Wednesday, 24 March 2021

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2021

WEDNESDAY, 24 MARCH 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Motions

J-Force Arrival in Japan—75th Anniversary

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister for Veterans): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to note the 75th anniversary of the arrival of J-Force in Japan.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I move, That the House note the national commemoration on Friday, 19 March that marked the 75th anniversary of the arrival of J-Force in Japan and honour the contribution of more than 12,000 New Zealanders who took part in the post-war occupation of Japan between 1946 and 1949, including the 15 who died while serving in the country.

Motion agreed to.

Speaker’s Rulings

Government Order of the Day—Motion to Discharge

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday the House accorded urgency to the passing through remaining stages of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2020–21, Feasibility Expenditure, and Remedial Matters) Bill. The Hon Michael Woodhouse moved a motion to discharge the order of the day of the committee stage of the bill and to refer it to a select committee. The question was put and a party vote held. The motion was defeated. I should not have put the question. Once the House has agreed to pass a bill under urgency, a motion to discharge the bill and refer it to a select committee is not in order, since it is inconsistent with that decision. I refer members to page 199 of McGee and to page 19,128, Volume 580 of Hansard, where Speaker Kidd made the ruling on this matter. I apologise to the House for my error.

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

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

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Sue Haldane for Rare Disorders NZ requesting that the House urge the Government to acknowledge the universal challenges faced by people living with a rare disease, and the unfairness within the current system, by committing to the development of a New Zealand National Rare Disorder Framework.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Crown Infrastructure Partners, amendment to the Statement of Performance Expectations for 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.

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

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Health Committee on the:

2019/20 Annual review of Te Aho o Te Kahu – Cancer Control Agency

2019/20 Annual review of the Pharmaceutical Management Agency

2019/20 Annual review of the Waikato District Health Board

2019/20 Annual review of the Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Hutt Valley District Health Board

Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

2019/20 Annual reviews of the Arts Council of NZ Toi Aotearoa, Broadcasting Commission, Drug Free Sport NZ & Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga

2019/20 Annual reviews of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, Ministry for Women & NZ Artificial Limb Service

2019/20 Annual reviews of the New Zealand Film Commission and the New Zealand Lotteries Commission

Reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:

2019/20 Annual review of Air New Zealand Limited

2019/20 Annual review of the Airways Corporation New Zealand Limited

2019/20 Annual review of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

2019/20 Annual reviews of City Rail Link Limited, Maritime New Zealand, Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited, and Transport Accident Investigation Commission.

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill, introduction

Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What reactions has he seen to his announcement yesterday of the Government’s housing package to back first-home buyers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Those of a positive mind-set have seen the positive aspects of the package, and those with a negative mind-set are yet to see the opportunities presented. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says the announcement is “a positive move.”, adding that “The Government is addressing the rate-of-return side of the equation to reduce”—

Hon Judith Collins: We know how accurate those people are.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —“the incentives for investors.” Local Government New Zealand says, “[The] announcement will be welcomed by communities across New Zealand who have been locked out of the home ownership by property speculators taking advantage of historically low interest rates.” Noting the intervention of the Leader of the Opposition, one reaction I haven’t seen is a press release from the National Party, who couldn’t muster one up.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reactions has he seen to the Government’s move to strengthen the economy by encouraging the building of new homes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There have been many positive reactions to our moves to encourage the building of new homes. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand says, “The fact that new builds are to be exempt from the brightline [extension] is welcome news and could go some way to helping to boost the overall supply of housing.” Kiwibank has said that “the changes to the brightline test [to] exclude new builds” is an encouraging move, adding that “nudging investor demand into new builds will help boost supply.” New builds will be exempted from the brightline test extension and the changes to interest deductibility. This will help boost housing supply, which, in time, will help moderate price rises.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reactions has his office seen from members of the public?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve had a number of emails thanking the Government for taking action to address the housing crisis. One of them said, “Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally a Government who is prepared to tackle housing.” Another said, “I think that the extension of the brightline test and the removal of tax deductibility of interest on mortgages for investors are both game-changers.”

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to incentivise investment into the construction of new homes and jump-start developments by funding the vital infrastructure like pipes and transport links needed for new housing. New Zealand’s housing crisis, as we’ve said many times in this House and beyond, has been decades in the making, and there is no quick fix. It’s an issue that’ll take time to turn around, but our package of urgent but also long-term changes will increase housing supply, relieve pressure on the market, and, we hope, make it easier for first-home buyers.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is she extending the brightline test despite Treasury advice that this may put upward pressure on rents when, under her Government, rents have already increased at the fastest rate on record?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member ignores the fact that Treasury actually advised extending to 15 or 20 years, and so they were in favour of that. Obviously, we’ve settled on 10 as we believe that that’s more reflective of the reality in the market. The member herself, on occasion, has addressed the fact that if you want to help with the rental market, the best thing you can do is ensure supply. That is why we have done multiple things in this package, by carving out new builds, making them exempt from interest deductibility changes, and also the extension of the brightline, and, on top of that, making sure that we’ve got investment in infrastructure.

Hon Judith Collins: Has she requested advice on the impact that further rent increases will have on her promise to end child poverty?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: All of the initiatives that we’ve announced yesterday actually are aimed at doing two things: we want to enable first-home buyers to get into the market, but, equally, we’ve constantly had a view to housing affordability across the board, and that means rents. As I’ve already said, if we want to make a difference to rents, we need more houses. We need general housing supply. Someone who’s currently an investor choosing to sell their home doesn’t mean that house is suddenly out of the market, but what we do need are additional stable tenancy options for people, and that is why we are focused on seeing that new supply come on stream. Also, the Minister of Housing is looking at the market when it comes to specific build-to-rent propositions.

Hon Judith Collins: Is she concerned that removing interest deductibility from residential rental properties will result in higher rents being charged to tenants?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One of the things that we’ve openly acknowledged is that there is a place for investors in New Zealand’s housing market, but what we want to do is make sure that we are incentivising those investors in the new builds that we need so that we can see that increase in supply. To answer the issue around those who may already own an investment property, we have tried to smooth the removal of the interest deductibility provisions. We learnt from the UK example. They initially proposed interest deductibility changes that came in all at once for those with an existing property and then down the track chose to phase it. We have phased it straight off the bat, and we’re doing it at a time when interest rates are low to try and reduce the impact on those investors who already have tenants.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement this morning to media, in regards to her brightline test changes, “It does not apply to the family home.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: So will her changes to the brightline test mean that a police officer who undertakes a two-year posting in another town could now be subject to tax on their family home?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Under the policy introduced by the National Government for brightline, there has always been provision for what happens when someone is not living in and using a home as their primary home. It was, however, quite crude. It used 50 percent as the mark. Our view was that you would have, with that rule still in place, some unfortunate and unfair scenarios. Our view was, with the extension, that we needed to be more specific; we’ve done that. But the change-of-use rule has always been there, as introduced by National.

Hon Judith Collins: Has the law she passed this morning under urgency—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will rephrase the question. She knows that’s out of order.

Hon Judith Collins: Has the law passed this morning under urgency changed the definition of residential property so that farms that include worker accommodation will now be subject to a capital gains tax if sold within 10 years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One of the things that we’ve had—

Hon Judith Collins: Yes.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —to address, for instance, is that—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No, I’m not going to let the Prime Minister continue. If the Leader of the Opposition thinks she’s got the answer, she shouldn’t ask the question.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you have long been of the view stated here that people shouldn’t ask questions they don’t know the answer to.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case in court. I just live in hope that some time in this House, someone will ask a genuine question.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she stand by her statement this morning that the reason 10 years was chosen was so that the test could apply to “the majority of sales”, and does she consider the majority of rental property owners to be speculators?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In answer to the last part of the member’s question, no. What I was reflecting was the advice that we have received, which took into account—and, unfortunately, we don’t have the data that delineates between residential and investor, but we know that we see high churn under 10 years. That was the basis on which we received advice from Treasury to increase. They suggested increasing out to 15 or 20. The reason we chose 10 was based on the evidence that was provided around where that churn was.

Hon Judith Collins: When will she respond to my letter, dated 16 March, outlining my concern regarding the conduct of the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I did ask my office to ensure that we had a response to the member—I asked them today to make sure we had a response to the member. So I expect that in the coming days.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order. I seek leave to table a letter, dated 16 March 2021, to the Prime Minister from myself, including an attachment including a statement of claim.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to ask the member whether that is something that has already been circulated and is on the internet from the member?

Hon Judith Collins: Not that I’m aware of, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I have seen it there.

Hon Judith Collins: I haven’t seen it.

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

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 3—Housing

3. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about supporting first-home buyers?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, I announced increased support for first-home buyers—

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Megan Woods!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I announced increased support for first-home buyers through the lifting of income thresholds and changes to regional price caps for our first-home products. Income caps to get financial assistance will be lifted from $85,000 to $95,000 for single buyers and from $130,000 to $150,000 for two or more buyers. Regional caps have also been increased in areas where the products were becoming increasingly out of reach for first-home buyers.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How many people will benefit from these changes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As a result of these changes, based on modelling, we expect to see 9,300 additional couples and 3,700 additional singles currently renting now qualify for first-home products. This builds on the 51,518 first-home grants and 4,256 first-home loans that we’ve given out since November 2017. Our focus is on ensuring that first-home buyers are given a better shot at owning their own home, and these changes will go a long way to overcoming the deposit barrier.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What impact, if any, will these changes have on Māori and Pacific families?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Increasing income thresholds and changes to the regional price caps will support more Māori and Pacific families into homeownership. Changes to income caps will also support multi-generational households, which are often Māori and Pasifika families. This builds on the change during the Government build reset in 2019, when the cap on multiple buyers was removed to allow family and friends to pool deposits and still access first-home products.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “What we are committed to is making sure that houses are more affordable”; if so, does the Government have a position on what ratio of median house price to median household income would mean we have affordable housing in Aotearoa?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do stand by my previous statements. Given the multiple factors that determine both house price changes and income growth, I don’t want to put a single number on what the right ratio is, but I am clear that it is important that we continue to see incomes lift and we do not see the unsustainable house price rises that we have seen in recent times.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: What rate of income growth and what rate of house price growth does he think is realistic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I said in my primary answer, we do want to see wages increase, and we have seen wages increase under this Government, and that is important. We will continue to push on that. We have information that comes to us via Budget forecasts about where Treasury thinks that will go, and it’s been in the order of 3 percent to 4 percent recently. We want to keep that going as much as we can. In terms of the house price rises, we will have to see how this package lands, but we are confident that it will lead to a stopping of the unsustainable house price growth that we’ve seen. But that’s why we can’t give an exact figure, because we haven’t yet seen where the package will land.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that when the Government says we need sustained moderate growth in house prices, it’s saying we need to wait decades, if we have 4 percent increases in incomes, to get back to the level of affordability that we had in 2001?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The phrase “sustained moderation” is one that we have used to highlight the fact that we cannot continue with unsustainable house price rises in the 20 percent area. On the other side of the coin, we also know that for most New Zealanders, their home—their family home; the only home they own—is their primary asset, and we do not want to undermine the value of that to an extent that would actually lead to further economic shocks to the country.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he disagree with the New Zealand Herald editorial which says, “House prices need to fall—and sooner rather than later”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we’ve said many times, our goal here is to stop the unsustainable house price rises that we have seen. We know—all New Zealanders know—that the situation over the last year does mean that we are seeing first-home buyers locked out. We have announced a package of initiatives that will make sure that things are more affordable, but also we have to recognise that this is a big, complex, longstanding challenge that will require sustained action in order to be able to achieve more affordable homes for New Zealanders.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So if, as he hopes, house prices don’t fall from where they are right now and incomes continue to grow at an elevated rate of 4 percent a year, is his Government happy that it will take at least half a century to get back to the affordability we had in 2001?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The point that I’m making is that houses prices and where they go are the function of a number of factors, some of which the Government has some control of, some of which the Government does not have control of. So it’s not, in my view, fair to characterise it in the way that the member did. What we are working towards is an environment where first-home buyers get a fair go, where we make sure that we encourage investment in new builds, where we make sure that we do have an environment where renters can live in warm, dry, safe housing. All of those things will take time. I acknowledge that, but I wouldn’t characterise our policy the way that the member has.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider affordable housing, in terms of both house prices and rent, to be a human right?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry, I just missed the end of that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does he consider affordable housing, both in terms of rent and house prices, to be a human right?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly believe that—on behalf of this Government, we believe that—every New Zealander should be able to live in a warm, dry, safe, and affordable home.

Question No. 5—Social Development and Employment

5. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen about employment in the construction sector?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): One of the highlights of last month’s household labour force survey was the year-on-year increase in the number of people employed in the construction sector. There are now 278,000 people employed in this sector—an increase of 21,000 people since December 2019. This increase shows that not only has the construction sector weathered COVID19; it has rebounded and it is providing more employment opportunities for New Zealanders.

Glen Bennett: How has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) worked with the construction industry to prepare job seekers for opportunities in the construction industry?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Through MSD’s industry partnership, MSD has worked closely with employers, including in the construction industry, to identify what skills are needed for new employees. Through the Construction Skills Action Plan and construction accord launched in 2018, MSD aim to support 4,000 training and employment places to prepare people to work in the construction industry. We’ve delivered early on that target, supporting more than 9,300 people taking up education or employment opportunities in the construction sector to date.

Glen Bennett: What help is available for employers in the construction industry who need staff?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Through the Apprenticeship Boost initiative, employers can access a subsidy of $1,000 per month for first-year apprentices and $500 per month for second-year apprentices. Last week, Minister Hipkins and I announced a four-month extension to this support. Flexi-wage is another important initiative, which subsidises employees’ wages to give employers confidence to take on and train people as well as to help sustain and grow their business. On top of this, last week I announced a $5.5 million boost for providers as part of Māori trades and training. Through working together with industry, we are seeing positive steps forward to ensure we have a workforce ready to meet the demands of the future.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, including my answer to the member’s identical question yesterday.

Andrew Bayly: Why did he tell Mike Hosking this morning that his property tax changes are “a reaction to a very specific set of circumstances”, and does this mean he thinks housing has only become unaffordable in the last six months?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the question, no. In answer to the first part of the question, the member may not have seen the reports throughout 2020 that people expected that the effect of COVID-19 would be a significant reduction in house prices, and the opposite occurred.

Andrew Bayly: Was he aware, when he made his promise not to change the brightline test six months ago, that house prices had already increased $160,000 since he had been finance Minister, and is he seriously trying to justify his broken promise by claiming it wasn’t a problem last September?

SPEAKER: Answer the question—it’s not worth arguing about.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I can tell the member is that I think on about 14 or 15 September, Treasury released the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, which projected that house prices would be declining.

Andrew Bayly: Why did he tell renters that they could “look elsewhere” when their rents went up, and what is his response to Michael, who told the New Zealand Herald that it was easier to find a job rather than a flat in Wellington?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, I think the member is mischaracterising what I said. What I said was, in response to a question about somebody increasing rents by $150 a week as a result of the Government’s announcements yesterday, that, actually, there would be a number of factors in what constructs a rental price. That includes supply and demand and people’s ability to pay. What interests me in the response of Mr Bayly and the National Party to this package is that they’ve clearly chosen their side, and that is the side of speculators.

Andrew Bayly: When he said he was “too definitive” when he promised not to extend the brightline test, what other definitive promises should New Zealanders now expect him to change his mind on?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: None.

Question No. 7—Prime Minister

7. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Government’s housing policy, that it will “tip the balance in favour of first-home buyers through our demand measures”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement in the House yesterday, which was “the Government’s decision to support more first-home buyers with a deposit on their first home, tip the balance in favour of first-home buyers through our demand measures, incentivise investment in newly built homes, and jump-start developments by funding the vital infrastructure like pipes and transport links needed for new housing. New Zealand’s housing crisis has been decades in the making, and there is no silver bullet [or] quick fix. It’s an issue that will take time to turn around, but our package of … urgent and long-term changes will increase housing supply, relieve pressure on the market, and make it easier for … home buyers.”

Brooke van Velden: If the housing market is being rebalanced towards first-home buyers, who is it being rebalanced away from?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You can see by what we’re trying to do on the demand side that we are trying to reduce some of the demand we’ve seen by those who are operating in a speculative way, and you can also see that from the recent data, we have had an additional proportion of the housing market taken up by those who identify as investors and by those who have multiple homes already—so that, in the last quarter, my recollection is, was making up about 40 percent of the market. So we expect that some of our demand side measures will have an effect there, and that will make it easier for those who are purchasing their own homes.

Brooke van Velden: Will the changes to the brightline test result in any people who own a single home being taxed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The purpose of the brightline test as it was introduced by National was to always make sure that if it was the primary home, it was exempt from the brightline test, and so that is the way it was designed. We are continuing with that. We have put extra clarification around the change-in-use test, which is, essentially, when someone is no longer using it as their home.

Nicola Willis: How many more first-home buyers does she expect will buy homes over the next 24 months as a result of the policies she announced yesterday, or would she prefer not to be held accountable to any specific target?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, there are going to be a range of factors that will affect the number of first-home buyers that are entering into the market. What I can tell the member is that the estimates for just one element of the package, which is the change in caps and income tests for our first-home buyer products, will have, roughly, 9,300 additional couples who will be eligible and up to 3,000 singles who will be eligible. So those are the numbers that we have on just one element of the package.

Brooke van Velden: Is she concerned that changes to the brightline test will result in fewer homes for sale?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we’ve already heard the revenue Minister talking about previously, if someone is choosing to no longer be an investor in the market, that’s not removing the number of houses that are available. The quantum remains the same. What we want to do is get additionality, and that’s where we’re using incentives to try and encourage those who may want to enter as an investor to buy a new build, and that may of course then free up, if you’re going to an auction or you’re in the market, the amount of competition that is in the market already between investors, speculators, and first-home buyers.

Brooke van Velden: What are the key differences between the brightline test and a capital gains tax?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer back to the National Party’s references at the time. I believe John Key said that a capital gains tax would be applied to a property no matter when it is sold, after how long it is sold for, and so on. I would also add capital gains taxes, as they have been proposed in this country, have been comprehensive. They include small businesses and the like. Finally, what I’d also add is that they certainly don’t have the level of exemptions that we have, including around new builds.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has the Prime Minister seen reaction from the property industry, such as Wendy Alexander from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, who said, “However, the fact that new builds are to be exempt from the bright-line test is welcome news and could go some way to helping to boost the overall supply of housing.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I’ve actually seen a number of quotes from different representative bodies supporting the packages we announced yesterday. I would add to that the president of Local Government New Zealand, who said, “Today’s announcement will be welcomed by communities across New Zealand, who have been locked out of the home ownership by property speculators taking advantage of historically low interest rates.”

Brooke van Velden: Why is she rushing tax changes through Parliament without consultation but unable to deliver immediate changes to help boost housing supply?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two things I’d quickly say on that. On the legislative changes that help create housing supply, the close example, of course, would be things that we can do to planning and resource management. We actually have already created a fast-track process already. That is in place, we are utilising that, and the member sitting next to you already knows of a housing development in his area that is the subject of that fast-track process. When it comes to the decision yesterday to put changes to the brightline test through, we are very aware that changes in this area can cause extra heat in the market. We wanted to avoid that, so both interest deductibility and brightline changes will apply to houses purchased after 27 March. But on interest deductibility, we are consulting on some elements of that to make sure we get the definitions right for new-build exemptions.

Question No. 8—Revenue

8. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Revenue: Why is the Government exempting new builds from changes to the bright-line test and interest deductibility rules?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Revenue: Labour’s housing plan will incentivise investment in new-build homes, driving development and ensuring more houses are being built. This means that if someone invests in a new-build property, they’ll be exempt from changes to the brightline test and interest deductibility policy. This will make investing in new builds a more attractive option for investors and drive demand for new houses, which will help ease the pressure on first-home buyers and, ultimately, help build more houses.

Barbara Edmonds: What feedback has he received regarding the Government’s new-build exemptions?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: On behalf of the Minister, the Minister has received many positive responses to the new-build exemptions. People are recognising that the Government has made a deliberate decision with our demand side measures to tilt the balance towards supply by exempting new builds to encourage investment in building new homes. Kiwibank’s chief economist, Jarrod Kerr, has said that “Rather than try to get rid of investors entirely, they recognise the fact that they’re the ones that do the development. Pouring more resources into new dwellings is incredibly important right now.”, and even the Real Estate Institute has said that “the fact that new builds are to be exempt from the bright-line test is welcome news and could go some way to helping to boost the overall supply of housing.”

Barbara Edmonds: Will new builds built for the purpose of renting be exempt?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: On behalf of the Minister, it is important to clear up some of the misinformation that is being spread by some members in this House. Property developers building new homes or purchasers of new builds will be exempt from the 10-year brightline test and the interest deductibility changes, regardless of what the home is used for. This includes new rental builds purchased—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! The member’s not only addressed the question; she’s answered it.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she stand by her response to concerns that the First Home Grants and Loans caps are too low, “so for the lower quartile, the fourth quartile of that, that is the median point of houses currently that had been sold in March in 2021”; if so, how many homes at this price point will the Housing Acceleration Fund aim to get built in the next 24 months?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand by my full response for determining the increase to First Home Grants and Loan caps. They are based on prices in the lower quartile part of the market, which is where many first-home buyers are purchasing. I will remind that member that the package has two distinct components: demand measures and supply measures. The member is confusing our Government’s help for first-home buyers with the supply side component of our package. In answer to the second part of the member’s question, the intent of the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund is to increase supply by creating build-ready land for housing to be built on. This is something that councils and developers have told us is missing from the system, and we are acting on it. This fund is there to enable houses to be built. Within the fund, there is an allocation as part of the Land for Housing Programme to focus on non-market outcomes such as pace and affordability. The Housing Acceleration Fund will begin making investments in the second half of this year, and work will commence within the next 12 to 18 months. By the end of June, I will take the final design, including criteria, to Cabinet, and I expect the criteria will include a performance framework to measure its success.

Nicola Willis: What did she mean when she said on Radio New Zealand last night, “So what I’m saying is it’s based on the data. So what we know is what the four quartiles of housing are. So for the lower quartile, the fourth quartile of that, that is the median point of houses currently that had been sold in March in 2021. So it’s based on evidence and it’s based on data.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I meant is exactly that. What I meant is that what we are seeing is that we are rolling out an increase to our first-home loan products that are based on the lowest quartile of housing prices. This has always been the case with these products. What I am incredibly proud of is the fact that our Government has been delivering over 16,892 First Home Grants a year. This compares to National in Government, who were only delivering 6,275.

Nicola Willis: Does she agree with analysis based on Real Estate Institute sales data that only an additional 487 houses would have qualified for the adjusted First Home Grant scheme had it applied last year, and, if not, what is the number?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I can tell that member is just before I came down to question time, there were over 1,400 homes below the price cap available in Auckland alone.

Nicola Willis: How can we trust this Minister to deliver for first-home buyers when, in December 2018, the previous Minister of Housing made changes to the First Home Grant and Loan scheme, promising it would fund an additional 230 grants per year, but between then and now the number of First Home Grants approved each year has decreased by more than 2,000?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’ve already informed that member in answer to a previous supplementary question that this Government has been performing at nearly three times the rate of giving out First Home Grants than the previous National Government. We are a Government that have prioritised first-home buyers and are doing everything to support them—nearly three times more than the previous Government did.

Question No. 10—Foreign Affairs

10. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about supporting the COVID-19 response across the Pacific?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): We’re ready to extend manaakitanga across the Pacific if and when called on during these challenging times. We’ve recently provided support to the Government of Papua New Guinea as they confront an outbreak of COVID-19. The New Zealand Defence Force delivered personal protective equipment (PPE) to Port Moresby last Saturday. Those kits included hand sanitiser, googles, biohazard bags, sterilising tablets, shoe covers, sharps boxes, infrared thermometers, swabs, gloves, gowns, surgical masks, and face shields. We’re also making funding available to the New Zealand High Commission in Port Moresby to respond to the needs on the ground as requested by partners in Papua New Guinea.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What other support has the Minister provided to support the COVID-19 response across the Pacific?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As we observe the increased challenge of response across the Pacific, we’re aware that Timor-Leste has experienced its first outbreak of COVID19 in the community during the past week. To help the response to escalating health needs, the New Zealand Air Force delivered four tonnes of PPE on Tuesday. We’ve also made emergency funding available to enable the New Zealand Embassy to respond to locally identified needs associated with the outbreak, and these contributions are additional to the COVID-19 - related assistance that we provided to Timor-Leste last year, which included the provision of PPE and grants for NGO initiatives to raise community awareness of the disease and reduce lockdown impacts by strengthening food security.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What has been the impact of COVID-19 more generally across the Pacific and what is New Zealand planning to do to support our Pacific neighbours?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Our whanaungatanga link to the Pacific means that we are particularly mindful of the economic impact of COVID-19 in the Pacific. While most of the Pacific has avoided the health impacts of the pandemic, economies have been seriously damaged and development gains have been stalled by the closure of borders and the collapse of the tourism industry. There is worrying data and analysis which highlights stark economic vulnerabilities that have been heightened by COVID-19—closed borders, a drop in tourism—impacting sector-dependent businesses. Declining living standards and deepening inequalities will have flow-on effects for the region’s long-term resilience. Going forward, we will work alongside Pacific partners to support a resilience strategy, as we make further Official Development Assistance announcements in the near future.

Golriz Ghahraman: Is her statement regarding the Pacific that “We need to look beyond our own borders in the fight to eradicate COVID-19.” consistent with the Government’s decision not to support relaxing World Trade Organization (WTO) rules to enable affordable, fair, and equitable people’s vaccine to the Pacific and globally?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes. We are committed to supporting the Pacific. That is why we’ve committed, with Australia, to roll out vaccines across Pacific countries. Our whanaungatanga to the Pacific reinforces our duty of care to ensure that there is the provision of vaccines across the Pacific, and that’s why we’re working to ensure widespread coverage between us. We’re still discussing the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) waiver to the WTO. New Zealand is engaging in this discussion fully and we’re working with countries around the world to broaden the discussion in the WTO to urgently address the manufacturing and distribution of vaccines.

Question No. 11—Research, Science and Innovation

11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Does she stand by the Government’s research and development policies; if so, does she agree with PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Research and Development National Director that, with the new funding system, businesses would have no choice but to delay projects, in the worst-case scenario cancelling them altogether, “and actually having to get rid of highly-skilled [staff] … It’s the complete opposite effect of what was intended”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, no.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Was it the Government’s intention that 250 software development companies, like Orion Health, will have cuts of 90 percent in their support for R & D from 1 April as a consequence of her policy changes, as stated by NZTech’s CEO Graeme Muller?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As we went through the design phase of the R & D tax incentive, between the initial proposals that were put out and the final design that was legislated, we worked extensively with the software sector. I think what we do have in New Zealand is a gold standard for an R & D tax incentive for what is permissible in terms of software development. What we will be funding is the creation of new knowledge. What we won’t be funding is business-as-usual coding activities.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it the Government’s intention to cut by 90 percent research and development in the tech sector; if so, how can that be consistent with the need for strong economic recovery after COVID?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is it that when the sector raised issues with the definition of R & D support in 2018, did so again with submissions before the select committee; Callaghan Innovation raised these issues last year—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! A question please.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why, three years after proposed, is this policy in such a mess?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I reject the premise of the question, but in answer to one of the many questions that the member asked, actually there was significant shift between the initial policy that was proposed because of engagement with the tech sector.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did she do to fix the problem when the specific briefing from Callaghan Innovation said to her last year that digital businesses will lose significant R & D support from 31 March 2021—what specifically did she do—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s finished his question.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I’ve told that member across multiple of his supplementary questions, between the original proposal that was set out and the final design that was legislated, there was significant shift in the definition of what software activities could be covered. That is because we listened to the sector.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: Is the Government helping to keep New Zealand connected with trade partners and maintaining international passenger services; if so, how?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes. Earlier this week, I announced the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme, which will run through until the end of October to help keep New Zealand connected to trade partners and to maintain international passenger services. After the global pandemic hit in 2020 and international passenger flights, effectively, shut down, the Government moved very quickly to establish the International Air Freight Capacity scheme, which has been critical in supporting our economic recovery and the flow of goods to and from New Zealand, including time-critical goods like medicine. The aviation market will likely start to rebuild later this year, so we’ve changed and restructured the scheme to focus on recovery. The new Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme allows for support levels to reduce as passenger numbers rebuild and has a strong focus on maintaining air links which will support the recovery of our tourism sector.

Helen White: What has the scheme meant for New Zealand and for our Pacific partners?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As we stand, air freight capacity is currently at 90 percent of pre-COVID levels, thanks to the scheme that has been in place for the past year. Since May last year, that Government support has enabled over 6,000 flights carrying 120,000 tonnes of air freight in and out of New Zealand, worth $8 billion. More than 60,000 people have returned to New Zealand on flights supported by the scheme—60 percent of the total number of people to pass through quarantine facilities. The scheme has also maintained a critical lifeline for our Pacific partners. There would have been no flights to Tonga, Samoa, Niue, or the Cook Islands without it.

Helen White: What reaction has he seen to this announcement?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There has been a very positive response from the broader sector—exporters, importers, air freight carriers, and airports. A few of the examples include the executive director of the Board of Airline Representatives of New Zealand, Justin Tighe-Umbers, who said that his members are grateful that the Government is introducing a scheme that allows airlines to rebuild passenger numbers through freight once borders open. I also note the comments from Lewis Gradon, chief executive of Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, who said that without that support over the past 12 months, his company would not have been able to bring in the raw materials and equipment needed to manufacture. Finally, Andrew Tilby, managing director of GVI Logistics, says the scheme has been vital for both exporters and importers.

General Debate

General Debate

JAN LOGIE (Green): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I’m not sure if anyone noticed but the Government announced their housing plan yesterday, and I’ve heard a view from multiple sources that political success comes when you’ve pissed people off from both sides. Well, congratulations, Labour, I guess you are a success.

The problem with that analysis, though, is it treats the concerns of those benefiting from a system that has long incentivised exploitation and greed as equivalent to the urgent need for a warm, dry, accessible, and affordable home for the most disenfranchised in our society. The Greens acknowledge that the Government’s housing plan is a start, and we believe much more is needed to meet the scale of this crisis. The announcements are a step in the right direction and a signal that the Government is beginning to front up to the inequality driven by property speculation, but it needs to go further and it needs to go faster. There are still more tools in the tool box that the Government can use to stop the accelerating housing crisis.

I read the speech of the announcement and accompanying material yesterday, looking for the words “disabled”, “accessible”, even “universal design standards”—nothing. I’d just been at the Hīkoi of Hope for Disabled, and I have to say that their challenge to us in this House was deeply and rightly confronting. They are holding us all accountable for the woeful 24.3 percent labour force participation rate; for the rates of material hardship for children with an adult in their household with a disability 2½ times higher than other households; for the rates of child material hardship for disabled children twice the rate of other children; for the failure of our education system to meet their needs; for the abysmally low rates of disability allowance, 3.2 times lower than in the UK and virtually so difficult to get at all; for a welfare system that disincentivises people from having loving relationships; for financially punishing them for doing it; and for immigration rules that tell immensely qualified and accomplished people that they and their families are not wanted here because we see disabled people as a burden.

This is far from a complete list of what we heard yesterday and, believe me, the lack of accessible housing was recognised. The Greens’ research shows that 0.25 percent of houses on TradeMe are indicated as accessible and the stress of housing insecurity and the profound limitations of never being able to visit friends or family because their houses aren’t accessible is so significant. Our failure to create policies that centre the needs of disabled people disables them and robs us of their full participation. So forgive me for sounding a little bit mad that we didn’t hear any mention of these people’s needs yesterday, and forgive me for being a little mad that the last time I asked the Minister of Housing about how many houses are accessible, she proudly told me—and I’ll quote—“I’m pleased to inform the member that Kāinga Ora has recently put in place a policy to ensure that at least 15 percent of all new builds are built to accessible universal standards.”

