is the next level of balancing act we need to make sure.

The last one, and this is one that particularly affects my electorate of Port Waikato, is the issue around supply at a very small level. Where, on farm supply, the definition of a building—obviously, an apartment is ruled out under these arrangements and therefore would be captured. But where people grow up on farms, and there are businesses located on those farms which may not just be related to normal, ordinary, course of business, but it might be a processing plant or whatever, or in many cases, farms have multiple houses and dwellings. Again, I just think we need to be very mindful about, again, ending up with regulations—actually in the legislation, but it will be captured in the regulations as well—that are not fit for purpose. We want to make sure that our horticultural industries—even large farms, and large parts of my electorate who have multiple dwellings—do not end up being unnecessarily caught out. Because, after all, the people that own the farms in many cases are living on the farms, and they have as much incentive to make sure the water quality is up to standard to meet their own family needs, as well as the people that might be working with them on those properties.

So I think, again, I’d just say to the committee, be careful, be prudent, and be focused on making sure we end up with legislation and regulations that are very appropriate and, over time, serve the community well in terms of delivering a much better delivery of outcomes over the longer term. I think that’s about all I want to cover. The Resource Management Act aspect is another one that is talking about actual and potential effects. I’ve heard a couple of people speak about that, I don’t quite know what that means, but I’m sure the committee will take the opportunity to explore what that means. Is that to give priority to? I don’t know. I don’t know what the wording means. I’ve had a bit of a look here, but I think that’s another sort of aspect. But in the main, I’ve got to say, I think the bill certainly looks like it’s heading in the right direction, and it would be interesting to see it progress through not only the select committee process but through the House. Thank you very much.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. It is my absolute pleasure to take the final call on the first reading of the Water Services Bill. As a former Far North District councillor and now the MP for Northland, water is a huge issue for us in Northland. We are heading into summer; already the drought warnings are out, the signs are up at the supermarket to conserve our water in places like Paihia. I know that throughout the last couple of months, as information has been out about this bill, there is some concern and trepidation amongst our local authorities up north. However, I am pleased that all the local authorities have signed up to the memorandum of understanding and are at least looking into the options for it.

We expect as New Zealanders to all be able to turn on the tap and drink the water knowing that it is safe, that we can swim in our rivers and lakes or gather kaimoana at the beach without fear of becoming ill. As has been referred to in the speeches today, with the Havelock North inquiry following the deaths of several people and those falling ill to poor quality drinking water, we know that this isn’t consistent across the country and that something needs to be done. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Local Government for taking the leadership on this issue and bringing it to the House, the support of all those that have spoken on it this morning, and I wish the select committee well. I look forward to reading the submissions coming from my area in particular, as I am sure they will raise matters for the consideration of the select committee. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Water Services Bill be considered by the Health Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture) on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: I present a legislative statement on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

In this House and its renown across the country, the significance of the Māori-owned asset economy, and particularly as we address it as one of our second priorities in this Government in terms of accelerated recovery—this bill should be seen in that context. This is an important bill that has broad support from iwi to improve the allocation and transfer process of aquaculture settlement assets.

New Zealand’s aquacultural industry contributes significantly to regional development and the national economy, generating $600 million in revenue in 2018 and employing 3,000 people, largely based in the regions. New Zealand’s aquaculture industry has built a strong reputation for sustainable, healthy, and high-value products. Kaimoana, more broadly, has long played a key role in the social, economic, and cultural wellbeing of Māori and all New Zealanders—and particularly, may I add, as we head into the summer break. Māori have a significant presence in the aquaculture industry, which will increase over time as iwi acquire and develop their interests in the industry and realise their aquaculture settlement assets. The potential scale of iwi involvement in the future of the aquaculture industry is such that the sector as a whole will not reach its full potential until iwi realise their aquaculture settlement assets.

The Government’s aquaculture strategy, released in September 2019, recognises the strong interest of Māori and contains an ambitious goal for aquaculture to become a $3 billion industry by 2035, but has a vision for New Zealand’s aquaculture industry to be globally recognised as a world leader in sustainable and innovative aquaculture management across the value chain. The increase in Māori interest in aquaculture over time, supported by the change proposed in this bill, has the potential to maximise opportunities from settlement and support the broader COVID-19 economic recovery efforts with Māori at the forefront.

The purpose of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill is to better enable the allocation and transfer of aquaculture settlement assets to iwi by providing Te Ohu Kaimoana with a limited discretionary power to make determinations for aquaculture settlement allocation entitlements. While the fundamental provisions of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act are sound and performing well, there is an opportunity to improve the allocation and transfer process. This will address the issue of some iwi being unable to access their aquaculture settlement assets in circumstances when agreement on allocation between all iwi in a region cannot be reached. The proposed changes will not change the core elements of how the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act currently operates or change the dispute resolution process, including reference to the Māori Land Court.

Intensive consultation has occurred over the past two years, and there is broad support from iwi and Te Ohu Kaimoana for the bill. The amendments provide a practical means for resolving the current allocation issues and those which could arise in future, and will ensure regional aquaculture assets make it into the hands of iwi in a timely manner. There are regions that are currently unable to access their aquaculture settlement assets due to an inability to reach unanimous agreement between all iwi in those regions about how aquaculture settlement assets should be allocated amongst them. These regions will benefit immediately from the proposed changes. I felt that it was important to bring the bill to the House now so that impacted iwi can access their aquaculture settlement assets within an appropriate time frame and to ensure there is plenty of opportunity to make changes, if necessary.

The select committee process is very important, and I urge and encourage all New Zealanders with an interest in aquaculture to come forward and to have their say on the bill and ensure we get it right. So, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise and take my first call in the 53rd Parliament and just in time for the Christmas break—so fantastic to be able to speak here on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

Jamie Strange: Nice and short—a short one!

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Nice and short, Mr Strange. Well, we’ll see about that. There’s a lot to say on this important bill, so we’ll see how we go. But, look, this is an area that I am just getting my head around as the new spokesperson for oceans and fisheries, and it’s an area that I’m quite excited about because it represents significant opportunity. Whilst the current aquaculture industry at $600 million makes a reasonable contribution, it’s not massive but it does have massive potential and this particular amendment bill helps to capture some of that potential.

So, as Minister Whaitiri’s just touched on, effectively, what this change is doing is streamlining the process to give that limited discretionary power to the trustee, Te Ohu Kaimoana, to allocate those iwi settlement assets. Now, since this came into play, this Act, back in 2004, there have been some challenges in terms of allocating those iwi assets on a settlement basis, depending on, of course, the different claims to that within different iwi groups. And, of course, the requirements within the Act are such that every iwi who has a potential claim must be involved and no decision can be made around the distribution of those assets without the unanimous agreement of all those participants. That is the fundamental issue that we’ve had here—that, in some instances, there hasn’t been unanimous agreement. And, if that can’t be obtained, then, effectively, it’s tying up the ability for the iwi groups to access their entitlement and to just get on with business. Ultimately, what is trying to be achieved here is to promote the timely distribution of those allocations and, therefore, enable them, those stakeholders, to get on and do business and thrive as a result of their allocation of aquaculture assets.

As the Minister mentioned, the current industry, around $600 million—there’s an ambitious aquaculture strategy to take that from 3,000 people involved now up to about more than 6,000 and a contribution of over $3 billion by 2035. Now, that’s ambitious, but actually I think that’s quite achievable. And when we look—

Todd Muller: With a National Government.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —at aquaculture globally, there are some fantastic opportunities with it. And it’s a very good point, Mr Muller. It probably needs an ambitious National Government to help solidify some of that opportunity, of course. But, that aside, there’s still potential delivered from this particular bill to enable those iwi groups to get on and make some progress despite the legislative challenges faced by them through the current Government.

That said, we need to be targeting in particular here how we can grow aquaculture. When we look at aquaculture as a food source, fish are the most rapid converters of food to protein. You can look at any other land-based farming systems—beef, sheep, for example—the feed conversion ratio of aquaculture is something like 1:1.4. It’s massive, right? So you give them 1.4 of feed and they’re converting it to a kilogram of protein. That is phenomenal. It far exceeds any other protein source we have. So this is some of the opportunity we have. And, alongside that, of course, you look at New Zealand as a country, an island surrounded by a significant amount of water, and the potential for aquaculture is nearly limitless. At the moment, we’re targeting that around the inshore space, but actually, over time, I think we need to be looking at deep-water options.

