Wednesday, 9 June 2021

WEDNESDAY, 9 JUNE 2021

WEDNESDAY, 9 JUNE 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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 Wayne Lowry requesting that the House urge the Government to include the Lower Kaimai area of the Bay of Plenty Electorate in the Crown Fibre Ultra Fast Broadband area to promote connection as a community, improve educational opportunities and support small business

petition of James Meharg requesting that the House urge the Government to make the use and supply of glitter and similar products illegal in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Climate Change Commission: Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa. Advice to the New Zealand Government on its first three emissions budgets and direction for its emissions reduction plan 2022-2025.

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

A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the petition of Anameka Paenga, “Māori commissioning for the Māori Health Authority”.

Ministerial Statements

Climate Change—Report of the Climate Change Commission

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to the release of the Climate Change Commission’s report, Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa.

SPEAKER: Just keep going.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Earlier today, I tabled the advice in Parliament that the Government has received from the politically independent, science-led Climate Change Commission on the total amount of global warming pollution Aotearoa New Zealand must cut over the next 15 years. The commission’s advice also provides an achievable, affordable, and technologically feasible blueprint for achieving this. As members read through the advice in the coming days and weeks, there are four main points to keep in mind. They are that addressing the climate crisis is achievable, it is affordable, it offers huge opportunities for improved wellbeing and innovation, and that it must be planned in a fair and equitable way and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Starting with the targets themselves, I’d like to take each of these in turn. The Climate Change Commission says that our climate change targets are achievable and can be met with existing technology, but only if we act now. Over the last 3½ years, this Government has laid the foundations from which the commission is now asking us to build. This will help to ensure a sustained decline in the pollution that we put into the atmosphere, and it will mean future Governments can ensure that this decline continues and, in fact, picks up pace every year until we hit net zero.

The commission is also clear that taking the action required of us is affordable. According to the world’s leading scientists, we must cut global emissions in half by 2030 to have any chance of staying within the 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming threshold. That is now less than nine years away. If we delay action for another year, that drops to eight, but the size of the effort doesn’t get any smaller. We still have to cut the same amount of pollution, whether we do it in seven years or eight or nine, if we start today. Every year of delay makes the effort harder and more expensive than if we just get on with it right now. Those calling for delay, as they always do, are in fact calling for higher costs and greater economic disruption than is necessary, and the commission makes that clear. It predicts that delaying action would cost us 2.3 percent of GDP—almost double the cost to our economy of acting now.

The third point is to draw members’ attention to the opportunities within our grasp. A zero-carbon economy will create cleaner, more vibrant, and healthier communities in every part of our economy. It will connect our towns and cities with frequent and fast trains and buses, and roads freer of congestion. It will create green jobs that pay people enough to provide for their families and put a roof over their heads. It will support innovation, new business opportunities, and new investment in clean-tech, high-value industries. It will benefit people’s health because of warmer, drier homes, more walking and cycling, and less air pollution. When the commission released its draft advice in January, I said that I had never felt more confident that a climate-friendly, healthy, and prosperous future for New Zealand was within reach, and I still feel the same today.

Finally, though the commission’s advice makes clear the overall benefit to New Zealand of the transition to a lower-emissions future, it does say that the impacts will not necessarily be evenly felt. There will be people up and down the country wondering what the transition means for their families and for their livelihoods. On this, the commission presses upon the Government the need to plan our transition in a fair, equitable, and inclusive way. This includes working in partnership with iwi Māori and local communities, and signalling policies well in advance to give everyone time to plan.

The first chance the Government will have to show that we are equal to the challenge that the Climate Change Commission has set us will come with the setting of the first three emissions budgets and the emissions reduction plan. This plan will need to include policies and strategies that cut across every sector of the economy, including agriculture and forestry, transport, building and construction, waste and heat industry, and power. It will also look at the changes needed across the finance system, infrastructure, and planning and emissions pricing.

We will consult on the plan and there will be opportunities for members to consider the emissions budgets. In doing so, I hope that they will take heed of the commission’s point that some issues are too big for politics and, in turn, the calls for cross-party consensus from business and local communities.

To close, I’d like to take the opportunity to thank the commission for their hard work, their analytical honesty, and their rigour. What they have achieved with their advice will have a lasting impact on the type of planet that our children inherit from us. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, I’ve lost your name.

Hon Members: Stuart Smith.

SPEAKER: I call the member.

STUART SMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m glad that the Climate Change Commission has listened to the National Party through our submission on their original draft and dropped the recommended policy positions that they had in their draft report. The National Party has a history of mitigating the effects of climate change. Under the National Government, renewables increased from 65 percent to 85 percent, and we signed the Paris Agreement and we supported the zero carbon Act. We also supported the establishment of the climate commission. We still, however, have some concerns regarding the policy interventions addressed in the report, but we support a split-gas approach and we also support the use of carbon budgets to reach our goals.

Farmers are being asked to do more in the final report than they were under the zero carbon Act, and that really does raise some concerns, because the zero carbon Act targets were significantly challenging in and of themselves. Also of concern is the first emissions budget, which has New Zealand reducing emissions by 8 percent in just four years. Given that under this Government, emissions have increased by 2 percent and we’re on track to burn over 2 million tonnes of coal this year generating electricity, we first have to slow down our emissions to bring them back to zero before we start reducing them, so it’s quite a challenge. However, as the Government reflects on and works through this report, we will continue to advocate for New Zealanders to ensure that we are not having command-and-control policies foisted upon us.

I’d now like to ask the Minister a couple of questions, if I may. Is the Minister confident that the two months allowed for the commission to consider the over 15,000 submissions was enough to then reflect those submissions in the final report?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Yes, I am confident in it. If the Climate Change Commission had advised me that they didn’t feel that they could do it, then I would have considered a request from them, but they didn’t say at any point that they felt that they couldn’t do it. In fact, we did give them an extension during the initial consultation phase, and when they asked for that, I did ask them whether that left them with sufficient time to consider the responses and they said that it did.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Is the Minister satisfied with the commission’s handling of the media, given the 40 minutes that they were given to read the report before going into a press conference to ask the Prime Minister questions on the report, and—going back to the draft report—that some hand-picked journalists were given an advance copy of the draft report?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Well, any concerns about today’s lock-ups should be directed at me rather than at the commission, because it was my office that organised that, not the commission.

Stuart Smith: I did ask if you were satisfied.

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, you asked if I was satisfied with the commission, and the response to that is yes. They didn’t handle today’s media; I did.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Is the Minister satisfied that the commissioners had enough time to read the report before they signed it off?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I think, given the calibre of people on the commission, they wouldn’t have signed off something that they felt uncomfortable that they didn’t have time to consider. I also would say that I have been advised that every single recommendation in there was by the unanimous consent of the commissioners.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): We’ve received reports that commissioners had less than 24 hours to consider the report before signing it off. Is the Minister aware of that, and, if so—or even if he isn’t—does he think that’s satisfactory, given the report is over 400 pages?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I haven’t received those reports, no.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Does the Minister think that the public would have any confidence in the final report if it turned out that the commissioners had less than 24 hours to consider the report before signing it off?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Oh, I think that that question really should be directed at the commission themselves. You know, it is an extraordinary body of people. They have put in a huge amount of work over the course of the preceding 18 months, and I don’t know where he’s getting his rumours from.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Is the Minister aware that Dr Rod Carr is not a member of Parliament and I can’t ask him that question in the House?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Yes.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s my pleasure to welcome—

SPEAKER: Sorry. I do want to just, before the member speaks, sincerely apologise to Mr Stuart Smith. I just had a complete blank on his name, and I do apologise.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to welcome the Climate Change Commission’s final advice outlining a blueprint for tackling climate change by achieving the reduction targets agreed to under the zero carbon Act through to 2035.

Nearly six years ago, I had the privilege, along with the Hon James Shaw, as Opposition members of Parliament, of being part of New Zealand’s delegation to the Paris climate talks. Over the course of those two weeks, representatives from Governments and civil society came together to wrestle with how, as a globe made up of individual nations, we could confront climate change. During that time, there were numerous conversations about how New Zealand could meet the targets that we were signing up for, and today marks the momentous milestone of putting in place the plan to do just that—to meet our obligations and to prepare for ambition.

The Prime Minister has described this report as one of the most significant she will receive as Prime Minister. Decisions we make as a result of this report will shape our future as a nation. Significantly, it lays out that not taking action will cost us. It will cost us to the tune of 2.3 percent of GDP by 2050—in other words, delaying action will make the decarbonising job harder and more expensive in the long run. So this is not only a blueprint for change; it is an opportunity for us not to squander.

It also tells us that meeting targets is achievable. We already have the tools we need available to us. We don’t need any magic wands. What’s more, the Government is already taking action in the right areas, but we must move faster, and there is much more work to do. We have begun. We have banned new offshore oil and gas exploration, we have passed the zero carbon Act, we have established the Climate Change Commission, we have doubled our climate change aid to the Pacific, we have overhauled the emissions trading scheme, we have overseen the more than doubling of the carbon price; we have ploughed billions into infrastructure for buses and trains, cycling, and walking, we’ve helped businesses switch to clean energy with the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, and we’ve invested in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and brought back the mandate to include biofuels and petrol. But the commission says that we must build on this progress, and this work needs to start now.

We do not need any miracle technologies, but we do need to get them into place. Further steps need to be taken to address the unevenly distributed impacts of climate change on New Zealanders, including our most vulnerable. Government needs to signal policies early to give business and communities time to adjust, and we need a clear and strong partnership with local government and with iwi Māori.

As energy Minister, I also welcome the recommendation that we develop a national energy strategy. This, as with the other 33 recommendations, will be carefully considered and consulted on over the coming months.

So, to conclude, now that we have the commission’s advice, we have an amazing opportunity and chance to transform our economy as well as the lives of our children and our grandchildren. But we must work with renewed urgency and determination. The job is not yet done.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party stands strongly opposed to the zero carbon Act policy, to this commission, and to its report. Why? There are, basically, three reasons and three big problems with this initiative. The first is that the way it tries to micro-manage and plan the economy well into the future is completely indefensible. I just heard the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Climate Change get up and say that these actions will save the economy 2.3 percent in 2050. Really? Can any of them name any economists in the past century who have been able to forecast GDP 29 years out to the nearest 0.1 percent—

Hon David Parker: Rodney Hide.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —and, actually, all of the assumptions have been—and David Parker says “Sir Roger Douglas”. He’s probably the only one, and he doesn’t agree—he doesn’t agree. Sir Roger Douglas wouldn’t agree with them, either.

But the fact is that like all of the assumptions that are put into this plan, they do not hold water. The micro-management, the banning of technology is the wrong way to reduce emissions, because this Government now has two contradictory climate change polices. One is the emissions trading scheme, which sets a cap on total emissions. If the objective is to reduce total emissions in New Zealand, the right thing to do is to set that cap, auction off the units, let people respond to the price signals, and make choices about how they live and do their work and build their businesses within that constraint.

The second policy which works against it is the zero carbon Act, which requires a plethora of new bureaucracies and micro-management that will try and control each sector and say there should be 13 percent fewer cows, the type of car that you can import should change in this year, and you should cook your burgers at a restaurant with this type of energy source. All of that micro-management not only will turn out to be wrong, because the predictions of the future, technologically, so often are, but also they are pointless, because to the extent that any of them do reduce emissions, they merely free up carbon units that somebody else can use under the same cap. So there are two contradictory and pointless policies that this Government has. Added together, they don’t work.

The second problem is the total disconnect from the rest of the world. This report issued today says that we should not in New Zealand be able to use foreign carbon credits. Really? So what it is saying is that the Government would like New Zealanders to pay people in Hawke’s Bay to sell up their sheep and beef farms and plant a monoculture of more pine trees that turn into wilding pines and a future ecological disaster. Instead of being able to pay Brazilians to reseed the Amazon, or at least pay them to stop burning it down, was that really the right answer for someone who wants to think global and act local? It is completely wrong that our competitors around the world will be able to do that and buy cheaper carbon credits, exposing New Zealand business.

That’s the third problem—that the goals are set by New Zealand as if we are totally isolated from the global economy and climate. It says that New Zealand agriculture and New Zealand business and New Zealand transport and energy must reach certain goals set in legislation, regardless of what the rest of the world does. So they are happy to say that if the rest of the world decides not to meet these targets, New Zealand should destroy its economy and the way of life of its people to reach these targets that nobody else is seeking, and, therefore, New Zealand has no impact. That is why we oppose it, and those are the three things that are wrong with it.

But I’d just like to quickly ask the Minister a question. Does he think—not the commissioner—the way that select journalists were given access to the material beforehand and the 40 minutes that other journalists were given to read the material before questioning the Prime Minister was adequate?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): The lock-up was provided in much the same conditions as the Budget lock-up.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): So we have to take that somewhat non-committal response that he does think it’s OK—one of the most significant economic and environmental policy changes in a generation, and he thinks the conditions were fine. I’m glad the press gallery got an answer from James Shaw on that. Does he believe that the 24 hours that the commissioners were given to look at the draft were adequate, or is he denying that that happened?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): No, I just don’t know the source of those rumours.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe, te Pīka. Tēnā tātou—

SPEAKER: Well, I think what I’m going to do is to seek leave for Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to make a statement on behalf of the Māori Party here, because there is not an entitlement. Can I also suggest that we put it down as a matter of business for the Business Committee to see if we can agree to an order for the rest of the year, or a sessional order, so we don’t run into this problem again. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be able to short-circuit that process and seek leave for the Māori Party to be considered a specified party for the purposes of the Standing Orders for the remainder of this term of Parliament.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is objection. OK, we’ll undo the short circuit and we’ll take the long route and say: is there any objection to Debbie Ngarewa-Packer making a statement now?

Hon Member: We’ve already agreed to that.

SPEAKER: I thought I was interrupted by the Leader of the House, but if we’ve already done it, we’ll keep going.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. Ka tū ahau anō. Tēnā koe, te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise on behalf of Te Paati Māori, recognising the tautoko to do that today, and acknowledge the release of the Climate Change Commission’s final advice and the Minister’s statement in the House today.

Despite decades of warnings, protests, and discussions, the planet is continuing to warm. Since 2016, Aotearoa has had three of its hottest years on record since recordings began in 1909. As a result, extreme climate conditions are continuing to accelerate. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a landmark report that made it clear there were only 12 years left to limit climate catastrophe. There is no time for inaction or delay.

Indigenous peoples are at the forefront of fighting to protect our climate for our mokopuna yet to come. As tangata whenua, we have the most to lose from a failure to act on climate change, despite a relatively tiny contribution to global emissions. Many of our Pasifika whanaunga face the prospect of losing their islands altogether due to sea-level rise. Here in Aotearoa, from Raukūmara to Te Hiku, Kaikōura to Pātea, we have seen that Māori are on the forefront of resisting extractive industries that pollute our environment. We cannot achieve environmental protection and restoration without acknowledging and implementing Māori rights and recognising the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki, and, yes, that includes actually returning our land and our resources. We cannot beat the climate crisis without restoring lands to their rightful indigenous owners, who know how to manage that land in harmony with the climate.

I acknowledge last term’s decision to ban new offshore oil and gas permits, but we must go further. We need to end new onshore oil and gas permits and withdraw both existing onshore and offshore permits, with the target of decommissioning all sites by 2030. This House has another opportunity to take action on protecting and restoring the biodiversity of our oceans and taking action on climate by supporting my member’s bill, the Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill.

The commission’s report highlights what we need to do to meet our international targets. We must fundamentally transform our transport system. We must transition fast to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and this House must stop ignoring the elephant in the room, which of course is the effective exclusion of industrial agriculture from our response to the climate crisis. It is clear beyond all doubt that significant and lasting reductions in methane emissions is absolutely critical.

The truth is simple and staring us all in the face. Even the Government and the Minister fail to acknowledge it: we need less cows. We need less cows in this country. We must reduce our herd sizes. There is a huge economic opportunity in going for value-add products and making our “clean, green” brand more than just a brand but a reality. Organic and regenerative agriculture is the future—[Interruption]—and I’m really glad that the people on this side of the House are animated. Our Te Paati Māori manifesto in the last election committed us to taking real action on methane. We would immediately bring methane into the emissions trading scheme and phase out synthetic fertilisers by 2025. These chemicals are driving the surge in climate and water pollution coming out of New Zealand farms in recent decades. This will be a disincentive to continued growth in industrial dairying. We’d also establish a $300 million fund to support Māori farmers to transition towards regenerative and value-added agricultural models.

We have an obligation to our rangatahi to unite and to do everything as kaitiaki to protect our taiao and our whānau from the climate crisis in the short time that we have left. I appreciate the clear advice from the Climate Commission that sets out how we can do that in our context here in Aotearoa. Now, as MPs, it’s our job to step up and take the action that is so urgently needed. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. 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, particularly the Government’s climate change work programme, including the release today of the final advice from the Climate Change Commission. The commission’s analysis shows the 30-year transition to a low-emissions economy is achievable, will create jobs and new opportunities for Kiwi businesses, and will provide business with certainty to invest in new technology to enter new markets. The Climate Change Commission’s advice has confirmed that the Government has made good progress to reduce emissions: passing the zero carbon Act and improving the emissions trading scheme; investing in public transport, rail, cycling, and walking infrastructure, and electric vehicle infrastructure around the country; Budget 2021 is doubling funding for the Low Emissions Vehicles Contestable Fund over the next four years; developing a vehicle emissions standard for new imports and a mandate to include biofuels in petrol and diesel; and helping businesses to switch to clean energy with the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund. The commission’s report makes clear there is more to do, and we’ll consider the commission’s advice over coming months as we develop our emissions reduction plan.

David Seymour: Which of the Climate Change Commission’s recommendations, if any, will the Prime Minister rule out implementing?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: By law we are required, as a Government, under the zero carbon Act, to go through due process in considering the advice from the climate commission as we formulate an emissions reduction plan and as we formulate our emissions budgets, and so I’m going to undertake that in good faith.

David Seymour: Why does the Prime Minister expect the public to believe that the population will keep growing, the economy and living standards will keep growing, and carbon emissions will reduce by 63 percent in the next 14 years—that’s more than half—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s asked a question, and it’s a very long one already.

David Seymour: A tiny little addition?

SPEAKER: If it’s a question, yes. If it’s not, no.

David Seymour: OK, well, all I was going to add, Mr Speaker, for the Prime Minister’s benefit, is to give her a little context that carbon emissions have been rising every year this century, in contrast to—

SPEAKER: That’s in conflict with what I just said. The member can start again and use another supplementary.

David Seymour: Expensive business! How does the Prime Minister expect the public to believe that emissions are going to painlessly decrease by 63 percent in the next 14 years, when every year this century, on average, emissions have increased so far?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I don’t think anyone is suggesting that change won’t be required. The point that the climate commission has made is that the foundations the Government has laid are the right ones; we just need to make sure that we keep going and that we lift the pace. The alternative, if we don’t do that, is that the potential cost to the economy will be greater due to inaction than it will be via action.

David Seymour: When the Prime Minister said that the Government has laid the foundations and needs to increase the pace, was she referring to the record 1.1 million tonnes of coal imported last year, or the fact that emissions have actually increased under her Government—which is she going to accelerate?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member raises the issue with New Zealand’s electricity generation. One of the issues that we’re facing, of course, is that whilst we have a very high rate of renewables in New Zealand, in a hydrological dry year, we have a major problem, and so we have to look at options to try and overcome that. We’ve laid the foundation for that piece of work. We’re laying the foundations for New Zealand to finally have clean car standards so that we don’t continue, particularly in an era where other countries will start phasing out the use of internal combustion engines—where we start putting in some standards around what’s imported into New Zealand so that we don’t end up being the dumping ground of other countries. We are starting the work by incentivising industry who, through manufacturing processes, are using fossil fuels for production—to support them to transition. It’s excellent to see some of those higher users—for instance, the likes of Fonterra—making very ambitious plans to change the way they undertake their processing, which will be good for all of us.

Simon Court: Will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that any climate change policies are subject to a cost-benefit analysis?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are obliged to go through a rigorous process, and, of course, the climate commission, as part of their report, have encouraged us in particular areas to undertake that process, including—and let’s acknowledge what they’ve said around our ambition of 100 percent renewable electricity. So that’s one of the areas they’ve called for that. We’re undertaking a business case and analysis around the way that we would achieve that through projects like Onslow to see whether or not it offers the solution that New Zealand is looking for. The member can engage in that process over the next several months, and I encourage him to do so.

Hon Judith Collins: Is she aware, when she referenced Fonterra, that they’re having to actually burn coal to dry the wood at Brightwater?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reference the fact that they are working to transition their energy generation in their processing plants. If the member is contesting that ambition, I’d suggest she raise that with Fonterra, because that is very much part of their public planning. If the member thinks it’s to our benefit to continue to use fossil fuels as part of our clean, green image as we export our dairy products, she is definitely out of step with where Fonterra is heading.

Mark Cameron: Will she rule out implementing the commission’s recommendations which could see total dairy cattle numbers and sheep and beef numbers fall by 13 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’d refer to the first answer—I believe it was the first answer I gave to Mr Seymour—around fulfilling our obligations in not responding immediately but going through due process in considering the commission’s report.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The wholesale and manufacturing sectors are contributing to supporting the recovery. This morning Stats New Zealand reported a continued rise in manufacturing sales volumes in the March quarter, up 0.4 percent from the previous quarter to reach a record peak of $27 billion. The biggest contribution came from the electronic and electrical equipment manufacturing sector. Outputs from this industry fed into the exports of optical, medical, and measuring equipment goods, which have increased over 50 percent during the last 12 months. Meat and dairy products manufacturing sales volumes rose 1.3 percent in the March 2021 quarter, the second-largest industry rise. Separately, wholesale trade sales rose 3.7 percent in the March 2021 quarter, a rebound from a decline in the previous quarter, and the biggest contribution here came from the motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts industry.

Helen White: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s efforts to secure the recovery are reflected in the jobs market. The SEEK NZ Employment Report increased by 5.1 percent in May from the previous month to a record high for job advertising numbers. For the year, job ads rose 193 percent. More importantly, job ad numbers have now surpassed pre-COVID marks by more than 20 percent. A BNZ economist’s noted “it is not enough to say job advertising has fully recovered … ‘It is now exceptionally strong.’ ”

Helen White: What reports has he seen on the impact of climate change on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As we have heard, today the final report of the Climate Change Commission was released. It shows that we can build on the progress that the Government has already made to meet our climate targets in a way that is affordable and achievable. The commission has revised its modelling of the GDP impact. It now estimates the level of GDP could be around 0.5 percent lower in 2035, and 1.2 percent lower in 2050, than it otherwise would have been. This does not account for co-benefits such as health improvements or wellbeing benefits. Importantly, the commission has now included an estimate of the impact on GDP of delaying action. It says that delay, particularly in deploying electric vehicles and improved farm practices, could result in the level of GDP in 2050 falling by around 2.3 percent. The Government welcomes this report and is now working its way through its recommendations for our response.

Andrew Bayly: Has he seen the ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook report, which showed that 86 percent of businesses are expecting higher costs ahead, which is bad news for superannuitants and low-income earners?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, I have seen that report, and what it does say is that firms are very optimistic about their own outlook, which is going up; their export intentions; their investment intentions; and their property expectations. So I tend to look on the optimistic side of the report.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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 focus on a COVID-19 immunisation programme centred on the Pfizer vaccine, and welcome yesterday’s announcement of 1 million doses arriving in July. This means double the number of vaccines will be received by the end of next month, and we will have enough stock to fully vaccinate a million New Zealanders. With this announcement, we can continue ramping up our roll-out to the general population next month and will ensure everyone in New Zealand who wants a vaccine will be offered one before the end of the year. With around 20,000 doses a day currently being administered and greater certainty of supply, the Government is on track to reach the peak of our programme in August and September, where we will deliver roughly 50,000 doses per day. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Offering a vaccine to every New Zealander who wants one is the best way as a country we can secure our recovery.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has she prioritised a cycling bridge that might benefit 3,000 people over developing the Mill Road highway, that would support an extra 120,000 people living in southern Auckland?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would refer the member to the fact that we have varied the investment around Mill Road because, without that, it would have been the most expensive road in the country at $3.5 billion. It was prudent and necessary to take another look at that investment. The changes that we’ve made will still allow the acceleration of housing development in a really critical area of Auckland.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has she prioritised a $785 million cycle bridge to the North Shore when commuting from Pukekohe to the CBD currently takes more than an hour by car and over 80 minutes, one way, using rail?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You’ll see a consistency in the fact that we’ve made decisions that are investing in high-growth areas whilst also working to reduce emissions. For instance, the investments in the south are about better connectivity. We’ve got another train station going into an area of high growth because our view is we need to provide options to those looking to move around the city. At the moment, we’ve had, unfortunately, over a number of decades, a very significant investment in roading and not enough investment consistently in public transport options.

Hon Michael Wood: Does she stand by the Government’s investments through the New Zealand Upgrade Programme in the Papakura electorate in terms of the State Highway 1 investment between Papakura and Drury, and the Papakura to Pukekohe electrification project—two projects that will significantly increase the ability of people to move around—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to rule the question out because I have been making it clear to members that they don’t add extra things on when they’ve finished their question, in the way that the Minister did then.

Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to the chair of the Infrastructure Commission, Dr Alan Bollard, who says of the cycle bridge, “It will move less than 1 percent of the existing bridge traffic while subsidising one of the wealthiest suburbs in the country. The arithmetic does not stack up.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, I don’t necessarily expect every individual to support the idea of providing multimodal transport, but I do believe that if we are going to create an international city where we are able to move people around that city through various modes of transport, and we have as a party and as a Government made a commitment to enabling that between the North Shore and the CBD but we’re stuck with a structural issue that prevents that—we’re working to find our way around that, and that is what we propose. I do note that it seems a significant departure for the member and her party, who previously had supported a route that connected the North Shore and the CBD. I notice that they no longer support that. I’d be very interested to know whether or not that’s the view of all their members in Auckland.

Hon Judith Collins: Is $785 million to move less than 1 percent of traffic from the bridge the type of return she expects when investing taxpayer money?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve previously seen that member’s party make decisions on roading projects that did not stack up. We have made a judgment, for instance, on Mill Road that we could not justify the investment in what would become the most expensive project in the country. However, we currently have a connection where people cannot walk, cannot cycle, and they are cut off from joining other public transport networks between the North Shore and the CBD. We have estimates of how many would use that daily. That’s on a previous business case, but our view is it’s a connection that’s required.

Hon Judith Collins: By how many minutes will the $785 million cycle bridge reduce the average commute time from the North Shore to Auckland’s CBD, if any?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two points. Some of the alternatives that have been proposed around using two lanes of the harbour bridge to provide the same thing would likely considerably contribute to congestion on the existing route. So that’s why we have not favoured that option. When it comes to commute times for this current proposal, if the member chooses to put a question on notice, I’m sure I could provide further information.

Hon Judith Collins: What is her response to the people of Ashburton, who have been emailing me asking how she was able to find $785 million for a cycle bridge in Auckland but not $30 million to build them a much needed second car-bridge across the Ashburton River?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, the first point I’d make is actually this is a commitment that has been made some time ago. And as I pointed out yesterday, the issue has been that the engineering work has demonstrated to us that the original plan is not feasible. The second point on Ashburton: the Minister of Transport visited with the mayor only last week. Obviously, the issues that we’ve seen from slash and the significant flooding event have had an impact on the bridge. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are working very hard to get heavy vehicles back over the bridge in night hours, because at the moment, in the evenings, they’re taking a detour, and I understand that the NZTA are talking to local government about a business case for potentially alternative routes. My understanding is that, to date, that hasn’t existed, but we are working closely with them because, obviously, we see the fragility of the connection down south that’s been caused by this flood.

Question No. 4—Climate Change

4. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Climate Change: Will the Government follow the final advice of He Pou a Rangi, the Climate Change Commission?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): The Climate Change Commission has set out a clear direction for our path to ensure a safe climate for future generations, and we are already moving in that direction. Cabinet will still need to make decisions over the coming months, and I can’t pre-empt those decisions today, but I can say, under the zero carbon Act, the Government has to either follow the commission’s advice or come up with a better alternative.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he accept the commission’s conclusion that current policies are not enough to meet our targets for a low-emissions future?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I do, and that’s why the Government’s planning to build on the work that we have already begun to reduce emissions. I welcome the commission’s conclusions that existing technologies make taking action affordable, delaying action would be more costly, and that reducing emissions can also have good outcomes for people’s health and energy bills. I take heart that the commission has told us that we are acting in the right areas, like transport, energy, agriculture, and waste, but we need our actions to be both bolder and faster.

Hon Eugenie Sage: How will he ensure the Government follows the commission’s advice to work in partnership with Iwi Māori?

Hon JAMES SHAW: When Parliament unanimously passed the zero carbon Act, we included a specific legal requirement for the Government to pay attention to the effects of climate change for iwi Māori. The commission has told us that upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi “must be at the core of our transition.”, and that is very important to the Government.

Hon Eugenie Sage: When will the Government follow the commission’s recommendations to incentivise the uptake of electric cars?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Budget 2021 included $300 million to incentivise the uptake of electric vehicles, and we will be making an announcement about that very soon.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he support the commission’s advice to establish 300,000 hectares of new native forest in the next few years, including integrated pest management?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Native forests are essential to achieving both our climate change targets, improving our biodiversity, and restoring the ecosystems that sustain us. I agree with the commission that native forestry can provide enduring carbon sinks that clean our air and protect our environment for future generations.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What does he expect other Ministers to do in response to the climate commission’s advice?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Climate change requires a response right across the Government. Many Ministers are already working together to develop the emissions reduction plan, and many departments and agencies are also doing their bit. We know that we have the right tools in the tool box; now we need to put them to use. And, as the chair of the Climate Change Commission said today, “We just need to get on with it now.”

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What recent announcements has he made on the roll-out of the vaccination programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced that Pfizer has scheduled delivery of an estimated 1 million additional doses of the vaccine to New Zealand during July. These consignments will double the number of Pfizer doses we’ve received this year to more than 1.9 million, enough to fully vaccinate almost a million Kiwis. While we know that the ongoing pandemic can impact on vaccine delivery schedules, Pfizer has given us further assurances that the remaining deliveries for 2021 are on track, just as their deliveries right the way through the year so far have been.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How will these additional deliveries support our vaccination roll-out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The deliveries will enable us to continue vaccinating groups 1, 2, and 3 while giving us the certainty we need to start the general population roll-out as we had planned. The supplies mean DHBs can continue delivering to their plans and start accelerating their way through group 3 from July onwards. We’re currently administering around 20,000 doses a day. I think our highest point was about just under 23,000 doses, and the Pfizer deliveries throughout July will enable us to ramp this up significantly. At the peak of the programme across August and September, it is projected that it will be administering on average up to 50,000 doses per day. This will add significant momentum to the programme, to the momentum that’s already been generated.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How are these deliveries expected to be distributed?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Pfizer have been delivering us weekly amounts of the vaccine, and we expect that to continue. It starts with a larger quantity in the first two weeks of July than we have had to date, and then gets up to an even larger quantity in the second two weeks of July, which aligns with our work to ramp up the programme. I’ve also been pleased to announce that the extra ultra-low temperature storage freezers have been delivered and are now in place in Auckland and Christchurch, meaning that the vaccines can be delivered directly into Christchurch now without having to go through Auckland.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Is he confident that we are prepared for the national roll-out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. District health boards are currently performing over 10 percent ahead of their delivery plans. We are vaccinating more people each week, week on week, and more than 7,000 vaccinators have completed the necessary training to administer the vaccine. It’s exciting and reassuring to see the programme is continuing to ramp up. We do have at our disposal one of the best vaccines on the market, and we are making it available for free to everybody in New Zealand who is eligible through the course of 2021.

