Wednesday, 23 June 2021

Volume 753

Sitting date: 23 June 2021

WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

SPEAKER: 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.

Ministerial Statements

COVID-19 Response—Greater Wellington Region Change to Alert Level 2

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I wish to make a ministerial statement. Just over an hour ago, Cabinet met and decided, out of an abundance of caution, to move to alert level 2 in the greater Wellington region, which includes the Wairarapa and the Kāpiti Coast, from 6 p.m. tonight to 11.59 p.m. on Sunday. The rest of New Zealand remains at COVID-19 alert level 1. This follows the positive COVID-19 test for the traveller from Sydney who was in Wellington over the weekend. These settings will be reviewed by Cabinet again on Sunday.

This is the first time that we have moved up to alert level 2 to manage the potential risk of COVID-19 in the community. This is not a lockdown. If we all contribute and follow the health behaviours at alert level 2, we can break any potential transmission. I would reiterate that these are precautionary measures that will remain in place while we contact trace and test all of those who we need to. First and foremost, we want to ensure that New Zealanders are not unnecessarily exposed to COVID-19. We have always had a plan for a situation like this. Our contact tracers are currently working at pace, and they have been since we were first notified of this case last night.

The positive case, who is back in Sydney, was being spoken to until well after most people here in New Zealand had already gone to bed, and again early this morning. The person’s four close contacts in New Zealand were notified last night. They were put into self-isolation and they were tested first thing this morning. Two of those results have come back; they were negative. I was advised on the way to the House that the remaining two have also come back and they have also been negative. Locations of interest were identified, published, and updated as more information has come to light throughout the day. We continue to work closely with the case and close contacts to ensure that we’ve got all of the information we need for a swift response.

The decision follows the pause in quarantine-free travel with New South Wales. The decision to do that was made at around 5 o’clock last night. To be clear: that decision was taken before we were notified of the current positive case from the person who had been in Wellington. We’ve taken a deliberately cautious approach to pausing travel when there is community transmission in Australia, and that continues. Where cases cannot be linked to the border, or there are unanswered questions as to their origin, we will consider a pause. That is what we have done again in this case.

A reminder about what alert level 2 means for Wellington: it means that gatherings of more than 100 people should not take place. We know that gatherings pose the biggest risk of spread—this includes weddings, birthdays, funerals, tangi, and church services. Social distancing measures should be observed: 2 metres in public places and in retail stores, like supermarkets and clothes shops, and at least 1 metre in most other places, such as workplaces, cafes, restaurants, and gyms. The wearing of face masks remains compulsory on all public transport, and I also encourage people to wear them when they are waiting for public transport or are in taxis and ride-share services. I’d also encourage people to wear a face covering in any situation where physical distancing is not possible. Businesses can open but they need to follow public health rules, including ensuring physical distancing, record keeping, and the cap of 100 people. Schools and early childhood services also stay open at alert level 2. Hospitality venues must apply the three S’s: seated, separated, and single server.

The message remains: if you are sick, please stay home; don’t go to work or school and don’t socialise. If you’ve got symptoms of a cold or flu, or aches and pains, call your doctor or Healthline and ask about being tested. Please keep track of where you have been at all times. This is a reminder of the importance of our COVID Tracer app and maintaining accurate records of one’s movements. While travel is not restricted under alert level 2, people should be encouraged, and are encouraged, to take their behaviours and take their alert level with them when they are outside of the Wellington region—so, for example, if someone was in Wellington over the weekend and they are now in Christchurch, please do not attend large gatherings. This will help for us all to keep each other safe.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Minister for the update. I’ve just got a series of questions that I think people would be interested in the answer to. When were officials first advised of the Sydney case, when were Ministers notified, and when was the public notified? [Bell rung]

SPEAKER: Sorry. Self-rule on the buttons—we’re going to have a few problems.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I was first informed around 8.45 p.m. last night. My understanding is that the advice came through to officials not long before that. So within an hour or two before that, New Zealand officials were notified of the case. But we certainly weren’t aware of the case when we made the decision to implement the pause. That was made at around about 5 o’clock—somewhere between 5 and 6 o’clock last night.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I think one of the things that many people are a little bit frustrated by is the length of time it took to bring to the public’s attention the locations of interest where this particular individual had been. I wonder if the Minister could offer some comment on why it took till sort of mid-morning and constantly refreshing the Ministry of Health website to get a really full list of exactly where this person had been, given the information was known the night before, or at least a lot of the information was known the night before.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The interview process started last night. It continued again this morning. The interview process is very extensive. It goes through not just where people have been, but exactly where within the location they’ve been. If we take a venue like Te Papa, for example, which is listed twice on the locations of interest, that’s a very large venue with a lot of people. So the contact tracers work hard to identify within that group of people where the risk actually lies. That does involve quite an extensive interviewing process. The first batch of locations of interest was released just before 9 o’clock this morning. Bear in mind that part of the assembly of the locations of interest, assembling all that information together, involved talking to people on the other side of the Tasman. There’s a time zone difference, and then, of course, there’s the fact that it’s the middle of the night, and people do sleep for some of that time. I can say that the team working on this, though, did work through the night to pull the information required together.

I’d also note, and I think that this is important for people to understand, it is not necessarily the locations but the people who were at the locations at the time of potential exposure that is the important part. So the fact that things may have happened at those locations—people may have been at those locations, say, this morning, for example, before they were notified—that in itself does not necessarily increase the risk. The risk existed when people were there at the same time as the case was there.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Just in relation to that, there have been reports that people who were at Te Papa, for example, at the time listed on the locations of interest information on the website who scanned in with the NZ COVID Tracer app have not yet received a notification through the app. Has he been advised of issues with that, and are he and his officials looking into that?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’m very happy to follow that up. It may well be that the notifications have only been sent to people who have scanned in to certain parts of Te Papa, but I’ll follow that up and find out.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The other bit of information in relation to that is that I’m told that it’s very difficult to actually register if you were at a location of interest. Some MPs may be aware of the fact that the Ministry of Health website says, “Call Healthline”, and if you call Healthline there’s currently, I think, a 60-minute wait, and the prompt says, “Go to the website”, and the website just says, “Call Healthline.” So is there a way of making it a little bit easier for people to register? We are dealing with quite a large number of people, actually, because, as the Minister’s noted, Te Papa had probably hundreds of people there—I’m told there’s an art exhibit there—over the weekend. So is there a way of making that simpler for people?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): One of the parts of the contact-tracing process, and one of the parts of the notification process, is also making sure that Healthline and others who are dealing with people’s queries have as much accurate information in as timely a way as possible. For example, when we announce locations of interest, we make sure that Healthline get that information, if not slightly before, at least at the same time as the announcement is made, so that when people ring in, they can disseminate accurate information to people. That is one of the lessons that have been learnt—we’ve got to make sure that Healthline are fully looped in. I do appreciate that there will be wait times for people calling Healthline. Please stay on the line if you have a concern. But, also, my message is please don’t call Healthline if you don’t have a good reason for calling Healthline at the moment. So if you’re not in Wellington and you just want to know what does this alert level change means for you, please don’t call Healthline. We want that line and those call centres to be focused on the people who really need to get the information related to this.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Why did the ministry website this morning continue the confusing nomenclature of “casual plus”, “close plus”, which I think most people agree, on reflection from the February cluster outbreak, was deeply confusing for people? I think Sir Brian Roche has noted that, in and amongst other experts, as well. When you logged on earlier this morning, there continued to be that use of that terminology, and in particular, for example, in relation to the Rydges, it said, “Get a test around day 5”, and it’s now actually been updated to say, “Stay at home, get a test”. So some of the actual advice to people has changed over the course of the morning, even though the actual location of interest hasn’t changed. So I wonder if you could provide a view on that.

Hon Grant Robertson: That’ll be because we want to get information out.

CHRIS BISHOP: I’m trying to ask serious questions here.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): One of the realities of dealing with this is that advice does change as more information comes to light. So we try to share information as quickly as we can, but the reality is if we waited until we had all of the information assembled to be able to give people very clear guidance of exactly what’s required of people in certain situations, we wouldn’t be telling anyone anything at this point. The reality is we try to share it as quickly as we can. As more information comes to light, the advice will change, and so we do ask people to keep tuning in.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): My point is around the nomenclature. Is the Government going to continue to use the fourfold classification of close, close plus, casual, and casual plus, and—

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: It’s not on the site any more.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I know it’s not on the site any more, but it was on the site this morning, and that’s what I want to know from the Minister: why was it on the site this morning, when most people, I think, thought it had been done away with after the confusion from the February outbreak?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As I did indicate, people were working very quickly overnight to get information out there as quickly as possible. That differentiation between casual and casual plus was not deemed to be helpful, and, therefore, it has not continued to be used.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Was the Government advised by the ministry to close the New South Wales - New Zealand travel bubble earlier than yesterday?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): No.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Just responding to the ministerial statement on the move to alert level 2 in Wellington. On behalf of the Green Party, we wanted to add a short statement to make it very clear the importance of protecting our whakapapa, protecting our whānau, and protecting our community in a public health - first approach in taking this necessary caution. Again, reiterating the importance of the advice that is given: for example, things like wearing masks, scanning, but particularly picking up on staying home if you’re sick. As always, the Greens will continue to monitor how that particular piece of advice impacts on low-income communities, on front-line workers, and on local small community and neighbourhood businesses. We’ll continue to prioritise that monitoring in our responsibility as a party as well, and just wanting to make sure that we add our voice into supporting the public health and safety - first approach. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today’s announcement will be saddening for many people in the Wellington region, particularly those in hospitality who are able to open at alert level 2 but find it difficult to make money and actually be viable, given the restrictions. It will also be a test of how far the Government’s response has developed since we last faced these kinds of restrictions back in February. I have a series of questions that I hope the Minister can answer so we can better understand how that is going.

This morning we heard from the Auditor-General that their office doesn’t believe that the Government is prepared to do what in Britain has been called “surge vaccination”. They have talked about some advice for ring vaccination, where vaccination is done at a point of outbreak and then goes out in concentric rings. I just wonder, over the next four days, if the Government has any plan to intensify vaccination in Wellington; does it have the ability to do that to the point that it will make any difference?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): That’s not something we’ve discussed at this point. At the moment the risk in Wellington still remains low, which is why we’re talking about alert level 2 and not a lockdown, or alert level 3 or above. In terms of re-allocating vaccine doses from other places around the country in order to move them to Wellington, that is not something that we are currently planning to do.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): If level 2 is not a lockdown, is level 3 a lockdown?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes, people are required to stay at home at alert level 3; they are not at alert level 2.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): The Government received a report from Ayesha Verrall last year which set out a “gold standard” for contact tracing that was described as end-to-end contact tracing from index cases to all contacts within 96 hours, or four days. Does the Government believe that it will achieve that standard this time, having achieved—if I remember correctly—52 percent in both the August and February outbreaks?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Certainly, the contact tracing measures are very good measures. They’ve recently been reviewed and the results of that review have yet to be formalised. We’ve looked at those in light of the fact that the contact tracing system—and Dr Verrall is now part of the Government—was established in the context of potential widespread community transmission. That is not what we have been dealing with most of the last year. So we’ve had another look at those and we’ll make further decisions on whether any of those measures should be changed in due course. But the fact that we are on to this very early, the fact that this is really only five days that we are talking about here—from first potential point of exposure through to today—is a good sign. The fact that our first test results are coming back negative is also a good sign. The teams were isolating people very, very quickly. Again, that is encouraging, but we keep that under review.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): So if all the stars are aligning and the circumstances easier than those previously faced as a country, is the Minister saying he expects contact tracing to reach the gold standard level set by Ayesha Verrall’s report a year ago or not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Well, that’s what they’ll be aiming for.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): And does the Minister expect them to reach it?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): That will very much depend on the circumstances that we find ourselves facing over the next 48 to 72 hours.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Hope springs eternal. Testing—will there be rapid saliva testing available in Wellington over the coming days?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): In cases like this, where we want accurate results, we encourage people to get the nasal pharyngeal test because that is the gold standard for testing.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Does the Government have the capability to roll out saliva testing in a scenario like this? And does it acknowledge that if it was able to do so, there might be less hesitancy from people to get tested? They could test more people faster and therefore more quickly isolate an outbreak.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As we’ve canvassed well before, saliva testing does have a role, but it is less accurate. So in a situation like this where accuracy is important, a 10 percent difference in accuracy can be quite material.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Does the Government have the ability to roll out saliva testing in circumstances it does think appropriate?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Well, yes. And we are.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Could the Government roll out, for example, tens of thousands of saliva tests if they had them contracted? How are those contracts going?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The member is asking a hypothetical question. One of the things that’s important about testing is actually testing the right people rather than testing large volumes of people. So everyone in the debating chamber could go out and take a test now and it wouldn’t necessarily tell us anything. Making sure that we’re testing people who have symptoms or who have been at locations of interest is actually far more important.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Why does the Minister think any Government would randomly test the wrong people? Surely any testing should be targeted at people likely to be infected?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Well, I think the member has just reinforced my earlier point. If you’re going to be targeting people, you want to use the most accurate test available, and that is a nasal pharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I wonder if the Minister has paid any attention to the petition to this House of Darryl Clarke on behalf of event organisers, particularly in light of the announcement overnight that the ASB Showgrounds in Greenlane, Auckland has gone into liquidation following multimillion-dollar losses from alert level 2 closures and uncertainty about future alert levels. In that petition, Darryl Clarke and his associates and his petitioners have presented a plan for event centres to be able to open under alert level 2 conditions, just as shopping malls have thousands of people streaming in and out at alert level 2. Given the advent of the liquidation of ASB Showgrounds and an alert level 2 move within 24 hours, will the Government now give that petition greater attention?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I do want to acknowledge that any alert level change has an impact for a wide variety of businesses, community organisations, and people. Our Government makes the decision around alert level escalation based on public health criteria that continues to guide the decision making. We acknowledge that those decisions have a significant impact for people, but we have to continue to seek to eliminate COVID-19 from our community. Those businesses, those organisations would suffer far worse consequences if we found ourselves in the situation of other countries that have not contained COVID-19 and ended up with widespread community outbreaks and rolling lockdowns.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Is it responsible for Government MPs to leave Wellington, as the Minister announced that they would in his press conference at 1pm, when businesses such as hospitality will suffer quite severely from the restrictions being placed on them?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I think the member massively overestimates the amount of hospitality that members of this House consume. But there is not a hard border at alert level 2. People are free to continue to travel at alert level 2, but we do ask them to take their alert level with them.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. We respect the—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. Sorry, I thought she was going to seek leave to be added to the list.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Yes, I thought we were.

SPEAKER: If she’s not, I will seek leave on her behalf to be added to the specified party leaders list for the purpose of this debate. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I thought we sorted that yesterday.

SPEAKER: No, it needs to be a motion in the House before that occurs.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Ka pai. We respect the decision of the Government to lead with the health response. That’s always been the best response. I guess probably from Te Paati Māori’s perspective there’s a couple of concerns—one, that we take stock and use this as an opportunity to look at what we could be doing differently. We are still continuing with a response that is based on the first time that COVID came here. Where we fit in this regime with this Government, as a cross-party whakaaro, or the way that we can somehow be part of the decision, and most importantly, as a cross-party approach—how and where do we fit in to ensure that there is a strong Māori response? We are aware that there has been a Māori strategy within this COVID response effort. We’re not too sure what it is, in going forward. So we are appealing in some way that there is a stand-up not necessarily of the old COVID response committee but something that serves in that manner.

We are also clear that there have been issues in the provinces and the regions with the testing, and some aren’t able to be stood up quickly. So, again, looking at this from a reflection point, what and where and how do we make sure that this which is clearly going to be the global new norm—how we respond in a way that makes sure that our most vulnerable are considered and protected.

The other thing that I would like to leave for the Minister to consider is that we’re conscious that some of our Māori providers have been asked to reduce their vaccination supply. Taranaki District Health Board, which has been in the news for other matters, is an example, and we do want to be clear that as we look at the strategies going forward we can indeed meet the vaccine requirement.

I guess the other thing is that it’s really important that we put aside politics at a stage, and when we’re dealing with matters that have been successfully considered in our proactive plan as a nation that we’re able to work together, and how that works for us, particularly as Māori, as tangata whenua, as tangata moana and tangata Tiriti united, is a good opportunity for Government to consider a cross-party approach as well.

Nō reira, kia ora koutou katoa. David, stop being naughty.

SPEAKER: Chris Hipkins in reply.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll only respond to those last few comments. I think the member perhaps is a little unfair in her assertion at the beginning that we continue to follow the same formula when we’re dealing with COVID-19 cases now that we did when we first dealt with COVID-19 over a year ago. In fact, we continue to evolve our response, we continue to look at ways to improve it, we continue to refine our methodologies, and people will see that evident here.

In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, I would note that I am appearing before the Health Committee for an hour and a half this very afternoon, where we will be talking about COVID-19, and no doubt there’ll be plenty of questions on that.

In terms of equity, we do monitor our testing and our vaccination rates including for Māori and Pacific communities, in particular. In terms of Maōri vaccines, Māori providers shouldn’t be being asked to scale back, but they will be being asked to stick to the plan. I think it’s a tribute to some of our Māori health providers that they’ve been forging ahead and getting well ahead of plan. We want to be able to support them to continue to do that when we have greater supply of vaccine. So over the next three to four weeks, we are asking them to stick to the plan. From sort of mid to late July, we’ll have greater quantities and, therefore, if they continue to forge ahead, we’ll have more ability to support them and absorb their enthusiasm to do that.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): To the Minister, I think it needs to be reminded that during the first response—

SPEAKER: Order! We now have a little bit of a problem because I took from the member’s conclusion that she had completed her speech and the Minister has replied, which sort of finishes it all. There is an opportunity later on during the general debate to take further matters forward.

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

SPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Josiah Tualamali’i and Benji Timu requesting that the House hold a special debate to acknowledge and reflect on the Dawn Raids of the 1970s; and urge the Government to apologise for the Dawn Raids, state that that should never happen again; and set up a legacy fund to allow education about them to continue

petition of Juan Pablo Proverbio requesting that the House urge the Government to reopen the Parent Visitor Visa category for parents of New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who have been fully vaccinated and meet all the visa and travel requirements to be allowed to come to New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Health Research Council of New Zealand, Statement of Intent 2020-2024 and Statement of Performance Expectations 2020

Financial Markets Authority, Statement of Performance Expectations 2021/2022.

SPEAKER: I present the Report of the Auditor-General, entitled Results of our 2019/20 audits of port companies. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction

Maritime Powers Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Environment

1. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he have confidence that the Resource Management Act 1991 functioned appropriately in relation to the consenting process for the Kennedy Point marina at Pūtiki Bay; if so, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): It is for the courts to decide whether the actions taken under the Resource Management Act (RMA) were done so appropriately. The RMA decision was made legally by the democratically elected council via their planning department and has been considered in appeals in the Environment Court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government’s resource management reform address the systemic power imbalance between mana whenua and local communities on one side and developers on the other?

Hon DAVID PARKER: To the extent that that relates to the primary question, I’m not going to engage in that debate because those issues were, no doubt, traversed in the court decisions that considered the appeals, and for reasons of comity I am not going to adjudicate on what they have.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think it acceptable that a development on Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf that limits use and public access is allowed to affect the habitat of taonga kororā penguins that are sensitive to human activity; if so, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve got great confidence that those very issues were considered by the consent authorities. I would note that while some in this House might desire that the executive rule by fiat, I support the executive abiding by the rule of law.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Does he have confidence that allowing the development of Pūtiki upholds the Crown’s obligations to Ngāti Paoa as mana whenua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and if so, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Again, my opinion as Minister is irrelevant. I am bound by the rule of law.

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Is he committed to ensuring that the framework for Ahu Moana areas announced yesterday in the Government’s Revitalising the Gulf strategy enables true partnership with mana whenua to ensure coastal development accords with community and mana whenua needs; if so, how?

SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister to answer the question—because I’m not right across the documentation that was issued yesterday—I would like an assurance that there is a direct relationship between the question and the supplementary.