I know there are currently some entities looking at that at the moment, but actually one of the fundamental issues around that is the Resource Management Act (RMA). This is a problem that we have cropping up in just about every piece of legislation we’re talking about at the moment, actually—the RMA holding up the process—and it’s no different under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill that we’re debating here today as well. Until we can get this RMA sorted, we’re not going to be able to capture the productivity gains in as timely and efficient a manner as we should be able to. So that needs to be a big focus, and it’s great to see the Government now have come around to National’s way of thinking and are prepared to look at reviewing the RMA and getting some better rules in place to deliver that opportunity for us.

But, coming back to this specific bill, those discretionary powers are going to be reasonably limited but will enable the ability to get on and capture some of that benefit for those iwi. Now, as I mentioned earlier on, the issue is that it’s been tied up in a number of cases through disagreement by one particular group, or it could even be down to an individual level—one person—and so the ability for one person to tie up the entire distribution process of iwi aquaculture settlement claims for a particular region or harbour is absolutely disproportionate. So this bill does enable a partial solution to that, enabling the trustee to make an allocation based on their determination around the proportions claimed by different iwi groups.

Now, that’s one of the key aspects here, and when looking at the bill, the bulk of it is under new section 49, set out in clause 7. That’s where the key aspects of this change are coming in. And new section 49B(2) specifies that “a transfer of settlement assets … must be made in proportion to the length of coastline of the relevant iwi who agree on a partial allocation and that the trustee is satisfied is unlikely to be disputed.” Right, so giving this limited discretionary power to the trustee doesn’t mean they can just go out carte blanche and allocate the entitlements as they see fit on any given day, to whomever they wish. They actually still have to follow a pretty structured process to minimise the chance of dispute.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you, Mr Bridges—and to ensure that people can get on and still have a way forward to enable them to see what, in their view, is their appropriate allocation whilst enabling or still having the disputes process for those who feel they have not yet been allocated the proportion they would expect to be under this particular bill.

So, once that allocation occurs, then there’s a requirement, of course, for notification to happen, and disputes can still then be lodged off the back of that allocation. Now, of course, as I just mentioned, reading out that subsection, it’s the expectation that the trustee makes a partial allocation where it’s unlikely to be disputed, but if it is disputed, well, there is still a process for that under new section 49E(2), and so that’s appropriate to then link into the existing part—I think it’s sections 52 through to 55 of the 2004 Act—which outlines the current disputes process. So those aspects will still provide some comfort, I hope, for those who are concerned that this power may see their potential claim overridden by the ability of the trustee to allocate assets. Indeed, that shouldn’t be the case and the dispute process still clearly enables anyone who is concerned to raise a dispute. And, of course, that can then go back to the Māori Land Court as well, depending on the progress they make through the disputes process.

Hearing from the Minister—I was interested to hear it is going to the Māori Affairs Committee rather than the Primary Production Committee, the fisheries portfolio. That’s fine. The reality is submitters, I hope, will take the opportunity to have their voices heard on that regardless, and in particular, those iwi groups who have experienced some difficulties in this space. I think that would be really key—to get firsthand feedback from them on the challenges they had and why that might have arisen and the value then of being able to allocate at least partial distributions under this amendment, as I said, with the view to enabling those iwi groups to get on and capture some of that benefit to the wider aquaculture industry. As I mentioned, that aquaculture strategy as well is a key part of wanting to grow the industry.

One of the aspects I was quite interested to see under this Act was that, for any new aquaculture space, 20 percent is automatically allocated to iwi settlement claims. So, indeed, it makes absolute sense, the Minister’s claim, that we can’t capture the value of the aquaculture industry until iwi have accessed those entitlements. Of course that would be the case, otherwise we would only be able to capture up to 80 percent of the value without that. So it is important that we do look to expedite this where possible, acknowledging, of course, that there has been a clear process and pace, but sometimes disputes can arise and, unfortunately, where they haven’t been able to be remedied, it has been challenging and has slowed up the ability to access that economic potential, which then impacts on those regions. When we’re talking about the different allocations under this bill, it really is impacting on regional New Zealand, and so that’s one of the key areas where, personally, I’d like to see a lot more focus on economic growth under this Government, and so, hopefully, this will help to achieve that for those groups within that region.

So, on the basis of that, we do support this bill. I look forward to seeing it progress through the House, and we’ll be following it closely through the remaining stages. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to speak in my first contribution in this 53rd Parliament, and I want to take the opportunity to congratulate you, ma’am, on your appointment as a presiding officer. Likewise, I want to acknowledge the good people of Te Tai Tonga, the largest electorate in the country, from the great southern and distant islands to the capital city, for returning me as their member of Parliament. Of course, across Te Tai Tonga, there are significant aquaculture areas, particularly in the top of the South Island, and there’s no greater pleasure for me to speak in this 53rd Parliament, at the outset, on a bill which is moving Māori forward in our regional economic development and improving the processes with this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

I’d like to acknowledge Mr van de Molen for taking us very carefully through the details of this bill, but, in essence, it’s a very simple bill. It’s about rectifying an issue that has come up in terms of ultimately getting assets into the hands of iwi, and that’s what these settlements are all about: making sure that we can get the assets to iwi. In certain instances, in regions, iwi aren’t able to come to 100 percent unanimity on how that is to go about, and so thanks to Te Ohu Kaimoana, the trustee, they have come up with a proposal which has the agreement of all iwi and has been widely consulted to ensure that they have a limited discretion to make an allocation and transfer it to those iwi that are undisputed and that are ready to receive their assets, so they aren’t prejudiced, they aren’t held up indefinitely, and they can get on with the business. Ultimately, that’s what this bill aims to achieve.

Māori are at the forefront of the aquaculture industry. We’ve heard about our aquaculture strategy and the potential that it has to grow economic development in the regions in our COVID recovery, and I look forward to the passage of the bill. I acknowledge our new Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, the Hon David Parker; the Hon Stuart Nash, his predecessor; and I’m delighted to be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries. I’m looking forward to adding my bit to assist the Minister in his big task over this term.

So, with that, I commend this bill, and I also wish the newly formed Māori Affairs Committee all the best in their consideration of this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Madam Speaker, can I just congratulate you on your role, and I think, as my friend on the other side has said, it’s the first time for me as well to speak in this House with you in your position as—I always get these around the wrong way; I want to say that you are the—

Chris Penk: Assistant Speaker.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —Assistant Speaker. I’m sure you’ll do a wonderful job. Can I also start by saying congratulations to the member Rino Tirikatene Sullivan and to make clear that I think he should have given the first speech on this bill, because he has real mana in some of the areas where there is the most aquaculture in New Zealand. In my view, frankly, there’s not enough aquaculture, actually, but what there is is in his neck of the woods, in the Mainland. Not only that, I also am aware that he was no slouch as a fisheries lawyer; he’s done some work in this area and other areas associated with this. So he had the experience and the mana to do a good job. I know he’s got his under-secretary gig, or whatever it is. It sounds pretty good; Minister sounds better, though, Rino, I can tell you for nothing: maybe your day will come, but I think you should have spoken first.

That said, of course, the Minister is David Parker, and we do have a new portfolio here that this bill comes within, and that’s Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, a very grand title, one would have thought. I just say to David Parker, if he is listening right now, that I hope he will live up to that title and he will do some of the things that need to be done. This is a good albeit, dare I say it, a perfunctory start, really, because this bill, as the last speaker has said, is simple; even Rino and I can understand it, and we can work this out pretty quickly. It gets the assets where they should be. If you accept in principle the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process, if you accept the establishment here of the various bodies involved in this, then it’s not much of a leap to say that, actually, the allocation, the transfer that happens under this bill and the improvements made therein, are the right thing to do.

But, of course, this is just the start for the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, with that grand title, and I think there’s more work that he needs to do when it comes to aquaculture and sensibly opening that up in this country, and also, dare I say it, issues like the Kermadecs, which sat there for three years and they’re progressing this—that’s nice; it’s a nice little, perfunctory thing, but there are bigger issues in the oceans where we need solutions, and Minister David Parker, we will support you where you do these big things and we’ll challenge you where you don’t.