Chris Bishop: Why are 3,800 border workers still not vaccinated, when the COVID-19 website says that as members of group 1 they will be vaccinated by the end of March 2021?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t actually accept that that is a fair conclusion to reach. There are some issues around the way people are coded within their vaccination. So we have seen, for example, some people in group 1B categorised as group 3. In terms of group 1A, as we—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I think this is a matter which most members of the House are trying to take seriously. Having the Minister shouted down by one of the more senior members and the shadow Leader of the House doesn’t help the House here.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In terms of group 1A, which includes the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workforce and others working at the border, where individual cases have arrived to work—in an MIQ, for example—and the border worker testing register has suggested that they’ve not been vaccinated, when that has been investigated it’s found that they have been vaccinated but there is a data issue in terms of the comparability between data sets. The area where we still do have lower than acceptable vaccination rates is at our maritime ports, and further work is being done on that.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does the Government expect to deliver all the transport projects it announced in January 2020 as part of the NZ Upgrade Programme; if not, which projects will not go ahead as originally announced?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): As I announced last Friday, the Government is delivering New Zealand Upgrade Programme projects in all of the regions first announced in January 2020. All projects announced have had some level of change from when they were first announced—for example, with scope changes and/or cost changes.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The second part of that question was which projects would not go ahead as originally announced, and I don’t think the Minister had addressed that question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did. I think he said “all of them”, didn’t he? [Interruption] Well, he said there were changes made to all of them, so isn’t that—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: To the Minister, what were the characteristics of the Ōtaki to north of Levin project that justify it continuing, and were those characteristics present in the Mill Road project?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Every project was assessed on its own merits, taking into account a range of considerations, including the issue of how cost escalations would be managed, including the impact on resilience and safety, and including climate change considerations. I do note that in the case of the Mill Road project, the escalation was in the order of $2.2 billion, a magnitude of three times the increase in the Ōtaki to north of Levin project. Unlike the previous Government, which, with projects like Transmission Gully, kicked cost escalations down the road to be cleaned up, we believe it’s more responsible to deal with them at the time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Were electoral considerations one of those characteristics?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance, who said at the launch of the Upgrade Programme, “The big difference is that they are funded. Every dollar required for these projects is in the Government accounts today.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m very pleased to confirm that as a result of decisions that we took on Friday, every single project in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme is funded, according to the advice that we have received from Waka Kotahi and KiwiRail.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, given that answer, will the project go ahead as announced?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, yes, that absolutely is the intention of the Government.

Question No. 7—Police

7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen regarding Police’s efforts to disrupt organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I’ve seen reports that police have concluded a number of operations to disrupt transnational organised crime, as part of Operation Trojan Shield and Operation Spyglass. The operations led by the FBI and coordinated with the Australian Federal Police, Europol, and numerous other law enforcement partners from across the globe have seen a worldwide crackdown on organised crime. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the police for their role in Operation Trojan Shield and in keeping our community safe.

Ginny Andersen: How has Operation Trojan Shield disrupted organised crime locally?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: More than 300 officers executed 37 search warrants across the North Island, and illegal firearms, methamphetamine, cannabis, and more than an estimated $1 million in cash have been recovered. Police have also arrested 35 individuals and laid over 900 charges.

Ginny Andersen: How is the Government supporting police in their efforts to disrupt organised crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has made it very clear that we will not tolerate organised crime in gangs. Last month, we announced our intention to amend the proceeds of crime legislation to ensure that those involved in organised crime would have to demonstrate that their assets were obtained through legitimate means. If they can’t, their assets will be seized. This Government has put on record that a number of police on the front line have a specific focus on organised crime. This Government’s record investment in police will include 700 additional investigators. This operation highlights the excellent impact that these officers can have.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

8. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, in particular our targeted support in this year’s Budget to support Māori in areas like housing, health, education, tamariki, whānau, justice reform, and te reo Māori. The total Māori Budget package is in excess of $1 billion and invests in areas right across our economic recovery while supporting Māori across the country. Key initiatives include Māori housing; Māori health initiatives; the setting up of the Māori Health Authority; Māori education, and particular support for Māori boarding schools and to lift kōhanga reo teachers’ pay; $42 million to build a sustainable Māori media sector and invest in programme content; funding for Māori tourism; and $14.8 million for the implementation of the Māori Language Strategy. This support will help our economic recovery and support Māori.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her international commitments as part of the Christchurch Call to protect citizens from online hate speech and violent threats, and does this commitment include protection of tangata whenua?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. In fact, you’ll see from the work programme off the back of particularly the royal commission, in tandem with, of course, the work on the Christchurch Call—but on the royal commission, a really strong theme coming through there was that we need to involve conversation and dialogue through the reform process with all communities but particularly tangata whenua as well. So that is a big part of our response to the royal commission’s report.

Rawiri Waititi: Has she received any reports from the police or the intelligence agencies that demonstrate the rising volume of white supremacist hate and violence against tangata whenua, as expressed vividly online by a masked white supremacist who threatened to slaughter tens of thousands of Māori and burn down our marae?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Whilst we don’t tend to comment on the specifics of intelligence reporting, it will be obvious to everyone in this House that we have seen that extremist groups—those who hold extremist ideology, those who hold racist ideology—are certainly in existence in Aotearoa New Zealand. Our job is to make sure that we work in a preventative fashion to try and protect people from that ideology, and that we respond where we see it, using the full force of the criminal justice system. It is, however, up to our police to make sure that they are doing that. They have operational independence. But I understand the member has both sought to meet with the Commissioner of Police around those issues and has met with the Minister with responsibility for our intelligence agencies. I hope he received a receptive audience to addressing the challenges the member has raised.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity of the House, the commissioner didn’t turn up today.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Are her Christchurch Call policy changes sufficient, when that video, which, essentially, threatened genocide on tangata whenua, was online on multiple platforms for longer than 24 hours?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two responses to that. Of course, for an incident that occurs, we would expect that when that is raised, that’s then dealt with by the New Zealand Police according to the law. I understand arrests may have been made in the particular case that’s been raised. But when it comes to the issue of the removal of content that’s considered to be offensive or objectionable, we are doing some work to ensure that we have consistency in the way that we treat material, whether it’s on an online platform, social media content, or indeed through some of our usual mainstream ways that we’ve accessed content in the past, through broadcasting. We know there’s more work we need to do there, and we’re doing it, and equally we’re trying to lead the charge internationally on making sure there’s a consistent approach to take down through social media platforms too. Just in response, I understand the commissioner has made a commitment to reschedule with the Māori Party on the basis of the unavailability of meeting today.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will she support the establishment of a joint Government task force that includes the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and New Zealand Police that is focused on protecting tangata whenua from violent white supremacists, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would have an expectation that our agencies would be doing that work as a matter of course in their daily duties. Those operational decisions ultimately do exist for them, but I think everyone in this House would expect that anyone that receives threats, anyone that is the subject of threats either online or in any environment, experiences the full force of the law, and that if we are seeing the rise of some of these groups—and I believe we are, both globally and in our own jurisdiction—the agencies would respond to that.

Question No. 9—Agriculture

9. STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent announcements has he made about integrated farm planning?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yesterday, I released the Good Farm Planning Principles guide to provide guidance for farmers on how they can organise their business operations and help New Zealand meet significant environmental challenges and market opportunities. This guide is the gateway to an integrated farm planning approach. That is, that each farmer is looking at their farm as a whole to streamline compliance, avoid duplication, boost productivity, and improve environmental outcomes. We have developed the guide in partnership with senior representatives from farming industry organisations, councils, and Māori agribusiness, and I welcome their commitment to promoting the value of integrated farm planning across the sector.

Steph Lewis: How will integrated farm planning help farmers and growers to meet their climate change targets?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Under the He Waka Eke Noa partnership, 25 percent of farmers and growers will need to have a written plan in place to measure and manage their emissions by the start of next year, and 100 percent will need to have this in place by the beginning of 2025. In addition, in its final advice out today, the climate commission emphasised the importance of improving on-farm practices and disseminating existing good practice more widely. The integrated farm planning guide released yesterday incorporates the He Waka Eke Noa farm planning guidelines for greenhouse gas emissions that were released in December last year, making it easier for farmers and growers to integrate climate change requirements into their current farm planning. This Government is committed to helping increase the uptake of integrated farm planning across the country in support of our climate ambition so that more farmers and growers better understand their climate impacts and what actions may be required to mitigate them.

Steph Lewis: How is the Government supporting the roll-out of integrated farm planning?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Budget 2021 invests $37 million towards a national integrated farm planning system. It will deliver 100 more professionals and work with existing organisations who have the skills to provide advice to farmers and growers with aspects of planning. It will also improve information and data interoperability across the primary industries and between regulators and industry assurance programmes. An accelerator fund will be set up to invest in targeted initiatives to significantly broaden the uptake of integrated farm planning through great organisations like catchment management groups. Once integrated farm planning is fully rolled out, up to 40,000 farmers and growers will have the tools they need to improve their on-farm performance and meet their freshwater and greenhouse gas requirements.

Question No. 10—Building and Construction

10. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does she stand by her statement, when asked if Budget 2021 is wrong in respect of the Residential Earthquake-Prone Building Financial Assistance Scheme, that “on the face of it, it would appear to be”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): In so far that there is a typo in the “Overview of the Vote” page on Vote Building and Construction that uses the phrase “just under $11 million to make assistance available to owner-occupiers or investors in, or facing, hardship” rather than simply “owner-occupiers”, yes.

Tim van de Molen: So did the Minister bother to proofread the appropriation for the Budget?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: It’s unfortunate that there is a typo in the overview, but it does not affect the Budget appropriation in any way.

Tim van de Molen: So in relation to the criteria, then, for investors being excluded, how many applications—as opposed to expressions of interest—have been received for the scheme?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I’ve told this House on a number of occasions now, we are supporting people who have made expressions of interest to become ready to submit, but at this stage we have not received any applications.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to apologise to the House. I should have ruled that question out. It didn’t flow from either the question or the answer.

Tim van de Molen: Has the more than $700,000 spent on administering the scheme, including promotion to applicants, been effective, given there have been zero applications?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I explained to the member during the Estimates debate, the appropriation and the spending thus far has been to support those who have expressed an interest in taking part in this scheme. It is a complex matter needing engineering—we’re talking about people, generally, who do not have technical expertise. But part of the issue is to ensure that they’ve got the right expertise, the right advice, and that all the other criteria are met, including that they have made applications for funding and have been turned down.

Tim van de Molen: So with a view to trying to attract a single applicant, will she seek advice from the Hon Megan Woods about how to effectively promote a scheme by, perhaps, using drones?

Question No. 11—Māori Development

11. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Māori Development: What steps has the Government taken to support Māori housing aspirations?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Since the 2019 Budget, the Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) housing investment programme has provided funding for 53 houses on papa kāinga, and infrastructure for 115 individual house sites, 824 housing repairs projects, and 89 sorted Kāinga Ora programmes to build whānau financial capability. Over the past six months, I’ve been able to visit with a number of Māori housing developments, from papa kāinga to affordable rentals, like the ones being provided by Rehua Marae in Christchurch. And I’m proud that this Government is partnering with Māori to deliver long-term, healthy, sustainable housing options for our people.

Tāmati Coffey: How does the Wellbeing Budget 2021 support Māori housing aspirations?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: In Budget 2021, $380 million over four years has been invested into the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga programme, jointly delivered by Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MHUD). Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga will see TPK working alongside MHUD to deliver funding for about 1,000 houses, including projects on papa kāinga, repairs to about 700 whare led by TPK, and $30 million towards building future capabilities for iwi and Māori groups to accelerate housing projects in a range of support services. This is in addition to the Housing Acceleration Fund that was announced in March to increase the supply of affordable homes—$350 million of that fund will be invested in infrastructure to support Māori and iwi providers to build homes for whānau Māori.

Tāmati Coffey: Why is the Government making an investment into the Māori Housing Network?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Everyone in this House knows that Māori suffer more adverse housing outcomes than other New Zealanders, and a contributing factor to this is not being able to secure capital from lending institutions on whenua Māori. I’m pleased that this Government is partnering with iwi and Māori groups to build, repair, and develop warm and healthy homes utilising Māori land.

Question No. 12—Health

12. SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Health: What is the total number of staff vacancies across all district health boards, and what specific plans, if any, does he have to address staffing vacancies in the New Zealand health system?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The health sector workforce is one of New Zealand’s biggest. For example, in 2019, there were approximately 76,000 full-time equivalent employees employed by the 20 DHBs. I’m advised that, as at the year ended 31 March 2021, there are approximately 3,668 full-time equivalent vacancies across all DHBs. I note that this includes corporate vacancies and represents less than 5 percent of the total number of full-time equivalents in 2019. In response to the second part of the member’s question, in the short term, all DHBs have active recruitment plans for clinical vacancies. Implementing Care Capacity Demand Management is also a priority for the Government, and we have funded an additional more than 3,000 nurse roles since 2017. In the long term, we are reforming the health system as a single Health NZ organisation, which will allow for national planning for our workforce and allow us to start investing in and building the workforce we need for the future.

Simon Watts: What urgent action will he take to address critical shortage of nurses across district health boards, which number over 1,600, and over 450 at Waikato District Health Board alone?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: By contrast to the previous National Government, this Government committed to increasing the nursing workforce through the Care Capacity Demand Management scheme, and we have funded an additional more than 3,000 full-time equivalent roles as part of that programme. The reality is that the DHBs have been struggling to fill many of those roles on a full-time, permanent basis. They have been reliant on agency nurses to fill those gaps. But that is why we also made a further investment in terms of training and workforce development, but that has been somewhat haphazard across 20 DHBs. That is why one of the benefits of Health NZ is that we can get a coherent, consistent programme of workforce development to start filling those roles on a permanent basis.

Simon Watts: Will the almost half a billion dollars in taxpayer money he is spending to restructure the health sector deliver any additional front-line doctors or nurses; if so, how many?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Part of the $486 million appropriated for the transition to the new health system includes new commissioning funding for both the interim Māori Health Authority and interim Health NZ. That will mean new services—that is to say, services that do not exist now but will exist in the future. How those organisations who are contracted or commissioned to provide those services staff those services will be for them, but they will be additional services. And they will add to the capacity of our health system.

Simon Watts: How can he be confident the Government can deliver COVID-19 vaccinations to every New Zealander by the end of the year, as planned, when the health workforce are struggling to operate with business as usual?

SPEAKER: “Is” struggling, but carry on.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Without wanting to tread on the toes of my very good colleague the Minister for COVID-19 Response, the Hon Chris Hipkins, what I can say is that, because of the very fine planning done by those responsible for it, we are ahead of our planned target achievement for the COVID-19 vaccination roll-out, and we remain confident that we will fulfil our vaccination target as required by the end of the year.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

It is a fine day to be a New Zealander. It is a fine day to know that we live in a country that has so much to be positive about, so much that we can celebrate, and so much that we can look forward with optimism to. Just last month in this House our Government passed a Budget that we can be proud of, one that was focused on the future and focused on keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerating our recovery and rebuild, and tackling those foundational issues that we must tackle collectively: climate change, housing affordability, and child poverty. These are things that any responsible Government must take seriously. What we have to do is remain focused on the future. What we cannot afford to do is to slip into what we’re seeing on the other side of the House in a desperate and destructive Opposition who are showing zero signs of unity, who are more concerned with their own divisions and with their past than with the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.

While we’re on the subject of the past, I would like to just dwell there for a moment. Before I came to this fine House, I was a historian. I was a New Zealand historian, and I still consider myself to be one. Over the last days we have not seen a finer example of why it is this Government made the right call to teach New Zealand history in our schools; we could not have seen a finer example from the Opposition of what happens when someone is ignorant of their past. We could not have seen a finer example of someone who refuses to accept how we got to the places we got to today. The historians club is upset that it’s from someone who purports to call himself a historian that we’re seeing this particular behaviour, but it does give me some semblance of hope to see that even his own colleagues haven’t backed him up—that his own colleagues have been as dismayed at the behaviour and the rhetoric that we have seen coming from the Opposition benches.

On this side of the House, in order for us to confront those issues in our future—if we are going to tackle those foundational issues like climate change, like housing affordability, like child poverty—we must understand what has gone before us. We must understand how we got to where we are today, and what the policies are that got us to this place. I will for ever be grateful to the many months I spent over the road going through Peter Fraser’s papers understanding housing policy straight after World War II. What we’re hearing—the reaction from the Opposition—shows the fact that they do not see that to remain positively focused on the future, we have to understand what went before us.

When I started this speech I said it was a fine day to be a New Zealander. One of those reasons is today’s release of the Climate Commission’s report. As I indicated in my ministerial statement, I distinctly recall sitting in the Paris climate talks thinking, “How on earth is New Zealand going to reach this target? How are we going to do it through domestic reductions and domestic abatements, rather than trading our way out of it with overseas-purchased credits?” Today what we have is a blueprint for how it is that we can start tackling climate change, how it is that we can start reducing our emissions. We have a lot to consider. What we do know, and I think one of the things that we can be hugely optimistic about, is that the commissioners have indicated that we are on the right track. We do have those technologies at our disposal, but we do need to do more. We cannot think that the status quo, the way we are operating today, is the way that we can look forward to the future with optimism. We need to accelerate what we’re doing, need to bring more momentum, and I hope that this House can continue to have a collective approach to that. Climate change is a generational challenge, and I’d like to think this Parliament could rise to that occasion.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker, yesterday you noted to the House that I had a lot of questions to ask and, by goodness, I certainly do. My questions are to this Government, particularly the Minister for primary industries, who’s clearly not listening.

But I would like to start with talking about the floods that occurred in Canterbury during the week. Firstly, before I get into what I was about to say, I want to acknowledge and send out a huge big thankyou to the emergency responders who I have met over the past week or so. Last Sunday, the district mayors announced a state of emergency. Very quickly, we got up our emergency operation centres because everybody could see what a significant event was about to come at us. And again, I want to acknowledge those people who worked around the clock tirelessly for the safety of our people. A number of residents around my electorate in Selwyn were evacuated out in the Selwyn Huts at the bottom of the Selwyn River and further upstream into the hinterland and Springfield. Houses have been badly affected and red-stickered. Roads across the region were shut in their hundreds due to wash-outs, surface flooding, broken bridges, and general danger.

But what of the Government’s response? It was woeful. The Government’s response has left we Cantabrians asking: what does it take for the Minister to declare a large-scale adverse event? On day one, I asked him to declare it. It took him a few days. Even then, it was only a medium-scale adverse event. There are areas in Canterbury where flood damage is as bad as it gets. There is literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage per property, much of which is uninsurable. But the Government—what did it turn up with? A pitiful $500,000 for New Zealand’s most productive sector and our most productive region. There is a playground outside this House that the Government spent more money on; $530,000 on a playground. What message does that send to our farmers who are flogging their guts out in pouring rain up to their knees in mud? What sort of message does it send to them? Within a day of making that announcement, what does the Government then go out and say? I’ll tell you what it said. It’s going to spend $800 million on a cycleway across the Auckland Harbour Bridge, right at the time the Ashburton Bridge is buckling and down to one-way and light traffic only. Talk about being tone deaf and out of touch.

When the Prime Minister formed this Government she said it was going to be a Government for all New Zealanders. Well, we in Canterbury feel it is a Government for Auckland and Auckland alone. So in case anyone’s listening, I’ll tell you what is going down in Canterbury. Rural Canterbury is exhausted. It has been a long, hard 10 days of clear-up and stress and anxiety. Houses are red-stickered, people have had to move in a hurry. They’re now dealing with complex insurance claims. Boil water notices remain in place across much of the region.

But let’s get back to the farmers. Yes, they are usually a pretty self-sufficient bunch but they need some surety from this Government. What they are not looking for is counselling sessions and welfare cheques. What they need is cash flow to get support through to them for heavy machinery and manpower. They need skilled labour and they need it now. I called for Taskforce Green to be activated 10 days ago. The Minister has come through today, 10 days late. Anyone can clean a fence; I myself have been doing it over the weekend.

I have spent much of this last week visiting farms and what I saw is as devastating as it is infuriating, because so much of the damage could be prevented if only the Resource Management Act (RMA) could get sorted out with urgency. Environment Canterbury is operating to a piece of legislation that is utterly useless. Farmers have spent 10 years being prevented from clearing out their rivers. They are 2 metres deep in shingle that could have been dug out had they been allowed to. Many of them have dutifully gone and planted out their riparian fences; they’ve been swept away. I hope the Minister for the Environment, as he redevelops the new RMA legislation, takes into account that people have been asked to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on fencing along flood-prone waterways.

But as always, in the face of adversity, there are those who step up, so I would like to acknowledge the Rural Support Trust; Federated Farmers, particularly my friends and neighbours Chris Allen and David Clark down the road; and the newly minted president of the North Canterbury Federated Farmers, Caroline Amyes, who has had a baptism of fire; also, Student Volunteer Army, Lincoln University volunteers, and the Farmy Army, who as usual have stepped up.

Finally, and slightly off tangent, but the members of the National Party in Selwyn two weeks ago lost a very long-time member George Logan. I would like to acknowledge his passing and to send our love and condolences to his wife, Dawn, and family, and we wish them well.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): I’d like to follow on and acknowledge the challenges that many of those farmers in Canterbury are facing up to. As someone who is very familiar with the effects of flooding from the West Coast, I know all too well and all too often the challenges, and, indeed, I saw this morning again where a farmer was saying that they are having to look at what needs to be done next. The issue of the regional council allowing action to occur in the river waste—that should happen. There shouldn’t be a blockage to that. It still does beg the question: what’s the best thing for the farmers to do next? It might be bringing in a bulldozer or it might be bringing in a digger, but there’s still a lot of work to be done.

Can I say that the Prime Minister and I visited to see it firsthand for ourselves, and, indeed, it’s good to see that the road link is back up and running there. There are still widespread challenges across the region, and I have to say that long term, we are going to face many more of those acute events.

What we had today was the launch of the Climate Change Commission’s report, which is New Zealand’s attempt to get ahead of what are going to be some challenging climatic times ahead of us. If we don’t take action now and, indeed, if we don’t encourage action across the globe, then, in fact, whether it be farming or just living in rural in New Zealand, it is going to be more and more difficult to face up to these climatic events. So that’s indeed the reason that we are doing this.

We’ve given half a million dollars there. We need to know from people on the ground what more they need and where they need it, because we’re not going to throw that money around, and, indeed, the Rural Support Trust don’t want us to. So we’re committed to working with them.

We’ve had a tough 12 months, and I think we’ve committed about $50 billion to COVID recovery requirements. Do members know how much money we earned offshore last year from our primary production exports? About $48 billion. That puts it in perspective. Through the COVID crisis, we generated about $48 billion worth of exports—a huge achievement, and I want to say thank you to the people across the primary sectors for doing that—and we will continue to do that, as I say, in supporting the people across rural New Zealand to achieve that.

We have to support that export-led growth. We’ve pivoted—and I don’t like using that word. But New Zealand—

Hon Stuart Nash: Again—again.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ve got to get it out there—I’ve got to get it out there. We’ve pivoted—that is, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, or NZTE, that the Hon Stuart Nash and I have responsibility for. Indeed, we gave $54 million for them—they weren’t able to travel offshore—to support exporters to get out and connect with the world and sell their wares, and they did an incredible job. In fact, we doubled the number of companies that we were helping directly in-market. We connected them up to a digital service. We gave them in-market reports. We enabled them to remain connected to their customers, and that’s why we saw $48 billion of export revenue—an amazing achievement.

What we are getting from the markets, though, is increasing signals—if not directly from the consumers at this point, but certainly from the supermarkets and those buying—that they want to connect to more sustainably friendly products, and New Zealand is well positioned to provide those. They want lower-carbon produce. They want produce that is produced to the highest standards of animal welfare, and that indeed ensures that we are looking after the environment as we deliver those. We are in a great position to do that, and we will assist farmers, horticulturalists, foresters, and all of those people across our industry to sell into the higher-value markets that continue to grow that $48 billion.

Last weekend, we signed a statement with APEC economies. A third of the world’s population, half of the world’s trade, and we committed, firstly, to recover from COVID by ensuring the flow of vaccines and medical goods could be unhindered throughout the globe. That was a massive achievement to have that clear statement from half the world’s trade, and, indeed, it will go forward. We then extended that to say that beyond COVID, we need to continue to open markets—not close them down—to international trade. The message that was going from APEC through to the World Trade Organization (WTO) at the end of this year is that we want to see the WTO be a relevant, up-to-date, and effective organisation that protects not just small countries but also big ones when it comes to trading internationally.

We realise the importance of vaccine, and the trade and movement of that. We realise that medical equipment is necessary, and food. Trade is—

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

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I realise my name is quite difficult to pronounce, but well done.

SPEAKER: Such an unusual surname.

STUART SMITH: I would like to start by acknowledging my colleague Nicola Grigg who’s doing a fantastic job supporting the people in mid-Canterbury, and in particular during that very difficult flood. I know from experience with the Kaikōura earthquake, actually being there means a lot, and it’s hard work, but good on you for doing what you’re doing because it’s really important. So thank you.

North Canterbury and South Marlborough were suffering from a drought—second year in a row, actually—and staring down the barrel of a pretty ugly spring. But that’s all changed since that rain event has gone through. The other day I was down in Okuku, which is in the south western corner of my electorate, which was pretty badly affected by the drought there as well. I know from my experience in farming previously in mid-Canterbury how important it is to keep the fairways of the rivers clear. Quite clearly, that is not happening—no pun intended. It is not happening at the moment. Environment Canterbury (ECan) are not spending the time and the money. It seems to be they are using consents and so on as an excuse to not clear out the river. And it’s so important to do that because willow trees start growing in the middle of the riverbed. Eventually, when a flood comes, it redirects the river straight towards the bank and it changes its course. And unfortunately, as my colleague mentioned before, every rainfall event now, until those rivers can be repaired, will cement in that new course and it becomes very difficult to reverse. Canterbury has been formed by rivers; that’s how the Canterbury Plains were formed millions of years ago. But we have tried to control them, and now the die is cast, we have to get in there. It’s just simple work that ECan should be undertaking on a regular basis.

I’d like to acknowledge the vineyards and wineries in Marlborough who have offered to repurpose posts to send down to Canterbury. Albeit there are some issues to work through with that, but it’s a significantly generous offer. I’d also like to acknowledge KiwiRail. I approached KiwiRail to see if they would assist in getting those posts from Marlborough—we’re talking about a significant number—down to mid-Canterbury, and they’ve kindly offered to help, and they didn’t even hesitate. So I’d like to acknowledge that; that’s very community-spirited of them.

I’d like to turn now to the $500,000 support package. When I was down there being driven around by one of my constituents, who is a very practical sort of a guy, he rattled off a whole lot of numbers and he said, “What would $500,000 actually do?” And I said, “Can you put that in an email?”, so he did. I’d like to refer to that now. He said, “$500,000 would purchase 4,166 bales of baleage.”, which is helpful, but that’s not going to go very far. He said, “Or you could get 5,000 bales of meadow hay.” Again helpful, but not going to get very far. And he said, “Well, 38 kilometres of sheep netting.” And that’s helpful, but there’d be 38 kilometres of it gone missing. I was in paddocks beside a riverbed, where a person had been out there shifting sheep to high ground, parked his ute, no water, turned around a few minutes later and saw his ute floating past, and they had to drag it out of a tree—written off because of the flood damage. And there are metres—many metres, hundreds of metres—of deer netting and sheep netting just all over the place, ripped out, useless. So 38 kilometres of sheep netting is not going to go a long way. Or diggers are needed; we know that—4,166 hours of 12-ton digger hire. I would say you could soon get rid of that digger hire, let alone the work required in the river beds, with a large bulldozer.

So $500,000 is a good start. It’s not enough. These people need our support and they need to know that we actually care. Actually, the best thing we can do is get them some money so that these sorts of things can be actioned very quickly because, if we don’t, there’ll be more flood damage the next time we get rain—and we’re heading into winter, we’ll definitely get a few more rains—and we’ll have those rivers going back outside their banks and creating more damage and more heartache for people which they do not deserve. We need to back them, and I urge them to do it now.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): The direction for the future is often influenced by what happens in the past and history. I’m proud to be a member of a Labour Government that continues a proud legacy of looking long term but trying to deal with the immediate needs and not shy away from those challenges. It is also a legacy where we continue to look at the most vulnerable and figure out how you lift the most vulnerable in our society so that no one is left behind. I’m proud that this side of the House continues that particular legacy, focused on the future—not just the three years, but long term.

In this Budget, you have heard my colleagues say that we are getting on with the job of keeping everyone safe from COVID-19, that we are looking to accelerate the recovery and rebuild so that we are taking the whole population with us, on tackling some of the foundational challenges. Climate change—we’ve heard today from a very important report, and I’m pleased to hear that other parts of the House recognise that this is serious not just for Aotearoa New Zealand but across the Pacific region. The tackling of housing affordability. Often we forget; we’ve inherited many of these challenges but we have not shied away from it in tackling them head-on, including child poverty.

For Pacific communities, long term, we have a clear vision. It is about: we are the masters of our own destiny, that we are the authors of our own solution, and we’ve got a plan for the future. That plan was captured in the Lalanga Fou report, where young people, in particular, told us that thriving Pacific languages and cultures are important as part of their identity; economic prosperity, equally important, because the old narrative from plantation farmer to factory floor is no longer the plan and narrative for our young people. They want to be the owners of enterprise. They want to be the masters of the digital economy. This Government will support them to achieve those aspirations. Healthy, strong, resilient families—and that’s a holistic view. It is not just about physical wellbeing; it is mental, it is spiritual, it is cultural, it is economic. It is with a holistic view that we look on these things. And, finally, the goal of resilient and confident young people, because that gives you a glimpse of what the future looks like and the people that will shape the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.

So this Government in its Budget of 2021 announced a package of $108 million over four years. This continues the legacy—unprecedented investment in this space, recognising that Pacific peoples have suffered greatly alongside Māori. COVID-19 highlighted all of the inequities and the barriers that we face. It highlighted also that, too often, this House allows this pattern where Pacific peoples are the first to get hit in any economic downturn and are slow to recover. This Government is working hard with the Pacific community to make sure that we can accelerate that recovery.