Disabled people are asking “Why aren’t all houses accessible?”, and at their most conciliatory they’re asking “When will the Government implement its manifesto promise of at least 25 percent of new builds meeting universal design standards?” Disabled people are, rightfully, asking where they are in the Government priorities. Their voices matter to the Greens and should matter to every member of this House. Upsetting disabled—

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I want to congratulate Jan Logie, the member who’s just resumed her seat, for standing up today and taking the opportunity to say who she’s backing in a situation like this, in housing. I want to recognise the issues that face disabled people in terms of accessibility and commit this Government, again, to working on them.

Choosing what side you’re on in a debate about housing is really important, and yesterday the Opposition had an opportunity to stand alongside first-home buyers. They had an opportunity to stand alongside people who want to add to our housing stock, to develop more housing, to make sure more affordable housing is available, and the National Party did not take that opportunity. They took the opportunity to stand alongside speculators. They took the opportunity to defend the rampant house price inflation that we have seen in New Zealand in the last few months. So when it comes to where people stand on housing in this House, I am proud of this Government standing up for first-home buyers and standing up for renters.

The housing issues that New Zealand faces are many decades in the making. Constantly around the country, when we go and talk about these issues, people understand that. They understand that there is no single silver bullet. What they’re looking for is a Government that is prepared to take actions that will start to address this, to make—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How’s KiwiBuild going?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ll tell you what, Dr Smith. I’ll tell you what: I’ll stand in this House on the record of this Government building affordable homes versus the shambles that you left us in, because that’s the truth, Dr Smith—the shambles that you left us. Affordable homes were never on the agenda of the National Party, but they are on the agenda of this side of the House.

The core of the announcement yesterday was about both supply and demand, and I want to talk a little bit about the importance of infrastructure in this. Local government across New Zealand has said their number one priority is making sure that there is build-ready land and making sure that, actually, when it comes time to do the developments, they can be done because the pipes are there, because the drains are there, because the roads are there. What they didn’t want was another fund from the National Party that was a loan that they couldn’t take on because their debt servicing costs were already too high. What they wanted and what they’ve got from this Government is a $3.8 billion fund that’ll unlock supply right across New Zealand—not just in our biggest cities, either, but right across New Zealand, where we know land is available.

More than that, it’s not just local government. This Government is committed to partnership with iwi and with Māori groups across New Zealand. They have told us, “There is land available. Help us with the infrastructure, and we will build housing for our whānau.”, and that is what this announcement today will do. When we come to the Budget, there will be further support for Māori housing initiatives, because we know the partnerships are there to be made.

But even more than that, this is an initiative that, at the same time as dampening down demand, is opening opportunities for supply, opening opportunities for new building, and that’s what the National Party opposed yesterday. We are clear: the brightline test extension does not apply if it’s a new build; the interest deductibility rule changes do not apply if there are new builds. There are property developers saying this is the answer: this is the opportunity to shift that investment out of speculation and into building new homes. That’s the difference here. It’s a package that does manage to do two things at once: seek to make things easier for first-home buyers and, at the same time, see us add to stock.

There were other elements of the package yesterday that I want to mention, in particular around apprenticeships. This Government is extremely proud of the fact that since we brought in our trade training package on 1 July last year, we have seen more than 100,000 New Zealanders take up free trade training and free apprenticeships. Of those, 58,000 have been apprentices, and, of them, a third have been in the construction industry. That is what a responsible Government does.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s free trade.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Instead, Mr Brownlee—the Government that he was part of, coming out of the global financial crisis, just let everybody go. They let the apprentices go. We’re not going to stand for that. It’s good for business, and it’s good for the young people who are training to be kept on.

This is a Government that is going to partner in addressing a decades-long housing challenge. There is no silver bullet, but the package we put forward yesterday is an important one for shifting the dial for first-home buyers, for affordability, and for increasing our supply. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member calls, I am going to ask Mr Bennett not to make those animal noises again.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Mr Speaker, what I’m about to say to the House is very important. I want to outline for the House why I and the National Party believe it is critical that Trevor Mallard resign as Speaker of the House. Mr Mallard’s position, for the reasons I want to outline, we believe, is untenable. The basic facts of what has become known as the “Mallard rape affair” are, I think, well known.

On 21 May 2019, the Francis Review into bullying and harassment at Parliament was published. The next day, Mr Mallard gave a series of interviews to media, including Morning Report and TVNZ’s Breakfast show, about the contents of the Francis Review and a man he believed was still on the premises. To Morning Report, Mr Mallard talked about serious sexual assault and said, “Well, for me, that’s rape.” Directly in response to the question “So people have been raped in Parliament?”, Mr Mallard said, “That is the impression I get from the report, yes.” On Breakfast, Mr Mallard talked about three sexual assaults and that three appeared to be in the rape category. We know what happened next. Those claims were not correct. Mr Mallard said, later, he knew they were wrong within probably 24 hours. An employee of the Parliamentary Service then sued Mr Mallard for defamation in December 2019, and it was not until December 2020 that Mr Mallard settled with the plaintiff. That settlement cost taxpayers $158,000 as an ex gratia payment and an additional $175,000 in legal fees, the total being over $333,000. Mr Mallard came before the Governance and Administration Committee and said he knew within 24 hours he had made a mistake. There is still an outstanding employment claim against the Parliamentary Service by the plaintiff; so this amount could rise.

I want to put on record for the House three things that have not yet been made public relating to the sorry affair I’ve just outlined. They are shocking and, I believe, make the case overwhelming for Mr Mallard’s resignation or for the House to lose confidence in him. Earlier this year, I applied to the High Court of New Zealand for access to the statements of claim and defence filed by the parties in the now settled defamation action. The statement of claim says that, after Mr Mallard’s morning media interviews on 22 May, where he spoke of rape, his staff advised him that claim was wrong. Despite being told that, he then repeated the claim in the afternoon of the 22 May in another media stand-up. Let me be clear: having gone on radio and TV in the morning and, effectively, accused someone of rape, Mr Mallard was then told by his general manager that was wrong. He did a media stand-up and was specifically asked about whether he stood by those statements. He said, “Yes. And anyone who’s been involved in looking at the rape law would be aware of the definition of ‘rape’ in New Zealand.” That is appalling. Mr Mallard knew it was wrong; he said it anyway.

The second thing I want to bring to the House’s attention is that Mr Mallard intended on pleading truth to the defamation claim. On 10 June 2019, the plaintiff, through his lawyers, wrote to Mr Mallard. He asked for the release of an apology to him. He asked for the apology to be read by Mr Mallard to the House. He asked for the payment of damages, and he asked for an undertaking that Mr Mallard would not make any more defamatory statements. Mr Mallard refused. On 24 June, he wrote back. He refused to publish an apology. He refused to pay damages. He claimed his statements were either truth or honest opinion or covered by qualified privilege. Let me be clear about what that means: Mr Mallard said he intended to prove, in court, the plaintiff was a rapist. He intended to do this knowing it was false. Remember, as I’ve just said, Mr Mallard was told by the general manager the complaint was not about rape, and Mr Mallard told us last year he knew he’d made a mistake within probably 24 hours. So, even though Mr Mallard knew he was wrong, knew he’d made a mistake, in June 2019 he was planning on actually proving the person he defamed was a rapist. The consequences of this are severe. Mr Mallard was either planning on misleading the court or he has misled Parliament. These are not the actions of someone fit to be Speaker.

It gets worse. Mr Mallard said he would defend any claim “vigorously”. He threatened the plaintiff. He said that, should the plaintiff pursue litigation, “the question of his reputation and his conduct will be very much the centrepiece of any public proceeding”. Mr Mallard said he would prove the man was a rapist, knowing it to be untrue, if the plaintiff sued to protect his reputation. This is a gross and disgraceful abuse of power. He refused to apologise to the man he called a rapist, even though he knew it was wrong. He refused to compensate, even though he knew it was wrong. He said, if the man sought to protect his reputation, he would prove he was a rapist. He threatened to put the man on trial. This is a man who should resign—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s time has expired. Members, I chose, during that speech, not to draw attention to the fact that it was completely out of order; Speakers’ rulings 18/7 make that clear. Because I was involved, I thought it was not appropriate to stop the speech. I will say I look forward to the hearing of the Estimates, where the truth will be told.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, we—

Hon David Bennett: You’re sweating, Trevor.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —made an announcement that we, on this side—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Bennett will leave the Chamber.

Hon David Bennett withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yesterday, we made an announcement as a Government that we are incredibly proud of on this side of the House. We announced a package of measures to finally address a housing crisis in New Zealand—a package of measures that bring together both demand and supply measures. Often when Governments have come to look at the incredibly difficult issue of housing and how we address it, they do either demand or supply. What we did yesterday was bring together those measures into one place. But more than that, if we have a look at what we’ve done with our supply package, we’ve had a look at what we need to do to tilt the balance in favour of new supply. We see that what we are doing is finally addressing the very long-run problem that if you talk to anyone—you talk to councils, you talk to developers, you talk to iwi, you talk to anyone that has been trying to build houses in this country—they will tell you the thing that is holding them back is not just land supply but it is supply of build-ready land. The reality is, we could change the planning rules in this country, we could rezone every bit of the country that doesn’t currently have a house on it, but unless someone is paying for the pipes that sit under that ground or the roads that lead to that land, we will not see houses built. And that is what we are incredibly proud of, that, for the first time since the 1970s, a central government is stepping up at this scale and addressing that most fundamental of problems.

What we have done is put in place a range of demand and supply measures that unashamedly tilts the balance towards new supply. For too long, we have had mum and dad investors competing with their first-home buying kids in the burbs for the same houses. This is not the New Zealand we want to see. If we look at the carve-outs and the exemptions and the extension of the brightline test and what we’re doing around interest deductibility, we’re saying to those New Zealanders who want to invest in property, “By all means do it but come be part of the solution to finally fix the housing crisis. Help us build new houses, and you won’t have an extension in your brightline test. You will still be able to claim interest deductibility, because that is the behaviour we want to see.” And we know that these are the long-term changes that we need to make.

Some of the changes that we will see will show immediate effect. We will see immediate effect, particularly from our demand-side package of changes, which includes the changes to the first-home products that will come in almost immediately. But some of these are the long-term change we need to see to secure a steady pipeline of building and construction, not over the next one, two, three years—we’ve got to have the courage to look beyond that three-year political cycle—but what will be the pipeline over the next 10 to 20 years of building and construction. We need to make sure that we, once and for all, can confront this housing crisis we face.

We know that there is no silver bullet, there is no quick fix, there is no one thing that is going to fix the housing crisis, that we need to have a programme of work that integrates together, that makes anything we are doing around infrastructure work in lock step with a requirement for housing to be built, for land development to occur—and that is exactly what we will do. In the contestable fund that we set up, we will not do what the previous Government with their Housing Infrastructure Fund did, which was give loans to councils but no requirement for land development to occur—and I invite anyone to look up how many houses we’ve seen as a result of that billion-dollar fund that the previous Government set up. I’ll give you a clue: very, very, very few. Because what we need to do is make sure we are integrating and we are looking on this as a package, and we need to make sure that we are backing first-home buyers, we are backing those that need affordable rentals, and all we’re hearing from the Opposition is the normal cancel culture we hear from the National Party.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Today is an auspicious day. In fact, it is an anniversary for the Minister of Immigration—happy anniversary, Minister. I made the Minister a card, actually. It’s from an old Christmas card with “Happy Christmas” crossed out and “Happy anniversary” written on it. I’m sure he’ll appreciate it none the less, because on this day, 24 March 2021, we officially observe the one-month anniversary of the day that the Prime Minister told Minister Faafoi to do his job. On this day exactly one month ago, Jacinda Ardern was made aware by the Opposition, via the media, of the migrant nurse anomaly: where those nurses who came before the borders closed couldn’t bring their families or their partners and children, but those who came after could. The Prime Minister was blind-sided by this information and seemingly concerned about the plight of those nurses who hadn’t seen their children for over a year, and she ordered her Minister to sort it out, not only for those nurses but also for New Zealand, because we are a thousand nurses short and we can’t afford to lose any more.

So here we are a month later, and while I jest, this is no laughing matter. The Minister, by his own omission in question time, has admitted that he knew about the problem when the policy was changed in June last year. His officials told us in committee that they briefed him on multiple occasions. He then told us that he had received an official briefing in December last year. The Prime Minister told him a month ago to get on with it and find a fix. Last week in the House during question time, he admitted that it was an anomaly and they were working on it—but still absolutely nothing.

And isn’t it interesting that when it comes to tax, this Government can move heaven and earth to pass legislation under urgency in a day, like we’ve seen with the new capital gains tax, but when it comes to our migrant nurses, in the nine months they’ve had to fix the problem, in the nine months the Minister knew about this, and the Prime Minister coming in over the top, telling him to do his job—doesn’t even involve a legislative change, just needs the Minister to make a decision—they just can’t be bothered. This speaks volumes to what this Government thinks about our valuable migrants.

And the Minister’s response: predictably, he points to the constrained space in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), completely unable to answer my questions around how letting these nurses leave and replacing them with more migrant nurses taking up spaces in MIQ to fill their place is any different than just simply bringing those families here for the nurses who are already in New Zealand. And we have offered them a solution: open the trans-Tasman bubble, free up 40 percent of MIQ, let those families be reunited, let desperate Kiwis in, and help the struggling tourism sector. And while the Government begrudgingly works on this trans-Tasman bubble at a frustratingly glacial pace, we have story after story of nannies and bands and shows and children’s entertainers who are being fast tracked into the country.

Case in point is The Lion King, with 126 workers, cast and crew, who were allowed in with visas through MIQ. The Minister vigorously defended the decision to grant these visas. In fact, on Radio New Zealand, he was quoted saying that the skills are not readily available here in New Zealand. But when we take a look through the cast and crew list of the people that were fast tracked into the country, we have a look and we see a tutor, a physiotherapist, and a chaperone—for goodness’ sake. These positions are not uniquely experienced or uniquely technical specialist skills that we don’t have here in New Zealand. There is no possible way that these people meet the Immigration New Zealand criteria, but here they are taking up space in MIQ facilities ahead of Kiwis and ahead of migrant families.

And you compare this to the visa applications of crews of superyachts coming into New Zealand last year, who don’t even take up any space in MIQ. Crew lists were poured over with a fine-tooth comb and visas were declined for multiple crewmembers on the basis that New Zealanders could do their jobs. So these billionaires turned around their yachts, they sailed away, and the million dollars a week that they spend here in New Zealand went somewhere else. We turn away Recognised Seasonal Employer workers. We literally have fruit rotting on the ground, and it will continue to do so. We expect farmers in our rural communities to pull 18-hour days and not see their own families because their seasonal workers can’t get in—pushing them to the brink mentally. And we’ve heard so many harrowing stories of those farmers. But here we have a chaperone, a tutor, and a physiotherapist coming through MIQ to help put on an international show, which, by the way, is competing against fantastic local show Jersey Boys, but that is a speech for another day.

Not only is this Minister not doing his job and almost nothing in his portfolio, the things that he does do make a complete farce of the system. So, Minister Faafoi, happy anniversary.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today I want to talk about the dream of homeownership. I know that there are some in this House—probably a few in this House—who have their own home, but there are plenty of New Zealanders for whom yesterday’s announcement is a game-changer. We know the value of homeownership in terms of the financially advantageous benefit it brings to the family and how it builds communities. When you have your own home, you put down roots, you make social connections, your kids go to the local school—they build connections. You build friends and friendships and people that will help you when times are tough—people that will do things for you.

In my own neighbourhood, Barry and Isabel next door to me, they get their paper delivered every morning. It’s dropped off somewhere on their driveway, and on my run in the morning I pick it up and I drop it at their front door. And, for me, they put my rubbish bins away when I’m at Parliament. You do things for each other. You build communities. You build strength. That’s what the fabric of society is about. That comes from homeownership and it comes from the aspiration that we have for everyone to have that opportunity, and yesterday this Government made it easier for first-home buyers.

There was a raft of things that happened. Firstly, we dealt with how do we incentivise the build of houses, because one of the biggest issues that we faced was the lack of supply. A lot of properties were turning over, but we need to build more in order to deal with the demand that people have for homeownership. But at the same time, the other factor that has been really problematic is the cost. And that cost has been driven up by people who are investors in the market, who speculate on the market, who make an income from the market, who do things like take interest-free loans, who take things like increasing the value to make a capital gain, and that’s how they make their money. Now, you know, on the face of it, some of the market, kind of, specialists in this House would say that’s not a bad thing. But when it actually goes to the heart of the aspirations of those who want to own their home, then you have to intervene.

I have to say: what does this mean for Pacific? For Pacific, it’s more than a game-changer; it provides an opportunity to do what we haven’t been able to do in generations, and that is increase our levels of homeownership. We’ve got the lowest homeownership rates that we’ve had in 70 years, and at the bottom of that list are Pacific people for whom the ability to build communities, to build social connections—it impacts them exponentially to other population groups in Aotearoa New Zealand. What will that do for Pacific people—the ability to own their home?

Now, the Ministers today who’ve spoken about this in the general debate have missed some of the factors that are also really important to Pacific people—the fact that we are now looking at things that will allow us as Pacific people to do things in a different way, to purchase homes as a whānau, as a family, as a aiga, rather than as a couple. The work that Minister Woods, our lead Minister in this space, has been doing has been extraordinary.

But there is a whole lot of other benefits that come to our people because of this, and one of them is the ability to be the rebuilders of our communities through the apprenticeship scheme. How many people have we heard have taken that up and how many in construction alone? Twenty-six thousand. I have to say, quite a few of them are women but we know a lot of them are Pacific people—Pacific people who may have been working in construction, who have now taken the opportunity to learn how to be a tradesperson.

So not only have we provided this game-changer in terms of homeownership opportunities for Pacific but we’ve also given them the basis on which to become the masters of their own destiny. I’m enormously proud of the game-changing policy that this Government has put in place. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government was elected to do two things in particular: one was to fix housing; and, two, it claimed, was to bring a kinder, more conciliatory style of politics to New Zealand. Those are noble goals that I don’t think anyone would disagree with. Everybody thought that there was a problem with housing—and there still is. Nobody thought that politics needed to be nastier. The problem is not with their intentions; as is often the case, the problem with this Government is their outcomes.

You only have to look at the hard numbers. Since this Government was elected, the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand’s median house price has gone from $525,000 to $780,000—that is a 49 percent increase in just over four years under this Government. Nothing that they’ve done—KiwiBuild, Resource Management Act reform, social housing, rental tenancy changes—none of it has worked. Rents have gone up $130 a week over the same period. They are still failing today. The only reason we don’t hear about people in cars, in garages, under this Government is because they’ve put a whole lot of people into motels, with no support, no backup, no networks, and it is a horrible place to be.

The problem is that this Government’s announcement fails at its second task. Not only will the announcements on housing this week be ineffective at fixing the housing problem—like the other policies—but they are also the most nasty and divisive policies. We heard it from the Minister of Finance in question time this afternoon. He said, “You have to pick a side.” And hasn’t this Government made people pick sides? They’ve said they are tilting towards first-home buyers, meaning that they are attacking the speculators—so they call them, but it turns out that many of those people are just property investors.

Now, let me give you an example. Somebody who kept their first home to rent it out, was slowly paying off the mortgage, and hopes to keep it as a nest egg for their kids. Well, they are now going to be hit with the capital gains tax. It is not going to help anyone, but it is going to punish that family. And it is also going to punish that family to take away mortgage interest deductibility. Let’s say the house is worth a million dollars—not much more than the median—and they’ve got a half-a-million-dollar mortgage. Well, they are now going to have to pay an extra $5,000 a year of tax, because they no longer get the interest deducted. Now, you can do the figures. Does anyone really think that they are not going to have to put the rent up $100 on their tenants? Five-thousand dollars a year, 52 weeks, that’s a $100 rent increase per week to pay tax to the Government on rental property. That’s what it means. And this is why the Government’s policy fails at kindness and fails at fixing housing.

You see, those renters—well, it’s bad enough the Government’s hurting them—they are also prospective first-home buyers trying to save a deposit. And they are a hundred bucks a week worse off because they’ve got to pay more tax to the Government, through their landlord, under this policy.

This Government is failing to fix housing and it is pitting New Zealanders against each other, because it doesn’t understand that, ultimately, we are all one. People who move out from their parents’ place become renters, save up to become first-home buyers, pay off their mortgage, maybe buy another property and invest it, and become landlords. It is, as a show recently coming to Auckland tells us, “The Circle of Life”. And the Government is pitting one against each other, and that is a shame.

Imagine a different story where, actually, a Government came into power with a plan to properly reform resource consenting, not just talk about it for four years as this Government has; to properly fund infrastructure with 30-year partnerships between the Crown and councils, not just have a fund for a few billion dollars as this Government did; and to fix building consents so that people can get permission to build things faster than they can actually build them, because at the moment it takes longer to get permission. That would be uniting New Zealanders behind good ideas of building new homes. But, sadly, we have a divisive failure. What a shame. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I want to begin my contribution today, first, with an apology to the good member from East Coast Bays for causing any offence that I have. I want to apologise to her, because I have huge respect for her.

Secondly, I want to be unapologetically proud of the housing policy that we have announced very recently. Four weeks ago, I stood in front of the Māori Housing Conference. The Māori Housing Conference was made up of whānau, iwi, and hapū. They are made up of community housing providers who know the pain of our people, the pain of our people through homelessness, through the inability to be able to secure tenure for rent, the inability to even be able to aspire towards owning a home. They were rather confronting stories. They confronted myself and a number of my colleagues—the Hon Megan Woods, the Hon Willie Jackson, the Hon Marama Davidson—and they made it quite clear that in order to do something to solve this crisis for Māori people, we had to do something aspirational. Yesterday, that happened. I am proud of the work that the Hon Grant Robertson and the Hon Megan Woods have done to shift the dial for homeownership for my people—the Māori people.

I can tell you that I have a nephew who’s fresh out of university, just qualified as a teacher. He’s looking for a job, by the way, and I said I know the Minister of Education, but I digress. He rang me yesterday to say that he is extremely proud of the announcements. Why? Because he and his partner can aspire towards owning a home—aspire towards owning a home. Here is a young 23-year-old Māori male who has been written off, if you look at the statistics amongst Māori and Pacific people. He said, “Uncle, this is awesome. I can now aspire to getting a good job and owning a home and raising a family.” And I cried for my nephew. Why? Because for many of our young people, that dream has been ripped away. Over years and years—decades, in fact—of poor policy, of a lack of houses, and those effects have fallen squarely on the shoulders of Māori and Pacific people.

I’m super-proud. Why? Because when I spoke to those housing providers at the wānanga, they made it quite clear to us that they have the whenua. And the number one barrier to building houses for their people was quite clear: it was infrastructure. Iwi are already partnering with local council. They have made it clear that in partnership, we can build homes for our people. The biggest barrier was infrastructure. Yesterday’s announcement allows, off the top of my head from that conference, over a dozen projects now to be in the pipeline ready to build homes for Māori whānau—right across the country, not just in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where the need is acute, but also in regions like the Hawke’s Bay, Te Tai Rāwhiti, Gisborne, Tai Tokerau, Taranaki—all those places where, we know, we have families living in cow sheds. We do not want that any more, and yesterday’s policy is a step in the right direction.

The Minister of Finance, in his contribution today, also said, “Let’s not just pin it all on that; let’s look towards more opportunities to do better.” He said it in his speech—that looking towards May, we will be looking for more opportunities to support Māori housing providers, to support iwi, and to support hapū to be able to develop and build homes for their people. I’m excited for that opportunity, and I, along with my colleagues, look forward to working with him.

One of the other things that was highlighted by the Minister of Housing, and, of course, the Minister of Finance, was the announcement yesterday also includes whenua Māori and papakāinga. That’s important, because one of the biggest barriers was the belief amongst developers, council, and our people that whenua Māori has far too many fish-hooks to allow us to build homes. Yesterday’s announcement removes those fish-hooks. It allows us to consider whenua Māori, to build papakāinga for our people.

One of the other barriers that was raised with me was the lack of workforce—for example, in Hastings, they’re resourcing their workforce from Taupō and Wellington. That clearly isn’t good enough. We have families there who are looking for work, looking for opportunities. The apprenticeship scheme that this Government has rolled out has been hugely successful, and we look forward to supporting it, and yesterday’s housing policy certainly did that.

In conclusion, on behalf of my Māori caucus colleagues, of which there are a large number, we know the pain that our people have been suffering with respect to housing, and, collectively, we want to acknowledge the hard work of the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance to recognise this challenge, and we want to work collaboratively with them, with iwi, with hapū, and whānau, to solve the crisis. And the only way we can do that is through partnership and building our way out of it.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin my contribution today by sharing with the House a story of a young woman I’ll call Alice, who grew up in the Ōranga suburb in my electorate, in Maungakiekie. I met her in 2016 when she was a teacher-aide in a local school. She told me her story, which is not uncommon. She had grown up, as I mentioned, in Ōranga. She went overseas for a few years, you know, got married, had a couple of children, and came back home because she wanted to raise her family here, in New Zealand, in the suburb that she had grown up in, close to where her parents continued to live. She couldn’t find a home. She moved in with her whānau. There were about 15 of them living in a two-bedroom home when I met with her. That was meant to have been a temporary situation. It had been two years by the time I spoke to her.

She loved her job working with children at the local school but she felt at that point that she wasn’t able to earn enough to be able to ever dream of owning her first home. So she left that job, a job that she was incredibly good at, and it was an incredible loss for that school. She moved to a job that paid a bit better in the hope of saving some money and eventually, at some point, being able to own a home.

This is not an uncommon story, and I share that because it represents the real-life struggles of Kiwis when it comes to first-home ownership. I want to put that at the heart of our debate in the House today and at the heart of the housing package that, on this side of the House, we announced yesterday and that we are incredibly proud of. We’ve come a fair way since 2016, when Alice experienced what she experienced back then, and many others did as well. I want to acknowledge that it’s taken us decades to get to a place of a housing crisis, but we have always been a Government that has acknowledged that there was a crisis in the first place and continued to take steps to address that. In yesterday’s package, we tilt the balance towards first-home owners, first-home buyers, and I’m so proud of that. We’re making it easier for first-home buyers to get into a property by addressing both demand and supply, as other members of this House have mentioned.

In terms of addressing the demand side measures, we’re lifting the income caps on First Home Loans and First Home Grant programmes so that more people can actually access the support that they need to buy their first home. We’re extending the brightline test—we’re doubling it, in fact—from five years to 10 years, with an exemption to incentivise new builds and, therefore, increase supply in that sense as well. We’re also closing a longstanding interest deductibility tax loophole that for so long has favoured property speculators. We’re tilting that balance. We’re investing in supply, investing in new builds that will help drive demand, but we’re also making sure that we have a skilled workforce to be able to supply the housing that we need.

Finally, we’re removing the barriers that have held up housing builds for way too long, by investing in critical infrastructure. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, where I’m an MP, for example, we know that while we may have land to build houses, we don’t have the critical infrastructure nor the investment by council to be able to provide that infrastructure—like pipes, like transport links—so we’re funding that and we’re providing that so that we can actually use the land that we have to build houses.

There is no simple fix. There is no silver bullet. But we are taking incredibly important steps to fix this crisis. We need to also view that in the context of the changes that we have made over the last term as well. Let’s not forget that ours is a Government that stopped the large-scale sell-off of State housing. We need to address this crisis, the housing crisis, across the spectrum, and so we’re building more public houses. We’ve brought in rental reforms to ensure that security of tenure is a possibility and that people can live in rentals that are healthy as well. Those are important changes that we’ve made as well. We’ve increased, significantly, new public and transitional homes. We’ve also put into place progressive homeownership that we continue to build on—again, tipping the balance towards first-home owners.

I want to make the point that this also sits in the context of lifting wages, of addressing the increase of the cost of living over many years as well. All of those need to be seen in their totality when we ensure that we take the steps to fix the crisis that we’re in. If we’d had a Labour Government a few terms before, I want to say that Alice and those in her position would have had a pretty different experience back in 2016 as well. We’ve taken steps—

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

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): This morning, speaking on the tax bill that extended the brightline extension, I went back to my maiden speech and I referred to being brought up in a home where there were 24 people living under our roof. That was the situation back then, because we chose to so that our families could save money to buy their own homes. I said I came to this House to act, and I was brought up with the mind of acting and providing solutions. So on this side of the House yesterday, those announcements were around action, and it’s quite disappointing to see that we didn’t even get any alternative solutions from across the House, not even a press release, I understand the Minister of Finance said today.

This morning, I took the House through a bit of tax history. This afternoon, I want to take the House through a bit of local Mana electorate history around housing. When I looked back through Stuff recently, back in 2009 when the National Government was in, they bowled down 27 State homes in Castor Loop—27 homes. It sat there empty. And then, in early 2017 when the new Labour Government came in, the Hon Kris Faafoi pitched tents with local community leaders. He held barbecues. He held public meetings on that vacant piece of land, because he was tired of no action from the previous Government. So in November 2018, the Government announced a $1.5 billion investment in Porirua. It’s a partnership with our local council and with our iwi, who have now provided a new subsidy called Te Ahuru Mowai to look after 900 homes in Western Porirua.

I can proudly report back to the House that after those sit-ins on that empty piece of land by the Hon Kris Faafoi, 14 one-bedroom homes have been completed in Champion Street, 53 homes have now been built on that Castor Loop site, which was empty since 2009, and 100 homes are currently under construction in Esk Place and Niger Street. That’s action, and I thank the Hon Kris Faafoi for his leadership in our community when he was the MP for Mana, before he was even a Minister, and for then carrying through with his commitment to housing in Porirua once he became a Minister.

I also thank the Hon Megan Woods for her work to remove some of the barriers holding up the building of new homes. Part of the announcement that she made yesterday was a $3.8 billion acceleration fund. This contestable fund, which is not a loan—and was only a billion dollars under the previous Government—is increasingly important for a city like Porirua, which has trouble with our infrastructure. We cannot build unless the pipes, the sewers, the water underneath, have good pipes to run through, and there’s a lot of repairs and maintenance that needs to be done. As a local member in Tītahi Bay, I see it weekly, where, unfortunately, there is sewage discharge into the beach. Our community is holding a public meeting about this next Monday at the surf club in order to hear from Wellington Water and Porirua City Council about what we’re going to do. I really encourage our local government to be able to bid for this contestable fund to help fix those pipes, to help us build more houses in Porirua City.

I want to go back to last week when, on Monday, I attended the opening of the last of those 53 homes in Castor Loop. I met there, a local mum called Toni, and I met her two kids, TJ and Hope. She said to me, “This place is like a village.” She used to watch the building of these new homes from above the hill, and she used to think, “It would be pretty cool to move into those homes.” She got one of those homes, and she said to me, “The place is like a village. The kids rule the roost around there. All the neighbourhood kids from those 53 homes pretty much rule the lane; so watch for cars that go through that particular part of Castor Loop.” She asked me for one request. She asked, “Could we please get a street sign up?” The name that the lane is being called is Ixion Lane, and so I asked Kāinga Ora in my speech at that opening, “Please put a street name up, because that street name signifies a new chapter. These are new homes for our people in Porirua. It is a new village and these are our homes and this is our community.”

Last but not least, I want to give a quick shout out to the member for Ōtaki, my new neighbour, Terisa Ngobi. We opened up our brand new Kāpiti office on Monday. So I’d like to thank the members of our caucus who came there to celebrate with us. And to our community of Kāpiti, thank you very much. We look forward to serving you.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A few weeks ago, the Climate Change Commission released its advice, a draft report, for the Government or the public to consider, and opened for submissions. They’ve since extended the closing date to 28 March, to their credit, as a result of a letter that came from quite a few stakeholders who said they needed more time. They needed more time because the commission have provided a number of recommendations—26, in fact—in their report that don’t have any costs associated with them, and those stakeholders said, “Well, we can’t make a full submission on this report unless we know what these policies that the commission is recommending cost, how much they are going to abate, and how much per tonne that will cost.”

