Thursday, 18 March 2021
Volume 750
Sitting date: 18 March 2021
THURSDAY, 18 MARCH 2021
THURSDAY, 18 MARCH 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mālō e lelei. Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau taa‘i mālie ‘i ho‘o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu‘i ange mu‘a ‘a e Kuiní, mo tataki ange ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá ‘aki ‘a e poto Faka-e-‘Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo‘ui pea mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me‘á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ho ‘aló pē ‘e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ko homau fakamo‘uí, ‘Emeni.
Team New Zealand
America’s Cup Victory
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice in recognition of Team New Zealand retaining the America’s Cup.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House congratulate Peter Burling and Team New Zealand on their magnificent victory in the 36th America’s Cup.
In the long and rich history of the America’s Cup, Team New Zealand stands tall as one of the most successful participants. In an event where many have tried and failed, Team New Zealand sailors, designers, and innovators have made us proud. You don’t need to be a sailing expert or super fan to appreciate the skill, courage, innovation, and heart that this team has displayed throughout this regatta.
I want to acknowledge the extraordinary group of people that make up Team New Zealand—in particular, Peter Burling, who has shown himself to be a world-class skipper with nerves of steel. On behalf of all New Zealand, I congratulate Peter, Grant Dalton, and the whole team—those on the water and those off it—for their tactical brilliance, determination, and sheer hard work. I would also like to acknowledge Luna Rossa, who put on a remarkable performance, especially given all of the constraints they have had to go through as a visiting team during COVID. Jimmy Spithill is a world-class sailor and a fierce competitor who it has been an honour to see sail in our waters. To all of the Luna Rossa syndicate and their fans, we thank them for being part of this regatta and putting up such a terrific challenge.
Following a hard year, Team New Zealand has provided the country with huge optimism and excitement. To be able to show to the world that, in the midst of a pandemic, our country can host an event like this and have thousands gathered together on the Auckland waterfront to celebrate is something that we can be proud of as it was beamed around the world. In addition to this pride, there remains a strong economic spinoff and benefit to New Zealand from the America’s Cup, even in COVID times. The facilities in the Wynyard Quarter, funded by the New Zealand Government and the Auckland Council, are a legacy that will be there for generations to come. This includes upgraded public spaces and access to the waterfront, additional berths for recreation and tourism, sheltered waterspace for existing and future water-based events, and long-term infrastructure for our marine industry. There is also an enormous amount of innovation and science that lies behind the success of Team New Zealand. At every level, we have seen technology used in a way that people never thought they would see in sailing, and that’s happened right here in New Zealand, driving job creation and innovation.
I want to acknowledge the partnership between Team New Zealand and mana whenua, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. They have worked closely together for some time, including gifting the name of Team New Zealand’s yacht, Te Rehutai. This translates loosely to “sea spray”, and it is in recognition of the power of the ocean to invigorate and energise our strength and our determination. Strength and determination is what we have seen from Team New Zealand during this regatta, and I want to express again the admiration of this Government and of this House to them for their work, and our pride in such an inspiring performance.
SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): I rise on behalf of the National Party to offer heartfelt congratulations to Emirates Team New Zealand—we are so proud of them. To Peter Burling, the sailors, designers, support crew, race management, and many others: ko tēnai tō tātou mihi atu ki a koutou katoa—this is our thanks and congratulations to you all.
This is another high-performance sporting achievement where the best of us was showcased to the world. In every single race, there were desirable disciplines and virtues that New Zealand society upholds and models: composure, graciousness, and a never-give-up attitude. To summarise: other teams may have extensive US and European boat-builders; we have Southern Spars in west Auckland. Other teams have NASA at Cape Canaveral; we have Rocket Lab in Taranaki. And other teams may have extensive human resources, but we have the sailors. The National Party warmly congratulates Emirates Team New Zealand.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to congratulate the success of Team New Zealand in acknowledging that this brought joy to many people. I also want to acknowledge the great sportsmanship of the Italian team. Part of making sports accessible to our communities is ensuring that they are available to free-to-air TV. The fact that the America’s Cup was being broadcast on free-to-air TV contributed to it receiving substantive coverage and community-wide celebration. I want to note that the same level of access should hopefully be given to all sports, including women’s sports and sports led by grassroots community groups.
I want to acknowledge the significant investment that has been given to the America’s Cup and keeping Team New Zealand onshore by the Government. I pay tribute to local grassroots sports clubs in low socio-economic areas, who play an integral part in the wellbeing of our communities yet struggled to receive adequate funding. I hope in the future we can act with similar swiftness and generosity when it comes to funding grassroots community sports and other initiatives that are key to our collective wellbeing.
There is a certain discomfort that comes from witnessing the lavishness of the America’s Cup co-existing with the shortage of public housing and shelter for our homeless in Auckland’s CBD. The visibility of the America’s Cup is also in part due to the amazing scenery of the Hauraki Gulf and the Rangitoto highlands. These are precious resources that should be protected, and the Crown has an obligation to uphold the kaitiaki rights of tangata whenua. We know the Hauraki Gulf is on the brink of ecological collapse; so it’s great to see people like Peter Burling, helmsman of Team New Zealand, know the importance of having healthy, thriving oceans. I want to acknowledge the work he has done to protect our oceans, including co-funding the Live Ocean Charitable Trust. That is a marine conservation charity with goals such as ocean and research innovation that can happen within a mātauranga Māori framework.
The interconnection between the health of our ecosystems and the ability to enjoy sports and recreation is clear to sailors and tangata whenua. As we celebrate the victory of Team New Zealand and bask in our collective efforts to make a major sport happen here, I hope we can collectively rally to beat the big environmental and equity challenges that we face on the ground that the America’s Cup took place on. Kia ora.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to congratulate Emirates Team New Zealand. The 36th America’s Cup was contested on our beautiful harbour in the Hauraki Gulf and viewed by global TV audiences in lockdown. Congratulations must go to the Italians and Jimmy Spithill on a great duel and an outstanding effort. Despite the result, 7:3, this could have gone either way. As of today, Team UK are confirmed as challenger of record and the intrigue now deepens. Sir Ben Ainslie’s syndicate, backed by the British billionaire Jim Ratcliffe, will replace the Italian outfit, Luna Rossa, for the next cycle of the cup.
In Peter Burling, the spirit of Sir Peter Blake has risen again: world class, good blokes, and calm on the seas. The Tauranga yacht club should be very proud of this 30-year-old man. Peter and Grant Dalton have built a great team—boat management, very well done—and it was great to be personally in the viaduct and out on the water, seeing families singing “God Defend New Zealand” and waving New Zealand flags. It was inspiring to say the least.
But we must also not forget our ladies, the Silver Ferns, who we did not recognise recently, our world champions, and we’re so proud of their coaches and management. And considering they hosted that event under the circumstances and brought back the Constellation Cup is a testament to their strength. So well done to the Silver Ferns’ captain, Ameliaranne, and coach Noelene underscored it’s been nine long years in the waiting. So I’d like to give them a round of applause as well. [Applause]
So the last couple of weeks have not been good for Australian sport stars but fantastic for New Zealanders, and now we move on to the Olympics and the Paralympics for more medals. So on behalf of the ACT Party we thank Team New Zealand, the Silver Ferns, and now our hopes are with the New Zealand Olympic and Paralympic teams. New Zealanders are world champions and do have the X factor.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. We would like to stand, Te Paati Māori, to mihi to the team of Emirates Team New Zealand. I mihi to our hau kāinga who hosted the manuhiri and mihi to our moana Hauraki, who safely carried the kaupapa. It was truly a privilege to see that alongside the absolute skillmanship of our excellent athletes was the absolute unique manaaki and innovative arts and culture of our mana whenua. And indeed, there is their name, Te Rehutai, instead of eat my dust was out there eating my spray. It would be amazing to see Kupe’s mokopuna also enjoy the support and the free TV and investment for many grassroots sports in the water, Te Matatini included, Waka Ama. We hope that with this pride also comes a resourcing and support to our kaitiaki and our moana, who, under the luxurious yachts, is ecologically stressed and challenged. We are indeed sharing in this nation’s pride and encourage that we also hold this pride for kaupapa such as Te Matatini and Waka Ama. We also take note and encourage those in Aotearoa who use their passion to excel and encourage our rangatahi to be the best that they absolutely can be. Kia ora koutou.
Motion agreed to.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill and the Incorporated Societies Bill, and the remaining stages of the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, and the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020-21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill. There will be five National Party maiden statements next week. On Thursday, there will be a special debate giving members the opportunity to talk about local issues, and Wednesday is scheduled to be a members’ day.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Can I ask the Leader of the House whether or not he has given some consideration to referring the Fair Trading Amendment Bill, No. 9 on the Order Paper, back to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee given it was reported back on 12 August without a date or report from that committee.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The member did raise that at the Business Committee on Tuesday. I undertook to follow that up, and I’ll certainly report back to the Business Committee next week on those discussions. It’s not my intention to bring it before the House again for further consideration until we’ve had those discussions.
SPEAKER: And it might be worth just informing members at this time, because we have a debate in the new format for local issues, this will be a debate where members seek the call rather than having a strict speaking list.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No petitions have been presented, no bills have been introduced, but Ministers have delivered papers.
CLERK:
Annual reports for 2019/20 of the New Zealand Blood Service and the Takeovers Panel
Ngāi Tahu Ancillary Claims Trust Annual Financial Statements of the Year Ending 30 June 2020.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the:
2019/20 Annual review of the Pike River Recovery Agency, and
2019/20 Annual review of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Limited, and
Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, February 2021
report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Insurance (Prompt Settlement of Claims for Uninhabitable Residential Property) Bill.
SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Monetary Policy Statement is set down for consideration.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Finance
1. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand reported GDP data for the December 2020 quarter. This shows that the New Zealand economy does remain resilient and among the best in the world, despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The data shows the volatility that the New Zealand economy has to deal with. Today’s percentage drop follows the record 13.9 percent increase in the September quarter and an 11 percent drop in the June quarter. Statistics New Zealand reported that the size of the economy in 2020 was $322 billion. This was larger than in the year to December 2019 and above Treasury’s half-yearly forecast published in December, which had picked that the economy would be $307 billion at this point. Today’s figures reinforce the steps the Government is taking to support the economy and secure the recovery from COVID-19. Our economy continues to lead the world off the back of our strong health response.
Ingrid Leary: So how does New Zealand’s economic performance in 2020 compare with other countries?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Stats New Zealand data shows New Zealand’s economic performance continues to lead the world. On an internationally comparative measure, New Zealand’s real GDP in the December quarter was 0.9 percent below where it was a year ago. This is a stronger position than all the countries we routinely compare ourselves to. It compares to a 1.1 percent drop in Australia, a 2.4 percent drop in the United States, a 4.6 percent drop in the EU, a 7.8 percent drop in the UK, and an average drop across the OECD of 3.1 percent. New Zealand did take a different approach to dealing to COVID-19 than many other countries because our view is the best economic response is a strong public health response, and today’s data continues to support that.
Ingrid Leary: What reactions has he seen to today’s GDP reports?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While there may be some who see a negative slant here, ANZ’s economists have acknowledged that the quarterly data will jump around as the global COVID-19 pandemic continues. They said the absolute story remains that this has been a very significant shock, but the recovery thus far has been impressive. This was backed up by others, including Westpac’s economists, who said, “New Zealand has had one of the swiftest economic rebounds from COVID-19 and is on firmer economic ground than many of our trading partner economies. That is thanks to the combination of generous monetary and fiscal stimulus and our effective containment of the virus on our shores. These factors are expected to continue supporting domestic demand over 2021.” There will be continued volatility as the world feels the impact of COVID-19, but on this side of the House, we’re backing New Zealand businesses, workers, and the strength of our economy.
Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that the Government has borrowed $40 billion over the last 12 months and delivered the largest decline in GDP on record?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can confirm that the Government has indeed borrowed significant amounts of money to ensure that New Zealanders stayed in their jobs, to make sure that New Zealanders stayed healthy, and I stand by those decisions, Mr Bayly.
Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm the construction sector contracted by nearly 10 percent in the final quarter of last year, and this was due primarily to the lack of infrastructure investment, including the 156 shovel-ready projects that still don’t have shovels in the ground?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I absolutely cannot confirm the last part of the member’s question. What we saw in the June quarter was a tremendous bounce up in construction activity. We continue to see high, almost record, levels of activity in the construction sector, including tens of thousands more people employed in the construction sector right across New Zealand.
Question No. 2—Health
2. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Health: Why is the fixed nature of the pharmaceutical budget and total amount of funding allocated for pharmaceuticals out of scope of the announced review into Pharmac?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Pharmac has been an ongoing success story for New Zealand, with millions of New Zealanders benefiting from its ability to negotiate access to pharmaceuticals. It’s the only agency in the world that both decides what medicines to fund and manages a fixed budget for those medicines. In the 27 years since Pharmac was established, there have been various reviews of aspects of its operations, but none of those reviews have focused directly on the agency’s performance or its role as part of the wider health and disability system. The budget of Pharmac does not lend itself to a technical review. Budgets are finite by nature and are decisions for the Government of the day. They are based on a range of factors, including trade-offs across the whole of the health system and across the whole of Government.