Fifty three million dollars in four years is added on to the Budget for the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to continue the work of Tupu Aotearoa, to continue the wellbeing approach, so that there is across-the-line sight across all Government departments so that there is more collaboration, greater cooperation, with a line of sight in making sure that funding flows to the community.

And $16 million over four years now means that we can work with the regions. The regions are growing. And I know, my colleagues, this is funny, but I often say, “Watch out with Pacific peoples, they’re growing fast in the regions, we’re going to take over New Zealand, and we’re going to take over the regions.”

With the $30 million that sits with education—first time ever that a Government is funding Pacific languages, Pacific bilingual immersion education at school. In addition to that, we will roll out a policy that sets in stone the value and the recognition that language is important right across for all peoples, and, in particular, it is a fundamental cornerstone of Pacific peoples’ wellbeing.

Well done to this Government and well done to Minister Grant Robertson for a wonderful Budget 2021.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today is one of those important days in the development of this country’s economic history. It’s the day that under the zero carbon legislation, that ACT alone opposed in this House, the Climate Change Commission has brought forth its first formal advice to the Government, advice that tells the Government that it must reduce carbon emissions nationwide according to a series of sector-specific plans.

It is the case in this world that our major trading partners and our friends and allies are decarbonising, and we need to follow them. It would be dangerous for a small trading nation to become significantly out of sync with its trading partners, because for diplomatic reasons, trade policy reasons, and simple consumer preference it would be foolish for a small trading nation to become an outlier on something as significant as climate policy. But if it’s the role of the New Zealand Government and this Parliament to ensure that New Zealand follows and stays close to our friends around the world in terms of decarbonising, there could not be a worse way of achieving it than what the Climate Change Commission has proposed today. Why? Let me count the ways—there are three.

Number one: it is so micro-managing. It forecasts into the future that there’s going to be a 2.6 percent reduction in GDP by 2050. How many economists in the last century have managed to forecast 29 years out to the nearest 0.1 percent? And all the assumptions in the report have the same over-precision. They assume that they know too much more about the future than what anyone can truly know. They say we must stop importing a certain type of car in a certain year, reduce the number of cows by 13 percent, and stop connecting gas to new restaurants. The truth is it’s no more easy to predict the technological future in 2050 today than it was to predict what 2021 would look like in 1992. That’s what they’re trying to do.

The second issue is that it’s not actually going to help, because this country now has two contradictory and conflicting climate policies. One is the emissions trading scheme, which now, thanks to legislation last year, has a cap setting the total amount of carbon emissions that New Zealanders are allowed to make. Number two is what was announced today, which tries to micro-manage which technologies and which sectors and which processes people can use. That micro-management means that if somebody buys a different car because the Government told them to or plants a different tree because the Government told them to, they merely free up carbon credits which, under the cap, allow someone else to use carbon emissions for something else. So there’s actually no improvement from these unreliable forecasts into what the future should look like. It’s the same reason that centrally planned economies failed throughout the 20th century. It’s as though we’ve learnt nothing.

And the third big problem is it’s totally disconnected from the rest of the world. The zero carbon Act says that we need a 24 to 47 percent reduction in biogenic methane by 2050, that we need to get to net zero long-lived gas emissions by 2050. Well, if the rest of the world doesn’t do that and we do, New Zealand will be destroying its own economy to have no influence on the climate. On the other hand, if the rest of the world does more, actually we’ll be an outlier. Our goal should be to keep in touch with our friends around the world, not to set own goals regardless of what the rest of the economies in the world to.

Finally, we’re not able to buy foreign carbon credits, so if our competitors around the world, if our cement factories are competing against companies in Vietnam that buy cheap carbon credits from South America, where they’re replanting the Amazon, then New Zealand ends up being disadvantaged. We should be able to buy foreign credits.

Today is a big day but not for the right reasons. New Zealand does need a plan to decarbonise in sync with our partners, but to do it with this level of micro-management, with this level of isolation from the rest of the world, and with two contradictory climate policies is total insanity, and the ACT Party proudly stands alone opposing it, as we’re the only party that always has.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start my contribution by acknowledging the difficulties that our farming communities are facing right throughout the Canterbury district. But I have another story to tell right from the heart of those farming districts, and it comes from the little town of Leeston, right in the heart of Selwyn district, for which Nicola Grigg is the member.

A community-led initiative in those districts established a te reo Māori course last night. The word went out, and, lo and behold, the St David’s Church in Leeston just this week was absolutely packed, flowing out the door, with members of the community. In spite of all the difficulties that they’re facing at the moment, folks from as far afield as Ashburton drove all the way to attend a te reo Māori course. What message does that send? The message sent is that there is a huge, huge demand and huge interest from rural New Zealand in learning our Māori culture and in te reo Māori, and I take great heart from that.

I think the buttons that our Opposition are trying to push are not working, and it’s evidenced right from the communities that they purport to represent. I want to acknowledge those good people, because it wasn’t overflowing with Māori in that St David’s Church; far from it. These were heartland farming folks from across all of those affected districts. So I just want to acknowledge them, and it just goes to show that our Government’s goal, our aspirational goal of having 1 million te reo Māori speaking Kiwis by 2040, is a real possibility. I take great hope from that. We are reinforcing that through our investments in this Budget.

But I want to just focus on the work that we are doing as a Government. We are focused on our recovery from COVID-19. And I want to acknowledge the work that our Minister for Trade and Export Growth, the Hon Damien O’Connor, is doing, not only rebuilding our economy but ensuring that we are increasing our export trade opportunities across the globe. Isn’t that great? Isn’t it great that we have achieved—our primary sector in the face of a global pandemic—$48 billion in export revenue just last year? I want to congratulate all of those involved in our primary sectors, many of whom are based around the Māori economy as well within that big figure. That just goes to show the right decisions that we have made as a Government, but that work is continuing. It must continue. We must ensure that our trade policy is delivering for all New Zealanders.

That’s why our Government has our Trade for All agenda. It’s all about having higher value goods and services, protecting the environment, underpinning high quality, productive investments, and supporting our regions to grow. And it’s all about ensuring that New Zealand shares our economic growth widely. So it’s exciting, the work that we’re doing, and I want to acknowledge the Minister, Damien O’Connor, who will be venturing overseas to ensure that we make good progress on free-trade agreements—free-trade agreements (FTAs) that are vital to increasing our export growth and markets.

Critical work is now continuing on the UK FTA, for which Minister O’Connor will be travelling in-market to further our case, and also with the EU FTA. These are really important trade agreements for our country. The UK is our sixth largest export market. Our modelling shows that we will be able to increase by up to a billion dollars within 10 years of concluding that deal. But, most importantly, we want to ensure that we won’t sacrifice quality for pace. We want to ensure that we have high quality free-trade agreements in place. I want to acknowledge all the work undertaken by the officials within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the expert work that they are doing in the UK, in the EU, and right across in furthering our Trade for All agenda.

There’s so much that is going on within our Government. I want to acknowledge the partnerships that we as a Government are doing with Māori. We are seeing it in the housing area, we are seeing it in the health area, through our Budget, and we are also seeing it in fast moving areas like launching rockets from the same Selwyn district right by Lake Ellesmere in partnership with Ngāi Tahu. We are moving and we are reaching for the stars.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Where I come from in Canterbury, actions speak louder than words, and what an absolute kick in the guts for Cantabrians who have been affected by the flooding ten days ago. The Prime Minister goes into Ashburton, does a photo op, disappears, and the next day $785 million for a cycleway. Three-quarters of a billion dollars, and what do the Canterbury floods get? Half a million dollars—$500,000 versus three-quarters of a billion dollars. That is tone deaf. How could you get it so wrong? Communities frightened, having to leave their houses in the middle of the night, with the fear of stopbanks breaking, and in some areas, like mid-Canterbury, the stopbanks did break. Houses flooded, farms flooded, roads washed away, bridges washed away, complete devastation, and we have a Government that comes in more interested in photo ops and announces a mere $500,000, and then goes up to Auckland and announces $785 million for a nice-to-have cycleway. Where is the fairness in that? And, quite rightly, Cantabrians feel as though they’ve had a kick in the guts from mother Nature with the floods and now another kick in the guts from this Government when they’re down.

But what gives me great hope is a word that we don’t use often these days, and that’s “parochial”. What Cantabrians know, especially after the earthquakes, is how to look after each other—we know each other. And what I’ve seen, going out and about in my electorate of Waimakariri, to the neighbouring electorate, in Selwyn—I just want to acknowledge the great work Nicola Grigg is doing in Selwyn in leading the National Party’s response to the Canterbury floods. And when you look at the devastation in mid-Canterbury as well, it’s great to see those Cantabrians getting on and looking after each other. I was at a farm in Ashburton a couple of days ago. Neighbours were turning up, members of that community, most of them unannounced volunteers, turning up in their trucks, turning up in their tractors, all there to help out the affected farmers, because they know they are not going to get any support from this Government. This Government does not care about them, and they have showed that. A measly $500,000 compared to three-quarters of a billion dollars for a cycleway.

What it says to us is that this Government does not understand provincial New Zealand. Yes, some of the farmers will be able to deal with the issues behind the farm gate—they’ll be supported by family and friends and other farmers and their neighbours—but it’s the infrastructure that’s going to be needing the funding, and we need to get on and do it today. That’s the roads, that’s the bridges—these are going to cut off vital rural communities from the support they need. What COVID has taught us is how thankful we are for the farming communities. We would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle without our farming communities. COVID has taught us about the value of primary industry in New Zealand, and we need farmers performing to the best of their abilities, and that’s why this Government needs to step up and respond to affected Cantabrians.

With my final minute, I just want to acknowledge the many volunteers that stepped up on the night of the 30th, and the Saturday and the Sunday. Many of those people that stepped up over the weekend in my electorate of Waimakariri were volunteers—volunteer civil defence, volunteer fire brigades. We also had our police, our district councils as well, because there was a real fear, quite rightly. I live next to the Ashley River. The Ashley River was biblical. I’ve never seen it like that, the thundering noise and the torrents and the perception of the stopbanks failing. And I want to let Cantabrians know that the National Party will back you. We will shine a light on this Government’s failures. We will bring your voices to Wellington when this Government won’t listen—

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Youth): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So much doom and gloom from the other side of the House, but on this side of the House we’ve just had an extraordinary Budget that will take all New Zealanders with us as we rebuild in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were literally two things that the member who just resumed his seat, Matt Doocey, said that I actually agree with, and one was to acknowledge the role of volunteers. As the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, I absolutely tautoko that. The second one that he said was that we need to get on and do it today, and that is action on climate change.

I just want to, I guess, take the House back to something that the Prime Minister said right at the start of her tenure as the Prime Minister. She said that climate change is our generation’s—and, perhaps even more so, the next generation’s—nuclear-free moment. We’ve also said, right from the start of when this Government took office, that there are three areas that we would focus on in our term in Government. One is to continue to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. The second is to rebuild our economy in a way that is sustainable and actually takes New Zealanders with us on that journey. The third is to continue to address some of the long-term challenges that face us as a nation, and one of those is climate change.

We’ve seen from the Climate Change Commission’s blueprint on addressing climate change that they have confirmed that the Government has made good progress to reduce emissions but that it’s time now for us to step up and to get on with further actions. We’ve seen, though, from the Climate Change Commission’s advice, that we need to build, as I said, on progress. The important bits of their advice that I’d like to just highlight today are that meeting our targets is achievable and it’s affordable and will bring huge economic benefits, benefits to people’s health, wellbeing, and to our wallets as well.

The other point that I’d just like to highlight is that it’s a collective effort. There is a job in there for everyone to do: agencies, local government, central government, businesses, and our communities as well. As the Minister for Youth—this is an incredibly important issue for our young people, and we’ve seen that time and again. We’ve seen that over the years. In 2019, we saw about 170,000 people take to the streets to encourage us all, here, decision makers, to move on climate change, on climate action. That was, of course, the School Strike 4 Climate.

I want to highlight some of the work that the Ministry of Youth Development has done in this space. A shout-out to both the ministry and also Hivers. The Ministry of Youth Development has encouraged active engagement between youth and the Climate Change Commission through an initiative called the Hive. It’s a by youth, for youth initiative. It encourages a two-way conversation between our rangatahi, our young people, and decision makers, and it demystifies the policy engagement process in a way that is really exciting. I just want to shout out to our Hivers both past and present. It’s an initiative that started in 2020. It was a way to mitigate some of the sense from young people that their voices weren’t being heard by decision makers and, equally, that many of our Government agencies were struggling to engage with young people. So this group of 15 young people that was partially funded by the ministry used the Climate Change Commission’s advice package consultation as their first engagement, as they demystified the policy process.

They’ve also shared some of what they’ve heard. They broke down the Climate Change Commission’s advice into a way that was understandable to young people. They used social media like Facebook and Instagram. They used some of the interactive polls via Insta stories to reach out to a diverse range of rangatahi across Aotearoa. They shared some of the areas of importance, and one of them was on transport, and ensuring that we have—so as the Opposition bangs on about the fact that we are offering various modes of transport to New Zealanders, I want to point to the fact that our young people are actually asking for this, for us to decarbonise the transport network and to offer options to them by way of public transport. This is the time to act, and we are acting.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): I’m really proud to stand today as co-leader for the Green Party of Aotearoa and acknowledge and support the progress that has been made so far on climate change, on climate action. I acknowledge the Hon James Shaw and his hard work as Minister of Climate Change to lay down the foundations, to pull together some of the most impactful action that any Government in Aotearoa has taken in the past 3½ decades. I also know that we need to lift our standards way higher than the work of the past 3½ decades of consecutive Governments, because what is before us right now is absolutely urgent, and, as the independent Climate Commission report says, we have to and must take the urgent action now, and right now is when we can.

But today what I wanted to do was to highlight that it is clear that the Treaty, Te Tiriti, relationship must underpin all of the work. The Climate Commission themselves have made that very clear. Also, the zero carbon legislation, which came to be agreed to, made it very clear and put in a legal requirement to uphold Te Tiriti. The Climate Commission themselves understand that no work can be enduring, no work can be long lasting, unless we uphold Te Tiriti. So today I wanted to remind us—remind us—of the indigenous knowledge and leadership that has been at the forefront of strong activism and strong solutions for a cleaner planet that looks after the many. For many, many decades we have seen indigenous people around the world and here in Aotearoa right at the forefront of that work.

Just recently, if we are looking across the seas, we can look to the indigenous knowledge of the Aboriginal people, who, had they been given the proper support and affirmation of their thousands-and-thousands-of-years-old knowledge, would have been able to mitigate the abhorrent Australian fires that we saw recently. Again, in the Amazon, if the indigenous Brazilian peoples and nations of the Amazonian forest had been supported to actually have their land—land back is, of course, the answer to everything—then we would have also been able to see the protection of the lungs of the planet in those Amazon fires and the destruction that we also saw recently.

Here in Aotearoa, it has been iwi like Taranaki who have been protecting against the destruction of the moana—the moana, the sea, which, again, is a massive, carbon-sinking part of the natural world that we also must continue to protect. Also, the iwi in my Tai Tokerau north have long been resisting and opposing dirty big oil, but have also been creating the solutions and the frameworks that we need to create a low-carbon economy that understands that we need to protect our planet for generations to come, but also that we need to form better relationships across us, and communities and people, for the sort of economy that is going to take care of us better. My people on the East Coast, Whānau-a-Apanui and Ngati Porou, again were at the forefront of resisting big oil entrenching on to our territory and on to our waters, while at the same time opening up marae for crises. In the middle of the Canterbury floods—and part of the indigenous solutions and frameworks that we can all take heed of—marae were opening up to manaaki and support people. In the context of a white supremacist threatening to hurt my people on our marae, what do our marae do? They open up. They welcome. They manaaki—what they’ve been doing for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I am here on behalf of the Green Party, on behalf of my hapū and iwi, to remind us all that we know these solutions, these frameworks, with the sort of thinking that is going to lead us into the economic transformation that will benefit a wellbeing for our planet, for the many and not just the few, that have been here all along—have been within Aotearoa the whole time. We have an opportunity. Not only are we all climate Ministers, we are all climate MPs. We have an opportunity to forefront that at the work that we are doing. We have an opportunity to finally understand that indigenous knowledge is key to the solutions for our economy, for protecting our biodiversity, for making sure that all people have what they need, not just the few. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute honour and a privilege to stand today to make a short contribution on being focused on our future.

I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. We sometimes tend to forget that we are safe here in Aotearoa because of the leadership that has led us this far. We only have to look at our neighbours, and I want to say a big “bula” to our cousins in Fiji with the spread of COVID-19 and, of course, over the Tasman in Australia. Of course, if we are digging further around the world—so I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Prime Minister and where we are today and, of course, her Cabinet.

I want to also acknowledge the leadership of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson. He often talks about being “morally right” in his delivery in the House and throughout the motu, and he also talks about restoring dignity, just reminding everyone about our wellbeing approach. It is a wellbeing approach. As has been said many times before, it is about keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerating our recovery and rebuild, and tackling our foundational challenges; in particular, housing affordability, climate change, and child wellbeing.

In my travels since the Budget announcement on 20 May, I’ve had feedback from the Pacific community, and most of that feedback aligns with—I’ve summed it up in these few words. They’ve said that as migrants from the Pacific they welcome the Wellbeing Budget, Securing Our Recovery 2021. In these difficult times of COVID-19, the Pacific families who find themselves as welfare beneficiaries have acknowledged, to me, the Labour Government for the contribution to alleviate the monetary situations they face daily. To restore our people’s dignity requires genuinely a sharing of power and resources, love and peace, to reposition ourselves from being marginalised socially and economically, and I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Pacific Peoples, the Hon Aupito William Sio.

Often we hear and voice those concerns, and there is more to money and resources to change the deprivation that our people are faced with. When I say “our people”, our Pacific people, we morally can’t afford to continue with the same old deficit thinking arguments about Pacific peoples. We have to put in these new changes that are coming about. We have to ask ourselves why. Our wellbeing is about living in abundance of aroha, of kāinga, of country.

I want to quote the beliefs upon which the Pacific people ground our purpose and work in education, and I want to go to the Bible. Spiritually, our Lord says, “I come so that you have life and have life abundantly.” This is wellbeing, living in abundance of aroha, of trust, of peace and happiness, and happiness and abundance for tangata whenua o Aotearoa—the indigenous Māori peoples of Aotearoa—to respect their values and beliefs, ways of being, and doing, and improve their health, housing in their own land. Why? Why would you not build in your own land? Why would you not support that? I want to acknowledge, of course, the last speaker that spoke before me, the Hon Marama Davidson, who speaks about indigenous knowledge and intelligence. Likewise with Pacific people, our people can make a contribution to living in abundance in our country in Aotearoa.

This is a Budget that I believe certainly helps to attain our aspiration to enrich Aotearoa spiritually and with holistic education. Our young people, through the document that the Minister Aupito refers to, Lalanga Fou, talks about the aspirations of young people, of needing to see themselves in the leaders of this country.

I want to finish as I started. I want to finish in acknowledging the leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. It is not very far off that we have come through this COVID-19 and we are here safe today. On that note, I want to acknowledge everybody, the team of 5 million. Mālō.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to continue to talk on that hope of our future—the future for our nation. Looking at Budget 2021, it was a hopeful Budget addressing things like inequality, investing into our future, our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in terms of more than a billion dollars going into Māori initiatives and I had the privilege of hosting our Māori Cabinet Ministers in Taranaki during their roadshow. We must focus on our future. We must focus on hope and what it means not only for our grandchildren but our great-great-great-grandchildren. We must hold on to this hope, and climate change is, as we’re talking now, it’s the generational challenge that we face.

On my wall here at Parliament, I have a quote from a North American First Nation wahine, Winona LaDuke, and it says, “Be the ancestors our descendants will thank.” Be the ancestors our descendants will thank—and that’s why I stand in this House today. That’s why I come to represent the people of New Plymouth, of Taranaki, and of Aotearoa, because I want to ensure that my great-great-great-grandchildren have an environment, have a place to live, but, more importantly, a place to thrive. And we’re doing that as a Government. We’re working hard. There’s obviously been the zero carbon Act. There’s been the establishment of the Climate Change Commission. We’ve had our national energy strategy, as well as putting $300 million to boost our green investment finance fund, ensuring that we accelerate our low-carbon technologies, renewable energies, low-emission vehicles—just to name a few.

And then I look in my own region and in my own electorate, and what we’re doing. We have Ara Ake, which is our new energy development centre, which is looking at state of the art, innovative ways to look at our clean, green, low-, zero-emission future, and that’s something funded by this Government. We also have Hiringa Energy, who are developing our green hydrogen future, looking at ways for heavy transport, ways to work with large industry around how we have green energy, green hydrogen. And along with that is First Gas, who’s based out of Taranaki as well, in the New Plymouth electorate, who are working and have released their green hydrogen plan. The big question people have is: can I still burn a sausage on my barbecue? And the good news is that you can, although that might create some emissions, obviously, if you’re burning things on the barbecue. But at the opening of my new office just recently, I had First Gas there with their hydrogen barbecue, cooking sausages, giving them out to the people. Our future is bright and hopeful.

Also, local iwi—I’m really grateful to Te Āti Awa and the work they’re doing around development of subdivisions and housing, which always has a green lens on how to do it in a future-focused way while respecting the land, respecting the whenua. But it’s a challenge, and for me in this role it’s a challenge, because it’s very much around: how do we retain jobs while we diversify our energy sector? And I believe that as a Government, we’re working hard to ensure that we do, because we do have the tools, but we must do more to ensure that we get to the future that we dream of.

So the climate change report was out today, and I was really impressed with the Minister of Climate Change and with the Prime Minister, also being hopeful that this was an achievable goal, this was affordable, this had opportunities for clean, for more connected and vibrant communities. It was fair, it was equitable, and it was honouring Te Tiriti.

I just want to complete my conversation this afternoon to reflect on the community in my local electorate of Parihaka. And I want to reflect on what that community means. That community was formed as a collective response to injustice, and today they work hard and continue to work hard around—as a collaborative and a collective to deal with the injustices, not only human injustices, but injustices that humans inflict on our environment and on our land. They are working on sustainable options for the future of our region. And I thank Parihaka for what they do. I come back to the raukura there: three feathers that have been there for more than 100 years. It comes from the Christian tradition but very much it’s around glory to God, peace on Earth, and goodwill to all mankind. I believe around the future that we have, the opportunity we have for our climate is around, that we look beyond ourselves, what’s above—what that might be for you. We look at peace on Earth, which is not just between people, but is between our environment and our planet. And we look at how we look after each other. We have the goodwill to all people, to our planet, to our ancestors, and also to our descendants to come. So I am hopeful. I look forward to serving this electorate in this House in terms of finding a way forward in our future as a nation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time for debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

House In Committee

House In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill and the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.

Bills

District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come first to the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill. Members, this bill will be debated in clauses. We come first to clause 1, the debate on the title.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wish to take a short call and ask a question of the member Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki. Firstly, I just want to congratulate the member on having her member’s bill drawn and having gotten this far through the process. I am proudly a member of the Justice Committee, of which this bill came before us. However, at crucial points when the member was interacting with the committee, I was subbing her on another select committee, so I didn’t actually have the privilege of discussing and debating this with the member.

What I wanted to ask the member about in particular is that through the select committee process we received submissions from organisations like Age Concern and others who suggested that we actually broaden the people, or the group, that are captured by the Act in terms of caregivers—so not just the disabled person themselves but also their caregivers. I wanted to ask the member her thoughts on that, because, obviously, in the new legislation that we’ve got, you have decided to adopt the unanimous recommendation of the select committee on that, but noting that that wasn’t part of the original bill as you put it into the biscuit tin. Thank you.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an honour and a privilege to be standing here at the committee stage of the bill. I want to thank the member Willow-Jean Prime for her question, in terms of the changes that the select committee have brought about and making final recommendations to the House. But, before I do that, I want to briefly remind the committee of why this matter came about, here in Parliament. Community Law South Auckland had asked me if I could sponsor a gap in the law that needed addressing, because there was a disabled person who had their mobility vehicle removed or seized because of debt, because of a judgment debt against that person. We are here today in the committee stage.

So, originally, it was, as it says in its title, District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill. We had a different definition of disability in the original drafting of the bill, but it was changed at the select committee. If I go back to the member’s question, the reason why it was changed at the select committee—if I go back to the title, it says “Judgment Debtors with Disabilities”. So this acknowledges that there are disabled children, young people, or other people who are from our disabled community who actually do not own the vehicle but the vehicle is owned by the caregiver or owned by the parent. So this is a further layer of protection in terms of protecting persons with a disability, and I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee in their recommendations and making this bill a better bill than it originally started. Thank you.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): This question is for the member, and, again, congratulations on that work that’s been done through the Justice Committee. We have amended section 167, which is the warrant to seize property, and we amended this section to include the principal caregivers for the disabled person.

I really like what we’ve done there. I think we have done an outstanding job. But when we were listening to those submitters on this bill at the select committee stage, there were many of them who wanted us to ban the seizure of cellphones. Those submitters came from the hearing-impaired and the blind communities, because they regard their cellphones as essential items. They now come under the new definition of disability that we’ve put through there.

Seeing as we’ve not directly addressed this issue in the select committee report, I was hoping that the member could clarify just for the record that with the introduction of that changed definition of a disabled person, which is also in this section, it is the intention of Parliament that those with vision or hearing disabilities would not be adversely affected by this bill if it can be shown that the device is essential for the care, support, or independence of, or to promote inclusion or participation in society of, the judgment debtor, who is the disabled person.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to ask the member a question about this bill, which has been so important for our disabled community to see their issues debated in this House and at select committee. I commend her for her work for that community.

Now, my question is about this confusion which has arisen at the last reading in the House, and it has been discussed at length at the select committee. It’s to do with this idea about at what point this legislative change would apply to people with disability who wanted to access consumer goods. The question that was raised by a number of submitters and by Opposition members on the committee and in the House last time was about whether this would apply in a way which would have a chilling effect on the debt that was extended to people with disabilities when they went to buy consumer goods. For example, that was things where, say, you have someone with a disability who goes into Noel Leeming and wishes to buy a television on hire purchase. The contention was that maybe they won’t be able to have that credit extended because Noel Leeming would be on inquiry as to whether they were someone who they could recover a debt from.

Now, it’s my understanding that this would not, in fact, apply to people with disabilities who wanted to access consumer credit, because the way that the Personal Property Securities Register works is that if you were to buy something like a TV on hire purchase, a debt would be registered against your name. Then that debt would be civilly enforceable and a court could order that that particular item, which you had a registration against, could be repossessed to recover that debt, and that wouldn’t be touched by this legislation. Where this legislation would apply—my understanding is—is at the point at which a whole civil debt or criminal debt was to be recovered, and that was at the court-ordered point, where a judge made that decision, and it would apply to all assets. So there would be no need for lenders of consumer finance to extend any sort of checks about what our disabled community might be accessing in terms of their products that they wanted to buy.

So it’s my understanding that this bill doesn’t encourage people to need those checks and it doesn’t have a chilling effect. Can I ask the member to clarify whether that is the case?

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, members. I just want to go back to Nicole McKee’s question around mobility devices. The select committee did make changes to the definition of devices. If we refer to new subclause (5) in section 167 in clause 4, in this section it did change it to include “mobility device”, but it also gave in the definition that it “has the same meaning as in section 2(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998.” Anything outside of that is actually not relevant, and it’s out of scope for this bill.

Also, to the member Arena Williams and her question about the consumer finance Act, those matters were debated heavily at select committee, and I again acknowledge the Justice Committee. Questions were asked about whether or not the disabled person should declare that they’re disabled when applying for loans or financial hire purchases, and that itself was disagreed to by most of the select committee, because it disadvantages a person with a disability. We should be able to apply for financial services on our capacity to afford those financial services, not on our physicality, or on the physicality of any person. So, hopefully, that addresses the member’s question. Thank you.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clauses 1 to 5 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, we now come to the committee stage of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. This bill will be read in parts. We come first to Part 1, the debate on clauses 3 to 7B and Schedule 1, Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to just make some initial comments in the committee of the whole House stage on this particular piece of legislation, which is the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill, which covers a number of pieces of legislation.

But I want to just start by making the comment about the intent behind this member’s bill that continued work that was undertaken by the National Government, continued by the Labour Government, to victims at the heart of our justice system, and to solve some issues where there were significant inconsistencies where there were victims involved in an act that was undertaken by a person that was found to be insane at the time.

And so there were three significant policy intents when the member’s bill was drafted and presented and passed unanimously in the first reading. The first was to rename the verdict of “not guilty on account of insanity” so that victims and their families did not have to hear the words “not guilty”. So the changes were proposed to: the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity. I want to just put on record my significant thanks to the Justice Committee for the incredible work that was done in the select committee to the extent that we sought an extension to the report back of the legislation, to make sure that we could give absolute due diligence to the challenges that getting the wording exactly right presented. So we landed with a similar phrase, and the simplified language that was defined in the bill as “proven but insane”.

The second was providing equivalence of rights between those in the justice system and those in the health system, because if someone is found to be insane, they are then treated as a special patient. It was important that we found a way for victims to have a voice and to make the equivalent of a victim impact statement that they would have the opportunity to do in the justice system.

The third part was the process of considering leave, and that is a process that occurs mostly with the Director of Mental Health and, in some cases, the Minister, and, again, making sure that victims have the ability, if they choose, to have their voice recognised. So those are the three policy intents. I have to say that I have incredible admiration for the process in which this Parliament has worked across the House to ensure that we honoured the victims in this process.

There is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled that I have consulted on with parties around the House, and I am confident that that is supported. But I do want to say that, in order for this cooperation across the House to continue, there is some further work that needs to be done. The chair of the select committee, Ginny Andersen, deserves our praise for the way in which she has conducted the select committee with this piece of legislation, in navigating what was a very complex range of issues, and doing it incredibly well. My thanks also to Minister Andrew Little, who, when we started this process, was the Minister of Justice, and now, of course, is the Minister of Health, so he understands this issue from both sides.

Unfortunately, though, at the eleventh-hour, some issues have been raised—and they are at the eleventh-hour, and I was made aware of them late last night. Because of the manner in which this bill has progressed to date, has been with cross-party support, it is important that we take the time to consider the issues and to consider if further changes are required by way of an SOP.

So I want to reassure the committee that I will continue to work openly with all parties and with officials to ensure that we end up with a piece of legislation that is durable and honours the victims and solves the problems that we have all agreed need to be fixed. So we do need a little more time. We need to consider the issues that have been raised, and to do that with the support and assistance of the officials. I’m pleased to put on record that the Government Ministers that I’ve spoken with—the Attorney-General and the Hon Andrew Little—have confirmed the support for this next part of the process.