But the report also covers the budgets through to 2035, the emissions budgets. That means that the emissions certificates under our emissions trading scheme (ETS) that we have—there are a certain amount of emissions certificates going to be available each year and the cap will decline all the way through to 2035 with the budgets in this report. That will set us up on our pathway to net zero by 2050. So the emissions trading scheme is actually going to get us there. Most people don’t even realise, when they are filling their car up with petrol or diesel, if they’ve got an internal combustion engine vehicle, or when they are filling up their gas bottle, or when they’re paying the gas bill to cover their cooking and their hot water, that part of that cost is covering the emissions certificates that those gas and fuel suppliers have paid for. It also will be a part of your electricity bill as well, especially now, because we are well on our way to burning over a million tonnes of imported coal this year, as the lake levels are low and the wind is not really blowing at the moment and we are running out of gas.

But these recommendations—including subsidising electric vehicles (EVs), including banning gas barbecues, including banning coal boilers—they all have a cost with them, but they will not reduce emissions by one gram of carbon dioxide. That is all taken care of with the ETS. So it’s essential that we have the numbers that back up those recommendations and what other implications they will have. Now, there may well be a very good reason why we would want to have an early EV policy. That would be a “feebate” or a subsidy to get more EVs into circulation in New Zealand. However, there is a slight problem with that. At the moment, there is a real supply shortage of EVs. There’s a lack of choice in terms of models that are available. As far as I know, there is no seven-seat EV available, and if you’ve got a large family that would be essential. So we need to know what’s driving that and actually what would happen with a “feebate” or a subsidy for new EVs. It’s middle-class welfare. The only people that will be buying new EVs will be people on high incomes. The only people buying near new—as those vehicles roll through to used vehicles—are people on high incomes. So I don’t see the point in that particular policy. We know we’re going to get to net zero, because there’s only so many emissions certificates available.

The Climate Change Commission really needs to answer a question: how do they think these policies that they are recommending are going to lower emissions if the ETS has already capped the emissions? And we know it has. So is there something they’re not telling us? I don’t know, but I think it’s very poor form if a body like the Climate Change Commission, who work for us—not the other way around—don’t give us all the information that they should.

Other policies included in it are more walking, more cycling, and more use of public transport. I don’t have any issue with any of those activities, but I don’t think the Government, in the end—and that’s what they’re recommending, that the Government bring rules in—should be telling me how much walking I should do, how much cycling I should do, whether I should use public transport or not. The ETS will send the price signals to me whether I choose to walk or cycle to work rather than drive a car. That is a public choice. It should be our individual choice, not a nanny State society where we are ruled by fiat from the Government saying you must walk to work on this day. I think carless days—I saw on the television before Parliament today, they referred to the carless days, looking back to the past. We don’t want to go back to that again. Do your job, Climate Change Commission. Release the numbers.

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

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call, the last call for this general debate, on housing, such an important issue across New Zealand not only for our Pacific whānau but for everyone included. I just have to look to my parents to get an example of what homeownership is all about, and the struggles of not having one. My parents migrated here from Samoa in the early 1980s. We settled in Ponsonby / Grey Lynn and we moved from house to house, and it was a struggle; my parents worked a few jobs while we were so young. I’m just so glad that in the 1980s, under the Labour Government, there was a housing scheme to help first-home buyers in terms of getting a loan to secure that. My parents were so blessed they were able to settle subsequently in South Auckland with their first home. So, when we talk about whānau trying to settle, we found it a struggle to try to settle, in terms of the early 1980s, when my parents did migrate here, and I’m so glad that we were able to settle in South Auckland.

I only look, when I try to localise this housing issue, into my own electorate of Takanini. The suburbs involved: we have Flat Bush; Mission Heights, in our northern end; moving down to Clover Park; Manurewa East; down to Conifer Grove; Wattle Downs; and Takanini itself. Look, our electorate is rapidly growing; it is one of the fastest-growing in New Zealand—an annual growth rate of 5 percent compared to the New Zealand average of 2.1 percent. Our population is young. A lot of our large families are there. We are ranked one of the first in terms of dwellings that have five or more bedrooms. That data will have changed since 2018, and we’re only seeing more of our families settling in the Takanini electorate. So having the announcements yesterday will definitely help in terms of our larger families—in my electorate, access for First Home Loans, for First Home Grants, and getting their first home secured. I look to the diverse nature of the population in my electorate. We not only have our large Pacific community, our large migrant community, our large multi-ethnic community—our Indian, our Asian, our South Asian communities that have settled in Takanini. And I can say that, from the multiple emails or social media platform messages that I get regarding the housing crisis, I’m sure that many of my constituents will be very happy in receiving the news yesterday.

I look at the multiple levers of the housing programme that have been announced, and I just want to look at again the first-home buyers like my mum and dad in the 1980s, in terms of getting those home grants and the home loan programmes. I look at the removing of the barriers holding up the building of new homes—the $3.8 billion housing acceleration fund that’s available for local councils and the private sector. I look to the many programmes in my electorate, where I look at the Ormiston Rise, Mahia Park, Murphy’s Park developments. These are areas that, again, due to the rapidly growing population, will have access to the infrastructure needed to build more homes in our electorate and make sure that the rapidly growing population will have secured their homes as well—in terms of incentivising investment in new builds, again looking at those programmes I’ve laid out.

I was privileged to go and see one of our training providers on the Takanini and Papakura border. It is called the Skills Update Training Institute, and it was great to meet up with Josh Levi, who is the general manager there. The team was so welcoming of my team coming across and seeing the multiple programmes that they provide and looking at their building, carpentry, and programmes that will help get our community members into apprenticeships. So those are the things that I’m pretty happy about that will make a real change in my community, not only providing those homes for our rapidly growing population but also the training provided to get our community members into good jobs that will secure their future. And that’s why I support the levers announced. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Third Reading

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Back in 2018, when my member’s bill had just been drawn from the ballot, Dunedin writer Kathryn Van Beek wrote in The Spinoff an article, and in that article she wrote the words that “A miscarriage is a strange, secret birth that is also a death.” Kathryn miscarried in 2016. She described the loss of her baby’s heartbeat, having to leave the hospital without a baby, and also packing away her baby sheepskin. She described grief as a word that she had never known before, and she talked of wishing she told more people of what was happening to her, because miscarriage is so often not talked about. It is left in the shadows.

Despite the fact that one in four New Zealand women have a miscarriage, it is still considered a taboo in our society today. It is still seen as the strange, secret birth that is also a death, exactly how Kathryn described it. At a time when a woman is dealing with the physical and the emotional loss that comes with the unexpected end of a pregnancy, there is still stigma in New Zealand today around asking for help. Kathryn also spoke of her anger—her anger at the lack of information that was available on miscarriage, her anger at the taboo of miscarriage, and her anger that the Holidays Act did not specifically provide for either stillbirth or miscarriage as a justified reason to have bereavement leave.

Well, as Kathryn has said, angry people get stuff done, and so she did. She went to her local MP at the time, Clare Curran, and I’d like to acknowledge Clare Curran’s role in bringing this bill as far as it has come to this day. Dunedin South MP Clare Curran got the idea from Kathryn that she could take her member’s bill and make miscarriage and stillbirth explicit reasons for bereavement leave. Clare was supportive and advised her to gather community support, and Kathryn did exactly that. She got thousands behind her—thousands of people and thousands of women and parents and other New Zealanders—in support of what we’re here today passing into law. So a member’s bill was devised, drafted, and then drawn, and this has brought us here today on the third reading of this member’s bill.

I’m proud to stand here as my first member’s bill passes this third reading today. I’m proud to stand here and represent a bill that makes workers’ rights and rights for women stronger in New Zealand. I think my mum and dad would be proud. I’m happy to be able to look up today and share this day with Kathryn—I think she’s up there somewhere, hopefully. I know that she’s taken time to come up from Dunedin today at a time when we were uncertain when this bill would be heard due to the House being in urgency, so I’m pleased that you are able to be here today, Kathryn. As a writer, Kathryn voiced the stories of so many women. Her grief was theirs, her words were theirs, and her fight has been for all of us. We would not have been here without you, Kathryn. Thank you for your voice, your strength, and your advocacy. This is your bill. This is your bill, and it is also the bill of 20,000 New Zealand women who miscarry each year.

We are fortunate enough to have many decent employers in this country who are already allowing bereavement leave to be taken in the event of miscarriage or stillbirth, but there are some who are not. There are some who are making employees use up their sick leave at a time when they are dealing with extreme loss, and that is callous and that is wrong, because the grief that comes with miscarriage is not a sickness; it is a loss, and that loss takes time—time to recover physically and time to recover mentally; time to recover with a partner, because often the mother is not alone in her grief. The grief of a partner is the shared grief, and I am so pleased that the provisions in this bill extend to both mothers and partners. Couples need time to work through their grief together without the pressure of loss of income or using up sick leave.

The bill also extends to those people who are seeking to adopt a child, and parents having a baby through surrogacy. For those prospective parents, there would’ve been considerable planning and emotional investment in a pregnancy. Many may not have been able to have children themselves, so their grief is intensified by the loss that they could not themselves carry. It is only fair and it is only right that those who had intended to become parents through surrogacy or through adoption should be entitled to bereavement leave in the same event of miscarriage or stillbirth. The bill has also been extended so that the leave provisions apply to a former spouse or partner of the mother if they are the biological parent. At times of stress or change, breakups can happen, but that in no way diminishes the grief felt by both biological parents at the unexpected end of a pregnancy. In fact, it can often exacerbate it.

I am proud to live in a country that doesn’t shy away from compassionate, fair, and progressive legislation for women. From being the first in the world to enable women to vote—from, also, our world-leading equal pay legislation—to removing abortion from the Crimes Act, we have a proud history of fairness and equity for women. The passing of this bill shows that once again, New Zealand is leading the way for women, becoming only the second country in the world, as far as I’m aware of, to provide leave for miscarriage and for stillbirth. Coverage of this bill when it was first done at first reading went global as other countries looked to us as a world leader, an example of legislation that explicitly recognised the grief that comes with miscarriage or stillbirth. I can only hope that while we may be one of the first, we will not be one of the last, and that other countries will also begin to legislate for a compassionate and fair leave system that recognises the pain and the grief that comes from miscarriage and stillbirth.

In turn, I hope that this bill will go some way in allowing women to feel more comfortable about talking about miscarriage and that they feel comfortable reaching out for support and for help in what is a huge physical and emotional loss, without the pressure of financial insecurity or insufficient leave to take that needed time to grieve. The premise of this bill is simple: it is a bill about fairness. When employers value their workers, their workers value their work. As it stands, the law is unclear around provisions, meaning that women are less likely to question or clarify their rights, particularly during what is an immensely difficult time. As such, they all too often suffer in silence and are stoic. This means that women will no longer have to question their rights, as their rights will be explicit in law. Parents will be able to grieve with certainty—certainty that they have a steady income, certainty that they can grieve together, and certainty that they do not have to use the misnomer that is sick leave when dealing with the loss of a pregnancy.

I first learnt of miscarriage from my mother. She had two miscarriages, one before I was born and one after I was born. I was too young to remember her going to the hospital, but she was always open to me about what she went through, both mentally and physically. While this bill is primarily about fairness and workers’ rights, I also hope that it promotes openness in our society about pregnancy, stillbirth, and miscarriage. We should not be fearful of our bodies or shroud them in mystery. It is simply part of life. I wish to commend this bill to the House.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill today, and it’s a pleasure to commit National caucus’s support for this piece of legislation.

It’s kind of impressing on me today that we’ve spent a lot of time in this House over the last few weeks doing urgency on bills where we don’t necessarily agree with the consequences of what’s going to happen with these bills. This is one of those times where we come together in the House and we acknowledge that for the good of all families, for all women and for men, this is a really good bill to do. And I commend the member Ginny Andersen for picking up the bill on behalf of Clare Curran, and also want to pay some acknowledgment for Kathryn for being the inspiration for this bill as it found its genesis. And just looking at it now, seeing how it’s taken from 2018 until now, and sometimes legislation does take a long time to pass through this House, I think it’s really fitting that we move with it today and get it in action so that it can happen for the benefit of everyone that’s going through this bereavement scenario.

I was lucky enough to be the spokesperson for women at the stage that this bill was going through select committee, and I really do want to commend the Education and Workforce Committee from the 52nd Parliament for the work and effort that everyone on that committee did to bring the parts of this bill together where there was a little bit of doubt around what certain parts of the bill meant, and actually lining up all the pieces so that we know that we’ve got everything in place, because miscarriage, sadly, affects around 20,000 New Zealand women each year. So we’re not talking about an issue that’s insignificant. This is not occasional; this is something that many women would be going through every day.

And so we also believe in National that most employers operate in good faith when it comes to leave applications, and we believe that most employers would be of the view that they would give their employees leave; but sadly, in this situation, there will be a few that probably would have been unlikely to, and for that reason we support this bill going through the House to be sure that those women and those families who are going through this situation have the opportunity and have the time for their bereavement that they need.

So the time in the select committee was spent clarifying that this bill applies to both known and unknown pregnancies—so the fact that a woman wasn’t aware that she was pregnant when she miscarries doesn’t preclude a woman from having this bereavement leave under this bill—and clarifying that a proof of pregnancy is not required for the employee to claim the bereavement leave. But I think that one of the key things in here is clarifying that a miscarriage can occur at any time during a pregnancy, no matter how far along that pregnancy is. So there’s no time frames; it’s not time bound. If a pregnancy ends due to miscarriage, then bereavement leave is on offer.

I think it’s very important to state in the House, given that we have done abortion legislation over the last period of time, that parents who experience the end of a pregnancy due to an abortion would not be eligible for the bereavement leave, and that was a very important piece of the legislation to make sure we were very clear on. And one of the most important parts, I believe, of the select committee’s work was expanding that definition to talk about the relationships to an unborn child, and so it’s expanded the bill to include surrogate parents. So if you were expecting a child, even if you’re not the person who’s actually going to be giving birth to it, there is a bereavement process for those people that happens at the time when that unborn baby is lost. Any parents that were planning to adopt—same thing. And I just want to mention men, because often we think about woman when we do bills like this, but actually there are husbands, there are fathers, and there are also former spouses. So there’s a lot of people in this grieving process who are likely to be affected with a miscarriage.

So I’m not going to take the full time to do this speech today, because I think it’s more important that we acknowledge where we’ve been, that we’re acknowledging where we’re going, and that we get this bill passed and start working on getting this legislation into action. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to also take a call in this third reading of the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). It took a little while, due to a variety of circumstances, but I am very pleased to be standing here, taking a call, and being able to extend my congratulations to my colleague from our class of 2017 on her very first member’s bill going through the House today, and I’m looking forward to some celebrations afterwards as well.

Now, Ginny Andersen in her speech said that her bill makes workers’ rights and rights for women stronger. That is a really important point to emphasise as well. At the moment, the way that the current situation is, of course, is that the current bereavement leave provisions, as they are now, can lead to disputes between the employer and the employees regarding any potential entitlement to bereavement leave. And, of course, at a time when people are at their most stressed and in situations that they didn’t foresee, that is the last thing people should be ending up having to do—negotiating if they should be taking either their sick leave or their holidays. Neither of those are fit to be taken in these circumstances. So it is a really important issue here, strengthening the rights for workers and for women to know what their entitlements are.

Now, I know that employment lawyer Kathryn Dalziel wrote a media article in August 2018, and I’d just like to quote her from that media article. She said, “Women and their partners who are denied miscarriage bereavement leave can raise an employment relations problem and ask to go to mediation to discuss the matter with their employer. They can also refer the matter to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to see if they might talk to the employer about the meaning of the word ‘child’ ”. Now, just listening to all of that, you can understand that arguing about leave entitlements at a time like this only exacerbates any stress that the people are dealing with and exacerbates any grief that they are trying to deal with at such a difficult time. So a statutory employment right clearly stipulated in law would provide that much-needed clarity on what currently is, obviously, a very uncertain process.

Now, I know that Kathryn van Beek has already been mentioned by a previous speaker, but I would also like to pay some acknowledgment to Kathryn being a driving force behind this issue, as well as our former colleague Clare Curran, who, as a local MP, drove this issue through. And, as well, it is really great to see the cross-party support that this really important issue has. And, again, that cross-party support really emphasises how important this particular issue is.

A lot of mention has been made by the previous speakers on the work that the Education and Workforce Committee did on this bill. I was part of that select committee. We received 37 often very heartfelt submissions on this particular topic. As a result of those submissions and the discussions that took place, our select committee made several changes, and I might just take a little bit of time to run through some of that background as to why we did that. But I think it is also important to mention that several of these submissions spoke about the discrimination and the stigma that we still see surrounding the issue of miscarriage. People also said to us that an ability to be able to take leave to actually deal with the grief would also be an acknowledgment of all those people who have suffered in silence and who have gone through a lot of grief—that would be an acknowledgment of that grief.

Now, I mentioned our select committee hearing many heartfelt, very personal stories from workers who often had to rely on the goodwill of the employer to allow them time off. As the previous speaker mentioned, many times with good employers that is no issue at all, but it has been, and that was very clear from some of the stories that we heard. We also heard from several unions that there are employers who require workers to use their sick leave rather than bereavement leave. And, of course, at a time that people are in when they experience such a stressful time, the last thing they need to do is negotiate with an employer, because it only adds further stress. I would like to quote from one of the submissions from E tū: “During this time of mourning, families should not have to go through the pain and anguish of having to convince an employer that they should be allowed bereavement leave, to enable them to grieve this acute loss.”

But it is also not just a matter of paid leave; this also goes to the essence of job security, and that was a point that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions really pointed out, as well. And, as is obvious from the submissions, people will also be made more comfortable to talk about pregnancy loss. I talked about the discrimination and the stigma earlier, the taboo of the issue. The New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) women’s network provided our committee with the following submission: “the fact that we do not accept miscarriage as a common place example of a bereavement, means people like me, who have suffered them, feel almost odd comparing them to the bereavement of another type of close family member (which are recognised in employment law).” So, again, people are feeling uncomfortable to even have to bring this up as a valid bereavement, due to the uncertainty in the law.

Family Planning stated, “Like other areas of sexual and reproductive health, it is important that we work to eliminate stigma, shame and silence surrounding miscarriage.” And then, lastly, from the New Zealand College of Midwives: “Taking time to initiate recovery from a traumatic event such as miscarriage or stillbirth will support future mental health and wellbeing.” So, again, the submissions that we received made it really clear that the bill would remove the stress of negotiating leave with employers at a time of grief and people coming to terms with what they have just experienced.

Now, this is also important to consider in light of the growth of people in precarious work situations in New Zealand. So we have a higher proportion of Māori and Pacific workers in casual and seasonal work, and that means that they do need better protection when it comes to their employment rights, and protection of their statutory minimum employment rights as it is.

We did hear from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that there are plenty of places that are already providing over-and-above bereavement leave provisions in their collectives. So, for example, the Ministry for the Environment, Crown Law, the Ministry of Education, and the Christchurch City Council are amongst workplaces where the PSA has negotiated bereavement leave for miscarriage into the collectives for their union members.

Now, our select committee made several changes to this bill; we have heard a lot about those. There is one in particular that I think is important to note. I asked the member in charge of the bill about this, actually, in the committee of the whole House stage of the bill, and that was in regards to “confirmed pregnancy”. Now, the word “confirmed” could be confusing. It could also maybe imply that there is a proof of requirement needed, which we absolutely didn’t believe should be the case, and there are already existing obligations between employers and employees when it comes to good-faith provisions—so, open and honest communication and doing nothing that could potentially mislead. So these already apply under those circumstances. As the previous speaker, Barbara Kuriger, already mentioned, we also talked about the people that are eligible for bereavement leave, because partners, as well as the person themselves suffering the loss, need time to grieve and come to terms with what they have just gone through.

So, again, just to wrap it all up: this bill will reduce the stress around a very difficult time by ensuring bereavement leave is available to assist those grieving with coming to terms with what is a really difficult time for them, and also they don’t have to worry about their job, about their wages, about job security—and, you know, just know what their rights are during a very unexpected time when they have to take time off work. So it is an absolute pleasure. I see, unfortunately, my time has run out. I could have done another 10 minutes, but here we are. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I commend this bill to the House.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise to take a call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). Firstly, I just want to say some words about Ginny Andersen, not just “Congratulations for having your bill drawn.”—but congratulations!—but also the way that she has conducted herself during all of the speeches and also the select committee. And especially today her speech was eloquent, it was passionate, it was poignant, it was emotional, and I think it showed the strength of her convictions in this area. Well done, my friend.

I think over lockdown, when we saw stories of women who were having to go through what were pretty harrowing circumstances, having a miscarriage on their own, it gave those of us who haven’t experienced a miscarriage an insight into just how traumatic and difficult that process can be, and we heard some of those partners of the women who were going through that speak on the news and how distraught they were. I think that highlighted just how difficult the process is.

At present, in the Holidays Act 2003 one is entitled to bereavement leave for the death of a child or a family member but not explicitly for a miscarriage or a stillbirth. And currently the Act is very ambiguous, with employers left to decide whether or not a miscarriage or a stillbirth constitutes a bereavement. It’s always been very unclear and this bill tidies that up very nicely. With approximately one in four women experiencing a miscarriage, it’s really important that we clarify this.

I wasn’t on the Education and Workforce Committee for the whole process. I came in at the very end, so I missed the submissions, but I did read some of them and I’ve heard how harrowing they were. The changes that were made from those submissions were very good ones, and they’ve been traversed before. Not requiring a mother to know she was pregnant—the grief that is experienced is the same whether or not you knew you were pregnant. The definition of “miscarriage” being no matter how far along you are—again, that change was a really important one, and I mentioned in my second reading speech on this bill about the people who are going through fertility treatment and experiencing those loss of pregnancies very, very early on. It’s really important that they are captured in this bill, and indeed they are. The fact that no proof is required to employers was also a good change, and the definition of who can take leave being expanded was a very good one. The grief is the same whether or not you are a surrogate parent going through a surrogacy or, again, adopting.

One of the things that was made explicit in the bill was around abortion, whether or not that would be included, and in the end it wasn’t. I’m not sure of the intentions of Ginny Andersen around this, and I want to speak just from a personal perspective; this is just my personal opinion. The grief and anguish and trauma experienced during an abortion and the fact that it’s not included in this bill make me uncomfortable—personally uncomfortable. I just wanted to put that on the record. I’m not sure whether or not it was the intention of this bill to include it or not, but I do note that it was expressly left out. Again, I feel uncomfortable with that but maybe it’s something we will revisit in the future.

Again, can I extend my congratulations to Ginny. This is a fantastic bill. It will make a difference to so many women out there. Congratulations, well done, and we commend this bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be speaking on this very, very important bill that’s going to affect predominantly, I would say, women, because they are the ones who go through the physical loss, but also fathers, who lose their unborn babies. So it’s a very, very important bill. I would also kick off my contribution by reiterating the words that Kathryn used: miscarriage is strange; it’s also secret births and deaths, and those are the profoundly strong words of a brave woman who has gone through a lot, but also who has done a lot to bring this bill to this House.

Every Kiwi in this country is entitled to provisions that guarantee bereavement leave through the Holidays Act 2003, but when it comes to bereavement through miscarriage, this legislation is confusing, it’s unfair, and it’s also unclear. So the fact that this bill is designed to fix this is good.

Can I also go back to the beginning and add my voice to every single person who contributed to this bill, especially for those who are no longer with us in this House today. I just want to mihi to them.

So this bill goes to the heart of workers’ rights issues. I will just go back and mention what E tū union said in its submissions. One of the things they mentioned is that pregnancy is supposed to be a time of joy and celebrations as the parents look forward to their unborn child. But the joy and the happiness can be also quickly turned to deep sorrow and profound loss when the eagerly anticipated child is miscarried. So this can be really heartbreaking, but the last thing the parents want is to have to deal with a difficult employer to get their leave. This should not be the case. As a union organiser in my previous job, I have seen a lot of people going through this, and I have seen the struggle—it’s real. Even with intervention from the advocates and the union organisers, things can be really difficult. So losing an unborn child, an anticipated child, is difficult, but having to deal with difficult employers just adds another layer of difficulties.

So for all these reasons, the Holidays Act 2003 is not clear around this, and often when you have to deal with ethical employers that allow you to take time whenever you want, life can be easy, but I have seen employees being asked to either use their sick leave or go back to work early because they don’t have an option, and also the third one is going back to work without leave. This also can be heartbreaking—on top of the load that is already inflicted on you, losing the financial support or the financial income can be also another issue.

Not only the people that I know and the people that I advocated for, people who are close to me through family or friends—I have seen them going through this. When the employer is good and ethical, like I said before, life can be easy, but when you have to deal with a difficult employer, life can be really difficult. So I just wanted to make a point around the difference that having a good employer makes, so that no one having to deal with the loss of an unborn baby also has to worry about their income or has to fight the difficult employers.

So every change that has been suggested in this bill is quite refreshing. It’s a really good thing to see also that the House from all sides is coming together and collaborating on this. So I just want to shout out to everyone who spoke before me, but specifically my friend Ginny Andersen, who has done a lot. Before I came to Parliament in 2019-2020, I was watching from outside Ginny working on the No 1 bill, and I just can’t thank Ginny enough for doing this.

So when this bill was introduced, I wasn’t part of the select committee that heard all the submissions, but in the very short time that was allowed to me, I went through some of the submissions. The stories can be heartbreaking but, at the same time, also refreshing, because the conviction and the strength of this woman who went through this is something.

So, at the end of my speech, I highly commend this bill to the House. I’m just going to leave it there. Thank you.

JAN LOGIE (Green): What a treat to get to stand up and tautoko this bill of Ginny Andersen’s. It’s the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2), and it’s my favourite kind of bill to debate in this House, I think. One that’s come so directly from somebody’s lived experience where somebody has put what they’ve been through out there and then translated that into an effort to change the experience of others through their own experience—that, to me, is a really beautiful thing, and I hope the member really acknowledges herself for carrying this through so smoothly and beautifully that everyone in this House is able to stand together in saying, “We’re going to fix this.” There’s definitely, clearly, a need for it.

I also want to acknowledge that even through the debate of this bill, it’s been helping to fix some of the problem because that silence that has caused so much harm has, in part, started to be broken by this debate and by Parliament’s attention and will, at the end of today, through the clarity in the legislation, be broken down a bit further. As has been mentioned already, one in four New Zealand women have had a miscarriage, and 20,000 women miscarry every year. It is an incredibly normal experience, but normal doesn’t mean easy; it doesn’t mean without pain. But we have for a long time, through silence and stigma, forced women—primarily women—into actually just pretending as if it hasn’t happened. And we know that suppressed grief causes additional harm and that that can be very long-lasting. So I hope that this makes a real difference.

There’s been some discussion about, you know, the fact that the legislation enabled most people—technically enabled them—to be able to access this leave already through the death of a child and that that was cross-referenced into another piece of legislation where the definition of child was provided. Just to give people a little more sense of what we’re trying to fix here, for me, when I read that definition and the other piece of legislation, which is that a child includes a stillborn child defined as follows: “a dead foetus that—(a) weighed 400 grams or more when issued from its mother”. Like, seriously? That was the legal measurement in terms of somebody’s entitlement to this leave—that or whether it “issued from its mother after the 20th week of pregnancy” in marriages registration Act. The weight?

Arena Williams: It’s ugly.

JAN LOGIE: It’s just ugly. It really is. And so it is well over time to me that this legislation disconnects from that and really puts in a definition of miscarriage to clarify that bereavement leave could be sought for the unplanned end of a pregnancy, no matter how far along that pregnancy was, no matter whether actually even that the person where the pregnancy had ended—the only kind of test is that really it was an intended pregnancy. It didn’t even have to have previously been known to be able to access this leave and that no proof would be required, no weight scales would be introduced into the discussion, which, thankfully, I don’t think we heard any examples of that happening. But certainly the committee did hear examples coming primarily through our unions—being the voice for working people in this country—telling us that actually this has been disputed, where, mostly women that I know of but could also have been other pregnant people seeking to access bereavement leave, and their employers saying they weren’t entitled to it. And the process for that is somebody deep in their grief having to go through our employment processes to mediate that decision is just impractical and not realistic and adds to the damage of the situation.

So the Greens, again, just want to acknowledge Kathryn van Beek for her advocacy and Clare Curran for listening and bringing that through and for Ginny Andersen so adeptly shepherding this through the House and are very pleased to stand in solidarity with everyone else in this House, and particularly with those who have experienced a miscarriage, to support this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really humbled to take this call. You know, we’ve heard so much about the years of work and energy that have gone into getting us to this moment. I do want us to take a moment to think about some of the numbers that have been given to us in the House today. One in four women—that doesn’t mean one in four women experiences this grief once; some of them experience it time and time again. Twenty-thousand pregnancies in a year—again, it may not just be one for one woman—that end in miscarriage or stillbirth. That number does surprise us, because we grieve these losses so privately. With those odds, I know that each and every one of us in this House can think of someone we know that has been impacted by such a loss. You can think of them—your sister, your partner, your mum, your daughter, and possibly even yourself. The impact of this legislation is intensely personal to so many of us in this House, a loss that we are usually too polite to mention, feel too awkward to talk about.

So, again, I use the word “humbled” to be able to stand here and acknowledge Clare and Ginny and Kathryn for your bravery and your anger, not just to enable us to talk about this but to do something about it, to effect some real change for people’s lives. This legislation—it does so much. Firstly, the clarity, which was made even clearer in select committee, actually gives support and reassurance to all those employers who are trying to—and really, really want to—do the right thing, to act with compassion and integrity, and it’s really complicated, and it can make it really hard for them to do.

We’ve heard about the advice from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that it’s up to the bereaved to convince their employer that this pregnancy is worth grieving. That is a really distressing place for an employer and a parent-to-be to be. The changes made in select committee to help with that clarity were carefully and thoughtfully brought back to this House, and I thank them for that. To remove that word “confirmed” from clause 4(2)(c)—to remove that need for knowledge or proof—is really important at a time when things are so hard. They can be so hard. To have those hurdles of proof and knowledge unnecessarily there can make things even harder. As for the changes in clause 4(3), as has already been talked about, recognising a miscarriage at any point is a miscarriage and can leave a parent-to-be bereft—we don’t have to convince anybody that our pregnancy is worth grieving.

I really appreciate the broadening and the acknowledgment of those parents-to-be and the impact and, actually, the permission it gives to so many in our communities and our families to also grieve alongside their partners or their mothers or sisters or daughters. It’s OK for them to be sad too.

We’ve really valued the opportunity that this process has given us to shed a light and make it possible to talk about something. You know, we’ve heard the words “taboo” and “shame” and “politeness” and all of those things that are really hard, and it makes it hard for those who are grieving, but also employers. We’ve heard employers in good faith want to do the right thing, and to have them to navigate this and, you know, not wanting to cause any more harm by going, “Well, actually, I have to ask you for this.” or “You have to prove that.” is a really horrible position to put everybody into. So we really appreciate those changes that have been made.

So, hopefully, we won’t have to grieve quite so silently any more. It isn’t that every time a woman goes through this experience they are going to need to take some time away from work, but the opportunity is there if they need it. The fact that we will no longer have to think about, let alone convince, somebody else whether our pregnancy is worth grieving—this pregnancy may have been years in the making or it may have been your sixth, and you don’t have to justify it any more, and that’s really, really important. You can just be sad and you can take that time if you need it. At this point, I’m going to commend the bill to the House.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is about a deeply personal matter: about miscarriages and stillbirths. I want to take the time to acknowledge the women in New Zealand who have suffered a miscarriage or a stillbirth, and some people have suffered many, many. I think a lot of us will know people who have. I also want to acknowledge the partners who are there, who don’t suffer the miscarriage but they feel that grief and they support their partners in that grief, too, and that’s a deeply personal matter between a couple.