Chlöe Swarbrick: The response to Sea Change Plan, that report as released today was done in collaboration between the Minister and Dr Ayesha Verrall and their respective—

SPEAKER: No, no, I certainly saw the press statements. The question is whether the primary question relates to that. It is a very narrow primary question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yep, and the primary question to that effect—under the Resource Management Act, my understanding and our understanding is that consideration has to be given to mana whenua, in particular. You may or may not be aware that there is currently—and the courts themselves have notified that there actually wasn’t thorough consideration or consultation with both of the trust boards.

SPEAKER: I’m going to ask Dr Kerekere to ask the supplementary question again, and I’ll make a decision.

SPEAKER: Look, I’ll fall right on the outside line and allow the Minister to answer it. It is, strictly speaking, out of order but I’ll ask the Minister to address it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I refer the member to my earlier answers, and I don’t think this supplementary really relates to them. But given that the question has been asked about Ahu Moana practices that are envisaged as part of the response on the Hauraki Gulf—what’s envisaged there is that local communities who are facing pressures in respect of local fisheries depletion can work together to try and address those local fisheries depletions in a way that’s difficult under the broader quota management system provisions.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he or anybody else from the Government commit to visiting Pūtiki Bay to hear from uri o Ngāti Paoa and locals about long-held concerns with the proposed marine development?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I’ve already met with representatives from them. I had a recent meeting that was held in Auckland. I’ve also been lobbied by people outside the launch of the revitalisation of the Gulf response. I’m well informed of these issues, but, I repeat, I’m bound by the rule of law, and a legal decision has been taken and has been appealed up through the courts, and I think it is beholden on everyone in this Parliament to respect the judiciary and their decisions rather than to rule by executive fiat to overrule them.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. The question to the Minister was whether he will commit to visiting Pūtiki Bay.

SPEAKER: I thought “meeting with” was the question asked originally.

Chlöe Swarbrick: No, Mr Speaker, the question was: will he commit to visiting and speaking with those who are directly impacted?

SPEAKER: Well, and the Minister indicated that he had spoken with—so that question has not only been addressed, it’s been answered.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes—particularly, the Government’s very recent announcement to move Wellington to alert level 2, given the recent visit to Wellington by an individual who has since tested positive for COVID-19. Events like this are why we have the alert level framework, which allows us to change alert levels to better respond to possible outbreaks of COVID-19 and ensure we mitigate the potential effects of COVID-19. This builds on the precautionary approach we’ve taken to COVID-19 to date and helps us to continue with our elimination strategy, which is ultimately the best response for health and our economy.

Hon Judith Collins: Did Cabinet make the decision to have a mental health stocktake, as announced by Andrew Little yesterday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member will have heard the Minister say, he’s been canvassing a range of options to ensure that the decisions that were made as part of Budget 2019 have been rolled out as we expect. The member will recall that yesterday, I traversed some of those announcements, and I think it’s helpful to remind the member that of the $1.9 billion that was announced in that Budget, we were very clear that the primary focus of those spending decisions was about building the fence at the top of the cliff. We wanted to make sure that we were very early on creating alternative and early access for those who need it. As the member will have already heard me say yesterday, 10,000 sessions a month are being provided as a result. On the issue of capital roll-out, $233 million was part of Budget 2019 on capital projects. Across those capital projects, they have now been allocated, by and large, by the Government. But, again, building facilities—as the member well knows—does take longer than 18 months.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked did Cabinet make the decision, and got everything except that.

SPEAKER: No, I thought it was addressed right at the beginning of the—

Hon Judith Collins: Was the answer yes or no?

Nicola Willis: Is that a second supplementary?

SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask again, if she wishes—

Hon Judith Collins: All right, I will then.

SPEAKER: —but can I just make one suggestion: that it will be easier for everyone to hear if the member behind her just winds it back a bit.

Hon Judith Collins: When was she informed of the decision to have a mental health stocktake, as announced by Andrew Little?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The decision of a Minister to look across the spending profile of his portfolio is one that he can take, and, as I have said, the Minister has been talking openly about those areas where investment has absolutely met our expectations but also around the $233 million where it has taken some time to design and build, because, of course, we started from scratch. That member’s Government had no such plan to ensure that we had adequate and dignified acute mental health care. But if the member interprets decent mental health care in this country to be what we solely do at crisis, then, obviously, the member has not been talking to the sector about what needs to change.

Hon Judith Collins: So did she find out from the media as well?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe her Government has acted urgently to roll out its 2017 Speech from the Throne commitment to have free mental health services for all under-25-year-olds when, four years on, there’s only still a pilot in place?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Two parts to my answer here: firstly, we have committed to rolling out additional services across our school-based services, so that’s our way of making sure that no matter where you are in the country, our young people are able to access that form of primary mental health care. So we’ve been expanding those services over time. The reason for that is research tells us that a first manifestation of the need for care sometimes will come through those school-based health services. The second thing that we’ve been doing is making sure that we’re supporting the likes of Youthline, and also, through our primary mental health care roll-out, we have been supporting youth-specific youth services. Seventeen so far have been contracted across 15 DHBs, with over 60 contracted full-time equivalents and over—as I’ve said previously—10,000 services delivered as part of that roll-out. The member is talking about one particular project and that is Piki, and that is something that has been supported by the Green Party. That’s been in this particular region—again, looking at the results of that to determine whether or not that ongoing roll-out, the impact that that will have for young people. But I totally reject the idea that we haven’t changed up the service provision for young people.

Hon Judith Collins: When she said that the key test for Budget 2019 was “Will someone in the very early stages of mental health issues be able to get the help they need?”, does she think her Government has met that test with just five extra beds being added and some patients having to sleep on the floor?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I would actually just go back to my quote there: $1.9 billion—a significant proportion of that was about developing primary mental health care. We now, in over 200 sites, across 16 DHBs, and covering an enrolled population of 1.4 million people, with 360 fulltime-equivalents, have delivered 120,000 sessions of primary mental health care that did not exist before that Budget. Building the fence at the top of the cliff was the focus there. If the member thinks that continuing to allow people to fall into crisis is the way to build a mental health system that we can be proud of, then I’d say that, unfortunately, we have very different visions. At the same time, yes, we need to rebuild acute services. Currently, we have a new build of the adult mental health facility in Waikato, in Lakes, in Mid-Central; refurbishment in Tai Rāwhiti and in Waitematā. That includes approved Crown funding committed of $233 million.

Hon Grant Robertson: Why was it necessary for the Government to commit $1.9 billion to mental health in Budget 2019?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because of the lack of investment under the last Government. That funding was dedicated towards the impacts of addiction. It was dedicated towards the mental health impacts and consequences of homelessness, of there being a lack of forensic mental health care in prisons. We inherited, for instance, a new prison build that was a mega-prison without any concern for whether or not we were dealing with the forensic mental health issues that exist within it. And, in addition, we are starting to front end those services with primary mental health, which just had not been considered before that.

Hon Judith Collins: What does she say to professor of wellbeing Arthur Grimes, who observed that when she addressed family members of suicide victims on the Parliament forecourt and told them, “When I speak about this issue, I speak not as a politician but as a human being.”, it was, in Professor Grimes’ words, “marketing over substance”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No one with personal experience of suicide in their family or friend network would ever describe the way they feel about that issue in that way, and I imagine every single person in this House has a story. But, speaking to what we have done as a Government, 74 Māori initiatives have been funded through the Māori Suicide Prevention Community Fund; 18 Pacific initiatives have been funded through the Pacific Suicide Prevention Community Fund. We’ve enhanced a suicide prevention information service for whānau. We’ve worked hard with DHBs to provide funding for dedicated suicide postvention, because it was something that was raised with us—that there was not enough support for those who had experience of suicide in their whānau. And, of course, we’re doing what we can to learn from the past with the Coronial Suspected Suicide Data Sharing Service, and, of course, we’ve set up the Suicide Prevention Office. That’s all been since a Budget in 2019. No one denies there’s more to do, but we have done a significant amount.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did Cabinet sign off a car regulation of 105 grams per kilometre by 2025 after the Ministry of Transport advised such a level would be counterproductive and would lead to people holding on to older, dirtier, and unsafe vehicles longer?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My recollection of the advice that we received from our officials around the Clean Car Standard—which, I note, the member is only just now commenting on with a press statement today; it was announced some time ago—was that we needed to couple together the standard with also an incentives regime so that we encouraged a switch in car and vehicle use and choice at the point of purchase. And so that’s why we made the decision, after receiving advice from officials, that would introduce the Clean Car Discount, which works hand in hand with the Clean Car Standard.

Hon Judith Collins: Is it correct that, under her policies, someone who imports a typical ute in 2025 will have to pay $3,000 for the car tax and another $9,000 on top of that under the car regulation—that’s $12,000 in total on top of the cost?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member misunderstands the way that the Clean Car Standard applies. So it allows, over a dealership, for them to make decisions around importation that means that if they are importing higher-emissions vehicles, if they are at the same time importing lower-emissions vehicles, then they can avoid the fees framework. And so that is the way the standard works, and I imagine that for many dealerships, given that this is something that is in place in almost every other country bar Russia and, I believe, Australia, this will not be unusual to many operators, because it is in place in most countries we compare ourselves to.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The latest Westpac McDermott Miller survey shows consumer confidence is on the rise, up 1.9 points to 107.1 in June. This is just below the survey’s long-term average of 110.7. A score above 100 indicates that more people are optimistic than pessimistic about the economy in the coming year. Not only are New Zealanders more positive about the outlook for the economy, they also expect their own financial situation will continue to improve. The survey does, however, show that the rise in confidence is uneven, which is in line with the different impacts of COVID-19.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic recovery has been supported by the manufacturing and services sector. The BNZ Business New Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index (PMI) remains firmly in expansionary territory, rising 0.3 points to 58.6 in May. The index compares very favourably to its long-term average of 53.1. The BNZ Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index (PSI) stood at 56.1 in May, and while the index did decline from its highest ever recorded level in April, it is still above its long-term average of 53.9. BNZ economists noted that the current strength in the PSI and PMI say good things for economic growth over the coming quarters. While our economy is robust, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic means the environment does continue to be volatile, as we discovered with the alert level change in Wellington today. We cannot be complacent.

Barbara Edmonds: What support is available to businesses and workers if there is a change in alert levels such as what has happened today in Wellington?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, we continue to have both the Short-term Absence Payment and the COVID-19 Leave Support Scheme, which are designed to support people if they have to either take tests and self-isolate or if they have COVID and they have to take time off work. Were the alert level change that has happened in Wellington today to last longer than seven days, this would trigger the resurgence support payment that is available for people right across New Zealand if alert levels rise.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions about the Clean Car Programme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, particularly that the clean car import standard will result in average fuel savings for families of nearly $7,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles and stop over 3 million tonnes of carbon pollution going into our atmosphere.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm there are no petrol, diesel, or hybrid seven-seaters or vans currently on the market that meet his standard; only plug-ins, which the Ministry of Transport says costs between $20,000 and $40,000 more?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Across the different types of makes and models, there are a range of vehicles on the market. I do note that one of the points of the standard is that it supports importers to bring in a wider range of low-emissions vehicles. That is one of the policy intentions of the policy, and one of the reasons that New Zealand currently has one of the dirtiest fleets in the world, and the reasons that New Zealanders don’t have access to those cleanest vehicles is because, as the Prime Minister said, we are one of only three countries in the world without such a standard.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why did he ignore Ministry of Transport advice in December 2020 that a 2025 time frame would “disrupt vehicle supply in the short term, push up vehicle prices, and slow the turnover of the existing fleet”?

SPEAKER: OK, I’m going to ask the member to rephrase the question. Maybe if he said, “Did he ignore … and, if so, why?” he would get there.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did the Minister ignore Ministry of Transport advice that a 2025 time frame “would disrupt vehicle supply in the short term, push up vehicle prices, and slow the turnover of the existing fleet”, and, if so, why?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Mr Speaker, a very well-crafted question, and in answer to it, what I can say to the member is that he’s commenting on a piece of policy advice that was received in late 2020 which doesn’t fully reflect the decisions that Cabinet actually made on the policy and a range of changes that were made to the policy after that point. I note from the regulatory impact assessment that officials prepared, it says, “The available evidence suggests that if price rises do occur, they are likely to be minimal and over time will reduce.” It also notes that “A meta-analysis of CO2 standards in OECD and non-OECD countries suggests that they do not necessarily lead to noticeable price increases.”

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Well, in respect of that answer, does he agree that the advice quoted in the previous supplementary was on a 2025 time frame, and did the Government implement a 2025 time frame?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It is correct that the Government implemented a 2025 time frame, but we made a number of other changes based on advice and consultation which means that the policy can be more effectively implemented. These include changes such as halving the fee levels that were originally proposed and consulted upon, making changes to the way that the targets worked to have a split target between light vehicles and commercial vehicles, and allowing overachievement to be banked and transferred.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister approached the Prime Minister after she said yesterday that LDV will have an electric ute in the next 12 to 24 months to inform her that there is no confirmed date for markets that drive on the left-hand side, and their electric ute is two-wheel drive?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I can confirm that on public record, both LDV and the sector have confirmed that LDV’s intention is to bring such a hybrid vehicle on to the New Zealand market in the next 12 to 24 months, and that a range of other importers are working very hard to do the same.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Will a new Toyota Hilux cost more than $12,300 more in 2025 as a result of the combined effects of the Clean Car Programme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The member’s supposition is entirely hypothetical, but I do not expect that to be the case at all. The member, as the Prime Minister said, is misunderstanding how the Clean Car Standard works, which takes an averaging approach across the fleet that any importer brings into the country at any one time. I want to note a comment that was made on record which I think is correct, which says that “A move from petrol and diesel to low emission transport is a natural evolution, and it is our aim to encourage that switch sooner, rather than later.” I agree with that comment made by the Hon Simon Bridges a few years ago. The difference is that this Government’s actually bringing in policies to bring it about.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that car firms like Toyota don’t like handing across market share or money to competitors like Ford, and, therefore, one of the behavioural responses he expects as Minister of Transport is that the vehicles that Toyota brings in will be aiming to meet the average that is enabled by his Clean Car Standard?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is quite correct, and it’s inherent in the design of the Clean Car Standard that we’re providing importers with a tool to go back to manufacturers to actually bring in cleaner vehicles into New Zealand, and it will be in their interest to do so. Again, I make the point that every country in the OECD except Australia, New Zealand, and Russia currently has one of these schemes, and the reason why New Zealand has one of the dirtiest fleets in the world is because we don’t. If we don’t take action on this issue, we will become the dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest vehicles, and New Zealanders don’t want that.

David Seymour: Do he or other members of his Cabinet often have to get basic microeconomic lessons from David Parker?

SPEAKER: Oh no, no, no, no, no—not a chance. [Interruption] Well, and, I mean, I have recently reflected on the improving relationship with Mr Seymour—without commenting on the relationship suggested yesterday—but I think Mr Seymour did know that that question was out of order when he asked it.

David Seymour: No.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m surprised.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has she made about the Housing Acceleration Fund?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Yesterday, I announced the launch of the $1 billion Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, a key component of the $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund. For decades, we have dealt with a patchwork system of infrastructure investment. Central government investment in infrastructure was identified by local councils and others as one of the key actions that the Government needs to take to increase the supply of housing in the short term. This is a Government focused on the future, and we are investing in the critical infrastructure needed to accelerate the delivery of new housing.

Glen Bennett: Where is it intended that the infrastructure be delivered, and what kind of increase in new housing should it support?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The fund is designed to support the provision of new housing supply right across the country, according to housing need. That is from urban centres to the regions, as well. In major urban environments, such as Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch, projects will be expected to deliver at least 200 additional homes. While in urban centres, such as Rotorua, Palmerston North, and Nelson, projects will be expected to deliver at least 100 homes. In smaller centres, the requirement will be set at 30 homes. The fund could deliver housing right across the housing continuum, from public housing to affordable rental homes to market homes for homeownership. I do note that the fund seeks to enable affordable housing.

Glen Bennett: How will the Government ensure a good regional spread and that funding won’t go exclusively to major urban centres?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Infrastructure Acceleration Fund is designed with regional spread of infrastructure investment across New Zealand in mind. We’ve been working closely with Local Government New Zealand, since we announced our funding in March of this year, to identify projects in our towns, smaller cities, and regions that require infrastructure funding to accelerate the building of new supply in areas that are also experiencing a housing shortage.

Question No. 6—Environment (Biodiversity)

6. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity): What actions, if any, has he taken to respond to the concerns of Māori in Te Tai Tokerau in regard to the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, and to ensure that the establishment of Significant Natural Areas does not undermine the rights and interests of mana whenua and Māori landowners?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity)): Māori land ownership goes hand in hand with the protection of indigenous biodiversity. The requirement for councils to identify, classify, and protect areas with significant habitats of plants and animals has existed under the Resource Management Act for decades and there are many significant natural areas (SNAs) throughout Aotearoa. However, a lack of guidelines on how councils should do this has led to inconsistent approaches and a worsening situation for our indigenous biodiversity. In Te Tai Tokerau, Māori have quite rightly raised concerns about the council’s failure to engage properly over SNAs. I have welcomed the council’s decision to pause and reset their processes. The issue in the Far North has not arisen because of the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity; it has arisen because of a poor process carried out locally, and the next version of the national policy statement (NPS) can help to fix that. It will do this by enabling a more flexible approach to Māori land which recognises the rights and interests of whānau, hapū, and iwi to develop their land and to look after indigenous biodiversity. I have instructed officials to ensure that the next version of the NPS will address the concerns raised by Māori in Te Tai Tokerau and to avoid similar issues happening again. Throughout this process, we have listened closely to the feedback provided by iwi Māori, and the next draft of the NPS will be available for further comment soon. Once finalised, the NPS will be a crucial part of our efforts to reverse the decline in Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique biodiversity and to protect our natural taonga for years to come.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Wasn’t this fiasco inevitable given that the draft national policy statement lacks teeth in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and fails to recognise the customary, proprietary, and decision-making rights and interests of tangata whenua as they relate to indigenous biodiversity?

Hon JAMES SHAW: When the draft policy statement was circulated in 2018-19, there were about 7,000 submissions made, including a number from iwi organisations, and we’ve listened very closely to the feedback that we have received about that. One of the reasons why the NPS has been delayed was so that we could do further work on exactly those provisions that the member is concerned about.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he think it’s possible to achieve environmental protection and restoration of indigenous biodiversity without recognising the kaitiaki and rangatira rights and interests of mana whenua?

Hon JAMES SHAW: No, absolutely I do not believe that. I believe that when the next draft of the national policy statement is circulated in a couple of months’ time, that member will, I hope, see that the role that Māori have as kaitiaki is well recognised within the new draft of that national policy statement.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he support an amendment to the draft national policy statement that requires the explicit agreement and consent of mana whenua before significant natural areas are identified and approved; and, if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, I think the member is referring to the exposure draft that was circulated in 2018-19. There’s actually been a significant amount of work done to that which is not yet out in the public domain, because the new draft has not yet been to Cabinet and has not yet been circulated. But I do hope that the member will see that her concerns are reflected in the new draft when it is circulated.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will the Minister ensure that mana whenua have prior knowledge and agreement of what he’s going to do?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Can I ask the member to clarify the question in terms of the last part of that question?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, my apologies. You’ve asked that you’re going to review it, and you’ve advised that there will be change. So I’m just asking how you will be engaging with mana whenua and Māori land owners to ensure that that happens correctly.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I think there’s two components to that. One is that when the new draft of the national policy statement is circulated, there will be a process by which we engage with Māori on that, so that people can see what has changed since the first exposure draft, and how that feedback that the Government has received has been taken into account, and that is absolutely my intention. The second part of that is that the national policy statement itself contains direction to councils on how they are supposed to engage with iwi Māori in the identification and protection of areas of significance.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that the collaborative working group that contributed to preparing the new draft National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity included a broad range of stakeholder groups, including Federated Farmers and representatives from the Iwi Leaders Group?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I can confirm that, and in addition to having the active involvement of the iwi chairs through the Pou Taiao Iwi Leaders Group, the predecessor to the language in the National Policy Statement was drafted by Māori as well.