I move, That the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill to be reported with progress.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill and reports progress without amendment. The committee has also considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports progress without amendment. I move that the report be adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We’ll just have that motion again.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the District Court (Protection of Judgment Debtors with Disabilities) Amendment Bill and reports the bill without amendment. Then the committee has considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports progress without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 May.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): The Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill was sent to the Justice Committee, of which I am a proud member. I am proud to defend the waka-jumping provisions introduced by the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Act 2018, which this member’s bill seeks to repeal.

Simeon Brown: Oh my goodness! Shameful.

ARENA WILLIAMS: The member opposite Mr Simeon Brown says that’s a shame.

Simeon Brown: It is.

ARENA WILLIAMS: And I say, Mr Brown, please wait and let me have my say, because you’ve had yours, as I explain why we oppose this bill.

First the question of “Do the waka-jumping provisions curtail an MP’s freedom of speech?” Let me start by acknowledging the arguments of my colleagues around the House who have, for the most part, engaged in this debate extremely passionately and respectfully, and the Hon Dr Nick Smith for not only bringing this bill forward but also his 30 years of service. In the time that I have known him, we have never once agreed, but I admire him for his loyalty to his party and the unwavering commitment to those he represented. The Hon Dr Smith gave particular attention to his arguments and the arguments of submitters about the way the waka-jumping provisions curtail an MP’s freedom of speech, and I don’t wish to underplay that, because I share his commitment to MPs’ ability to freely express themselves. The Attorney-General acknowledged it in the section 7 analysis from December 2017, of the 2017 waka-jumping bill, and he concluded the impairment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights, particularly freedom of expression and association, were significant. I’ll bring your attention to the Attorney-General’s finding that the freedom of expression in this House has a special constitutional value. I think that’s true.

So are they justified? The argument we’ve heard from some submitters—and the Opposition have picked up and run a mile with it—is that New Zealand already has electoral mechanisms to hold politicians to account for breaking their electoral mandate, and that the size of the problem that the waka-jumping provisions are addressing is small; maybe it doesn’t exist? That analysis mischaracterises what the problem is, and I’ll come back to that. But the argument continues. They said that New Zealand already has effective political sanctions that do everything the waka-jumping provisions do. It says that political imperatives, electoral judgments, and media scrutiny are the best tools we have for regulating the views of politicians and ensuring they’re accountable. I don’t agree with those submitters. Without the waka-jumping provisions, some MPs have a disproportionately large platform with which to express themselves. It serves no one but the MP personally, and it definitely does not serve the voters who elect them.

Matt Doocey: Come serve a big party.

ARENA WILLIAMS: So what do they do, then, Mr Doocey? The waka-jumping provisions are effective because they do three things, and let me tell you what the first is, Mr Doocey.

The first is that they protect from some sort of lone wolf defection, and that’s what’s been talked about most in this debate, but it’s only one of three. That’s in the situation where the distortion of political proportionality is the issue, and it was summed up by Chris Bishop when he said, “We want MPs to say unpalatable things.”—as if he wasn’t saying that those things would be so unpalatable to the party that the MP stood for that they would face expulsion. The idea here is that one person acting alone can be the critic and conscience of the country, that they can say unpalatable things, thereby holding back a Government from doing something it was elected to do. That’s a fantasy; it’s not what’s at stake here. Every brooding, complicated heartthrob in this place sees themselves as the person who will stand against the tide of a Government who has lost their moral compass. So do; in that situation, resign. Use your enormous platform that your resignation has bought you to say the thing you so passionately believed. You can exercise your freedom of speech, and not the one that you earned from the voters who elected you.

The second thing that the waka-jumping provisions do is that they protect from a party merger or split situation in the middle of a parliamentary term. They don’t protect from a party merger or split situation before an election, as is appropriate, and they don’t hold that party merger back from contesting the election and putting their case to the voters, building power in the communities that they seek to represent. It does none of that. A merger or split in the middle of a parliamentary term lumps voters with a group that has little accountability to electors, in circumstances where they probably have a huge amount of power.

The third effect of the waka-jumping provisions, and Mr Brown I hope you’re listening, is that there’s no protection in law or the Standing Orders to limit the participation of an MP in the House for past criminal convictions, lying, deception, or gross misconduct in employment, and I think that’s something we can all agree should be provided for. An MP who, once elected, is found to have been in prison for something like serious fraud is not required to disclose that in this House. They’re not subject to the rules that protect staff or taxpayers’ money. They’re not required to recuse themselves from decision-making in this House or in select committee which is directly relevant to their offending and their victims. They’re not required or even encouraged to resign. The very most basic standards that voters expect of us as parliamentarians, as the guardians of our democracy, are not set out in rules or in law by which we govern ourselves here. Voters are entirely reliant on the media during selection and election periods, who can be defrauded like any other human being, or on party discipline to identify those people who are unfit to hold office.

This is where I want to speak directly to the Hon James Shaw. That member has broadly agreed with many of his colleagues on the opposite side. He said, “The waka-jumping provisions that I will be voting down are obnoxious and anti-democratic.”, and that “The Green Party executive made a decision some time ago that we would not exercise as a party this piece of legislation.” He went on to dispassionately observe that when they—meaning the National Party—went through all that trouble with Jami-Lee Ross they didn’t exercise the opportunity to use this legislation. And those comments are the reason I’m singling him out. There is no need to read into what I’m saying with any specific allegation or gossip. I’m singling him out because he got up and he flogged the Hon Dr Nick Smith for being unprincipled, but I’m not interested in the National Party’s principles on this matter, after sitting through the select committee; I’m interested in what he had to say. And so what did he say?

Well, I wanted to hear that Mr Shaw would use the waka-jumping provisions in the circumstances he described as “all that trouble”. I hope he would expel someone in his caucus who abused their power, who hurt their staff, who hurt their colleagues. I’m talking here about the most intimate kinds of abuse of power that, thanks to the Francis report, we know happen in here all the time. No amount of commitment to liberal values makes any member immune. It’s important to me that Mr Shaw can look at those young women in his own party who aspire to be MPs in Parliament who are staffers and say that, if they were on the receiving end of that kind of abuse of power, he would act and not wait for his party to weigh up their options in the context of the politics of the day, because who knows what the political context will be? This stuff happens when the stakes are high. And, if we repeal the waka-jumping provisions, the party will never be the loser, and it’s unlikely that Mr Shaw would be the loser. But what about me, and what about those women?

Now I want to speak directly to those young women in any political party or from any political stripe who aspire to be MPs and staffers in this place. You’ve heard Government speeches which have defended the waka-jumping provisions to allow a party leader to, essentially, expel a member of their caucus, all from women—that’s because the Labour members of the Justice Committee, which heard evidence on this bill, are all women: Māori women, ethnic women, all women. And you heard speeches from the Opposition parties which ranged from questioning why backbenchers would ever support something which took away our free speech in this House to out and out belittling our ability to read. One member said we were allowing ourselves to be handcuffed. And to those women out there, I say watch closely when women MPs give up our power and hand it over to our woman leader. Watch what happens when that woman leader has the power to expel men who abuse their power. Watch the power shift, watch the panic rise, and watch the ones who panic most. Watch and understand that power isn’t evenly shared in this place, because these women can read, and we aren’t handcuffed because we’re into it, because these women know that our ability to speak freely in this House is curtailed by many things and there are constitutional and legal rules which prevent us from saying a great number of things, but we find ourselves shouting over the noise of the toxic gender politics in this place far more regularly.

So staff and MPs shouldn’t be dependent on having the right person in the right position within a party hierarchy to feel safe and able to do their jobs. Nobody should have to put up with bullying. There should be absolutely no tolerance for harassment at all, and removing the waka-jumping provisions in the way that this member’s bill proposes would take away one of the only mechanisms that allows leaders to stamp it out and to be leaders. This bill intends to reverse the provisions of the Electoral Act 1993 that allow an MP’s seat to be declared vacant upon their departure from the political party for which they were elected. It would repeal these provisions introduced to the Electoral Act 1993 through the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2018, and the effect of that relatively innocuous change is a step backwards for the MPs of this House to speak freely and for the proper running of this place. That’s why we oppose it.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call on the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill. Can I start by acknowledging my colleague Nick Smith, who has brought this bill to this House because he believes in democracy, a value which all members of this House should believe in, and passionately believe in. That is something in which I know Nick Smith will leave this House with that legacy intact.

This bill is an important piece of legislation. This bill is about undoing the shameful legacy of Winston Peters, but the fact that the Government still want to keep this bill on our law books shows that Winston Peters still has something over this Government. I think that is absolutely shameful. This piece of legislation should have been the first piece of legislation this Government got rid of once Winston Peters was not required to support them into Government. We know the dead rats that were swallowed by the Green Party to get this legislation on to our law books in the first place, but at least the Green Party have had the courage of their convictions to put this bill to select committee in the last Parliament so that it could be removed in a new Parliament where Winston Peters was no longer there. But the Labour Party do not have the courage and do not have the moral fortitude to actually do what is right—to do what is right: to ensure that our Parliament actually gets rid of this undemocratic piece of legislation.

When we talk about morals, this Government fails to stand up for the morals of this country and the democracy of this country, which is actually what is important and is what is required. The Attorney-General said that this piece of legislation has a chilling effect on our democracy, and, whilst we heard from the previous speaker a nice speech—and I’m not sure whether it was about this piece of legislation or another piece of legislation—what she failed to do was actually talk about the submitters who came to speak to the select committee.

Respected experts from across New Zealand came to submit and said this piece of legislation needs to go through. The waka-jumping legislation must be gotten rid of. We had the New Zealand Law Society, five law faculties, four departments of politics, three schools of history, and a joint submission of 15 university academics on this member’s bill, all enthusiastically in favour of it. Those members of our community—respected members of our community—people who believe, fundamentally, in our democratic principles, the freedom of expression, and the freedom of members of Parliament, they supported this piece of legislation because they understand how chilling it can be.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), the lead expert body on best parliamentary practice, vehemently opposes such integrity laws. Most members of the New Zealand Parliament are part of the IPU, and Louisa Wall, who is the chairperson of the IPU in New Zealand, she should be standing up and supporting this piece of legislation, not voting it down. But, because of this piece of legislation, she’s probably concerned that that could have an impact on her role. It has a chilling impact when issues of principle come before this Parliament.

The current piece of legislation would be in breach of the United States, Canadian, and Australian constitutions. It would even breach basic law of Germany, the home of the mixed-member proportional electoral system. But here in New Zealand, for some unknown reason, this Labour Government seeks to continue putting this piece of legislation through and allowing it to stay on the books, and that is something which we on this side of the House will call out and will say, “Shame on this Government for keeping this legislation in this House.” What has Winston Peters got over this Government that they feel the need to continue to have this piece of legislation on the books of this House?

Dr Duncan Webb: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Brown seems to be suggesting there is some illicit motive behind the Government’s actions, and that’s in breach of Standing Orders. I would seek for him to withdraw and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will just give me a moment. I thank the member for that point of order. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

SIMEON BROWN: I withdraw and apologise. The Labour Party did not have this policy on their manifesto going into the 2020 election. They didn’t say to New Zealanders whether or not they were going to support this piece of legislation. Even in the Clark years, they said this type of legislation should only be there for a transitional period of time. But now they’re saying they want to bake this piece of legislation in for no known reason other than that they want to keep it on our law books.

The vague idea that this Government wants to put proportionality of this Parliament ahead of democracy is something that this Government should be absolutely ashamed of. The National Party will stand for our democracy, our democratic principles, and we will support this piece of legislation because it actually is what upholds democratic institutions in New Zealand. I support this piece of legislation.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do just want to take the brief opportunity to acknowledge the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is in the House this afternoon—the member whose bill it is—and who I have spent many hours in the select committee discussing, along with my other colleagues who are in the House tonight, and debating and listening and hearing a lot of theory. We heard about a lot of ancient politicians. It was a fascinating discussion in select committee. I wasn’t part of the select committee or any of the speakers in the previous Parliament on this bill, so it was all new for me, and I did appreciate the opportunity to be part of the select committee.

As the honourable member knows, we will not be supporting this bill. That was very clear during the process, but I do want to just outline that and give some of the reasons. But I first wanted to just respond to one of the comments made by the member Simeon Brown about Labour’s 2020 campaign and our manifesto, and that we didn’t specifically campaign on not supporting this bill. Well, I do want to point out that this isn’t actually one of the Government’s priorities. This bill isn’t one of the Government’s priorities. We campaigned on a manifesto that outlined what our priorities were. Those were the measures that we will take to keep New Zealand safe, accelerate our economic recovery, and take on the foundational challenges in our economy and society—in particular, housing affordability, climate change, which we’ve just received the report on today, and child wellbeing. The proposed repeal of the 2018 Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act was not among them in our manifesto, so that is true.

Hon Member: It was already law.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: That’s right—already law.

I do want to also make the point that we have spent a considerable amount of time, Parliament’s time, on the first piece of legislation as well as this one—over 21 hours on the previous legislation, and then, of course, this one.

I wanted to reflect on a value or a principle that I have been raised with and have been very familiar with over at least the last 10 years of my career, and that was when I was working with Ngāti Hine. One of the values and principles that Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine has is: “He rahi kē atu te kaupapa i a koe.”, which is to say that the kaupapa is always bigger than the individual, than you, the one person. We are not against having robust discussion and debate and dialogue and a competition of ideas. In fact, we do that on our marae all of the time. We reach our decisions. Waiho mā te whare e kōrero—it’s the whare that ultimately decides. If I am not happy with that outcome, I can’t just throw a hissy fit and walk out and potentially destroy the entire kaupapa. Tikanga Māori reminds me of why this legislation that we currently have in place and why the bill that is proposing to repeal it—why we don’t support it is that, essentially, it could give an individual more mana and more power than the collective decision that has been made, and I just don’t think that that is right. I don’t think that’s what we want as a democracy in New Zealand. We don’t want to empower an individual more than the millions who voted for the proportionality of Parliament, and so I use that principle and that value that I have been raised with: he rahi kē atu te kaupapa i a koe—the kaupapa is always bigger than the individual.

I was reading the previous debates and, unfortunately, I think Dr Duncan Webb has just left the room, but I wanted to acknowledge him because he too acknowledged the same thing. He said, “Now, we in New Zealand are here to decide our own constitutional and electoral future, and the fact of the matter is … how we express our voting system to all of New Zealand. It’s pretty simple: the party who gets the most votes gets the most seats, and to not have this Act, to not have this piece of legislation, would do away with that principle. To suggest that a member can of their own volition upset the proportionality of Parliament is to put in the hands of the individual the destiny of our nation, and that’s wrong.”

So as I referred to the value—he rahi kē atu te kaupapa i a koe [the purpose is always bigger than the individual]—what we have here is that perhaps an individual could have more power over the kaupapa than that of the collective. I think it’s a dangerous concept in Te Ao Māori and it’s also a dangerous concept for Parliament.

I do want to acknowledge the select committee process, the 19 submissions, and the seven individuals and organisations that we heard from. Yes, there were more submissions in support of the bill than those opposed to it. But I do want to just touch on one point, which was stressed by many submitters, and there was a lot of discussion about it. It is the perceived impact that the current legislation, the one that this bill seeks to repeal, has on the rights of freedom of speech and association. Some submitters, according to the report, argued that the current electoral provisions could limit MPs’ rights to freedom of speech and association and are unjustified. However, I do note that the Attorney-General, who examined the consistency of this bill against the Bill of Rights Act, said he did not agree with the submitters. He argued that the limits on MPs’ rights, or perceived limits on MPs’ rights, imposed by the bill are justified. This is because of the importance of the bill’s objectives and because the capacity to remove and replace the distorting MP is the minimum necessary to achieve these objectives. So we were debating this across the House, and I was thinking: should one individual’s right to freedom of speech compromise the millions of voters who determined the proportionality of Parliament? I just can’t see how that specific right should be able to override something as important as the proportionality of our Parliament as determined at the last election.

The other thing, too, that I just wanted to reflect on, and I remember this was an area that there was a lot of angst and concern about, was the power of party leaders to simply dismiss members who they didn’t necessarily agree with or had concerns with their behaviours, positions, and so on. But I referred to the third reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, to the speech of the Hon Andrew Little, in particular to point out that he believes—and I believe he’s right—that there are sufficient safeguards in the legislation to ensure that party leaders don’t single-handedly have that much power over this process. He describes what some of those safeguards are, including that there has to be notice in writing, that the leader of the party in giving a notice to the Speaker about this apparent change in proportionality has to have a reasonable belief that the proportionality of Parliament would be distorted.

Now, under the current arrangement that we’ve got, of course, we enjoy on this side of the House a significant majority. But there have been parliaments in the past where the numbers are much tighter to which this would or could actually apply. A leader of the party is required to write to the Speaker to say they believe proportionality would be changed by that. Then there is a 21-day period, and the Minister referred to it perhaps as a cooling-down period, a chance to negotiate or to talk or call it a chance to rally the numbers for that particular member or indeed for the leader who has to give the notice. And then there is the requirement for two-thirds of the caucus to support the action to remove. The Minister in his contribution, in the third reading of the legislation that this bill seeks to repeal, believes that there are sufficient safeguards in there so that a leader does not have so much power in this process.

I just want to conclude by going back again to that fundamental principle that I believe in: he rahi kē atu te kaupapa i a koe—that the kaupapa is always bigger than the individual, that the individual shouldn’t have the power to be able to overturn a kaupapa like the proportionality of Parliament. So, therefore, I do not commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Integrity Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It is an absolute pleasure to be talking on this bill, but before doing so I just want to acknowledge my colleague who was just sitting behind me, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who is here on his penultimate day of being a member of this House for, I think, just over 30 years. So I just want to acknowledge him.

It’s great to be speaking on this bill. It is an important bill that was originally introduced by Mark Patterson, who was a member of New Zealand First during the 52nd Parliament. As he lost his seat, he asked me to take over this bill, which I gladly agreed to do. I’m hopeful that both the Government and ACT are going to support this bill, and I think the biggest issue in getting here tonight is how the Finance and Expenditure Committee has had to address one of the crucial deficiencies in the original bill that was put in: namely, it didn’t really deal adequately with the issue of the transitional arrangements in terms of if we are to move to a longer period of required service or living in New Zealand, what would be those transitional arrangements? And I just want to particularly acknowledge the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, first for allowing the officials to support and work with the committee, and I think, hopefully, she will also be supporting this bill.

Before we just look at the specific requirements in this bill, I think it’s worthwhile just looking at the international context for what’s happening with superannuation around the world. The first thing I’d say: most countries are dealing and looking and reassessing their entitlement to superannuation, given, as populations are ageing, demographic changes are occurring. Virtually all OECD countries are on a pathway to increase the age of entitlement—broadly, most are aiming to increase it to age 66 or 67 years—and around half of the Governments have undertaken major pension reforms. Our closest neighbour, just as an example, has already increased the age of eligibility to 67 years, and has a further plan to increase it to 70 years. If New Zealand keeps at the current rate of 65 years, then the costs of New Zealand super will effectively double over the next 40 years to 2060, whereas in Australia, with those changes they’ve made, there will be quite a substantial reduction in the cost of super.

So I think we’ve got to see this bill in the light of what’s happening internationally, which is basically countries re-evaluating and changing the age of entitlement to make it more stringent. Just in terms of New Zealand super, the current value of New Zealand super is about $57 billion, and, under current projections, it will be start to be drawn down in the years 2034-35. Even when it starts to get drawn down—and by that stage, obviously, hopefully the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s a much larger fund—it will only basically account for about 6 to maybe 10 percent of the annual pension cost. Everyone thinks New Zealand super is going to be the panacea, and it’s a very substantial amount of money and it’s a good thing we have it, but the reality is its contribution towards the annual payment that the Government will have to make is actually very modest—as I say, in the order of 6 to 10 percent over time.

So what that means right now: New Zealand super costs in 2018 were about $14 billion. It was about 17 percent of Crown expenses. So 17 percent of all the Government spending is going into New Zealand super, and what we will see over time is a rapid escalation. And it’s highly likely, if you start doing financial projections for the Crown accounts, that the costs of New Zealand super and health costs—health being the highest-value item at the moment; about $21 billion we spend on health—those two factors are likely to lead to a situation where they will probably account for about half of Government spending in the years to come, unless there is reform of New Zealand super. And I think the issue is, how do you realistically deal with those costs? And I’m not—and I don’t want anyone to anticipate that I am—proposing that we deal with super in any way other than what this bill talks about, what we’re going to talk about tonight. I’m not suggesting that those costs mean that we have to take other decisions. This bill is an important element in basically trying to level off that escalation in price or cost that the Government’s going to have to incur in years to come.

I think the other issue that we need to take into account is that the ageing demographics of New Zealand are changing quite rapidly: 15 percent of New Zealanders are 65 or older at the present, but that’s forecast to grow to about 25 percent by 2050. So that demographic change is one of the issues why the costs are going up so significantly. Of course, that’s what Treasury are projecting in terms of the costs for and the financial implications for the Crown. Therefore, there’s a strong rationale why we need to be looking at changes to New Zealand super.

The current arrangements are that you need to be a New Zealand citizen and you need to be aged 65 years or older, and that you also need to have lived here for a minimum of 10 years, five of which must be from the years that you turned 50. And so there’s that double test—10 years, but five over the years of 50. If you meet that threshold, under a single entitlement currently it’s worth about $403 a week, or about $21,000 per individual, or if you’re in a couple arrangement, $672—on an annual basis, about $35,000. One of the most revealing issues about this is how generous New Zealand super is in terms of entitlement. We’re one of the few countries in the world where you only need to have 10 years of entitlement. New Zealand and Australia are the two countries with the lowest entitlement. The average in the OECD is 26 years to be entitled to super. And I think this is one of the reasons why the previous Retirement Commissioner had a view that we should, and she did recommend that we should, be increasing the period of entitlement from 10 to 25 years—in this bill we only increase it to 20 years—but she also said that we should reduce the five-year test from age 50 onwards. So that was her recommendation, and New Zealand National actually proposed that we reduce the value of this quite some time ago.

So this bill, effectively, will affect fewer than 6,000 people, and what the bill proposes is that we raise the period of entitlement from 10 to 20 years. It excludes residents based in Realm countries, namely Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—so they are, effectively, covered by New Zealand arrangements, which is only appropriate—and also anyone who qualifies under the veteran support arrangements. Also, one of the changes we made in select committee was the removal of any increased requirement for refugees. The arrangement set out in the bill that’s been reintroduced raises gradually, over a 10-year period, the entitlement. That means that for every two years that you are of age, you have to do one year of additional service in New Zealand before you’re entitled to superannuation. So what that means is if you’re age 64 at 30 June 2021, you will still have to only meet the 10-year rule. If you’re age 45 at 30 June 2021, you will have to do an additional 10 years to be entitled to this.

I think one of the remaining issues is that we will need to look at when this comes into force, and I think that’s an open debate. The Minister and I have been talking about that. Whilst we agree with the 10-year phase-in period, I think at the committee of the whole House stage we may look to make sure that the implementation date, the start date, for this bill is delayed so that those close to retirement have the ability to plan. But that’s looking forward to that process in the committee of the whole House. Thank you very much.

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

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should start by congratulating the member opposite for picking up this bill and carrying on the sterling work done by the previous member who brought this bill to the House, Mark Patterson. Mark will be, no doubt, sitting down on his farm down there in the deep South at the moment, no doubt watching this, having just come in. He’s quite a laconic sort of character, Mr Patterson, but he put this together, brought it to this House, and argued it very well in his time here, I have to say, I was very lucky enough to spend some time in London with Mr Patterson, and he’s one of these characters that is the only person I know that took about half a day to get from Heathrow to central London, having taken a few options on the way—obviously, the wrong options—but eventually got there. So it was quite remarkable that he was able to get this bill together, well organised, and get it here, so I do congratulate Mark Patterson.

What he’s done—and when people come to this House there’s often a bill that comes here. Again, “Its time comes.” is something I often say when I stand here when a good bit of legislation comes through, and it’s really what we’re here for. Often legislation may in the past not have been a piece of legislation that would have really got the sympathy of the House, but coming at the right time as it does, you’ll end up getting the full support of the House as this one has.

So, it’s important to understand just what and why that timing for this bill is so important, because when superannuation—you might remember, this was something that was universal superannuation, brought by a Labour Government in the 1930s. It’s something that, in fact, was built on and, in fact, originally it was the 1880s that they suddenly realised that New Zealand had a lot of, mostly, men and others who really had worn themselves out, were destitute. There was no way for them to live. And so the State—and what was to continue in New Zealand was a country that really does look after its people. So in those days, most of those people wouldn’t have been born in New Zealand and most of them had come here via the goldfields of California, Eureka Stockade, and various other places. So they would have come here at the end of that trail, having left, usually, the UK and they really needed the State to look after them.

So I refer to this bill, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. That is, again, a bill that has come on the end of a long journey from that time. So, of course, in that time, also life expectancy, as you might imagine, was very low. I’ve just done some research to try and find out just how low it was. Records weren’t particularly well—but anyone who was a manual worker who lived into their 50s was regarded to be doing pretty well in those days. Of course, that has changed. In fact, I look now at the average life expectancy in New Zealand; 82.36 years is the age an average New Zealander can expect to live these days. We’re actually ahead of the UK at 81.26 and just slightly behind the Australians at 82.75.

So as you can imagine, many of the schemes that were devised—in New Zealand, we’re lucky; it is a universal superannuation scheme. But I know from my own experience with working with a lot of American city pension schemes that they, of course, very often were schemes that were traded off in lieu of pay rises. Those schemes were fine when the average life expectancy of the fire service firemen or police officers or even nurses was—rarely lived into their 70s. Well, of course, those schemes—the chickens came home to roost, if you like, because later on, many years later, when life expectancies started to climb, as they have in New Zealand, those figures that I’ve just given you, of course, now those individual cities and municipalities have carried the cost of those pensions and often, it’s a surprise to me, they carried them on the annual budget. Actually, most of them had made absolutely no provision for them at all. So, of course, you can imagine a lot of those cities over there are actually now coming to real financial problems.

So I bring this back to the bill and why it’s relevant, but I think it’s good to get context for any piece of legislation that comes to this House, that affects anyone listening at home—often a piece of legislation by itself without context. So I come back to the bill, Mr Speaker, because I can see that you’re requiring me to do that, and I’d hate to have to put you in the position to ask me to do so. So this fair residency bill, what it is is it will raise the minimum length of residence and presence in New Zealand after the age of 20 required to qualify for the New Zealand Superannuation. Well, of course, what actually happens now is that to qualify for superannuation, someone has to have spent 10 years before the age of 50, between 20 and 50, living in New Zealand, contributing, and, of course, coming back to New Zealand. And it’s been five years after 50 working in New Zealand to actually qualify for the full pension at 65. That won’t change. Of course, what will change is that now the requirement is that people need to have been here for 20 years to qualify for the pension, and a very important part of this bill.

One thing, and again the previous speaker did mention this and it is an important part of the work we did at select committee—many of the submissions we did hear talked about, really, the hardship this would bring on people who, essentially, set their retirement planning around the fact that they would get the pension at 65. So as a result of that and being a good select committee and being there to do the job we’re there to do—listen to the submitters—we’ve introduced a scheme, or a part, that there is actually now going to be a graduated scheme. Now, the main date to remember is 1955. And so, obviously, anyone who was born in 1955 will be now qualifying, being at this time—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the member?

GREG O’CONNOR: No, I’m still well shy of that date, and if that man opposite had seen me playing rugby, or kept up with me, he would have seen just how lithe and quick I still am and belying my age.

But anyway, firstly, back to the bill itself, which, of course, is an important part of this presentation. So from 1955 being the main qualifying date, so through there—so that person would still now only have a 20-year qualification, and moving down, anyone who was 46 to 47 would go to 19 years. So you will see the fairness of this, to make sure we continue to be in the whole spirit of superannuation, as we have in New Zealand, we ensured that, in fact, this remains fair for the vast majority of people.

The other thing, too, is also addressing the issue of the Realm countries and there was some legislation came through here in the last Parliament to address this issue. I know I have a relation who left New Zealand before he was 50, now has a very successful business in Rarotonga, and was facing the prospect of having to come back here for five years in order to qualify for the New Zealand pension. That would have meant selling his business. He had many employees. He was unlikely to have anyone able to take over that business. As a result of those changes, now, if you are in the Realm countries, you actually still do qualify, a very important part—those Realm countries, of course, being Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands.

I am running short of time, but I’m sure there’ll be other speakers who will be able to go into other details of this bill. But it is, as I said at the start, a bill whose time has come. We have been able to adapt this bill to ensure that it is fair, that those who are going to be affected by this in time to come have got time now to plan, as the country has to start planning for the fact we have an ageing population, and we want to make sure that we can continue to look after the aged in New Zealand, the increasing number of aged people. So I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to talk in the second reading of the fair residency bill. But before I do, it would behove me, I think, just to provide some kind of commentary on Mr O’Connor’s rugby prowess, because as a sprightly—I think—20- or 21-year-old in the western suburbs second team some years ago, Greg O’Connor was the vice-captain or captain and very much the senior, some would say geriatric, member of that team. But I have to say, he did have many skills. He had many qualities. Yelling was one of them, and all I could say is if words had wings, Mr O’Connor would have flown along the rugby field.

I must commend both the member who introduced the bill, Mark Patterson, farmer of Lawrence, former MP, and my colleague Andrew Bayly who has passaged it through the select committee process. But Greg O’Connor describes the work as “sterling”. Well, of Mr Patterson’s work, I would suggest that it was more solid than sterling, because when the bill was introduced it was pretty much a one-pager. And the select committee had to do quite a bit of work to panel beat it into a shape that meant that the policy effect could be given, but that the unintended consequences—or at least by the members of the select committee by the time it was referred—

Greg O’Connor: Speaking ill of the dead.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —the unintended consequences were not—well, I try not to speak ill. As one of my colleagues said in the first reading that it was a lazy piece of legislation from our friend in New Zealand First. I probably wouldn’t go that far, but there’s no doubt that no one on the Finance and Expenditure Committee through the process wanted to see people negatively affected, because the bill as introduced would have had a person on the day that the Act came into effect—say, at the age of 64 years and nine months—who would have had to have waited over 10 years in order to qualify for New Zealand superannuation. I’m sure that wasn’t what Mr Patterson intended, it certainly was what he introduced and which we agreed at first reading needed to have some serious panel-beating done to it. So I’d like to thank the officials who contributed, I think, very sensible suggestions. I note the Minister for Social Development may well be interested in the kudos that I think we all would give them, because they worked very hard to make sure that the bill was in good shape when it came out of the select committee.

The three main areas that formed the basis of the more than 350-odd submissions that we received and the 15 submissions that we heard were: the transition process, so that that wasn’t affected, and both Mr Bayly and Mr O’Connor have covered that off. But it was also to ensure that two other important groups were not even more negatively affected; that is, those people who reside in our Realm countries, Tokelau, Niue, and one other.