Brooke van Velden: Why was funding ruled out of scope of the review into Pharmac but was considered within the scope of the mental health inquiry?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not sure the two are comparable. The mental health and addiction review that took place that led to the He Ara Oranga report was about the gap and unmet need in that particular sector. In relation to Pharmac, the challenge there is making sure that the decision making by Pharmac fits with the objectives, the statutory objectives, that are set for Pharmac, and is transparent for those who are looking closely at the decisions that it makes.
Brooke van Velden: Will the review compare New Zealand’s access to medicines with Australia’s; if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The review will look at Pharmac’s decision making, and I expect as part of that it is likely that the review panel will look at comparable decision-making processes by comparable bodies in other countries.
Dr Shane Reti: How does he respond to statements at annual review that the Pharmac review is toothless and a whitewash?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’d say that those statements are ridiculous.
Brooke van Velden: Will the Minister consider changing the terms of reference to allow for funding options to be considered, and, if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I refer the member to the answer to the primary question, which is that the budget of Pharmac does not lend itself to a technical, objective review. The budget for Pharmac is the product of decisions by the Government of the day as it puts together its total Budget and its total funding for the whole of Government. Trade-offs are needed, and we wind up where we do with Pharmac. I might add, however, that in terms of Pharmac’s budget, in the period from 2014 to 2017, the Pharmac budget increased 6.9 percent; in the period 2018 to 2021, it increased 30.9 percent, because this is a Government that takes seriously the need for our population to have access to the best available medicines.
Brooke van Velden: Does he expect the review to deliver results for many desperate New Zealanders currently having to crowdfund for lifesaving medicines due to the current funding model of Pharmac?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I expect the product of the review to shine a light on the decision making by Pharmac: the way it makes it decisions, the information that it obtains to make those decisions, the agility of its decision making, and its responsiveness to new medical technologies and to the differing and changing needs of the New Zealand public. Those are the objectives we’ve set for the review. I eagerly await its report.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How is the Minister reducing inequities in pharmaceutical funding and access for iwi, w’ānau, and hapū Māori?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The basis on which Pharmac makes its decisions has to take into account a range of factors, including the very issues that the member raises. Equity of access to therapeutic treatments through the Pharmac budget is a critical objective that Pharmac has to meet.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will the Minister support increasing the Pharmac budget for life-changing pharmaceuticals that Māori overwhelmingly have to attain through the private market?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m confident that Pharmac is constantly abreast the challenge that we have to make sure that suitable medicines for a whole range of conditions that New Zealanders suffer, including conditions that have a higher incidence in some population groups than others—that is part of the juggling act that it must meet. I’ve indicated to the House already in an earlier answer that this Government has substantially increased the funding of Pharmac to date. We do so because we want Pharmac to do the best it can. But in the end, budgets are limited; not just the budget for Pharmac but the health budget and the overall Government Budget from one year to the next.
Question No. 3—Health
3. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around reducing the number of district health boards?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by his answer to written questions that he will reduce the number of DHBs next year?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The proposal to reduce the number of DHBs came out of the Health and Disability System Review report. The group putting that report together was chaired by Heather Simpson. The Government is in the process of considering the recommendations in that report and, once decisions are made by Cabinet, they will be announced in due course.
Dr Shane Reti: Does he stand by written parliamentary question No. 6474 that he will reduce the number of DHBs next year?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not quite sure what the “next year” refers to. In any event, the Government is considering a proposal—
Chris Bishop: Next year!
SPEAKER: Order! Order! We all know next year never comes—but carry on.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government is considering the recommendations from the Health and Disability System Review report. That report recommended reducing the number of DHBs. That report is under consideration, and when decisions are made, they will be announced in due course.
Dr Shane Reti: Will the restructuring result in job losses in the public health system?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The public health system is struggling to get all the people it needs to at the moment. We remain focused on that. One of the other recommendations in the Health and Disability System Review report is a recommendation about the need for a focused and dedicated team to do workforce planning for that sector, and we’re committed to seeing through and actively considering that recommendation.
Dr Shane Reti: When he has said DHBs will be consolidated, when will those DHBs be made public?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The DHBs are public at the moment, but any decisions about what happens with DHBs will be made public in due course, once Cabinet has made its decisions.
Dr Shane Reti: How many people with rare disorders or requiring Trikafta could benefit from the $5 million he states has been appropriated to the unit responsible for reducing DHBs?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government is embarking on a change process for the health sector because there are some major challenges in that sector, not the least of which is the appalling performance in relation to equity of access for healthcare; no less so than in that member’s region, Te Tai Tokerau, or Northland. In order to make that change so that the sector isn’t distracted and people are pulled out of existing jobs to run a change process, we’ve commissioned a group of people to run the change process. It’s a bit like doing renovations to your house—you don’t kind of try and do it all on your, DIY, and still carry out your full-time job; you call in the builder to do it.
Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the people of South Canterbury who have the only DHB making a surplus last year and whom management said, at annual review recently, that merging them would be a backwards step?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I say to that community that, of course, their healthcare is dependant not only on their local DHB and their local hospital but, actually, a network of hospitals in the South Island, and what they will want to know is that their ability to get access to that healthcare, whether at a primary level or at a secondary or tertiary level, is as seamless as possible and that the best possible decisions are made for their healthcare.
Question No. 4—Education
4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What progress has the Government made in preparing for increased student numbers north of Auckland?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: earthworks and retaining structures. Work got under way this week for one of the two new primary schools in the Orewa Whangaparaoa catchment area. Orewa North West Primary School will initially have capacity to cater for up to 420 students. A second school—Milldale Primary School—is also being planned, with an initial capacity of up to 370 students. Both year 1 to 6 schools in the growing area of north-west Orewa and Milldale are expected to be open for term one of 2023.
Marja Lubeck: Why are two new schools needed in Orewa Whangaparaoa?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Orewa Whangaparaoa catchment is a high-growth area with more than 1,800 extra students expected by 2030. Other schools in the area are close to capacity; so we’re making sure we have schooling options for the hundreds of families moving into new residential developments. Greenfield growth in the Milldale area alone is expected to deliver 4,500 new homes over the next decade.
Marja Lubeck: Are these new schools part of a wider programme of work in relation to school property?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, absolutely. We have one of the biggest school-building programmes that New Zealand has seen in recent times. We have invested in over 1,400 new or upgraded classrooms for around 38,000 students across the country. Since October 2017, over 120 redevelopment projects and over 80 expansion projects have already been completed, and there’s a lot more to come. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. I thought, with all the excitement, there might be a supplementary from one of the local members.
Question No. 5—Transport
5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does the Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021-31 investment programme include funding to accelerate planning for an additional Auckland harbour crossing; if not, why not?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes. The planning work continues at pace, and the updated Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) package funds this work into the future and includes investment for the associated land acquisition. Waka Kotahi will engage with stakeholders later in the year. This is in contrast to the ATAP released under the previous Government, which didn’t have the work on the Harbour Bridge starting until the 2040s.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Where specifically in the programme document can he point to that constitutes that funding?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I think the member will understand that I can’t provide a page reference at the moment, but I can give the member an assurance that within the ATAP package, $20 million is allocated for the business case work and $40 million is allocated for land acquisition in support of this project.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the key finding of the Additional Waitematā Harbour Connections business case that “The high level of reliance on a single corridor and bridge means that various vulnerabilities could have significant impacts on Auckland and New Zealand if service levels were compromised.”?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I do note the strategic importance of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. I am a local in Auckland, unlike the member, so I am aware that there is actually a second crossing across the Waitematā at the moment, but, nonetheless, the Government takes the strategic issues very seriously. That’s why this work is progressing and why an initial business case was released late last year and further work will continue this year.
Shanan Halbert: Does the Minister think the Auckland Transport Alignment Project 2021 - 2031 plan is comprehensive?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, within ATAP 2021 - 2031, we have included a full breakdown of all projects as a part of this plan. This is in contrast to when I was looking for the member opposite’s plan—
SPEAKER: No, no—order! [Interruption] Order! Now, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. When I stand up and call him to order, he stops.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: And I want to apologise to the House—that question was out of order. Mere reference to a plan doesn’t open it up for general comment. This was about a very specific part of the plan.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why has ATAP 2021 provided $360 million for a SkyPath when the New Zealand Transport Agency has told Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee that adding more weight to the bridge would mean it could accept fewer vehicles?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has confirmed its intentions to invest in a safe, accessible walking and cycling crossing across the Waitematā Harbour, because it’s a key priority for our Government to make sure that Aucklanders do have safe walking and cycling access around our city. It’s one of the core contrasts between this side of the House and that side of the House. As we develop that project, we will, of course, put absolute focus on ensuring the structural integrity of the Auckland Harbour Bridge. No one would wish to compromise that.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: On that point, to the Minister, has he sought further advice on the 13 different risks identified in the Harbour Bridge asset management plan that could lead to partial or full closure of the bridge, including “failure of the pier bracket could cause a collapse in the bridge if not replaced.”?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As part of their stewardship of this critical asset, Waka Kotahi are constantly engaged in managing and assessing possible risks around the Auckland Harbour Bridge. They report to me regularly. This has been going on for some time. I note, for example, that back in 2013, the Prime Minister at the time, Sir John Key, commented on a number of these issues. We have a strong stewardship role over that asset. We continue to monitor it, and we continue to ensure that there are contingencies in place as we progress work for an additional crossing.
Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment
6. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What initiatives has she recently launched to support food security?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This morning, I launched the Aotearoa Food Rescue Alliance—otherwise known as AFRA. AFRA is one of three national sector partners supporting communities to reduce food waste and increase food security. The Ministry of Social Development have provided $500,000 over a two-year period to support their vision of effective food rescue in Aotearoa: Food for All. AFRA’s launch is a key milestone towards recognising the critical and cost-effective role that food rescue plays in increasing the supply of good quality surplus food through to our communities.
Angie Warren-Clark: How does this initiative align with the Government’s broader priorities to address food demand?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Aotearoa Food Rescue Alliance sits as part of a $32 million investment in Budget 2020 over two years to address demand on food banks, food rescue, and other community food providers. This investment builds on the Government’s efforts to support sustainable food and to secure communities into the future. It also supports our Government’s objective of building a more cohesive social sector through facilitating effective collaboration, helping to limit the duplication of services, and enhance the reach of food providers to those in need.
Angie Warren-Clark: What else is the Government doing in delivering support in our community?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We recognise that supporting food rescue initiatives is only one step towards better food security in our communities. That’s why our support has to be multifaceted. We have expanded our Lunches in Schools programme and sought to improve income adequacy through lifting and indexing benefits, lifting abatement thresholds, and increasing the minimum wage. Our Government is committed to making progress; we have seen some significant changes over the last three years, but we do acknowledge there is more to do.
Question No. 7—Housing (Homelessness)
7. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness): Does the Aotearoa/New Zealand Homelessness Action Plan aim to reduce the use of emergency accommodation such as motels; if so, how many more people are living in motels today compared to when the plan was announced in February 2020?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Yes. Our ultimate goal with the Homelessness Action Plan is to get people into stable, quality homes. And we also have to make sure people who need urgent shelter are able to get it. The past year has been hugely tough for many more people, and that has meant over the period from February 2020, when we launched the action plan, to now, we are providing an additional 983 emergency COVID response housing places, an additional 148 transitional motel places, and there are an additional 2,162 clients receiving the emergency housing special needs grants. This is for people to get the immediate shelter they need since we launched the action plan to proactively get people into safety and shelter during the lockdowns and as a step towards long-term housing, and we know we need to do more.
Nicola Willis: Can she assure New Zealanders that emergency housing arrangements funded by the Government are safe for the people living in them and for the people living near them?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It is absolutely imperative that everyone is able to live in safe housing situations, no matter what type of situation that is. This is why we are focusing on prioritising people into transitional housing where there are further wraparound social supports provided. It is not a priority to keep people in emergency housing situations; we know that is not acceptable. I want all families to be living in safe housing situations.
Nicola Willis: Is she concerned by reports that children are being co-located in emergency accommodation with 501s and gang members engaging in violent and criminal behaviour?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes, I am concerned that any child is having to live in any emergency housing situation at this time. Again, everyone has a right to be in a safe living situation. Again, this is why the Government, through the action plan, is prioritising moving families and people into transitional housing as soon as possible. It is why we are proud to have announced an additional 1,000 transitional houses already this year with Minister Woods and me. We have a further 2,000 transitional houses planned. Can I just add that we need to absolutely address the drivers of crime and violence, that moving people into secure housing goes a long way towards increasing the safety for all families, and that we must make sure that we do not stigmatise any one group or community with crime, that we understand that will not help us address the drivers of crime—and supports that research that has shown to have been proven when we talk about crime. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Nicola Willis: Does she stand by her comments on Twitter accusing those raising public safety concerns about emergency accommodation as having “racist and classist undertones”, and what is racist or classist about people raising concerns about the safety of emergency accommodation?
