Wednesday, 17 March 2021

WEDNESDAY, 17 MARCH 2021

WEDNESDAY, 17 MARCH 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed upon us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Address in Reply

Presentation to Governor-General

SPEAKER: I have to announce that, accompanied by members, I attended upon Her Excellency the Governor-General with the Address agreed to by the House in reply to the speech at the opening of the first session of the 53rd Parliament of New Zealand. Her Excellency was pleased to make the following reply:

MR SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I receive with much pleasure the Address which has been adopted by the House of Representatives in reply to my speech at the opening of the First Session of the Fifty Third Parliament of New Zealand. I thank you for your assurance that the matters referred to in my speech will receive your careful consideration.

Patsy Reddy, Governor-General.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That Her Excellency’s reply be entered in the Journals of the House.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

SPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented.

A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Jane Ludemann for Cure Our Ovarian Cancer requesting that the House urge the Government to support the development of ovarian cancer awareness and education campaigns; ensure women with symptoms have timely access to testing; improve access to approved therapies and clinical trials; and dedicate funding to ovarian cancer research.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Attorney-General’s Report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.

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

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, introduction

Incorporated Societies Bill, introduction

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “all parts of the economic apparatus” need to address rampant increases in house prices; if so, will the Government’s upcoming announcements include bold policies to reduce house prices in a controlled way?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by that statement in the context it was given, regarding the Government’s decision to incorporate housing into the monetary policy remit between the Government and the Monetary Policy Committee of the Reserve Bank, to ensure that “all parts of the [economic] apparatus need to be working towards these goals.” With regard to the second part of the member’s question, this Government has an ongoing policy agenda to address unsustainable house price growth, increase housing supply, support renters, and provide more opportunities for first-home buyers, and we will continue to roll this out. I’m sure the member appreciates that there will be no one single policy that will solve the housing crisis. This is a big, complex, longstanding challenge that will require continued, bold intervention over a long period of time. Our upcoming announcements will be part of that programme of work.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he think house prices should increase, stay the same, or decrease, in the context of the median house price in New Zealand increasing by $50,000 in February alone?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, the level of house price growth the member mentioned in the latter part of that question is unsustainable, and that is the very reason why we are bringing forward a programme of announcements next week.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. He certainly addressed the questions, but it was quite a specific question about—not whether it was unsustainable but whether house prices should increase, stay the same, or decrease.

SPEAKER: Yes, and, as the member is aware, she can’t get that specific, like a sort of a yes/no answer or pick A, B, or C, in the context of a supplementary question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he remove the five-year cap on the brightline test so that anyone investing in a second—or tenth—property pays tax on the profits?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve said in the House a number of times, we’re taking a look—we have taken a look—at the existing initiatives that we have in place, which includes the brightline test brought in by the National Party and then extended by the last Government. Announcements around those issues, and others, will be made next week.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he provide the Reserve Bank with more tools to regulate mortgage lending that is a risk to financial stability and contributes to our overheating housing market?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member will be aware, I wrote to the Reserve Bank Governor on exactly those issues, in particular the question of whether or not there should still be interest-only mortgages available to investors, and also whether or not debt-to-income ratios could be applied to investors; I’m awaiting a response from the Reserve Bank on those matters. I do note, in the context of ideas that have been put forward today around the housing market, the question of debt-to-income ratios and first-home buyers is a very tricky one, and if those debt-to-income ratios were applied broadly, I think there might be more inequity in the housing market—that’s the issue I’ve raised with the Governor.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he provide fiscal stimulus by raising benefits so that the Reserve Bank can wind down its house-price inflating large-scale asset purchase programme and funding for lending programme?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government has already increased benefits—we increased them, in fact, a year ago today by $25 per week. In addition to that, we’ve had support including increasing the winter energy payment and other parts of the Families Package. We’ve also increased the minimum wage significantly, by about 27 percent. Further decisions, obviously, are subject to the Budget.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will his Government increase Kāinga Ora’s debt limit, empowering them to build many more public and affordable homes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Again, I could say ibid, but all decisions around such matters would be part of Budget consideration. What I can say is we have significantly increased Kāinga Ora’s borrowing capacity over this term of Government in order to do exactly the things that the member is asking.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What has been the impact of the COVID-19 response package he announced on 17 March 2020?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): A year ago today, I announced the first COVID emergency economic response package, and at the time I told the House that we would give our total commitment to protecting the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Our initial $12.1 billion economic response package included the wage subsidy, extra support for the health system, and the first phase of our economic recovery package. In that initial tranche, and also in the further support we gave—as a result, the wage subsidy has paid out $14 billion, helping to keep 1.8 million New Zealanders attached to their work. I said, at the time, that the package would be about cash flow and confidence, and that is what we have focused on in supporting New Zealand businesses and workers through COVID-19.

Dr Duncan Webb: What are some of the other impacts of the 17 March package?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 17 March package was the first step in our support for the economy. Since that first package, we’ve continued to update and expand our support to ensure New Zealanders are kept safe from the virus itself and that their livelihoods are protected—that’s included the leave support scheme, the short-term absence payment, and now the resurgence support payment. Also on 17 March last year, we permanently lifted main benefits by $25 per week and doubled the winter energy payment for 2020 to support our most vulnerable. This was in recognition of the disproportionate impact that the recession that was inevitable that day would have on low-income New Zealanders, and we continue to support them today.

Dr Duncan Webb: What support did the package provide for exporters?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the 17 March announcement last year put aside $600 million for an aviation support package, in part to help exporters continue to operate as commercial flights to New Zealand dried up. Since May last year, that support has enabled more than 6,000 flights carrying over 120,000 tonnes of airfreight worth $8 billion, while at the same time restoring our airfreight capacity to 90 percent of pre-COVID levels. In addition, more than 60,000 people have returned to New Zealand on flights supported by the scheme—or 60 percent of the total number of people to pass through our managed isolation and quarantine facilities. I think it’s unlikely that many of those journeys or the freight would have moved without that intervention. This has been a very significant part of helping our exporters continue to thrive through COVID-19.

Question No. 3—COVID-19 Response

3. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Did a Cabinet committee consider a paper relating to a trans-Tasman safe travel zone this morning; if so, was there a discussion about what the earliest date could be for the opening of a safe travel zone if New Zealand acted unilaterally to do so?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The member will be aware that the Cabinet Manual states that discussions at Cabinet committees are confidential, and I don’t intend to release details of those discussions, particularly not before Cabinet has considered them. But what I can say is that I have been keeping my Cabinet colleagues regularly informed of discussions around safe travel zones, including with Australia. I’m also happy to repeat, for the member’s benefit, what I said last week and yesterday: that we have moved on from discussing a joint decision-making framework with Australia to discussing a more unilateral decision-making framework.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That dealt with the second part of the question on notice; it did not deal with the first clause of the question, around whether or not this—

SPEAKER: And the member did address the first part, and he made it very clear that he’s not prepared to discuss what was on Cabinet committee agendas this morning. That’s a question of the Minister’s—[Interruption] Who said that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Me.

SPEAKER: All right. The member’s lucky it’s St Patrick’s Day. Right, as I was saying, it is a matter of judgment for the Government whether they release and when they release the agenda for Cabinet committee and, in fact, for Cabinet meetings.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I just want to make sure that the member’s not going to argue with me, because if he’s going to argue with my ruling, we’re going to run into a Speaker’s ruling that I made about three weeks ago now as to whether doing that is disorderly or not.

Chris Bishop: Was a date discussed this morning at Cabinet committee around the opening of a trans-Tasman safe travel zone?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my first answer, discussions at Cabinet committee are confidential.

Chris Bishop: Why is the Government unwilling to even acknowledge that the issue of a safe travel zone was talked about by a Cabinet committee this morning?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I, as a Minister, am following the guidance provided in the Cabinet Manual.

Chris Bishop: Have officials provided him with advice around a date that a trans-Tasman safe travel zone could open if New Zealand acted unilaterally, in line with what he said yesterday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve been receiving regular advice on the practicalities of opening up a trans-Tasman safe travel zone, including some of the constraints in terms of timing that may exist around whenever Cabinet may make such a decision.

Chris Bishop: Have officials provided him with a date as to when the earliest possible opening could be for a trans-Tasman safe travel zone, with New Zealand acting unilaterally to do so?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s a little more complex than that, as I have indicated previously to the member and, I think, in public interviews. Airlines have indicated that they would need around three weeks to prepare for the opening up of something with Australia. The Auckland international airport have indicated they’d need somewhere around about 10 days to prepare for the implementation of a safe travel zone. There are still a couple of other issues that we need to resolve before Cabinet will be in a position to make a final decision.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by all the Government’s statements and actions in relation to the Land for Housing Programme?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yes.

Brooke van Velden: How many houses will be built under the agreement on the future of Ihumātao, which is based on funding from the Land for Housing Programme, over the next three years?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The number of houses that will be built on this parcel of land is still being worked through. There is a very clear process that is established under the agreement of how this number will be arrived at. Under He Pūmautanga, which was signed between the Kīngitanga, the Crown, and the council, the process was laid out. The Kīngitanga is currently acting as an intermediary between mana whenua, the Crown, and the council. They will determine who has ahi kā status, in accordance with tikanga, and from here a rōpū whakahaere, to make decisions on the outcome for land, including the establishment of a development partner and the number of houses, will be determined. I note this will be way more than the zero that were going to happen under the land as it was currently held.

Brooke van Velden: Is it true, as stated and redacted in paragraph 21 of the advice Housing and Urban Development submitted to Cabinet, that the new owners of Ihumātao could determine there are “other uses which are deemed to be more suitable than housing” for the land?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In terms of the paragraph 21 that the member is referring to, of course the Cabinet paper had to canvass what would happen if other decisions were made, and that was also clearly laid out in the Cabinet paper. That was in redacted paragraph 23.

Nicola Willis: How can she justify using funds to purchase land at Ihumātao that were explicitly earmarked in this document, Budget 2020, for KiwiBuild homes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member is confused about the KiwiBuild appropriation—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —that within the KiwiBuild appropriation sits an allocation called the Land for Housing Programme. This was an allocation that was set up in December 2017, and I will take the member through the purposes of that allocation: (a) uses funds to acquire land that is suitable for residential development; (b) it can on-sell that land to iwi and/or private developers who use their own capital to develop the land; and (c) requires that each site be developed to conditions so that its development contributes to addressing the Government’s social objective in relation to housing, in particular by increasing total housing supply, the pace of construction, and the proportion of new dwellings built for public housing and/or first-home ownership. So to claim that this is money that would be used for the building of houses is incorrect.

Brooke van Velden: Why was the Land for Housing Programme used to fund this agreement when the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development said that there were other uses than housing that could be deemed more suitable under this agreement?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Land for Housing account was used because the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development deemed that this was a piece of land that (a) was deemed suitable for building houses—in fact, it already had consents on it; Fletcher Building were planning to do houses there. It also sits very neatly within our acquisition programme within the Greater Auckland area of land that is being purchased for housing outcomes. So, in answer to the member’s question, it was used because it does fit within a portfolio approach to our land acquisition in Auckland.

Brooke van Velden: When will the first house be built?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I refer the member back to the detailed answer that I gave her in terms of the process that is now being worked through that will result in a development partner being established. That time frame is yet to be determined, but what I would point out to that member is that it will be far quicker than the alternative would have been.

Brooke van Velden: Is it an error or is the KiwiBuild dashboard correct when it says zero KiwiBuild houses were completed in January?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don’t have the dashboard in front of me, but I would not be surprised if it was zero. Builders, like many New Zealanders, do take holidays over January.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What updates has she received on the progress of Mana in Mahi?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m pleased to share with the House that following our initial target of 150 placements in 2018-19, Mana in Mahi has now surpassed the 2,500 placement mark; 89 percent of those who are active or have completed or have exited early are not on benefit. There are currently 1,566 active participants, 45 percent of which are Māori and Pacific. Retention has been a main focus, with 76 percent remaining in the programme for 91 days or longer—1,480 employers have taken on participants they might not otherwise have trained. I’m encouraged by the steady progress that we’re making through Mana in Mahi.

Willow-Jean Prime: How does the performance of Mana in Mahi compare to the Government’s other employment programmes?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In addition to the 2,500 Mana in Mahi placements, He Poutama Rangatahi has already supported 2,275 rangatahi into employment, education, or training; 82 percent of those engaged were not in any at the time of enrolment. Yesterday, Minister of Education, Chris Hipkins, announced that more than 100,000 people have accessed free trades training, with over 21,000 apprentices benefiting through the Government’s Apprenticeship Boost support. And, if that wasn’t enough, Flexi-wage has kicked off, aiming to support up to 40,000 New Zealanders into work. Mana in Mahi is part of the Government’s wider work programme to support better employment outcomes. We are backing—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. We have had enough. I think it’s fair to say that I’ve had representations to do with St Patrick’s Day and also to do with the naming of questions as “patsy questions” this morning. I agree with the individual who made the comment that they could be better described as “poodle questions”.

Willow-Jean Prime: How is Mana in Mahi contributing to outcomes for Māori receiving a benefit?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Happy St Patrick’s Day, Mr Speaker. Thirty-eight percent of all placements at the time of referral were Māori; 71 percent of Māori participants have been on the programme for 91 days or longer and have a training pathway forward. This is reflected in the gradual increase of Māori exits off main benefits and into work since 2017. Overall, exits off main benefits into work were the highest since February 2000. Mana in Mahi is continuing to support more and more people into employment, education, and training, helping to accelerate our economic recovery and lay the foundations for New Zealand to build back better.

Hon Member: Well-groomed question.

SPEAKER: By whom?

Question No. 6—Agriculture

6. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by his statement from 23 February 2021, “The shortages projected pretty much every season by horticulture and viticulture have never fully been realised … Some employers never have trouble getting staff; others always seem to have challenges”; if so, does he believe labour shortages in the horticulture sector are an employer issue?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I stand by my full statement that “I have faith in the innovation of the horticulture and viticulture sectors, and, in fact, all the sectors across the primary area. The shortages projected pretty much every season by horticulture and viticulture have never fully been realised. Yes, it’s challenging for some. Some employers never have trouble getting staff; others always seem to have challenges. Yes, there is a shortage now, but, as has been said by people in the paper today out of Martinborough, we’re just going to have to work together to get through this challenge to make sure that we don’t waste the opportunities.”

Hon David Bennett: Does he believe that there needs to be additional Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme (RSE) workers, in addition to the 2,000 that were announced late last year, to meet that shortage?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m very pleased that the member has acknowledged that we have brought into the country—at a time of COVID crisis, when thousands of New Zealanders want to return home, we’ve made provision for 2,000 RSE workers to assist the industry. We’ve always indicated that if there was capacity in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), then maybe the industry would have access to some of that. But, at the moment, the world is still facing a COVID crisis. We’re still at threat of infection from people coming into this country. We are going to run a robust MIQ system to ensure that New Zealanders and New Zealand—and every one of us here—are protected from COVID.

Hon David Bennett: Has he sought from the Minister of Immigration an increase in RSE workers since last year’s announcement, to meet that shortage?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: On a regular basis I’ve had discussions with the Minister of Immigration and ensured that we have flexibility across the work permits in this country, the visitor permits in this country, so that those people who are in this country on temporary permits can roll them over and can move around the country to take up any job opportunities. The horticulture industry at the moment is under some pressure, but so too are other industries that have relied on migrant labour. We’re trying to be fair to all industries. The Minister of Immigration has indicated quite clearly that at this stage there is no capacity to bring in any more RSE workers.

Hon David Bennett: So when the Minister says there’s no capacity to bring in overseas workers, then RSE workers from Pacific Island States that are COVID-free—would he extend the quarantine-free status that has recently been announced for Niue to those workers in the case so that they don’t need that quarantine privilege either?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We’re going to run a robust quarantine system in this country, regardless of where people are coming from, because the risks out there are still significant. The fact that we haven’t been able to open up a bubble across the Tasman is because there’s still uncertainty around the management of COVID in both our countries, and we have to ensure—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Michael Baker says you’re wrong.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —Mr Smith, if you want to listen—that New Zealand and New Zealanders are protected from COVID, first and foremost. The industries, including horticulture, that have the benefit of being able to continue to operate pretty much as normal in a COVID world—most of them appreciate that opportunity.

Kieran McAnulty: Has he seen reports that orchards in Greytown have been working constructively with the Ministry of Social Development to the tune of 100 extra workers announced this week?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There are many, many initiatives across the country—and that’s just one of them. We’ve provided, as I said before, a six-month extension for employer-assisted work visa holders. We’ve made changes to the working holiday visas to allow holders to extend their time in New Zealand. We’ve created a Seasonal Work Scheme—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat—will resume his seat. It was a very simple question; the Minister could have just said, “Yes.”

Hon David Bennett: Why won’t he extend the privilege that he has given to Niue to other Pacific Island States that have RSE workers that are in demand in New Zealand?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: One of the—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask David Bennett to rephrase the question. The member has now gone right outside the area of ministerial responsibility.

Hon David Bennett: Will the Minister advocate for other Pacific Island States, other than Niue, to have the same privilege that has been accredited to Niue for RSE workers to come from COVID-free Pacific Island States to New Zealand to work in our horticultural sector?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have opened up the border for 2,000 RSE workers. One of the requirements of that scheme was to ensure that the countries themselves were prepared to take back the workers and not have them stuck in this country. There are already about 5,500 RSE workers who would like to return home but can’t. We have the privilege of utilising their labour through this season, but we do not want to see people come from those countries and be stuck over here when they’d rather go home. That’s part of the whole scheme.

Hon David Bennett: Mr Speaker, point of order. We had a number of clear questions to the Minister that were about whether he was advocating for other Pacific Island States; he didn’t answer that at all. I request the Minister to re-answer that question.

SPEAKER: No, I think you got a clear indication of the attitude of the Minister to that request. I think most members of the House could understand.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order. Is that a no from the Minister, then?

SPEAKER: No, that wasn’t a no at all, if the member listened to him. Does the member have a further supplementary? No.

Question No. 7—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

7. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcement has he made about consumers who are accessing financial advice?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): We know many New Zealanders have been doing it tough financially due to COVID-19—for example, a Commission for Financial Capability survey during the nationwide level 4 lockdown found that 66 percent of New Zealanders were financially exposed or in difficulty. This means it’s more important than ever that Kiwis are getting financial advice that puts their interests first, and that’s why I’m happy to say that consumers seeking financial advice can be assured that their interests will be put first under the new financial advice regime that came into force this week. The new regime will give people greater confidence to seek advice that will help them achieve significant milestones in their lives, such as saving for a first home or planning for retirement.

Jamie Strange: What new requirements will financial advisers have to abide by under the new regime?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: A key requirement of the scheme is that all advisers must sign up to a new code of professional conduct which sets standards of competence and professional conduct. Advisers will also be required to operate under a licence granted by the Financial Markets Authority. I’m pleased to say that these changes will increase transparency by requiring financial advisers to disclose any conflicts of interest, commissions they’re paid, and limits on the companies they advise on. Introducing a new financial advice regime has been a major undertaking, and I want to thank the financial advice sector for their continued input into the development of an improved regime that will better serve the interests of people seeking financial advice, helping them navigate difficult financial decisions and plan for their future.

Jamie Strange: How will the new regime apply to advice received through digital channels?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Very good question. In this ever-changing digital world, it’s crucial that all people have the same protections, whether they access financial advice from an individual adviser or through the use of artificial intelligence on a digital advice platform. The new regime has been futureproofed, so consumers can rest assured that the same protections apply to both. By enabling digital advice, the new regime will improve access to advice for people who might not be able to afford comprehensive financial advice. I’m very proud to be a part of a Government that puts people first.

Question No. 8—Education

8. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and policies on education?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he changed the Government’s target of having just 70 percent of students attending school regularly since his statement: “I want all kids to be attending school regularly, and I won’t accept a target that’s below that.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, not yet. It is one of the targets in the Ministry of Education’s annual reports that I’m looking very closely at. As I canvassed with the member at select committee, one of the problems with the 70 percent target is it refers to the number of half-days that a student attends school, and there can be some justified reasons why students don’t attend school that can distort the statistics—for example, we do have some families that take their children away overseas for extended periods of time, that has an impact on the attendance statistics. Sometimes those absences are justified.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he expect we can turn around declining literacy and numeracy standards across the county when somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of students do not attend school regularly?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Student attendance—regular attendance—at school has been an area of focus for this Government. The downward trend in student attendance started some time before we became the Government, around about the time the last Government improved the attendance services.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why has the Government not released the attendance data from all four terms in 2019 and 2020, which his ministry said would be publicly available by the end of February?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m not sure why that information hasn’t been released; I’m sure it will be very shortly.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he devote sufficient time and energy to the many serious challenges across the full education and tertiary education portfolios while also managing the Government’s response to COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because I’m busy and conscientious.

Question No. 9—Education (Pacific Peoples)

9. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples): Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. What is the Government doing to support the education needs of Pacific learners and families impacted by COVID-19?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Education (Pacific Peoples)): The Government announced $12 million is available for the Pacific Education Support and Pacific Education Innovation Funds. This will support Pacific communities and learners and educators to lead, design, and implement innovative solutions that will help Pacific learners participate and engage more effectively and achieve successful educational outcomes so Pacific learners aren’t left behind. Lifting success for educational achievements for Pacific learners is a key aspiration of this Government’s Pacific wellbeing approach, and one that Pacific parents and teachers strongly support.

Barbara Edmonds: What does this mean on the ground for Pacific learners and families?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: It’s game-changing, and there’s a number of examples of innovative solutions that are having an immediate impact on Pacific learners. In Manurewa, for example, a primary school used last year’s funding to run an after-school learning innovation project, using science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics, for Pacific learners. These Pacific learners are empowered by a hands-on, practical programme that is family-focused and fun. In the Waikato, a Pacific provider is employing a full-time person to empower, support, and provide mentoring to 50 year 13 Pacific students from five local high schools, and it’s helping these students make the transition to tertiary education with confidence. In Auckland—I can go on, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: —the Anglican trust, through a project named Moana Tautua, used last year’s funding, again, to place a Pasifika mentor in Auckland schools to work with Pacific learners impacted by COVID-19 and help strengthen their resilience so that those learners remained engaged in their educational pursuits.

Barbara Edmonds: Why is the Government focusing support in this area?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Pacific peoples are the youngest and fastest-growing population group in New Zealand, and we’ll need to support their educational achievements to ensure they fully realise their potential in supporting New Zealand’s accelerated economic recovery. The Government’s response is also based on the leadership direction from the Pacific communities themselves, who told us during the fonos held in 2018 and 2019 that they wanted a dedicated Pacific education plan and support to help Pacific learners succeed. This Government is working harder than any other Government to lift Pacific wellbeing by collaborating across agencies and the community; having dedicated, targeted funding; and trusting Pacific peoples to provide innovative educational solutions—far better than that lot when they were in Government.

Question No. 10—Energy and Resources

10. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does she stand by her statement in 2018, “We have around 10.5 years of gas … This has been the number that it has been for the last 20 years … Nothing has changed. The member needs to realise that there is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that is available for exploration”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. I do note that since 2018, when I made that comment, the industry has indicated that it will relinquish 80,000 square kilometres of acreage because it is not commercially viable or exploration has come up with dry wells. It is important to note that these exploration permits—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just say that both for Minister Carmel Sepuloni and for this Minister there has been a lot of attempting to shout them down. I don’t want to reflect on some of the reasoning behind that, but it doesn’t look good.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is important to note that these exploration permits do not feature in calculations of either our 2P or 2C reserves, otherwise known as our forecast reserves. The most current reserves estimates as at January 2020 still have us at 10 years.

Barbara Kuriger: Does she view it as a good thing that since she made that statement all of New Zealand’s exploration permits outside of Taranaki have been relinquished, which has moved New Zealand from 100,000 square kilometres to 20,000 in less than three years?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Exploration permits are just that: they are exploration permits. Companies take them on and explore them in a speculative manner. They do not know if they are going to find any wells. I point the member to some of the largest areas of acreage that have been relinquished, like the Great South Basin, which is connected to the fact that dry wells were drilled. There simply was not the gas there. We have to face the reality that in fact there has not been an offshore oil or gas find that is commercially viable in New Zealand since 2000. We have not seen an onshore viable gas find in New Zealand since the early 2000s. The reality that we have to face as a country is that we have to prepare for a future that is beyond fossil fuels.

Barbara Kuriger: Why has the Gas Industry Co. begun a project to consider what liquefied natural gas imports are required for dry year electricity generation in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What the Gas Industry Co. have begun doing at my request is considering what needs to be done as we go through a transition that brings it more in line with the kind of transparency in arrangements that we have within our electricity system. What we know is that we are subject to tightness and contracting that occur in the gas market that we don’t see in the same way in the electricity market, and that we must make sure that our regulatory processes are right for the transition that we, as many other countries, must go through.

Barbara Kuriger: Has she seen advice from the Gas Industry Co. that New Zealand needs $300 million to $500 million every three to five years to produce existing reserve, and what impact does she believe the oil and gas ban had on our ability to attract such investment?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I receive weekly advice from the Gas Industry Co. It is something that I follow very closely, and I meet with them regularly. But in terms of the member’s statements, both today and throughout the week, trying to connect the current tightness that we are seeing in the gas market to policy changes that we made to stop further exploration permits, they were actually found last year to be false claims by an independent agency—that you cannot connect them. In terms of bringing production online, you’re looking at at least a lead time of seven years—potentially up to 22, as you saw with the Kupe field.

Barbara Kuriger: How does she reconcile her response to questions in the House, “Methanex has just signed a contract through to 2029 … the sky isn’t falling in.” with recent news Methanex will close its Waitara Valley plant after “being unable to secure sufficient gas supplies”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The situation that we’re seeing with Methanex and the Waitara plant is actually the way in which the gas market usually responds to contractual tightness in the market. In fact, I look to 2008 to 2013, when that same plant, Waitara, was downscaled due to gas availability around the Māui downgrade. So this is not an unusual way for the market to respond.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. During the back and forth around the first answer to the primary question by Dr Woods there, you made what was clearly a reference to—essentially, accused the front bench of the National Party of some sexist behaviour. Yesterday, I note Peeni Henare essentially made an animal noise at one of the female members of the National Party, and it went completely unpunished, so I’m just questioning here, really, the standards.

SPEAKER: I think the noise, which I didn’t recognise as an animal noise—the out-of-order noise that was made—resulted in a question being gained by the National Party. It was punished, but I am going to make it very clear that I will indicate to the House when I am unhappy with the amount of shouting down either of Ministers or of my deputy or assistants. I just make the point that there has been one thing that has been in common with the people who have been shouted down.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order, Mr Speaker. You’ve now, over a number a weeks—and I got kicked out of the House for it—made personal remarks about members on this side of the House. It’s simply not right, and I ask you, as a senior member of this Parliament, to stop doing it.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m going to ask the member to leave the House.

Hon Simon Bridges withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 11—Customs

11. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Customs: What is Customs doing to support the recovery of the New Zealand economy from the impacts of COVID-19?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): In addition to their border management role, Customs makes a contribution to the recovery of the New Zealand economy from the impacts of COVID-19 through its economic recovery programme. Customs is helping to kick-start the economy by supporting the Government’s trade recovery programme through work on free-trade agreements and APEC 2021, by progressing work on the Secure Trade Lane with Australia, and by expanding its Secure Exports Scheme. Customs has helped 370 businesses recover from financial hardship through repayment plans and instalment arrangements for customs duties.

Ginny Andersen: What is Customs doing to expand the Secure Exports Scheme?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Already supporting 133 New Zealand exporters, Customs is actively boosting the scheme, making it available for exporters who use airfreight and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) who may be ready to expand their export footprint. Customs is working directly with Māori businesses to respond to their exporting needs through this scheme, and making it easier for businesses to join the scheme. Customs is working to make members of the scheme succeed offshore through agreements with other countries, with eight of New Zealand’s top 10 export markets now recognising the Secure Exports Scheme.

Ginny Andersen: How will the Secure Exports Scheme support businesses during the economic recovery from COVID-19?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: As a member of the Secure Exports Scheme, New Zealand exporters benefit from less delay at international borders, reduced fees and costs, and support when there is trade disruption. They can also benefit from recognition by customers and Government agencies as a secure, trusted trader. Major markets such as China and the United States provide border clearance benefits to members. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has assessed that the international recognition of the scheme provides annual benefits of US$310 million in GDP to the New Zealand economy.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding the construction sector?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes, especially when I thank the members in this House for their support of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill last night.