David Seymour: Does the Minister’s earlier statement that “Māori land ownership goes hand in hand with conserving indigenous biodiversity” apply equally to non-Māori land ownership, and if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: There are different provisions in the draft statement for Māori land as opposed to general and other land classes, and that is, I think, in recognition of two things, one of which is the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi itself, and also a recognition that Māori land owners have been disadvantaged under the status quo.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is the Minister aware of exemplars where private landowners have participated in restoring the biodiversity nature of their land interests in places like Taranaki?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, I am aware that there are cases around the country where this has been done well, and it is unfortunate that they have been overshadowed recently where it has not been done well. The Waikato Regional Council runs an indigenous biodiversity programmed called Restoring nature, connecting communities. The programme began in 2016 and is funded by the 2015-2025 Long-term Plan. It’s an implementation framework for groups such as territorial authorities, mana whenua, interest groups, and landowners to work together more effectively to protect and enhance indigenous biodiversity in the Waikato.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he have confidence in the Government’s COVID-19 response, considering a positive case travelling between Sydney and Wellington?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes.

David Seymour: How many tests does he believe will be carried out over the next four days while Wellington is at alert level 2?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I don’t have a particular target for that. I imagine that the number will be significantly higher than normal. What we are saying is that people who are showing symptoms should stay home, isolate, and get a test. The other people that should get a test are the people who are identified through contact tracing as having been at a location of interest at the same time as the positive case, who has now returned to Australia.

David Seymour: Why could he not express confidence earlier after his ministerial statement in the ability of contact tracers to reach the gold standard of 80 percent end-to-end contact tracing within 96 hours, as set out by the Ayesha Verrall report a year ago?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, because the contact tracers are not completely in control of all of the variables that will contribute to whether or not they can fulfil those objectives.

David Seymour: Why set a target if the Minister will always say that it wasn’t reached because of variables beyond the Government’s control?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Ultimately, the targets, or the performance measures, if you like, measure risk, and the more we can achieve the performance measures specified, the lower we can make the risk. Having said that, if we don’t find out about a case for a prolonged period of time, or if people don’t share information about their close contacts in a timely way with us, then the contact tracers won’t be able to reach those performance measures. Sometimes people do forget who they’ve been in contact with, and it’s only after some time that they may remember them.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for COVID19 Response: What progress has the Government recently made on the roll-out of New Zealand’s vaccination programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I am very pleased to acknowledge a very significant milestone in our Pfizer vaccine campaign: one million doses of the Pfizer vaccine have now been administered in New Zealand. To put that into context, it took us 48 days to deliver the first 100,000 doses. It then only took 13 further days to reach 200,000. It then took 28 days to reach 500,000, followed by 33 days to hit one million. That signs that the vaccination campaign is ramping up. Our capacity is growing and we are very confident that we’ll be able to offer all New Zealanders a vaccine by the end of the year.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How are DHBs currently tracking towards meeting their planned deliveries for the roll-out of the vaccination programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As of midnight last night, 637,847 New Zealanders have received their first dose of the vaccine; 381,517 people have been fully vaccinated—meaning that they’ll be receiving the maximum protection after having two doses. We’re making really good progress overall. DHBs are tracking, at the moment, 7.5 percent ahead of the plan whilst continuing to carefully manage the available stock. We received a further 50,000 doses from Pfizer this week, and as we head into July we are expecting the size of our deliveries to increase.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is the Government managing the scale-up of the vaccination programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: DHBs have been planning carefully to scale up the vaccination programme as the supplies of the vaccine increase. This will include bringing on board vaccination sites, such as GP practices and other primary care settings like pharmacies, for example. DHBs have been training their workforce—there are now over 8,000 people trained to undertake COVID-19 vaccinations—and they are well positioned to start increasing the volume of vaccinations from mid-July, when the significant delivery volumes will start to arrive.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is work progressing on a national online booking system, and will this support the vaccination roll-out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The national immunisation booking system known as Book My Vaccine has been developed, and it allows people to directly book their vaccines. To date, there are seven district health boards with 33 vaccination sites on the system. There are 31,422 active bookings within the vaccination system. The remaining DHBs are being onboarded over the next two weeks, four DHBs will be on board by the end of this week, and six further DHBs in the week of 28 June and 5 July.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Does she have confidence in Kāinga Ora, and what specific areas of Kāinga Ora’s performance, if any, has she or her officials at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development identified as needing improvement?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. As with all entities, there are areas of focus I have outlined in the letter of expectations to the agency, including an explicit expectation on increasing the number of new-build activity in meeting our build programme targets. In addition, I have asked Kāinga Ora to focus on growing its new functions, including supporting Māori aspirations and protecting Māori interests, in line with the Maihi framework, and ensuring Kāinga Ora participates fully in the development of the Government policy statement on housing and urban development. COVID-19 has presented challenges for the delivery across performance measures, and the latest quarterly report from Kāinga Ora highlights some of the areas such as progress against the healthy homes targets and build targets, which Kāinga Ora have provided me with a recent update on progress and mitigations that have been put in place. I have reiterated my expectation that although current year targets may not be met, the overarching targets over multiple years remain intact. In addition, Kāinga Ora is committed to enhancing its reporting to me to reflect the direction of travel signalled.

Nicola Willis: Does she think it is cost-effective for Kāinga Ora to spend $25,000 each month on a sponsorship arrangement with a media outlet that includes editorial content generation, and if so, why?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The arrangement that the member is referring to is an arrangement with OneRoof for paid content highlighting the work that is done in the communities that Kāinga Ora is building. This, of course, builds on a period of work that Kāinga Ora and its predecessor organisations began in 2015. Kāinga Ora has indeed had a marketing budget to highlight the positive nature of its communities. It is doing this because we actually have market houses that need to be sold in there, and some of this money is recovered from developers in there.

Nicola Willis: Does she think it was appropriate for Kāinga Ora to have used taxpayer money to pay for articles on the website OneRoof without ensuring it was clear these stories were paid for?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What the member is talking about is whether or not there was the media outlet in question and their editorial policy. But Kāinga Ora had a contractual relationship with the media outlet. It is not their responsibility to ensure that the media outlet advertises that that is paid content. I have discussed this with Kāinga Ora. They have raised it with the media outlet in question, but I have no ministerial responsibility for that editorial policy.

Nicola Willis: Why did she not disclose Kāinga Ora’s paid promotions in advertisements with OneRoof when I specifically asked her about them in a written question on 7 May 2021?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I invite the member to send through that as a written question, and I will have a look at it. But I answered the question with all the information I had at hand.

Nicola Willis: Does she think it was appropriate for Kāinga Ora to pay a media outlet for an advertisement profiling an individual who was in the midst of a Labour Party candidate selection process?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The profile that the member is referring to is a profile piece that was done in May on Arena Williams. This was organised before she was selected to be the Labour Party candidate for Manurewa. She disclosed the fact to Kāinga Ora that she was indeed going for selection in Manurewa. There was a discussion, and the fact that the piece profiled the work that this woman was doing in her community through lockdown—the positive work she was doing. In fact, “A driving force in the group was Arena Williams. She and her partner Max are both lawyers and committed to Hobsonville Point — and … there is a strong community spirit, supported by an active Residents’ [Association]”. I guess—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! All right. I’m not quite sure—well, I’m sure that the member has answered the question, and that’s enough.

Question No. 10—Emergency Management

10. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Acting Minister for Emergency Management: How is the Government supporting communities in Auckland that have been affected by the Papatoetoe tornado?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Acting Minister for Emergency Management): Firstly, I’d like to, on behalf of the House, express our sympathy for the family of Janesh Prasad, who passed away as a result of the tornado at the weekend at the Wiri container storage facility. The tornado at the weekend has been a distressing event, with a number of people injured, many lives disrupted, and many homes and businesses damaged. On Sunday, the Government announced $100,000 to a mayoral relief fund to support Auckland communities impacted by the tornado, matching a $100,000 contribution from the Auckland Council, who will determine how that is best spent. A range of additional support has been made available to the impacted communities by the likes of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), including civil defence payments and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s temporary accommodation service, with 94 people in emergency accommodation as a result of the tornado as of last night.

Arena Williams: How well did the civil defence emergency management system perform in the initial process?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The system stood up well, and I’d like to acknowledge the emergency services for doing a superb job after the event on Saturday morning. An incident control point to coordinate the response was established quickly in Papatoetoe, and the Auckland emergency management system established welfare and information points quickly after that. There is an 0800 number, which is 0800 22 22 00, which is a civil defence line that continues to be monitored 24/7, if anyone has any welfare needs as a result of the tornado. Initial building assessments were carried out by fire and emergency urban search and rescue teams, followed up by the council’s building assessment teams, that are now largely complete, and final building damage classifications will be confirmed in the coming days.

Arena Williams: What recovery work is under way across agencies?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Relevant agencies continue to coordinate the recovery, including emergency housing, as I mentioned earlier, and key welfare issues, and are ready to provide further support if that is needed. The Auckland Emergency Management welfare service and the Ministry of Social Development have commenced planning for longer-term temporary accommodation for those who require it, because many of those residents in affected homes will be out of them for many, many weeks. The Ministry of Social Development is also providing support by way of its housing broker service in their Papatoetoe site to assist those households, and MSD is also supporting a group of vulnerable people who are being relocated to alternative accommodation.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions with regard to mental health?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Matt Doocey: When he said today the five extra acute beds were fictitious because “there is no single bed as a result of the $1.9 billion.”, could he please clarify for the House: is the number of extra acute beds zero or five?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The only thing fictitious is about some of that member’s assertions. The point is this: that member and others have said that as a consequence of the $1.9 billion investment in 2019, five beds have been added to acute mental health services. That simply is not correct, and we know that’s not correct because that member also says that the $235 million provided for in the $1.9 billion programme for acute mental health service facility builds has not seen a commencement of any of the builds. The extra beds that have been provided for acute mental health services in the last two or three years are as a result of the increased ring-fenced funding to DHBs as they improve their mental health facilities. Those beds have been added, and more beds will be added as a consequence of the other investments, including the $1.9 billion investment that this Government has made, because this Government takes mental health seriously.

Matt Doocey: Well, in light of that answer around accuracy of information, why did he say yesterday the 38-bed Counties Manukau mental health facility didn’t open until 2020 when, in fact, the then health Minister, David Clark, opened it in November 2008, just three years after National started building it?

SPEAKER: 2018.

Matt Doocey: Oh, sorry—2018.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I refer to the information or the advice I’ve received that that facility opened in September 2020. In fact, shortly after I became the Minister of Health, I was asked to be part of a formal opening ceremony. It wasn’t possible at the time that the DHB wanted it, but that facility, I am advised, was functional and effective from September 2020.

Matt Doocey: When he told media he had “regular weekly meetings” with health officials about mental health, has he been asking at these meetings for an update on building new facilities or why next to no money had been spent?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: It is simply incorrect to say that next to no money has been spent on mental health facilities. If the member is referring to the $235 million which is part of the $1.9 billion programme that was approved in the 2019 Budget, I can tell that member that the DHBs where the mental health upgrades are happening have spent in excess of $9 million in doing the planning and preparation so far of the rebuild and upgrades of their facilities.

Hon Peeni Henare: Can the Minister confirm that mental health funding for kaupapa Māori initiatives to stop Māori ending up in acute mental services has been successful under this Government and there are more opportunities in the coming months?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can confirm that new funding, additional funding, has been provided to a number of kaupapa Māori health services specifically for mental health and addiction services, and the advice I’ve received is that that is making a material difference to many whānau right now.

Matt Doocey: Why did he say that Mental Health Foundation CEO Shaun Robinson was wrong to say the Government had no plan for mental health when just this morning he himself said, “I want to know what the plan ahead looks like, and I just don’t have that reassurance from the ministry yet.”, and will he apologise to Shaun Robinson?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member knows that’s out of order, doesn’t he? He can count to two. I’ll let the Minister answer it. In future, I’ll consider it disorderly if the member asks a question like that again.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I confirmed today is that the long-term plan which was requested by the outgoing Health and Disability Commissioner for mental health, as well as called for by the interim Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, is now under consultation. That is a good long-term plan, and it will give great confidence to the sector and to all New Zealanders.

Question No. 12—Customs

12. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Customs: What is the New Zealand Customs Service doing to prevent illicit drugs reaching our shores?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): In Budget 2018, the Government provided an extra $58.1 million to Customs over four years. Thanks to this additional funding—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It appears members are overstimulated over there.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Thanks to this extra funding, this additional funding, Customs now has around 100 additional staff and capabilities to protect Aotearoa across borders. The success of this additional resourcing is evident in the increasing volumes of drugs that are intercepted offshore by Customs’ partners. I am proud to inform the House that from 2018 to 2021, Customs’ offshore seizures averted over $1.5 billion worth of social harm from arriving into New Zealand. These were drug shipments destined for New Zealand that were stopped at overseas ports. Had those drugs reached our streets, it is hard to imagine the damage that they would have wreaked. For the first five months of 2021, social harm averted from offshore seizures stands at close to $423 million. It is clear that the border disruptions from COVID-19 have not stopped criminals from wanting to push drugs to and through New Zealand. This goes to show that the work of Customs remains as important as ever to protect our community and the integrity of the New Zealand supply chains.

Ginny Andersen: What does Customs actually do when illicit drugs arrive in New Zealand?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Tackling criminal networks at the point of export is very important, but that doesn’t replace the need to still pursue drugs that do arrive—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. Look, some of us actually have an interest in the answer to this question. Some members might know it all, but some of us know that we might learn something, and I’d like to at least help members get a chance.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Tackling criminal networks at the point of export is very important, but that doesn’t replace the need to still pursue drugs that do arrive into New Zealand. I am proud to inform you that, in addition to the $423 million in harm prevented from reaching our shores, Customs’ own seizures at the New Zealand border have prevented another $527 million in harm from reaching our streets. Customs continues to work hard to target, identify, and prosecute those criminals responsible for bringing drugs into New Zealand—for example, one foreign national and a New Zealander were recently sentenced for their part in Customs’ largest-ever meth bust. This involved 469 kilograms of methamphetamine that was seized by Customs in 2019, concealed within a shipment of electronic motors from Thailand.

Ginny Andersen: What recent initiatives has Customs implemented to contribute to this work?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Earlier this month, I commissioned, in Auckland, Customs’ latest maritime vessel, Rapua II. Rapua II will be Auckland-based, and its main function will be in-close, inshore work, primarily patrolling the Hauraki Gulf but with the ability to deploy to other areas as needed. Rapua II will be invaluable in fighting against drug trafficking, detecting border security breaches, and supporting the prevention of criminal activity in the Auckland region. I’m also proud to say that earlier this year, Customs launched its Border Protect outreach campaign, which encourages members of the public and industry to report activities that may be suspicious. Our border is not just at airports; it includes seaports, coastlines, and international freight arrival points. The integrity of our supply chain is critical. Cross-border crime can occur in any of these places, and the signs can be visible within communities or the workplace. The Border Protect number is 0800 WE PROTECT.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware that Customs is also responsible for holding up legal medicinal cannabis from getting to sick New Zealanders, like seven-year-old Eddy, son of Katy Thomas?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: I don’t have that answer with me, but I’m happy to provide that to that member if she puts it to my office in writing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Mr Speaker, permission to table evidence to that effect—seeking leave.

SPEAKER: No, no, the member needs to tell us specifically what she wants to table.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tabling a letter to that Minister’s office with regard to expediting the release from Customs and Medsafe for the medicinal cannabis for Eddy, son of Katy Thomas.

SPEAKER: The member wants to table a letter from?

Chlöe Swarbrick: From Chlöe Swarbrick, MP.

SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. The member knows she can’t table material that she has herself produced.

Chlöe Swarbrick: To the Minister, however, Mr Speaker, pertaining to the point that the Minister noted, in evidence and awareness—

SPEAKER: I understand that. If the member wants to give it to the Minister she can, but I’m not going to put it to the House. We’ve had repeated rulings from my predecessors about self-produced material not being a subject of tabling.

Urgent Debates Declined

COVID-19 Response—Greater Wellington Region Change to Alert Level 2

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the decision of Cabinet to raise the COVID-19 alert level to level 2 in Wellington. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Although the application was lodged after 1 p.m., the event to which it relates occurred after that time, so according to Speaker’s ruling 199/2 the application can be accepted. A ministerial statement has been made on the change in alert levels. Members have had the opportunity to discuss the matter today. I’m sorry; I’m deliberately doing this quite slowly to see if the member’s here. There is an opportunity for this matter to be considered as part of the general debate, and therefore I don’t think that further time should be set aside on this matter today, and therefore I decline the application.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Just as well for you, David.

SPEAKER: Well, I was going to say it was pretty close.

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What we saw today was a Prime Minister being asked to answer some questions—[COVID-19 alert notifications sound]

Can I please start my time again, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yes, we’ll just wait until that damn noise—first of all, wait for David Seymour to tuck his shirt in, and then we’ll—has it stopped? All right—Judith Collins.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, today I asked the Prime Minister some questions about mental health, and what we saw was a Prime Minister who is very good with words but not very good with answers. For almost every question, she just had a whole endless statement to say that had very little to do with the question asked. What we saw was a Prime Minister who had made enormous promises to New Zealanders about mental health and has delivered almost nothing.

In the year to June 2019, New Zealand recorded 685 suicides. In that same year, we had 342 road deaths—so that was double plus one. It is a shocking statistic, and it’s a shocking indictment on the fact that mental health has for far too long been kept in the shadows. What we’ve seen is that we know that one in five people will meet the criteria for a mental health problem in any given year—that is enormous. And around half of all New Zealanders will experience a mental health issue during their lifetimes. This is not about them; this is actually about us. It is something that is dear to the hearts of every parent, of every child, of every spouse, of every friend, and of every colleague—it is enormous. For too long we’ve seen this issue not taken seriously. That’s why, four years ago, this party said we would have a Minister for mental health, and that’s one of the things you can see from us is taking mental health seriously.

Today, I heard from the Prime Minister that the Government had not done all these wonderful things that they’d promised, but that’s because they were starting from ground zero—that’s what she said: ground zero. Well, what does she think we took over in 2008? Less than ground zero. What we did actually do is we brought in and we supported police to have mental health nurses working with them, not only in the watch houses, but later in frontline staff going into instances because, if you’ve got a major mental health situation happening, who do you call? Obviously not the Ministry of Health, you call police. You call people who are working 24/7, who do have the ability to come when you need them, and that’s what happened.

What did Labour do with it? They cancelled both of those projects. Why did they cancel it? Because they weren’t theirs. And those weren’t just our ideas, they were the ideas of the New Zealand Police staff—the frontline people—and they knew it was working. And this Government that says they care about people, they stopped that.

We’ve got a situation now where they went out and they said, “I’ve got $1.9 billion.” In that 2019 year with that largest suicide rate ever, they said they were going to help solve it—they’d have $1.9 billion. We had the Prime Minister meeting people and saying how much they cared. And then what did she deliver? Nothing. We’ve had Shaun Robinson from the Mental Health Foundation castigated by the Minister of Health because he dared to stand up for the people he represents. That’s the response from this Government.

We brought in mental health workers into our Corrections facilities. We doubled the amount of alcohol and drug rehabilitation in our prisons within the first term of Government, and then we went and redoubled it and redoubled it again. That’s what we did. When we did that, that’s what we did. Unfortunately, the Government’s response has been too little, too late. Lots of announcements, lots of words, almost nothing delivered.

In 2017, they politicised mental health, in the same way as they politicised Pike River—exactly the same and exactly the same result: big promises, big money announced, almost nothing delivered except disappointment—disappointment for families and whānau who are asking, “Why is it that this Government is so willing to say how much they care?” Why is it that they care so much about everyone else? How about caring about the families who today are suffering and who can’t get help for their kids with eating disorders, who can’t get help for them when they are suicidal? What is happening with a Government so busy to care and never to deliver?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Well, that was a very interesting speech from the Leader of the Opposition, really the new “Minister of People Who Have Just Given Up”, because hers was a party that gave up, and those members opposite are still the party of people who just give up. They never cared about people and their mental health problems in New Zealand. Their programme of police to help with mental health was never properly funded, never supported people, and we had a growing crisis in mental health that they just turned a blind eye to. They did not care.