SPEAKER: The member has to answer one of the four.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes, I absolutely stand behind every word that I discuss on my social media platforms, because, as my previous answer indicated, I am very clear that every person and child deserves to be living in safe situations; that we must address the drivers of crime across the entire community, not just in emergency housing situations; and that if we continue with a narrative that doesn’t understand the systemic causes, we will go no further in progressing the reduction of crime.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Homelessness Action Plan implement all of the recommendations of the 2016 Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry led by Labour, Greens, and Te Paati Māori?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you for the question. The Homelessness Action Plan pulls together a range of responses to that fabulous inquiry that I was pleased to be a part of. I am pleased that the Government is prioritising all of the 18 actions—all of the actions—from that Homelessness Action Plan, and that work was the result of finally getting a Government that even admitted that we have a housing crisis, and was the result of finally even having a national strategy to address homelessness. That inquiry is why we have, for the first time, a Minister in charge of homelessness. Those are monumental steps that arose out of that work, hearing firsthand exactly how bad the situation is, and actually acknowledging that we have a problem.
Nicola Willis: Is she accusing New Zealanders who raise concerns about their safety in relation to increased numbers of people in emergency accommodation as being racist?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I am accusing a member, a National member of this House, of attempting to stigmatise a group of people with little access to power and resourcing, of attempting to whip up stigmatising and dehumanising narratives around groups of people who need our support, around groups of people who need us to address the systemic causes of crime. Yes, I am accusing a National member of raising that dehumanising narrative.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you would advise whether you believe that answer met the requirements of Speaker’s ruling 44/1.
SPEAKER: If the member would just give me a little time. Thank you. I think it’s fair to say that the member went up to the edge of that. She was asked very directly a question about it. She addressed the question. I think if she had answered the question in that particular manner, it might well have breached 44/1. I think the Minister answering the question successfully skirted around the Speaker’s ruling by using the suggestion that a narrative was being promoted. She did not say a member was racist.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: On that point, I don’t want you to respond to this, but it—
SPEAKER: No, no, it’s all right. This is a very important issue, but I do want it to be heard in silence—all comments on this—because this is a matter of extreme importance and sensitivity.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In my original point, I should have mentioned Speaker’s ruling 44/2 as well. I won’t ask you to respond necessarily right now, but I do believe the question of a mention in a demeaning way, referring to a party, not just a member—actually, it didn’t skirt around the issue but was central to the issue that is the point of 44/2.
Hon Chris Hipkins: In order to violate 44/2, the Minister would have had to have used the word “racist”. She did not; the member asking the question did.
Nicola Willis: The word “racist” was used by the Minister in the quote that I used in the question.
SPEAKER: Yes, and to be absolutely clear, I am never going to take responsibility for members’ tweets.
Hon Kiritapu Allan: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Who was that? Was that Angela?
Hon Kiritapu Allan: No, it was me.
SPEAKER: Right. Well, the member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Kiritapu Allan: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings relate to occurrences in the House. I think all of us—all of us—have made tweets at some—well, no, I won’t say “all of us”; it’s a general reflection. Many of us will have made tweets on occasions that do not contain parliamentary language or contain suggestions which are allowed outside the House. Other people can say it and we can say it outside, but we can’t say it inside. That’s the way that our rules work. The fact that someone made a comment which other members find offensive, by way of Twitter—frankly, if that was the case, there would be two or three members who would be constantly before the Privileges Committee.
Hon Chris Hipkins: That’s you, Bish!
Chris Bishop: Hey!
SPEAKER: That was one each, and you’re both lucky. But the rules are clear: people can breach privilege by way of Twitter, but not in that way.
Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that in the five months since becoming a Minister, she has not taken a single paper to Cabinet committee or Cabinet and has not issued a single press release?
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: We are lucky that—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. That does not relate to the question.
Question No. 8—Māori Development
8. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent Papakāinga announcement has he made for Māori on the Chatham Islands?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): On Monday, I announced an innovative papakāinga development that will support low- to medium-income Māori and Moriori whānau towards homeownership. This step towards addressing complex housing issues on the island will host five new homes by the middle of the year. Te Puni Kōkiri is investing $974,760 towards the retained equity in the houses through its Te Ara Mauwhare initiative. I’d like to thank the local member, Paul Eagle, for his advocacy and for representing the Government at a wonderful presentation we had on the island in the last few days. So, great work from the local member.
Paul Eagle: Why is developing papakāinga on the Chatham Islands complex?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Building houses on the Chatham Islands, Rēkohu, Wharekauri, is difficult logistically, and made even harder because banks don’t really lend there. There’s also the need for skills and tradespeople that aren’t readily available on the Chathams. So it can cost $100,000 more to build a house on the island than it would to build it on mainland New Zealand. So the houses are being built offshore and they will arrive by barge by mid-year, with our whānau ready to move in shortly after that.
Paul Eagle: How has the community support been for the papakāinga development?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I think that the Chathams is a wonderful example for most of the country, because we’ve had the community come together to advance this kaupapa. So I’m really proud of what we’ve seen down there in terms of all groups of people coming together. So I want to acknowledge today the Chatham Islands Enterprise Trust, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, Hokotehi Moriori Trust, and the Chatham Islands Council for coming together to solve housing needs on the island. It’s great to see whānau coming together, moving together—kotahitanga—in action in the Chatham Islands.
Question No. 9—Police
9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Police: Is she confident the Government will meet its target of 1,800 new police officers over three years; if not, how will police have enough resources to deal with increasing gang violence?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes.
Simeon Brown: When will the Government achieve the promised net increase of 1,800 additional police officers, over and above the number of officers at October 2017?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve already delivered on our commitment of 1,800 new police officers, and we’re well on our way to meeting our additional growth target of 1,800 over five years.
Simeon Brown: When will the Government deliver the promised 700 police officers dedicated to serious and organised crime, and how many have been recruited into this unit to date?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Overall, we’ve recruited an additional 1,400 who’ve graduated through the police college so far. In terms of organised crime, I’m happy to get back to the member with the specific number that have been dedicated to that.
Simeon Brown: What does the Minister say to the New Zealand Police Association, who said in a submission to the Justice Committee, “It has been quipped that gangs are recruiting faster than Police, which, this committee would appreciate is no joke.”?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I would say that the police are recruiting far faster under this Government than they were under the last Government, when police numbers declined.
Simeon Brown: Will she bring forward funding to complete the promised 1,800 additional new police officers over three years; and, if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The police do have sufficient funding to deliver on the target.
Question No. 10—Environment
10. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that “Immediate improvements in IWG”—intensive winter grazing—“practices this season are required”, and does he expect those improvements to occur before winter begins?
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 75
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.
Noes 44
New Zealand National 32; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Sorry, Mr Speaker, that’s me as well.
SPEAKER: I’ve never seen a more relieved Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That’s right. Sorry, Mr Speaker—slightly distracted. On behalf of the Minister, yes and yes.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree with Tom Kay of Forest & Bird that “government has caved to pressure from intensive farmers instead of standing firm for freshwater health, and upholding the promises they made to all New Zealanders.”; if not, why not?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, the Government remains committed to addressing the issues. We’ve taken a pragmatic approach to accelerating progress, and that’s exactly what we’re focused on doing.
Hon Eugenie Sage: If the Government is committed to accelerating progress, does that mean, with the regulations not being in force, that farmers can increase the area they subject to intensive winter grazing, which they couldn’t do without resource consent if the regulations were in force?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, the Government took the pragmatic decision to bring forward an alternative way of addressing the issues, which was to get farmers working to reduce those through the farming plans. That’s, ultimately, what the approach has been, based on—we think we’ll make faster progress by doing that.
Hon Eugenie Sage: What happens if the voluntary approach that the Government is placing such confidence in doesn’t work?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Then, of course, regulation continues to be an option.
Hon Eugenie Sage: If the Minister is saying improvements will occur without the relevant National Environmental Standards for Freshwater being enforced, can New Zealanders be certain that they will not once again be seeing images of cows up to their hocks in mud, with nowhere comfortable to lie down, and our precious rivers running brown with sediment this winter?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have been advised by the Minister of Agriculture that, in terms of the animal welfare issues the member refers to, the Ministry for Primary Industries will be taking a much firmer stance.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Why did he choose to announce the delay on implementing the winter grazing rules at a DairyNZ stakeholder function?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Because it was a convenient time to do so.
Question No. 11—Workplace Relations and Safety
11. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does he agree with the advice provided to him regarding increasing the minimum wage this year that the impacts of the increase include “lower job growth and reduced hours”, and that “effects are most likely to impact some demographic groups such as youth, Māori and women”; if not, why not?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): No, for two key reasons. Firstly, since the economic forecast that that advice was based on, the economic situation has dramatically improved. Unemployment is now down to 4.9 percent and benefit numbers are declining. Treasury’s forecasts going forward are also improving. Secondly, similar advice has been provided on minimum wage increases year after year, and the actual result under this Government has been that we have been able to deliver improved employment outcomes for all of the groups mentioned in the member’s question, while also ensuring that people have a decent standard of living through good minimum wage increases.
Toni Severin: Will increasing the minimum wage to $20 make it easier or harder to create jobs?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Given that unemployment today, after a year of working through the global pandemic of COVID-19, is lower than in the so-called golden economic period of the National Government in 2016—
Hon Member: What golden years?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —I think that we have shown—the rock star economy, remember, and the unemployment rate today is lower than at that point, with a higher minimum wage—that we can deliver good economic growth across the New Zealand economy, while making sure that the lowest-income New Zealanders get a fair go. After a year of COVID, we have learnt that it’s the cleaners, the orderlies, the checkout operators, and people in those roles who keep our economy going, and it is time to stop undervaluing them. I find it extraordinary that people in this House, who earn $180,000 a year, are not prepared to see those people get a fair income for the critical work that they do.
Toni Severin: Does he agree with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) forecast that this year’s increase to minimum wage will result in a restraint on employment of 9,000 jobs; if not, why not?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, because, as I’ve explained, the advice year on year in this respect is that there might be a restraint on the number of jobs created, but this Government has shown that consistently our policies are able to deliver lower unemployment for New Zealanders, while also delivering good minimum wages. I also note the full scope of the advice provided by MBIE, which notes: “In a study of evidence across 19 OECD countries, it was found that there was no overall effect on total employment [through minimum wage increases].”
Marja Lubeck: What is the Government doing to support workers who lose their jobs?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has taken—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! We must have supplementary questions which relate to the primary question; that one doesn’t.
Marja Lubeck: I’ll correct myself. What is the Government doing regarding this advice and that they are supporting the workers who are losing their jobs?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has made a range of significant investments and policy initiatives over the last year to make sure that workers who are displaced by the effects of COVID-19 are reintegrated into the labour market and have their standard of living protected. Measures such as free trades training and apprenticeships—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I think he has just proven my point.
Marja Lubeck: What is the Government doing, in light of the advice, to support Māori, women, and youth into work?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government has a range of policies that are supporting Māori, youth, and women into work. I note that the original question did make the assertion that a higher minimum wage may compromise the ability of people in those groups to get into good and meaningful work. What we are proving through our mix of policies is that we can have a good minimum wage for workers—because we think that people in those occupational groups shouldn’t have to live and subsist on wages that are below a level that sustains a good status and a good life—but, at the same time, we can bring in place measures that make sure that we deal with the long-term challenges of people in those groups who have lesser access to good quality employment. Measures such as those put in place by my colleagues the Hon Willie Jackson and Carmel Sepuloni are having a major impact—
SPEAKER: All right, all right, all right. Thank you.
Toni Severin: Why did the Government reject MBIE’s recommendation to delay the level of increase and timing of this year’s minimum wage increase?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Because this is a Government that carries through on the commitments that it makes at the election. Ministers in this Government take advice from officials, but then make decisions consistent with our values—in this case, our belief that minimum wage workers such as cleaners, drivers, and checkout workers deserve a fair go. That’s what those workers will get under a Labour Government, and they should be well warned that under a Government on that side, there are potentially real wage cuts to the minimum wage coming, because that is the policy of the member asking this question.
Toni Severin: How will the increase in minimum wage help businesses like those in Queenstown and Wānaka who have stated that many will not survive over the next three months?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Amongst other measures, a good minimum wage will allow, as Henry Ford once said, the workers who are employed under those wages to afford the products and services that are created by those businesses. Having a good minimum wage is actually one of the most important things that we can do to stimulate local economic activity. I note that the same Chicken Little predictions were made by that side of the House when the Government increased the minimum wage on 1 April last year, and we have managed, at this point of the economic cycle, to have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD.
Question No. 12—Education
12. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen on progress towards implementing Learning Support Coordinators in schools?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education): Today, I released the findings from phase one of the learning support coordinator (LSC) evaluation, which shows students with diverse learning needs are getting better support to learn in school as a result of this new resource. The learning support coordinator role is for registered and certificated teachers in a dedicated and full-time position. It was a key deliverable from the Learning Support Action Plan 2019-25. The first tranche of LSCs started in 1,052 individual schools and kura, and served over 300,000 students.