Broadly speaking, this bill is, and can be placed as, part of the Treaty settlements process. It’s an area where, for National, we believe we may not get the votes but we have done the mahi, and over the nine years we were in Government we had an incredibly proud record, an unprecedented record, frankly, of Treaty settlements, of getting out and doing what needed to be done. Chris Finlayson bears much of the mana associated with that, but also the Rt Hon Sir John Key and the Rt Hon Sir Bill English, who were incredibly supportive of that.

It’s been a slow start for this Government, and I use the term Government—last term, this term very slow. So they’re doing this; this is the easy stuff. Look, it’s a bit better than motherhood and apple pie; it’s got a little cream on the side. But it’s pretty banal stuff, really. What we’d like to see is actual land, forest, Treaty settlements around New Zealand—

Dr Duncan Webb: How about this bill?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, this is about this bill. I’m doing a compare and contrast, if the member would like—which, you know, keeps me within the scope, Madam Speaker, of this bill, which is a banal and perfunctory bill, as I’ve said. So a proud history of Treaty settlements, which this bill is part of, from National; a slow start from this Government. New Zealanders support the full and final Treaty settlement process and the need to redress past injustices, but let’s speed up the train, eh? Let’s see more happen this term than last term. This is a very small, tepid start. It’s nice, it’s simple; but let’s see more from the Government.

I want to, in the four minutes remaining, just touch on two other matters associated with this bill—firstly, aquaculture and just talk a bit about that. There is a huge opportunity which this bill helps with in its own little way. There is a huge opportunity in aquaculture in New Zealand, and we haven’t, let’s be honest, the last National Government and this Government, really done enough to un-tap and unleash that opportunity. It requires certain changes to the way we think and look at these and address these legally, and I say to the Government: actually I for one—I reckon, my colleagues as well—would be there and would fulsomely support changes that make doing aquaculture in New Zealand easier, frankly. I think it’s been in the “too hard” basket. But I think of Norway, which I had the privilege of visiting as a Minister. You couldn’t think of a more sustainable country. They’ve got themselves in large part—well, no, they haven’t got themselves out of oil and gas, but they’re doing a bunch of things to divest the oil and gas industry, and they have a trillion-dollar pension fund from that, but what people forget is the other massive sector for them is aquaculture. They are legends in this area, and there is no simple reason other than our will and our determination to do it that Aotearoa New Zealand couldn’t be in that class as well, with the willpower from the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and others.

Finally—who knew that I would get to eight minutes in this contribution, frankly? It is amazing how much one knows when you stand up and start talking about these things! I do want to finish on another integral part of this bill, the Minister for oceans and aquaculture.

Tim van de Molen: What’s the bill about again?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It’s about aquaculture, OK? Come on! It’s over there, and that is the Kermadecs. And I say to the other side—[Interruption] No, I say to the other side of the House that there are Māori rights and interests there—we get that—but you know what? That shouldn’t take a decent, competent Minister very long to sit down to work through and get us a solution to the Kermadecs, what should be something all New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, could be hugely proud of in that huge expanse, what would be, I think, the biggest ocean sanctuary in the world.

So I say, for one last time to this House and to the Labour Party, this bill is fine. It’s nice, everyone’s going to support it, though I don’t know what they’re doing. [Points to ACT Party members] I reckon even ACT is going to support this bill, frankly, because there is so little to it. But the work is just getting started. You need to do more as a party and as a Government in the areas of the Treaty, in the areas of aquaculture, and actually in the areas of protecting our oceans in the right places, like the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, and warm South Auckland greetings. It’s a real honour and a privilege to be speaking with you in the Chair today, and I want to say to all South Aucklanders who may be watching that it is a real privilege to have someone with so much integrity and leadership based in South Auckland representing us.

This bill supports the increase over time of Māori interests in aquaculture, and though the member opposite in his contribution was at pains to point out that this was a small change, it is a very significant change to the people in his area. It supports iwi to maximise opportunities from settlement and helps generate meaningful work for young and rural Māori people at a time when those jobs are much needed. For those iwi who are experiencing delays because of these powers which are not available yet to Te Ohu Kaimoana, it will be a big change, and one which will be very welcome.

I just want to touch on one important point that this bill will change. It promotes the ability for the Crown to act flexibly and to be able to act in good faith in its relations with iwi partners who are trying to support their people through the development of aquaculture in their regions. Whānau, hapū, and Māori are possibly at a disadvantage if Te Ohu Kaimoana does not have the flexibility to assist in situations of deadlock where iwi within a region cannot agree.

That is why I’m proud to stand and commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai mema kaimahi hou i roto i te Whare. My maiden speech is actually not until February and I thought I’d got away with not speaking in the House this side of Christmas, but it’s lovely to be here with you. We wish to commend this bill, firstly, because the principle of appropriate decision-making is very important to the Greens, which is that the decisions that affect our people are made at that level. So the fact that Te Ohu Kaimoana has done such extensive consultation and iwi are in support of this bill—for that reason alone, we would want to support it.

The other thing, though, that we would like to raise is that iwi have suffered throughout the Treaty settlement process by this concept of natural groupings, which has impacted me in particular from Tai Rāwhiti, my iwi of Ngāti Oneone and Whānau a Kai, where we’re expected to get on with and negotiate instead of directly with the Crown and its agencies, but with each other. And so I feel that this untangles some of that so it means that the iwi who are ready to go can access the resource they need to get on with developing their business and working for their people.

So, with those brief words, we would commend this bill and give our support. Kia ora.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party for the first reading of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. This is a way to provide and allocate aquaculture claims settlement to iwi in the event of a dispute resolution process; the primary bill had been unable to resolve a dispute between iwi on transfer and allocation.

There are two significant areas of change, primarily the empowering trust to allocate and transfer assets. After a period of 12 months, there have been no recognised iwi aquaculture organisations, and 24 months since the settlement assets were transferred to the trustee. Secondly, limitations on transfer under the new process—the transferred assets cannot be sold until they have been registered as allocation entitlements. The assets must be transferred in whole part to an iwi aquaculture organisation that becomes entitled to any portion of the said assets.

Mr Nash, the previous Minister of Fisheries, said at the time—and I quote—“The proposed Bill will improve the allocation and transfer of Māori commercial aquaculture settlement assets to iwi.” Some aspects of the 2004 original Act, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, have prevented some iwi from accessing and developing aquaculture assets such as marine farming space. Aquaculture contributes significantly to regional development. This is deeply important in our post-COVID recovery. It can grow sustainably, an illustration of which was in 2018, as the previous members in the House have referred to, when it generated some $600 million in revenue and employed upwards of 3,000 people in the regions.

Because of this reality and the potential of fiscal and further growth and certainty that this bill will bring, the ACT Party will support this third reading. On behalf of the ACT Party, I commend this bill to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Congratulations to you on your role as well. It’s with pleasure that I rise to take a call on this Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill. I think plenty of it has been traversed through the House already, but I think of note is that currently the main commercial aquaculture claims settlement Act is seen as working reasonably well, but what this amendment does is it gives us the opportunity to improve the allocation and transfer process for aquaculture settlement assets in a more timely manner for those iwi that are ready to move on with this, or allow those that are not ready to to leave it until perhaps they may be further on. It ensures that iwi have timely access to their aquaculture settlement assets and allows them just to get on with the job, and gives them the ability to get on and develop their assets. I think this is particularly important going forward and thinking about this—for the aquaculture industry, when we think about the fact that this industry has huge potential to support our economic recovery after COVID-19, and, more importantly, having Māori at the forefront of this.

We’ve heard that there was public consultation on this and there’s been broad support for this piece of legislation. Our aquaculture industry offers huge potential for sustainable growth and, I think, early action. Giving iwi the ability to have access in a timely manner and get on with it, develop their industry, is certainly going to deliver growth in this sector. We’ve got the ability here in New Zealand to be world leaders in this industry. So I commend this bill to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well, what a phenomenal debate this has been thus far, and I would say that the National Party contributions have been—

Hon Simon Bridges: Strong.

TODD MULLER: —very strong, Mr Bridges, and you are a leader in that, as well as my colleague Tim van de Molen, who also led off with great fanfare. Can I first acknowledge you, Madam Speaker, in achieving this role. I’m sure you will bring great impartiality and wisdom to the Chair.

Hon Simon Bridges: Very good so far.

