Tuesday, 8 June 2021

TUESDAY, 8 JUNE 2021

TUESDAY, 8 JUNE 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Māfimafi, kuo mau taa‘i mālie ‘i ho‘o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu‘i ange mu‘a ‘a e Kuiní, mo tataki ange ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá ‘aki ‘a e poto Faka-e-‘Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo‘ui mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me‘á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ho ‘aló pē ‘e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ko homau fakamo‘uí, ‘Emeni.

Resignations

Hon Dr Nick Smith, National Party

Hon Dr Nick Smith

SPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the , resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight, Thursday, 10 June 2021.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

CLERK:

Petition of Vadim Chausov requesting that the House express solidarity with the people of Belarus and urge the Government to support democracy, condemn state-sponsored violence and police brutality, and impose sanctions for those responsible for human rights violations in Belarus

petition of Tyra Gabb requesting that the House urge the Government to permanently reduce the speed limit along Mill Road, Helensville, and install a speed camera and pedestrian crossing.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Independent Police Conduct Authority Statement of Performance Expectations 2021/22.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Working in new ways to address family violence and sexual violence.

I also present the report of the Ombudsman on an unannounced inspection of Te Whare Ahuru Mental Health Inpatient Unit, Hutt Hospital, under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Bailee Ryan and the petition of Josephine Andrews

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman

report on Local Government Official Information Meetings Act compliance and practice for Buller District Council, Invercargill City Council, and Tauranga City Council

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill

report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Lawrence Yule

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about banking standards BS2A and BS2B incorporated by reference into the Registered Bank Disclosure Statements (New Zealand Incorporated Registered Banks) Order 2014

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman OPCAT COVID-19 report: Report on inspections of aged care facilities under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading, the reports of the Governance and Administration Committee and the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s continuing support to secure the economic recovery is being reflected in the overall volume of house building. Building activity rose a seasonally adjusted 3.7 percent in the March 2021 quarter, compared with the previous quarter. The increase was underpinned by continued strength in home building, which rose 4.3 percent, led by Auckland. There was also a rebound on commercial projects. Westpac bank’s economist expects strong construction activity over the year ahead, given the size of the existing pipeline of work. They note that the strong pace of home building combined with a sharp drop-off in population growth as a result of the border closure means that the country is now making significant progress in addressing the housing shortage that has accumulated over previous years.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The primary sector is continuing to support and secure the recovery. The ANZ world commodity index has lifted 1.3 percent in May, the eighth successive monthly rise, and I can inform the House that the index is at a record high. The gains were widespread, with producers experiencing better returns due to robust demand globally and higher prices for their goods. Tighter supplies for some commodities are also playing a part. The meat and fibre index rose 1.4 percent, horticulture up 1.7 percent, and dairy a more modest 0.2 percent. Forestry grew at 3.3 percent in May to extend the record prices this sector is achieving. When returns to producers are converted back to New Zealand dollars, the overall index rose by 1 percent.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the health of the primary sector?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Rabobank New Zealand’s June monthly 2021 agribusiness report is generally positive about the outlook for commodities. In the beef sector Rabobank expects farm-gate prices to lift over June, due in part to reduced competition from Australia. Sheep meat prices are expected to firm in June, thanks to continued demand from key markets. In the dairy sector, Rabobank expects China to continue to drive global demand and support prices, though it is expecting some softening of dairy imports in China in the second half of 2021. Producers continue to operate in a volatile market, with Rabobank noting that uncertainties do remain over the global supply chain.

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, in particular I stand by this Government’s investments into training and upskilling our people as part of our recovery. Already we have seen 2,469 placements through our expansion of Flexi-wage to support more people into work; 135,200 learners have been supported by the Targeted Training and Apprenticeship Fund since July 2020, including 65,440 apprenticeships; 2,547 rangatahi supported to overcome barriers to employment educational training through He Poutama Rangatahi. Not only are we equipping our workforce with the skills they need to excel, we’re also creating jobs. This Government has committed a record $57.3 billion in infrastructure over the next five years as part of supporting our economic recovery from COVID-19.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she still believe, as she stated in January 2020, that “New roads in Auckland will help unlock the chronic gridlock the city faces.”, and, if so, what is her Government’s higher priority: addressing chronic gridlock or a cycle bridge tourist attraction?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the first part of the member’s question, yes.

Hon Judith Collins: What is the estimate she has been given for how many cyclists will use the bridge each day?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection is it’s in the order of 3,000. We know, at this point in time, that, of course, we do not have the ability to connect the CBD and the North Shore through alternative modes of transport. I note that previous members of the National Party have supported creating that link; I notice the National Party has now changed its position.

Hon Judith Collins: What advice has she received on the risk of structural issues in the current Auckland Harbour Bridge that are posed by heavy freight - moving trucks?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The only reason we’ve put forward the alternative to what was originally proposed as SkyPath was because of advice that it was not possible to pursue that project. That was based off the advice of engineers. Our view has been, therefore, that an alternative needed to be found. I note that the member, again, has backed future investment in additional harbour crossings that rely on tunnels. That, of course, does not solve the issue, therefore, of how we add additional modes to enable people to move around our city. So this is a solution to that. I’d be interested in whether or not that means the member is now abandoning the idea of there being any cycle or walking connection between the North Shore and the central city.

David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister continue to support the Waitematā Harbour cycleway if the cost per cyclist per day was over 10 bucks a crossing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, what we’re supporting here is the ability for people to use multiple modes of transportation across Auckland city. And the idea that, currently, we don’t have any ability for walking or cycling, there has generally been good support for creating an option there. We now have discounted the ability to do that through an attachment to the harbour bridge in the form of SkyPath; engineers have said that’s not going to be possible. The question is, does that mean we therefore abandon the idea of linking the two sections of the city? My view is that we need to give people options. We’re in an environment now where public transport, but also the ability to walk and cycle, should be something that we’re able to facilitate. At the moment, this is the best option we have to do that.

David Seymour: Does that mean that her Government is committed to building the cycleway across the Waitematā at any cost; and, if not, what’s the limit?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, at this stage, we have estimates but they are just that over the likely uptake: 3,000 possible cyclists, 2,000 possible pedestrians. But I don’t think we should limit ourselves on what future usage would be, when I expect that Aucklanders will increasingly, as we make it safer for people to cycle around the city, take up those opportunities.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can she confirm that the only reason a new bridge is needed and that high cost needs to be spent is because of a desire to keep five peak hour lanes reserved entirely for cars rather than four?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that question because the assumption therefore is made that we could take out just one lane. The issue that has been raised with us is that from the New Zealand Transport Agency’s perspective they are concerned about the safety issues with only allocating one, and the view is that if you were to do it you would need to allocate two. Of course, that raises other issues. Our view is creating a dedicated ability for people to move safely across the harbour is a better long-term option.

Hon Judith Collins: How will a cycle and walking bridge affect the structural integrity of the existing Auckland Harbour Bridge, which estimates show will not be able to continue to take freight for another 40 years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The assumption the member is making is that it’s somehow structurally the same thing to allow a truck over as it is to somehow build an entire structure in addition to the harbour bridge, and I don’t think it’s fair to make that assumption.

Hon Judith Collins: No, no, the existing bridge.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is my point. The assumption therefore is that a truck moving over the harbour bridge is the same structurally in terms of impact as attaching the SkyPath to the bridge. I’m not an engineer but I do place a lot of weight on the advice that we’ve received. If we’re told it is not a structurally sound decision to make, then we need to look at an alternative. The suggestion has not been that that means the harbour bridge itself is unsafe.

Hon Judith Collins: So who is proposing SkyPath if it’s not that Government’s previous Minister; certainly not us?

SPEAKER: I think there was a question there at the beginning.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the member seems to almost have answered her own question. Of course, we have supported SkyPath. The advice that we have from engineers is that that is not a project that we can continue to safely pursue. The question I put back to the member is: we’ve taken our position—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the Prime Minister knows that she answers the questions.

Hon Judith Collins: Will hundreds of thousands of South Aucklanders face more or less chronic gridlock due to her decision to reduce funding on the widening of State Highway 1 and Mill Road?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our view is that we can continue to provide transport options to an area that is high growth. We’ve an additional train station to that area, and at the same time our expectations around housing growth remain too. The issue that we have to factor in all of these decisions is: how do we ensure that we both have the capacity in terms of housing but also provide multimode transport options and not allow ourselves to simply say that if you design new housing areas the only option for transport is cars. We need to provide alternatives.

Hon Michael Wood: Can she confirm that the New Zealand Upgrade Programme makes $2.7 billion worth of investment in transport projects in South Auckland—exactly the same as was confirmed at the beginning of the programme?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can confirm that.

Hon Judith Collins: What advice has she received about how many tradespeople are going to be travelling on the cycleway with their tools?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The suggestion there that somehow the harbour bridge is simply disappearing is ridiculous.

Hon Judith Collins: You’ll be falling into the foam. You’ll be falling into the ocean.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that I won’t be.

Question No. 3—Energy and Resources

3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to reduce emissions across New Zealand’s transport fleet through Budget 2021?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): We are continuing to fund the success of the Low Emission Transport Fund (LETF) by increasing the amount the Government is contributing with an even match to the fuel levy to reach $25 million a year for projects by 2023-24. Formerly the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund, the name change reflects a widening of eligibility to include projects for areas like aviation, maritime, and off-road vehicles. We’re modernising this fund to tackle the challenges of reducing emissions from our transport fleets, which make up 21 percent of our overall greenhouse gas emissions, and I’m excited to see what innovative projects will emerge.

Glen Bennett: What kinds of new projects can the LETF fund?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The wider scope of the LETF will enable the co-funding of a range of projects such as high-capacity electric vehicle (EV) chargers up and down the country, and transport projects utilising other low-emission fuels such as biofuel and hydrogen. The fund will also see the demonstration of new technologies across a range of transport modes, including low-emissions trucks, maritime ferries, and even aviation.

Glen Bennett: What organisations benefit from this investment?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The fund has supported some of our largest transport companies like Fuso and Hyundai Motors New Zealand to test new technologies such as electric and hydrogen demonstration trucks. It has helped put in place a network of public EV fast chargers to ensure EV owners can fuel up around the country, kick-started EV car-share schemes, and supported community groups like Kaibosh Food Rescue, who have demonstrated how electric vans can be used for everyday logistics.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes—in particular, the Government’s work to prioritise the construction of new housing throughout the recovery from COVID-19. We saw the impact of the global financial crisis on the residential construction industry, with residential construction activity halving between 2008 and 2011. That’s why it’s particularly pleasing to see the number of new homes consented was up 15 percent from April 2020. I’m also proud of the new building laws passed last week that will lift the efficiency and quality of building work and enable off-site manufacturing. The new scheme will allow off-site building manufacturers who are certified, to sign off on their own designs and construction, drastically speeding up the building consent process.

David Seymour: Why did the Prime Minister choose to use housing as her example of good policy, when house prices are up 20 percent year on year, and 8 percent for the quarter?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we have record consenting numbers not seen in this country ever, and that’s during an economic downturn, when usually, based on past evidence, we’ve seen a decline in the residential building sector. Also, because in the Budget, Treasury are predicting that house price growth will drop down to 0.9 percent, demonstrating that the changes we’ve made will have an effect on the housing market. Thank you for the second patsy question.

David Seymour: Ha, ha! Too easy. Does she stand by her policy of spending $675 million on a cycle bridge in Auckland while nurses up and down the country go on strike?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, of course we accept that we are in a period of time where we do have to both make the investments in infrastructure, billions of dollars’ worth, to continue to create jobs, and build the infrastructure that we need for it in order to have a world-class city. I don’t think the member necessarily agrees with the idea that our city should be split in two and that people do not have the ability to walk or cycle between the CBD and the North Shore. On the issue of nurses, we have made an offer that substantially lifts those who are on the lowest pay bands and in the starting brackets for the nursing community. But, at the moment, their ask is 17 percent; we’re just not in the position to be able to fund that at this point in time.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s recent Budget, which forecasts an increase of $2 billion each and every year on jobseeker support and emergency benefits, from pre-COVID levels, while nurses up and down the country go on strike?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not necessarily sure that I see the direct relevance there. We are working hard to invest in reducing the call on job seeker—for instance, creating jobs through infrastructure investment. The first primary question I gave today demonstrated that we are seeing a large number of people moving into training and education to fulfil the infrastructure pipeline that we as a Government are creating. We also have Treasury predicting we will see a fall in job seeker numbers because of the investments that we are making. That is at a time when we are in one of the biggest economic crises that New Zealand has ever experienced.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Government’s policy of spending half a billion dollars a year on fees-free tertiary education, which has not increased participation, and mainly accrues to students who went to—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I’m—

David Seymour: Sorry?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I’ll stand up and rule if the member wants it clarified. The member may ask a question; he doesn’t need to add to the question material which is unnecessary for the sense of the question. We have been liberal in recent times and allowed two legs to a question, but neither of those legs should be a statement. The member asked a question and then went on to make a statement which is out of order.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I just—the member will resume his seat—hope the member’s not going to argue with me. There’s not much more clear cut in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings than what I’ve just to the member.

David Seymour: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I would never argue with you; I accept your ruling wholly. But I would draw your attention to the Standing Orders, which have the same requirements on the answers. Now, in the answer most recently given by the Prime Minister, rather than addressing the expenditure on benefit, she tried to argue that benefits were going down, while accepting that the money spent was going to go up. Now, those two can’t both be true. It was pointless argumentation, it was completely superfluous, and yet she got away with it. I just ask that there be some equivalency between the answers and the questions.

Hon Grant Robertson: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s question that he just referred to there asked the Prime Minister if she stood by the Government’s Budget, and then he said, “which includes”; the Prime Minister had a very wide area that she could answer on, given that the question simply asked if she stood by her Budget—which, thankfully, she did!

SPEAKER: The member might be technically right—the Hon Grant Robertson—and David Seymour, of course, has an ability to take a point of order after the question, not after he is pulled up. But I would have pointed out to him that I think the only responsibility that I have in that particular area was not for the answer itself but for the length, which I think was beginning to push things.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Prime Minister stand by her policy of spending half a billion dollars a year on fees-free tertiary education, which has not increased participation, while nurses—

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member’s lost it now.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought I was allowed to name one feature of the policy. No—none at all?

SPEAKER: No.

David Seymour: Why didn’t Budget 2021 have measures to provide tax relief for middle income New Zealanders such as nurses and teachers and police, who will be watching this industrial action very closely?

SPEAKER: Oh—I am going to allow the question, but I’m going to remind the member: first of all, he added something on, a phrase, at the end about who was watching; and, secondly, he had at least two further legs to the supplementary. I’m going to allow the Prime Minister to pick any one of the multiple questions that she was asked to answer.

David Seymour: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Um—I mean—David Seymour.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance. The Standing Orders say that you cannot add irrelevant material—unnecessary—to make the point of the question. Now, the point of my question is that there is a contrast between nurses and other civil servants. A tax package could have given relief to all of them. The Government’s policy targets only one—

SPEAKER: All right, OK.

David Seymour: So there was a point to—

SPEAKER: OK. Now, we’re not—the member will resume his seat. We’re not going to have a policy debate here now. I’ve already said, although I’m tempted to reverse my position, that the Prime Minister can answer the question, but I will refer him now to Speaker’s ruling 181/4, which, if members continue to argue with me about the limits, I will enforce.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will be well aware, the focus of Budget 2021 was on our recovery from COVID-19 and also investing in the long-term challenges that New Zealand faces. One of those long-term challenges is inequality and child poverty. That was the reason why we made the choice to invest in those on the lowest incomes in New Zealand, that includes those on Government support. It also has the double effect of providing economic stimulus into the economy at a time when we require that as part of our ongoing recovery. So that’s to answer the member’s question as to why we chose to invest in that way rather than tax cuts, which is his party’s position. The second and final point I’ll make is that that is not mutually exclusive from us trying to continue to lift the wages of those lowest-income earners. That is why the nurses’ settlement that was put before them included a lift for those healthcare assistants that was between 12 and 5 percent; for enrolled nurses, of between 11 and 4.2 percent; and registered and community nurses, those starting out bands, of between 4.4 percent and 2.9 percent. Even though we are in an economically constrained environment, we still wanted to see those on the lowest wages lifted because in our last pay round of negotiations, which was, roughly, $500 million, we focused on lifting general wages across that workforce.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that ACT’s alternative Budget, by removing the 30c tax rate, would have delivered nurses in the middle of their pay scale $2,000, or almost 4 percent a year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I will have to concede that I am not across every single element of ACT’s policies.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: What actions, if any, has he taken to prevent tomorrow’s planned nurses’ strike?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Negotiations in relation to the nurses’ pay and conditions is a matter between the Nurses Organisation and the district health boards represented centrally and collectively. I have monitored the progress of those talks, and, unfortunately, agreement hasn’t been reached, and the nurses have exercised their industrial right to take industrial action.

Dr Shane Reti: What steps has he taken, if any, to ensure industrial action does not cause delays to the coronavirus vaccination roll-out?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: When the nurses take industrial action, they engage with the district health boards on ensuring that life-preserving cover is provided for in the hospitals. They have provided an exemption for nurses working in the managed isolation and quarantine facilities, but no such exemption has been provided for registered nurses covered by the Nurses Organisation working in the vaccination facilities. But there are other vaccinators as part of the vaccinator workforce, and I’m confident that the vaccination programme will continue.

Dr Shane Reti: What advice did he receive from health officials around Budget 2021 DHB wage cost pressures, if any, and did he build a specific DHB nursing pay rise into his Budget 2021 bid?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On this side of the House, when it comes to negotiations, particularly industrial negotiations, we have a policy of not showing our hand, because that’s typically how contract negotiations take place. The cost pressures part of the health budget in the 2021 Budget was negotiated. It provides an across-the-board 4 percent increase from one year to the next in terms of DHB funding. How DHBs utilise that, apart from ring-fenced funding in some areas, is a matter for DHBs.

Dr Shane Reti: Will spending $485 million to restructure the health system be money better spent on front-line nurses?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to the money appropriated to set up the new system, I can say that the money includes also money for commissioning of new services both by the interim Māori Health Authority and interim Health New Zealand. The reason why we are setting up Health NZ and the distributed leadership model that we’re adopting is because with many of the nationwide programmes we sought to adopt in recent years, we have struggled to get the DHBs to implement them consistently. One of those programmes is Care Capacity Demand Management, which is the programme to increase nursing personnel to better match demand of patient arrival in hospitals. We see now that three years on, the agreed deadline for implementing it, which was 30 June this year—only half of DHBs say that they will meet that deadline. Another seven say it might be the end of the year before they meet it, and three are saying they’re not sure whether they can meet it at all this year and it might be sometime next year. It is time to get coherence and consistency in our health system.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on Ministry of Social Development employment initiatives?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to report that progress has been made across our Government suite of employment initiatives, which is helping us to secure our economic recovery. The expansion of Flexi-wage to support more people into work has had a total of 2,469 placements since February. The Apprenticeship Boost scheme, which is rolled out in collaboration with the Tertiary Education Commission, has already benefited 26,902 apprentices. These are only two examples of the suite of Government initiatives that we’ve got in place to support more New Zealanders into employment, education, or training.

Terisa Ngobi: What progress has she seen on Mana in Mahi?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Mana in Mahi is one of a number of Ministry of Social Development (MSD) employment initiatives that are showing positive signs that our recovery is gaining momentum. Three years on from launching Mana in Mahi, Mana in Mahi has reached a significant milestone, having now supported over 3,000 job seekers into jobs with career training pathways. Ninety percent of them are active, completed, or have exited early and have not returned to benefit. Of these placements, it’s really pleasing to see that 38 percent of Mana in Mahi participants are Māori. Mana in Mahi is continuing to go from strength to strength, as evidenced by the number of people going into jobs.

Terisa Ngobi: How do these reports align with the latest household labour force survey?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Unemployment, employment, and labour market participation all improved in the March 2021 quarter. Employment grew by 15,000, with an extra 32,000 people going into jobs since September 2020. Over the year to March 2021, self-employment has risen 24,700. With unemployment now down to 4.7 percent and 33,000 more people coming off the benefit and into work, it’s clear that initiatives such as Flexi-wage, the Apprenticeship Boost, Mana in Mahi, and our other employment initiatives are assisting us to secure our recovery.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Did the Government re-scope transport projects it announced in January 2020 as part of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme in order to fund the $785 million Northern Pathway, which includes the cycling and walking bridge?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): No.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Was any analysis undertaken comparing value for money of the Northern Pathway against Waka Kotahi’s November 2020 option of a $2 billion crossing that included cars, trucks, walking, and cycling, and, if so, what was the outcome of that comparison?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, consideration was given to a range of options, including the one that the member identified in his question. I do note, however, that the indicative business case for the alternative Waitematā crossing proposes that the best and most likely option will be a tunnel, something that the Opposition has previously supported as well, something that would be inappropriate for a walking and cycling connection. As such, it was determined that it was best to proceed with a stand-alone walking and cycling structure.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is he comfortable that the benefits to Herne Bay and Takapuna walkers and cyclists is more important than avoiding further deaths on New Zealand’s deadliest road, from Te Puna to Ōmokoroa?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject the premise of the member’s question.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with political commentator Josie Pagani, who said, “It just seems to me no process. They haven’t thought it through, and it looks like they’re looking after the Herne Bay/Takapuna lot, not South Auckland.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I don’t agree with that comment, and as has been identified in this question time, over $2.7 billion of transport investments are being made in South Auckland, exactly the same as was indicated at the launch of the New Zealand upgrade package. I do need to say to that member that this Government does have a fundamental commitment to investing across a range of transport modes. This is no longer the 1950s. What I would also say is that along with that member, I stood in this House and I voted for a climate emergency. I voted for the Climate Change Response Act, and if I just mouthed those words and didn’t do anything about it, then I’d be a hypocrite, and I’m not.

SPEAKER: Order! No, the member will resume his seat. I think the member went too far then. He will withdraw and apologise.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. A member can’t refer to another member as a hypocrite or say that someone has done something that is hypocritical. There’s nothing to stop a member talking about themselves in that regard.

SPEAKER: Well, possibly unlike the Leader of the House, I listened to the whole of the answer, and any reasonable person who listened to the whole answer would’ve taken the same inference that I did.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In respect of climate change, does he stand by his statement that the cycle bridge will be both a tourist attraction and reduce emissions, and, if so, how does he plan to offset the emissions from international tourists flocking to New Zealand to use the bridge?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In answer to the first part of the member’s questions, I do stand by that statement. I stand by another statement that was made by someone who has had a bit to do with these issues, who said, “If we look to the future, it’s not possible to just keep adding lanes to the motorway network. It becomes more expensive for less and less gain. We need to make better use of our existing networks and explore new opportunities to influence travel demand.” The Hon Simon Bridges was right in 2018 and he’s right now.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the Ministry of Transport’s green paper on reducing transport emissions states that “investments to expand urban state highways and major roads … leads to more people living in car-oriented suburbs, which causes increasing car use and traffic, emissions, and higher travel times and costs.”, and how do those facts influence the rebalancing of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, there were two key considerations for the Government in the rebalancing of the New Zealand Upgrade Programme. One was managing cost pressures, and the other was responding to the urgent need to decarbonise our transport system. So in the rebalancing that we have announced today, we do see a number of changes of investments which support a more decarbonised transport system. One which I would highlight is the shift in investment towards bringing rail between Whangārei and Port Marsden, an investment that will get significant numbers of heavy vehicles off the road, helping to decarbonise our transport network as well as bringing much greater resilience into our supply chain.

Question No. 8—Biosecurity

8. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How has Budget 2021 invested in New Zealand’s biosecurity?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Budget 2021 provides the resources needed to step up our efforts to protect kauri against dieback and preserve the taonga for future generations. There is great work being done across the country, but with this additional $32 million over five years, we have the opportunity to do more to protect our forest giants, their wider ecosystems, and the beautiful clean, green brand that makes us proud. It will fund the roll-out of a national pest management plan—the strongest form of protection available under the Biosecurity Act—to bring together Government, councils, iwi, and NGOs under a new umbrella agency that will oversee all activity regarding the spread of kauri dieback. Right now, these iconic trees face potentially fatal threats from kauri dieback. Stopping the spread of the disease needs increased support and resources, and this Government is delivering that.

Jo Luxton: How has Budget 2021 supported the Government’s Mycoplasma bovis programme?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Budget 2021 invests a further $66 million over the next year to continue the Mycoplasma bovis eradication programme. It also sees investment of $22.5 million to continue improving compliance with and enforcement of the National Animal Identification and Tracing scheme—or NAIT, as it’s called. Our ability to trace cattle and deer through the NAIT system is a critical factor in managing biosecurity threats, including M. bovis, that could have a devastating impact on New Zealand’s agricultural sector. Traceability is also important for food safety and quality assurance programmes and for responding quickly to natural disasters. We’ve achieved increased levels of NAIT compliance in recent years, and this funding will help us maintain and build on that good work.

Jo Luxton: How has Budget 2021 boosted biosecurity protections at our border?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Well, more good news. Budget 2021 is investing $8.9 million for advance screening technology to detect biosecurity threats in international mail. The investment will enable the installation of new 3-D scanner technology that has the potential to automatically detect things like seeds and fruit. The Budget also provides temporary funding for the Ministry for Primary Industries to continue essential biosecurity border services in the face of revenue reductions because of COVID-19. As a country whose economy and lifestyle is linked to our unique environment, this Government’s focus on biosecurity is absolutely vital. Budget 2021 backs up that focus with significant investments to protect and enhance our natural heritage and our primary exporters.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to remind Nicola Grigg that I noticed she had a lot of questions then. If she really wants to ask them, she should stand up.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Did she receive an aide-memoire dated 22 December 2020 from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development about potential impacts of changes to the treatment of rental properties; if so, did that include advice that “churn increases the risk that households may need to rely on transitional housing or emergency housing special needs grants, or increase the numbers of the public housing register”?

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

Nicola Willis: Did she receive advice that the best way to minimise the impact of proposed tax changes on existing renters was to exclude existing rental properties from the policy, and, if so, why didn’t she take that advice?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The piece of advice that the member is referring to is a piece of advice that we received on 22 December, right at the beginning of the journey of putting together our package. An aide-memoire that Ministers received on 15 January clearly stated that one of the things that we needed to do if we wanted to increase the supply of new housing and go some way to fixing the housing crisis was to indeed ring-fence out new builds to make sure that interest deductibility would still apply to new builds and that the brightline test would stay at five years for those properties. That is, of course, what we did.

Nicola Willis: Why did she ignore the specific warning she received in this memo, dated 11 February 2021, that including existing rental properties in her new tax policy would “directly impact on renters, as they face either increased rent, poorer quality housing, or are forced to move out of their home”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I also note that that piece of advice on 11 February said, “We expect the brightline test extension will have a minimal impact on renters in the short term as the extension of the brightline test is proposed for prospective purchases only and has an exclusion for new builds. Existing property investors will not face additional costs on their properties.” More advice concludes, “Further, those investors who still wish to grow their portfolios would be able to do so under the existing five-year brightline if they purchase new builds.” In regard to interest deductibility, we are a Government that is interested in putting in place levers to increase housing supply, and that is what leaving interest deductibility on new builds achieves.

Nicola Willis: Did she receive advice in a memo dated 11 February 2021 that if interest deductibility changes were phased in for existing housing stock, that could not only directly impact on renters but could also increase “the accommodation supplement and homelessness, with a resulting impact on the public housing wait-list”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Ministers received a huge amount of advice as we were putting together this March package, but as I have already indicated to that member, what Ministers made very clear that this Government’s priority was was putting in place measures that brought on new supply of housing. We have a housing crisis. We need new houses, and housing supply is what is our priority, and that is the advice that we were interested in.

Nicola Willis: What steps has she taken to work directly with landlords to address New Zealand’s housing shortage, or is it her preference to simply scapegoat them for New Zealand’s housing problems?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Government is taking multiple steps to work with landlords. One of the papers that will soon go out for consultation, and we’re very interested in hearing from landlords on, is around interest deductibility and how that will apply to—leaving that in place for new builds. I want landlords to be part of solving the housing crisis in New Zealand, and that means building more houses. I think we’ve found a good way to work with them on that.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: How is the Government keeping New Zealand connected internationally and positioned for recovery?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Recently, I announced that the Government has awarded a new round of airline support contracts through to the end of October 2021 to help keep New Zealand connected internationally and positioned for recovery. International air travel essentially shut down as COVID-19 spread, so the threat of isolation from global partners was very real. Airfreight is now at 90 percent of pre-COVID levels thanks to the International Air Freight Capacity scheme and its successor, the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme, which have helped to keep trade channels open and maintain supply of time-critical goods like medicine and high-value fresh produce into and from New Zealand.

Shanan Halbert: Which carriers have agreements been reached with?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: A wide range of carriers have been announced recently to maintain our air links with the rest of the world. Those agreements have now been reached with Air New Zealand, Air Tahiti, Korean Air, Malaysia Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Emirates, and China Airlines, supporting up to 43 flights a week that would otherwise not have been able to happen.