Jo Luxton: What feedback has she received from the phase one evaluations?
Hon JAN TINETTI: It has now been just over a year since the first LSCs started work, and already we have heard overwhelming positive feedback from teachers, students, and whānau on the difference this has made to the provision of learning support. This morning, I was at a school and heard from teachers that LSCs are doing excellent work to assist the one in five students who need some level of additional support for their learning. When we came into Government in 2017, educators had been crying out for extra resource for some time to better support learners who may not have received the help they had needed before. We’ve responded with investing $1.1 billion into learning support since 2017.
Jo Luxton: What are the next steps for learning support coordinators?
Hon JAN TINETTI: This is just phase one of a comprehensive evaluation plan. We have phases two and three still to go. I want to see us continuously improve the LSC role to fine-tune how we assist students with diverse learning needs. We have consistently heard that parents, educators, and whānau place a high priority on having a dedicated learning support role in schools, and the evaluation shows how important the team approach in learning support is. We are deliberately taking a multi-phased approach to rolling out coordinators across all schools.
Questions to Members
Question No. 1—Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill
1. TONI SEVERIN (ACT) to the Member in charge of the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill: Does she have estimated costs of increasing leave requirements on employers under the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill; if so, what are they?
TERISA NGOBI (Member in charge of the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill): In my Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill, parental interview leave is proposed to be capped at four hours per year. The cost to employers will vary according to circumstances. We know some employers do already have this type of provision in place. I look forward to hearing submissions and advice on this bill at select committee and will be working with committee members so we can develop legislation that enhances the education for our tamariki.
Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Speaker?
SPEAKER: No, the supplementary goes to the member who’s asking the question.
Toni Severin: Will she have estimated the costs and release them publicly?
TERISA NGOBI: Again, as I said, we have proposed four hours per year, and, again, this still needs to go through to select committee. But what I would say is that employers can calculate what that might look like on the four hours per year proposed at this time. This is about supporting tamariki, whānau, and kaiako or learners to make sure that they come together to get the best plan to support our children to get the best educational outcomes, and I’m sure we all support that.
Motions
Allocation of Oral Questions—Leave Declined
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion asking the Business Committee to consider the issue of the allocation of Government questions proportional to Opposition questions, with a view to reducing the number of Government patsy questions.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is.
Bills
Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill
Second Reading
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2019/20 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Child Support Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: I present a legislative statement on the Child Support Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I move, That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
The Child Support Act was introduced in 1991, and since then it’s been progressively updated and adjusted over the years. The objective of child support is to ensure that children are appropriately supported by both their parents, even when they’re not living together as a family. The bill we are considering today aims to ensure that the child support system works as smoothly and efficiently as possible. The impetus for the change is the Government’s simplification and modernisation of the tax and transfer system.
Inland Revenue has been progressively moving its various functions over from the old technology platform to the new one, and New Zealanders have been enjoying the benefits of greater efficiency and simplicity. This is very relevant to us here today because one of the beneficiaries of the Inland Revenue’s Business Transformation programme is the set of social policies administered by Inland Revenue, and that includes child support.
Earlier stages of Business Transformation meant that interest and dividend information is now reported to Inland Revenue on a monthly basis. It is, therefore, easy for Inland Revenue to include these amounts as income. That enables one of the proposals in this bill, to widen the definition of “income” further to include interest and dividend income, which would provide a fairer outcome for the children if considered as part of the child support calculation.
The transformation programme also now means that Inland Revenue receives payday filing information from employers, which allows near real-time information about people’s circumstances during the year. Now Inland Revenue is receiving more timely and accurate information, this can be used to more accurately calculate a person’s tax and entitlements, making sure they’re getting the right entitlements and paying the right amount of tax during the year. This is relevant for child support because payday filing allows Inland Revenue to get more up-to-date employment information to enable child support deductions to be set up right from the start. Many people currently pay their child support obligations through deductions made by their employer. The Government wants to help newly liable parents to start off on the right foot. So this bill extends employer deductions of child support to all newly liable parents.
The driving force behind this bill has been improvements to the administration of the scheme. It does this by making it more certain that children get the financial support they’re entitled to by making the scheme easier for liable parents to meet their obligations. It, therefore, proposes a range of administrative measures which will help smooth the scheme and provide the necessary financial security for the children involved.
I’ve touched on a couple of measures in this bill. I think that a quick recap of the other principal features of the bill would be beneficial. The penalties imposed by the scheme are intended to be an incentive for parents to comply, but they can actually have the reverse effect if the penalties are too harsh. So this bill proposes a more pragmatic approach. The child support scheme imposes an initial late payment penalty, a follow-up penalty soon after, and then an incremental penalty. The policy objective is for parents to get back on track quickly, and the best way to do that is for Inland Revenue to work with that parent to get them on track, with the objective of preventing the second stage penalty being imposed. So we propose to shift that second stage of the initial late payment penalty to give Inland Revenue time to help the parent.
As I mentioned before, the Government wants to help newly liable parents start off on the right foot, and the proposed child support deductions made by an employer will help achieve that. But for people who don’t work for a salary, such as self-employed people, there is still the potential to fall behind on payments, as so often happens currently. And if they do, it’s very difficult to get back on track. We’re, therefore, proposing a grace period before penalties are charged for newly liable parents.
Moving to another matter at the moment, no time bar exists for the child support scheme. That means that when reassessing child support, Inland Revenue could be required to go all the way back to the inception of the scheme in 1992. This is clearly inefficient and a waste of time and money, not to mention a source of uncertainty for the parents. The bill, therefore, proposes introducing a time bar for child support reassessments, as currently exists for income tax. A four-year time bar would provide certainty for parents and improve the efficiency and administration of the scheme.
The bill also includes a number of technical amendments, which would also contribute to a better, more efficient child support scheme.
These are the main features of the bill. The bill supports the Government’s aspirations for our society. These changes will mean a better child support scheme, which means better outcomes for children and young people. In bringing this bill to its third reading, I would like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its consideration of the bill and their recommendations. I’d also like to thank the officials and drafters who worked on this bill. I’m pleased to recommend this bill to the House for its consideration. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking on the Child Support Amendment Bill third reading. This is one of these occasions in the House where the House comes together to try and achieve a better outcome. I think it’s good to remind ourselves that this bill is about protecting young children who are in broken homes where we’re looking at the financial arrangements between the parents or the partners who have subsequently broken up their partnership, and of course the biggest casualty of that is the young children involved in that process.
So from that perspective, this is much more about achieving good social outcomes. I know this bill is very much around changing financial arrangements, but I think it’s very important that we’re mindful of that objective, which is we want to see that the children who are subject to a broken home can grow up in the best that can be made from that situation. In this case, not only is that a nurturing, loving relationship but one where there is adequate financial compensation from one parent or partner who is no longer fully providing for their upbringing and therefore needs to enter into an arrangement to pay compensation to the carer parent. So I think the Minister’s done a pretty good job on summarising the key aspects of this bill.
We had some concerns. We covered them quite substantially during the committee of the whole House. I think the big issue we’ve got is we believe that all the penalties that are incurred in one parent not paying their adequate compensation, the penalty should go to the caregiver parent. At the moment, what happens is we’ve got a debt of about $2.2 billion, of which $500 million is a core debt, and part of the purpose of this bill is trying to reduce that core debt of $500 million so people can pay and they’ve got adequate time to enter into arrangements. But the second thing I think we should be trying to do is reduce the penalty arrangements. At the moment, there’s roughly $1.7 billion, compared to the $500 million of core debt, so this is a massive figure. So what we’d like to see is that the penalty actually goes to the benefit of the caring parent, because, effectively, what the penalty is is a late payment free from the parent to the caregiver—they don’t pay the bill on time. We just believe it’s a good thing. I put up a Supplementary Order Paper on this matter, and I’m glad that the ACT member on the bill thought it was such a great idea they also put up one. But that for us was a crucial aspect, but, unfortunately, the Minister was not open to that possibility and not even open to the contemplation of that opportunity, which I think is disappointing.
The other thing I just want to note is there’s a continual requirement that is imposed on businesses to be the collecting agent for the IRD, and I did make the point during the committee of the whole House and, actually, during the other parts of the debate that there’s this assumption that businesses should always be collecting tax on behalf of the taxpayer or, in this case, the IRD. I can understand the logic to that, but there’s no recompense and there’s no recognition. I just want to say for the matter of the record that we were concerned about this issue. We did speak to a number of the business chambers and Business New Zealand about this issue, but for all those small businesses who are going to have to take on a little bit more of an obligation to collect this money and account for it, I would say thank you for that, because you are doing the work of the IRD and the Government.
Just finally, I want to acknowledge all the committee members. I don’t normally sit on this committee, but it was good working alongside the committee members on the select committee, and of course I want to acknowledge the officials who helped us during this process. I think it’s a good bill. It will go some way to improving—I think we will be back to make some further changes in time, but it’s a great outcome for those young, vulnerable children who are living in broken homes.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I’d like to just offer a few remarks on this bill as it goes through its final reading in the House. I just want to address one thing right from the start, and, actually, it always is about getting it right from the start—just something to refer to in the speech of the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly. It was a reference to broken homes, and I guess it’s a bit of language I would like to move away from. The way we understand families has changed. Families form and reform. Children live in different structures to previously; it’s just our ways of living have changed. It doesn’t mean anything is broken; it’s just changed. What has not changed is the need for children to be supported by their parents.
I was interested, when coming to grips with this bill, to realise that there’s really only one morality statement in this legislation, and the morality statement in it is that parents ought to support their children—that’s it. Everything else is about getting that right, getting it fair, and making it easy for parents to meet their obligations, ensuring that money flows through from parents to ensure that children are cared for, and that’s what lies at the heart of this bill. With the transformation of the IRD systems, it has made it much, much easier for parents to get it right from the start, to actually ensure that the correct amount is paid over in a timely fashion.
Now, in this regard, I want to again address something that the previous speaker said, and that was the concern about compliance costs on employers. I guess there are two points there. One is that employers do bear some compliance costs here. It’s a comparatively small amount extra in regard of child support. There are already compliance costs in respect of PAYE, KiwiSaver, union deductions—all sorts of activities that go on around employment. But, actually, this misses the reduction in compliance costs that has been brought about by the Business Transformation project, so that overall compliance costs for employers have reduced because of the Business Transformation project. I think that employers these days are a lot better off in terms of those compliance costs than before the Business Transformation project commenced. So, while of course we always want to consider compliance costs, I do not think they are a significant problem in respect of this bill.
I wish to address the point that the speaker raised about the idea that penalties might flow through from parents who are required to pay them to the parent who might receive them, or not receive them—the receiving parent or the receiving caregiver. There has been a lot of work done on penalties in this bill, and particularly in terms of reducing penalties—there are no more incremental penalties, and an offering of grace periods—all in order to ensure that penalties encourage paying parents, paying caregivers to pay up on time, but do not make it so onerous that they actually just remove themselves entirely from the system. So there’s a finely balanced judgment there as to how penalties should be calculated and imposed and collected.
But in terms of the flow-through, it’s one of those things where it does sound like a nice idea, but the practicalities of it are completely untested at this stage. The actual cost of it is untested at this stage, and it would be, well, one of those tricky things, because it would be interesting to see what precedents it would set elsewhere across our entire system as to when penalties should flow through, instead of going to the Crown but then being passed on to someone who is in some respect harmed. So there’s a whole issue there that might need to be examined before we went down that route in respect of child support payments.
This has been a long process with this bill. It started in 2017 with a discussion paper issued by the Inland Revenue Department, and, of course, people fed into that discussion paper and a policy was developed from there. So the work was kicked off by the former National-led Government and carried on by the previous coalition Government and now by the Labour Government. The legislation was drafted and it was ready for its first reading—or I think the first reading might even have been part way through—when we were hit by the COVID shutdown. What that meant was that the bill could not complete its first reading and it couldn’t be referred to a select committee. So it just slowed the whole process down.
Eventually, it did get referred through to a select committee, and that committee worked hard on the bill and has sent it back to the House in good shape, and it has come through the committee of the whole House stage in good shape, too. So I would like to first of all thank the officials who have worked on this for a very long time now, and have really worked diligently and hard to ensure that we have a good piece of legislation in front of us. So my grateful thanks to the officials for their hard work on this.
I’d like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee, who took it through the select committee process since the election—in particular, the chair, Angie Warren-Clark, and the deputy chair, Glen Bennett, who chaired some sessions at some stage—and I’d like to thank all the members of that committee, who worked so hard on that bill that we now have it in front of us and it is a good piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.
MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ll make a short contribution to the Child Support Amendment Bill. As the member who has just resumed her seat, Deborah Russell, alluded to, this was work that was started back in 2017, and as part of the Business Transformation programme and the investment in the IT systems with IRD, this is one of the payment regimes that is going to benefit from that new technology. I too pay my tribute to the officials—not always the easiest job to answer all of the questions and queries that come out of a select committee. Some of those conversations can be a wee bit testy, so I do appreciate the effort that the team has put into getting this bill to its third reading today.
There were several submissions and many suggestions that came out of the submission process, and I think in my contribution I’d like just to note a couple that we felt, or I felt, it was a disappointment that we could not include them in this bill. They were ideas that I think deserve further consideration in maybe some other form. Many of them were considered out of scope. One of the ones that resonated for me was the inclusion of a clause that apparently was included in another piece of legislation and removed, and it was that the interests of the child be at the heart of the legislation. I think if we think about that as a concept, the interests of the child, they need to be considered as part of all legislation, and I think that’s something that we could turn our minds to as a Parliament—that a filter is run over the legislation that we consider to assess the impact it will have, if any, on children.
Many of the submissions that we heard related to the penalty payments, and, you know, it’s one of the aspects of this bill that will give some relief to that. As we’ve heard, $1.7 billion of the $2.2 billion that is outstanding in child support payments is purely penalties, and what that has had the impact of doing is making re-entering the child support payment regime really difficult for liable parents. Some even left the country because it was just too difficult. That mountain was too hard to climb for many people. So this new penalty regime, I think, is a lot more sympathetic to the liable parent.
There were other submissions that we weren’t able to consider either, and they were around the shared care, where you have the separated family that share the care of the child or children fifty-fifty but there is always a liable and a receiving parent, even though those costs are shared—in one case where the mother and children went to live in a much more, may we say, comfortable situation and a second family for the liable parent was established but the child support payments meant that the new family for the liable parent was living in increased hardship as a consequence. So there was no ability to look at the financial situation across both families.
I think we’ve given it a really good thrash-out through the select committee process and through the readings and the committee of the whole House. It’s another piece of legislation that I’m happy to say that the National Party initiated, and I have pleasure in commending it to the House.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to commend this bill. I want first to thank the officials, who did such a superb job shepherding what was a complex and tax-heavy bill for a bunch of lawyers and social workers, largely, on our side. They did such an admirable job in making clear what was to me, at first, really quite difficult to understand. I want to thank also the chair and the deputy, particularly Angie Warren-Clark, who was actually dealing with some significant difficulties herself, in that she had just recovered from eye surgery. So it has been a very interesting process. We all come into this House wanting to make great big sweeping changes, I think. There are great big sweeping changes we can make, and then there are small incremental changes that are none the less very meaningful for the people we impact, and sometimes it’s quicker to make small incremental changes.
I commend this bill also because it has had the impact in my own household of encouraging my 17-year-old to watch Parliament TV. My 17-year-old said to me the other night, having watched the member Chlöe Swarbrick on her feet, “Mum, why didn’t you do more with this bill?” My comment to him is the one I’ll make to you: this bill is a beginning. It makes a number of changes that came out of a specific set of computer programme changes, things that have become possible through wider changes in IRD. Is it the end of what we will do for child support? I hope not, but it is important because it brings certainty, simplicity, and equity to an area of law that we really need to get right for our children and, principally, for our mums and our dads as well.
It is important that we have fairer and effective penalty clauses so that we actually stop penalising people and start getting them involved and paying. It is important that we go easy on our newbies. Just as everyone should go easy on newbie MPs, our newbie liable parents—
Chris Penk: Ha, ha!
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I’m getting support across the House on that. That’s excellent. It’s so that we enable our newbie liable parents to understand their obligations. It is not an easy time when you are first separating. It is difficult. It is complex. Emotions rather than hard-headed pragmatism are what are utmost. IRD needs to be able to walk alongside those people, and that is what this bill enables. The increased grace period for our newbie liable payers is really important.
It is important also that we are going to make it simpler for those same people by simply taking deductions from employers. There is the ability to say, “No, I have particular concerns. My privacy is at risk. Please don’t do this to me.” That is possible. There are exceptions. But if I had to organise my student loan payments when I had one, if I had to have had to do that myself, I think I would probably be in arrears to IRD. The beauty of it simply happening is a wonderful thing, and I think it will assist our liable parents, and by assisting them we assist our kids.
The four-year time bar is also a really important and an excellent process. In my job formerly as a Family Court lawyer, you do see those parents who, unfortunately, get hooked on disputes, and child support becomes one of those things they hook on. At least this way we give certainty: four years of income; no more will we go back. May I just add that 98 percent of reassessments actually only consider that four years anyway, so it’s the 2 percent of difficult people that we’re going to help to realise that this is not something they should be fighting over any longer.
Finally, it is fairer. The definition of “income” is going to enable us to bring into the IRD fold tax losses that previously had been able to be discounted, and interest and dividends. That is a really important aspect of this bill, and I commend it to the House.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to start by acknowledging Dr Emily Henderson and your contribution, particularly about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I brought to the House the other night in the committee of the whole House stage—and I will address that later in this speech. I also want to address the fact that there are evidently different theories of change here in this House in terms of how we approach, how we go about legislating, how we go about funding certain programmes, and, in turn, what we have here in this law, as outlined actually by Maureen Pugh, a National Party speaker, is that there is support across the House for this law. It was a process that was initiated by the former National Government and has been picked up by the Labour-led Government. In turn, we have something that everybody appears to agree with. I’ve had that confirmed by my ACT Party colleagues sat next to me, and everybody broadly seems to be on board with that.
The interesting thing about that is that it doesn’t end up being all too controversial and therefore is relatively representative of a form of incrementalism. I guess to that point, I just refer to a quote that I was literally just googling just now about incrementalism, because I was trying to conceive of that in terms of the types of theories of change that all of us in Parliament as representatives of our respective communities bring to this place. And that is by Seth Godin and states and I quote, “Incrementalism ceases to be a good strategy when there’s a cliff on the route.” That is, effectively, I guess, the kaupapa and the perception that the Greens are bringing to this debate: that it is incredibly important, of course, that we are doing these things with regard to harm minimisation but there was an opportunity to do much more—much more—with this piece of law change, as evidenced by that committee of the whole House stage and the SOPs that were brought before the House. But nonetheless, the Greens will, of course, be supporting this because it is a good step in the right direction.
But if I can just again put on record at this third and final reading, there is a fundamental anomaly in the Child Support Act, I believe, of 1991, and that is that it’s, I believe, the only piece of legislation that references children or says that it’s about them but actually doesn’t centre them nor their voices in it. And I think that that’s not only evidenced by the purpose statements, but also manifest in the different machinery that it enables. You know, this law becomes about the transfer of money and the penalties that the State places on non-custodial parents and the facilitation of those funds to the custodial parent. I have to again reference the point as raised by the Children’s Commissioner in the select committee stage of this bill, who stated that this was an opportune time to centre the voice and the experiences of children but, in turn, to actually implement the Government’s own commissioned report from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. That’s recommendation 27 that states, and I quote, that we should “Pass on all child support collected to receiving carers, including for recipients of Unsupported Child’s Benefit.”
Just for those who may only be tuning in to the third reading of this law, I’ll give you a little rundown of what currently happens in case you missed out on the committee of the whole House or the second reading stage. But right now, the process that occurs if the custodial parent is a beneficiary and that child lives in a beneficiary household, is that the custodial parent has no choice but to enter into an arrangement with the IRD to collect child support from the non-custodial parent. The non-custodial parent pays that child support. The IRD holds on to that child support, calculating the cost to the State of the custodial parent’s benefit and only gives to the custodial parent the amount of money from that child support that is over and above the cost of that benefit to the State. That’s the fundamental flaw that we have with this law at present. It’s fundamentally, ironically, of course, less money for the non-custodial parent, but also less money for the child, for the custodial household, which in turn reduces the resources that are available to improve the quality of life for that child and in turn compounds inequality, which, of course, was raised in that Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s advice, but also in the submission of the Children’s Commissioner. I know that this is an issue which is presently out there—so, again, gutted that we didn’t take that opportunity.
But with all of that said, we have to recognise that there has been some progress here and it is awesome that we do have the consensus of the House on it. I just would far prefer that we were tackling the cliff, the inequality, head on in dealing with something that we have, you know, written in stone as an opportunity to really delve into and fix these issues of inequality so fundamentally. But the Greens support this bill through its third reading and hope, in the words of my colleagues and all sides of the Chamber, that this is, in fact, only the beginning, because it is the case that it takes a really long time for laws and amendments to them to come before this place. So I hope that with the commitment that we’ve heard in the speeches so far this afternoon that there is a meaningful intention to continue progressing this kaupapa to end poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora.
KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me the time to stand here today and give a small contribution. I’d just like to thank everybody that submitted to the Social Services and Community Committee over this bill. It can’t be easy sitting in front of a group of strangers and sharing your stories and sharing your concerns about things that are going on in your personal life. So I really appreciate the people that came in and let us know what they were feeling. I felt very humbled by that, and I don’t take that for granted. Some of the things that were brought forward to us we cannot address because they were outside of the scope of the bill, but that does not mean they are not important, and they may be addressed later on.
I have some concerns about this bill, and I did share them in the last few readings, but, in saying that, I will be supporting this bill, and ACT will support this bill, because most of this bill is fantastic. It’s helping children that are in situations that are bad enough already without having to be disadvantaged even more. Sometimes I think we forget that child support is not just about money. It’s not just about a parent not paying their fair share, and it’s not just about another parent feeling like they’re getting the raw end of the stick. Sometimes a child can be stuck in the middle of this argument, and child support tends to be used as a weapon in some of these situations. If we can make it more simple and fair and easier for both parents, then maybe the child will not suffer so much in the middle of these disagreements.
I really appreciate the introduction of the grace period, because parents that have just broken up or separated are going through many emotions. Sometimes they don’t even really want to admit that something’s gone wrong. They think that everything’s going to be OK again, and they tend to stick their head in the sand, and then they realise, “I’m behind. What am I going to do?” So I appreciate the fact that Inland Revenue and the House took that into consideration and are allowing a parent to have that moment, to take that breath, to understand that they need to meet these obligations.
I also appreciate the fact that Inland Revenue spoke to us on this matter about their taking more time and effort to speak with these people and help them to understand the process rather than victimising them and chasing them and making them feel like they’re villains. I don’t think many parents would not want to support their children. Sometimes it’s just there’s a fog that’s come down on them and they don’t know how to get through it, so I appreciate that.
Having the compulsory deductions I think is a good step forward. It takes that pressure away from a parent to have to organise these things, and they just know it’s going to be done and they know their child is going to be cared for. The introduction of the four-year period is fantastic, because when it gets to that stage, like somebody mentioned in another reading, sometimes you can get letter after letter after letter, and you just, once again, stick your head in the sand and don’t want to face up to the fact that you’ve got that far behind. So I think four years is a reasonable amount of time.
There is much more that could be done with child support, but what we’ve done here is a great step forward, and I support this bill.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise this afternoon on the third reading of this Child Support Amendment Bill. I have some thankyous also to give. In particular, I would like to thank our officials. Tax is not my favourite thing, but as a group you have really helped me understand this legislation and also taken the time to explain some of the processes that are behind the scenes around this.
This bill, essentially, is about modernisation and the ability to improve the administration. But I have to thank my entire select committee for their work, and in particular, my colleague Glen Bennett, who in his second-ever select committee meeting had to step in and chair for me as I was recovering from eye surgery and was actually unable to read and I just had to sit down. He actually chaired a very procedurally difficult meeting on my behalf, so I want to acknowledge you, Glen, for the sterling effort. And I’d also like to acknowledge the entire select committee and our officials for helping and supporting me through a time when I wasn’t that able to follow along with things because of that disability. So thank you so much for that. I do greatly appreciate that.
I’d also like to acknowledge, and it is one of those moments, I guess—this is my fourth year in this House. I had my Minister, Priyanca Radhakrishnan reading the initial statement and we had the under-secretary, Deborah Russell, class of ’17—and, colleagues, Deborah Russell came to us and spoke to us around the policy intent. It’s a new process in the select committee, to have Ministers come and talk about that, and she took that responsibility from the Minister of Revenue and brought the matter to the House. It’s a great advancement, I believe, in the process and, frankly, it makes my heart warm to see my sisters from the class of ’17 stand up and do these things. So there we go. I think I shall get on to the bill now.
So one of the particularly interesting submissions that we did have was from Birthright New Zealand. This comes back to Andrew Bayly’s statement about broken homes, and I just wanted to add some information to the comment. Twenty-seven percent of families are led by one person, and, of that 27 percent, 84 percent of single-parent families are led by women, and half of those women are in paid employment. And further, around one-in-two mothers has spent time as a single parent by the time they reach 50; indeed, I am one of those parents. So for me, this piece of legislation had a whole pile of mixed emotions attached to it.