Ingrid Leary: Cook Islands.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Cook Islands, thank you very much, Ms Leary. But also the issue around refugees. And this was going to be a particular problem for refugees. So I think the amendment that the committee is recommending to the House is to ensure that there are some carve-outs for refugees who, as the select committee report indicates, don’t really have a choice either to come to New Zealand, the timing of their arrival in New Zealand, or any choice, in most cases, to return to their country of origin. So I think those were perfectly sensible suggestions.

I just want to finish on another note that I think is relevant, and this is because the National Party actually had this policy in its manifesto in the 2017 election. So, of course, we were going to support it. But it also talked about having an honest conversation with New Zealanders about the affordability of New Zealand superannuation. And the officials—

Simon Court: You can borrow that line.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —when providing—sorry?

Simon Court: You can borrow that line.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: All right, I got one for free. Well, an honest conversation it needs to be, and, indeed, I thought we would have had one with the Labour Party when Jacinda Ardern was their spokesperson on social development, but then as Leader of the Opposition and now as Prime Minister did a 180-degree turn on that. Apparently it isn’t such a compelling issue after all.

But I note that the officials, in advising the committee on what happens in other OECD countries, both with the age of eligibility and with the qualifying period if one spends time out of their countries—nearly all of the countries we received advice about have retirement age and superannuation qualification age higher than ours and rising. So they look as though they are doing a graduated process from age 65 to age 67 at least. But if one reads policy documents or commentaries from around the world, that is being revisited, even as they have taken a step that we haven’t. I note with interest that there is a gender bias in Switzerland. Members might be interested to note that the age of eligibility, which does remain 65 for men, is actually 64 for women, which is fascinating. I would have thought that if there was to be a gender bias, it might have been the other way round, given that in most OECD countries men don’t last nearly as long as women do in terms of average life expectancy. So there’s something that I’ll go and research. But in the meantime, I think the bill comes back to this House in much better shape than it was referred to the committee. I commend colleagues, but certainly officials and the support of the clerks for enabling us to consider now a bill that’s in much better shape, and I commend it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in support of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t here when this was drawn out of the biscuit tin under the name of Mark Patterson. I absolutely agree that it looks like it was more of a vibe than an Act, and people have worked hard to make it into something that will work well for our country. I am very grateful for the work that was done before I joined the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I was very honoured to be part of that process.

This is a bill that originally didn’t protect current entitlements and there was no lead-in or transition, and that is something that the select committee has taken very seriously. Veterans would have been caught up in it, and it was inconsistent with the portability that we’ve arranged in the Realm countries. We have a very special relationship with the Realm. We’re part of it, and we have the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. They are part of our own citizenship, and so we have to really look and turn our minds to how we best work with that group of nations. We also hadn’t considered how this would impact on refugees.

The changes that have taken place are very sensible changes. The first change that’s taken place is that a mechanism has been devised to phase in on the basis of age. It depends on when you were born, and there are two-year little jumps, so if you were born in 1955, then you will need to have 11 years of entitlement. This happens in two-year jumps, so if you turn 65 in 2022, to 30 June 2024, it’ll be an 11-year entitlement. If you turn 65 on 1 July 2024, then it will be a 12-year entitlement, and so it will go on. So it actually is a very reasonable lead-in to this change.

Why the need for the change at all? Well, I think we’ve actually had a few speakers today talk about the history of New Zealand, and it’s probably a good idea just to contextualise this. New Zealand was one of the first countries to bring in an old-age pension, and it did that in 1898. It wasn’t the kind of pension that we have here. It was a pension that was means-tested. People were very grateful for it and it kept a lot of people going in their old age, but in 1932, we introduced a universal superannuation system. That’s a very special thing indeed, and it has been very much something that’s been precarious, because it’s an expensive system. But it means that New Zealanders can count on quite a generous entitlement when they retire, and we’ve heard today a slight baying for raising of the age of entitlement and that’s because of the expense of it. We’ve also seen a time when we stopped contributing—under the National Government—to the Superannuation Fund. Again, that puts that fund very much in jeopardy, so it’s our job and our duty to make sure that we’re actually making this a feasible scheme for people.

My understanding is that this was a scheme that was introduced when the life expectancy of people was about 65 to 67, and so it wasn’t a great deal of entitlement they were getting. What we’ve seen happen—very thankfully—is life expectancy raised by about 20 years, on average, which is a really great thing, and we hope that it will go higher. With good management of our health system and with the advancements we’re making, we’re going to be looking at long, healthy lives.

It’s during that time that people will need to retire, and they will rely on this money, so it’s an important thing that we make sure that we are actually recognising that most of the people who are in the system will need to contribute to it, and will contribute to it for quite some time. That is being secured in this bill, because what we’re doing is coming in line with other countries.

We’re coming into a 20-year time frame, and we’re excluding the groups that are truly vulnerable or that are necessary for us to protect. Hence the exclusion of the Realm countries, and hence the exclusion of refugees, because refugees—as Mr Bayly pointed out, and I think Mr Woodhouse just pointed out—are a very special category of New Zealander. They come in without very much choice and with a lot of devastation, and they come in with nothing, quite often. So it’s very, very important that we extend to them a different kind of security from that of somebody who comes into the country and who can plan how they do that and actually know what they’re in for when they come in. So that’s the difference in scheme. It’s very much a matter of choice and fairness, and it is a very important balancing act that we have here, because this is a system that is fragile and it is expensive and it is a really good scheme, and we should actually respect that.

There are people who at the current time are actually already affected by our scheme in a disparate way, and I’d just like to recognise them for a moment. One is that we’ve always had a problem with the fact that working-class people haven’t actually lived into the period of entitlement, so we actually haven’t had a system that’s been particularly beneficial to those groups. It’s also very important that the entitlement’s there for that very class of people, because manual labourers get worn out and they need to be able to come into those entitlements in a reasonable time. It’s also an area which has affected Māori. Many, many Māori don’t live to the age of entitlement. So these are the areas where we really need to make sure that we’re looking after people in a fair and reasonable way, and I’m very satisfied that we have struck a good balance here.

I just wanted to thank several people. One group is the officials, because during the submissions process it was the officials who suggested the mechanism we have here for gently raising the age of entitlement. It’s a good mechanism, and I can see it applying in many other situations where it would be a very useful and sound mechanism. They really contributed something to this which was absolutely taken up with open arms by the people in the select committee.

The other group I wanted to recognise are the submitters. The things that came out of the submissions weren’t what I expected. We had people who were not necessarily talking about their own self-interest. I remember one Indian migrant, a young man who came in and talked about how he saw this bill as important, and he was actually in a category where I would have thought he would have been perhaps more self-interested in being able to allow people to come in on a lesser term. But something that I’m constantly surprised at with the submitters in the select committee is how many people come along with a very genuine lack of self-interest and who put forward a submission that’s based much more on inviting the idea of participation in a democracy and putting their best efforts into contributing in an intelligent and logical way.

I am extremely proud of the commitment here that we’ve got to refugees. I think it’s a very important carve-out. It shows the motivation of people in putting up this bill and making the changes that they’ve made that we’ve managed to come to a very sensible, fair, reasonable kind of approach which guards entitlements which are not our safety net. Our safety net is actually there anyway—you know, it’s not the safety net. This is the layer on top—the wonderful thing that we have in universal superannuation. So I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. As the Green Party’s immigration and senior citizens portfolio holder, it comes with great shame that we cannot in good conscience support the bill, for several reasons. But I, firstly, want to start by acknowledging the contributions of previous speakers who talked at length about the history of our superannuation scheme and the important contributions it actually has made over the years to reduce poverty rates amongst our senior citizens. It is a scheme that, while many members have discussed the issue of sustainability, is critical to ensure that our low-income whānau who reach their twilight years have a safety net for them to subsist. And what has been really concerning over the past few years is the increasing rates of hardship amongst our senior citizens—in fact, more of our senior citizens are now requiring food grants from Work and Income to survive, and the rate of senior citizens requiring food grants from Work and Income has gone up by 50 percent between 2014 and 2019. That is something that is concerning and should be of concern to all of us. I don’t think we want to see our senior citizens in hardship growing.

What this bill aims to do is to increase the number of years that people need to live in Aotearoa New Zealand as new migrants before they can qualify for the New Zealand super, and the rhetoric behind the intent of this bill was to make our superannuation scheme fairer. But I want to point to a submission by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that I think points at some really key facts—particularly on the issue of restricting superannuation for new migrants contributing to the sustainability of the New Zealand Superannuation scheme. An assessment made by the Ministry of Social Development found that the fiscal savings would only be at around 0.3 percent of the cost of New Zealand super. This takes into account increased benefit numbers as a result of people not meeting the new residency requirements for New Zealand super and the veteran’s pension. So while the intent of this bill was around sustainability, the Ministry of Social Development was quite clear that, actually, this bill would not achieve that intent. But what the Ministry of Social Development submission also pointed out was that this bill would increase hardship, and it was clear that this bill will increase hardship amongst our senior citizens, at a time where we are already seeing increasing rates of hardship. I want to point out page 17 of the Ministry of Social Development’s submission, point 90, where it says that “Increasing the residence requirements for [New Zealand superannuation] will inevitably increase income poverty and material hardship amongst seniors.”

I am saddened that this House is passing a bill that will increase inequality amongst groups, some of which are already facing discrimination in many, many levels of our society. While I acknowledge that the Finance and Expenditure Committee made attempts at creating a transition period so that people wouldn’t be so harshly affected as the bill came into effect, I think that the end result of this bill will be, as the Ministry of Social Development submission highlights, an increase in hardship.

Our migrant communities come from several backgrounds when it comes to the level of welfare they come into the country with. We can’t ignore that many migrants of the global south have come under types of visas and types of unemployment that don’t yield a lot of income. Our senior citizens may not be in Aotearoa with already a safety net, and MSD’s submission talks about how many people will have to tap into their own savings and to the goodwill of their communities in order to survive. What this will end up doing is putting more pressure on the people who won’t be able to qualify for the New Zealand super and will then need to go on a main benefit or require emergency assistance from Work and Income. What it will do is put more pressure on our welfare system, at a time where we are seeing a record number of hardship grants.

So this almost feels like, for the people who will be put in hardship as a result of this bill, we are going to be putting them into a situation with added bureaucracy, at a time where, I think, all of us want to relieve that pressure off front-line Work and Income staff. So the Green Party cannot support this bill in good conscience for the effects that it will have in our communities. It is a step towards dismantling a scheme that actually has been really critical in reducing poverty rates. I would challenge people who say that the superannuation scheme is really generous at this time to look at the facts and the figures of the fact that quite a few senior citizens are now struggling financially. Not all of our people from the baby-boomer generation are wealthy individuals, as sometimes the media likes to portray—

Andrew Bayly: So what’s your solution?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —in fact, many people are really struggling right now. And I hear the contribution from the member in charge of the bill about what the solution is. Well, the solution is to continue investing in our safety net to tax the rich and ensure that we have a tax system that allows us to raise enough revenue so that we have a sustainable safety net. I don’t think that calling for taxing the rich in order to have a safety net that works for all of us is a radical thing. I think the fact that it is really making the members to my right annoyed speaks to the fact that, in fact, those are the sorts of solutions that the other side of the House should be, hopefully, looking at.

The New Zealand Superannuation scheme, I think, is a treasure to this country. Many countries around the world do not have a safety net that allows for senior citizens to be supported. I hope that, despite this bill likely passing—seeing as it seems to have the support of both sides of the House—we look to ensuring that our migrant communities are well supported, because what I also don’t want to see is negative health outcomes as a result of loss of income, seeing as we know that income is one of the most important determinants of health. For those migrant communities who will miss out on the superannuation and who may not have a lot of income support from the goodwill of their community or being able to access hardship grants, I would hate for their health to deteriorate faster, therefore needing to go to the doctor or to hospitals as a result of not having critical income, and that actually putting further costs on a system that is already under a lot of stress.

Taking steps to discriminate our migrant community, under the pretence of making our superannuation scheme fairer, is pure rhetoric, dog-whistle politics and, as per the Ministry of Social Development submission, not backed by facts and figures. We don’t stand by dog-whistle politics that discriminate against our communities, and so we cannot commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I rise in support of the fair residency bill, which is otherwise known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill.

What this bill does is it amends section 8 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. That Act is supervised by the Ministry of Social Development and Treasury. Section 8, in particular, that this bill proposes to amend is supervised by the Ministry of Social Development. When this bill goes through, the proposed start is for July 2022, in order to allow the ministry to be able to get the systems in place to administer it properly.

I’d like to talk about the history of this member’s bill and a bit of a discussion about fairness—because I note that Andrew Bayly spoke a lot about the figures but, actually, this is a bill about fairness, as are so many of the bills that come from this side of the House. I’d also like to talk about the select committee process, how we looked at fairness and also the impact on the ethnic communities—and, in particular, the refugee community—because in my Taieri electorate we have many refugees whom this bill could have impacted on, and so I’m really pleased with the process that happened in order to safeguard their interests.

Finally, I’d just like to make a comment about the select committee process with the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because I think, as has been alluded to by Mr Woodhouse, the bill did need a little bit of reworking and this is an example of a select committee process that has worked really well.

So just commending Mr Bayly for taking on the bill—but, actually, it was originally in the name of Mark Patterson and came into the House in 2018. Of course, as has been said this evening, Mark Patterson was a New Zealand First MP—in fact, a very good MP based in Lawrence, in my electorate. It wasn’t previously in my electorate; it is now. We got to know Mr Patterson really well when we were out campaigning, and what I saw was that he did a great job, even though he was a list MP, as being something of an electorate MP. So I would like to wish him well in his new role as the president of Federated Farmers in Otago. The reason I bring this up is because, when I first joined the select committee, I phoned Mark Patterson to find out the history of the bill to get a bit of context, and he was extremely helpful. So I know that in his role with Federated Farmers, that relationship will continue—even though, of course, our politics are very, very different.

As Mr Woodhouse alluded to, the bill did come into the House as a bit of a blunt tool, and it needed quite a few changes. I think the starting point is, really, to look at the name of the bill. It talks about “fair” and it talks about “residency”. If we look at what that means, we really need to look at what is fair for those people who have worked all their life here in New Zealand and contributed to the superannuation scheme, what is fair for them; also what is fair for those who come in a later stage or who may contribute in other ways, such as looking after grandchildren; and what is fair for people who, perhaps, have worked for a while in New Zealand, have left New Zealand and contributed to overseas economies, and then come back later in life.

These are all real questions and real situations and scenarios thrown up by the way that the legislation currently stands, because, currently, to qualify for New Zealand super you need to be a citizen or a resident, you need to be 65 or over, and you need to be over the age of 20, and then you can qualify after 10 years of residency—or after five years, if you are over the age of 50.

The problem that throws up is, for example, a migrant who is in New Zealand for 10 years and is able to get full superannuation—even though they may not really have contributed to this economy—or a New Zealand citizen who has left New Zealand at the age of 25 and has returned at the age of 60 and has worked for 35 years somewhere else overseas and contributed to another economy. What is fair in that situation?

As has been pointed out, we have an ageing population as well, so that’s put pressure on the system. It’s really called into question the integrity of the superannuation system. So we do need to do something in order to make it sustainable.

What we don’t want to do is to raise the level of eligibility, because that, simply, would not be fair. It has been done in Australia, up to the age of 67. Todd Muller—several National Party leaders ago—suggested he was going to do that. But if you look at the statistics about life expectancy for New Zealanders, the overall life expectancy for men in New Zealand is 80 and for women is 83.5. When you break that down though, Māori men can be expected to live to 73; Pasifika men, 75.5; Asian men, 85; and so on. So if you look at the differential, 85 years for an Asian man compared to 73 years average for a Māori man, how could it be fair to then raise the levels when already there is a benchmark that cuts across that has them on different playing fields to start with?

Just referring to those average ages—I think Greg O’Connor, my colleague, mentioned the ageing population—I was down in Kaitangata over the weekend celebrating a dedication to the Kaitangata cemetery, where, actually, New Zealand’s worst mining disaster happened many years ago. They’ve put up these incredible billboards that tell the history of Kai and include the name of many of the victims there. Not only were there young men killed in that mining accident but also people who just died from ordinary life circumstances, and it really struck me how young many of those people were when they passed away. So, really, it is a real issue for us that we have an ageing population. It’s a good issue to have, but we need to get our superannuation correct to deal with that.

When we look at the amount of money that we will be able to save, it’s about $162 million per year by the year 2041-2042. But, really, as I said before, this bill is about fairness. It allows people to phase in their planning, and it avoids the so-called cliff edges, which is when somebody reaches an age and they suddenly face a very different future in terms of their superannuation. As has been alluded to by my colleagues, the phasing in will make that be easier to plan for.

We had 362 submissions and 15 oral submissions, and most were around hardship, most were around the cliff edges, and, actually, the tone of those submissions would suggest that most people would have been satisfied if there was a more graduated approach to the changes to super.

I will note, contrary to what people may believe around migrants accessing superannuation, the vast majority of those accessing superannuation in New Zealand actually come from the UK—so that’s about 86,000 people. If you look at the next largest group, that’s China at 12,000.

I’m really pleased that we have made exceptions for the refugee community, as I mentioned, but also we have looked at the graduation and the unfair impact on some ethnic minorities, even though they are the smaller group, and that is because they tend to arrive in New Zealand when they’re older and they often don’t have social security treaties, like the UK people do. So even though they are the smaller group of people affected by our superannuation and by the changes, should we have those cliff edges, actually, the impact on them would be very unfair. In fact, the words used by many of those submitters were “unfair”, “unreasonable”, and “inhumane”.

I’d just like to commend them, actually, for the submissions they made, because some of them came from much older people for whom English was clearly a second language, and it was great to see that they had made the effort to put forward their views and also to remind us of the really important work that some of them do as grandparents, looking after grandchildren so that their children can contribute very ably to this economy. I’m reminded of Marilyn Waring’s work around Counting for Nothing and the fact that we need to be counting unpaid work when we look at issues of fairness and equity.

In my final comments, I’d just like to really say this was a fantastic select committee process to be on. I learnt firsthand what happens when there’s good advice from the officials and when there’s collegiality. We were able to consider fairness and come up with a changed regime but one that still reached a consensus when it came to agreeing on what was fairness, what was residency, and a system that is going to work into the future. I commend it to the House.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before the dinner break we were discussing New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill.

DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to support Mr Bayly’s bill and pay respect to Mr Patterson’s legacy–also, to my colleagues across the House in terms of their commitment to the bill, and also to the officials, who I think have done an excellent job on this bill.

The whole idea of the bill was to improve fairness of superannuation of people who have been resident and present in New Zealand, and who will benefit from having a substantive connection with New Zealand. The bill is also intended to contribute to the sustainability of superannuation. New Zealand’s superannuation system is one of the world’s most generous schemes. It’s one of the few pension schemes internationally that is given to everyone who fits the residency criteria. If you’re legally resident and you’ve lived here for 20 years after the age of 20, as we are proposing, it’s not means-tested or income tested. Other countries take a very different approach. Many rely on schemes that are based on compulsory contribution from wages and from employers. The State only ever steps in when those are left without enough.

Our system is fair and cost-effective, and New Zealand super payments are taxed where those in other schemes are not. At current rates it virtually singlehandedly pulls over-65-year-olds out of poverty and enables a basic standard of living and helps to offset residential care for older pensioners. To that effect, I don’t really understand the Green Party of New Zealand’s argument around why we shouldn’t have this.

The Ministry of Social Development showed that there were 774,651 people receiving super in March 2019. By 2060 the numbers are projected to be closer to 1.838 million. And by that stage, people over the current pension age will be 28.2 percent of the population, compared with 15.4 percent in 2018, which is a massive jump. In 1996, New Zealand spent $5 billion on New Zealand super, which has grown to $10 billion in 2021. And if you take a 2059 to 2060 view, it is a hundreds of billions of dollars issue. Superannuation currently costs an amount equal to 5 percent of GDP. At the ACT Party we believe any change to the law must be equitable for all, and its core must not provide uncertainty for retirement planning or reduce vulnerability, and it should not affect equity. The bill must contribute to the sustainability of super in New Zealand, which we believe it does.

There will be a big shift in the proportion of Government spending that goes to retirees as demographics dictate. Within the bill the transitional provisions are very important. We’ve had fellow speakers talk about the phased benefits by age matrix, which was a great piece of work by the officials, and, we believe, very fair.

One of the issues we do feel strongly about, and we agree with both sides of the House, is that the implementation period must not affect people’s planning. It should be equitable. For people who are in the 60-plus age group, it shouldn’t create any uncertainty. Therefore, we believe that a two- to five-year period is worthy of consideration. There’s a worry that too many New Zealanders who are approaching retirement years are in poor financial shape, and we tend to agree with that.

At a macro level, New Zealand super is sustainable over a 30-year period, but we believe now we’ve got some serious thinking to do. Unlike the Green Party we believe this is a start. We believe that it doesn’t limit any growth in income, and it does protect against poverty amongst older people. We’re particularly proud in this bill of the treatment of the Islands, of refugees, of people who have had uncertainty with regards to the COVID implications overseas, and also looking at the ability for veterans to be treated fairly.

One of the things that we do believe at the ACT Party is that in terms of super generally, as a standalone means of saving and superannuation as a second form of net, it is one of the most complex areas of confusion in the financial sector. We believe we should start thinking now over the 30-year period, because we believe it’s sustainable for the next 30 years but needs to have some radical change to meet future requirements. So, to that extent, we’re very proud to support the bill tonight, and we look forward to the next stage. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must say that was a thoughtful speech by Mr Smith of the ACT Party. It’s not often a Labour member can stand up and express pretty much wholehearted agreement with an ACT member’s speech, but I was heartened. I was heartened in many respects to hear the affirmation of taking into account of refugees and our Pacific neighbours as well, of course, as the intent of the bill itself. And I suppose it’s also worth noting that we don’t often divide starkly with the Greens on matters of social policy, but on this matter, we do.

I do think that in this respect, the Green Party have essentially mistaken the intent and purport of this bill because, you know, in my view and in the view of most members, I think, this is not a bill which is about to create some hardship. In fact, at select committee we were at pains to make sure that really there was no hardship. And I do want to recognise that given that a goodly number of our immigrants come from countries with either good pension arrangements, transportable pension arrangements generally, or with reciprocal arrangements with New Zealand in respect of pensions, the immigrants who are most significantly affected come from a narrow group of less-developed countries.

So, for example, we had some submissions from people from the Indian subcontinent and also from China. I did want to point out that we had a really good submission from a group of organisations, eight Chinese organisations—Albany Chinese Association, Blockhouse Bay Community Centre, Browns Bay Chinese Society, and several others representing the Chinese community. In fact, they were pretty supportive of the overall thrust of the bill. Now, they vigorously opposed the original drafting which would have seen it come in pretty much overnight, and quite rightly so.

I mean, I think at select committee we were all agreed that you couldn’t invite people into New Zealand on an expectation of having certain benefits conferred by the State, such as superannuation, and then all of a sudden kind of pull the rug out from under them and say, “Hang on, we’re changing it overnight.” That’s why we looked at the long, ultimately 20-year transition period. I think that is very fair.

The other submission that I put a lot of store on for a number of reasons was that by the Retirement Policy and Research Centre from the University of Auckland, not least because Susan St John was the submitter, and we know that Ms St John is well known for her advocacy in respect of poverty and hardship. Now, I don’t want to misrepresent that submission, because she very much tied the residency requirements with the transferability requirements of pensions, but in that submission, some really, really good points were made.

I think it is worth noting that the universality of New Zealand’s pension, superannuation, is really quite extraordinary. It’s not means-tested and it is universally available. Look, it is actually a treasure that we want to look after. Ms St John in her submission noted its comparative generosity. Now, it may not be up there with—and I don’t know the exact numbers—a Government employee’s pension in Germany or England, but they are not universal pensions. They are pensions which are made over a number of years of working for an agency or a Government department or whatever. But in terms of a universal pension, tagged to the average wage and increased accordingly, this is comparatively generous.

It was noted there that really there’s some big questions in there, and I think, in terms of the amount of the Government budget spent on superannuation that Mr Smith referred to, there is a question of intergenerational equity. Certainly, there’s a question about the degree to which it is appropriate, if ever, to borrow to pay superannuitants and then foist that burden on young people today who will be earning tomorrow. So we’ve got to be very cautious about that.

And, of course, our super fund is aimed at making sure that that doesn’t happen, that we don’t simply—

Angie Warren-Clark: Switched back on.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Switched back on by the Labour Government in 2017 when the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern hit the big button and put $500 million into it in the first few weeks of the first Labour Government here recently. So there is that intergenerational equity question.

But it’s also a question of fairness as well, and, as has been pointed out, the idea that someone might emigrate to New Zealand at, say, aged 63, which is the example used, never having paid any tax in New Zealand—I mean, quite possibly never would at the age of 63—and then after 10 years’ residency be entitled to national superannuation payment for the rest of their lives, and the numbers in this submission—I suggest people read it if they are interested—that is a huge benefit. So the average total amount paid to a superannuitant is $356,720 for a male or $458,640 for a female. That’s a very significant sum of money.

Now, whilst Mr Menéndez March can talk about the need to alleviate poverty, and we agree with that, the suggestion that a person can come to New Zealand and live here for a relatively short period of time and have a legitimate claim, a legitimate expectation, of being supported by the wider people of New Zealand—none of the submitters thought that was the case. They actually were pretty universal in saying, “Look we get it, but look we’ve got to plan. We’ve got to plan much better. It’s unfair to change the financial framework overnight.” So that’s in fact what the bill back before the House does. It has a very long additional 10-year transitional period, a stepped transitional period, that was in fact very well-thought-through.

I think it’s been a really good process, and I know there’s further discussion to be had. I know the Retirement Commissioner has additional views about when this bill should commence, and that’s probably a discussion for a little later on. I just would note as well that given, (a) the transitional period and, (b) the unusual circumstances we found ourselves in with COVID, the acuity of the problem is probably ameliorated somewhat because the amount of people coming to New Zealand in the kind of age bracket where they might expect superannuation in the next decade or two has fallen off considerably. But it’s worth noting that between 2015 and 2019 there were between 6,000 and almost 9,000 people in the over-60 age bracket coming to live in New Zealand. So that’s a lot of people that one way or another would have been—and that’s as residents, migrant arrivals. So that’s a lot of people who would have been looking at that.

Look, I think this is a really good piece of legislation, but coming back to the excellent speech by Mr Smith, really good to point out that not only have we got that still—

Damien Smith: Come across!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: It won’t happen again, don’t worry—ha, ha! But not only do we have this stepped transition but absolutely we took care. Anna Lorck was very good in committee—I think it was Anna Lorck, wasn’t it—who looked at the veterans, who really wanted us to look at the veterans and make sure that the interface with veterans pensions was right. We had a good examination of how it interfaced with COVID generally, but also our Pasifika neighbours, recognising that we’ve got a special duty and responsibility to Realm countries, and, of course, all of those other things in there as well. So a good piece of legislation. I absolutely commend this one to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call—I call Ian McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just before I get into a couple of issues that I want to talk about with respect to the bill, I wanted to congratulate the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the member concerned, because this bill came into this House, in my view, in no fit state to be sent forward, and I think the select committee have done a really good job of it. They’ve got it to a point where I think it’s fair and equitable and, given that we’ve heavily relied on immigration in New Zealand for hundreds of years almost, I think it’s essential that we don’t put those people who have come to New Zealand in good faith under a set of rules at a disadvantage to what they expected to get when they came here. I think the select committee and the member concerned have done a pretty good job of that and got it in the right space.

I just want to stick up for superannuitants for a moment, though, as I go through this. The last speaker, Duncan Webb, made a couple of mentions of the way the—the intergenerational stuff. I’ll point out to him that those of us who are, and there are a couple of us in the House that probably qualify, we’ve paid tax all our lives to get this blimmin superannuation, and I don’t care what the younger people think—ha, ha!—because, frankly, we paid that tax and they will pay their own tax for their own superannuation. So I don’t get this intergenerational stuff at all, I don’t accept it, and I think we should dismiss that from our mind.

The universality of it, I think it’s exceptional in New Zealand, and while it’s not means-tested—it is means-tested to some extent by the tax department, or the Inland Revenue, and so I’d make that point. But I just want to stick up for the superannuitants and what’s going on in New Zealand with the largesse of this current Government at the moment. If you look at superannuitants, I think some of us got a $15 a fortnight pay rise a little while ago, but we’ve seen much larger pay rises—and I’ve got no issue with the minimum wage, but we’ve seen much larger pay rises with respect to the minimum wage, the benefits, and those sort of things. Effectively, it’s left superannuitants, of whom almost 50 percent rely entirely on the superannuation to keep them alive at a time when we’ve got fixed costs dramatically rising for those people on fixed incomes—I think they are challenged by that.

I just want to put a word in for our superannuitants because I do think that, whilst this bill deals with one very small spectrum of the superannuation scheme, there are some real big challenges ahead of us for our superannuitants and the way that we ensure they have a life ahead of them.

I just want to add one point, with respect to superannuitants: most of us were too late for KiwiSaver, and I think KiwiSaver’s the best thing that’s ever happened to us. I’m, of course, old enough to remember a particular Prime Minister getting rid of the superannuation schemes that were started by a previous Government, and I was actually a member of that—I wish I’d kept my superannuation, I probably would have been quite well off now. So it is a bit of a challenge, and I think that we need to be very careful how we manage that, going forward.

You see the country, as I said, has relied entirely on our immigrants—or to a large extent on our immigrants—to grow our economy in the last, probably, large number of years really, right back, probably, to the Second World War. So it’s essential that we don’t discourage those sorts of people from coming to New Zealand, and people who want to come here, build a life in New Zealand, and certainly help improve our economy.

So I think this bill has got to a state that’s pretty good from our perspective—well, from a New Zealand perspective, it’s pretty good as well. I’ve got no further thing to say on it other than to support it as it goes through the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real delight to stand tonight. First, before I commence my speech in regards to this second reading, I want to just have a bit of a shout-out to my favourite superannuitant at the moment, Harry Hudson, a wonderful man: built his own yacht, sailed around the world, fabulous builder, taught me how to fish, and is having his second night in respite care, and I know that he’s watching from home. So hello, Harry. Good to see you, and I hope you’re not telling those nurses too many tales of your past.

It’s a real pleasure to take this split call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I understand that there were 362 submissions but 15 oral submissions. Even though I’m not a member of that select committee—the Finance and Expenditure Committee, ably chaired by my colleague Dr Duncan Webb—I do know that the sheer number of submissions, and the number of people speaking to this, have been quite significant. I understand, as well, that this second reading finds the bill with some really significant changes from the originating draft. I do have to just acknowledge my previous colleague from the 52nd Parliament, Mark Patterson. He brought the bill to the House. It did need a lot of work, I understand, but I do want to acknowledge Andrew Bayly for picking this bill up and for carrying it through, and the select committee, who have worked really hard to come to a solution that is just, a solution that’s fair for all.