Shanan Halbert: What has the scheme meant for New Zealand and our Pacific partners?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Since May of last year, the International Air Freight Capacity scheme and the Maintaining International Air Connectivity scheme have enabled more than 7,000 flights, carrying over 136,000 tonnes of airfreight, worth around $10 billion. It’s important to note that this scheme has also been important for our Pacific partners. It recently supported the delivery of nearly 200,000 COVID-19 vaccine doses to Fiji, Nauru, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Tuvalu through the COVAX Facility. Nearly 75,000 people have returned to New Zealand on flights supported by the scheme, 53 percent of the total number of people to pass through managed isolation and quarantine facilities. It’s very unlikely that those journeys or the freight moved would’ve been possible without it.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Have any district health boards requested to have more staff on duty tomorrow to provide life-preserving services than there would usually be on a non-strike day; if so, does this illustrate routine understaffing issues for nurses?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m advised that no district health boards have asked for more staff rostered for life-preserving services during the strike than would normally be on a roster. In fact, many areas asked for just one fifth of normal numbers. Just to be clear, nursing staff numbers on duty at hospitals during industrial action are the product of agreement between the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and DHBs. I will note, however, that during the strike there may be more people on a ward than usual for the safety of patients and the delivery of non-life-preserving service care. This is because the number of staff delivering life-preserving services does not meet the care needs of all patients, so district health boards will have volunteers, carers, and family involved. So in response to the first part of the member’s question, no; and, in response to the second part of the member’s question, no.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is the Minister concerned that district health boards are regularly not meeting safe nursing staff levels?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I am concerned at the reports I am receiving from hospitals, particularly from nurses, about the pressure that they are under. I am concerned that—notwithstanding the agreement reached with the Nurses Organisation in 2018 for the Care Capacity Demand Management scheme, with an expectation that that scheme would be fully up and running across all DHBs by 30 June this year—only half of DHBs say that they will meet that deadline. Seven more are saying that it could be the end of the year before they meet it, and three are saying it could be sometime next year. Nurses are entitled to be disappointed about that level of achievement.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is the Minister concerned by the reported levels of exhaustion and stress of nurses playing a critical role in protecting New Zealanders from COVID-19?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes, I am. I know that even though we have added additional nurse positions right throughout the hospital network over the last three years, it is true that some district health boards are struggling to fill those roles on a permanent basis and are reliant on nursing agencies to fill roles on a lot of shifts. Oftentimes, staff coming from those nursing agencies are either not sufficient to meet the gaps on any particular shift or do not turn up and so other nursing staff are having to cover those gaps. That tells you just what a parlous state our hospital system was in when we became Government, and we will be working with the Nurses Organisation and others to make sure we fill those gaps.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does the Minister acknowledge that the decision to strike tomorrow, during a global pandemic, cannot be one that nurses take lightly and indicates serious issues with staffing levels and pay rates for our essential workers?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve yet to meet a worker who goes on strike who does so willingly and because they think it’s a fun thing to do. Workers take strike action because the situation they find themselves in is serious, and I hear that from our nurses across the country. And that is why we must all work together, with all the parties involved—the DHBs, the Ministry of Health, and the Nurses Organisation itself—to make sure we do the best for our nurses now and in the future.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: And what actions will the Minister take to address the rate of nurses either leaving the profession or the country because of stress and exhaustion?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government, through the Ministry of Health, have established specific initiatives to deal with just those issues and to ensure that DHBs and their management are equipped to deal with the sort of issues that the member refers to. In the end, a challenge for us is to create a health system with a quality of management that makes the working environment one that nurses feel safe to work in and delivers the best quality care to patients in New Zealand.

Question No. 12—Energy and Resources

12. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is her response to Gas Industry Company consultation outlining that the most critical and urgent issues to resolve to enable gas to support the transition to 100 percent renewable electricity include “a perceived lack of predictability across a range of dimensions for participants at every level of the industry to be able to plan and invest appropriately”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): My response is that I welcome the consultation on work that I commissioned late last year.

Barbara Kuriger: Is the Gas Industry Company correct to say that “it is clear that without significant investment … gas reserves … in existing fields will not come to market and security of supply will be comprised.” and that steps are needed to improve the investment climate so that this investment will happen?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One of the things that we do know is that we have gas—one of the things the report tells us is that we have gas reserves through to about 2035. Beyond that we will need further investment in fields, but I do note that since we made our decision not to issue any new exploration permits in 2018 for oil and gas, there has been $1 billion of investment in those assets.

Barbara Kuriger: Does she agree with the Gas Industry Company that policies the Government should pursue to improve investment certainty include greater use of the emissions trading scheme alongside increased policy clarity, and, if so, has she shared this view with the Minister for Climate Change as he considers Climate Change Commission advice?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: In answer to the second part of the question, the Minister for Climate Change and I speak frequently about the need to decarbonise our economy—indeed, as the whole world needs to do. And I do point that member to a recent report from the International Energy Agency that actually recommends to the rest of the world that they go down a path that New Zealand did in 2018, that we cannot keep issuing new permits for the exploration for oil and gas as we face a climate emergency.

Barbara Kuriger: Does she stand by her answers to oral questions in the House three years ago when she said “We have exploration permits that go out for 30 and 40 years.” and “the sky isn’t falling in.” in light of advice from the Gas Industry Company that New Zealand explore importation of LNG?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One point that came up in the consultation that the Gas Industry Company carried out is that we need to look at whether or not it is a fair question whether we need to look at LNG. I think that is a long way from what the member is suggesting. I have yet to receive the final report from the Gas Industry Company, but I do remind that member that actually this is a Government that is looking at ways in which we can decarbonise our economy. We are investing to look at more reliable storage for dry-year risk, looking at things such as pumped hydro.

Bills

Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75, Noes 43 to include Te Paati Māori’s votes.

Bills

Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I present a legislative statement on the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I move, That the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

I am very proud to bring this bill to the House. It makes amendments to the primary legislation—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to check with the member—what she’s just read out is not what I expected her to read out.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I move that the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

SPEAKER: All right. Does the member intend to move an instruction on timing?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Ah, no, sir. No, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: All right. OK. That’s fine. Carry on.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, very proud to bring this bill to the House, an amendment bill to the primary legislation, the Construction Contracts Act. And what this deals with, is it builds on our work already to support small business in particular, and the building and construction sector. The legislation will reform part of the work that some of our small businesses—particularly our subbies—do in supporting them in the retention payments which are held by main contractors as a mechanism to, I guess, monitor and look to performance. So retention moneys are those moneys that are held by the head contractor, in this case, and they are allocated out to subcontractors during the course of a particular contract.

The regime around retention moneys is voluntary, currently, and what has happened in the past is that some contractors have allowed for those moneys which should be held for subcontractors at the end of a particular performance point within the contract. Contractors have used that as part of working capital, or other things, and that has meant that when they find themselves in difficulty, it means that the subcontractors are basically left holding the responsibility, they don’t get the retentions for work completed.

So what this bill does is it clarifies and strengthens the retention money regime as indicated in the Construction Contracts Act. What it does is it actually builds trust and confidence in the system for the sector, and it adds some clarity as well. As I said, the retention moneys scheme is voluntary when it’s held, but this bill indicates that it must be held in trust by the head contractor for the benefit of the subcontractors. So it’s very clear about how that’s held, whether that’s held in a separate account, or by some other mechanism which may be insurance. Under the current regime, there have been situations, as I’ve said, where contractors have used this as working capital, and that’s problematic because it becomes kind of comingled with other capital that the head contractors have, and it exposes our subbies to the risk that they will not be paid for work done. It is particularly relevant when a head contractor becomes insolvent and they are unable to pay out the retention money to that subbie.

This was highlighted when there were collapses of some major construction companies such as Arrow International, Ebert Construction, Stanley Group, and Tallwood Holdings. The main issues that were identified at the time was the trust requirement has contradictions that limit how effective it is for protecting retention money. There were few incentives to comply with the regime, and there’s limited information provided to subcontractors regarding the retention money held to them. This bill intends to deal with that, in particular the information provided to subcontractors. They will know—the head contractors will be required to notify how that money is being held, and exactly what is being held. The bill also addresses issues on details of how contractors can comply with the trust requirement, incentivising compliance with the regime, and increasing transparency for subcontractors.

We shared an exposure draft of the bill with key stakeholders in September 2020, and that included the Construction Sector Accord and the construction industry organisations most likely to be affected. I do want to thank the Construction Sector Accord—the partnership between Government and the industry has been very successful. It has allowed our ability to speak directly to the sector, and for the sector to speak directly back to the Government on a range of issues, and can I pass on my thanks to the Construction Sector Accord for all the work they did during COVID-19 to advise Government on how best to support the sector—who was, potentially, quite impacted when we went into level 4 lockdown. And, coming out of level 4 going into level 3, how we could then support the sector to be safe on site. Those mechanisms and procedures were used whenever our country—or even our cities—had to go into lockdown and come back out of lockdown. That’s been a very successful partnership, and I thank the Construction Sector Accord for all the work that they do in that regard.

I also want to thanks the Accord for the feedback that they’ve given us on this particular bill, and their suggestion of changes such as clarifying and strengthening the trust requirements as part of the regime, and their view on the offences and penalties for non-compliance.

This bill makes it really clear that the retention money must be held by head contractors on trust and, separately; not comingled with other assets for the benefit of their subcontractors. It ensures that money is available to pay subcontractors when payment is due, and that it’s not used to pay head contractors, other creditors in the event of insolvency.

I have just had a correction made to me in terms of the timeliness of reporting back to the House. Am I able to include that or shall I make that a—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If you do that before you sit down, that’ll be fine.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall do that. At least I can correct that. I thank you for your guidance on that, Mr Speaker.

This bill incentivises compliance with the regime—[Interruption] Thank you. It incentivises compliance with the regime, there is a strict liability offence for when the head contractor fails to hold the retention money separately. There is personal liability for directors when a head contractor company breaches the requirement to hold retention money on trust, and an offence for providing false information about retention moneys held.

Further to that, some of the changes that have been made during consultation will help support the Construction Sector Accord’s goal of catalysing longer-term transformation that builds resilience and helps the sector meet new challenges. The ultimate aim of this new regime is to enhance the efficiency of the construction sector by ensuring the risk it manages is fair across contractors, subcontractors, and clients, and if I can say before I resume my seat that at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2021. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a vote on the first reading of the Appropriation (2020/21 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and to cast the two votes in favour on behalf of Te Paati Māori, whose proxies we now hold.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The record will be so corrected.

Bills

Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. The Minister has indicated that they’ll be seeking a shortened report-back time. Standing Order 295 says, “(1) The member moving the bill’s first reading must, on the commencement of that member’s speech,—(a) nominate the select committee to consider the bill, and (b) if it is proposed to move for any special powers or instruction in respect of the committee’s consideration of the bill, indicate the terms of that proposed motion.” That was done just at the very tail end of the speech; not at the commencement of the member’s speech. The Speaker of the House, essentially, invited the Minister to move at the start of the speech. She declined to do so—I think on a couple of occasions—and can’t do it towards the tail end of the speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll seek advice on that, thank you. On a number of occasion when I’ve been in the House, the House has been informed during the speech on—

Hon Scott Simpson: When?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As I’ve said, a number of occasions—

Hon Scott Simpson: I don’t recall it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s my ruling and as long as the Minister tables that with the Clerk, then at the appropriate time she can move it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders—this is not a Speaker’s ruling—the Standing Orders says “must, on the commencement of that member’s speech,”. It was not done at the commencement; it was done 8½ minutes into the speech when the Minister got a note, presumably from the whip, indicating that she had not complied with the instructions, which the Speaker himself, actually, asked the Minister to do, because it was in the drill sheet, presumably. The Minister chose not to do that. We’re stuck with—

Hon Poto Williams: Speaking to the point of order.

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m still speaking.

Hon Poto Williams: Speaking to the point of order.

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m in the middle of saying something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Chris Bishop can carry on.

CHRIS BISHOP: The Speaker invited the Minister to move at the start. The Minister chose not to do so. The bill has to go to the committee—if it, indeed, passes its first-reading vote—for the full time. It’s as simple as that.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker, I did seek clarity from the Speaker in the Chair and, as I understand, the House can determine whether they accept that or not—and I suggest perhaps that’s a way forward for the member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, this is not the appropriate—the appropriate time will be at the end of the debate, so we’re going to carry on.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Well, no. Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you saying we’re not going to carry on?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I’m seeking a recall of the Speaker on this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am the Speaker.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, well—yeah, fair enough; fair point. You are in this instance—you’re right.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Certainly an interesting way to commence this relatively—

Hon Member: Is it?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: —straightforward bill. It is absolutely an interesting way to commence it. It’s not the way we would normally commence a new piece of legislation in this House.

Now, the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill does have a number of beneficial aspects to it, and despite the rather late notice there of the desire to move a special instruction, I think the content of the bill, if we’re focusing on that, has some really good aspects to it, and, on that basis, we are supporting it through to the select committee stage. It actually builds nicely on a piece of work started by the Hon Dr Nick Smith back in 2015, when he was Minister for Building and Construction, which looked to address this issue around the retention funds and having certainty, or increasing certainty, for subcontractors that they will be able to source those funds, assuming their work is considered or found to be acceptable. At the end of the retention period, they would then duly receive their funds.

Of course, what we had seen, as in a number of instances where the head contractor or a large company fell over, those funds were, unfortunately, no longer available and had been used for some other purpose—working capital, for example. Even with the legislative changes that Mr Smith brought in, there were at that point still, unfortunately, not enough safeguards to prevent some of the issues that we have seen. So this bill takes that to the next level and actually makes it a requirement that that retention money be held in trust for the particular subcontractor via a separate bank account, which is especially named as such, for that subcontractor, or it may be for several contractors depending on the nature of the contracts in place. Or, alternatively, they can have some other compliance assurance such as an insurance policy or a bank guarantee, for example, that would provide confidence that whilst they don’t have to have their physical cash sitting in a bank account, they have the ability to meet the obligations required of those retentions when they fall due. So that’s all good stuff.

What I hear from a number of building and construction companies, as I travel the country in that role for the National Party, is a lot of concern around this area. It’s about certainty and confidence. Those are two of the key things that we can really add to any industry, but the building and construction sector in particular, if we can provide them with greater certainty, with greater confidence, then that will be a massive boost for the sector. Any time a business has those aspects, then you can see they will be more likely to invest, more likely to take on another opportunity to grow, to expand, and all those positive spin-offs around employment, around economic growth, that come from that are absolutely worthwhile. So it’s encouraging to see that will be improved under this proposed bill.

One of the other concerns, though, that I do hear on those visits is also around the level of retentions, in terms of the percentage held back. We see that varies anywhere between, sort of, 2 percent at the lower end up to 10 percent of the contract value, which is quite significant. So there’s a bit of concern around whether that’s appropriate. And also the time frame for which retentions are held—there’s been discussion around whether that is appropriate, based on the varying types of contracts that may be entered into. I guess I’d just say it’s, perhaps, a bit of a missed opportunity that this piece of legislation doesn’t actually address either of those concerns that I do hear raised from a number of construction businesses around the country. So that is a bit of a shame that we’re only dealing with part of the challenge around retentions here.

But also, more broadly, there is the other issue as well around companies not just with retention money that has previously been lost through insolvencies but also access to assets that subcontractors may have on site, even their own tools. In instances where they haven’t been able to get back on to the property due to the collapse of the head contractor, particularly around the tools aspect, that has meant in some instances these subcontractors not only have been out of pocket from the work they were doing but they have simply been unable to then go on and do other work, because their tools are all locked up on this construction site. So, again, that’s an area that I really would have liked to have seen addressed by the Government, in terms of trying to provide more certainty for subcontractors in the building and construction sector, especially at the moment when we’re seeing such a strong reliance on this industry to be a key part of our economic recovery. When we are seeing a strong economic opportunity in the building and construction sector, those adjustments might have helped to improve confidence even more and allow for some additional investment decisions by some of those businesses.

So those aspects were a little disappointing to see that they had been missed out. But, overall, what has been proposed here makes sense and we do support it, and I look forward to following a process through select committee. I’m sure we will hear more about those particular concerns that I’d raised through the select committee process as well. It’ll be interesting just to hear, actually, what the instruction is that the Minister is looking to move in terms of report-back time.

But on that basis, we do support the bill and look forward to following it through the course of its journey. Thank you.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting, after the furore at the start there, to find that those members opposite are actually supporting the bill, as they should: the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill.

I will relate the experience of two very good colleagues of mine, one of whom was a rather large contractor who was in recent years caught out by the collapse of one of the businesses mentioned by the Minister for Building and Construction in her introduction. Essentially, his retention money was going to be the final payment that would actually allow him to get out of the contract with the business intact, and, of course, when the company went broke, he was, essentially, looking down the barrel of going broke himself because the chain of payments was going to be somewhat interrupted. He had thought he had the protection of the Construction Contracts Act, which had been brought in in—sorry, the bill that had been brought in in 2017. However, it turned out that he was just another unsecured creditor in getting his retention money. Another contractor whom I’m aware of avoided ever going into business or taking a contract which required him to leave retention money in for fear of the same thing.

So, essentially, both those businesses at either end were affected by the current situation. This bill does remedy both their situations, and for both of them now, it could actually almost be renamed the “Sleeping More Comfortably at Night for Contractors Bill”, because that was what it will actually give the owners of these companies the ability to do.

One should always look at what a bill is attempting to fix. As a result of the Bennett & Ors v Ebert Construction, many of the contractors who thought they did have the protection found that the wording of the Act did not deem retentions to be held on trust. Instead, it required the parties to hold retentions on trust, which meant that where there was a belief that they were secure in a trust, they actually weren’t, and if a payer did not comply with the requirements to hold retentions on trust, the retention money would be co-mingled with payer money or, in fact—worse—had been used as capital. Of course, using retention money as capital or as cash flow—even worse—meant that, once again, as soon as these companies do go into liquidation or collapse in any other way, then it means that those companies, like the ones I aforementioned, are going to be the ones who are going to miss out, and often that chain effect will be that they will go into liquidation and the subcontractors to them will also be left in the same place. So, essentially, what this bill seeks to remedy is having the money all being swept into a pool with all other cash and all other obligations, leaving those who were unsecured at the bottom to, essentially, go the same way.

Also, what was quite clear was that where this was done, there were insufficient penalties and offences to deter payers from not complying with the trust requirement, and I’ll speak shortly about those new offences, which do provide something of a disincentive. So what the bill does is clarify the retentions as trust money, whether or not the payer complies with the retention regime in the Act. If the payer holds retentions for more than one payee, the retention money held for each of them is subject to a separate trust. So what this also means is that where you get, obviously, several contractors—which is common—all those contractors’ money also must be separately identified for each of the payees, as the Act talks about. So a payer must hold retentions in a separate bank account used solely to hold retention money, and this could be retention money for more than one payee. However, the bank accounts cannot be used for any other purpose. Again, I go back to the real problem that this bill seeks to fix, which is to ensure that that money doesn’t become working capital or cash flow.

The payee must, in the bank account name—actually, it comes down to specifics, and I guess we are digging quite deep into the way these things must be operated, but, again, like with so many things we have learnt from bitter experience. For a payer, the bank account must include the words “retention money trust account”, and if the account is set up to hold retentions for one payee or more construction contracts, the account name must include the payee’s name.

So, once again, I’ll refer to the fact that this the “Sleeping Well at Night Bill for Contractors”. Knowing that that money is there, under their name, does give them far more security then they ever had.

With two or more payees, the account must identify the construction contracts or indicate that it is for all contracts under which the payee holds retention money. Also, the bank must know that this is retention money. That’s, again, an important part, because there may come a time when this company or the payer does go broke or comes into financial difficulties, and the first thing the bank is going to do, obviously, is protect its asset. This way, the bank will know what is retention money and, therefore, that will not be part of the security because, essentially, it is not theirs to take in the event of the company going broke. As far as practicable in the accounts, the bank is required to actually ensure that that’s identified—as they are. So, in the end, it does dig down quite deep into the detail, but, obviously, it needs to do so.

In respect of retentions in the bank account, the payer must keep separate ledger accounts for each payee and for each construction contract, identifying the payee and construction contract to which the ledger relates and must show each payment into and out of the account and which payees and contract repayment it relates to. So then, that’s obviously digging down deeply. I think we need to step back a little and look at why all this is necessary.

We are now entering into a stage where there is considerable construction activity taking place. In March 2021 alone, 4,128 new homes were consented, and 41,028 new homes have been consented for the year ending March 2021—an all-time high—so it’s not as though this is an issue that’s seeking to keep up. Now, we’ve got to ensure it gets ahead of this vast amount of construction activity that’s actually taking place.

Also, as far as individuals go, ultimately, we are talking about people here. Of course, there’s just the number of people entering into the market: 18,000 more people are now in training or have been trained in the construction industry. So this is a machine that is very much building up, and it’s very, very timely that we ensure that those who are likely to be affected do have that protection.

I did mention before the offences in here to ensure that there is not the temptation to say, “Wow! We’ll wear this anyway. What the heck—it’s a fine.” The offence now is if the payee fails to hold retention on trust in a separate bank account or a complying financial instrument, this offence has a maximum fine of $200,000. If the payee is a body corporate, each of its directors also commits an offence and will be liable to a maximum fine of $50,000. So, again, as you will see cases that are wending their way through the courts as we speak, there are those where directors themselves have been able to say, “Well, not us—we didn’t know.” I’m sure that now at the beginning of every meeting, everyone who has ever sat on a board and has become aware of their liabilities will be asking the question, “What are our current liabilities? Where is our retention money? Are we OK if this thing does go sour?”

So, once again, as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which is considering this bill, I am very much looking forward to having this bill and bringing it back here before the House and to fix things that do need fixing. I commend this to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a relatively small, but quite important piece of legislation. It seeks to clarify some inadequacies in the existing principal legislation, particularly that were highlighted in the High Court decision of Bennett v Ebert Construction Ltd (In rec & liq). In that case, the High Court noted that the Construction Contracts Act had some policy gaps and that the trust requirements and the wording of the trust requirements were imprecise.

I’ll come back to that in just a minute, but I cannot let escape the woeful, hopeless incompetence and inadequacy of the Minister who introduced this bill at first reading. Here is a Minister, the Hon Poto Williams, who came to the House ill-prepared and ready to move a first reading, and what she did was miss out a very fundamental part of the introduction speech. It’s a formal part of the process, but it’s an important part none the less. It’s the part that gives instruction to the select committee about report-back times and dates and the time of submissions. It’s important because members of the public who will be listening to this debate, who have an interest in it—subcontractors and larger construction firms around the country who are interested in this legislation—they want to know how long they have to submit at select committee and whether it’s going to be a truncated or a full select committee process. The Minister, Poto Williams, actually forgot to mention that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s the Hon Poto Williams.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh, the Hon Poto Williams—she forgot to mention that. And what happened was that Speaker Mallard was in the chair and he gave an opportunity for the Minister—in fact, asked her twice whether she wanted to include it, and twice came back the answer, “No, I don’t want to make a comment on that.” Then, further into her speech, at about eight minutes or so, she received some instruction and some advice from an official or an officer of Parliament, and late in the speech—somewhere close to about 8½ minutes into the speech, when most people listening would have well gone to sleep—a date was mentioned, and I think it was the date of 11 November. So thank goodness for that. But there we have an indication of the woeful inadequate hopeless incompetence of a Minister who comes to the House ill prepared and not ready to actually do the business on an important and significant piece of legislation.

So, we on this side of the House think that that is just an indication of a far greater malaise that enraptures this socialist Labour Government. It’s typical of their lack of direction, their lack of focus, and no attention to detail. It’s this lack of attention to detail that is deeply problematic—deeply problematic. It’s not just the lack of ability to deliver on their promises, but a lack of attention to detail, and ultimately, that is the problem for this Government. The Hon Poto Williams will need to reflect on that and probably get better advice before she introduces legislation into the House again.

So what does this bill do? Well, what it does is actually tightens up the definition around retentions. People listening to this debate may wonder what retentions are. It’s all to do with the money that is paid by subcontractors as part of the process of entering into a big construction job, for instance. Some of that money has, in the past, been mixed wrongly and poorly, in commercial terms, with the larger principal contractor in a way that has meant that if that larger main contractor falls over—goes into receivership or liquidation—then that money that is due to the subcontractors is not payable and not available to them. That’s a huge problem for small businesses who are the subcontractors.

In a previous life I’ve worked in businesses that have supplied many contractors and subcontractors, and I know firsthand how problematic it is for a small-business person who’s subcontracting to a much larger firm, and the big firm falls over and goes into receivership or liquidation, and then not only is the money tied up in loss because that larger company—as Greg O’Connor correctly made the case in the previous speech—perhaps poorly used that funding for cash flow or indeed capital but then that creates enormous effects further down the supply chain. What it means is that that subcontractor isn’t able to pay their suppliers or their employees. It’s pretty obvious about the inadequacy of that kind of situation.

So the principal legislation seeks to solve that problem by creating a retentions regime, and that’s all fine and dandy, but the court case of Bennett v Ebert Construction Ltd (In rec & liq) highlighted that there were some definitional issues and this piece of legislation seeks to remedy that. So on this side of the House we support that. But in terms of this legislation, it goes a little further than just being related to mere dollars and cents. What typically happens when a company goes into receivership—particularly a large construction company—is that the site is immediately locked down by the receivers who are acting on behalf of the creditors. What has happened in the past, and probably still happens today, given the issues that we’re talking about, is that it’s not only the money but it’s the equipment, the gear, the tools of trade—the stock in trade of the subcontractor gets locked up and is physically unavailable to that contractor. So that means that not only do they not get paid but they lose their ability to actually continue on in business. If their tools of trade are all locked up on a site that they can no longer have access to, and if their equipment and gear, and sometimes, in some cases, the actual products that they might be installing—think of an air conditioning subcontractor or an electrical or plumbing contractor—the bits and pieces, the bits and bobs that go with the job and the work that they do, if they’re not physically able to access that, then they’re not able to go on to their next job. Of course, that then has a fateful and sometimes potentially devastating impact on those smaller subcontractors.

So, look, at select committee, we on this side of the House will be looking carefully to see that the definitions have, in fact, been correctly applied. We’ll be looking to see that the sloppiness of the Minister introducing the bill has not been replicated in the drafting of the bill, and we’ll be looking to see that that sloppiness is not manifested in a way that makes the situation worse, which quite often happens with this Government’s legislation.

So we’ll be alert to that at select committee. We’ll be looking forward to hearing submissions from a range of both large and small firms, and I’ve got no doubt that there will be many who will come to the select committee during the submission process and will tell quite horrific stories about what the impacts have been on their business, on their employees, and on their ability to continue in business and in trade. So on that note, we support this bill to first reading. We’re looking forward to giving it a thorough look at select committee and we’ll watch this process very carefully. Thank you.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): This bill is for small businesses. It’s to support the 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand who are hiring less than 20 employees. This bill is for our builders in our country. This bill is for the plumbers in our country. This bill is for the electricians in our country and all the other tradies in this country because not only are they businesses, when we talk about their finances falling over and when they’re not paid properly we’re talking about families here. We’re talking about people whose livelihoods depend on them being paid by a contractor. So this bill is to ensure the safety and the security of small businesses here in New Zealand but also to make sure that our country keeps building houses.

I’m proud to be part of a Government and a party that has supported record numbers of consents being issued in this country. I’m proud to work alongside Ministers like the Hon Poto Williams who have actually reached consensus on this bill to make sure that industry supports this bill and we’ve actually listened to the real voices of industry when we were drafting this bill. That’s why we can just slightly shorten the select committee process, because we know that this industry, the construction industry, has already supported the bill.

We’ve had people in the legal profession commending this bill, saying that this is the right thing to do, to close the loophole, to clarify the legislation so that we can actually protect the most vulnerable and the most hard-working part of our construction sector—the small businesses, our tradies, and all of our sub-contractors—so that they can get the work done, so that we can get on with actually solving this housing crisis.

We need to build more houses and we are building more houses. Right now, Statistics New Zealand is showing that there’s a record of 41,000 new homes—41,000 new homes that have been consented to. That’s a huge amount of houses. So we need to make sure that all of our contractors in New Zealand feel confident in the system so that they can work together with us, with Government, with all of the contractors together. We need to build more houses.

So this bill actually helps to boost that level of confidence to attract more people into the trades. We’ve already attracted a record number of people into the fees-free training. We have now more carpenters, we have now more plumbers in our workforce here in New Zealand, to make sure that we work together to solve this housing crisis. This bill also gives them the confidence that they will be paid on time, they will be paid for their work done in the housing construction sector, and if they are a young person they will know that they will find security in their finances should they decide—and I hope that they will—to come and join the construction sector. We really, really need them right now.

We know that right now the construction workforce needs more people and we’ve seen a further 4,000 people join it. And so today, on this bill, as we commend it into first reading, we know that the young people out there, the people who are looking at a career change, will know that this construction sector is a well-regulated sector, that they will find security in their finances and they will have a rewarding career getting the houses built, getting the infrastructure that this country needs to keep moving on.

It’s not every day that I read something from Buddle Findlay to see that are absolutely 100 percent without reservation in support of a bill to the House. Usually we see them give different opinions. But today we see here, on 1 June 2021, the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill was introduced into Parliament for consideration, and they’ve said that this is very, very good in terms of actually supporting the construction sector, especially in terms of the case we’ve mentioned on both sides of the House, in terms of Bennett v Ebert Construction. We know that at that current moment, when that case was brought to the courts, the actual 2002 legislation didn’t cover and was actually murky on—well, the courts ended up ruling that it actually did not cover the fact and did not give instructions to construction industries to actually hold retentions on trust. So right now we need to legislate for that now to actually right that wrong.

It’s really interesting to see also how there are lots and lots of instances where we know that in the construction sector there will be companies that fall over that end up not paying for the smaller jobs that they have subcontracted to. So we need to make sure that we give them the legislative authority to set retention aside, but at the same time we need to remind them what the best practice is. So once again we’re holding up strong the bottom line of the industry to make sure that they actually do what’s right. One of those things is to set the retention aside from other money as security and that can be held on a trust account. That needs separate legislation as well so that we can make sure that that money’s kept aside so, if in the very unfortunate event that the contracting company does fall over, that these subcontractors are still being kept safe.

Also, this separate bank account, right now we need to tell all of the board members, as my colleague Greg O’Connor has mentioned as well, that this is one of their duties, as well as directors. We know that when we take on directorships of companies, especially large construction companies, we have to make sure we set the rules very, very clearly. We need to set the standard high, the bar high enough, so that the whole entire ecology of our construction sector is maintained to a healthy standard. So to them, their responsibility is to make sure that this separate bank account gets set up and the money gets retained as well.