I think, really, everybody is different. I know some people who, as work colleagues, love to share every element of their family life, and I absolutely love to hear when someone’s kid has done at well at school and when someone has won the swimming competition and done ballet. I think that’s absolutely wonderful. But we also know people who are very private—and that’s as it should be, because everybody is different—and they don’t share those personal aspects of their life and you don’t really know when they are grieving. But that comes from a lot of life experience, too. I know people who don’t share those stories, because they’ve already been put in that awkward situation of, having shared the fact that they are trying for a child and they’ve had a miscarriage, everybody now knows that they’ve had a miscarriage and they’d prefer not to have to go through that experience again, of that awkwardness of those encounters with their colleagues, about what they should and should not say. I think we do need to get better at knowing how we support our colleagues when that does happen, but, ultimately, it is a personal issue, and employers will want to do the right thing. I deeply believe that employers do want to help their employees when they are suffering and grieving from the loss of a child and from a miscarriage.

I would really hope that every person has a happy story—people who really want to try to be a good mother and be a good father, and know that, for some instances, this is what they’ve always wanted to do in life. I know many women who I’ve grown up with who just say this is the one aspect that they would just love to be—they’d love to be a mother—and, unfortunately, that doesn’t happen. We need to acknowledge those people. They don’t have a child that dies; they have a miscarriage. Life is just not straightforward. The ACT Party acknowledges that this bill is just a minor, technical change. It removes an ambiguity in the law, and currently an employee can access three days of bereavement leave on the death of a child. All that this law would do would allow it to apply when that happens in the case of a miscarriage as well. I believe that is a good use of leave—much, much better than, for example, a five days’ sick leave increase. I think that this is the right thing to do, and ACT will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill, the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague—I was going to say the honourable, but that’ll be soon—Ginny Andersen, the mighty MP for the Hutt, who has progressed this bill right through. It’s been since 2019 that this bill has been working its way through the House, and it’s a real pleasure to see a colleague, a friend of the class of ’17, be here doing this, so congratulations, Ginny, and thank you for such an important piece of work for the women and the fathers of our country.

I’d also like to acknowledge Clare Curran for the work that—she brought this bill originally, and to Kathryn van Beek: “the strange secret at birth that is also a death.” That really resonates with me, that statement. It really resonates with me: “the strange secret at birth that is also a death.” It’s a taboo in this country. We know it’s a taboo in this country to talk about miscarriage. It’s a taboo for us to talk about that we’re trying for pregnancy. It’s a taboo to talk about abortion. It’s a taboo to even talk about menstruation or menopause. It is a taboo for us as women to talk about the things that are natural to us and happen to us, so I’m really delighted to be standing up here, talking about something that happens to 20,000 women per year.

The bill does a number of things, and we’ve heard this from a lot of the members today, but I’m just going to go back through it. It amends the Holidays Act to remove the ambiguity in the Act around bereavement leave entitlements. Employees are eligible for bereavement leave following the unplanned end of a pregnancy by miscarriage or stillbirth. Unplanned has been talked about earlier. Unplanned specifically excludes the planned ending of a pregnancy. The mother and their partner would be entitled to three days’ bereavement leave each. And that’s important—it’s really important that we recognise biological parents in this situation; it’s really important. Many of us know of people who have had stillbirths or miscarriages, and mum gets some leave, gets some time off—her workplace has enabled her to have time off—but the father has to go back to work, and misses the opportunity to grieve alongside their partner and give their partner the time to grieve together. That to me talks to us about the role of fathers in our country, and I’m so delighted that, in fact, the biological parent is recognised and that there can be a time of healing in a time of grief.

So the bill clarifies that knowledge of pregnancy is not needed. And I think that this is something I’ll just talk a little bit about. I know that there are many women who don’t know that they are pregnant when they miscarry, but the grief—and this is the experience I’ve had from friends and family—and the loss that they experience, regardless of whether they recognised that they were pregnant, is a visceral and real thing. And so I’m really delighted that not knowing that you’re pregnant is still counted here.

Proof of pregnancy: nobody needs to prove that they are indeed pregnant. No one needs to have told the world that they are pregnant, but gosh wouldn’t it be great if, when we were celebrating the fact that we had fallen pregnant, we felt confident and comfortable enough to tell everyone that we were, in fact, carrying a pregnancy and happy about it. Often we are silent because we do not want to have to explain and have that awkward time when someone says, “How’s the pregnancy going?” And you have to say, “I’ve lost my baby.” The awkwardness and the uncomfortableness, the compassion that we all feel at that point, it’s one of those taboos in society—it’s one of those taboos—and I’m really delighted that we are so progressive in this country that we’re recognising that this is a real and genuine issue.

I guess the other thing is the definition of miscarriage: no matter how far along the pregnancy you are. I think my colleague Angela Roberts, who just resumed her seat, spoke about the value and the worth of pregnancy. God, these are things that are immeasurable. So miscarriage is now defined as the end of pregnancy within the first 20 weeks, and then after that the pregnancy is a stillbirth.

So I’d just like to take a couple more minutes to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they did. It had a closing date of 14 February 2020—how poignant is Valentine’s Day to close submissions. There were 37 submissions, and reading the Hansard, my colleague the Hon—squeal!—Jan Tinetti talked about the fact that all 37 submissions were in support of this bill. And there were 10 oral submitters. And I also have to thank, I understand, the officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for their sound work. I understand it would have been quite harrowing work and very difficult to hear from some of the submissions.

I want to close my contribution with three quotes—I just have to find them. So there are three quotes that spoke to me particularly, and the first is from New Zealand Family Planning: “We hope this legislation not only provides relief to individuals who experience miscarriage, but helps to eliminate stigma, shame, and silence surrounding miscarriage so that people can more easily reach out for the support they need from friends, family, colleagues, and their wider community, where that is helpful.” That is my wish too, and I think this legislation helps and supports that.

The National Council of Women of New Zealand talked about a matter which I think they’ve come to the nub of this, and I think it’s important to acknowledge this, because the experience of a miscarriage for all walks of women are different. So they talk about “Currently, as workers are unsure of their rights, they are less likely to want to enter into a dispute with their employer, particularly at such a sensitive time. In particular, Māori and Pacific women and women from migrant cultures may currently avoid raising this sensitive issue.” There may, in fact, be cultural prohibition for that. This bill would help people stay in employment and provide opportunity and guidance on how employers can provide appropriate support.

And finally, I am a member of Zonta International, and so I need to make a quote in regards to Zonta: “[This] bill recognises the need for bereavement leave for mothers, spouses, and partners suffering loss, trauma, and grief after a miscarriage or stillbirth. The bill in turn reflects the importance of supporting women and their families in these circumstances, not only as an act of compassion, but also as a much needed and very sensible measure for their health and wellbeing.” I am delighted to support this bill. I’m delighted to take a call on this bill, and I believe that this bill goes towards a more compassionate New Zealand. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This is a split call—five minutes, honourable—

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wanted to congratulate, firstly, the member who has been stewarding this bill through the House. Ginny Andersen has done a good job picking up on the work that was done in a previous Parliament by the Hon Clare Curran. I also just wanted to thank the member who has just resumed her seat, Angie Warren-Clark, who has very clearly and carefully and warmly set out the parameters of what this piece of legislation does and why it is that it needs to be done.

As parliamentarians, we often come into this debating chamber and we divide and split along party lines. We divide and split along lines that are driven by mere politics. But occasionally—and not often enough, in my view—we come together as parliamentarians in a unified, dignified, respectful way to do the right thing. This is an example of such an occasion where this piece of legislation seeks to remedy some definitional issues in relation to bereavement leave, the Holidays Act, and issues that a previous Parliament in less enlightened times omitted, probably simply because it was too difficult for them to even think about, and that’s a blot, actually, on some of our predecessors, to a degree. But times change, views change, circumstances change, and, fortunately for us, futures can change as well.

Normally, as the National Party’s workplace relations spokesperson, in a situation where employers were being asked to provide further paid leave for a situation for an employee, often we would be saying, “Well, that’s an unnecessary impost upon employers.” The reality is that in this matter to do with the definition of miscarriage and the changes that Angie Warren-Clark talked about—the real reality is that this will have very little financial impact on most employers, because the vast majority of employers are already, I think, doing the right thing and have been for a very long period of time. That said, there are some—and it’s a very small minority, in my view—who haven’t been doing the right thing, and this piece of legislation puts that to right, and it does so in a way that I think is appropriate and dignified.

It does remove an ambiguity in the current law, and it’s an ambiguity that’s existed for far too long, in my view. Bringing a clear definition, for instance, simply to the word “child”, in terms of eligibility for bereavement leave, I think is an important thing, and the fact that this House has not done that previously is a sorry state of affairs, to be honest. I would hope that, in future, parliamentarians in this place will have the boldness to actually address issues of this sort in a far more mature, compassionate way than maybe has been done in the past.

So I too want to join with others across the House in supporting this piece of legislation, thanking the Education and Workforce Committee for the work that they have done in this Parliament and also the work that has been done previously. I haven’t spoken on this piece of legislation in the past, but I did have an opportunity to sit in on some of the proceedings of the select committee. And I’ve got to say that, again, just as this debate has proven in the third reading, Parliament can and does occasionally work at its very best. So too can select committees actually do really good work to achieve an outcome that will be beneficial and important for women and also men in the future. We put right today a situation that for too long has been wrong. I, with pleasure, support and endorse this bill and commend it to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to make a short contribution on this bill, the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership of the sponsor of the bill, Ginny Andersen. I want to acknowledge her courage and her passion in shepherding this bill in the House. I also, like many speakers before me, want to take this opportunity to acknowledge Kathryn Van Beek for her courage and conviction in talking over 7,000 people into signing a petition and taking that to a local member of Parliament, the Hon Clare Curran. Now we’re here in the House, where we mark in our history as a country providing a provision for compassion to families at their most difficult time.

I also want to acknowledge the chair of the select committee, Marja Lubeck, and the committee of the Education and Workforce Committee for their due diligence in terms of listening to submissions and listening to advice on this bill. The reason why I talk about listening to submitters is because submissions talked about 20,000 women who experience the loss of a child, but, actually, it is 20,000 households a year—20,000 households. In this legislation, it actually describes the insightful understanding of the select committee and everybody concerned—it is about the mother who’s lost a child, her partner also, and also if there is a surrogacy involved, they too are also in this piece of legislation. And if the former partner is no longer a partner but they’re biologically connected to the lost child, then they too are acknowledged in this bill.

That’s why it’s really important that we acknowledge this as a country, almost to the point where we’re describing what love is in times of loss. I’m Tongan, and in my culture, there’s a lot of things we don’t talk about, but a loss of a child is something that we do talk about, that we come together at a time of a loss to provide support for the household and for everyone involved. So we do talk about miscarriage, and we do provide that support because we understand that it is a loss.

Also important: I was an employer in my past life, and I want to acknowledge the unions that came through: the E tū union, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, the Public Service Association (PSA)—a former PSA member myself. As an employer, a staff member came to me and said, “I have to go home because two days ago I had a miscarriage, but my doctor said that I’m OK to come to work.”, and I was just dumbfounded. I said, “What are you doing at work? Why are you here at work?”, and she said she had no sick leave left. This piece of legislation actually supports employers to continue to provide care, and I want to acknowledge those employers who have been good employers. Employees had to rely on their good faith as a good employer to do that, but, actually, in the example that I have provided, it removes all of that. It removes and it clarifies the need to support a person—and we don’t just see the person; we see the family and the need for support for everyone who is experiencing a loss.

That’s why I speak about that as a maturity in our country, that we—and maybe it’s because, in terms of the maturity of our country, we do have the voices of women in the House, we do have diversity in the House, that we now are able to listen with our hearts and the House is capable of having that maturity that this bill, in its shepherding through by the leadership of Ginny Andersen, has everybody in support. I wish and I hope for the future of New Zealand that we continue to have respectful conversation about things that matter as an everyday New Zealander in an everyday household. If one in every four women experiences it, that’s all of us who are experiencing that loss as a country. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m going to take a short call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). The House is in general support of this piece of legislation. It makes a change to the Holidays Act and it clarifies some detail within that Act about the bereavement leave that women and their families, their partners, surrogate parents will now qualify for. I have no issues with the content of the bill. Where I do have some concern is about the timing of it. I believe it was highlighted by Angela Roberts in her piece when she talked about women who tragically experience miscarriage over and over again. The onus for the support—the financial support for these women and their families that go through these tragic losses—now falls back on employers, and I just feel that in this time with some of the strain on business, when we have spent two years getting this bill to this point, delaying it for a small amount of time would have probably been the right thing to do. But we are here in this House to see it through its passage, and I commend it to the House.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It’s a real privilege and honour to take a call on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). I would also like to acknowledge the member Ginny Andersen for championing this bill along. The change to allow three days’ bereavement leave for mothers and their partners who have lost their unborn child, I know, personally, will make such a difference.

As some of the other members have spoken, many of us, unfortunately, know people who have experienced miscarriage, or have experienced it ourselves. I know about 10 years ago my best friend, who is now one of my constituents, lost her child. When that happened she applied for tangihanga or bereavement leave, rightly so, but was declined that leave and offered annual leave instead. She declined that annual leave because she had other children that she needed to save that leave for, but, more than that, this is not a holiday. This is the death of a child, and that’s a big difference, and that’s why it belongs, quite surely, in the bereavement leave legislation.

We also have those personal stories. I remember when I was about 11 years old and I and my two younger brothers were super-excited because my mum was five months pregnant, and she and Dad couldn’t wait to have another child. Then one day Dad picked us up and said, “Today you’ll need to stay with your grandparents.” We said, “Why is that, Dad?”, and he said, “Your little sister”—we were sure it was a sister—“has gone to heaven.” When that happened, I remember Dad then being super-sad. Mum and Dad were super-sad, and I remember Dad having to travel for those couple of days while Mum was in hospital to go and see her straight after work, and that’s why straight after school we stayed with grandma and grandad. That is because he couldn’t get the time off. My dad was the only earner in our household and so leave was really important to my family. For me, again, he shouldn’t have had to take leave for his wife and himself losing a child.

More than that, though, I also have my own personal story, as, unfortunately, myself and my husband had around seven miscarriages before we had our three beautiful boys. During that time—and I remember my first one—I remember having to ask for leave was hurtful and humiliating, and I was a bit worried too. It was my first job in the Public Service, so I wasn’t sure how that would go down. They gave me annual leave, of course—again, I didn’t think it was a holiday. But even that annual leave wasn’t long enough, because when you lose a child, it’s not just about your three days’ leave. It’s also about the physical hurt that you go through and have to work through, and I mean having to go for scans, I mean having to have time off to go and see your doctor, I mean having to have time off if you have to have any further treatment, and so that’s just not you on your own if you’re lucky enough to have a partner. That’s both of you who both need to go along for emotional support and you both need to take leave, therefore both are not working at that time. And if you’re not getting leave and one of you is going without leave, that’s one less pay cheque coming in during that really needy time.

More than that, though, it is also about the emotional hurt. While three days is amazing, three days doesn’t quite cut it. The emotional pain to my partner and myself was huge, and I think that we sometimes forget as mothers what our partners are going through at that same time. They experience that loss as well, and it’s important that their employers also acknowledge that they have had a death as well and need that time off.

I believe that three days is good. It will give people time, but, more than that, it also means that we don’t have to go in there and tell them what has happened, explain ourselves. We can just apply for bereavement leave under the miscarriage provision and leave it at that. We don’t have to relive that stigma, that hurt, and we can make sure that we get the leave we need to be able to get our heads right and our hearts right.

I also want to just say again how grateful I am to all the submitters. Again, I thank Kathryn for bringing it through, but also, again, Ginny for championing this bill. I know personally, as I’ve mentioned, what a difference it will make to not have to worry about the financial situation while you’re going through that—and, actually, we do have three beautiful boys now—and not to have to worry about using up your annual leave when you can use that for things that are holidays and the like. For me, I just want to say thank you again. And from all other mothers with our beautiful babies in heaven, thank you very much. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Business of the House

Business of the House

SPEAKER: Now, I just want to consult with the shadow Leader of the House, who has the next bill in his name. We’ve really got two choices: one, he could give us five minutes and have five minutes after dinner, or people can talk amongst themselves until the people are in here for the next one.

Chris Bishop: I’m going to do the five minutes.

SPEAKER: You’re ready to go.

Bills

Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

I intend to take only five minutes in my introductory remarks on this bill because this is a very simple and straightforward piece of legislation, which, I hope, will at least meet with the approval of the House to be sent to a select committee for further consideration. It’s a simple bill, but I believe it will have an impact in terms of improving access to justice, and that is the aim of the bill.

It’s a simple bill. It has one provision. It amends the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, which was legislation passed by Parliament back in 2006 after much debate, and what it does is allow a lawyer who’s an employee to provide free legal work where the services are provided with the agreement of their employer and in accordance with the practice rules made by the New Zealand Law Society.

Now, a lot of people will be unaware that currently, under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, an employed lawyer is technically deemed guilty of misconduct if the lawyer does legal work outside their employment or for a community law centre, so this seeks to improve access to justice by allowing that to happen. What it will mean is more lawyers can do more pro bono work outside their employment and expand outreach to the justice system and greatly increase accessibility without the fear that their actions will be regarded as misconduct.

A lot of people are unaware of this provision currently. In reality, it is a law that is not actually really ever enforced, because it’s very common for lawyers who are employed by a Public Service department, for example, or employed as in-house counsel at companies around New Zealand to do pro bono work for the local tramping club, for the local croquet club, for the tennis society—I keep naming sporting bodies, but there’ll be others out there as well. Macramé, Women’s Refuge, indoor cricket as well—

Christopher Luxon: Twenty20 cricket.

CHRIS BISHOP: —Twenty20 cricket—thank you, Mr Luxon. So it’s very common for lawyers to do that sort of work. It’s often low-level grunt work, but, of course, it saves community groups quite a lot of time and money. But that is technically misconduct, and what this bill aims to do is make sure that that is not misconduct so that they can do that. So it’s a law that is not commonly enforced, and I note that the United Kingdom has recently amended their own solicitors’ client duty rules in order to allow this.

The first reason to advance it is that it brings the law into line with what actually happens in practice, and then the second is to improve access to legal advice and legal assistance. There will be people out there who are now able to access legal advice that they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to access.

Then, the third reason is that ultimately, it will improve access to justice, particularly litigation. People are allowed to work for community law centres currently without breaching the provision, but, of course, community law centres are not really equipped for litigation, and often that’s the expensive, difficult form of legal work. Community law centres do a wonderful job—they do a fantastic job—but they’re not really cut out for expensive and high-profile litigation. So it will improve access for people who seek to litigate.

So it’s a simple bill. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House. I know the Justice Committee is extremely busy at the moment, having just kicked off the inquiry into the last general election, and there’s lots of other things going on there. But I’ve sat on that committee and I know it’s a very hard-working committee, and I hope that they’ll be able to, in their busy work programme, have some time to consider it. I put this forward, and I hope it meets with the approval of the House.

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

Debate interrupted.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: I’ll now intervene and say that in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on Penny Simmonds to make her maiden statement.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ōku rangatira, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa, karanga mai, karanga mai.

[My esteemed ones, warm greetings to you all, call me, call me.]

Mr Speaker and parliamentary colleagues, I proudly represent the people of the Invercargill electorate, which takes in the communities of Invercargill, Bluff, Stewart Island, Riverton, Tuatāpere, Ōtautau, Wyndham, and Edendale. Its boundary to the east is the Catlins Conservation Park, to the west it extends into Fiordland National Park, and to the south it takes in Rakiura National Park. It is a region of stunning, rugged beauty, important rural and manufacturing industries, and innovative, hard-working people.

It is a region that produces its wealth from farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, tourism, and aluminium smelting. Much of this wealth comes from the consistency of our rainfall, which, despite the often unflattering comments by the misinformed about our climate, is the lifeblood of our industries. As our famous mayor, Sir Tim Shadbolt, prophesied many years ago, water will one day be more valuable than oil.

My foray into politics has perhaps been more of a surprise to me than to many of my supporters. After several decades of involvement in the communities of Invercargill and Southland, many saw my move into politics as logical or even inevitable. However, it was anything but for me. I loved my work at the Southern Institute of Technology (SIT), and in various community organisations such as the Community Trust, Hockey Southland, and in the implementation of the Southland Regional Development Strategy. However, the foundation industries of our southern community are coming to critical junctions where decisions will be made that will impact on several generations of Southerners, and I want to be part of that decision making, not just subjected to them.

I would, however, like to first refer to the influences of my early years growing up on a farm in Riversdale in northern Southland. Ours was not a traditional farming family with land passed down generations. My parents’ first farm was a returned serviceman’s settlement block, acquired after my father served in the army in World War II and after many years of working as a shearer. My father was the oldest of five siblings, and when his father died at a young age, my father, at the age of only 14 years, became the family breadwinner. This experience and the kindness shown to him and the opportunities given to him by many people in the northern Southland rural communities shaped the values of his and our lives. He carried a deep sense of fairness and looking out for others until his own relatively early death.

My mother came from a large farming family of—well, to be blunt—fairly stroppy, high-achieving females. She, like her sisters, excelled in many sports, with three of her sisters playing hockey for New Zealand and two of them captaining the New Zealand team. My father, and indeed most of the male in-laws in our extended family, had to quickly adapt to being regularly thrashed at tennis, golf, bowls, or any other sport they might have the misfortune to compete against their wives in. This laid the foundation for a highly competitive spirit and instilled the notion of “girls can do anything” long before it became a popular slogan. It also supported a number of us in subsequent generations to achieve national honours in hockey.

My mother was also a skilled pianist. She had to turn down a scholarship to study beyond her teaching letters at Trinity College in London due to her family’s financial circumstances. They couldn’t afford it and her mother was in a wheelchair with polio, so her duty was to help the household. She did continue to use her skills as a music teacher and in local choirs, and both she and my father, who also played several instruments, instilled in us a love of music.

The one element that stood us apart from most of the community was our oldest sibling being intellectually handicapped as a result of decisions made during a difficult birth. This extended our world into the families, institutions, and bureaucracy of dealing with disabilities. This has continued for our family with the birth of our youngest daughter, Briony, who is Down syndrome.

Apart from that, my upbringing was pretty standard fare in a Southland rural community. We were neither wealthy nor poor. We understood the need to work hard but also to support those who needed it. We immersed ourselves in the community through school, sport, music, church and social activities. We learnt the value of family and community engagement and support.

It was that understanding of the value of interconnectivity with community that drove me in my 30-year career at the Southern Institute of Technology. I started as chief executive when the then Southland Polytechnic, although financially stable, had experienced two consecutive years of declining student numbers. With only 1,400 equivalent full-time students, it didn’t have far to fall to reach an unsustainable level and risk closure. Our SIT team over the 23 years I was chief executive secured the support of our local community to implement a number of innovative schemes and initiatives which impacted positively on individuals, their families, local industries, and organisations, as well as the community itself.

Our zero-fees scheme, supported by community funders, local authorities, and many individual businesses, and championed by my good friend and mentor, His Worship Sir Tim, was a pivotal community initiative. Mayor Tim’s account of my devising the scheme in the shower has an element of truth to it. I did, after all, at that time have a very young family of three daughters, and uninterrupted time to think and plan was a rarity, although I can assure you Mayor Tim was not privy to my daily ablutions.

Our zero-fees scheme was not a lone initiative. It was part of an overall strategy to rejuvenate the economic, social, and cultural elements of our community after the devastation of the 1980s, which we were still suffering the effects of. The establishment of a strategic partnership with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa in 2001 through the assistance of two other people pivotal in my career, the late Koro Riki Cherrington and Ngāi Tahu kaumātua Michael Skerrett, enabled a raising of awareness, knowledge, and capability in tikanga and te reo Māori in our communities. The wānanga gained many friends when they were large, wealthy, and influential. However, the founding members Rongo Wētere and his family and other early managers of the wānanga never forgot that we worked with and supported the wānanga when they were small and struggling.

A Woolf Fisher Fellowship enabled me to visit a number of innovative educational institutions in various parts of the world, including the Canadian distance tertiary education delivery in Nova Scotia, using technology to overcome the tyranny of geographic isolation. Modelling this led to SIT developing its own distance learning faculty, SIT2LRN, which has proven to be invaluable, enabling SIT to deliver cost-effective, quality education and training throughout New Zealand and across the world, as well as blended on-site delivery and seamless delivery for SIT students during the 2020 COVID lockdown.

SIT’s international strategy brought to our local communities international graduates with diversity, vibrancy, and skills to address industry skills shortages. Again, working with the community, SIT brought the international students into Invercargill to study; not Auckland, as many other institutions did, simply clipping the financial ticket. The need to work for and integrate with the local community was always top of mind.

I am extremely proud of what SIT has been able to achieve for Invercargill and Southland over the two decades and more that I was chief executive. My reason for recalling these achievements today is to underpin why I made a decision to stand for the Invercargill member of Parliament role.

I believe in the value and importance of our communities in the South, and I have unashamedly fought to strengthen and support our people, industries, organisations, and communities in my various positions at SIT, and in other community leadership roles I have held. At times, my parochialism and intransient attitude to changes imposed from Wellington may have been interpreted as disruptive or even cantankerous, but I learnt many years ago how important it is to push back against “Wellington knows best”.

I looked back to the development of the Tīwai Point Aluminium Smelter in 1971, the economic development brainchild of long-serving Invercargill Mayor Neil Watson and then MP Ralph Hanan, set up in conjunction with the Manapōuri power station, and currently under threat, and with it the jobs and livelihoods of several thousand Southlanders and their families.

I also looked to our Southland rural sector. The economic bedrock of Invercargill and Southland’s wealth and prosperity, which survived the reforms of the 1980s and pulled itself back to a powerhouse, once more ensuring that Southland punches well above its weight, consistently contributing around 15 percent to New Zealand’s GDP, with less than 1.2 percent of New Zealand’s population. The South’s rural sector is justifiably proud of its long history of economic success. But our rural sector is facing significant threats that seem to ignore or not understand the unique climatic and geographic challenges to the southern farmer and that give no credit to the incredible progress already being made by farmers working together with scientists to improve environmental outcomes.

And I look to the threat of SIT—the organisation I had the privilege to lead—losing its autonomy and innovation, being swallowed up in the ideological mega-merger of institutes of technology and polytechnics.

While there may be better alternatives to the status quo in each of these industries, I know that the decisions must be driven by Southlanders to ensure the benefits stay in the South. The decisions must also be pragmatic and science, technology, and engineering – based; not reacting to emotive sound bites from people who don’t understand either economics or science.

Ngāi Tahu’s Murihiku regenerative project provides the opportunity for a partnership to drive our future from the South. As Tā Tipene O’Regan said recently, “we are facing a once-in-many-generations opportunity to reset the way we manage energy”. We need to ensure that the clean energy from Manapouri and the abundance of fresh water in the South is harnessed to provide jobs and prosperity for the South. However, the Crown’s plans to spend over half a billion dollars on upgrading transmission lines to take power north does not fill me with confidence.

It is these important local issues and pending decisions which led me to stand for the Invercargill electorate, at a time when my role at SIT could no longer achieve the things that I considered important for Invercargill. I saw an opportunity to further our community’s needs and to support our farmers and industries as the local MP.

In securing the role of MP for Invercargill, I extend my thanks and gratitude to the Invercargill National Party executive, my campaign team, the regional chair, and the hundreds of members and volunteers whose hard work made this transition possible for me, and I thank my caucus colleagues and, in particular, our leader, the Hon Judith Collins, who have helped ease my way into the intriguing world of politics.

I also acknowledge my long-suffering family, who for years have put up with me being away on business for significant family events like birthdays and anniversaries, and, despite this, have encouraged me in my new endeavour. My thanks to my husband Marty; twin daughters, Alex and Whitney; their spouses, Kurt and Rowan; our little mokopuna, Flynn, Lily, and Harrison; and, of course, our very special youngest daughter, Briony. Briony’s support person, Jicinta Veale, must also be acknowledged as playing a large part in enabling me to do what I do.

A career politician has never been my aim, but then a career chief executive wasn’t either, and I lasted 23 years there. The position of chief executive enabled me to do what I loved. It was an honour and a privilege to work in tandem with the community to implement many community initiatives, and I acknowledge all my SIT senior management colleagues. I thank, in particular, those in the gallery here today, Bharat Guha and Teri McClelland, as well as my good friend and colleague Patsy Eade and the many supportive SIT council members I have had over the years.

I will always be indebted to our famous Mayor, Sir Tim Shadbolt, who was with me through these golden years at SIT, as well as the very influential Ngāi Tahu and SIT kaumātua Michael Skerrett.

I will be driven in this new role as the member of Parliament for Invercargill to continue my advocacy for the people, industries, and organisations of the Invercargill electorate. I come to the role with the experience of a farmer’s daughter and a farmer’s wife, a mother and a grandmother, an educationalist and a soldier for several years in the Territorials, a businesswoman, a community leader, and a sportsperson. But most of all, I come as a passionate Southlander who will not stand by and allow the place that I proudly call my home to be adversely impacted upon by poor political decisions. Our rural communities, farmers, SIT, our productive land, fresh water, and clean energy are worth standing up for.

In concluding, I will chant a waiata written for me by the late Koro Riki Cherrington. It refers to the people and rivers of the South and the pathway of the whales. Murihiku, the southern region is, of course, the important and powerful tail of the whale of Aotearoa, something best not to get in the way of. Kia ora. Thank you.

E rere Ōtepuni

Pākaha a Pakiaka e

Ki te Ōtarewa Ngāi Tahu

Ngāti Mamoe Waitaha e

E rere puta Waihōpai

Ki te Ara a Kewa

Ka whakamaua kia tina, tina

Haumi e, hui e, taiki e.

[Flow on Ōtepuni stream

Stronghold of Pakiaka

Flow to Ōtarewa where Ngāi Tahu

Ngāti Mamoe and Waitaha reside.

Flow on until you reach Waihōpai river

And then out to Foveaux Strait

Let it be firmly fastened

Join it, bind it, it is done.]

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Joseph Mooney to make his maiden statement.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): It is with a sense of both pride and humility that I look forward to my first term in the 53rd Parliament as the member of Parliament for Southland. The electorate of Southland is both a regional economic powerhouse in farming, tourism, horticulture, construction, and an increasing presence in information technology.

My 11-year-old daughter said to me yesterday, as we walked around Parliament, that she wouldn’t have believed she’d be doing that a year ago, and I replied that I wouldn’t have either. It’s been a tumultuous period in our country’s history that has brought me to this House to serve the people of my electorate and this nation.

It was a challenging campaign for the Southland electorate, but they handled it with aplomb, and I particularly want to thank my campaign chair, Jeff Grant, who stepped up to lead the campaign when I was selected. I also want to thank each and every member of the campaign team, and all the hard-working volunteers who gave of their time freely because they believe the National Party will deliver the best for the people of my region and of this country. I want to acknowledge the Young Nats, who I know are watching tonight—their help was invaluable—and also acknowledge the president and the board members who are here this evening. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Hon Judith Collins, who stepped up to lead our party and our campaign at short notice, and did a sterling job of doing so.

I’d like to acknowledge my wife, Silvia, who is the bedrock of our family. She saw something in me 20-odd years ago, when I had nothing to my name, and she has stuck by me through thick and thin since. She’s an incredible woman and I’m very lucky to have her by my side. Her parents will be watching this speech on the internet from Germany, and I want to say thank you to them as well for all their support over the years.

I also want to thank my children, Estrella, Moritz, and Soleil, for all of your support, putting up with me when I’m away a lot of the time and for being great human beings. I also wish to acknowledge my mother, Bronwen, who sits in the gallery tonight, and to acknowledge her long, varied, and often very challenging journey, which has led to her tonight seeing one of her eight children making a maiden speech in Parliament—who would have thought?

I was motivated to offer to serve because as a child, I vividly experienced the impact of decisions made in this House, and, given the challenges facing our country, I’ll be a voice for pragmatism and of ambition for our nation, but also of caution. I was a child in the 1980s, when the Labour Government embarked on a radical programme of restructuring the economy. Change was needed, but I can tell this House that change needs to be managed carefully.

Those changes in the 1980s had a huge impact on many lives of people in the rural sector, with many farmers losing their farms or experiencing significant hardship. My stepfather worked on farms, but lost his job during that period and struggled to find more work. I recall my family going hungry during those times, and I remember days on end when we had no food to eat and going to the river to look for blackberries for food.