The reality about Government is you step up to the hard problems, and I’m very proud to be part of a Government that does and has stepped up to the very hard problems, not just in mental health and not just in the rest of the health sector but in a whole swag of issues that were neglected by the previous Government to the detriment of the people of New Zealand. Whether it was housing and taking on the hard issue of housing, to the point now where we have record housing consents, a record house-building programme, and first-home buyers now having a real chance to get their first home. Whether it was on climate change and the work that we do with our cooperation partner, the Green Party, on actually seriously addressing the climate change challenge that this country has—totally and utterly neglected by the party opposite when they were in Government. They just turned a blind eye, buried their heads in the sand, and hoped that it would go away, but not this Government. Not this Government, because we step up to it.

And child poverty: how many households did we hear of for year after year after those members were in Government where there were not only families but—worse—children who could not afford the basics? They couldn’t get a new pair of shoes on their feet during wintertime, couldn’t get warm clothing, and couldn’t be properly fed. I’m proud to be part of a Government that has stepped up, and we are doing amazing things. We’re lifting incomes, lifting benefit levels, and providing food in schools for those kids who have been going hungry. That’s what stepping up to serious challenges actually entails.

We’re dealing with the infrastructure of this country that has been run down—not just roads, but the underground infrastructure as well—and then addressing those health needs. Labour has stepped up to fulfil its historical mission, and that is to rebuild, to restore, to reshape, to give hope, and to build our nation. That’s what we’re doing, and we see it in housing with what we’re doing, we’re seeing it in climate change, and we’re seeing it in health.

I want to talk about mental health, because that is important. It is important if you’re a family who’s got a loved one who is struggling, who is suffering, or who is in crisis. You need your services to be there. They weren’t there in 2017, when we took over Government, because members on that side had just turned a cold shoulder to the shattered lives of New Zealanders who were struggling to cope.

That’s why we did a stocktake and we had a look at the gaps and we got the report. He Ara Oranga was very clear, and it was the New Zealanders with mild to moderate mental health conditions who were suffering the most. That’s where the gap was, and so we had to address that gap. Nearly half a billion dollars over a four- to five-year period—we made the decision to put that into that programme. Right now, 520 extra people on the front line of mental health that weren’t there two years ago are now providing services, and 10,000 people a month now are being seen who could not get access to those services before. That’s the difference we’re making, and we are not even halfway there. That’s why it is a four- to five-year programme, and there is more to do.

Kaupapa Māori health services are getting extra assistance and Pacific health services are getting assistance, because those populations suffer too, and outside the $1.9 billion and the COVID-19 response and recovery package, we’ve put even more money into mental health supported services, because that was what people needed and said they wanted.

This is a Government that takes mental health seriously. This is a Government whose nation-building track record actually puts meaningful grunt behind our mental health services, and we’ll continue to do so. An emerging gap now is in acute services. The facilities left by the previous Government across our hospitals were totally rundown and neglected, with old lino floors, cinder block walls—not an environment for therapeutic restoration. That’s why we made a commitment for the five most neglected facilities to rebuild and upgrade and restore them: $235 million. We’ve started that work, and there is more to come: 11 other mental health facility projects are under way.

This is what caring about those suffering mental health issues looks like, not the crocodile tears opposite. This is what nation-building is. This is what Labour is.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E mihi ana ki a Ranginui rāua ko Papatūānuku, te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe.

[I acknowledge Ranginui and Papatūānuku, the Speaker, greetings to you.]

We’ll turn now from people’s health and the comprehensive investment the Labour Government is making in response to COVID-19 and in dealing with the mental health challenges, which have been neglected for too long, to dealing with the health of the oceans.

Yesterday, we had the launch of Revitalising the Gulf by the Hon David Parker and the Hon Ayesha Verrall. That was the Government’s response to Sea Change, a report that was released back in 2017. The Green Party strongly supports the outcomes that the Government wants to achieve through Revitalising the Gulf—locally abundant fish stocks, protection of ecologically important habitats, stronger fisheries management, and better understanding of fish stocks, fisheries, and ecosystems. It was really positive to see the proposals for 18 new protected areas, some restrictions on trawling, and some proposals to significantly improve fisheries management.

But the challenges in the Hauraki Gulf, Tīkapa Moana Te Moananui a Toi, are enormous. It is a taonga not just for Aucklanders but for all New Zealanders. That is why we have the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act and the Hauraki Gulf Forum, an integrated management body involving councils, mana whenua, and central government looking at how we better manage the Hauraki Gulf. The report that came out yesterday has had a genesis in the work of the ministerial advisory committee, which was co-chaired by Catherine Harland and Paul Majurey. That committee was set up by myself and Minister Nash back in November 2019. They had about 10 months, did their work, finished that report in about mid-2020, and then the Government response has come out yesterday.

One of the things the Green Party is concerned about is the lack of urgency by agencies. So you had the Sea Change report released in 2017, but revitalising the gulf, its restrictions on trawling, the proposal that there be trawl corridors where trawling is allowed—those trawl corridors had not yet been identified. It’s proposed that there be a collaborative process with mana whenua, agencies, and stakeholders to do that. Yet in those four or more years, surely Fisheries New Zealand, particularly with GPS monitoring on fishing vessels now, could identify where trawling currently occurs and could have at least identified the draft trawling corridors. But no, they’re not yet identified. Similarly, with marine protected areas, the proposals for the new 18 areas will increase the no-take protection, except for customary use, in the gulf to about 6 percent of the gulf, up from less than a percent at the moment, and yet the legislation to implement those areas is not proposed to be introduced until 2024. The contrast is that the Government is proposing to remove the obstacles to the expansion of aquaculture by 2023. So once again, despite nature being in crisis, we’re pushing ahead with use and development but we’ve put protection on the slow track.

Now, there was certainly work that was begun last term to reform the Marine Reserves Act 1971. Because it doesn’t have a Treaty commitment or any Treaty principles, it’s too narrow in being restricted to our protection for scientific purposes. It needs to have a much broader range of marine protection initiatives. But the Hauraki Gulf, Tīkapa Moana Te Moananui a Toi, deserves special legislation to proceed with protection urgently. We need that protection because the Hauraki Gulf Forum, in each of its State of the Environment reports on the gulf, has charted that continuing decline: the fact that crayfish, kōura, are functionally extinct; the fact that snapper numbers have declined; kina barrens are increasing. We have in areas like Te Hauturu-o-Toi, Little Barrier—one of our most important protected areas on land with its nature reserve status, home to tīeke, to kākā, to kākāriki, and yet in the waters around Hauturu, it’s kina barrens.

There’s certainly a proposal for a new protected area to the north and some seabed protected area to the east, but we’re not getting that happening until 2024, and we’re seeing a major increase in recreational pressure through the increasing population in Auckland, people buying more boats, getting more sophisticated fishing gear with things like sonar. We need that protection now.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am reminded today of the words of the song “What a Difference a Day Makes”. Today, when we all arrived at work, we probably weren’t expecting what has transpired over the last few hours. I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge all of those who are working at our managed isolation and quarantine facilities, at our border, our police, our health staff, particularly those staff that Minister Hipkins said worked assiduously during the night to ensure that those interviews were conducted with close contacts of the person who had come from Australia and now causes us some concern in terms of our COVID response.

Can I say that there is nothing like being prepared for this, and over the course of the last 15 months or so, there’s no doubt that our system for dealing with COVID and our response to COVID has been refined. Can I say that, whenever I am out and about in my electorate—and I have done so in recent recesses; checked in with local businesses, with local community groups, and the like—I always ask them “How has it been for you during COVID?” Because I genuinely want to see how businesses, particularly, have fared. Is there any more that we can do to support? How it is that our young people have fared. Have they returned to school? Were they well supported in their schooling? And, by and large, most people are saying—small businesses—the wage subsidy helped; the business loans really helped. In that hugely uncertain time, they looked to their Government for leadership and they found it. I am enormously proud of the work that has been done by our Government in terms of supporting business.

I am enormously proud of the roll-out of devices and the step-up to support our schools to deliver education to children when they were in their whare, and how some schools have said that, for some of those children, that environment actually allowed them to learn some skills about self-directed learning, which may not have been an opportunity they could have taken. However, we do know that, for some children, they were desperate to get back to the classroom and get back to working alongside their school friends and their colleagues.

Alongside all of that work that happens to ensure we have an appropriate and safe COVID response is all the other mahi that this Government has done, and if I think about our children, if I think about having a Government that is prepared to put itself on the line in terms of child poverty and say to the country “We want to be measured by the impact we have on our children. We want to be measured by making sure our children have adequate kai in their tummies, that they’re able to learn, that their parents are supported in their income, that they have decent housing, that they have the necessities of life to thrive.”, I’m really proud that we can do that alongside all of the other work that is going on—that we can do things like we can ensure that our police are resourced, that we increase police numbers, that we support them well to do the hard mahi that they have to do.

There is no doubt that there are some members in our community that we look to do the hard work that we would not put ourselves up to do, and the police are one such organisation that put themselves out there every single day to ensure that we’re safe. And whenever these unusual, unique, and extraordinary times happen, like COVID, like March 15, they are there to support us, to keep us safe, and they put themselves on the line. So I’m here to support the mahi of our police—enormously proud to be the Minister of Police; but enormously proud, too, to support Minister Kelvin Davis in the work that he is doing in Oranga Tamariki to ensure that our children, our most vulnerable, are kept safe; and enormously proud to work alongside Minister Megan Woods in her housing portfolio to make sure that we provide decent, warm, affordable housing, that we grow our housing stock, that we have rental properties that not only meet our needs but where people can put down roots, where they can thrive in the communities of their choice.

I’m proud to be part of this Government that deals with the hard jobs. They deal with them consistently and with the trust and confidence of the people of New Zealand. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, another week and another abject failure in mental health by this Labour Government. After coming in in 2017, raising expectations, politicising mental health, weaponising suicide statistics—they raised expectations for vulnerable New Zealanders. And what did I learn from writing to the health Minister’s office about funding announcements he made two years ago: $235 million for new and refurbished mental health facilities, and when I got that back on 14 May, it told me that up to April, two years since the announcement, they’d spent only half a million dollars—$500,000 out of $235 million. That’s 0.2 percent. We have our mental health facilities running at over 100 percent occupancy. We have vulnerable New Zealanders as patients in those facilities sleeping on the floors, sleeping in staff rooms, sleeping in kitchens. We have vulnerable New Zealanders leaving mental health facilities and committing suicide, and the health Minister and the Government is sitting on $232.5 million that they couldn’t spend in two years.

And then, when they get caught out, the spin starts to happen, it kicks in. So now we learn “Oh, it takes five years or so to build a mental health facility. That’s why the one that started construction under National in 2015 didn’t get opened till 2020.” But they forget the then health Minister, David Clark at the time, went and opened a 38-bed facility in 2018. So it shows you can deliver new mental health facilities in three years. These guys have had four years and they’ve sat on their hands, and the spin continues. The Ministry of Health misled the media yesterday, and on Monday. They told the media, when the media asked them questions—how much money had been spent?—they said they didn’t know. The Ministry of Health said they didn’t know, yet they could tell me through the Minister’s office a couple of weeks before exactly how much money had been spent.

The Ministry of Health has got a track record on this, because let’s not forget, not that long ago, they misled the public in the mental health annual reports when they stripped out data because they saw it as negative statistics and it would harm the Government’s performance, and then they had to write to Parliament and say that they accepted they misled the House, twice in several weeks. How long are we going to take this from the Ministry of Health before the health Minister takes control and heads must roll? We’re not Zimbabwe, we’re not Myanmar, we’re not North Korea; this is New Zealand, and we should expect public confidence in our health system, just like we should expect public confidence in our mental health system.

And what did we have last week? Mike King, the guy who’s put everything into mental health—and he backed this Labour Government; he believed what they said, that they were going to deliver, transform the mental health system. What did he do last week? He came to Parliament to return his Queen’s honour because he couldn’t live with it anymore, because he’s the one dealing on the front line when parents ring him for the services this Government promised and those vulnerable young kids can’t access.

Then we have Shaun Robinson, the head of the Mental Health Foundation, one of the biggest advocacies for people with lived experience of mental health. He said the mental health system is worse now. Four years now since this Labour Government took office—things have got worse and all they can do is spin, spin their way out of it. They’re sitting on a record amount of mental health funding, and they can’t get it out the door.

Then the audacity: the health Minister, off the cuff, announces a review. Well, what a kick in the guts to those New Zealanders who turned up two years ago and told their traumatic and heartfelt stories to that mental health inquiry—all those recommendations you’ve done nothing about. Then, two weeks ago, mental health was put in Grant Robertson’s new delivery unit. Now that’s failed, and you need another review—a review, a review, a review. This Government should hang their heads in shame for the failure in mental health.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I will speak shortly about the importance of recovery in the COVID-19 effort, but I do need to address a couple of points raised by the previous member. I do find it a little disappointing that he seeks to politicise so many aspects of the mental health system when he accuses others of politicising and says it should be politics free. I agree with him that we need aspiration. We need to better support into the future the lives of those who are struggling with mental health challenges. There is no doubt about that. But where he says that we have raised the expectations through coming into Government, he is right. We have accepted as a Government that this is a challenge that needed addressing.

If we go back to the previous Government, at the end of their time they were simply not open to even reviewing mental health. There was a crisis. There was a crisis and the whole sector was calling for a review. Labour and other parties that joined the coalition Government listened to New Zealanders and instigated a review, and the result was He Ara Oranga. Now, from that review, subsequently a budget has put aside, a record amount of money for mental health—unprecedented in New Zealand history. This is the first Government to take mental health seriously, and Andrew Little as Minister is driving that forward. Now he is overseeing the rebuild of significant facilities around the country.

The member Matt Doocey, in his contribution, raised the facility in Counties Manukau and said that took three years to build. What he didn’t mention was that before the build phase comes a good deal of planning with all of these facilities. And what he also failed to mention was that under the previous Governments, under the National Government, they had stopped planning for new facilities. They had been told it’s not worth it. They had stripped out of the legislation the requirement to plan for the future and the Ministers had told them “Do not plan for the future, because you will not get funding for your mental health facilities.” Some of those buildings had faeces in the walls! I mean, this is the state of some of the health buildings across the system, when they left office. It is a disgrace that they now come to this House and try to lecture us on the speed of the change, given that they had given up and they had caused everyone to give up hope.

We will not apologise for starting to make that change, on this side of the House. I back Andrew Little and the good work that he is doing overseeing that programme, training up hundreds more people to work at the front line in support of those wrestling with mental health challenges. He has given some of those figures today. Tens of thousands of sessions at the front line, because He Ara Oranga identified the needs of those people who were not able to get services for mild to moderate and were ending up at the acute level of our system. The Government acted and the Government is training people and making sure that we are working with the community to improve our systems for the future.

In the remaining period I have here, I do want to talk about addressing those immediate needs. We are doing it as Government across the board, not just in health. Of course, in the COVID recovery right now, we have extra clinics going out to do testing across Wellington. We have a vaccination programme being rolled out. There is an immense amount of spending going on to keep people safe. But we’ve found throughout the COVID period that the best health response is also the best economic response. And we’ve seen Standard & Poor’s come back and give the first upgrade for any Western country, for credit rating, to New Zealand—the first for any OECD country—the first credit upgrade post-COVID to New Zealand. The first upgrade New Zealand’s had since 2003. That is recognition of the fine stewardship of our Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson.

We are making the right choices around making sure we’re investing now in the health response, but we’re also planning for the longer term to make sure we’re addressing the challenges of climate change, of inequality, child poverty, housing, and so on. These are long-term challenges we’ve inherited as a Government, but we are determined to build back better: $57 billion in infrastructure over the next five years. These are ambitious plans, but we make no apology for tackling those long-term challenges we’ve inherited from a Government prior to us that simply put its head in the sand. We are determined to make a meaningful difference to build back better.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Well, it’s interesting to see that the general theme of delusion continues among Government speakers today as they do their best to articulate what they see as being the greatness of the current Government, failing to recognise that there is not one social service in this country that has got stats going in the right direction; everything gets worse.

We had the Minister of Health coming in here today talking about the appalling situation in mental health where the facilities that were supposedly funded with a very large amount of money, $1.9 billion in 2019, have seen only $500,000 spent in that period of time. The pathetic arrangement yesterday where he goes out and says, “Oh, I’m going to ask my department to review what’s going on.” Well, what was he doing with the weekly reports? Where was the fantastic Treasury, looking at how the money was going out the door, advising about these things? It’s simply because there is no will inside the Government to actually deliver beyond the announcement. And the people who suffer in the end don’t come in here. Former Minister of Health Clark can tell us that there are 10,000 people now getting appointments who didn’t have them before. Those needs were always there and they were there when this Government came in and cut $100 million out of the mental health budget—from our Government four years ago and they wonder why it’s got worse ever since.

It doesn’t stop just with that. There’s so much more. Look at the truancy in our schools at the moment: 14 percent of the children in our schools are not attending on a regular basis. Fourteen percent of our children in our schools are not there to get the basic learning that the system is there to provide for. And what’s the follow-up on that? Nothing. Apparently, it’s a reasonable life choice for people to say to their kids, “You don’t need to go to school.” Or it’s just excused because we’ve got a COVID-19 crisis. They are not reasonable excuses and the Government does have an obligation to make sure that the parental responsibility to get kids to school is exercised.

Then look at the situation with gangs in this country. Why have gang numbers exploded so much? They’ll come out and say, “Oh, it’s the 501s who are coming from Australia.” It is not; the numbers do not match up. It’s because those gangs are not being pursued vigorously by the police because the Government has made it clear they don’t want that to happen. I know that’ll sound ridiculous—there’ll be someone standing up and saying, “No, that’s wrong. Look what we’ve done.” The facts speak for themselves. Look at a small town like Blenheim—a really nice lovely place to live, a great part of New Zealand—having that massive gang fight in the middle of the town last week that led to all sorts of other confusions going on and almost four people dead: two very much injured at the moment in the Wairau Hospital and another two lying dead in the morgue.

That’s the sort of thing, the breakdown that’s happening in our country, because the Government is very, very soft on crime. Then of course, if they ever get into the system, they’ve got Kelvin Davis there telling them that actually they don’t need to be there, the system’s far too harsh on them, let’s make it nice and cushy and easy. So we are seeing people exiting those prisons at a rate that is only going to exacerbate that violent crime inside our communities.

The other point I’d like to make is around the issue of housing. Minister Little came into the House today and started talking about what a wonderful job the Government is doing at providing housing. Well, in four years—in fact, not even four years; in the 3½ years that this Government’s been in office—the rental price in New Zealand has increased by over $100, some say $120. It’s a lot—an extra $5,500 a year for families. That’s why there are now 4,000 families living in motels. That wasn’t the case four years ago. Ask the question: what’s happened? It’s because the rental stock has retracted because it’s become completely uneconomic for many people to offer that sort of accommodation to others who need it.

But of course the Government will feel good about themselves by saying, “Well, it’s our healthy homes programme.” What do they say to the children in those 4,000 families? It could be 20,000 kids living in motels. That’s no life for them. And more than that, the waiting list for State houses has grown fourfold from just under 6,000 to just over 24,000. That’s an appalling shift in people’s housing needs and has the Minister saying, “Oh look, we’ve got record consents going on.” I want to quote to him what he used to quote to us: “No one can live in a consent.” In the end, if you don’t have the resource to buy the house you’re not in good shape.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Speaker, the question of how we rebuild and recover from COVID is particularly relevant to the community of Papatoetoe in the wake of the tornado on Saturday. Papatoetoe is between the electorate of Manurewa and the very good electorate of Panmure-Ōtahuhu. But first I’d like to talk about the person who lost their life at the Wiri Inland Port. His name was Janesh Prasad, he was 41 years old, and he was a mechanic. He was working a forklift when the freak winds hit the container yard. He was a father of two, and will be lovingly remembered by his family.