Tim van de Molen: What steps has she taken, if any, to address the worker shortage being experienced right now in parts of the construction sector?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to ask the member to relate that to a statement or action that the Minister has done.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s asking what steps she’s taken, which is an action.

SPEAKER: Well, reinterpret it to say, “whether she has taken steps”—all right?—“and, if so, what?”

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have progressed the Construction Skills Action Plan to build capacity and capability in the construction workforce. This is also why we’re progressing the Construction Sector Accord, a genuine partnership between industry and Government, and that’s working to fix many of the issues and challenges facing the construction sector. I’d note also that more than 100,000 learners have signed up for the free vocational training and apprenticeships, under the Targeted Training and Apprenticeships Fund.

Tim van de Molen: So who is right: the Hon Grant Robertson, who stated, in relation to the workforce, his ability to deliver shovel-ready projects that the construction sector can absorb; or Watercare and City Rail Link, who say travel restrictions and significant local competition in the labour market are problems and they need a managed isolation and quarantine quota to bring in workers from Sydney?

SPEAKER: Order! The member has got to relate the question to the member’s responsibility.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was directly in relation to the worker shortage that’s been perceived and stated by numerous players in the industry and whether it can be met or not. Right now, there is a shortage, and the Minister has given an indication of a number of plans for the future, but not now.

SPEAKER: And the member has given comments from the Minister for Infrastructure and some unrelated party, which may or may not be consistent but for which this Minister does not have responsibility.

Tim van de Molen: Will she commit to advocating for her industry by supporting an immediate trans-Tasman travel bubble to secure the skilled workers desperately needed for the construction sector?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I am an advocate for the building and construction sector, a sector that I’m very proud to represent as Minister. With regards to the second part of that question, it’s probably a matter for Ministers who are in charge of immigration and those exemptions.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

One year ago today, the Government launched the COVID-19 response package—a $12 billion response to what is arguably the largest global and economic shock any of us will have seen in our lifetimes. Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker now. That was a very quick shift, Madam Speaker! A year ago, we were facing very, very uncertain times. Nobody knew what the true extent of the scope of the COVID-19 economic shock was going to be, but we did know one thing, and that was that, as a Government, we wanted to back New Zealanders through it. We wanted to keep Kiwis in work. We wanted to get them back to work. We wanted to make sure that people weren’t put out of work as a result of COVID19. And that is what our response was based on. We wanted to make sure that we kept COVID, and we drove COVID-19, out of New Zealand and we kept it out of New Zealand, and that is what we have been focused on. We made the decision as a Government that we were not going to make the problem worse by trying to cut our way out of it, which was the course of action pursued by the last Government after the global financial crisis. We made a decision that we were going to take a different path, and the results speak for themselves.

New Zealand is bouncing back faster because of the actions of this Government. Manufacturing is up relative to what it was before COVID-19. Building and construction is up relative to what it was before COVID-19. To quote the International Monetary Fund (IMF) divisional chief Harald Finger, who said, “New Zealanders had a very successful response to the COVID crisis and a better recovery than most other advanced economies.”—that’s the IMF saying that about New Zealand, and other countries are looking on and wishing that they were in the position that we are. The latest Crown accounts show that our books are in much better shape than had been forecast, and that is something that we can all be proud of. Our credit rating has been upgraded. New Zealand is doing well in our response.

But I want to highlight something that I am particularly proud of, and that is the work that we have been doing to keep people in work and to get them back into work, and particularly in the areas where we have skills shortages. After the global financial crisis, the number of people in apprenticeships and in on-job training and training through our polytechs plunged, and we suffered for a decade—for a decade—because of the skills shortages that created. We were determined, going into this economic shock, that we were not going to repeat that mistake. That is why we launched the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund to provide fees-free training that has seen over 100,000 New Zealanders training in those areas where we have skills shortages. It’s why we launched the Apprenticeship Boost, because we know, when the economic going gets a bit tougher, apprentices are often the first ones to find themselves out of work, and we did not want to see that happen. As a result of the Apprenticeship Boost, not only have we kept people in apprenticeships, apprenticeship numbers have grown. In the second half of the year last year, we signed up roughly double the number of apprentices as in the second half of the year prior to that. That is a sign that our Apprenticeship Boost scheme is working. Contrast that with the global financial crisis, when the last Government were quite content to sit back and bank the savings from having fewer apprentices.

That is one of the things that is holding back New Zealand—and the fact that we do not have the skilled workers to meet the needs of business throughout New Zealand. Their answer, on the other side, was simply to answer all of those problems through migration. We need to do a better job of training our own, training the people that we have in New Zealand to fill the jobs that we’ve got available. That is what we have been focused on as a Government, and the results are starting to show. Yes, we still have some skills shortages that we rely on people coming through the border to fill in the short term. We’ve seen 4,000-plus essential health workers coming through the border to help out our health system in a time of crisis, and we will continue to make sure that those we need to come through the border for our economic recovery are able to do so. But it is also important that we don’t simply use that as the easy way out—that we make sure we’re providing training opportunities for Kiwis so that they can get back into work, so that young Kiwis can train in skills for the jobs of the future. That is what our Government is focused on. We are absolutely committed to supporting New Zealanders through the recovery, to building back better, and to keeping COVID-19 out of New Zealand so that our economy can thrive where so many others are suffering.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t doubt for a second that this Government and our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, seriously want more families living in warm, dry, affordable homes and want more stability for New Zealanders that rent. I don’t doubt that the Minister of Housing, Megan Woods, or the Minister before her, Phil Twyford, have warm intentions when it comes to wanting to build more homes. It’s good that our politics is kind and civilised, and we can acknowledge that. But we still have to be honest with each other when the results don’t come in—and the results haven’t come in.

The Government’s policies are failing New Zealanders. KiwiBuild, the flagship policy, didn’t deliver a single home in January—not one. The Government has spent $30 million from the Land for Housing Programme on a deal at Ihumātao. That deal doesn’t say houses have to be built; it says they may be built. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development said that there may be other uses more suitable for the land. So we’ve spent $30 million of taxpayers’ money that was supposed to be set aside for homes for our families and not a single home might be built—not a single home. In the meantime, Fletcher Building has stopped the development they were meant to start in 2019 to build almost 500 homes. We’ve actually gone backwards.

This Government was elected to make housing affordable. Over three years later, the median house price has risen astronomically. Reports show not only that housing in New Zealand is unaffordable by international standards and getting worse, but also the reason why. We are not building enough homes. This shortage and price inflation had to filter through to the rental market, and it has. The Government’s policy is to impose higher standards on rentals. So another well-intended policy has pushed rents up and led to an even greater shortage of houses available for families to rent, as landlords sell up. This affects students struggling to find affordable accommodation at this time of year, and young professionals and families who were struggling before and are struggling even more now.

Here is a simple, practical example of why the Government’s policies haven’t helped: heat pumps. A new law requires the installation of larger heat pumps in many rentals. Bigger sounds better and warmer except that larger heat pumps are more costly to run and, as a result, they’re less likely to be turned on to heat rooms, especially when there’s just enough money coming in to pay rent and feed the kids. That’s not to mention the initial cost. But if landlords don’t install an oversized heat pump, they can’t rent it out. It’s the law. This is just one small example of how the Government, with the best will in the world, makes things worse. We need an honest conversation about housing. Kindness doesn’t help much when you’re homeless, when you’re forced to make hard and painful life decisions. Sadly, that’s the reality for more and more people in this country. The Government’s policies on housing haven’t seen results. They haven’t even stopped things getting worse.

Last week I met an adoring father to a bubbly, beautiful one-year-old girl. He’d love to give her a sibling to share a bond with and grow with. But he and his wife had to make that hard call to stop at one child. Most of their weekly income goes on rent and they couldn’t afford to save any money for a house to provide stability for their little girl with a second child to feed and clothe. Every rental price increase makes it harder for a person making a plan to leave an abusive or threatening relationship. Higher rents make it harder to get out safely with the kids and find an affordable long-term rental on one income. New Zealanders shouldn’t be forced to choose between their safety, the wellbeing of their children, or children at all, just to put a roof over their heads.

Over the last two years, the rental cost of a three-bedroom home has increased 40 percent in Highbury in Palmerston North. None of the Government’s policies on housing has fixed this. If the Government really wants to end child poverty, end people living in cars and garages and motels, and ensure more people have access to warm, dry homes, it needs to act. It needs to get to the root of the problem—too few homes. It needs to make it easier to build, and that is what this Government should care about. If they need solutions, they’re welcome to head to the ACT Party website and read our solutions in full. They might find it enlightening. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I look around the House today and I want to thank the team of 5 million. One year ago, we were all in lockdown, facing unprecedented, uncharted waters because of a global pandemic. And the way that the Government acted—we went hard and we went early. We ensured that we were going to take an evidence-based response to get New Zealanders through. Why? Because we put people first. And under the leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, she maintained that the best economic response is a strong health response, and that approach remains true to this day. It has worked. Countries all around the world have looked towards not only the way in which New Zealand’s approach has worked for our situation but what they can learn from us.

Now, we don’t profess to have all the answers, but we do know that when you put people first, and when you take decisions that actually try and cushion the economic impacts of your people, then things can go in a very different path, unlike after the global financial crisis, taking a pathway of austerity. We would not accept that that would be the pathway.

I too want to acknowledge that while these were unprecedented and uncharted times, the Government was not going to sit idly back and say we have no opportunity here to try and make things better. We leaned in and we sent all the signals that needed to be sent and made the necessary decisions to ensure, alongside a strong health response, we were going to ensure that we would have skilled people prepared for the future of work and the investment in there, and also making decisions in terms of the Government’s role in infrastructure to ensure that we were going to partner into the long-term resilience of our economy.

But let me come back a bit, because at the end of the day we all represent people and communities. And the things that made a difference absolutely, alongside the health response, was the way in which we tried to cushion the impact of closed borders on our economy. I think about the wage subsidy. I think about the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme and the businesses that we were able to help, benefiting around about 100,000 businesses, and how grateful they were, because they were contemplating folding during a very difficult time when they really couldn’t see too far down the pathway. I think about the way in which we were able to support self-employed workers—the leave support scheme, the Resurgence Support Payment, again, the wage subsidy and its extension. And all through this process, while we didn’t have a rulebook, we knew we had to act and act with haste, because there was a very real prospect that we could be in a worse off position than we are today.

New Zealand’s credit rating is triple A. No other country around the world has received that credit rating, and I want to acknowledge our finance Minister. It positions us well to build the long-term resilience that we’re committed to, to create the new normal. And that new normal is not about doing the things that we’ve always done; that new normal is leaning into the very real challenge of climate change. That new normal is leaning into the very real challenge of trying to restore equity.

And we don’t have quick-fix solutions to challenges that have been systemic, such as housing. Nine years of the previous Government made the situation absolutely challenging, because they pulled away from the commitment to invest in public housing. We’ve reversed that. We continue to not only address the very critical and real issues of homelessness, transitional housing, building the public stock, but actually ensuring that homeownership is a very real prospect. We will continue along this pathway.

What I’m most proud about, though, is that in imploring on the efforts of the 5 million that we have in our country to respond to COVID, it will take that same effort to ensure that our commitment to strengthen our people, our communities, and our business all will continue. And what that will mean is, as we undertake the vaccination roll-out this year, as we prepare for borders to open, then we will need all people to be able to support the next steps going forward—very proud about this, very proud about the international recognition, the trust and confidence that has been put in our hands as a Government because of the decisions we’ve been making, and we don’t say that glibly. We know that we are making a difference for the future of New Zealand.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well, I thought I might talk about COVID and what’s been happening over the last year.

Todd Muller: That’ll be something different.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, slightly different. Of course, since the announcement was made this time 12 months ago, we’ve spent a cool $40 billion—I think that some of us forget that. But I think what is happening now is: this concept about a team of 5 million, slogans like “Building Back Better”, I think they are just fraying at the edges a little bit.

I’ll tell you what, Madam Speaker, I know you are from the South Island, but if you’d been in Auckland last week—or the week before, actually, when we had our third lockdown, it was a debacle. It was an absolute debacle in the sense that we had a Government that once again made residents very, very concerned about what was happening with potential infections, sent us into a lockdown for a week, and not one new case came to light. And then we had that ridiculous sham—that ridiculous sham—of the Prime Minister delaying the announcement, even though the decision had been made on the Friday, until the next morning, and she expected cafes, hoteliers, and all those sorts of people, to be able to ring up their staff and have them there within half an hour for lunch and to get all the supplies on a Saturday morning. It was a sham, shambles, and outrageous. What did that cost the country? Oh, I don’t know; maybe a cool $300 million; maybe $400 million—$400 million is what this Government has only been prepared to give to the tourism industry, even though it has spent 40 billion bucks over the last 12 months. We have got places all around the country that are suffering incredibly, but this Government can’t give any support—any real support—to those companies, particularly in the tourism industry, that really need a hand—really need a hand.

Then we hear today the Hon David Bennett asking, “What about helping our agriculture sector?” We heard, “Oh yes, we’ve opened up the scheme to allow immigrants to come in from Niue, but we won’t open it up to places like Vanuatu. We won’t open to places like Samoa that don’t have COVID, who rely on New Zealand, who were prepared to come here and help our industries.” No, no, no, no; it’s all about innovation. How long does it take to put innovation in place? How long? How long, if you are running a business, does it take to put innovation in place?

I’ll give you an example of innovation. Under this Government, they put up and gave, as part of an innovation grant, $3 million to a firm. This has happened over the last 12 months. It’s all about a specific recycling business. One of the people there is an immigrant, and because this Government won’t allow his family to come to New Zealand, that one operator—and he is a very, very specialised operator—as soon as he can, will be leaving this country because he cannot get his family here. I think that is really, really insensitive.

We have also had my good colleague Erica Stanford talking about what it means for nurses. We need 2,000 nurses to do the vaccination—2,000 nurses. We’ve got a lot of international nurses working in New Zealand and, of course, because the Government won’t let their families in, they will disappear overnight as soon as they get the opportunity to do it.

Now, a smart Government might have said, “Let’s go to the private sector. Let’s have a discussion with the private sector because they might be able to help that.” But, of course, this Government knows all! It doesn’t know how to engage with businesses. We’ve already heard the CEOs say to the Government, “Lay out your plan. Lay out your economic plan. Lay out your vaccination plan. Lay out your health plan.” Nothing. There is no plan. You only react—sorry, Madam Speaker—this Government only reacts to pressure from this Opposition and from the media—and from the media. What does it look like in the polls? This is costing us a lot of money.

Why don’t you open up New Zealand to Australia—the bubble with Australia? Why don’t we have some of those Australian supporters who wanted to come and see our good netball team beat them here, the cricketers come and get beaten by the New Zealand teams? We should be allowing them in. Why don’t you like Australians?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m intrigued by the member who’s just resumed his seat, Andrew Bayly, whose complaint seems to be, about the lockdown in Auckland most recently, that “Look—they took action because there was something wrong, and it worked.” That’s his complaint. I don’t get it. I don’t understand it. It did the right thing. It stopped the infection spreading. That’s why we do those lockdowns, and, fortunately, we’re so good at it we can limit it to level 3. People have to stay in their homes, there’s a limited amount of business that can be transacted, but we can very quickly get out of it and go into level 2 and then down to level 1, which is what happened. That’s actually good management of COVID-19 and the risk associated with it.

I remember this time last year, when the precautions were starting, we were being told to wash our hands. I remember being at the WOMAD event, the last big mass event before lockdown happened, and we were told we weren’t allowed to shake hands. We had to do this thing with our feet that made the whole thing look like a rendition of Riverdance. We had to sort of bump our elbows. But that was the start of taking precautions to keep New Zealand and New Zealanders safe.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of some real heroes during this time. The Ministry of Health, who really had to pull out all stops, and so many officials from the Ministry of Health and so many people from our health sector who had to get on board and do new stuff, do extra stuff, do stuff we’d never heard about or planned for before and get stuck in. In that respect, I acknowledge the director-general, Ashley Bloomfield; the Director of Public Health, Dr Caroline McElnay; and the incredible work they did in laying out the strategy, giving confidence to people, communicating to New Zealanders every day, along with the Prime Minister and other Ministers, to give people confidence to get through what were very, very difficult days.

I want to acknowledge the nurses and the doctors and all those healthcare workers who had to suddenly change what they were doing, make sure patients were safe, make sure that the hospitals were ready in case there was a surge and that we were all prepared and ready to go, make sure that we got our personal protective equipment out and that those on the front line were kept safe. I want to acknowledge those who’ve been working in our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, the extra staff that have been brought in, the defence personnel, the health personnel who have had to work there as well. I want to acknowledge our amazing Minister for COVID-19 Response, Chris Hipkins, who has really, you know, grabbed the nettle by the horns—does a nettle have horns? Anyway, grabbed the nettle, grabbed the bull by the horns—grabbed both of them, if necessary—and really worked since July to manage intensively all the necessary responses as we’ve relaxed the lockout procedures, had to beef up what we do on the borders.

That’s been tough stuff, because it hasn’t all been plain sailing. It hasn’t all happened in a straight line. Things have gone wrong and there’ve had to be responses, and we’ve had to work up new ways of responding as well—so making sure the contact tracing is in place, making sure the COVID-19 app is working and functioning and new functions are added to it, making sure that—would you believe, you know, when everybody’s describing us as being up that proverbial creek, that we’re actually testing the waste water, and we’ve been doing that? Who gets to do that job? Not many people in that queue for that job, but we’ve been doing that. All that stuff is helping us get information, get data—that is all about helping to keep us safe. That is about New Zealand and New Zealanders rising to the challenge. And it has been tough; those members opposite are right. It has been tough on businesses because they’ve been thrown into uncertainty and a sense of insecurity, but that’s why the Government’s impetus and investment regime has been so important. That’s what’s giving certainty. The wage subsidy package that came out—$14 billion, as the Minister of Finance has talked about today—that’s actually what’s helped keep so many businesses together.

Then there’s the other stuff we’ve had to do, the ongoing investment in social support as well, in education—and we heard my colleague the Hon Aupito William Sio talking about the extra support that was given to keep Pasifika students in our schools focused and learning, because if that disruption continued for too much longer, if they didn’t have that extra support, that affects their life chances. I know in health more money went into supporting folks through this very anxiety-ridden time, this time that has caused more people to feel less happy, to feel a little depressed. So we put more money into mental health, made mental health and talk therapies available through 1737 and other 0800 numbers so that that was there.

All of this has been done, I might say—the step up by our health ministry and health sector—after years and years of underfunding by the previous Government, and they’ve really had to pull out all stops, not only to keep business as usual going, keeping everybody healthy and safe, but actually to step up to this new challenge of this new pandemic in a way we’ve never seen before. So I take my hat off to our health practitioners, mental health practitioners—all those across the board who’ve done such a terrific job in trying times.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. In today’s Dominion Post there’s a letter to an editor, “Will I ever own a home?” from Hudson Todd, age 12. “With the large nationwide increase in house prices,” he writes, “I’m worried I’ll never be able to buy my own home. There is an extreme housing shortage”. The Government needs to take action. “The Government has to do something about this before parents get stuck with their kids forever!”

I can understand the concern of that 12-year-old, but with the extreme increase in house prices we’ve seen over the past year, it’s not just the next generation who are still living with their parents. I know a 38-year-old builder, who is an incredibly hard worker. He and his wife have both been self-employed for a long time. She’s taken the last year off because they had their first child. They live with her parents in a rental in Johnsonville. They’ve been saving up for a deposit so they could buy their own place, and maybe even build his own place. But with the median house price increasing at such a rate, $50,000 across the country in just February alone, $100,000 in Auckland. If you live in Auckland, that’s an additional $20,000 in one month that you would need for a deposit on a first home. No one on a normal income can save $20,000 in one month. In fact, many people in New Zealand on the median income would be lucky to save that in a year.

That builder’s my brother, by the way. He’s a real person, and there are so many like him that have been locked out of the housing market. I know that the Government has every intention to address this crisis, but the reality is that this was a crisis several years ago, and now, in the last year, it has gotten so much worse. I have a little graph here, just to show you. [Holds up graph] This is data from Bernard Hickey at The Kākā, and it shows realised capital gains by New Zealand landlords over the last period of time. You can see it was going up. It was going up. Look at what’s happened just in 2020. That was before the most recent increase that we’ve seen over the past few months.

So the Green Party has put forward constructive solutions. We have a four-point plan that we announced today. Firstly, remove the cap from the brightline test. This is a simple action that could be taken. It doesn’t mean introducing a new tax. It is entirely fair. We already have a law that if you’re investing primarily for the purpose of capital gains, you should pay tax on that capital gain when you get the income. But having a five-year limit on that brightline test, or even if that’s extended to 10 years, can have perverse incentives and cause people to hold on to properties longer. Just get rid of it. If you’re buying a home not to live in, you should pay tax on the profit that home makes when you sell it.

Secondly, we think there are a bunch of tools that can be given to the Reserve Bank, and I know some of them have been investigated. One is ending interest-only mortgages for investors. That is incredibly important for the financial stability of the country as well. Put in debt-to-income ratios for investors, and we also think we should look at limiting it to cash deposits for investors, or at least limiting the amount of equity they can take out of their existing home. While we’re in this state of increasing house prices, what happens is those who already own property have even more equity which they can then use to buy up more properties and bid up the price of more properties, while those who don’t own property are left further and further behind, unable to save up that deposit. Those are some tools we’d like to see the Reserve Bank get ASAP. There is no time to waste.

Thirdly, the Government has to take responsibility for its role in stimulating the economy. The Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, listed a lot of nice things they did last year—slightly increasing benefits, increasing benefits for those who were particularly affected by COVID-19—but that is insufficient. Reserve Bank has said that they’re continuing their monetary stimulus because the Government’s not pulling enough fiscal levers. This is the time to raise income support. This is the time to implement the recommendations of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report to end child poverty. We could do it. We could do it in this three-year term. There is no excuse for this Government not to do that right now. And the best, most direct way to stimulate the economy is to give money to people who don’t have enough.

Finally, and I wanted to talk about this a lot but I’ll run out of time, using Kāinga Ora to build affordable homes, not just houses out in the suburbs, it has to be quality—density done well. Let’s scale it up: 5,000 homes a year, either State houses or community, papakāinga housing around public transport.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I want to cast my mind back to a year ago today. A year ago today, my husband and I were frantically trying to arrange an airfare home for our 18-year-old daughter who was in the United Kingdom on what was supposed to be her gap year. I remember it very clearly. About 4 o’clock, this time a year ago, we got the news that we had a flight for her, and the next morning, she was on a flight home.

We got her home safe to New Zealand, where she has been safe ever since—safe from this virus that is creating enormous hardship and misery around the world with an astonishing death toll. But here in New Zealand, we have been very much safe from this virus, and that has been because of the stunning and superb response to the virus by this Government, a response that has been lauded around the world.

A year ago today, we also had the announcement of the emergency response package. We knew that we would need to support New Zealanders through the pandemic, through what was becoming a very worrying situation. We knew that we would need to support businesses. We knew that we would need to support people to remain in their jobs. That was what inspired the wage subsidy, to keep people attached to their jobs and to help businesses to keep going. We had the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, all sorts of measures to help businesses. But all along we knew that the best economic response was to have an excellent health response in the first place so that we could keep going. And that response has been acknowledged around the world.

But, of course, we have had to keep on using those tools of lockdown, and most recently in Auckland, which was locked down in level 3 again for a week. I was there during the lockdown. Actually, I was out of town the day that the lockdown was announced, but I knew I had to get back to my own electorate. So I went back to Auckland so that I could be there, as all of us MPs were, to support our constituents.

We did all of that support work as best we could. But last week and earlier this week, I went out and door-knocked our businesses in Avondale, actually, in Auckland. So we’ve had previous speakers here talking today about the feeling in Auckland and how people got through it. Here’s what people told me.

So, Sok and Theara, who run a cafe in Avondale, were very grateful for the support they got from the Government. They had to close their doors entirely for that week three; they didn’t particularly do the takeaway business. But they were grateful for the resurgence payment and for the wage subsidy that has helped them to get through this last most recent lockdown. Nainesh, who runs the dairy just along from my electorate office, his turnover was well down. He could stay open, but, nevertheless, because people weren’t on the street, his turnover was well down. But he was able to get the resurgence payment and the wage subsidy, and that has helped him to keep going.

That was the story that I got from the business people on the streets in my electorate. And I suppose that’s the first bit of news that came out from it. They were very, very grateful for the resurgence payment and for the wage subsidy. It made a real difference to them. We know that something like about 37,000 businesses in this country have accessed the wage subsidy or the resurgence payment or both.

The second thing was that most of them actually found the IRD website to claim the resurgence payment and the wage subsidy pretty easy to navigate. So the payment was available to them and it was easy for them to access.

But the third thing I found from my local businesses was a sense of nervousness, a sense of worry that the virus would get in again. They were grateful for the borders that were being kept very, very tightly controlled. They wanted the virus kept out. They wanted to make sure that our borders were very tightly controlled so that they would stay safe, so that we could continue to live fairly much as usual, within New Zealand itself. So they had a strong sense of nervousness about that. But they knew that the Government would do their best to help them get through. Amongst that gratefulness was a sense of reassurance that the Government was on their side and doing the best we could to help our local businesses.

That’s what we need to do: keep on doing our bit to keep all of us safe, to keep us going, to keep New Zealand COVID-free and successful.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m going to turn my attention to the tourism sector in my general debate contribution today. I know that there is a lot of people that say that some places are doing really well and domestic tourism has filled the gap for a lot of tourism destinations around this country. But there are other places in New Zealand—the hard-to-reach places, the places that have evolved and developed over time to cater for the international visitor. Now, we’ve got to keep this in context and remember that tourism was New Zealand’s biggest earner pre-COVID, so this is a significant part of the New Zealand economy and, boy, are they suffering now.

We have an example in Jackson Bay, and probably a lot of you won’t know where that is—south of Haast on the West Coast. Now, there is a husband and wife team that run a jet boat operation down there. They would take three or four trips a day. Now they’re lucky if it’s one or two trips a week. And now they’re supplementing their own income by having to go out and get other work, which is lucky that they’ve been able to do that. But the other example is the Scenic Hotel Group. Now, what a brave but selfless decision that they made to close four of their big hotels down there for at least a year to 18 months so that the capacity could be filled by the small operators, the motel owners in those glacier towns and in Haast so that they can stay afloat, and so they’re hoping that that oversupply from their beds will flow over into these other businesses. But the Development West Coast agency on the coast has mentioned to the Minister of Tourism that we are going to suffer the loss of 400 jobs, and that’s over half of the population of the Glacier Country because of these businesses closing down, and we can expect another 16 businesses to close their doors soon, because the season is basically over and there is no hope on the horizon in terms of the tourism industry rebounding.

But what people may not realise is that in these small towns that have developed for the international tourism market, it has reached a capacity to maintain a school, to maintain their volunteer organisations like St John, like the fire brigade. And what we’re seeing now is the depopulation of those towns, which means that all of those other services, support services, are now suffering—where you can’t have a fireman go out on his own to respond to a road accident. St John are under pressure because their volunteers are disappearing. Another impact on the coast, of course, is KiwiRail. It used to deliver 400 passengers a day into Greymouth. They reduced it back to four days a week; they’re now in the process of making a decision to run that down to two over the winter. That is a huge impact on these small towns.

But what I would like to move on to is the Minister of Tourism, the Hon Stuart Nash. He turned up in Franz, shamed into visiting there because he had been absent. In fact, when I went down to visit the tourist operators in Franz with the Hon Todd McClay, they told us it was the first time since National was last in Government that a tourism Minister had visited one of the most iconic tourist destinations in this country. So Minister Nash turned up down there and he repeated his mantra, and I quote, “It is time to have that very difficult discussion with your bankers, your employers, your creditors and your community, because we cannot save every business.” Well, he could give $5 million to the likes of AJ Hackett and good luck to him. So you know what the community said about Mr Nash’s visit: the meeting was a complete waste of time—and it was.