TODD MULLER: Very good so far—well said. Look, what a remarkable debate. A few highlights before I get into the substance: when my colleague Simon Bridges was giving a superb outline of elements of this bill, and other personal reflections, he talked about how the Treaty settlement process has been one of the National Party’s great contributions to this country. At that moment, a remarkable thing happened, something that I have not seen in the six years that I have been in this House: William Sio looked across the House and smiled and agreed and said yes. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a remarkable thing. William Sio, here today, has actually said in public that the National Party has done something right. I want that framed. I want that video framed and sent to his electorate, because he is perhaps one of the more Labour tribalists, and it’s very, very good to see a concession finally. The Christmas spirit has finally infected his heart and he was so generous to us, and we bank that. Thank you very much, Mr Sio.

Now, this actually is, as Mr Bridges said, a motherhood and apple pie with a bit of ice cream on the side—I would’ve described it as a prawn cocktail of a bill, really. It’s not the main course, but it is certainly something that deserves acknowledgment and is progressing an issue which has been quite constraining for a number of iwi: being unable to have their allocation progressed in a meaningful time. Of course, the Minister was silent around what a meaningful time period looks like, and we would like to test that. I mean, this is a very nice step forward, but I would like, when we get it to the Māori Affairs Committee, to look particularly into new sections—where are we—49A and B, because this is where the protections lie for those who feel that their interests have not been appropriately reflected in any determination of allocation.

Whilst the Māori trustee, Te Ohu Kaimoana, has the capacity now to step in and actually make a determination, it is absolutely critical that those who feel their rights and interests in terms of specific allocations have not been accurately assessed still feel that they are protected. If you actually look at the words that are listed there in that subsection, they are quite all-encompassing, and it raises the question for me around how operationally efficient this particular set of amendments will be. I say that in all seriousness. It’s all very well to have an intent to make it easier for disbursements, if you like, when there is tension and disagreement, but when you also have what appears to me here reasonably robust protections, I think we need to test as a committee what the operationalisation of this will actually look like, or we will end up with just a whole lot of good words but not a lot of action when it comes to releasing this economic potential.

I agree with Tim van de Molen’s and Simon Bridges’ contributions around the economic potential of aquaculture—$600 million now, with the Government seeking $3 billion in the next 15 years. Well, that’s not ambitious enough. Three billion in the next three years—look at what kiwifruit’s done; again, you know, well, supported by two very strong local MPs who understand the area, can get behind the industry, and it happens—

Hon Simon Bridges: And Todd McClay.

TODD MULLER: Yeah, and Todd McClay, yeah—him as well. And you look at Ōpōtiki, you know? Very soon, that area will return back to National—can’t wait for when that happens, because there is real opportunity here in Ōpōtiki for aquaculture, and it needs investment and it needs competence. This is part of the step forward, but we in the National Party will make sure that that opportunity is not just rhetoric, as it often is in this Government, but actually turns to action, and we look forward to deliberating on this when it comes to select committee. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): In the absence of the Māori Party wanting to speak on this bill, I will take the call and thank you for that.

This really is just about moving assets appropriately into iwi. In that sense, there’s been a few sticking points. And we know that sometimes iwi have a lot to resolve before those kinds of decisions can be made. Really this is just saying that, whilst iwi work through those matters, we want to make sure those assets are transferred where they most likely will go. But, as Mr Muller in his ramblings said, there is a lot of safeguards in there. So this is really just a bill to move that along to make sure the assets don’t remain with the Crown—they’re utilised and grown where they should be. It’s a good bill, it’s not a contentious bill, and really no more need be said. I absolutely recommend this bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take this call, and also congratulations to you. I don’t believe I’ve passed that on to you so far. The debate has already covered most points, I think—some more eloquently than others—but I think the most salient point is that Māori do have a significant presence in this aquaculture industry. That’s something that needs to increase, and this bill provides that. So it’s my pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Firstly, can I acknowledge and congratulate you and say congratulations on joining the Speakers’ team as Deputy Speaker. I look forward to working with you, and I’m sure you’re going to do an absolutely outstanding job.

It’s a pleasure to speak on this bill as the iwi development spokesperson. Without doubt, the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill is a very pragmatic piece of legislation, as we’ve been talking about, and the National Party supports it. The reason is, as we’ve been talking about, we want to unleash and we want to accelerate the potential of Māori business, and we think that’s a good thing. We actually think, on this side of the House, that accelerating business in general is a good thing, and as we heard from some very eloquent speakers in the Hon Simon Bridges, the honourable Todd Muller—people that I can learn so much from, as I am new to the House today. They have been giving us some really good things that we could accelerate—Treaty negotiations. We could also accelerate having more ambition for aquaculture. We could also accelerate protecting those ocean sanctuaries, which would be so important to also unlocking and unleashing the potential, the ambition, the aspiration of Māori business here in New Zealand.

Obviously, the issue or the problem that this bill is addressing is that iwi in some regions are facing indefinite delays in receiving aquaculture settlement assets from the trustee, and that’s due to the inability, as we’ve all talked about, of iwi in those regions to be able to reach agreement about how those assets should be allocated amongst themselves. Obviously, this dispute process is incredibly time consuming. It’s unduly delayed by any stakeholder, including any individual, and just the thought that one person is all it takes to actually stop the process and to stop that potential being realised is a big, big challenge. It is frustrating for iwi, because we want Māori participating in the aquaculture sector, in the broader fishing industry, and we know aquaculture in itself represents $600 million. It’s 3,000 people that are, importantly, employed all across the regions of New Zealand that desperately need that employment, and we have to do everything we can, I think, to unleash and help Māori acquire and develop their own commercial assets.

I have to say, I’ve seen that firsthand in my former life as CEO of Air New Zealand. We had a challenge with, actually, serving prawns on board aeroplanes in business premier, and we had to kick it off because we didn’t know where those prawns were coming from. As an ethical supply chain, where we’d signed up to the Modern Slavery Act in the UK, we couldn’t tell where those prawns were coming from. Were they from enslaved fishermen in South-east Asia or wherever? So we went to Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Porou had this great smoking operation, which was just for smoking fish for iwi.

Hon Simon Bridges: I bet they did.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, it was fish—it was smoked fish. Yeah, it was smoked fish. We moved from prawn cocktails to smoked fish. And it was incredible, because what we saw over a series of engagements was that we were able to work with Ngāti Porou to build a proper smoked fish operation to such a high standard to pass food safety quality standards and everything. It was a phenomenal process, to be able to supply you all, as fine customers of Air New Zealand, on your services on the Tasman Sea—to have wonderful smoked fish coming from Ngāti Porou. It scaled up a business that can now sell that smoked fish all around the world to other airlines and to other caterers. That was a pretty awesome story, and that’s a pretty exciting thing, when you see that benefit, that financial ability, passed on to the community, which is fantastic.

So this bill here gives very limited, very discretionary powers to the trustee to allocate and transfer those aquaculture settlement assets to iwis. It also does, in fact, protect the interests of iwi who don’t wish to claim the aquaculture settlement assets. So, whichever way you want it, it’s covered. It’s good news in that it doesn’t fundamentally alter or manifestly change the core elements of the original base legislation and, certainly, the dispute resolution process.

So I think the final thing I’d say is it’s important that it is consistent with Treaty principles and that there is scope here for iwi and the Crown to work together in good faith and in partnership together. We support the bill and we commend it to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. My congratulations on your appointment. I’m going to take a very brief call on this bill. I think a lot has been said so far. This is, of course, a very important bill that has broad support from iwi to improve the allocation and transfer process of aquaculture settlement assets. The potential scale of iwi involvement in the future of the aquaculture industry is such that the sector as a whole will not reach its full potential until iwi realise their aquaculture settlement assets, and this bill progresses that important work. There’s been much debate today, and so I won’t add anything further, other than to say that I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bills

Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill.

Legislative statement published under the authority of the House.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move, That the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

Mr Speaker, can I join with other members of Parliament who have congratulated you today. This is my first substantive speech in the House, and can I say to you congratulations on your appointment as Deputy Speaker to the House. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe. I know from your rulings in the previous Parliament that you’ll be firm and stern. So I look forward to seeing that being effected throughout the next three years.