Loss, destruction, and shock followed that tornado, and its path includes the well-off parts of Papatoetoe as well as one of the most deprived areas in South Auckland. Its effects are felt particularly hard, when homes are irrecoverably smashed apart and cars are written off. In a neighbourhood that, earlier this year, was hit by a major COVID outbreak centred around its high school, this was a hard blow. I got to Papatoetoe after the storm had cleared. The things that occurred to me at first were the randomness of the tornado’s path, that this was something that completely destroyed some homes in the middle of a street by ripping the roof off, and then the house next door could be absolutely fine and untouched. I was also struck by the severity of the rain, which came after the holes in the roofs and the roofs were removed, to destroy what was left of people’s possessions and their livelihoods. I saw the power lines scattered around the streets, and the damage to that public infrastructure, footpaths, and roads, which caused significant damage to the ability of people in that area to even get out, let alone their friends and family to get in. I saw how Plunket Ave, which runs along one part of the tornado path, was affected in a very small way compared to the streets like Freyberg which came right off it. These were 50 metres apart, and yet one street looked like a monster had come forth from the ground and thrashed around, and one street was almost untouched.

At the same time that I arrived, Auckland Emergency Management was out making an assessment of the physical damage and the immediate safety concerns. Vector was getting into action to restore power safely and assessing the damage to the poles that were uniformly flattened, and the Red Cross was setting up the welfare centre. Fire and Emergency New Zealand were putting out boots on the ground in the affected streets, and cordoning dangerous areas. Police were setting up road blocks and assuring residents that houses that couldn’t be secured, because of the damage, would be safe, and the Supreme Sikh Society from the Takanini gurdwara was pulling its volunteer network together and amassing food supply for food parcels. Local businesses, like roofers, All in one Builders, and the Cavendish Mitre 10, were digging deep to donate time and products to fixing roofs before the rain destroyed homes even further.

I door-knocked for five hours that day, and went back on Sunday again, because I wanted to hear from households who’d been hit hard about why they needed help and to do my bit as their local MP, to make sure they got it. Things like tarps—I heard from ordinary people on the street that they couldn’t get tarps from anywhere in South Auckland, because they had all sold out, and there were holes in the roofs and the rain was coming. So I put out a social media call for all people in South Auckland, and Labour supporters who follow me, and asked for donated tarps. In a few hours, we had 150 tarps donated by Labour electorate committees and by members of the public who just wanted to help. Those got donated through volunteers, and I want to thank Brittany O’Brien and Melissa O’Connor for coordinating all of that. Brittany went to every North Shore Mitre 10 just to get those tarps.

I also want to acknowledge those dairies who I asked for local businesses to give them generators so that they could run the system which they were already running, which is a paper note of all of the neighbours who they had given supplies and food and they had just written down their name, their address, and their bill to be paid later. Thank you to those business owners, for supporting your community.

What I learnt is how deep the resilience of the Papatoetoe community runs. International evidence shows that the communities that recover from a natural or health disaster aren’t the richest ones, they’re the most connected, and that’s the lesson of the COVID-19 pandemic for all New Zealanders. Where we have been united we have pulled through. Where we care for people, we have led the world, and we’re not the wealthiest nation, but we’re getting on with the job of rebuilding now. It’s a lesson for me. I’m a community organiser, I believe in the practice of community organising. I’ve always been committed to using my political and legal skills for the benefit of my community, and to build power around the issues that elevate leaders from the grassroots. I’ve been attacked in question time today for that community organising philosophy, but I will not apologise for a commitment to helping my community at the grassroots, through door-knocking and elevating those leaders. To Papatoetoe, I say, “Keep it up, we’re with you.”

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That Government has held the Government benches for virtually 7 percent of my lifespan, and they’re still blaming the previous National Government for everything that’s wrong in the country. It’s time they were held accountable or took accountability for their own failings, in my view.

Now, before I get on to the issue I want to talk about, I just want to acknowledge a couple of people, and particularly my former colleague Nick Smith, who’s spent 31 years serving New Zealand. I think that’s a pretty formidable performance and he should be congratulated on that. And secondly, I just wanted to welcome my neighbouring MP, Harete Hipango, back to Parliament. It’s quite nice to have a neighbour in this place.

The problem I want to talk about today is the issue that rural New Zealand has with the whole lot of changes that this Government’s implementing. Now, I’m not a person who is averse to change. In fact, you might think I might be by looking at me, but in fact I quite like change—I think it’s quite exciting. The problem we’ve got is that change is being foisted on New Zealand at a pace that New Zealand can’t keep up with. It’s been foisted on New Zealand in the form of a whole lot of words and platitudes, but no plan and no action behind the change that’s proposed. And the problem with that is it creates huge uncertainty and uncertainty creates instability, which then causes businesses not to be able to operate in a manner that’s sustainable for the future of New Zealand.

And there’s a few examples of this: there’s $760 million being spent on 3,000 bikes a day going over the Auckland harbour. I’ll guarantee 2,000 of those are electric, and they’re all charged by an electricity network driven by coal. The vanity project has led to the New Zealand Transport Agency withdrawing millions of dollars from provincial councils in New Zealand, from the roading budgets, and cancelling much-needed new roads in Papakura and Bay of Plenty. The withdrawal of funds from our rural councils is going to put a whole lot more pressure on our productive sector as it tries to get product to market. It’s also creating inefficiency and slowing the whole of our process and our work process down.

So I just want to talk briefly about the three waters now, and the uncertainty that’s creating in rural New Zealand because there’s no plan being put in place about it. There’s no description of how it might work, and it appears to me that we’re going to be providing fluoridated, treated drinking water to our cow and sheep populations in many parts of New Zealand, because it has not been made at all clear how those rural water schemes will be encompassed into any future three waters programme. So that’s the sort of uncertainty I’m talking about, and it creates a great deal of concern for rural people particularly, who have no access to a whole lot of services that urban people have access to, and clearly one of those very big ones is transport.

I want to get on to transport with the EV version of what I call “Taxgate”, where, once again, the physical workers of the country—and they include shearers, loggers, fishers, farmers, plumbers, electricians, painters, builders, rural and roading contractors, truckers, and many others—suffer, despite the Prime Minister saying it won’t affect their current vehicles, she clearly doesn’t realise most of those people have to replace their vehicles at least every two years because they do such high miles. In fact, not only do they do high miles, but on our rural roads, they’re going to start rattling to pieces pretty quickly too because they’re in such poor condition.

So this business of putting the incentives on EVs and taxing those vehicles that are less efficient is going to put a whole lot of pressure not on the people who can afford it, because the people who can afford these things will have no problem. It’s the people who can’t afford to buy these vehicles and can’t afford to upgrade their vehicles to this level who are going to be forced, because of the cost structure that’s been put on the motor vehicle industry, to pay more for the old beaten up polluters they have to drive. So the whole process is hugely inefficient, creating a whole lot of inequity, giving huge advantage to those people who can afford things, and creating a great deal of suffering for those people who can’t—and a whole lot more cost.

I want to add that there’s some other issues related to cost, of course, in the lower income area that we’ve seen significant changes to because of Government policies. So we’ve got electricity prices going up at record levels. We’ve got food prices going up at a great rate. We’ve got problems with bringing products to New Zealand because of the transport networks around the world suffering—and that’s something you can’t really blame the Government for necessarily, but none the less something that’s going to cause considerable concern for our poorer people in New Zealand, particularly as the cost of everything goes up dramatically.

I want to spend a little bit of time talking about our superannuitants, who have had no effective increase in income, other than the very miserable income increase they get as part of the annual calculation, whereas everyone else in New Zealand at that level of income has had a significant increase. So beneficiaries up to $50 a week and the minimum wage going up significantly, and at the same time as that beneficiaries who don’t have any other form of income—and there are well over 50 percent of our superannuitants who don’t have any other form of income—are stuck in a system that’s got huge costs increasing behind them and makes it very difficult for them to get on and live a reasonable life. And I think that our superannuitants should certainly have had some attention paid to them in the last Budget—would have been very useful.

The uncertainty that’s created in rural New Zealand by putting policy—and I’m talking about the depopulated parts of New Zealand, so it’s much easier for urban populations to deal with issues because they’re close to each other, they’ve got transport, they’ve got services provided. They have everything provided for them. They might have to pay for it, but they have it provided. Rural New Zealand doesn’t have any of this provided for it. It’s having a whole lot of uncertainty foisted on it with environmental change, with climate change changes, with the quite considerable planting of trees we’ve got in rural New Zealand as well, which is starting to depopulate parts of rural New Zealand with no planning having taken place. It’s of significant concern to rural New Zealand—these issues—and I think it’s something the Government should take some time on, it should plan better as it polices these policies, and it should get on and make sure that those people in rural New Zealand can be assisted to get on with it.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise to reassure the member on the other side of the House—Ian McKelvie—that those of us who do live in rural communities are very aware of the plan and the action that is being delivered in our rural communities. I just want to bring a couple of examples to the House of the amazing people who—just like Arena Williams suggested before, when we stand collectively and we are connected with our communities, we can do great things, including our rural communities. We are ambitious for our rural communities and we are supporting them to do some amazing work.

For example, the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, which is a contribution for 23 rural councils with small populations, those that we just referred to a moment ago—$11.5 million to help young people into jobs. Ōtorohanga mayor and the jobs task force chair, Max Baxter, describes it really well. He is really clear about the opportunities on offer here, because our rural councils have a better connection with their communities and are the best place to shoulder tap the local employers; potential employers. The districts are working together. Ōtorohanga is working alongside Waitomo and Maniapoto. It could be seasonal work, individual projects, training, or travel-to-work support. The aim, of course, is long-term employment.

The really interesting thing when you see these projects playing out—I just want to reflect on the women, actually, who are driving this collectively in the Waitomo district. The Number Twelve youth hub, with the Waitomo District Council and Aotahi Limited and the Ministry of Social Development—they take a holistic approach. They wraparound these young people to build a strong foundation for them, prepare them for jobs, and support them with pastoral care to help them keep it. The programme is robust, it is real, and it is changing lives in our rural communities.

Another great example of investment in our rural communities—well, nationwide, but I’m going to give an example from one of my little towns in Ōtorohanga—is the School Investment Package. So Ōtorohanga College is in the process of taking up the opportunity to fund a project that would normally go to the bottom of the pile because they’ve had much more critical parts of their maintenance to worry about, and they are in the process of rebuilding their school hall: the flooring, the ceiling, the sound, and the lighting. This is important not just to make sure that the arts are really accessible for our rural communities but that the tradies have got jobs. It isn’t just for Ōtorohanga College, but the three other rural primary schools who have their prize-givings there, who hold their school productions there, and numerous other community groups who can access the largest theatre space in Ōtorohanga. So this is about investing in our rural communities, this is about being ambitious, and this is about the long-term plan for recovery that comes about.

There is just one other group that I would like to highlight—again, another rural community—that shows how when we stand together—iwi and local leaders—and wraparound and come up with a local solution for our young people, it is a really powerful and successful endeavour. So under the visionary and ambitious leadership of Te Kāhui Maru Trust in the bottom part of the Taranaki - King Country electorate, and under their general manager, Anaru Marshall’s leadership, Tupu-ā-nuku Environmental Workforce programme has received additional funding because they have been included in He Poutama Rangatahi. So 660 participants will be involved in training for conservation and the forestry sectors. Yes, we are planting trees because forestry is important for our future. We’ve got succession planning going on. These young people aren’t just being taught the health and safety and how to work the machinery but it includes strong pastoral care and kaupapa Māori, which means that we are building strong, young workers who are going to lead our recovery and drive us much further into the future, the way we want to go.

So I just want to acknowledge our rural communities and the many people who are stepping up around the country to make sure that our recovery is a great one, and to remind you that this Government does trust our rural communities to be providing solutions that mean that we will thrive in the future.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In 2017, the Labour Party campaigned to reduce net immigration to 30,000 annually—an extremely ignorant policy, but I’ll get to that later. However, in the year to March 2020—before COVID-19 took hold, and that’s quite important—the net arrival figure was over 90,000. Sometimes policy failure isn’t such a bad thing after all! However, COVID-19 actually did what the Labour and New Zealand First Government promised, and much more. So we unintentionally got to see what these sorts of policies would do in the real world.

We have labour shortages that are slowly but surely killing the economy, with more and more businesses desperately waving the “Help wanted” signs up and down the country. We’ve got one of the big four accounting firms, in Auckland, has 90 vacancies at the moment. So, all over New Zealand, we’ve got cafes, small restaurants, in different cities, that have done things like stop opening on certain days, simply because they can’t get the staff. The construction sector is desperate, as are the primary industries. The Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme has been a complete disaster. The tourism sector is dying, and hotels are grappling with both a lack of visitors and the threat of new taxes.

It’s an economy-wide problem, and we’re unfortunately reminded today here in Wellington of just how precarious the situation is. How can we ever reconnect to the world when we can barely handle the situation, when our vaccine roll-out is so slow compared to other countries? As an aside, house prices went up 30 percent during this period, over 14 months. It turns out limited supply and low interest rates are enough to drive the market nuts without immigration. Perhaps the never-ending blame game really is just a populist excuse for failed housing policy.

The immigration Minister was away the day that the Hon Stuart Nash filled in for him, reading out his sort of vague announcement about an announcement—or something like that—speech. The mood amongst the migrants and business community prior to that speech could accurately be described as terrified; luckily, their worst fears were not realised, though the speech definitely generated more questions than answers. That speech called COVID-19 a change point for a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change immigration. The Government described immigrants as increasingly low-skilled and that COVID-19 starkly highlighted our reliance on migrant labour. Then, nothing happened.

Nobody knows what immigration will look like when COVID-19 is out of here and we return to normal. The Government suggests that they’re against 90,000 net arrivals but, with their track record, who know? We just don’t know what it will look like. Are they planning to cap it at 30,000, like they campaigned on in 2017 but didn’t do anything about? More importantly, what should New Zealand’s immigration policy actually be? There are, of course, arguments out there for cutting immigration, but they’re ultimately wrong. Some argue that there are too many people here already, and they talk about the demands on infrastructure. They say, “Yeah, roads and houses and schools still get built, but”—apparently—“immigration stops us from specialising, because too much capital is tied up in providing the basics.”

The truth is we don’t know what the future holds, and it’s pointless for the Government to try to guess what the population should look like in 30 years’ time, when the economy will be completely different. New Zealand businesses need skills to grow and to be globally competitive, which, funnily enough, lets them employ more locals and get them into higher paying, more interesting jobs. They just can’t do it with the population or the migrants that are already here, especially when so many skilled migrants here are now leaving the country for better opportunities and to be treated fairer offshore. No economy in the world functions well like that.

So the Government needs to get far better at planning, funding, and pricing infrastructure, as ACT has long campaigned for. That’s true no matter what happens with immigration. The Government also needs to sort out Immigration New Zealand (INZ), who have somehow managed to escape the technological revolution. Its staff stopped working through last year’s lockdowns due to a lack of supporting IT. They still work with paper-based applications—in addition to online, of course—and they continue to drive more complaints to MPs’ offices than any other department. And I’m sure many members here know what that’s like. But, if one thing’s for sure at INZ, it’s that they are slow at everything.

Most of all, though, the Government needs to stop the uncertainty around immigration. They should tell us what they actually mean by “once-in-a-generation reset”, because the skills shortage is getting dire, and businesses are desperate. And, while they’re at it, having a plan to reconnect with the world, out of COVID-19, would help too. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak in this general debate. As I’ve recently returned to Parliament following the birth of my son, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on what this Government is doing for children. There are a number of things that this Government is doing for children, and I hope that I’ll be able to cover five of the key things that are most pressing in my mind at the moment. However, as this a short call I may not have time.

As all parents and carers know, it is one of life’s great joys to raise a child, or it should be. For me, in New Zealand, for too long raising a child has been a struggle. This was especially so following the cuts in 1991 that we heard about during the Budget debate. I remember this time, even though I was still a child. It is my hope that the children who are around now remember this Government for very different reasons.

Today, the key policies that I wanted to highlight that are really keeping our recovery going by focusing on our most important constituents, our children, are: firstly, the decision to raise benefits; the re-establishment of the training incentive allowance; the extension of Ka Ora, Ka Ako, the healthy school lunches programme; better childcare assistance for working families; and the recent decision to fund period products in schools. Now, this Government has a goal of making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child, and all of these policies focus on achieving the same.

This first one I wanted to touch on is raising benefits. This Government is raising benefits and it will move children out of poverty. It is estimated that up to 33,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by increasing benefits, and it’s not just money in the bank. It is food on the table, warm homes, clothes, shoes, and less financial stress for families, and support to the local economy. This is a really important initiative.

The next thing I wanted to touch on was the re-establishment of the training incentive allowance. When we support parents, we also support their families. The training incentive allowance was scaled down by the previous National Government. This Government will support sole parents, carers, and those on the supported living payment with upfront ongoing costs of study such as fees, childcare costs, and transport.

When I was a student, I remember the inspirational sole parents and others who were so courageous in undertaking tertiary education while having childcare responsibilities. These people deserve our support so they can in turn support their families. And it was wonderful to hear Minister Sepuloni talking in the Budget debate about how the training incentive allowance had helped her, and we see now what she has achieved. She’s now an inspirational Minister of the Crown.

The next policy I wanted to highlight was the extension of the Ka Ora, Ka Ako, healthy school lunches programme. This Government is extending this programme and this programme intends to help feed around 144,000 kids in 660 schools. As we know, with food children can learn, and it is, in fact, the meaning and title of this programme. Ka ora, Ka ako: if a child is healthy, a child will learn. It is an honour to be part of a Government that is helping to feed our children.

The next policy that I wanted to highlight was better childcare assistance for working families. This Government is indexing childcare assistance to income thresholds to increase with the average wage. This benefits around a thousand families. This Government is also increasing funding for the OSCAR, which stands for the Out of School Care and Recreation Service programme, and that will help around 9,000 low-income parents remain in employment and training. We, as part of this Government, are supporting families with childcare to stay in work, and that’s so important for these families’ future.

In the brief time I have left, the last policy I wanted to focus on was period products in schools. This has been recently announced by Minister Jan Tinetti to be in all schools by June this year. Now, this particular programme will do a myriad of things. One thing is improve attendance. Another thing is assist low-income families and also end unjustified stigma that has too long been associated with what is a very normal function.

So, in conclusion, I just wanted to reflect on why we all came to this House. I believe, from both sides of this House, we came here to make a difference so that the future would be better for our children, for our grandchildren, for our nieces and nephews. There is no better way of ensuring we achieve this goal than by supporting our tamariki and their parents, by supporting families to live their lives and to grow. So I would like to commend the Government for its work that it’s done supporting children.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister Responsible for the NZSIS) on behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: I present to the House a legislative statement on the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The bill has been reported back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee with the recommendation that it be passed without amendment. As members of the House will know, this was a very brief and succinct bill. All it did was change the date in the bill that required the review of the legislation as well as the security and intelligence agencies. It received two submissions in the truncated process that the select committee applied for consideration of the bill, and both were, by and large, supportive of the change.

The reason, as we know, is the change was prompted by the recommendations of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques, as part of a package of recommendations that the royal commission made. It has called for a number of things about a better debate about counter-terrorism and a better debate about our security stance, our security posture, and security settings but it also called for examination of the powers that our security and intelligence agencies have, and it therefore suggested that the review otherwise scheduled to have taken place next year should be brought forward.

On issues like this, when it comes to substantive review, I think that across this House all members grapple with the balance that has to be struck between the powers that we expect our security and intelligence agencies to have to do their job of gathering intelligence to keep New Zealanders safe and what might otherwise constitute undue intrusion on the privacy and the liberties of citizens. The royal commission examined the way the intelligence agencies operated and it heard from the agencies and a report was commissioned by one of the agencies, and it raised questions about whether what is in the Intelligence and Security Act at the moment goes far enough to enable the agencies to do the job. That is a legitimate point of debate at any time in our history, but it is timely now to bring forward the review that would otherwise have taken place next year so that we can have that examination with the benefit of the findings of the royal commission. So we will now do that.

It’s a very short and a very straightforward bill, as members in the House will know. It will allow us to get on with considering whether the legislation still meets the objectives that we expect of it, and it allows our intelligence and security agencies to operate in the way we would expect in the 21st century.