Also, the payer’s record-keeping obligations is a really important part as well, where the payer must keep a proper accounting record of all the retentions held, and that is to make sure that the money doesn’t get mixed. It’s to make sure that the money is there with clear accounting practices, which should be a given in any well-governed and well-managed company anyway. But once again, this bill makes sure that the bottom line is strengthened as well.

Also, where we know that in the unfortunate event of a receivership or a liquidation as well, this bill, with the retention held out separately, actually makes life a lot easier. We know that often going into liquidation, many lawyers, many advisers, and also accountants and liquidators all come into this, but to make sure that there is a separate account for that retention makes the money going to the smaller businesses a lot faster, because we know that cash flow is really important for small businesses. They don’t have a lot of liquidity to wait for years and years and years until the lawyer’s gone to court, until there’s a proper ruling by a judge. We know that these small businesses need the money here and now. They need to make sure they pay their employees. They need to make sure they put food on the table for their children.

So it’s very, very important that this is also a logistically easier task as well for all of the larger companies, so that in the unfortunate and, hopefully, unlikely event that they do fall over, there is a liquidation or receivership process happening, that this separate retention is in a separate account and can be paid out to the smaller businesses as soon as they can.

I also note that there are other questions that we were asked in terms of a lack of enforcement mechanism or sanctions. We note, and this once again goes back for company directors, that they will be liable for a fine, up to $50,000, should they not follow this proposed bill.

So could I use this platform just to remind all of the company directors wanting to make a submission on the bill, but, too, to remember that should this bill pass, hopefully in the next couple of months, they are reminded that they have this extra responsibility—and also for firms, it’s another $200,000 fine as well. This places a very, very strong enforcement mechanism to make sure that these small businesses—our contractors, our plumbers, our builders—are being looked after. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party rises in support of this bill, and it’s of particular interest to me because, in fact, on 7 May 2014, I tabled a Supplementary Order Paper on a previous construction contracts amendment bill that did exactly this. It required that retentions be held in deemed trust. What happened at the time—and I know there’s some history here—in early 2013 we had the liquidation of Mainzeal and a huge number of subcontractors were negatively affected by the collapse of Mainzeal. They were locked out building sites, they couldn’t access their tools, and their money that was rightfully theirs was not able to be recovered.

At that time in 2013, in the 50th Parliament, the then National Party Government had a construction contracts amendment bill going through the House and I sat on the Commerce Committee and we heard through the submissions from at least a dozen subcontractors associations who were laying out this problem with retention money being used as working capital by main contractors and that it was a huge problem. So I went and I talked to them. I wrote a Supplementary Order Paper. I tabled it. I tried to get the Government of the day to support it. So it’s very interesting to see National Party members like the Hon Scott Simpson who was, of course, in the Parliament at that time and would have voted against my Supplementary Order Paper but now is enthusiastically supporting this bill that does exactly the same thing seven years later. So I’m pleased that they’ve come around and they’ve realised.

So of course, what happened at the time is the Minister responsible for the bill, Maurice Williamson, had to step down for various reasons. The Hon Nick Smith took his place, and right before the 2014 election, when he was at like a subcontractors’ conference where he was probably quite horrified to hear that they were all in support of this Green Party member’s Supplementary Order Paper on the bill, Nick Smith did promise that there would be action on this issue. And so it took a full three years from that point till the original legislation came in. That was 31 March 2017. So four years after the Mainzeal collapse, we finally had an initial regime.

Of course, what we’ve seen—and all the documents we have here today show us—is that, unfortunately, in the process of drafting that legislation, it was quite watered down and it wasn’t airtight enough. So there was not, in fact, sufficiently strong indication that the retention money should be held in deemed trust, that it should be held in a separate bank account. The whole point of this regime was to ensure that the money that rightfully belongs to subcontractors for work that they have completed would not be taken by the main contractor and used in other projects, which would then mean that it was not recoverable by the subcontractors should the main contractor go into liquidation or collapse. Of course, that’s continued to happen.

So I don’t have much more to add on this other than—you know, seven years is a long time and we’ll be going through the select committee process again with this one. But I am really, really pleased to see some meaningful progress on this issue and to see that there is agreement across the House. I am particularly pleased that something I worked on quite a long time ago in my first term of Parliament, in the 50th Parliament, is finally going to be brought into law.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party is pleased to be discussing this bill, although we do have a retention about how successful the intention of the bill might be, because it doesn’t actually go and deal with some of the issues that submitters have raised. While it’s important to recognise the bill goes some way to solve a problem to protect contractors’ and subcontractors’ retentions, there are other problems that this Government is ignoring when it has an opportunity, through reform of the Construction Contracts Act, to address these matters. We know that time for payment is a cash-flow issue for many contractors and subcontractors, and that the biggest client in New Zealand is the Government and it is their delays in paying contractors and therefore subcontractors which are leading to a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering in the supply chain that Government, and local government as well, have a role in.

Submitters have noted that although amendments were made in 2017 which brought the trust requirement into play, it appears that very little effort was made by the previous Government, which is still mostly the current Government, to actually make sure that the provisions of that 2017 amendment which created the requirement for retentions to be held in trust were actually delivered on. It’s no surprise, because while I’ve just done a quick search of the organisations that do training on the Construction Contracts Act—there’s the New Zealand institute of highways, there’s Engineering New Zealand, and a number of other private training providers, which deliver courses between an hour or a day, or multi-day courses for practitioners, and yet there is nowhere I can find on any New Zealand Government website that talks about education or training or improvements in how to get the industry to understand their obligations. So it’s absolutely no surprise that now they have to come back and make a whole lot more laws that are even harsher and tougher to solve a problem that any reasonable person would’ve imagined was already solved.

Submitters have raised particular concerns with us. There is a risk that strengthening the retention money regime might actually impact on overall cash-flow for construction companies. While there is some concern that payment of retentions money can be an issue for businesses when they have a cash-flow crunch, in most cases retention money is actually a part of normal operating cash-flow for businesses. If you have a number of small subcontracts, for example, those contractors can often be paid out very, very quickly because the risk of a defect arising later in the works period is quite low. So there is a risk that actually having to put this money aside into a trust rather than being able to use it in the day-to-day running of the business but in a protected way can cause some problems.

Other submitters have been concerned that in fact there was only a limited amount of consultation, with 22 invited submitters, and that that did not actually invite consultation from that wider group of organisations. It was telling that the previous speaker from the Government side made the point that a law firm had been very, very supportive of the concept of a very large number of trusts being set up. I would be surprised, if I was offered this opportunity as an interested party, that law firms wouldn’t be interested in setting up trusts at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars for each business. So, yeah, I would assume that that particular submission was made at least with a half-smirk behind the hand, but good on that member on the Government side for standing up for all of the lawyers who stand to gain from this particular requirement.

But, again, there is a key risk here that simply passing another law and introducing penalties and fines and criminal sanctions won’t actually change behaviours for the very large number of smaller contractors and subcontractors who don’t actually know what their obligations are. A Government that thinks that it can change things and fix things and solve problems simply by passing laws—well, that’s the Government that sits opposite us now, and we’ve seen on every single measure, whether it’s delivering infrastructure, whether it’s solving the housing crisis, whether it’s coming up with the money to fix the infrastructure deficit that left-leaning councils over many decades have been responsible for creating, we know that they have failed on every single measure. Simply passing laws and announcing things from the podium is not the way you solve New Zealand’s worst problems.

However, the ACT Party does intend to support this bill at first reading because despite our many reservations about whether this Government and the ministries that it controls are actually able to succeed in any of its policy measures that it puts forward, we believe it’s important that the wider industry has an opportunity to submit on this bill at select committee.

So, look, for the purposes of just illustrating why we think it’s important, there are a number of different options that Government has for increasing the protection of retentions held by contractors and subcontractors, protecting them from their client—the largest client in New Zealand right now being the New Zealand Government and local councils. They are most likely to be responsible for making it more difficult for contractors and subcontractors to recover retentions, any minor defect that has to be disputed with a trustee, who may themselves feel some significant responsibility not to release retentions from a trust until all of the client’s obligations are met. Often, clients and main contractors can be far more lenient and relaxed about releasing retentions at the end of a contract period or a defects period if they can be sure that the issue is no more than minor or that it has no impact on the design intent and the performance of the new asset.

And yet what this bill proposes to introduce is a very tough regulatory and compliance enforcement and criminal regime which, I propose, would actually introduce a much more significant handbrake on the release of retentions by a trustee to the contractors and subcontractors than the more typical flexible approach taken by most main contractors in the delivery of their work and in the management of their contract and subcontract relationships. That’s because most contractors rely on trusted subcontractors and trusted suppliers. Most contractors are not going out there to seek the cheapest price and then down the track avoid paying their subcontractors retentions money, because they know that it’s so hard to get good-quality contractors to deliver on time and to the quality standard. The last thing they want to be doing is holding up that payment of retentions. In fact, if anything, they want to get that liability off the books, they want to close their project out, and the best way to do that as a contract manager or a project manager is actually to close out your retentions, to close out your defects, to get it signed off.

I would propose that actually adding in an extra requirement to have a trustee responsible for reviewing and signing those matters off introduces a layer of complexity which is more likely to hold up the release of retentions rather than make the release of retentions easier and more accessible for contractors and subcontractors.

So, on that note, the ACT Party supports this bill to the first reading but we’re retaining at least 10 percent of our support as a retention until it can be proved that the Government and its law writers can meet the quality standard, ensure there are no defects, and actually deliver a piece of legislation that works. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Terisa Ngobi: Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have to say, “Mr Speaker.”

Terisa Ngobi: I did, Mr Speaker—I am saying it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Terisa Ngobi, and I did not hear her, OK?

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s because I was probably really quiet for once. Can I say it’s always a privilege and an honour to be able to take a call in the House, especially as a newbie—so good practice, and I’ll try and be louder; my apologies. It’s also really good to be able to take a call on this bill given that, for the Labour Government, I sit on the infrastructure, environment, and transportation caucus, and of that, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that the Hon Poto Williams has recommended this Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill goes to.

Can I also just say, listening to my colleague Naisi Chen stating that this bill really is about our small businesses, it really is about our subbies and it really is about our plumbers, our electricians, but also their whānau, eh. It’s about making sure that, you know, no matter what happens, they’re secure. They’re able to pay for the resources that they’ve put into the mahi. They’re able to pay for their time and they’re also able to put food on their table when they go home. So, yeah, absolutely agree with our colleague.

We also know that our subbies are reliant on good relationships with those big guys, eh—the big contractors. But they’re also reliant on a good relationship and the promise that, regardless, they will be paid the retention money they’re owed through their mahi. That’s where this sits at the moment, given that we know this current regime is voluntary. So this amendment to make sure that that happens is a really good one.

I also want to just give a shout-out to some of the subbies that I know from the Ōtaki electorate, especially—yes, the mighty and beautiful Ōtaki electorate have fantastic construction tradies and subbies in our area. I want to shout out to Jade Strawbridge, who does plumbing. He’s a subcontractor, so is owning his own business—so a small business owner—along with his wife, and they have a whānau as well. And also Tony Su, who is a big contractor, but I know is one of the good guys and treats his staff really well, takes on a lot of our young rangatahi, especially our young Māori, into the industry and puts them through things like Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation (BCITO) to make sure that we start to train and retain our own. I also want to say to Tony Su, thank you for that, because he was doing this far before the free-trade training and apprenticeship scheme, that this Government has put in place. So I’m quite sure Mr Tony Su will be really happy to be able to further support our new young rangatahi coming into the trade.

I also just want to say that my grandfather was also a small business owner. He was also a contractor. He was a plasterer for many, many years, from Scotland through to coming to New Zealand, and I know—having six children, and my grandmother who worked from home as well and helped him with those books—how hard that was and how reliant you are on making sure that those bigger guys, those big subcontractors, pay on time and that they also pay what we know is the retention money, and what that means to families like my grandfather’s. There was, obviously, my dad and, obviously, too, people like Jade Strawbridge, Levin Plumbing and Gas, and also Tony Su. That is why this bill making sure that we clarify and strengthen the retention money regime is so critical.

We know, at the moment, as other people have said, that the retention money is a voluntary regime, at the moment, by our main contractors, and so, unfortunately, I think we all know of stories where some of those big main contractors, and I know the Hon Poto Williams mentioned earlier, Stanley Group and a few others—what happens when, unfortunately, due to unfortunate events, they go insolvent or they collapse. So, you know, if you’re a subcontractor to that, you’re way down the pecking order of making sure that you get your payment or money for your mahi. So this ensures that it’s not just a gentlewoman’s or gentleman’s handshake; it’s a definite. It has to be put away in that separate bank account—that it’s not mixed into what can be used as working capital by our main contractors, and that it is separate, and this bill ensures that those subbies will make sure they get paid for the mahi that they did.

When I was talking about Tony Su and the like, I do also want to say we were lucky enough, me and my husband, a few years ago, to be able to do a few alterations on our house. So I’ve seen the work that he did, but also, like I mentioned before, seen him supporting many of our rangatahi into training and paying for their BCITO. But aside from that, I’ve also seen some of the subcontractors come in. You know, those are long hours. They were out, unfortunately, in the rain. They were working morning to night. You get to know them as you take out—I made sure I made soup for them and a bit of chop suey, a bit of an island feed. [Interruption] Yep, make sure that we feed them up so they can continue to do the work that they needed to do on our house. But, you know, you get to know them as you’re talking, around how they got into the industry but also their families. And they talk about making sure that—you know, they are having to hustle for work at that time, against so many competing other small businesses and contractors. Well, now we know there’s a massive boom thanks to the effort this Government is putting into building houses. But, at that time, they were having to really hustle. So we also know that when they do get those jobs and they spend all those days and hours making sure that they’ve got something to take home to their whānau, that’s how important that retention money is. It might be a drop in the bucket for some of our really big guys, but for our small businesses, this is really important.

That’s why I’m, kind of, a little bit confused at the view, I guess, on this, of the last member across the House, given that I thought that was something that was so important to you—being able to support our small businesses. That’s, essentially, what this bill does. Like the Hon Poto Williams and also our member Naisi Chen and others have mentioned, including Greg O’Connor, this bill had consultation with those stakeholders. This bill listened to those small business owners. This bill listened to our subcontractors and the wider New Zealand and our industry and said, “Yep. We hear that. We hear what happens. We hear that this is a voluntary regime. We hear that you need to make sure that there is money left in the kitty for you at the end of the day, and that’s why we’re doing this.” So we really do support small businesses. So, yeah, I’m quite confused by the last member’s speech.

However, we’re doing that, what we need to do, and, like I said, we’re really lucky at the moment that this side of the House sees the real need to make sure we invest in building more whare, more houses, making sure that we are making it easier for our contractors—they’ve got lots and lots of work. Now it’s not competing for work; now it’s trying to find a builder. So we have a couple of little things left to do on our house, and we’ve been waiting a fair few months, and we’re happy to wait. Don’t get me wrong; it’s just a few doors, where some people actually need houses. That’s what our focus is on, and that’s why we’re happy to wait down the pecking order.

But, like I said, amazing boom at the moment. This side of the House, this Labour Government, is putting so many initiatives into making sure that it’s easier to be able to build rather than just patch up and move houses around. We’re also making sure they’re fit for purpose, and we’re also making sure that they’re safe, warm, and dry. That’s why these subbies—as well as our big guys, but especially these subbies—who come in and make sure that those, not the big construction—they’re looking at making sure it’s warm and dry and making sure they’re stopping the house and sealing it up and doing all that kind of work—are safe, and are going to get paid at the end of the day.

That’s what this Government does. It makes sure that it looks after all New Zealanders, eh, not just ourselves. So it is looking after the subbies as well as the big guys, and that is through, again, another initiative, like I’ve mentioned before—the free-trade training and apprenticeships. That’s huge for a small business owner or a subbie—that you’re on your own and you might need that extra person, especially at the moment with this massive boom and this Government, making sure we make it so much more accessible for our subbies and our contractors to build. So you might need that extra one or two people. We’ve got things like that, like the free-trade training apprenticeships.

Like earlier, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni mentioned the flexi-wages as well, to be able to encourage more people into that industry and for our small businesses to be able to undertake that. So, proud of this Government to support small businesses and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. The National Party will be supporting this legislation at first reading, and it is important to give certainty to small businesses up and down the country, particularly in the construction sector. But I need to pick up on a point the last speaker finished with: the support that the Government has for small businesses. Setting this one piece of legislation aside, that was not evident in the Budget. It’s such a claim in a first reading when we have a piece of legislation that’s so very, very important that the Labour Government is supporting small businesses when, actually, the small businesses that are being supported through this legislation have had so much cost imposed upon them that, actually, I think that they will be struggling. So anybody listening shouldn’t believe, just because they’ve heard it in this House, that there is a significant amount of support for small businesses. Small businesses in New Zealand are struggling. They’re doing it hard, and this is a Government that remains out of touch with them.

However, for this piece of legislation, it is a good thing. The reason for that is we have hard-working construction companies, small businesses, builders, electricians, plumbers, up and down the country who are out there helping to rebuild parts of the country for us. And, of course, when they are subcontracting, they don’t hold the entire contract themselves. Where the larger company that holds the contract fails, they often are left out of pocket, and that can create a lot of additional stress upon their businesses. Of course, there is always money left over. The liquidators come in or the receiver, they look at what the assets are, the liabilities, they free them up. But inevitably, the subcontractors, individuals or companies, are not preferential debtors, and, therefore, they miss out. And it’s not right that they do because inevitably, also, money has been paid for the construction work. There was an example of the hospital in Rotorua that was completed. It was finished. There was additional work that the DHB wanted done to make sure it was up to the standard. The subcontractors and others had met their obligation or responsibility. Money was held back as part of the contract with the overall contract holder so that the DHB could make sure the work that they had contracted for was done, and inevitably that company ran into trouble and the subcontractors themselves were likely to miss out. I do understand the DHB came to an arrangement so that they wouldn’t miss out, because many of them were good, hard-working local people of Rotorua. So this legislation will help with that.

We do think there are some areas we need to look a lot more closely and in greater detail. I don’t think the Government has entirely got it right. Actually, there is probably a bit more protection that’s needed or other ways to make sure that what we’re trying to achieve with this legislation is actually achieved. But I would say to the subcontractors, we need them out there working very, very hard. We need them to grow their businesses. We want them to have less uncertainty. We want them to get paid. We want a very light touch in that; we only want the Government involved with their businesses where they really need to be. That’s not what we’ve seen from the Government so far, but in this respect, for this legislation, if that’s the case of how it works, it would be very, very good for them.

The final thing I think I want to say here is that, when it comes to construction in New Zealand, be it large or small, we need to do so very much more. So we need these guys out there growing their companies and looking for ways to take on contracts themselves. We don’t have enough houses in New Zealand. It’s not what the Government has said about the demand side. Everything they’ve done pushes up the price of houses, pushes up the price of rentals. It is around the supply side. There are still not enough houses being built in New Zealand. There are a multitude of reasons for that, but none of them are good reasons because the Government has the ability to do something about it. This, in essence, won’t mean more houses are built. This won’t mean more houses are built. It means we’re still going to have the same backlogs and the same challenges, the same problems that are pushing up rents and are pushing up the cost of houses in New Zealand. But what it will do is mean that there are small businesses, builders and others out there, who remain, and their builders and businesses are not put under pressure. They don’t fold. They themselves don’t go into liquidation, have to close down because they’re owing money by a larger contractor who has gone into liquidation and these poor, hard-working Kiwis miss out.

We will be supporting this at first reading. We want to see some changes to make it better than it is. The Government hasn’t done all of the work that they tell us they have done. And I want to finish where I started: when members of Government stand up and say they’re helping small business, they should get out of Wellington a bit, talk to small businesses, because they’re not. They continue to struggle. This will help a few, but not in the way that they need to be helped. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I am very proud stand in support of this bill, the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. I just wanted to talk about what this bill is about and the kind of depth of the mischief that has been around for quite some time. This bill is about making sure that, when a builder—or somebody in construction—makes a deal, they will hold aside some of the money that they’re rightly owed because of their work; until the main contractor is confident that they have done a good job and there aren’t issues which need remedying, that money is safe and secure. In 2013, as Julie Anne Genter pointed out, we had the collapse of Mainzeal. Mainzeal was a very, very big company, and it had many irons in many fires, and people didn’t see that coming. They were utterly dependent on the integrity of the directors and the managers of that company and they got let down because they lost a lot of money. A whole lot of people who were tradies got lost in the system. They got cut out of money that was owed to them and a lot of people got hurt. And we knew that back then.

Since that time, we have had the collapse of quite a few organisations of significant size—and one of them was Ebert Construction. I was just looking at the kind of fallout from something like that, and the fallout as described by one person, Julian Oxborough, meant that his crane was frozen on the building site and that was costing him $70k a month, and he was owed $300,000. He had 135 staff. And it wasn’t just him who was going to suffer in that circumstance: it was his entire business and his entire workplace. His workforce were the ones that were going to pay the price.

So it’s very, very important that this piece of the puzzle is actually put in place where we will secure that money that is hard-earned and it will be safe. So what’s been done to create that kind of safety is that there is an insistence that such money is held in a separate account and it isn’t co-mingled. I was alarmed to hear that there were reports of those businesses, those head contractors, actually—basically, gambling with those funds, so they would use the money for their other investments. That’s a very dangerous thing to do because it wasn’t really their money, was it? It was money that someone else had earned. And what it does is it also means that if the business collapses, it’s very clear who that money belongs to. It doesn’t just go to the loudest mouths or the ones with the biggest lawyers, it actually goes to the people who earned it.

So it is a real safety net, and it’s an important one, and it does show the connection between this Government, and these people that are representing the Labour Party here in Parliament, and actually the working class, because this is the working class. This is how you get ahead in this country, and we’ve got 18,000 young apprentices at the moment doing this work and they’re coming into an industry. And we are going to get a lot more houses built if we actually make it an industry where they can actually thrive, where they can go in knowing that things like this won’t happen to them and devastate their families, that this will be a safe place to operate, and we’ll all be better off for that. It will structure the way that people do business.

So this bill will have something that’s really strong in its penalties. It will make it a strict liability offence when the head contractor fails to hold the retention money separately. And it will also make the directors personally liable when the head contractor breaches that requirement of holding the money on trust, because one piece of the puzzle that we did learn from Mainzeal is it’s extremely important that directors think about the consequences of their actions, and that they take care, and that they make sure that they are looking after the people who work hard for them. We didn’t see the collapse of some of these companies. These were strong companies. These were companies where the risk was not anticipated by the little fish that were in the swim and it’s important as a Government we protect them. So while there is a lot of complaint about red tape that goes on, look at how this particular piece of legislation works. This is Government doing its job. And, actually, there is good red tape. This is good red tape. Thank you, Madam. I commend this bill to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It’s interesting, because earlier today I was with our local iwi post-settlement entity, Taranaki Whānui, a developer from the Wellington Company, and subcontractors, I guess you would call them. We had Aoraki, the main contractor, but there, for the sod turning of just under 100 new homes here in Wellington City was, I guess, the whānau of builders who were going to make this thing happen. I knew I was speaking on this this afternoon and thought, “Here goes a collaboration of the building community who have obviously made things work, and this is what ‘good’ looks like.” I know, representing my patch of Wellington now for many years, I’ve seen this alliance of people—these contractors and entities—come together and they’re in the midst of building several successful projects.

So part of me thought that wouldn’t it be great if we didn’t need something like this? Because you saw a trusted relationship across multiple entities who could build homes and housing of all sorts. So I thought earlier today that this is obviously what success looks like, and long may it be. From the conversation that I had with the main contractor there—I said, “Look, this is what’s happening in Parliament.” People are always eager to know—believe it or not—what we’re doing. I said that this piece of work is coming through. I thought, how relevant could it be considering the work that they are doing and the work we are doing? So one of them sent me an article about retentions and the insights from the Ebert Construction insolvency case and some practical advice for subcontractors. It actually came from Lane Neave, a national legal company. But in here, it gave some really good definitions about the very issues that that are covered by this bill. Even when I looked at the situation with Ebert here, it actually says that for the most part Ebert had complied with all of its statutory obligations, however, just during those final months, accounting systems etc. began to break down, other administrative errors crept in, and then it fell short of the total retentions owed to subcontractors.

But it does give a really easy to read background. It covers Mainzeal as well—the other biggie—but makes some notes when it references to them, and it mentions this in the bill that the money was often used as interest-free working capital by the main contractor. “The subcontractors’ interests in the retentions were unsecured.”, and then, “In the event of the main contractor’s insolvency, the prospects of recovery were grim.” We’ve heard those stories here this afternoon. Interestingly, the “subcontractors’ options for confronting such issues during pre-contractual negotiations were (and are) limited due to their relatively weak bargaining position. The system was always perceived as deeply unsatisfactory”. We’ve heard stories today—my colleagues from Auckland Central and Ōtaki talk about the exposure to subcontractors to an unacceptably high level, and then it talks about Mainzeal. So I think that provides a good basis to do something, and that was looked at five, six, seven years ago. So it’s been a long time coming.

Can I acknowledge the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Poto Williams. This is the second bill in front of the House that I’ve spoken on in two weeks. Last week, it was around the modular components compliance and other bits and pieces; this week it’s the construction contracts. I think this demonstrates her commitment to get some action on things that have been lying around—dare I use that term—and sorting them out, and that’s the sign of a good Minister, who puts in the mahi, who brings together the odd bits and pieces, and then gets on with it. So I thought that was a great piece of work and there’s some similarities here, and it goes back to a piece of work that you, Madam Assistant Speaker Salesa, did when you were in this role, and I mentioned it last week: the Construction Sector Accord. Who would have thought that bringing together a disparate group of people, but all with the same kaupapa of delivering good, better construction and infrastructure in Aotearoa New Zealand—this is the sort of stuff that comes out of it. They want action—probably wanted it a whole lot more quickly—but that accord has meant that at least there’s some sector agreement on what matters most to them. They then come together and go, “Right. These are the things that we’d like to see passed. This is urgent.” They are already working with the trust and confidence of the Minister. What I said last week was the word “reassurance”. This gives some reassurance that they play their part, we play our part.

I know that those are the words of the contractor today. They are willing and ready to go. These are things that actually hold them up. They just want to get on with it. The great thing about talking to people who build homes and developers is the scent of innovation, creativity, but most of all, urgency. They just want to get on with it. They know what’s deemed to be red tape. They don’t dwell on things. They just get on with it. And that’s the great thing: maybe we could learn a lesson or two from them. But this fits very much in with that plan.

So moving to the bill, I am very confident this will go some way to ensuring—and I am always impressed when colleagues across the floor can bring their stories to this House and demonstrate the need for why things should happen. You know, we can pull bits out to say this isn’t perfect, but I think the essence of this, in terms of making sure that the retention money is held back in a way where it doesn’t get—I think the term is—commingled or tangled up or somehow intertwined with other accounts and funds, and used for other reasons. We’re saying no, no, and no to that.

So I’m confident that when this goes through, we’ll have the sector support. Interestingly enough, the sector tells me that it’s already trying to demonstrate this already. So, you know, they don’t want this to be an issue, they don’t want—in the climate we’ve got now, the importance of building an alliance of contractors, subcontractors, whatever we call them, there’s a sense of “we need to keep everyone happy, everyone gets a bite of the pie”. Why? Because there’s more work to do. There’s a whole lot more building infrastructure to do, and one of the things that you’ll often see at sites is the same developer, the same main contractor, and the same subcontractors. Their logos are on those fences right across the city. I know in Wellington that’s very much the case. I can almost guess who’s working with who, be it Willis Bond and LT McGuinness or the Wellington Co. and Aoraki—there are many other examples.

So what this demonstrates is that this is now addressing a very important aspect of the construction sector. The sector embraces that. It’s already been demonstrated, and I think we can, with confidence, ensure that some of those issues raised, as I said, by this piece of work about retentions that came through to me and the, did I see the word lessons learnt—there we are—from the Ebert issue. Once and for all, these will be resolved. I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise in support of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I can’t help but wonder to myself about the member who just spoke, Paul Eagle, and commend him on his magnanimous attitude towards his colleagues across the House and conjure potentially what other roles he may play in Wellington in the future, given his fondness for discussing it in his contributions in the House.

Now, National supports this bill. However, I do want to start this contribution by noting some poor process. The first piece of poor process is that we do have here on this bill a shortened report back. What that means, and the reason it matters, is that there will be less time than usual for submitters from the public to give their views on this bill and how it would operate in practice. Now, the usual process when someone is seeking a shorter report-back time is that the Minister outlines that at the beginning of her speech, at the beginning of the introduction of the bill. The Minister didn’t do that and we’re yet to hear from members opposite why that was.

But the second thing I do want to highlight is how slow this has been, because Madam Speaker Jenny Salesa will recall that these proposals were first proposed in May last year by the then Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa. Those proposals were made. They were welcomed, as I recall, by the construction sector at the time, a number of stakeholders were on board, and one can only wonder what has gone on in the next more than a year that has held this up in a delay that to me seems unnecessary and untimely, particularly given how broadly supported these changes are. It’s my view that where law reform is necessary to ensure that law is operating well, we should do that as quickly as possible, and in this case that does not appear to have occurred.

I do just want to trace back the background to this retentions regime because, of course, legislation to protect the rights of subcontractors in relation to retention money was first passed in 2015, and it was at that point led by the Minister for Building and Housing, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So if you’ll forgive me, the metaphor, if the Hon Poto Williams is the renovator of this regime, it is the Hon Dr Nick Smith who is its original architect, who saw the need to make these protections for subcontractors. That occurred after the collapse of Mainzeal, and what we saw at that time was subcontractors not being able to access the money that was retained for their later payment. So the Minister at that time saw the need to introduce a layer of protection to ensure that if companies became insolvent or went into liquidation, then their subcontractors were able to be paid.