This Government is committed to continuing to strengthen the Family Court process, and this bill forms part of a long-term programme of change focused on improving access to justice for children, parents, and whānau who are involved in disputes over the care of children. The bill is intended to enhance child wellbeing and care of children cases both directly and by assisting parents to resolve parenting disputes. It will enhance children’s participation in proceedings that affect them and help to ensure that children feel supported and informed as they move through the Family Court process. It will also extend lawyers’ duties in the care of children proceedings, as well as reinforcing expectations that people should be protected from family violence. In fact, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says that children’s participation in decisions that affect them is a fundamental right and this bill will effect that.

Could I also acknowledge the independent panel that examined the 2014 family justice systems reform. The final report from the panel was released in June of last year and found that children’s participation in the Family Court process is still not recognised or valued. The independent panel identified that there is limited participation by children in issues that affect them, and that there is concern as to whether their views are obtained and considered in both proceedings that happen inside a court and those that do not. So studies do show that children want to be involved in that decision making and can experience immediate and long-term consequences if they are not listened to as part of the Family Court process. This can include feeling isolated, lonely, and anxiety, and having difficulty with coping with the stress of being in the middle of a parenting dispute.

In responding to the issues that the panel found, the bill will amend the Care of Children Act 2004 to establish a new guiding principle that a child should be provided with opportunities to participate in decisions where they affect their care and their welfare and that their views should be considered, and it will also provide express reference to the United Nations convention that I mentioned earlier.

The bill will also amend the Family Dispute Resolution Act 2013, and that will require a family dispute resolution provider to facilitate participation by children who are the subject of a family dispute.

The bill also emphasises the importance of engaging children appropriately in processes that do affect their direct care. Providing children with an opportunity to express their views can help parents focus on the actual needs of the children rather than their own conflict between the parents themselves. Again, studies can show that children do want to be involved in the decisions and the process around the dispute, rather than be the decision-maker in a dispute, and, overwhelmingly, children want to participate in the family life of both parents, to be consulted and to have a say and to have an opportunity to make their own feelings known about any parental conflict.

The independent panel also identified that there is considerable variation in how lawyers for children obtain and represent the child’s view and that there is no legislative requirement for lawyers to understand the child’s background or cultural background. So in responding to the issues, the bill will also amend parts of the Care of Children Act to require that on the appointment of a lawyer to represent a child, a lawyer’s personality, cultural background, and training and experience must be considered, and, in essence, they must fit the situation for the child. It will also require that a lawyer appointed to represent a child must explain the nature of the proceedings to a child in a manner that the child is most likely to understand, supporting the child’s ability to express informed views. That is not to say that this is not already happening, but making it a clear requirement within the amendment of that particular piece of legislation will, again, make sure that the children’s views are represented in a way that they understand and that they can have input into the resolution. These amendments are intended to ensure that children do feel supported and informed as they move through these processes.

The panel also identified that the family justice system is unable to fully understand and respond well to family violence, particularly the impact on its children. Also the Care of Children Act will be amended to require that the court must have regard to the principles set out in section 4 of the Family Violence Act, emphasising safety as a primary consideration in the assessment of a child’s situation. The bill signals the Government’s continued focus on enhancing safety and strengthening responses to children at risk of family violence.

The panel also identified that delays are widespread within the system and it’s a significant factor in undermining people’s trust and confidence in the court, and that can contribute to things getting worse between parents and wider families. So the bill will, again, amend the Care of Children Act to impose duties on lawyers to promote resolution of issues in a dispute fairly, inexpensively, simply, and speedily.

The amendment is intended to lead to better and less harmful outcomes for children, and it will be beneficial at a time when the Family Court is under significant stress around capacity exacerbated by COVID-19. So capacity within the Family Court can be provided more to those who actually need a judicial intervention, as opposed to those who may not. Since 2014, increase in delays has meant that care of children disputes have taken longer to resolve, leaving children and parents, essentially, in limbo for extended periods of time.

I want to thank the independent panel for their report on the 2014 family justice system reforms, as supported by the expert reference group. The panel’s report has informed the creation of this bill, and the Government anticipates that it will provide the foundation for further reforms in the family justice system. I want to commend their commitment to strengthening the family justice system so that children, parents, and their whānau are treated with dignity and respect and are supported in order to see that the best decisions possible are being made for those using the family justice system and, importantly, the children.

The Government is committed to addressing the impacts of those reforms, as well as broader underlying systemic barriers to access justice, and we know that that will take time. This bill forms part of a wider package that was announced in May of this year to support families through the Family Court, which also included the reinstatement of legal representation in the early stages of the Care of Children Act proceedings, also improved information for children’s parents and their family, the establishment of the family justice liaison officers to help parents and whānau navigate the system, and increased remuneration for lawyers for children to incentivise recruitment and retention of skilled practitioners to represent children.

Together with this bill, these initiatives will promote our vision of a family justice system that is safe and responsive to the diverse needs of those who are using it and where all parties do have a voice, and, importantly, children. It is a family justice system that continues to place child wellbeing at its heart, and we commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is well intentioned and, listening to the Minister of Justice, it’s hard to disagree. In fact, I agree with all of his intentions in putting this bill before the House. It’s the second of two bills seeking to undo 2014 Family Court reforms of the last National Government, which sought to have more family disputes resolved out of court, without lawyers. The Labour Government says those reforms aren’t working. So through this bill it brings back counsel for the child right from the start and significantly strengthens that role throughout all processes. As I say, from the well-intentioned motivation of being more child-focused—that’s what this bill intends to be about.

Nevertheless, National will oppose this bill, because we believe—overall—it will be a backward step. As the Ministry of Justice’s evaluation of National’s 2014 reforms found, they were fundamentally sound. Out-of-court processes are more effective and produce more enduring solutions to family conflict. If “justice delayed is justice denied”, then the ministry’s findings that out-of-court processes take on average 37 days to resolve, whereas in-court hearings take 268 days—well, they speak for themselves. Indeed, as with the first bill in this package, we believe while this bill will be great for lawyers, it won’t be so good for anyone else. It adds court process and cost to taxpayers and participants alike, making an already unaffordable and clogged Family Court system worse.

If there are issues with how the 2014 reforms are working today, then strengthen the out-of-court processes, but don’t revert to more and more billable units from more and more lawyers. Sorry to be so mean to the legal fraternity. As a former lawyer, I appreciate there’s now a raft of new lawyers on the other side of the House, after reaching a period when there weren’t all that many. I don’t subscribe to Shakespeare’s view of killing all the lawyers, and I’m glad to say that now—and not in the future. Once Kris Faafoi’s hate speech laws are in place, I probably won’t be allowed to say that. But I sincerely know that, wherever possible, given the process and cost increases and civil processes—from family ones, to commercial ones, to other civil disputes—justice is better served without, rather than with, my former colleagues. Sadly, more often than not, if the dispute takes too long, or costs are iniquitous, that’s no meaningful justice.

The cost point is obvious, but I’ve seen a number of Family Court proceedings where one side is legally aided—and that includes a lawyer for the child—and eventually, with broken heart, the other side must bow out because, although not eligible for legal aid, their own money runs out and they are left, by the process itself, dislocated from their own children. A similar point can and should be made, I think, for the process itself. It’s a hard truth that with lawyers the incentives are for the dispute to go on, regardless of what the letter of the law says. Lawyers seek to battle on for a theoretically perfect justice in too many cases, in my view. What does this mean for the Family Court? Well, it means hearings with lawyers at hundreds of dollars an hour, in some cases, arguing about school pick-up times; who said what, when; and which house the sleepover can happen at this coming weekend. These things shouldn’t be in courts of law—with judges paid hundreds of thousands a year listening to lawyers paid by the minute or the hour—they should be resolved out of court, without lawyers.

As my old civil justice professor at Oxford, Adrian Zuckerman, would say, doing justice is much more than merely arriving at a judgment that is correct, as a matter of fact and law—that is achieving, in his words, “rectitude of decision”. Although, all too often, this is the only bit that lawyers and judges worry about. There are two other vital procedural imperatives for doing overall substantive justice: deciding cases within a reasonable time—as I’ve said, “justice delayed is justice denied”—and using no more than proportionate resources. Actually, costs matter because overall in New Zealand right now, in civil justice, and in Family Court justice, there is no justice because it costs too much. My contention, as I’ve said, is that our civil justice system fails here overall, and does in the specific bill as well. In theory, it’s producing the correct answer, but with too high a cost in regard to the other two legs of the stool—the process, and time, and the cost.

