Thursday, 25 February 2021

THURSDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2021

THURSDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Retirements

Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms—Jim McDonald

SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the House, I just want to place on record thanks to Jim McDonald, the Assistant Serjeant-at-Arms, who is performing his last official duty now. Thank you, Jim.

[Applause]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 9 March. Legislation to be considered in that week will include the remaining stages of the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill and the second readings of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill, the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, and the Financial Market Infrastructure Bill. It is my intention that there be a members’ day on Wednesday, 10 March, and I’m hoping it’ll be a case of third time lucky.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House. Is it the Government’s intention to ever allow members’ notice of motion No. 1 to be debated?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course, as an open-minded Government, we do consider things on a case by case basis. We have full confidence in the Speaker.

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced—[Interruption] Well, you know, I didn’t want to be accused of cutting that debate off too quickly.

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

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

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Anameka Paenga requesting that the House urge the Government to adopt Māori commissioning by the Māori Health Authority

petition of Steve Abel on behalf of Greenpeace requesting that the House pass legislation that bans chemical nitrogen fertiliser

petition of Joanna Spratt on behalf of Oxfam New Zealand requesting the House commit to doing everything it can to get COVID-19 vaccinations that are free for all, and fairly distributed to everyone on the planet

petition of Katherine Rich requesting that the House support the establishment of a mandatory grocery code of conduct for supermarkets

petition of Xiaosong Lan requesting that the House urge the Government to grant border exemptions and MIQ spaces to all overseas partners of New Zealand citizens, residents, and temporary visa holders

petition of Polina Chernyshova requesting that the House urge the Government to resume visa assessment processes for the partners of postgraduate students and allow partners with valid visas to enter New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

A paper has been presented.

CLERK: Government response to the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2020.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.

A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Health Committee on the petition of Nancy McShane.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 11 to Minister, 3 December 2020

Question No. 9 to Minister, 8 December 2020

Question No. 9 to Minister, 9 December 2020

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal statement in order to correct a reply to an oral question.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: On Thursday, 3 December and Tuesday, 8 December and Wednesday, 9 December, in answers to questions, I said, “700 alone focused on organised crime.” and “This shows the impact of our 700 new cops focused directly on organised crime, and what that’s having.” I meant to say, “to be focused on organised crime”, rather than “focused on organised crime.”

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—COVID-19 Response

1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What advice, if any, has he received this year on the policy of varying quarantine arrangements for travellers arriving into New Zealand depending on the risks associated with their country of origin, such as has been put in place in Australia and Taiwan?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’m constantly receiving advice regarding our managed isolation and quarantine practices and policies. I’ve received regular updates on the establishment of safe travel zones, particularly focused on Australia, the Cook Islands, and Niue. I’ve not received any specific advice on a potential safe travel zone with Taiwan, who I note have very similar border restrictions and managed isolation and quarantine arrangements in place to New Zealand’s.

David Seymour: Why does our managed isolation system impose exactly the same requirements on travellers from COVID-free Pacific countries as strict requirements on travellers from COVID hotspots?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We are in conversations with the Pacific, and more than just the countries that I’ve mentioned, about potentially having safe travel with them. Those talks are most advanced with the Cook Islands and with Niue, and we continue to explore that. One of the challenges around any arrangements like that is that you have to make sure that you’re keeping safe-zone travellers completely separate from those who are coming from non - safe zones.

David Seymour: What has stopped those—quote unquote—“conversations” turning into material action over the past 10 months, since the Prime Minister said on 16 April last year that New Zealand would have—quote unquote—“the world’s smartest borders”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: With regard to the Pacific, the biggest impediment there and the biggest area of caution is the desire to ensure New Zealand does not export COVID19 to the Pacific, because the consequences of that, as we have seen in the past, could be devastating for those Pacific nations.

David Seymour: Would the Minister rather explain that to Hawke’s Bay horticulturalists with fruit rotting on the ground, or Queenstown tourism operators going broke for a lack of tourists?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think, in regard to the latter part of the question, the member might like to consider how many of the people coming from those countries would be spending their money in Queenstown, but with regard to the first part of his question, we are absolutely aware of the pressure that those industries are under. We have made allocation for RSE workers—Recognised Seasonal Employer workers—and we’re working very hard to be able to bring them into the country to assist those industries. We’re also working—and my colleague immediately to my right, the Minister for Social Development, is working very hard—to make sure that the domestic workforce are as fully engaged and employed in those industries as possible.

Chris Bishop: Is the Government still interested in exploring state by state travel bubbles with Australian states, and, if so, why has it not opened conversations with any of the individual Australian states to do so?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Australia’s international border is controlled by the Federal Government, and the Federal Government have made it clear that they would not entertain a state by state arrangement.

David Seymour: Can the Minister tell the House, when people from states such as New South Wales, which has had no active cases for 38 days and counting—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member doesn’t need to add in the explanatory parts. He can say “New South Wales”, and then go on to the next one.

David Seymour: —or Queensland, with a similar number, be able—

SPEAKER: Right, the member can start a new question now.

David Seymour: Can the Minister tell the House when his Government will allow people from states such as New South Wales and Queensland to enter New Zealand without quarantine requirements, given the lack of active cases in those states?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member clearly didn’t listen to my answer to the last question. The lack of action on a state by state basis is the position of the Federal Australian Government.

David Seymour: Point of order. The question was about the actions of the New Zealand Government, which controls our borders. He’s talked about the decisions of the Federal Government, but that’s a completely separate matter. That’s for people going from here to there. I’m talking about people coming from there to here, which he hasn’t addressed at all.

SPEAKER: Yes, I understand exactly what the member’s saying, and people might want to make a judgment as to the quality of the answer, but it’s not my responsibility to get good quality answers for the member.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: How many children have been lifted out of poverty between the time she became Prime Minister to the end of June 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Under this Government, all nine poverty measures have gone down since the 2017-18 data. This is the baseline year as defined under the Child Poverty Reduction Act. We have lifted 22,400 children out of material hardship. Using the after - housing costs, fixed-line primary measure, we have lifted 45,400 children out of poverty, already exceeding our three-year target for this measure a year ahead of schedule. Overall, the data released on Tuesday shows one of the largest policy-driven falls in child poverty. This is because of measures such as our Families Package, which increased incomes for hundreds of thousands of families with children. Over 100,000 babies’ parents received an extra $60 per week through our Best Start payment, and over a million New Zealanders have extra income every winter thanks to the winter energy payment.

Dr Shane Reti: When she says all nine measures have improved against baseline, how many of those measures are statistically significant?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm for the member that the after - housing cost measure is regarded as statistically significant, as was the change in material hardship, which I know is a measure that the member has been particularly interested in in the past. The before - housing costs moving line is just below what I think would be regarded as a statistically significant shift.

Dr Shane Reti: So are the majority of child poverty measures not statistically significant against baseline?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I wouldn’t say that. I picked out the three primary measures for the member, two of which are and one of which is very close.

Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm this week’s data that on six of the Government’s nine child poverty measures, there are more children living in poverty this year compared to last year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister: no, I can’t confirm that. What I can confirm for the member is that 45,400 children have been lifted out of poverty. I would have hoped that members on the other side of the House would celebrate something like that.

Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree with Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, who promised in 2017 that her Government would lift 100,000 children out of poverty by 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is very proud of the fact that she has passed a child poverty reduction Act in this House that means that we are held accountable—as we are being now and as we will be in the future—and very proud of the fact that we have lifted those 45,400 children out of poverty. If the member is asking, “Is there more to do?”—absolutely. There is always more to do and this Government is committed to doing it.

Dr Shane Reti: Were 100,000 children lifted out of poverty by 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve already given the member the numbers. They are the numbers based on the target set in the Child Poverty Reduction Act—a piece of legislation, I might say, passed across this House almost unanimously. The member and members on the other side of the House would be very well advised to ask themselves, if there were measures such as the Families Package that they voted against, where we would be in terms of the number in child poverty were they in charge.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What has been the response to the Resurgence Support Payment that opened for applications on Tuesday?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): By midday today, 9,894 applications had been received, totalling just over $29 million of value. Just over $13 million has already been approved and paid out to date, and I want to thank the staff at Inland Revenue for their hard work in making that happen. To recap, the payment provides each eligible business $1,500, plus $400 per employee, up to a total of 50 full-time equivalents (FTEs). Anyone wanting to apply should go to the Inland Revenue website to check that they are eligible and make sure that they have a New Zealand Business Number. If they don’t have a New Zealand Business Number, they should head to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website to get one.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why was the Resurgence Support Payment put in place?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government recognises that increased alert levels place a strain on some businesses—in particular, our small businesses—which is why this payment was capped at a 50-FTE level. It is important to note that businesses larger than 50 FTEs can apply, but they will not get more money than the cap of 50. The payment is intended to help businesses with their fixed costs such as rent, and is open for applications until 23 March and is available to all businesses around New Zealand as long as they meet the eligibility criteria.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other support is available at the moment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It’s worth noting that the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme is in place if workers need to self-isolate and cannot work from home. This is paid as a lump sum calculated to cover two weeks. Employers can reapply if their employee still qualifies after two weeks, and this is also available to the self-employed. The short-term absence payment is also available. This covers eligible workers who need to stay at home while they await for a COVID-19 test result. Can I please encourage all employers around New Zealand to talk to their staff if they are in the position of needing to self-isolate and avail themselves of these schemes.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her statement, “We will continue to build more public houses and make sure people move into them, and off the Public Housing Register as quickly as possible”; if so, what change has there been in the public housing register between November 2017 and today?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. When we came into Government, we stopped the mass sell-off of State houses by the previous Government, which saw an overall reduction in State housing stock of 6,000. Even taking into account transfers to community housing providers under the previous Government, there was a net reduction in public housing of more than 1,100 houses between 2009 and 2017. Not only did we stop the sell-off but we began the largest public housing build programme in a generation, and I’m proud of the progress that we’re making. Our pipeline will see 8,350 additional public and transitional housing places by 2024. Just to clarify, that is 18,350 after we have accounted for demolitions. Currently, there are 2,195 State houses under construction, while the community housing sector has planned another 526. This is in stark contrast from a decade ago, in 2011, when there were just 123 new State houses built, while over 514 were sold off or demolished. In answer to the second part of the question, our Government has made changes to ensure the register reflects the true state of housing need in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just say—I think it was Maureen Pugh. I’m not absolutely certain who made that interjection, but can I just make it—it wasn’t you? All right, there was a “How many?” interjection which could’ve—[Interruption] Sorry?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was myself.

SPEAKER: It was you? Oh, I thought that voice would be imprinted on my brain for ever. I’m now going to apologise both to Maureen Pugh and to Dr Nick Smith. But could I just remind people that the responsibility for making sure that questions are addressed is mine and, actually, the question didn’t ask how many.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question asked what change was there in the public housing register between November 2017 and today, and I am none the wiser.

SPEAKER: Well, if the member had listened—[Interruption] No. Order! Order! I got into trouble with suggesting people use their ears yesterday, but in this case, I think it is true. If the member had listened to the tail end of the answer, he would have got it.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that the State house waiting list has increased from 6,182 in December 2017, to 22,409 as of November 2020, and will she commit to a date by which she will reduce the public waiting list back to pre-2017 levels?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In regard to the first part of the question, yes, I can confirm that is the number. In answer to the second part of the question, what I can commit to all New Zealanders is we won’t do what the previous Government did. So, when there was a review in 2011 of how to assess people’s eligibility for a State house, the waiting list was 8,886. Despite there being—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. The remainder of this will be heard in silence. I warned people yesterday about the dangers of asking supplementaries with two legs. The member is getting the result of that now.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: So what I can commit to all New Zealanders is we will not repeat what we saw from the previous Government, which is what we saw in 2011, when there was a review of eligibility for public housing when there was a waiting list of 8,886, and despite the flogging off of houses in that period of time, the next year, in June 2012, somehow, magically, that number had reduced to 4,371. We are a Government that will have a waiting list that truly reflects housing need, and not play games to fix the numbers.

Nicola Willis: Does the Minister stand by her claim that the Government has stopped selling State houses, and, if so, how does she reconcile that with her answer to written question No. 17637, showing Kāinga Ora has sold $64 million worth of State houses in the past three years?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Very simply. In—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Do the members want an answer or not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Very simply. There are circumstances where it may be the wrong house in the wrong place. Where it does not match demand in that area, it is surplus to requirement. We made a commitment to the mass sale of State houses, and we have kept to that. So what I can go through for that member’s edification: in 2017-18—of which we’re only responsible for part of that year—70 State houses were sold; in 2018-19, 54 were sold, and in 2019-20, 64 were sold. I would compare this to 2014-15, when 577 were sold. I could compare this to 2015-16, when 428 were sold. Let us always remember that member is a member of a party that finished Government with fewer public houses than it started with.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that only half of the new public housing places sourced by the Government in the past three years are additional, newly built homes, and can she tell the House how much money Kāinga Ora has spent in the past three years competing against other prospective buyers to buy up existing homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the first part of the question, what I can tell the member is that we have been steadily tracking down in buy-ins from Kāinga Ora. So in the 2017-18 year, 24 percent—of which we were only responsible for a part of that period—were buy-ins, as directly comparable to the year before, 2016-17, where 41 percent of new builds were buy-ins. But we have been steadily tracking down, and we have made our expectations very clear to Kāinga Ora that, actually, we’re sitting around a quarter, now, that are buy-ins, and we’ve made our expectations even clearer that we want that to decrease even further. But, in 2010-11, 67 percent of all new acquisitions were buy-ins, under the previous Government. This is not something that we would be willing to tolerate. I have also made my expectations to community housing providers (“CHiPS”) very clear. In the last two years, 77 percent of all their new acquisitions have been buy-ins, and I’ve made it very clear to them that the relationship has to be based on additionality. We will be adding to the housing stock, and we want to work with the community housing providers to do likewise.