Now, this, of course, relates to a common practice in the construction industry whereby a portion of payment is withheld so that if there are problems that need to be remediated, then contractors are able to use those funds. So the intention of that legislation was good. I am sure that it has offered more protection to many subcontractors and has certainly firmed up the need for contractors not to use that money wrongly. However, the Ebert Construction case showed that there were some loopholes potentially in the way that was operating, because some people were able to withhold retention moneys from subcontractors on the basis that they hadn’t been directly deemed in trust. That has been problematic. I support changes to make sure that the law applies as it was intended.

I also support moves to increase the penalties for non-compliance. And I’d like to highlight this part of the regime, because the principle that is being followed here by the Minister is a simple one. It is that if we believe that compliance with the law is important in order to protect from potential victimisation, to prevent people from failing to adhere to it, then one way of encouraging their adherence to the law is to increase penalties. I would just invite members opposite in particular to consider why it is in this case that the Government views that an increased penalty regime may increase compliance but that that is not the approach that is applied in other areas of the law, particularly when it comes to the criminal law, where victimisation is more than just money; it can be lives and livelihoods. There is an interesting practice at play there. The example I would offer is with the health and safety regime where I think we have seen quite a direct correlation where increased penalties have increased directors’ adherence to, and the management knowledge of, the law in the area and the need to apply it carefully.

I do want to, before I turn to a couple of the specifics of the Act, just talk briefly about the context for the New Zealand construction sector, because what this bill is doing is responding to one problem, which is what contractors do with retentions. But actually it also, in doing so, highlights a larger problem, which is that we continue to find that, in that construction chain, we are having too many construction entities fall over, leading to the need for these kinds of regimes around how moneys are used, and I would put to you that that challenge with subcontractors not getting paid, with contractors not being able to follow through on contracts, has really eroded trust in our construction sector. It’s really important, because a lot of what we see in the construction sector is people taking a bit of a risk, choosing to put their capital, their expertise, their time into a project. And wherever people are taking a risk, it is important that the law and policy actually supports them taking risks that we want to see taken.

I would say that in New Zealand right now, a risk we want to see people taking is taking the risk to go and commit to large-scale construction contracts, particularly where they relate to housing. I would put to you that many of these projects have been held back by the corrosive impact that collapsing construction projects have had on people’s confidence in our construction pipeline. That has eroded the desire of many to get into the construction industry, to be their own subcontracting business, to commit to large-scale projects. So wherever possible, we need to address those issues.

I do also happen to think that one of the major ways we can create more confidence and trust in the system is to give people long-term pipelines of work, and the Government should not renege on its own responsibility there where, as the major contractor of construction and particularly as it relates to large-scale infrastructure investment, the practice of chopping and changing what is or isn’t in the National Infrastructure Plan is corrosive to trust and confidence. I do want to put that on the record here, because actually we all win when subcontractors have the confidence in the future pipeline. That means they invest in apprentices, they invest in trainees, and they feel able to commit to these projects.

So, just briefly, before I finish this contribution on the specific provisions, I do want to say that strengthening how the retention money is held to prevent it being used as working capital is sensible. It really just addresses the inevitable weaknesses of human nature, which is that if this cash is able to be accessed when a firm finds itself in dire straits, it may indeed access it as working capital. It makes sense to have this in separate bank accounts and not to allow it to be accessed.

The bill also proposes that subcontractors not only have the right to see proof that their funds are being held properly, but that actually reverses that obligation so that it is contractors themselves who are obliged to demonstrate that. I think that is realistic in that these relationships are not even relationships. The contractor is definitely the one wearing the bigger shoes and the subcontractor may be reluctant to harm that relationship by demanding more information, and this gets the balance in a better place.

So, overall, this is a good bill. I commend the Minister, the Hon Jenny Salesa, who seemed to do the lion’s share of the work on it. I question why it’s taken so long to get to this House, and I commend the select committee for their work in analysing it and ensuring that submitters are heard and that the detail of it is worked through so as not to add unnecessarily to compliance costs but to achieve the good ends as discussed. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. It’s my honour this afternoon to rise and speak in support of the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill. Can I open this afternoon by acknowledging Minister Poto Williams, and the work that she’s been doing, and also acknowledge the importance of pronunciation when we acknowledge any names within this House. So, Minister Williams, I think you’ve done an incredible amount of work gearing up in construction, and—when I listened to your presentation to our Transport and Infrastructure Committee last week—just the incredible amount of planning that this Government has done in order to gear up to where we need to be. I think, particularly, about the future of our construction sector and how critical it is to the success of Aotearoa New Zealand moving forward. I think of how this sector is organised, how it’s supported and led, because our reality is that 275,000 New Zealanders work in this space currently, and that continues to grow with the amount of work that we’re doing here.

But also there are the 4.5 million of us who rely on it for warm, dry, and efficient homes; our local schools that are being built; the hospitals that the Government is delivering; safe worksites; high quality roads and rails. There’s a lot of infrastructure being built into this country. And I guess, as New Zealand gears up for all of this activity, to grow and to reach $43 billion in the 2021 Budget, it’s crucial that the Government and industry work alongside each other as well as our councils and iwi. We want to see value for the $10 billion that Government spends annually on construction and infrastructure, and the sector and workforce need to know that this future is bright from the leadership under this Labour Government and that we have a strong pipeline of work under way.

When I’ve thought about this bill, and researched and done the work behind it, I’ve learnt so much in my short time as a member of Parliament and this House on a subject matter area that is somewhat new to me. Two weeks ago, I went across to Devonport to meet with a small business on the Shore who are building houses—a Māori-owned business, who have a number of developments across Auckland’s North Shore, out west, and out in Papakura. They invited me to see this piece of work because of the apprenticeship scheme that they are running, and not one, not two, but eight apprentices presented themselves on that day across a number of disciplines, all of Māori descent and all from Northcote in the North Shore. So it was a wonderful surprise and something that I was very proud of.

What this bill does for me is that when I think back to these particular people that are contributing to our construction in this country—they are going over and beyond in order to train apprentices and do right by New Zealand and people and what this Government is attempting to do, which is to build houses and hospitals and schools—why should they have uncertainty? Why should they have uncertainty about a proportion of their payment, 10 percent, in fact? Therein lies the challenge for me—that we want these people with our infrastructure spend to gear up our workforce, to gear up their business, to help us build houses because it’s in dire need in this country, yet they have all the uncertainty. That’s the question that sits with me.

So the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill amends the Construction Contracts Act 2002 to particularly strengthen and clarify the retention money regime. The retention money is an amount held back by one party to another. It’s commonly between 2 and 10 percent of the contract, and it’s often paid after 12 months following the expiry of the defects liability period if—and if—they are satisfied with the job that’s done. That is on a gentleman’s handshake. It’s on a high-trust model and leaves some of our most important small businesses with the level of uncertainty and question that we actually don’t want them to have.

Sadly, in the past, there has been a number of cases where contractors have used retention money as working capital. If the contractor goes bankrupt, the subcontractor loses out on getting refunded their retention. And again, close to home there’s an example of Stanley Group, an organisation that was based on Auckland’s North Shore. In that particular example, Stanley Group had been liquidated—an Auckland and Waikato building company. The companies were placed into liquidation on the Thursday after a vote by shareholders—as quick as that, which I found out at the Companies Office. The business at that time had about 100 staff, had three projects under way, Housing New Zealand, in Māngere, Hamilton, and Whakatāne. And what we found in that was the creditor’s business would likely be owed; about $150,000 is what they found themselves short. Another director and creditor found himself short, being owed about $250,000. So that’s the liability that sits on our subbies—our subcontractors—that we’re asking them to carry on a gentleman’s handshake when we need them to have confidence to gear up, build, build, build in this particular industry. So that’s a hard ask.

When I look at the timeline of how this has come about—and, you know, I’m not totally sure how to do this, but can I acknowledge the previous Minister for Construction and Building for the work that she did in the lead up to this. There was hard yakka there, but, yes, it does go back to 2014 with the Hon Nick Smith, and through to the last Government under the Hon Jenny Salesa, and then geared up as a part of this. I acknowledge the points that were raised by the previous member, Nicola Willis, where she asked why this had taken so long. I think she said that it was lodged in May last year. Since then, we’ve had a COVID pandemic across this country. This House didn’t quite sit as normally as it did so one would expect—it’s not only that but the inclusion of an election in 2020. And when the House sat this is now in front of us under the leadership of the Hon Poto Williams.

So we’ve certainly got work to do, to continue to push these types of bills forward. They support those that we need to be supported in this particular time when we build back better. I always say we build back better together. And again, I say that this Government does and has to work alongside industry, alongside our councils, and alongside our iwi, and that in the current circumstances, where we don’t have enough houses for the people that we need across Aotearoa New Zealand, then politics can’t play ball in the work that we need to do. We need to get up and do that.

But it’s also part of a larger programme of work that we’re doing in this space. I’m so proud that under this Government we’ve issued more consents than we’ve ever issued. In Auckland alone, in March alone, 4,128 new homes were consented—the highest number since the 1940s—

Marja Lubeck: Many in your area?

SHANAN HALBERT: —many, many in Northcote, as we build those houses, mixed dwellings, and we increase the growing pains of intensification. But we’ll get through it together. I also, as I talked about the apprenticeship scheme before, am just so proud of the work and the number of apprentices: Māori, Pacific rangatahi—young people across this country that we’re building this workforce for. Again, I finish on this point, that when we’re building houses, we’re building hospitals, and we’re building cycleways and walkways across our Waitematā, there’s a lot of opportunities—a lot of opportunities for work, economic opportunities—but we still need to stand there hand in hand across Government, industry, iwi, and council, and let’s do it together. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I move, That the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2021.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move, That the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

We’re picking up this debate after some time, so it is worth returning to some of the facts on fluoridation. In doing so, let’s start with the situation for oral health in New Zealand. Our last dental health survey was in 2009, and I’m sad to say that it showed a measurable difference in the quality of our oral health in New Zealand than in Australia. We know that New Zealanders don’t access dental care enough, and dental care is preventive. In 2018, the New Zealand Health Survey showed that only half of adults visited a dental healthcare worker in the past year.

We know that the impacts of tooth decay are inequitable in New Zealand. Low-income adults will have lost 2.5 teeth on average by the time they are 38 due to tooth decay; whereas this is only 0.4 of a tooth for those on high incomes. These differences are impactful. Tooth decay combined with the cost of dental care causes painful conditions. Some people are prevented from working because of tooth decay. It contributes to unemployment and loss of confidence in people.

Sadly, tooth decay is not just an issue for children, but its impact on children is particularly bad. It is one of the leading causes—one of the leading causes—of preventable hospital admissions. I don’t just mean trips to the dentist; I mean children younger than five being sent to hospital to have painful dental extractions. Because they’re so young, they cannot reliably be made to sit still for a dental extraction, and so they are placed under general anaesthetic—under a general anaesthetic for a preventable condition. It is a shame.

Yet we know that fluoride prevents 40 percent of tooth decay across one’s lifetime—40 percent; just think of the big impact we could make on these conditions. I am sad to say—I am very sad to say—that this is not cutting-edge science. It not like an mRNA vaccine that we are rolling out that is a triumph of recent science developed across the last 18 months of the pandemic. There are 60 years of scientific evidence for fluoride—60 years that we have not consistently brought ourselves to act on the evidence. Many countries similar to New Zealand support water fluoridation: Australia, with whom I have said our oral health compares poorly; the United Kingdom; the United States; and Canada.

Water fluoridation is supported by the World Health Organization, the World Dental Federation, and the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce tooth decay, and this is particularly important. It is relevant because when we come to investments in health—and, as you have seen in this Budget, the Government is committed to investing in health—it is important that we take all the most cost-effective investments so that we have more choices that we can make with our heavily constrained health dollar. Water fluoridation is so effective that the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers it listed amongst the top 10 achievements of public health. Actually, that’s not quite right. They consider it amongst the top 10 achievements of public health in the 20th century and we have not yet routinely implemented it in New Zealand. We must do better.

We have 50 percent coverage of water fluoridation in New Zealand, so 50 percent of New Zealanders have access to a water supply that is fluoridated. Sadly, due to political inaction, this has not increased in the last 15 years. So we know that there are parts of New Zealand where people live without access to fluoridated water and that this was the problem that was brought by local government to central government. Local government has had to face the controversy of water fluoridation, because they have previously run the water supplies. They have been confronted by a vocal lobby—I think it is fair to say—a lobby that is highly selective at best with its science, has made emotive plays, and has used disinformation. Local government is not resourced to be able to adjudicate the facts or otherwise of this disinformation; the Ministry of Health is. So local government called on central government to bring this decision into the health sphere, and that was the origin of this bill.

However, I’m making a new proposal to this bill, and that is because it has long been our view—and it was the view stated by Annette King at the first reading of this bill on behalf of the Labour Party. Even if the Government was retaining DHBs, our view would have been that the Director-General of Health is the best placed and best resourced to decide on the science of fluoridation. This is our current situation, but also, you know, it requires ongoing consideration because scientific evidence does change. So it’s important we put the decision outside of the political realm and in the hands of someone who is resourced and able to make that expert decision. Our decision to make this proposal has been applauded by the New Zealand Medical Association, the New Zealand Dental Association, some DHBs and other health sector groups, and by people who understand the urgency of this public health proposal, but also the fact that you cannot put such urgent and important issues of public health to the vote in every electorate in the country.

My view is that the bill, as it was, reflected a political compromise; an unwillingness to take on a vocal lobby, but also a lobby that was uninterested in science. Well, my view is that the science isn’t different in Auckland or Amberley. It isn’t different in Wellington or Waitara. We will consider local factors, but we will not relitigate the science in every jurisdiction. As you’ll see from the Supplementary Order Paper, the director-general would be required to give consideration to the oral health of each community that he or she was making a decision about, and the financial cost and therefore feasibility of the decision. Local factors matter, but we will not be adjudicating the science in every jurisdiction, otherwise the same situation would have played out that we have seen play out with local councils, which is that there can be campaigns run to muddy the science and to overturn sound decision-making on that basis. That’s why local government came to central government with this problem. We have been asked to show leadership, and this Government is showing leadership on this vital matter for the oral health of New Zealanders. We have the opportunity here to reverse decades of political failure of looking after New Zealand’s health.

So what is the process from here? Following this debate, I will write to the chair of the Health Committee and request that it conducts a brief inquiry into the draft Supplementary Order Paper to give effect to this proposal. I will also request that the committee call for public submissions. It is my intention to progress this bill to the committee stage in about two months’ time, and the House would benefit from having the committee’s report available so it can be considered at this stage. The bill and the proposed amendments are consistent with this Government’s focus on ensuring better health outcomes for all New Zealanders, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see this bill back in the House, and can I first make the comment that National accepts the science of fluoridation and has no questions in that area.

But, if I can just talk, we had a brief history of oral health leading up to this point. In fact, it’s a brief history leading up to two weeks ago, because then what happened, despite the investments and commitments we heard about in oral health, Budget 2021 outlaid another broken promise in failing to deliver 20 mobile dental vans and an increase in the emergency dental grant. So that also actually needs to sit into the oral history. With all the great things we’re wanting to do, let’s remember the campaign 2020 promise by the Prime Minister that there would be 20 mobile dental vans and an increase in the emergency dental grant. That is also the reality of the oral history that we need to tell here.

Having said that, let’s come back to this bill. I recall that when it came into the Health Committee, it would have been at the beginning of 2017. As I recall, I think we split into subcommittees to hear this bill. There were a number of submissions: 1,107 submissions and 208 written supplementary submissions. We heard 145 submitters. The majority, it’s fair to say, were opposed to the bill.

They were mostly opposed to the science, rather than to the process that was being put forward here, which was a process that was requested by Local Government New Zealand fundamentally saying, “Look, we manage the municipal water supplies and the injection sides, and we’re being asked to make a decision on what is a health matter, and we don’t feel like we have the competence in the health domain, and yet it falls to us.”, and that was a very reasonable argument to make. It did fall to them, and so they were saying, “Let’s put this decision making and responsibilities and the liabilities for getting it right and getting it wrong back where it belongs—back with health.” So the submitters weren’t arguing that process. They were mostly arguing the science of fluoridation, which, as I say, we’ve taken a position on and are supportive of. A number of health organisations presented as well, and I think the key point around Local Government New Zealand—and it’s in the departmental report—is that those who supported the intent of the bill, including Local Government New Zealand and most local government organisations, agreed that local authorities should no longer be the decision makers about water fluoridation.

We had a number of submitters there who fell into two groups. There were those who said the decision making should move off local government, some said it should move to local DHBs, and others said that it should move to central government, so that discussion was held within the select committee.

The officials reporting back to the departmental report have summarised their decision as follows. The Government considered a range of options for increasing access to fluoridated water supplies, including giving decision-making power to the Director-General of Health. It was decided that giving decision-making powers about fluoridation to DHBs represents a significant advance on current arrangements and fits well with DHBs’ statutory objectives and responsibilities. So that was where officials landed and where they guided the committee to the report that then came back to the House.

Where we’re landing with this is that, one, we support the science of fluoridation, and, two—remembering it was a National bill that came to the House, first of all, proposing in response to Local Government New Zealand that the decision making around fluoridation move to DHBs—we agree that fluoridation should move from local authorities. We understand the Supplementary Order Paper that is going back to select committee, requesting a move to central government. Our position will be that depending on what comes out of select committee, we’ll be seeking an amendment to that Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that there is still a local voice in some shape or form.

This has got a little bit more complicated, because it would have been relatively easy to pass this back to DHBs and have their views contributing to this discussion, futureproofing that in what we see as the failed experiment of a health restructure. How we word that is something that we’re working on. We’re hopeful that maybe, through the select process, it might be a recommendation from the select committee, but what I’m signalling here is an interest from the National Party in having a local view on this, recognising that central government will then make their decision. We’d still like to think that we can capture in some shape or form a local view, and that will be either through the select committee process or will be an amendment in our hands to the Supplementary Order Paper.

So, having said that, I think we’ve outlined our position: broad support—it was our bill that came in initially—for fluoridation. We understand that central government will have the decision making. We’re looking to get the best of both, where there’s still the ability for a local view without toppling that process and that desire to have fluoridation as widespread as possible in New Zealand municipal water supplies.

So, having set down some principles and then our direction of travel, we’re encouraging this bill to progress its way through the House. Thank you.

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

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Anybody who’s sat up overnight with a child with a toothache knows exactly how painful it can be, not only for the children but also the impact it has on parents and the wider whānau, as the child experiences poor outcomes. I think, looking back on my previous role monitoring child health, what my role used to be is collating all of the available information on children’s health outcomes and then providing that to DHBs so they could look at planning. There were two sources of information we used to get: one was from the community of oral health services, and what they used to report back was the number of children—the proportion of children who were caries-free at five years, and also the decayed, missing, and filled teeth rate. So, looking at the proportion of children who had decayed, missing, and filled teeth at five years; and then they also took that through to year 8—so when children are about 12 or 13 years of age.

Then we also looked at the huge number of hospital admissions for dental caries and we used to see just large numbers—particularly in preschool children, but also older children coming in to get dental caries addressed—in operating theatres, usually under general anaesthetic. What we used to see was huge inequalities. So much higher rates of dental caries for Māori and Pacific children, but also children living in more deprived areas. So it was interesting, just looking back and preparing for talking today, to see that Cure Kids in their recent report said, basically, very, very similar things. So in 2018, they found only 60 percent of five-year-olds examined by community health services were caries-free. So what that meant is 40 percent of children had evidence of tooth decay and then, on average, five-year-olds had 1.8 decayed, missing, or filled primary teeth each. So that is very, very significant. It wasn’t much better at year 8: only 66 percent of children caries-free and, basically, on average, 3.7 decayed, filled, or missing permanent teeth. So still huge issues there.

They also noted that, in 2019, there were 7,000 hospital admissions for children coming in to get dental treatment done. They also reported the same large inequalities that we were seeing back when I was doing it—much higher rates for Māori and Pacific children and those living in more deprived areas. They also cited the 2018/19 New Zealand Health Survey and what they found was that less than 60 percent of children brush their teeth at least twice daily with a standard fluoride toothpaste. So I think if we’re relying on children’s behaviour to top up fluoride, it just shows some of the challenges that that involves.

Just looking at some of the evidence, where does fluoridation come in? Back in 2014, the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor and the Royal Society of New Zealand undertook a review of the scientific evidence of the health effects of fluoridation. What they concluded was “from a medical and public health perspective, water fluoridation at the levels used in New Zealand poses no significant health risks and is effective at reducing the prevalence and severity of tooth decay in communities where it is used.” And they were very reassuring that, for communities that weren’t fluoridated in terms of their water supplies, that they could be confident that this was a safe option and it would save significant costs in terms of dental health issues—particularly for those that are experiencing quite high levels of dental caries.

That was 2014, so what’s happened since then? Well, recently the current Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor commissioned another review and what was looked at there was they said, “We have considered new research on fluoridation and comprehensive reviews published subsequently” and they found that the conclusions of the Royal Society in 2014 “remain appropriate.” So nothing really changed. Fluoridation is still good at reducing dental caries and improving health outcomes in terms of oral health.

So where do we go with this bill going back to when it was originally introduced? What was being proposed was that Part 2A of the Health Act was being amended so that DHBs could be the decision makers and then they could direct local authorities in terms of fluoridating, or non-fluoridation, of their water supplies—because at the moment it is territorial authorities that have that decision making. But, back then, it was noted that the problem there was that you’d have inconsistent decision making around the country, so that only 54 percent of the population back then was receiving fluoridated water. And they were commenting back then that, basically, it hadn’t changed in the past 15 years. So there was a real sense that we needed to do something. So what they argued was if you had DHBs that were the ones making the decisions, then you’d actually have a much more public health - focused approach in terms of that decision making; and that was the rationale for moving to DHB decision making.

However, I think as Minister Ayesha Verrall has indicated, the Government’s intending to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that would actually transfer this decision making to the Director-General of Health. I think that makes a lot of sense in the current proposed health reforms, because it means that you’ve got one central decision-maker and you can look at a nationally consistent, evidence-based approach. I think even if we weren’t moving to bringing our DHBs together as one, what actually doesn’t make a lot of sense is to have each of the individual 20 DHBs having to separately weigh up the evidence on fluoride and then make an individual call. It’s actually much better to have that consistent approach across.

So what the SOP proposes is that the director-general would have the responsibility of directing local authorities to fluoridate—or not—their drinking water. But in doing so, before they made a decision, they would have to consider a range of things. I think the first one is just specified in the SOP: scientific evidence on the effectiveness of adding fluoride to drinking water, and it’s reducing the prevalence and severity of dental decay. Just highlighting again, you want to do this once and well; you don’t want to do this 20 times around the country. But then they also have to weigh up whether the benefits of adding fluoride outweigh the financial costs, taking into account the state of oral health in the population within the area that the territorial authority is responsible for, and also weighing up how many people would be affected by the water fluoridation. Then, also looking at the likely financial cost, but then weighing that up against the savings. But when you’re doing that, making sure that you also take into account the ongoing management and monitoring costs of that.

So, basically, what the direction would need to be is quite specific to the territorial authorities—to talk about the date by which they must comply. But that also has to take into account what’s practicable for the territorial authority themselves in implementing it. They also need to specify the level of fluoride that must be added, because we want to keep that within a reasonably narrow range. Also the direction can allow that the territorial authority has one or more specified site where non-fluoridated water could be available so that there’s some choice at that level. But they also need to engage with the local authority, and so before making the decision, the director-general needs to invite comments from the local authority. Some of those comments need to centre around what the likely cost would be. That includes, as I said before, ongoing maintenance and management, but also when they could, in practical terms, comply with any direction. Then they need to give that authority at least 40 working days to provide comments back. If they do get those comments back within 40 days, then the director-general needs to take that into account in any decision making.

So, basically, what the issue is there, then, is that the local authority isn’t required to go out and consult with its community on that, but rather, if that decision and direction is made, then it just needs to comply with that direction. So this is really an important bill, and I think what it does is make sure that that decision making and weighing up the evidence base that gets—basically that occurs once. That means, you know, in terms of efficiency perspective, we’re not doing that in 20 places around the country. But it also allows engagement between the Director-General of Health and local authorities so that there is a conversation and weighing up of—in that particular region—what the number of people affected would be, what the oral health status of that community is, and what the costs, including ongoing monitoring and maintenance, would be before making a decision.

Certainly, in the work I’ve seen with child health, there is a potential here for a huge improvement in oral health status for children by just making sure that many, many more children can actually have fluoridated drinking water, because having dental caries is a really, really bad way to start your life. So I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Oh, good choice. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in its second reading. As you’ll know, the second reading is normally to debate pretty much the amendments to the bill, discuss submissions and the departmental report after it’s come out of select committee. I do note the Government is intending to send this bill back to select committee, and probably the right way forward, but a level of irony for a bill that’s languished on the Order Paper for several years.

I note it was in the select committee in 2017, and I look at some of our former colleagues on the committee membership. Barbara Stewart, what a great lady she was from New Zealand First, and Ria Bond. I also note Dr David Clark was there as the health Opposition spokesperson at the time, well before he became health Minister and arguably the worst health Minister New Zealand has ever seen. I do note, in 2017, the bill came before the House in its first reading. Excuse me to my colleagues who might find this a bit painful, but I did notice the votes of the time. It got passed. There were 12 Noes—and that was New Zealand First; they had 12 in their party at that time—107 Ayes, so it had quite comprehensive support. National Party voted 59 on that day. Oh, those were the days weren’t they—59! Let’s hope we get back there one day—2023. New Zealand Labour Party, 31; Green Party, 13; Māori Party, 2; ACT New Zealand, 1; and, of course, United Future, 1 as well.

So with this bill, fair to say I’m normally in the camp that you can’t always protect everyone from the consequences of their own behaviour. And I’m not sure sometimes if it’s always the responsibility of the State to intervene. But fair to say, there are times, I think, when ideology is not the way forward and sometimes a Government of the day, a Parliament of the day, does need to lean in, and I think this is one of those times. When we hear statistics that we only have 54 percent coverage of fluoride—and I think, as we’ve heard across the House today, there’s very clear evidence of why we need to have fluoride in our water, if not for the adults, just for our young ones that know no better. So it is important. I know speaking about this bill today will sort of start to rattle the cages of the tinfoil hat brigade. And I’m sure we’re going to get successive emails over the next 24 hours that are going to tell us the devils of fluoride. But I think, overall, we’ve got to follow the science. And it’s quite right that we’re going to pass this bill in its second reading and it is going to go back to the select committee for those tweaks of the Supplementary Order Papers.

Although what is interesting, the bill was originally about DHBs to make that decision on behalf of local people. Now we have a Government that’s going to strip out DHBs and local decision-making. So now they’re saying it’s actually going to be the director-general, Ashley Bloomfield. And you do have to wonder, the poor guy, what he did wrong. Arguably, he’s done pretty well over COVID and now he’s been handed this big hospital pass and he’s going to be responsible for signing off the fluoride in our water as well.

One thing that has been silent today is: who is going to cover the cost? I see that was one of the issues that came out of the departmental report in 2016 and 2017. I think it would be very clear local authorities at this time would probably question whether they should. I think my colleague Penny Simmonds said it was about $144 million over about 10 years, and I think that’s a sizeable cost for most local authorities. I think of a small district council like mine, Waimakariri, just up the road Hurunui, which is even smaller. So maybe that is something we can address in the select committee, about who will cover the cost of that as well.

Overall, I think this bill’s time has come, although it does feel like it’s a bit back to the future because all we’re doing is talking to the bill and sending it to select committee. I do hope that once it comes out of select committee, we can expedite it quite quickly, because I think in this day and age the idea that we don’t have fluoride in our water to protect the teeth of our young people–we’ve seen them presenting in acute presentations at our A & E. And overall, we do know now more and more how oral health underpins a lot of our physical and mental health as well. So the right direction and let’s hope we get it over the line pretty soon. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I note that I’m the fifth speaker on this bill today and yet only the second to not hold a medical degree of some sort, and I think the first to not have had a career in health at all. So please excuse me, as a mere lawyer but one who has a great interest in one of the topics that this relates to, and that is planning and the role of local government.

As we know, this bill, as it was considered by the select committee way back when, in some other Government, was really about moving the decision making away from local governments to the DHBs, because it was seen as a health issue. I’m pleased to hear that across the House there is support for this sentiment—and that hasn’t changed with Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 38, that’s been tabled today—that this isn’t a decision for councils to make. That is because, in part, local councils are very political organisations. They have a limited funding base, being their raters, who are also their voters, so it’s often difficult for councils to make decisions that a large and vocal part of their communities may not be in favour of. That is despite the evidence that we’ve already heard from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall and that we’ve also heard from Shane Reti on the other side of the House.

I will say, though, that this is an interesting debate, and I do agree with what Shane Reti said before about the role of district councils and it being a health issue. But, of course, arguably planning, which is something that district councils do do and something that I am familiar with, is really all about public health. The two are inextricably linked. So if we think: where did both planning and public health come out? Arguably it’s 1854 and the cholera outbreak at Broad Street in Soho, where—if anyone is a fan of The Crown, they will have seen the great episode with John Snow. Or have I got my shows mixed up? Was it the Queen Victoria show? [Interruption] It was the Victoria show—it was Victoria, sorry—1854.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I know the member is going to come right to the bill.

RACHEL BROOKING: I am coming back to the point, sorry about that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Quite quickly.

Hon Member: I was wondering where we were going there.