I was very fortunate, when I was working, to enter into a private arrangement without IRD’s involvement, and I was also very fortunate—and I think probably I need to acknowledge my daughter’s father. He knew his obligations, he followed his obligations, and he continued to support and care for our child as the father of our child, despite our relationship breakdown. Now, that’s the best outcome. That’s the best outcome we can hope for, for our children, to continue to be fathered and mothered by parents.
When that doesn’t happen and child support needs to be put in place by the IRD, we need it to be a simple, balanced approach. We need it to be based absolutely on the engagement with parents, the liable parent, the receiving parent. We need it to be balanced in a way that supports and encourages the financial contribution to the family to be continued. And that’s why I’m really delighted that we’ve got rid of these incremental penalties, which, we heard time and time again—the balance was too harsh. The balance had, basically, got a small number, but a significant amount of money—it had, basically, made those parents disengage with the process. And as a consequence, debt was out of control. There was no way that those parents were prepared to come back to the party and to contribute. So I’m very pleased that that part of this legislation has been passed.
Time is ticking on. I just really want to acknowledge that there are 182,000 children affected by this piece of legislation. I’d like to acknowledge that, because even though it does feel like we had some huge opportunities to do some amazing things, this was a piece of administrative repair. But 182,000 children are affected by this legislation. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts—five minutes.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise as the member of Parliament for the North Shore, a very proud MP, along with many New Zealanders, following the superb win by Team New Zealand—and I say that because they won in the beautiful waters of my electorate, and, of course, a little bit of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick’s, as well. I reach out to all of those young people at the Wakatere Boating Club, the Devonport Yacht Club, and the Takapuna Boating Club: you are our future.
I speak today on the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill, and I am very proud to say that the National Party supports this bill, as do other members and parties in this House. It is a bill that, we believe, will improve the child support arrangements and supports and protects our tamariki.
This bill continues the great work that was initiated under National and implements the changes that were recommended as a result of a review when National was in Government. National believes that we need a modernisation of our child support system that reflects the realities of today—a system that was developed nearly 30 years ago, when I myself was a child—and, as my colleague said before, a system that places the child at the centre of that system.
We all live in an exceptional country and we need a child support system that works for all New Zealanders; a system that makes sure that liable parents pay their outstanding obligations and makes sure that the system receives those payments and passes them on to those carers and on to the children who need that support.
National remains concerned that this Government continues to place increasing obligations and costs on our business community. Businesses incur real costs in terms of the administrative burden of such schemes. In my electorate, the North Shore, there are over 11,000 businesses that employ over 33,000 people—so this is a real impact in my home electorate, as it is across the country.
National also believes that payments required to be paid for those defaulting parents should be passed on to those parents who are looking after those children. As we’ve heard before, there are just over 134,000 parents who are liable, in this country, for child support payments. They represent nearly 200,000 children.
As my colleague, Andrew Bayly, noted before, the child support debt levels in New Zealand exceed $2 billion, of which 75 percent relates to penalties for late payment. It seems ironic that this Government did not wish to see those penalties go through to the carers who support our children, and those children who don’t have a voice for which we are obligated to represent.
Finally, I acknowledge all of the young people in my electorate and across New Zealand whose voices we represent in this House and are always in our minds in terms of ensuring that we protect their obligations and support them. So I commend this bill to the House.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I rise to take this call in the event that Te Paati Māori chooses not to, which is a little of a surprise given how important this bill is to our tamariki. I really just wanted to make a couple of comments, really, flowing on from some of the speeches that we’ve seen today. I guess if you had a business that was collecting debts and 75 percent of its book was in default, we’d worry about it. Essentially, that’s what this bill does. It’s really tidying up the collections system.
Probably the smallest change but the one with the greatest impact is compulsory deductions, so that people don’t have to actually turn their mind on a regular basis and, in some ways, make the overt decision to pay the support that they’re liable for and, in some ways, suffer that tiny sense of pain whenever money goes out, no matter how important and deserving that cause is. So that’s a really great—and as I say, it’s part of the overall transformation of the revenue and to making a more usable, user-friendly, and intuitive system. That’s really what this is doing.
So the upshot of this is—and it’s certainly intended to be—that more money goes more quickly to families who are caring for children. It’s an absolutely fantastic piece of legislation. I commend it to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the third reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill, and it’s been a pleasure, as a first-term MP, to be part of the process, from the select committee to the second reading, to the committee of the whole House, and now to the third reading. I thank all those who have been a part of creating and crafting, debating and tweaking, are supporting, submitting, and sharing their views and their stories, both personal and from a communities level.
I’ve been listening to the speeches in the Chamber this afternoon, and there’s been some conversation around the fact of it being child centred or where those words are within the bill, and Deborah Russell made it really clear early on around the morality statement within this piece of legislation: that parents must support their children. I know, in this House, we want to do all we can to ensure that happens. I also heard Maureen Pugh mention the interests of the child being at the heart of this legislation, and whether there should have been something in there. Also Chlöe Swarbrick spoke around it not bringing their voices to the centre. But my hope is that this bill focuses on our tamariki, whether in writing or not, because this piece of legislation is around some technical changes; it’s around ensuring that parents are able to engage with IRD better, that parents are able to sort out penalties, that there is more grace, it’s fairer, and I believe having those in place and making it simpler for a parent to access child support or to pay child support means less stress, means less worry, means less drama at home, which, obviously, trickles down to the child. So I believe that this is addressing and putting children at the centre of this piece of legislation.
I could get on to the technical—you know, IRD doing their thing that several other MPs have mentioned, around their Business Transformation progress, in terms of their technology platform. I believe this is one of the last pieces to be done in terms of getting that in place and in order. So it’s good to finally get there. I’m sure that the officials are relieved about that. But I want to do some thankyous.
Angie Warren-Clark: To yourself?
GLEN BENNETT: To myself? No, not at all. I am a humble servant of this House. People in New Plymouth are very humble, and that’s how we roll, but I do want to acknowledge the less humble—no, the very humble—Hon David Parker for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. To our under-secretary, born in New Plymouth—that’s right—and raised, too, an accountant, Deborah Russell, and for her participation within the committee stage and in drafting this. Also, too, members of the select committee, thank you for all you did, and I know, for many of you, we heard stories that this is personal as well, that you have been a part of this, dealing with Inland Revenue when it comes to child support. I thank our officials for drafting, and of course, as I said earlier, to our submitters and for putting themselves out there, often bringing up issues and challenges from their past when it comes to separation. To Angie Warren-Clark, thank you for guiding me—the blind leading the blind—but that’s probably a little bit offensive; apologies about your eye surgery. But thank you for leading us through this and leading me in my new role as deputy chair and then acting chair, and, thankfully, deputy chair again.
I guess I want to finish and acknowledge the 182,800 children whom this piece of legislation affects. Children are at the centre of this bill. By taking away some of the stressors for parents, I believe we will serve that over 182,000 children within New Zealand who are recipients of child support. So thank you to everyone for supporting it, and I commend this bill to the House.
ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you. I’m pleased to rise to take a call on the Child Support Amendment Bill. I would like to, firstly, acknowledge the previous speaker and congratulate him on his very long and dramatic pauses to drag out what really could have been said probably in about 30 seconds to a very long five minutes.
Look, this bill is a great bill. There are some issues that we’ve had with it along the way. On the whole, it does some very good things. It widens the income scope from simply PAYE to include interest and dividends. We still have some concerns around people who manage to hide their income when it comes to owning their own company and, when it comes to shareholder advances, still being able to hide some of that income, and that’s some further work that needs to be done—in fact, I know that that was brought up at the committee stage. I’m very supportive of the fact that we are pushing out some of those dates that penalties can accrue—I’ve had many people through my office who are overwhelmed by a situation that they find themselves in which is foreign to them, they haven’t been through it before, they are in a very stressful and difficult period in their lives and find themselves suddenly in an enormous amount of debt through real fault of their own—and I think that that’s a very good thing.
I do have to—and it doesn’t happen very often, but I do happen to agree today with my colleague from the Green Party Chlöe Swarbrick when she talks about the Children’s Commissioner’s comments at select committee about having a more child-centred approach to this bill. I think we did miss a trick there, and there is more work to be done. Look, I don’t think much more needs to be said. We’re all broadly in agreement with this bill, apart from a few things around the edges we can clear up, I think, probably in future legislation. So without further ado, I commend the bill to the House.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Mr Speaker, it’s a privilege and an honour to speak on the last call, take the last call, on the Child Support Amendment Bill, third reading. Before I get on to the bill, I want to add my voice: congratulations to Team New Zealand. We are a sailing nation. Most of us got here—the original people that landed here navigated themselves here. I’m honoured and proud to be a New Zealander every day, but especially when we win—champions—like we just did yesterday. So fa‘afetai tele lava to Team New Zealand.
As we’ve heard from all the 11 speakers before me, this bill brings in a fairer system in terms of penalties, removes the second penalty to liable parents, and the system is to encourage liable parents to pay their liable parent contribution. Can I note that the child support legislation began in 1991, and that’s 30 years ago. It’s great to see that the Inland Revenue’s administration system is being updated, bringing it up to date to the 21st century. So even though it’s taken that long, I commend the leadership of the Minister and the ministry in that area.
The compulsory deductions of newly liable parents—I speak from a place where I have been a person seeking child support from an ex-partner, or the parent, the father, of my two older children. Then I became a liable parent, paying contributions when my mother had won custody of my children because we’d gone through a harrowing custody experience for 2½ years in court, and then I ended up being the person that paid the liable parent contribution to my mother. But during the time that I was the person who applied for child support, actually, I never received any. So I like the fact that it is compulsory for a newly liable parent, because it eases the stresses when you’re going through stressful situations like that. I do take into account that when you start a relationship, you don’t think that it’s going to end up in court, in front of the judge to make decisions about your children.
So I want to acknowledge every person that has come through to the Social Services and Community Committee and shared not just their journey through the child support system but their journey in the lives of their children. We’ve heard from members today that this actually affects 182,000 children, and I want to send a big mihi to all the children out there that you’re a valued New Zealander, and—yeah.
For all the children that are currently going through, and future children, it’s great that the Inland Revenue is updating their system to include a fairer definition of “income”, because income these days—we have different sources of income coming into households. For this bill, that’s what, actually, it does: it looks at a fairer definition of “income”.
I encourage all the liable parents out there not to see this as a point of contention with their ex-partner but to see it as a contribution to the livelihood of their children, who, unfortunately, are in a predicament not of their choosing.
I think I want to acknowledge the member from the Green Party, Chlöe Swarbrick, who had put in a Supplementary Order Paper about the contribution of parents, the liable parent contribution, to beneficiaries—for the remainder of what’s been paid out by the liable parent to the State to be returned to the carer. I want to acknowledge that, and, in the spirit of that, voice support for future laws, or for the Minister to hear that that’s something that would greatly benefit the children of liable parents or a parent who’s caring for their children.
In my last contribution on this bill, I want to thank all the single parents out there. At the time when I was going through this, I wasn’t a single parent, because my whole family had raised my children, and I want to acknowledge the culture of those that look after children as a whānau, as a kāinga—just want to acknowledge that. On that note, I commend the Child Support Amendment Bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 16 March.
ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour and a privilege to stand in this House to make a contribution, especially to the second reading of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I’d like to thank the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Poto Williams, for her leadership in leading the tool kit that the Government has to help their housing supply. She’s progressing major changes to New Zealand’s building laws, the biggest building changes since 2004—so that’s 17 years. So I just acknowledge the Minister in leading the building system legislative reform programme.
I’d like to acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee, the Hon Eugenie Sage, and the rest of the hard-working members of the select committee, which I’m part of—the Environment Committee—in the consideration of this bill. Their contribution, as a new member to that committee, I can say, was really valuable.
Of course, I want to acknowledge the 93 submitters who’d written submissions and came and gave us all evidence. I particularly liked the submission of PrefabNZ, because their submission—I commend them on acronyms. I know that it’s late in the afternoon on a Thursday, but I will come back to the submission and the definition of acronyms because I know that it will add value to your knowledge on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Before then, the majority of the submissions agreed to the core of the bill, which is what the bill is trying to achieve.
So I will start my contribution about the bill, Part 1. So, what does the bill do? So, Part 1 amends the Building Act. The first modification is amending clause 2(2)(b) to change the commencement date from 12 months to 15 months after the date of Royal assent, for most clauses. This will ensure that sufficient time is provided for the development of regulations required to implement these changes to be developed and consulted on, of course.
A number of amendments have been made to the product clauses, where amendments were made to clarify the circumstances in which a building consent involving a modular component would need to be processed in 10 working days. Inserting new section 48(1A)(aa), specifying special circumstances—this would apply when a building consisted entirely of a single modular component and had been manufactured by a single certified manufacturer. So the bill, as I said before, has made amendments to the modular component manufacturing scheme. I know that it’s difficult to listen to these terminologies on a Thursday, so I would just jump into the submission of PrefabNZ, where they submitted on the acronyms.