Nicola Willis: Well, can she confirm her answer to written question No. 18461, which lists more than three-quarters of a billion dollars’ worth of houses that have been bought in from the private market by the Government in the past three years to be used for State housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ll have to go back and look at the specifics of that question to answer the member whether that is an aggregate number that covers both Kāinga Ora and “CHiPS”, or whether it is just Kāinga Ora. But, as I said, we have seen a steady decline in the number of buy-ins that Kāinga Ora have been doing. Bear in mind that, actually, this was an agency that had to re-equip itself to actually build houses rather than sell them off, as had been happening under the previous Government. But we have made our expectations, and I as Minister have made my expectations, both to Kāinga Ora and the “CHiPS” clear that we want to see more houses built. We won’t be selling them off.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The problem is you are.

Nicola Willis: What does she say—

SPEAKER: Order!

Nicola Willis: What does she say to the hundreds of New Zealanders who missed out on buying a home in the past three years because they were outbid by the Government?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I’d say is we’re doing far less of it than the previous Government when they were out there getting 67 percent of their acquisitions in the public housing sector from the market. We’re backing New Zealanders, we’re helping with the housing crisis, and we’re actually adding to the housing stock. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Mr Brownlee? No. All right.

Question No. 5—Revenue

5. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister of Revenue: Has he seen a report that the wealthiest people in Aotearoa are paying an average of only 12 percent tax on their income, and 42 percent of them are paying below 10 percent tax; if so, does he think that is fair?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I have seen a report with that data in it, which is an experimental estimate of effective tax rates for a sample of people. This report was advice requested as part of work to help improve data collection—in particular, regarding the household economic survey run by Statistics New Zealand—and to bring New Zealand into line with the data collection methods in most other OECD countries. In response to the second part of the member’s question, the Government continues to work on making New Zealand’s tax system fairer.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he consider Aotearoa has a progressive tax system when many of the wealthiest people are paying a lower rate of tax than nurses, managed isolation and quarantine workers, cleaners, security guards—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I do consider that New Zealand has a progressive tax system, but the point that the member is making on ensuring that people meet their tax obligations is an important one for us. We have resourced the Inland Revenue Department to do more work to ensure that that happens, and we continue to look at initiatives to improve the fairness of the system.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is New Zealand’s famed broad based - low rate tax system really just a broad base for the poorest and a low rate for the richest?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I wouldn’t accept that as a general observation. What I would note is what I said in answer to the last supplementary question: that we do continue to undertake work to ensure that people meet their tax obligations—do not avoid paying tax—and we continue to look at initiatives that can make the system fairer.

Hon Marama Davidson: What exact action will he take this year to properly tax income sources that are currently untaxed or lowly taxed, particularly when this is fuelling the overheated housing market?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With respect to the end part of that question, on the housing market, those announcements will be made very soon.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he prioritise taxing the wealthiest fairly—for example, through a capital gains tax or a wealth tax—in the next tax policy work programme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has very clearly ruled out a comprehensive capital gains tax and a wealth tax.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is he doing, seeing as he does not fully trust this Government data from his own department, to get better data on the level of tax paid by wealthy individuals?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I am in very regular conversations with officials about this exact area of how we measure income tax data in New Zealand. I’m also in regular conversations with the Minister of Finance about that, and I have a work programme to continue to build on this experimental work.

Question No. 6—COVID-19 Response

6. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for COVID19 Response: What progress has been made on the roll-out of New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccination programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I am delighted to confirm that just under a year on from registering our first COVID-19 case in New Zealand, vaccination has officially gotten under way. Last Friday, a small group of 29 vaccinators became the first people in the country to be vaccinated in a trial run at the Auckland quarantine facility. As of 11 a.m. this morning, 1,763 of our border workers have received their initial dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. It’s been a huge effort to get to this point, and I want to thank all those involved. It’s a big job ahead and it’s good to see that it’s getting under way.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will the vaccine be distributed, and is he confident about the vaccine’s safety?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I want all New Zealanders to be assured that the Government is prioritising their safety in the way the vaccine is being rolled out. We know from feedback that some of the major reasons for hesitancy towards a vaccine can be related to concerns around its safety. Through our medicines authority, Medsafe, New Zealand has followed a very strict process. Unlike some other countries who have been dealing with rampant public health emergencies, we’ve not needed to grant any emergency vaccine exemptions. That means that right throughout the Medsafe process, we’ve been able to take the time and consideration needed to determine that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and any other vaccines that are under consideration, are safe for use. We have confidence in both the international science involved in developing these vaccines and the processes New Zealand has in place to ensure that any vaccines we use are safe and effective. In answer to the first part of the question regarding distribution, the vaccine will be distributed progressively to more and more communities as supplies allow.

Golriz Ghahraman: Does the Minister agree that with new COVID-19 variants developing in unvaccinated populations, we cannot guarantee our health here in Aotearoa until vaccines are fairly and equitably distributed around the world?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Fair and equitable vaccine distribution both in New Zealand and around the world has been a priority for our Government. It’s why we are supporting international efforts to ensure countries that wouldn’t otherwise be able to access vaccines are able to do so. In terms of the significant amount of purchasing that New Zealand has done, we are mindful that that creates an opportunity for us to contribute even more to the international effort, and in terms of what we’re doing here domestically, we are very, very focused on ensuring that our distribution here, to the New Zealand population, is as equitable as possible.

Golriz Ghahraman: Will he support the call of some 6,000 New Zealanders and organisations, including Oxfam New Zealand, Amnesty International New Zealand, and the New Zealand Alternative for our Government, to support relaxing international patent rules to enable the “people’s vaccine”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s not something that the New Zealand Government is currently considering.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Have there been any additional shipments relating to the vaccine roll-out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Some more good news: a second batch of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines arrived safely at Auckland International Airport on Tuesday. That shipment contained around 76,000 doses, and it follows our first shipment of 60,000 doses that arrived last week. We’re expecting further, regular shipments over the coming weeks so that by the end of March, we will have received 450,000 doses, which will be enough to vaccinate 225,000 people.

Dr Shane Reti: What percentage of coronavirus vaccinations that have been given have been successfully entered into a coronavirus register, and can those vaccines be downloaded into GP databases?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The answer to the first part of the question: as I understand, I think on one occasion there were about 25 records that were taken manually and then subsequently loaded into the vaccination register. That’s one of the reasons we started small. It was to iron out any bumps that there might have been in the system, and I understand that there were some on one of the earliest days and that that issue has now been fixed. The vaccination register that we’ve created will be accessible through the entire health system. So where people interact with the health system, they will be able—and people will be able to look up their own data as well. In terms of whether it will be able to be imported into other systems, I don’t have that information about the compatibility, but I’m certainly happy to get that to the member. But one of the key things for us is to make sure that wherever people go within the health system, they will be able to access their records, and the health practitioners that they are working with will be able to access their records.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How long will the vaccination of the New Zealand population take, and how much will it cost?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is going to be a year-long effort to ensure that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to receive a vaccine against COVID-19. In the first half of the year, our efforts will be focused on our most at-risk people, particularly our border workers—which is the area we’re working in now—our front-line health workers and other front-line workers who are more at risk, and some of the most vulnerable within our population. As we head into the second half of the year, we’re expecting to be able to make COVID-19 vaccines broadly available to the entire population, and we’ll have more information on the timing of that. In terms of the overall cost to New Zealand, at this point, that’s difficult to assess because we don’t know exactly which vaccines we’re going to be using and so on, but we have made an absolute commitment that the cost to each individual will be nothing. New Zealanders and those in New Zealand will not have to pay to receive COVID-19 vaccines.

Question No. 7—Social Development and Employment

7. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she have concerns that for the financial years of 2019 and 2020, there has been no significant reduction of child poverty for tamariki Māori; if so, what is she doing to increase income support for tamariki Māori and their whānau?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Children in poverty are all of our concern. While I am encouraged that under this Government, all nine child poverty measures are trending down and there are 45,400 fewer children in poverty since 2017-18, one in five Māori and one in four Pacific children still live in poverty. We have made some changes: we’ve lifted benefits by $25 per week, we saw indexation of benefits to wages last year, and we saw a shift in abatement thresholds on 1 April last year. We also saw section 192 repealed on 1 April last year, which previously had seen sole parents penalised for not naming the other—father. Those initiatives were not taken into consideration with regards to the most recent statistics that were released because they only went up to March. Is there more to do? Absolutely, and we’re committed to doing that work.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will she urgently introduce legislation to significantly lift baseline benefits to above a livable level, in line with calls from tangata whenua and a wide range of organisations, including her own Welfare Expert Advisory Group, and, if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: On 1 April this year, we will see benefits lift again because we did index them to wages. That is one of the enduring changes that this Government has put into place that will see, progressively, benefits go up. We will also see on 1 April another significant shift with regards to abatement thresholds so that people who are on benefit will be able to work part-time and keep more of their benefit than they previously were able to do. I will not be introducing urgent legislation to increase benefits again. However, I do note that we lifted benefits for all beneficiaries on 1 April last year—the first time that that had been done in decades. Is there more to do? Absolutely.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, I think the member is aware of the fact that the Māori Party have used their supplementaries for this week. I think if they want a more even distribution, they should have a cup of tea together and sort it out.

Question No. 8—Arts, Culture and Heritage

8. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has she made about making the arts more accessible and inclusive?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Yesterday, I announced $18 million to support creative spaces. Creative spaces are places in the community where people with mental health needs, disabled people, and those looking for social connection are welcomed and supported to practise and participate in the arts. These spaces often provide also an environment where cultural practices can be shared and learnt, enhancing that cultural connectedness. This funding will not only ensure that spaces are inclusive but it will engage people who are all too often at risk of being excluded from accessing meaningful opportunities. It will also enable creative spaces to increase their reach, including further to Māori and Pacific communities.

Naisi Chen: Why is funding creative spaces important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We all have a role to play in fostering spaces that are accessible, relevant, and inclusive. This announcement acknowledges the wonderful work being done across creative spaces, organisations, and community groups. They play a vital role in helping people to experience fulfilment, a sense of achievement, and increased self-esteem. As part of the Government’s response to COVID-19, creative spaces also delivers on both outcomes of the Creative Arts Recovery and Employment Fund. This announcement underlines our focus on creating employment and opportunities to upskill, as well as enhancing access to and participation in the arts and cultural sector.

Naisi Chen: What feedback has she received about her announcement?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve received a lot of positive feedback, including from Arts Access Aotearoa’s executive director, Richard Benge, who hailed it as a milestone. Dina Jezdic, a creative writer, also referred to this announcement alongside our creative careers announcement in an opinion editorial, stating, “Both these projects aren’t about circulating money among the top tier organisations—they are funding those who may be lost to ways of creativity without support. There is much more to come in the $374 million Arts and Culture COVID Recovery Programme—but this appears to be a strong start.”

Question No. 9—Police

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all her policies and statements?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Yes. In particular, I stand by my statement that “The National Party are … showing their true colours in terms of their lack of support for the police and”—

SPEAKER: No, the member will resume her seat. While she might have made that statement, it doesn’t really relate to her policies at all. Maybe to a later supplementary that would have been all right, but direct attacks as part of an initial answer are not appropriate.

Simeon Brown: Is she aware of a new Police fleeing driver policy which directs front-line officers not to pursue a fleeing vehicle which is known to contain 3 kilos of meth?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to rephrase that so that it relates to the primary question to be answered.

Simeon Brown: Is the Minister aware of the Police fleeing driver policy, which directs front-line officers not to pursue a fleeing vehicle which is known to contain 3 kilos of meth?

SPEAKER: OK. I’m going to allow the question, but I’m going to remind the House about the important difference between governance and management. Police policies and Government policies and the Minister’s policies are all different things. Answer the question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am aware that this matter was raised this morning at select committee. This is a matter that is operational to the Police.

Simeon Brown: Is it the Minister’s policy to support the Police’s fleeing driver policy, which directs front-line officers not to pursue a fleeing vehicle which is known to contain 3 kilos of meth?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I would remind the member that this question was answered directly by the commissioner as it is an operational matter, and the commissioner’s response was that it was unfortunate that this example was used within their training.

Ginny Andersen: What advice has the Minister seen regarding the independence of Police operations? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! That—oh no, that relates to an earlier answer. The Minister can answer it.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I would remind that member that is actually in law: the separation between Police operations and the Minister of Police.

Simeon Brown: Is the Minister concerned that under the new Police fleeing driver pursuit policy, police are instructed not to pursue a fleeing vehicle which is known to have 3 kilos of meth?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I would remind that member that that was in a training situation. However, the primary function of Police is to keep people safe, and I would be very—

Hon David Bennett: They’re not going after crims.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Now, would you mind if I just answered the question.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Not me.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Sorry, I apologise. I would ask the members just to be quiet while I answer this question, because it’s very important. [Interruption] They’ve asked—they want the answer. Otherwise, I’ll just sit down. I agree with the commissioner that it’s really unfortunate that this has been part of the training package. However, the overriding, the overarching issue is that we keep innocent members of the public safe, and I believe that this Police policy is trying to do just that.

Ginny Andersen: What advice has the Minister seen regarding combating organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Operation Tauwhiro, which was launched last Friday, is part of a suite of services that the police are putting into place. [Interruption] Mr Bridges, is this a leadership issue for you? Would you mind just letting me answer the question?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat—I’m on my feet. Can I ask the Minister to respond to the question and not to be diverted by irrelevant, or even relevant, interjections, but especially ones which are relevant. And I say that her response is not helpful. I am getting a bit concerned with noise levels while certain Ministers are answering questions, and, actually, noise levels and approaches when certain presiding officers are in the Chair. I just say that at the moment, it’s not looking very healthy; it’s not being helped by the Minister. Now, can we have the question again.