The solution is so easy: open up the travel bubble with Australia. We resume up to 70 percent of our international tourist numbers. It is supported by business. It’s supported by Australia. It is supported by people like Professor Michael Baker, a health expert. Please open up the bubble. They are gasping for breath on the West Coast in those small tourist destinations. Open up the border with Australia before they breathe their last breath.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Kia ora koutou. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in the general debate today. I want to start by acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 on other countries around the world, with more than 2.5 million deaths worldwide and countries including the US, Brazil, India, Russia, and the UK and France suffering hugely in terms of loss of life. I also want to reflect on some words that Nobel Prize - winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote back late last year when referring to New Zealand’s response. He said “It’s a country in which competent Government relied on science and expertise to make decisions, a country where there is a high level of social solidarity. Citizens recognise that their behaviour affects others.” He goes on to say “New Zealand has managed to bring the disease under control and is working to re-deploy some underused resources to build the kind of economy that should make the post-pandemic world one that is greener and more knowledge-based, with even greater equality, trust, and solidarity.”

I want to focus purely on the point here that New Zealand people recognise that their behaviour affects others, and I just want to take a moment to say how proud I am of Aucklanders, who stuck to their bubbles in level 3, who remained vigilant in terms of keeping social distance in level 2, and who now, at level 1, can be proud of the fact that our collective action has allowed us to return safely to level 1. We know that this hasn’t been an easy period for many, that many businesses have been creative in their responses, but our economy is bouncing back faster than many others around the world. Many have spoken to me about valuing the Government supports provided during this time. They talk about things like the support they have received through the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, which has benefited over 100,000 businesses so far. They talk about helping businesses pay workers, including self-employed workers told to self-isolate because of COVID-19, through the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme. They talk about the new Resurgence Support Payment, and they also talk about the wage subsidy scheme. But there’s more. People also talk to me about how we’re supporting our emerging workforce. It was really exciting to see that over 100,000 people have benefited from free trades training since it was launched just last year, in July. I was also really excited to see that we recently announced a $5.5 million funding boost for Māori trades and training—just fantastic.

I ran Zui for people in Upper Harbour while we were at level 2 to respond to some of the questions about the Government supports available as well as answer other questions. There were so many conversations I’ve had with constituents where people have recognised the importance of protecting all of us here in New Zealand, taking a strong health response, and continuing to do so while the vaccine is rolled out. There is a real sense from many people I’ve spoken to about the strong position we’re now in compared to many countries around the world. In terms of the vaccine, I’m hearing a lot of positivity from people about choosing to take the vaccine when it’s available to the broader public, but I must admit that I’ve also been concerned to hear the echoes of misinformation that do exist. Misinformation isn’t something new. However, when it threatens people’s very lives and our collective health, there’s a particular call on all of us to highlight how to identify false information and, most importantly, how to locate accurate information. Because of this, we now have a new obligation in terms of social solidarity. In addition to being vigilant about hand-washing, scanning, and wearing masks where required, we need to all seek out, hold, and pass on information responsibly about the vaccine. The best source of information is the Government’s COVID website, and I’d encourage all New Zealanders to add the website covid19.govt.nz to your favourites so you can quickly check in on the facts as the vaccine roll-out continues. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Before I take the next call, can I just encourage the House, particularly new members who are reading off prepared speeches—I encourage you members to break away from the prepared speech and speak directly to the House.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to begin my contribution this afternoon by saying a thankyou. I want to say thank you to all our health workers, all our managed isolation and quarantine facility (MIQ) workers, all our essential workers, who have been on the front line since the beginning of this pandemic here in New Zealand. Sometimes I think we don’t give them enough thanks and acknowledge them enough. So that’s how I wanted to begin my contribution.

I for one am extremely grateful and relieved to be living here in New Zealand, and as Dr Deborah Russell mentioned earlier, a year ago with her daughter having been overseas, my daughter was also overseas, and she only just came home in December. So that whole entire time of her being away has been an extremely stressful and anxious time for our family. To have her home here in New Zealand, where it is safe, so safe compared to other countries, has been a huge relief to us as a family, and she herself, upon coming home, has acknowledged—and is quite astounded now as she’s experiencing it firsthand—the freedoms that we have here in New Zealand and that we are living relatively normal lives albeit with a few lockdowns here and there over the time we’ve been in this really lucky position.

I have a friend who’s living in Scotland and has had to home-school her children for almost a year. So, actually, we are very, very lucky here in New Zealand. Andrew Bayly brought up the fact that $40 billion has been spent so far. Well, I would rather spend $40 billion and take on some debt than suffer the loss of tens of thousands of Kiwis’ lives, as was modelled at the very beginning of this pandemic here in New Zealand.

I’d like to move on to something a little bit more localised and in my electorate—some of the great initiatives that this Government has been putting into place to help support communities around New Zealand. I want to talk about the free school lunch package that this Government has initiated. I want to pay tribute to the 1,211 free school lunches that are going out to our children around Timaru. Because of this recent initiative and the growth in the initiative of free school lunches now including the secondary schools, 13 jobs have been created in Timaru, and 12 of those 13 have been women. Of those women, the majority are mothers, and these mothers are appreciating the opportunity to be either back in the workforce or to be able to undertake work after having lost their job through COVID. We know that women have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, many of them being parents as well as having to take on extra work or even being a front-line worker. Actually, a lot of our women have been essential workers on those front lines—nurses, MIQ staff—so we know that women have been disproportionately affected here.

But what I want to say is that there is a woman—the operations manager, Mataia. I just want to quote something that she has said with regard to the additional roll-out of free school lunches. She has said, “There’s less child absenteeism, more positive behaviour, better mental health, and they have more energy in the afternoons.” That, to my mind, is a very, very good thing and money very well spent.

I just want to quickly touch on the regional apprenticeship initiative fund that Venture Timaru has been administering on behalf of the Government though mid, south, and north Canterbury. All 100 apprenticeships have now been filled, and Nigel Davenport says, “This is a real success story of targeted support that really hits the spot.” So there are 100 new apprentices throughout north, south, and mid-Canterbury, which is a win, and once again I am so grateful and feel lucky to live in New Zealand.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to rise as the member of Parliament for Southland. It’s a regional economic powerhouse with two of the key industries that underpin the New Zealand economy: farming and tourism. But I want to speak this afternoon to tourism, a sector which is under incredible stress in my region, and, in particular, to two places: Te Ānau and Queenstown. Now, Te Ānau: I have photographs of 11 shops that have closed since roughly this time last year due to the loss of international tourism to the region. In Queenstown, a third of businesses in downtown Queenstown estimate that they won’t survive winter—i.e., roughly the next three months. So we’re talking about 60 businesses.

Now, I want to stress that this is not just about business. We’re talking about mostly small to medium sized businesses, and businesses are about people, and people are about communities. So if we have businesses who can’t employ staff, that’s people who lose their jobs. That’s also the business owners who lose their income, and their family lose their income. I’ve spoken to a number of business owners who have been hanging on for just short of 12 months now, since the borders closed on 24 March last year, and they have been borrowing against the equity in their homes to keep their businesses going and keep their staff employed. They can’t keep doing that for much longer.

That’s what we’re seeing, unfortunately, in Te Ānau, an amazing town on the lake. That’s on the way to Milford Sound, one of the iconic destinations for people who think of New Zealand and come to this country. They’ve already been devastated. I’m pleased to say there are still operators who are hanging on in Te Ānau and providing experiences, providing meals at restaurants, providing opportunities for people to go and see the surrounding region on various amazing trips, but they are under huge stress at the moment. The same thing is happening in Queenstown for the tourism operators.

When I say “tourism”, we’re talking about a broad swathe of industries. We’re not just talking about those offering experiences for people. We’re talking about restaurants, we’re talking about cafes, and we’re talking about accommodation providers, and they are under huge stress. It has been described to me that the tourism sector is experiencing its version of an economic earthquake, and they are crying out for help and support from this Government. A lady from Queenstown wrote to the Minister this week, expressing a view that’s been expressed to me many times, in fact, by local people in the industry. They feel they have been abandoned by the Government, and they are calling for the Government to do something, to do anything—more specifically, to provide a plan for them so that they can determine what their future is and how long they can hang on for.

We have called, as the National Party, for opening the trans-Tasman bubble with Australia. I’m pleased to say that a number of experts have come out in support of that call, including the respected epidemiologist Professor Michael Baker, who has said that New Zealand and Australia are ready for a two-way bubble. He said we should embrace the traffic light system, as it is now known. We have a green zone with most states in Australia, a number of Pacific Island countries and New Zealand are already very good at managing this risk, and there is now a very low risk, he has said, of infection from all of Australia most of the time, and we are ready to open up for quarantine-free travel. There’s a huge benefit to us in getting this right, and it will make a huge difference to people’s lives in Te Ānau, in Queenstown, in Milford Sound, on the West Coast, in Wānaka, and in the Mackenzie Country. I’ve seen calls from the North Island as well, from operators there who are under huge stress.

People in our communities need this from the Government. If the Government isn’t going to open up the travel bubble with Australia, they need to tell us and tell our communities and tell our businesses and our employees what the plan is and when support is coming for our businesses who are fighting to stay afloat to support the economy in one of our biggest industries. We need this Government to step up.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I begin by wishing colleagues a happy St Patrick’s Day. As members can see, I have spared no expense on business attire today to acknowledge our Irish roots, and I see Louisa Wall has also covered herself in a beautiful emerald green. I saw Rino Tirikatene wearing a bright green tie. Clearly, Tirikatene is part of Irish whakapapa; in fact, Ngāi Tahu has plenty of Irish ancestry, as well.

I was fascinated by Jo Luxton’s comments in relation to COVID, saying how lucky we have been—how lucky we have been. Not how well the Government has done, but her emphasis was on how lucky we had been. I think that I would agree with that. We have, in many respects, had the luck of the Irish, with the number of outbreaks that we have seen—particularly in the last six months—that have not led to a more widespread outbreak. There is a strong element of luck.

I would also—and perhaps she was referring to this—refer to, I guess, the natural advantages that New Zealand has had in respect of when the COVID outbreak occurred. It was the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. The countries that were hit the hardest had very densely and heavily populated countries, often in dwellings where three or four generations were living in the same houses. We don’t have the sort of mass transit that became the vector for the spread of COVID in places like New York and the north of Italy and in London.

So we have had natural advantages, we’ve had luck, and, actually, we’ve had a Government that, by and large, has done a very good job. But so too must the Opposition, in keeping the Government’s feet to the flames on a number of issues, and we are marking this as some kind of anniversary—the first anniversary of when Budget measures were brought to the House on 17 March 2020. Well, the matter started much earlier than that, when I was raising this issue with the media on 26 January, and the Government was still on holiday.

It was, I think, because of the attention that was drawn to it by the Opposition that, at least in part, the Government was forced to respond, and the Opposition will continue to do that in two major areas. The first is in the vaccine. Now, I see the Minister for COVID19 Response will recall his comments last year, in that capacity, that “We are at the front of the queue for vaccines.” But two short months later, the message had changed to “Oh well, there are countries that need it more than we do.”, and that “We’ll just have to wait our turn.” Well, I might remind the Minister and the Prime Minister, and his and her colleagues, that they are Ministers for one country and one country only, and their first and primary responsibility is to keep—

Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s not true—that’s actually not true.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —Kiwis safe. Oh, if you take it over, well, and the Realm countries—

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s right, so don’t forget about them.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: True. Touché—a technicality that I’d thank the member for reminding me. But it is not Sweden and it is not Italy and it’s not the Middle East. The Ministers are Ministers with a responsibility to keep this country safe, and what disappointed me about the announcement on the vaccines last week—apparently we have a plan now. I’ve gone and had a look at the plan and I’m none the wiser about when I’m going to get the vaccine at all. But if I go on the Australian website and key in similar attributes with any geographical location, I will know the date, the week, I’m going to get the vaccine, if I was the same person in Australia.

Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s right—targeted 4 million by now; they’ve done 200,000.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Minister can rabbit on all he likes, but it was a rushed attempt to try and portray a plan that does not exist, and why is that so important? Because, by his own admission, the trans-Tasman bubble, the Pacific bubble, will be safest to open when there is a widespread vaccine in New Zealand.

So we will continue to keep the Government’s feet to the flames on those two crucial issues. The petition that the Opposition has launched only yesterday had 22,000 signatures by this morning, and that number is growing. The country wants the Government to act, the country is imploring the Government to act, and we support those calls.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.

From time to time a situation emerges that requires an urgent fix by means of a law change, and this is exactly one of those cases. The bill that the House is about to consider, if it agrees to this urgency motion, makes amendments to the Child Sex Offender Register to ensure that the law properly reflects Parliament’s intention when the register was put in place.

The 2017 Act was amended under urgency so as to bring within the scope of the Act some registered persons who had been identified as not registerable under its retrospective provisions. However, in February this year, the Supreme Court excluded from registration provisions some of the individuals whose qualifying offence was committed before that Act came into force, but who were convicted after the Act came into force. It was always Parliament’s intention that those people would be covered. Parliament’s had two goes at ensuring that they should be covered. The decisions of the court contradict that, and therefore we are using urgency to fix something to make sure that Parliament’s original intent has been upheld.

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

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I present a legislative statement on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

First, some acknowledgments. I would like to thank the officials for the hard work that they have done to get this bill to the House. I would like to thank the parties across the House, and in particular the spokespeople who worked with me to ensure that their caucuses were able to have line of sight of this particular legislation. But, mostly, I would like to thank the more than 14,000 police staff, who work every single day to keep us and our communities safe.

On 9 February, the Supreme Court made a decision that meant that offenders who were on the sex offender register for whom offences had occurred prior to the passing of the 2016 legislation but who were sentenced after that bill was enacted were no longer on the register. The retrospectivity of the legislation that we had passed as a Parliament was no longer applicable. The effect of that decision meant that nearly 600 offenders who were on the register were deregistered or in the process of being deregistered. What was really clear was the intent of Parliament when we passed the original legislation was that they would be included. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that the clarity of our legislation was not sufficient to ensure that that was the case.

Sometimes as parliamentarians, we don’t always get it right, but this bill is to actually give life to what we intended back then in 2016 with the primary legislation. Our primary role as parliamentarians is to keep our community safe, and, most importantly, to keep our children safe. One of the things that this does is to ensure that those people who need monitoring because of the fact that they have been charged with an offence under the legislation—we want to make sure that they continue to be safe.

The impact of sexual abuse, particularly on children, is a devastating thing, and we want to make sure that that doesn’t happen to our tamariki. The reason for having a register is to ensure that police are able to monitor those people to make sure that they know where they work, that they are clear about whether they work with children or not and are clear about their plans for travel, and that they know their names, their addresses, and suchlike, and without that, we cannot be sure that appropriate monitoring is in place.

The other thing that I need to say about that is that this is not a public register; it’s a register that is just for the use of Government agencies to assist in the monitoring. Now, there’s a reason we need to proceed with urgency. Because, as I say, those nearly 600 people have, in effect, been deregistered, the police will no longer have line of sight of where they are. So if we can proceed with this bill under urgency, we are then able to pop them back on the register, and then the police will be able to continue to have that monitoring function.

But the use of urgency shouldn’t be taken lightly, and I want to thank my colleagues from the Green Party for raising these issues with us. When we had our consultation across the House, I knew that this would be a matter of concern for them. I just want to thank them for their consistency. We understand your position, in the Green Party, and we thank you for your consistency, but we thank you mostly for engaging with the process and in the discussion.

There has been some discussion about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as section 7 is applied here, and I want to make it really clear that what we are indicating is there is sometimes a trade-off between the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and safety. I don’t think there is any stronger imperative than to ensure the safety of our children, and we want to make sure that the police are able to get people back on the register.

I just want to make some final statements, because this is not a piece of legislation that requires a lot of discussion. It’s fairly clear what we need to do, but I do need to say that we are part of a justice system that allows people to take appeals and have reviews, and that is what has happened in this case. This particular person took this matter to the High Court. When that was not successful, they took the matter to the Court of Appeal. When that was not successful, they took it to the Supreme Court, and even there, there was not unanimous decision-making on that. The Supreme Court ruled three to two.

So this is an issue that we know is vexatious, I guess, and sometimes, as politicians, we don’t always get it right. But what I want to say today is that today is the opportunity for us to correct this and to make this right. I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I just want to start by putting on the record that the National Party will be supporting this legislation, and we also support, as we already have, the use of urgency around this piece of legislation. I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Police for the work she did last week to ensure that we were informed and consulted on the piece of legislation, a very important piece of legislation. I just want to acknowledge you and your officials for the work that they have done.

The child sex offender registry legislation is a very important piece of legislation. It registers child sex offenders, ensures that police and corrections can monitor their movements, and has, above all else, to protect our young children from those who seek to commit incredibly awful offences against them. It has a purpose of reducing sexual offending against these children, and it is to reduce this risk through monitoring—an incredibly important piece of legislation.

Of course, Parliament has—as the Minister has already outlined—had one go, post the registration Act being put in place, to clarify the intent that this legislation was to ensure that irrespective of when offences were committed, this legislation to put someone on the registry could be applied. That is something about which the Supreme Court has, in a split decision, said that this legislation and the clarification passed in 2017 were not clear enough. This, as the Minister has outlined, has meant 600 people have been deregistered, out of what I’m informed is approximately 2,400 people on the registry. So this affects one quarter of the child sex offenders on the registry. This is no small matter. This is something which is incredibly serious and incredibly important.

This legislation which we are considering today ensures that those people are not removed from the registry, and also ensures that those sentenced in the time between the judgment being issued and the day at which this legislation is passed are able to be registered by application to the court. I think that’s incredibly important, because there have been approximately a month and a couple of days, and this means that those who would have committed offences before 2016 but were sentenced in that short period of time are able to also be registered. That will also continue to support the protection of New Zealanders.

The National Party will be raising a couple of questions, and one of the important questions we do want to raise is regarding new section 11 in clause 5 in the piece of legislation, which does mean that this bill does not apply to the appellant in the Supreme Court decision, in line with the general principle of section 33(1)(c) of the Legislation Act 2019. We will be asking some questions during the committee stage regarding this issue because we do also note that the Supreme Court was split on the issue of whether this individual should have been removed from the registry, as well. In fact, two justices said that he should be taken off the registry, regardless of the point of law that was being raised, and two justices said he should remain on the registry, with one justice not giving a judgment on that particular issue, due to the fact that that justice believed that because the law didn’t apply retrospectively in this case, it was not relevant. So we will be asking some questions around whether new section 11 should be, in fact, actually removed, with this legislation allowing for this case to be dealt with on its own merits separately, rather than Parliament also passing judgment on this particular issue.

I think it is important that the House recognises the fact that the individual in this case was convicted of and pleaded guilty to incredibly serious offences: 1,260 video files and 1,890 photographs of child pornography were found stored on his computers. These photographs were classified in the summary of facts according to the SAP scale, which ranks images of child pornography from level 1 up to level 5, and the images in the appellant’s computer included images in each of the five categories on this scale. This is a very serious case, and we will be asking questions around whether new section 11 does need to remain in the legislation.

As National has said, we will be supporting this legislation. We do support the use of urgency, because this is to do with the public safety of New Zealanders, particularly of children, and for anyone in this House—this is something which could affect anyone and their children. As a father of two young girls, I take this issue very seriously and I support this law. I support the registry and support us urgently fixing it so that these people are not kept off that registry. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity. I think there’s a few areas I’d like to outline in terms of acknowledging the work that’s gone on to date to bring this bill to the House under urgency. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the work that officials have done. I appreciate that when there are issues that need to be fixed quickly, there are a lot of hours that go on late in the night to be able to bring pieces of legislation to the House quickly in order to rectify when there are inconsistencies. I’d like to acknowledge the work that has happened to date.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Minister, who has undertaken to consult with parties across the House before this bill has reached the House. I’d like to congratulate her. While we’ve not got complete consensus on passing this bill today, it’s good to see that there have been discussions going on when there’s a matter of urgency that primarily affects New Zealand’s public safety and also that of our children. I’d also just quickly like to acknowledge the New Zealand Police. I know they’ve got a particularly strong policy unit—small, but strong—and I know that they have done an incredibly good job, as well as the initial work that was undertaken in 2016 to bring this bill to the House in the first place.

We have a bill that was passed back on 14 October 2016, when the Act came into force, and that established here in New Zealand a child sex offender register for the very first time. I understand it was modelled on one that was in Victoria, Australia, and there was considerable debate about how that would play out, how it would be administered, and how that would operate. Sometimes when that legislation is drafted, the intent of Parliament is clear at the time, but, as we have seen in this situation, the Supreme Court has made a ruling that has raised an issue, and that issue was raised just recently, on 9 February this year.

The Supreme Court has released a decision, and that determined that the registration provisions that were passed back in 2016 do not apply where the qualifying offence was committed before the Act came into force but the individual was not convicted and sentenced until after the Act came into force. That looks specifically at the issue of retrospectivity. So this bill, under urgency, clarifies the intent of Parliament: that these people should be included on that register. It is important to be able to do that, as already mentioned, for public safety here in New Zealand.

It is important to clarify Parliament’s intent back in 2016 that the Act would apply to persons who have committed a qualifying child sex offence irrespective of when that offence occurred. On just that note, can I just say that in the Minister’s initial speech to the House and from the other members that have spoken to date, it’s quite refreshing to have no one, for a change, in the House pointing the finger and saying whose fault this was, or saying that there’s some sort of detail that someone can be held accountable for. As the Minister has said, oversights are sometimes made, and it’s important that we correct those and put the safety of New Zealanders and our young people at the forefront. It is nice to be able to see that occurring today.

I think there is long-term work in New Zealand to be done in the space of making sure that our children are fully safe, healthy, and protected. There is an ongoing stream of work in a wide range of areas, and this is just one of them. The reason why we are bringing this bill to the House and why this is such a critical issue is that it is essential for the wellbeing and the sexual safety of children, their social circles, their whānau, their wider interactions, and for ensuring that those who are convicted and sentenced for historical child sex abuse are eligible for registration. I know—as already mentioned by Simeon Brown, the previous member—that that will resonate with parents across New Zealand, to make sure that we have a system in place that makes sure our kids are as safe as possible.

I won’t take up any more time. This is a bill that puts right something that needs to be fixed, and that is primarily for the safety and the wellbeing of New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I get to stand and take a call on this, the first reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. Can I just open by acknowledging Minister Poto Williams and the way that she has approached this. She brought Simeon Brown straight in to negotiate and look at a solution and work through this, so I want to acknowledge her.

I want to acknowledge Simeon Brown for the way that he has briefed and kept our caucus up to date in terms of what has happened, and I want to echo some of the comments that Minister Chris Hipkins made and just briefly touch on the fact that the reason why this ended up in the Supreme Court with a split decision is because the Supreme Court felt that the intent of Parliament was not clear enough around how we handled the retrospective side of the charging and then sentencing after the legislation had been passed. But the only thing that I would say in comment to that in terms of my own personal feelings on it is that both the District Court and the High Court were very clear about the intent of Parliament. It was a split decision in the Supreme Court.

So I want to acknowledge the police advisers and the policy team and policy unit that Ginny Andersen referred to, and the officials that obviously would have had to work very hard to be able to identify and ensure that the piece of legislation that we’re now using urgency to take through the House was actually going to fix that gap and send a very clear message—the intent of this Parliament—to our courts. So I want to acknowledge them for the work they’ve done around that. I think that the one thing that brings us all together as parliamentarians is always to try and protect and look after the most vulnerable in our society, and I think that we’d all agree that the children that are targeted by sexual predators would be considered some of the most vulnerable in our society. I think if we’re ever going to use urgency in this House, then the best use of urgency is to pass a bill like this, and we are fully committed to making sure that we pass this legislation today.

My colleague Simeon Brown raised a very important point, and that is the fact the clock is ticking. We do want to get this legislation passed so that there’s not too much work in getting child sex offenders back on to that registry. I think that he also raised the very valid point—it sounds like we’ll get to debate and have a discussion on it through the committee stage—and that is the original appellant. I personally feel very strongly that this person has been convicted of serious child—I don’t know if it’s sex offending. But they were certainly in possession of child pornography, and, actually, they should be going back on that registry.

I just want to say that we stand in strong support of this, we support those comments that there’s been very strong cross-party work and collaboration done on this, led by the Minister, and we’re very happy to be in the House tonight to support and pass this legislation. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and take a call on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. As the Minister and others have spoken to, this in many ways is really about a legislative fix and clarifying the intent of Parliament. I agree with my colleagues who have spoken about the fact that this, while not ideal, does happen from time to time, and I commend the Minister on her work in speedily responding to the Supreme Court decision, in a way that’s very appropriate, given the seriousness of the issues that we’re speaking about today.

I also just want to say how heartened I am by the support for this bill from colleagues across the floor and the comments about the need to protect our most vulnerable, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Of course, the principal Act in this case is the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, which came into force in 14 October 2016. This is a bill that amends that Act. The principal Act’s purpose is really about reducing sexual reoffending against child victims and reducing the risk posed by serious child sex offenders. It does that, essentially, by ensuring that key Government agencies have the information they need to actively monitor those offenders who are out in the community, and it also does that by providing up-to-date information that assists the police to more rapidly resolve cases of child sex offending.

So what this bill does—and a few of my colleagues have spoken to this—is ensure that the law explicitly includes those persons who committed a qualifying offence but who were convicted and sentenced after the Act came into force. So they committed the offence before, but were convicted and sentenced after.

At this stage, I always think that when we’re talking about children and young people, and the bills that are proceeding through the House, it’s important to reflect on our international obligations in relation to children. So I just want to speak and reference very briefly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, in particular, article 34, which states that “State parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes State parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bi-lateral and multi-lateral measures to prevent: (a) the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; (b) the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; [but also] (c) the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.”

The rate of child sex abuse in New Zealand is horrific, with some organisations whose commentaries I’ve read—they place it at one in five New Zealand children, which is extremely horrific. The organisation HELP estimates the rates at between one and three for young girls who would experience some sort of sexual abuse before they reach the age of 16 and one in seven young men before they reach adulthood. This is horrific and it’s absolutely something we need to address. So we need to ensure that the legislation we have in place to address this situation is robust and does protect these young people.

I think often people, when we’re reflecting on this really horrific thing that happens to many young people, focus on the act itself. But for many young people, they face years and years of psychological distress, stress, anxiety that also follows them through to adulthood. So it is very important that we ensure our legislation is robust, but also ensure that Parliament’s intent is very clear in regards to this important legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to this bill, as what will be the lone voice of opposition, on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand today. I think that there is absolutely no doubt across this House, and indeed in our good nation, that we do care about the rights and welfare of our children and young people, that the crimes to which this bill applies are some of the most heinous, damning, and damaging of crimes known to our criminal justice system and, indeed, to our society. The rates of abuse are high in New Zealand; we all know that. We have some of the highest rates of abuse in terms of sexual violence and domestic violence, and our children and young people experience both at some of the highest rates in the OECD, and we must absolutely do all that is in our power as lawmakers to keep those children and young people safe.

However, as lawmakers we also have a duty to uphold the rule of law, and the rights of New Zealanders. This bill represents what the Supreme Court found to be retrospectively applied legislation and punishment, and that it undermined sections 25 and 26 of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That has been echoed by a damning and clear finding by the Attorney-General in the report attached to this bill. So it is disappointing to hear members talk about the rights and welfare of children, indeed human rights conventions at the international level, whilst we know that this bill is undermining New Zealand’s own commitment to our fundamental domestic and international rights when it comes to the rule of law and to the fairness of our justice system.

So the rule of law is predicated on laws being known, transparent, clear, and knowable in particular to those that will be sanctioned pursuant to those laws. Retrospectively applied legislation breaches all of those central tenets of the rule of law. To be punished, in particular, in the criminal justice context by law that was not in place, that was not knowable at the time that you committed the act, is one of the most fundamental breaches of the rule of law. The might of the State is supposed to be brought into line by our principles of lawmaking and, indeed, by our robust human rights laws.