RACHEL BROOKING: Ha, ha! It was a terrible, embarrassing distraction. But the point is that the councils do work with a lot of health-related issues or things that in the end relate to health. So that is waste water. If we don’t have good conditions around how we treat waste water and where it ends up, we end up with health problems; around where we put roads, we can end up with health problems; around our ability to use active transport—if we don’t have good places for people to walk, cycle, even, we end up with health issues. So even though councils do work with these health issues at one stage, it is hardly appropriate that the decision on fluoride, the decisions about the evidence on fluoride, is made by a health authority.

So stepping through how these water systems work, in the beautiful city of Dunedin, the water that’s used as potable water eventually is from the beautiful Lammerlaws. There’s a whole lot of—

Simon Court: Through lead pipes—through lead pipes no less.

RACHEL BROOKING: No, most of Dunedin’s water supply is from the Lammerlaws—beautiful tussock grasslands—I think it’s Chionochloa rigida. And then that water from the tussocks, that’s piped into reservoirs, it’s treated, and then it’s piped into people’s houses. Of course, that’s quite a complicated process in itself. It’s governed by a lot of different things. There’s the Local Government Act, that councils have an obligation to maintain water services; that’s section 130. And of course, when they’re reporting in their long-term plans, water services are a group of activity that must be reported on. Of course, councils have to get resource consents to take that water in the first place. And then, very importantly, and relevant to all of this, they also have to comply with water standards.

I turn to Part 2A of the Health Act 1956, and this is to do with drinking-water standards. It is this part of the Health Act 1956 that the bill as considered and reported back from the select committee aims to change. So it is at section 69A that the Minister can issue drinking-water standards, and also that water suppliers have duties that include compliance with the standards. That’s all in the Health Act, in this Part 2A.

At section 69O, I’d like to draw attention to that because it is that the “Minister may issue, adopt, amend, or revoke drinking-water standards.” And very importantly and relevantly to what the select committee was considering, at section 69O(3) of the Act, it says “Standards issued or adopted under this section … (c) must not include any requirement that fluoride be added to drinking water.” The bill as introduced and as considered by the select committee would repeal that section.

Then the bill as introduced and reported back from the select committee amended those provisions around drinking-water standards. However, now we have this SOP 38, that’s been tabled in the House today, and it’s going to be moved to go back to the select committee to look at.

Marja Lubeck: What does it do?

RACHEL BROOKING: So what this SOP does, as we’ve already heard, is it changes the DHB provision to the director-general, but also what it does is it inserts a new Part 5A. So rather than relying on those water standard provisions, it’s bringing it into its new part. This then comes after Part 5 of the Act, which is “Artificial UV tanning services”, and before Part 6, which is “Regulations”. So it’s its own part of the Act is what it’s recommending. And you’ll see that there’s this very clear difference, that it’s the director-general not DHBs making decisions, but otherwise, much of the wording—and it’s put into new parts—is the same. So that is that before making a direction, the director-general must consider scientific evidence, and that’s the same wording as was reported back from the select committee.

Then at what would be new section 116E(2)(b), in SOP 38, it says “whether the benefits of adding fluoride to the drinking water outweigh the financial costs, taking into account”—and here is the change. It says “(i) the state or likely state”, which is new, “of the oral health of”, and instead of “its residents, population”, it’s now “a population group or community where the local authority supply is situated.” And the other provisions are very similar. Another change that I’m sure the select committee will be interested in is new offence provisions at what will be new section 166J. So most of the provisions remain the same with that change from DHB to director-general and this different mechanism in terms of how the Act works.

I note Shane Reti’s comments earlier about consultation and the provisions relating to consultation with the local authority, which Dr Liz Craig also spoke about. They remain. So there is a local view in the process and that will be at new section 116G in clause 4A.

We know that the issue here is a scientific health issue that should be made by health experts, and we know that what we’re concerned about is the oral health of children. It’s appropriate that the decision maker is the same decision maker that makes those water standards, and that is the Director-General of Health. This will lead to some differences, in particular in Otago and Southland. So whilst Dunedin City Council is mainly fluoridated, Invercargill City Council is also fluoridated, Clutha District Council is, and its urban population—Central Otago District Council, Gore District Council, Queenstown Lakes District Council, Southland District Council, and you, Madam Speaker, may be interested to know that Waitaki District Council all are not fluoridated at the moment. We’ve heard some concerns around the funding and I note what I just read out before that financial issues are part of the criteria for the director-general to consider.

Just briefly, I’d like to comment on the process, and note that when I was a lawyer, the Hon Christopher Finlayson did a similar approach with the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. That was something that, as a member of the legal community, it was very useful to be able to see exactly what the Government was thinking about changing and to be able to go back to the select committee process. And of course, we’ll have another new interesting process with the replacement legislation for the Resource Management Act soon. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to talk on this bill.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe. Fluoridation is a hotly debated topic in our party. We support the provision to improve oral health of, particularly, marginalised communities, as long as people can opt out. We agree with having a national and consistent approach that reduces inequalities, so we do support this bill and are pleased to see it specified that councils are required to provide access to non-fluoridated water.

This bill has been stored since 2017 and, of course, a lot has changed in that time. In light of the proposed changes to the health and disability system, it makes sense that with the eventual disestablishment of DHBs, we are doing something more sensible and are shifting that decision making to the Director-General of Health. So, on that basis, we also support the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to select committee.

We have some concerns, which I would just like to quickly go through. The first one is about the scope of the director-general’s decision-making powers. They’re pretty broad-ranging, and we’re aware that without a recent national review of fluoridation and dental health with recommendations that actually clarify exactly where it would be better to add it or take it away or leave it as it is—we’re really pleased to hear just now from the Minister that they’re going to initiate that review now. We would like to see something that’s been widely consulted on with the broader health sector and, of course, community and, of course, Māori, because it’s so often in our name that changes are made because of disparities that we have across health issues, even if we don’t particularly want those things to happen. So, yes, we hope that the director-general will use its very broad powers and also its lack of requirement to listen to particular information to follow recommendations that have been broadly supported.

As has been stated, about half of our population is supplied with fluoridated water. That covers mainly the cities of Dunedin and Hamilton and the regions of Wellington and Auckland. Christchurch is the notable exception, which brings up our second concern, which is that under the current bill, the Director-General of Health could decide that Christchurch City Council would have to fluoridate its population. The director-general is exempted from having to consult with anyone: not the council itself, which it can just direct, let alone the people of Christchurch, who I imagine would have a lot—plenty—to say about that. The council is not required—so it could—to consult itself, but I don’t think the bill as it stands gives them a lot of leeway for making many changes from what they’ve been directed.

For our party, appropriate decision-making is very important, so that the people most affected should have a say in the issues that are affecting them. So we acknowledge the support of the dental and medical professions that the Minister mentioned, but we would really want to see that communities have a say in this. So I’m looking forward to that selection process.

Health versus economic benefit—this is stated quite early on—a big focus. It’s not clear from what we’ve seen what are the actual measures, what standards, we’re going to use to determine that this particular amount of health is worth this amount of money.

What we do have a lot of in the SOP is this is what will happen to the council who does not do what it is told—a lot of information, real detail—like $200,000 for contravening or permitting to contravene an order, and $10,000 per day or part of a day for while an offence continues. I really wish that those penalties were in place for whenever councils did not comply with statutory requirements requiring them to consult with iwi on, say, the Resource Management Act or, at the moment, the significant natural areas.

Part of the reason we want this to go to select committee is so we can properly understand how it relates to the Water Services Bill. This has been directed to go to councils, but the nature of local authority drinking-water suppliers has not yet been fully resolved.

Hon Member: That’s right.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: So, as my National colleague noted, my last point is: who’s going to pay for this? Are councils going to be required to fully foot this bill for when they’re being forced, or required, to do this for what is, of course, a national health issue?

So, in summary, we support this bill, and I look forward to working on it with the hard-working and diligent Health Committee. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT in support of the second reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. A number of thoughts come to mind as I reflect on this bill’s rather long and difficult passage. First of all, it has to be said that the benefits of fluoridation to oral health, in my view and understanding, are completely beyond question. If you were going to be born in one of two identical towns in the world and the only difference was one had fluoridation and the other didn’t, then, odds on, you’d be much better to be born in the one that had fluoridation, because the benefits to your dental health are considerable.

But this particular bill—to describe it as a mess, I think, would be a little bit too generous. Let me count the ways. The first issue is that the bill intends to give DHBs the decision-making power over and above local authorities, and that leads to a number of difficulties. Perhaps the most obvious one is that the Government has taken the position that DHBs are fairly hopeless and will soon be replaced. So to have an initiative to give them more power would seem to be an error. It’s trying to remedy that with a Supplementary Order Paper that would, effectively, make Ashley Bloomfield responsible. These are the people who were, for instance, responsible for distributing personal protective equipment during the lockdown last year, have been responsible for the vaccine roll-out of measles last year, the COVID-19 vaccine this year, and have subsequently been responsible for the Government’s testing regime. I’m not sure that they’re the people that should be given more power to make more decisions; nevertheless, that is what is proposed.

The idea of putting the power with the Director-General of Health, who Elizabeth Kerekere recently referred to as an “it”—and I’d just like to stress the importance of getting people’s pronouns right. As I understand it, Dr Ashley Bloomfield is a he/him and would be horrified to learn that he’s actually been neutered by Elizabeth Kerekere in Parliament. But nevertheless, putting that small matter aside, Dr Bloomfield would be in charge of deciding whether local authorities should have to fluoridate their water. One of the challenges that that presents is that we actually don’t know what the capability, or the local conditions faced at a practical level by the local authority, might be. So they look at the costs, they look at their equipment, and they look at the natural water conditions that they face. These are all considerations to do with the practical operation of the water utility, where it would seem that the local authority might be better placed to make judgments than a distant Ministry of Health.

Nevertheless, if we can tidy away and assume away that problem, there are other difficulties, not least of all is the fact that I’m not sure that we’re necessarily confronting the true problem that we face with dental hygiene. I was on a train several years ago, and I was horrified to see a couple of young parents feeding a toddler Coca-Cola through one of those baby bottles with the latex teat. Now, I just can’t imagine what that would do to a child and their teeth. I’m pleased to say that the train was in Australia, where that and other types of criminal activity are part of the national story. But if we’re honest with ourselves, we have very similar problems here in New Zealand. There are a lot of enormous difficulties placed on children by a lack of parental responsibility, and so another criticism that people might put on to this initiative is that unless it’s allied with a serious effort to get better parenting, then it’s not going to solve some of the worst dental hygiene and health problems that we have here in New Zealand.

Another issue is that there’s something fundamentally undemocratic about the Government’s move. The Government is taking away the rights of local authorities to vote on their water treatment and whether or not they have fluoridation specifically, basically because they’ve been voting for the wrong result. Now, I happen to agree that fluoridation is a good thing, but there is something not quite right about taking away democracy because higher-ups don’t like the outcome. It’s not dissimilar to what the Government rushed through under urgency earlier—certainly in this Parliament, if not this year, when the rights of citizens in local authorities to petition their local authority and hold a referendum about whether or not there should be Māori wards in a local authority were taken away and extinguished by this Parliament. Why? Well, because people have had the opportunity to vote, and they’ve been voting the wrong way. And I think this is the start of a trend that we should be a bit cautious on. If we believe in subsidiarity, if we believe in people making local decisions, that people closest to their community and environment know best what is good for them, then I think we should be prepared to take seriously the idea that if they vote a certain way, that actually is their decision and it’s not for us to say that they got it wrong and take it away from them. So that’s another great difficulty with this particular piece of legislation.

In conclusion, this legislation is something that will get us to what I believe, and ACT believes, is the right place—that, fundamentally, if you have a choice between being born into a place where water is fluoridated or a place where water is not fluoridated, you’re much better off to be born somewhere where fluoridation is a reality. On the other hand, the way of getting it here, making the decision making remote from the practical operation of the water reticulation, of taking away democracy because people made the wrong decision, and of putting in place a fix which I don’t know is the most important thing the Government can be doing right now—when, anecdotally, at least, one of the biggest problems that we have is people who simply are not giving their children the kind of care and dental hygiene and diet that all children really should have a right to access. And that may be the major challenge, and if we don’t tackle that, and we’re still going to have kids admitted for surgery to have the rotten stumps of what were their teeth removed under general anaesthetic—something that happens too often in this country—then it’s not clear that we are really serious about solving the problems of dental health. Nevertheless, the initiative of sending this bill back to committee where it can have some more democratic consideration is the right thing to do. Fluoridation, in my view, is the right way for things to be, and, therefore, it’s worth supporting.

I just end by saying I guess there’s been a philosophical argument that some people like to make about why fluoridation is somehow in opposition to individual freedom. I’ve had many people make this argument over the years. And as someone who spends a bit of time thinking about individual freedom and the politics of classical liberalism, I think it’s worth addressing. A water reticulation system is practically, and by definition, a collective good. The value in it is that it connects at least two, if not many more, points together. The value in it is the same water flows throughout the whole system. Now, if you’re going to have one type of water in an entire system, then by logic it has to be a collective decision. There has to be some sort of collective decision about what the nature of that water flowing within the pipes is. And so there’s no way that each person can have their own choice about the type of water. People are going to have to accept probably the majority decision, or that of the owner of the reticulation system.

So that is why it’s not a freedom issue, because it’s the practicality of water. To say otherwise would be like saying that you want your electricity delivered to your house at 60 hertz and 110 volts. Well, that’s how they reticulate it in the United States; here it’s 50 hertz and 230 volts—it’s just the way it is. We cannot change physics.

So we support the bill, with quite a number of reservations, as you would have seen, and we hope that the select committee does its work well. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I stand today to take a call on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. As a medical doctor and a member of the Health Committee, I am strongly in favour of this bill. I just want to acknowledge the three previous doctors who have also spoken on the bill, from both sides of the House, today. Now, despite being a health professional, I will say that my knowledge on teeth, and a lot of GPs’ and doctors’ knowledge on teeth, is quite limited, because we leave that to our other colleagues—the dentists and people who work in that field—to deal with. But our healthcare system isn’t very good in dealing with dental care. I used to work in a medical practice with 12,000 patients, and often, as a GP, I would see people coming in to talk about their dental health. As I said, that’s not what the medical school focus was on, but people just needed an immediate relief from issues around their dental healthcare, and often we were just trying to do patchwork until they could go and see a dentist.

So it is a big problem in the community. Tooth decay is the leading cause of preventable hospital admission in children in this country. In the medical practice that I worked in, we had a lot of Māori and Pasifika - population patients, and they are some of the highest affected as well, with tooth decay. Their oral health is a lot worse than other people in New Zealand. Now, in 2019, more than 40 percent of all five-year-olds and more than 60 percent of Māori and Pasifika five-year-olds already had some sort of tooth decay. The figures are similar for other adults. And, as I said, I’ve had to deal with quite a few of these in my practice. But many of the countries we routinely compare ourselves to in the OECD—Australia, UK, USA, and Canada—support water fluoridation. We won’t actually be leading this; we would actually, if anything, be just following other people that we align with, amongst other things.

Now, the Government has already increased funding at the bottom of the cliff for a lot of things, including for dental care. But the real difference can be made by preventing our kids from having this tooth decay in the first place. So fluoride prevents tooth decay, and the science on this is longstanding and clear cut, and evidence shows that fluoride reduces the lifetime incidence of dental decay by 40 percent.

But despite strong evidence, as I mentioned before, we don’t fluoridate enough of our drinking water. Only about half of our drinking water is fluoridated. This bill will ensure that we have a consistent approach to fluoridation across New Zealand. I just want to commend that across all the parties, there is a bit of a consensus on this bill. I want to acknowledge the work of the other side of the House in actually introducing this bill in the last Government. I also want to thank the former members of the Health Committee for their thorough consideration of the bill and for their suggestions on this improvement, along with the submissions that they did receive.

Now, the Health Committee in 2017 agreed that the bill should be passed with minor changes. The current discussion around the bill isn’t about the science behind it, which we all agree on, but it’s more about the discussion on where the decision-making power should lie. So the water fluoridation is supported by DHBs. It’s supported by the World Dental Federation. It is supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But this is about decision-making powers, and who will consider the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing tooth decay and whether the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water outweighs the costs.

For a long time, the territorial authorities in New Zealand have had these decision-making powers, but this hasn’t been consistently applied in New Zealand. The original bill—that was intended to shift these decision-making powers to the DHBs. But, as we all know, the Minister Ayesha Verrall just talked about that with the new current changes in health with the DHB going away, it is important that there’s somebody else doing that decision making. Minister Ayesha Verrall is putting a Supplementary Order Paper which would give the decision making on committing of water fluoridation to the Director-General of Health rather than the DHBs.

Even if we were to retain the DHBs, the Director-General of Health is the best place and resource to make these important decisions. This is the same Director-General of Health who helped us get through a global pandemic in the last year or so, and has done a really good job of it. Therefore, giving the Director-General of Health the power to direct the fluoridation of water supplies aligns with the future structure of our health system and also the Labour Government’s focus on strong public health, leadership, and sector stewardship. Furthermore, the director-general is best placed to consider the scientific evidence, which applies equally across New Zealand, and requiring each DHB to itself consider the scientific evidence is unnecessary duplication.

The bill provides a clear public health - focused framework to determine whether a local authority’s supply is fluoridated. This will likely lead to extended fluoridation coverage and in doing so will support the achievement of better health outcomes for communities. It will mean fewer children and adults will suffer from tooth decay. Now, this isn’t unusual, because if you think about it, we also have iodine in our bread. We have iodine in our salt. So this isn’t an unusual thing to do. I know David Seymour, on the other side, talked about taking away powers from people. But I think, in the best interests of people, it is important, based on science, that we do go ahead with fluoridating our water supplies and across the board apply the same principle throughout New Zealand. And the best person to do this is the Director-General of Health, so we can have consistency in the rules that we are applying across the board. This is coming from a health perspective, not from the perspective of taking away people’s rights. This is the same as, you know, encouraging people, as I said, having iodine in bread and in salt.

So I do want to acknowledge the former members of the committee for their first consideration of the bill, at that time. I would like to thank everybody who has made a submission on this. The idea here isn’t to go back and discuss whether fluoridation is good or not. I think we generally agree across this House, amongst all the parties, that it is a good idea. The question is, where should that decision-making power lie? And the Minister is forwarding a Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee. I do sit on that select committee and we are looking forward to that discussion in the next few weeks, about the decision-making powers. Again, as I said to you, this is about making sure that over 50 percent of our tooth decay in this country, amongst our children, are preventable. Most people who are suffering from this are people in high-deprivation areas, are Māori and Pacific five-year-olds. So making sure that they get the best health outcomes, it is important that we move forward with this bill and the amendment that is proposed here by Dr Ayesha Verrall.

This is also, as I said, in keeping with what’s happening in the OECD—in Australia, in the UK, in USA, and in Canada—where the water is fluoridated and people have noticed a decline in their dental caries and tooth decay, which also means, as a medical profession, as I said, that then our GPs can spend their time looking after other medical problems that they should be looking out for, not the dental care that should be provided through dentists. But it is hard for them to get an appointment with dentists just on the spot. So I think it solves a lot of problems. It helps the rest of the healthcare system as well. It’s not just about dental care; it’s also about waiting times at our GP. It is about making sure that our kids—we prevent those medical issues right at the beginning so that later down the road, we, as adults, are not having to spend more time, more money, more resources on these people because we didn’t do a good job right at the beginning. So it’s about catching people at the top of the cliff rather than at the bottom of the cliff.

I just want to say that changes proposed are really good, and, as a member of the Health Committee, as somebody who’s worked in the profession, in the community, I highly recommend this bill to the next stage. I look forward to hearing about the submissions as a Health Committee member as well. Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, which National supports. So while oral healthcare in New Zealand has certainly improved over the last 40 or 50 years, we do still have very high rates of preventable tooth decay. Moving the decision-making process from local councils to the Ministry of Health is recognising that this is a health-related issue. However, the National Party strongly believes that local communities must have a voice in this decision making, and it does look a little bit like another decision being taken away from the local community as this Government is very prone to do—think tertiary education, think DHBs, think water, think local authorities, and if people haven’t seen a trend here yet, they should be opening their eyes.

So the National Party very strongly would want the requirement for the Director-General of Health to properly consult with local health officials to ensure that that local voice is not lost. We know that more than 12 percent of children under the age of 14 in New Zealand have teeth removed because of decay or abscess or infection, and that’s more than 100,000 children. So that’s a lot of little people going through the pain and anxiety of having teeth removed. At the same time, we know that children living in areas with fluoridated water will have a 40 percent lower lifetime incidence of tooth decay. So it does seem somewhat irresponsible of us not to ensure that all children are in that situation. I’m fairly regularly at the Southern DHB dental services with our youngest daughter, who, because of her disability, has to have her dental services through the DHB. I see firsthand the very sad consequences of young—and often very, very young—children with very major dental issues.

So with only half of our total population currently receiving fluoridated water, there’s certainly potential for us to get some really significant public health gains. My colleague Matt Doocey talked a little bit about the cost benefit of this. I note that having water fluoridated over 20 years is likely to save the Government around $600 million in savings through reduced need for dental treatment, and this will be versus the cost of extending the fluoridation at $144 million over that same 20-year period. I would think that local government might want to have a talk to the Government about why they’re doing the spending and Government’s doing the saving.

There’s been quite a lot of science gathered around fluoridation, and we believe that the science is clear cut. I was brought up in a rural area without fluoridated water. Our water was bore water, and my mother was fastidious about lining me and my siblings up for the fluoride tablets every night. I see that there’s been over 60 years of data on it now, so she was clearly at the forefront of that science.

It’s important to remember that this bill will not mandate the use of fluoridation but it does place the decision-making power in the hands of the director-general. Therefore, as Dr Reti has said, we would want to ensure that that local voice is still there by requiring the director-general to work in conjunction with local health officials. The bill was introduced in 2016 and has been scrutinised extensively by the previous Health Committee. I now look forward, on the Health Committee, to having an input over this next part of its journey.

In no small part, the anti-fluoridation groups have contributed to this very drawn-out time frame, but the consensus is very strongly in favour of fluoridation and, therefore, the National Party supports this bill at the second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7 o’clock this evening.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. Members, before the dinner break we were debating the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We’re on call No. 9, which is a split call. I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori to speak to the second reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill.

We know we have a Māori oral health crisis in this country. Māori were more than 1½ times as likely as non-Māori to have teeth extracted due to decay, abscesses, or infection in the past 12 months. At school entry age, Māori tamariki have had a much higher number of missing or filled teeth then non-Māori. We know Māori have the poorest oral health outcomes of any other population in Aotearoa.

Māori dentists and experts in oral health are telling us just how critical it is for fluoride to be used in a consistent way across the country. The data and the science is absolutely clear: fluoridated water supplies significantly improve the oral health of our communities, particularly for tamariki. Fluoride should only ever be one part of the response to this crisis. But it is an essential and immediate response. Therefore, Te Paati Māori will be voting in support of this bill. Fluoride is a necessary part of the solution, especially in the short term, until such time as our people have free and open access to lifelong oral healthcare.

However, we want it noted we have significant concerns with the drafting of the legislation. The Government has announced that they will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the bill so that rather than DHBs the Director-General of Health would make the sole decisions on fluoride. This reflects the Government’s decision to disband the DHB system, and the agenda to centralise decision-making power. Debates about the fluoridation of drinking water have plagued local councils for years. This has resulted in inconsistencies across the motu, and for many communities, a failure to achieve fluoridated water.

We agree that local councils aren’t necessarily best placed to make these decisions, and we, of course, recognise the health reforms, which also preclude DHBs. However, what we must maintain is the ability of tangata whenua local communities to engage with these decisions. Placing policy decisions in the hands of one Government bureaucrat runs completely against Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our decision-making rights as tangata whenua. Under the current proposals there will be no Treaty framework for fluoride decisions, and there’ll be no opportunity for public consultation, let alone dedicated mana whenua engagement. Tangata whenua, and indeed all communities, have the right to decide what chemicals our wai supplies are treated with.

This bill fails to uphold our mana motuhake. That is why we’ll be seeking to further amend the bill as it progresses through the House, so that it requires the Māori Health Authority to agree before any fluoride decisions can be made. It must also require opportunities for the public, including local communities of whānau, hapū, and iwi Māori to submit on fluoride decisions. For these reasons, we are loath to vote in support of this bill in its current form. But we feel compelled to as we recognise the immediacy, the absolute urgency, of dealing with the Māori oral health crisis affecting our tamariki and whānau.

The reality of the matter is that we shouldn’t be in this position where fluoride is so essential. The crisis of Māori oral health is a result of decades of systemic racism in the health system and under-investment in oral and primary healthcare. The data is clear that even for Māori who are accessing fluoridated water supplies, their oral health outcomes are still much worse than the general population. What is really needed is free dental care and free primary healthcare across the board. Far too many whānau can’t even afford to attend the dentist more less access it. We won’t have a truly free and accessible health service until we have a Government with the courage to invest at the scale that is needed. We look forward to working with MPs across the House to improve this legislation and to continue to find solutions to deal with the oral health crisis in Aotearoa. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, second reading. Before I do, I just want to take a chance just to say a huge fa‘afetai lava to everyone who celebrated Samoa Language Week last week, and also just to see the colourful, lively performances—sivas—across Aotearoa and everyone using the Samoan language last week was beautiful to see. Also want to mention it was Samoan Independence Day last Tuesday as well, and the celebrations of that—59 years of independence. I want to acknowledge the struggle that had led up to Samoa getting independence, the Mau a Pule and also the Mau Samoa, and also a special mention to Aiga Sā Tamasese family and Malietoa and all the Tafa‘ifa paramount chiefs that had done so well in making sure that we have independence in Samoa. So I just want to acknowledge that from last week.

With this current bill, being a clinician—we’ve heard from members on this side and also across the floor the support for this to go to the select committee review as well. I just want to make a few mentions of this particular draft, with the shift of this bill going initially to DHBs but with the Supplementary Order Paper now moving it to the Director-General of Health. I heard from the other side that this was a hospital pass to the Director-General of Health, but I’ve seen him play rugby and I think he scored a try—I think it was either last year or the year before—so passing the ball to him, he’ll do a great job, as he’s done with COVID-19 as well.

This change makes sense given the major reforms planned ahead, so giving it to the capable hands of a director-general is the right thing to do. It will be a centralised, consistent approach providing the best health outcomes for our community. The director-general must do two things: making sure that the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of adding fluoride to drinking water is up to date in terms of science, and also making sure that the benefits outweigh the financial cost as well.

We’ve heard from members such as Dr Gaurav Sharma what we see as GPs in the clinic. I speak to where I’m from in South Auckland with our Māori and Pacific population, where there are pockets of high deprivation there as well, and seeing the issues that come through the front door. One of these is poor oral health. When I look at Middlemore Hospital and the admissions there—you know, things such as bronchiolitis for our kids, severe eczema infections, asthma—it’s hard to think that tooth decay would be one of those things that are leading those kids to get in there, but it is so. That’s why adding fluoride to our water to help reduce the inequity in health outcomes for those who are vulnerable, such as our Māori and Pacific populations in those areas.

There is a huge wealth of evidence—we’ve heard across the floor as well. Let me just mention some of it. It reduces the lifetime incidence of dental decay by 40 percent, and it is about half of our drinking water that is fluoridated. We saw in 2019 more than 40 percent of all five-year-olds and more than 60 percent of Māori and Pacific five-year-olds already had some degree of tooth decay—40 percent of the general population of five-year-olds and 60 percent of our Māori and Pacific. That’s huge, and that’s something that we need to do to make sure that we are helping our communities that suffer. That’s why I’m so grateful on this side of the House that we’re aiming to lift incomes, lifting children out of poverty, because those are the things that add to poor health outcomes for our people.

We look, as I’ve mentioned, in terms of evidence-based medicine—evidence-based, that the Chief Science Advisor has given her updates on more recently, just in the last week. Fluoride, which naturally occurs in water, can help strengthen teeth and prevent dental caries, or dental cavities. In Aotearoa, we know that we only have a low number of fluoride, hence why we have to supplement that. This is welcomed by many health professionals, as we know. We’ve heard from the different public health organisations, the dental organisations that support this, WHO as well—World Health Organization—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention across the ocean as well that support this measure.

I’ve heard it said that fluoride in water acts like a constant repair kit, and it is so. When you have a poor diet, you’re living in poverty, this is one of those levers we need to implement to make sure that we are helping on that side.

Shanan Halbert: Colonisation.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: That’s right. That’s why I fully support adding fluoride, because of the different things that our children who live in poverty experience. You know, we hear “brushing twice a day with fluoride toothpaste”—that’s if you have access to toothpaste in the first place. Eating healthy foods—again, we know in high-deprivation areas there is limited access to healthy foods. So, again, this is one of those proven health measures to reduce tooth decay.

We’ve heard in 2014 there was a review, a comprehensive review, by the Royal Society Te Apārangi looking at the health effects of water fluoridation. I know many will say, “Why are you going on about the science behind this?” Because I know that many take their research from “Dr Google”, you know, so it is our job, for those who are watching or will watch this in replay, to provide that scientific evidence, and they can reference it and they can go see for themselves. I always say to my patients: make sure that we’re getting the information from reputable sources and not just going off and doing a “Dr Google” search. That review in 2014 found that there were no adverse effects of fluoride of any significance arising from those levels that we use in Aotearoa. There is new research on fluoridation, comprehensive reviews, that have been published subsequently. The 2014 review still remains appropriate, and that is up-to-date research.

I look at the 2016 commissioning of an independent report, the Sapere report, that found a 40 percent lower lifetime incidence of tooth decay among children and adolescents that have access to fluoridated water, another 48 percent reduction in hospital admissions for the treatment of tooth decay for those kids aged zero to four, 21 percent reduction in tooth decay among adults aged 18 to 44, 30 percent reduction in tooth decay amongst adults aged 45 and over. I know we talk about our kids, but this is an issue across the different age groups. I find that when my adult patients come in, you know, they may not have access to good dental care or they don’t have the finance to do so, and often we are just giving antibiotics continuously until they can get the necessary help. Again, that is why we need this part of the puzzle to make sure we reduce the incidence of dental caries.