I think that for members of the public who will be looking on, it should be made very clear that the review process, as you would expect, will be an open process. There will be a call for submissions and contributions from members of the public and from specified stakeholders, so that opportunity will be made available, and once we’ve clarified terms of reference for that, those, obviously, will be publicised and will be the basis of the review.

In the end, we do this in recognition of and out of respect for the shuhada—the victims—of the terrorist attack and their families, the wider Christchurch community, and the wider Muslim community across New Zealand. In the end, we do this because this is what we needed to do for the safety and security of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): The Minister Responsible for the GCSB has very well outlined the intention of the bill. Just to reiterate, the essential part of the bill shifts a review date that was scheduled in the bill when it was passed back in 2017—it brings it back from 2023 back to any time from 1 July of 2021. That’s an appropriate response to the royal commission considerations of all of the events that led up to that dreadful day in Christchurch where so many people lost their lives at the hands of an extremist terrorist.

There will always be criticisms of different agencies. This is not set up to give life to any of that, rather to review the appropriateness of the legislation that those agencies work under in a changed world that we all experienced from that particular day. So there is no need, I think, to spend a lot of time speaking about this. The Minister has made it clear that it’s a public process, that we want New Zealanders to feel that they can participate in this bill, which I do hope will give any adequate powers required by the agencies who are there to protect us in a world where there are so many people now who have ill will towards the quality of life and the freedoms that we enjoy in this country.

So on behalf of the National Opposition, we will be supporting this process and look forward to the passage of the bill and the comments that might come from the public and from others who are interested in the way in which we structure things from this point.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill, as has been mentioned before, just makes quite a specific amendment to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. Section 235 of the Act requires periodic reviews of the legislation. It provides that the first of these reviews starts after 28 September 2022. As other speakers have said, this bill allows us to move the review forward, to bring it forward and allow it to take place sooner. The reason we want to do that, of course, is because of the horrific mosque attacks that took place on March 15th and the resulting report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Masjidain on 15 March 2019.

I just want to point to the four specific recommendations in that report that were to strengthen our intelligence and security legislation, which, of course, is why we don’t want to wait till September 2022 for this review to be able to take place. The four recommendations of the royal commission were, firstly, to review all legislation related to the counter-terrorism effort; second, to require publication of and public submissions on the National Security and Intelligence Priorities and an annual threatscape report; third, to strengthen the role of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee; and fourth, to add a reporting requirement for direct access agreements that allow an intelligence and security agency to directly access certain databases.

I just want to underscore a point that Minister Little made earlier this year when he and I led a nationwide series of hui engaging with Muslim communities across Aotearoa and our wider ethnic and faith communities. Many raised the fact that they wanted to have a say in this particular piece of work, and I just want to underscore the point that the families of the 51 shuhada will have an opportunity to input into this review once the terms of reference have been determined, and likely others, as well.

I also wanted to take just a very short while to also point to the fact, of course, that our intelligence and security agencies work to protect and enhance the security and wellbeing of New Zealand and New Zealanders, and have to strike a very fine balance, as Minister Little mentioned in his contribution. Part of that, of course, is the counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism focus that our agencies have, and I just want to mention very quickly to the House and to anyone watching the fact that we had our first annual counter-terrorism and countering violent extremism hui, He Whenua Taurikura, which happened just last week in Christchurch. It was attended by over 300 individuals from civil society, academia, and Government. This was also a direct result of one of the recommendations of the royal commission. We brought all these people together—one of the most diverse audiences that I’ve seen ever, coming together to talk issues around national security, but also social cohesion, so that we get to a place where we strengthen our communities and society to prevent these attacks from happening in future, as well. I just wanted to point to that, given that it responds directly to recommendation 16 of the royal commission hui and generated a huge amount of discussion. It was the first step that we’ve taken as a Government to respond to that particular recommendation.

This is a bill that will allow us to get to that review that we need to hold much sooner than we otherwise would have been able to. So I take this opportunity to commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Greens agree with the small technical nature of this bill in that it falls in line with appropriate decision-making—that is, it’s about centring the community that has been most deeply impacted. So at this time, I’d like to, you know, continue to acknowledge our Muslim whānau down there in Christchurch as well—and fully acknowledging that this small technical bill does do that by pushing the review date even earlier. So the Intelligence and Security Act sets aside the objectives, the functions, the powers, and the oversight arrangements of the intelligence and security agencies, allowing them to act as necessary to protect New Zealand and New Zealand’s interests. The Act actually requires that an independent review of the Act takes place as soon as practicable after September 2022, which is five years after the Act commenced and then every five to seven years after that.

However, as we know with what happened in Christchurch and the deep impact on our communities down there, it is entirely appropriate that we move this review date and bring it forward so that the intelligence and security review amendment—and this is what the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill does: it makes that very minor technical change to allow the independent statutory review of the Act to be brought forward. And on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Nicole McKee: Madam Speaker. Sorry, I’m not sure of the order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): We have gone a little bit out of order. I call Nicole McKee.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to take this call on the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill. It’s going to be quite a short call because, really, it’s only about changing the review date of the Act itself, bringing it forward.

There’s a number of measures that were taken from the royal commission of inquiry report into the 15 March 2019 shootings that occurred down in Christchurch. I think that it is prudent that we are able to move through a systematic review of some of those Acts that were needing it, as per the royal commission’s findings. There were measures that were brought about after an extensive inquiry, and that inquiry involved over 1,000 people making submissions. Many of those people were also interviewed. I myself was a part of that interview process as well. Some people that we are aware of were interviewed multiple times, and I think that’s a good opportunity for people to get their voices heard. The result of this is that there were 800 pages of findings and those findings gave us 44 recommendations. Of course, one of those recommendations was to look at our terrorism Act, and also look at the Intelligence and Security Act, so hence we’ve got this review, in order to be able to bring that forward.

I think it’s really quite important that we maybe even have a look at whether or not we set, in future, review dates that are movable. Review dates that don’t allow us to have to come into the House to waste time when we all know that it’s something that we could just push through if we had that ability. Reviewing is one of the things that we do need to be able to do in the intelligence and security space. The reason for that is because people want answers. They want to know a whole range of things that they’re not able to actually know about because so much of what was in the royal commission of inquiry report has been supressed. So when we’re looking for some answers, being able to hold an early review is going to be quite essential. People want the answers, and all of us want the answers as to how certain aspects of that attack managed to occur, but, more importantly, how we can improve it so they don’t occur again in the future.

So spending so much time on this bill itself is actually not needed, but spending time on the review itself will be. I’m also quite pleased to hear the Minister talk about making sure that the review process will be a full one and not a rushed one like we’ve seen go through with other aspects of the findings. A full select committee time will be needed, especially if we want to make sure that all of those people that have been affected have the opportunity to be heard. Maybe, just maybe, we might be able to come out with some answers that everybody across this House can agree upon that will actually make a real difference to how our security and our intelligence is maintained throughout New Zealand. And maybe, just maybe, we can all agree on that. In that respect, we do support this bill. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It’s a pleasure to speak again on the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill. I have already spoken and so I don’t wish to repeat the points that I made or that have been made in this House today regarding the technical nature of the bill. I would like to emphasise, though, that even though it is a technical bill, which moves forward the date of the review from 22 September next year to 1 July this year, that will have a really big impact on many communities—those communities in New Zealand who feel vulnerable as a result of the actions that happened, those heinous actions, in the mosque attacks, or, in fact, other actions that have made some of our Māori population feel insecure as well. I don’t wish to repeat too much about the story from my electorate—the fact that the terrorist from the mosque attacks lived there. What I will say is that my constituents are feeling really good in the knowledge that we are bringing the dates forward and that we are in action and delivering on our promises in relation to the royal commission.

I would like to talk a little bit, though, about the broader context, about the world that we live in, and the light that the royal commission report has shown in terms of some of these structural biases, the unconscious bias that we have in relation to the way we conduct our intelligence surveillance—and I think the timing is quite poetic, given that, if it hadn’t been for today’s lockdown events, we would have had an apology in relation to the Polynesian Panthers on the weekend, because, in fact, that was a form of using information, State information, to do surveillance on certain people living here in Aotearoa, a form that now we find unacceptable. So this review—the opportunity to review how we use State information, how we gather it, is really important and I do hope that it gives us the opportunity to have a look at some of the structural bias that we have. So the Christchurch mosque attacks, and indeed the case of my friend, many years ago, Trudi, who was a dancer—I mentioned her in my previous speech in this House on this statute. She was a Tūhoe dancer. She was dragged through the court system at a very young age and named a terrorist when raids were done in relation to the so-called Tūhoe terrorists.

These cases show that we have made the world very small with a dominant culture lens, and it is time to go back to the drawing board and rethink things like free speech, surveillance, privacy, security, who we are as a nation, and whether the restrictions that we have in place today and the freedoms that we have reflect what is fit for purpose in this world compared to the changes that have happened over those times. And, of course, one of the big changes is the social media platforms which allow unfettered speech. We’ve had the advancement of weapons, including automated drones. We have the digital footprints and handprints that we leave everywhere every day that enable the State to track our movements. So we really do need to go back to the drawing board and rethink how we see these competing rights and privileges and how we get the balance right. So the review of the intelligence legislation does allow us to do just that. It asks questions like: how do we gather information? Who do we gather information on? It will enable us to get a 360-degree picture of the world that we live in and shine a light on the assumptions that our legislation makes. Of course, this technical bill is just the tip of the iceberg of some very difficult conversations and very robust conversations that we will need to have in this House later as we continue to implement the 44 recommendations from the royal commission.

So this was my opportunity really just to flag that—that we’re looking forward to having those robust debates, that it is time that we do that as a nation, that we reflect on who we are as a nation. And by bringing this Act into play and being able to get on with that work is not only making people in New Zealand feel more secure, it is opening the door for us to really rethink who we are and creating a better balance in our society around security and freedom. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for third reading forthwith.

Third Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. [Interruption] Sorry, Madam Speaker, I move—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call the Hon Kelvin Davis.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children) on behalf of the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: I move, That the Intelligence and Security (Review) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you, Madam Speaker—very, very keen. I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill.

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

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

I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the journey that this bill has taken to get to its third reading here today. The journey began in 2019 when the then Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, initiated a first principles review of financial assistance for caregivers. I think it’s important at this time that we thank and acknowledge the 15,000 caregivers across the country who provide day-to-day care for 24,000 children in New Zealand whose parents are unable to provide care for them themselves. Now, the review that Minister Martin initiated looked at the foster care allowance, and that supports children in State care, and the orphan’s benefit and unsupported child’s benefit, which support tamariki outside of the State care system.

Following extensive consultation, the review found a range of fundamental issues with the caregiver payment system. One of the key findings is that there is a lack of equity in the payments and support that caregivers outside of the State care system get compared to caregivers of children within the State care system. So in late 2019, the Government agreed to a response to the findings of the review, and this bill, it forms part of the response. I’d like to once again acknowledge the Hon Tracey Martin for her work on the review and for introducing this bill to the House in her time as the Minister for Children. And, as this bill amends the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations 2018, I also acknowledge my colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for her engagement as this bill made its way through the legislative process.

I’d like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill. The committee recommended a number of changes that have improved the clarity of the bill to ensure that it can be implemented in line with the policy intent. I also want to thank members of the public who helped the committee to consider the bill through written and oral submissions. Many of those submitters were individual caregivers or organisations advocating on behalf of caregivers. I know that the committee will have appreciated hearing the lived experiences and expertise shared by those who took the time to make their submissions.

We know that many caregivers are under financial pressure and that caregivers need more support to care for tamariki. We also know that financial assistance is inequitable for caregivers caring for children outside the State care system. We know that some caregivers outside of State care are not able to access financial assistance simply because the care arrangement is short term or they don’t know how long it will be for. That’s why the bill will extend eligibility for the orphan’s benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit to caregivers in these kinds of situations. Now, this will ensure that caregivers who have stepped up to take on the care of a child whose parents are unable to care for them will be financially supported to do so, despite the care arrangement being short term or for an unknown or uncertain period of time.

To help address equity issues in the payments that different caregivers receive, the bill establishes a holiday allowance and a birthday allowance for caregivers receiving the orphan’s benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit. These allowances will support tamariki to celebrate and enjoy those significant events in their lives. They’ll also help caregivers to provide the tamariki in their care with the same experiences as other tamariki throughout Aotearoa.

So I want to reiterate the Government’s commitment to improving the system of financial assistance and support for caregivers. This bill is just one part of the Government’s response to the 2019 review. We are also progressing long-term work to reform the system to ensure that our tamariki who are unable to be cared for by their parents get the support that they need and they deserve. I commend the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill to the House.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on behalf of the National Party in this third and final reading of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill.

If we look back over the years, not just of the immediately preceding Government but the ones before that, there’s been a significant programme of work to support children who are either in State care or who are cared for, for a variety of reasons, by people other than their parents. So it is good to see that this work has continued and has transferred from multiple Ministers, including my former colleagues Anne Tolley, and this particular piece of work from the Hon Tracey Martin, and now in the name of the Hon Kelvin Davis.

For those who were able to listen to the debate in the second reading, I think they would have been reassured by the speeches that took place in this House and the very real understanding of what needs to occur in terms of caregivers who look after children, and we heard very personal examples of that, both from caregivers—and we also are aware of those in our House who have been supported by caregivers who weren’t their own parents. As we traversed this, there were a number of issues that did come up. As the Minister said, this is only a small piece of a wider programme of work, and I think anyone on the Social Services and Community Committee would agree there is further work to be done.

One of the issues that’s addressed with this bill is the time frames. There was previously a restriction in terms of not being able to access this financial support for caregivers within 12 months. Unfortunately, what we do know is that that first period of time is potentially the most traumatic for a child, and to be away from their parents for whatever reason and to then get the double kind of hit, if you like, of caregivers who are financially struggling just with the practicalities of a new child coming into their household shouldn’t be an issue that that new family faces. So we do think it’s sensible.

One of the points that I raised that I think was misunderstood in one of the earlier readings was also the fact that successive Governments have made a real effort to try and find ways to reduce the number of moves that children have, who are not with their parents or who are in State care. This doesn’t necessarily remove that. But what it does do is when that child has moved into the family environment of this caregiver, it actually enables support to get to them directly.

One of the issues that did come up that was raised by the Green member of Parliament in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was defeated—in fact, we voted it down—I do think requires further attention, because it’s potentially also a barrier to caregivers accessing support. And while I might not go as far as my Green parliamentary colleague wishes to go, I do think that it is an area that needs due consideration. So I’m pleased that the SOP was put on the Table, because often the reason for a child requiring time with parents who aren’t theirs can be complicated. And again, I think if the intent is how we are ensuring that the financial support goes to the family that’s looking after the child without too many unnecessary barriers—clearly, there need to be some clear reasons as to why it might not be immediate.

But the other thing that I do think is important—and I do implore the Minister to consider—that I raised in my first reading speech is there will be some families who take on the responsibility of children who need a hell of a lot more financial support. I’d like to see that there could be a way for those children and those families to get a greater level of support that is very targeted in supporting their specific family’s needs. I think this is not an area by any stretch of the imagination that you can have a one-size-fits-all approach. So I do request that the Minister consider a more targeted approach, a more flexible approach, a way that is far more able to ensure the child or children that are placed into a different whānau or household can be supported in the ways that their needs are met. Yes, some of that’s financial, but some of it’s logistical; there’ll be a much wider range.

I do want to take the opportunity in this third reading, while we are supporting this legislation, obviously, to signal some of the areas of further work that we would like considered. Part of that was also around the name of the orphan’s benefit, which has come up in a number of readings. Most people would assume that if someone’s receiving an orphan’s benefit, the parents of the child involved are deceased, and that’s often not the case. And again, if we have in our mind the objective of providing the most support for that child and reducing the harm involved in being separated for a period of time from the parents, then I think this is another issue that can be addressed.

Some of the allowances, in terms of renaming “Christmas allowance” to “holiday allowance” and actually getting financial support for that, and birthdays, is a no-brainer. We want to make sure that these children, who are precious children and who have additional challenges, are given as many opportunities as possible to live a normal and fulfilling life. It’s our duty and responsibility as lawmakers to make that as easy as possible. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise today to speak on this bill, the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I’ve reflected on the process that it has taken, and it has been utterly enjoyable to work so collegially across this House in regards to this matter. I think this bill is one of those pieces of legislation that, we all agree, has fixed an issue—that there was potentially no reason why there was a difference. It’s fixed an equity issue. So, in that regard, I’d like to acknowledge the Minister in charge, Kelvin Davis, for his completion of the process of carrying this bill through. I’d also like to acknowledge, as others have, the Hon Tracey Martin for her work. She also came and submitted to us, which I thought was a really nice touch, during the select committee process. She was there to just tautoko the ongoing work that was happening with our Government. So, if she is watching today—as probably most people are out there!—I’d just like to mihi to her and acknowledge her work, but also to my Minister for his completion of this work.

This piece of legislation is part of an ongoing work programme in the Oranga Tamariki space. This work came out of a process where, in 2019, there was a review into Oranga Tamariki, and one of the findings was around this particular issue. So it has been a relatively quick journey through, into becoming legislation, I guess, when you consider that this has been in place for many, many years.

I want to take the opportunity to thank our officials, who were very gracious with their time and very useful in terms of some of the technical questions that we had. They were absolutely a delight to work with. So I’d like to acknowledge them as well. The entire select committee—we often work this way, and most people out there in the community probably don’t understand that select committees are really about the process of getting good legislation created. That’s something that we hold dear, and that’s something that we’ve done very well here.

To our submitters, as well—those who came and told us their stories or the stories of the young people or clients that they worked with—we cannot make good legislation without their voice, and so I want to acknowledge those submitters that came.

And, finally, to the 15,000 caregivers out there, who are doing their very best, who are often kin carers or whānau carers who are stepping up and taking care of our children, where there has been some reason why their parents cannot do so, I want to thank you most sincerely for the work that you’ve done. Having been a caregiver under the unsupported child’s benefit regime, I would just like to say that it is an honour and a pleasure to do that, but it comes with some financial cost.

I’m really delighted to be standing here. This bill is, as I said, about equity. It’s done a couple of things—the first I’ll talk about, which is somewhat minor, but probably not to those children, to be fair. So we have, as other members have said, ensured that the birthday and what we have named “holiday” allowance is able to be paid to the caregivers. It seems quite sensible that if a child under State care receives that support, children under kin care or with family or friends should also receive this support. So we’ve put that in place.

We’ve also created another category of caregiver, and this is probably the biggest change. The caregiver is known as a “temporary caregiver”. We had previously what was called the “12-month rule”. The 12-month rule was around, caring for a child, you needed to be able to prove that you were going to care for the child for 12 or more months in order to access the support of the unsupported child’s benefit. However, what we know is that families don’t come in simple and easy-to-manage packages. What we know is, for example, that what may be a temporary issue or temporary family situation may become a long-term situation. The permanent caregiver could have perhaps been incarcerated or become medically unwell or, for some other reason, is unable to care. The child then goes into the care of someone else, and it was, under this 12-month rule, a requirement to prove that, actually, the child was going to stay with that family for those 12 months.

We’ve done away with that on the basis that families are messier than that, and it also meant that those families could step up, knowing that they could get the support financially at a time when they were taking an additional child or children into their family. That’s really important in terms of enabling and supporting our families to be able to do this. Because, as we all know, all children have a cost associated. Everyone needs to be fed. We need a bit of furniture for the kids—a bed; those kinds of things. So it’s really important to make sure that, in these circumstances, which was happening in the process under State care, if a child was in State care, it can now also happen under the care of the unsupported child’s benefit.

So it is, essentially, a way for us to ensure that the hardship that our caregivers told us, in the 2019 research—and who told us, when they came to submit, they were putting their hands into their own pockets, and wanting to do that and not resenting that, but it was costing a lot of money to be able to do this. Families were often going without in order to support these children, and so this is part of the policy intent around the equity for these families and to ensure, in fact, that these families have that support.