I liked it because I thought, yeah, I’ve never read submissions where they spent two pages on acronyms. So let’s go there. I’m going to read it because, really, it’s word for word. So, comments on acronyms. They said “PC”: product certificate—easily understood. “PCB”: product certificate body. The body implies a group of people, not a single person. They suggested that we change it from “PCB” to “PCP”, which is, we suggested a person not a board. So instead of it being PCB, they would like it to be PCP. Anyway, “PC” schemes is the product certification schemes. They also suggested that “MMC”, which is the modern methods of constructions, be changed to something called “awesome”—“OSM”—and that is because they are suggesting the more appropriate moniker would be off site manufacture, which is “OSM”. For me that says “awesome”.
Anyway, the bill talks about all these acronyms—MCM, modular component manufacturer; MCMC, modular component manufacturer certification; MCMCB, modular component manufacture certification body; MCMC, accreditation body. Yeah. So this is the reason why they had to put a submission of two pages just on acronyms. I’m new to the Environment Committee and I’m also new to the modular component manufacture certification body. So I really felt like that deserved a mention in the House—two pages of a submission on acronyms—and I want to acknowledge PrefabNZ for that.
I do commend all the submitters, all 93 submitters, the work of officials. I know that it is a hard-working committee. I may not agree with most of them, but it’s a hard-working committee. And I commend the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the House. Malo.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The next call is a split call—five minutes.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): I promise not to use any acronyms in this contribution, though I commend the member prior to me, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, for showing her clever use of those. The Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is an important piece of legislation. It’s actually quite a small piece of legislation, but it does make some progress on what I think is a bigger issue that is significant for New Zealand, and that is the potential to significantly reduce the building costs associated with developing new homes.
We have a situation in New Zealand where housing has become increasingly unaffordable, and when we look at the components of that cost, one of the significant components is building costs. Yet we also live in a time where there has been an absolute acceleration in the technology and innovation in the way houses can be built, specifically around modular housing. Of course, this is about the kind of housing where some of the component parts are prefabricated in factory conditions, often at scale, en masse, to create efficiencies of cost and production time, and then are assembled on site, and this kind of technology is taking off across the world. We’re seeing benefits from it in terms of reduced time to get new houses built and in terms of reducing the actual costs of those component parts. So it is very important that our legislative and regulatory regime keeps up with these technologies, because they have the potential to make housing cheaper in New Zealand.
However, this bill is a response to the fact that many operating in the modular housing area say that the current conditions simply aren’t working for them. The bill establishes a voluntary certification scheme that allows those who are manufacturing modular components to be certified, and it does that by setting out a scope of practice which says this is what’s required and then allows for certification against that scope of practice. It also allows for the product certification scheme by creating new registration requirements for product certification bodies. So this is a step forward.
I note that the select committee had 94 submissions, and I do want to say that I am not completely convinced that everyone who has something to offer in the area of prefabrication and modular housing has had their full say on this bill. It is going to be very important as this bill progresses, but also as it is implemented, that we are clear about whether or not it is working and whether or not the framework in place is keeping pace with the innovation and technology we’re seeing in this area. What we don’t want to see is a regulatory regime which stops people bringing the efficiencies of modular housing to market. I didn’t sit on the select committee that examined this bill, but my colleagues who did tell me that they are satisfied that, from the submissions received, those involved in the building and construction sector felt that this would be a step forward—a small step forward, perhaps, but a step forward. That is the primary reason why National is supporting it.
I do want to highlight that we’re also, with this bill, extending the commencement date, and that is because it’s really important, when significant regulatory changes of this sort are made, that communication to those affected takes place. I want to note for the Hansard that there is a big impetus on officials here to ensure that this legislation, how it will be implemented, and how the regulations are intended to be interpreted is well communicated to those in the sector who will be seeking to operate under it.
So, in short, Minister, this is a step in the right direction—sorry; Madam Speaker. You were a Minister, but you are today Madam Speaker. So this is a good step forward. It doesn’t take us all the way. I challenge members opposite to think about taking some bolder legislation to the House when it comes to addressing the cost of housing in New Zealand. I reiterate National’s offer that, should members opposite wish to bring legislation that would allow the other main component of housing cost—that is, land—to be cheaper in New Zealand, in the form of emergency measures, we on this side would be happy to work with them on that. We did it after the Canterbury earthquakes, and it worked. So this is a step forward, but there’s a lot more to do.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak in the second reading of the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As is traditional, I want to use the opportunity at second reading to discuss submissions on this legislation to the Environment Committee.
I refer to the submission from Te Hau Ora O Ngapuhi, which succinctly summarises why many of the provisions in this bill are worthy of support and will help improve the building sector. In their words, it “would speed up the consenting process and cut down on the cost to the home owner.” We also need to be ensuring that regulations on the construction industry are fit for purpose and require buildings to be completed to a high-quality standard with appropriate penalties for non-compliance. For these reasons and more, we wish we were in a position to support the bill.
However, I wish to also refer to a submission in the name of Tamaki Legal on behalf of Te Whanau o Rātāroa, Ngati Pakahi, Te Tahawai, and Ngati Uru. The submission proposes “that the Crown, in meeting its treaty duties, amend the Building Act to legislate powers for the CE to invest 30 percent of the annual surplus from the building levies for investment towards current and future schemes which address the disparities in Māori housing building and ownership.” They mention how “According to financial statements provided by MBIE under the Official Information Act 1982, the closing balances for the levy account for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 financial years were, $32 [million] $43 [million] and $55,548,000 respectively. The trend evident from the accounts is that surplus from building levies is increasing each year.” This increase, they submitted, “that part of the building levies from the fund should be directed towards specific outcomes for the building sector. In particular, … the surplus should be invested in … infrastructure that addresses the housing barriers faced specifically by Māori”. Te Paati Māori completely agree with this proposal, which aligns with our Whānau First procurement policy that stipulates that tangata whenua should be receiving 25 percent of Government procurement funding.
Our people are struggling to even put a warm, dry roof over their heads. Māori make up 36 percent of public housing tenants—more than double the Māori population. Māori comprise 57 percent of all emergency housing special needs grants, compared with 21 percent of our Pākehā whānau. The need for targeted support for Māori in the housing sector is clear, and this innovative proposal from our own people would go a long way to address that. We are disappointed that this proposal was not incorporated in the bill as part of the select committee process. I have drafted a Supplementary Order Paper in my name to include the provision with the legislation at the committee of the whole House stage. We are calling on the Government and all parties to support this Supplementary Order Paper.
We would like to support this bill; however, we cannot, until these changes are made. All legislation should uphold the Crown’s commitments to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Te Paati Māori will not support legislation that does not do that. I look forward to discussing this further during the committee of the whole House stage and receiving the support of MPs from across the House to ensure tangata whenua rights are recognised in this legislation. Tēnā tātou katoa.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): With apologies to the next speaker, before we do proceed, I’d like to encourage new members that instead of reading from a speech, to address the House directly. I know that members will become more confident as they have more speaking time in this House, but we have clear Speakers’ rulings and I’d like to encourage members to move towards a point where they can speak off speaking notes.
TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—thank you, Madam Speaker, for that. Yes, look, this came through the Environment Committee, and we recommended that it be passed with a couple of amendments. One of the things that came through in the submissions was around the definition of both “building product” and “building method”. Some of the submitters felt as though we needed to better define that.
It went to the Regulations Review Committee for their consideration, as well, and one of the things that they came back with was their consideration that we were giving “Henry VIII” powers over unnecessarily via Order in Council. So we managed to work through those issues. We did ask submitters how they felt about that, but we’ve landed in a really good place. So clause 7 looks to insert sections 9A and 9B into the Act to better define what “building product” and “building method” look like. As I say, we worked through those issues, we came out the other side with agreement, not needing for anything further to be added into that.
I agree with what one of the earlier speakers said, which was that this is about actually making sure that our building landscape is actually fit for purpose. And as we start importing products which are coming in from overseas, some of them have instruction manuals with them, some of them don’t, some of them are of variable quality, and we need to make sure that our laws and our regulations here in New Zealand are fit for purpose, because we have a housing issue in our country, right from the top to the very bottom, and so we need to make sure that, as people start to purchase these products and as people start to engage in different kinds of building methods to try and help solve the problem of our housing crisis, actually, our legislation is fit for purpose and aligns with that. So for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.
STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Actually, I well remember building our house and thinking at the time how much easier it would have been to get it weathertight in a much tighter time frame than happens when we build them bespoke, as most houses are in New Zealand. I’ve since seen a neighbour—that was some years ago when we built our house, but our neighbour has recently built a house and they had panels imported from overseas, complete with insulation and wiring ducts in the walls and the panels that went up very quickly. You could get the house weathertight so much more quickly and save a lot of issues that can occur later on due to weather, so much more efficient. And it must be much more pleasant to be out of the weather building those components that are later assembled on site; so I think that’s a great innovation.
That is not new, actually. In Germany, they’ve been using modular construction for many years and their building costs are lower per square metre than ours as a result of that. So we do need to move on and no one really knows why, I think, it’s not been adopted as quickly in New Zealand, and it’s possibly to do with scale. I know Mike Greer Homes set a factory up in Christchurch not long after the earthquake to construct modular components for homes, and I think we need to really reflect on why that didn’t go as quickly and become as successful as quickly as it could have. I note that it’s still doing that now in Auckland, I understand. So it’s good, and we do need a good regulatory framework, as has been alluded to, to ensure that that works.
This won’t be the end, I’m sure. I do note that the good old Regs Review Committee has stated that there is a “Henry VIII” power in this bill because the bill allows specific products and methods to be declared by Order in Council to be—or not to be—building products and methods. I’m not sure of the details around that, and no one seems to be concerned about it. However, we do know over time some of the legislation we put through this House has some unintended consequences and, hopefully, that’s not the root of some of them.
On the modular construction, I note that Rolls-Royce are promising to have a small modular nuclear reactor, their first power station, up and running in 2031. I wonder if there’s scope within this bill for a small modular nuclear reactor to be approved to be built in Auckland somewhere. It would be quite good to solve all those electricity losses that go right—on the way sending electricity from the power- and energy-rich South Island up into the North Island. But just a thought. I thought I’d raise it with you—I see that a couple of the colleagues on the other side are very enthusiastic to see a modular reactor in their hometown. So with that, I’ll leave the House with that thought and commend the bill to the House.
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to say the name of the title of this bill, because I think we probably could have improved it: Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.
Hon Member: Nah, that’s good!
ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Do you like that, you reckon? It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. I had the pleasure of beginning this piece of work in the 52nd Parliament on the Environment Committee, and then finishing it in the 53rd Parliament select committee. So I was aware of the 93 submissions, and we heard from 28 submitters, and that was in the previous Parliament.
Being the wife of a certified builder, I can say that this bill was greatly interesting to me. I guess I know the minutia of building components, building practices, labour contracts, all of those things that affect the building industry; so I was quite interested in this bill. We need a building system, of course, that inspires trust and confidence, and I’d just like to say my husband does that but other builders may not. So, as a result, we had an example of the leaky building system that happened, and we still have a serious issue with that many years later, and confidence was dented in the industry. As a consequence, we have got to the point where we need to move forward from that, and I think we’ve put certification in, we’ve done a whole pile of things which also support the great builds out there and the building work that we need to do to fix our housing crisis, but it is extremely important that we address some of the things that are changed in the industry. So I think it’s been well traversed around the modular components—I think that has been well traversed in the House.
I’d like to pick up on the other part of this bill: the building products. Now, more than 200,000 building products are out there—lots and lots of online opportunities to purchase. Go online yourself. Google “Which screws shall I use for my deck?” and, ultimately, you will have 50 or 60 options, and what do you choose and when do you choose those, and why do you use them and the purposes for those—these are all important matters. So this bill, working alongside the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, will give us a description of the product; details of the manufacturer, the importing supplier, the retailing supplier; and a building products installation use, maintenance, and disposal requirements; and any warnings, any bans, or restrictions.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I’ve been listening with great interest to the RNZ debate on which way up the grooves go for treading on decking. Now, it is a highly contentious issue, and so I went to the source of all information, my husband, and I said, “Grooves up, grooves down?—which way? What happens?” And he said to me, “Well, it really depends on your client, but it does actually affect the performance of that product.” So this bill is actually helping do that. But then he said, and get this—and I think my colleague Jo Luxton, her husband is also a builder, and he’ll probably concur with me as well—that there is actually a product that has treading on both sides, and that’s the one you should go for. So I just thought that I would fill the House in in regards to that.
I think it is extremely important—I’ve made light of this, but I think it is an extremely important step, and I want to acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill to the House, and the previous Minister, Hon Jenny Salesa, for commencing this work. It’s been a massive amount of work. There’s a lot of thinking that’s gone on and into this bill. It’s giving us a regulatory system that is going to enable and support us to do things better in the building industry. We all want that. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Bills
Secondary Legislation Bill
Third Reading
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Attorney-General: I present a legislative statement on the Secondary Legislation Bill. I move, That the Secondary Legislation Bill be now read a third time.