For a variety of reasons, my younger brother and I chose to leave home when I was 11 and he was nine. We’d planned to travel from Hawke’s Bay to the goldfields in Central Otago, live in old mining huts, and make a living panning for gold. We managed to get to Wellington, but we were stymied by Cook Strait, and ended up living for a bit over a week on the streets of Wellington, huddling together for warmth on cold, rainy nights in flax bushes, trying to figure out a way to get across that Cook Strait. Let me tell you that Wellington is a cold, hard place when you’re a child living on its streets. I remember this every day when I come to this House, and it serves to remind me that while I’m here, I need to do my best to ensure the policies that go through this House do not have unintended consequences that hurt our country’s children.

I’m a Kiwi through and through, and I’m very proud of my country. One of my ancestors was a goldminer in Central Otago. My paternal grandfather played cricket for New Zealand and was a successful Wellington businessman. My maternal grandfather was a captain in the New Zealand Army, fighting in North Africa and Greece during the Second World War, who suffered severe war injuries, but went on to found a successful business in Auckland on his return.

As I look around the walls of this House, I see the names of theatres of war where New Zealanders have served and supported our democracy, including Egypt and North Africa, where my grandfather served. Walking in the corridors of this House, I’ve also come across a photograph of another ancestor I recently learnt about, a great-great-uncle by the name of the Hon Bill Fox, who served in the Cabinet of Walter Nash’s Government.

A number of my forebears were successful in their lives, but this did not carry through to my generation. I say this as a salutary lesson that the success of each generation is the challenge and the responsibility of that generation. The same is true for our country. Our success in the past is not a guarantee of success tomorrow, and we must all work both carefully and ambitiously to continue and grow our country’s success.

I have both a practical and a professional background, and a background in both rural and urban New Zealand. In my younger days in the Hawke’s Bay, where I was born, I’ve cleaned water troughs, drenched sheep, driven tractors, picked apples, pruned pine trees, and picked up thousands of hay-bales and transported them around the countryside, stacking them into haysheds. As a teenager, I went to high school in Auckland. I should say that it was with mixed success, as my high school career was ultimately unsuccessful and I left without University Entrance, and then went on to spend a number of years in the school of hard knocks.

I was fortunate to have a lot to do with the Māori community growing up, and it fostered a deep interest in our country’s history and the Treaty of Waitangi, to the extent that I first came to Parliament as a teenager to interview an MP about its place in New Zealand. I also helped build small companies both in New Zealand and overseas, and experienced the challenges of building and managing teams, making sure that both staff and the bills got paid, all the while dealing with seemingly endless regulations while trying to make sure the job got done. That ultimately prompted me to study law, as I realised that law was, in effect, the DNA of our society.

I went to university as an adult student with small children and managed to get an honours degree in law with children climbing my shoulders while I studied, maybe proving that failure at school doesn’t necessarily mean an absence of academic ability. While at university and afterwards, I also volunteered as a firefighter—a rewarding and sometimes challenging role, being part of a close-knit team being of service to the community—and I’ve also spent time in the army reserves. It has emphasised to me the value of volunteers in our communities, who do so much to weave the fabric that binds our communities together and makes them work. I went on after graduation to eventually build my own law practice from scratch in Otago and Southland, and made it a success.

We are seeing a contest of ideas and ideals both globally and nationally. I strongly believe that the narrative of hard work and self-responsibility being the surest path to success is vital for the future of our country. We all need to do our bit to grow the pie, rather than trying to divide it into ever-smaller pieces. I know from my life experience that if parents don’t have jobs, kids go hungry. So it is one of the key responsibilities of Government to create a policy framework that empowers businesses, that empowers employers, and that empowers employees.

I strongly believe in the success of our primary sectors to ensure domestic food security, employment, and export earnings. Tourism is also a hugely important part of our economy and of my region. We need to do all we can to support the industry and its people until the borders can open, and I will just take this opportunity to strongly encourage this Government to urgently work on opening the trans-Tasman bubble with Australia, which the scientific experts are telling us can be done safely.

Broader afield, we’re also witnessing conflicts brewing between big powers that haven’t been seen in a very long time, and they are right on our back doorstep in the Asia-Pacific. I believe we will need to carefully manage our economic and security interests in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment, where nationalism and protectionism seem to be growing apace. In particular, we will need to proactively advocate for the continuation of a rules-based, multilateral trading framework. It is crucial to our economic survival as a small trading nation at the bottom of the Pacific.

The Southland electorate is an incredible place. I think it may well be the most incredible electorate in the world, but, of course, I’m biased. It has the snowy peaks and deep, glacial-carved lakes region of Glenorchy and Queenstown, and the historic old goldmining regions of Clyde, Alexandra, and Roxburgh that now produce fruit and wine and electricity. There’s some of the Catlins, the southernmost part of the Mainland with some of the best big-wave surfing in the country at Papatowai, and a great community heart in Ōwaka.

Then there’s the heartland of the South: the land of milk and honey that is West Otago, from the likes of Clinton, Tapanui, and Moa Flat through the central heartland Southland towns of Gore, Mataura, and Winton. This is the productive machine of the South, with hard-working, pragmatic folks who get on with things and do an amazing job of both looking after the land and producing products for our country to sell on the world stage.

Out towards western Southland is the land of big country, big skies, big mountains, and big fiords. I’m of course talking about Te Ānau, Manapōuri, most of Fiordland, including Milford Sound. It’s a breathtaking and incredibly diverse region. But the greatest treasure are the people, who are folk with big hearts, who are hard-working and are very sharp but don’t tend to boast about it to the rest of the world. That reminds me of the Māori whakataukī or proverb “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata”—what is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, the people, the people.

I’m proud to be a representative of the National Party. The National Party has a philosophy based on true concern for the needs and aspirations of each individual and is the party best suited to meet future challenges, because its roots and philosophy is visionary, reformist, purposeful, and based on an understanding of human qualities and aspirations.

A strong and successful country depends on strong and successful communities, and those strong and successful communities in turn depend on strong and successful families, however those are constituted, which in turn depend on strong and successful individuals. The State is not an end in itself, but is a means of helping people achieve their own goals.

If there’s one thing we can be sure of it is that the future will be unpredictable. We need to provide the systems of Government that enable our individuals, our families, our communities, and ultimately our nation to be successful. All citizens are equal before the law and, therefore, all citizens have an equal opportunity to develop their inherent talents and pursue their aspirations.

The National Party also has deep roots in the New Zealand Liberal Party, which was the first organised political party in the country. I raise this because the National Party has a very long history of taking care of the vulnerable while also building the framework for every New Zealander to realise their own aspirations.

The Liberal Government established the basis of the later welfare State, with old-age pensions. In 1893, the Liberal Government extended voting rights to women, making New Zealand the first country in the world to enact universal female suffrage.

The Liberal Party was also the party of Sir Apirana Ngata, who served as the MP for Eastern Māori for nearly 40 years and made a vital contribution to the revival of Māori in the early 20th century. He used his knowledge of the Pākehā world and his professional skills to assist his people to develop and farm their land, while also encouraging Māori to preserve their culture and to maintain their own identity.

We are a nation of adventurers, of risk takers, of nation builders, of dreamers and doers—people who have collectively chosen to make their home under the roof of the southern skies and its constellation of stars. All of us come here with an adventurous DNA, whether it traces back hundreds of years or whether we personally made that journey to travel to these islands ourselves. Many of our ancestors navigated their way to these islands looking towards and guided by those stars, and now some of our countrymen and women launch fiery rockets into the starry skies from Māhia Peninsula in the Hawke’s Bay. They embody the sense of vision and ambition that we need to foster and celebrate in this country.

I know Māhia well from surfing the kinetic energy of its ocean swells as a youngster. It was a remote place then which was about as far removed from space-going rockets as you could get. Now, that is where rockets launch satellites regularly into the stars, and is a perfect reflection of how the future can quickly become our reality with the right people, ambitious dreams, resources, hard work, and the right policy frameworks.

We are a nation that came together and agreed on making sacrifices to eliminate COVID-19 from these shores to the best of our ability. Let us also be a nation that comes together and says we are a place where our children feel valued and welcome and can realise incredible opportunities that harness their talents, their hopes, and their dreams. Let us be a nation where our children get the best start in life by receiving the best education, facilitated with the help of cutting-edge technology.

Let us be a nation that comes together and says we can have the best and most effective healthcare services in the world, because a healthy population means a successful population. Let us be a nation where the best and the brightest in the world dare to live, dare to dream, dare to aspire, dare to action those dreams, and dare to be and do their best.

Let us be a nation that encourages the growth of technology, leading the world into the stars, the oceans, the land, biotech, nanotechnology, fintech, and others. Technology is how our species has lifted itself up and achieved its best, and we have the tools and the space in this remote yet hyper-connected nation to be at the forefront of some of the best technology, which can solve our biggest issues, from health, to education, to housing, to climate resilience.

Let us be a nation that is ambitious in its infrastructure development and has a time horizon looking ahead 20 to 30 years so that the next generation has the tools it needs to be world leaders. Let us be a nation that comes together and looks to its abundance of land and resources and enables our people to solve their own housing needs by building many more warm and healthy homes. Let us be one of the most productive and effective nations, and encourage and celebrate the people, the businesses, and the policies that can make that a reality. Let us be a people who rejoice in our great fortune to be fellow travellers under these southern skies, to celebrate our great collective heart and our practical, pragmatic minds, to treasure and celebrate the achievements of our people. For there’s more that binds us together than divides us in this land.

It is with a great deal of optimism and hope that I look towards the future of this great country and the great region that I am so fortunate to represent in this Parliament. I look forward to making my contribution in this House by helping bend the arc of history towards the realisation of the vision and ambition that will ensure our people can make the most of their gifts and their talents and are motivated to give their very best for themselves, their families, their communities, and our country. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Applause]

Waiata

SPEAKER: Can I now ask the supporters of the last two speakers to move out as quickly as they can in order to allow the next group to come in. Thank you. It’s very unusual for me to say “Open the doors.”, but open the doors.

Can I just ask any security staff who can hear me to open the two doors to the Speaker’s gallery as well, so that we can have people coming in through three doors instead of one. Thank you.

I call Christopher Luxon to make his maiden statement.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): E ngā Mana Whakawā, e ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā mātāwaka. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa e tau nei.

[To the adjudicators, the authorities, the voices, and the various tribes. I acknowledge you once, twice, I acknowledge us all gathered here.]

I rise today mindful of the privilege and responsibility it is to serve in this House of Representatives, and also being the last of the new intake of MPs in the 53rd Parliament to give their maiden speech. While some time has passed, I want to congratulate all my parliamentary colleagues on their election success, and I also want to acknowledge the work that all the parliamentary staff do to ensure that this House and our democracy functions well for New Zealanders.

I am honoured to be the member for Botany because it is one of the most diverse communities in the country, and it’s full of hard-working, determined, and aspirational people. I want to thank the people of Botany for their trust. I will work hard for you.

Politics, contrary to what people say, is actually the ultimate team sport, so I want to thank my tremendous team of local volunteers and supporters, many of whom are here today, for all of their help—in particular, the incredible Katja Kershaw, Lisa Ambridge, Jake O’Flaherty, Graeme Rayner, our incredible executive committee, and our outstanding campaign team.

To my children, William and Olivia, thank you for being so supportive, encouraging, and understanding. Our future is in great hands with your generation coming through. And, most of all—most of all—I want to say thank you to my wife, Amanda. She is my best friend. We met when we were 15, and she is, quite simply, the most extraordinary person I know: strong, wise, smart, and funny.

MPs in this House represent different communities, and all of them together make up Aotearoa New Zealand. Botany makes a special contribution to the Kiwi mosaic, from our mana whenua with their long connections to our land and sea, to the northern suburbs of coastal Cockle Bay, Shelley Park, and Botany Downs, to the converted farmland and home to new New Zealanders in Dannemora, Somerville, Shamrock Park, and East Tamaki Heights, to Flat Bush and Chapel Downs—some of the fastest-growing residential areas in the country—and to our proud Pasifika community in the south-west, in Rongomai and Clover Park.

Botany’s diversity makes it special. Over half of its population was born overseas, and New Zealand is a much richer and better place economically, socially, and culturally because of these communities. But whether you have lived for 40 years in Cockle Bay or whether it’s been four years in Flat Bush, Botany people have all worked incredibly hard to get to where they are. It is that desire to get ahead for ourselves, our families, our community, and our country that unites us, regardless of our age, ethnicity, language, or faith. But, like most districts, Botany has its challenges. East Auckland is already bigger than Dunedin and Tauranga, and yet it is chronically underserved by public services. So, on behalf of those who voted for me and those who didn’t, I am committed to solving these problems.

Let me share a little of where I come from. My ancestors came to New Zealand as Irish miners and hotel-keepers, they came as Scottish stonemasons and bakers, and they came as English farmers, labourers, and fishermen. They were new New Zealanders too. I remember and honour in this special place my late grandparents: Bert and Clare Turnbull, and Fred and Joan Luxon. I thank my brothers and all my family members for their love and support. Nothing is more precious than family.

From my father, Graham Luxon—who’s up here in the gallery—I learnt to set big goals and to work hard and to achieve them, to have a positive attitude, and to never let your circumstances define you. He left school and worked his way up from sales rep to general manager. He’s a real-life MacGyver, a very present father, and his enthusiasm and positivity are truly infectious.

From my mother, Kathleen, I learnt about people, perspectives, relationships, and I inherited my sense of humour. Mum came to university the same year as I did, to do a diploma in social work, and she has become a really respected psychotherapist and counsellor. She taught me to walk across the room, to engage with people different from me, to see both sides of an issue, and, in doing so, to broaden my horizons.

It seems it has become acceptable to stereotype those who have a Christian faith in public life as being extreme, so I will say a little about my Christian faith. It has anchored me, given my life purpose, and shaped my values, and it puts me in the context of something bigger than myself. My faith has a strong influence on who I am and how I relate to people. I see Jesus showing compassion, tolerance, and care for others. He doesn’t judge, discriminate, or reject people. He loves unconditionally.

Through history, we have seen Christians making a huge difference by entering public life. Christian abolitionists fought against slavery. Others educated the poor and challenged the rich to share their wealth and help others less fortunate. The world is a better place for Christians like William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King, and Kate Sheppard contributing to public life.

My faith is personal to me. It is not in itself a political agenda. I believe no religion should dictate to the State, and no politician should use the political platform they have to force their beliefs on others. As MPs, we serve the common cause of all New Zealanders—not one religion, not one group, not one interest. A person should not be elected because of their faith, nor should they be rejected because of it. Democracy thrives on diverse thinking and different world views.

Until now, my career has been in business. My first job after leaving university was at the global multinational Unilever, a company bigger than many countries. I had amazing opportunities and a truly global business education. I spent 16 years overseas working in developed and developing countries, turning businesses around and working alongside some very smart people. I realised that down-to-earth Kiwis could be as good as the Oxbridge set from England, Ivy League - educated Americans, and born-confident Australians. I came home to New Zealand and had the privilege of leading our most iconic company, Air New Zealand, for seven years. My team, many of whom are here today, turned a good New Zealand company into one that was truly world class and globally acclaimed.

Over my career, I’ve come to believe more and more strongly that successful businesses have a critical responsibility to engage on the economic, the social, and the environmental issues a country faces. Making a difference to people’s daily lives is a shared responsibility between Government, community, and also business.

In my time, Air New Zealand employed 12,500 people, and it represented a cross-section of New Zealand life. As CEO, I had the opportunity to get things done and demonstrate that a business could do well by doing good.

For example, we decided that New Zealand’s shameful record on family violence was a workplace issue, not just a social issue, and so we introduced a three-week, paid family violence leave policy for victims. The pay equity gap at Air New Zealand was reduced to zero, and we introduced a 26-week paid parental leave policy. Senior leadership team positions held by women went from 16 percent to 44 percent. We worked hard to grow career pathways and internships for young Māori and Pasifika. We worked hard to champion and mainstream te reo and tā moko. We earned Gender and Rainbow Tick certifications. Air New Zealand was also a foundation member of the Climate Leaders Coalition, and 100 percent of our company car fleet became fully electric—and that was over five years ago. When the business delivered superior commercial returns, we shared those profits with our employees through a company performance bonus. The principle was simple: when Air New Zealand did well, all our staff should do well too.

Now I understand, of course, that a country is not a company. However, New Zealanders look to the Government to get things done. It’s not good enough saying you’re going to lower greenhouse gas emissions but not doing it. It’s not good enough saying you’re going to reduce child poverty but not actually doing it. Talking about it gets you a headline, but doing it makes a difference. I’ve entered politics because I want to make a difference, I want to solve problems, and I want to get things done.

New Zealand’s ability to become more prosperous and to enjoy a higher quality of life as a nation depends on the size and output of our economic engine. Just as growing Air New Zealand provided the opportunity for all staff to benefit, I believe that it’s growing New Zealand’s economy that will provide the opportunity for all New Zealanders to benefit. However, I believe that right now, New Zealand’s economic engine needs major modifications and serious upgrading.

We are underpowered because our economy for the last 30 years has been suffering a productivity disease. Economic growth has largely been driven by having more people in the country and more people working harder. We need to work smarter, not harder. We can do this, and we can do it by building and unleashing genuinely world-class export businesses, step-changing education and labour skills, and delivering infrastructure better. Improving productivity is the single biggest thing that we can do to raise our collective standard of living.

Now some Kiwi firms are succeeding internationally, but, frankly, New Zealand needs many, many more of them. Only two of our top 10 firms listed on the NZX compete in global markets at scale, yet New Zealand has many opportunities on which we can build our future. We’re well located to the rapidly urbanising and growing middle-class populations in America, Asia, and Australasia. The question is: will we take advantage of and fully exploit these opportunities, or will they just pass us by?

New Zealand has not invested in R & D and skills and innovation to nearly the same extent as the great small advanced economies of the world. New Zealand’s rapidly falling international performance in maths and science and reading is extremely concerning, and I worry, not because of a graph on a league table, but because of the strong link between educational attainment and higher wages. Higher wages and greater job opportunities underpin the choices that New Zealand families have in how they get to live their lives. Automation technologies, which span advanced robotics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, will unleash unimaginable change in our society and our working lives.

When I chaired the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council, we looked very closely at both the opportunities and the challenges greater automation presents New Zealand. It has the potential to help us work smarter and seriously improve our competitiveness and productivity. However, we’re not currently geared up for it. We need to build a bold plan with real actions to harness the opportunities and to ensure that large parts of our society are not left behind. The urgency can’t be understated.

Let me also talk briefly about infrastructure, which is at a crisis point. The issues are multigenerational and systemic. We need to reset and develop a new model to power the country into the 2040s, rather than continuing to “band-aid and number eight wire” our current system. Infrastructure is not just about dams and transmission lines and highways; it’s about nation-building. It’s about how we see our future, and we need an overarching vision. We need new funding and financing mechanisms, upgraded legislation, and better project management and execution. Investing in world-class infrastructure that effectively connects, transports, and develops information and ideas, people, and products is critical to New Zealand’s creation of wealth and the distribution of poverty.

I am a proud member of the National Party, and I believe that positive, practical, centre-right principles and policies are best to navigate the challenges and opportunities that New Zealand faces. I’m proud to be here under the leadership of Judith Collins, and, like my colleagues, have built my personal and professional life on National Party values of freedom and choice, rights and responsibilities, limited yet better government, competitive enterprise, and equal opportunity in citizenship.

I believe in tackling inequality and working hard to find that balance between encouraging hard work and innovation while always ensuring there is social mobility and a safety net. Every New Zealander who cares about other New Zealanders knows what that means. No matter your situation, I believe in a New Zealand that backs Kiwis to work hard, to convert opportunities, and to create prosperity for themselves, their families, their communities, and our country, because that is how we will make our country stronger. But I also believe that Governments must make powerful and targeted interventions on behalf of those with the most complex and challenged lives. With the right resources at the right time in the right place, the State can help people make positive and sustained changes that enable them to rise up and to realise their own potential.

Regardless of the different political that views we hold in this House, New Zealanders can all agree that we are incredibly fortunate to live in this place, and I believe, more than ever, if we make the right decisions, New Zealand has a great future ahead of us. We can do better and we can be more prosperous and more ambitious if we think strategically, solve problems, deliver results, and get things done. I don’t want to settle for mediocrity, and I don’t believe other New Zealanders want it either.

Like most New Zealanders, I’ve sat round the kitchen table talking to my kids about the subjects they’re studying, or talking to Amanda about the care of elderly friends and family members. I understand that the choices that every New Zealand family has at such times are constrained by their circumstances. I’ve come to politics because I want those choices to be better for New Zealand families. It’s by being more successful as a country that we can ensure that those kitchen table decisions include wider choices and better options for all New Zealanders.

The choices we all have are never made in isolation. The resilience and wealth of a student flat, a family home, a small business, a large corporate are all affected by how New Zealand is doing as a country. It’s my absolute belief that New Zealand can do better, and when it does, New Zealanders will do better, too.

We will all ultimately get the country—the economy, society, the environment—that we deserve, and I think we deserve the very, very best. That’s the work that I’m committing myself to today, and for as long as I’m in the House, I intend to represent the people of Botany and to serve New Zealand to the very best of my ability. Thank you.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: The House stands suspended until 7 o’clock tonight. I will resume the Chair then.

Sitting suspended from 6.07 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Bills

Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on this lawyers and conveyancers amendment bill. It is an important point that Mr Bishop picks up here, and that is the ability of lawyers to offer their services to the community for free. Some would think it’s not but in fact, whilst lawyers, when paid, get paid well, many lawyers do a large amount of work for free. In so far as this bill supports that, it’s a good thing. I’m pleased to say that on this side of the House we’ll be supporting this bill to select committee, where I hope it will be improved in a number of respects. I do, however, want to say that on this side of the House we also recognise the really important place that the provision of legal services and effective dispute resolution services play and the role that the State has to play in that. I find it somewhat ironic that Mr Bishop is bringing to this House a bill which is essentially about access to justice when between 2010 and 2014 a third—$50 million—was cut from the legal aid budget.

I took some time earlier in the House, actually, to do some research and saw the legal aid budget over time. In 2011 it was $154 million, a goodly sum of money. In 2012 it was $148 million—dropping. In 2013 it was $130 million—dropping again—and in 2014, $124 million, and in 2015 it tweaked up slightly to $130 million. In 2016, it was $134 million. We are still nowhere near where we were in 2011. Can you imagine, over those arid National years, there was a drop in legal need? I think not. What there was, was a massive unmet legal need, and now Mr Bishop is coming to patch it up by saying, “Well, you should offer more free legal services.” Well, lawyers do offer free legal services and I’m happy to support him in that.

But it wasn’t until this Government got in that we really started working on appropriate low-cost and free legal services to those in genuine legal need. In 2018, $158 million was spent. In 2019, $179 million was spent. You will see massive increases in the legal aid budget there, and, importantly, I do want to mention the fantastic work done by our many community law centres. That’s free work offered into the community across the board—all kinds of legal need, whether it be a consumer issue, whether it be a family law issue, it really is first responders of legal need. I want to give a big shout-out, especially to the Canterbury Community Law Centre, which does fantastic work. I was proud to serve on the board of that organisation for many years.

This bill irons out something of a wrinkle in the law. Whilst lawyers generally can offer free legal services, the fact is that any lawyer needs either to be entitled to practise on their own account—that is to be a senior lawyer approved by the Law Society—or be supervised. And in being supervised they must be supervised by someone entitled to practise on their own account.

So an employed lawyer, a lawyer who is employed by a law firm or employed by another organisation as a lawyer, can only provide their services within the organisation they’re employed by. So if they happen to belong to a rugby club or if someone they know is in need and has a consumer dispute, is having difficulty of a family law nature, they can’t actually, within their own professional rules, offer those services, because they lack the supervision. Now, I do want to say that supervision is important, and poor legal advice is sometimes worse than no legal advice, because you might miss some important matter, some important procedural point, some important point of law, and, in fact, that person will be put in a worse position than they were before they received their advice.

So one thing that the bill does do is it makes it clear that the provision of this advice should be regulated by the Law Society, and I hope that the Law Society, when it comes to make those rules—and an excellent set of rules they are—those additional rules, thinks very carefully about the need to have come checks.

I know from raw experience that a 21-year-old thrown into the hurly-burly of legal practice knows very little about what’s going on around him. That was me, and I must say that if I had been unleashed, giving pro bono work at that age, in complex legal situations, I would’ve done more harm than good. So we do need a degree of supervision to make sure that those legal services are appropriate.

The other reason I’m looking forward to this bill going to select committee—a very ably chaired select committee, if I may say so—is because there is an additional thing we need in there, and I hope it’s picked up, and that is that the current bill says that the Law Society may make those rules or the services must be delivered by rules which may be made by the Law Society. I think we need to direct the Law Society to make those rules, so they don’t have an option of not making the rules and by default suspending this piece of legislation. So we do need to go in there and make sure that the Law Society promptly makes appropriate rules, and the way it works is those rules are ultimately approved by the Minister of Justice. They are in fact a form of delegated legislation under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, and for those who find the Regulations Review Committee exciting, Mr Penk, you can go and disallow those rules if you want. So do do that.

When I first saw this bill I will admit to a little bit of an eye-roll—saying, “Well, this has never cropped up.” We know that lawyers offer legal advice pretty frequently, sometimes informally, sometimes a little more formally, and they don’t get disciplined for it. In many cases, it’s permissible. If it’s just giving a view on the law, it’s actually not a regulated legal service. Believe it or not, you don’t actually need to be a lawyer to give legal advice. Many other professions do that: immigration advisers; employment advocates; God forbid, accountants; and many others. So it’s not that aspect. It’s really some of those more technical aspects such as drafting court documents—that’s probably one of the main ones. But again, lawyers do assist with that in an unsupervised way, but they’re very rarely pulled up for it. But I do note that the client care rules, which are, essentially, the ethics code for lawyers, have tucked away in rule 2.1.1 the provision that if one lawyer discovers that another lawyer is offering these services outside of the professional rules, providing reserved areas of work when they don’t have the requisite qualification, they’re actually obliged to report that person.

Now, mandatory reporting is always a little bit tricky, right? We always feel a little bit uneasy about it, but here’s an instance—lawyers have significant mandatory reporting obligations and this is one of them. So you get into a little conundrum here, because someone’s doing something wrong, and you’re obliged to report them, but it’s not as wrong as perhaps we might think. We kind of approve of the theme of what they’re doing, what they’re trying to achieve. But if you don’t report them, you yourself are doing something wrong and are in breach of your ethics code. So that’s one of the reasons we need this rule, and it may well be that that rule is in turn examined again.

I think this is good in theory. It’s a pity that we, really, over the past term have been picking up the pieces of the chaos and destruction that the National Party wreaked on our justice system over the nine years—

Maureen Pugh: Oh, what rubbish.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Maureen Pugh, you say it’s absolute rubbish. You go down to the Family Court and see what goes on there. You see the backlog that they’re still trying to clear. You see the families that have been split up and are still trying to pick up the pieces, parents still trying to get access to their children because of the absolute carnage that Judith Collins wreaked on our justice system when she was in charge.

If this is the best that your members can come up with—a little pro bono bill—we’re not going to be small-minded. We’re not going to vote it down. We’re going to let it go to select committee but for you to suggest that National did a good job of justice is absolutely fatuous, and it just goes to show you the quality of what goes on on the other side.

This is a Government that’s committed to good justice. It’s committed to supporting things like community law centres and thinks pro bono work is a great part of what our best lawyers do, and that’s why we’re supporting this bill tonight.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I’m very pleased to rise to speak on this important issue today. But I first—before I make three points flagging for the Justice Committee some issues for further inquiry at that stage, which the Government members will be supporting this bill to—want to just congratulate the chair of the Justice Committee Ginny Andersen for her work on the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) tonight. And I raise that bill in this debate because it’s the chair of the Justice Committee’s work within her own party, and certainly with me, that has given me comfort to come to this debate tonight and be able to support this bill. And it’s with that mind-set of consensus building and that mind-set of leadership amongst all parties within this House that the member for Hutt South, Ginny Andersen, has approached this issue.

And I would also flag for the House’s attention just how busy the Justice Committee is. In agreeing to hear submitters on this bill in a midst of a Justice Committee, which is extremely busy, which has inquiries on foot, members’ bills to deal with, and Government legislation coming, you know, this is something which will require careful attention by the Government, and is being given time in a collegial way that I applaud the Justice Committee chair for allowing.

Now, I want to address three issues to flag for further consideration at the select committee stage. I think these issues go to the heart of what we mean when we say on this side of the House that we absolutely support access to justice within our communities and that we absolutely support lawyers being able to provide legal services in a way which is appropriate and in a way which actually serves our communities and means that people are getting good, useful legal advice. The first is this issue of where lawyers who have been admitted to the bar but who are not entitled to practise on their own account, are employed by one employer and are allowed to give legal advice to that one employer. I was one of those lawyers. Within five years of graduating from law school, I became an in-house counsel to an iwi and then was elevated to be that iwi’s counsel practising on my own. I wasn’t, at that point, allowed to practise on my own account because I hadn’t gone through the extra training that you might see partners in law firms stepping up to do or barristers who practise on their own accounts. Under this provision, a lawyer in that situation, who is young and inexperienced, but a subject matter expert, in my case in iwi governance and corporate governance, I would have been able, under this bill, to be able to provide pro bono services without any supervision, without any senior lawyers to turn to and consider the advice that I was giving to anyone who came through my door and asked for it. I would be able to provide housing advice for renters who sought advice about their landlord’s treatment of them. I would be able to provide my opinions about immigration law, which is an area which is highly specialised.

The point I make here is that even though members of this House might not find that at all surprising because we, as parliamentarians, give our opinions all the time, freely and generously, there’s a different status of lawyers who give legal advice. That legal advice should be able to be relied upon. It should be true. It should be correct. And it should put someone in a position where they know the law, the law is knowable to them, and that they can follow it to the letter. And I think the select committee would be wise to consider that issue very carefully about inexperienced lawyers being able to provide pro bono services without checks and balances.

The second issue I want to bring attention to for the select committee process is the place of community law in providing appropriately supervised services. It would’ve been fine for me, as a young lawyer, to be providing that kind of pro bono advice, which I’ve talked about, through a community law centre. It would have been fine because I would have had experienced lawyers there who saw those cases all the time, who I could turn to and ask for advice, and that would have been appropriate. Unfortunately, on that side of the House, they’ve gutted community law centres. They’ve taken away funding for services which were extremely vital to the community, and that’s why those lawyers aren’t able to get those services to community law right now. And this, in my view, would be a patch-up job.

The third issue that I want the select committee to be able to consider is whether this bill, as currently drafted, extends the special place of lawyers in our society to people who should not, appropriately, be using those special powers that lawyers have to give advice which can be relied upon and trusted. Thank you, it’s been a pleasure to speak on this issue, and I look forward to hearing it more at the Justice Committee.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. The Greens support this bill, and I support the emphasis that the last two speakers have put on celebrating the work of community law centres—I’ve got quite a few friends that have worked in those—and acknowledging the work that they do across our country, making access to legal advice accessible for all of our communities.

My understanding of this bill is that it allows a lawyer who is an employee—for example, law practice or in-house lawyers—to do free legal work other than for the lawyer’s employer, on conditions set by the New Zealand Law Society. This is something that the Greens support because what it really gets down to is that it helps to encourage volunteers within our society, and those lawyers within our society that do pro bono work are a good example of that. One of our Green Party policies is around ensuring that Government policy across all departments recognises the contribution of volunteers and fosters a culture which promotes and supports volunteering in a key part of your community life, and that’s the direction this bill is taking.

I just think on the amount of pro bono lawyers that I’ve worked with over the years who have been able to work on environmental issues or work on issues within the community, and what this bill does is makes it a lot easier for them to do that. On that, the Greens support this bill. Cheers.