I’ve got friends—in fact I was with some last night—

Dr Duncan Webb: I’ve got friends too.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —in Tauranga—more than the member over there, by the way—who work in the Family Court, both as lawyers and judges, and I want to acknowledge what difficult, important work it is that they do. I’ve not practised much in the Family Court, only attending family proceedings on the rarest of occasions when colleagues couldn’t. I must say, I found the whole sitting thing—rather than standing, as you do in other courts—a little disconcerting. I acknowledge that what I’m saying in this contribution will be anathema to most of those Family Court lawyers, but over my years as a lawyer, and then as a local MP where I have met, I won’t exaggerate, but with dozens and dozens of constituents mortally scarred by the Family Court process, I have to say I’ve developed a scepticism over the role of counsel for the child and the Family Court, at some level, more generally due to the systems and processes in place.

Our tamariki aren’t—as the law once said they were—our property. They’re not a chattel. Such a view is not only antiquated, but it’s also repugnant to us today. It was my three-year-old’s birthday yesterday, and she’s a precious gift that we treasure—and in her daddy’s case, she certainly knows that’s so. But in cases where there aren’t drugs, alcohol, mental health, or violence issues—and I appreciate there are a significant number of those cases—does a small child really know enough to be fully represented as if they have fully formed views? Or are we just actually getting the lawyer’s view, for whatever it’s worth, in the case? Is there a risk of traumatising children by lawyering them up? And, at the risk of sacrilege, do we also need a minimum—which is what this bill enshrines—of three lawyers and a judge in a courtroom in all of these care of children cases?

For the reasons I’ve given, this bill may be well intentioned, very well intentioned. I think, though, it’s overall a backward step. The real task should be to strengthen—because there will be and I’m sure the report, I know the report, identifies flaws with the article processes, but it’s in strengthening that this is good for lawyers with more time and cost to resolve family disputes, but not so much for the mums, the dads, and the children who’ll be involved.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s with disappointment I hear the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill being described as a backwards step by the Opposition, because the real backwards step occurred in 2014 under the National Government’s Family Court reforms. Those reforms in 2014 are exactly what this piece of legislation is now rectifying. In 2014, those changes resulted in lengthy delays for children and for families. That is why, indeed, I agree with the view that justice delayed is justice denied, because that is exactly what has happened in the past.

These reforms that we saw in 2014 saw a massive increase of without notice applications. Those rose from just 30 percent in 2014 right up to 70 percent as late as 2018. That is why in 2018 Labour had to appoint an independent panel to examine the changes made to the family justice system in 2014, and make recommendations on how to improve that system. I would like to briefly quote from that report that made those recommendations on the changes back in 2014. The authors of that report have noted: “What we have heard, seen, read, and researched has convinced us that the elements of the 2014 reforms must be changed.” That is exactly what we stand to do here today.

In terms of what comes first, it is the rights of the child, and putting children—tamariki—in the middle of what is being discussed. That for too long has not been the case. We see children at the periphery of decisions that immediately affect them and their lives. We know from the research that has been undertaken that children’s participation in the justice process is critical. At times when family violence, when custody, when quite traumatic issues are being traversed in a courtroom setting, it is really important that children understand what is going on. That’s what this process enables, particularly in areas where there is family violence, when dealing with a difficult time, it’s important that children not only understand what is happening to their lives but are supported through that process. Continuing to strengthen the Family Court process, continuing to support access to justice, and continuing to focus on putting tamariki first at a time when it is incredibly challenging is what this Government will continue to do. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe this is the first opportunity I’ve had to speak in which you are in your current role. As I have said to your fellow presiding officers, you are my favourite of them.

Hon Members: Oh!

CHRIS PENK: I hope they’re not watching Parliament TV, but I will repeat the favour: first among equals—how’s that?

The Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill touches on pretty important areas, of course, for the lives of many New Zealand families and, indeed, children. I’d like to make a contribution that talks about who this legislation affects, what it’s about in terms of the context of previous reforms, and, of course, the situation that preceded those reforms, because it’s important to acknowledge that those were not made in a vacuum either, lest we think that a perfect state of the world can be returned to simply by undoing that which was done in 2014 or thereabouts. I’d also like to touch on the mechanics of the bill and how it seeks to achieve its various aims—some of which are very notable and worthy—and talk about shortfalls, of course, in the way that it approaches the subject as well, that I’ll essentially weave throughout my contribution.

First, looking at the title of the bill, we’ve got in brackets—other than acknowledging we’ve got Family Court legislation—“(Supporting Children in Court)”. That’s actually a pretty important thing to focus on because it indicates—and I appreciate that a title has to be brief by its nature—that the way that the Government is viewing the matter is to support children in court, as opposed to saying “(Supporting Children Through a Dispute Resolution Process, Whether or Not That is Most Appropriately Taken Care of in Court)”. Of course, it may well be the case, and often is, and I’d even go so far as to say that it usually is the case, that supporting children through a process to be resolved outside of the court by a family dispute resolution, which is, of course, a defined term in the sector if not in the legislation—he said, checking on that point—but it might often be the case, whether from a point of view of timeliness, as the Hon Simon Bridges has noted, or from a point of view of the stress and uncertainty and the difficulty of involving more players and a more litigious process, that resolving these matters outside of a court, preferably before even a courtroom is entered in the first place, is going to be the most beneficial thing for the child herself or himself.

As I’ve promised, I do want to focus on who this legislation should benefit. Of course children are in the context of a family as a whole, but as those who are familiar with this area of the law know, and as those who have been unfortunate enough to have to experience the system from the perspective of their own family situation know, the interests of the child must be paramount. That’s a matter of law as well as, I would suggest, morality, and so we must consider all the way through, as we look at this legislation, whether or not it will solve the problem it is designed to solve, whether or not the rights of the children are being put first, and whether that can be said to be likely to be achieved. No one doubts the good intentions—and, again, I refer to my senior colleague who has referenced that—but, of course, that’s not the same thing as to say that it necessarily will achieve those aims, and so let’s look at that.

The context of the reforms of 2014 was that the system was broken. It did need fixing. If it were a matter merely of saying, “Well, it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” back then, and it was merely a case of change for change’s sake, then of course we would say in 2020, “Well, we can simply go back to the utopia that existed before 2014.” But the fact of the matter is that it is a longstanding problem in our court system, or in our justice system more generally—again, de-emphasising the role and centrality of the courts as much as is reasonably possible—of a lack of timeliness and of the stress and burden of procedures relating to disputes of family situations, as much as the families’ situations themselves and the underlying difficulties in any given family’s state of affairs.

The rationale for those reforms is actually expressed pretty well, and I think it’s unhelpful that the explanatory note does set out the case for those having been made. Permit me, please, Mr Speaker, to quote directly: “These reforms were intended to encourage individual responsibility and shift the focus from in-court resolution to encouraging parents to reach agreement themselves through out-of-court processes.”

Now, in a number of cases—a large number of cases, I acknowledge—families, through their lawyers, were able to circumvent that process by making what were known as without notice applications, of course, and have the legal representation that, obviously, they desired. Now, of course there is a balance to be struck, because it might be in some cases that legal representation is indeed helpful to unpick a particularly difficult set of issues, and sometimes external help is going to prove of great assistance and value, but at other times, it’s not.

One doesn’t need to share quite the level of cynicism of the Hon Simon Bridges in relation to the incentives or the motivations of our Family Court lawyers. Myself, I would simply speak from personal experience of family law practitioners I have known and say that, to a man and to a woman, they are upright people, who are in the profession and, indeed, in that particular area of the law for all the right reasons. They do work hard in a difficult system that places great constraints upon them, and it is in the nature of the work that it is difficult and demanding. So one doesn’t need necessarily to take a cynical view about the desirability from a lawyer’s perspective of proceedings that are more lengthy, and indeed, if anything, I would suggest that some of the provisions of the bill almost state the obvious in terms of a requirement, for example, that the lawyer must “promote conciliation and … enable the issues in dispute to be resolved as fairly, inexpensively, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice.”

Well, that’s surely a requirement on every lawyer in every case, so if that’s not already being observed, then stating that again in this particular form as supplementary to ethical obligations of the profession, I don’t think it’s going to make much difference. So it’s disappointing to think that the Parliament could be believing itself to be providing some kind of remedy or solution to a problem that exists when, in fact, little more is being done than simply restating an existing obligation.