Ginny Andersen: What advice has the Minister seen regarding combating organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies. The Police launched Operation Tauwhiro on Friday, which is part of a suite of policies and programmes that the Police have in place, including their work on organised crime, resiliency against organised crime in communities, and the work that they are doing with communities and iwi to keep New Zealanders safe.

Simeon Brown: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Commissioner of Police about a review of the new Police pursuit policy which says a front-line officer cannot pursue a fleeing vehicle which is known to have 3 kilos of meth in the vehicle?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: No.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent reports has he seen on education and employment outcomes for rangatahi Māori?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): I received the report on the outcomes from the first year of our rangatahi—that’s our young people’s education and employment programme, Pae Aronui. Pae Aronui is our NEET programme delivered through Te Puni Kōkiri and tests an innovative approach that improves education and employment outcomes for rangatahi Māori not in education, employment, or training. Our year-end reporting is now available, and we’ve had 302 rangatahi recruited and engaged through Pae Aronui: 235 rangatahi completed their programme, 141 achieved an employment outcome, and 94 re-engaged with the education system. Pae Aronui has a 77 percent success rate of linking rangatahi Māori into employment, education, or training.

Tāmati Coffey: How does Pae Aronui assist rangatahi Māori to achieve employment and education outcomes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Pae Aronui was able to assist rangatahi to achieve employment and education outcomes through a flexible approach that allowed providers to go the extra mile. Examples of innovation include a housing-first approach that supported rangatahi presenting with homelessness and unsafe housing situations; providing real industry skills and training which rangatahi could add to their CV; essential needs first, ensuring rangatahi health, food, and basic needs were met so they could focus on achieving their education and employment goals; and a whānau-centred approach that enabled whānau to participate and support young people on their journey—

Hon David Bennett: Just reading answers.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m sorry you don’t understand that, Bennett, but never mind.

Tāmati Coffey: What solutions did providers take to keep rangatahi engaged in Pae Aronui during COVID-19 alert level changes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The flexibility of Pae Aronui allowed our organisations to pivot and provide targeted, one-on-one support through the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples are: using social media to engage young people and ensure that they did not become socially isolated and could still connect to opportunities; food and essential items, ensuring essential needs such as food were met during the lockdown period; and supporting connections to employment, providing a link to employment opportunities. Rōpū worked tirelessly to—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. I know I’ve been one of the members who have been encouraging this Minister to be a little bit more scripted and focused. That is not an invitation to have very long answers, which I could tell was causing trouble with the focus of the two members to his left.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Previous Speakers have ruled against members reading speeches. Does that apply to Ministers reading answers?

SPEAKER: The answer is that there’s an expectation that for short answers and easy answers, the Ministers will be able to do it. I—

Hon David Bennett: Willie has to read everything, though.

SPEAKER: Who was that?

Hon David Bennett: Me.

SPEAKER: Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: No, stand up properly.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise properly.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: The point—[Interruption] No, sorry. I’m just going to complete the point, and that is that there is not a prohibition on Ministers reading their answers. In some cases, the member will find it highly desirable that they do, where there are facts in them. But I’d tend to say that if there’s a point of balance, somewhere between the Minister’s previous behaviour and that answer would get it about right.

Tāmati Coffey: Why has Pae Aronui been so successful for rangatahi Māori?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s because this Government has done such a wonderful job over the last three years in supporting—

Hon Member: Go back to reading.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —no, no, I’m not going back to it—young people. There’s been a real targeted approach, particularly in terms of Māori. We’ve had wonderful Ministers like Minister Sepuloni and Minister Williams, who are taking a targeted approach, something the previous Government never ever did—forgot about young people, forgot about Māori, forgot about the whole country. And in terms of Pae Aronui, it has all—

SPEAKER: OK, OK, the member has answered the—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Go back to the script, or—

SPEAKER: The member might just be looking at his notes now, but he’s too late. Sit down.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: What is his response to reports in the media from those with experience in the mental health sector who are concerned that progress on transforming the mental health system has stalled?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): My response is that when this Government took office at the end of 2017, it inherited a mental health system that was in an appalling state after nine years of abject neglect from the previous Government. We very quickly assembled a review—effectively a stocktake—of the state of the system. That reported in November 2018, and by May 2019, it had committed the most significant investment over a four-year period ever seen in our mental health system. That was $1.9 billion over the four-year period: $1.1 billion of it was health money and, roughly, $800 million was money from other departments. The programme of investment commenced on 1 July 2019. As at the end of December 2020, we are 18 months into the programme. The priority has been in the access and choice programme, which, according to He Ara Oranga, the report from November 2019, was focused on the single biggest gap in mental health provision, which was those needing mild to moderate care. We’ve commenced that programme. Of the total programme, $350 million is due to be spent by 30 June this year. As at 31 December last year, roughly $280 million has been spent, and we are on track to make the change as a consequence of that party in Opposition’s neglect in Government.

Matt Doocey: Why has he still not published a plan for the implementation of recommendations of the mental health inquiry He Ara Oranga, given they were published more than two years ago?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member, I think, has answered his own question. The recommendations were published in November 2018. Some of the recommendations have, in fact, been completed, but we embarked on a four-year programme of investment to make change. Many of the recommendations require a number of years to achieve change, and so we are making progress, we are making a difference. Of the access and choice programme, more than 70,000 sessions now have been available free to people who have needed them, and we are now delivering between 7,000 and 8,000 sessions a month, funded through that programme. It is making a difference.

Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I can just seek your guidance, the supplementary question was about why he had not published a plan for the implementation of the recommendations.

SPEAKER: And that was addressed in the first sentence.

Matt Doocey: What is the Minister’s response to Mental Health Foundation CEO, Shaun Robinson, who said, “We are disappointed [as] He Ara Oranga was a beacon of hope for a revolution of change for … mental health … but, … it seems to have stagnated. There is still no transparent and accountable plan for its implementation.” and “This is a wake-up call to the Government … and fulfil its promises.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would say to Mr Robinson what I’ve just said to that member, and that is that the Government embarked from July 2019 on a four-year programme of change because of the state of neglect of the mental health system. We have started that programme, and of the $350 million due to be spent and committed by 30 June this year, at the end of December, $280 million had been spent or committed. There is more to come. Already, we are making a difference. To the extent that Mr Robinson is concerned that we haven’t completed the four-year programme within 18 months, I understand there are people who are in desperate need, and they would have been in desperate need some years ago. It is taking time to make the change and to fix the system, but we are committed to doing so, and we are doing so.

Matt Doocey: Why has the Initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission progress report, which tracks the Government’s progress on mental health, not been released despite its being delivered to the Minister in November last year?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I received that report in December last year. I want my Cabinet colleagues to have a look at it, and I expect it will be released very, very soon. There is nothing to hide. It is a very constructive report. It grades the Government on the progress of implementation. It is positive in some respects; it is not so positive in others—nothing to hide. This was a report completed less than a year after the commencement of the change programme. Nothing wrong with getting the review, nothing wrong with getting the criticism, but this is a Government committed to making change and turning around an abjectly appalling state of our mental health system left by the previous Government.

Matt Doocey: In the Minister’s words “nothing to hide”, why has the Mental Health and Addiction Services annual report, which reports on what service is available—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member’s named the document. He doesn’t need to go any further into it.

Matt Doocey: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has the Mental Health and Addiction Services annual report not been released under his Government since the 2017 Mental Health and Addiction Services annual report?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it, there have been changes in the reporting methodology of that report. In any event, since then, we’ve had the interim report of the Initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, we will very shortly have the final report of the Initial Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and we now have in place the permanent Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission. This is a Government committed to turning around an absolutely appalling mental health system left by the previous Government.

Matt Doocey: Is he concerned that under his Government, progress has stalled, progress reports are being withheld, and critics who speak out are being gagged and bullied?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No person has been gagged from speaking out about mental health issues, and there is no question that a four-year programme, 18 months into implementation, is not stalled at all. It is rolling out with considerable vigour and impetus, and the stuff that we are doing is making a difference to the people who need it most: vulnerable people who were ignored and left isolated and alone by the actions of the previous Government.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made to restore and improve roads and rail in New Zealand’s regions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): There’s been excellent progress over the summer season. I’m pleased to report that the Northland rail line has reopened after KiwiRail replaced five bridges, lowered the tracks in 13 tunnels, and laid 30,000 new sleepers over seven months. At its peak, more than 600 people worked on it, and KiwiRail contracted local firms like Clements Quarries and Busck Prestressed Concrete, which helped to support local jobs. We’ve also made excellent progress in getting under way with Te Ahu a Turanga, the Manawatū Tararua highway which will replace the Manawatū Gorge route. That project is creating hundreds of jobs in the region, and it will employ 60 percent of locals on the project. The earthworks contract is already employing 100 locals, and that will increase to 400 in the near future.

Kieran McAnulty: What other initiatives are improving transport across the country?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: More than 2,000 people are currently working on highways across the country over the summer season, resealing and repairing around 1,900 lane-kilometres of State highway, and that’s the equivalent of a two-lane road from Picton to Bluff, or a single lane on State Highway 1 from Bluff to Kaitāia. It’s vital work to maintain and improve—

Hon Simon Bridges: The Government hasn’t built anything in four years.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —the country’s State highways—something that was neglected by that side of the House and that Minister, who flat-lined road maintenance funding over their nine years in office.

Kieran McAnulty: What other regional projects have restored and improved roads and rail?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Work to restore and improve Kaikōura’s roads and rail after the 2016 earthquake—

Hon Simon Bridges: I did that, with these bare hands.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —is practically finished. I want to thank—someone’s in need of affirmation on that side of the House, aren’t they, today? I want to thank the nearly 9,000 people who worked tirelessly on this project. They not only reconnected communities and businesses, they strengthened those connections. Tunnels have been enlarged to help freight move more easily, which will help the region’s economic recovery. The roads have been engineered up to be more resilient and safer, with wider roads and guard rails along parts of the route to help save lives. The rebuild highlights the wider benefits of investing in infrastructure, which is part of the Government’s economic plan. The workers have bought more than 240,000 meals from Kaikōura cafes and restaurants. I say well done to everyone who was involved in that project, and on this side of the House, we’re big enough to acknowledge everyone, even the Hon Simon Bridges, even if his own colleagues won’t.

Special Debates

Inquiry into New Zealand’s Aid to the Pacific

Hon JENNY SALESA (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Inquiry into New Zealand’s aid to the Pacific, which began in June 2019.

Kia ora koutou katoa. Talofa lava. Kia orana. Fakaalofa lahi atu. Ni sa bula vinaka. Warm Pacific greetings.

Tulou, Tulou, Tulou. Kae tuku muʻa ke u hūfanga ‘i he ngaahi tala fakatapú, ka e ‘atā mo ‘oku ‘a e faingamālie ko ‘ení ke fai atu ha lea nounou ki he Parliament ‘o Aotearoa Nu‘u Sila.

Submissions were called for, and a total of 38 submissions were received from a mixture of individuals and organisations, many of them NGOs, and the committee heard from 26 of these submitters. The committee submitted its final report to the then Minister of Foreign Affairs in August of last year. I would like, at this time, to thank the previous members of this committee from the 52nd Parliament, as well as the clerks and the officers that helped us with this inquiry.

The inquiry focused on nine main themes, primarily focused on how Aotearoa New Zealand can increase its effectiveness in its aid programme to the Pacific. Can I also say at this time that over the last three years, there has been a significant increase that New Zealand has made in terms of aid to the Pacific Islands. Throughout the course of the inquiry, our committee expressed strong cross-party support and trust in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), who are delivering our aid in the Pacific. I would like, at this time, to thank both our MFAT staff here in Aotearoa New Zealand as well as our MFAT staff right across the Pacific for delivering our aid programme in the Pacific. I would also like to acknowledge all of the individuals and the organisations who took the time not only to write their submissions for our select committee but, as well as that, the 26 who came to present to our committee in person. They really assisted our committee in its inquiry and deliberations.

In 2018, our previous Labour coalition Government announced the Pacific Reset, which was led at the time by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. That Pacific Reset was our golden opportunity to re-examine our relationship with our Pacific neighbours. The reset enabled an all-of-Government approach on our side. Aid to the Pacific is now no longer seen as the sole responsibility of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and more of our Government departments are now involved. This needs to continue, and our committee thinks that it should be expanded. This is evidenced by the submissions that we received—that there is considerable will to build stronger and more effective and enduring partnerships with our Pacific neighbours.

I also would like to acknowledge that in terms of relationships with our Pacific countries, it is also really encouraging to know that the leadership from Aotearoa New Zealand is really strong. If I can begin from the top, what is well-known is the fact that our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, is tangata whenua. What may not be as well-known is the fact that our Minister of Foreign Affairs whakapapas to the Cook Islands. In fact, she has made many trips to the Cook Islands, and her own working relationships with the islands of the Cook Islands is something that I believe really would help to strengthen our working relationship with Aotearoa New Zealand. In addition to that, our Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is in the House this afternoon, the Hon Aupito Su’a William Sio, is from Samoa. I don’t know of any other time in the past where you have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs with such strong ties to the Pacific, and that is something that we should celebrate.

In making recommendations, one of the main recommendations that our inquiry and our committee agreed with is that we should not only look at continuing to invest in the Pacific through our aid programme but that we should look at continuing to increase that investment through the official development assistance (ODA) to the Pacific. In making that recommendation, the committee intended to reflect the depth of New Zealand’s commitment to working closely with our Pacific partners, as well as to signal the recognition that we are indeed part of the Pacific whānau; Aotearoa, after all, is very much part of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, the vast ocean we call Pacific.

In that vein, can I also acknowledge that here in this House of Parliament we have 10 members of our Government’s MPs who hail from the Pacific. In addition to that, we also have a member of the Green Party who also comes from the Pacific. I’m also pleased to see that many of the submitters that came to the inquiry recognised the strong ties that we have with the Pacific.