So to move to the breaches, section 25—which encapsulates the minimum standards of criminal procedure—contains a specific ban on retrospectively applied punishments in our criminal justice system. Section 26 does the same. So we’ve said, through passing this bill at all in 2016—that was the previous Government—that we’re happy to breach those rights. The select committee process in that context, I know—and I’ve read some of what happened there—was clear that this wasn’t a good bill back then. It was passed, in any case. Now we want to broaden its application by breaching the rule of law and further breaching our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In fact, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does allow Parliament to breach its laws, but the balance has to fall on what is reasonably required.

Now, the Attorney-General’s findings are clear, and this is where I want to come back to all that’s been said about our duty to protect children and young people. Because the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court, and, indeed, the select committee in the previous Government, were clear and are clear—this does not contain a measure, the keeping of a register is not a measure that keeps children and young people safe. There is very little evidence that it works at all in the jurisdictions where it has been applied. Children and young people are most often abused, in terms of the types of offending that this piece of legislation encompasses, by those who are very well known to them, in their own homes. They are very rarely abused by strangers. So that’s one thing, but in any case we have the evidence. These registers have existed and been applied in other jurisdictions for many years. It’s a measure that we’ve taken; we’ve decided to take it. It’s neither here nor there, I guess we could say, if there’s no evidence that it works. But to persist with it, to lie to ourselves, to lie to victims and the public and say that we’re doing something that is essential to protecting children and young people whilst we weaken the rule of law as a Parliament is, I would say, unacceptable.

There are measures we can take to protect children and young people in New Zealand, and I am proud to have been part of a Government where, last term, with the first ever Undersecretary for Domestic and Sexual Violence—that’s my colleague Jan Logie—we did commit in a Wellbeing Budget a record amount of resource to combatting domestic and sexual violence, including offending against children and young people. That was $320 million we committed to a cross-ministry approach, that there would be cooperation with service providers on the ground, with Māori, with Pasifika communities, with migrant communities, that we would do what we know actually works to keep children and young people safe. That is what we need more of. We don’t need more and more policy that’s designed to make politicians look tough on crime.

So this isn’t a good piece of legislation. It weakens human rights in New Zealand, it undermines the separation of powers, where we’ve heard from our Chief Justice, our President of the Supreme Court, telling us that this amounts to a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So the Attorney-General, the Supreme Court, we’ve heard from the Human Rights Commission on this, and we’re doing it anyway, with very, very little good. So I don’t commend this bill to the House, Mr Speaker.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mr Speaker, thank you. I’d like to start off by acknowledging the work that the Minister has done on this piece of legislation as well as talking with us across the House so that we can all work together as best we can to put through this law. We do appreciate that. I’d also like to acknowledge the work that the New Zealand Police policy team, which I know is a small but very active team, have done on this piece of legislation.

ACT are renowned for not supporting matters that come before this House under urgency. We need to have a good reason and criteria for accepting it. We will support urgency if there is good reason in our mind to support it. And, generally speaking, we don’t support retrospective law, either, but as our supporters would expect of us, we should take every bill as a bill on its own and make sure that we can produce and stand in front of the House in agreement as a party as to how we will go forward. This case meets our criteria for urgency: there is immediate concern, there is very good reason for it, and it is in the public’s interest; it’s actually in our children’s interest.

The purpose of the parent 2016 legislation is, and I quote, “to establish a Child Sex Offender Register that will reduce sexual reoffending against child victims, and the risk posed by serious child sex offenders”. So the Act’s intent, of course, is to ensure that high-risk offenders are on the register so that the authorities can keep an eye on them, keep an eye on their whereabouts and how they are interacting with society, and the purpose of it all is to keep our children safe. The reality that we’re seeing is that there are more and more victims coming forward, with some horrendous stories about things that have happened to them in the past and it’s been dealt with in the future. The register, therefore, is meant to capture the offences that have been committed in the past but are not before the courts until later.

The Supreme Court doesn’t think that the legislators made it that clear—that those convicted in the present for crimes committed in the past should not be placed on the register for the designated time frame. So there’s an essential element that was missed in writing this law, and as the Minister said before, the House doesn’t always get it right with our laws, and I’m going to add to that: especially the rushed ones. There are unintended consequences that often are caused when urgency occurs, and the position now for all of us is to fix this so that Parliament’s intent can actually be realised. And I expect that the confusion around section 11 that’s been proposed will have something to do with the Supreme Court’s ruling, but I too look forward to clarification on why section 11 is in there once we come to the committee of the whole House.

So, while we too don’t agree with retrospective laws, we need to make a mature assessment of what Parliament is here to do, and that’s to make good laws for New Zealanders, and we are not prepared to trade off our children’s safety and their futures against an error in legal writing. These are clear issues where we have to decide what is more important in regard to this law: our children or allowing an error in law to continue. We choose our children and, in doing so, commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was expecting a Labour member to stand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was too.

MELISSA LEE: Yes, it’s sort of like Groundhog Day, I think we had the same situation last night. We are talking about a particular bill where members have talked about intent and effect, and that sort of happened last night, as well, on another bill.

I’m here to support, fully, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I’d like to start off with a commendation to the Minister: thank you to the Minister for the conciliatory way that the Government has actually consulted our party and right across the House, and also the work that her agencies have done to bring this bill to the House and progressing this bill under urgency. I support the urgency motion, as well. Other members who have spoken earlier have talked about the reason why often in this House we do not support the urgency motion or the retrospectivity of bills, because of the way that sometimes intentions don’t always end up in good effect of the bill. I think that is the reason why we are often very cautious. But in these circumstances, it is necessary and I support the Minister fully on this side of the House, together with my colleagues.

I was rather surprised that the Green Party is actually not supporting this. They were talking about the Human Rights Act and all the other kinds of things, and they’re talking about how they want to support the rights of the children as well, and the very fact that we want to protect our most vulnerable—our children—and yet they are not supporting this bill.

I am actually quite shocked by that, considering the fact that recently the Supreme Court ruled D v Police [2021] SC 2 that National’s 2017 amendments, in a 3:2 decision—it wasn’t as if it was actually a unanimous decision; it was a 3:2 split on that bill; there were some members of the Supreme Court who actually felt that the intention was very, very clear, but it was actually the majority of three against two who said that the intention wasn’t as clear. This is the reason why we need to make sure that this bill—I am putting my fingers crossed, my legs crossed, my eyes crossed, my everything crossed—that we do actually get the wording right, because sometimes as members of Parliament, as Government, we intend for the bill to work, and when it goes out into the real world and the Supreme Court decides that it is not as clear, we have to come back and do this process again. This is the third time that this has been done for this particular bill, and I’m not going to delay the process.

It is one of the most heinous offences that we can potentially face, an offence against our children, our tamariki, particularly in the lewd way that people possess, whether it’s pornographic material or abuse of our children, and we need to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable—and that is our children, who often don’t have a voice. When offences are committed, it shouldn’t matter when they are offending versus when they are convicted. The reason why we are here is because when the offence actually happened before this Act came into effect versus when they were actually sentenced, it shouldn’t really matter. The retrospectivity that we actually passed in the previous incarnation of this bill should have captured all of them, but because in one case it didn’t, all 600 potentially are going to be deregistered and we now have to do this. I think it is a real shame.

I praise the work of the police and the Minister. As I said, I cross my fingers that we have done the job right today. Hopefully we will do the job right today, we get the words right, and it is clear that our intention is clear, and we’ll let the whole world know that that is our intention. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will actually hear our voices. I hope that the legislation works this time round. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Call number nine is usually a split call, are we going to get back on track? OK, this will be a 10-minute call then, not a split call.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Mr Speaker—and I am grateful to the members across the House. I rise to speak and commend this bill to the House. It’s been my privilege in my adult life to do extensive work in the subject of sex offending. The treatment of sex offenders is something that I have briefly touched upon in my academic life. I also really strongly tautoko the work that the Greens and the Labour Party did last term in terms of the way in which we are tackling sex offending and sex offender treatment, the general protection of our victims, because one thing is very clear: this is a massive problem in our society.

I do want to say something. This is not a recent problem. If you go back to the early 1980s, when we were first doing proper empirical studies of child sex offending, the figures found then were one-in-three to one-in-four girls, about one-in-nine boys. Those remain the figures that we still find today across the OECD. This is an epidemic of very, very long standing. And I want to say that because I think it goes some way to answer the Greens’ concern as to the retrospectivity of this law. There is justification; when we have a problem of this magnitude we need to take it very, very seriously. And one of the issues with this—in fact, I really want to break what I’m going to say today into two parts.

I want to talk about the incidence of child sex abuse and the fact that although we know the rates are so high, we actually still know very little about the actual rate of offending. The studies we have do not accurately cover the full extent of what is going on. So if you look, what we find is that in a recent study of high school students in New Zealand in 2011, about 20 percent of girls and 9 percent of boys said they had experienced sexual touching, unwanted sexual touching, or been asked to perform an unwanted sexual act in the last 12 months. But more than half of them said that they had not previously reported this, and that is absolutely the norm. The fact is that more than half of child sex offences are never reported during childhood to anyone—not to mum, not to auntie, let alone the police. And the general feeling is that across the board with sex offences, only about 10 percent are ever reported to the police. So when you are talking about child sex offences, over half of them don’t come to light until the victim is an adult. This is a massively unreported crime. Icebergs and tips of icebergs don’t come into it.

When we’re then looking at it, you then have to factor in: how do we then deal with the sex offenders we know about? And what you have to look at then is the fact that we have some expertise in this country in sex offender treatment, and we know through Te Ohaakii a Hine—National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together and other programmes, including some in Whangārei—of which I am well aware because I have family members who work in them as the directors of them—what we need when we’re treating sex offences is a wraparound response. We need people to keep tabs on the person’s interaction across their whānau. We need that ongoing, in-depth response in order to help people avoid their triggers, because what we know about sex offending is it’s frequently compulsive offending. If it is a teenage offender—I do want to make this point: teenage offenders are not as much to be feared. If someone is offending in their teenage years, it is very often not going to be something that becomes seriously recidivist. If someone is offending in their mid-to-late 20s, then the research says you really do have to be worried about this person. So we need this in-depth response.

Now, when you look at what the register that we are talking about actually does—and this is where I also come back to our colleagues in the Greens and say this is a muted and appropriate response in terms of its impact on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. When you actually look at what the police register then does, we are not talking about plastering a neighbourhood with pictures of the person and their name. We are not talking about that sort of punitive, unpleasant, and, frankly, unhelpful reaction. We are talking about the police walking alongside offenders to assist them to ensure they do not put themselves into difficult situations. That is the reason that I commend this bill to the House: it is proportionate, it is addressing a serious and longstanding need, and it should go ahead in my submission.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: According to my list we’ve got two Labour speakers and one National spot left, so we’ll go Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): One thousand, two hundred, and sixty video files and 1,890 photographs of child pornography were stored on the computer of the offender whose case the Supreme Court considered, which is the reason why we are debating this bill in the House tonight. As a mother of two small children, I’m so proud that our Minister of Police has acted quickly and efficiently and has worked in a cross-parliamentary process to address what has been an error in drafting here, which has caused a major problem—one that does not affect many people but affects the lives of a few families so deeply, and I commend the Minister’s work in this area.

One thousand, two hundred, and sixty video files and 1,890 photographs of child pornography is something that all of us in this House should take extremely seriously. I’m disappointed to hear from some colleagues in this House that they would consider what we think is a small and a muted approach to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to be a violation which wouldn’t deal with these offenders to whom this bill applies.

We’re talking about a small window in time: between the time this amendment was enacted to the time when it took effect, where there were a small number of offenders who were charged and for whom the court ordered their registration on a register—which as my colleague the member for Whangarei has noted, is not a public register—and for their details to be notified to police, and whether the bill applied to them. Now, this bill that the Minister of Police has introduced would fix up this issue and would make sensible in-roads into making it mandatory for those people who were charged within that small window of time to register and to give police their details.

We on this side of the House think that that would be justified in this context, and it’s absolutely needed to provide police with the tools that they need to crack down on this kind of offending, which we all agree is egregious and we must allow our police to make in-roads into this. I just want to clarify, for the members opposite who would not support this bill, what registration actually does. It requires the offender once charged and once ordered by the court to provide personal information to police for the purposes of police monitoring their conduct within the community. It is not a public register. It is not something which is available to their neighbours. It is simply a tool for police to enforce the conditions which offenders have been asked to adhere to.

Once a registration order has been made, the registerable offender is required to report that relevant personal information to police, and the relevant provision in the Act is section 16(1). I’d like to give some more context to that section. It says that for the purposes of the Act, the relevant personal information to be reported by a registerable offender consists of the following information: “(a) his or her name, together with any other name by which he or she is, or has previously been, known: (b) in respect of each name other than his or her current name, the period during which he or she was known by that other name: (c) his or her date of birth: (d) the address of each of the premises at which he or she generally resides or, if he or she does not generally reside at any particular premises, the name of each of the localities in which he or she can generally be found:”.

It also requires the registration of “(e) the name, sex, and date of birth of each child who generally resides in the same household as that in which the offender generally resides: (f) in respect of each child who generally resides in the same household as that in which the offender generally resides, the name of the principal caregiver:”. It’s information in that vein which is absolutely vital to ensuring that police have the tools they need to protect our communities.

I don’t want to stress this point, but as a mum of two young kids, it’s so important to me personally and so many other people in my situation that police are provided with that information, which is so necessary in terms of doing their work. I want to know that police have that information available to them and are able to use that in a way that protects the communities they are bound to serve.

For this provision not to apply to some people simply because there was a drafting error—so that it didn’t apply in that small window of time—would be wrong and I think it is on all parliamentarians here to make sure that this bill can correct that today.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): The numbers articulated by the previous speaker, Ms Williams, are as confronting a case for this bill to go through as any comment, I think, that has been stated in what has been a very thoughtful first reading. I just want to add probably my only intervention on to this, and add to comments that were made by Mr Brown around the question about the individual who was the subject of the Supreme Court hearing.

But before I do, I’m struggling with the range of emotions that bubbled up listening to Golriz Ghahraman. I understand the Greens’ stand on principle, mostly, but I also know that in the last 3½ years, Green Party whakapapa has been set aside in the interests of pragmatism, coalition agreements, and other matters where somebody standing in the shoes of a Minister might need to act differently from when they would as a member of the Green Party. The waka jumping legislation is a very good example of that. I’m overwhelmingly disappointed that we can’t have some unanimity across the House on this very important point, because there are times when points of principle matter more than the rule of law, because we are the lawmakers. If the rule of law is wrong, we change it.

Now, this is a much more vexed issue—and I think that was the word the Minister was looking for, rather than “vexatious”. I don’t think she was referring to that in the context of the court discussion. I’ll be very careful in my words around the courts because there is a strong convention that this place doesn’t critique court decisions. But I do want to remind the House that when we were here I wasn’t the police Minister; Paula Bennett was the police Minister when we changed this in 2017. I want to quote her from her first reading speech: “The principal Act does not make it sufficiently clear that registration applies to all offenders who are sentenced after the commencement of the Act, regardless of when they were convicted. Sixty-seven offenders had been convicted [at that point] but not yet sentenced when the Act came into force.”

Now, it is absolutely clear to me what the intention of this is, and, obviously, the Supreme Court was split on that point. Section 6 of the Sentencing Act now just simply will not apply, and to the degree that this is a form of punishment, as articulated by Golriz Ghahraman, I don’t actually see it like that. It is part of a consequence of being convicted of heinous crimes. But, actually, the registration is not—it’s not public. It’s not something that we can go and look at and the police will use. So, in that sense, it’s not a punishment per se, but to the degree that it is, here is my question for the Minister, and I’d like her to—and Simeon Brown would also like her to—address this in the second reading. If this is a belts-and-braces fix because of the Supreme Court, why would we then provide an exemption for one person, the person who, as Ms Williams has just told us, was in possession of 1,800 hideous videos, 1,200 still images of victims from who knows where?

I don’t understand. If we’re patching it up, why aren’t we patching it up for everyone who was in this situation, regardless of the fact that this person took the case all the way to the Supreme Court? We know this was wrong. We know what our intention was in 2017. And I’d really like to hear the explanation, as far as the Minister can give it, but I do think the legislature is required to at least understand why we’re, effectively, passing a law that sets aside a punishment.

Now, we’ve done this in Parliament in my time, but on incredibly rare occasions: World War I deserters, iwi wrongly imprisoned and convicted in the 19th century—I can’t remember the fellow’s name; perhaps Mr Henare may remind us. They were the right things to do, even though, effectively, we were expunging punishment. I don’t feel comfortable at all supporting a bill that does that for a child sex offender. So this is troublesome. There may be a reason, but in the absence of that, I think when we come to the committee of the whole House something might need to be done about it.

On that note, I do join with members, mostly, across the House in strongly supporting this bill.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Minister the Hon Poto Williams. I’ve known the Minister for some time, and I just want to acknowledge her work over many decades before she came into this House and in this House to address sexual and domestic violence, and in particular her maiden speech where I remember she spoke about James Whakaruru and that this is just one of many examples of the Minister putting her principles into action in the actions that she takes in her role in this House.

I’d just like to begin by acknowledging some comments from the previous speaker, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, just in his commentary around this action not being a punishment. I agree with his comments around that, and the particular comment I’d make is that anyone claiming that there’s one action we can take to prevent sexual abuse against children perhaps isn’t looking at the fact that we need multiple tools in the tool box. And this is one small tool in the tool box of breaking the cycle of sexual abuse against children in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The purpose of this bill, as many speakers have noted tonight, is to correct a drafting error that occurred. And I just want to acknowledge members opposite who have worked alongside the Minister and our team to ensure that we can pass this legislation tonight. I want to acknowledge that officials in particular have worked extremely swiftly over just over a month to correct this wrong that occurred through the Supreme Court, and the amazing work that they have done to ensure that we can implement this legislation tonight, just over a month after that Supreme Court decision.

In my previous role before coming into Parliament, some people may not realise but I had a role working for the Anglican Diocese of Nelson as a health and safety coordinator, and part of that role involved child protection matters. So for two years I worked in a role that had been not unknown to me, but where I didn’t have expertise going into the role during what has been a particularly difficult and gruelling time for churches in Aotearoa New Zealand, particularly as we participate in the royal commission of inquiry into State-based care and faith institutions. This is a sobering and difficult topic to talk about for many of us in this House. Many of us have friends and whānau who have been affected in this way.

I want to make a particular point about the need for retrospective legislation, just based on my experience as a church member where, unfortunately, many cases of sexual abuse often take years, if not decades, to make their way into an allegation that may go to police or some other form of authority. And this is why, for me, the pragmatic approach, which is to include retrospective legislation, is the right approach. For many victims and survivors of sexual abuse will take a very, very long time to come forward, and that may well mean that we are currently sentencing people in 2021, for example, who may have committed an offence 20 or 30 years ago.

The purpose, as other members have spoken of tonight, of the sex offender register—it’s not a public register as some people in our country have called for—it’s a particular tool in the tool box to assist offenders so that they don’t reoffend. The Police state that there’s around 20 percent of offenders who leave prison that may go on to reoffend. And while that may be a low risk, actually, that’s a risk that I think is a risk we need to take action on and follow.

One of the important parts about breaking the cycle of this type of offending is also to ensure that we don’t see more and more children being offended against, because, unfortunately, the evidence is that sometimes those who have been victims of sexual violence go on to offend themselves. So breaking the cycle is an important piece of ending sexual violence in Aotearoa New Zealand and ensuring that we are putting supports in place to support people so that agencies can work together to actually help people not go on to reoffend.

So the purpose of this bill is very much around keeping our children, our tamariki in Aotearoa, and our whānau safe. While I note that some speakers tonight have raised concerns around the retrospective legislation, I agree with speakers who have noted that in some instances, as a Parliament, as the lawmakers of New Zealand, we actually have to take steps to protect our children. And I’m very, very happy that we’ve been able to work so quickly to write the wrong that came through the Supreme Court decision. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

We know that we are passing this legislation under urgency, and the normal process would be for it to have gone to select committee for examination by the committee and for submissions. So in the interest of providing a round-up of that, I just want to make some comments about the contributions that my colleagues have made across the House.

Firstly, I want to thank you all for your very considered contributions, and I also just want to remind the House that sometimes we do disagree, but it is actually not a bad thing sometimes that we consider everyone’s perspective and points of view, particularly when we have such an important piece of legislation to pass, so I just want to comfort colleagues that dissension isn’t always a bad thing—it gives us perspective. Second, I want to say that one of the impacts of this legislation will be to support those who are impacted by historic sex abuse, and that there are very public cases going through courts at the moment where it is the case that the courage of victims to speak out often doesn’t find them until they’re a little bit older in life. That’s one aspect that I didn’t put in my first reading speech, but I want to make note of it now.

My colleague Simeon Brown, with regards to query that you have about new clause 11 of Schedule 1, inserted by clause 5, I do want to say to you that the reason that is there is that two members of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, found that the appellant’s risk was not sufficient to justify the making of a registration order, and I guess this person has been through the court process to find that. My colleague Ginny Andersen, thank you for your contribution and in particular for your acknowledgment of the Police Policy Unit. Mr Mitchell, yes, retrospectivity is not always a thing that we like to deal with in this House, but you were very clear in stating that we had, as a Parliament, made clear intent and we are sending a message back to our courts about that. My colleague Vanushi Walters—the role of key Government agencies in monitoring. Thank you very much for that contribution. Ms Ghahraman, yes, there are concerns regarding the breaches to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but balance must be reasonably required, and I think in this case that is what we are achieving here. But I thank you for the perspective on the human rights impacts on this.

Ms McKee, thank you for your approval of the reason for urgency and dealing with retrospectivity, and thank you for also saying that it’s the mature assessment of what Parliament is here to do. My colleague Melissa Lee—intent and effect. That is often the trade-off we have, and I thank you for that contribution that makes it very clear that sometimes it doesn’t always match but the intention of this bill is clear. My colleague Emily Henderson—child abuse epidemic. It is no doubt an epidemic, and I thank you for reminding us of that and the reason we are here, and that we are trying to support a piece of legislation that, as you call it, has a muted and appropriate response to the bill of rights concerns. My colleague Arena Williams—clarification of registration and what that actually means if you are someone who is about to be put on to the register. My colleague Michael Woodhouse, thank you very much for speaking about points of principle versus the rule of law, and I hope that that clarification regarding clause 11 is also what you were wanting to understand. Finally, my colleague Rachel Boyack—you know, the nature of sexual abuse and the courage of victims when they come forward. Thank you for reminding us of that.

I don’t want to traverse much more in this. This is a bill that we do want to pass today, so I commend the bill to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the second reading of this piece of legislation. As I said earlier, National will be supporting this very important piece of legislation as it progresses through all stages of this debate. This is an incredibly important piece of legislation, which amends the retrospective provisions in the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016. And as the Minister has outlined, this, in normal process, would have just gone to a select committee, but currently, due to the urgency, is now here for a second reading.

I do just want to acknowledge, though, the Minister’s engagement on the points that we raised in the first reading, and I do want to just touch on the point that I raised shortly. But I do, firstly, want to just discuss the issues raised by the Green Party in the first reading, which—quite frankly, I found their position to be outrageous, that they have come down to the House here, voting against this piece of legislation because it’s a breach of bill of rights and rule of law. Now, this is the issue that was brought to the Supreme Court—the issue around whether Parliament was intent on actually overriding the bill of rights—and they said the legislation and the wording was not clear enough. So this legislation is simply clarifying the intent of Parliament.

We’re not debating here the policy intent over whether there should be a child sex registry or not. That debate was had back in 2016. That debate happened five years ago. Sorry—2016? Yeah, 2016—five years ago. But here they are coming down to the House to relitigate points which were raised, and their principle, at that point. What we’re debating here today is whether 600 offenders who have been put on the child sex registry should be removed due to the fact that the court, the Supreme Court, took a different interpretation than what the intent of Parliament was.

I just think it’s astounding that they are continuing to oppose this legislation on the basis of some form of high and mighty principles, when what they’re saying, by voting against, is that they would be happy for those 600 individuals to be removed from the registry and not have to have the scrutiny, not have the requirements of police being notified of their movements, their addresses, and all of those other things. As I said, we’re not debating the policy; we’re debating whether those 600 people should be able to not be on the registry.

What they’re saying is those 600 shouldn’t be on the registry. They’re saying those 600 people should be removed from their responsibilities and being able to go about without the responsibilities to keep New Zealanders safe. And this is what this is about: keeping New Zealanders safe from child sex offenders. As a father of two children, two daughters, I just think it’s astounding that a party comes down to the House and wants to play politics when we have such a serious issue. One-quarter of the offenders on the child sex registry are impacted by this Supreme Court decision—one-quarter. That’s an enormous number of people—and the potential harm that will be caused if we don’t get this right as a Parliament. So I just want to put in the Hansard how outraged I am over that particular issue.

The second issue I just want to raise during this second reading debate is the issue—and the Minister touched on it—regarding new clause 11 in Schedule 1, inserted by clause 5, which is in regards to the exception for the particular appellant. The Minister rightly pointed out that the Supreme Court did find, based upon new evidence which they allowed to be admitted, that they did not believe that this particular person should be able to continue to be on the registry. That was a split decision. Two Justices said that the person should stay on the registry, two Justices found the person shouldn’t be on the registry, and one Justice refused to make a judgment on that particular point.

I just think, looking at the offending that this individual did, where there were 1,260 video files and 1,890 photographs of child pornography stored on his computer, with images of child pornography across all five levels of the Sentencing Advisory Panel scale, which measures the extremity of the pornography—and what we’re doing is we’re essentially passing legislation confirming the decision of the Supreme Court, which was split.

I actually think that we should be removing clause 11 and actually leaving this particular individual in the same position as all of the other 600 rather than necessarily confirming it, and I will be tabling an amendment to have that clause removed and would like to have further discussion of that point. I note the member for Manurewa, Arena Williams, commented on the severity, the shock of the severity of this offending. I think it’s very important that that is acknowledged, and we need to have that discussion very, very soon. So that’s a very important point, which I would like to have further discussion on.

The other point which I think needs to be discussed is the final clause, which is around the express override of the bill of rights and the Sentencing Act, and we want to ensure that that is express enough so that we don’t have to come back and do this again. And there is particular language raised by the Supreme Court, which I think—we will have a couple of questions over that during that stage.

So thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak on this serious piece of legislation, and I do just want to conclude by congratulating Team New Zealand on just winning the 36th America’s Cup in Auckland. They won it by 46 seconds. I think that’s fabulous news and I think we should be commending them for retaining the auld mug. Go Team New Zealand!

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In my first call on this bill, I noted the data, the extent of and the impact of child sex offending on children, and the enduring effect it has through their lives. I think a number of speakers this evening have done that. I think the reason we’ve all referred to that data—that horrific data—is really to ensure that our law responds in terms of children who are suffering from sexual abuse but also those who haven’t, those who we are trying to protect from further acts of sexual violence. We need to ensure that we’re managing the risk of further offending in this area.

I do want to just speak to my Green Party colleagues from across the House as well, whose kaupapa I have a lot of respect for in terms of their constant protection for human rights principles and what we are all committed to in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I don’t think we should easily sidestep that; I think we must address it. There was also some reference to the research in this space, so in terms of research, I did just want to acknowledge that my view is that there isn’t sufficient research around sexual offender registries and how well they operate. I do think that further work needs to be done on that. However, I was just recently reading a report from the Australian Government’s institute of crime, and they have what’s called a trends report. In 2018, one of the statements that they made was: “While the evidence is limited to … small number[s] of US studies, non-public sex offender registries do appear to reduce [offending] by assisting law enforcement.” But I do also take my colleague’s point that Simeon Brown has made, that that’s not actually what we’re here to debate tonight.

I do also want to address the second point that my Green Party colleagues made in terms of the retrospectivity of the bill. The provision in the bill which refers to this is new clause 12 of Schedule 1, inserted by clause 5, that clarifies the Act’s retrospective application, overrides other laws, to the extent that the other laws are inconsistent with the Act’s—what I would say is a narrowly defined retrospective provision, and that includes sections 6(1) and 20 of the Sentencing Act 2002, as well as sections 25(g) and 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I just want to speak to the standards of criminal procedure elements in section 25(g) of the bill of rights Act, which sets out for those accused and convicted “the right, if convicted of an offence in respect of which the penalty has been varied between the commission of the offence and sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser penalty”. This is what my Green Party colleagues were referring to, and this is, essentially, a provision whose theme is echoed in the sentencing provisions, essentially arguing that a lesser penalty be applied.