We’ve heard across the House the cost savings and other benefits with providing fluoridation to all public drinking water. That would result in a net savings of more than $600 million over 20 years, mostly to consumers and some to Vote Health. In other countries, the WHO recommends boosting fluoride to optimum levels in community water. Fluoridation is the best method to do this, and the same goes in Australia and the US. I think we’ve heard from other members on this side of the House where sometimes fluoridating water may or may not be possible in some areas, so adding fluoride to salt or milk, such as that done in Europe—they’ve adopted that.

So this is all about preventative care. It’s about being on top of the cliff, not letting our kids or even just our adults, our whānau, be at risk of dental caries. We’re trying to reduce that tooth decay, we’re trying to improve on health outcomes for our people, and that’s why it is important that we do so with this measure and making sure that we see it go through select committee and review the submissions that will come through there. That’s why I support this bill to the House. Fa‘afetai lava.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for North Shore on the second reading of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. National supports this bill, and we will be wanting to submit a standard operating procedure which will require consultation with district health boards and local health authorities.

They say that a healthy mouth is the gateway to a healthy body, and I think it is absolutely the case in regards to oral health and the importance of oral health to our communities, and I’ll talk a little bit about some of my experience in some of our at-risk communities later on in my short contribution. But look, the purpose of this bill is to transfer powers required around the fluoridation of water across from local government, initially through to district health boards but now, as a result of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 38 by Government, through to the Director-General of Health.

I think the Government’s SOP that’s been put on the Table in terms of putting that power into the hands of the director-general is an area that National does have some concerns for. As we’ve heard from previous speakers this evening, this centralisation of decision making into single points or individuals is a concern for us, and we are very much wanting to see that local communities remain and retain a voice in some of their local decision-making, and hence why National will be making an SOP in regards to consultation, which is so very important.

We’ve heard a lot this evening around oral health outcomes and the importance around fluoridation, particularly around preventable tooth decay. I guess there’s a little bit of experience in terms of my background. So I spent a little bit of time working at Middlemore Hospital and the Counties Manukau District Health Board. I was working in a finance capacity at that district health board, and I saw the significant challenges and the great work that that district health board does for its local community.

I know a number of our speakers on the other side live and operate in a medical capacity within those communities. But in particular, I was fortunate enough, while I was there, to work on some work with the University of Otago dental school, with the set-up of the training institution that’s been set up down there in South Auckland, which I think is a great example of collaboration between training and experts in the area. Obviously, the Otago dental school, under the pro vice-chancellor Paul Brunton and other individuals like that—that combination of experience to build a dental capability in South Auckland can bring significant good to that community.

One of the key drivers, when we were looking at that opportunity, was around the significant issues that we had, particularly with those under the age of 18, with tooth decay. The statistics were very sobering in terms of the significant number of tamariki impacted by poor oral health and what was pretty much generally preventable tooth decay, and we saw that flow on. It wasn’t just for children; pregnant mothers as well were a significant area of risk profile in terms of oral health, and then on to adults.

I guess the emergency pain clinic that operates at Middlemore Hospital and other hospitals and district health boards around this country is an example of the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. By that point, when these individuals are coming in for tooth extraction, there are no other options available in terms of that prevention. I think the demand for those services—again, my colleagues around the House will know—is significant across the country, and so I think the importance of focusing on prevention versus, in effect, the final outcome of tooth extraction, at an adult stage, has significant benefit not only for those individuals, obviously, in terms of the pain and discomfort they face, but also in terms of their whānau, their families, and their local communities. So this is absolutely the right thing to do.

I think the move from local government to the Ministry of Health really acknowledges that this is a health issue, which it is, and we’ve talked a little bit about the science around fluoridation. We’re united as a House, across the political spectrum, around that aspect of science. We’re really talking this evening around the execution and delivery of that.

I must say, going back to that point around consultation with local communities, I do want to just spend a little bit of time to say that I think, from National’s perspective, that element of consultation with local communities—hearing the local voice, getting input and feedback in terms of this—is really, really important and, I think, a key element of the fabric that makes up New Zealand. It is actually, I guess, as this moves to the select committee phase—of which I’m a member, along with a number in the House here this evening—one of the points that we will consider.

The other point, I think, from a select committee point of view, will be the conversation around the cost aspect and the benefits. So we’ve talked about the benefits that will arise as a result of implementation of this bill, but I think the element around cost and who will bear that cost is an important conversation, because ensuring that that is allocated fairly and appropriately is an area that does need review.

I talked a little bit about experience at Counties Manukau, but I also had the benefit of working with the Auckland Regional Dental Service at Waitematā District Health Board when I worked there for nearly three years. I guess that is another example, and that’s a service that actually operates pan Auckland, not only on the North Shore, where I’m the member of Parliament, but across Auckland. It does some great work, particularly for those people that are still at school, but there is a degree of challenge. They have workforce gaps, like any other aspect of the health service. But again, they are the clinical professionals that day in, day out are seeing the consequence of preventable tooth decay.

I know for many of those dental therapists and dental nurses and dentists, the frustration of when they see young kids come into their service, knowing that they are presenting with situations and oral health situations that are preventable, is a significant frustration and, I think, a burden that sits on those individuals. So I know that those professionals out there, along with the New Zealand Dental Association, who I know support this bill, will absolutely be pleased to see this move into reality.

I think the other aspect was that, you know, while we talked a little bit about the Budget, it is important to say that Budget 2021 did reduce funding for emergency dental. I mean, I’ve just talked about the challenges of the adult pain clinic for dental services at Middlemore Hospital, and the reality of funding cuts is going to hit hard for some of our most vulnerable in some of our communities. I think I just want to make sure that—you know, while it all sounds good, there are implications of some of that decision making on important people within our community.

Lastly, I think it was pleasing to see the support for this bill across the industry sector bodies. There were multiple medical bodies, dentists. The majority of submitters that made submissions through the prior select committee process were positive around this change, and I think that’s really important in terms of forming that foundation and benchmark as we move into the next phase of execution around this bill.

I’m going to pretty much finish it there. I’ve covered the key points that I’m wanting to raise this evening, and I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am very pleased to take a call on behalf of the good people of Banks Peninsula, my electorate, to make a contribution and talk on this bill, the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill at its second reading.

Matt Doocey: They love fluoride there.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: This bill is important to many people on Banks Peninsula because it’s about improving outcomes for everybody, which is something that’s not specific to the Banks Peninsula, but something that they do particularly well. It’s also a simple and an effective measure to put in place something that can ultimately have some pretty profound outcomes.

Prioritising the health of all New Zealanders is one of the core values of Labour Governments past and present. The present Labour Government has an ambitious and transformative plan for improving our health system—you may have heard some details about that—and, as a consequence, of improving our health outcomes. And as we’ve heard from almost all contributions tonight, improving oral health is important. That’s not something that’s disputed. That’s not something where there’s been a huge gap between us or contrary information or opinions. And it’s an important part of our plan as well, which is why this bill is significant. I also think it’s fair to say that we must do all we can to prevent and mitigate tooth decay. And while fluoridation and putting fluoride in the water supply certainly isn’t a magic or a silver bullet, tooth decay is painful, it’s expensive, and like many other health issues, it disproportionately affects our most vulnerable citizens. So it’s an important part of the solution.

It’s also a measure that’s supported by pre-eminent health and dental health organisations around the world, as was noted by the previous contributor, Simon Watts. It is cost-effective to implement and, because of that, it enables us to reach more people. Essentially, it enables us to reach all New Zealanders regardless of their socio-economic situation, be it current or future. So in that sense, it’s a current example of a postcode lottery, with different outcomes depending on where you live. Yet the science supporting fluoridation is really robust, and that science is also universally applicable.

I also want to note and acknowledge the previous select committee, the select committee process in 2017 where this bill has spent quite some time. On the surface, I think, as Shane Reti acknowledged at the very beginning of this debate, the majority of submitters at that select committee process in 2017 were opposed to the bill. But it’s really important, I think, to sort of take a step back and look at what that means. And, you know, first and foremost, the majority of organisations and individuals in the fields of either medicine or dentistry did support the bill. And although the submissions were somewhat thought-provoking, a substantial number dealt with the relative merits or otherwise of water fluoridation, which, as we’ve heard here tonight and which many of us will know from previous experience, is a really complex issue. And it falls outside the scope of this bill, which, in its most recent iteration with the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) incorporated in it, seeks to enable the Director-General of Health to make decisions about that fluoridation.

Speaking of the SOP, today’s draft Supplementary Order Paper seeks to make a few amendments to the original bill. Primarily, though, it proposes to amend the bill to give decision-making authority on community water fluoridation to the Director-General of Health, as has been stated on several occasions tonight, rather than the DHBs as was originally proposed. Of course, this is a sensible and practical response not only to the recent health reform announcements by Minister Little, which will see the phasing out of DHBs, but despite that phasing out of DHBs the change in and of itself makes sense because, in a nutshell, the Director-General of Health has at their disposal better resources—better resources to make important, informed decisions.

It’s also worth noting that the policy options considered during the preparation of the original regulatory impact statement were reassessed by the Ministry of Health, which determined also that the Director-General of Health was better placed to give decision-making authority, mainly because (a) it aligns with the Government expectations on strong national public health leadership and sector stewardship, which was something that was outlined on more than one occasion in the Health and Disability System Review; and secondly, because it ensures a much more robust and nationally consistent decision-making process.

The Supplementary Order Paper also sets out some technical amendments that will ensure that some of the changes made by the bill are not affected by the proposed repeal of Part 2A of the Health Act 1956, which is proposed by the Water Services Bill. So that might not seem overly exciting, but it’s one of those aspects to these amendments that should be acknowledged.

So the Supplementary Order Paper was also made in line with the first recommendation of the Ministry of Health’s departmental report on the bill. It seeks to amend the bill to clarify that a local authority drinking-water supplier may, at their discretion, add fluoride to the drinking-water supply that has not been subject of a directive to fluoridate.

This is a Government that consults extensively, as you can see, both internally and externally. The Ministry of Health consulted widely on the SOP policy proposal, both during its presentation—including with the Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, the Ministry of Social Development, Oranga Tamariki, and Te Puni Kōkiri—and, in the interests of scrutiny and debate, the policy change in this SOP will be referred to the Health Committee for some further public submissions.

Recently, I think, as my colleague Dr Anae Neru Leavasa was saying, the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor has reported on an updated review regarding fluoride in drinking water. Unsurprisingly, that review continued to highlight that New Zealand has relatively low levels of fluoride in our drinking water—we have naturally low levels of fluoride in our drinking water; our drinking water is not as perfect as some people might like to think of it as being—and that those insufficient levels that occur naturally in our drinking water don’t, therefore, contribute to better dental health outcomes, and that adding fluoride to water continues to have a positive impact by reducing the incidence of dental cavities, which is particularly important in reducing socio-economic health inequalities.

One of the things, I think, that hasn’t been widely spoken about or particularly spoken about in this debate or in general, is there hasn’t been much emphasis on the importance that oral health has on overall health. As Regina Benjamin, a former US surgeon general noted, “Research has indicated possible associations between chronic oral infections and diabetes, heart and lung disease, stroke, and low birthweight or premature births.” She also continued, saying, “In other words, oral health refers to the health of our mouth and, ultimately, supports and reflects the health of the entire body.” I think that’s something that a lot of people don’t necessarily draw an association with. We know that oral health, in particular, is really, really important to cardiovascular health. So it may very well be the case that preventing tooth decay can also help prevent an array of systemic diseases downstream. And we know already that the consequences of tooth decay and the financial burdens aren’t yet fully understood.

So just to recap on Minister Verrall’s main points: tooth decay is one of the leading causes of preventable hospitalisations for children, nearly half of all children and 60 percent of Māori and Pacific children have some degree of tooth decay, and it’s considered in the top 10 achievements of public health in the 21st century. So this bill is about consistency. Consistency with the best scientific advice we have, consistency across a nationwide delivery of services, consistency with the implementation of best practice within the health sector, and consistency on one of the Labour Government’s core values: our unwavering commitment to the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders. So with that in mind and on that positive note, I have no hesitation to commend this bill and look forward to talking more about it at the select committee process.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

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

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

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to improve financial assistance for caregivers of children who are unable to be cared for by their parents. The proposals in the bill extend financial assistance to support children being cared for outside of the State care system. And, whether a child is inside the State care system or outside the State care system, I believe that there should be greater equity in the payments given to their caregivers. Around 15,000 people throughout Aotearoa New Zealand have stepped up to take on the day-to-day care of children whose parents are unable to care for them. This may be for reasons such as the child’s parents have passed away, or there’s been a significant breakdown in their immediate family and the child’s parents are no longer able to care for them.

So I take my hat off to caregivers. It is a substantial commitment to take on somebody else’s children and care for them and love them as if they were your own. But whatever the case or the reason that caregivers have to take on someone else’s child, they have made a significant decision and are playing a critical role, having opened their homes to provide awhi and aroha to our tamariki.

Many of these caregivers are whānau caregivers—that is, members of a child’s family, their whānau, their hapu, or their iwi, and many whānau do feel that they’re being asked to do this for little more than aroha. Often these whānau members are stepping up in difficult situations where there is little choice. For example, if I was a grandparent in straitened circumstances and the choice for me was either to take in a grandchild whose parents couldn’t care for them or to see my grandchild go into the care of strangers, I know that I’d take the former choice.

So this bill is part of the Government’s response to the review of financial assistance for caregivers undertaken by Oranga Tamariki in 2019. I need to acknowledge the work of the former Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, and thank her for the work that she put into this. As part of the review, caregivers told us that they were under significant financial pressure. They told us that the payments they received were not enough to meet the needs of the tamariki in their care. The review also found that there was a lack of equity in the payments and support that caregivers outside of the State care system received compared to caregivers of children within the State care system. As far as I’m concerned, whether a caregiver is a caregiver inside the State care system or outside of the State care system, or a child is within the State care system or outside the State care system—regardless—they need to be supported. There needs to be equity in the support.

So those caring for children outside of the State care felt that it wasn’t fair, they were put at a disadvantage for taking the initiative, and they prevented children ending up in the care of the State in the first place. So this bill seeks to help address those disparities. It does this by firstly extending eligibility for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit to caregivers who may provide care for less than 12 months, and also establishing a birthday and Christmas allowance for caregivers receiving the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit.

Can I take this opportunity to commend the Social Services and Community Committee for its consideration of the bill and also acknowledge all of the members of the public who took time to consider and to submit on the bill. The committee received 31 submissions and eight of those submitters made oral submissions. Many of the submissions received were from individual caregivers or organisations advocating on behalf of caregivers. It was encouraging to see how many submitters supported the intent of the bill and the specific proposals. Submitters made it clear that financial assistance plays an important role in enabling caregivers to care for tamariki. We often say that it takes a village to raise a child, but also adequate financial support also makes that role a lot easier.

The committee has recommended a number of amendments to the bill, and I’ll briefly describe the main amendments as they relate to each proposal. The first proposal in the bill extends eligibility for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit to caregivers who may provide care for less than 12 months. This will ensure that caregivers can access financial support where the care arrangement is short term or for an unknown period of time. To ensure that caregivers will be eligible for these benefits, the committee recommended including a new definition of “principal temporary caregiver” to be eligible for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit. The committee also recommended consequential amendments to the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations 2018. These amendments extend eligibility for the child disability allowance, the childcare assistance, and the temporary additional support in respect of the child to a temporary orphans benefit or unsupported child’s benefit caregiver who is caring for a child for less than 12 months. These amendments will ensure that all caregivers in receipt of the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit will have the same access to these forms of supplementary assistance.

The second proposal in the bill is to establish birthday and Christmas allowances for caregivers receiving the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit. In response to the suggestions raised by submitters, the committee recommended that the Christmas allowance be renamed the holiday allowance. This is to recognise that Christmas may not be observed by all whānau and to be more inclusive of other cultural and religious celebrations, but caregivers can still receive some support and make another day special for the child. The holiday allowance will still be tied to eligibility for the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit on 25 December of each year and paid in advance of that date.

The committee has recommended further minor and technical amendments that improve the workability of the bill to ensure that the bill can be implemented in line with the policy intent. I’ve provided further detail on these amendments in the legislative statement that I presented to the House in advance of this second reading.

The Government is committed to reforming the system of financial assistance and support for caregivers. This bill puts in place measures that are just one step on that journey. It will provide more support for children living with caregivers outside of the State care system and support more whānau, hapu, and iwi to care for their own. And once again, I just would like to take my hat off and thank all of the caregivers for the amazing work that they do, caring and loving other people’s children as if they were their own. So, I commend the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill to the House.

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

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I also stand tonight to speak to the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill in its second reading.

I’ll start my contribution by acknowledging all of those carers around New Zealand who take children into their own homes. They provide stability, they provide security, and they provide love to over 22,000 children in this country. Thank you for what you do. Not you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Member: But still thank him for what he does.

MAUREEN PUGH: But thank you for what you do, anyway.

I also acknowledge, as the Minister has mentioned, the former Minister—the Hon Tracey Martin—for the work that she has done on this bill. She was a fine advocate, a very passionate advocate for the children in this country.

Now, as we heard, the bill is a result of a review that was done in 2019 about the way Government payments are made to carers—those carers that provide for the 22,000 children in their care here in New Zealand. It was apparent that the financial support for carers who look after children in foster homes was different to those who look after children on unsupported child benefits, or on the orphans benefit. So what this bill basically does is correct that disparity between those three different types of benefits, and it gives it some equity. So this bill will remove those disparities.

I’d like to just outline the different types of payments and the reason that we’ve got this inconsistency. It’s come about over time, as a bit of a piecemeal adjustment is made to benefits and living arrangements over time. At the moment, we’ve got the foster care allowance, which is governed by the Oranga Tamariki Act of 1989, but the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit are governed by the Social Security Act of 2018. Now, the foster care allowance is administered by Oranga Tamariki, the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit are administered by the Ministry of Social Development, and then we have the foster care allowance which is paid for caring for a child or a young person in State care. What that means is that they are subject to an order for custody, or they have sole guardianship, or they have a care agreement under the Oranga Tamariki Act, whereas the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit are for looking after children or a young person whose parents have died, who have a very serious long-term disability, or, in some rare cases—we learnt—whose parents are actually missing.

So as you can see, there are some variations in the different legislation that covers these benefits, and what they’re meant to do is to meet the needs—or the reasonable needs—of a young child. In terms of the foster care allowance, the Oranga Tamariki Act says that it is to meet the reasonable needs of the child or young person, whereas the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit legislation says it is to assist with the cost of caring for a child who is not the caregiver’s own. So one set of legislation meets the needs and the others assist with the costs. So this bill does set out to remedy that disparity between those various pieces of legislation.

In the law as it currently exists, there is a 12-month rule, and what this bill will do is remove that 12-month clause. So what it does, it says that the child who qualifies for the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit, who is in the care of whānau or extended family, wasn’t eligible for support for one year, and that was brought in originally so that it encouraged long-term caregiving arrangements. But this bill will remove that 12-month eligibility rule, which brings it into alignment with foster care arrangements. I think this is one of the areas that we need to monitor very closely, because without some guarantee of long-term care, we do run the risk of children being moved from one family to another. And I think that that would be incumbent on us to ensure that those living arrangements for those children are stable.

The bill also replicates the allowances that are paid to foster carers for birthdays and Christmas. So that’s a mechanism so that these children, when they have a birthday or it comes to Christmas time, instead of having the carers having to pay for that personally, that there is a small allowance made for foster children. This bill will align that with the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit. The difference between the two benefits over time is around $10 to $30 a week, and so it will benefit the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit. But the care commitments are no different, depending on what, you know, qualification the child has as to what benefit they are receiving, so it does make sense that these are aligned across all of those.

As the Minister, Kelvin Davis, has said, the Social Services and Community Committee received 31 submissions on the bill. It wasn’t too many, I thought, considering 22,000 children are out there in care, but they were quality submissions, as you would expect. Some of the feedback was extremely good and some was quite taxing for the select committee because there were a lot of things—and I can see the chair over there nodding. There were a lot of things we would have loved to have extended into, but, of course, and it’s not unusual, but they did fall outside of the brief or the scope of this bill. But some of them were very sound recommendations, and I think at some point there will be a revisit to some of those recommendations. Several of those submissions raised were related to the wider welfare system and how that could be remedied or improved, and other recommendations suggested that all benefit rates be increased.

One of the things that did come up, and it’s a submission that I’d like to refer back to, came from Age Concern New Zealand and YouthLaw Aotearoa—both of those submissions raised issues around the youth payment. Again, it’s one of those ones that did fall outside of the scope of the bill, but YouthLaw Aotearoa suggested that the eligibility criteria for the youth payment be expanded to provide for young people who may not feel safe living with their parents, even though their parents may want them to stay at home. But there was no mechanism for them to extricate themselves from that situation. So again, it’ll be something that I think Oranga Tamariki will turn its mind to.

One of the things that did tax us throughout all of our discussions on this bill was the name of the orphans benefit. Although we all agreed that it was an unfortunate name and wasn’t completely reflective of the children it always referred to, we just simply couldn’t come up with an alternative suggestion. So it is still here. But I imagine that—if my committee members are still in agreement—if some wise person out there could come back with an idea, we would look to change the name of the orphans benefit.

We’re all in agreement in this House on the passage of this bill. It brings us all into alignment with the various types of support that are available for people who care for children in this country, regardless of whether they are in a foster care arrangement, whether they are supported by the orphans benefit or an unsupported child’s benefit. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is indeed a real pleasure to take a call on this, the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge the previous speaker, Maureen Pugh, for her good words. She’s made a really good summary of the bill, but there was also the collegial response that we all had to making something better. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister Kelvin Davis for bringing this bill to fruition, and also extend my acknowledgments and thanks to the Hon Tracey Martin, who came and submitted—and it was quite lovely to see her speaking about the original intention. It was lovely to catch up with her again, but it was also, for her, seeing a piece of legislation through as well.

Look, this is a very simple bill, really, in terms of equity. If we think about what this bill’s policy intent is, it is essentially that those who receive the unsupported child’s benefit or the orphan’s benefit didn’t receive the same amount as those children under State care, under the foster carer’s benefit. So, essentially, the work was, as the Minister has said, the same work. Essentially, the value of that good work was exactly the same depending on where you were, but the entitlements were different.

Before I speak more specifically about the bill, I do also want to acknowledge those carers out there. Now, some of us here on this side of the House have been carers and have done some of the work that is needed. Often these children are the children of our own families or they’re the children of close family members or friends. It’s about us putting our time and our energy into—and indeed, I acknowledge, raising children, giving them the love, the attention, and the care that they deserve when things haven’t gone quite right at home. So I would like to acknowledge all of those carers out there. The member who just resumed her seat, Maureen Pugh, talked about 22,000 children, so that’s roughly 15,000 caregivers.

We had a really good process. We didn’t have a lot of submissions on this bill, and I think it could be fair to say that pretty much everyone was very much happy with our direction. Some were asking for further changes, and of course, that moved beyond the scope of what we were intending to do.

As I have said, the disparity between children in foster care and those who are under State care was something that we all simply agreed needed to change. The bill itself extends the eligibility for the OB and the UCB. So I hope that I’ve explained what they are: the orphans benefit is the OB and the unsupported child’s benefit is the UCB. It extends this. Previously, it was for those expected to provide care for 12 or more months, and that meant that some families who were caring for children weren’t certain for how long that child could come, or be with them, and, as a consequence, they weren’t actually eligible to receive this support, even though they were, in fact, taking care of those children. So we basically removed the 12-month rule, as others have said—essentially, we loosened it up to ensure that family members or other people could get access if they were taking care of children and were expected to do so for some time.

We did discuss, at some length, what would happen if—like, for example, when I was a child I spent about six weeks of every year at Christmas holidays with my family in the South Island. We made sure that that was not covered in this part of the legislation. So when you are just going for a holiday and there is no intention that you stay for good there, or stay for a while, then that is, in fact, covered.

So that made it very clear, to ensure that people couldn’t get an allowance for having a child for a couple of weeks—say, grandparents, etc. So we included a new definition of “temporary caregiver” to ensure that they’re eligible. So, again, it could be children turning up one night unexpectedly—it extends for a week, it extends for another week, an agreement gets put in place, and then there’s that eligibility.

And this is really important, because often it’s kin or whānau that are caring for these family members. But sometimes it’s not, and we recognised with this policy change that the family members were themselves going without, and their own children were being affected. So when the report came out, it was very, very clear that families were putting their hands into their own pockets for something that wouldn’t necessarily be fair if you looked on an equity basis.

As I said, there are 15,000 caregivers out there supporting approximately 24,000 children, and we had 31 submissions, eight of them oral, including from the Hon Tracey Martin. As the previous speaker stated, we did have an issue with the orphans benefit. The definition of orphans benefit was parents who have died, or are missing, or not able to care for them—for example, they have a long-term serious disability. So we really struggled with this. We really struggled with the fact that these children weren’t necessarily orphans, and this is a little bit of antiquated language. But, quite honestly, we weren’t able to come up with an alternative. I think that that’s a reflection of the fact that it is quite a difficult situation, but we didn’t feel that calling someone with living parents an orphan was appropriate. Nevertheless, we really couldn’t come up with an alternative.

We also established the birthday and Christmas allowance to be able to be paid directly. So as previously stated, we recommended that the Christmas allowance not be called a Christmas allowance. It gets paid on the 25th or before 25 December, but it is a holiday allowance. So the family who may not celebrate Christmas may celebrate the holiday or save it for another time when they have a significant event.

We also looked at the birthday allowance, and it was quite cute. We have a specific piece of legislation which enables children who are born on a leap day of a leap year to have their birthday recognised on 1 March when it is not 29 February. I have to acknowledge our officials for raising that with us, because it wasn’t something that naturally we thought about—I guess none of us have children born on 29 February, but it was a very small but also useful piece of change.

I’m running very short of time, so I will say that the final thing that we ensured was that when a family member or when a person receives these entitlements and they are not entitled to them, we also ensured that there was an ability to raise a debt and to have that money come back. And that’s really, basically, to enable some flexibility in the system for when these children are moving between families.

So it’s a great piece of legislation. It is very little but also extremely meaningful for those families. I commend the bill.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. Caregivers in New Zealand provide day-to-day care for around 22,000 children whose parents aren’t able to care for them for a variety of reasons. Many caregivers are members of a child’s family, whānau, or extended family and have stepped up to take on the care of a child when their parents are unable to do so.

One of the current criteria for accessing the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit, under the Social Security Act 2018 is that the caregiver must be likely to be the principal caregiver of the child for at least one year from the date of the application for the payment—what is called the 12-month rule. This is what this bill endeavours to resolve. In practice, this rule means, presently, that there are caregivers who take on the care of a child, often in difficult and/or short-term situations where there is little other choice but they are unable to access financial assistance to help them provide care. This is despite the fact that they, like other caregivers, take on all primary responsibilities for the day-to-day care of a child when that child’s parents are unable to care for them.

The National Party recognises that the financial support that this bill provides does entail a fiscal cost, and therefore requires careful consideration in the same way we scrutinise all other policies that spend taxpayer dollars. It is important to National that the bill targets and benefits those who are most in need of support, and we believe this bill does so. It targets and supports those members of the community who have taken on the incredibly important task of caring for children who are, through no fault of their own, in a difficult situation and do not have other members of their family or whānau to care for them. Many children face significant social challenges when instability exists in their home environment and they do not have regular contact with their parents.

This bill is consistent with the National Party’s social investment philosophy of spending early in a child’s life to improve their long-term outcomes. We also believe that it is just that caregivers receive recognition for their work.

There is a disparity that this bill is addressing, as well, in terms of what’s currently called Christmas and birthday allowances to caregivers receiving the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit. Caregivers receiving the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit do not receive the birthday and Christmas allowances that the relevant caregivers are receiving—the other benefit. This means that the caregivers receiving it pay for these costs out of their own pocket, or, if they’re unable to, the children in their care go without. This disparity in payments contributes to children missing out on assistance that is otherwise available to caregivers who are in State care.

I just want to make some note that this bill is a good step forward but we must, in this House, also pay attention to the pressures that contribute to families entering a situation where they have difficulties caring for their children. And I certainly want to also recognise and acknowledge those who take on the care of children that I have seen in my life—people who have cared for hundreds of children, and also those who have cared for just one member of their family or whānau. It is a very big commitment that they take on, and it is very good tonight to acknowledge the efforts that they make.

I would note, however, that there are difficulties that are placed on families, and particularly have been placed on families over the last 15 months. Some of those financial stresses lead to other stresses that inevitably end up being experienced by children. Only today, I’ve been contacted by someone who told me a very sad story of her partner losing his employment last year due to the impact on the tourism industry, and she had to then take care of him and her two children, on her reduced income because of our current settings. She said that the system encourages her partner and her to separate—that way he can receive some assistance and a little independence and dignity in his time of hardship that he currently cannot if he stays with her. She said that this is a situation that has placed enormous stress on her family, and I would acknowledge, tonight—that there is a lot more that we can certainly do.

The pressure on families is also from a variety of factors, and in this House we need to pay very close attention to those pressures and what we can do to alleviate them, and one of those, obviously, at the present time is the cost of housing, and the housing crisis. In my electorate, I talked to a camping-ground operator, and 80 percent of the people in his campground are Ministry of Social Development referrals, and that has been the case for the last two years. The continued pressure on families who are in that situation can certainly contribute to children ending up in a situation where others need to care for them. So I strongly encourage all of us in this House to focus on what we can do to resolve that and on the housing policies that we need to ensure that a lot more houses can be built.