I also wanted to talk a little bit about a couple of the other issues—one that has been raised by the Hon Louise Upston—and that was the issue of the orphan’s benefit. Look, we’ve raised this, and we raise it each time, I think, each of us gets up to speak. It doesn’t sit comfortably with us that the term “orphan’s benefit” applies to children who are not orphans. Nevertheless, we weren’t able to solve this issue. It’s a relatively minor thing, I guess, but certainly it did not sit comfortably with us to have children whose parents are still living to be called orphans. And, in fact, “orphan” is quite an antiquated term. So we will leave that there, and maybe, if there’s anyone out there listening who can come up with an alternative term, because the great minds of Parliament were not able to do so, I expect there will be some flooding of answers coming to us.

The other very small but, I guess, really important change for the children born on a leap year is the creation of a specific birthday payment for those kids born on a leap year. So that will be 1 March, and I think that that’s a really thoughtful and useful thing so that those children are not missed out—so their payment goes ahead, is paid in advance, and is designated for 1 March. With that, I have the great pleasure of commending this bill to the House. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I too take pleasure in standing this evening to talk to the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill in its third and final reading.

As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee has alluded to, this is quite a simple bill that was supported across the committee. So there has been nothing contentious about it, because, as we are all aware, the main issue that we need to consider when we are talking about these types of legislation is what is in the best interest of the child, and that needs to be always front and centre of any legislation that we are passing through this House.

This bill simply sets out to align the different types of benefits—the orphan’s benefit, the unsupported child’s benefit—with the foster care allowance. It turned out that between those different types of allowances that are paid to carers of children that are not their own was somewhere between $10 and $30 a week. So that disadvantaged one group of children against another, and this is simply aligning those benefits and addressing that inequity.

But I would also like to use the opportunity to acknowledge the carers that do take these children into their homes. When we started talking about this bill, we were talking about 22,000 children. The Minister has mentioned this evening that there are 24,000 children. Regardless of the exact number, that is a huge amount of children that are out there in care. We do want to acknowledge those people that take the children into their homes.

We have traversed through the various details that are in this bill, but one of the main things that I’d like to address is around the—as the member for the Green Party raised in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—assessments that need to be done in terms of qualifying for this allowance. It was discussed in quite some detail in the select committee, so it did surprise me to see the SOP turn up, because it actually had been traversed in some detail, and I’m not sure whether the member was even aware of that. But one of the things that was highlighted around the need for some type of an assessment was to ensure that children were placed into stable homes, because the last thing we wanted was for it to be a transitional arrangement that is made without any kind of assessment being made, because that simply opened the door for these children to be moved around too much.

We all know that having that stability—having a stable home—is very, very important to the children, because it’s not only the stable home that they get there; it is the stable caring, it is their social circle, it is their friends and their playmates, it is the kids that they go to school with, their sports teams, and we know that having kids in school regularly is an absolutely crucial part of their development. We actually do know—the data tells us that children who attend school regularly that are in stable families and stable homes, they have a 50 percent improved chance of going on to lead successful, stable lives. So the investment that we make in children in care is absolutely part of the National Party’s philosophy, it’s part of our social investment philosophy, and a huge amount of the work that was done in reforming social policy in this country was based around those principles.

The outcome for those children is definitely front and foremost of any legislation that we do pass in this House. We have a need to care for these children and make sure that there are no inequities between the unsupported child’s benefit, the orphan’s benefits, with the foster care children. This bill addresses that very easily, and I have pleasure in commending it to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I didn’t sit on the select committee which considered the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill, the Social Services and Community Committee, but it does have some very personal meaning to me. My namesake and her brother live with their grandmother, and their whānau is a whānau that has experienced colonisation, addiction, recovery, family violence, poverty, incredible leadership, healing, hope. I love both the parents of those children and I completely understand why at this point in time they cannot be there to look after their children. Their grandmother has stepped up to do that, and what an incredible job she is doing. So to see that this piece of legislation will make it easier for her, as a grandmother who is not working in paid employment, to be able to do the best by her mokopuna and my namesake is a real pleasure, and I just want to thank her, as well, along with the 15,000 other caregivers who have taken on that job of looking after the most precious resource that we have in this lifetime, which is our tamariki.

Without wanting to go into too much detail and repeat too much, I’d just like to point out what I think are the main highlights of this legislation. The first one really is that 12-month temporary caregiver exception now, which not only means that it supports people like the grandmother of my namesake, but I feel that it also means that families are not forced into making final decisions about tamariki before they are ready to. That’s a really important part of this legislation, and I’m so glad that the thought has gone into making that exception. Secondly, changing the Christmas allowance to a holiday allowance is very, very important in terms of recognising the diversity of our society—that not all New Zealanders necessarily prioritise Christmas, that there are other days on their annual calendars which are more important to them, yet around 25 December they can access that and still have the same entitlement and still be able to give their children some special cultural acknowledgment, whether it is Christmas or some other event.

The care that has gone into this is very evident through reading through the notes—the care from the select committee. Not only did they ask extra questions about the meanings of “family breakdowns”, not only did they consider 29 February leap year babies like my young nephew Jamie, but they also even considered pocket money and whether that was in scope. So it’s great to see that the select committee have put so much care into this amendment bill and to hear in this House about the collegiality across the House, as members have really been mindful to make the tamariki front and centre of this bill. So I am very heartened to commend the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin, as many have done before me, by thanking the 15,000 caregivers who are currently on the unsupported child’s benefit (UCB) and the orphan’s benefit (OB), who have stepped in as part of a wider community to look after our tamariki.

I’m starting by touching on the issue that this bill is trying to address around the disparities that have for too long existed between caregivers who are in the benefit system and the welfare system, compared to those that end up looking after children that are in State care and receive a foster care allowance. I think the intent of this bill was really positive, and I commend the Minister for progressing it, because I do think that the disparities that have existed between those receiving a UCB or OB and the foster care allowance have created the conditions where we’re creating barriers for children to remain in their communities and with their wider whānau, instead of going into State care. I do think we should all aim for State care to be the absolute last resort, and seek ways in which our children can remain rooted in their communities.

This bill introduces some changes, which other speakers have spoken about, and one of the key ones, which will enable more people to step into that caregiving role and be supported by the State in doing so, is changing the eligibility criteria for those looking after children for less than 12 months. That change reminds me a lot of the experiences I faced in my previous role as coordinator of Auckland Action Against Poverty, where I met countless people on the benefit who struggled to access the support that they needed because of the very restrictive criteria. So I do also want to pay tribute to the many people who came through our doors at that time, my colleagues who continue informing the work that I do in this House and that instructed me and helped feed me the knowledge to create the Supplementary Order Paper that we tried to put forward.

Other changes include establishing the holiday and birthday allowances, and this does help ensure that caregivers have access not only to an allowance that supports a child’s important milestones such as a birthday but also to celebrate holidays of cultural significance—and I want to pay tribute to the select committee for finding a way to rename the allowance in a way that was a little bit more culturally competent, and I think that’s a great thing we got through, so I thank my colleagues for that. The other thing that these allowances will do is address the issue of income inadequacy that too many whānau on the benefit face. There’s still issues that I think we need to address, such as the fact that there’s a bit of discrimination on the rates that people get paid, based on their age, within the welfare system, and I look forward to the Government, hopefully, doing more work in that regard.

During the select committee hearings, what we heard plenty on—on top of most submitters actually supporting the changes proposed by this bill—was a really strong call for some changes to the criteria around the breakdown in the family. So while submitters were not necessarily always able to give a cohesive or clear alternative proposal to the current barriers that exist, I think most people acknowledged that there needed to be changes in terms of the family breakdown criteria. One of the reasons why we decided to put an amendment to that, and to help make this bill go further and pass through into enabling our children to thrive, was that the current barriers on top of the 12-month period that this bill is addressing is the fact that requiring a breakdown in the family ultimately creates the conditions where people are told—especially those in whāngai arrangements or in other arrangements—that in order for your wider village to step in and to look after a child, there is a breakdown, and that the biological parents or the parents looking after the child were somehow unwilling or uncaring. It creates that negative stigma, when actually for many cultures—including my own culture back in Mexico—it is quite common for your wider village to step in to raise a child. It’s not about a lack of love or a lack of support; it’s actually an acknowledgment that you often need a wider community to step in.

So I was confused when, in the previous contributions by the National Party members, Louise Upston pointed out that that was an issue that needed addressing. I commend the member for pointing out that this is, hopefully, an area of work that the Government will commit to later down the track. But then I was puzzled by her colleague Maureen Pugh then saying that perhaps I didn’t listen to the submitters hard enough, because this is actually something raised by submitters as an issue that needed more work. At the end of the day, this is not about putting children in unstable homes; this is actually about ensuring that children are able to remain within their communities, that they’re able to be connected to their wider whānau, and that we look at ways in which State care is not the first option, rather that it becomes the last resort, when no other options are available for children.

So I do hope and trust that the Minister is intending to embark on more work to reform—and I pay tribute to Minister Carmel Sepuloni who’s here in the House today, and I know that the Minister is doing more work to overhaul our welfare system—and that whatever further reforms to the unsupported child’s benefit look like, we do ensure that our welfare system stops discriminating whānau and whāngai arrangements, or just wider communities putting in to look after children. So I do think that this bill will do some great stuff for the community, and the Green Party will continue advocating for our welfare reforms to go further and faster so that communities can thrive. Kia ora.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of ACT and support the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. There are many reasons I can stand here and say I’m proud to be standing here supporting this, and one of those reasons is because I can relate so much to how this bill is going to help people. Growing up, I was one of these children that was raised by caregivers. I was one of these children that had a breakdown in the family that didn’t allow me to be living with my mother. There are always going to be parents out there that for, some reason, may not be able to, at the time, provide what their child needs for them. And caregivers step up and take that place while parents are getting themselves together to be able to do that. Sometimes they can change their lives around and have their children back, and other times it can be quite difficult.

So I’ve stood here and I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: thank you to every caregiver in this country that donates their time, their love, and their efforts to make our children feel loved, cared, and wanted. Every child in this country deserves to be living in a safe, stable home, and every child deserves the care and protection to make sure that their wellbeing and their needs are met. This doesn’t just affect caregivers; it affects children and it affects the wider family and the communities. When our children feel loved and our children feel stable, they thrive and they grow and have a better chance of becoming contributing members of society later in life.

This bill, although it may seem simple, actually does quite a lot for our children. This bill removes the disparities between benefits and provides the same support for children on the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphan’s benefit so that they line up with children that end up in State care. Oranga Tamariki is currently making a change in the way they deal with taking children into State care, and in some ways this is a good thing. If we can avoid our children going into State care and provide the wraparound services for these children before they end up in State care, and have caregivers from families stepping up and being able to do that job, then maybe we would have less devastation in our communities. This is happening now, and currently caregivers are not getting the support they need because of the 12-month barrier. Once this 12-month barrier is gone, I feel that this may enable family members to take on children that they may not have felt comfortable to because of financial reasons before.

So I’m not going to say too much more, because I feel that this bill is long overdue, and the faster we get through this, the faster we can have this bill working. So thank you very much for all the submitters that came in and gave us their points of view. Thank you to all the caregivers out there and all the NGOs that make this possible and the wraparound services that make it possible, and thank you to our children who sit there every day and do better and better, no matter what they’re going through.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for letting me take a call. I rise in support of the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I do want to acknowledge my colleague Karen Chhour, who was on our select committee, and so thank you for your kōrero tonight. For many of us, this is personal and for you to share your story—and this is personal—we thank you for being open during the select committee process but also in the House as we’ve gone through the reading stages.

We have to realise, as we talk about topics, and issues, and challenges within our communities, that many of these things are personal for us, and I rise to support—as we’ve said already tonight, to tautoko all the people who are involved in caring for young people, for children, who are not their own.

Tonight, I just want to focus on three particular things: I want to talk about the problem, and why we’re here in this third reading stage; I want to talk a bit about the process, how we’ve got to where we’ve got to; and then finally, I want to finish off by talking about the people—the people that this affects, the people who have been on this journey and, as we’ve said, our young people.

So the problem—we’ve heard, and we’ve talked about right through from the first reading until now, in the House tonight—is around this inequity, this disparity for children who aren’t in State care, for children outside the State system. That is a problem, and that is something that I have negotiated myself as a caregiver, and I’ve had to grapple with over the years, and I’ll allude to that a little bit later. The other problem within this was extending the eligibility for those on the orphan’s benefit, for those on the unsupported child’s benefit, for caregivers who look after that child for less than a year, less than 12 months, and the challenges that that imposes when you’re having to take in somebody who may not be your own child, and the challenges, financially, that brings.

Next is the leap year which was mentioned, the problem of just getting that right, which is obviously a really simple fix. We’ve done that for 1 March, which will always be when that payment is made. And of course the holiday payments and the birthday payments which we have talked about, and the problem, obviously, being the State system is a little bit different to those who were caring for young people, for tamariki outside of the State system.

So, for me, the process that we’ve followed, we go right back, as the Hon Kelvin Davis said earlier, we go right back to Tracey Martin, back in 2019, who began this journey to ensure that this piece of legislation was passed, to ensure that caregivers are paid a fair and equitable amount. So we thank you, Tracey Martin, for championing this, we thank you for coming to our select committee to speak on this. I also thank the Hon Kelvin Davis for picking it up, for running with it, and now for us to be about to pass this piece of legislation into law. Throughout that process, the stages of the House: the first reading, the committee stages, and second readings, and committees, and now on to the third reading. I want to thank those who submitted in the select committee stage: 31 submissions, eight oral submissions, who all spoke in favour of why this needs to be changed.

I just thought, really briefly tonight, I might just bring up a couple of comments that were made, because it’s really appropriate in terms of why we’re here and why this needs to be changed. This was from Birthright New Zealand, who said that “We strongly believe that every child has the right to an equal start in life. This bill is another step to ensure that every child has that start.”

We ought to then move across to grandparents raising grandchildren, which is a phenomenal responsibility and as wonderful as it is that the grandparents are there caring for their grandchildren, there’s more and more doing it, and we want to ensure that they are looked after. They talked about the many, many years that grandparents raising grandchildren have been strong advocates for change of the process, for the bill, feeling an inequality when it comes to the orphan’s benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit. They want to see this change. Then, finally, it was from YouthLaw Aotearoa, and they had a case study of a person that took on a family member, a relative. The unfortunate thing was because it was only for a few months, because the parent was struggling, they took them, and it was over Christmas time. They weren’t complaining because they were there; they were whānau, they were there to look after their family member, but they were unable to receive any support because it was less than a year. So to be able to change that tonight is really significant for all those caregivers out there.

I want to thank the officials who worked with us and, finally, the people. I want to thank our tamariki, our rangatahi that have to live away from their birth parents, their parents who were meant to look after them, but for whatever reason they haven’t been able to. One of the submitters, and I brought it up in the second reading and I want to remind us of it, they said that the care of tamariki, the care of our rangatahi—this is everybody’s business. This isn’t just up to the State, this isn’t just up to a family; this is up to all of us to ensure that our young people grow, to flourish.

So I want to again thank those caregivers who have stood up, who step up day after day, night after night, week after week, year after year, decade after decade to care for someone who wasn’t born to them—but I know in many, many cases that they love them like their own. That’s my story as a caregiver, and I’m still in a relationship with many young people I cared for who are now having their own kids. I’m happy to be part of that process and be part of raising, let’s not say grandchildren, but younger people who are growing up. It makes me feel old.

But I also want to close with a couple of stories. There was a young person I mentioned in the second reading who came to me because his mum was unable to care for him and he was on the unsupported child’s benefit, which actually was a real challenge for us to obtain, and, hopefully, this will make it a simpler system. But just last week, his little sister celebrated her birthday. It was really cool. But, unfortunately, the whānau situation still is a struggle. This young—well, he’s a young man now, who was in my care, who was on unsupported child benefit, now has his little sister living with him. He’s now receiving the unsupported child’s benefit for the care of his little sister, and as much as it would have been cool if she and he could live with their mum, it just isn’t appropriate and it just isn’t possible. But there’s love, there’s care, there’s whānau within that little home. I’m really grateful to our Government, I’m really grateful that we can ensure that he can look after his sister. His sister can be looked after, his sister can receive the holiday payment, can receive a birthday payment, can ensure that the benefit that they receive is equal to that of a child in the State care system.

So I probably haven’t got much longer to go to tell any other stories, but just to say that this is personal, that people’s lives are affected, that the process of going through this piece of legislation makes a real difference. Every week when I’m back in the electorate I often have that question: “Do you feel like you’re making a difference? Do you feel like you’re doing anything? Do you feel like you’re making a change?” And of course every time I say “Yes, of course. I just did this, this, this, and this this week—most of the time.” But tonight, it’s very much around “Yes, I am making a difference. Yes, we are making a difference in this House for our tamariki, for our rangatahi, for those who care for them.”

So thank you to the Hon Kelvin Davis, thank you to the Hon Tracey Martin, thank you to our Social Services and Community Committee colleagues, and for this being a collegial process. It was constructive, it was not robust at all, because we did not need to be robust because we were on the same page in terms of ensuring that equity wins on the night and ensuring that young people, that children, are well cared for. On that basis, it’s with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Harete Hipango.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. In returning to the House to speak to this bill I do so, first of all, in acknowledging Minister Kelvin Davis for ensuring that this does pass into law, and that will do so at the end of the third reading.

But I also speak from the perspective, after hearing the contributions of members in the House, that I was very much involved as an advocate, working as a lawyer within Child, Youth and Family, as it was known in those days in the 1990s through to the 2000s, and then also as court-appointed counsel for children, and also as counsel for families who are caregivers of children. So, finally, to see the adjustments that are being made in terms of the financial contributions and assistance to caregivers is overdue. But it is now due, and it is about to happen. So I’m grateful for that, because—and I’ll keep this brief—in the days when I was advocating as lawyer for children but also counsel for Child, Youth and Family, as it was—now Oranga Tamariki—I was working alongside social workers, trying to navigate through the financial assistance that’s available to caregivers to ensure that the children would be able to be materially adequately provided for. Because all too often, the challenge for caregivers taking children into their care, they were often the people who had the least material means to provide but the most in terms of emotional support and security and stability.

So the detail of this has been traversed in the House—simply to say, in commending this bill to the House, I acknowledge Oranga Tamariki for the work that is done there, all the social workers, and the challenges that they’re confronted with on a daily basis, but also to those who nurture and provide for our children in the communities, the whānau, the extended families. Always as a lawyer advocating for the children, the paramountcy principle, as it’s known, the welfare and the best interests of the children was often forgotten by the State when it came to providing sufficiently to ensure that their needs and their means were met so that the caregivers could do that.

I think as not having been present to hear the submissions at the select committee, what I’ve noted with interest is the reference to caregivers outside of the State care system and those who are inside the State care system. What many people are not aware of is that what was utilised within the agency Child, Youth and Family—Oranga Tamariki, as it now is—is that a way to avoid our children going into formal custodial care was to use what was called a section 139, a temporary care agreement. There were always challenges associated with that because there was no formal custodial status for the State to have to provide for the caregivers to meet the needs, the material means and needs, for the children. So this will remedy that. This will rectify it. So, I wholeheartedly support and commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an unexpected pleasure to briefly rise, in lieu of the fact that the Māori Party have not taken their call, on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I think the thing that strikes me, having sat here in this House for this part of this process and listened to the previous contributions, is just the sheer number of colleagues who have got lived experience, whether it be through their early lived experience, as we heard from our colleague on the other side of the House Karen Chhour, or whether it be further on in life and the lived experience that my very dear colleague Glen Bennett possesses in terms of his wealth of experience as a caregiver, over many years now. I think it kind of highlights that it’s one of those things, one of those adjustments, one of those pieces to life that, whilst it’s fairly obvious we all agree on it, needs impetus and requires someone to, sort of, take that bull by the horns and progress this and champion this. So I’d also like to acknowledge not only the Minister Kelvin Davis for picking up and for recognising the importance of these simple but meaningful changes, but I’m sure he would also like further acknowledgment to be extended to Tracey Martin for first tackling this work.