However, section 5 of the bill of rights Act—and my Green Party colleague did acknowledge this as well—sets out the fact that rights and freedoms in the bill are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” A few of my colleagues have spoken to what we should be turning our minds to as we think about what is demonstrably justified. In this case, I do believe that there is a justifiable limitation given the extraordinarily horrific data—the facts, the prevalence—that we’re facing in terms of child sexual abuse in New Zealand, but also the lifelong effect it has on these children. We’ve heard about how it doesn’t stop there. It doesn’t stop with the conviction; it has ongoing effects for people.

I think the other thing that’s been spoken to, and several people have referred to this, is the limit on the right. So, in this case, we’re not talking about an increase in the period of incarceration; we are talking about the provision of information so that police officers are able to appropriately monitor for a period of time. I do think that that is a reasonable limitation in this circumstance. I won’t take up further time, as I do hope this bill progresses smoothly through the House. I commend this bill to the House.

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

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am just going to take a very short time because I think everybody in this House is quite interested in this bill getting passed fairly quickly, but I’d like to thank the Minister of Police for taking the time to signal to each member—it is very obvious that the Minister has, in fact, taken note of the comments the different members across the House have actually raised with her, and I appreciate the sensitivity with which she has addressed them in making those points.

Clearly, as the Minister has actually said, and as my colleague Simeon Brown has actually said—and, on that note, I just want to say he just stole my thunder regarding congratulating Team New Zealand, because, to tell the truth, I was in fact monitoring the computer, and the race was in front, on that desk, so I could actually lean over and pretend that I was listening to it all—[Interruption] I was; I was listening to all of the comments! But I also had one eye on the America’s Cup. I think most of us were probably monitoring, but Simeon Brown actually took my lines. Congratulations to Team New Zealand. The auld mug stays in New Zealand; so congratulations.

Anyway, on to the bill, the importance of this bill: it is a simple matter, as Mr Brown has actually said. This is not debating the issue about creating a sex offender register; this is actually about an issue where the intent of Parliament apparently was deemed not as clear in the last edition of the amendment that we made. This is the third time Parliament is actually addressing this issue, where we are hoping that the intention to put these people who are the most heinous of criminals—and I was really touched when Arena Williams was speaking; she was reflecting on her own children and the emotion that she actually spoke with really touched me. I mean, I was almost in tears. My child’s not that young—he’s grown up; he’s 22—but I’m also a mother, and as mothers, and fathers, we want to protect our children, keep them out of harm’s way, and when you have sex offenders, you would want to know that the police are monitoring them—that when they have been convicted of sex crimes, someone is watching them to monitor that they do not actually commit another and yet another child is abused and hurt and damaged.

I have met some people who have been sexually abused as children, and the path that they actually go through to recover their own identity, their own self-esteem, their own purpose in life is a huge journey, and we must, as members of Parliament, do everything we can to make that journey an easier path. Putting sex offenders on a register—that the intent of this Parliament could potentially deregister them isn’t something that any of us want, and I am surprised that there is a party in this House who actually stand on their principles to make it possible for that to happen. Luckily, numbers count and we will pass this legislation, making sure that those sex offenders stay on the register, hopefully never to offend again, but, you know, that’s probably too much hoping. I hope that whatever we do can protect our tamariki, who are the most vulnerable. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take another call on this important legislation, in the second reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I just want to pick up, first, on some comments from the previous speaker, Melissa Lee, just regarding the purpose of a register such as this. While I do appreciate that the specifics of tonight’s legislation that we are debating is around correcting a drafting error that came through—and that has come through in the Supreme Court’s decision; I say that with respect, because this isn’t about pointing fingers—this is just to say that we acknowledge, as a Parliament, the original intent of the Act that’s currently in place led to a Supreme Court decision that, basically, said that we can’t implement it as we intended to. We are taking the opportunity to correct that. It is not about a finger-pointing exercise at all.

What I did want to talk about a little was, actually, the usefulness of registers such as this. I come from a place where people who do offend against children commit one of the most horrific crimes that can occur against an individual. I also come from a place where I do believe, with the right support, a lot of people—and not all—can actually change and can actually, at least, work towards no longer offending against children. That should be our hope in this House. That should be something that we are aiming for: that those who offend get an opportunity for rehabilitation and to, when they do come back into society, have an opportunity to live a life where they are no longer participating in those offences.

I do want to put on record that the purpose of a register like this is not for the purposes of punishment. It is more than just about monitoring; it is actually about ensuring that agencies can continue to provide support. One of the things, unfortunately, about offending against children in this way is actually the importance of ensuring people are protected from being around children.

One of the things that I know from my work in the church is that, actually, we would often have people coming to church for redemption who perhaps had committed offences of this nature and didn’t want to continue in that way, but as a church, in the role I had, we still had to put protections around those people to ensure that the children in our church were safe. It was an incredibly important and difficult thing to sometimes manage, and the usefulness of knowing people’s histories is actually about putting the right supports around them so that, for example, in the church context, if someone was attending a church who perhaps had a conviction, there would be important steps taken such as making sure that they weren’t working on a children’s Sunday school programme, they wouldn’t be left alone with children, and there would be people noticing if they were spending time around children, because those are the kinds of things that then can become a risk for people who have a conviction around a sex offence.

So a lot has been talked about tonight around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the role of us as a Parliament putting in place legislation that overrides that, and I do want to acknowledge that I think it is fair for us to raise those concerns. I think those questions are good ones to ask. As a Parliament, we should always be taking care not to tread across the bill of rights Act. However, on this particular occasion, in my view, this is the right approach because this is not necessarily, actually, about penalising people. This is about ensuring two things: that when people exit prison, the right monitoring and support is there for them; and, secondly, that we are taking steps to put the safety and welfare of children and tamariki first—which is something that as a society we have to accept is something we haven’t always done very well.

So I am pleased to be able to support this legislation and to support our Minister in changing this law quickly. I thank most of the members opposite for also working alongside us to change this legislation. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a night, rising to speak to this bill for a second time, and there will be a third time. I do want to acknowledge that we’re doing this in urgency, and the colour that that adds to the breaches of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the rule of law that this bill contains.

But, first, I do want to hold at the centre of this debate the intention of us all across this House, and in particular the Minister of Police, who’s brought the bill to the House, because I know that we all do care deeply about the welfare of children in Aotearoa New Zealand and we do wholeheartedly hope to address the absolute plague of child sex offending, which we know occurs in very, very high rates, and that at any rate would be unacceptable in our nation. We do want to protect children, and I would suggest that that should be done through legislation and lawmaking that is evidence based, that we know will be effective, and that we know will not undermine the legitimacy of the lawmaking process in the way that legislation like this does, unfortunately, do.

I don’t want to traverse, again, my first reading speech—I know there’ll be another one yet to come—but I do want to acknowledge and point to the finding of the Supreme Court. We all have, I think, in pointing us to the breaches of the bill of rights Act, both in the minimum standards of criminal procedure and in the ban against retrospective penalisation of anyone—we hold a lot of power in this House. We can sanction members of the public in the most severe way through the criminal justice system. So we have a responsibility to uphold the fundamental human rights that are contained in both the bill of rights Act and our Human Rights Act and the principle of the rule of law that tells us that law has to be knowable, has to be transparent, before it can apply to members of the public, and this bill absolutely breaches that fundamental principle.

It will apply to people who have committed an act before the main legislation came into effect. We’re making that clear. And we’ve heard from our Attorney-General in what is an absolutely clear and damning report that this legislation does not justify the breach of fundamental rule of law and human rights contained in the bill of rights Act. We’ve heard from the Attorney-General, who has done the weighing-up exercise. We know all of our human rights can be encroached upon if it’s necessary for the safety, wellbeing, and rights of others, and this bill has not met the standard, because child sex offender registries have not been shown to work. It has been found to be a punishment.

Because we’re not talking about, as I think members of the Opposition seem to believe, a registry that the police can refer to. The police have access to convictions. The police already know if you’re a convicted sex offender; the conviction doesn’t disappear. We’re talking about a registry that’s accessed by other agencies, that will apply to—Housing New Zealand case workers may have access to it. It may come into your Ministry of Social Development file. So we’re talking about much broader access than that, and we’re talking about something that both the Supreme Court and the Attorney-General agree constitutes further punishment than what the Sentencing Act has sentenced someone to. We’re talking about going beyond what sentence a person has already served. We’re talking about the idea that rehabilitation after a sentence of imprisonment, after the rehabilitation programmes the courts have already sentenced someone to, then applies and undermines any idea that our justice system can be fair, that a sentence can be finite, that a case can actually finish and a person can rejoin society.

But leaving all of that to one side, we as a Parliament have a duty not to be marred by prejudice, by the weight of the incredibly sad issues that we’re dealing with, with this piece of legislation. And to undermine not only fundamental human rights, not only the rule of law, but the idea that we would only pass law that’s actually based on evidence and is going to be effective to address the problems that we’re seeking to address—this isn’t that kind of legislation. It’s a knee-jerk dog whistle. It was when it first came in, as the substantive Act, and now we’re going further than that and breaching further rights. We can’t apply human rights and principles only when it’s convenient and drop them when there is emotion involved and when it does make us look good.

We’re lying to victims, I would suggest, when we say that this is going to protect them against the horrors of child sex offending. There are things we know we can do. We can apply the resource—the millions of dollars that it takes to monitor this registry—to doing the things that we know will actually prevent harm to children. We know that that work has already begun, with a record commitment to combating domestic and sexual violence, in the last Government. I was proud to be a part of that. I know that the Minister of Police, the Minister of Justice, and ministries across Government are all involved in that work and are excited about it. I know that the work will support front-line organisations that will support Māori and Pacific communities, who are disproportionately impacted by this type of offending, to lead in what will, in fact, heal our society and prevent this kind of offending against our children. That should be the focus.

So this isn’t a good bill. It isn’t the kind of lawmaking that we should commit to or set a precedent for in this House, and I do oppose it, on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I start on what was going to be a very short speech—it just got longer, and that’s because I’d like to address some of the points that my colleague from the Green Party, Golriz Ghahraman, just made, one of them being about the Supreme Court making a judgment and therefore we should stick by it. But what I think may be lost is the fact that that case actually went through the High Court and it went through the Court of Appeal before it got to the Supreme Court, where we had a 3:2 decision that was made. Effectively, that decision was coming back to us to tell us we had an issue and we needed to fix it. We tried to do that in 2016 when we had this piece of legislation. We tried to fix it in 2017 and again a little bit later, but we haven’t got it right. Now is our opportunity to do it correctly.

When the member next to me speaks about how this law will apply and that the legislation will take effect on past offences, that’s the whole point. The whole point is people, decades later, come out, speak out, and say, “I had an issue. I was sexually abused.” The matter goes to the court; the defendant may be found guilty. The whole point of the register is not to punish them but to protect them and to protect our communities. The way that that will go about is because there will be these Government agencies like the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), like Housing New Zealand, who will help support these convicted paedophiles to be in places where they should be—to be in homes where they’re not near schools, to be able to get access to payments and help that they should be entitled to as recovering convicts. That is an essential part of the register as well. The access is not public. It is Government agencies only. And I think that that’s a point that needs to be emphasised. Again, it is not a punishment; it’s protection for everybody.

So I’m just going to talk a little bit more on the 600 people that will be removed from the register if this bill does not go through. That’s 600 people who police will have lost track of—they will not know where they are. The community will not know that these people are there. MSD and Housing New Zealand will not know where they are and who they are, and the rehabilitation process will stop for those people. So we need to make sure for them as well that this continues. There are historic sex abuse cases that are before us now and there’ll be many more to come. We need to make sure that those offenders continue to know that we know where they are and we’re keeping track—well, police are—of how they are behaving.

Finally, I would just like to say the intent here has been pretty clear—the intent of the Supreme Court, the intent of Parliament—and really it’s just our job to go about fixing it. So I will further commend this bill to the House after I just make one more comment about retrospective law. If cannabis is ever put through legally through this Parliament in this House and the Green Party look to retrospectively remove convictions of those with cannabis convictions, then I will hold you to account for that. Thank you.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to say thank you for this opportunity to take a short call for this bill. It’s an important bill due to its implication for the safety and wellbeing of our tamariki, our children, and their whānau, but also the implications for their future. I say this due to the long-lasting effects it does have into adulthood, and from what I’ve seen as a clinician. I am the father of an eight-year-old son, and many of our parents who are in the House would speak passionately about this particular bill as well. So I would just like to take an opportunity to speak, firstly, to the wellbeing and safety of our tamariki. They don’t usually tell us things that may be affecting them, but usually show us in different ways.

I just want to say, just in my work as a clinician in Auckland, we are always looking for red flags when it comes to our tamariki, as we do know that much of the offending happens from someone that knows the child, whether it be a family member or friend. So, when we have whānau bring tamariki into the clinic, the actual consult starts in the waiting room. When we call your name, when we see our tamariki walking in with their parents—the parents may be holding the child—from all of that data and how they’re speaking, before you’ve even reached the seats of my clinical room, I’ve already formalised about 30 percent of the diagnosis. And then much of it is about the history taking, and we do take a history of what’s happened to the child. Ninety percent will get a diagnosis right there. And then, when we start laying hands and doing our clinical examination, that formulates the entire diagnosis. I say this because sometimes when that 90 percent of the diagnosis has already been formulated, the examination doesn’t fit the history, and that’s when red flags pop up. I say this because there are—when I look at physical injuries, that is one thing. When the history does not match the examination, when there are infections happening, quite often in particular parts of the body, and it does not match the history, that is a red flag for us.

So I talked to this bill, where I acknowledge the many clinicians, the social workers in schools, our school nurses, our people who are out in the community who do face our whānau and their tamariki, that do recognise these sorts of red flags and take action—they play their role, and this legislation plays that role in a much broader sense, to help safeguard the wellbeing of our tamariki and also the long-term effects. I acknowledge the many providers, such as Whirinaki, that we do refer many of our children to because of the effects, the mental health effects, that take hold of our tamariki once they suffer from an issue such as this.

The urgent amendment that looks to retrospective provisions of the Act is essential for this wellbeing and safety of our children. But, number two, I would look to the amendment that ensures that those who, like Parliament was supposed—or, I guess, the intention in 2016 was always intended to be that they remain on the register.

So there is a risk of reoffending, and I just want to talk to the continuing monitoring of our offenders, because I do not want to see another victim added to that person. We do not want to see the issues that we’re seeing in the clinics in our communities of the effects of sexual abuse in our tamariki. Because what I’ve seen from our children, right through adolescence to adulthood—the effects of socio-economic issues that are a by-product of this; the mental health issues that are a by-product of this. So, when we do these sorts of things—whether it be Whirinaki, being a child and adolescent provider; when it goes to our adult mental health issues that are a by-product of this—it is that whole life-long journey of issues from sexual abuse.

So I just want to finish off that when we talk about this monitoring of the register, and those who are on this private register for our Government agencies—I just want to acknowledge what the member Rachel Boyack has said about those who have had an opportunity to rehabilitate, and there are instances like that, but I just want to say that this is more of a safety mechanism that is all about accountability as well. So that’s why I want to commend this bill to the House to make sure that there is that accountability for those to reduce the risk of offending again for those victims. So that’s why I commend this bill. Thank you very much.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m hoping that you’ll just humour me for a moment, as the Opposition spokesperson for sports and recreation, when I congratulate Peter Burling and Emirates Team New Zealand on a fantastic win in the America’s Cup today. I want to acknowledge Jimmy Spithill and Francesco Bruni in the Luna Rossa team. They have been outstanding competitors. They have been very welcome in this country. They have made it a great spectacle for us.

We have a long, proud history of involvement and competing in the America’s Cup. Of course, we go right back to Sir Peter Blake and the iconic red socks that are associated with the America’s Cup. Well, I have to say that blue socks would’ve been pretty cool as well. I just want to acknowledge and congratulate Emirates Team New Zealand on a great win for us as a country. I think that it’s timely, and we’ll be celebrating as a nation right behind them. The celebrations, I’m sure, up in the Viaduct Basin are going to be huge tonight, and around the country. Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me those comments.

I just want to support the comments that were made by Nicole McKee, because they were very relevant to this bill, and they were points that I was going to make myself. I’ve got now an opportunity to reinforce them, and it comes to the position that the Greens have taken on this bill. I don’t know whether there’s some confusion around what the bill is actually doing, but they’re talking about a breach of human rights as if this was retrospective in terms of a conviction and sentencing. This bill has got nothing to do with that. The person only becomes eligible to go on to the sex offenders register if they are convicted and sentenced. It means that they then go on to the sex offenders register. It’s not an additional sentence. It’s not an additional punishment. It’s just quite simply that they now go on to the register.

It’s extremely important—

Golriz Ghahraman: Was the Attorney-General wrong? Because the Attorney-General found the same thing.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s extremely important—and I’ll explain why—that these people go on to the register. The point that Nicole McKee made is actually—we haven’t spoken about it in the House, but it’s very, very relevant. I’d just remind the Green Party member in the House that, actually, they go on the register not just to protect the victims—but, of course, the victims’ rights should always be at the forefront of our minds, especially in a situation like this, because we’re talking about children that are vulnerable and can’t protect themselves. But, actually, it provides the offenders themselves some protection, and I’ll tell you why: because often many of these offenders are suffering and dealing with serious mental health issues. They’ve often got compulsive-type disorders. They don’t always have full control over their offending.

Actually, to be on a register where they are being monitored and our agencies are monitoring can actually put a layer of protection around them and stop them from being put back into a position where they actually reoffend. Is that information important to be shared amongst agencies? Absolutely it is, and you can just imagine if you had a serious recidivist sex offender or someone that was peddling in child pornography, then, actually, if they were going to go into a Housing New Zealand house or they were going to go into a community where there were young children, they should have that information and they should be able to manage and mitigate the risk around that.

So I just think that the Green Party’s position on this does puzzle me. It’s not trampling over people’s rights. The member refers to the report by the Attorney-General. In this House, we’re always going to have to grapple with, at times, the rights and protections of victims and also being able to reinforce and make sure that offenders’ rights are observed as well, but in this case the balance is absolutely right. We’re actually responding to a Supreme Court ruling to say that we as a Parliament have to get this legislation tighter and we have to make sure that our intent is very clear in terms of what the courts are going to do when these people are convicted and sentenced. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō ‘aupito, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour and a privilege to take a quick call on this bill, but may I first acknowledge and mihi to the Minister the Hon Poto Williams for the mahi she has done, across the House but also on this bill, and the police as well for their mahi to progress this much-needed amendment to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act.

As we have heard, this bill clarifies in the Act that “retrospective application explicitly includes those persons who committed a qualifying offence before, but who were convicted and sentenced after, the Act came into force.” Essentially, the amendments in this bill ensure the safety of our children, our tamariki, and their families and whānau by making sure offenders who have previously been convicted of such damning acts are included on the Child Sex Offender Register, as these amendments will now include those that were previously convicted before the Acts came into effect. This bill goes some way to ensuring peace of mind for the offenders, the victims, and their families that those who have been convicted of these crimes remain on a register so that our authorities are able to continue to monitor these offenders, thereby knowing their movements and ultimately ensuring our victims, the whānau, and our community are far less likely to see these offenders reoffend while we are monitoring them.

Being able to have convicted child sex offenders on a sex registration, regardless of being convicted prior to the Act coming into force, also ensures the Parliament’s intent of this bill and what it was meant to do to cover all offenders under this bill. I believe it also makes sure that it gives our authorities and our forces the mandate to continue to monitor these people and keep our communities safe.

I have worked and supported tamariki and their whānau that have, unfortunately, been victims of such crimes and offences, and I can tell you the trauma that our babies, our tamariki, and their families go through is deep and takes time to even try and see the light at the end of the tunnel. So I’ve also seen victims take years of work, they have nightmares, sleepless nights, bed-wetting, night terrors, worries that the people who attacked them—these offenders—will come back and offend and attack them again. So I believe that, again, it’s a small way to go towards ensuring for these poor babies that have been victimised, while we have these offenders on a register, that the forces, that the police, that our heroes can continue to monitor them. So we will make sure that while we are monitoring them on those registers, these monsters that came and attacked you will not be able to come back on our watch, but that means they need to remain on those registers.

This bill is about fixing, really, a drafting error. So, again, to keep our communities, our tamariki, our babies, our whānau safe, and, again, to give them some assurance that us as lawmakers are going to do everything we can to keep protecting them, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call on this Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I want to start by also echoing my thanks to the Minister of Police, not just for her work on this particular bill that we have before us but for her work in this House in general and her dedication to this sector in her previous work.

The Government, I think, is characterised by its unwavering concern for the welfare of all New Zealanders, but particularly our vulnerable and, even more specifically, our tamariki, our children. In 2019, we released the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy, which outlined the vision for Aotearoa New Zealand to be the best place in the world for children and young people, and that strategy has established pathways towards this end, including an action plan to address family and sexual violence, a programme to prevent online child sexual exploitation and abuse, and means to improve access to sexual violence services, such as kaupapa Māori and crisis support services. We’ve also introduced various pieces of legislation to ensure that we are the best place in the world for children and young people.

I think it’s noteworthy, as our investigative and our evidence-gathering techniques improve, and people feel, probably, more increasingly confident in coming forward with allegations of sexual offending—or, actually, perhaps there’s just been requisite time passed where people have the requisite strength to face that circumstance, or various other family circumstances have changed. It’s understandable that there’ll be a commensurate increase in historical child sex abuse convictions.

Again, let’s remind ourselves, this legal vagary in the principal Act means that individuals who committed offences prior to the commencement of the Act but who were convicted and sentenced after the date could be omitted from the register. Also, this legal vagary—as we’ve heard it described on several occasions today—saw that the Supreme Court, in a split 3:2 decision, simply found that the legislation and wording, as it currently is, was unclear. Essentially, we’re here now to seek to correct that and to re-establish what was the original intent.

The passage of this bill is a matter of urgency, in that the longer individuals are not subject to registration requirements, the more difficult it will be for police to locate and monitor and for police to do that job of protecting the community. I also want to echo several of the sentiments and the points that have been made tonight about this not being punitive, per se; about it being a tool; and about the intent here not to be adding additional unnecessary stressors but to have that monitoring sort of function, not just for the police but for offenders, who know that their rehabilitation and their continuous effort and their continued effort to not reoffend is supported in some sort of way.

So this relatively simple piece of amending legislation clarifies the principal Act, with retrospective application, and ensures that those convicted of these child sex offences are eligible for registration. It is yet another example of this Government’s firm, fair, and flexible handling of criminal matters. We are getting the balance right between justice, the victims, appropriate consequences for criminal offences, and keeping tamariki, whānau, and the wider community safe. So in that context, I’m satisfied that this amending legislation is important and necessary, and I commend this bill to the House.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s important that we stress that this bill is about the narrowest aspect of what we’ve been discussing, and it’s specifically about making sure that the existing provisions apply in the way that Parliament initially intended them to do. So in terms of making sure that we protect the wellbeing of children, and that we protect the safety of our whānau, we need to make sure that we do that effectively. So this bill clarifies that the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act’s retrospective application explicitly includes those persons who committed a qualifying offence before—but who were convicted and sentenced after—the Act came into force. Look, there’s been some arguments in this House around retrospectivity, and also some very good arguments about how we strike that balance between making sure we are fair, making sure we are firm, but also making sure that we protect the wellbeing of our communities. So this bill, I believe, strikes that ability to give us safety in that area.

I think it’s important to reflect, also, that it is important that we put forward what was originally intended by Parliament, and that’s exactly—for that to be included. So to give effect to the Act’s intent, the bill inserts amendments and new provisions into Schedule 1 of the Act, and that is quite clearly making a provision that validates a person’s placement on the child sex offender register if their registration would have been valid if the amendments were in force at the time of their registration. So it makes it clear that those individuals are, in fact, included, and I know that that will give a strong peace of mind to our communities, to parents, to children, to community leaders to know that this Parliament is vigilant and watching to make sure that we have those things in place.

Just to conclude, it’s important to note that this clarification is in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, and that was D v New Zealand Police, which has just recently been at court in February—9 February, I believe—and that determined that the qualifying offence was committed before the Act came into force. The Act is not sufficiently clear about the eligibility for that registration to displace the right in section 6 of the Sentencing Act 2002. So that has called upon the requirement of this legislation to be issued under urgency to make sure we get that completely straight. So, without further ado and without further delay of the celebrations for New Zealand winning the America’s Cup, I wish to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. This House will be in committee after the dinner break at 7.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

In Committee

Part 1 Amendment to Part 1 of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clause 4, which amends Part 1 of the principal Act by repealing section 9(1A). The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave that the matter be put as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Schedule 1 of principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clause 5, which amends Schedule 1 of the principal Act. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in regards to Part 2 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I have a few questions for the Minister in relation to clause 5, and my questions specifically relate to new clause 11, which is the “Exception for a particular appellant and decision as it relates to them”, and which says that “new clauses 5 to 8 do not—apply to the particular appellant” in the Supreme Court case which has brought this piece of legislation here to the House, and does not affect the judgment as it relates to that appellant.

My understanding of this issue is that, based on the advice from the Minister, this clause has been included based on the judgment, due to the fact that the Supreme Court found that the registration should be quashed on the point of law that the Supreme Court found that Parliament was not clear enough in its intent, that the retrospective provisions were retrospective enough, effectively. That’s what the Supreme Court found.

The question I have is what advice the Minister’s received on this particular issue, and was the insertion of this clause based upon the fact that the decision would be based on the point of law or based upon the new evidence which the Supreme Court accepted at the time of their hearing, whereby two of the Supreme Court Justices concluded that based on that new evidence, they did not believe that the registration order should have been made in the first place, notwithstanding their view of the point of law. And two of the Supreme Court Justices said that the registration order should remain. Effectively, they said that it should remain. One Supreme Court Justice didn’t make a determination based on the new evidence at the time. So, in my view, that issue is inconclusive based upon the new evidence. So my question to the Minister is whether the insertion of this clause is therefore based upon the conclusion that this case be decided on the point of law, which we’re not overturning today.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for the question. My understanding of it is this, and I may not articulate it as well as the many lawyers that are in the Chamber. This person took a matter to the High Court, to the Court of Appeal, and then to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices decided that there was not sufficient gravity to justify the making of a registration order. So in the Supreme Court, the decision was made about whether that person in the court—remember, they’re appealing the original decision to have them on the register in the first place—the Supreme Court found that it was not of sufficient gravity to justify the making of a registration order. What we have here is a situation which is very delicate. As a Parliament, we should not be reviewing individual cases, and there is a principle of the separation of powers here. So in this case the insertion of clause 11 is to provide for the fact that it has been decided that this person, by the virtue of the Supreme Court decision, would not have sufficient gravity to have a registration order. So that’s the compartment with which we deal with this particular situation.

The other thing we need to consider is that this person may go back to court, should we exclude clause 11, and then we may find ourselves in this situation where we come back to correct this again. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have some sympathy for the position that you are trying to articulate, but in this case we would not be supporting the removal of clause 11.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister in the chair, Poto Williams, for the clarification. My understanding of the case was that the issue around whether there was enough evidence was actually not concluded completely, in that two Justices said the new evidence did conclude that issue, that there was new evidence and therefore the offender shouldn’t be registered. Two Justices said the registration should remain, and one Justice didn’t actually make a conclusion on that matter, which means that the paragraph 3 in the judgment would indicate to me that the decision to have the offender removed from the register was based purely on the point of law, which is the issue that we are, essentially, legislating on today.

So effectively, from my reading and my understanding of this judgment, we’re effectively passing legislation here today to reverse the Supreme Court’s interpretation, clarify the matter, and say, “Actually, no, Parliament’s intention is we intended this to be retrospective.” So we’re essentially disagreeing with the Supreme Court on—well, we’re essentially clarifying Parliament’s intention that this is their view of the old legislation. We’re essentially clarifying the position. As they, in my reading of it, didn’t actually come to a conclusion as to whether this new evidence should be taken into account, whether it was relevant for the removal of the individual’s registration, we’re in a position where we’re effectively saying, of the 600 people who qualify for potential removal, if we don’t act tonight—we’re saying 600 of them, we will ensure they can go back on the registry, but there’s just this one guy which we’re going to leave off based upon this decision.