Dr Emily Henderson: Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Dr Emily Henderson.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I thank you for your forbearance in my misgendering you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill, and I want to tautoko what my colleague has just said. Our support of this bill to select committee stage is about not playing politics for politics’ sake, and I commend the work of our chair, Ginny Andersen, in the Justice Committee, and I know that the committee will give this the appropriate attention, because an idea that is reasonable should be explored. I speak to this as a practising lawyer in my past life and as the daughter of a lawyer. I was raised in a legal tradition that puts a great deal of emphasis on pro bono legal work. It is a longstanding tradition of the legal profession that we volunteer our time for others. In fact, I would just want to bend the House’s ear for a short moment with a little bit of legal history. Back in the Middle Ages when barristers first appeared—

Chris Bishop: Bit of history.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: I told you it was going to be history, Mr Bishop. Back in the Middle Ages when lawyers first appeared, you had two sorts. You had the barristers and you had the solicitors. Now, the solicitors were essentially educated clerks. They were performing technical work. The barristers were essentially people of independent income who were there in the courts to assist those less fortunate than themselves. And that is why it wasn’t until early last century that we started to admit that barristers got paid, because the whole point of being a barrister was that you did it for an honorarium—essentially for koha. That is actually why in the gowns that lawyers wear there is a long cord at the back with a small pocket at the end of it, and the idea was you threw your cord over your back, and hopefully the client might pop a little koha in the bottom. But you did it for access to justice. And that spirit, despite the fact that now we have a fused bar and we are barristers and solicitors—most of us around the world in Commonwealth traditions. Despite the fact we are now most of us practising as barristers and solicitors, that tradition of community service, of public service pro bono, remains. And that is the tradition in which I was raised as a lawyer. But it is a tough tradition.

It is tough, particularly when you consider what has happened to some of our courts and the way they were squeezed by the National Government. As a Family Court lawyer, I particularly find a sense of irony that we are being asked by Mr Bishop and his party to support the increase in volunteerism by lawyers—which is a fine tradition, all lawyers hold it very close to their heart—by the party who gutted my beloved Family Court. I have just come into this House from conducting a study of lawyers’ opinions about the practice of the Family Court. In particular from answering one of the major criticisms of the Family Court lawyer, which was the genesis of the 2014 reforms, it was to stigmatise lawyers as the cause of problems, as instigators of issues. And for that reason, we were removed in the first instance from assisting clients, and legal aid was slashed. That resulted in a massive upswing in the numbers of self-represented litigants, and it represented a massive upswing in the delays before the Family Court because they were denied the reality of legal service, which is that we are overwhelmingly the people who reduce dispute. It is so, in study after study internationally.

So while I am absolutely recommending that this bill go to select committee and be given all the scrutiny it needs, and I absolutely tautoko my colleagues in saying that the New Zealand Law Society needs to come before us and talk to us about the controls that need to be put in place, I do find it ironic—I do find it ironic to have to stand here. I am pleased to stand here because we need to start to support the Family Court again. And that is why I’m proud to be part of a Government that put $62 million into the Family Court. I am proud to be part of a Government that put $40.9 million into legal aid. I am proud to be part of a Government that put $1.7 million into community law. And I commend this bill to the House to select committee stage. Thank you.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill. I’m just going to call it the “Pro Bono Bill”. There’s questions on why we have so many people going to Citizens Advice Bureau community law services to try and get some help and assistance, and really it boils down to the fact that they can’t afford it. And if you google “free legal advice”, the first thing that you get that comes up on the screen is a whole lot of information about employment relations and trying to get free pro bono work through them.

The question that we need to be asking is why can we not utilise the ability of those with this learned knowledge to be able to share that knowledge outside of their current employment obligations to help those that are in need? And while I hear some of the arguments across the House from members about whether or not a person has enough experience to be able to take part in pro bono work, I think a person who’s done five years at least of legal study has some nous to be able to stand up and at least give some advice to others.

What we do need a lot more of is the utilisation of that learned knowledge so that the lawyers can help others to navigate themselves through the justice system to help those that may be in need, but to help those that are also in fear of the justice system and in fear of the unknown. By utilising pro bono lawyers, there is a chance that going into or entering into the justice system could be avoided. And if the right and opportune advice is given, then we could stop people from actually having to go through that justice system, and this bill will allow those opportunities to take place.

Those with a law degree should be able to entertain the idea that they can deliver some pro bono work. And I think, from what I’m hearing, we’re all in agreement with that. They should be able to do so without concern about their employment status, and that becomes a win-win for everybody. It’s a win for those that are seeking to help the disadvantaged, and, of course, it’s a win for those that are seeking help so that they’re not disadvantaged. And this bill has a noble aim: it is to improve access to justice, without compromising the standards of professional conduct and client care required under the rules.

The majority of people that need pro bono help or free legal advice are from low income backgrounds. They simply cannot afford the justice. And as I said earlier, this bill does allow for those opportunities. However, I do note that there’s questions that arise around the liability: who is responsible should the advice that’s given not be that helpful or be detrimental. And, at the moment, the people who are responsible, of course, are the employers, but we’re asking for lawyers to be able to go out there and give pro bono work without having to rely on an employer. So the question will remain: who is it that will be liable for the wrong advice if it’s given? And I think that that’s something that the Justice Committee, of which—

Arena Williams: Good question.

NICOLE McKEE: Sorry?

Arena Williams: Good question.

NICOLE McKEE: —I’m a part, should also look into in a way to determine how we can allow the lawyers to be able to help the individuals out there that need it to make sure that there’s no liability on them, but make sure that that access to justice and information is available.

So on that point, I do commend this bill to the House.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My father, Hal Nash, is what you would call a community lawyer. He was—he gave his advice freely and willingly to organisations like Birthright. He was a patron and honorary lawyer of the Napier Sailing Club and would often be called aside at club events or when we were out as a family to give legal advice. He was one of those lawyers who actually believed that the law was there to help people, not make money. A true socialist, I suppose, but I saw firsthand the value that he added to organisations and I still hear community organisations say to me every now and again, “You know, your father was a very good lawyer. But not only was he a good lawyer, he was a good man.” And part of this is because he gave his time freely and when I say “freely”, I mean pro bono as well as at all times of the day or night to those who required or requested legal advice without going through the firm.

It’s my understanding from my Māori law friends that often they are called upon to give pro bono advice and they’re often torn on this because, you know, they can give pro bono advice, which is the right thing to do, but often it’s not necessary the legal thing to do. So I’m very keen to hear what the Māori legal practitioners society has to say on this as well, because the anomaly in the law that we’re trying to fix there has found many lawyers wanting and torn between doing the right thing and doing the legal thing. So this should fix this.

But most importantly, I suppose, the reason why I’m supporting this is because we now live in a society where transparency and accountability is demanded by members of organisations that may be charities, may be sports clubs and other organisations that are actually the threads that bind our communities together. Members demand the type of advice that allows them to make decisions that will hold up to scrutiny and also accountability. And if a lawyer is sitting on the board of one of these organisations or is a member of one of these organisations and he or she is not able to give their advice freely because they are outside the bounds of their employment contract, then I think what that does is it weakens the ability of a club or an organisation to act in a way that optimises whatever outcomes are required. What we know is happening in this day and age is there are more clubs, more charities, more community organisations stepping in to help those who are also finding more and more lawyers who, in fact, are doing the right thing and getting out there and helping.

I wonder if, in fact, the law, as it stands is actually preventing good lawyers who understand the constraints of the current legislation—from holding back on their voluntary obligations and duties from being a member of a club but not being allowed to provide the type of value that would add significantly to the governance or even just the membership of an organisation. I wonder if perhaps the perception that the general public has of lawyers—perhaps not as good and grand as some may believe; or perhaps not as good and grand as it should be—could be rehabilitated by more lawyers getting out there, giving their advice, and actually making it happen.

I have been myself on a number of boards, voluntary organisations, where lawyers have stepped in. One—there’s a guy called Martin Williams who is a very good friend of mine but is also a very good lawyer. He takes his roles and responsibilities on community governance organisations incredibly seriously. But he does so, I suspect now, not knowing the law before this, Dr Webb, taking into account that if he was to offer advice that was counter to information that had been received by other parties, he may, in fact, be breaking the law. The thing about this that I would be keen for Mr Bishop to talk about or, hopefully, it’ll come out in select committee, is that if, in fact, a lawyer provides information outside of their employment and that information is proven to be negligent or in some way can be challenged in court, whether a lawyer will be required to undertake their own or take out their own liability insurance. So that’s just a question around how a lawyer’s advice, when it is given pro bono but legally, stands up in a court of law in terms of their ability to be sued for that advice given.

But I think this is really good. This is a good bit of advice and the reason I say that is my experience with lawyers is they can add significant value to community organisations, to clubs, and to societies in a way that perhaps others can’t because they bring a level of advice that adds real value and if this allows us to do it within the bounds of the law, then that can only be good. Thank you.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill. I would like to start by acknowledging my colleague and friend Chris Bishop, who has had the good fortune to have this bill pulled from the ballot, as well as the good sense to have put it in there in the first place! I salute those who provide free legal services. We’ve heard about a number of those tonight, those connected with members—Mr Nash Sr and others, many no doubt sitting in the Chamber who themselves have been in that position. For others, the phrase “pro bono” probably indicates that they’re in favour of the music of U2! But, nevertheless, there have been some intelligent contributions on the subject of pro bono legal services. And I do want to distinguish the kind of free legal services that some of us provided as junior lawyers when we were simply slack at recording our time when we were meant to be doing that in our various firms!

The phrase “pro bono”, of course, means “for the good”. So it’s for the public good that we have the ability for lawyers to provide their services for free. That’s a good thing for society. It’s a good thing, of course, for the individuals who are helped in that way, be it natural persons or perhaps clubs or other groups within the community, and that’s the very opposite of misconduct, which, of course, is the technical way that the law would have to view such services being provided if outside the scope of the normal employment of a person who happens to be a registered lawyer but is otherwise acting outside that realm. So the idea is good. The provisions in the bill seem good. I think it’s reasonable to say that these could be looked at by the select committee, and the bill advancing to that stage is good as well. I commend it to the House.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise tonight to take a call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned, we are supporting this bill through to the select committee stage. In principle, I support anything that ensures greater access by our communities—particularly those most vulnerable and in need—to legal advice. I also want to encourage anyone watching today, any lawyers, any organisations, who might be affected by this bill, to make submissions in the select committee stage. I am particularly keen, although I am not on the Justice Committee, to follow that discussion through.

The premise of this bill before us tonight is that it is going to amend section 9 of the existing Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. Under section 9 as it currently reads, employed lawyers are barred, essentially, from providing pro bono work or free legal services to anyone outside their employer or to the public on behalf of their employer; if they were to do so, then they would be found guilty of misconduct, which creates a whole raft of issues and questions about whether they are a fit and proper person to practise law.

But, currently, many lawyers face the dilemma where they often get asked by people in their community, through community groups, through friends and family, to help out, to “Just have a quick look at this tenancy issue for me” or tenancy agreement or “Would you mind having a look at the sports constitution for our football club?”, and the like. If an employed lawyer were to do so at this point in time, then, as mentioned, they’d be guilty of misconduct.

It is worth noting at this point, I think, to those unfamiliar with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, that in its current form, the purposes section of the Act states that the Act is “to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing services: … [that it is] to protect the consumers of legal services and conveying services: … [and] to recognise the status of the legal profession”.

Now, I would like to note that earlier this evening someone across the House mentioned that anyone who’s been to law school and managed to obtain a law degree should be able to go out and provide free legal services to those who ask. I’m not sure that I wholeheartedly agree with that. You see, having gone through law school, it is a little bit like a sampler box: you spend five or so years trying a little bit of a whole lot. By no means do you leave law school as an expert in much of anything. You’ve got to go out and you’ve got to spend that time doing the hard yards under supervision and with that support and guidance of somebody who’s already gone before you to do those hard yards, and is then entitled to practise on their own account and provide the supervision.

So I think something that should be canvassed by the select committee is: what oversights could be put in place to ensure it is only those who can provide sound legal advice and uphold the public confidence in the legal profession and protect consumers against bad legal advice. So I’m really interested to see what the select committee comes up with in that respect.

Like my colleague Arena, I was also somebody who’s worked as an employed lawyer; in-house lawyer. And, yes, it would have been nice, having been the first in my family, amongst my peer group, to have obtained a law degree, to be able to have said yes to some of those requests that came in, as soon as I received my law degree, for some help or support or “Can you just have a look at this for me?”

But, likewise, one of my very first jobs was actually at a community law centre, Community Legal Advice Whanganui—and I would like to shout-out to them and acknowledge the incredible work that they do to support our communities. So I have seen the work that they do to try and meet that unmet legal need in our communities, and a lot of them run on the smell of an oily rag. So I’m also really keen to hear from the community law sector about what impact this bill would have on that sector and whether there are any unforeseen consequences. So, for those reasons, I commend this bill to the House and to select committee.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill. I agree that at its core this is a bill about ensuring access to justice, which for me is an issue very close to my heart. Having spent nine years working in community law at YouthLaw Aotearoa as a solicitor and then as the general manager, I cannot tell you how much we relied not just on volunteer lawyers but also law students, who really helped us deliver to those people who otherwise simply wouldn’t have access to legal services.

But with such a significant and long history in community law, I have to say I, like a few other colleagues, find it very frustrating this evening. My colleague Duncan Webb mentioned the word “hypocrisy”, and that is what I’m feeling now—[Interruption]—or he may not have, but I do think that he spoke about the fact that there wasn’t adequate funding for community law. Over the nine years that I was in community law, it was a time when the National Government failed to adequately fund us to do the work that we needed to. Our funding was, essentially, frozen. With increased costs and increased demand, what it actually meant was that we had a decrease in funding. What was also really frustrating is during a period of those nine years the National Government at that stage decided they would no longer fund community law centres to do law reform work, which meant that we couldn’t identify those systemic issues and make submissions on them.

So yes, it is about ensuring that lawyers are able to provide voluntary services, but, actually, it’s also about ensuring that there are adequate services—adequate funding for our community law services—as well. This will never replace those fundamental services that we already have in place.

I am supporting this bill to proceed to select committee, but I will be looking forward to hearing the submissions that are made by community law centres and others, particularly in relation to issues like my colleague Arena Williams has referred to, in ensuring that there is proper oversight for the advice given when there needs to be. I do think we need to reflect carefully on that at select committee. I am a member of the Justice Committee.

There’s an article, on point, just speaking to the broader reasons why we should be supporting pro bono work and for lawyers to be engaged in pro bono work, and it’s written by Nadine Strossen and published in the Michigan Law Review. It highlights what I would call the three goods rationale for why we should be encouraging lawyers to engage in this work.

The first is for the public good. It is an access to justice issue, and we do need to supplement the work of community law centres with that volunteer connection that all lawyers should be delivering to communities—albeit some potentially under supervision.

The second is actually for the good of the profession itself. There’s a saying that goes “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”, and this bill enables the whole profession to further develop its ethical connection to its function and what is right to do.

The third, and by no means the last, is we should make changes in this area—we should encourage lawyers to engage in pro bono work—for the good of the lawyer. In 2018, the Mental Health Foundation estimated that one in five lawyers would suffer from mental health issues in any given year, including from depression and anxiety. As senior lawyer Sarah Taylor said, it’s time to kick the door down on conversations about mental health in the legal profession. It’s time to ensure that we’re encouraging lawyers to engage with their communities and for them to be able to respond and say yes when they’re asked to help. It’s time that we encouraged entities that are companies, of law firms, to get involved in that giving community space as well. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I want to say thank you to you for your chairmanship, but I also want to say thank you to colleagues across the House for their support of this bill. It’s a good thing to see, and I’m sure the Justice Committee will do a good job of considering it.

I didn’t take this opportunity in my first five-minute call to explain the origins of the bill because I was conscious that we had the maiden speeches coming up, and I wanted to get through the five minutes. But one of the things I said to myself that I would do when I became an MP is I would take every opportunity to try and change the law for the better. I’ve got this quite serious view that we’re here to try and improve public policy. When I first became an MP, I was a list MP in Government, and I’m not being too pejorative or cynical, but for those list MPs who are now in Government, you may find that there are limited opportunities, particularly in a large caucus, to display your wares, so to speak. So I said to myself, “Well, I’ll go off and try and find some things to make myself useful and try and change the law.” And the first thing I did was I inherited a bill from Michael Woodhouse around organ donation and that got passed, and then I drafted another bill around an amendment to the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, and that got passed. So I’ve just kind of made it a little mission of mine to try and find small but significant changes to the law that can be advanced through a member’s bill process, because Parliament is here to make law and change the law for the better.

And this came about because I was on holiday in Mexico, lying on the beach reading the Law Society—

Dr Duncan Webb: No, no! The horror!

CHRIS BISHOP: I know. Duncan Webb’s thinking, “What a sad man.” It was New Year’s—it wasn’t actually New Year’s, but it was close to that and I was in Mexico, and I was reading LawTalk, which is the New Zealand Law Society’s weekly magazine, and there was an article by a guy called John McLean, who was the general counsel for Rabobank. And he’d encouraged the Law Society to make this change on their own volition, and the Law Society was pretty reluctant to do so. And he’d written an article for LawTalk basically excoriating the Law Society, saying we should make this change. And I read it and thought, “Well, that just doesn’t make any sense. Why is it the case that an employed lawyer cannot do pro bono work outside their job without the permission of their employer?” That doesn’t make any sense. So I thought, “Well, that’s a perfect little member’s bill.” And as you can see, it’s a six-clause member’s bill. And we chucked it into the ballot, it got pulled, and now it’s going to be considered by the Justice Committee.

I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made in the debate. The first is in relation to Dr Webb’s suggestion around mandating the Law Society make rules: I think that’s a sensible suggestion. It’s certainly something that can be considered in committee. The last thing we want to do is change the law and then have the Law Society sit on the necessary regulatory mechanisms to make the law work. So I agree that that’s a good idea. In relation to insurance, my suggestion is that employed lawyers should simply be required to, essentially, describe what professional indemnity insurance they have, and I think that can be covered off.

In relation to the point around the community law centres, which members opposite in particular have raised, I note that and I agree with you. They do a fantastic job in the community. It’s worth noting that I’ve had a brief conversation with Sue Moroney, who will be well known to members opposite, who is, I believe, the chief executive of Community Law Centres o Aotearoa. I ran into her, as often happens in this place, in the Beehive foyer. And she said, “Oh, I need to come talk to you about your bill. We’re pretty supportive of it,”—I hope I’m not misquoting her—“but we’re keen to come and have a yarn about how exactly it will all work.” So I strongly suspect they will be making a submission to the committee, and I encourage Sue to do that. Fair to say Sue and I didn’t see eye to eye when she was an MP and I was an MP. I think we overlapped by only three years. We didn’t get on so well, but, as often happens, you tend to get on better with former MPs in this place when they’ve left the Chamber. So I welcome Sue’s contribution at the select committee process.

So look, I think this is a sensible change. As I noted in my first comments, many people are surprised to discover it’s not already the law. I welcome members’ comments around access to justice and improving the rule of law. I think it is a sensible change. I look forward to working with the select committee to try and shepherd it through the House in the months to come. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Employed Lawyers Providing Free Legal Services) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): I move, That the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is shorter, if anything—if that were possible—than the six-clause effort by my namesake, colleague, and friend Chris Bishop in the bill that we have just finished considering. At some four clauses, it is small but perfectly formed.

New Zealand is one of the best nations, or jurisdictions even, within the world in which to operate a company or a limited partnership. We have a largely rational and comprehensive regime. That is important so that those who are operating those two particular types of legal entity can experience the certainty that they need to be able to conduct their affairs in accordance with the rules then that they set for themselves but within the broader legal framework, and, in particular, there should not be any loopholes or unintended anomalies within the system. There is currently one such anomaly. This was highlighted to me when I was practising as a lawyer, and it has more recently been brought to my attention as a member of Parliament as something that had arisen in relation to the affairs of another person or persons—legal persons, actually, rather than natural persons.

So it’s worth it, I think, if I just point out that the problem, not large, as it is, is nevertheless a problem, and I’ll do that just having explained for the benefit of anyone who is unclear that a company—a limited liability company, as they’re sometimes known—is a different type of legal entity from a limited partnership. It is more common in this country to form a company as opposed to a limited partnership. They are a closed book to many, but probably most familiar to lawyers and some others who of course operate such, whether they’re general partners or otherwise involved. But, nevertheless, they are different, but in some ways they are, I suppose, analogous and do share some characteristics in common.

So the problem that this bill, modest as it is, does seek to rectify is that whereas at the moment a company cannot have an identical or nearly identical name to another company under the Companies Act, a limited partnership about to be incorporated can’t have the same name as another limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act, and a limited partnership under the Limited Partnerships Act cannot have a name that is identical or nearly identical to an existing company, it is not currently the case that a company yet to be formed cannot have an identical or nearly identical name to a limited partnership under the Companies Act. So I’m sure I’ve made that very clear, but suffice to say that there is one category in which it’s possible to have crossover whereby someone wishing to set up a new company and seeking registration approval—the approval of the registrar of companies—can actually slip that past the keeper, so to speak, and accidentally or deliberately end up with a very similar name, a confusingly similar name, to that of an existing legal entity.

This would make it easier, whether deliberately or not, for passing off to take place. That’s a particular term of art—a tort; a civil wrong—whereby one person might trade, effectively, on the name of another. That’s not a good thing for our society, economy, and, of course, the players directly involved as well as consumers, for probably obvious reasons.

On this side of the House, and perhaps around the House, we do believe that the Government has a role to play in creating an environment in which businesses can operate. Businesses can do business according to the framework that Government sets. Of course, it’s a matter of political taste as to the extent to which businesses are able to get on with that work, or the extent of Government intervention, but I think we can all agree, at least at a minimum, that’s creating an environment in which businesses can do their business without unwarranted intrusion by anomalies or by players who might be acting in bad faith to set up themselves almost as though they were another.

So it is that with this idea, which is not a large one—almost technocratic in nature, but important none the less—I think that if my party were in Government and we had the opportunity through a Minister in the relevant area, one would probably just wrap it up as part of another area of reform, and that might be an opportunity. I mean, if the Government were to pick it up, for example, I would have no problem with that. But for now, as far as it goes, it’s a worthwhile thing, I believe. I hope that it will attract at least some support across the House such that it can go to select committee, and it might be at that point that there are other aspects of the Companies Act that could be amended. I would like to think that we could be generous about accepting such amendments, notwithstanding the scope of the bill being rather narrow. But that’s a story for another day, if, indeed, we should proceed beyond that.

So I’ll conclude my opening remarks and say that I look forward to the opportunity to hear others’ contributions on it. I’m grateful for this opportunity, having had the bill pulled from the ballot in the first instance.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the call, and I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the previous speaker, Chris Penk, who I consider a friend of mine. I’d like to acknowledge everything that the member Chris Penk brings to this House in a wide range of areas, and, specifically, I’d like to acknowledge what the member has brought to this House. The member has a long and storied history as a lawyer, and there is a lot of respect for the member from this side of the House, including your dad jokes, as well.

As the sponsor of this bill mentioned, the bill is small, but the bill certainly is significant, and the member is absolutely right to highlight the anomaly that exists. On this side of the House, we are in agreement with the member around the anomaly, and so we certainly appreciate the member bringing this to the House. The difference between the company and partnership is a little-known but important difference, which is, obviously, highlighted in this bill.

I’d also like to just talk a little bit around what the bill does. After that, I’d like to also just highlight the aspect around what is in a name—why is a name important? First of all, the bill makes a technical, short, and non-controversial amendment to the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 in relation to identical or nearly identical names across entity types. I’m sure that the member will be very pleased to hear that the Government will consider including this change as part of an omnibus bill—an omnibus regulatory systems bill—which will likely be introduced later this year. So this side of the House is making the commitment to give consideration to this for that piece of legislation because this side of the House, as I mentioned before, certainly acknowledges that there is an issue here that does need to be addressed.

What the bill does: it amends the Companies Act and Limited Partnerships Act and, basically, fixes the anomaly. As we’ve heard, the Companies Act 1993 does not prohibit the registration of a new company with a name that is identical or nearly identical to that of an existing limited partnership. By contrast, the Limited Partnership Act 2008 does prohibit the registration of a new limited partnership with a name that’s identical or nearly identical to that of an existing company. The bill amends a section of the Companies Act 1993 stating the basis on which the Registrar of Companies may approve the reservation of a new company name.

Now, as I mentioned, the Government will give serious consideration to including this in an omnibus regulatory systems bill, and one of the reasons that the Government will do that is because a regulatory systems bill provides a vehicle to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory systems and reduce the chance of regulatory failure. So it certainly fits within that bill quite clearly. These sorts of bills address regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation and aim to remove unnecessary costs of compliance and doing business. This is generally preferable to occupying a disproportionate amount of the House’s time and select committees’ time passing a bill with small amendments—although, I do acknowledge, important amendments—that amend just under two lines. That’s the position from this side of the House. Regulatory systems bills are moved through the parliamentary process as omnibus bills, and can therefore make effective use of parliamentary time.

Now, just moving on to why it is important that we don’t have this duplication that we certainly see existing. If we just have a simple look at names, I’m sure many members in this House—I won’t ask for a show of hands—have googled their own name and seen what comes up. I have, and there is actually another Jamie Strange in the world, so there is a duplication.

Simeon Brown: You are unique.

JAMIE STRANGE: A female actress from California—I’m sure no one would have guessed that. Sorry, what was the member saying?

Simeon Brown: You are unique.

JAMIE STRANGE: I am unique. Well, thank you. Thank you, yes, I do try.

If I mention a name which will be well-known, Winston Churchill, obviously, I’m thinking of an American author—a historical fiction author. Others might be thinking of another Winston Churchill. The member highlights the aspect around where obvious confusions can come in, and this is just an example of names.

I might just mention a couple more quickly, before moving on to the business aspect of this. As a football fan, we think of Cristiano Ronaldo and also Ronaldo—the older Ronaldo—who is a very famous player. Many people have, unfortunately, had the challenge of being cloned on Facebook, where someone takes the name and uses the name. That’s just to highlight the issue—

Simeon Brown: What’s in a name?

JAMIE STRANGE: Yeah, exactly. Like the member opposite said: what’s in a name?

Now, in terms of a name of a person, well, look, that’s probably on the lighter level, but when you’re looking at a business there is absolutely a commercial aspect that if you start a business—not you, Madam Speaker, although you may. But if somebody starts a business, it takes a lot of work to start a business. We know that. Many, many people in this House have done that. Myself, I’ve employed seven or eight people at one point in time. It takes a lot of work to start a business, and it takes a lot of work to choose a name. If somebody else then comes along and picks the same name as you, there can often be quite serious commercial ramifications for your business.

Some of the business name clashes are particularly challenging if the two businesses are operating in the same industry. Let’s say, for example, one business is operating in the clothing industry and another is operating in the car industry—it’s generally not so bad. But, certainly, if two businesses are operating in the same industry, it can have a negative commercial aspect. Another clash can be if two businesses with the same name are operating in the same geographic market, so that’s another aspect. If you have the same industry and the same geographic market, well, that makes it very, very difficult.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, that’s a catastrophe!

JAMIE STRANGE: Absolutely—I can see the horror on the member’s face opposite if we had two businesses with the same name, in the same industry, and in the same geographic market. However—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The same town?

JAMIE STRANGE: Well, quite possibly, and if it’s a small town, even more so. If it’s a small town, it becomes even more difficult. I think members can see where I’m going with this.

But the geographical aspect, though, is a bit more nuanced, as I’m sure the member opposite will also know as well, in terms of the internet, because we have a very globalised market at the moment, becoming even more globalised in terms of the internet. We certainly saw during the COVID lockdown that internet sales went up in quite a dramatic way. The other aspect is there’s also, obviously, consideration in terms of who registered the name first.

A lot of this can be avoided. In fact, all of this can be avoided. As the member mentioned, all these calamities can be avoided by this piece of legislation, so that’s why the Government is going to give due consideration to including it in an omnibus bill.

I’ve mentioned some general names, but, just to give an example—a real-world example—of what I’ve been highlighting about the business aspect, if I mention Mustang, people might think about a car, but there’s also Mustang Seeds, which a lot of people may not know.

Ingrid Leary: “Mustang Sally”?

JAMIE STRANGE: “Mustang Sally” is actually a song. I remember when I was in a band, the difficulty we went to in choosing a name that wasn’t already taken. It caused us many sleepless nights.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What did the member settle on?

JAMIE STRANGE: We actually settled on a band named One Day Sunday, but then I actually broke away, and the band just became Jamie Strange. But look, I won’t take any more of the House’s time on my musical history.

Just to summarise—again, acknowledging the member—I appreciate the member bringing the bill to the House and appreciate the work he’s done on it. On the Government side of it, we certainly will give due consideration, and no doubt will be working with the member around that, for this legislation to potentially be included in the bill later in the year. Madam Speaker, thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to make a very short call addressing the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the two previous speakers, who have, I think, given a very fulsome explanation of not only what’s in the bill—what’s in a name—as well as identifying that both sides of the House are very much keen to address the issues that this bill addresses.

What this bill does, and I just reiterate it briefly, is amend the Companies Act to correct a legislative issue that allows for identical names of businesses to be registered in Aotearoa. This is a common-sense change, one that is very much identified by how brief this bill is, so the Greens will be supporting this bill at first reading.

The one thing that we just want to note is an issue that could potentially arise if someone registered a Māori-named company and gained exclusive rights to that name when they have no connection to it. We do hope that the select committee will address this issue and consider it. But, otherwise, we also hope that the discrete nature of this bill is addressed promptly, either by this member’s bill or the Government’s bill in omnibus form. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government opposes this bill, and I ask the Green member previous, Ricardo Menéndez March, why—why does the Green member support this bill in the House?

Look, I think we all need to take a step back and consider three questions about what limited partnerships are, and what they do, and who uses them. So this first question of what a limited partnership is. My colleagues, a limited partnership is a tax treatment. It’s not an entity in itself. The reason why we have limited partnerships is to make the New Zealand landscape of structures available to heavy-duty corporate structuring in this country similar to jurisdictions overseas which use limited partnerships. We do have an entity called limited companies that are look-through for tax purposes, which is, essentially, what a limited partnership is. It is also look-through for tax purposes. The reason why we use limited partnerships is to allow international investors to look at our entities and see what they’re used to overseas in jurisdictions like Hong Kong and the United States. This is heavy-duty corporate structuring that your average mum and dad would never use, because you need to register a limited partnership, a general partner company, and then any other investors who might want to line up to be investors in that limited partnership also need entities.

So I ask the Green Party, why do they stand on the side of big corporate investors? Why do they stand on the side of the kinds of investors who can afford heavy-duty corporate lawyers to create structures like this, which are extremely expensive to administer—you need specialist tax lawyers to do it, and specialist tax accountants like PricewaterhouseCoopers—when we have entities which do this in our system currently, like look-through companies? That’s what a limited partnership is.

There’s no issue here with naming because when a limited partnership requires a general partner in law, that general partner needs to have a name which is specifically identifiable—something like, say, “Company General Partner Ltd.” So you can tell what a limited partnership’s name is when you look up on the Companies Register what its general partner company is called, and there is, in fact, no confusion about what a limited partnership might be called when you can look for its general partner and its company name on the Companies Register.

So let’s dwell a little bit more on who uses these limited partnerships. Look, we have large corporate structures, investors who are corporate investors by their very nature who use these companies. They are rare. There are not thousands of limited partnerships creating some kind of confusion within their communities about having different names. This is a bill that addresses a very small problem for a very small subset of our business community who are at the very top of that business community, who, perhaps, might be called the 1 percent.

So for everyone watching tonight, there might be questions at home about why is this a priority for National in Opposition—why are we standing on the side of large corporate investors, and what else is going on in select committees which might be better using this time? Perhaps it might be things like addressing the housing crisis, which this very select committee which this bill would have been proposed to be heard by is actually using its time to do. That’s why the Government has opposed this bill, because it is a very small and minor change which only affects a very small number of people, and it uses up time in this House and in the machinations of Government to be able to address some of those serious problems.