I acknowledge that we have a record number of housing consents that have been processed in recent times. However, I wish to point to the huge workforce constraints that we currently have in this country. I’ve been hearing from operators—and I’m sure many other members of this House have—that they simply do not have the workforce that they need to build houses. This is a constraint that I’m seeing right across my electorate, and I hear it is happening right around the country in a variety of sectors, not just in the construction sector.

I would say that the pressure that goes on families—and I’ll just speak to this, and I’d say it relates to this issue. In my electorate, for example, a large number of farming families are under a lot of pressure because they cannot get the staff they need to help them with their duties, so the kids are coming with them to the milking shed, day in, day out, and it is putting a huge amount of pressure on those families. I raise this point because there are a lot of complex factors that we need to take into account to make sure that we look after the children in this country.

Just coming full circle however, this bill is a good one. It is one to ensure that those 22,000 caregivers in New Zealand who are providing day-to-day care for children are properly supported by the Government. I commend the bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call, obviously in support of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. For myself, as a first-term MP, it’s been a real privilege to be on this journey from first reading to select committee and, now, to the second reading. I look around the room and look at the back here, and I’ve got a pretty powerful back row here—

Tāmati Coffey: Yeah, that’s us.

GLEN BENNETT: —that is us—and, in fact, almost all of the MPs from the Labour Party who are on the Social Services and Community Committee are in the House tonight to support this enthusiastically, because we need to ensure, as my colleague Angie Warren-Clark said, that this is around equity. For me, this is also personal, as a caregiver myself who has negotiated my way through the different benefits in terms of what we’re talking about tonight.

So it’s been a privilege to listen to our submitters to hear their ideas and thoughts, and to read from a number of them in terms of why they support this piece of legislation. I just want to focus really briefly, because this really stuck with me—and I hope that these two words can stick with me throughout my political career—when the submitter said, “This is everybody’s business.” It’s everybody’s business. This isn’t just around caregivers, it isn’t around Work and Income or the Ministry of Social Development, and it’s not just around children; this is everybody’s business.

So I’m really proud to be here supporting our bill here to ensure equity and ensure that people are paid, and I think, for me, I want to come back to our officials. I want to thank our Oranga Tamariki officials, who presented some amazing information for us, but there was a particular one. This appendix to their advice was around children being cared for inside the State care system and children being cared for outside the State care system, and although I’ve negotiated it myself for a long, long time, I did not realise the lack of equity there was when it comes to the different forms of funding and the allowances. It was really, really clear for us, and it made it clear as a committee that we needed to support this piece of legislation, so thank you to our officials. Thanks also to Kelvin Davis, the Minister for Children, for ensuring that all children, all tamariki, are given a fair deal.

Now, everyone’s mentioned the orphans benefit and how we’d discussed maybe changing the name, and I just want to reflect back that we got to the point where we just wanted the legislation to be right and for people to be paid a fair deal, so we decided that it wasn’t as important to get the name right as it was just to ensure the legislation served our community. So I’m glad that, hopefully, in the future maybe we can rethink that name, but at this point in time, let’s just get the legislation right, and then we can talk about changing the name.

I also want to thank the caregivers around Aotearoa who take care of tamariki. Some, as Angie Warren-Clark said, are whangai-ed, with part of their extended whānau, but for others, they with complete strangers, and let’s just think for a moment around those tamariki and the experiences that they must go through in terms of going to a new placement, going to a stranger’s house, and think how resilient many of our tamariki are.

For me, I was a foster caregiver, or I guess I still am. They’ve just grown up a bit more and I don’t get the payments any more, sadly, but that’s OK—they still cost me money. The foster care allowance—which, again, we’re talking about bringing the system up to match it. I received the foster care allowance for many years for a number of young people. I think of one of those young people who was 11 years old when he first came into my care. I negotiated that experience in terms of the distress and trauma he’d been through, and then for me, I was having to negotiate my way through Oranga Tamariki in terms of the payments system, which, in many ways, is very simple. It was a simple process and easy to do. That young man is almost 30, and he’s doing OK, but I thank the State and I thank the fact that I was able to receive that foster care allowance to support him in his growing up.

Then, I think of another young person, who had been through the youth justice system. He came to stay with me when he was 15, and in that situation, we had to negotiate the unsupported child’s benefit, which was a bit more clunky and a bit harder to access. It wasn’t easy.

So seeing the two systems—the foster care allowance and then the unsupported child’s benefit—it was hard work to get through. Having a young person in my care who was on the foster care allowance, and then having a young person that we had to work through to get him on to the unsupported child’s benefit, I realised the difference. There wasn’t equity in the system, even though I was doing the same role with the same responsibilities and with the same care requirements. So I’m really glad that we’re changing things.

The third one—I’ll hold up three fingers, eh—was around the orphans benefit and, sadly, I’ve had to negotiate this as well. This young person was six years old when his mother dropped dead in front of him. Sadly, his father wasn’t on the scene and wasn’t in the picture, and never has been. So this young person—a six-year-old—had to negotiate. Well, he had caregivers initially, and then it wasn’t until he was 15 that he came to stay with me, and we had to again follow through this orphans benefit for him.

But, again, the good news in that situation is that he turned 30 this year, and he and his partner were able to buy their first house together, which is really exciting. I’m not sure we’ll get on to housing, because that was the previous speaker, but, anyway, that’s my one referral to housing. It’s a good news story, because this six-year-old is now 30 and, through the support of the State and the orphans benefit—terrible name, but it did a job. But, again, I saw the inequity around the foster care allowance, the unsupported child’s benefit, and the orphans benefit.

I just want to say a big thankyou, and I know there are people in this room who are or who have been caregivers, and the role that that plays is massive in terms of our community and our society, in creating homes, because we have to realise that this isn’t about providing just shelter, or just water. I know that in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that is the most important, But it goes up to the next level, and it’s actually around creating a home—a place for a young person or a child to call home.

So to all the caregivers around Aotearoa, I say a huge, massive thankyou. Keep up the good work, and keep on keeping on, because it’s not easy. You have some days which feel like it’s the end of the road and it’s the end of the line and it’s the end of that experience, and the young person or child is difficult. But then there are the good days, and then there’s seeing the progress and seeing a young person being able to buy their own home, or a young person who didn’t end up in prison or in trouble with the courts.

So I really enjoyed being on the select committee and having the submissions come through. I think of Barnados, Birthright, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, and Grandparents Raising Grandchildren, who in the last 20 years have just grown and grown and grown as an organisation, and I don’t say that in a positive way. It’s awesome that they’re there. It’s awesome that we have an organisation like Grandparents Raising Grandchildren, but it’s becoming more of a thing that grandparents are in the picture, and grandparents need to be looked after. There needs to be equity so that when they have a young person who’s on the orphans benefit or who’s on the unsupported child’s benefit, they are paid the same amount that a foster caregiver is paid.

I’m really also glad that we talked about what became the holidays payment. Again, it was a no-brainer, and, as a committee, I’m really grateful that we all agreed. Yeah, it was initially a Christmas payment, but we live in 2021 and not everyone celebrates Christmas. We need to ensure that we reflect all people in our community and our society, so I’m glad—I’m so glad—that we did that.

Anyway, in closing, Mr Speaker, thank you so much for allowing me to speak on an area that I’m really passionate about and that I know a lot about. I think we’ve got a really good balance, and I want to support this to the third reading. I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It takes a village to raise a child, but our welfare system has made it so that people cannot step in collectively to raise our tamariki, and has created the circumstances where too often the State needs to intervene because the way that our benefit system has been made has created too many barriers for our extended families and communities to look after children.

If I may take a call to speak on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I want to begin, like many speakers, by paying a tribute to the caregivers who ensure that our children have the opportunity to thrive. I also want to reflect on the many comments that have been thrown around this House recently on the impacts of colonisation. I think about our welfare system and the fact that we have a benefit such as the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit, and one of them requires a break down in the family in order for a caregiver to step in, when for many cultures—Māori, Pasifika, and even for my own culture in Mexico and throughout Latin America—we have a tradition where we collectively raise children very often, and it is quite normal for people to step in, and it’s not always the case that there needs to be a break-down in the family relationships in order for people to become caregivers. It’s unfortunate that a really Western, often heteronormative, system has been put in our welfare system that has created the problem that we are starting to solve through this bill.

The problems that we’re trying to solve in this bill are the differences that exist in the foster care allowance, the unsupported child’s benefit, and the orphans benefit, whether it’s the rates or the fact that people in becoming caregivers and receiving the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit, had to previously show that they would be looking after the child for 12 months or more. We know that often people are slipping in for short periods of time and our welfare system should enable caregivers to step in for however little or long they need to be supporting our tamariki.

The other issues are around income inadequacy and the fact that people who were receiving the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit were not able to access a birthday or holiday payment. I want to make a quick pause just to acknowledge the fact that the select committee managed to arrive to a position where we were able to rename what was originally called the “Christmas allowance” to “holiday allowance”. That meant that we recognised the cultural diversity within our caregivers, and that, ultimately, whānau have very different ways of celebrating meaningful religious or cultural events.

The many other issues that we tried to fix that are very familiar for me personally, having worked at the front lines in South Auckland for several years, with people on the benefit, were also raised by submitters. And while this bill doesn’t directly address them, I think the submitters to this bill have laid a really strong mandate for us to, in the future, review the rules around the break-down in the family as well as looking at income inadequacy, because the truth is that for too many of the families that we used to see in South Auckland and Auckland Action Against Poverty, often when they first came in they needed something like a food grant because they were not able to cover things like rent or food. And when we started discussing with the families who needed that emergency assistance, about the make-up of their family, we realised that they were actually looking after several children; it’s just that they were not included in the benefit. The fact that we had to prove to Work and Income that there had been a breakdown, the fact that we had to provide so many letters of support that may have shown that that caregiver was going to look after the child for 12 months or more, just meant that it took sometimes weeks for that person to access the right benefit and therefore be able to cover basic expenses.

Even when they were able to access the right benefit, families too often would still be in debt, would fall into arrears because the baseline benefits are far too low. And I hope that the allowances that whānau on the unsupported child’s benefit and orphans benefit will receive will alleviate some of that income inadequacy. But I think, from what we’ve heard from submitters, there is more work that we need to do to address income inadequacy for caregivers. So I hope that that is one of the steps that this Government looks at as we progress and put through this bill.

I’m quite thankful for the collegial nature we had at the select committee. I think it was an opportunity to look at some of those broader systemic issues, and also, I think, to come together as a committee that it is made up of people from different cultures to address some of the language issues in the bill. I’m also thankful that the select committee identified and talked about the fact that the names that we used to define the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit do not fully describe the nature of the caregivers who are stepping in to look after children, because, ultimately, the, for example, unsupported child’s benefit does not speak, necessarily, that a child is unsupported; it simply speaks more broadly to a child that is being looked after by a caregiver who may not be their biological parent. That does not speak of a lack of support; it may just speak to a different family configuration as well. We have to acknowledge that language is important and, for far too long, our welfare system has created language that has disenfranchised parents and has disenfranchised children.

In saying that, I want to also acknowledge the submitters who talked about the fact that the way that the rules are right now end up discriminating ethnicities and groups that have already been done hard by our welfare system, including Māori, Pasifika, and migrant communities. So I hope that the issues that this bill is addressing will close the gap of the damage that colonisation has created through our welfare State.

Lastly, I hope that when this bill comes into action and we start seeing the changes and the requirements for children to come into care of people who are receiving a main benefit, we do start seeing a reduction in child poverty, because this should be at the heart of the legislation that we make. We should be working towards ending child poverty, not just simply alleviating it, and this bill will go some way towards that. But I hope that this Government acts a lot faster to put in place legislation that ensures all caregivers have the opportunity to let children thrive and that we implement the many recommendations laid out by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group, the many reports that have already told us that there is a lot more work to do.

So I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to the future contributions from members. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon Member: This will be better.

Hon Member: It’s better already.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, thank you. ACT supports this bill. Our spokesperson on child welfare, Karen Chhour, has given us a good rundown on the issues that were discussed at select committee, including a number of recommended amendments to ensure that eligibility for the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit includes caregivers who are caring for a child unable to be cared for by their parents for a short term or an unknown or an uncertain period of time. Because of the uncertainties that affect so many families in New Zealand, we can only say “There but for the grace of God go those of us who are fortunate enough to be able to care for our own children.” But that’s actually what the role of the State is for: to be that social safety net—in this case, awfully, the ambulance often at the bottom of the cliff. We also understand that the select committee recommended amendments to ensure that the principal temporary caregiver who is entitled to receive the orphans benefit and unsupported child’s benefit can also receive supplementary assistance and can be supported to offer a birthday or a Christmas celebration to the children who end up in their care.

I will admit that my experience with my own child, who has a disability, and meeting families who found it impossible to cope with raising their child and who had therefore, because of a mental breakdown or a break-up of the family, had found that their child was then living with another family—a disabled child in a foster situation—brought home the realities of how challenging circumstances are for many, many families. And so it is correct that the role of the State should be to support children and their carers in that last resort. However, ACT also believes that instead of promoting more people to be on welfare who are able to care for themselves, in fact we should aim to reduce the number of children born into benefit-dependent households and support better income management for beneficiaries. However, the changes in this bill do not undermine ACT’s ultimate objectives to reduce dependence on welfare but it does, rightfully, correct a disparity in the current system.

This was brought home to me again last year. During the 2020 election campaign, I had the privilege of travelling around New Zealand, meeting people from all walks of life, including in Ōtaki, one of my favourite places in New Zealand, and, in fact, a place that has been blessed—blessed by the New Zealand Transport Agency just last week with the announcement of a long-overdue bypass of Ōtaki’s main street by the State highway—

Hon Louise Upston: They’re lucky.

SIMON COURT: They are very, very lucky, Louise Upston. They are extremely lucky to be gifted a bypass. Now, not every town in New Zealand receives the benefit of that tooth fairy, who normally sits in the seat where I think Helen White sits today, known as the Minister of Transport, but Ōtaki is the main beneficiary. However, Ōtaki is a great town for another reason—

Angie Warren-Clark: Ōtaki.

SIMON COURT: That is because Ōtaki—Ōtaki, thank you very much, Angie Warren-Clark, thank you. Ōtaki also is the site of the wonderful Swazi clothing company. Now, Swazi, I understand, is short for Swaziland. Now, Swazi is owned by the wonderful Davey Hughes, and Davey Hughes recognises that, in order to be a good employer, he needs to provide his employees with plenty of flexibility when it comes to their home and family situations, because many of his employees are doing what some might think is low-skilled work but from my observation was actually highly skilled work producing high-quality garments for hunting and fishing and outdoors wear. In fact, until recently, we understand that Swazi even held contracts to supply clothing to various New Zealand Government departments—the Department of Conservation, until they picked the lowest price conforming option to import it from some country which probably has human rights issues associated with it.

However, in this case, Davey Hughes introduced us to a number of his staff, and one of his staff was a woman past retirement age who he had welcomed back into the workforce so that she could earn sufficient income to pay for the care of her grandchildren who had been dropped on her with almost no notice when her daughter and errant boyfriend had been caught up in methamphetamine use and their lives had hit the skids. This wonderful woman, who thought that her life of toil had come to an end and that she was enjoying the delights of retirement in lovely Ōtaki, found that she was caring for two grandchildren, and she did not have the means to support them. Worse than that, even though she was able to return to work she was not able to access the carer support or those other types of benefits that were available to the long-term carers or the parents of these children. She was in a situation only months in, finding that she was unable to pay the bills and having to make a choice between going on a benefit or working. So being able to receive—she asked us at that time, “What would you do, ACT Party? What would you do if you were elected to Parliament as members of Parliament?” We said we would do something about it.

So it’s wonderful to be here today to be able to use this opportunity to speak in support of a bill that establishes a stronger social safety net but does not entrench all of the terrible dis-benefits of encouraging children to be born into benefit-dependent households and failing to support income management of people who aren’t able to do it. But this bill, in fact, is a good bill—well, by the standards of this Government, so let’s not get carried away.

I acknowledge—the ACT Party acknowledges—that life is not easy for many and that the role of Government is to be a last resort, the safety net. It is for that reason that we commend this bill to the House and we will support it. Ka pai. Kia ora. Ka rawe.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, te Mana Whakawā. It’s an honour and a privilege to stand here to make a contribution to the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill at its second reading. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Kelvin Davis, for his leadership in shepherding this bill in the House. I also would like to acknowledge the former Minister that people have acknowledged today, the Hon Tracey Martin.

As we’ve heard today from many speakers, this bill seeks to improve financial assistance for caregivers of children who are unable to be cared for by their parents. I’d like to acknowledge all 31 submitters who submitted on this bill, and as I have always done in my previous speeches, I acknowledge all the submitters because it’s important that they are acknowledged in this House. So I’ve acknowledged the Hon Tracey Martin, Gaylene Rickard, Gene’ Cullen, Helena Stirrup, Karen Kilgour, Leigh Carter, Marie Sharpe, Tracey Cobden, Denise Cosmas, John Asteriadis, Margaret Wilson, Ngatai Huata, Sean Kirton, Shelley Te Amo, Terri Stevenson, Age Concern New Zealand, Auckland Action Against Poverty, Barnardos, Birthright New Zealand, Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust NZ, Michael Gibson, Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Parents of Vision Impaired NZ, Poverty Free Aoteroa Charitable Trust, Ronelle Baker, Tracey Wallace-Hutchins, YouthLaw Aotearoa, Eliza Perkinson, and 250 Years of Colonisation the Aftermath, and there were two anonymous submissions.

I want to focus on the submission made by the Hon Tracey Martin where she referred to the matua whāngai principle. In my kōrero about children here in Aotearoa, I always acknowledge Puao-Te-Ata-Tu—Day Break: The Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare, chaired by John Rangihau, Emarina Manuel, Donna Hall, Hori Brennan, Peter Boag, Tamati Reedy, and John Grant. I make mention of that because of the 13 recommendations. Recommendation No. 7 refers to the matua whāngai principle in respect of children. The matua whāngai principle in respect of children returns its original focus of nurturing children with family group.

But particularly I want to make a point on Recommendation 7(c), which we were reminded about at select committee by the Hon Tracey Martin: that “the funding mechanism be through the tribal authorities and governed by the principle that board payments should follow the child and be paid direct to the family of placement, quickly and accurately …”. But I want to go back to Recommendation 7(a) where it talks about its original focus being nurturing children within the family group. So I really want to make a point of that because it’s 30 years down. We are 30 years down the track—35, actually—and we’re finally correcting this fact.

So speakers before me spoke about two changes to the bill which suggest righting the inequities within this bill. For children who are cared for by the State, board payments are paid to caregivers. Also, with that is the birthday and Christmas allowance. What we find with an unsupported child benefit and orphans benefit that that wasn’t the case. What we found in comparing the benefits is that with the unsupported child’s benefits and orphan’ benefit, a caregiver had to care for a child or young person for 12 months before they can be considered for the payment of the unsupported child benefit, whereas for a child in State care, the payments are paid as soon as they are placed with a caregiver.

I want to acknowledge, I was brought up by my grandfather from when I was under one until I was nine. I was brought up by my grandfather, so I understand the importance of being raised by family within the family group. I also understand the responsibility of the State or those to provide support for certain children. My father paid maintenance, so in that way I was cared for by the system in Tonga where I was from.

But 22,000 children are without their parents. Regardless of whatever we name it, we have 22,000 children who are unable to be with their mother and their father. In my working life, working mainly in the Department of Social Welfare and all its many name changes, the number one wish of children is that they are with their parents, and if they can’t, that there is a home provided for them.

Like I said before, there is a disparity between State care and unsupported children and the orphans benefit. We decided to change the Christmas allowance to a holiday allowance, acknowledging the many religions in Aotearoa now, and bringing it forward and modernising it to reflect that the children, regardless of whatever religious holiday we adhere to, all need a holiday allowance.

So I want to acknowledge the select committee in that work, and, of course, the select committee chair, Angie Warren-Clark. Thank you for your chairwomanship of this bill through the select committee, and, of course, everyone in the select committee.

Also, we agreed that the 12-month time frame be removed because a person caring for a child needs—as I’ve said before in terms of the matua whāngai principle, the money should follow the child and the focus is on nurturing. I remember the submission from Grandparents Raising Grandchildren, where they said the majority of their members are Pākehā, then Māori, then Pacific, and then the rest of the population, but those members who were receiving the benefit—the unsupported child allowance and the orphans benefit—are Māori.

I started my contribution by taking us back to Puao-Te-Ata-Tu because it’s just—although, yeah, well. We tend to get tired always echoing those recommendations made to the Crown back in 1986. But when you’re looking at this, one that we could do better is that the State caregivers don’t have to fill in forms to receive that allowance—the social worker helps them. But with the unsupported child benefit and the orphans benefit the applicant actually has to apply for it. So 60 percent of those receiving those unsupported child and orphans benefits are Māori.

I know that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni has actually changed the culture of the Ministry of Social Development to be supportive, to make sure that people are entitled to their entitlements. I just hope that those who work in that space understand the difficulty that caregivers are burdened by, especially grandparents raising grandchildren. If I return to when I was a child, I wasn’t unsupported; I was supported by my family. And if we could just also remind ourselves going forward that it is about focusing on nurturing the child within the family group, or in some cases with—they begin as strangers but they end as family.

I really want to acknowledge the changes made to this bill, in particular, having caregivers on unsupported child’s benefit and orphans benefit receive the birthday allowance and the holiday allowance, because whether the child is in State care or in the care of those who are not their parents, they are entitled to that. We should recognise, again, with the principle of the matua whāngai from Puao-Te-Ata-Tu, that the money should follow the child, and that it is about nurturing. On that note, I would like to commend the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill to the House. Malo.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call Christopher Luxon.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): It’s a real pleasure to take a short call in support of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. As we’ve canvassed in this House, obviously the bill does some very good things in terms of removing the 12-month rule and, obviously, extending the Christmas and birthday allowances to caregivers who are receiving those benefits to match the foster care system. As I prepared, you know, looked through the notes, it was quite obvious that, actually, the payment system as a whole has never really been fundamentally reviewed, and it’s really important work that we’re doing getting started with that because, clearly, it hasn’t kept pace with societal change over the years.

National is really pleased to support this bill. We think it’s very fair, very common-sense, and a great improvement that’s going to be a really good thing for vulnerable children. I just want to commend Minister Davis and also Tracey Martin for doing the work in bringing this to the House today. It’s really good to be in the House where we’ve got cross-party support for something so important as our children.

There are 20,000 children that are being cared for by over 15,000 caregivers and, for a number of different reasons, whose parents can’t care for them themselves. So we know that many children who have unstable home lives, who lack regular contact with their parents, are just on a setback and are really facing some big challenges financially and socially. We just do acknowledge the huge selflessness, the sacrifice of those caregivers who step into that role and really step up. I just want to commend also—I was listening to Glen Bennett speak earlier in the House, and just thank you for the role that you’ve done as a caregiver as well and, in particular, recognise that many of the people and many of the caregivers, a significant proportion of them, are also Māori women, and that’s a really awesome thing that we’re doing here.

So if it wasn’t for these caregivers, we really know that these children would face greater upheaval. They would have greater uncertainty, and they would be living much more challenging lives. It is interesting, as you take a step back and reflect on it, that two five-year-olds in this country actually start in very different places and don’t have an equality of opportunity. I think it is right that we as the State make powerful interventions in those lives to change the trajectory of where they’re going. I remember hearing Bill English speak about the fact that there were 1,500 five-year-olds in State care in any given year, and over the course of them coming up through the age of 35, we’d spend $550 million in support of those children. That’s a phenomenal amount of money, but it just underscores the need to make powerful interventions early to change the trajectory and the course of where those lives are going.

We know that the chances of going to jail, we know the chances of not completing NCEA level 2, we know the chances of going on to a benefit are much higher as a result of that start in life. So anything we can do fundamentally to make a powerful intervention to be able to get the right outcomes and the right trajectory is really important. In doing so it’s actually good economics, because we end up saving that $550 million in that case, but the principle is very much the same. So spending money now to secure long-term results and really good outcomes for our most vulnerable and the people living the most messy and challenged and complex lives is a very good thing while also giving the Government lower costs for the future.

We also know when you think about children who are in foster care, they grow up to have half the adult income of those that weren’t raised in foster care, and so, again, it just underscores the importance of making those interventions. And as we have talked about on this side of the House, and I know on the other side as well, those first thousand days are just so critical to getting those children off to such a good start in life.

So in terms of the current reality—the situation where these caregivers take on children in short-term situations and then have not been able to access the assistance and support that they are owed and that they deserve, despite taking on those day-to-day responsibilities—this is a very good thing. We know that living costs are really high and it’s a very expensive undertaking, and so anything we can do to offset those significant costs, I think, is very important.

Finally, I just think rectifying the disparity between caregivers in State care and those outside the system is a very, very good thing. So the bill’s a small step in the right direction and it rightly recognises caregivers who are accessing the orphans benefit and the unsupported children’s benefits. I’m very pleased to support this bill and commend it to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill, and it’s been a pleasure to sit in the House and to hear so many people actually who are obviously touched in their personal lives by their situations. It has led to a consensus, and I think that’s something we should be really grateful for.

I wanted to hear from Karen Chhour, and although I enjoyed listening to Simon Court, I wanted to recognise in particular that she has been through her own story. She gave it in her maiden speech about being in a situation where her grandmother wanted her and she didn’t get to keep her, and she was in a very stressful situation as a result. I know she would have taken a keen interest. What I got from her maiden speech was that she had lost a lot of faith in the State over that experience and that time. I am very proud of the Labour Party for, hopefully, restoring some of that by coming up with a bill which actually gives people support and recognises and respects those doing that role. It’s a very, very important role and I don’t underestimate the difficulty of it.

One of the difficulties of it is often the temporary situation, because, as Simon Court pointed out, we have a situation where often it is those families that are breaking down because of the distress they face. Often it will be something like a disability or it will be mental breakdown, etc. I’ve had that in my own family when I had, one evening just before Christmas, the arrival of my brother’s wife’s grandchild. He came out with them from England. I had this little boy whose mother had basically broken down in my house, and what actually gave him stability was the love and support of his uncle—my brother—and his wife, who had been there all the way through. I can see that my sister-in-law, who was much older and so was the grandmother, was at a point in her life where it wasn’t necessarily possible for her to provide that kind of financial support. And I am very glad that in New Zealand we are now doing that for grandparents—not dependent on circumstances in that way, that we have made this equal and that we have recognised that at that time it might well be something where we need to provide a lot more support and security.

I’m thrilled to see this. It is a very sad fact that we have 24,000 children in this position. But I think that this sends a very clear message to the people who are doing that work, that very, very difficult work quite often, because often they’re dealing with someone who is actually very damaged and is traumatised and they’re getting that kind of support.

I just want to actually reflect on the speech of my friend Glen Bennett, who has done that role for strangers. That’s the other side of this equation. He has been doing that work for people he hasn’t had a familial connection with, and I think it is some of the bravest and hardest work that someone can do. And I’m very, very proud to have someone in my party who has gotten into Parliament and has that sort of background, because, actually, it showed in his speech. He was able to tell us how difficult it was navigating one set of conditions to another. And now we’re not going to have that. We’re going to have a simple, clear set of conditions that apply in every situation, because we are recognising that those children are both equal in their need and their caregiver is equal in their need.

So I am very honoured to be able to speak to this bill. I am very pleased that it has the consensus of this House. I commend this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Every so often a bill comes before this House that actually brings the best out in everybody in the House. We’ve just heard some very rousing contributions. My colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki gave up valuable time on this bill to acknowledge all those who made submissions in the select committee, and then went through a list of different committees that assisted, and I think it was very unselfish for her to do that.

Also, I see the member from ACT opposite, MP Simon Court—obviously this has brought out the best in him because here he was lamenting a business in Levin, a business that may be disappearing to a manufacturer overseas who might be making products a lot cheaper. Obviously, as a free-market party, he has had a road to Damascus experience that would have him standing in this House lamenting the free market in the way he did. So, clearly, this is a bill that is bringing out the best in everyone.

It’s very good to get context to this, and I must in all seriousness acknowledge Mr Court’s colleague Karen Chhour, who I remember from the first reading did relate her own experience. All of us sitting here were very moved by her journey to this House related by my colleague, and how she was denied a safe place because of—really, from what we heard—the system. So the other thing that this bill does is it brings our attention to those who are a lot less fortunate than us. And I’m not just talking about those less fortunate financially. This year there’s been a large number of our colleagues who have made their maiden speeches, and it was a very rare person that didn’t have someone, a family member, to acknowledge up there in the gallery. I tried to hear as many of the speakers as I could, and I don’t think there was anyone that didn’t have someone, a family member.

But the people we’re talking about here are people who actually often end up without family members and people that end up alienated from our society. Just imagine—I’m just reading through some of the provisions in this bill and they do acknowledge some of the basics that people who miss out on families do miss out on, things like the birthdays, things like Christmas presents. I know they’ve been renamed, certainly the Christmas payment has been renamed a “25th of December”, I believe, or “holiday” benefit—or payment, rather than benefit. These are things that I think actually just acknowledge how important it is, because if you are in that situation—I always liken it to Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens. I think we all grew up with it; I think they still teach it in schools—that sight that we can all have of those kids in the workhouses, you know, looking out, who were completely, utterly missing out, who didn’t get anything. I think it’s the fact that that novel has traversed the centuries and we’re still talking about it here today in this House tonight that just shows how relevant that is; how important it is that we do understand. And I in no way want to make light of the situation that these people we’re talking about find themselves in.

In preparing for tonight, I looked at the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and certainly all of us as MPs, I’m sure, that are connected with their communities will have come in contact with this group. I suppose it’s a group that probably existed informally, but something often happens, a change in society that brings about the need for grandparents in this situation to come together; people who in the past may have worked hard all their lives, come to the end, and expected to sit down and be able to enjoy their final years or enjoy their retirement. But all of a sudden the advent, if you have a look at the statistics, of methamphetamine in particular is probably the thing alone that has changed. I was just looking at the statistics there of the breakdown of the families that they are dealing with, and I was surprised that for 86 percent of the children, according to Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust New Zealand, the issue is methamphetamine. And that’s incredible—and even cannabis; 81 percent cite cannabis as the major drug involved. So it gives us some idea of why a bill like this all of a sudden comes, it has its day.