So that’s my understanding of the case, and I’d appreciate if the Minister could clarify that particular issue and any advice she’s received. She did allude to in her answer the issue that if we were to remove new clause 11 of Schedule 1, inserted by (clause 5, she said, potentially there could be further action taken by this individual in terms of court action. But my read of it would be that this particular individual would then fall under new clause 8 of Schedule 1 and would require a prosecutor to, potentially, take the issue further, if that’s what they decided to do.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I’d also like to speak to the Minister, please, on new clause 11 of Schedule 1, inserted by clause 5(7), just because clause 11’s first bullet point is that the decision—

Hon Member: What clause are we on?

NICOLE McKEE: Sorry—“Exception for particular appellant and decision as it relates to them”. Clause 11 provides that the new clauses 5 to 8 do not apply to the particular applicant. So does this mean that if that applicant went on on another case and was convicted of something else, that this would now not apply to him for any potential future cases?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I’ve just tabled an amendment to this bill, which, effectively, removes clause 11 so as to ensure that this legislation doesn’t actually provide a particular exception for the particular individual in the Supreme Court case. I believe there’s a number of reasons why this particular tabled amendment should be considered by the committee of the whole House, and that first and foremost my reading of the judgment indicates that this judgment discussed two issues: the first was the issue of retrospectivity, in which it found that the Parliament was not clear enough in its intent and therefore quashed, effectively, the registration for this particular individual and said he is not eligible to be placed on the register. The Supreme Court then went on and debated other issues, which included whether it was legitimate to take into account updating reports of the clinical psychologist who treated the appellant since his original sentencing.

Effectively, what happened was that the court decided that, yes, the Supreme Court could take into account those updated reports, and then they made a decision as to whether, based on that decision, they were satisfied that the appellant posed a risk to the sexual safety of children. Two of the Supreme Court Justices said they believed he did not continue to pose a sexual safety risk; one decided, based on the facts, on the new evidence, that he did continue; one Justice considered that, actually, the evidence should be considered at the time and then, based on that, that the registration was appropriate; and one Justice did not decide on that issue. So, basically, she said, “Given her view”—this is paragraph 10 of the judgment—“the registration does not apply to the appellant and Justice Ellen France does not consider it necessary to express a view as to whether a registration order should have been made under section 9.”

So, I guess, the concern on this side of the House around this clause is, effectively, that we are confirming a position about the risk of this particular individual, which was an issue which was not actually decided upon by the Supreme Court. They did decide on the point of law and, on that point of law, six hundred and something individuals could be removed—and we’re saying, actually, we don’t want those people removed; we don’t believe that should happen—but, in this particular instance, this individual is being removed by that point of law but we’re here, in clause 11, saying we’re giving effect to the Supreme Court’s decision that the prior legislation was not retrospective enough for this one individual. And, on this side of the House, I don’t believe that’s something we can accept, and that we should be removing clause 11 and then allowing this individual for the process that all of the other 600 individuals would have to be going through to ensure that their registration is retained, or that decision would have to be made, or clause 8 allows for a prosecutor to apply to the court regarding individuals, around their registration. So that’s what we’re, effectively, doing and arguing for, and we would appreciate the Minister’s views and potential support to that tabled amendment.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to add a perspective to the intervention from Mr Brown on the tabled amendment in his name, deleting clause 11. I want to look at it from the constitutional perspective, because this is, on the face of it, quite a drastic action by this committee. But as Mr Brown describes, if one looks deeper into the decision of the Supreme Court, there were obviously quite different views amongst the Justices about what to do, firstly, in respect of whether or not even the legislation passed by this House in 2017 was insufficient to prevent someone convicted in that window between the commission of the offence and the passage of the law. I’m moved by Justice Young’s consideration in paragraph 9. I quote the judgment: “[Justice Young] considers that at the time the appellant was sentenced, he posed a real or genuine risk to the lives or sexual safety of one or more children or children generally. The making of a registration order was therefore appropriate. He would have dismissed the appeal.”

Now, we work in this House as a democracy, and so—in this case, at least—did the Supreme Court. They were 3:2 in favour of allowing the appeal. They were 2:1:1 on the matter of whether the individual, the appellant, should have been given relief from a registration order. So I reconcile the apparent constitutional conundrum, where this House is being asked to consider the deletion of this clause, by applying the same democratic process that the Justices did. We have a choice now to determine whether or not, on the balance of our view of this case, a registration order should be made. As I said in my first reading speech, the idea of us passing legislation effectively expunging, potentially, part of the registration order—the Supreme Court has, effectively, done that. If indeed that’s the case, then this is a clause that isn’t necessary. But, actually, I think when one looks at the legislation and the offending and asks oneself whether or not this was a case that members of Parliament foresaw would have qualified for a registration order, I think the answer is yes.

So in recommending the deletion of clause 11, I’m at pains to point out that we are not attempting to ride over the Supreme Court’s ruling, which is constitutionally difficult, but rather it should be seen as this House considering, by its numbers, the same question that the Supreme Court did. Now, whether or not that amendment is successful will be a matter for the committee, but I don’t want members to think we are setting a precedent here where the stuff we don’t like the Supreme Court doing we can simply ride roughshod over. I don’t think that is what we are trying to do here. I think we need a careful consideration of our House’s intent, the Supreme Court’s careful consideration of what that intent was, and to step back from it and say, “What is the right thing to do for New Zealanders? What is the right thing to do for the children, some of whom have been hideously harmed by the images that this individual sought gratification from?” I think that when we look at it through that lens, I believe, Mr Brown believes, and the National Party believes it is appropriate for the individual who was the appellant in this case to be subject to a registration order.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to engage in a debate that’s clearly hugely important on a number of different levels. The substantive risks and the stakes could hardly be higher, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse has alluded to. But constitutionally too, this is a hugely important moment for our democracy, our nation State—dare I say it. I don’t want to overdramatise, but we face a very fundamental question in this House today of who makes the rules, as a distinct question from who makes the rulings.

It might sound almost too obvious to say, but we need to consider very carefully the role of the legislature in legislating and the role of the judiciary in adjudicating. Comity goes both ways. It’s not acceptable for a Parliament to tell the courts what to do in any individual case, but so too it is true that the courts should not do the role of lawmaking in the sense of the laws of the statute book. Indeed, they are to apply them, and they are, of course, to interpret them as necessary in an individual case, and interpretation may take the form of preferring, in the event of ambiguity, an interpretation that’s consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That’s all fine. That is all right. That is all proper. Indeed, that is all good.

But what we have here in front of us is not only a piece of legislation and a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report but also a Supreme Court judgment that together present a very troubling picture in terms of a degree of confusion that I believe has now arisen in relation to specific cases, the interpretation of the Acts of Parliament, and, dare I say, the attitude—and it doesn’t give me any pleasure to say—of some members of the bench in relation to the respective roles of these branches of Government.

Speaking to Part 2, particularly, of the bill, colleagues have raised a couple of technical difficulties in relation to proposed clause 11 of Schedule 1, in clause 5(7). The member from the ACT Party Nicole McKee raised what I think is actually a really good point in relation to the apparent effect of clause 11, which is to say that, in relation to the particular appellant in the case D v New Zealand Police, the law is not to apply to that person. It seems to me an open question, whether or not intended by this Parliament, whether the particular person who is the particular appellant in that case may be exempted from the effect of this law going forward—so not even addressing the question of retrospectivity in terms of the offending that he or she—and I understand he—has apparently undertaken, but, actually going forward as well.

I think the construction of clause 11, if I’ve understood its effect correctly, may erroneously—and that is to say: in a way that’s unintended—excuse or exempt that particular person who was the appellant in that case from such judgment going forward. God forbid that he should behave in such a way again that would place in danger the children of New Zealand, such that that would even become a relevant question. I hope that it’s a merely academic point. I hope that it’s a moot point. But, nevertheless, it’s an important one for constitutional reasons, and I give credit to the ACT member Nicole McKee for having raised it in this committee. That’s an additional argument in favour of the withdrawal, the removal, of clause 11, as has been recommended, and indeed tabled, by Simeon Brown.

My other question mark is in relation to proposed clause 12 of Schedule 1, in clause 5(7). I think I’m right in my understanding, but I would be grateful for any guidance the Minister can provide in this regard. I think what we have here is an overriding of any inconsistent other law, so any law arising from that particular case is going to be overridden by clauses 1 and 5 to 8 of Schedule 1, notwithstanding that clause 11 as it currently stands says that those don’t apply to that particular appellant. So we’ve got almost a situation of competition between two different clauses there, but I think I’m right in saying that the intent of the Minister, and, no doubt, the Parliament as a whole, will be to say that that case has no precedent value but, in respect of that particular person, it should apply.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you to members for their questions. I’ll go to Nicole McKee’s first, regarding whether clause 11 would prevent this person from future placement on the register. No, this only applies to the appellant in the particular case—that is the offending that’s being dealt with by the court; this person, the appellant, would be subject to consideration for placement on the register for any future offending.

I will come to Mr Brown’s question—and I just want to clarify the answer that I should have given before, but didn’t give quite enough detail: the court actually quashed the registration order on the basis that the appellant was not eligible to be registered because he was not convicted and sentenced until after the Act commenced; basically, the issue at hand.

Simeon Brown: Like everybody else.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That’s right. The court went on to—as we know, as has already been spoken about in the House—consider whether a registration order would have been made if he was eligible. And that is where we’ve come to the matter where the two judges found no, two judges found yes, and one did not express a view. That does not change our view that we will not be accepting the Supplementary Order Paper to remove clause 11.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you. I would just take a very quick call in response to the Minister’s first comments about the passage of clause 11 not precluding the appellant being placed on the register. I want to just clarify that I think what the Minister means is that in order for that to happen, further offending needs to take place, and that’s the same for everyone. Whether they have committed an offence or not, in the future—if they further offend, or offend for the first time—they could be subject to a registration order. So I want to just clarify whether that’s what she intended to say, if that’s what she meant, but also point out that the placement of this offender on the register now may well prevent that future offending. That is, in part, what the register is designed to do, and potentially the likelihood that further offending could take place may be reduced.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my colleague Michael Woodhouse makes a very good point. The point I’d like to make, though—another argument in favour of removing this, which I’d appreciate the Minister’s consideration of—is, this clause 11 is an exception for the particular appellant as it relates to them. It says here, clauses 5 to 8 do not apply to the appellant in that case, or affect the judgment as it relates to that appellant. I can understand (b), which is the constitutional issue, but (a), essentially, gives this individual an exemption around any other offending that he may have done prior to 2016 and this legislation coming into effect. This is a very broad exception, in my opinion, to this individual, which I think needs to be taken into account very seriously.

Because what we’re doing here is essentially saying any offending which happened at any time prior to that legislation can then be brought to the court, the individual charged, convicted, and then for that person to be placed potentially on the register. There’s a discretion for the courts in some situations to place a person on the register. If this individual has—and we’re not aware of it yet—for some reason, offended in addition to the offending that he’s already been convicted of, effectively, if he is convicted of that, the courts now have no opportunity to place this individual, assuming that offending happened prior to 2016, on the registration for a separate historical offence. That is my reading of clause 11(a), because that does not necessarily relate to this particular judgment but relates to any offending that may have been done by this individual prior to the 2016 legislation coming into force.

If my reading is correct, it should concern the House that this particular individual has now been exempted in a way that every other person, who may or may not be going through the courts or who may have offended but the offence has not been yet discovered and has not been charge with, still could be put on the register, but this particular individual cannot. So I’d appreciate the Minister’s consideration on that particular point.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): That’s not my reading of clause 11. My reading of clause 11—or my understanding is that the court quashed the registration order based on the offending and the conviction that was presented to the court. It’s not my reading that other offences that may or may not have happened prior to the legislation would be captured by that.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): So has the Minister received advice regarding that particular point, in regards to clause 11(a), because I think it is of quite serious concern, and what does that advice say?

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. When I look at clause 11 and hear the arguments from my colleagues across the way there, I can understand and hear both sides of the argument, and what concerns me is our intent could be erroneous again if we don’t get the wording just right. What I mean by this is with that first bullet point, “apply to the particular appellant in” the decision, so while you, Minister, tell us that it’s about the decision that was made in the Supreme Court at that time, the argument is: is that clear enough in that bullet point? Because what we don’t want to occur is for the potential for the appellant to go on and reoffend and read that bullet point the same way that the National Party and the ACT Party have. We want to make sure that this bill goes through absolutely watertight. To be honest with you, I’m not quite sure how we go about doing that. But that’s just the concern, that I think that that particular bullet point can be read in two different ways and therefore leave a door open for that appellant and a smack on the hand to us from the Supreme Court once again. Thank you.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I thank the member for that comment. I just want to reassure that member that the legislation that we’re passing today deals with retrospectivity. So any future offending will not be captured by that, that we are very clear that this is about ensuring that people who have committed an offence prior who were charged and convicted after the passage of the legislation are now going to be included in the ability to have registration. It does not preclude future offending. Someone who is charged and convicted of future offending that is eligible to go on to the register will do so.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you. Just very straight—oh, well, firstly, just a request for clarification. My colleague Michael Woodhouse had previously asked the Minister whether it’s the case in her mind that for the appellant in the D v New Zealand Police, it’s only going to be that he would be registered in relation to any hypothetical future, such offending, in the same way that that would also apply to any other person in New Zealand to whom the law applied!

And my other question is a reasonably straightforward one: does she believe that this bill is consistent or inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions on two separate matters, and that’s it in relation to this part. So the first question is in regards to the judgment by the court where they now consider it legitimate to take into account the updating reports of clinical psychologists on appeal. Now, on that particular point, whilst this legislation doesn’t necessarily deal with that issue, I’m wanting to know if the Minister has received any advice in regards to this particular issue, because, for a sentence such as this, this individual would be on the register for eight years. This, essentially, gives the ability for appeals—it would appear that it gives the ability for appeals—to take place and for individuals to then present new evidence and then to be, potentially, removed from that register before that eight-year period is over. I’m just wondering if the Minister’s received any particular advice on that issue or has any concerns about that issue.

The second is in relation to clause 12, which is the overriding of any inconsistent other laws, and this is a very important section because, essentially, this is the section we hope means we don’t have to come back here and do this again at some point, because it, essentially, overrides section 6 of the Sentencing Act and sections 25 and 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and this judgment, and whether the language in that section is expressive enough and whether the Minister is confident that that language is expressive enough to express Parliament’s intent that we are overriding these other pieces of legislation. I do note the Supreme Court did refer to the language used by the Parole Act in relation to its retrospectivity and provided some recommendations around the type of language which could be used, such as “to avoid all doubt”, “to avoid doubt”, and whether this particular section avoids all doubt and with expressive enough language so that this is not an issue which has to be potentially traversed again.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I wish to ask the Minister a simple question from a humble electrical engineer. This legislation is all about overriding a court’s decision and saying that this Parliament doesn’t agree. We would like to see certain people registered as offenders, but it has in new clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the Act, as set out in clause 5(7), an exception that says while we’re happy to override one decision of the court, we’re not going to override another particular decision. Now, obviously, it’s been controversial and people around the House have taken different decisions about whether Parliament should override a Supreme Court decision the way that it is. I just wonder if you could explain why we seem to be prepared to override one decision but not another.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Seymour, for that. I don’t think that your characterisation of what we’re attempting to do is actually accurate. We’re not attempting to override the decision of a court. The court has made a decision which has then resulted in that particular view being applied to others. So what we’re attempting to do is tidy up the law because it was clear from the Supreme Court that our intent and the clarity of the legislation that we passed were not the same. So what we are doing with this amendment is actually indicating our intent, which is that people who have offended prior to the passage of that legislation, were charged and convicted after, are captured.

The whole point of this is about ensuring that people who have historic sex offences against children are eligible to go on to the register, and therefore be monitored and therefore supported by Government agencies—that is the whole point of what we are trying to do here. We’re not trying to override decisions of courts. We’re trying to ensure that the courts are able to use our legislation to the full effect of the intent of Parliament.

Can I come to the matter of clause 12 and clause 11—and this was a question that Mr Penk posed. There is no competition between clause 12 and 11 because they are consistent. Clause 11 is the exception and clauses 5 to 8 do not apply to the appellant, so clause 12 does not apply to the appellant.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to Part 2 deleting new clause 11 from clause 5(7) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 85

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we come now to clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on the title, commencement, and principal Act clauses. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare. I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Firstly, I’d like to thank all members of the House for their very valuable contributions tonight on what is a very important bill. At the heart of this is how we protect our children from child sex offenders and trying to amend—do a fix up—of a previous bill that came to the House in 2016, which I well remember the discussion and the debate on at that time. I want to thank all the members for raising issues that they have and for also ensuring that we pass the bill in its best form by asking pertinent questions.

The bill as it was passed—the primary legislation—was about keeping our kids safe, and it was about the imbalance of power that our children have in times when they are harmed by others. Often it’s very difficult for a child, or, in fact, it’s virtually impossible for a child to raise these issues of harm at the time, and what tends to happen is, as an adult, those offences become so problematic that they—[Member coughs]—apologies—raise them as older people. What the primary legislation and the amendment to this seek to do is to deal with—[Melissa Lee, and then Sarah Pallett give the member a glass of water]—thank you, my dear; oh thank you, both of you—historical sex offences, to deal with cases where, for one reason or another, those matters couldn’t have been raised at the time. I’m very grateful to the House for fixing up a problem that wasn’t intended when that first piece of legislation went through.

I understand the use of urgency is not something we take lightly, nor is looking at the issue of retrospectivity, and often, when we are having debates in the House, one of the things that we raise is whether legislation should be retrospective. We’ve done so in this case because of the unique nature of sexual offending towards children, where the ability to raise concerns at the time is often very limited.

I have to say that what was unique about this case is that we were able to, largely, have consensus across the House. I’m grateful to members for their participation in our dialogue leading up to the bill coming to the House, and I’m also grateful that there have been times when we haven’t always agreed. As I said in earlier readings of this particular bill, dissension is not a bad thing. It does allow us to examine different perspectives, and we should allow for that healthy, robust debate to occur, never more so than in bills such as this where we are looking at the protection of our children.

I want to refer to a comment that one of my colleagues made during one of the readings earlier on that this is a bill that puts a person on a private register—a register that’s only accessed by Government agencies. The reason for that is not necessarily about monitoring, although monitoring is a feature of that. It’s also about the ability to reach in and provide support, and I think that’s an important aspect that we can’t forget: that all people have the ability for rehabilitation and change.

If we are to take that as a feature of how we want to work in the future in this House, it does speak to our ability to be compassionate and to help people when they reach out for help. All of those values are wrapped up in this little piece of legislation, which is my first bill that I’ve taken all the way through the House, and I’ve done it on one day, so that’s pretty momentous.

Just in conclusion, it’s been a big day for officials, and I want to thank them very much for the work that they have done. It’s been a big few weeks for the police, ascertaining the people that were captured by the Supreme Court decision, and I thank them very much for their work. I thank my colleagues, and I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, which the National Party will be supporting at third reading. I would like to just begin by, again, acknowledging Minister Poto Williams for the work she’s done in regards to this very important piece of legislation following the Supreme Court decision on 9 March earlier this year. It’s a decision which has meant that Parliament has had to revisit this particular piece of legislation again, but a decision on which I believe the Minister’s made the right call in bringing this to the House and working with the officials so that we can get this done urgently, because it is a very serious—a very serious—issue. I’d like to acknowledge with her the officials and the police for the work that they’ve been doing in preparation for this bill coming to the House.

The National Party has supported the use of urgency for this piece of legislation because this is an incredibly important piece of legislation. The child sex offender registration is about ensuring the protection of the most vulnerable children in our community and protecting these offenders from causing more victims in our society and keeping New Zealanders safe. Because of the very real risk to public safety if the 600 individuals were removed from the registry and were not able to be monitored and were not required to continue on the registry for the time that they must stay on the registry as prescribed by the law—because of that risk, we have supported the use of urgency in getting this bill through all stages without a select committee in one day, and that is the right thing to do in these very serious issues with very serious legislation. It’s not something which should be used lightly, but, in this case, it’s very, very warranted.

I have raised concerns in the committee of the whole House, particularly around the new clause 11 of Schedule 1 of the Act, as set out in clause 5(7), and we do express that we have some unease around the way that the legislation has been drafted in clause 11 and are not completely confident in its application to this particular individual. The real concern is that this individual is not only exempted from the offending in his case in being removed from the registry but also exempted from any other potential offending. So look, we do hold some concerns around this and we have expressed that during the committee of the whole House, and we will leave that point there.

We have also expressed concern over the Green Party’s lack of support for this piece of legislation. I will reiterate my comments from the second reading here at the third reading that this is not a debate on whether there should be a child sex offender registry or not. That particular debate was held back in 2016. That was the time to raise concerns over whether that was the most effective tool or the right tool. Parliament should be legislating to try and reduce risk of this type of offending and to keep the public safe. What we are dealing with here is simply the retrospectivity of that legislation and whether Parliament’s intended retrospective nature has been given effect to. The Supreme Court has come and said that, no, we were not express enough in the retrospectivity in the way it was drafted—that’s what the Supreme Court has stated. What we are doing here today is saying that, actually, we want to clarify that retrospectivity so that the 600 offenders and more who would be struck off the registry are put back on the registry. That is about the public safety, and I think it’s outrageous—whilst I can understand a principled argument when setting up the registry, with the registry now in place, it is our public duty as parliamentarians to ensure the public safety of New Zealanders, and I would hope that the Green Party would reconsider their lack of support for this important piece of legislation and the one quarter of the individuals in the registry who would otherwise be struck off if this legislation was not supported.

So the National Party is supporting this piece of legislation, as we’ve outlined. It’s an incredibly important piece of legislation. We look forward to its passage through third reading tonight.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to speak briefly on this bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I really wanted to just touch on a few points of constitutional significance. I note the Attorney-General’s report, which touches on the fact that in the Attorney-General’s view, the original legislation changed the penalty and, in fact, increased it by the imposition of the register, and, therefore, where there is an increased burden across time, the lower of those two penal burdens should be borne by the offender. The register, arguably—look, it’s a register of addresses, personal details, and so on so that the police can monitor people who are a risk to the community, and it certainly isn’t intended to be a form of punishment. It’s simply there for the safety of the community. So I think, when the balancing is done in terms of the burden of retrospectivity, such as it is, it’s very modest indeed.

Of course, the other point around retrospectivity—and I accept, absolutely, the importance of the presumption against retrospectivity. The point is that as we look through the decisions of the courts in this case, it’s been very finely balanced indeed. I think, in this House, where we’ve largely come together on the point, we accept that the legislature’s original intention was that it would capture all sex offending and not only sex offending after the date in question. So that’s the first point. Whilst I absolutely accept the retrospectivity point, it is a very weak one in this case indeed.

I also want to touch on the point that the appellant in this case is excluded from it, and I accept Mr Brown’s observations that, to him, it may seem unusual. There are, essentially, two principles in play here, and Mr Penk also observed that. I think he said something like, “Who makes the rules?” Obviously, Parliament, in this case, is supreme. However, there is another strong constitutional principle that I don’t think has been identified, and that is that when a court has made a decision about rights which apply to a particular person, this House should be extremely reluctant to take those rights away.

We might not like the rights that the court has accorded to this person. The court has said in respect of this offender that “The law is not retrospective and your name need not go on that register.” That’s the Supreme Court and that is the final decision of the highest court in the land, and we must respect that. So whilst we need to fix the law in respect of those 600 other offenders, it is quite appropriate that this House does not go back and rewrite a decision of the Supreme Court. We must absolutely respect the judgment of those lawyers and scholars, but—absolutely—at the same time move on and fix it in respect of all of those other offenders who haven’t had their particular cases before the court and haven’t crystallised that right to not go on the sex offenders register.

So I wanted to really take this moment to say that this is actually an interesting and important piece of legislation, both because it preserves and protects the safety of our communities and because it is a good and elegant solution to a relatively complex constitutional problem relating to the relationship between this House and our courts. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I won’t make a call that is longer than necessary on this, notwithstanding the complexity and outright interesting, from a constitutional point of view, nature of the debate and the discussion.

Let me start by giving credit to the Attorney-General. I have said in recent times, including on the public record, that I believe that some of the section 7 reports produced under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have landed in a different place than I would have myself. As it happens, I think that this particular report that has been produced, where he’s identified an apparent inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, is probably correct, actually. So credit where it’s due, in relation to the advice that there may be a double jeopardy and retrospectivity element that would offend those provisions.

Duncan Webb—Dr Duncan Webb, no less—makes a sophisticated argument around whether the fact of being on a register is in the nature of a penalty at all, and that’s a very interesting discussion. I won’t go into it any further, because I think it should suffice to say that even if the Attorney-General is correct in saying that the law is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that is not a reason, ultimately, finally, that Parliament should not make this law. Parliament has the responsibility of passing legislation that it deems, taking into account all factors—and not merely that one, as important as it is—to the benefit of New Zealand as a whole. It goes without saying that the safety of children, their lives and, indeed, sexual safety—as the phrase is used in the legislation and the judgment—is such an important one that we should not disregard it, to put it mildly.

Of course, accountability is a characteristic that differentiates two branches of Government. If we’re talking about the legislature, we are, rightly, accountable at least every three years in a way that the courts, rightly, are not.

One thing I would just add, though, before I conclude my remarks is that, again, I acknowledge the point that was made, and I had sought to make it before, but perhaps I didn’t do so particularly clearly. When I said that it is important to acknowledge who makes the rules in our system of Government, that is Parliament, but the rulings are the decisions—the judgments of the court in respect of specific cases, all things being equal, of course should stand. I believe that it’s worth making a caveat and a disclaimer to that, however, which is to say that if the court is determining a particular case based on the merits of that case as it comes before the court according to the law of the land as duly passed by the Parliament, that is fine. But if it were the case—and I don’t say that it is necessarily—in the judgment that is before us that the courts, or at least some members of the Supreme Court, had determined not that Parliament’s intention was unclear but, rather, that it was unsavoury, then of course that would have been unacceptable. As I observed in the committee of the whole House stage, comity must go both ways.

At that, I’ll leave my remarks, expressing only a hope for reasons connected with the obvious importance of child safety, as well as for the sake of our constitution, that this argument proves somewhat academic in the case of a person identified in the judgment in question as D. So I’ll leave my remarks there and, as others have done on this side of the House and, it seems, across the House in general, with the possible exception of the ACT Party, or, excuse me, the Green Party—I do apologise to both—I commend the bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a few brief remarks in relation to this bill at its third reading. I think we’ve traversed a fair bit this evening in terms of the issues, including the prevalence of sexual abuse on child victims, including the impact on those victims, and we’ve also, of course, looked at the reasons why retrospective provisions in this case are justified, which I think several of my colleagues, including Dr Webb, have covered very well.

I thought I’d use this third opportunity to speak to this bill by highlighting some of the requirements in the primary legislation. We did talk about the fact that those individuals do need to provide information, so I just wanted to talk about the term of registration that people stay on that register for. So there is a term of registration for eight years if the offender has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a class 1 offence, or if the offender has been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence for a qualifying offence and has been ordered to be registered by the sentencing judge. That then increases to a term of registration for 15 years if the offender is sentenced with what’s called a class 2 offence, which is more serious. That increases to life registration if the offender has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a class 3 offence.

I was looking at those provisions and just reflecting on some comments in the House made both by Minister Poto Williams and by Rachel Boyack earlier this evening about the fact that this isn’t about punishment. It is primarily about child safety, but also about Government entities being able to reach in and support those people who have been convicted, and I am alarmed that without this bill there might be people not just in classes 1 or 2 but also those very, very serious classes—class 3—who wouldn’t receive that support.

That probably lends nicely to the second point that I just wanted to briefly make, which was in response to some concerns raised earlier by my colleague from the Green Party about the release of information to third parties. So my understanding is—and this is really a reflection on the primary legislation, as well—that Police and Corrections can’t release information about a registered person unless there is a need to do so to protect a child or children from a significant threat. The standard is quite high, and where information about someone on the register is released, there are a number of protocols that apply, and, indeed, there are penalties if that information is released outside of the protocols. So in my view that is a useful justification for the release of that information to third parties, but also—just reflecting on what I’ve just spoken to—it is beneficial for the offender, as well, to be able to access the support that they might need through other Government agencies.