This outcome of this bill, though, is quite relevant for the select committee that I chair, which is the Social Services and Community Committee, which superannuation and veterans fall under. So I was very interested to participate in this debate tonight. As noted by the other speeches, the residential change from 10 to 20 years without any kind of process, or transitional arrangements, was going to be extremely harsh, and it was likely to affect some people for up to 10 years. As we know, and people have said this tonight, people make plans. They know what their entitlement might be and they make their plans regarding that, and so they would find themselves in quite a lot of hardship. So I think that it has been a really interesting process to come to the step change process around payments. So it’s phased, and I thought that that was quite interesting. It’s phased through a period based on your birth date. So currently, as I understand it, as of 30 June 2021, people over 64 must have residential requirement of 10 years. So those who turn 65 on or after 1 July 2040 would need to meet the full 20 years. So it’s a step, it’s a transition and it’s a step and it is very fair.

There was some conversation around Realm countries: Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, as well as refugees and protected persons. Both groups being treated differently is really important, I believe, because of their different circumstances.

Finally, I would just like to make a special mention of the officials and drafters in this bill. Something unusual has happened in this little piece of legislation, and that is that there are diagrams included in the bill. So I just wanted to acknowledge that it’s actually a very sensible way of explaining the circumstances of this legislation for clarity’s sake. I just wanted to make mention of it, and with that I commend this bill to the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): It’s good to be able to take a call on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill, a bill that came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which I was a member of. I’d like to thank the member who is sponsoring this bill, Andrew Bayly—who picked up this bill from the previous member Mark Patterson of New Zealand First—both for his constructiveness during the select committee and his flexibility with some of the changes that we’ve made. I’d like to take the time to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, and her Ministry of Social Development (MSD) officials for their advice. I believe this bill would not be in its workable form had we not had their input. For any members who have actually picked the bill up off the Table today, it evidences how much input the officials had, because there was only the title and the commencement clause that have survived the select committee phase. That’s how much this bill has changed during the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

The bill as introduced seeks to change the residence requirements from 10 to 20 years. As introduced, the new requirement would also apply from the date of Royal assent, which has not changed. In the first reading, Mark Patterson spoke of the history of the current 10-year threshold. He noted that the current 10-year threshold came into law in 1938, when life expectancy for men was 65 and for women was 68. He also spoke of his intentions for this bill. His belief was—and I quote—“… New Zealanders, those that have been out of the country for extended periods, contributing to other economies, and recent immigrants to be able to receive the same benefits upon turning 65 as those of us that have been here doing the hard yards at home, paying our taxes, and contributing to our economy.” The member currently sponsoring the bill has also spoken tonight of the generosity of our current scheme.

To me and for many members who have spoken before me, this all points to fairness. Therefore the policy mischief that the Finance and Expenditure Committee sought to respond to, for me, was covered in three key questions: one, whether having been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years is too short a period for entitlement to New Zealand superannuation; the second question is whether an increase in residency requirements would contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand’s superannuation; and, three, whether an increase in residence requirements would contribute to the fairness of New Zealand’s super for people who have contributed to New Zealand for longer. I’ll come back to these three policy questions.

Our belief, on this side of the House, has guided us through that whole select committee process. Around 832,000 people receive New Zealand super or the veterans pension. We want to secure the future of New Zealand’s super on this side of the House. That’s why we resumed the contributions to the super fund when we came back into Government in 2017. The failure to invest under previous Governments, we believed, put the retirement plans of Kiwis at risk. We’re also keeping the age of superannuation eligibility at 65 years. Lifting the age of eligibility, we believe on this side of the House, would have unfairly disadvantaged some groups in society more than others—for example, life expectancy varies for people of different ethnicities. New Zealand Māori and Pacific people have lower life expectancy versus non-Pacific and non-Māori. Also, life expectancy also varies depending on what you do and where you work; so, for blue collar workers—the plumbers, the builders—versus white collar, which is people that work in businesses or in offices.

So, going to the changes to the bill at select committee, any changes to entitlement rules for superannuation—and, in fact, benefits or entitlements in general—have to be considered very carefully. And, again, the work that MSD officials put into this bill has meant that the changes that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is recommending removes the very sharp cliff face that the bill as introduced would have had—which leads me to one of the main changes in the bill that has been spoken about tonight, which is the phased increase by birth date.

Now, we heard it from many submitters who were concerned about the lack of transitional arrangements in the bill. I wanted to actually refer to a particular group of submitters which my colleague and member Dr Duncan Webb also referred to, which was the Browns Bay Chinese society. Now, their submission stood out for me. They were incorporated in 2007 and they have around 170 active members. I quote from parts of their submission: “The bill is totally lack of considerations about its possible negative impacts on the wellbeing of a portion of the older population. … Although it looks rather simple, the change this bill proposes is far from trivial. In fact the propose[d] changes would affect many New Zealanders in both short term and long term, and there are many open questions and concerns about the scope of the change and measures the bill should take to make the change fair and balanced.”

They go to, on page 4 of their submission, some recommendations as to how to fix that cliff face. In particular, I quote recommendation three, in clause 4, that you amend proposed section 8. They provide a really great table, which has year of birth, the year of age or residency granted, and the minimum residency qualification. They finish their submission with “We hope the Select Committee could give serious consideration to our comments and recommendations.” Well, I’d like to be able to say tonight to the Browns Bay Chinese Society that that’s exactly what we’ve done. What we’ve realised is that, almost overnight, with the bill as introduced, people could be faced with substantial delays of up to 10 years before they were eligible for superannuation.

To mitigate this risk, we introduced the longer residence requirement through a phased increase by birth date, as set out in new clause 4 of the bill, which, funnily enough, looks very similar to the table that was provided to us by the Browns Bay Chinese Society! There was just a slight change, because they proposed that the bill should commence in four years’ time, not at the date of Royal assent. But that, to me, proves how good the select committee process can be, when (1) you have members across the particular tables in that select committee work together, and (2) you have really considered, well-advanced submissions. So, again, thank you to the Browns Bay Chinese Society, because your submission was very convincing, and it is shown in the bill that’s on the Table tonight.

The last particular part of the bill that I do want to talk to speaks to me as a member of our Labour Pasifika caucus, our 10-member strong Labour Pasifika caucus, and that’s in relation to the Realm countries. The other key changes in the bill are the modifications for our Realm countries of the Cook Islands, of Niue, and of Tokelau. Now, we know, as Pacific members, that there were recent changes to the superannuation and veterans pension schemes to allow people to migrate to New Zealand’s Realm countries—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau—before they turn 65 and still receive superannuation. For someone to be eligible, migrating to a Realm country, then they still have to have been resident and present in New Zealand for at least 10 years since the age of 20.

The policy intention behind those super and veterans pension changes was to help the Realm countries’ efforts against depopulation. For a lot of our Realm countries, the people were coming to New Zealand and staying here. This was one way for the Government to be able to recognise that, actually, going back to your homeland is a good thing, and I know many of our retirees from the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau have been able to enjoy that superannuation that comes with going back home. So the committee was concerned that this amendment would incentivise people to not return to their homelands, and we believed that it was contrary to the policy intention to help prevent depopulation within the Realm countries. So, therefore, we have put in some exemptions, or some rule changes, around that as part of the bill, in section 8 of the Act. The select committee also recommended modifications for refugees and protected persons, which is why, again, I thank the members of the select committee for coming to that point, and it is disappointing that the Greens were not accepting of this particular change.

So, going back to those three key policy questions that I believe the Finance and Expenditure Committee had to address: (1) whether having been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years is too short a period for entitlement to New Zealand super—we believe that the bill as proposed, the revised tracked version, yes, 10 years is too short; (2) whether an increase in residency requirements would contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand super—although not a primary consideration, yes, we do believe the changes that we’ve put in the revised tracked version of the bill do contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand’s super, but also, again, the contributions that we’ve restarted, under the previous Government, to the super fund are extremely important there too; and (3) whether an increase in residence requirements contributes to the fairness of New Zealand super for people who have contributed in New Zealand for longer—that’s pretty much a no-brainer, based on the revised version of the bill.

Increasing the residence requirements for New Zealand super is about improving fairness, because of longer- and shorter-term New Zealand residents, and it safeguards the future of superannuation. The current residence requirements ensures that almost all New Zealanders are protected in our older age, and so I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): This is one of those bills that actually does this Parliament proud, because it does something that I think members around the House will agree we’re often asked to do by our constituents, and that is, “Why don’t you all work together to do a good job from time to time? Why don’t you collaborate? Why don’t you come together and pass good law?” And this is a really good example of that.

It’s a bill that has many fathers and a few mothers, and is all the better for it. Of course, it was borne of a policy position, a principled policy position, that has been held across a number of parties, including the National Party, that would ensure fairness in terms of eligibility to New Zealand superannuation and would ensure the sustainability of that scheme. It was originally introduced to the Parliament by former New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson, who I enjoyed many hours on the Education and Workforce Committee with, and then it was kindly adopted by Andrew Bayly, a National Party member, as his bill on the commencement of this Parliament and in Mark Patterson’s absence.

It was then dealt with through a very constructive and robust select committee process where submitters raised their concerns and were given a very good hearing. What we heard from many submitters was that they were concerned that this was a very abrupt policy change and that it was introducing a 20-year residency requirement for eligibility for New Zealand superannuation that would create massive dislocation and impact on large groups of New Zealanders and was viewed as very unfair. The Finance and Expenditure Committee all could see that that was a genuine issue and strove to address it through the transition provisions that are in this bill. As other members have discussed, coming up with that transition regime was not straightforward. I believe even Dr Duncan Webb, a former legal professor, asked for a few explanations of exactly how and why it was worded the way it was. So to those who are later negotiating with this piece of legislation, we were pleased to be able to add some diagrams and tables to make it a little more interesting. Even the English language has limits when it comes to complex matters such as this. The select committee was able, I think, to amend the bill in a way that means it keeps to its core principles but that also ensures fair transition arrangements.

So, together, parties across the House have worked effectively on this legislation. There are two things about it that are important to me. The first is that superannuation is actually a New Zealand taonga that is very important, and it is something that we must ensure remains affordable and remains sustainable. We, as lawmakers, have a particular responsibility to look at the policy settings around superannuation to ensure that remains the case. This bill progresses that ideal.

The second thing that I think it’s important that we put on the record here, and that I think is reflected in the way this bill has been dealt with, is that actually New Zealand must value those who come to our country from overseas. We must value our immigrant population. We must remain open to the world, connected to the world, and we must recognise that those who choose to take permanent residency in this country or to take up citizenship deserve rights and also duly take on responsibilities. So part of that is ensuring that they are able to access superannuation after 20 years of residency, but we also must recognise—that concept of fairness—that those who work hard in New Zealand throughout their lives do have an expectation that others fulfil residency before accessing New Zealand superannuation. This bill furthers both of those principles. It is a good bill that deals with some technical issues and does so well. I would like to commend it to the House and commend all of those who have helped make it a better piece of legislation.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise tonight to take the last call on the second reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin by acknowledging the former member Mark Patterson, who drafted this bill, and Andrew Bayly for picking this bill up and bringing it through the House. I’d also like to acknowledge the work that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has done on this bill, because, although I don’t sit on that committee, I understand that when this bill was introduced, it was more of a vibe as opposed to something concrete and understandable. So I think the bill that we are now debating tonight before us has come a long way, and it strikes a balance that ensures that we’re looking after people in a fair and reasonable way.

I also want to acknowledge Minister Carmel Sepuloni and her officials because, again, their input speaks volumes in the bill that we have before us tonight. My final thankyou is to the more than 300 people who took the time to submit on this bill, to share their stories, to provide advice and information to the committee. As we heard from my colleague Barbara Edmonds, this bill is an example of how individuals and groups and communities can have input into this process and see meaningful results come from that.

So this bill proposes to raise the minimum residency qualification for New Zealand superannuation from 10 years to 20 years. It would ensure that a resident has lived in New Zealand for a substantial part of their adult life, which means that they will have also contributed through taxes to our economy for a substantial part of their adult lives here. Here in Aotearoa, we have, by international standards, a fairly generous pension scheme. It’s not means-tested and it’s universal. However, when you look across the globe at other comparable schemes, residing in a country for 10 years is an unusually short period of time to then become eligible for a full entitlement to a universal superannuation scheme at the age of 65. On average, we are seeing life expectancies lengthen, so it is possible that there are instances where an individual will be receiving their pension entitlement for longer than the period that they contributed to it for, and this creates an anomaly. It raises legitimate questions about the fairness of the current settings in the superannuation Act. This proposed bill would contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand’s superannuation and it would address some of those fairness issues that I have raised.

I’d also like to note at this point that there are a significant number of New Zealanders who work in highly stressful or highly physical jobs who have lower than average life expectancies. I’ve seen that firsthand in the prison service, where a number of corrections officers who my dad worked with, who I knew growing up through my childhood, passed away before they reached the age of retirement, before they were old enough to collect their first pension payment, yet most, if not all of them, had contributed to the superannuation scheme for the vast majority of their working lives. My dad was 54 when he died after working in the prison service for over 30 years and prior to that he worked in the forestry service. So for close to 40 years, he paid his taxes; he contributed to our economy, to our communities, and to the superannuation scheme; yet he did not receive any benefits from it.

Like I said, he and a number of his colleagues didn’t get to reap the benefits of this system that they spent years contributing to. So the suggestion from across the House that we heard earlier tonight that the solution to the affordability of our superannuation system is to raise the age of eligibility does not sit well with me. That is why I say that there is a fairness issue here and I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate this in the House tonight. How is it fair when someone has spent their full entire working lives contributing to a system that they don’t get to reap the benefits from, yet someone living here for 10 years could receive the full entitlement for longer than they spent contributing to that system?

It’s also been noted by my colleagues, and I want to remind those listening at home too, that the reason we’re having discussions about the affordability of our superannuation scheme is because the previous National Government chose to stop contributions to the super scheme. That means that the cost of that decision again falls to my generation to wear the burden of it. I want to commend several of the recommendations that have come from the select committee. The first is for suggesting a change which acknowledges the special relationship that New Zealand has with the Realm countries: the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and Niue. I think it’s really important that we acknowledge that relationship. The second change I want to acknowledge is the changes that were proposed around refugees and protected persons. I support this recommendation because it recognises that refugees have no say in where they go or when they go. I can’t begin to imagine what it would be like to be forced from your home, from your job, from your life as you knew it, to flee in fear of your life, so I commend this change. The third change I want to acknowledge tonight is the change to implement this in a graduated way over a number of years. I think this is an important change when you consider the original version of this bill pre - select committee didn’t protect the current or existing entitlements and it didn’t have any lead-in time proposed whatsoever. So the fact that this will now be transitioned in over a number of years is excellent. It gives people transparency and the ability to plan ahead.

Finally, I want to finish by acknowledging the contributions that our migrant communities make to Aotearoa every day. We have many wonderful and diverse cultures, including in my own electorate. They’ve come to New Zealand and they’ve shared their culture with us, their customs, their food, their dress, their music, and even their language. I would like put on record that I am grateful for their contributions. I am grateful to the vibrancy that they bring our communities. But this bill is about fairness, it’s about securing the future of New Zealand superannuation, and as somebody who is still more than 30 years away from reaching the current age of eligibility I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill, for people listening in, is a member’s bill that was originally to amend the Education Act, but has subsequently been changed, and the idea is to improve students’ access to second-language learning in primary and intermediate schools. It would enable the Minister of Education to issue a national language policy and it would also allow regulations to specify a list of, at least, 10 national priority languages—a list of 10 which must include te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language. If this bill was passed, State primary and intermediate school boards would need to develop, adopt, and maintain a priority language programme in their schools, after consulting with the school community. Boards would have to choose at least one language from the list of national priority languages and arrange for that to be taught at their school—they could choose more. The bill would require the Government to allocate money for schools for the costs associated with teaching a second language through the normal Budget cycle. The bill would also require the Minister to report on the effectiveness of the priority languages programme. We think it is a great bill.

I just want to start by acknowledging the member who introduced the bill, the Hon Nikki Kaye, who has since left. Nikki Kaye put her heart and soul into this bill. She fought hard for it. She was a member of Parliament with very strong beliefs. She was determined that New Zealand kids would have access to the enormous cognitive, cultural, social, and economic benefits that come from having the opportunity to learn a second language in those early years of education. As most people would be aware, at most secondary schools we have the opportunity to learn different languages, but at primary and intermediate schools it is much more mixed—certainly, I didn’t learn any at my primary and intermediate school. So Nikki Kaye fought very hard for this. She managed to convince the Minister Chris Hipkins for Labour to support this at first reading, and Nikki Kaye certainly had an indefatigable style about her argumentation. She was like a dog at a bone with these issues and she fought very hard for this bill. In fact, her basic style was to hammer away so that people would eventually give in to whatever she was arguing for, just to get her to stop, and it was quite effective. I’m sure she applied that technique on the Minister. I was glad that he gave us the opportunity for this to be considered.

So the first reading was passed. It went off to the Education and Workforce Committee, and there was very considerable support for this bill at the select committee stage. We saw the many, many submitters from an enormous variety of backgrounds coming in, excited about the possibility that a language from their culture—whether it is Punjabi or Tamil or Samoan or Tagalog or Korean or a whole bunch of languages, they all came up with very convincing arguments as to why their language should be one of the 10.

Now, the worrying thing is that members on the other side—Labour—indicated during the select committee process that they no longer support the bill and, indeed, want to kill it. My hope is that the Minister will take a much more considered view and reconsider that and maybe even find it in his heart to support it at the second reading and continue the conversation about any changes that could be made at the Supplementary Order Paper level, at the next level, in order to get this piece of legislation through. I’m desperately sorry for Nikki Kaye that we appear to have missed an opportunity to equip our children at our schools with the opportunity to learn a second language, particularly given that we are in Chinese Language Week this week and we’ll have lots of discussions about that.

At my local primary school in Auckland, around 50 percent—and I’m not exaggerating: 50 percent—of the new entrants at our school do not have English as their first language; they are mainly Mandarin speakers. Our education system is proving to be brilliant at bringing in kids that are multilingual—or have the potential to be multilingual—and churning them out as monolingual English speakers at the end. That’s a real missed opportunity. I can certainly understand why parents of those Chinese-speaking kids would be very keen for their children to have the opportunity at school to continue learning their language in order to bed it in so that they can continue on in life as multilingual or bilingual speakers. There are many other cultures in our city in that case. But apparently that is not to be the case.

It seems to me that the situation we’re facing is, as one submitter put, that “the perfect is the enemy of the good”. By that, they meant that the opposition to the bill seems to look at the broad situation in New Zealand and conclude that te reo Māori is the absolute priority and, until everybody in this country is bilingual in that, we shouldn’t be looking further afield, effectively. I’d be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this topic. I think that is a mistake. Fundamentally, our party comes from one of choice. Nothing in this bill takes away the existing obligation on schools to ensure that all schools have teaching in te reo Māori and tikanga Māori available and makes best endeavours to achieve that. So every child, in theory, should have access to an element of that. It is a separate question to decide: “Well, do you want to study, in depth, that particular language through your primary and intermediate school years?” The reality of the situation is that some will and some won’t. There will be children from many cultural backgrounds, in particular, who would be more engaged and more interested in picking up their language as a second language, and they are not going to have the choice if that carries on, and I think that would be a pity.

So if we looked at some of the submissions—and there were many, many; the Asia New Zealand Foundation made some very strong points—it is a remarkable fact that, in the last decade, the number of children in our school learning Asian languages has decreased by 29 percent. So there is nearly 30 percent fewer children in our schools learning Asian languages than there were a decade ago, and at a time when we are trading more with Asia, our economy depends on trade with our region, with our neighbours, and in an era where we will face the reality of China being an enormously powerful country over the next few decades—and, at that time, we are turning inwards rather than outwards and looking out to the rest of the world. I think that is a tragedy and it is a real missed opportunity. As a result of that, we sometimes forget that we do have neighbours and that we can learn about them and their cultures and learn to communicate with them and trade with them and understand where they come from.

So here we are at a time when everybody across the House agrees—it appears to me—that the discipline of learning a second language is a good idea, useful, and something we should support, but we are faced with a Government that says, “Yes, but that second language has to be te reo Māori, and if this bill doesn’t achieve that”—which it doesn’t, because it provides choice—“then we’ll not support that.” It was summed up to me by one of the ministry officials who said, “The problem with this bill is that it offers schools and parents an open-ended choice, when what they really need is a guided choice as to what they should learn.” That struck me as a rather Orwellian way to go about education policy. I do hope that the Minister reconsiders in the next few minutes. Thank you very much.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, and I too want to begin by acknowledging the bill’s original sponsor, the Hon Nikki Kaye, who, as Paul Goldsmith so eloquently put, harassed me into agreeing to support the bill at first reading. I did so with a good degree of enthusiasm but with also some concerns about the bill.

Let me talk about the enthusiasm first. Ultimately, I understand completely how important language is to everybody throughout the country but also, particularly, to those communities where English is a second language for them and where they want their young people to grow up with access to what has been their primary language. I absolutely understand how very significant that is. I understand, and the Government understands, how important te reo Māori is to our Māori communities, but actually to the wider New Zealand community, and how important it is that we foster and cultivate te reo Māori as a language in New Zealand. We have not done a good job of that in our recent past, and we need to do better. I want to acknowledge the many Pacific communities who have indicated and expressed their passion for their languages and their desire to see them better represented within our education system, and I also acknowledge the importance and the special role that we have in New Zealand in protecting the Realm languages—those for the Realm countries—and I acknowledge that.

Language is intrinsic to who we are, and, therefore, it is important that people see their language represented in learning. But there are wider benefits to language than just that. There are actually cognitive benefits in learning a second language. People who learn a second language tend to do better in their first language than they otherwise would have done. It can help with things like long-term problem solving. There are really good studies that demonstrate the benefits of second language learning. So Mr Goldsmith is absolutely correct that the Government completely supports the objectives of this bill.

When we approach this topic, though, it’s worth remembering we’re not starting from scratch. There is second language learning happening in our schools at the moment. So if we just take last year as an example, there were 126,000 enrolments in years 1 to 8—primary and intermediate years—for students learning a language other than English or te reo Māori. To give a breakdown of those, 54,700 of those were enrolments in Asian languages—these are Asian languages at the primary and intermediate school level—49,400 were in European languages, 7,900 were in Pacific language—I have to confess that was lower than I thought, in terms of Pacific languages—and around 14,300 were other languages. These are all second languages. There are a further 176,500 year 1 to 8 children—primary and intermediate aged children—who are learning te reo Māori either as a second language or as their primary language of instruction through our Māori-medium settings. Already, more than 15 different languages are offered in our primary and intermediate schools, so it’s not correct to say that we haven’t already made a start as a country. We are doing language learning. There can be more of it, and we should certainly be focused on that.

But I want to turn now to the concerns that I raised when the bill was introduced. I had many conversations with the Hon Nikki Kaye about these, because they’re not insurmountable challenges. But, unfortunately, the bill that we have before us in the House today doesn’t deal with these issues.

First and foremost, I have to say—as the Minister responsible, should this bill pass, with implementing it—there’s no reference whatsoever to the very significant resourcing implications of this. We could not pass this bill in good conscience knowing that the education system would not be able to deliver. We would passing a law that the education system would not have the capacity or the capability to adhere to, and that is one of the fundamental problems with the bill. So we need to have a pathway. If we want to improve language learning in our schools, we must put in place a pathway that leads us there. It is not going to happen simply by Parliament passing a law.

We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars in extra funding. We’re going to need to be strategic about that. We’re going to need to make sure that we’ve got the workforce in place who are able to deliver on the commitments. This bill is completely silent on those issues. No consideration appears to have been given by the member currently sponsoring it to how those issues might be addressed, and that is, realistically, a big stumbling block to being able to pass the legislation in its current form.

It also doesn’t consider the language learning pathway through a student’s life. While it focuses on primary and intermediate school levels, it doesn’t then consider the language learning pathway through secondary education. I think it would be wrong to say to young people in a primary school that they could undertake language learning which they then couldn’t continue in secondary schooling because we just haven’t thought that far ahead. Actually, if we’re going to do something like this as a Parliament, we have to actually make sure it’s coherent, it’s well-thought-out, and it’s well structured. This bill does not do that, unfortunately.

It doesn’t recognise that te reo Māori has special significance in New Zealand, and that is a flaw with the bill, and it also doesn’t recognise the importance of Pacific languages and the Realm languages in particular. So those are weaknesses.

I want to recognise the recommendation of the select committee that the House not proceed with the bill and instead propose the development of a national languages strategy. I think that provides the opportunity to take this debate forward, to take forward the very many positive submissions put forward at select committee—the very heartfelt and passionate submissions asking for more action in this area. We can take those forward with the development of a national languages strategy, and that is exactly what this Government is going to do. So I have already asked the Ministry of Education to start working on that, to ensure that we develop the strategy, in consultation with parents, teachers, schools, and communities, so that people can continue to have their say on this, they can continue to express those views, and so that we can work through the very many issues that this process, unfortunately, was not able to address.

That can also deal with issues like the place of the Realm languages and other Pacific languages in New Zealand. It can deal with issues like the capacity and the capability of the teaching workforce to be able to deliver on it. It can deal with the debates, like how prescriptive we want to be in our curriculum around which languages schools should offer and how we guide school’s decisions about this. Simply putting another burden on schools without giving them the resources—and by resources I’m not just talking money; I’m talking other resources—to be able to actually grapple with that, that wouldn’t be right, it wouldn’t be fair, and we can deal with that through the development of the languages strategy. That will align with the work that my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti is doing around the refresh of the New Zealand curriculum, so I think the development of the languages strategy is the way to take this forward.

The Government is not opposing this bill because we’re opposed to the concept of second language learning; we are absolutely very, very supportive of that, we absolutely recognise the views that were put forward by submitters, and we do want to see this work progressed. The bill itself is flawed. It doesn’t provide a platform that is implementable. It doesn’t consider the resourcing issues that passing the bill would throw up, and they are not insignificant. They are hundreds of millions—not quite $4 billion, but hundreds of millions—of dollars that would have to go into implementing this. No consideration of that has been given.

I want to acknowledge, again, both of the members. The Hon Nikki Kaye, I think did put her heart and soul into this legislation and into the topic and into the portfolio, in fact. I had a good working relationship with her in the time that she was the Opposition spokesperson for education, and I want to thank her for that and thank her for the work that she has done there. I want to acknowledge the current member in charge of the bill. I won’t let the fact that he just now did an absolutely dreadful speech introducing the second reading of the bill dissuade me from the fact that it still has a lot of merit and that the topic, in fact, is one that is worthy of taking forward. I certainly hope that we can continue to progress these debates. I know the member will be disappointed that the Government’s not supporting the bill, but I hope that he will continue to engage constructively—maybe start engaging constructively, given that he hasn’t actually spoken to me about the bill at all since he took over the sponsorship of it—with the Government on the topic, because I do think that there is common ground that we can find here. I do think we can take forward the issue around getting more language learning happening in schools. I think there would be huge educational benefits for all of our tamariki, and, if we can continue to progress that, then certainly the Government is keen to take that forward.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take what will be a short call on the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. I say “a short call” because it’s obvious where this bill is going tonight, and that is that it will not proceed.

But I would like to start by acknowledging Nikki Kaye and the incredible work she did around this bill and the fact that she started the conversation—through her unique way of doing that, she got us all to this point where we are now talking, and the Minister of Education is now talking, about a national languages strategy. That is something that would not be under way if it wasn’t for the very tenacious Nikki Kaye, so we owe her a huge debt of gratitude.

I was looking back over her first reading speech, and she acknowledged in that speech that the bill wasn’t perfect. She knew that there were flaws in the bill, and she had hoped that some of those things would be able to be ironed out through the select committee process and via working with the Minister. But, as it turned out at select committee, some of those things were insurmountable and not able to be worked through. In fact, I would actually argue that there wasn’t much appetite to actually work through those issues collegially. It was very apparent quite early on, in fact, in the select committee that this bill wasn’t going to stand a chance.

But, in saying that, I would like to thank all of the submitters who came. They were incredibly passionate about the languages that they came to represent. My favourite submitter was—I forget his name—the man who came to talk to us about Latin. Never had I wanted to learn Latin so much in my entire life than after listening to that man and his particularly passionate speech about Latin.

What this has done, though, has made us all think about the incredible benefits of learning a second language in terms of brain development, cultural competency, and economic impact with the business and trade links that open up to us if we speak multiple languages. If you think about every other country in the world, or most other countries in the world, they offer second languages, in fact, many countries offer more than one language. And if you look at countries like the UK, who have just adopted this within the last decade, we are certainly far behind those other countries. We had with this bill, I guess, a really wonderful opportunity to give our youngest learners—our year 1 to 8s—the opportunity to develop parts of their brains that they wouldn’t otherwise have the opportunity to do, by learning a second language, learning about other people’s cultures, and opening their minds to the world.

We heard from the ministry that their view was that the bill wasn’t consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, and we did point out that this didn’t take away from the things that already exist. School boards have to make best efforts to have te reo Māori and tikanga Māori in their schools—it didn’t take away that, it just added something extra on top. We have to remember that in reality, most schools would have chosen te reo Māori, around the country, and would have been funded for that. So the fact that we’re not passing this bill tonight is really taking away a huge amount of benefit to the Māori language and the fact that it won’t be able to be funded in that way, and so we go back to what we already have.

The bill, although it had flaws—and the Minister mentioned some of those, and we weren’t able to work through those—has returned unchanged. It did have some quite good parts to it in that it required school boards to consult with their communities and to make sure that they selected a priority language that was in keeping with the wishes of their community and their parents. As I said, most schools would have chosen te reo Māori, I believe.

So while we’re not progressing with this bill, I’d like to reiterate what I said at the start, which is that we now are at a much more progressed state than we were before Nikki Kaye fought so hard for this bill. I was encouraged by the Minister’s words in his speech about how much he values the learning of a second language for our youngest learners and he fact that he has got the ministry doing work on that is extremely encouraging. I think that if Nikki Kaye is watching or goes back and watches these speeches, she will feel encouraged and proud that she started the conversation and that work is under way that would not have been under way, and that work would not have been done if it was not for her efforts—incredible efforts—in this area. So, Nikki, well done, and we will keep fighting. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I’d firstly like to acknowledge the member across the House the Hon Paul Goldsmith for his enthusiasm—almost four months too early to acknowledge Chinese Language Week, but it’s great that you understand the importance of these weeks to lifting the profile of language learning in this country, so ni hao. I just want to start by going to The New Zealand Curriculum, because it’s a critical part of how we address the challenges that have quite rightly been brought to this House. “Ko tōu reo, ko tōku reo, te tuakiri tangata. Tīhei uriuri, tīhei nakonako. Your voice and my voice are expressions of identity. May our descendants live on and our hopes be fulfilled.” Ambitious words from Te Ao Māori in our New Zealand Curriculum. I think these really help us.