There is a lot of investment, through the ODA, through MFAT, that we make out in the Pacific: investments in tourism, investment in education, and export enhancement measures, among others. I would like, at this time, though, to reflect on some of the other investments that we make in terms of MFAT. One of those is via Habitat for Humanity. What you may know is when the strongest cyclone hit Fiji, Cyclone Winston—it was graded at number five, actually. It was the strongest cyclone that we have experienced out in the Pacific. But when that cyclone hit, what MFAT had done, through partnership with Habitat for Humanity, is they had, over a number of years, built cyclone-resilient houses in Fiji. After that cyclone hit, only one of the houses that was built under the cyclone-resilient programme was affected in terms of the roof being taken off. That is something that MFAT has then looked at, that particular programme—expanded that particular initiative to the Kingdom of Tonga, because, as you know, cyclones hit right throughout the Pacific. So we also have MFAT building some cyclone-resilient houses in Tonga.

If I can just mention at this time, some of the main themes coming through this inquiry are these: that we need to, in the future, partner for resilience in the Pacific; another important theme is that we need to, through our aid programme to the Pacific, ensure that as New Zealand delivers COVID-19 response, it is climate resilient. This is one of the reasons why I highlighted that investment that we already have with Habitat for Humanity, because we are already doing that work in Fiji as well as in Tonga. What our inquiry, of course, recommends is that we continue to do a whole lot more of that.

The report also recommends that New Zealand promotes empowerment, inclusion, and local ownership for our Pacific whānau. On this note, I want to reflect on one such empowerment and inclusion programme that MFAT is already investing in. This is led by Jonathan Kings from MFAT in Tonga. One of the things that the investment New Zealand makes in Tonga is this New Zealand standard training for men and women in Tonga that they receive so that they are lines men and lines women for when you’re actually building powerlines. The initial thought that New Zealand had was that in training Tongans and Tongan women to be their own lines people, they can actually build up their own lines in terms of power—this is actually, again, as an after-effect of a cyclone. However, what has happened is Northpower, one of the companies that New Zealand actually partners with, is now attracting some of those people. Some of those men and some of those lines women are now being attracted to come and be lines men and lines women here in Aotearoa New Zealand.

So I do want to reflect on the fact that this aid to the Pacific is good for the Pacific; it is also good for New Zealand. May I commend the inquiry report on New Zealand’s aid to the Pacific to the House. Fa‘afetai.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): This is a rare debate for this House. It’s not often that a select committee inquiry is so well-received by the Government that it merits getting Government time for its discussion. I want to echo the thoughts and expressions of the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, the Hon Jenny Salesa, in commending the work of the committee itself. Given that most of this was done in the last Parliament, then I would also like to recognise Simon O’Connor, who was chair during that time.

A number of us did serve on that committee during that time, and there is some dispute over who actually first moved the idea of having the inquiry. The Hon William Sio would say it’s his. I know that Golriz Ghahraman claims it’s hers. For the record, it was me, and I think the fact that there are so many claiming it indicates the genuine desire that we had as a committee to delve into this. Not to be critical, because I think that Jonathan Kings and his team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) do a very, very good job in this space, a much better job than might have been done some years ago.

While we say that there had been a big focus on the Pacific, it actually started a lot further back than just the time of the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The Hon Murray McCully had a big, big focus on that. The introduction of solar power to get rid of some of the big diesel generators was one of his initiatives, as indeed was the Tonga lines initiative, putting electrification through all the small villages in that part of the country. I think it is a bit of a testament to the value of that scheme that you do have Pacific Island tradespeople, very highly skilled now in the electrification process, being picked up to come and work in New Zealand. We need a lot more of that, in my opinion, because eventually those people will make their life back in their own home islands and they’ll have considerable experience to bring to the ongoing development of those communities.

The committee had a number of areas that we wanted to investigate, essentially. But the Government has, through MFAT, come back with responses that have grouped them, and I think the groupings are very good, actually, and I think the responses are pretty solid. I don’t want to go too much into those, but I do want to just, sort of, for a moment, if I could, touch on one of the problems that New Zealand has to be aware of, and that is that while we are a very much connected country to the Pacific, and we have a great deal to offer the Pacific nations, as they do for us, we are a small player in the aid space, and it’s getting smaller.

The other aspect of aid here is the soft loans that are tending to go into the Pacific. One of the things we learnt is that while a country like China is able to provide $537 million in aid in just the last year to the Pacific, at the same time, you saw $5.2 billion worth of loans being made to those countries. So about 10 percent of the loan value is remitted as aid. When you start to look at it, it’s a bit like going to any of the banks here—when you get a mortgage, they give you a cashback sort of thing. So we need to be careful that we don’t get overly upset about that, but recognise that those loans will be used for development projects, and we should be working alongside other countries to make sure that whatever expertise we can provide, we are able to do so. Whatever involvement that we might be able to jointly do, we should be looking at, because to starve the Pacific of that sort of funding at a time when they need it would be the wrong thing to do.

The other point I’d make is that much of this report was considered—in fact, all of it was considered—well before the effects of COVID-19. There’s no doubt that that has drastically changed the profile of prosperity in the Pacific. So we do have some interesting times ahead, and while the Government’s response has said, “Yep, we’ll keep on increasing the amount of aid that’s able to go to the Pacific.”, we do have to recognise that we do need to, I think, in a much stronger way, develop those partnerships that end up seeing very tangible things done.

One of those was, of course, a water project in Tonga done in conjunction with China, New Zealand engineers, and Chinese equipment, and then a workforce from both countries, including Tonga, putting in that water scheme and getting something that is tangible and practical that will assist other people in that country to do better things. I am a great fan of there being aid that establishes business activity or establishes infrastructure in those countries. I think that needs to be the focus of any New Zealand aid moving forward. I know that that, essentially, along with the obvious sort of programmes that are about social enhancement that have to occur, is the intention of the New Zealand Government and is the intention of the delivery agency MFAT.

I don’t think it’s necessary to say too much more. I think this debate will record the efforts that were made by the select committee. It will also record the very positive response from the New Zealand Government to this. More than that, it’ll recognise that successive New Zealand Governments have had a commitment to the Pacific that will continue for a very long time because this is the part of the world that we live in.

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

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start, as others have done, by noting how rare this debate is and how delighted I am that it has come to this House. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee just noted, much of the work was done by the previous committee, and I do want to commend both chairs and—many of the members have actually carried through, so all of us for, kind of, doing this work and also the—[Interruption] not you! Ha, ha!—Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the work that they’ve done in this space. New Zealand does have a very special relationship with the Pacific. We are a Pacific Island nation, and from what we heard from the NGOs and the people who came to us to submit who do that work on the front lines in the various other Pacific Island nations, we are seen as having a very special relationship with the Pacific.

I do want to focus on some of the recommendations, because, I mean, this is a good piece of work, and we heard about all of the good work that’s being done, but there are recommendations that I think we need to highlight for the work going forward, which was the purpose of having this inquiry when either I, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, or the Hon Aupito William Sio moved to have the inquiry done. I do want to turn to one of the main areas that I think was an area of criticism, which was that New Zealand has moved our aid model to a trade-for-aid focus and that that meant that we were seeking what’s called mutual benefit, and that meant that sometimes we were moving support and funding away from things that were purely beneficial to a Pacific community, like education programmes—whether it was rainbow empowerment, whether it was women’s programmes—to an aid model that didn’t necessarily benefit everyone, other than those who already had access to an international trade arena. So that was one of the things that we do need to look at more carefully.

What we heard over and over again, as a compliment but also as an area to strengthen, was that we need to partner more closely with those already doing the work that we want to enhance on the ground. So we do have what MFAT are calling their Partnering for Impact strategy going forward, and I’d like to see more and more of that, where we acknowledge that the values that we want to enhance—whether it’s environmental values, whether it’s feminism, whether it’s democracy—already exist in the island nations that we are supporting and that we need to help enhance the voices and the work of those who are already helping their communities advance in that way and have done so for years and years, rather than to impose upon them from an outside perspective. We are doing that, but more of that is what the recommendation is.

What I do also love is that the recommendations focus on continued enhancement and strengthening of democratic and electoral processes, including with special focus on women’s engagement in democracy. So we would like to see more of that, and, again, through partnership with women and men on the ground who’ve already begun that work.

COVID has hit, and although it hasn’t, in terms of the disease, hit the Pacific, we know that economies are collapsing, and so the focus—and we’ve been told this by officials even today in the annual reviews—must be aid but also debt alleviation. We can’t rely on aid alone, because the devastation to Pacific economies is too huge. So we do have to look at the way we restructure the debts, we use our political democratic influence in international forums, whether it’s with the IMF, with the World Bank, or with private banks that own these debts, to lower the interest rates, to lower the cost to Pacific nations who are already absolutely struggling.

Finally, I would say that although it is wonderful that we have undertaken to supply the COVID vaccine to six Pacific nations, we have taken the funding out from aid. So what we could do instead is help lift trade rules at the World Trade Organization on 1 and 2 March when they next meet, to make the vaccine more affordable and available to the people of the Global South, including the Pacific, so that our aid dollars can be spent where they are most needed and we can combat the global pandemic together, which is the only way we will overcome it. Thank you.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the inquiry into New Zealand’s aid to the Pacific, which is reported back by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. The report from the committee highlights a few areas where we must do better in aid to the Pacific for the resilience of our neighbours in the Pacific and for those of us here in New Zealand. We must ask the question: what is the purpose of our aid programme? ACT believes it is to build alliances, to strengthen our position in the world, and to protect the freedoms we enjoy. It is also to improve the lives of those less fortunate than us.

The ACT Party stands for the inherent dignity of every individual, but we also believe that we should not judge policies and programmes by their intentions to do good; we should judge them on their results. We’re lucky to live in the Pacific, with our beautiful white sand beaches, a moderate climate compared to many of our other trading partners, and the peace and security that comes from being a collection of islands at the bottom of the world. We don’t face the same threats that many nations face to their borders or their sovereignty, and for that we are lucky.

We felt the effects of this isolation during COVID and the relative ease with which we were able to close our borders. Our Pacific neighbours have felt this too. But it hasn’t come without economic pain. COVID has severely affected the Pacific region. Even countries that have not recorded any cases have been forced to close their borders. Like us, many of our neighbours have a dependence on global supply chains and tourism for their businesses, and for their workers’ and families’ ability to put food on the table. They’re hurting.

Most New Zealanders support our aid to the Pacific programme during the good times and acknowledge the need for more support even now, but this report points out a sad reality for the Pacific. I quote: “Remittances are also expected to sharply reduce as the global economy contracts and unemployment increases.” Workers who usually would travel from the Pacific Islands to New Zealand to pick apples, grapes, berries, and kiwifruit and send home money to their families and villages have had their incomes stopped by the Government’s restrictions to immigration, even from countries without COVID. We must acknowledge the benefit that has been lost to our Pacific Island communities from these restrictions.

The majority of New Zealand’s overseas development assistance goes into the Pacific, and we are the second-largest donor to the Pacific after Australia. When the Government sets aside money for a new programme within New Zealand, we expect to know where that money is going, how progress is tracking, and when we can expect results. We expect transparency and accountability. We’d assume this is happening in our overseas development assistance too. Unfortunately, this inquiry heard that submitters consistently expressed frustration with a lack of publicly available information about New Zealand’s overseas development assistance investments.

Our overseas development assistance received a score of 31 out of 100 and ranked 42nd out of 45 donor countries in the 2018 Aid Transparency Index. This is clearly not up to the standards expected by New Zealanders. It is critical that every dollar spent is used effectively and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is more transparent about where the money is going and what benefit it is providing to the Islands.

The ACT Party is heartened to hear that our ranking has improved last year, with the ministry now publishing its strategies online, but the work must be ongoing. The ACT Party will be asking these questions of the Government this term: where is the money going? What is the cost? What is the benefit? And are we getting the best value for New Zealand money to help build the best possible resilience in the Pacific? We must continue to strive to do better for us here at home and for our neighbours in the Pacific. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora, thank you. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to make a short call on this debate on the inquiry into New Zealand’s aid to the Pacific.

I te tuatahi ka tuku mihi ki ā mātou tuakana o ngā moutere o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, ngā kāranga i roto i ā tātou whakapapa me te kotahitanga i waenga i a tātou ngā iwi taketake o tēnei pito o te ao.

[Firstly, let me acknowledge our elder relatives of the islands of the Pacific Ocean, our genealogical links and the solidarity we share as indigenous peoples of this side of the world.]

Te Paati Māori have always stood shoulder to shoulder with our Pasifika whanaunga. We acknowledge the tuakanatanga, the whakapapa that binds us, including my three Ngāti Hāmua mokopuna and the struggles that unite us. We note the recommendations of the report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and support strengthening our relationships with Pacific nations and increasing the level of aid we provide. As a leader of the Asia-Pacific region, we have a duty to do so.

This duty is more important and urgent than ever as we confront the reality also of the climate crisis and the catastrophic effects it is already causing in the Pacific. Climate change is putting the lives and livelihoods of some of our closest neighbours in low-lying Pacific nations at extreme risk. People in the Pacific are the least responsible for rising seas or for climate change, yet Pacific leaders are at the forefront of fighting for no warming of above 1.5 degrees Celsius in saving us from the worst effects of sea-level rise. But there is a growing number of people who have no choice but to consider leaving their home islands. This problem is only going to get worse if the world leaders, including our Government here in Aotearoa, don’t immediately change direction and transform our global economy. Aotearoa has an international responsibility under the Paris climate agreement to support developing countries to adapt to the effects of climate change. We must start meeting our obligations to our Pasifika whanaunga.

One way we need to do that is by ensuring Aotearoa plays a greater role in supporting Pasifika leaders to the world stage through aggressive diplomatic efforts. It is our view that we must significantly increase our climate-related aid to the Pacific. This has to be one of the top priorities of our international aid programme. This needs to include a review of our migration policies to ensure that Pasifika displaced by climate change are prioritised in terms of resettlement. While the fight has to be to limit warming and prevent relocation, we also have to prepare for the worst and the likelihood that more and more low-lying Pacific nations will have whenua become uninhabitable.