I just want to end on a reflection on some of my experience in my previous life as a solicitor with YouthLaw Aotearoa, and a few people have pointed to this as well. The fact is that it is very difficult to get to a conviction. If you think about what a young person has to go through to raise an issue, let alone an issue that is so intimate and personal as this, it is a significant barrier to cross, and then for that young person to go through the court processes that follow, it’s, again, a very difficult barrier to cross. When you finally do get to a conviction, I think that does place on us an additional obligation to ensure that there is no reoffending—that we look to preventative mechanisms to ensure that there is no reoffending in that case.

I won’t take up any more time from the House this evening. I commend the bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise again, for the third time, in this urgent reading of this bill. I begin, again, as others have done and as I have done before tonight, by holding at the centre of this debate the victims of child abuse and sexual violence, the incredibly high rates, the incredible heartbreak of our nation as we consider this absolute plight and epidemic that we face as lawmakers and as New Zealanders. We absolutely all agree across this House and across our nation that children should be safe from sexual violence and abuse, that we hold that duty at the forefront of everything that we do—in particular, because children, without the agency of adults, are our most marginalised of communities.

So I know that that is the intention behind this bill and, in particular, the intention of the Minister who has brought the bill before the House. Unfortunately, it doesn’t change the position that we in the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand hold: that it’s not good law, it’s not effective law, and it, in fact, undermines both the rule of law and New Zealand’s human rights standards.

We agree with the Chief Justice, the President of New Zealand’s Supreme Court, the Attorney-General, and the Human Rights Commission that there is very little evidence that there’s any efficacy at all in holding a child sex offender register, and I’ll address the comments made by my colleague Simeon Brown from the National Party that the efficacy of child sex registers is not central to this debate because this is about the retrospective application. Well, actually, it is central to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act balancing exercise that we must consider when we consider whether or not the breaches of that Act are justified in law.

We have to consider whether or not the breach of two fundamental human rights in New Zealand, which come under section 25, the minimum standards for criminal procedure, and section 26, the rule against retrospective punishment—whether we’re doing something that’s actually worth it. When there is no real evidence that what we’re doing is protecting anyone at all, that becomes central to the integrity of this law. The rule of law, which it is our duty to uphold, is about transparency and the knowability of law to those that it impacts and affects. Retrospective legislation in every way breaches the rule of law.

Then we come to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We have section 25 that sets out the minimum standards for criminal procedure. Now, criminal sanction is one of the most important arenas for human rights law to be upheld. There is huge prejudice when we talk about criminal justice, and the prejudice is felt, palpable, in this House tonight because we all care so deeply. We are all so horrified by child sex offending, but that doesn’t make every single piece of law that we say addresses that plight good law.

So we’re breaching the minimum standards of criminal justice and fairness in this law. We’re breaching the rule against retrospective legislation. We are—it is the opinion of the Attorney-General and the President of the Supreme Court—punishing people by putting them on the register. Our highest, independent experts on making that assessment say that this is a punishment—I know others disagree in this House—and that it does breach those rights.

Now, the only way that would be justified is if we could point to evidence that this is at all keeping kids safe. I think it is time, and I think the past Government I was proud to be a part of and this Government do have a commitment to doing things differently in criminal justice. That means looking at the evidence of what works to prevent crime, to keep communities safe, to rehabilitate those that come into conflict with our criminal justice system. This is not that approach.

We have done a lot that’s been right, and we can invest the resource that will go into keeping this register and to apply it retrospectively into what we know works. We know that under the first Wellbeing Budget that we passed under the last Government, together with the coalition partners, we committed the biggest resource—that was $320 million—to a cross-ministry approach to solving domestic and sexual violence, including violence against children, including sexual violence against children. That was led by my colleague Jan Logie, the first parliamentary under-secretary for domestic and sexual violence in New Zealand, and it is going to be work that our new Minister for domestic and sexual violence, Marama Davidson, will lead. I know that the Minister of Police, who has brought this bill to the House today, is excited and committed to doing that work as well, and we know that it will be leading on the support of community-based, grassroots people that are at the forefront of this incredible challenge in our communities, across Māori communities, Pacific communities, and migrant communities. We know that the resource is best spent invested in their work.

So this isn’t good law. It does weaken the rule of law in New Zealand. It weakens us as a Parliament and our commitment to human rights, which isn’t something that we can say we’ll only do when it’s convenient and pretty. We have to do it when it looks hard. We can’t keep relying on old, failed approaches that only make politicians look tough on crime. So I oppose the bill.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I rise as well for the third time tonight and, again, in support of this bill. I’d like to begin my last speech with acknowledging once again the Minister of Police’s work. You’ve put through a tremendous amount in a very short period of time, and you’ve managed to get mostly cross-party support, so well done to you for that effort.

I also just want to put on record, as I already had, my concerns about new clause 11 of Schedule 1, inserted by clause 5. I hope that we are using this urgency well and that we are fixing now what the Supreme Court saw as an error, and that we don’t have to come back to do further fixes because of new clause 11. High-risk offenders are captured by a register. They are being watched by the agencies. They’re being supported by other agencies because they are on that register. In a way, it is helping to prevent reoffending, and I think this is the evidence that my colleague in the Green Party is looking for. The fact that we have low reoffending rates from those on the register is the evidence that the register actually does work. But there is an error that the Supreme Court has found in regard to how people get on to that register, and our job here in this House is to fix that error. I am quite happy to be a part of that fix.

This is about an investment in our communities. By having a register, we are making sure that we are keeping our children safe, that mums and dads out there feel confident to let their children go out and play, go to school, and do all those good things that we probably took for granted when we were growing up. I would like to see and make sure that my grandchildren have the ability to go out there and play, without wondering or worrying about who might be in their community unwatched and unmarked. So, in that respect, I do commend this bill to the House, and I thank the Minister for the work that she’s done on it.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise again to congratulate this House, first off. It’s encouraging, as a newbie, to see the courtesy and common sense that has been displayed tonight, in what has been a difficult issue.

I congratulate the Minister for knuckling down to fix a mistake that was not of her own making, with grace and without recriminations, and for the exemplary approach to consultation that she has taken, and also, I believe, possibly a record for the first person to ever get her first bill through in a day. I also congratulate the Opposition parties for also recognising the importance of this work and the fact that it did need to be done under urgency. The discussion has been moderate, thoughtful, and considered, and I likewise respect the Greens’ position. There is an issue with retrospectivity, and the question is whether that issue is justified. It is finely balanced, as my colleague Dr Webb has said—finely balanced in the Court of Appeal.

So I put it to you this way: monitoring is a proportionate and necessary response. But let us break it down even further. The first question is: what is the risk of harm if we do not go against convention? Well, we all know the harm that child sex abuse can do. It is extreme and long lasting in some cases. It is necessary to say—and I do want to say this—not all victims, of course, go on to be offenders, but the results can be long lasting and lifelong.

It is important, however, to notice in particular that historical sex offenders are the ones caught most by this bill, and I want to just reiterate that disclosure of sex abuse is not a quick process for most people who are abused and historical sex abuse disclosures are actually quite common and quite normal, and the harm done to those people who have had to live with that experience all their lives can be crippling. I have worked with people who have taken over 50 years to address what happened to them as children, and I have seen the transformation that happens when they are then able to disclose and deal with that in a sensitive and appropriate manner.

We do know that child sex offenders are often serial offenders. There are studies from the early 1980s which talk about first-time sex offenders, and what was often discovered there was that although it was the first time they had been caught, it was normally not the first time they’d offended. There was often quite a long history of offence behind every single supposed first-time offender. The risk of harm is high.

But is, then, the response proportionate? This is the second part of the question, I’d suggest. A register alone, I have to agree with my Green colleagues, would not be appropriate. A register alone is a penalising response, but this is not a register designed to penalise; it is a post-sentence rehabilitative condition. It enables officials to walk alongside an offender and to help them reintegrate, because we do have effective clinical treatment but we don’t have enough of it. We need this additional fence of the Police and Corrections being able to walk alongside our offenders until they can get into proper clinical treatment. In these circumstances, police monitoring is an effective and proportionate response.

But I do want to reiterate something else that Minister Poto Williams said. It is important in the way we talk about sex offences and sex offenders that we do not vilify. Intensive treatment can work, people do rehabilitate, and also offenders are so often family members, and it is family members they offend against. It is important not to vilify, because we know from clinicians that often the reason kids don’t disclose abuse is because they are scared of what will happen to dad or to uncle or to grandpa. They want the abuse to stop, but they love the offender. We need to be careful and moderate in our language when we talk about this if we want to make a real difference to the children who are being offended against, and I sometimes wonder if the reason that we are sometimes so unready to believe children when they do disclose is that we fail to recognise that most offenders are ordinary people, and that the dad next door can be the monster of our fears and our nightmares.

It is important that we take a treatment-focused approach, and it is important therefore that we make this register a reality for all of our offenders, but it’s important that we recognise that it is a step, hopefully, along the road to rehabilitation for these people, for the sake of their children in more ways than one. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Melissa Lee—five minutes.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to thank everyone, starting from the Minister, the Hon Poto Williams.

Hon Poto Williams: Thank you for the water.

MELISSA LEE: Thank you for all of the work—and you’re welcome about the water—and I’d like to, obviously, commend the work that our officials have had to deliver to this House in the short space of time since the Supreme Court decision.

Having gone through the process of the first reading, second reading, and committee stage, I am still left with some questions, particularly because I think my colleague Simeon Brown had a very good point in his amendment. But I am left with the question: is the degree of criminality of the offending of appellant D, if the wording in our original bill had been clear enough so that he would have been placed on the sex offender registry in the original piece of legislation, so there would have been no reason for that person to end up in the Supreme Court—does that process diminish the degree of offence that requires the offence and the offender to be put on the sex offender registry?

That is the thing that keeps playing in my head. I can’t deal with it right now, but I think the very fact that we’re dealing with sexual offences against children is enormously serious, and the very fact is that we have a register of sex offenders who commit these heinous crimes against children. Because it is serious, their names are registered and they are followed—not literally, but they are registered so that the police can monitor them. When they come out of prison, they then have to register with the Police, Corrections, and the probation office to tell them where they’re going to be living, what kind of living arrangements do they have, do they have young children in their homes, what is their car registration, and what kind of internet service provider do they actually have in their home so that the Police and the Corrections and the people who are looking to relocate this offender back into society are able to assist him to, hopefully, not reoffend. I think it is really, really important, and I think the very fact that this offender has his own clause in the bill—appellant D has new clause 11 in the bill—it really concerns me. But I am taking the Minister at her word that this has actually been dealt with.

I just want to address the issue that Golriz Ghahraman actually said. She said, “Is the bill doing anything?” She said that the bill makes politicians look tough, and that is the reason why she’s opposing this bill. This bill does do something. The Supreme Court decision means that 600 sex offenders who were on the sex offender registry were wiped off—that’s a quarter of the sex offenders. This amendment that we are passing tonight puts those 600 offenders—those people who are offending against the most vulnerable children; offending, sexually molesting our children—back on the register so we can keep a watch—not us; the police, the probation officers, and the corrections officers, who can help them as well as protect our children. She said that it makes us look tough. This doesn’t make us politicians look tough; this actually makes us responsible.

The Supreme Court decision was three to two—it wasn’t a unanimous decision. That is the reason why we’re actually debating this. I just wish that we could send a message back with a unanimous vote to pass this so that we can actually make people understand that the intent of this Parliament is to say that there is retrospective law for sexual offending against children and that we are standing together as one voice—one Parliament. It’s just a shame that the Green Party can’t agree to that. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise this evening to take this call instead of the Māori Party. I hear the whakaaro, the discussions this evening, where we talk about our tamariki—tamariki that we treasure as whānau amongst our communities, amongst our iwi and hapū and the places of which we come from. What comes to mind this evening is a whakataukī: Whaia te iti kahurangi, ki te tūohu koe me he maunga teitei.

[Seek the treasure that you value most dearly. If you bow your head, let it be to a lofty mountain.]

As I reflect on the discussion this evening, that is a whakataukī that we share amongst our kids, amongst our tamariki. We encourage them to aim for that lofty mountain. I hear the sense, the call, the karanga, from across the room for kotahitanga this evening on supporting this bill and that we stand by our tamariki.

What this bill does is it ensures that our tamariki are protected through this bill, but it also isn’t an incredibly punitive approach to our offenders, because they also have the right to rehabilitate themselves, to re-integrate themselves into society. But I know the impacts across all of our whānau of sex offenders, intergenerationally, that impact our whānau, and intergenerationally it takes time for families to heal and to recover. What this bill does is take steps towards protecting our tamariki so that they can aim and strive for that lofty mountain, and we have a responsibility, as whānau members, as parliamentarians, to ensure that we take our best step forward to protect them. I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. I am frustrated. I’m frustrated by the suggestion from the Green member that because we in this House care about sex offending against children, that is the reason why we as parliamentarians are considering a bill with a retrospective provision, and that is why we are entertaining it—that somehow this debate tonight has been emotive lawmaking, that the parents in this House have been considering these provisions which perhaps are a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because we are somehow emotionally invested in this, that we are somehow considering the rights of our children in an inappropriate way. I’m frustrated by that because I find that to be out of touch, to be cynical, and to be wrong in law and to mischaracterise the role of parliamentarians here tonight.

I have two questions for us to consider as we consider this bill. The first is: what is the rights balancing exercise that is before us? We’ve heard a lot of discussion tonight about this issue of retrospectivity and how we should consider it best. I think it’s really important, first, to consider that when Parliament first considered these amendments, it had the benefit of the Attorney-General’s reports which considered this possible incursion into the rights of people to know the law and for the law to be knowable. The Attorney-General provided his advice at the time about how that may be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. My point here is that Parliament passed that amendment with the full view of the Attorney-General’s advice. It knew exactly what it was doing in considering the retrospective nature of those provisions at the time; it chose to do that anyway—that is the role of parliamentarians. At the time, that rights balancing exercise was required. We needed to consider whether or not that retrospectivity was balanced in this situation. We did; we’ve had that debate, and it is appropriate that tonight we correct the drafting error which didn’t reflect that intention of Parliament at the time.

We also have to consider what rights are being compromised, possibly, on the other side of that coin. We’ve heard some submissions from my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, as well as the Minister in charge of this bill, Poto Williams, about how being required to register your personal details on a register which is only available to police is not in fact a penalty. I would just like to add that when you consider the other penalties that apply to offenders in this category—the other penalties that apply to child sex offenders—registering your name and giving details about where you live is a very minor infringement on your rights compared to the raft of other penalties which are imposed upon you. So when we’re considering a rights balancing exercise in the context of someone who has already committed what could be very serious offending, we should consider that that simple tool to allow police to do their job of making sure that the conditions are complied with and that police have that information which they need is in fact a really minor incursion. We should be aware of that before we bring emotive language about the rights of offenders into this debate.

My second question that I would like us to consider is the role of parliamentarians in this. It would be a mistake for any members in this House, and the Green member who made these comments, to hide behind what the Supreme Court said in its judgment, as if parliamentarians should play the role of Supreme Court judges. What the Supreme Court was observing in their judgment was that they did not have the power to presume retrospectivity, even though the Act in its purpose said that it was intended to be retrospective. They could not imply retrospectivity where they didn’t see it clearly.

Parliamentarians are asked all the time to consider those balancing of rights and to make a call. We should make a call tonight that we stand really clearly on the side of police managing child sex offenders in our community and protecting children and families in our communities. We should stand on the side of parents who care about this issue, and we should not consider that making law in favour of those parents, those families, those communities is somehow emotive and somehow not doing our duty as parliamentarians. That is why I strongly commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought that was a very good speech, and I don’t want to risk the member’s career by saying it sounded more like a National Party MP than a Labour MP. I actually feel—[Interruption]. I’ll take that back. But I do have to say, though, she raised a very important point. And I think that, actually, there’s nothing wrong with introducing a motion into this House and into this debate. I think the one thing that we should remind ourselves tonight of is the fact that there are no children in this debating chamber. And, actually, they rely on us, as adults, to protect them against the adults that will harm them. And so I think the contribution was timely, and certainly much appreciated by myself in terms of starting to complete the debate in this third reading.

I want to acknowledge the Minister Poto Williams, and I want to acknowledge Simeon Brown, because they have worked very hard together. I think it’s been important for us to come to this House united on this bill. I am puzzled and confused, to be honest, with the Green Party’s position on this. I just wonder whether they’re a little confused on it. I want to acknowledge Jan Logie, who’s in the House. As an under-secretary in the last Government, she did a lot of good work around victims’ rights and sexual abuse, and I want to acknowledge that.

But I think this bill—

Jan Logie: The sector opposed this legislation.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think you guys have really got this wrong in terms of opposing this legislation, because, what has happened here is the Supreme Court has quite simply come back and said to us—bearing in mind it was three judges and two actually were OK with it—as a Parliament, and said “Please be much clearer about your intent in terms of the intent of the bill.”

And I do want to acknowledge the advisers and the police advisers who have worked on this, because they have had to make sure that there is minute attention to detail to ensure, actually, that the bill does do that job.

I want to acknowledge our shadow Attorney-General Chris Penk, because he has gone over this with a fine-tooth comb. And when you talk about the Attorney-General’s report, I can assure you that if he felt the balance was wrong in terms of the issues raised by the Attorney-General, he’d be the first one to stand up in this House and raise it and highlight it. So it gives me great confidence from this side of the House that he has stood up very clearly and said that certainly the balance, in terms of protecting our children by making sure that these sex offenders are actually captured on a register, far outweighs any of the issues raised in the Attorney-General report.

So I just want to wrap up by saying that I’m very proud to stand in the House and support this bill. The Supreme Court came back to us three to two, the judges, to say that we need clarity around it. I think there is clarity now in the bill, and I’m very happy to stand and support it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā tēnā tātou katoa. I’m pleased to be the last speaker in the debate tonight on the third reading of this bill; a bill that has gone through all stages under urgency. I have listened to the entire debate this afternoon and this evening, and for those who might only be just joining this debate now, it has been a really considered and reasoned debate across the House; all sides putting forward their really considered thoughts about why this is important, why it is important that we do it under urgency, and the reasons why there is broad support across the House—however, not that of the Greens—for this to pass tonight.

I often think about the speeches that we give in here. As a lawyer—and there are a few of us in the room—I think we were taught in statutory interpretation that sometimes the courts, and lawyers will use it, will come back to the Hansard and look at the parliamentary debates and try and determine what was the intent of Parliament when we were passing certain laws. So I often find it difficult to filibuster—you know, if we are required to do it, or those speeches that you give at short notice—because it doesn’t lend itself to helping when courts get stuck and they are trying to figure out, “Now what was the intent of Parliament in that?” So I think it is really important.

Chris Penk raised some really important points about the role of the legislature and the role of the judiciary and the separation of powers—again, all things that we learnt about at law school. It is interesting to have been part of the legal fraternity and to now be in the legislature and making the law. So it is quite a profound moment for me.

What is really clear is that there was a clear intent of the Parliament at the time for this law to apply retrospectively to those offenders, even if they were charged and convicted after the passing of the law. I think that is why there is support across the House: because we as politicians were clear about that. However, the point was made by Arena Williams, prior to me, that the Supreme Court and our courts can not imply that; it has to be explicit. So what we are doing here tonight is making that absolutely explicitly clear so that we don’t have this situation again. It is a lesson to all of us that we can’t necessarily foresee all of these things happening, but that is why we do the process that we do—we give it that scrutiny, we try and think those steps ahead, so that we don’t end up in this situation.

So the purpose of this bill—and I am the last speaker in all three readings going through tonight; so it has been well traversed. But for those who might be joining late: the provisions clarify the intent of Parliament when it passed the Act in 2016 for the register to apply to all individuals who have committed a qualifying child sex offence, irrespective of when that offence occurred. It is important that that bill passes tonight, because we actually are in the situation where some have come off the register and potentially a whole lot more will. So I do not want to prolong the debate any further. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

House in Committee

House in Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and Financial Market Infrastructures Bill.

Bills

Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Local Government (Rating) Act 2002

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill. Members, we turn first to the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Just by way of introduction to the committee of the whole House stage, can I firstly acknowledge the hard work and effort of the Māori Affairs Committee and their thorough consideration of the submissions that came before them. I very much appreciate their work and also the advice of the officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

The Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill has two purposes: firstly, to support owners of Māori freehold land to engage with, use, develop, and live on their whenua; and, secondly, to modernise some aspects of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 that are inconsistent with today’s expectations of Māori Crown relationships. Part 1 addresses changes to the rating Act to support these two purposes, proposes supporting the development of and provision for housing on whenua Māori, our inability for a local authority chief executive to write off rates arrears, provision of a statutory rates remission process for whenua Māori under development, making unused whenua Māori non-rateable, treating multiple blocks of whenua Māori that are used together as one rating purpose, and allowing individual houses on whenua Māori to be rated separately from other houses and land uses on the block.

Four proposals in Part 1 support modernising some aspects of the rating Act, which are: removing arbitrary two-hectare land area limits from rates exemptions for marae and urupā; clarifying the current exemptions for marae, meeting places, and meeting houses; providing protection to whenua Māori made general land under the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 from the ratings Act abandoned land and rating sale provisions; and providing an obligation on trustees to provide evidence to support any claim they make that the income from land is insufficient to pay rates. The bill is the next stage of reform to address significant issues with the current approach to rating whenua Māori, which in turn will support the objectives of the wider whenua Māori programme. Provisions supporting these two purposes, including some consequential amendments, are covered in Part 2. Can I say that while there may be representations throughout the House, this should be dealt with through a comprehensive reform of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. These Acts stand outside of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, which is why we’re progressing them in the way that we are.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Can I say thank you Minister for being prepared to talk through our questions that we’ve got today and to discuss this bill. I guess the first thing is really—I’ve got probably three questions really, all around problem definition and exactly what problem are we trying to solve for and why, and trying to get a good understanding of that.

If you don’t mind, the first question is really fundamentally around if our problem is defined as we want to facilitate and utilise land that’s underutilised and not being utilised so that it can be more productive and we can improve the productivity of that land, then what is the thinking that leads the Government to only look at the problem through a Māori-only lens versus looking at it through a broader New Zealand lens? And I guess—because it’s not just Māori that have unproductive land or who have land that they own collectively or who may benefit from rates remissions, but general landowners also have that same challenge—if we’re interested in improving productivity, why not allow all New Zealanders to have the same flexibility and actually do it for both as we go through this piece of legislation? I just genuinely don’t understand, from a local government portfolio point of view, why general landowners are being dismissed and excluded when the same problems sit with them as they do with Māori. And I just wonder whether you could help us clarify that.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): The question is germane to the whole consideration of whenua Māori issues, and this debate has been around for a long time, because, essentially, New Zealand has two land tenure systems. The introduction of the Native Land Court, in effect, tried to individualise title, which was uncommon in terms of the historical way in which whenua Māori was held. That said, we have a system now that recognises that whenua Māori can be multiply owned, and that at its heart, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act assures Māori land owners that the inalienable nature of whenua Māori is at the forefront of the way in which you approach Māori land interests.

But coming back to the point specifically in terms of facilitating the use of Māori land. What you will find around the country when you travel through and look to land blocks that perhaps sit dormant within the context of other developments that are happening in the area are likely to be Māori land. It’s really difficult in practical terms for whānau to succeed to their land and develop it if there’s a big breaking penalty sitting on that land, and that’s a practical challenge that some landowners have faced, which has a whole domino effect in the way in which whānau may or may not succeed to the land or want to organise themselves in governance units to be able to develop the land. So at the heart there, part of the change is the intent that if there is the provision to remit rating arrears, primarily penalties that have incurred over a period of time, then there would be an opportunity for whānau to actually say, “I can now go back to the whenua and start to organise my whānau, succeed to land, and then have a conversation with council to be able to really contemplate the development and utilisation of land.”

This solution is borne out of practical examples and challenges that have been longstanding. Many of the members of the Māori Affairs Committee could probably point to examples that they are very familiar with which better illustrates what I’ve tried to do in my response to the member.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to say a few words at this committee stage. I thank the Minister for her willingness to engage on the questions in a respectful, back-and-forth manner—appreciate it. Just listening to the Minister’s answers to the good question from my colleague Christopher Luxon, I felt that she addressed the rationale as she sees it from a policy perspective for reflecting on a more, perhaps, suitable, from her perspective, mechanism for Māori non-productive land, but I do not believe she suitably addressed the question that Christopher Luxon posed with respect to non-Māori non-productive land and the fact that, really, if you are to apply a model or a framework to seek enabling of that non-productive land, be it in Māori ownership or non-Māori ownership, there should be a consistency of approach. And I feel that that specific question was still not addressed.

The second issue that I’d like to put on the table sort of builds, again, on Christopher Luxon’s comment around problem definition. In the second reading, Minister, we heard a number of speeches from those of us on the Māori Affairs Committee who talked to the fact that a number of Māori, be they iwi or hapū, in various guises, have sat down with local government and reflected on the historic constraints of rates arrears on their particular commercial opportunities and have come to agreements with councils as to how the council could assist them in being able to deliver on those commercial visions through rate relief. And, Minister, that has happened and continues to happen today. So again we ask the question that if Māori land has attracted rates and has not, because it’s unproductive, been able to pay those rates and those rates have accumulated over time—if Māori have the ability today to sit down with local government to work out mechanisms to write off those arrears and then partner with local government to create potential commercial models that work for local Māori, then what is the problem definition?

It remains our contention that this is a piece of the puzzle that has been prioritised by this Government because the broader challenge of actually fundamentally resetting the constraints on Māori land through te ture whenua reform has simply not been progressed, and our view is that that is the greater focus. It is harder, it is more complex, acknowledging that, but that should be the focus of this Government, as opposed to what we would see, Minister, is tinkering around the edges, creating a legislative solution when there is already a practical solution that local governments, partnering with Māori, use on an annual basis. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I disagree, because this approach sits alongside the whole focus of certainly our Government’s response to arresting the challenge of unproductive Māori land, and it came in three parts. Firstly, to have targeted amendments to te ture whenua based on a lengthy consultation of the previous Government and bringing forward, actually, the critical aspects that would make a difference immediately. We’ve done that.

The second aspect was to introduce this particular provision which sat outside of te ture whenua remit and was highlighted through various consultations as a high area of concern and an impediment to developing Māori land, so we are currently in that stage. The third part of ensuring that unproductive Māori land could be better utilised was to have access to finance because, again, while it sits outside of the remit of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act changes, it was critical to ensuring that Māori had access to finance to be able to develop their land.

So we’ve taken a different approach. It’s not the one that the member was speaking to but, again, it’s one that has enabled whānau Māori to be able to look towards the potential of their land and change some of the fundamental barriers so that they can become more engaged with the potential opportunity that they have sitting in front of them.

Can I come back to the issue of a consistency of approach. Again, this change is linked very critically to the bigger challenge that we had, which was what could we do usefully to ensure that we could introduce changes that would help Māori move more into a development space and opportunity. So that was at the heart of our general policy intent. The point was also made around councils using rate relief already under the existing powers. Look, I want to acknowledge those councils that are doing it, but they’re not doing it uniformly across the country in areas where you could actually make a critical difference. Interestingly, a former member of this House from Northland actually provided some of the solution around why we’re taking this approach too. Insights from the Far North District Council show that if we were able to generate a change such as this to initiate a different conversation, then that would very much open up quite huge parcels of land in some districts to be able to be used in different ways to the greater advantage of the region. So I just want to acknowledge councils such as that, who did initiate the type of change that we could learn from and improve in a more comprehensive way.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll just make a small contribution to the committee stage tonight by asking the Minister in the chair, Nanaia Mahuta—and I know this has been canvassed in other areas, but I’d just like to bring a focus into other parcels of land, such as Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) National Trust covenanted land, marginal strips, significant natural areas, Schedule 2 wetlands. We’ve got family-owned land, we’ve got trustee-owned land with multiple trustees. These seem to fit also into the same area where the land is non-productive because of the nature of it—it’s exclusive. It’s been fenced or protected, or it’s owned by multiple owners. So can the Minister please give some rationale for why we shouldn’t also be capturing these parcels of land in this debate as well?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments—

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Oh no, no—no, no. Sorry, I was just looking for the exact part of the bill, Madam Chair, sorry.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, you should’ve called, because I have started.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Look, just to clarify—I was looking through the bill to find the exact clause, but in terms of the policy approach, what we wanted to ensure is that what applies to the QEII lands would equally be applied to whenua Māori. So we have extended the provision that applies to QEII lands to whenua Māori in a very consistent way. I apologise for the slowness of the response.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. So we’ve heard about the provisions to remit rates and the reason why it’s important to do that. What we haven’t heard is how local councils, local government, which depends on rates revenue to fund infrastructure and to fund services, which these communities also benefit from, should replace the revenue and the funding that will be lost through this rates remission. We haven’t heard whether the Government intends to compensate local councils to the same value of rates that they remit, and, in fact, I, having joined Parliament only in the 53rd Parliament, haven’t heard any recent information about the likely estimates of the value of rates that are likely to be remitted.