The third question I want to dwell on just briefly is: whose problem does this legislation seek to solve? In a situation where there was confusion about a limited partnership’s name, that would only be in a situation where you had perhaps a number of limited partnerships that had a similar general partner within a company structure, and there was some kind of confusion about which entity you were dealing with. Those are a very small number of cases, where, usually, tax lawyers and tax accountants would be advising on those sorts of transactions, because other companies that need a look-through model for tax will be using different entities. So in the very small number of occasions, you’ve got to wonder, well, is there this problem with the documentation where names could be confused, and that’s just not what’s going on out there in the market. That’s not what business is experiencing now. It’s not a problem that business is experiencing and it’s not a problem that this House should solve, and that’s why we, as Government members, oppose it.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): The nation is gripped after this bill, I think, Mr Penk. Did I sense dissent in the Labour ranks there—was this being supported or not supported? I’m not sure. But, you know, I’m going to help the nation tonight understand what this is about, and it’ll be as short as possible. OK, the bill makes a small technical change—

Chris Penk: Yes.

DAMIEN SMITH: —a small technical change—to ensure consistency around the ability to name companies and limited partnerships, and—to put you out of your misery, Chris—we will be supporting this bill because it is going to increase confidence in the New Zealand financial system. The financial markets, company structures, regulations, and the corporate forms you have to fill in online—it is going to clear up a legal anomaly and it is going to clear up any deception and any misleading conduct, and it is a gap in the law.

Now, for our colleagues across the way, let’s first of all define what business entities in New Zealand actually are. You might want to put this in the bill, Mr Penk, because there are different ways to structure your business, each with different legal and financial obligations. Most businesses in New Zealand are either sole traders, limited companies, cooperative companies, unlimited companies—which are very rare—or limited partnerships.

So what is a limited partnership? It is a form of partnership involving general partners, like a law firm—it is pretty simple—who are all liable for the debts and liabilities of the partnership in limited partners. So if the partners of PwC Tower don’t bring any buildings in because of their expensive rent down at the waterfront, they then have to foot the bill. They are also liable to the extent of the capital contribution to the partnership. In its name, the New Zealand Companies Office defines that “a limited partnership must include the words ‘Limited Partnership’, or … ‘LP’ or ‘L.P.’ at the end of the name.” Features of limited partnerships include separate legal personality; an indefinite lifespan, if desired; safe harbour activities, defined by the limited partnership, while they are not participating in the management of the limited partnership. There is also a tax treatment for the limited partnership, and this is administered by the New Zealand Companies Office, so it’s a real thing.

What is a limited company? A limited company has full responsibility for all its legal and financial obligations. It’s the liability of the shareholders that is limited. Shareholders are only liable for the money owing on their shares and personal guarantees they have given to lenders and creditors, such as banks or suppliers, and, again, it is registered under the Companies Act.

“So what’s the problem?”, the nation asks tonight.

Dr Duncan Webb: That’s a good question.

DAMIEN SMITH: Yeah. The Companies Act does not prevent the registration of a new company with a name that is identical or nearly identical of that of an existing limited partnership—and that is correct. By contrast, the Limited Partnerships Act does prohibit the registration of the new limited partnership with a name that is identical or nearly identical to that of an existing company. So the member’s bill does rectify this anomaly between the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 in relation to identical or nearly identical names across different entity types. So it is a simple, straightforward change correcting a minor anomaly in the legislation, but its impact will clean up an issue and will guarantee that there is no need to take a trip to the court. So it is a very simple thing, there’s nothing sinister in it, and ACT supports the bill at its first reading.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This could go over our heads.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Mr Brownlee, it would be funny if it wasn’t so ridiculous that we’ve got this bill before the House. I mean, I did do some research. I went on the Companies Register and checked on company names. So we’ve got, for example, Smith, Smith, and Smith Ltd; Smith and Smith Ltd; Smith and Smith Homes; Smith and Smith Investment; Smith and Smith Property; Smith and Smith Enterprises; Smith and Smith Property and Enterprises; Smith Ltd; Smith and Smith and Sons; Smith Industries; Smith—so the whole idea of identical names is just, you know, the idea that you’re protecting something, when you’ve got that many Smith and Smiths out there.

But you might think I’m cheating by picking Smith. We’ve also got—and I didn’t know he was quite the magnate—Penko Properties, Penko Holdings, Penky Properties, Penky Management, and Penky Holdings. So, you know, if that’s not an identical name, what is—what is? So we have this bill, which is trying to put its finger on a problem that really just doesn’t exist. So in the end we’re not supporting this bill, because we’re going to waste as little of Parliament’s time with this kind of trivia as possible. It’s really quite upsetting to me that a man of Mr Penk’s intellect—apparently—troubles himself with such tripe.

So the fact of the matter is that if I, as a limited partnership, set myself up as Penko Partnership, then there is a plethora of law to deal with that. If I use a brand, we’ve got a trade marks law. If I’m using a particular design, we’ve got the law of copyrights. The entire tort of passing off is centred around me having the get-up, the name, the branding, and passing myself off as some other business and getting their goodwill when, in fact, I’m not entitled to it, and, of course, overlaying all of that, we’ve got the Fair Trading Act, which says that it’s a breach to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct that might mislead or deceive. So in any situation where we have names which cause confusion, you can pick already from a menu of remedies, depending on what the breach is and what the best forum to go to is.

The other thing, of course, to note is that Mr Penk has picked the most obscure of business vehicles: the limited partnership. What about charitable trusts? What about incorporated societies? What about the friendly societies or the industrial and provident societies, or even just partnerships—full stop?

Now, we all know that law firms, for example, often set up partnerships, and, in fact, there are a number of cases. I think it’s “Newburgh v Newburgh and Newburgh”, or something like that—the two Auckland law firms who went toe to toe on a passing off case as to who could use the appropriate last name. They fought it out, and there was a result.

So this is an utter waste of time. To think of all of the problems in the world, the big mountain that Chris Penk chose to climb was identical names of limited partnerships.

Now, I don’t know who handed him this dead duck, but I’ll tell you what, it wasn’t a friend. We know what the National Party’s like. Someone thought, “There you go, Mr Penk’s going past.”, and said, “Put that one in the ballot, Mr Penk. You’ll go a long way with that. Your career will go to dizzy heights of the back of the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill.”

Now, Mr Bishop’s bill didn’t set the world on fire, but it made a meaningful change and it will affect real people’s lives in terms of legal services, and the bill before that on leave for miscarriages, that really touched. But this? The best we can do is say that multinational companies have to be careful what names they use, and we want to add another remedy to the four or five that already exist in our absolutely comprehensive law. Mr Penk, I’ve written in your report: “Can do better.”

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise today in the House to take a call on the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. The bill amends “the Companies Act 1993 and the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 in relation to identical or nearly identical names across entity types. The Companies Act 1993 does not prohibit the registration of a new company with a name that is identical or nearly identical to that of an existing limited partnership. By contrast, the Limited Partnerships Act 2008 does prohibit the registration of a new limited partnership with a name that is identical or nearly identical to that of an existing company.” The bill amends a “section of the Companies Act 1993 stating the basis on which the Registrar of Companies may approve the reservation of a new company name.”

Now, just a few minutes before, my colleague Jamie Strange was talking about the same topic, and I just wanted to give a few examples about what’s in the name, as the member Simeon Brown on the other side was saying. Well, talking about names, Hamilton East and Hamilton West are two electorates where the names are very similar, yet we go on with our business without too much trouble, and I’m sure Jamie Strange would agree with that. In addition to that, I’ve got a first name and a last name which is very common, and if you search for it, the first three people are actually not myself. But, as Dr Duncan Webb was saying, minor adjustments to the name can help you get past this problem. I use the term “Dr” in front of it, and that just means that it’s easier to find my name compared to the other three people, three of whom were actually in the news for all the wrong reasons. Yeah, so it’s not that hard to bypass this.

Another example I wanted to give was, recently, the National Party’s cannabis referendum bill, which was actually just “Bill (No 2)”. So, you know, it sort of goes to show that there is a lack of creativity on that side, when they’re numbering their bills just “Bill (No 2)”, copying the No. 1 bill, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, which was proposed by the Green Party, and then talking about bringing in this bill, which prevents people from using identical names. So maybe, you know, charity should start at home.

But, anyway, the only substantive provision of this bill is an amendment to the section of the Companies Act 1993 stating the basis on which the Registrar of Companies may approve the reservation of a new company name. The section as amended will refer to the names of limited partnerships and overseas limited partnerships registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 2008. The problem here is that it’s a very minor change. It might affect businesses, but it is a very minor change, and the Government is considering including this change as part of an omnibus regulatory systems amendment bill which will be introduced later this year.

Now, the regulatory system bills (RSBs) provide “a vehicle to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory systems and to reduce the chance of regulatory failure … The bills address regulatory duplication, gaps, errors, and inconsistencies within and between different pieces of legislation and aim to remove unnecessary costs of compliance and doing business … The [RSBs] are moved through the parliamentary process”—as we all know—“as omnibus bills and can therefore make effective use of parliamentary time.” This is generally preferable to occupying a disproportionate time of the House, going through the select committee stage, and passing a very small amendment, as proposed by the Opposition.

So, in summary, it is a small change. It might make a bit of difference, but, as Hamilton East and Hamilton West would agree, there are other ways of doing business without worrying too much about what side of Hamilton you’re on or which one of the Gaurav Sharmas you’re talking to, or even which one of the cannabis referendum bills, “Bill (No 1)” or “Bill (No 2)”. In summary, I oppose this bill and I look forward to the Government bringing through a regulatory systems bill later on in the year. Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge my colleague Chris Penk for bringing such an important piece of legislation to the House, which does make an important difference. You hear members on the other side talking about how little this bill is and how small a change, and saying that it makes a small difference for businesses. These guys are the guys who just deride anything which is to do with business and the important role that business has in society, creating jobs and growing our economy. This is an important part to ensure that the regulations and the legislation which sets up our businesses is efficient, works, and does protect the names of these businesses in this important piece.

I’m not quite sure exactly what the Government’s position is on this. Some of their MPs have said, “Lovely idea”, “Great idea”, “Well, we’ll put it into our regulatory systems bill”, and other MPs have said, “Terrible idea”, “What a terrible thing to do”, “Why on earth would we do such a terrible thing?”, so I do implore you, Madam Speaker, whether a personal vote is required on this piece of legislation, because the Government benches do seem to be quite divided.

But look, this is an important piece of legislation. I’m very pleased that my colleague has had it pulled, and I look forward to it being supported by a majority of members of Parliament very soon. Thank you.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak against the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I speak against it because I’ve just heard you talk about efficiency and working hard for business and getting on with the job, and all I can see over there is wasting time. I can kick this bill to touch with these people here on the other side of the House, and we’ll do the business as it should be done.

This aims to amend section 22(2)(b) of the Companies Act by expanding the scope of the identical names publication of companies to limited partnerships, including those that are registered under section 108 of the Limited Partnerships Act 2008. This amendment to the Companies Act is something we will give consideration to in a very quick strike of the pen as part of the omnibus regulatory systems bill to be introduced later in the year.

But I just want to make a few observations. Well, what I did was a little bit of homework, and—

Hon Member: Really? What were you drinking?

ANNA LORCK: Well, I can tell you I’d need a few Beroccas, again, to get through this one. But let me tell you, this is not the first time the Opposition has touched on this section of the Companies Act, because way back in 2013, during your last time in Government, you passed an amendment to this Act which included the removal of any mention to the Companies Act 1955. But at the time, it did not include any mention of the Limited Partnerships Act, and because of this inconsistency back in 2013, we’re here again. Who says we’re efficient? Who says—

Matt Doocey: Oh, that’s the laziest argument I’ve ever heard—eight years ago.

ANNA LORCK: Yes, eight years ago. Eight years ago, you had the opportunity to absolutely do something on this, but you didn’t, and so we’re back here. You failed to seize the opportunity to make this amendment during the passing of a previous amendment, disproving the notion of the Opposition being the party of efficiency and cutting red tape. Instead, you just add more and more time. Well, I’m going to do you a favour. I’m going to do one thing that will make sure that what this—

Simeon Brown: Why don’t you stop talking?

ANNA LORCK: You had your member’s bill pulled from the ballot, and what an opportunity. What an opportunity to rise to an incredible opportunity that not everybody will get in their three years, and, instead, you’ve put this bill through.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn’t, actually.

ANNA LORCK: But I’m going to give you—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! When you say the word “you” in the first person, you’re talking to me.

ANNA LORCK: Apologies, Mr Speaker. Mr Penk, you got this opportunity, but what I’m going to do in opposition to this bill is that we’re going to make sure that tomorrow, someone else who’s got a member’s bill in the ballot gets the opportunity to go forward and have a go, and that’s what’s going to be good about this. That’s why I’m going to make absolutely sure that I vote against this bill in the House, and when I do, maybe—maybe, maybe—you might just think—

Simeon Brown: Maybe what, sorry?

ANNA LORCK: Maybe, Mr Penk, you may think that it’s a better opportunity to go now and draft up another member’s bill. Yes, I’m busily doing mine too, but this gives you an opportunity to maybe get something out that’s going to actually give you some good credit in the House.

In the meantime, we will just pick the pen off, make sure that we put this through in the omnibus bill and give it a good shot, and good luck to the members tomorrow. I say good luck to all the members tomorrow who might get the opportunity to have your member’s bill lifted out. There’s a good chance of that while we kick this one to touch.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The Opposition have asked what our position on this bill is, and I can say very clearly that I would like to support this bill for a couple of reasons and I won’t be supporting it for a reason. I’ll tell you why.

First, I’d like to support it because I have a great deal of respect for the member in whose name this bill is. Chris Penk is a member who conducts himself with dignity, who enables business to take place in a dignified way. As we’ve seen in the debate tonight, you know, when I see bills that are pulled in his name or when I hear arguments in the name of Chris Penk, I know that I’m dealing with someone who’s collegial, intelligent, and respectful, and so it makes me look at the bill seriously and say, “Does this have merit?” The reason that is relevant is because it is very difficult sometimes in this House to take some members’ bills seriously because of the type of behaviour that I personally see as a member. So for that reason alone, it would be great to be able to support the member’s bill.

The reason that I would also like to support it is because it does make sense. There is a place for this bill and, as has been said by other speakers, that will happen in the omnibus legislation. But, as has been so passionately argued by Anna Lorck, the previous speaker on this side of the House, this bill really is using up a lot of House time, and it would be such a shame to be able to take the floor and speak to something so small without referencing what is the opportunity cost here that we’re missing.

We’ve got some serious work to do in this House. We have a mandate for transformational change. There are huge expectations on us. We need to be looking at wellbeing, and an area that I’m really passionate about is how we can measure wellbeing outcomes as we look at issues like housing, as we look at reforming our health system, as we look at rebuilding better after COVID, and as we look at outcomes for Māori and Pasifika—and it’s such a wasted opportunity to be even speaking on this bill, let alone considering putting it through a select committee process when there are so many issues that require our attention.

Just yesterday, I went and watched colleagues across the House receive a petition from—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should come to the bill. This is not giving a commentary on what might happen in the future or what happened yesterday. It’s about the bill. You need to speak to the bill.

INGRID LEARY: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I guess the point is, if I refer to what the member in whose name the bill was drawn said, he said that the bill was about “creating an environment where business can do so without anomaly … and without intrusion”. Therefore, I reference my comments around the fact there has been considerable intrusion in the affairs of this House trying to do its business, because we have not been able to do so because of some of the behaviours.

But I turn my attention to the bill, and it really is a very small, very technical piece of legislation. If we were not wasting so much time speaking about it and if we did not have more pressing matters to get on with, I would like to support the bill, as I said, simply because I have a great deal of respect for the member in whose name it’s drawn. However, there is going to be an omnibus regulatory systems bill which will be introduced later this year. That has been referenced by my colleagues. The National Party had nine years in Government to actually correct this anomaly, so it seems rather strange that they would now be wanting to turn their attention to this what I would say is minutia, when there are much more pressing matters at hand.

So, for these reasons, I’d really like to just say I’m really sorry to the member. I have a great deal of respect. Please continue in the way that you have. Despite the behaviours that are sometimes around us in the House, we will always consider your comments and your bills seriously. In the meantime, we won’t be supporting this bill through to the select committee, but, certainly, we are happy to wrap it up in that omnibus legislation. So, therefore, I will oppose this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Chris Penk—five minutes in response.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, but I don’t think I need to take five minutes of the House’s time. Far be it from me to waste the House’s time. That is, after all, the Government’s job, as we’ve heard tonight—believing it to be a good idea but not appropriate for the member to waste the House’s time, but they might pick it up and do that themselves later.

There have been some pretty generous comments, and I am grateful for them. They’re less generous in terms of actual support, which is, of course, what counts, but never mind. The only thing worse than identical names is identical speeches, so I will make a couple of different remarks. Of course, the only thing worse than identical speeches is identical phrases within the speeches, and I know I’ve just done that, but that was out of a sense of irony. You’ll indulge me, I think, at this late hour—the dying days of the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill. I’ll take a moment to reflect on that.

Confusingly similar names are a problem, actually. We have a Labour Party in New Zealand, there’s a Labour Party in the UK, and there’s a Labor Party in Australia. The only saving grace for the Australian version is it’s at least spelt differently. I’d be inclined to say they’re all as bad as each other, but then I heard Duncan Webb’s speech and I believe that the New Zealand version may be the worst of the lot.

I set out at the start what I thought was a reasonably rational rationale—can I say that? Too late, I have. Anyway, I’ve set out what I thought was a reasonable basis for the law. I didn’t claim it was anything particularly large—indeed, it’s not—and no one here would make the mistake of thinking that. Even the most generous supporters of the bill wouldn’t claim that it’s going to save every problem in the world. But I will just say, at the risk of being ever so slightly defensive, that it was interesting to hear Dr Duncan Webb rebuke me for almost wasting the time of the House when I remember that he spoke at some length on no lesser subject that the Ombudsmen (Protection of Name) Amendment Bill, and that was produced with the resources of the whole Government in the last term, I believe. Actually, maybe it was a member’s bill. In any case, it came from that side of the House.

Hon Member: It was Andrew Little’s bill.

CHRIS PENK: In fact, it was Andrew Little’s bill, wasn’t it? It was the Minister of Justice, no less, who thought that that was an appropriate subject for the House’s time, and argued that there was a major problem to be solved, a big walnut to be cracked with that sledgehammer.

So, anyway, I think we’ve got to the end of the road by the sound of it, but I do thank those who have taken the trouble to support it in good faith, and even those who did not, for—I’ll take them at their word—taking it seriously, as far as it went. There we have it, I think. For what it’s worth, I do commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Companies (Limited Partnerships Identical Names Prohibition) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill

First Reading

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I move, That the Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

If I can start by one statement that I think will be pertinent to this whole debate over the coming hour: informing schools when a sex offender is being placed in the community is not a new practice for Corrections. They already do it, so there is no argument for why they can’t do it mandatorily. This is what my bill does: it makes it mandatory that, when a sex offender is placed in a community, the local school is notified.

I am a parent. Many members of Parliament are parents or grandparents or have nieces and nephews. I believe New Zealand parents send their kids to school with the expectation that, if a sex offender was housed in the local community, that school would be informed. I believe parents expect that, and when I’ve talked about this bill to people such as school principals, to parents, and to a whole range of other stakeholders, the feedback I get is that, in fact, people are surprised this isn’t happening already. And what do we get? A Minister of Corrections, Kelvin Davis, with his head in the sand, saying, “I would want to know what issues with the current system this bill is trying to fix.”

Well, if he wants to know the issue this bill is trying to fix, go and talk to Mark Brown, Newtown Primary School Principal. He had a paedophile who was deemed high risk of reoffending placed near his school, and that principal found out via social media. Corrections apologised because that sex offender should not have been placed next to that school, down the road from a day care, down the road from a playground. If my bill was legislated, that placement would not have happened. Mark Brown was surprised, as a principal, to learn he wasn’t given the respect to be informed that that high risk of reoffending paedophile was placed next to his school. That is why Mark Brown backs my bill, and I back him.

Notifying local schools of the placement of a sex offender nearby is already a working practice of Corrections. My bill just makes it mandatory. Like Mark Brown, Newtown Primary School Principal, most people are surprised this is not already happening. Parliament has an opportunity tonight to rectify that and to support parents so that they know, when they send their kids to school, that schools have been notified when a sex offender is placed in that community. Kelvin Davis, the Minister of Corrections, with this head in the sand, said he believed the current law was strong enough to ensure the safety of the community; yet, when I asked how many schools had been notified of sex offenders in their community, he doesn’t know as the Minister. Why? Because that information is not held centrally. He told me, through written parliamentary questions, it’s held in manual casefiles. There is no oversight of notification of schools of a sex offender being placed in their community. There is no auditing of it. Yet he believes the current law is safe for the communities. Well, how did that happen in Newtown? How many times is Corrections going to have to apologise to school principals.

Then, to cap it all off, because all this information is too hard to find, the Minister didn’t want to spend any time finding it, I asked a written parliamentary question. It revealed that 455 people whose lead offence was a sex offence were released from prison during 2019-20. Three hundred and sixty-three of them whose lead offence is a sex offence were on parole. Yet, when I OIA’d the Ministry of Education, they came back and said, in a similar time frame—and this is the time when 455 were released, 363 on parole—do you know how many times the Ministry of Education were informed to notify schools? Seven. Seven times, when 363 were released on parole. Now, I don’t doubt for a second that some sex offenders need to be managed in the community. That is realistic. What I expect, like every parent in New Zealand, is that their local schools are notified.

Principals telling me they’ve had 50 years’ experience in teaching; one principal has had 33 years as a principal. She said she’s never had State agencies alerting her to a sex offender being released in the communities. She said principals had not been informed adequately about offenders before. Another principal—22 years—he’s never been notified. Another principal, in Auckland: “Anything that was going to endanger children, we would want to know.” That is why school principals are in support of this bill. They want to protect the children that they are entrusted with by parents—Kiwi parents, hard-working parents that send their kids to school expecting that schools are notified when a sex offender is placed in the community. I want to know how we’ve got a system where Corrections can release hundreds of offenders with their lead offence being a sex offence, yet the Ministry of Education says they’ve only notified or been part of a notification seven times. That does not add up. That puts our people at risk.

And I come back to that original point, because, I’ll tell you what, we’re going to hear it all tonight. We’re going to hear every excuse for why this law can’t be passed. I’ll reaffirm my first point: informing schools when a sex offender has been placed in the community is not a new practice; it happens sometimes. This bill only makes it mandatory. And do you know why I brought this bill to the House? Because I had Corrections come to me, and it’s going to happen to every MP in this House if it hasn’t already—if you’ve had those meetings before and they turn up and they talk casually and then half way through a conversation they drop in, “Oh, we’ve just placed two sex offenders in your community, in your electorate.” Well, that’s fine; I accept that they need to be responsibly managed in the community. What I don’t accept is when those staff of Corrections told me they had done the due notifications. I didn’t accept that verbally, and I asked them to put it in writing. And do you know what happened? They stalled me for months. Finally, they wrote to me, and what did they tell me? They hadn’t notified like they said they had. That’s happening up and down the country. That’s why it’s important to pass this bill tonight to make sure that, when sex offenders are placed in the community—even when they’ve been rehoused; there’s a provision in my bill: within 72 hours that local schools are notified. Parents expect this. New Zealanders are surprised this is not mandatory now.

I’ll finish with a quote. The mother of a girl abused as a child, who supports my bill—her daughter is the victim of a child molester. She was surprised to hear principals are not already routinely told. She wants political parties to unite and pass laws to keep schools better informed. “They should be a sensible Parliament,” that mother said. Tonight, we have an opportunity to be a sensible Parliament and to ensure that it’s mandatory, when a sex offender is being placed in the community, that the local school is notified.

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

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Child sex offending is abhorrent, we all know this. As a mum of four kids, as an auntie of 14 kids, it is one of my greatest fears, as I am sure it is one of the greatest fears of every parent in this House, every auntie, every uncle, every nana and poppa across this country. We also know that is hugely prevalent. We know that about one in four girls and one in nine boys—sometimes the figures are a little higher: one in three girls; one in seven boys—over the last 40 years or so, those are the figures that have been found consistently across the OECD. Sex offending against people under 16, at some level: very prevalent. We also know that the harm can be lifelong and extreme.

I have spent my whole adult life working to make it easier for child witnesses, and especially child sex abuse witnesses, to be heard in court when they have the absolute bravery to try to tell their story. I have spent my life working on that issue, and I look forward to discussing that work and I look forward to the support of the member opposite, Matt Doocey, when we come to discussing the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, because there is a bill that will actually do something to protect child sex victims and to stop child sex offenders, unlike this one.

A wise man said to me recently that we should respond, not react. I suggest to you now that this is a reaction of a bill, not a response based on the evidence and what is sensible. But we are lucky because there is a lot of evidence—there is a lot of evidence because this sort of community notification bill has a long history in the US, in particular, but also in the UK, and there are numerous studies. One of the findings that those scientists have made is that this sort of bill makes people feel good. It is something that raises confidence from the public, and people feel like something is being done. The sad, sad truth, however, is that when you investigate the actual efficacy of this sort of bill, it has minimal to no impact in reducing offending.

Now, I rose last week to talk in support of the strengthening of the child sex offender register in this country. I did so because that bill, unlike this one, was a proportionate, evidence-based response. This bill, with its blanket requirement of notification to schools, is not evidence-based. It may make us feel good; it does nothing to protect children. I strongly suggest to this House that what we need to be doing is not about what makes us adults feel good; it is what actually works.

So the member opposite has already referred to the fact that there is, in fact, already a system to notify schools—

Simeon Brown: It doesn’t work.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —as to sex offenders. Now, he says that it doesn’t work. My suggestion is that that is actually a misunderstanding. Of course there are mistakes. Those are operational matters which are about the guidance given to police. But if you have a look at what this bill does—this bill—this bill is an undifferentiated, one-size-fits-all, knee-jerk reaction that will do nothing to increase the safety of our children. In the first place, it covers all sex offences—not just child sex offences; it covers everything from rape of adults through to bestiality. It is not specific to child offending. And when we do that, we are not assisting; we are just making ourselves feel better.

The next problem is: it is not differentiated as to whether the person is regarded as a threat. We are going to, for example, force the notification of sex offenders who are medically incapacitated, who pose no threat whatsoever. There will be no judgment. There will be no flexibility. There will be no rationality in the regime proposed under this bill. It is disproportionate. It is one-size-fits-all. It is inappropriate.

And when I move on through the research on this, I come to the next problem with it: there are no safeguards. When you look at the response here, it is not only a one-size-fits-all but there are absolutely no safeguards as to what principals are supposed to do with this information. When a principal is given this information, how is it that they are supposed to address it? There is no guidance here. How are they going to protect privacy? How are they going to ensure that their response does not become the nexus and the catalyst for vigilantism? Because that has happened. I would refer you to the well-known example of the Welsh doctor who was a paediatrician whose house was attacked and who was attacked because people misunderstood. There is an unfortunate fact that in the studies—and there are many—of these sorts of responses, these sorts of registers, between three-quarters and about a third of the information is often out of date and wrong. In the US, there are many examples of innocent people being attacked who happen to live in a house where an offender used to live. Is that the sort of thing that is going to protect children? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, the laws requiring notification, as I’ve said, they have a long, long history in the US. So let’s have a further look at what they’ve done, because the fact is that in those studies, we haven’t been able to find much of a lift in reconviction for sex offenders. If the intention of notifying the public and the school is to reduce the incidents of child sex offending, this is not going to work—and we have over 20 years of international experience to say that. I say again: it might make us feel good; it is not going to do anything.

What is going to do something is treatment. We know that treatment works. There are multiple studies, including of New Zealand programmes such as Kia Mārama. Now, what these studies show is that in the first 300 sex offenders who went through Kia Mārama, for example, in the first nearly three years, there was under 3 percent of reoffending, and the conviction rate after five years was at 8 percent. Lambie and Stewart looked at three community-based sex offender treatment programmes here: the overall reconviction rate was 8 percent over four years. Now, that’s compared to the control group of 19 percent.

Now, why am I talking about treatment? Because registers are shown to disrupt treatment. The sort of public notification that we are talking about here, it disrupts treatment, because other studies have looked at what happens to the sex offenders themselves. What it has found is that one-third report job losses, housing losses, harassment is very common, the majority experience the loss of their social supports, and they experienced a massive increase in stress and in shame.

Now, if you talk to sex offender treatment providers—and I have done today; I have spoken to two senior, senior clinicians in this field, and what they say is that if you are going to shame these people publicly, if you are going to put them under stress, you raise the potential for them to fall back into offending ways, and you lessen their ability to join into treatment. Again, it may make us feel good; it ain’t going to help.

And furthermore, what we know about sex offender treatment is that we really need that social support around our offenders if they are to rehabilitate. But do you know what this also does, when you end up notifying of a sex offender? It shames their family. So we have multiple children in the US who experienced harassment. We have family members who would otherwise be helping the sex offender to rehabilitate who are instead experiencing social isolation and shame.

This is a pointless overreaction. If you want to do something for child sex offenders, support the sexual violence bill and support rehabilitation in treatment.

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

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise again. It feels like a little bit of a déjà vu to be speaking about this bill after the night we had under urgency when the Government passed its child sex register bill into law, because it deals with much of the same themes. So it’s a little bit surprising to hear Labour Party colleagues acknowledge the research and what we know about the way that child sex offending works, the way that it is rarely prevented through publicised registers of offenders implemented after people have served their sentences. That has nothing to do with rehabilitation—positive, successful reintegration of anyone back into the community—and certainly does not relate very directly, if at all, to the types of causes that we know underlie this type of offending.

Of course, this bill, as has been pointed out, doesn’t actually just cover child sex offending; it covers a range of other offending, and that’s one of the problems with it. The other is, as the member who’s just resumed her seat, Emily Henderson, pointed out, that it introduces or seeks to introduce a blanket requirement that people’s names are disclosed to the nearest school without the discretion of law enforcement, corrections, and parole officers, with all of the expertise, all of the experience, that they have with both protecting the community and bringing together rehabilitation measures that’ll help that person move forward from their offending and to bring down recidivism.

Currently, Corrections has a discretion—and I’ll read that—in some cases of sharing information when it is in the best interests of everyone, including the person released from prison and their family, to schools, and where they assess on an individual, case by case basis that that’s required or necessary for both rehabilitation and for that community to be kept safe. To move away from that seems, at best, unnecessary lawmaking and, at worst, something that could fundamentally undermine what our justice system is about, which is to keep the community safe through rehabilitation and successful reintegration of offenders. It can lead to hysteria, as has been mentioned, to isolation of entire families, to harassment—and all of that without having actually any kind of a measured or effective response to child sex offending any other kind of offending.

So we know it doesn’t work. I think, again, as the member before me mentioned, this might be the kind of thing that makes us feel good, because we all do care so deeply about child sex offending, but it doesn’t work. I think I would go further, even—and I think she was being kind when she said that it would just make us feel good without being effective, but I think at this point it has actually become callous of us as lawmakers to keep telling the community, to keep telling victims, that we’re doing something to keep them safe when we know that we are not, when we know that we have not, as members on this side of the House should keep reminding themselves, in fact invested in what keeps communities safe.

When the hospitals are falling apart, when there’s no inclusive education, when there’s no jobs and homes when you come out of Government, you know that’s what contributes to crime. When our prisons are second only to the United States in being overpopulated already, and we haven’t kept any children safe, we know that we need to invest in what actually prevents child sex offending. We know that the joint venture on sexual and domestic violence is the biggest that this country’s ever seen. We know that’s where our investment should be going as both lawmakers and people who can put actual resource into the front-line services that have been there for decades keeping our kids safe, keeping families safe. When you defund those and then you bring bills like this to the House, it is callous. So the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill. Thank you.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and take a call to the Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill—a bill that I cannot recommend to the House. But I do want to start by acknowledging the space that this bill has come from, which is really a concern for community safety, a concern in terms of sex offending, a concern in terms of child sex victims in particular, and I think across the House we all share those concerns. But as lawmakers, as parliamentarians, when we are making law in the House, we have an obligation to turn our mind also to what is reasonable and evidence-based, what is fair, and have a consideration for the relevant community safety issues at a broader level.