The other things that cause—or the comorbid factors—this breakdown are identified as domestic violence, neglect, a parent unable to cope, alcohol abuse, and mental illness of the parent. A quarter of the children in grandparent care also suffered physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. So this just gives us some idea of—and, again, I go back to the theme of my speech, which was alienation. For us as a society, it’s more than just a need or an obligation just to financially support people; it’s actually to recognise their need, to genuinely recognise their needs.

So we’re bearing in mind that this bill relates to people who will be in care for less than 12 months, or a carer will have these children for less than 12 months, and that, of course, as we will all know, many of these children end up in multiple care. So it just means that, you know, even at this level, with this level of need, there still existed a two-tier system until we came to this bill, because, of course, of the orphans benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit.

I notice there has been some talk about orphans, and in fact I understand the Social Services and Community Committee were looking for a better word than “orphan”. I know the quality of the people on that committee, and that they were unable to really come up with a word that was suitable—it is difficult. I mean, often, with a lot of the systems we had in place, I mean the term “orphan” was commonplace. Anyone who’s read about affected families after the First World War and the Second World War, knows that the word “orphan” was very, very commonplace, unfortunately, because of the sacrifices made by their parents overseas.

But it’s not just the unsupported child’s benefit, of course—also, it’s differentiated for the very reason that there is abandonment by parents. So bringing that in line as this does, making sure that extending the eligibility of orphan people on the orphans benefit and those on the unsupported child’s benefit just means that at least the one thing we can do, we’ve done. And, again, it’s great to see that in this House—that we’re agreeing that the least we can do is bring them into line with those, I suppose, who are fortunate enough to be cared for, or in a situation where at least they have the stability of someone looking after them for more than 12 months. That’s certainly what this does.

So it gives me great pleasure to be standing here, and I’ll just reflect on one of the other submissions. It’s from Birthright—this probably sums it up, and again, it’s why there’s so much support: “Children have needs irrespective of their care agreements and in times of high stress it is especially important that those needs are met. It is also important that there is equity between caregivers who all take on a significant responsibility when they care for a child. Whether a child is cared for for a month or a year in some ways is irrelevant, the child’s needs must be met. The review clearly shows there are numerous incidents where a child might need to be cared for for less than one year in difficult circumstances whilst more permanent arrangements are made. Illness, death and imprisonment may mean that carers also need to make rapid arrangements.” And that, again, is a submission from Birthright.

I go back again to what I see as bringing out the best—and, of course, anyone involved, and the committee, will have seen this. And some of the people that came and submitted on this bill, of course, are so much the unheralded heroes of this. I just go back and, again, I acknowledge MP Simon Court. He mentioned his experience of the intellectual disability sector. Again, right across the spectrum there are people there, unsung, who often, for very, very low wages, display a dedication to those less fortunate than them, and for those of us who see this on a daily basis, it leaves us nothing less than humble.

So if we can do this as a House, if we can ensure that at least for those who are likely to become alienated in our society, they get to the stage where they’ll look back and say, “At least my fellow New Zealanders did what they could to get me through a situation that wasn’t of my making.” So, again, like everyone else in this House, I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. For those of you who have been watching this debate and actually expected a debate, you’re probably sorely disappointed, because there is no debate. This, of course, is a piece of legislation that is supported by both sides of the House. I actually wish that more New Zealanders could see, sometimes, how select committees do function and function well, and also that they could see this House when it functions and functions well. You can bet your bottom dollar there’ll be no media reporting of this debate, and that’s unfortunate, because what we’re doing tonight in this second reading of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill could seem quite minor.

What’s often staggering in this House is the things you have to deal with that are just a no-brainer, and, actually, the fact that you find areas where there is such a significant discrepancy between two sets of people who are looking after children that aren’t theirs, and two different arrangements for financial support. So the problem when the legislation first comes to the House is you just think, “Well, how can that even be? Why is this even a thing?” But in this House, we have the opportunity to deal with issues that arise.

I think it’s fair to say that over many years now there has been a significant effort by Governments of both major parties to really make a difference to the lives of children in care. And, as my colleague Chris Luxon pointed out, unfortunately many of the children in this situation have already experienced things that many of us in this House wouldn’t want to consider or dwell on. So for the children who are in care, be they in foster care or cared for by other family members, it is a responsibility for us in this House to ensure they are supported in ways that they need.

One of the things that I am pleased about—and I do want to acknowledge the Minister Kelvin Davis for continuing a wider piece of work that is more broadly around financial assistance for caregivers. The work they do is so crucial in terms of providing assistance to a group of New Zealanders that have already faced so many challenges in their young sweet lives that to provide not just financial support but emotional support and spiritual support to help them rebuild is really critical, and we do want to make sure that every child in New Zealand, despite the circumstances they’ve been born into, has the opportunities to flourish.

So I want to put on record my thanks for the thousands and thousands of caregivers who provide that financial, emotional, and spiritual support, and to say that this House is a House of Representatives—the fact that we have some of our own who have spoken in this debate who have been in the position to provide that support is special. One of the things that we heard with the submitters, and many of us as electorate MPs would have heard this, was some horrendous examples of families that have really struggled to support the children that are in their care. So I want to put on record our thanks for every person who accepts a child into their care, whether expected or not, and is able to provide support to them.

I think lining it up with foster care support is a no-brainer. Of course, holidays, Christmas, and birthdays are a special occasion for every child, and for a child that is in a family supported by a parent that isn’t their own, I think we should make more effort to make that a special or memorable occasion. And so that’s what this piece of legislation is doing. In the select committee, we were able to, again, listen to the voices of submitters, with real experience in this, actually recognising that New Zealand is quite a different place than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago, and so recognising holidays more broadly was an important thing for us to do.

The interesting thing that came out in the earlier work that led to this legislation that the Hon Tracey Martin did was there was actually a mixed view from the caregivers who were surveyed about the need for additional financial assistance. So some needed it; some didn’t. I think the difficulty, though, is for those caregivers who needed the financial assistance and couldn’t access it with the 12-month rule in place—that creates significant stress on a family that’s already dealing with additional challenges of bringing a child into their home to care for them. And so the removal of the 12-month rule makes sense. Some will need it more than others. I guess the area that I’d like to see explored in the further work that the Minister does is around making sure that there is greater, more targeted support to families who have higher needs.

Colleagues in the House have talked about children with disabilities, for example. Some children, with a range of challenges, will have greater levels of support. The earlier that support can be provided, the better, and so I would like to request that the Minister take some of those things into consideration in the further work that is done, so that the reduction of harm for those children can be the focus, and a more individualised, customised support for each one of those children and the families that have taken them into their care.

So I am very pleased to support this bill and to say a very big thankyou to all of the caregivers around New Zealand, and actually the organisations that support them. And I want to put on record my thanks to an organisation near me that operates just outside Cambridge, Kids in Need Waikato, who provide very practical support to some of these families who otherwise would be doing it incredibly tough. And to the 22,000 children whose parents can’t care for them for a range of reasons, for a short period of time, or for a long period of time, this House and this legislation supports you and wants all the best for you and your future.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Talofa, Madam Speaker. Can I first just acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston’s contribution tonight—that was really fantastic. I also want to acknowledge someone else’s contribution tonight, across the way, over in ACT there. I just wanted to say thank you to Simon for acknowledging the mighty and beautiful Ōtaki electorate in your contribution. Certainly, the Ō2NL, as we call it in the Ōtaki electorate, or the Ōtaki to Levin State Highway 1 upgrade that this Government is making sure goes ahead, which is fantastic. But I also want to just say thank you again for acknowledging Davey Hughes. If you are from the Ōtaki electorate, you know that Davey is a great local employer in Levin, in the Ōtaki electorate, and also, another FYI—I don’t know if the House knows—is he’s also the uncle of another great Labour MP, Darren Hughes. So that’s another little tip in there. And he does fantastic work in supporting people into work: a lot of our wāhine from all ranges, and he even has certain hours for people depending on your circumstances. So thank you for brining that into the House as well.

But I also want to acknowledge, as others have as well, the Minister the Hon Kelvin Davis—

Kieran McAnulty: Top bloke.

TERISA NGOBI: —and definitely a top bloke—for bringing this mahi forward, and, of course, the former Minister who started this mahi, as well, the Hon Tracey Martin. Then, the biggest acknowledgment I want to give is to the 15,000 caregivers—or heroes, I would say—in Aotearoa, who have stepped in and provide love and care to our tamariki through whatever it is they need at that time. I know it’s not an easy job, but, yes, I really want to acknowledge those 15,000 caregivers out there that are doing that great mahi for our babies.

Currently, we know that there’s inequality, actually, in the payments if you’re a caregiver outside of State care. That’s essentially what this bill looks to ratify or to amend, to ensure that regardless of if you’re a caregiver, a foster parent, or part of Home for Life with a State care child, you’re also able to access the allowances for Christmas presents and birthday presents for the tamariki that you care for. We know how important it is for every kid to open a Christmas present on Christmas morning. You know, regardless of whatever the situation is in the house, that Christmas morning rustling, that present—you know, shaking it, the look on those tamariki faces is priceless. We all know that, and certainly, in the Ōtaki electorate, just to mention a crew that I’m able to work with: Terese Apitu, senior practitioner for Orangi Tamariki, Sergeant Beth Purcell, the police in Ōtaki electorate, and Christine McDonald, former Strengthening Families coordinator and counsellor, got together about eight years ago and saw the need to ensure that all caregivers and parents could access or get Christmas presents to their tamariki on Christmas day. Because of some people’s situations, that wasn’t always possible, so they devised what we call now “Fill a shoebox” and I’m really privileged to be part of that crew. Last year, we delivered 1,500 presents in the Ōtaki electorate to many tamariki caregivers as well as parents, in and out of State care caregivers, and I can tell you, that the looks on those tamariki faces of excitement when you show up with the sack from the community, I can’t even describe.

But it’s also the look on those parents’ and caregivers’ faces. It’s a look of relief, to be honest, and it’s also a look of gratitude because you know that maybe for Christmas that time it was going to be, “Can we just get a Christmas kai in.” So to be able to know that when they wake up those kids are going to be to unwrap those presents and don’t know what’s in them and have that excitement, is amazing. I think that’s something that every child has the right to have, regardless of their situation.

So, also sitting on the Social Services and Community Committee, as well, and hearing the 31 submitters—amazing submissions—and I know my colleague went right through the list, so I won’t go through it again. [Interruption] I don’t have enough time, to be fair. We’ll leave it out tonight, but I know that, listening to the submitters, everyone was in agreement—just like across the House—that this makes sense, that we want to make sure that, like I said, every caregiver has the financial means to go out and buy that Christmas present or that birthday present. So, yes, I just really wanted to thank the submitters that submitted, and also the work of the select committee in that space, as well, and of course, our chair, Angie Warren-Clark, as well, who was fantastic.

Glen Bennett: Shout out.

TERISA NGOBI: Yeah, what about the deputy—oh, you know, Glen did a good job too. And we know our caregivers do an amazing job. We know that they provide that beautiful love, a safe space for our tamariki, but we also know that some of our caregivers are short-term caregivers, so they might not go through the 12 months. They might only have, say, a child in their care for eight months, and, at the moment, as it currently stands, that child that you have care of, if their birthday falls in that time that you had care for them, or if you have a child, even if it is for six or eight months over the Christmas period, you’re not entitled to the Christmas allowance or the birthday allowance. So we’ve also looked to remove that 12-month rule so that regardless of a short-term carer, or any carer in and out of State care, they get the financial means to be able buy a Christmas present and a birthday present for that child if they’re in their care at that time.

I have worked at Work and Income and Oranga Tamariki, albeit in a contract space and in our community for a really long time, and I can tell you I have seen the work and the commitment that the caregivers do. I’ve been really privileged to go to some of the caregiver Christmas do’s and just be part of listening to their kōrero and them sharing what happens and some of the really hard stuff that they go through, like the Hon Louise Upston also talked about. Unfortunately, some of these tamariki that do need that care and love at that time, they don’t just come with maybe a bag, they come with some other stuff as well. While our caregivers are amazing—they’re there to give love and provide care and safe space and day to day care for our tamariki—they’re not all counsellors or professionals in that. That work needs to happen as well for our tamariki. So our caregivers—make sure they can get them along to that, to be able to make sure that their wairua is right as well.

Just talking on that, I want to also acknowledge, again in the Ōtaki electorate—we’ve got lots of great examples where I come from—my auntie and uncle who are grandparents raising grandchildren. They love their moko and, while in their time of life they didn’t expect to be raising their moko, they’re really committed and they’re actually really active and loving grandparents. They’re involved in taking their moko to the Halberg Games in Auckland. They’re involved in making sure that their moko goes to wheelchair basketball in the mighty Palmerston North. They also make sure that their moko gets to do their strength training in the mighty Ōtaki electorate, and so really active grandparents, really active in their moko’s kura, in the kura community, but it is a stretch. You know, they are grandparents. They’ve done the raising of their children and now here they are, starting again as grandparents. And while I can tell you they love their moko, it is a stretch, it is a stretch to the budget at times. So, as grandparents, although they’d find the money whichever way they could anyway, this change where they’re Home for Life grandparents raising grandchildren, means that they going to get just that little bit extra to be able to make sure that their moko has that birthday present and has that Christmas present. I know that difference that’s going to make to them.

Can I say, just to end, it was a real privilege, as the Hon Louise Upston talked about, to work in the select committee where we were all wanting the same outcome. This bill was an easy one. The submitters were all agreed. Across the parties we all agreed. We all know the difference this is going to make, and we know it’s about equity, eh? And so I’m really proud. Another great initiative from this Labour Government to make sure that everybody is equal, that all caregivers get the same access. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 9

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee now on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

SIMON COURT (ACT): A point of order, Madam Chair. Just clarifying that we wish to have an opportunity to debate the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) separately to the main amendment bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The point of order by Simon Court to debate just the SOP is actually not possible. We either do the debate clause by clause or we take the whole debate as one clause and you can debate the Government’s SOP as part of clause 6.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. On the basis of that clarification, and the reassurance given to the member, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection, so we will take the debate as one. The question is that clauses 1 to 9 stand part.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): The proposals tonight in front of us are about the modernisation of our National Cervical Screening Programme. The Government has started this excellent work to support women’s health. Through Budget 2021, we have funded the roll-out of a new cervical screening register and also the implementation of a new PCR HPV test. But in order to get the benefits of this, we also need to update our legislation. So let’s reorientate ourselves to this rather technical bill.

The original bill enables a modern information technology register, which was not anticipated when the cervical screening programme was first designed. It allows direct look-up access, which currently is not possible for providers in the cervical screening programme. So, for example, if a new woman presents to your clinic, her screening history is unavailable to that doctor or nurse and they have to obtain by fax a summary of the screening history. This introduces delays. It is itself risky, because faxes just are, and we want to replace it with a modern system, a modern system that would cut down on the number of visits that would be required in these types of situations, but also one that would potentially enable screening in new settings. So, for example, having this type of access would enable different types of community providers acting outside of standard clinic situations.

That’s the underlying bill. The select committee—and I thank them for their work—recommended four changes. First is a change to the definition of “diagnostic test screening and specimen”, which is a very helpful change to make it clear to enable the change to HPV testing. It recommends more specific language around the disclosure of information, which is also helpful. And there is a change for consistency in the kaitiaki regulations. These were all canvassed at the second reading.

The fourth change recommended by the committee was a new clause 6A, or section 112ZE of the principal Act. Our view is that clause 6A would be impractical, and it captures many day-to-day activities that were not intended to be captured by the select committee’s changes. So our Supplementary Order Paper addresses that and makes much more workable changes that could be implemented while protecting the overall intent, which is that the kaitiaki group should review information of consequence to wāhine Māori.

So that’s a summary of the changes, and I look forward to members’ questions.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you. I just want a brief call. I’d like to just focus on clause 4 and 5 and just ask the Minister to comment on the impact she thinks that expanding the definition of a screening test and broadening the purpose of the Act will have in terms of reducing inequalities in cervical cancer and also futureproofing the screening programme.

I think just thinking through these stories that we’ve heard in previous debates around smear takers having to wait for a fax to come through to get information from the screening programme. So just the impact of that narrow group of people that currently, under the Act, are allowed to access information which is reasonably restricted to those operating the programme and also appointed screening programme evaluators. I think looking at what clause 4 is doing in terms of broadening that, so that we’ve got those providing cervical screening services, assessment and treatment services, and researchers who are authorised, broadening that, because we’ve also heard stories about people who are working to follow up people who are late for their smears. And again, if they’ve got unduly restricted access to information, the impacts of having to then wait for something to get faxed through by somebody in daytime hours if they’re working after hours, the complexities around that.

Also looking at clause 5, where what we’re doing is we’re actually broadening the definition of a screening test to include things like high-risk HPV testing and also cervical or vaginal cytology. So just really thinking through the impact that will have in terms of futureproofing the screening programme so that we can have and use those more up-to-date tests and looking at what that will do in terms of making sure that we can follow up those who are late for their smear tests, and secondly thinking through how we have reductions in inequalities in terms of cervical screening. So just talking through those points. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I thank the member for her question. So clause 4 is to allow a wider range of health providers to access the register, which enables providers in the course of their clinical work to look up the register, rather than having to obtain, essentially, a clinical history sent by fax. And that enables much more timely access to that information. That means that people aren’t sent away.

The member’s specific question was about equity, and that is an issue. We know that there are people facing social disadvantage from low incomes who struggle to get to a provider, and there are many barriers to getting a provider, and that asking them to go away and then come back actually just magnifies that barrier. So that’s one of the things.

Then clause 5 specifically broadens the classes of specimens that might be referred to in the Act and is part of enabling the collection of the HPV sample rather than the traditional cervical smear that has been used up until that time. And that enables equity because it is a much less invasive procedure. It does not require another person to do a speculum exam; it can be done by a swab. It is therefore a more acceptable procedure, and we know that from studies done here in New Zealand by researchers engaging with Māori and other communities to assess what their experience has been. And then, ultimately, it is possible that by implementing the HPV test, women will be able to collect their own samples. That means that the barrier of even coming in for a smear may eventually be removed altogether. It may be that swabs could be posted out to women who are in remote locations, and they could be instructed in how to collect their own sample. So all of those potential actions are made possible by the fact that we have a wider range of samples that could be used, including the HPV test.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora koutou. I want to speak to clause 5, amending section 112B(2), and the definition of what is a cervical screening service. As currently stated, it means “any service provided for the purpose of providing cervical screening, assessment, and treatment services in relation to a particular woman as part of the NCSP”. So I would love to make the language in this whole bill more inclusive to acknowledge that cervical cancer does not just affect cisgender women, because the problem with the definition in here, as being only for women, is that it actively excludes takatāpui, trans men, intersex, and non-binary people who have a cervix and a vagina.

When I spoke in the House about this last week, I mentioned the concerns that had already been raised to me about the privacy of the information, such as the incorrect use of pronouns by people in screening services, the use of former or dead names—

Hon Member: It’s probably not going to kill them, though, is it?

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: —I’ll get to that, thank you—and invasive questions about their genitalia and gender identity or expression.

After that night, I was advised by members of those communities that if they were not recorded as a woman in the health system, some trans men, intersex, and non-binary people were not allowed on this screening programme. So these are examples of institutional discrimination against members of rainbow communities because somebody shouldn’t have to choose between misgendering themselves in our health system or not getting access to potentially lifesaving healthcare. I think that’s shameful in this day and age. So my questions to you here, then: how will you ensure that the National Cervical Screening Programme is available to all people with a cervix and a vagina? And how will you preserve the privacy and dignity of takatāpui, trans men, intersex, and non-binary people who should have the right to use it?

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s always an honour to contribute in the House. My question to the Minister is really about the kaitiaki regulations. In the Minister’s speech, she identified there were some changes to the kaitiaki regulations, but I remember from select committee that the submission by the Māori Women’s Welfare League had made recommendations into making sure that the data collected for Māori women on cervical screening needed to be kept sacred, just like when they refer to the whare tangata or the whenua of, of course, the womb, the uterus.

So I note that the Minister had said in her speech that the fourth change or recommendation by the Health Committee will introduce a new clause 6A to the bill, that the clause provides a new subsection 112ZE(1) of the principal Act—does not override the requirements for the kaitiaki regulations. What I would like from the Minister is if she can explain what the changes are to the kaitiaki regulations, because, from memory, from submitters, there were, I would say, concerns that the ministry were not following the regulations, the kaitiaki regulations.

My concern is that we are adhering to the kaitiaki regulations, and if the Minister can make clear what the changes are so that we understand what those changes are to the kaitiaki regulations. So that was on the fourth point on the Minister’s speech on the second reading of this bill, that the kaitiaki regulations provide the National Kaitiaki Group and gives the group the role of protecting the use of information on or from the register that identifies participants as Māori. If there are changes, I’m not quite clear on it, but it would be great if the Minister gave us what that is tonight. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, and I thank my colleague for that contribution. So, indeed, the kaitiaki regulations are regulations intended to protect the tapu nature of data about cervical screening for Māori women, and the National Kaitiaki Group and its functions are preserved in the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper.

What has changed here is that the Health Committee proposed one particular way of addressing that, and we have tried to keep the intent of the select committee, while trying to make it a workable solution. So the concern was—and an independent group was brought in to review the proposed changes to the scope of the kaitiaki group’s work—it would have probably generated several hundred referrals to the kaitiaki group a year. That would include things such as ordinary data updates of the register and just some of the information that was needed on a day-to-day basis for the quality assurance of the system, because, clearly, it is important that we have good data, good reports, and good statistics—and to do all of that, the employees of the programme need to be able to look up in the register and work with the data.

What is preserved is that the kaitiaki group would be required to approve data being published externally on these issues—so that includes the screening programme’s annual reports; monitoring reports; cancer case reviews; Parliamentary Committee reports; any public-facing component of an electronic application, not that we have that at present; and other publication captured by the legislation.

Also, we think that the number of issues referred to the kaitiaki group will increase under this regime, above where it has been at present. I think it is also true—the member reflected the experience on select committee—that there have been disagreements about whether the ministry was meeting the expectations of the kaitiaki group, and that was probably, I’m advised, the result of ambiguous rules that were interpreted in different ways and led to distrust, perhaps, and disagreement. So I hope that by having gone through this independent process, by clarifying it here, everyone’s working to the same agreed set of standards and that this will build that trust back up.

Returning to the earlier question about the inclusiveness of the programme, yes, indeed, everyone with a cervix is eligible for screening and able to benefit from the screening and should have access to it. I think it is troubling, the sorts of situations that the member Elizabeth Kerekere mentioned. Certainly, I will undertake to make sure that the processes used by the screening programme are what we would expect, upholding the dignity of all people and the fact that they should be treated with respect in the screening programme, but, actually, under the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights and all parts of the health system.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just also acknowledge the Minister in charge of this amendment bill. As both a woman and a doctor, it’s certainly heartening for those of us who are women that you are leading this.

I just wanted to flesh out a little bit around the robustness of the platform referred to in subsection (5). Recent examples—particularly at Waikato DHB—of protected information and cyber and privacy breaches can cause concern within the public. So I just want the Minister, please, to be able to confirm that the IT component that will deal with this potential volume of electronic requests is in place and has been tested. The second part to my question is: when will this actually be rolled out? Thirdly, can you confirm that it has no relationship or dependency on the coronavirus vaccine IT platform with relation to problems in the past regarding the bowel-screening programme roll-out?

Just finally, can the Minister reassure New Zealand women, as I referred to in my preamble, that the private data is going to be safe in light of those recent cyber-attacks and breaches, and what watchdog—for want of a better word—might be overseeing that?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for such important questions. The screening programme—in a sense, we’re going to set up an IT system that is equivalent to IT systems that are in use within DHBs, for example, or are within public health organisations, and, yes, there are some national ones as well. This would be one of those national ones.

So it is not at all unique that we are having a register that is an electronic register accessed nationally by healthcare providers—that’s not unique. What is unique about the cervical-screening programme is how specific its legislation is, and that’s how we’re in this positon. In terms of the specific question about the robustness of the security protections there, look, that’s a concern I totally share. The funding that was announced in Budget 2021 includes funding for a business case where we’ll develop a more detailed proposal on the particular shape of that IT platform and, indeed, other specifications of the privacy protections and security will be scrutinised heavily at that time.

There’s no commitment to a particular platform at this stage. The time line for implementation is two years from now, so it will be the business case and then developing the implementation plan. None the less, work is under way. We have this legislation in progress to enable those changes, and also the ministry has been developing its clinical guidelines on how the HPV test will be used. So it is not as if we have been standing still.

I’m interested to understand more of the member’s concerns about the bowel-screening programme. That is one particular platform that has been used for a number of different public health platforms, and it does appear to be performing well, because the same IT system that underpins the bowel-screening programme is the basis of our contact-tracing IT system, and I think that it’s also been repurposed for one other public health programme.

Certainly, we’ve had now a series of IT builds within the ministry. They seem to have progressed quickly, and the ones that I’ve seen developed in my brief time here have been to a high standard. So I’d be interested to understand more of what concerns are, particularly about the bowel-screening one, and I’d also just note that there is a business case to come, with no commitment to a particular platform yet.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is great to just take a call on this during the committee stage of the House on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill.

Just first of all, in terms of the background to this bill, I never got a chance during the second reading, but I promised I would get to a question. This whole thing about strengthening and improving the National Cervical Screening Programme—I’m all for it, because, I mean, doing faxes nowadays is pretty old school right now. [Interruption] Do you have a fax? I mean, I get the electronic fax in my phone; I do have an eFax, so that’s an upgrade from the actual physical fax. It’s going to be quicker, it’s going to be convenient, it’s going to be more streamlined. The last thing you would want to do as a clinician is try and go through your faxes and the results when you’ve got the patient right there and you’re trying to take a test and treat the patient—it’s a bit of a headache to try to go through all those things.

The Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister has put forward is great in order for our National Kaitiaki Group to continue to have the oversight of the use of Māori data. One particular thing in this bill, with the amendments, is that testing for HPV—being a male clinician in South Auckland, with a Māori-Pacific whānau, whether they be cultural, religious, conservative views, when I come out to the waiting room and call a person’s name, and I can see the lady’s face—yes, when they see me asking for them to come through down the hallway to the clinic room, I can already tell that they don’t want me to take the smear test. So having this HPV test is going to make a huge difference in order to get that access for our whānau. We already know about the lower rates of participation in the cervical screening programme with Māori, Pacific, Asian, and other vulnerable groups, so this helps to do away with that.

I’m going to look at the Māori data and the governance group which this SOP is speaking to. It is great to make sure that we talk about data sovereignty and making sure we protect data and only use it for its purposes and protect the health information of our people. So I get what the SOP is trying to do and I support that.

The other thing I would say with the two amendments here is that it’s going to make a huge difference, across the board, for our whānau. But my question to the Minister, specifically for a Pacific whānau, with these provisions, is: what do you think that is going to do for our Pacific whānau, especially where I come from in South Auckland? And my wife’s a Māori female from Ngāpuhi and Ngāti Whātua. She works for a Māori provider in South Auckland. She would always make sure that anything that we do is aligned with the Treaty of Waitangi. So what are your thoughts and would these provisions align with that, Minister?

So those are the two things that I would like to ask the Minister, and, again, I’m going back to the background of the bill—I totally support it because, again, I don’t know whether Dr Gaurav would have the same issue getting smear tests done with our female population, but it is a barrier for us, and I’m trying to go through our health targets, especially under the primary health organisation—if we see on the dashboard, “You haven’t met your target.”, and if you have so many males in your clinic, it’s a huge issue. I got taught from one of the senior Māori clinicians going through medical school that we are supposed to be asexual, meaning that you’re not a male doctor, you’re not a female doctor—you are there to treat the patient in whatever capacity. But, again, I acknowledge that it is a hard task when you come from a Pacific, conservative, or religious area, where that’s going to be a huge barrier for us. So those are my two questions to the Minister. Thank you.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I thank my colleague for those questions. So the Treaty partnership, I guess, is reflected ultimately in the kaitiaki regulations, which do give Māori control of wāhine Māori data. The underlying cervical screening legislation has been in place for over 20 years now and probably reflects the first such provision in New Zealand law to give control of a particular piece of health data to Māori. I think more generally these issues are being faced across the health system and you’ll be aware of the conversations around Māori data sovereignty which are wider. Through addressing those, we hope that Māori providers will not just have control of the data but be able to benefit from the data, develop services to serve their community from the data so that the relationship is not one where they provide services directed by the Government but can propose and advocate for and seek to find the needs in their community and work towards achieving them.

On the Pasifika front, I mean that’s lovely advice the member was given about medical practitioners should be seen as asexual, but we are all embodied people and the first thing someone sees when they look at us is they’re sizing us up to see whether they can trust us with their deepest secrets and concerns. Something like cervical screening is for some people surrounded by shame, by different cultural values, and in some cases by trauma as well. Essentially, what the technology of HPV screening does is give the control of the process to the person who is being screened and screening is not something that is done to the person. The person can do it themselves eventually, when we have self-screening in place. I probably defer to the member as a Pasifika practitioner, but essentially it allows a whole lot more flexibility and the tailoring of how the screening programme works to different communities.

The second thing is that we hope it will cost a lot less. I know that is a barrier of concern to the Pacific community. Often it’s hard to get to the doctor and sometimes there’s also a cost associated with cervical screening, so we hope those barriers will be addressed too.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I will report progress on this bill.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill and reports progress.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.