We know that local government is facing a significant infrastructure deficit and a very large funding deficit. Most recent estimates, $170 billion over 30 years for water, but we don’t know the extent of the deficit, in terms of climate resilience and climate mitigation, and all the infrastructure for roading and connections that are still outstanding. I understand, whenua Māori land that is held is often in rural areas, or places that are more remote from towns and cities, which is much more difficult to get infrastructure to and to develop. Local councils often require significant development contributions in order to get this land made ready for housing. So what this bill doesn’t cover and what we don’t understand is what provisions will be made to make sure that the rates revenue that councils depend on will be made good and that provision of infrastructure to this land by councils, if that’s required, will be possible in future without the revenue and without the ability of rates to cover those costs.

So I’d appreciate hearing more about that, Minister. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Kia ora. Can I first just clarify—I was remiss, which is why I was slow in responding to the member’s question in relation to Ngā Whenua Rāhui. Just to clarify, the remit and the scope of this bill enables us to ensure that Ngā Whenua Rāhui lands are not rateable. You’re correct. It doesn’t apply to QEII lands, because that’s outside of the scope of this particular bill, but I acknowledge the point.

In relation to the financing issues, I mean, that’s also not a part of the land, but the question is valid to the extent that if we find ways to engage Māori with their land—so, not leaving land dormant and unproductive—removing the rates, and then enabling whānau to re-engage with their land, succeed to their land, and then be able to form their governance entities, the opportunity there then is to have the conversation with councils and align their development horizon to the rating of their land. So it is the intention, as land becomes more productive, that they will also be rated in time.

But it doesn’t serve any purpose or opportunity for the community, the whānau, or the council to leave this land dormant. So what we tried to ensure was that a different conversation could happen between councils and Māori land owners. When I think about the opportunity and some of the feedback and conversations that helped to inform certainly my thinking around this issue, as had been mentioned by members on this side of the House, some councils enjoy very good relationships with Māori land owners who have significant other avenues to generate finance.

However, it would still mean that a conversation direct with Māori land owners would be required. So, for example, in the settlement context, if there was the potential to marry up the land opportunity with Māori land owners with potentially access to finance through an entity, a Māori incorporation or a trust, for example, that there in itself will see land development occurring.

There are examples up the coast that we could point to, but my simple point is, we need a different conversation. This issue has been around for far too long and, really, remained dormant. This approach will mean that not only will Māori land owners have a different conversation with themselves around the potential of their land, they will be able to have a different conversation with councils around the cumulative opportunities if they thought about what partnership could look like.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to expand on the question around other unusable land and the consideration to include that in this bill. I point to two specific examples. David Parker’s new freshwater regulations have rules requiring greater setback from rivers. We considered that that land should be non-rateable and ask if the Government has considered that issue and whether that could be included in this bill as well. The second is that a lot of farmers, presently, plant large parts of their properties in trees and they don’t necessarily come under the carbon trading regime because of the size of it but it’s still substantial and it’s for the purpose of improving the environment. I would ask if the Government has also considered rates relief for those farmers to recognise the good work they are doing planting trees to improve the environment—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member is getting very close to being out of scope of the bill. If he can bring his questions to the Minister back to within the scope of the whenua—rating of Māori land.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is whether these other unused areas of land can be incorporated into this bill. You know, I would ask for the benefit of these other communities whether there is scope to bring it into this bill.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Just in the spirit of again trying to get clear on a problem definition and what we’re trying to solve, you know, I guess the Minister’s alluded to it a little bit but I’d like to unpack it a little bit more. Having talked to former and current mayors across the country, a lot of them would say that they as mayors—and councils—feel that they can actually do a lot of this today. They can actually partition land into one block, into many blocks, in order to help ratepayers access rates rebates. Likewise, they can take multiple blocks and amalgamate them together today. Others would also say that they do write-offs. I spoke to mayors that actually have said there’ll be six years of arrears that have been accumulated on Māori land and they go to that owner and they actually sit down and say, “Hey, listen, we will actually write those rates off if you reset and actually pay those rates for the next six years. And at the end of that term, we will actually write those off.” And you’ve got a going concern and you’ve got productivity happening.

So I guess I just sort of, you know—we’ve got a lot of former mayors on our side and in our caucus, as you’d appreciate, and some of them said, “I can do all of this today and have been able to do this under existing legislation.” Whether it’s been, you know, Maungakiekie ward out of Auckland or whether it was, you know, a former mayor of Napier—even, you know, when I look at what John Carter’s been doing in Northland—there’s been some creativity that councils are able to do today. So my question is: what’s the marginal net benefit of creating this piece of legislation that is not being solved by today, but with existing legislation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I acknowledge that there are a few councils that have best practice in regard to the treatment of whenua Māori and writing off rates for unused land. However, it’s not extensive enough. Interestingly, when we made this announcement in Northland, John Carter came up to me and said, “Well, you know, effectively, these debts are sitting on our books as non-recoverable and it equates to”—at the time, he said—“around about $29 million.” But he said, “The potential of having a different conversation in our region with Māori land owners, with Treaty settlements coming online, and with the Provincial Growth Fund”—at the time—“opportunities has an exponential effect.” That’s just one area.

What I would say without, I guess, sounding too smart about it, is we just want to see the benefits of best practice extended to all councils. Some regions will benefit more than others because of the profile and characteristic of the Māori landholding in their area; Northland and the East Coast are very kind of easy to point to. But the other substantial challenge, which is an impediment to the development of Māori land, is landlocked land. And that will be the next big challenge for regions like the Manawatū, who really would want to again break down the barriers of unused Māori land so that they could get greater economic and social benefit from, you know, again breaking down the barriers and assuring access to whānau to their whenua.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Kia ora koutou. Thank you, the Hon Mahuta, I appreciate that you reminded us that the complete redoing of the ture whenua Act was off the table tonight. We’ll focus on what we’re looking at today. The Greens have already made clear our support for this bill, particularly because it makes it easier for Māori to engage with our whenua and to lift the burden that we have because of considerable—years and years of—rates arrears, particularly for unusable and inaccessible land.

One of the things that I really focused on is that we know that for some councils it’s hard for iwi rūnanga and our trust boards to engage with our councillors. Part of the work of trying to get Māori wards in is to actually make some councils say, “Hey, you have to have some representation in here.” One of the things I’m wondering about, and ask your response for, is how we make sure that then councils are adhering. If it’s hard for our trust boards and rūnanga, which generally have some pretty solid infrastructure and have paid staff, often, for some of our landowners in groups—they may or may not be a legal entity, or they might just be a group of people that get together once a year to say, “Hey, what are we going to do with this or how do we move forward.”, and quite often do not move anywhere. How do we have confidence that councils will adhere to best practice, but also make sure that those whānau are going to be—we don’t expect them to be looked after; we expect people to develop some capacity and be organised around what they want to do. But how do they make sure if council goes, “Mmm, this is not a priority right now.” or “We’re just not wanting to deal with this.”? Kia ora.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Thank you for the question and the consideration around the real-life challenges of whānau engagement with councils and the process. Clearly, the intention, or the practice, would be that as councils undertake the process of applying the rates remission approach, they report on it annually within their annual reports.

However, I think, if I get to the nub of the point that you’re making in how challenging it is for whānau, or even hapū, to engage with councils, the onus will still be on the whānau or the hapū to engage with councils and have the conversation. That’s what we’re trying to encourage here: a different conversation with councils.

For far too long, many whānau have not felt that they could walk through the council doors and have the conversation they really wanted to have. In many cases, it’s our kaumātua whose name is on the succession to a particular bit of whenua and whatever they can pay they will pay. They’ll corral the whānau to try and pay a little bit off, because it’s better paying a little bit off and remaining connected to your whenua that way than, I guess, having this burden of debt.

What we want whānau like that to be able to feel like is that they can walk through the council door and they can say, “Look, we’re in this stage. We haven’t got all the succession sorted. We’re still going through the process of succeeding to our whenua. It’s going to take us maybe three or four years to really get to a point and a position to really develop our land. We’re going to generate some finance”, or whatever. But that’s the conversation we need, because we need the council then to understand what is realistic and an opportunity there if the council can continue to support whānau down a road of using their land rather than sitting aside from it.

It may well be also that whānau have conservation or biodiversity aspirations for their whenua. That’s another conversation in itself. But the point is councils can report on the remission decisions that they are making in their own rohe so that there is greater visibility for everybody around what’s happening.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): The question I’ve got is really around the one that we talked to before, which is has there been any cost identified in a hard sense around the rates write-off and therefore what cost burden that gets shunted across to other ratepayers to pay. That’s the first question.

The second question, fundamentally, is, having implemented this bill, what does success actually look like and how will we measure it?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No further calls? I’ll put the question—

Simon Court: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon Court—just in time.

Hon Members: Oh!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): If members want a call—

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. So, following on from that question and just reframing back to the question I asked before, we don’t yet understand the value of the rates remissions and we don’t understand how councils, which will be able to—and, in fact, what appears to be obliged—provide rates remissions; because this is a far more kind of permissive approach rather than an enforcement approach to rates recovery, and we understand why that is your intention, having brought this to the House. But what we don’t understand is how much are councils in the hole for, what’s the value currently outstanding of rates on whenua Māori land, and how are they supposed to make this up when they have a huge infrastructure deficit? I’m asking this question again because, despite your answer before, which did address other matters, these absolutely critical matters to the delivery of infrastructure and provision of services to these communities remain unanswered. The ACT Party is not able to support this bill without understanding that matter as well as what other opportunities there are to actually solve this problem, apart from this piece of legislation.

So I would like to be able to take away from the House tonight and go back and talk to the stakeholders that I’ve committed to respond to exactly where the money that is going to be sacrificed—because it must be sitting on an accounts receivable (AR) ledger in many dozens, maybe all 67, of the territorial authorities and the regional councils; it must be sitting there in AR. There must be accountants saying, “You know what? We’ve got budget for water projects, we’ve got this budget for footpaths, for parks and reserves and community facilities, libraries”—whatever it is that that council has a budget for—“but we don’t have the money, because we’ve got this outstanding number in accounts receivable. It’s not like we can call Baycorp. It’s not like it’s Penny Bright—she’s not out there protesting every day in Avondale, so, you know, it’s not like we know where she is.”

The problem is that this is, essentially, a fiscal black hole for local government. While we understand your heartfelt and compassionate approach to these families, to these whānau, who want to develop their land and feel this is a big barrier to walking through the doors of the council—and I can only imagine what it is like when you discover an unpaid parking ticket in your glove box and you realise it has probably been referred to justice and it is going to cost you a lot more. I know that sinking feeling. I’ll admit to having a parking ticket, but no more than that in my life, OK?

Kieran McAnulty: Take some personal responsibility, come on!

SIMON COURT: Well, you know, I did pay it—I did pay it. I didn’t ring up the council and ask to be let off. I’m not one of those people writing long letters, Mr McAnulty.

But what we do need to know, and what I will ask for again, is a detailed explanation of the value of the rates remission that is forecast by the officials, and how Government, having passed this legislation, proposes to make that up to those local authorities which are already suffering a significant reduction in income, some of them due to COVID and a lack of tourism. Auckland Council, we know, is suffering terribly because they haven’t been able to recover a lot of costs through facilities, through events, and so on, and there must be others—Northland, for example, is missing out on tourism; we know that the West Coast of the South Island and other parts are also missing out on revenue. Local councils are missing out on tourism revenue. This is just another black hole. So I would appreciate, Minister, you filling us in exactly on the value of the rates that will be remitted and how the Government proposes to make that up to their partners in local government. Thank you very much.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): It is true, rates arrears have built up on Māori land to eye-watering levels. You only need to go to Māori land owners who are struggling with this issue and ask the question and they will tell their story. So, you know, this is more than a heartfelt approach; this is the reality that many Māori land owners are facing.

And I could never really understand why, over a long period of time, several councils continue to adopt the practice of applying penalties to rates that had been unpaid for a long period of time. So the member makes a point about a fiscal black hole being created. In fact, what happens for several councils in this situation is that this debt after a period of time will sit on the books as non-recoverable. So 100 percent of unutilised land is nothing; the economics are simple. What we need is land to be utilised so that some income can be earned, as you know, developed, income earned, and then rates paid. We are not in that situation with these lands. There’s no fiscal black hole. These arrears sit on council books as non-recoverable. Money is not being lost because money is not being earned.

That is the challenge, is where we need to get into a space of ensuring that land can be used, and then councils and Māori can have a real conversation about what’s the horizon of rates that could apply to this land. And I think that it’s important that we change up the conversation, because this issue has been around for a long time.

OK, so what’s the impact of the change? The change means that we’re writing off arrears, or we give the opportunity for councils to make the decision to write off arrears so that the forecast opportunity in use and the conversation space about what type of development could occur on that could be happening sooner rather than later. I really want to make that clear, because I don’t want there to be a pervading view here that this bill is about giving something to Māori and councils losing something. Councils who are in this situation know very well what the opportunity space is here. And I’m sure, were select committee members able to point to some of the submissions or examples in their patch, they might even point to those examples.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other legislation

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we move now to Part 2, which is debate on clauses 51 to 59, “Amendments to other legislation”. The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 2 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Schedule stand part.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Schedule agreed to.

New Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We move now to new Schedule 2. The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting new Schedule 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we move now to the debate on clauses 1 and 2, which are the “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 10 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clause 2 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Members should note that the Business Committee has extended the powers of the committee to permit consideration of the proposed out-of-scope amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17. Members, we come first to the debate on Part 1, which are clauses 3 to 10 and Schedule 1. This is the debate on amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’ll just make a few opening remarks about the debate on Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Part 1 primarily makes amendments to the Land Transport Act. Subsequent parts of the bill amend other pieces of legislation across the transport architecture of legislation. I think that at this point of the debate, having gone through a couple of readings, the primary drivers of this piece of legislation are pretty clear to members of the House. It’s a regulatory systems bill, so, in amongst the changes that are proposed, we have a range of regulatory tidy-ups. For example, there are changes to the levels of fines. There is—for example, in this part—an updating of references to the Privacy Act from Privacy Act 1993 to Privacy Act 2020. That is the core function of regulatory systems bills. They often make small, uncontroversial, technical changes to bills to make sure that they keep pace with changing conditions and that they are an effective piece of regulatory architecture. There are a couple of key substantive changes that are made to each of the key pieces of legislation that are amended through the course of this bill, and I’ll just speak to each of those briefly.

The first is that through this piece of legislation, we create the facility for transport instruments. This is actually a very important change that is going to enable a much smoother and cleaner way of ensuring that our regulatory landscape is kept up to date. Our transport legislation is enormously complex and legislates over a diverse landscape of different transport modes with constantly changing conditions, new technologies, and new challenges that need to be dealt with by the regulatory architecture. The creation of transport instruments is about making sure that our agencies—in this case, through the Land Transport Act, primarily Waka Kotahi—have the ability to make ongoing small changes to our transport regulatory regime that are simply inefficient and cumbersome to be made through rules or regulations, which are the tools that we have in place at the moment. So I think that these are going to be a very important tool for us to use to make sure that we have a regulatory architecture that is fit for purpose in the modern age.

There are some important tweaks that have been made through the select committee process and through the Supplementary Order Paper to make sure, effectively, that the use of transport instruments doesn’t run away from the intentions of the Parliament when we set the legislation, and through legislation. So there are clear provisions in place to make sure that transport instruments have to come into place in relation to the scope that has been set by the rules or regulations that they come under. We now have provisions in the bill that make sure that the Minister has to be satisfied that those instruments do indeed meet that test, so that we don’t, effectively, have agencies who are setting instruments that might be doing so in a way that is inconsistent with the rules or the regulations under which they come. That is something that the Regulations Review Committee—

Chris Penk: That’s right.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did quite a bit of work—and it’s one of our favourite committees, I know, Mr Penk. I’m sure there’ll be some contributions to that effect. I think the parliamentary process has worked quite well in that everyone has recognised the value of the transport instruments, but there has been some work done to make sure that they will be applied appropriately.

The other key change which is brought into effect through this part, and—as we will see—through the other parts, is a range of changes around class exemptions. These are quite an important part of the transport system. So making sure that we have a smoother ability, in particular, to put in place group class exemptions—that’s going to be quite important as we deal with new technologies in the transport system. But what we’ve also clarified in this piece of legislation, through the Supplementary Order Paper, is that those class exemptions will not be subject to appeal through the courts. We already have a couple of mechanisms in which they can be tested. They do, ultimately, come out of secondary legislation, so they are reviewable by the Regulations Review Committee and they are also reviewable through a judicial review process. So the select committee has come to the conclusion—and I agree—that they should not be appealable through to the courts, because we have those protections that are already in place.

So, members, there are quite a few important changes that are brought through in this piece of legislation. As the debate moves through, we’ll see that, effectively, most of them are replicated in a similar way through the different parts. This particular part of the debate relates to the Land Transport Act. Again, those key changes relate to the transport instruments and the class exemptions, as well as a range of other small updates and improvements to the legislative and regulatory architecture. So I look forward to the debate that’s ahead of us, and am happy to answer members’ questions as we move forward.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Minister Wood for making yourself available tonight to answer some questions about this small and uncontroversial bill—this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill—one that would have slipped past my email spam filter in the past but has now got my full attention.

This bill, when introduced to the House, described the policy objectives: to address regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within transport legislation. For that reason, ACT supported this bill at the first and second reading. The ACT Party believes that there should be less regulation; that regulation, where it needs to exist, should be simple and not complex; and that Government agencies shouldn’t need to come back to the Minister or to the House simply to change a form or a basic business process. So we certainly appreciate the intention of that part of this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. The bill also seeks to ensure regulators can keep the transport regulatory system up to date and relevant—and we appreciate how important that is with new technologies—and to remove unnecessary compliance costs from the transport system. The ACT Party would support any effort that any Government or agency would make to reduce compliance costs, so we certainly support those objectives of the bill.

However, what we noticed tonight is that there are a number of amendments that have been tabled which caused us initially great confusion as to why they were tabled so late in the piece and appear to have been neglected prior to committee stage and during the drafting stage, when the concept of an omnibus bill to address some of these risks and some of these outstanding issues with transport regulation had what appears to be widespread support in the 52nd Parliament. Yet there is a very significant number of additional amendments through a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled—in fact, two SOPs, one of which seeks to, essentially, legalise what has been an unlawful situation, potentially, where a fuel excise duty has been levied on a group of fuel users who don’t use the road.

The fuel excise duty, which is hypothecated on being applied to roads through the New Zealand Transport Agency, has been collected from recreational and commercial aircraft operators who use a clean, green fuel—what they call motor gas, which is far cleaner and far greener than the old aviation gas, which contains lead. Those businesses and those recreational pilots which have chosen to upgrade their aircraft or upgrade their engines to motor fuel are now captured by this fuel excise duty, and they’ve been asking for an exemption. In fact, they asked the previous Minister for an exemption, and the previous Minister’s office, and they didn’t receive an adequate reply. So they continue to raise this with the ACT Party, because they know that the ACT Party is the association of consumers and taxpayers.

There are many recreational pilots of small aircraft and commercial pilots and flight training schools using hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel a year who have said, “Hey, nobody’s listening in those agencies. Nobody’s listening in the Minister’s office. The officials aren’t listening, or, if they are, they’ve heard us and they’ve decided this is a great opportunity to actually, once and for all, grab that fuel excise duty from aircraft operators who never use the road and legalise that, essentially, unlawful taking”, because it does not make any sense at all to the aircraft operators, and I’m sure it doesn’t to the Kiwi out there on the street, why aircraft operators should be paying a fuel excise duty to use the roads. I’ve never seen an aircraft landing on the road, except on YouTube or on my Instagram.

The ACT Party did support this bill coming to the House to the committee stage because we assumed that as the Minister described, the small and uncontroversial series of amendments to fix forms and enable his departments to carry out their business more efficiently was the sole purpose of this bill. But it appears that not only will recreational—[Time expired]

I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. May I please have another call?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): May I encourage the member that if he wants to continue seeking this call, to come back to Part 1, which is the amendment to the transport Act.

SIMON COURT: Madam Chair, I will accept your offer, because I have a lot more to contribute to this debate, and I would like the opportunity to come back at Part 1. Thank you for the offer.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the unexpected pleasure of being able to contribute. I did speak at an earlier stage of the bill and I note that one of its intentions is to avoid duplication, so I’ll try to make my contribution in that light and avoid repeating too many of my remarks from the previous, excellent as they were.

I wonder if Minister Wood can speak a little bit about new section 168H, in clause 8 within Part 1, “Procedures relating to transport instruments”. If there’s any guidance that he can give in relation to that, it would be most helpful. I’m speaking about subsection (1) particularly—that’s section 168H(1). In that we see that “The Agency or the Secretary must not make, amend, or revoke a transport instrument unless satisfied that all persons and organisations that [they think] appropriate have been consulted, having regard to the subject matter of the proposed instrument”, etc. So, is there some guidance that the Minister can give, please, into how it’s envisaged that such appropriateness would be deemed? Is there a set of factors, perhaps, whether that’s—well, I don’t know. I shouldn’t put words in the Minister’s mouth. Why would I make his task easier? But, no, in all seriousness, I think there could be a different range of ways that could be contemplated, and if there’s any advice he can give in that regard, it would be very helpful.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): In referring to Part 1 of this bill, I look at the general policy statement, and it talks about maintaining the effectiveness and efficiency of the regulatory system, and it also talks about supporting the whole-of-system view of regulation. If I look at this, everything that I look at in here talks about more efficiency and speeding the process up. So I just wondered, in light of the fact that this bill also covers maritime and given the events that we’ve had in New Zealand today, is the Minister totally convinced that the changes in this bill will make the boat go faster?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Well, the boats are certainly going faster under this Labour-led Government, as we’ve seen today. We could perhaps have a more fulsome discussion on that when we get to Part 3 and 4, which do relate to maritime matters, rather than Part 1 of the bill.

Look, in respect of Mr Penk’s questions, the wording in new section 168H and 168I is, as I understand it, relatively standard wording that relates to the procedures that not just the agencies who come under the ambit of this bill but many agencies have to go through before they consult before they make regulations. So, as I understand it, the processes would be relatively standard. The agency concerned—in this case Waka Kotahi primarily—will have a good understanding of the entities or community organisations who are affected by a piece of legislation. They would therefore make sure that they make reasonable endeavours to contact those organisations to give them an opportunity to respond to the proposed instrument or rules that are being made and to then take those views into account—so a relatively standard process that will probably not be unfamiliar to the member in terms of meeting the threshold of reasonableness in consultation.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question specifically relating to a very narrow piece of this bill, with regard to new clause 24B. And to provide some context to that question, can I just, firstly, say I’d like to acknowledge and say a very special thankyou to John McLister from the Lyttelton Seafarers Centre for his tireless work delivering services to seafarers and his long standing advocacy of seafarers not only in the Lyttelton community, in my electorate, but nationally. John’s advocacy led my good friends Tyrone Fields and Reuben Davidson to organise a successful petition to champion this policy proposal to fund welfare services for seafarers through their mighty Lyttelton branch of the Labour Party, to our regional and then annual conference, and see it then tonight included in this omnibus bill here in this House at this committee stage. So I just wanted to be able to acknowledge the hard work of those people at the grassroots who saw a need in the community and have, I’m sure with great excitement, seen that come to fruition.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! If I can just get the member to come back to Part 1, please. The part that she’s talking about at the moment is Part 4.

Kieran McAnulty: That’s right. Thank John again.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Thank you, John, again. That’s all I wanted to get in. We’ll cut that, thank you.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Listen, it’s a pleasure to speak on this bill, and I just want to congratulate a new Minister on an outstanding piece of legislation. We would’ve loved to see it being called the “Second Harbour Crossing Bill” or the “Light Rail Bill” or the “Let’s Get Wellington Moving Bill” or the “Remove Congestion Clogging Up Our Cities Bill”, but this is a fantastic piece of work first up. Can I just say we’re very supportive of this very important, practical, common-sense legislation that we’ve got before us, which is obviously doing important things—enabling transport instruments, clarifying exemption and revocation powers, minor regulatory governance, and stewardship improvements.

I guess, in the spirit of Part 1, which is really about land, I was very intrigued by the stunning submission from the Bus and Coach Association—the concerns that they raised in their submission, where they said that they were worried that there was an issue around capacity in an under-pressure Ministry of Transport and New Zealand Transport Agency. They were worried about the cumulative effect of multiple instruments on the reliability of primary and secondary legislation, and they were also worried about the inability of instruments to fundamentally deal with what they think are deficiencies in the primary and secondary legislation. So I’m just curious to see whether the Minister had any view on responding to the very important submission from the Bus and Coach Association.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a very quick question: is the Minister concerned that there might not be any instruments relating to bus transport for a very long time and then a large number will all arrive at once?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Look, just responding to the member’s questions which relate to very good submissions that were put forward, that probably would have been a good debating topic in the second reading of the bill—but, look, let’s have a bit of a talk about them anyway. I think that the point that the Bus and Coach Association is making there is, in part, a valid one, which is that the regulatory landscape within transport is a complex one, and entities who have to engage, particularly commercially, in this landscape do have a lot to juggle. One of my hopes with the process of creating transport instruments is that things actually become a little bit easier for those entities, because one of the challenges that we constantly get told about at the moment by entities in the transport system is that if rules and regulations are out of date and if, in part, they are out of date because it is so difficult and cumbersome and time-consuming for agencies and for Governments to change rules and regulations, the creation of instruments which will enable a smoother and quicker process to make sure that the regulatory regime is up to date is actually going to make things a bit easier for the Bus and Coach Association and other entities.

So while it is true that there is a profusion of instruments—or will be—and rules and regulations, they are all generally important, they give clarity, and they ensure safety in one of the most safety-critical regulatory areas. I think, actually, the instruments will, if anything, smooth things out and make it a bit easier for the Bus and Coach Association and other organisations.

Look, there is always a challenge in terms of regulatory agencies, in terms of their ability to keep up and ensure that they are resourced. But I can give a commitment on behalf of this Government that we’ll make sure that the Ministry of Transport and other key agencies do have the resources that they need, and Waka Kotahi, to fulfil their regulatory functions.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister: on the subject of transport instruments and recognising that the Bus and Coach Association did make a high quality submission, there was another submission made more recently by way of a burner phone to a Radio New Zealand journalist, outlining some significant concerns that a number of organisations, stakeholders, were so concerned about that they weren’t prepared to make those submissions to this bill for fear of being identified. Those organisations have claimed that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) has not dealt with them fairly. You can put that to one side, but what they’ve also asked for is for a far greater emphasis on professional development within NZTA, for vocational training to train certifiers and others who would be subjected to these instruments and required to comply with them.

So what this bill doesn’t identify, and we haven’t heard about any subsequent legislation, is how not only will the instruments clarify how to comply—and the Bus and Coach Association had a concern about that, because they were concerned that bus and coach designs might simply be issued from head office in Wellington rather than relying on the experts, the professionals who do this every day, modifying and developing and building new buses and coaches, and that includes things like your motorhomes as well as school buses and other commercial vehicles. So what they’ve asked for and what the whistleblowers have asked for through their communications from their burner phone to a Radio New Zealand journalist is that in consideration of this bill and of NZTA’s functions—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order!

SIMON COURT: —would the Minister please respond to the question on training and development?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill and reports no progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.