I think everybody’s already talked about the why; the why is actually quite easy. Again, like the other speakers before me, I acknowledge the communities and the individuals and the professionals who came and submitted—the more than 130 who made written submissions and the dozens who turned up to share their experiences and their knowledge with us. As far as the why, a few things stood out to me. The New Zealand Sikh Youth community came and eloquently talked to us about intercommunal integration—that language connects us with our own culture and with each other. We heard from professionals who really clearly understand about identity, engagement, and wellbeing when language is included in our curriculum. We heard from a parent who talked about her children feeling at home and settled if they felt acknowledged through their language being acknowledged. The Punjabi women’s association from Wellington talked about improving ethnic cohesion and their opportunity to change public perceptions of second language speakers so that New Zealanders will cease to experience the “Speak English” challenge on the bus or in the supermarket. The why is easy.

So what is happening? How are we rising to this challenge? Because it is absolutely appropriate that our Minister of Education has a very significant role to play in this, nationally. So what is happening? We already heard from the Minister about the numbers of students engaged and the numbers of languages being engaged with in schools. We were told by schools that they can already explore any language, and you see it happening, and well. They told us it’s because they’ve got access to resources, not because they’ve been made to do it.

I just need to reflect for a moment. I need to acknowledge a fabulous little school down the road in Te Aro, and I need to share with the House the experiences, as a member of that school community for a few years, of their commitment to their students, from day one right through to the end of year 8, learning Mandarin and Chinese culture—not just language but calligraphy and art, celebrating New Year—because they had support from the Asia New Zealand Foundation and from the Ministry. We also got to experience Matariki—not just te reo, but the wonderful celebrations and rituals that have been brought from Te Ao Māori. Alongside that was their ability to nurture first languages, home languages, heritage languages, so their students felt included and knew that they were valued. But that required commitment from the community to bring the experts in and support the teachers in what they were trying to do, to support and engage their students.

The Post Primary Teachers’ Association told us the desire, the will, is absolutely there to improve the provision—we know why—but that provision isn’t everywhere. We need to look, again, to our submitters, to work out what it is we need to do to improve the situation. Again, like the other speakers, I need to reflect on the fact the intent of the bill is a very solid one: it is to make it easier for schools to provide at least one additional language to their students. So what was the plan in the bill? Well, first of all, the Government decides 10 priority languages to be resourced—I know it is a minimum, but Mr Goldsmith did tell us that you needed to be quite diligent about not spreading a resource too far. So the Government will decide the 10—and we had more than a dozen languages proposed as those which those 10 should be—and then the school community will consult. The school community decides the one—probably—that attracts the additional resourcing.

There are unintended consequences to this. This approach is not inclusive or student centred. It could undermine the other commitments the school has to te reo. It’s been made clear that it doesn’t preclude other languages being included, but it makes it very difficult. So how do you decide—as a Government or as a school? Is it the largest group in the community? Is it the easiest to resource? We heard from Berhampore School, from Mark, the principal there, who said he’s got over 35 languages in his school, and there was something quite sad when he said the one that was the hardest to resource the teaching of was te reo. So the solutions to this problem are very complex and they are not going to be fixed by compulsion and a bit of cash being given to a school board to enable them to make some decisions. The general policy statement says the Government is to “fund professional development, language specialists and online resources”. These grants are to be paid to boards. There is nothing strategic, sustainable, efficient, or effective about doing it this way; 2,500 school communities making their own decisions is not going to make sure that we make progress.

So what do we do? How do we respond to the passionate, committed communities and teachers who came and shared their experiences and knowledge with us? How do we support those pockets of excellence, the exceptions to becoming the norm, in every school, whether they are a school that already has 65 communities represented or a school that has only two or three, a school that is in the middle of an urban setting like Te Aro or a rural community that needs access via online learning, for example? Compulsion doesn’t solve the problem; we need a better plan.

So that is why it is with great pleasure that we support the idea of a national languages strategy. What will it do? It will build on the current work that’s happening—there’s a curriculum refresh going on, we have NCEA being developed, and, of course, we’ve got policy development around Māori medium, Pacific bilingualism, and immersion.

So what do we need to do? We need to take note of what is working. Those little pockets of miracles around the country—how do we scale that and sustain it? We need to look at the current resources that we heard about in the Education and Workforce Committee: the rich resources that come from our communities, professional development opportunities, the Virtual Learning Network, Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu, Auckland University dropping in, Asia New Zealand Foundation, other Governments, Kāhui Ako collaborations, churches, and community schools on weekends. The people and the knowledge and the commitment are there; we just need to make sure it’s coherent and cohesive so we can leverage off that. The opportunities to hook into a language learning pathway—how does The New Zealand Curriculum really fit into this, and how do we develop subjects through NCEA? The opportunity to engage and consult with our communities, with iwi, and with kids is a really, really important part of this strategy. And, of course, finally, workforce development—it’s a long-term plan but one that is absolutely important.

We need a coherent and strategic development, in collaboration with the wider community, of a strategy; support for effective and appropriate programmes in the short term; and staged investment and development over the medium and long term. We must include considerations around workforce and resource development and wider curriculum expectations. And we need to make sure that—unlike the proposition from across the House that there’s a suggestion we are trying to kill this—what we are going to do is feed it and make sure that our languages grow and thrive. I commend the idea that this bill is going to be turned down to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to thank my colleague Angela Roberts for sharing her whakaaro and this hard work that the select committee did on this bill. They could see that the intentions on this bill were really, really strong, but I was just reminded of a whakataukī which goes: “Mate atu he tētē kura, ara mai rā he tētē kura.”—when one fern frond perishes another rises to take its place. So I was buoyed to hear that there will be a national languages strategy policy coming from that corner of the House. So all of the submissions that were made during the select committee process will hopefully—should, right?—feed into what this language strategy should look like. I think that’s something that we should be looking forward to.

This Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill, we supported to the select committee because we felt that these ideas needed to be talked about, they needed to be teased out. But in order to actually carry the intentions from one place to another the waka needs to be waterproof. The waka needs to be able to float on the water to actually get from one part of the river to the other. I think the select committee were correct in terms of the majority recommendations in the report that this waka, unfortunately, had some holes in it. So that national languages policy strategy would be really great once it gets up and going to sort of kick that around the select committee room, around the halls here as well to see where that will go.

One of the major holes was actually being able to properly acknowledge the place of te reo Māori—being able to properly acknowledge the place of te reo Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand. We’ve got the Māori Language Act. I was fortunate to just come from the theatrette where Rāwiri Paratene is doing a performance in there, and in that theatre is actually a lot of these Māori language advocates. A lot of these Māori language advocates who came to the steps of Parliament to lay down the take and lay down the wero about making sure that we recognise the indigenous language of Aotearoa New Zealand, te reo Māori. Because the thing about te reo Māori is that it was my parents—my mother was in the generation that when she was at school they’d just get whacked. They’d just get whacked for speaking te reo Māori. Because on the balance, colonisation was not good for te reo Māori. On the balance, colonisation was not good for indigenous peoples at all. On the balance, it is really important that when we talk about second language acquisition and language acquisition as well, that we properly place all of that within the context of the indigenous languages of the place that we’re in, Aotearoa New Zealand. So for me, having a list of priority languages is one thing, but you also must also ground that within the official languages of the country, of the whenua, so that’s te reo Māori, that’s sign language, and, of course, the language that we generally speak in this House, English.

There are a couple of other things. I’m going to keep going on about the national languages strategies because I know that a lot of people working trying to support the heritage languages of our Pasifika languages would like to see some of that support going to some of our early childhood education (ECE) units, our Pasifika ECE learning places. Just to reflect on the state of the Pasifika Realm languages, so I’m talking about Cook Islands Māori, we’re talking about a Vagahau Niue, I’m talking about Tokelauan, and then also the significant numbers of people from Samoa and Tonga as well, and the long history that Aotearoa has with, between, Samoa and Tonga, and also around the Pacific Realm as well.

Because it’s more than just the language. Language is also about identity as well. It’s about helping young people and children to ground themselves in terms of their cultural identity, what that means for them in their communities, what that means in terms of the connection that they build with their communities, and also within other communities as well. That helps with a whole lot of things. That helps with child wellbeing, helps with whānau wellbeing, but also helps with community wellbeing as well. So when the national languages policy comes out I would like to see a really strong emphasis on making sure that those things are there for our Pasifika languages, our Pacific Realm languages, and also stepping out for Samoan and Tongan as well.

I think there also needs to be the other focus on the maintenance of heritage languages as well. Because when people come here, they come here with their languages. So it’s not like some nice extra thing where they roll in to school and so on and so forth and they pick it off a shelf and go, “You know what, that’s nice.” Actually, for a lot of our migrant kids these are the languages that helps to keep them grounded within their communities as well. So having that included into a national language policy is really important.

Probably my final reflection is just for us to be aware of the linguistic context that we are here in New Zealand. New Zealand is a very monolingual country, and I don’t think monolingual people really realise how different that is compared to a lot of the other places around the world. You go to Europe and you’ll listen to five languages on the street. I’ve got heaps of friends that can speak multiple languages. You go to Asia and Africa and it’s the same thing as well. So being fixated just on secondary languages when, actually, what we could be focusing on is tertiary languages and multilingualism as well. Because what we know is once you’ve learnt your second language, then the third one becomes a lot easier because you can code switch between those first two languages and on to the other languages as well.

So just to end, the intentions of this bill continue, and I look forward to working constructively across the House to make sure that those intentions grow fruitful. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Madam Speaker, tēnā koe. It’s an honour to speak on this bill, the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. This is my first call since I have returned to the House following the birth of my son James, and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues for assisting me during the time that I had on leave and also my colleagues from both sides of the House, now that I’ve returned to Parliament. So thank you very much for that.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on a matter that I feel very strongly about, and that is the issue of learning a second language. This bill was originally, as we’ve heard, introduced by the Hon Nikki Kaye and then on her retirement from this House adopted by the Hon Paul Goldsmith. I also, along with my other colleagues, wanted to pay tribute to both of them for bringing this important issue before the House.

You will recall that my Labour colleagues voted for this bill at first reading. I was also privileged to be on the select committee for part of the consideration of this bill, not the entire consideration, but part of it. On the select committee, we received a large number of submissions highlighting more than a dozen languages, all diverse, all important as possible second languages. The most suggested language was actually Urdu. As part of our considerations, we also heard from the Minister and from the ministry. Just this morning, we were in select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, and we heard Minister Hipkins. He was asked about this bill and he emphasised that he is a big fan of second languages, as indeed am I.

We also heard in the reports and from experts that there are many benefits, both cognitively for children who learn second languages and in terms of cultural understanding. In fact, this year there are more than 126,000 enrolments in years 1 to 8 learning a language other than English or te reo Māori at school, and this was reflected in the committee’s final report that was delivered to this House. It also reflects what was identified by teachers, principals, and education unions who submitted on this bill. The report identified a space for growth in the education workforce capacity to teach second languages and also to ensure substantive consultation and resourcing, and that a considered implementation in this area would be warmly welcomed.

However, not every tool is suitable for every task, and indeed it is the case with this bill. There are three key concerns with this bill, and I think some of these were touched on by the previous speakers. The first is that the bill would make second language learning in primary and intermediate schools mandatory. There is currently no such requirement in primary or intermediate schools. As you would expect, this comes with some significant cost. In this case, we’ve just heard from the Minister that to implement this bill would cost hundreds of millions.

The second issue with this bill is that it requires a significant workforce in order to implement the proposed mandatory language learning. This workforce currently does not exist in New Zealand. So even if the funding did exist, the workforce does not exist to deliver this bill. This is in part due to teacher shortages that occurred under the previous National Government, and we in this Labour Government have been investing in teacher training and we are seeing the numbers of teachers increase, actually. However, for this bill to be implemented, we would need many, many more teachers.

The third reason that I wanted to highlight, which has also been touched on by a member opposite, was that during the select committee process we also received advice from the Ministry of Education raising concerns regarding our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to te reo Māori. It is for these reasons and for other considerations that we would not be supporting this bill to move forward.

However, that does not mean that there is no need for further work on the issue of second language learning. In fact, it is my view that we as a country must do better in this area. This is why the Government, as we’ve heard the Minister announce today, has a new strategy to address this issue. This national languages strategy, that we just heard the Minister announce this evening, will focus on talking to parents, teachers, schools, and communities. And it is my view that that is the appropriate way to develop such a strategy in order to further second language learning.

I just wanted to take another moment, before we move on to that strategy, to just reflect on what this bill would have done had it been implemented—just to emphasise the position that we’re taking on this side of the House. This bill would have led to the identification of least 10 priority languages. Then schools would have been funded to deliver their priority language, and that priority language would have been a language that was determined by their board of trustees. This bill would not have taken due regard, in my view, of the place of te reo Māori, te reo tūturu o tēnei whenua, the original language of New Zealand. It does not recognise a special place of Pacific languages, in particular the importance of Pacific Realm languages. It also does not, in my view, take due regard to New Zealand Sign Language, our other official language.

It does not provide for some communities that may have more than one important heritage language that they wish to resource at the same level, and I think this point was raised by my colleague already. It does not provide for transitions from schools with different priority languages. The situation of a student in primary school having one priority language and then not being able to learn it at high school would be a concerning situation. And it does not address the issue of curriculum crowding, which I understand, for those who are educators, is a legitimate concern. It does also not address the shortage of teachers that New Zealand currently has for just one language, te reo Māori. This language, as we’ve heard—and I think we need to emphasise—is an extremely important language, unique to this country.

As I’ve said, not every tool is suitable for every task. And so that is why at select committee we recommended that we not vote for this bill now at second reading, but we will be developing a national languages strategy. This strategy that should be developed, as I’ve said, with parents, teachers, schools, and communities will provide a robust framework for sustainable provision of second language learning in New Zealand. Such a strategy could incorporate existing programmes, new programmes, and, with the help of the Ministry of Education, look for what more is needed for teachers in this space.

A well-thought-out implementation that considers the wider aims of the school curriculum and allows schools to tailor learning to individual students’ needs—these are the things which we should include in a national languages strategy, which, as the Minister has said, is the likely conclusion of this bill not going through to a second reading. It’s also important to take a holistic view of education, in my view. The Minister of Education recently announced a programme for curriculum refresh. By developing a strategy with this curriculum refresh in mind, I think we can set the scene for a refresh of our curriculum, including languages, as a whole.

Now, I just wanted to also reflect on my personal experience with second language learning. I was actually incredibly lucky to learn a second language at primary school. The language that I learnt was te reo Māori. I learnt it in a bilingual class at Thorndon primary school, which is not too far away from where we are now. I felt hugely honoured to be able to learn that language in that context, and then I followed through to do Māori as a subject at secondary school in what was then bursary, which is showing my age a wee bit. I then went on to do a degree in Māori studies. I did not realise at the time that I was learning te reo Māori how unique I was in terms of a Pākehā child in the history of this country being able to learn te reo Māori at a State school. I felt incredibly honoured when I became aware of the huge work that went into promoting te reo Māori in what’s known as the Māori renaissance before I was born and before I entered into the education system. Learning te reo Māori has been a significant gift for me and one that has given me great insights into myself and into my place in New Zealand as a Pākehā New Zealander, and for that reason I’m in support of second language learning.

However, as I said, not every tool is suitable for every task. And so in relation to this particular issue, I think we will not be supporting this bill, but we would hope to acknowledge the work done by those on the other side and also continue this incredibly important kōrero that will, I hope, assist our children in being mostly bilingual by the time that they finish primary school and, if not primary school, secondary school. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Mark Baillie.

Chris Baillie: Chris—close.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Chris, I beg your pardon. I call Chris Baillie.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise to take a short call on the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. ACT opposed this bill at first reading but understand its importance. The reason for this isn’t the intent; teaching a second language is a great thing. It’s something we should be encouraging if it’s feasible and desirable for a school and its students. My own kids many years ago became quite fluent in Spanish from watching Dora the Explorer. Young people just soak it up and this has to be encouraged. The reason for ACT’s opposition is not the intent of the bill but the way Parliament, along with so much of how it seeks to involve itself in education, seeks to mandate and restrict the choices of schools.

Submitters provided an insight into just how many languages are spoken in New Zealand: many more than 10 and all very important to them to retain their self-identity. If this was a policy to provide more funding for schools to decide where and what they should target and the best way that suited their students, that would be great. That would get our support. The point is school choice in tailoring their resources to their particular students and circumstances. It is a principle that is fundamental to ACT’s approach to education. Where this bill and so much education policy from Parliament seeks to mandate and restrict; ACT wants to free up and allow choice. It’s why we proposed our own teacher reward fund to allow schools to reward demonstrations of excellence. It’s why we believe strongly in charter schools.

This kind of approach could be used by schools to incentivise second-language teachers to come to their school, to reward a particular demonstration of excellence in second-language teaching, or to support extra-curricular support provided from teachers who help students with languages. Schools can determine what is best for their students based on their own community demographics and teacher availability. The difference is that the resources provided at the discretion of the school itself; not mandated from Wellington. A number of submitters and committee members were worried that this bill would undermine the current teaching and progression of te reo Māori in New Zealand schools. I don’t believe this would be the case, and ACT believes all New Zealand children should be catered for and treated equally. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call on the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. Now, I, like my previous colleagues, rise in opposition to this bill. I also rise as the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee who considered this bill, and many of my members on this committee, including the member who just took a seat, Chris Baillie, have spoken on this bill already.

I guess, for the benefit of the House—we haven’t really gone through the history of this bill. So I’d like to just quickly run through the history that this bill has followed. It got introduced in September 2018 and then initially referred, in the 52nd Parliament, to our select committee on 1 July 2020. Submissions were opened up with a closing date of 28 January 2021, and we received a lot of submissions, 313 to be to be correct, and many people also submitted to us in person. So 35 submitters in total came either to Wellington or submitted to us by Zoom. I know that Erica Stanford singled out a specific submitter, and it is a bit dangerous to do because many of the submissions were very passionate and very heartfelt. And it would be remiss of me not to mention the specific one from the Malaysian and Indonesian ambassadors on Bahasa Indonesia. But the president of the New Zealand Association of Classical Teachers, his name was Robert, Erica Stanford.

Erica Stanford: Oh, Robert. He was amazing.

MARJA LUBECK: His name was Robert. And so here is the proof—the living proof for you. So I had six languages in school, and as they say, it improves your neurological and other pathways in your brain. I managed to retain, for some reason, this piece of information when I can’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning. I don’t know what I’m trying to prove here but anyway, so there it is. We saw so many submitters from such a wide variety of backgrounds, all really good, heartfelt submissions. We saw educators, education-based unions, cultural groups, community groups, a district health board from Canterbury, and also many who spoke on their background and experience as teachers and from their teaching backgrounds.

The views of the submitters and main issues raised can fit into a few distinct but clearly interconnected categories, as we have detailed in our final report. And many have spoken on it, but I’d just like to reiterate that. Firstly, there was an overarching concern when it came to the resource and funding that would be required to give effect to this bill, and the Minister himself mentioned the hundreds of millions of dollars of extra funding that would be required. But also, we did hear very clearly from our advisers that this bill would impose obligations on schools that they cannot fulfil. Submitters told us that there was a relatively small workforce equipped with teaching second languages, and that leads to predictable issues with retention of teachers or even just having to resource them in the first place. Already there is an obligation on schools, we mentioned this in our report, and I quote, “Take all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori.” But several principals and education unions expressed that meeting this obligation is already a real challenge for the school’s capacity. We heard from the Waitakere Area Principals’ Association representing over 100 schools, and he told us that while they’re in support of any initiative for our children, they also called themselves pragmatists. They said that this bill would increase the workload and put pressure on the schools to a point that it wouldn’t be to the best experience of the students because of that additional pressure. So we heard that from several principals with up to and even over 30 years of experience and teaching background.

The second main issue that we put in our report was in the way we were thinking about te reo Māori in relation to other languages in schools. The Ministry of Education noted in their report to our committee that, in their view, “The bill is so significant for Māori that enactment without full consultation with iwi, hapū and whānau Māori would be inconsistent with the Māori-Crown partnership.” So they said that the passage of this bill in itself, in fact, without the consultation would be a breach of Te Tiriti. And they said it couldn’t be resolved by amending the bill.

So we also saw a similar concern from NZTI Te Riu Roa, noting in their submission that te reo should be a priority as one of the official languages of New Zealand. Particularly, they also mentioned the challenges that schools already face when it comes to teaching te reo. They mentioned, and I quote, “We need to make sure we look after the priority languages we have already recognised before we move into others.” The Post Primary Teachers’ Association also spoke about another concern, basically saying that having a student go through primary school learning a language and then perhaps only finding out once they go to intermediate or college that the language is not available would be a source of great frustration.

It was already noted before that the smaller workforce of teachers that can teach te reo is an underlying issue, which is leading to limitations in support for those teachers to be able to take non - class time for further development. And this is something that we heard very clearly from NZEI again, who told us quite plainly that one thing needed to be done properly and then others will follow.

We heard from submitters, and many were at pains to tell us about benefits that they knew firsthand from knowing a second language, some I already mentioned before with my particular example. But they also spoke about social development, cultural competency, and other real benefits. We did hear from submitters and from many cultural groups talking about many of the languages that they would like to see taught in schools, and we had dozens of proposals put to us. But as it was said before, what this bill doesn’t do, it doesn’t recognise the huge workload, the huge resource, the huge funding that would be required to upskill our teaching workforce in being able to teach 10 different languages, let alone to carry it out in practice as well. So while we recognise there is a very strong and a very justified support for improving access to learning other languages, the majority of our select committee, as is shown in the report, didn’t think that this particular bill is the most appropriate way of achieving it.

Instead, as has been mentioned, we believe that a national languages strategy could help and provide a useful framework for both existing and new programmes so that New Zealanders would be given more opportunities to learn other languages. So what this strategy would do is it would allow for more comprehensive consultation to take place. And again, as the Minister also mentioned, taking, of course, forward the submissions that we heard, taking the debate in itself that we have engaged in forward, to come to a really good place when it comes to developing and having the kōrero on the national languages strategy. And, in fact, it was great to hear the Minister mention that he had already asked the Ministry of Education to start work on this particular bill.

So I guess in my last minute, I would like to just thank those who supported our select committee with their work on this bill. A lot of work goes on behind the scenes and not always are we, you know, thanking those enough. So that’s our officials, our advisers, our fantastic Office of the Clerk team who’s helping us in our select committee, all my committee members, and also not forgetting Nikki Kaye, who was the member who brought this forward. As a previous speaker mentioned, that all contributes to having that debate on the importance of a national language strategy. But I do have to finalise in my last few seconds by just making sure that I do not recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Five minute call, Nicola Grigg.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise just to take a short call—I’m apparently sharing it with Ingrid Leary, across the House—on the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill. Sadly, though, we’re not going to be able to get this bill through, and it is really truly unfortunate that the Government has decided to vote it down. As has been acknowledged by a number of speakers prior to my taking this call, we have Nikki Kaye to thank for her tireless efforts in getting this bill up and for the huge amount of background work that has gone into it. Labour did previously support this. Again, I just have to emphasise it is so unfortunate that they’ve now decided to take this stance.

The second language learning bill and its consequent dumping that is about to happen is deeply disappointing. Killing this bill is narrow-minded. It misses a golden opportunity to equip our children with greater language skills and well-established, well-researched cognitive benefits that come with learning a second language. I think members on the other side of the House know in their hearts they’re doing the wrong thing. Many of them have got up and spoken at length to the benefits to children of learning a second language. The National Party, on this side of the House, believes that every child in primary and intermediate school should have the opportunity to learn a second language. We know, through countless studies, that speaking more than one language has enormous cognitive, cultural, social, and economic benefits, so this bill is a big opportunity for our country.

May I put on the record in this House that I am the 1992 winner of the Alliance Française competition in Christchurch.

Erica Stanford: Oh, très bien!

NICOLA GRIGG: Merci—merci. Unfortunately, I did not continue to study that language.

Erica Stanford: Je suis desolée. That’s all I know!

NICOLA GRIGG: Thank you. I’ve just momentarily been thrown off my stride. But we do know that speaking multiple languages has enormous cognitive, cultural, social, and economic benefits. New Zealand is a diverse country. We speak over 160 languages here. It’s important that our education system reflects and recognises that.

Just to conclude, this is a missed opportunity, and I have noted a number of speakers on that side of the House have got up and lamented the cost of it. Well, I ask that side of the House: since when has the Government ever worried about throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at something? Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I love the intention of this bill, as do so many of my colleagues on this side of the House. What I can’t agree with is the execution, and that is because it is not strategic, as has already been traversed. From my perspective, I’d just like to discuss, within that, the place of community when it comes to language and culture.

I love the intention because it does foster social inclusion. We know that the world is shaped by language and that language is a gateway into other people’s perspectives, into their cultures, and into their realities. From that perspective around social cohesion, it is a really important thing to do.

As has already been said, there is a lot of evidence that learning a second language enhances the neuroplasticity of the brain—particularly so for children under the age of 12. I’ve seen graphs showing different parts of the brain being used when language learners learn, under the age of 12 as opposed to over, which gives us some insights into why young children pick up languages so easily and how that enhanced neuroplasticity can stay with them.

I didn’t sit on the Education and Workforce Committee but I do have an interest in this subject because I am actually Dutch. My first language was German; I didn’t speak very much of it, but I was brought up in Germany until a very young age, probably two or three, so my first few words were German. My Dutch mother tried to teach me Dutch, and, unfortunately, we failed miserably as a team, possibly because—

Marja Lubeck: Talk to me, Ingrid!

INGRID LEARY: Ha, ha! Unlike the member sitting behind me, who’s a wonderful Dutch speaker. But it did teach me the importance of language. As I grew older and I had my own Rotuman children, I didn’t want them to go through the same process of not understanding a language that was in their genealogy. So I tried very hard to get my two teenaged children Rotuman language lessons when they were younger, and to the point where, actually, the Ministry of Education offered me funding to be able to set up a language-learning centre, but when I discovered that I had to have certain sized windows and doorways and all sorts of rules, it became too difficult. But it does show that I’m really committed to this.

And because I couldn’t teach them Rotuman, what I did do was I put my children through bilingual education in te reo Māori, and also I got a private tutor—I was very lucky to find somebody who lived nearby who spoke Mandarin. The reason I chose those two languages is because te reo is our first language; I consider it to be very important, and I do think that it is important that our language strategy places te reo right at the centre along with English and also sign language. But, secondly, because Mandarin, as was pointed out by one of the National speakers, is emerging as a main language in New Zealand; there are many Mandarin speakers, it is an important language. I felt that the Māori and Mandarin were at two different ends of the spectrum as far as different cultures, different experiences, and I wanted my children to have the breadth of that experience and understanding through that gateway of language.

So, really, that is to preface my pointing out in the National Party differing view, when the National Party says that the bill doesn’t breach Te Tiriti, it is saying, “Yes, learning another language is important, and New Zealand kids can learn any language they like as long as it is te reo.”—te reo is not mutually exclusive from other languages, and I do find that quite a cynical statement coming from a party that thinks, on balance, colonisation was better for Māori!

In terms of strategy, though, we’ve talked about why the bill is not strategic, and there are other things that have been discussed around capability and around resources. I thought I’d just reference the experience again with the Rotuman language, because Rotuman is now one of the nine Pacific language weeks celebrated in New Zealand. We’ve been celebrating those since 2010, and this year was the second year for Rotuman. We saw people in the House wearing tēfui, and in the Samoa Language Week that’s just been, ula fala. So we really do value that. But the community are the ones that made sure the integrity of the language was preserved, and that was through two incredible women—Rosa Penjuali and Emma Caswell.

So if we don’t have the resourcing in schools and we don’t have the teaching capability, it is the communities who will suffer, because they will not be able to keep the integrity of their language and the cultural integrity that goes with it. Communities must be part of a strategy, and currently there is no strategy—we’ve heard the Minister say, tonight, there will be a strategy; that is a way forward—and that is why we cannot commend this bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just before I proceed, if anyone doubts the benefit of speaking many languages, I just want to tell them that I speak six languages. English is not even my first language. The benefit of that is what got me, maybe, here and what kept me alive. Leaving a country at a very young age, I didn’t know where I was going and I didn’t know what to expect, but the languages that I spoke along the way got me through. I could communicate with smugglers—they were kind to me. Crossing the border, I could speak to the Sudanese security—they were kind to me. And then I handed myself into a refugee camp. I could speak some English and I could speak other languages, including Arabic, and everyone was kind to me because I could communicate. So that’s one of the benefits of speaking many languages.

I rise to speak on this bill. In doing so, I do have mixed feelings, in the sense that this bill intends well. No one can argue against the intentions of this bill. It intends to strengthen access to second language learning in primary and intermediate schools, covering all school students in year 1 to 8, including junior and middle school. So this is a noble idea. No one can argue against it. That’s why the Government doesn’t really disagree with the principles and objectives of this bill.

However, this bill has its own issues, its flaws, limitations, and shortcomings. It does not, for instance, take due regard of the place of te reo Māori Act 2016, for example—the Māori Language Act—to work in partnership with iwi and Māori to actively protect te reo Māori as taonga for future generations. That’s a big issue now.

It also does not provide a language learning pathway throughout students’ schooling life. Imagine being a student all your life—throughout intermediate school—and learning a language and then to get to secondary school and for that language not to exist. Imagine the frustration after you spent all this time and all this energy and effort and that language no longer exists. I wouldn’t want to be that student.

This bill also doesn’t recognise the huge resource that could be required to upskill the teaching workforce in 10 or more languages and the impact that would have on the delivery of the rest of the curriculum. The bill as introduced presents some implementation challenges and issues that have been noted in the departmental report to the select committee. We know and we acknowledge that for some schools it’s already difficult to find a teacher to cover even core subjects, and finding even more additional language teachers would be even more difficult. This is not to mention the cost of implementation that I just mentioned above.

Throughout the select committee, myself and my colleagues engaged with open minds and with open spirit, thinking that things might work and something might change, but it didn’t. Unfortunately, we have to oppose. After hearing from education experts and many others—a lot of them stakeholders that will be impacted by the decision on this bill—we have decided to oppose it. Instead, the national languages strategy will be passed because it’s more sensible, it’s cost effective, and it’s something that will work in the future.

We heard from many, many people, and what we heard was that the legislation is not the best answer to second language learning. In saying so, my message to many, many ethnic people out there who are probably listening—and many of them submitted with enthusiasm—is we are not abandoning this. While we are not supporting this bill at this stage, we are committed in progressing its recommendations to develop a national languages policy. That’s been recommended to us because that’s the best way forward to strengthen access to language learning in schools. I’m very proud of the work that this Government intends to do, because we’re not just walking away from this; we just want to do it in a right way.