The bill is quite right, again, in its explanatory note, and I quote from the general policy statement, to emphasise that “children can experience immediate and long-term consequences if they are not listened to,”. That’s a really worthy sentiment—quite true, I’m sure. I don’t think anyone in this House, or, perhaps, throughout New Zealand, would disagree that failing to take into account the views and the wishes of a child will be detrimental to them, and probably to the resolution of the process as a whole. But we’ve also got to consider the fact that delaying the resolution in the way that’s been described, again, by the Hon Simon Bridges, is itself injurious to the wellbeing of a child, and I expect that every member of this House will know—through their professional dealings with constituents and perhaps even personal experience or other professional contexts and background, they will know of cases that have taken years that might otherwise have been resolved much more quickly and, therefore, much more satisfactorily in terms of the right of the child to have his or her interests considered paramount and, indeed, to be acted upon in that way.

So the existing expectations about the children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child—and that’s a UN document, or instrument, to which we are signed up to as a country—again, it’s worthy, but, again, it’s something that already exists as a matter of obligation. Laws should be applied consistently with international instruments to which New Zealand is a signatory. There’s nothing to suggest in the current legal framework that that shouldn’t already be the case, and where in individual cases that’s not being applied, then the fault lies with anyone who is so cavalier in their disregard of the rights of the child and the interests of the child and, indeed, of the family.

So, worthy as it is, this legislation doesn’t fit its own bill in terms of making a change that’s so desperately needed.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): It’s special to stand and take a call on this, the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill, for two reasons: first, as a practitioner of children’s rights law myself, but also because tomorrow is International Human Rights Day. It’s a day when we recognise the UN adoption of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and this is very much a bill that talks about the rights of tamariki and rangatahi.

I just want to reflect very quickly on the contributions made from across the floor. While there were some very, very lengthy contributions, including commentary on the title of the bill itself, what was noticeably a minimal contribution was commentary on children’s voices and the importance of placing a high emphasis on children’s voices. So that’s what I’ll briefly speak to. It is such an incredibly important part of ensuring the mental wellbeing of children and young people. It is a value and a right that’s included in article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well. In the 1980s, Sir Mason Durie talked about Te Whare Tapa Whā, the four walls of the wellbeing, one of which was family connection. One of them was mental health and being heard. Not just speaking but being heard is so important for mental health. As was once said, being heard is so close to being loved that, for the average person, they are almost indistinguishable. This is especially true when it’s about being heard in matters to do with your familial relationships.

The second point that I wanted to mention was the inclusion in the bill of the explicit addition of an obligation on lawyers to communicate in a digestible way to the particular young person the information they need and, as a former practitioner at YouthLaw Aotearoa, I learnt very quickly that legalese is very unhelpful to young people—actually, probably to a lot more than young people. I know there are many lawyers who already have this skill, and this bill really affirms the work that they’re doing, but I hope what this bill will also encourage is our training institutions to look at how they can help lawyers—young lawyers, new lawyers—to develop the skills they need to work with young people.

I commend this bill to the House. I personally look forward to reviewing the submissions, including, I hope, from young people themselves. Kia ora tātou.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill, in particular to speak after my friend and comrade in the fight for children’s rights, Vanushi Walters, new Labour MP. I’d like to congratulate her and yourself for your reappointment to the role.

This is a good bill. It’s a necessary bill, and it doesn’t quite go far enough, but it does do a lot to restore us as a nation to a place where we do abide by our obligations pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are not only signatories; we’ve ratified. So that convention and all of the rights that we’ve signed on to are technically enforceable in our law and should be. We did move away from that by some length under the previous National Party Government when we essentially gutted the Family Court—counsel for child—jurisdiction funding support as well as the way that we gutted funding for courts and legal aid in every area of our justice system.

Others have said this, “Justice delayed is justice denied.”, and this bill does a lot to further the expediency of Family Court proceedings, but I’d like to focus on the rights of the child just for a moment, because that is what the substance of this bill is about and what should be celebrated. We have the reinstatement of a legislative commitment to the Family Court having independent representation for children that’s appropriate for them to communicate their needs and their wellbeing to the court. We know that as a nation we suffer enormously from mental health issues and youth suicide. So that sits alongside what we’re dealing with today. This is some of the most intimate, important aspects of children and young people’s lives, their familial relationships, and the way that they’re able to access justice in that forum to express themselves and to have their rights and needs expressed to a court, so it is to be celebrated.

What we would like to see as the Green Party is some more resource and some more commitment to furthering the expertise of counsel for child. Whether that means funding and supporting child developmental experts to assist counsel to ensure that children’s needs are, in fact, being communicated well and that there’s time for those needs and those relationships to develop before the perspective of children and young people is communicated to the court is something that we’d like to continue to work on with the Government. But this is a good moment for access to justice. It is timely, as it comes a day before world Human Rights Day, and I do commend the bill to the House.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT will be supporting the first reading of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. The reason why we’re doing that is that this bill seeks to improve the care of children who are caught up in proceedings before the Family Court, by making modest changes to the way that the Family Court regime currently works. The emphasis is going to be on the lawyers and on the children and it will give the children the right to have input into the decisions that are made about their care. It’s recognising that a child has a viewpoint.

What is noted is that children are often forgotten through the process, and they can become a victim of forgetfulness as their families are continuing a battle through the justice system and the Family Court system. This bill is introducing obligations on lawyers to ensure that a clear and timely process is undertaken, not to extend it, and the obligations are also put on the lawyers to explain proceedings to those children that are caught up in this process and often are scared, vulnerable, and have no idea exactly what is going on. It encourages the counsel for the child to assist the families and promote a conciliation without having to go through that court process. That can be helped when a child has an understanding of what’s going on.

ACT did support the initial reforms in 2014, and, for the most part, these reforms provided some sound architecture for the management of the Family Court. It encouraged more personal responsibility and a flexible approach to disputes, and it encouraged parents to reach agreement through an out-of-court process. That flexibility empowered the parents and it encouraged a less-oppositional and lawyer-led system. But, off the back of that piece of legislation, there was an independent panel that examined the 2014 reforms, and that panel found that our tamariki’s voices are actually not being heard. As I said earlier, it’s so important that we don’t forget the children, because they are the most important stakeholder through a Family Court process. We need to ensure that the system is actually responsive to the needs of our tamariki, and that must remain vital.

The bill makes relatively minor changes in the context of the 2014 reforms, and ACT does believe that there is merit in examining the proposals at a select committee, and we do not believe that they pose a threat to fair proceedings in the court. We do expect that it will improve the way in which the Family Court approaches the needs of the children through elevating the role of an advocate for the child and giving that child a voice of their own. In the interests of our tamariki, the ACT Party supports this bill.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise and take a brief call in support of this bill, and before I begin I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on being appointed as Deputy Speaker.

I’m very pleased to support this bill, because it gives a greater voice to our tamariki and our rangatahi, and it enables or enhances their participation when decisions are being made about their care and welfare. The role of the lawyer for the child is a tricky but very important one. It’s one where we’ve seen it go from having to navigate the tensions between being an advocate for the child, or representing what’s in their best interests, and also acting as a mediator. The changes proposed in this bill validate the importance of the role of the lawyer for the child. Also, including children in an appropriate way, where possible, in the family mediation process allows a mechanism for somebody independent to put forward the views of children involved in these difficult processes. Many times in dispute resolution I’ve seen parties get stuck in their positions, unable to see the other’s side, or hear what they’re saying, and having somebody—and this is also more challenging when we’ve got children involved, who might be worried about upsetting one or other of their parents. So having somebody there independent to put those views forward can help often break that impasse and help whānau to move forward without delay or causing further harm.

As has been pointed out already today, when children aren’t included in the process or involved in making decisions about them, that can often lead to detrimental impacts on their wellbeing, such as increased anxiety, stress, or feeling lonely, even. Therefore, it is important to give children the opportunity to participate in our Family Court processes and express their views whenever it concerns their care and wellbeing. Children want to be involved in decision making, rather than be the decision makers.