This bill represents the culmination of efforts over many years, beginning under the last Government and carried forward by this one. It’s an unusual bill, because most of its 300-plus pages are devoted to fleshing out the definition of secondary legislation in section 5 of the Legislation Act 2019. To explain the need for this, I will go briefly into some history. This will remind members why this area of law is in desperate need of reform and why the Regulations Review Committee recommended a serious overhaul in its report in 2014.
The Legislation Act 2012 introduced two new terms for types of delegated legislation: legislative instruments, which includes most instruments made by the Governor-General, as well as some that are made by the House; and disallowable instruments, which includes any other instruments that make law. But that is only the start of it. There is significant overlap between these categories because the definition of disallowable instruments includes legislative instruments. Empowering Acts can also exclude legislative instruments from disallowance. So there are four categories: instruments that are disallowable and legislative; second, instruments that are not disallowable and are legislative; third, instruments that are disallowable and not legislative; and, fourth, instruments that are not disallowable and are not legislative.
It was this complex structure as a whole that troubled the Regulations Review Committee. They were particularly vexed by the third category, disallowable instruments that are not legislative instruments, for which the committee decided that, for brevity, they needed to invent an acronym: DINLIs. They set out the multiple problems and their recommendations in their report on their 2014 Inquiry into the oversight of disallowable instruments that are not legislative instruments—that’s the title of the report. Among the committee’s concerns was being unable to identify DINLIs easily. Most of them are not identified as such by empowering legislation. Instead, they fall under the definition of “significant legislative effect” in section 39 of the Legislation Act 2012. Whether an instrument has a significant legislative effect was open to interpretation. As a result, it was not always apparent whether an instrument made law. More than a mere inconvenience, this meant it was unclear where Parliament has delegated a power to make law, and it impeded the ability of this House to oversee the use of these powers.
The committee recommended that the Government introduce legislation, first, to ensure that every empowering provision stated which category the instruments made under it fall into, and, in conjunction with that, to remove the “significant legislative effect” test from the Legislation Act. The bill before us, together with the Legislation Act 2019, does those things. I’m glad to say that, in the process, it consigns the concepts of legislative instruments, disallowable instruments, and DINLIs to legislative history. The Legislation Act 2019 will, for the future, quite simply define an instrument to be a secondary legislation if an Act that it is—hmm? Quite simply, this bill adds those statements to all the provisions across the statute book that empower the making of secondary legislation.
When Parliament enacts this bill, it will delineate for the first time where it has conferred a power to make law and provide for the publication and oversight of the instruments in question to be regulated centrally in the Legislation Act 2019 rather than in hundreds of separate Acts. In future, any bill that comes before the House will be expected to state where it includes a power to make secondary legislation, so that Parliament will determine this going forward. However, there are exemptions to the rule, of course.
The bill does a few things. It brings together in one place, for the first time, the exemptions from the general publication, presentation, and disallowance requirements of the Legislation Act 2019. These are contained in Schedules 35 and 36 of the bill, which will replace Schedule 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 at different stages of that Act’s implementation. Some secondary legislation is exempt from the usual requirements to be published and presented to the House, because it contains sensitive information that should not be publicly disclosed. In a small number of cases, secondary legislation is exempt from disallowance where it would be inappropriate for Parliament to override the decision of the maker, such as the Remuneration Authority’s determinations of our salaries.
Most of the exemptions in the bill continue the status quo, as Parliament has previously enabled the maker of these instruments to withhold them from publication and presentation. This bill will make a couple of improvements in this area. Firstly, it will enhance transparency by ensuring that all such exemptions are listed in one place—Schedule 3 of the Legislation Act, for those that are interested. Secondly, it will insert a new section 83A into the Legislation Act 2019 that will require the Chief Parliamentary Counsel to report annually on the extent to which makers of secondary legislation have relied on exemptions from presentation in the preceding year. The report will be presented to the House by the Attorney-General, enabling further inquiries to be made as to the use and ongoing appropriateness of these exemptions.
The bill also makes a number of amendments to the Legislation Act 2019 to fine-tune the framework for secondary legislation set out by that Act. The new section 83A that I mentioned just before is one of those. The other notable change is an amendment to the definition of secondary legislation to bring the secondary legislation made under the royal prerogative more closely in line with that made under statutory empowering provisions. This bill, along with the Legislation Act 2019, will be brought into force together later this year. From that point, the definition of secondary legislation will apply to all relevant instruments, and they will clearly be disallowable by the House, subject, of course, to the few exemptions.
This Act provides, ultimately, for secondary legislation drafted by agencies other than the Parliamentary Counsel Office to be published centrally on the New Zealand Legislation website. However, the scale of the task of identifying and republishing all secondary legislation means that this process must be staged. Initially, the publication requirements for secondary legislation that applied immediately before the commencement of the Legislation Act 2019 will be preserved.
The Act and the bill will support improved access to secondary legislation in the following ways. First, it will be clear from each empowering provision whether instruments made under it are secondary legislation. Secondly, where a new power to make secondary legislation is enacted, the secondary legislation made under it will be published and notified in a consistent manner. These publication and notification requirements will be set by regulations under the Legislation Act. Thirdly, notes will be published under each empowering provision stating the publication, presentation, and disallowance requirements for secondary legislation made under it, so that they are apparent on the face of the Act. Users will not have to look to other legislation to determine what those requirements are.
Finally, I’d like to thank the people who were instrumental in bringing this bill to this point. Development, as you’ll recall, of this bill began under the Hon Chris Finlayson in the last Government, who was a great proponent of this work. The Regulations Review Committee—which you once chaired and I was a member of, along with many colleagues in this House—as well as opening the inquiry that led to the bill has provided its advice on many occasions throughout its development. The committee also examined the bill and made helpful recommendations, particularly in regard to exemptions from the Legislation Act. I thank the various chairs, deputy chairs, and members of the committee for their input.
The development of this bill, if not necessarily a labour of love, has been carried out with the incredible diligence of many officials in the dozens of departments that administer the Acts it will amend, and I thank them all for their efforts. I also want to thank the Law Society, Transparency International New Zealand, and members of the public who made submissions on the bill to the Regulations Review Committee. I commend the Secondary Legislation Bill to the House.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Can I start by acknowledging the remarks of the Minister, the Hon Kiritapu Allan, in acknowledging various people, over a large period of time, who’ve worked really hard to bring us to this point. The Secondary Legislation Bill is an absolute page turner as well as a door stopper. I’ve had the pleasure, and I think we can all agree the House as a whole has had the pleasure, of hearing me speak on this before; so I’ll keep my remarks suitably brief. I did promise the Administrative Law class of Victoria University that I would emphasise suitably strongly that the rule of law is deeply intertwined as a concept with the idea that secondary legislation should be knowable and clear and unambiguous, and so on. So I hope that they will feel as though I’ve done them, and indeed our constitution, proud by emphasising the rule of law in that way.
I do acknowledge, as the Minister, Kiritapu Allan, has also done, the previous versions of the Regulations Review Committee, including yourself and others in the Chamber, whom I shall not bring into the debate but nevertheless should be acknowledged in that cryptic way, but also colleagues of the current Regulations Review Committee, and I see a number of their smiling faces with us today. It’s that point in the week, Madam Speaker, and we’re on our favourite subject, of course: secondary legislation. The status of secondary legislation is really important. It’s secondary not in terms of importance, in the effect of people’s personal and professional lives; it’s secondary in the sense of being chronologically following primary legislation and, of course, from the point of view that this House delegate powers under that, and so they must flow in a way that is right and proper and unambiguous. So the lack of ambiguity, hopefully, in terms of regulations and their status going forward, is a key point of the Act. Oversight, in the positive meaning of that word, is going to be provided—not “an oversight”. It’s in that rare category of words that sort of have two meanings that are completely opposite, doesn’t it? Like “sanction”. Anyway!
So, notwithstanding that we’ve got notices, directions, codes of practice, and so on out there, we will be able to talk more helpfully and clearly, I think, about secondary legislation as a whole going forward, and just to encourage all those watching at home, or perhaps both of them—I’d like to pay tribute to both my parents for sticking with the subject. No, just kidding! Others, too, I’m sure will be watching and might be wondering what’s next in this great project initiated by the Hon Sir Christopher Finlayson QC, and it is the uploading and the publication of all secondary legislation in ways that are available and accessible on line to us all.
So, on that note, it gives me great pleasure to join with others in the House in helping to bring to a conclusion this important piece of work, the Secondary Legislation Bill, and we commend it to the House thoroughly.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Minister’s legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.
RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like the other speakers, I’m very pleased to be speaking on the Secondary Legislation Bill. Like the other speakers that we’ve heard on this bill, I’m on the Regulations Review Committee, and what a great committee that is.
Greg O’Connor: Sought after!
RACHEL BROOKING: The sought-after Regulations Review Committee. Now, that brings me to the term “regulations”. What are regulations and how do they relate to what we’re now calling secondary legislation? Regulations—we all know they impact our lives. We were hearing today in question time a question from the Greens to the Government about the Resource Management Act national environmental standard regarding intensive winter grazing. That is an important potential—well, it is an important regulation that will come into force or may come into force at some point. Whether it does or not goes to the point that it’s important and affects our lives. So we really need these regulations to—we need to be able to exercise them, as Chris Penk just spoke about, and they need some clarity around them. So this bill is going to help with that. But it’s not just this bill; it’s also the Legislation Act 2019, and the mix of the two.
So what is secondary legislation?
Chris Penk: I’d hope you know by now.
RACHEL BROOKING: Ha, ha! Well, it’s not primary legislation. It is defined in that Legislation Act that I just referred to and that the Minister has also referred to, and it’s amended by this bill. So it’s defined as something that is identified in the Act that creates it as secondary and in a form set out in what will be the new Schedule 1A.
So that also brings us to the term “legislation”. What does that mean? In the Legislation Act, it is defined as meaning both an Act and secondary legislation. Instruments, on the other hand, are a little bit different, and they include secondary legislation and these other instruments that we heard the Minister and Chris Penk just speaking about.
So what’s happened in the process of making this ginormous bill with very many schedules—and I thank the people who’ve done this work so that baby lawyers in the future can identify regulations easily, and general members of the public. So there’s been a decision made about what remains an instrument and what is this secondary legislation—amazing analysis. What those people did, at Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) and other officials, is they asked: does this instrument have legislative effect? So how do you tell if something has legislative effect? Is it something that makes legal rules that apply generally or does it apply to the public or a class of the public, or does it create a framework that applies again and again? So what’s happened is that PCO has gone through and identified what things have some sort of legislative effect and therefore should be classed as secondary legislation, and that is what we see in the many schedules to this bill.
Of course, the bill itself only has six clauses to it, which is interesting, and if you exclude the schedules it’s very short. As the Minister said, it inserts some common phrases that will go into the various different Acts to identify regulation that is secondary. We can see that at clause 3 of the bill, and at clause 3 it’s got an example of what will happen to one of the pieces of secondary legislation that is identified in the schedule.
What happens is that, when something has been identified as secondary legislation in one of these schedules, a little note is inserted at the end of those various different sections. So in the example, it is relating to the Corrections Act and they insert in the example at subclause 3 “(3) An order under this section is secondary legislation. (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements).” So that makes it very clear to the reader that what they’re looking at is secondary legislation, or what they will be looking at is secondary legislation, and that they can go and find that, hopefully, on the Legislation New Zealand website.
So, well done to all those staff who have gone through all that legislation, all the regulations, all the instruments, and the things with all the different names and have identified what has legislative effect, what should be well published and well understood by New Zealanders. I am happy to commend this bill to the House.
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise with great pleasure to make a brief contribution to this debate in support of the Secondary Legislation Bill. It is a companion piece to the Legislation Act, which the previous Parliament passed. It was surprising for me as a first-term MP then to find that secondary legislation was largely not very publicly accessible although, as has been said already in this debate today, it is the legislation that impacts, sometimes, our lives and the lives of the New Zealand public most.
It comes in all sorts of forms; it’s the legislation that we in this House have an obligation to oversee, but having it not be publicly as accessible as primary legislation has made it harder for even members of this House to know our obligations. But, of course, it is law, and the rule of law should therefore apply, which is to say that whatever laws bind and impact on the lives of the public should be knowable, should be transparent and accessible to them. So far, we may have been breaching the rule of law in the confused manner that we were approaching secondary legislation, so it is commendable. This Minister and, as others have said, the Hon Chris Finlayson QC, who began this work, recognise that secondary legislation, like primary legislation, should be both clearly defined and publicly accessible, and these two companion pieces of legislation bring those two principles together.
I was also pleased to find that the definition that this bill has applied is one of function. So whatever type of law or regulation has the function of being secondary legislation was caught in that definition, and officials have gone through, and in this—what is this?—some 600 pages, they have gone through every piece of primary legislation that refers back down to what would, in effect, be secondary legislation and should thereby come under the Legislation Act to make the public’s access more functional.
So I do commend this bill to the House. It makes New Zealand’s democracy more fair and transparent.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 23 March 2021. Good afternoon.
The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.