I think, as the member who introduced this bill, Matt Doocey, made clear, this isn’t a question about whether schools should be notified or not, actually, Corrections already do have a process of notification. We already have, also, a sex offenders register in place. The question is really around the blanket notification and whether that is reasonable, whether that is evidence-based, and whether that takes into account all the community safety issues that are at play.

So I wanted to just, at this stage, make clear what happens in the current process. So notifications are supported by a district planning panel, comprised of a senior district manager, psychologists, police, and probation staff, and the discussions that that qualified group of people have centres on a person’s pathway into the system, their supports, but also whether the notification for that particular person being placed in a particular community causes issues, and whether notifying would mitigate the risks that are present. So it is a model that actually looks at the evidence and at the circumstances. And, I mean, I think that that’s really the real difference. We have a system in place that has that robust analysis.

But turning to the proposals in this bill, I think there are a number of issues it presents. The first is around that evidence-based decision space. What the member has, with good intent, I’m sure, done through this bill is propose a blanket solution that doesn’t look at the evidence and that doesn’t consider the individual circumstances of each offender. My colleague has spoken about the fact that there is a scale of people who we’re talking about here. It’s not one type of offence, it’s not even just previous offenders in the sexual violence space, and that is problematic in terms of taking an evidence-based approach.

The other thing that I’ve been reading about in terms of what some academics say in this space is there is evidence that blanket notifications don’t work because many, if not most, child sex offences occur where the young person is known to the offender, as opposed to them being a stranger.

The second issue is really around that community safety piece, but looking at the broader issues around community safety. There’s an article that I read recently by Lasher and McGrath, where they reference a stat that says 24 percent of mental health professionals said in their view that community notification reduced community safety—not even left it neutral but reduced it. And we can speculate at the reasons why. To my mind, I suspect it’s around a resulting community anxiety that, again, some colleagues have spoken about that might result in incidents of assault, not just against an offender, but individuals believed to be the offender. And the same article also spoke about the impact on family members when their address is notified. Let’s remember sometimes there are young people living in those family homes as well.

Finally, I’d just like to say that this bill isn’t using a fair and reasonable lens, and we’ve seen the Attorney-General’s view on this. He says that it’s overly broad, that it’s insufficiently flexible, and that it’s lacking safeguards. And we’ll remember that when we had the discussion about the register in 2016, we considered mandatory public reporting and disagreed. So I’m sorry that I cannot recommend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you for the opportunity to take a short call tonight on this bill. I’ve heard many arguments in this House tonight and some of them have surprised me, considering the great paths that have been happening since I’ve come into Parliament. We’ve had talks on child sex offender registration. We’ve had talks about sexual violence bills, and we’re talking about making our children safer in many, many ways. We’re talking about making our community safer in many ways.

This is the first reading of this bill, and, yes, there may be some issues with it, and, yes, there may be some concerns with it, but shouldn’t we be taking it to select committee to work through those concerns and hear from different people their opinions on how they feel they could fix this bill? Even when we don’t agree with each other, sometimes listening and hearing what people in the public have to say is important for them too, so they can have a voice and they can voice what they feel is concerning them.

Sometimes it’s not up to us to make these blanket decisions on behalf of the people of this country. It’s up to us to listen to the people of this country and come to a decision together, rather than just saying, “We don’t like this. We’re not going to do it.” If we’d gone further and this bill had come back to the House for the second reading, maybe, just maybe, I would say, “Yeah, no more.” But this still has the opportunity to be worked on. It still has the opportunity to become a good bill that can protect our children. I just wish that we would spend more time listening to the public and listening to the public’s opinions rather than just making blanket decisions in this House.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on this bill. I’ll just gather my notes. I do want to acknowledge the member Matt Doocey for advocating for an issue, which, I think, we, as we have heard in the debate tonight, are all concerned about. We just have different views on the approach in which we could take to address these issues in our communities. We want to ensure that our children, our families, and all of our communities are safe.

And I want to start by saying that the bill, what it is actually proposing to do—it is proposed that the bill will amend the Corrections Act to require that when a sex offender is placed or released into the community under the supervision of a probation officer, that probation officer must notify, as such, every principal of every school located within 5 kilometres of the offender’s residence. A key point that I want to make is if there are no schools within 5 kilometres of the offender’s residence, then the probation officer must instead notify the nearest school, however far away that is. And if you think about an electorate like mine in Northland, it is many, many kilometres between our small communities and schools. And so I think practically when this is applied, or what is proposed is applied, I think that’s unfair. I think it’s also unfeasible.

The key point that I want to make is that we have a section 7 report on this bill. The report identifies that the bill is deemed to have disproportionately severe treatment of sex offenders to what we are trying to achieve with them, and that’s their successful rehabilitation or reintegration, which is one of the most important roles of our justice system, without any regard for the actual risk. And so the report says that the bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because it infringes on the right to not be subjected to disproportionately severe treatment, as affirmed in section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I do want to note that the sufficiency of the current system was supported by the previous National Government, from whom we inherited these processes, and who, we can only assume, deemed it appropriate at the time.

In addition, I want to say that we do have a system in place. We have heard about its imperfections tonight. We have heard about one case where this has not happened. But do we need to go to the other extreme and make it mandatory for all sex offenders, regardless of whether they offended against children or not, being notified to school principals within a 5 kilometre radius, or, if there isn’t one within 5 kilometres, the next school, the closest school to them.

So we do have a system. We have heard that there has been a flaw in that system. But the current system does allow for community notifications to schools, in relation to child sex offenders, to happen on a case by case basis. And the existing systems are sufficient to address the need for school notifications as and when it arises.

Furthermore, the next point I want to make is that the bill would implement a system considerably worse than the current system used by Corrections. And we’ve heard what some of those things are. We have heard that it will now apply, or it is proposed that it would apply, to all sex offenders, not just those who have offended against children. And the processes set out in this bill are totally inflexible, and that inflexibility, that severe treatment of sex offenders, I want to reiterate, has been highlighted in the section 7 report as breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act again, an Act that we all in this House, I’m sure, have huge respect for. And so, I will not be commending this bill to the House; I will not be supporting this bill.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Can I start by acknowledging everyone whose lives are affected by the topic which we have been debating here tonight. There are many, many triggers here tonight that may have been mentioned that may have brought back memories or fears, and I’m sorry. I just wanted to say to everyone who’s listening here tonight that I’m sorry. I’m sorry that this has happened to you. I’m sorry that through no fault of your own you have to live with the consequences. But can I ask one thing of these people tonight: understand that we are trying to find the best solution and, ultimately, achieve a safer community for our country and for everyone here.

I believe every member comes to this place with the best of intentions, and we’ve heard that in the last few days with the last batch of maiden statements in the class of 2020. We know that here everyone gives their best effort to try and find what is the best solution for our country. But tonight I can’t commend this bill, the Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill to the House, and I just wanted to lay out the reasons why I don’t believe this bill is the best solution for everyone.

There is a difference between a bill that goes the extra mile and a bill that has gone too far, and I believe this belongs to the latter. I have long held the view that every offender was once a victim, and I formed that view when I was working in the District Court and the High Court in Auckland as a court-appointed interpreter, specialising especially in criminal trial cases. As I worked on a lot of these cases, I was able to witness firsthand the importance of rehabilitation for these offenders and how important it is for them to reintegrate back into the community, for them to have the support of their whānau, so that they are able to readjust into a normal life. Look, the reason why I believe that this is so important is because I have seen over and over again their repentance and their struggle with behaviours that they themselves are absolutely horrified by.

I think tonight we have to look at how proportional the means of this bill is to the end that we want to achieve and whether this type of punishment is effective to the goal we’re trying to achieve. I have labelled this as punishment because, as we’ve heard from my colleagues, there are a lot of reactions from the community that over-punish an offender, someone who is trying very hard to get back on to their own feet. Right now, this protection that we have in terms of our corrections system is in place, and that is a balanced approach.

We want to help sex offenders get back into a normal life as soon as possible, because that is, we believe, the best solution for the whole entire community. Also, on this bill, I just wanted in particular to raise that we have received an opinion that this bill does breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in the right not to be subjected disproportionately to severe treatment, as affirmed in section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I just recall that Mr Doocey also said today that the schools must manage the offender, and in his anecdotes he has named people who support this bill, being educators who support this bill. I just wanted to speak to that, because I think they are educators—principals of schools and teachers of schools—and they should be tasked with teaching our children instead of dealing with offenders. Our corrections officers in our corrections system in our country are facilitated, resourced, and professionally trained to deal with offenders, and we should leave that job to them for them to protect our community. We should be resourcing them more. We should be able to resource them so that they can do their work, and we should be able to trust them to protect our community, as they have already adequately done.

Finally, I just want to finish with a point that I believe a world view of not just black and white should be what we should be showing to our children but that people are multi-faceted and belong to a spectrum, and we should always look at every problem with a pragmatic view of what ultimately achieves the purpose that we want to—

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to take a short call on the Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill. I’ve sat here and I’ve listened to the contributions from members in this debate, and I am astounded by what I’m hearing. I just want to start by acknowledging my colleague Matt Doocey for bringing such an important piece of legislation to this House to put in place a requirement for Corrections to notify schools when a sex offender is placed within 5 kilometres of that school. He’s put the argument very clearly. He’s shown the evidence that this is not happening.

It’s happened seven times. We heard just from the member across there that there’s a balanced approach being taken by Corrections. Well, a balanced approach wouldn’t just happen seven times when there are hundreds of sex offenders being released from prison into our community, and I am astounded by some of the comments that have been said by the Green Party tonight where not only have they said that they think this won’t work but they’ve said that this piece of legislation is callous. A callous piece of legislation—a piece of legislation which tries to support schools, families, communities, and, most importantly, protect our children from sex offenders who are placed back into our communities; a piece of legislation which tries to give principals the information they need so they can provide the support that is required for their community.

Matt Doocey provided the very unfortunate situation which happened here in Wellington, where a primary school principal was not notified when a sex offender was placed within this community with 62 children living nearby. That person then had to be moved to an undisclosed industrial area. These are the types of mistakes which get made when you don’t have a balanced system. When you don’t have a balanced system, people don’t get notified and young children get put at risk, and, as a parent of two young children—of two young girls—I’m not going to stand by tonight and say no to a piece of legislation which is going to make the community safer for my daughters.

I find it absolutely abhorrent that the Green Party has the audacity to come in here, week after week, and vote against legislation which protects our children from sex offenders. I know that people have a right to defence lawyers, but I’m going to stand on the rights of children and families and communities, and that’s far more important. That’s something that I’m so proud to be standing up on this side of the House for.

This is an important piece of legislation. It’s not callous; it’s about making our communities safer, and it’s about making sure that we hold our corrections system, our corrections department, accountable so that they are actually doing the job that they should be doing, which is keeping New Zealanders safe as their number one priority.

I’m not going to listen to the people on the other side of the House who make apologies for offenders, who say that every offender has been a victim. I find that absolutely offensive. When there are victims out there in our society, they are the ones who should be at the heart of our justice system and they are the ones who we should be putting first, and then we should be making sure that we don’t have new offenders being created because of the decisions which get made, because we’re not notifying schools and we’re not doing the job that the Government should be doing.

So I commend this bill to the House. I reject the Green Party calling this a callous piece of legislation. I’m sick and tired of them standing up on their side of the House, standing on the side of the people who are offending in our community and not on the side of victims. I’m sick and tired of that sort of behaviour. That is the truly callous behaviour which I think needs to be denounced by this House.

I hope Parliament votes for this bill and sends it to the select committee so we can hear from parents, we can hear from schools, and we can understand what the situation is out there, because I would say we’re only scratching the top of the surface with the number of cases and situations, awful situations, which are happening out there. We need to be able to have the opportunity to ask the questions of the officials so we can get the answers and hold them to account, so I commend this bill to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you for allowing me to take a short call and the opportunity to speak to this bill. As a mother and as an educator, I cannot recommend this bill to the House. Everybody in this House wants to keep children safe. That is a given, and to imply otherwise, in rejecting this bill, isn’t helpful.

It is interesting to hear the member who is sponsoring this bill suggesting that the only difference this bill brings is compulsion. It is broader than that. It isn’t just the compulsory notification; it is about the compulsory notification of a much broader range of offences than is currently part of the system. As he has noted and many have noted, Corrections already has a notification system in place. It has a process for notifying schools when a child sex offender is placed in the community under supervision, on a case by case basis. What he’s suggesting with compulsion is that every time there is a sex offender under one of those 17 offences listed, a school will be notified. It doesn’t matter how far away from a community that person tries to remove themselves; there will always be a school somewhere that will be notified. This is very broad and very blunt and will not be helpful.

The current approach enables a framework that helps to balance that public safety with maximising the possibility of successful reintegration into the community as well as minimising the risk of reoffending. When we can provide the continued support to offenders to ensure their best chances of reintegration and rehabilitation, we are actually more likely to better protect our children, and that is the goal, is it not?

Compulsion has consequences. Blunt processes have consequences. There is evidence, and we’ve heard from many of you in the House who know much more about laws and the academic rigor behind this than I do, but I’ve done a bit reading, and there is clear evidence. Rather than the gut, the evidence says that while notification doesn’t appear to reduce recidivism with regards to sex offenders, it does actually lead to an increase in other offending. When there is a failure of communities to support the successful reintegration of offenders, they are more likely to not be able to form healthy connections, to have a roof over their heads, to get a job, and to actually build or rebuild relationships with their families, with their whānau. It is more likely that their families, that children, will also struggle with social and economic engagement.

This bill, with its compulsion, with its blunt and broad approach, and with its inflexibility and, quite frankly, reckless plan, will not help to better protect our children. And I’ve got a question for you. I know we’ve talked about principals. As someone who has been an educator and a board of trustees member, I am curious about what you expect principals to do with this burden. The general policy statement and the explanatory note say that “local schools will be able to make informed decisions about the risk of the sex offenders placement” in their communities. They’re going to be told, because they will get this notification when they are within 5 kilometres—or, as I said before, the nearest school—of every sex offender that is convicted of an offence listed in section 107B(2) of the Parole Act 2002, and it’s a big list. There’s 17 offences, and not all of them are clearly suggesting that children will be the target of reoffending.

So these decisions, these informed decisions our principals are going to be burdened with making—what are they going to be? Will it help them avoid unknowingly employing or accepting the volunteer that rocks up on their doorstep? Well, we’ve got a police vetting service that does that already, and what else are they going to do: warn the board, put posters up around the community, label the offender? That does not help. There’s clear evidence, again, about the negative impact and the increased likelihood of some sort of reoffence. We cannot put this burden on to our schools and their communities. You are suggesting that it is more likely—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Don’t bring me in. “The member is” or “The House is”.

ANGELA ROBERTS: Sorry, I apologise. Thank you for your guidance. The member is suggesting that principals are better qualified to help these offenders and protect our children and—

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

LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly, can I congratulate Matt Doocey for focusing on our children. I know he, as a father, is incredibly passionate about ensuring that our children are safe. But I really want to start my contribution with a quote from Waikato University Professor Devon Polaschek, who was asked to comment on this particular piece of legislation—and I quote—“We need to do more than just vilify sex offenders to make our children safe.” The reason I chose to start with that quote is because the theory of the proposition that principals should be notified so they can better protect our children in theory is a good one, but the reality of child sex offenders is actually quite horrific, and I’m going to now read some of the research about who our child sex offenders are.

In New Zealand, about 90 percent of child sexual abuse is committed by someone known to the child or their family. Australian researchers are a lot more specific, and I particularly want to focus on misconceptions about child sex offenders by Kelly Richards. It’s a piece of Australian research. Ninety-four percent of child sex abusers are known to the child or the family. So who are they? Male relative, not father or stepfather, 30.2 percent; family friend, 16.3 percent; an acquaintance or neighbour, 15.6 percent; another known person, 15.3 percent; the father or stepfather, 13.5 percent. The total is actually over 100 percent because in 3.7 percent of these cases the young person is abused by more than one perpetrator, and I want to note from the Australian literature that less than 1 percent of the perpetrators of child sex abuse are woman.

So the reality of the situation is that strangers don’t commit child sex abuse against our children. You know, the people that are closest to them do. I guess the only relevance was the acquaintance or neighbour at 15.6 percent. But what it really speaks to is the vigilance of every single parent in our community to make sure they know who has access to their children, and the proposition that my colleague Matt Doocey—and I want to acknowledge Matt’s passion and why he’s doing this. But I think the current mechanism, to be quite honest, on a case by case basis will allow the Department of Corrections to do their job, which is to ensure that our child sex abusers do have support through the Kia Mārama programme based at Rolleston Prison, and also Te Piriti, which is at Auckland prison.

Our recidivism rates are 7 percent, so we know some of our child sex offenders are going to be recidivist sex offenders, but I think the hysteria around this type of legislative solution actually isn’t helpful. But what it should do is inspire all parents to know who within that child’s sphere are the adults within that child’s sphere and to be incredibly vigilant about who our children are being accessed by, because, unfortunately, when you look at the literature, abuse is actually a matter of opportunity.

So if we know where our children are every single minute of the day, we know who’s with them, and we obviously trust the people that are looking after our children, then, actually, not only can we be much more vigilant about preventing child sexual abuse but we actually have to realise that for some of the people who are in our prison system, they have the opportunity of rehabilitation to understand that what they’re doing is wrong, because—believe it or not—some people don’t understand that taking advantage of a child is wrong. And therein is another issue—I mean, it’s two to one, basically, in terms of our child sex offenders compared to adult sex offenders because there aren’t any consent issues. I guess with adults, it’s a lot more complicated in terms of those victims going to the police and proving that they said no. So that’s my contribution and rationale, unfortunately, for not supporting this bill. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Matt Doocey—five minutes in reply.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I just say to Louisa Wall, who I have the utmost respect for, thank you for your contribution, but I respectfully disagree, because what we have heard tonight very clearly, if you want to talk out there to those principals who support this bill, is the Labour Party knows best. Principals supported this bill, but Labour knows best. What we heard tonight—to those parents who expect that, when they send their kids to school, if a child sex offender or a sex offender has been placed near that school, that school is notified; parents expect that—is the Labour Party knows best. What I say to those communities who support the bill because they want their schools informed—tonight, we very much heard it loud and clear—the Labour Party knows best.

What is the point of New Zealand’s Parliament when it’s called the House of Representatives? What do we do in here? We represent the people. We represent their views. What we had tonight was an academic argument. Well, I stand up here tonight, I stand beside the principals who are concerned, I stand beside the parents who are concerned, and I stand beside the communities that are concerned, because I’m prepared to get up and represent their views, because parents expect, when they send their kids to a school, that those schools are notified when a sex offender is placed in the community. What is very clear from the research into this issue is that we’ve got a Minister with his head in the sand—Kelvin Davis, the Minister of Corrections, who says there is no concern. He is satisfied the system is safe, yet there are glaring gaps in the system. There is no oversight in the system if corrections, who should be informing a school currently, do not inform that school. There is no auditing of the files to make sure that corrections, who should be notifying schools, notify that school.

How can you have a system where there is no oversight, no auditing of the system, and we find out through written parliamentary questions, Official Information Act requests, over a time period that there were hundreds released into the community under parole whose lead offence was a sex offence, yet the Ministry of Education could only recount seven instances where they were involved in notifying the schools? There is a big gap here and a risk, and I’m warning corrections: don’t come back into my electorate and tell me you’re putting sex offenders in my electorate and you’re notifying schools, you’re notifying local residents, and then you don’t do it. Don’t come to any MP’s electorate and tell them that you are doing the due notifications, and then you don’t do it, because you are putting our children at risk.

Finally, I do want to acknowledge the ACT contributor, Karen Chhour, who I think very articulately said that this is a members’ day; this is a members’ night. I’m not a Minister. I don’t have a fleet of officials to call at the drop of a hat and write a bill. If there’s any issue in it, you send it to select committee, you let stakeholders and you let the public have a say, and you kick the bill round.

Look, if it doesn’t work after the select committee stage, that’s the whole point of the legislative process. It comes back to the House—vote it down in the second reading. But don’t expect every member’s bill to be 100 percent, and the arrogance I heard tonight from Labour Party members of Parliament, who had the nerve to critique whether the subject of someone else’s member’s bill was valid or not. Everyone in here has the right to turn up to Parliament, put whatever subject they want in a members’ bill, and put it in the ballot. It’s not for you to decide whether that’s right or wrong. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Corrections (School Notification of Sex Offenders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill

First Reading

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I move, That the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that it be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.

Back on 17 April in 2014, Cyclone Ita wreaked havoc along the West Coast of the South Island, and particularly hard hit was Buller. It battered property and cut northern Buller off. It took a couple of weeks to get power restored and roads open into Karamea. Punakaiki was also badly hit and then the cyclone moved further south to cause significant damage in the Grey and Westland districts.

The damage to forests was enormous, and although quite difficult to get an accurate assessment of the area of damage because there were pockets harder hit than others and to varying degrees, the best estimate by the Ministry for Primary Industries was about 40,000 hectares, excluding the national parks. Including the national parks, the figure would have been north 200,000 hectares. This involved some large mature trees being snapped off, tipped over, or stripped bare of leaves, causing the trees to die.

Our thanks must go to the Hon Dr Nick Smith for taking a very pragmatic approach to conservation. He introduced and passed legislation in this House to allow the harvesting of some of those trees, outside of the nature reserves, outside of scientific reserves, ecological areas, and national parks. Urgency was required because there was a time limit to how long the trees can maintain their integrity before the mould and the borer starts to degrade the quality of the timber. That particular legislation, the West Coast Wind-blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Act, was for a period of five years to allow time to harvest the trees for this one-weather event, and it expired in 2019. But then, in 2018, came Cyclone Fehi, followed a few days later by Cyclone Gita, which devastated the Tasman region. In fact, the repairs to the Tākaka Hill are still under way as a consequence. Further damage was done to other West Coast forests, but because of the legislation that was passed in 2014, which allowed only for the extraction of trees that came down in Cyclone Ita and it was time limited, no further extraction of any other trees could be made off Crown-managed land.

That is the reason that this permanent legislation is needed. It will enable the Director-General of Conservation to authorise the removal of affected trees from certain conservation areas, where they are irreversibly damaged by an adverse weather event. I anticipate that I would describe an adverse weather event as including floods, land slips, tectonic events, storm events, and the like, but I imagine also that the select committee will receive advice on the exact definition of this term.

I would like to address the great work that was done by the Department of Conservation (DOC) during the enactment of the temporary legislation passed in 2014, because it had to start from scratch and set up all of the systems for extracting timber. DOC had not previously had to manage anything like the scale of this event. They had to set up the tender process. They had to set up and define the areas that could be accessed. They had on-the-ground oversight of the operations, and health and safety, of course, was a major consideration because the way the wind had rotated had brought the trees down in all directions like Pick-up Sticks. So the potential for accidents was high. Every log that was approved for extraction was tagged, and those tagged logs were then tracked through extraction, through transport, though milling, and then on to the sale. The health of the forest, of course, was always a priority so DOC was always careful that the forest areas were not completely cleared. In fact, only a small percentage of the trees were able to be extracted and only a small percentage of each tree was able to be removed. There was always plenty remaining for the natural ecosystem.

It’s important to note, too, the value this operation brought to some of the small operators when this storm-damaged timber was able to be removed. About 100,000 cubic metres of rimu came down, and about 35,000 cubic metres of red and silver beech. It created employment and work for the small mills and the small contractors, and it also created this high-value raw material that went on to become high-value products. The regional economic benefits were very plain to see. In fact, one of the ironies of it was that because of that legislation some of that material went on to repair the damaged caused by another major event, which was the Canterbury earthquakes, when some of the old villas were able to use that rimu timber for their repairs.

I do recall in the debates that some members who were opposing that temporary legislation said that bulldozers would trundle into the bush, they’d push in all the roads and that would create silting and degradation of streams and rivers. This was, of course, part of the consideration that the Director-General of Conservation had to take into account, and no such degradation occurred.

Now, returning to those areas—and I have been back—it’s almost hard to tell where those extractions happened, because the bush recovers so quickly, but what actually happened was that some operators broke down the timber into slabs in the bush on site, so they were easily removed. But others were airlifted out by helicopter, so, actually, the damage to the forest was kept to an absolute minimum. Those areas in the back country weren’t even touched, and so already those trees are going through the natural cycle of breaking down. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of leaves, of branches, and stumps are still decomposing into the ecosystem.

So the systems are in place and they have been tested. Enabling this permanent legislation would enable a timely decision to be made by the Director-General of Conservation on each appropriate weather event, without the need for passing special legislation. This is not an opening for wholesale access into our native forests. It’s an enabling piece of legislation which will give the Director-General of Conservation the ability to assess any adverse weather event, assess the scale of the damage, and then assess whether access can be invited to remove some timber. There is huge interest from small milling operations around the country, those with processing factories and those with portable mills. There are real job opportunities here at a time when we need to use every opportunity. This adds another practical tool to the tool box. Do not be influenced by the scaremongers who opposed the temporary legislation in 2014, because all the terrible things they said would happen did not happen. DOC managed it well. They managed it safely and efficiently.

The details in the bill clearly outline the considerations that the Director-General of Conservation will turn his or her mind to. Paramount, of course, is the safety of the people working at the site and the public. The adverse effects on the environment will be kept to a minimum, and the activities will not unreasonably affect conservation and will not cause soil disturbance. This is a sensible move to allow timely decisions to be made by the person who has responsibility for caring for our native forest—someone we can trust to have the oversight and systems to ensure there is a positive for the environment and for jobs.

This bill has been assessed as being consistent with the rights and freedoms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I certainly look forward to members opposite seeing the sense in this member’s bill and supporting it. It is common sense. I welcome the select committee process where the input of submitters will be welcome. Of particular interest to me is that we canvass the views of iwi, of the local communities, potential users, and businesses from around the country, who will have a strong interest in this enabling legislation. I commend this bill to the House.

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

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, and just to let the House know, we’ll be going past 10 p.m.

RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Matt Doocey: All-nighter.

RACHEL BROOKING: All-nighter to talk about the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. Now, when I just read out that, I did mean to give some emphasis to the word “timber” in the name of this bill, and that is because the focus of the bill is on timber; it is not on trees, it is not on conservation, and we are talking about the conservation estate here. So it’s for that reason that Labour is opposing this bill.

The member who’s introduced the bill, Maureen Pugh, talked quite a lot about the history of some other legislation. I’m going to focus on this bill before us today. As I said, in summary, this focus on timber on conservation land is not appropriate. The bill talks a lot about trees and timber, but “tree” is not defined in the bill, it’s not defined in the Conservation Act either, whereas, of course, “timber” is defined in the bill, but in relation to a tree.

Trees are part of their forest ecosystem, and they don’t lose ecological value by falling over or dying or becoming irreversibly damaged—that’s a hard wee phrase to say. I’m going to trip up on that, probably, quite a bit. These trees, whether alive or dead, but particularly talking about dead ones—they provide habitat; they provide cover for new trees. There’s recycling of nutrients and a decrease in erosion often, so we oppose.

Now, what I want to talk about in relation to the bill that we have in front of us is its relationship to the Conservation Act, because that’s key to how this bill works. So the first relationship to the Conservation Act that I think is relevant is that at clause 20(2) of the bill there’s a reference that says “In Schedule 1,”—Amendment to Conservation Act 1987—“insert in its appropriate alphabetical order:” the name of this Act. So what that does by linking to Schedule 1 of the Conservation Act is that then goes to section 6 of the Conservation Act, which is the functions of the department, and one of the functions of the department is to administer enactments specified in Schedule 1. So that’s one of the links to the Conservation Act.

The second is, of course, the title of the bill, the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill, and so we’re of course talking about conservation land. Clause 4 of the bill refers to designated areas. So that is “(a) … every conservation area and reserve that is owned by the Crown and administered by the Department other than—(i) a nature reserve; or (ii) a scientific reserve; or (iii) an ecological area; and (b) excludes any national park”. Now, these are all terms that we’ve just used that are found in the Conservation Act. So this is a clear link with the Conservation Act.

The conservation area is defined in section 2 of the Conservation Act as land held for conservation purposes. So this word “conservation” is coming up a lot, and that would of course include a dead tree as part of our protected areas. So protected areas are spelt out in Part 4 of the Conservation Act. These include conservation parks, in section 19, wilderness areas, ecological areas—which are excluded from that definition in clause 4 of the bill—sanctuary areas, watercourse areas, amenity areas, and wildlife management areas. Then, in section 2 of the Conservation Act, we talk about stewardship areas, which are other conservation areas.

Under the Reserves Act 1977, which also relates to this bill, Part 3 classifies reserves. So there’s recreation, historic, scenic, nature, scientific, Government purpose, local purpose. Local purpose isn’t relevant to this.

Maureen Pugh: What’s that got to do with the bill?

RACHEL BROOKING: Well, the bill excludes nature and scientific reserves. So I’m trying to work out here what does the bill apply to, and that is, under the Conservation Act, conservation parks, wilderness areas, sanctuary areas, watercourse areas, amenity areas, wildlife management areas, other conservation areas being stewardship, and then, under the Reserves Act, recreation reserves, historic reserves, scenic reserves, and Government purpose reserves. This bill, then, enables the Director-General of Conservation, as the member said, to approve the removal of trees that are irreversibly damaged on that land that I’ve just described.

Angie Warren-Clark: Big pile of land, all over the country.

RACHEL BROOKING: And it does apply to the whole country, so it is quite different from the previous legislation that applied to very specific areas. Of course, most conservation land is in the great South Island, and a lot of it is in the very beautiful West Coast.

Maureen Pugh: There’s 850,000 hectares of stewardship land.

RACHEL BROOKING: That’s right—lots of beautiful conservation land on the West Coast.

So the bill provides some limited terms and conditions, and we heard the member talk about those; those are found at clause 9(3). But it specifies that the Resource Management Act (RMA) sections 9, 13, 14, and 15 do not apply to this bill—so that’s at clause 18. This is rather curious, because section 4(3) of the RMA already can exempt conservation land from section 9(3) of the RMA. Section 9(3) of the RMA relates to land use consents, so it is what district councils govern. So I am not sure why this bill needs to say that the RMA doesn’t apply, first of all; and, second of all, I’m not sure why sections 13, 14, and 15 of the RMA don’t apply, and these relate to water.

It is also very strange that this bill goes about to create an entirely new regime, when the Conservation Act already applies for a concession scheme—you can get a licence if you meet various different things.

So now we go back to the Conservation Act. What is this Conservation Act for? What is the Conservation Act all about? Section 6 includes the functions. I read one of them before, which was relating to the scheduled land, but also at (a), right at the front there, it is to manage land for conservation purposes—all the land that the DOC has. So then what is conservation purposes? Conservation purposes isn’t defined, but conservation is “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations.”

So none of that definition around the protection of natural resources and their intrinsic value is consistent with removing parts of the ecology of those environments—those environments that are held as conservation areas for their conservation values. This is a total anathema to all that, and that is why we are opposing this bill.

So, in conclusion, removing these dead trees, or what is defined very imprecisely as “irreversibly damaged trees”, which says, “in relation to timber means—(a) dead due to an adverse weather event”—and so I say to that: how are we supposed to understand and have the evidence that says that a tree is dead just due to an adverse weather event? The member has already said that she is not sure exactly what an “adverse weather event” is. Then there is an “or”, it is “(a), [it’s either] dead due to an adverse weather event, or [it’s] … damaged to the extent that it is not possible to recover naturally.” This paragraph (b) does not relate to an adverse weather event, whereas the bill’s name is the Adverse Weather-affected Timber Recovery on Conservation Lands Bill. So that is another problem with the bill.

In conclusion, removing dead trees does not protect the natural habitat nor maintain intrinsic value—things that the Conservation Act requires. We oppose this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.03 p.m.