I’m also very pleased that this bill will require lawyers appointed to represent a child to explain the nature of the proceeding to a child, in a way that they are likely to understand. This is going to further enhance their ability to participate in what’s an often complex process, and it also recognises that, in actual fact, children understand a lot more than what we give them credit for, even those under primary school age. This is important to truly support their participation in that decision-making process, and helps to reduce the stress and anxiety on them at an already difficult time and, as has been mentioned, is consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The amendments proposed in this bill will lead to better, less harmful outcomes for our tamariki and rangatahi, and I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): Family law is one of the most difficult but, actually, important areas of work for our Parliament. It’s hugely important for the wellbeing of our children, and I don’t think there’d be a member of this House that wouldn’t recognise that the most important relationships that we have are with our parents and with our children. Equally, I’m one of those who say that, actually, family is one of the most important institutions in our society.

The real core of the question with this bill for Parliament is whether, by having more lawyers and more court involvement, we’re going to get better outcomes for children, and I am a sceptic of that perspective that the Government has with this bill. In my 30 years of experience as a constituency MP, I have seen appalling cases through the Family Court in which there have been gross injustices. I highlight two particular cases in which parents who were together, who had done absolutely nothing wrong, had lost the right to see their own children for many years while the Family Court processes delayed and drudged on. Now, nothing would be worse, for me. The worst thing you could do would be to deny me access and the right to see my four children. Those sorts of examples are a real warning that when we have family issues locked up into our traditional, adversarial court system that can take years and tens of thousands of dollars—that we in Parliament shouldn’t have the maturity to be able to question: actually, is that really working in the best interests of those children and those families?

I note, for instance, in the statistics, that the average time to get a resolution of a dispute between separated parents through the process of mediation is 37 days. The average period, if it goes to court, is over 300 days. Now, if you’re a bloke or lady in your fifties, 300 days might not seem that long a time. For a child, 300 days is eternity. It’s a really long time, and that is very damaging for the child. And so in designing our Family Court system, which we have responsibility to do in this House, we need to be very careful of the incentives that we create, because, actually, members on this side of the House say that that system needs to be designed in such a way that we encourage parents as much as is possible to resolve their issues themselves over their children, and the way in which we create family law has to be one in which we have parents incentivised to cooperate and to work together in the best interests of those children. Every time that we open another avenue for long, drawn-out court processes, we may think we’re doing the right thing for the child; in many cases, we are not. Justice delayed is justice denied, and no more importantly than in the case of dealing with Family Court issues.

So my view of this bill is that it drags us down a further route of encouraging and, furthermore, resourcing huge sums of public money into drawn-out legal arguments rather than actually trying to find resolution. I honestly believe that if we spent more money on facilitation and social work - type skills to support parents to raise children in separated environments, we would actually get better outcomes than the huge emphasis that there is here on actually adding more lawyers and more legalistic process around trying to get a better outcome for children. We will scrutinise this bill further at select committee. We’ll never get perfect family law, because every family is so different and it is a challenging area, but it is National’s view that we need to be focused on getting shorter resolution, getting away from an adversarial system, and truly being focused on how we can get parents to cooperate and work together to get good outcomes for children.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you for giving me this call. It would have been taken by the Māori Party, but they have chosen not to speak on this bill, and I must say I’m a little surprised that it falls to me, a Pākehā man, to take this call. But nevertheless, I know that the Labour Party has a strong Māori caucus and a number of Māori will speak on this bill and give the voice it needs.

But I did want to just note with my background as a lawyer and, in particular, in respect of professional ethics, the duties that are imposed on lawyers in clause 9 of this bill, setting out new section 7B(2) of the Act, stating in section 7B(2)(b) “[to enable] issues in dispute to be resolved as fairly, inexpensively, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice.” Now, this is a big shift, and I think it’s important to note that this is a real directive, that there is a substantive legal duty. Whilst it’s ameliorated somewhat by saying in new section 7B(2) “in the opinion of the lawyer,”, that has to be an opinion that is reasonably and sensibly held. And I hope that judges in the court, and the Law Society through its regulatory framework, will hold lawyers who play games, who stretch out proceedings, and who take an overly combative approach—I hope they will hold them to account to ensure that the interests of the child are absolutely upheld. If there’s one thing that we clearly agree on in this House is that those interests must be paramount. I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This bill is intended to enhance child wellbeing, and that is the effect of this bill that I want to comment on today. But first I’ll just say this: family justice services and the people who engage with them represent a microcosm of New Zealand. The services involve children and young people, parents and whānau at a time of distress and of crisis and conflict. For many, the barriers to accessing justice reflect the barriers encountered throughout the justice sector and the New Zealand society more generally.

As my colleague, the MP for Upper Harbour, Vanushi Walters, has said, children’s participation in decisions that affect them is a fundamental right in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and this bill advances those rights significantly. That is why I’m proud to stand in support of this bill and I commend it very warmly to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. Firstly, may I congratulate you on your election to the role of Assistant Speaker. I think it’s the first opportunity I’ve had to be able to do that, and I wish you well in the role.

I do just want to take a short call on this bill, and most of the arguments from the National Party’s perspective have already been outlined as to why we will not be supporting this bill in this first reading debate. Mostly, this bill, essentially, puts the onus or the role of the Family Court, which is a very important—it puts more lawyers in there rather than actually supporting the rights of children and trying to achieve quick resolutions. Fundamentally, what we are seeing here is a bill which will undermine the changes which were put in place by the last National Government which did seek to encourage individuals, families, and children to come to resolutions, and that the responsibility should be shifted towards them from in-court resolutions, which do take a significant period of time.

One of the comments from the member for Upper Harbour—she mentioned that this bill is about affirming the status of lawyers and affirming the role they play and the skills they have. I just want to say, yes, I acknowledge lawyers in our country have an important role to play. They have very important skills. But this is not the reason why we should be supporting legislation. It should be about how we can get resolutions for children in these circumstances.

We’ve heard from Nick Smith about some of the cases, very difficult cases, and how the need for quick resolution is critical for the lives of these children. We’ve heard the statistics, where we know that if a resolution can be achieved through mediation, it only takes an average of 37 days. If we should be doing anything, we should be trying to see how we can be ensuring more cases are dealt with through mediation and those forms of dispute resolution rather than lawyering up and having more cases heard before the courts.

There’s a number of questions that I have not had answers from in listening to the Government’s members speak on this. What measures of effectiveness will be used to measure the success of these changes? I haven’t heard from the Minister whether there’s actually a measurement. Is there a measurement in terms of how many fewer days, on average, will be taken before a court hearing is had? Is there going to be a target that the Government is going to set? The Government—

Tim van de Molen: This Government doesn’t do targets.

SIMEON BROWN: Yeah, no. Tim van de Molen, our excellent MP for Waikato, he says, “This Government doesn’t give targets.” No, they scrap targets. They love scrapping targets. But if we’re going to make these changes, how are we going to measure their effectiveness? How are we going to measure their success? Or are we simply just changing the law and, with a hope and a dream, thinking this is going to make things better? I challenge the Government on that question. What’s the additional cost—what’s the additional cost—and has there been a cost-benefit trade-off between adding additional support into mediation and adjudication services, which will allow faster resolutions in these instances?

These are number of key and important questions which I don’t see talked about in the bill. I haven’t heard any of those answers from the Government members. We will be scrutinising this bill at the select committee to ensure that it is robustly scrutinised, because, at the end of the day, we need to see better outcomes for our children and for our families in New Zealand.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): It’s great to see you in the Chair today, and congratulations on your election, Assistant Speaker Salesa. Look, I think this debate in this House this morning has actually given some lawyers some very bad rap and I just wanted to acknowledge all the awesome work that family lawyers across Aotearoa are doing. I started my legal career actually in a family law firm, and I just wanted to say that my boss, the lady that I was working for, had extreme care for the clients that she was serving. And I just wanted to acknowledge, in particular, Dr Emily Henderson, in our caucus, who is an expert at family law. I remember her saying to me on our first day in Parliament that she chose definitely a career following her heart rather than for any other personal gains.

I just want to recognise that this profession, especially within the remit of family law, is a really extremely difficult one, and this bill that we have before us in the House here today just recognises the importance of protecting children in that process. I think it’s really, really important to give children the voice in the proceedings to make sure that the focus is on their wellbeing within the whole entire process. I just think giving them the voice really empowers them to have and to be feeling in control in a very difficult situation, and I just want to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a first 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 first time.

the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.06 p.m. (Wednesday)