As one of the largest Pacific nations, we have a leading role to play in this. We must assist the migration of communities at risk of rising seas and coastal erosion. Even internal relocations are likely to be expensive and extremely challenging exercises. It is crucial that tangata whenua are at the forefront of this policy discussion, and that, as Te Tiriti o Waitangi affirmed, tangata whenua are making the decisions on how we manaaki our whanaunga and manuhiri to these shores. Te Paati Māori looks forward to further discussion on how we can implement the recommendations of the report and go even further to ensure we are doing everything we can in this space.

Nā reira ko te tūmanako ka whawhai tēnei Whare me te whenua o Aotearoa ki te tautoko i ā tātou whanaunga o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa me te panoni o te āhuarangi e ngau kino nei ki ngā iwi taketake o te ao. Tēnā tātou e te Whare, kia ora rā.

[Therefore, my hope is that this House and the nation of New Zealand will continue to advocate for and support our relations of the Pacific Ocean with regards to climate change, that is causing devastating effects on the indigenous peoples of the world. Thank you, everyone in the House.]

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs): Kia ora tātou katoa to the Parliament, and warm Pacific greetings to all. Even though I disagree with Mr Brownlee’s suit size or I’ve laughed at Mr Seymour’s dance moves on Dancing with the Stars or my te reo Māori is not as good as it should be, and we disagree fervently in this House on a number of issues, I think this inquiry underscores the solidarity of this House when it comes to our international relationship and, in particular, how special the relationship is that the Pacific and Aotearoa have. And so I want to acknowledge the speakers and the issues that they’ve raised, acknowledge those members of the committee that undertook the inquiry, and those who are now on the committee today.

The inquiry recognised the need for New Zealand’s development programme to respond to the COVID-19 crisis in the short term while also supporting a resilient long-term recovery in the Pacific region. And I think members of the committee always understood that New Zealand is part of the Pacific family. We are part of that resilient blue Pacific continent. We support regional stability, peace, and prosperity.

In the closure debate, I’d like to just comment on the themes that the inquiry looked at that are relevant to the approach that our Government seeks. Firstly, one of the key themes from the inquiry was partnering for resilience. Now, more than ever, New Zealand needs to work closely with partners to respond to ongoing needs in the region. We’re committed to building Pacific partnerships that support our shared aspirations for social, cultural, environmental, and economic wellbeing. We must be deliberate in ensuring that all engagement is underpinned by genuine partnership, mutual benefit, and reciprocity by building on the values of whanaungatanga, our kinship; kotahitanga, our common purpose; and kaitiakitanga, our stewardship and care. We can promote co-partnering towards resilience. Overall, a resilience focus urges strategic partners to co-invest for long-term impact. Remittances make up a sizeable contribution to the livelihoods of whānau and various kaupapa for Pacific peoples; so we particularly want to see a deepening of our partnership of Pacific communities in New Zealand with respect to our work in the Pacific region.

Another important theme from the inquiry was ensuring we deliver a COVID-19 response that is climate resilient. Our commitment to provide Polynesian countries with access to a COVID-19 vaccine will be a key part of the region’s economic and social recovery. New Zealand has purchased enough courses of COVID-19 vaccines for Polynesian countries as part of our domestic advance-purchasing efforts, ensuring there is no unmet need for vaccine in these countries. Outside of Polynesia, officials are working with Pacific countries to identify how we can support their vaccine access and roll-out plans. The inquiry recognised that climate change is already having catastrophic impacts on prosperity, security, and wellbeing in the region. With this in mind, the committee recommended a response to the COVID-19 crisis that takes climate resilience into account at every step. We are working to ensure climate change is a consideration in all development support in the Pacific.

Finally, I’d like to comment on promoting empowerment, inclusion, and local ownership by our Pacific whānau or aiga. The committee recommended a stronger focus on inclusion and human rights in the development programme. This is integral to New Zealand’s International Human Rights Action Plan as well as our commitment in the Sustainable Development Goals to leave no one behind. Our work in the Pacific focuses on improving the wellbeing of communities as a whole by strengthening social equity and inclusion so that the most vulnerable groups in society can receive targeted support. This also includes that we need to engage more deliberately with Pacific communities to ensure they are connected and contribute to resilience-building projects. I want to say that when Nanaia Mahuta, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, outlined the new set of principles of whanaungatanga, kotahitanga, kaitiakitanga, in terms of how do we engage with the rest of the world, especially the Pacific nations, it is her expectation that we treat every Pacific nation as we would treat each of our marae or iwi in Aotearoa. They each have their own kawa; we recognise it. They each have their own mana; we must respect it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m delighted, as with other colleagues, that we’re actually having this—well, it’s called a debate, but I was saying to someone who may or may not be in the gallery that it’s not going to be so much a debate as a discussion. So perhaps on that thing, as a politician, I’m actually telling the truth.

We are completely, I think, pleased as a committee—and I was fortunate to chair the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in the last term of Parliament, that saw this come through—and what we are pleased about is the number of submitters who came forward. I want to thank them for letting their voices be heard, because, fundamentally, any parliamentary inquiry is not so much about what we write as about what we hear. But it is important as well, in thanking the submitters, I would say, to acknowledge the clerks on our committee and those, particularly, who wrote the report. You know, the MPs will go through it. We add strongly to it, of course, but there’s enormous support which is given to us, and I want to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as well. Often, a lot of these recommendations can challenge the work that’s being done, pointing out areas for improvement. But I would say that that’s building on already a service of excellence, particularly into the Pacific.

I thought I’d just make a couple of, I hope, salient points. The first one is that our aid budget, our aid contribution—particularly into the Pacific—must increase. It doesn’t really matter what hue or colour of Government is in. We should try, if you will, in a bipartisan way to commit to that. There’s well-known international targets which we are well short of, so that has to grow.

But part of that will ultimately come down to what some have touched on as the transparency of what we do in the aid project. That was a piece of submission, or pieces of submission, which came time and time again, which was where is the money being spent and are we achieving the outcomes that we sought, and it has been one of the recommendations of this inquiry that that transparency be made very, very clear.

It’s my hope—and it was certainly something I pushed for and spoke to during the inquiry—that if our overseas development and aid is transparent, is open, and is very, very clear, then New Zealanders will understand more of why we send money overseas. We all get used to hearing from New Zealanders, “Well, why should we be sending our money overseas when there are so many problems here at home?” Again, if we can have a clear, ambitious conversation with Kiwis, I think they would be more than willing to see that aid budget increase.

The second element that came out for me that I think is important is that we cooperate with our allies in the Pacific. Obviously, those we’re trying to help, but we know that there are many other countries, be it Australia, the UK, France, to name just a few, and the EU—I’d better not be remiss there—or the United States. We need to work cooperatively with them. It’s probably a slight bias on my part, having lived and worked in Fiji for a number of years, that there was often a bit of repetition: the Kiwis were doing one thing, and the Aussies were doing this similar thing. That cooperation is going to be vitally important.

It’s only touched on in passing, but one of the important bits of feedback that I certainly heard was that the Pasifika community, or communities, want us, again, to listen. It’s very easy to have what I’d describe as the neo-colonial mind-set, which is that we go over with all our views of what is the right moral, ethical, political, democratic structures and try to foist them on these communities, and that must stop. We need to be people who listen and respect those cultures and their traditions, and then try to help with them—obviously, encouraging where we think change is needed, but it’s encouragement and not enforcing.

The last point I’d make—and it’s a geopolitical one—is it’s abundantly obvious that there are tensions in the globe at the moment. It has to be said—and I will keep saying it—that it’s particularly with China and its influence coming into the Pacific. It’s not purely altruistic, and look, to be fair, no country’s aid programme is purely altruistic—ours included. But China’s very interested in these smaller States because they bring votes at the UN, and, unfortunately, we’ve seen how that’s panned out in some of issues over the last year.

But what’s important, and what I think I heard, was not so much that our Pacific neighbours want more money from us; in fact, they don’t want us to be competing with China—there’s no way we can. There’s no way we can. What they want from New Zealand is actually a relationship. The Islands have a longstanding relationship with New Zealand. It’s valued. They see us as cousins, brothers, sisters, and they want us to acknowledge that and, in a sense, to—and rightly—treat them as equals. So I think that’s, for me, a really important element that in that strategic, or geostrategic, battle, if you will. It’s not about money; it’s about relationships, and let’s hope that this inquiry assists in that.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora koutou katoa. Talofa lava. I take this opportunity to take my first call ever in the House. Again, I want to say thank you to my electorate of Takanini. To stand here and speak in the House is a privilege and honour and one that I’m sure all the members across the House do not take lightly. On this particular special debate or discussion, as the last member has mentioned, on the aid to the Pacific, I’d like to say again: thank you to the committee for this report. Looking at the report itself, the key things I took out of it was to strengthen and deepen the partnerships that we have with our whānau in the Pacific and also the resilience part of it.

I also look at the types of aid that we provide to the Pacific, and one of them is humanitarian assistance as well. I would like to speak to that, because I’ve had firsthand experience in terms of seeing that aid welcomed in the Pacific. Almost 12 years ago, in September 2009, there was an 8.3 magnitude earthquake that hit 200 kilometres off the coast of Samoa, and a huge tsunami hit the Pacific Islands, especially on the southern end of Samoa itself. I remember being in Middlemore Hospital as a young house surgeon and, after my rounds, hearing about the news, and then deciding with my family to rush over to Samoa to volunteer in their efforts but also to accompany some of the teams from New Zealand to the Pacific Island.

It was where I saw a lot of the villages on the southern end—Lepa, Lalomanu, Fagaloa. Some of these villages are where I saw families were displaced, loved ones were lost, and we felt the fear and anxiety of local villagers. Families had fled to higher ground out to the mountains, where us and our Red Cross team had to move with the families. A lot of them scattered across the coast, and there were aftershocks. So being up on the mountains and inside the bush area, these aftershocks gave us—I guess, shocking to us as a team as well. We were always on the comms, waiting to see if there was another tsunami hitting the coast. What I saw first hand was the aid provided, and a lot of the New Zealand teams across there were really well welcomed. It was great to have a Pacific team go over as well to speak the language, to be able to hold their hands, because a lot of them needed that. People had hope. People had a hand to hold on to and to be lifted up out of what was devastating.

In more recent times, we look at the measles outbreak. In 2019, we saw it hit New Zealand as well and then it moved to the Pacific—Samoa and Tonga as well. Again, I went across with a volunteer team to help out the local hospital, and we saw the nurses there—the local nurses, the local doctors—that were really hanging in there. The rosters were full, but they were really welcoming the aid that we provided to give them a bit of a rest and to be able to get the vaccinations out into the neighbouring villages.

Now we look to COVID-19, and it is really important that we get things right in this current environment. It is true that what happens here has an effect in the Pacific. It’s always great when I see our Pacific teams move and mobilise over there, so I commend the many teams that have left our shores to go and help out not only in Samoa but the other Pacific Island nations to support and encourage them in the work that they do.

What we saw in Samoa when measles hit their shores was devastating. I think it was about 83 children and adults who passed away during that time. So it was really tough to see our Pacific whānau, my whānau as well, being hit with such an outbreak. So COVID19—and I’m pretty happy that we do have a plan, where Cabinet agreed to earmark $75 million for the assistance for the COVID-19 vaccines. So that’s why I’m pretty pleased—really pleased—about this inquiry report. It will help to, for the future, strengthen and deepen our relationships with our Pacific whānau, and that’s why I commend this inquiry to the House. Fa‘afetai lava.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I just acknowledge the previous speaker, Dr Anae Neru Leavasa, who has sat down. If that first contribution is a sense of what we’re going to have in the future, I’m sure you’ll be able to add a significant amount to this place. And indeed, through your comments, I think, have underpinned why this inquiry was so important, because we are talking about family, particularly in a Pacific context.

I’d like to reflect on a couple of the components within our final report. The first is climate change, and we’ve already heard from the Hon William Sio around how important climate change is from a Pacific perspective. In the report, we note the $150 million specifically that is dedicated to the climate change programme in the Pacific. What I am particularly pleased to see is that it is focused on adaptation, because whilst it is absolutely critical that the Pacific voice, along with the New Zealand voice, is heard in a global context in a conversation around mitigation and what that journey looks like in our respective countries, very much for the Pacific, it will be adapting. Because they are ultimately going to be impacted by a warming climate—already are—and, actually, it’s very important that our aid support enables those communities to be as successful as they can as the water rises around them, which it will. And the fact that we are so open and honest about that reality without accepting it as something to welcome, but it’s a pragmatism that the committee have reflected on in terms of ensuring that that $150 million is spent effectively in adaptation projects.

In addition, still on a climate change theme, one of the key feedbacks that we had was that the Green Climate Fund is actually a challenging fund for the Pacific countries to be able to access. They do have a tendency to focus on mitigation priority, as opposed to adaptation, but also the nature of the funds, the scale of the funds, have an expectation of scaled capability from the receiving countries which at times is simply not there in a Pacific context, and it is important that that’s acknowledged. I had a great few days many years ago, in 2017, representing Ministers Joyce and McCully at the Pacific Islands Forum where this particular issue was raised—the frustration of the Pacific not being able to access, effectively and efficiently, the funds that sit within the Green Climate Fund, and it’s great that that issue has been acknowledged and the commitments around looking at other more flexible mechanisms have been prioritised from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The second area that I would like to briefly touch on relates to ensuring that the private sector, in particular, both within country in the Pacific but also those who seek to support the commercial opportunities that exist in the Pacific, is assisted through a particular focus on not only trade—and the PACER-Plus deal was highlighted. I was involved in the select committee when that was reviewed. I think it does have fundamental opportunities to be able to support trading between ourselves and the Pacific, and building from those trading links greater community and business resilience. And there is significant value that already exists. New Zealand exports around a billion dollars’ worth of goods to the Pacific a year, and around 30 percent of Pacific nations’ exports go to Australia and New Zealand. It’s very important that those trading relationships are strengthened, and I think it is right that we, as a committee, identified that PACER-Plus is a critical part of that.