We have carefully considered all the ministry support and we have decided to adopt a national languages strategy. This would be developed in consultation with parents, teachers, schools, and communities. Now, this is something that the bill has lacked. There was nothing about consultation in the bill.

In my opening remarks, I said I had mixed feelings because I know how many migrants, how many people—many of them who I know—submitted during the select committee process. During the submissions, we heard that it’s important to keep the connection to your mother tongue when you move to a new country. Migrant families often struggle with passing on their language to their children in a host country. This is supported and shown by evidence. We understand the social and cultural costs that migrant communities face due to language loss in communities, because, when you move to a new country, one of the things that you carry with you is your language—your identity; your culture. Losing that, you lose yourself. Your kids losing that, they lose a big part of them. We know the importance of maintaining the original language, the heritable language, the language that your forefathers and your parents and your grandparents spoke. But it has to be done in the right way.

At the end, I want to acknowledge the Hon Nikki Kaye, who introduced this. I think she did that with a pure intention. As someone who speaks many languages, as a refugee and a migrant, I really want to thank her, because I can see her intention is quite pure and is well. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who took over and who worked hard to make sure that this works out. But, sadly, because of the shortcomings, we don’t see how the bill can work, because it’s just too expensive. It clashes and it collides with so many things. Because of that, we have adapted a different way. For now, though, we are not going to support this bill at this stage. Kia ora.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill, second reading, and I acknowledge that it is a member’s bill in the name of the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but also, like other speakers, I acknowledge the enthusiastic work that has been done by Nikki Kaye on this.

As we’ve all noted, Labour previously supported National’s second language learning bill, and it’s extremely disappointing that they won’t continue to support the bill despite everyone talking about the research showing the benefits of learning a second language, and, actually, the earlier learnt the better. I am intrigued and inspired by the number of our colleagues on the other side of the House that have said how many languages they speak. As a country, we languish so far behind other countries in terms of the number of languages that many of us can speak. When I was learning German at high school, I had a German teacher who spoke six languages fluently, and he would impress upon us that this was not unusual at all; in fact, most of his classmates spoke eight languages fluently and he was considered something of a slow learner! As someone who tried and struggled to pick up both German and Latin at high school and then te reo Māori at tertiary level, I wish I had had the opportunity to learn languages much earlier.

As I speak about learning te reo Māori at tertiary level, I can’t help but mention the wonderful staff of Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, especially the wānanga staff at Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) who, over the last 20-odd years, in conjunction with SIT, have taught te reo Māori classes to thousands of people in Southland. I acknowledge the wonderful work that my very good friend Arana Collett did leading that group for many years. As a very average achiever—in fact, if I was honest, probably a very poor achiever—at languages, I really do wish that I had had that opportunity to learn languages at an earlier age. I watch two of my young grandchildren going to baby Chinese classes and singing nursery rhymes in Mandarin with ease and enthusiasm, and I look forward to my third mokopuna learning to speak te reo Māori as he grows up with his Pākehā mum and Māori dad, and both of them took Te Ara Reo Māori classes with the wānanga in Queenstown. That wānanga, they’re just absolutely anywhere if you want to take a Māori language class.

Our third daughter, who is non-verbal, learnt sign language for some time, and of course sign language is one of our three official languages of New Zealand. Again, that was a challenge for our family, needing to learn the basics of sign language. And I offer a belated talofa lava to our Samoan colleagues, remembering that we celebrated Samoan Language Week just last week. So what I’m trying to illustrate, really, is that this is happening everywhere but in our schools. It’s common all over the place for people to be learning a second, or third, or fourth language out in the community, at Plunket, in the church hall. I talked to my colleague Melissa Lee, who spoke about Korean language being taught by Korean mothers out in the community, and so that issue of there being insufficient teachers—I think we would only need to look to our community to be able to find those teachers. And this bill would have enabled, and encouraged, and supported our intermediate and primary schools to offer that second language.

Now, a couple of other barriers have been put up by the other side of the House. One was, first, that there wasn’t sufficient consultation within the bill. Well, in fact, the bill required the schools to consult with their community to land on what second language they wanted the school to offer, and so that consultation in itself would have enhanced the cultural cohesion in a community through leadership from the school. But the biggest barrier that I’ve heard from the other side of the House has been the hundreds of millions of dollars that it would have taken to resource a second language being taught in the schools. Now, I’m a great believer that you shouldn’t come with problems without also coming with solutions; so, in the spirit of collegiality, I have a solution for the Minister on this. I suggest that he perhaps diverts the $780 million that he intends having spent on a cycling and walking bridge in Auckland for around 3,000 people into resourcing a second language in the primary and intermediate schools that would benefit hundreds of thousands of young people.

So, having solved the three issues that the other side of the House clearly saw—consultation and teachers and resourcing—I’m sure now they will want to leap to their feet and rescind their previous determination on the bill. The bill not passing really is an opportunity lost, and it isn’t too late for them to change their mind on this, because on the other side of the House I have heard speakers talk enthusiastically about the hope that a national languages strategy that the Government will put in place instead being the solution to this. But my great concern is that the national languages strategy that the Government will pursue will become just another plan, or idea, or conversation, or—perish the thought—working group which doesn’t implement anything, in the way that so many of this Government’s good intentions have gone. So I somewhat forlornly commend this bill to the House, thinking that the other side may probably not change their mind. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): As the final speaker on this bill, I acknowledge the arguments from Penny Simmonds, the previous speaker. However, we will not be persuaded on this side of the House, but I do acknowledge the effort there.

We have an incredibly diverse country here in New Zealand—culturally diverse—and we are becoming more diverse with every passing day, and that’s a good thing. We are connected to the world in a global context and across the world there are many, many languages, and I think it’s really good that we’re having this debate in the House.

I do wonder if I walked out the door and looked at some of the Hansards from maybe 80 years ago or 100 years ago, I’m not sure we would be having the same debate in terms of acknowledging the diverse cultural aspects of Aotearoa New Zealand. So it is very positive that we are having this debate, and I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Nikki Kaye for bringing this bill to the House and initiating this debate.

I remember back in I think it was 2018, when she brought this bill to Parliament, there were a number of conversations had. Obviously, Nikki Kaye had a conversation with Minister Hipkins, I personally had a conversation with Nikki Kaye just out in the corridor about this bill, and I acknowledge her passion both for languages but also, in general, her passion for education, because she understands the importance of education for people to have opportunity and for people, in this case, to have an aspect of the various forms of connection.

We do have a large migrant population, and I’ll get on to some of the submissions. Many of them came from our migrant New Zealanders, and they talked about the importance of language to them, in the same way that Ibrahim Omer has spoken about that.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who picked up the bill as National’s education spokesperson, and he’s brought it to this point. Look, I think that Nikki Kaye, in effect, should really see this as some form of a win, really, because even though the bill is not continuing in its current form—and this side of the House have clearly outlined some of those issues that we have with the bill there that, unfortunately, weren’t able to be resolved—the work that’s begun on the national languages strategy may not have begun at this time without the work that the Hon Nikki Kaye did in bringing this to the House. So it’s something, I believe, of a legacy for her, and, hopefully, she is watching tonight, although she might have other things she’s doing—who knows? I don’t know how many people are watching Parliament TV in Auckland, but we’ll see if she is or not. So—

Hon Scott Simpson: They turned off three minutes ago.

JAMIE STRANGE: I thought I was doing pretty well.

The objections to this bill have been outlined and I will just highlight a few of them, but before I do that, I’d like to share a little bit of a personal story, which I think is always good for speeches. Hopefully, it will spark the interest of the member opposite.

So as a former music teacher—as a former teacher in the area of music—I want to acknowledge the importance of having a diverse curriculum. Now, when the previous Government were in power, they tended to have a bit of a move towards narrowing the curriculum. Literacy and numeracy are obviously very important, and I felt they were a little bit too obsessed with those two. However, this Government are very much strong believers in having a diverse curriculum, and I look at the aspect of music as it relates to this bill, because this bill is encouraging a diversity of curriculum, as is the national languages strategy. When I was teaching music as an intermediate-age teacher, yes, I was teaching some of the skills, whether it be guitar, drums, band—other forms of music. Singing, I sort of tried to teach but not so well. But what I was developing—and it links to the languages aspect because there’s a link to it, and the link is confidence, cooperation, working with others, creativity, and often these aspects are seen as what we call soft skills within an education system. But sometimes those words tend to demean the benefits of those aspects. Look, if I was to talk to any employer in New Zealand, I think that the majority of them would say the importance of people skills, being able to relate to a diverse range of people—the benefits of that would be acknowledged.

The benefits of learning a second language are not being argued here in the House. There is agreement on both sides around the importance of a broad curriculum and learning languages. We have heard a number of those benefits and I’d like to touch on a couple of others that I haven’t heard—just add to my contribution to the debate. I know the member opposite is watching with interest. There’s an aspect around engagement with the rest of the world. I mentioned at the start of my speech the fact that we are a small country in a global context. We are very dependent on trade. As the Rt Hon Helen Clark once said, “Trade is the lifeblood of our economy.” Now, someone who can speak many languages—it obviously has a benefit in the economic sense around trade. Our connection with Asia—obviously growing markets in the Asian region—is of particular importance. So there’s no argument, I don’t believe; I believe there’s consensus around the importance of languages. And I do wonder about the economic cost of our underperformance in a linguistic area in terms of lost trade and investment. So I was particularly pleased to see the Minister tonight talk about the work that has already started on this national language strategy.

In my final three minutes, I’d just like to touch on a couple of the submissions. We heard from the New Zealand Sikh Youth around the importance of Punjabi. And I would like to acknowledge our close relationship with India and, as I mentioned in terms of trade, it is absolutely a growing market, and there are discussions around various free-trade agreements and aspects progressing. So the aspect around Punjabi is absolutely important. We had quite a few submitters—I’m not part of the select committee, but I had the privilege of sitting in on a number of the submissions.

Penny Simmonds: We were so lucky to have you, Jamie.

JAMIE STRANGE: Oh well, thank you. Thank you. The member opposite said that they were very lucky to have me—very kind. Look, I certainly appreciate the submissions and we had a number of submissions from various ethnic groups who were stating the argument as to why their language should be included in the 10. Now, we acknowledge those submissions and we acknowledge the importance of all languages here in New Zealand. We also heard from the North Asia Centre of Asia-Pacific Excellence. They outlined some of the benefits of learning some of the Asian languages. They actually raised the same point that I was talking about before in terms of New Zealand’s context with the wider world and the work that we do there. We heard from the New Zealand Chinese Language Week Trust. Now China is certainly one of our largest trading partners and we have a close relationship with the Chinese country. Actually New Zealand, back in 1972, was the first country to acknowledge China as a country under the Rt Hon Norman Kirk and we signed the first free-trade agreement. But, actually, it was interesting, the New Zealand Chinese Language Week Trust, they obviously advocated for the importance of the Chinese language, which I’m sure we’d all agree on here in this House, but they said, “In New Zealand Te Reo Māori holds a special place which must be acknowledged and strengthened.” This sort of links into what we heard from the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI), who said we are doing good work around the Māori language—

Chris Bishop: Oh, NZEI!

JAMIE STRANGE: One of Mr Bishop’s favourite organisations. So what we heard from NZEI was that while we are doing good work in learning te reo, let’s do that well, rather than, you know, sort of stop that and then move on to these other 10 languages that—you know, how do we pick these 10?

But, look, the reality is that through the national languages strategy there is work being done in this area, both in terms of te reo and many other languages that I’ve outlined. And so I am very pleased to see that the work that the Hon Nikki Kaye did bringing this to the House is continuing. One of my colleagues is talking in my ear to acknowledge the select committee. I would like to acknowledge the select committee and all of the officials who did hard work on this bill in terms of bringing it to this place. And it looks like my time is up, Madam Speaker. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Strengthening Second Language Learning in Primary and Intermediate Schools) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 87

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 14 April.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity—albeit for 54 seconds. So in that time, it might be just enough time to remind the House of what this bill is about. This Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill is to ensure that all parents or caregivers of children that attend education are able to attend their parent-teacher interview and access leave. We propose four hours per year for them to be able to do this. We know that when our parents or caregivers can come together with the kaiako or the teacher and plan, goal-set for their children’s year or education year, we know that that helps to lift educational outcomes for our tamariki. That’s why this Labour Government supports this bill, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the interesting things about being a member of this Parliament is the remarkable juxtapositions that occur on any given day, and here is a day on which the Hon James Shaw has overseen the delivery of the Climate Commission’s final report to Government, and then, suddenly, here we are discussing something so trivial and minor and unnecessary as this bill, the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill.

I want to remind members, because I think that the member whose name this bill is in now, Terisa Ngobi, probably took the bill out of the ballot—this was a bill that was originally in the name of the Hon Jan Tinetti, before she was elevated to the dizzy heights of her Cabinet responsibilities. One would wonder why she was elevated to the dizzy heights, given this bill, but that’s a whole different story for another day. This is a bill that actually was probably intended as a ballot-stuffer, hopefully never to have been drawn from the ballot—hope against hope, the sort of bill that an MP puts in after a few drinks one night, thinking, “Oh, that’s kind of a good idea; let’s put it in the ballot. Let’s see if we can get it past the caucus”—must have been a really rough, rumpty caucus day that day—“put it in the ballot, cross our fingers, and hope it never gets drawn out.” Because this is a bill that is utterly, totally unnecessary. This is a bill that is a problem that isn’t a real problem at all.

I want to remind members of the House, and also people who may still be listening after Jamie Strange’s speech, that this is a bill that would allow for employees who have school-age children to be given paid leave—paid leave—to go and attend parent-teacher meetings and interviews. Now, this is just remarkable. One wonders if there is anything that this socialist Labour Government doesn’t think employers should have to pay for. Is there one possible thing that they think employers should not have to fork out for? No, it seems that employers have to pay for an extra week’s sick leave. They have to pay for an extra public holiday. They have to pay for domestic violence leave. They have to pay for, soon to be, the Orwellian fair pay agreements that are not fair, where there won’t be much agreement, and will be very easily repealed, by the way, as soon as the change of Government occurs in 2023, so don’t get too used to those old national awards coming back into favour.

So here we go—

Chris Bishop: National awards!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: That’s what they were. Christopher Bishop is probably too young to remember what national awards were, but they were—

Chris Bishop: I wasn’t born.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: You weren’t born! Well, back in the last millennium, in the days when the trade unions were rampant, and the trade unions and the trades hall used to do these sorts of things, this is what happened, and this is what they want to take us back to.

But coming back to this bill, this is a bill that is very murky, very unclear, and I’m not sure—because I listened to the last 54 seconds of the sponsor’s speech, and I listened to the full nine minutes of her speech some weeks ago, and not once, not once—and I see the Attorney-General sitting in this House—not once did she mention the Attorney-General’s report on this bill, which says, amongst other things, that “I have concluded [this] Bill is inconsistent with the right [of] freedom from discrimination affirmed in s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act.” Not once did the member refer to that—not once. So there was a fundamental flaw in this piece of legislation. Not only is there a fundamental flaw in it, it’s a bill that has no real need.

Maybe we shouldn’t help. Maybe we shouldn’t help the Labour socialist Government in this way, but the last time we had a really socialist Government was Helen Clark’s time, and one of the problems that Helen Clark had—it was actually her ultimate downfall—was that she started to get very prescriptive—very prescriptive—about proclamations being issued from the Beehive from the ninth floor. People will remember—Chris Bishop was probably still at school; kindergarten, maybe—that in those days there were, in the dying days of the Helen Clark socialist Labour Government, proclamations issued from the Beehive that said, “You must have low-energy lightbulbs—no ifs, buts, or maybes.”

Then there was another one that said, “You must have low flow shower heads.”—you must have low flow shower heads. And now we have, under this Jacinda Ardern socialist Labour Government, a proclamation that says, “Employers must pay for their employees to go to parent-teacher interviews.” It’s a proclamation, and it’ll come from the Beehive and it’ll be carved in stone, and the only people who will be cheering for it will be those socialist members on the other side who have reached the pinnacle of their trade union delegate role, come to this Parliament back through the back door of the Labour Party, and here they are now in the House, bringing the rhetoric of the trades hall back into this Parliament. I can tell you, Madam Speaker—I’m not wishing to bring you into the debate—that this piece of legislation is completely farcical.

What’s actually not clear about this legislation is it gives an entitlement to four hours a year of paid leave per employee, but what it doesn’t make clear is whether that’s four hours per year per child or whether that’s just one lot of four hours per year.

Nicola Grigg: Details—details, schmetails!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Now, I guess the—yeah, exactly; Nicola Grigg’s so right to say that’s just detail. Of course, this socialist Labour Government, they aren’t remotely interested in detail. If there’s anything that an employer might pay for, then it’s not sacrosanct from this Government. They seem to think that employers and business people have an unlimited, infinite capacity to pay for their hare-brained ideas. Look, what happens in the real world—and some of us have been in business; some of us have been employees and employers, and we know that, actually, in the real world, these sorts of matters are sorted out. They are sorted out on a sensible, rational basis between good-faith employees and employers, and these matters are settled. That’s the way it has always operated. It’s a question of give and take. It occurs up and down the country every day of the week.

What will happen if this piece of legislation goes through is it’s the forcing of a red-tape, prescriptive, “though shalt do”, finger-waving approach from the socialist Labour Government, and what that means is that employers will actually push back on it. The perverse outcome of this piece of legislation, should it ever be passed—and the real acid test will be whether the Government actually votes for it, and we don’t know that yet. All we know is that the member has been given leave to introduce it, and it’ll be interesting to get to the final stages of this debate to find out whether the Government will actually vote—the Greens will probably vote for it, but I’m sure that the Labour Party might have a dose of reality somewhere along the line.

So, look, one of the things that I just want to say in conclusion—because I’ve spoken for longer than I thought; I thought it was a bill that probably didn’t need much. But here is a piece of legislation. There’s no groundswell, there’s no clamouring in the streets, there’s no public debate. This is an issue that is simply created, made up; a bill that was put in the ballot, a new member has picked it up from a Minister who’s risen to the dizzy heights of Cabinet, and now this poor new member has to actually try and guide it through the House. Well, it’s probably not a pathway for the dizzy heights of Cabinet for that member. So, on this side of the House, we firmly, resolutely, and strongly oppose this bill, and so too, hopefully, will the Labour Party.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. What a pleasure to follow after Mr Simpson, almost as good as following after Mr Bishop. But I have to say that the first 54 seconds of this debate were a whole lot better than the last nine minutes that we had to sit through.

The previous speaker referred to the old National; well, I’ve got news for that member: this is no longer the party of John Key and Bill English—you have lost that for sure. Also the fact that he seemed to want to provoke me into outing myself as a socialist—I’ve been waiting for the opportunity to get on that billboard with my comrades. So, yes, I am a proud socialist, and please make me that meme.

I don’t think the sky will fall in by letting parents attend the parent-teacher interviews for their children. It was real good fortune that this bill was pulled out of the biscuit tin by one of my awesome and talented colleagues of the class of 2020. No doubt we will all see them in Minister jobs as well, so rising to those dizzy heights that some have fallen from, and you can feel the bitterness when they talk about it, which is absolutely—anyway, this time of night.

But anyway, I am talking about this bill for the whole reason that I’ve had a bill in the ballot for a while now, and I would like it to come out. So I’m hoping that some of that magic of the new member might rub off on me while I’m talking—so, yes.

Look, this bill is the guiding principle that is really clear: empower parents to contribute to their children’s full potential. That is completely in line with one of our goals and aspirations as a Government, as stated by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, of course. Because from the moment she came into Government and she led us into this place, she has said that she wanted to make New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child. We always hear about New Zealand being a great place to raise a family, and while that is true, there is, of course, always more to do. Our Prime Minister has said that the way we treat children, the way we look after their wellbeing, and the way we ensure the lives they lead are full of opportunity says so much about the kind of country we are. So on this side of the House we want to be that kind of country. We want to give our children the opportunities. We want to support the parents and caregivers with giving their children the best possible life.

On that side of the House they obviously don’t, because I heard that as soon as this may go through, they would reverse it. I would not think that that would be a positive thing for the workers that are seeing the support that we are giving them just to be able to go with their children to their parent-teacher interviews, get to know the teachers, get to know the environment they’re in, get to know a little bit about what occupies them when they’re not in the house.

I’m sure anybody in this House who has been through the parent-teacher interviews will actually understand the importance that those interviews can play in the lives of their children. It actually improves the life of your child. I have been really privileged, actually, because I’ve been in a place where I was allowed to have the opportunity to go and sit with my child Max—awesome child—and, you know, where I could I would learn about my child’s academic, emotional, social development. Hearing firsthand from the teachers how my child was doing, academically tracking, and being socially relative to his classmates was really important because as a parent, while I knew how he was doing at home, I had to hear from his teacher about his behaviour at school. Sometimes that could be surprising. So hence, again, the importance of that time.

It is important in that aspect to acknowledge that work has changed for many people. We have much more insecure, casualised working where it may not be that easy to have that relationship with your employer and get the time off to spend the time with your child and his or her teacher. It can bring a lot of insecurities to try and take advantage of those opportunities.

So there is a disparity in access. Once again, a lot of the work that we’re doing on this side of the House is trying to change that disparity and make this a more equal world with equal opportunities for everyone. So this bill plays catch-up with our employment laws. It recognises that the level of support for employees and, through them, their children shouldn’t be left to the goodwill of employers. It’s a standard that we should uphold for the benefit of every parent with children in school. Because this bill, at its very core, is about inclusivity.

Now this bill is at its first reading, it will come again to that hard-working select committee, education and workforce. I’m looking forward to all of the submissions and hearing from everyone why this is so important. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Ingrid Leary: Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just waiting. Giving the Green member a chance.

Hon James Shaw: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon James Shaw.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker—thank you for the prompt.

Chris Bishop: It’s been a big day.

Hon JAMES SHAW: It has. I’m sorry, I lost my count. Look, I don’t think anybody in this House would argue that participation in parent-teacher interviews is a bad thing and oughtn’t to be supported. It means that people are able, as the previous speaker Marja Lubeck mentioned, to participate in their child’s education. The Hon Scott Simpson objected to the bill on the basis that he didn’t think that employers should pay for their employees to be able to participate in parent-teacher interviews with paid leave. So then the question becomes: if no one’s objecting to the principle of people participating, why do we think this is necessary? It is because clearly there are people in our society who do not have the opportunity to participate in parent-teacher interviews because they are constrained by their own economic circumstances in doing so.

The reason why our side of the House, on the Government side of the House, continuously raise ways of making it easier for low-income families, and so on, to be able to participate in things like this is pretty simple. It’s because they don’t get paid enough. It’s because their employment is too precarious and their economic situation is too precarious to be able to take that time out.

So if Mr Simpson wants the Labour Party, the Green Party to stop proposing small measures like this that make the lives of vulnerable communities and low-income families easier, maybe he could back a basic measure which enables people to be paid properly, to be paid enough to live on, to be able to have secure enough employment that they are able to take some time out from their employment to go and participate in things like parent-teacher interviews. That is the counterfactual.

In the absence of that kind of thing, then measures like this are absolutely necessary, and that is why the Green Party is supporting this bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d just like to look at what happens to parents who can’t go to parent-teacher interviews. I was lucky enough to be able to go to parent-teacher interviews for all three of my children, because I’ve had flexible working hours, and that’s been fantastic. As the Green member has pointed out, many, many workers can’t do that, so instead they have to rely on school reports. The problem with school reports is that they’re not nuanced. They can’t be interrogated, and teachers seem to have a fairly PC language, I would say, where they can make statements about a child, and the person reading the report might want to know “What does that mean about my child’s learning? What does that mean about the environment?”

School reports can seem more like an assessment rather than the development of a relationship, and they don’t really allow parents to ask why. They also don’t allow for parents to look at teacher blind spots or for teachers to look at parent blind spots, and by that I mean if a child is being unusually quiet in class, there may be reasons that the parents can discuss with the teacher. Or if a child is playing up or if a child is doing really, really well, there will be lots of context around that that really needs to be discussed, and in Pacific culture that’s called talanoa. It’s a really, really important concept. It’s about relationship. It’s about the concept of many people being involved in a child’s life, and those relationships are the start of the process, not simply a cold, hard school report with something written on it that can’t really be interrogated or discussed.

The other thing that comes out of parent-teacher interviews is, I believe, more investment by parents into spending time with their children on really important things, like reading. When a parent becomes really interested in their child’s development, when they can participate in it through that talanoa and that conversation, that inspires parents to want to spend more time maybe reading, playing sport, or whatever.

I’d just like to reference a fantastic initiative—it’s a pilot, actually—in my own electorate, in Taieri, called Read Share Grow, which is all about parents and children spending time together reading books. I’ve had the privilege of being able to distribute some of those books, provided by the National Library of New Zealand. We know that literacy is a game-changer. We know that good literacy can lift children out of poverty or can enhance life chances across the board. So reading is really important, and reading as a way of parents and children connecting is really important, and that is one of the things that can come out of this idea of simply investing time, being able to spend time with children, and then being able to spend more time with children in their education.

On that, I’d just like to acknowledge that the Prime Minister had intended to come down to Bathgate Park School to actually participate in that reading programme and read a book to the school children. Unfortunately, she was stopped by fog. The children sent her letters, and the Prime Minister responded with a personal note, which ended up getting published in the newspaper. She has promised to come back, so as the MP for that area, I will be sure to hold the Prime Minister to that promise.

So this bill, the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill, is a simple bill. It does what it says. It allows parents to go in working hours, and it’s not a burden to employers. Why? Because it’s only four hours per year. That’s 12 months of continuous employment, and employers will have three days’ notice of an employee intending to take that up. That’s not a huge amount of time for what is a really fantastic benefit, and as has been so rightly pointed out by the Hon James Shaw, many parents simply are not in the position to afford to take that time off.

As my colleague Marja Lubeck mentioned, workplaces are becoming more insecure, more casualised. This tends to impact on women. It is women who are often really involved as primary caregivers in developing the education of their child, along with their schools, and so this bill also supports women being able to work and being able to parent, as it does all primary caregivers. So although this is a small bill, although the change is small and it doesn’t place a great burden on the employer, it’s a really important bill for those many hundreds of thousands of workers who currently simply don’t have the wherewithal, the funds, or the licence to attend parent-teacher interviews and have that really important talanoa with the teachers so that they can get the best education for their children. I commend it to the House.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to oppose the Holidays (Parent-Teacher Interview Leave) Amendment Bill. Good lawmaking requires the member responsible for this bill to properly define the problem that they are trying to solve. This bill does not solve a problem that I have been made aware of by many parents that I have spoken to who work varying hours; some work multiple jobs. All that they have told me is that their employer or school have worked with them to make sure that they can make their child’s parent-teacher interview.

Yes, it is important for parents to know how their children are doing in school. But at the expense of employers? This bill is not fair on businesses, even though costs are in the small, grand scheme of other costs imposed by this Government. Increased minimum wage, new public holiday, doubling sick leave, and less flexible employment relation rules all impose major costs on small businesses. The minimum wage increase alone costs businesses over $8,000 per year for a full-time minimum-wage employee. These additional costs risk job creations. Who does the business pass these added costs on to? It is the New Zealand public. So the employers just add the costs that you keep compounding and compounding on them, to the rest of New Zealanders.

The next thing I would like to know is what other things you would like to regulate for parents. Is it going to be their sports days? Who knows? Are people allowed to go and take their pets because they consider them?

I’m a firm believer that parents should be able to make parent-teacher interviews. I do not see there is a problem here. Most schools are very flexible with it, and so are employers. ACT oppose this bill.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an honour to speak on this bill, as drafted by my colleague Terisa Ngobi. As we know, this bill reforms the Holidays Act to allow workers with children to take leave to attend parent-teacher evenings up to four hours per year. It’s an entitlement that is to be used; it is not to be carried over, unlike some entitlements under the Holidays Act. I believe, because I have read the draft legislation, it can be used for more than one child. It also recognises the important role of parents in children’s education. I often personally look forward to interviews with my children’s parents with some excitement as we pull up our tiny little chairs to sit around the tiny table and hear about our absolute favourite subject, our children. We usually try and book these meetings after work, and I think most parents probably do try and do that, but, for some people, after work is late at night, it’s in the middle of the night, or it’s early in the morning—it doesn’t fit the 9 to 5 regime that perhaps those on the other side perceive as a normal working arrangement.

I was actually quite surprised at the tone of the other side of the House in relation to this bill, because I do actually think that it is a very serious and very useful bill. What I did was actually mention—when this bill was first spoken of in the House by my colleague—the idea to my sister, who’s a first year teacher in Auckland. She was actually so passionate about the importance of parent-teacher interviews that I contacted her and I asked her to put some of her words and thoughts down in writing so I could convey them to you, and I’m sure, when this bill goes to select committee—which it will—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I think the member could leave the Chair out of the debate.

CAMILLA BELICH: Oh, I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker.

I’m sure, when one sees this matter go to select committee, that we will all see that there are many stories about the importance of this leave to New Zealanders. So if the Chair—Madam Speaker, if you—would indulge me in reading some of my sister’s thoughts out, I think they would be very enlightening to the House in relation to this bill.

She said, “I feel very strongly about this being an important thing, but hard for some families to practically be able to do anything about it. I wish more families had booked in to see me. There are studies that show that whānau engagement is super important. If a family buys into a school being a good place—and this may be counter their past experience—they hold their kids more accountable. Also, kids don’t make a fuss and can sometimes go under the radar, and that’s also a worry. Giving them their time in the sun can make all the difference at an age where they don’t know who they are just yet. One student had been misbehaving in class—going on computer games; not submitting any work; talking and socialising throughout the lesson. His mother and I had a wonderful conversation about him not being a bad kid but also about how, if he was good at a subject and had an opportunity to contribute, then he would do well. This kid trusts his mum, and her showing me that she trusted me completely changed how this student participated in class.”—this was all to do with the parent-teacher meeting.

“Not only does he actively now enthusiastically contribute, he helps out and supports other students in their learning, giving them the confidence to share good ideas, even standing with other students to help them have the confidence to speak up in class. His own work is now in the top of the range for his un-streamed class, and, when previously he had not submitted work or completed tasks, he now is doing so. This change took place the day after the parent-teacher meeting.”

Auckland class sizes are big, and having a meeting with a teacher might be the only opportunity in a year where a student is focused on the wraparound attention that they need between their parent and their teacher. Also, after a year of lockdowns, parents need to know how schoolwork and their expectations of their child work together. Sometimes kids don’t pass on things to their parents, and they are at a loss of what they need.

My sister also reflected that the day she had her parent-teacher interviews she had one particular parent who made a booking but wasn’t able to show up for that particular interview because she had a work shift. In that case, it was a real shame, because she missed the opportunity of speaking to her teacher, my sister, and hearing about how her student was doing in class. So I would like to commend this bill to the House as a way of addressing this important issue.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.