Also in the context of that is a particular commitment from the ministry to ensure that the private sector has a greater opportunity to be able to participate in the aid projects which are focused on the Pacific. There are many New Zealand businesses that hold the view that they don’t have the opportunity to participate in the delivery of that aid, and that should be an area of focus. It has been identified in the report as an area that deserves significant focus.

Finally, I would just like to echo the comments of other speakers—and I think very eloquently touched on by the previous speaker. We are a Pacific nation. The Pacific peoples are part of the whānau of this country, and vice versa. It is absolutely critical for us to approach our relationship anchored in humility and true partnership. That is what we saw through the select committee process, and that is what, to a person, everyone on that committee sees as both the opportunity and obligation on this House. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi aroha ngā whānau o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa.

[I acknowledge the Speaker and all members. My warm greetings to the families of the Pacific.]

I’m incredibly proud to be a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, both in this Parliament but also in the previous Parliament, and I did want to acknowledge the cross-party work that was conducted. So Gerry Brownlee, Simon O’Connor, and Golriz Ghahraman—we attempted to incorporate Pacific voices throughout our submissions, so I want to acknowledge all those who made a contribution to this inquiry.

The inquiry wanted to understand the different aid models. It wanted to compare the effectiveness of past and present aid models. We wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of past and present aid models. It wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of the programmes, but it also wanted to build a social licence for New Zealand’s aid to the Pacific. As others have alluded to, fundamentally our relationship is built on whakawhanaungatanga and the fact that we are Pacific peoples ourselves, and so we have taken a responsibility specifically for the Pacific in terms of our overseas development assistance, which totals $2.219 billion. That is the effective spend in 2018/19 and 2020/21, and 60 percent of our overseas development assistance is invested in the Pacific.

So we have been, I guess, very strategic in focusing on the Pacific, because for us it matters. Our relationship matters. Our diaspora Pacific communities who call Aotearoa home, actually, will never lose that connection to their islands, to the heritage countries, and, in fact, probably a lot of them are dual citizens and return home a lot. Like all of us, we have whakapapa. I have whakapapa into Samoa. My brother produced two beautiful Māori, Irish, Samoan, Italian children. So for many of us, we have a vested interest in ensuring that the Pacific has access to the resources they need to build resilient lives.

I really wanted to focus on our commitment to helping with the human rights issues in the Pacific. Those challenges are ongoing in terms of the status of women, and we as women in this Parliament have done a lot to tautoko and support women to run for Parliament, and also those women who are in Parliament, and I know this Parliament actually has created opportunities for us to assist the development of women in the Pacific. So the status of women continues to be a challenge in some of our Pacific communities. The status of LGBT peoples continues to be a challenge for some of our whānau, but I think where we’re at is supporting the communities, the LGBT communities, in our Pacific countries to actually drive for change from within.

I want to highlight the Cook Island community at the moment, and Te Tiare Association. It’s very important that we support those local—I won’t call them activists—communities who are advocating for their right to exist and within a context of law that we actually gave them. We were the coloniser within that context and we have a responsibility to ensure that those communities have access to resources so they can drive law reform themselves, with us there to tautoko and awhi.

I haven’t got much time but I do want to focus on the challenges that crept in at the end of our inquiry, which actually are about COVID and the effects of COVID, particularly on the tourism sector. It’s an incredibly challenging situation that many of our Pacific countries find themselves in, and I think the ministry are going to have to think quite strategically about how we tautoko and awhi our Pacific communities through this period to when tourism resumes, because the strategic assets that the industry relies on—airlines having appropriate food and beverage, accommodation—are going to be, I think, a focus if we want to ensure the sustainability of our Pacific communities going forward, and, also, obviously, the vaccination programme, which we are there to support.

We have committed to helping purchase the vaccines, but, again, the biggest challenge will be supporting our Pacific communities in-country, who are the ones that will deliver that vaccine to their people. Kia ora koutou.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Sexual Violence Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 11 February.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to take a call on this very important piece of legislation, the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. When I was writing my thoughts down around what I was going to say today, I often reflected on what my purpose was in speaking to the legislation. What do I want to say and what do I think the community would be interested in hearing? I think, certainly for me, this is one of the reasons I came to Parliament. I have worked for 15 years prior to coming to Parliament in the field of family and sexual violence, and one of my goals in coming to Parliament was always about looking at this particular part of the legislation that affects victims and perpetrators of sexual violence.

Having worked for that 15 years in front-line positions and also in policy positions and also having been a lawyer and a trained barrister and solicitor, for me, this is a part of the law that has been problematic. The stories and the tears that I have seen have been—I guess, certainly for me, it has been a privilege to hear those stories, but they are so very, very hard to hear and they are also so very familiar and common. There are common themes that we hear over and over again in this field of law, and they are things that I have always wanted to address, being in Parliament. So with that, it’s my privilege to be here speaking about this bill.

I remember at law school learning evidence, and I remember when we were talking about the crime of rape and sexual assault. I remember our law professor, in a great law school, I must say. We had a guest speaker come in to talk to us from the police, and he was a good prosecutor. He was a good man. But the thing that he told us that day was the one story—the one story—of the woman who lied about her sexual assault. That was the story that we heard in regards to the context of sexual assault, at law school. So there was a bias sitting in the teaching and the learning and the understanding. There was a bias that sat there at that point. I’ll talk a little about this later, about the myths around victims and rape. But that, for me, as a law student, looking back all those years, thinking about the learning that we all had at that time was that women lie about rape—and that, for me, was a very difficult thing to hear then, and it is something that I think this bill is addressing when we talk to the myths.

This bill has been across two parliamentary sessions. I would like to acknowledge the previous Minister and the current Minister for this work, and I’d also like to acknowledge the 80 submitters who came to give their evidence. I’d also like to acknowledge the officials and all those who worked on this bill. This work is tough work, and it is important that we as a Parliament look at the rights of victim/survivors and the context of the rights for our defendants to have a fair trial. It’s a difficult balance.

But here are some statistics that I think tell us that we haven’t got it right. Of every hundred incidents of sexual violence reported to the police, 31 of those go to trial; 11 result in conviction. But what we know about that is that only 6 percent of victims report—6 percent of victims report. So something says to me that this system does not offer a way forward for victims. I would like to also note that 24 percent of women, 6 percent of men, and one in two transgender people are affected by sexual violence in their lives. So this is an issue that is uncomfortable and it is large, and we need to do something about it. So, again, I say I am delighted to be here talking to this bill.

Of the 80 submissions received by the Justice Committee—and I was not a member of that select committee, so having read over some of those submissions—there are some really useful changes that have been made. One of the things that I think is very crucial with the changes of giving evidence is the opportunity to give evidence not necessarily in the court but by private hearing. It’s recorded and pre-recorded. Now, there are two things. What victim/survivors have told me in the past is that it may be a couple of years before their court case gets to court, and then they’re expected to give that evidence. This actually prevents—they can give their evidence very quickly or sooner after the alleged crime has occurred, and at that point they can set it aside for a time.

The judge then gets to decide whether that evidence is fair. So there has to be a fair trial process. The judge gets to evaluate that, and at that point—and I’d just like to mention that the Hon Simon Bridges talked about the fact that it’s an unfair system. At that point, the judiciary, the judge, gets to decide whether in fact there is a prejudice happening, an unfairness happening, and that person can then be asked to give evidence in person. So that is a matter which enables and rebalances a system which the Opposition has said they feel uncomfortable about. I certainly think it goes some way towards addressing the concerns.

Now, in my final three minutes—two-something minutes—I would like to talk about the myths that exist. The reason I talk about this is that this was part of the legislation discussion and part of the changes that have been brought to this House. We talk about the myth of her asking for it, the myth of a person being drunk, the myth of her spending time at a place that was perhaps unacceptable, the myth of walking somewhere in the dark, the myth of walking somewhere in the light—the myth, the myth, the myth. All of these things are things that now a judge can take into account and advise the jury or their peers that these things can’t be taken into account. I think that that’s really important because of the inherent bias that exists in our system which I spoke about at the beginning of my speech, which is that these women, these victims—and they’re not always women—lie. They ask for it. It’s their fault. And the shame for all of us is that those women and men who are victims take on and have those beliefs as well, which therefore results in only 6 percent of people reporting.

So, as a consequence, we have a justice system that reflects our beliefs, our values, and our biases. So I am delighted to stand and speak in regards to this bill. I want to acknowledge the survivors and victims out there who are brave enough to come forward and those who are too afraid and ashamed not to come forward. I want to acknowledge those who are working in this area. It is hard work. They do good work. It is sound work. And I’d like to thank them for that, for the compassion and the acknowledgment that these stories count. I commend this bill.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Sexual Violence Legislation Bill is a very serious piece of legislation, touching on very serious matters—fundamental rights of many people are involved. On this side of the House, we have been clear from the very start that the stated purpose of the bill is excellent: to avoid re-traumatising, as much as possible, those who complain of sexual violence having been committed against them. Almost all of the content of the bill is excellent, but, of course, that’s not the same thing as saying that all of the content of the bill is excellent.

There are positive examples of changes that the bill seeks to make, and these include allowing a court to be cleared for a victim impact statement to be heard once guilt has been determined. These positive changes also include the ability for witnesses to give evidence in alternative ways to the extent that this does not impinge on the right of a person to have a fair trial. For these reasons, the National Party has said that it will support the bill, provided that the respects in which the bill is not excellent—indeed, deficient—will be addressed, and we have made a couple of practical suggestions to that effect in the form of a couple of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name that lie on the Table of the House now and will be capable of a debate and, indeed, a vote at the committee of the whole House stage.

To say that some trials will be fair under this new regime or, alternatively, that trials will be somewhat fair is the same as to say they will be somewhat useless. You can no more have a somewhat fair trial than you can be somewhat pregnant. I cannot put it better than Marie Dyhrberg QC, president of the Auckland District Law Society, put it in her column on this subject recently: “It is vital that complainants feel free to step forward and have confidence in the legal system, but this cannot be secured by eroding the rights of the defendant, who has the right to be tried on all the relevant evidence.” That is a theme to which I will return.

Indeed, a trial that is only somewhat fair, and, therefore, somewhat useless, could actually be described as worse than useless. And the reason for that is because of the unintended consequence that will arise from a trial that is not conducted in a fair manner—the re-traumatisation of someone who has complained of a sexual violence incident will be repeated, and so the result, of course, would be a re-re-traumatisation of that person. This would take place if the trial itself were to be repeated in the event that an appeal were to take place on the basis that the trial was held in an unfair fashion in the first place. It would also happen in the instance of a trial that needed to be recommenced from scratch: a mistrial, in other words. There are a number of reasons that that could happen, including, for example, that some 12 months after the initial cross-examination had taken place prior to the trial, the judge or the fact-finder in the case might be different. These are deeply problematic consequences. Albeit, they may be unintended consequences; they would still be consequences, and this House should think very carefully before entering those on to the statute book—notwithstanding that such changes would go in alongside some that I emphasise are indeed excellent and worthy and will achieve the aims of the bill.

On that particular point—the pre-trial cross-examination—the question is not whether this should ever be able to take place. Indeed, our law already allows, in exceptional circumstances, this to take place. But it should not be a matter of course, and the reason for that is that the Evidence Act, which the previous contributor to the debate, Angie Warren-Clark, has referred to, allows the recall of a person who has already given evidence in circumstances where that might be necessary. So it is that a person who has given her or his evidence at an early stage prior to the trial can be cross-examined on it, can be recalled under the legal regime that will apply if this bill is passed in its current form, such that she or he will be recalled to give that evidence again and therefore be re-re-traumatised, as I have said.

The purpose of this bill must be to understand the purpose and give effect to a fairer conception of a criminal trial. A trial is a method of determining guilt of a particular person in particular circumstances at a particular time and place. It is not in itself a conversation on New Zealand’s shameful record in relation to sexual violence—important though such conversations must be, and imperative as it must be that all of New Zealand society and indeed this legislature should turn its mind to such a subject.

In determining the guilt of a person and the consequences that that brings in relation to the law of the land, we refer sometimes to minimal standards of criminal procedure. I use that phrase quite deliberately because it is the title of section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which details matters that, as a matter of guidance in that legislation, provide for a measure of comfort that a person who is found guilty in our system was really beyond reasonable doubt determined to have been so. The different elements of that should be traversed and taken very seriously. The section 7 report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provided by the Attorney-General touched on some of these but not all of these, and on some in an incomplete fashion. I would place on the record my intention to provide an alternative analysis—namely, a shadow report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act along these lines.

Within my remaining time, I do wish to touch upon a couple of the ways in which the legislation in these two particular respects that we have been outlining does not meet the test for minimum standards of criminal procedure in accordance with section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. One is that a person has the right to be presumed innocent and to reverse the onus of proof in terms of whether evidence may be heard—notwithstanding that, of course, it needs to be relevant, and that’s already the case. That is a problematic aspect of this bill, and I’ll come to that particular provision shortly.

Another is that a person has the right to be present and present a defence at their own trial. In fact, what we are seeing by the proposal that as a matter of course pre-trial cross-examination may take place is that a person will not only not necessarily be present at their trial, as other provisions might indicate, but actually that the trial need not be the complete record of the interaction used to determine whether a person is innocent or guilty of the crime as charged. I know that wording is somewhat laboured, but I’ve attempted to explain in a clear and concise fashion the fact that we would have trial activity before the trial is undertaken, and the problematic nature of that for determining whether a trial has been carried out in a fair fashion should be obvious to all.

There is also provision, section 25(f), that witnesses are to be examined by the defence and prosecution alike under similar conditions. And clearly, if one side is to be allowed, as of right, or at least as a presumption, to cross-examine before the trial takes place, then clearly there is not an equivalence there—again, inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The reason that these are important is because the offence that a person would be charged with and tried upon is the question of whether he or she or they had a reasonable belief that they had consent to a particular sexual activity. No one in this House, I’m sure—and very few people in the country overall, thank goodness—would argue that consent should not be required on every single occasion. However, it’s important to note that it may be relevant to a person reasonably believing that they had consent to a particular activity that that particular activity had taken place a number of times between them on previous occasions. That need not be determinative, of course, of whether consent was given on that final occasion upon which the trial is being held, but it should at least be considered potentially relevant, and there should not be presumption that it would not be relevant. In other words, again quoting Marie Dyhrberg QC, “consent to sexual intimacy must be given every time, which no-one disputes, but then [it] stretches logic to say [that] the jury cannot hear about intimate encounters the same couple had previously.” Regrettably, that’s what the bill does, among other things. We will support it if these two changes, as expressed in a couple of SOPs, will be supported at the committee of the whole House stage.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m absolutely honoured to take this call to speak to this very important piece of legislation, and I’d also, in commencing, like to thank my colleagues in various different parts of the House for their support in laying the foundations for what’s really important work. It was really brought home to me how important this is when I was listening to the Hon Marama Davidson talk to this when she spoke recently. This is an important piece of legislation, as my colleague acknowledged earlier, as it affects—according to the research that we have, as we said, 12 percent of men, 34 percent of women, and 50 percent of trans people have experienced sexual violence, and because we are aware that these figures are typically under-reported, we know that the figure is probably way in excess of that. So, clearly, we have work to do. These are crimes that are under-reported and they don’t come before the courts very frequently. So this is important. I’d also like to acknowledge victims/survivors and the people who have worked and continue to do this extraordinary work with them.

Now, I would like to address some of the comments from previous members’ speeches to this bill, but in doing so, I would like to apologise—and I’ll explain later—for the analogy that I’m about to use. What I would like to make abundantly clear to the House is that prior consent to sexual activity does not ever, ever mean that you have present consent or future consent. For example, if one of my colleagues lends me their vacuum cleaner—so thanks for that—I cannot assume that just because they lent it to me last week—and this is where the apology comes in—they have automatically given me the right to borrow it today without their permission. If they are asleep when I want to use their vacuum cleaner, I am not able to take it without their permission, because they’re unable to give it. If they are intoxicated, drunk, or under the influence of drugs, I am not able to take that vacuum cleaner without their permission. How much worse is it, therefore—and I apologise for using the analogy of an inanimate object when we’re talking about the most intimate acts between two people or more without consent. We’re very clear that we need to have consent. Previous history does not determine or dictate future consent either; it’s completely irrelevant. I may have lent many people my vacuum cleaner in the past; it is not relevant to whether or not I am giving consent to somebody borrowing it today.

I’d also like to move forward and just talk to how important this is for people who have been experiencing sexual violence. It’s very hard to sit in the House and listen to some of the comments, especially with regard to consent and to the impact that this has on the victims of these crimes. I’d just like to end, really, by wholeheartedly commending this bill to the House and thanking everybody for their support in bringing it forward.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

At the outset, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all of those people who have worked on the progress of this piece of legislation over quite a period of time—that time being somewhat elongated by the complications of COVID-19 in 2020. Those thanks go to the previous Minister, the Hon Phil Twyford; the Transport and Infrastructure Committee of the previous Parliament, which at that time was chaired by Darroch Ball; and, of course, the people who took the time to make submissions on this bill. It was fair to say they didn’t receive an avalanche of public interest in response to the call for submissions. There were nine submissions in total, and one person who provided an oral submission to the committee. As we know, though, it’s the quality that counts more than the quality—

Chris Penk: How was that?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —and those submitters certainly did make a useful contribution to that bill. I think some members who participated in that process are affirming that now. I’d also like to pass on thanks to officials, who, of course, do so much of the work in the background on these bills.

This bill is an important piece of work. One of the things that we have a responsibility to do in Government and in this House is to make sure that our regulatory systems are fit for purpose, that they are efficient, that they are adapted to changing circumstances, and—perhaps most crucially—that we do that in a way that ensures that New Zealanders are kept safe through the application of relevant regulatory systems. There are probably few areas in which it’s more safety critical that that occurs than in the transport system, and the Government is certainly committed to making sure that our regulatory systems are kept up to date. That is the function of these regulatory systems bills. They don’t necessarily have big gangbuster new policy proposals in them, but they make sure that the system functions well.

The committee reported back to the House in August last year, towards the end of the last session of the Parliament. Alongside the submissions that the committee received, they did also receive quite an important letter from the Regulations Review Committee, which raised two core concerns. One of those related to the powers to grant permanent exemptions and also the broadness of the transport instrument powers that are a key feature of the bill, and I’ll speak to both of those features a little bit later on. But what I am pleased to report is that the committee picked up on those points made by the Regulations Review Committee, and I think, in a good example of the way that our parliamentary processes work, those changes have been picked up, they have been incorporated into the bill, and they will be reflected in the bill which is considered by the House as we now move forward.

I’ll speak firstly about the transport instruments, which I think are probably the most significant innovation brought through by this bill. The bill introduces transport instruments, and they’re a way of enabling the Minister, in the case of transport rules, or the Governor-General, technically, in the case of regulations, to delegate responsibility for specified aspects of those rules and regulations to a named lower-level authority. So we have regulations and rules, which are set through a fairly fulsome process, as pieces of secondary legislation that are granted in the primary legislation. The rules are about then saying what are very detailed and prescriptive things that actually could be dealt with at a lower level by the transport agencies. I’ll talk a little bit about some of the areas in which these might be able to apply, but, broadly speaking, it’s making sure that the system can be as efficient and adaptive as it can be.

I think that in the transport area in particular, these are going to be very useful tools when we think about the degree of technological innovation that is constantly shaping the way in which the transport sector develops. We think about the way in which autonomous vehicles are increasingly becoming part of the landscape, the way in which the aerospace industry is growing, the way in which technical specifications are constantly changing. It is not necessarily always going to be practical to go through a complex and time-consuming rules or regulations approach to deal with all of those changes to keep New Zealanders safe as we move along. The transport instruments process will provide a facility for doing that.

There are also some very specific things within our current system that instruments, I think, will be very helpful for—thinking about matters such as the design of road signs and markings, highly prescriptive details on some transport documents. These are not necessarily things that we want to take up the time of Ministers and Governments, dealing with rules and regulations. They can be delegated, I think, appropriately through transport instruments. For those members who are particularly interested in inquiring into this area further, some recommended reading would be the most recent land transport omnibus rule amendment. If one looks through the changes that are made through that rules amendment, what members will see is that many of them are very specific and technical and really could be dealt with by agencies through the creation of instruments in the future, were those in place at the time.

The committee has recommended to the House that the provisions relating to transport instruments should better clarify the relationships between rules and regulations and instruments, and also to be very clear about their legislative hierarchy. I think that’s a good suggestion, and it’s important in terms of clarifying responsibilities and rights. The new sections of the bill provide that a transport instrument is a part of and is enabled by the rule and regulation that provides for them, and, additionally, that a transport instrument can only be made for the purpose of the rule or the regulation. Now, I don’t think there was any intention other than that when transport instruments were proposed in this legislation, but it is very important that that point is clarified. That does a couple of things, but probably most importantly it makes it clear that ongoing parliamentary scrutiny can apply to those instruments, because they are directly related to the rules or regulations from which they stem.

The new sections also contain an appropriateness test, where the Minister—or a specific regulator, in the case of emergency rules—must be satisfied that the subject matter is appropriate to be included in a transport instrument. Here, in two ways, we’re just building in some checks and balances, bearing in mind that these instruments are delegated down to officials, effectively—senior officials, albeit—rather than the Parliament. But we have those checks built into the system to make sure that they are set up and then applied appropriately. I certainly support those, and they will be reflected as the legislation moves forward.

The bill also clarifies who can make transport instruments. In regards to land transport, the agency is Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency or the Director of Land Transport. Now, the Director of Land Transport is a new position we’ve recently created to oversee Waka Kotahi’s regulatory functions in response to the regulatory failure issues that arose a number of years ago. So I think that’s very appropriate. Similarly, through Maritime New Zealand or the Director of Maritime New Zealand, they may make transport instruments. The bill will also enable Waka Kotahi or Maritime New Zealand to delegate this power to the Secretary for Transport, and in some cases that will be appropriate.

There are a number of other changes in the bill, but there are a couple of things I just want to signal at this point that will become relevant when we advance towards the committee of the whole House. One of those relates to the commencement date, and this is referred to in the select committee’s report back. The committee recommends changing clause 2 of the bill to allow the majority of the bill to come into force 14 days after the bill receives Royal assent. This change was important because the original proposed date for commencement was 1 July 2020. We all know what happened last year and why there have been delays there, so that was a rational proposal for the select committee to put forward. However, I will give note that given current timing, I intend to make a further change to the commencement date via a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to establish a single commencement date of 1 April 2021. That’s simply about simplicity and clarity, and I don’t particularly foresee that that will create any problems.

I will also indicate that there will be further SOPs coming to deal with some additional issues that can be addressed through this bill, which will be introduced at committee stage. The first will support the provision of seafarer welfare services provided in New Zealand. What we will be creating there is an ability for the existing maritime levy to be applied for the purposes of supporting seafarer welfare centres. Those centres provide a critical function to what can be quite a vulnerable workforce and are currently reliant exclusively at the moment on charitable donations, and that is simply not a sustainable way of funding those services.

The second amendment will support the allocation of funding for recreational aviation safety purposes. The proposal will permit fuel excise duty revenue from petrol used by recreational aircraft to be allocated to measures that provide safety benefits to the recreational aviation community. This has long been a little bit of a bugbear for that sector—that they use a fuel in some smaller planes and other aviation vehicles, but the benefit of the levy they pay cannot go into their sector. We’ll be dealing with that there.

Taken together, this bill and the amendments that have been proposed by the committee I think tracks a good way forward for our transport regulatory systems. I thank everyone for their contributions and commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I love the enthusiasm of new Ministers, and I can tell you there’s a fair bit of enthusiasm over here, looking forward to 2023. But I always like to give new Ministers the benefit of the doubt and some hope that some things will happen. So we know that this bill, the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, was delayed. When I looked at the list of people who were on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, some of them are still in Parliament, and some of them are no longer members. But I do want to make note of the good local MP for the Chatham Islands, who managed to get the Chatham Islands Council as a regional council for the purposes of the Maritime Transport Act 1994—well done.

So, look, these transport instruments are really a good move. As the Minister said, it will enable the Minister “to allocate the maintenance of detailed requirements within legislation to a specified individual”, and the introduction of this “will enable quick response”. We haven’t seen too many quick responses when it comes to transport over the last three years, so there’s no pressure, Minister, but we’re looking forward to some quick responses and seeing some quick reaction out there when it comes to roading.

It’s good to note on here that modernising the existing exemptions will line up with the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, and that’s always a good thing, to make sure that everything’s aligned. What I would note, and it was noted in here, and the Minister mentioned it, is that there were nine submissions and one submitter. But I do notice in here that the Bus and Coach Association supports the proposals within the bill but just holds concerns about the “Cumulative effect of multiple instruments on the reliability of primary and secondary legislation”—so just some concern around leaving people, once again, at the mercy of the inefficient and time-intensive processes such as that often with rules. So just a note to the Minister to try and make some of this stuff—when you’re delegating, tell them not to make it too cumbersome so that people can keep up with it and do it really quickly. Another concern around resourcing was the “Lack of capacity in under-pressure MOT and NZTA teams”. So that was brought up by the submitters.

We want to see more progress on building more roads. The Government got distracted on light rail, and, three years in, we don’t know how much it will cost, when construction will start, where it will go, and when it will be completed. Labour also cancelled—or postponed—15 roads when they came into Government so they could build light rail, and now they’ve restarted a few, but three years has been lost on these projects. New Zealand could be in an infrastructure building boom right when we need one, but instead these projects are still in the design phase. So the current Minister’s Government has had the effect of slowing everything down. So, again, no pressure, Minister. This is a promise in this piece of legislation to speed things up. Look, we have Aucklanders paying a fuel tax for light rail that we don’t believe will ever arrive. Again, no pressure.

The Let’s Get Wellington Moving, at least the Minister’s actually made some comments—I’ve heard the Minister’s actually made some comments on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving, because it’s been another transport failure of this Government. So well done to the Minister on increasing his expectations around getting Wellington moving again.

We all know that this Government is struggling to get people out of the city and into the regions, where the jobs are, and we’ve heard that from the primary industries ministry this morning. So, you know, the roads do flow, actually, out in rural communities. They have a got a few safety aspects that we require the Government to be looking at. The Hon Simon Bridges put $600 million into road safety on rural roads and did an absolute wonderful job, but it seems to have come to a standstill and it seems to have stalled. So, look, if we can’t get Auckland and Wellington moving, we can certainly encourage people to come out to the regions, but please just make sure that the safety of our rural and regional roads is up to scratch. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): We’re late on a Thursday afternoon, we’re discussing the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and on the surface it may seem that it’s not an important piece of legislation, but it’s something that will actually affect everyone’s lives. Often, it’s good to start with a little example of what this will do. I mean, most law doesn’t come through this House. Most of the things that affect people’s day-to-day lives don’t come directly through this House. Most of it appears in our lives through secondary legislation and through other ways in which officials can actually make the local laws. Just an example, one thing this will enable is that, currently, if you have a road sign, for example, and it warns about a certain type of bird or it’s a warning for motorists about a certain thing that you need to be very careful of—well, currently, there’s quite a process to go through before you can put a new bird on there, for example.

I’ll give you a really good example of that. Recently, I was lucky enough to be in the Bealey Hotel, which is in Arthur’s Pass. Now, some people may remember that that was the site of a possible sighting of a moa. A local character publican called Paddy Freaney—some thought perhaps looking through the bottom of a bottle of Irish whiskey, but nevertheless it may well have been, and it caused some stir, to the extent that there was quite some worldwide interest. Now, it may well have been that Mr Paddy Freaney and his friends late at night had seen a moa, so it would’ve been very important to ensure that traffic going through there—and it’s quite a lot of traffic; the Coast to Coast goes through there, a lot of traffic—knew that there was a possibility they may hit a moa on the road. However, under the current system it would’ve taken quite some regulatory approval to go right through a system before you could actually put a picture of a moa on the road sign to ensure that, were there a moa there, it wouldn’t get run over. So there’s some amount of levity in that, but it just gives an example of why it is necessary to ensure that our regulation-making powers are as efficient as possible. But at the same time, we need to balance that with making sure that local officials can’t wildly go out there and just make regulations, make local laws, where there is no scrutiny.

Now, already in the speeches today, there’s been some discussion about the Regulations Review Committee here. Now, some of us that’ll get to sit on there—again, one of those committees that, until you sit on it, you don’t actually realise the importance of the work that committee actually does, because they are the committee who ensure that this secondary legislation, these regulations—that there is some scrutiny of them. But there’s been another piece of legislation that’s gone through this House to ensure that secondary legislation is actually—we actually have it all in one place, because at the moment there is so much regulation, so much information. Nobody actually knows—you could actually spend hours going through the regulation to look for it. So that’s a piece of work that’s actually going to be very important that will relate directly to this legislation, because what it actually means now is that as these different regulations are made, as these different little rules are made, that, actually, were they not to be something that will enhance safety—not enhance our lifestyles but that will actually come back before that Regulations Review Committee—as I said before, a very important committee—to ensure that they are the right regulations.

Just another example of the type of thing that this regulation does is, for example, making sure that in the, perhaps, vehicles in the past—now, when there’s a fatal accident or road accident or serious accident, police impound the vehicle and are required to examine it to get the evidence, see what caused that accident. I myself drive a 1974 Austin 1300, which is a very simple vehicle, and anyone—a mechanic—looking at it, were they seeking to find any evidence from that vehicle, they would very simply be able to do so. However, I was also lucky enough to recently test drive a Tesla. Now, although there are apparently only 15 moving parts on a Tesla, I would imagine that were one of those vehicles to be involved in an accident, it would actually require just a little bit more science, more inspection, and more research to ensure that the evidence available to support a prosecution, proven or whatever the evidence was being sought—that they had that vehicle wrong. Currently, that vehicle can only be impounded for seven days. Of course, what this regulation will allow is to ensure that it’s actually able to be impounded for 10 days, which means over a week. It doesn’t mean that the said vehicle will, of course, grow cobwebs and remain there for ever, but it just does ensure that the necessary evidence is able to be found.

Another thing in here—and, again, I’m very privileged to be the newly minted chairman of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and we’ve been lucky enough today to have several entities come before us, including Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport. Now, those bodies—very august bodies, and, again, doing very, very important work. These regulations will just again look at the numbers and makeup of those boards to ensure that those boards are actually effective. One of the small things that’ll be effective: there’ll be an odd number of members of the board so that should anything come to a vote, then they won’t be bogged down. Those of us who have been on, perhaps, select committees where one party doesn’t have majority will know that sometimes very good law, good regulations, and good decision-making at those committees can be compounded by the lack of a majority on one side. So, again, that’s a very important part of this.

So, again, what on the surface of it looks like a very humdrum piece of legislation, when one digs down deep into it, you can see that, actually, it becomes a very important part of the work of this House. If there’s nothing else that comes out of this that can force those members opposite—if they could stop, sort of, speaking at the tops of their voices and listen, one thing they may learn is that they can go home back to their electorates, for those who have them, knowing that when they do have members of their electorates that come in complaining about what they will consider to be a very poor local regulation, there is now within this legislation a means to ensure that there is at least some oversight—possibly not as directly as we would all like, but, certainly, there’s the ability of some oversight to ensure that those little laws become important. Even things like speeds in the harbour—it would be ridiculous to think we’d be debating such a thing in this House, but, on the other hand, very important if you are from one of the many harbours around New Zealand where the number of recreational craft is increasing. It’s important that the local harbourmaster have the ability to actually set these regulations. Any regulation, particularly anything that ends up with an infringement around it, of course, becomes an instrument of the State, so it’s very important that there is that sort of oversight. Again, coming back to—that’s something that will be addressed.

So I just leave it at that, just to say that this is, again, in my, as I say, newly minted job as the chairman of the transport select committee—more and more understanding that the infrastructure of this country—to ensure that those who are tasked with keeping the country moving have the regulation, the ability to do so, but, more importantly, that this House, directly or indirectly, has the ability to scrutinise any of that regulation. I commend this bill.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, it’s a real pleasure to rise in this House on my very first omnibus bill and to support the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. I was very excited to hear about the nine submitters to this bill and the fact that it’s taken us a year to go through a submission process. I’m new to the House and I’ve got lots to learn, but I just thought the submission process, maybe, on this one was a touch too long, and on some of the other things we debated this week was probably a lot too short, really. It’s quite novel to have more than two days to discuss a bill and get nine submissions for it. So it’s a real pleasure to be here and talk about the great purpose to this bill, which is really around making sure we are making sure the transport system is fit for purpose and it’s modern and it’s a very updated regulatory system. And I know how important that is.

Obviously, this bill is designed to make sure that we respond to and reduce the risk of regulatory failure, and I know how important it is to have very strong regulators in our system, whether it be air, land, or sea, and how important that is. And clearly we are trying to address a whole series of different gaps and duplication and areas and inconsistencies within the transport legislation, and ensuring that our regulators have all the tools they need to make sure we keep our system up to date, relevant, and moving forward and reducing compliance costs, as well, along the way.

Certainly, I think, a lot of this bill, when I look at it, it’s a real common-sense sort of thing, when you start to think about the provision for the creation of the transport instruments. As we’ve alluded to, we’ve spoken about moa signs. I don’t know why, but it was interesting. We’ve spoken about traffic control signs. There’s safety equipment on vessels, which I think is also very important. Driver licence exemptions. So the creation of those transport instruments delegates the accountability further through the chain to a lower level of authority to be able to crack those instruments, which is very helpful, very important.

The second thing it does is sort of clarify and modernise the powers of exemption from the regulators and the rules made under key land and maritime Acts. That’s quite good—to make sure there’s good consistency between the different pieces of legislation.

It increases the board sizes of transport agencies—I don’t have a big problem with that. I think fundamentally that’s in line with what’s good practice in other boards across the country. In the commercial world, for sure, it’s quite normal to have no more than nine members on a board. It increases maximum fines just in the maritime area to align them with what we see on land and air transport. It also increases the time period a vehicle can be impounded to collect evidence after a serious accident or incident, and Paul Eagle, the ambassador for the Chatham Islands, has done an exceptionally good job, as we’ve alluded to, making sure the Chatham Islands Council becomes a regional council under the Maritime Transport Act. So really very good things.

I guess, you know, when you look at it, you could argue that we’re giving additional regulatory making powers to a Minister, and that’s something that we don’t normally support. But actually, there is both good and bad regulation, and this is certainly, I think, good regulation. It’s good common-sense stuff, and it kind of make sense to do it with the aim of safety and better transport in mind.

But I think what would be more useful is if we could get into some of the bigger topics that we have facing us, because, as my colleague and friend Barbara Kuriger talked about, there are projects that we would love to see accelerated. And if we could take the same passion and enthusiasm we’ve seen today for this bill and think about what’s happening with the second harbour crossing in Auckland, it would be really interesting. It was gutting to learn today that, actually, there is no real go-forward plan in managing a key strategic asset in our largest city—the Auckland Harbour Bridge. The Auckland Harbour Bridge cannot be structurally strengthened any further. It’s going to face restrictions on the heavy load that it can take across that bridge anywhere from 18 months to 20 years from now.

The second thing I’d say is there’s no plan, therefore, to build a second tunnel or a second crossing—we don’t know whether it’s a tunnel, a bridge, we have no idea of cost, timing, partner, or anything. And as a consequence, that just doesn’t feel like what a world-class country should be doing in terms of making sure that a strategic asset that supports a city of 2 million people in a country like ours on the bottom of the world with 5 million people in it should be doing. That wouldn’t be acceptable, I put it to you, in Denmark; it wouldn’t be acceptable in Singapore, Ireland, Israel, Switzerland. It wouldn’t be acceptable in any of those places. So the bottom line is we’d love to see some action in that space.

The second thing is that the light rail project, where we’ve cancelled or postponed 15 roads for the last three years to fund this light rail project, and now we’re back to the drawing board again. Again, we’re not convinced of what’s the mode, we’re not convinced of the costs, we don’t know who the partner’s going to be, we’ve got no idea about timing. But we’ve just wasted three years doing absolutely nothing while Aucklanders paid fuel taxes in order to do that, and I just think that’s another thing that could be improved upon.

The last thing I’d say, and I know there’s some colleagues from Wellington here, but the Let’s Get Wellington Moving programme has been another transport failure for this Government. So while we’re dealing with tidying up a whole bunch of little and small stuff, it would be quite good to get on to the strategic stuff, the nation-building things that would fundamentally make a difference.

So I’m gladly supportive of this bill. We would love to see it pass, because we think there’s a lot of common-sense amendments in it, but we’d love to see some focus from this Government on actually getting things done to make daily lives better for the people of New Zealand by dealing with thinking more strategically about the assets that we need in order to make that happen. Thank you.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I call Paul Eagle.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Your time will come, Julie Anne—just give me a wee while. Look, it’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on this amendment bill. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee last term. Let me give you some background here, because what we’ve heard about is a whole lot of projects, ghost roads, etc., etc. But what I want to do is refocus this conversation back on the bill.

Back in October 2019, the Ministry of Transport did a review of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA’s) regulatory capability and performance, and that was because we inherited an unsafe system. So this is about safety. This is about putting safety first. And we haven’t heard that message here this afternoon. That side of the House instead focused on ghost roads and other things to try and rark it up, but this is a serious matter. Safety is serious, so serious that the then Minister of Transport, the Hon Phil Twyford, commissioned a review in October 2018, but that was because we inherited a really unsafe system. There were all sorts of vehicles going off the road. Basically, the Government entity prior to us taking over wasn’t doing its job, because there was no focus on safety; it was building roads—or trying to, anyway. What we’ve done is grapple the beast, bring it back, and gone, “We’ve got to put safety first.” So that’s what hasn’t been talked about—the underpinnings for this work. So, the goal of NZTA, under our leadership, was to ensure that it became a best-practice regulator to improve safety, of course, and obviously reduce harm.

What made it most interesting today is we had the transport agency in, Waka Kotahi, and no one questioned the general manager of regulatory compliance, Kane Patena, one of the officials there. No one mentioned a word, from that side of the House. We know it’s in hand, we know safety is a priority, and we know that it’s under control.

That means that, if I was to just explore what safety means in this context, it’s safer drivers, of course, safer vehicles. I had the privilege of attending Rightcar.govt.nz, which was a small stakeholder function yesterday with the transport Minister, the Hon Michael Wood, to look at the five-star ratings on vehicles. Because sometimes we see a car and we think, “Oh! This is nice.”, but it doesn’t have the safety ratings that reflect the type of car that you need to drive on New Zealand roads. So that was a small but important function, again, to show where this Government’s priorities for transport are.

Safer commercial transports—look, we inherited a whole range of, unfortunately, commercial transport operators who had cut corners, who, essentially, were able to run their businesses, not all of them, some of them. Most of them were actually quite good, but some of them were not. They were dangerous. They made New Zealanders’ lives dangerous, particularly on rural roads, and in the provinces, where big trucks and kids having to walk to school, etc., is unacceptable. These guys had not ensured that their vehicles were fully compliant. We’ve changed that, and the last aspect of that is safer rail, and we had KiwiRail in today, also as part of our annual review process. They’re taking a firm and fair approach. That’s what we expect of them, as a Government, and that’s what we’re going to get and that’s what we’ve got. And that came through, I believe, in our annual review documents today.

I want to also make a comment on the Chatham Islands. It’s being raised. I’m not quite yet the high commissioner for the Chathams, but it’s coming, I feel, but it is being made a regional council. It does have an affiliation with Environment Canterbury, and they are on island. They have a depot there. They undertake some of their role as best they can, but the reality is that when you’ve got such a small island, it does mean that they need the powers of a regional council to effectively monitor some of these changes to ensure the safety of those islanders and the huge increase in tourists who have afforded themselves on an overseas holiday literally to the Chathams. So that means, in terms of maritime and navigation safety, they’ll have a harbour master for the first time and they’ll be able to make and enforce navigation bylaws. So, key things on a small island, but no longer do we think it’s acceptable anywhere in New Zealand, no matter if you’re 800 kilometres away, that we continue to have our land transport and maritime transport being delivered in an unsafe manner.

I think other parts of this bill have been covered, and the only other thing I wanted to comment on is the size of the boards. I’m always keen to ensure that boards reflect the diversity of this country, but also some of these issues that these entities face are increasingly complex. That means that sometimes they need more people who have more experience in more areas to ensure that their risk is covered. So, I’m pleased to see that Waka Kotahi, the Civil Aviation Authority, and Maritime New Zealand will see that increase. They have requested that; they will get that, and I’m pleased that part of this bill cleans some of that up. That would be my concluding statement—that is, as an omnibus bill, this combs a whole range of Acts that looks at a range of detail to ensure that our transport system is modernised, it’s fit for purpose, and delivers a safe transport system for everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5 p.m.