The bill, as has been talked about on several occasions this evening, simply seeks to improve the financial assistance for caregivers of children who are unable to be cared for by their parents. As many of us can either remember or relate to, sometimes life can just be really precarious, and, sometimes, “there but for … goes anybody”, and what could be a relatively stable beginning can turn out quite differently through various sorts of life experiences. It’s incredibly important that children have someone to care for them if they can’t be cared for by their parents, but as has been previously discussed, the financial ramifications or the financial considerations that come along with that can indeed then end up being another stressor on top of that situation.

That’s certainly not ideal, particularly because the development of children—we all know that certain developmental periods and certain phases that we go through in childhood are incredibly important and set the scene for lots of future development. Children are very sensitive and they crave stability, so anything we can do to rectify and to fix what might be simple fiscal considerations is worthy of consideration—let alone the types of things that children naturally do when they start comparing themselves to others and start making really unfortunate comparisons if we don’t rectify those situations.

The proposals in this bill extend the financial assistance to support children also being cared for outside the State care system, and that’s another important consideration. There shouldn’t be differences between those two types of needs. The bill, by extending the eligibility for the orphan’s benefit and for the unsupported child’s benefit to carers who expect to provide care for less than 12 months—again, noting the precarious nature and the unforeseen circumstances that many people can find themselves in and who, within those unforeseen circumstances, and the most precarious, actually require that consideration and help.

So, considering all of those things, and the removal of the 12-month rule when establishing the birthday and Christmas allowances, the gist of all of this, really, is to create a fairer and much more equitable process for everybody. It certainly follows a report that looked into various aspects, and one of the key findings—reiterating—was that there was a lack of equity in the payments and support for caregivers outside the State system and those within the State system. So it seems that the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill is a pragmatic, sensible, and well-supported means by which, for us, as my colleague Glen Bennett from the mighty New Plymouth said—an easy means by which we can all go home feeling that we have achieved something good and proper today. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is an honour at this late stage to speak on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I wasn’t on the select committee that considered this bill, or able to speak on this bill during the earlier readings of this bill. However, it is an honour to do so now, and to hear the contributions from around the House on why this is a significant bill and one that enjoys widespread support.

Earlier in the general debate today, I spoke about the initiatives that the Government is taking to assist children. I talked about things like raising benefits that will help address child poverty, the initiative that we have to introduce period products in all schools and kura from June, the extension of Ka Ora, Ka Ako—healthy lunches in schools—and better childcare assistance for working families. It is my pleasure, therefore, to stand again to take another call on another initiative that puts the needs of our most important constituents—our children—first and carries on the Government’s work towards making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child.

I think it is worth reflecting on the words of the Minister for Children, Kelvin Davis, in his speech that he made at first reading. He said—and I quote—“It is everybody’s dream, I guess—or wish—that every child in New Zealand has a safe, secure, living whānau, preferably with their own family; however, that’s not always the case.” When it is not the case, we all have a role in caring and looking after these children in our community, and this is exactly what this bill does.

So what does this bill do to assist children who are in care? This bill addresses a longstanding discrepancy between caregivers who look after children in State care and children looked after by caregivers who are not in State care. Now, children themselves are probably often unaware if the care outside their family is provided by the State or whether it is not, and so therefore it seems very unfair that some of these most vulnerable children in our society are treated differently, currently, compared to the source of the provision of their care.

Currently, caregivers have to prove that they’ll be looking after children in their care for at least 12 months, and I think we’ve heard from others that this particular provision that currently exists in our law is very problematic. The requirement isn’t fair. This bill would remove the 12-month rule, as it’s known, and it would do this by extending the definition of who a caregiver is. Often when people are caring for a child, they may end up caring for them longer than they originally thought, meaning that children who would have been entitled to additional benefits if the final length of their care had been known remain unentitled to them. So the removal of this rule will allow caregivers to receive allowances when the period of care is short term, unknown, or uncertain.

This is, I understand, an issue that was brought up by submitters on this particular bill, and it seems a pragmatic solution to a problem that exists. It is fair and equitable to make this change to the 12-month rule, and I’m proud of the Government for recognising this injustice. I also just want to acknowledge, as have others who have spoken on this bill tonight, the former Minister who brought this bill to the House, Tracey Martin. I was really heartened to hear that she attended the Social Services and Community Committee to give her view, and I really want to commend her for that. She obviously cares deeply about this policy and was able to put her time and energy into it when there was no direct benefit to her and she had no direct role in seeing its passage through the House. So, for that, I thank you for you leadership on this particular bill, Tracey.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not the Speaker.

CAMILLA BELICH: Sorry—I thank Tracey Martin, not you, Madam Speaker.

The next significant change is a change to make sure that children with caregivers who are not in State care receive a holiday and birthday allowance. This is done through clause 6, through amending Schedule 4 of the Social Security Act 2018 in respect of allowances. This will allow caregivers to receive an allowance on children’s birthdays from 2022 and every year after that. This will mean that days that are special to most of us can also be a bit more special for some of our most vulnerable children.

As a teenager, I read the autobiography of Sonja Davies, a former union leader and a Labour Party MP later in her career. The title of her autobiography is Bread and Roses. The title Bread and Roses is from the Lawrence textile workers’ strike. It was popularised by the Lawrence textile workers’ strike in 1912, which was a famous strike that took place in America. The women there were fighting for fair wages but also for dignity. Making sure that children in care, whether in State care or not, receive a birthday or holiday allowance recognises, I think, children in a very similar way. Yes, children need the essentials. They need food, shelter, and love, as all people do, but they also need to be treated with respect and deserve to celebrate extra things like birthdays and holidays that might be important to them. Children, like the striking workers, need bread and roses too.

I also want to acknowledge the committee for the change of name from “Christmas” to “holiday”. This appears to me to be a long-overdue change that better recognises our diverse community. Not everyone in our community celebrates Christmas and I think it’s important that in legislation we have language which is as inclusive as it can possibly be, and this change to recognise holidays as opposed to the previous wording in the bill—“Christmas”—would recognise that. I think when Minister Davis first spoke on this bill, he acknowledged that the level of these allowances means there won’t always be big birthday parties or big celebrations or dinners that some of us might enjoy in our own homes, but it will be a recognition of something.

There are also additional changes apart from those two main changes which I think we’ve heard quite a few speakers talk about, which were the change to the 12-month rule and, additionally, the allowances in relation to holiday and birthday allowances, which I think are the main changes in this bill. I personally wasn’t aware of the main types of financial assistance that are provided to carers, but on reading the bill, I was made aware that there are three types of main benefits that are provided to carers in New Zealand.

The first is the orphan’s benefit, and first of all, like other speakers, I want to acknowledge the language on this. It does cover children whose parents have died or are missing, but it also covers children whose parents have long-term disabilities. So not always orphans—I think it’s right to acknowledge some issues perhaps with that language. The second type of financial assistance is the unsupported child’s benefit. This supports children where there has been a breakdown of family or the children are unable to be supported by their parents. The third type of financial assistance provided to carers is the foster care allowance for children in State care.

Now, these first two benefits or allowances that I described are provided to carers who are caring for children not in State care, and the third one, the foster care allowance, is for children in State care. So what this bill does is remove the disparity between the orphan’s benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit and brings it in line with the foster carers benefit, which is what I just described as a main benefit that people who care for children in State care receive.

Another thing that the bill does is expand the “principal temporary carer” definition. This move allows more people to be covered—those on an orphan’s benefit and the unsupported child’s benefit. However, there are some exclusions to this which I think further leads to the integrity of the bill. Specifically excluded from this additional principal temporary carers definition are private arrangements for care while parents are employed overseas or in another region, arrangements where a child is being raised by family members or extended family, care when a child is staying in short-term visits with friends or family members, and care related to school holiday programmes and early childhood education. I understand further advice will be provided by the Ministry of Social Development on how that will be interpreted, but I think it does lead to the overall integrity of this bill that those particular things that we would expect to be excluded are, in fact, excluded by this bill.

In conclusion, I just want to acknowledge the different people in the House who have shared their stories. I want to acknowledge my colleague Koro Glen Bennett, who, through his care of many, many children over many years is, I think, deserving of the title “Koro”. So thank you, Glen, for all of your work in that area, and also to all the others around the House who have shared personal stories. This is a personal matter. Being in care is very personal, but it’s important that we recognise how important it is that we get this right.

So, in conclusion, I just wanted to acknowledge the 15,000 caregivers who are supporting the 22,000 children. We thank you, and to those children in care, we see you and you are entitled to a full life, one of bread but of roses too. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m happy to take what will be a short call and the last call for the National Party on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I say short call because I think we have been traversing many of the same issues over and over again and have thanked the same people over and over again—not that they are not deserving of that thanks; Tracey Martin, obviously, did a good job in bringing this bill to the House and doing all the background work to get it to this point.

I just wanted to say that there are a number of caregivers out there who, out of the kindness of their hearts, on many occasions, are looking after children and are not being remunerated for it. Either they are spending money on those children for their birthdays and Christmases—or looking after them without any compensation—or, in many instances, many of those children are going without, which is not something that we want to see for any of our children.

The bill, as has been said, makes a couple of really big changes. Although, I have to say that the Social Services and Community Committee did a really good job. I didn’t sit on this committee, but, looking at the changes that the committee made to this bill and some of the recommendations that they’ve made for some future work, it looks like it was a very hard-working committee that actually paid a lot of attention to the detail of the bill—because of the number of changes that were traversed by the previous speaker to the bill.

But there are two main changes that are worthy of note. Getting rid of the 12-month rule, that really is the one that is probably the most significant, because you do get a number of carers who are looking after children around New Zealand who don’t meet that threshold of 12 months and won’t be remunerated for it. So this is just bringing into line those State and non-State payments. But also significant is the birthday and Christmas allowance—again, bringing into line the State and non-State allowances so that children get to have a birthday and a Christmas that they will remember.

So it’s been nice that we’ve been able to work collegially on this bill in select committee, and it’s nice, for a change, to be able to all, across the House, agree on something. I commend the bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to be the last speaker to make this contribution on the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Children, Oranga Tamariki, the Hon Kelvin Davis. He spoke earlier today and he recalled the journey of this bill by acknowledging the previous Minister, the Hon Tracey Martin, and her leadership in shepherding this important bill into the House.

I also want to extend my acknowledgment of the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee. I am part of that select committee and it is an example of when we, here in Parliament, work well in select committee, we come out with something that’s great. And for the children and caregivers that this bill covers, it’s meaningful and it’s worthwhile. I want to also acknowledge the officials that supported the select committee in our work and also the officials within the Minister’s office for their support in terms of getting this, the Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill, into the House at its third reading. I am the last speaker.

I also want to acknowledge the 31 submitters who took the time, because they know that this is important for children and young people, they know this is important for caregivers, to let us know what they think. But I want to acknowledge a couple of the young people that came to make submissions on this bill. One of them was my Youth Parliamentarian from Youth Parliament in 2019, Jennifer Thornrithi. Jennifer was a child in care. She was able to share her experience about her journey in care. So I just want to make mention of Jennifer’s experience coming to select committee.

In acknowledging Jennifer Thornrithi and her submission at the select committee, I want to acknowledge that there are around 24,000 children who are not today with their mother or their father or both of their parents. So I want to acknowledge the children: it is by no means your fault that you ended up in a place where your parents, for one reason or another, are unable to care for you. I was, myself, as I said in my couple of contributions on this bill, raised by my grandfather and then, when he passed, my uncle raised me until I was able to come to New Zealand to join my mother. So, yeah, if we ask, in terms of those 24,000 children, if those people weren’t able to care for them or put their hand up, then it’d be a different story. So I want to acknowledge and say thank you to the caregivers who have taken the role of being parents, to those grandparents caring for grandchildren—they have taken the extra care that’s required for their mokopuna to provide care as a parent would.

As previous speakers have spoken about, we looked at this in terms of—in my last contribution in this bill I spoke about the money having to follow the child. This is an example of how that statement is true. Before the bill came about, for a child or young person who was in care of the State, caregivers were able to have a birthday allowance for them when it was their birthday, and at Christmas they were able to have a Christmas allowance for those in care. However, in comparison to children who were either on the orphan’s benefit or unsupported child’s benefit, those children weren’t eligible for those payments. So when we talk about equity of payment, we’re actually talking about that if a child is without their parent, then that child is deserving of a birthday allowance. Then we also, at select committee, changed the Christmas allowance to a holiday allowance. In Minister Davis’ kōrero in the second reading, he mentioned that it would be another day that the caregiver would make special for the child, “for our children”. That’s what I remember from the Minister’s second reading speech.

So that’s what this bill does. It acknowledges that whether a child is in the care of the State, the care of a grandparent, or any other adults, they do need the support. In my experience as a social worker and as a manager and working with children, sometimes for caregivers that little extra support financially means a whole lot. It means they can continue to care for the child in their care. So that’s why this bill, although it may be small in numbers of pages, it means a lot. So that’s what we mean by equity of care of financial support.

Also, if one was an unsupported child on the unsupported child’s benefit, the caregiver and the child or the young person had to prove that the child would be in their care for 12 months. So this bill changes the 12-month rule to make it simpler for a caregiver to just provide care so that the children and young people in their care continue to receive that care.

Also, when I spoke about the Christmas allowance, at the select committee we decided to change it to a “holiday allowance”, because it acknowledges that we’re growing as a country, and that for some religions Christmas is not something that they have in their religion. So that’s why we changed it at the select committee to a “birthday allowance”.

There was a lot of discussion on the orphan’s benefit. English is my second language, and I’ve always thought that being an orphan was having both parents pass away. But the orphan’s benefit, as described in the social security bill, is paid to children whose parents are deceased or whose parents are missing or whose parents have serious disability. That was difficult for the committee to change the name. But in hindsight, I was thinking, we probably could have just moved the benefit into “unsupported child” for a missing parent and just leave the orphans benefit by itself.

We’ve had many contributors in this House speak about their experiences like the member Camilla Belich has mentioned. But I want to acknowledge Karen Chhour from the ACT Party, because she is someone who brings the care experience and someone who, when provided with the right support, can be a member of Parliament, can come and add their voice of experience into making laws about children and about how her experience now has added value in this House, and, of course, Matua Glen Bennett and his experience as a caregiver. On behalf of all of us, Matua Glen Bennett, thank you for caring for children and do continue to do that, because it is a calling to be able to care for children. I myself would find that a challenge. So I want to echo what the Minister has said in his many speeches—taking his hat off to all the caregivers out there. On behalf of everybody that has spoken, that has made submissions on this bill, we just want to say thank you. Thank you for your care and your love and support of our children, and, please, do continue to do that, and all the people that have worked too in the administration of this allowance in the Ministry of Social Development and Oranga Tamariki. Treat this as if it’s for your own child.

And on that note, I commend Social Security (Financial Assistance for Caregivers) Amendment Bill to the House. Kia ora.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 June.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): National has a five-minute call, and I call Simon Watts.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise on behalf of National and as the member of Parliament for North Shore on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill, second reading. This is a major piece of legislation for one of our most important economic institutions. It is with some regret that National opposes this bill, but I’m going to use this short call to outline our reasons why and provide a pathway forward.

The purpose of this bill is it’s the second of three bills that are going to reform the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989. The first bill that was introduced in 2018 established what is the monetary policy committee and revised the bank’s monetary policy objectives. This specific bill, the second of three, reforms the bank’s institutional arrangements, particularly around governance structures, overarching statutory functions, objectives, and also touches on some of the roles of the Minister of Finance.

I want to make some observations around the process and, I think, in particular, one around bipartisan approach to such legislation. Reform of this sort should seek cross-party support. National is comfortable with much of this bill but has raised a limited number of important issues that we believe should be reflected in this bill. It is with regret that the Government has chosen not to work on a cross-party basis and these issues remain outstanding. As I said before, the Reserve Bank is New Zealand’s most important economic institution, and the reforms that we are going to put in place need to be enduring. It is not in the country’s interest that central bank legislation changes every time there is a change of Government, and this is why it is with regret that the Government did not take a cross-party consensus approach on this bill.

The first point I want to raise is in regards to the bank’s financial stability objective, that should retain a reference to efficiency. Pursuing financial stability without regard to efficiency, in our view, is a gap, and the dropping of efficiency from the Reserve Bank’s financial stability objective was also poorly supported by policy analysis and was also strongly opposed by a number of stakeholders, including the banking sector. This is an issue about getting the balance right between pursuing financial stability on one hand and ensuring a healthy degree of progress and innovation in the regulated financial sector on the other—both aspects are critical to the strength of New Zealand’s financial system.

The other aspect I want to raise is the move to an executive board, which is a significant departure from the original reforms some 30 years ago. It relies on appointing quality people to the board, but the proposed criteria within this bill focuses more on who cannot be a member vs the qualities required to make this work. The other element is around how the Minister of Finance’s hands should not be tied by the Reserve Bank, particularly where there is a need to introduce or perform additional functions. We believe that both the Minister and the governor should be in a position to propose changes to the functions of the Reserve Bank.

Parliament should be given some oversight role, also, in terms of the changes for the bank’s monetary policy remit and when the bank is given additional functions. The bill also needs stronger provisions for the Minister of Finance to manage some of the fiscal risk that the Crown will see arising from the bank’s activities. The bill’s current provisions for determining the bank’s minimum capital are not sufficient and potentially leave the Crown exposed.

We acknowledge that the Finance and Expenditure Committee did form a majority view on this bill. However, it is for the record that National recorded a differing view. We hope that the Government considers, through the committee of the whole House phase, these recommendations, so that these changes will endure not only for this Parliament but into the future.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and offer some insights as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and not have to read off prepared notes, unlike the previous speaker, Simon Watts. For those who don’t think that this is an exciting piece of legislation, it may not be exciting but it is really important. What it does is overhaul the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which is 30 years in the making. The key difference is that it is about collective decision-making rather than individual decision-making. That’s a really important principle at a time when financial systems are so complicated and where more minds on financial matters are better than individual ones. There is significant local and international best practice to support this.

What the bill does is strengthen the Reserve Bank’s institutional arrangements, it enhances its role as a prudential regulator, and it increases its coordination in the regulation of the financial sector. May I remind all those people, those businesses, those sole traders who benefited from the quick-out-the-door wage subsidy that occurred during the COVID lockdown, that was very much the product of a financially stable system, a system that works and a system in which the Reserve Bank has oversight and plays a really critical role. When the finance Minister speaks of a balanced approach to the financial system, especially in Budget 2021, he is speaking about that stability of the system as a whole. What this bill does is look specifically at governance and accountability. The other two elements, around prudential Acts, are going to be subject to other legislation, including two Acts, one of which is a deposit takers bill.

By making the decision-making collective, it sets up a board, which brings a breadth and depth of skills to the decision making, and it will give that board powers very similar to a Crown entity. The accountabilities will also be more aligned to Crown entity boards, and it means that whole-of-Government directions to Crown entities will also apply to the Reserve Bank. Yes, it does remove the word “efficiency”. That word sits better with the deposit takers bill and insurance Act.

This bill focuses on financial stability. Efficiency, in this context—there are a number of different ways of measuring efficiency. It is a technical word. It is a distraction in this bill and sits better in other legislation. The select committee did consider that, and we also considered at great length actually the balance of power between the finance Minister and the Reserve Bank—the independence but also the Government’s intention through its policy statements. To get down to the granular level, we did come up with scenarios, and we asked advisers questions about what would occur in particular situations. Interestingly, many of those situations were around the accountabilities where the Governor of the Reserve Bank may differ in the opinion of the board, or where the Governor of the Reserve Bank would be stood down from one or other of those roles and what compensation he or she would be entitled to.

There was quite a lot of discussion about the conflicts of interest. There was discussion about tensions, and I will just talk about the process for changing the monetary policy committee remit, where it was recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee that that should also be changed to remove the requirement that a remit could only be replaced prior to the expiration of the current remit via Order in Council. It’s saying that the finance Minister would only be able to act, really, on the instruction of the Reserve Bank, rather than the other way around, and that was really to preserve the integrity of the independence of the Reserve Bank.

So, in summary, this bill brings collective decision-making to the fore, rather than individual decision-making, which allows for greater skills and also transparency. We dealt with conflicts of interest and are satisfied that those have been resolved. The one recommendation that the select committee has really is that, going forward, we need to really consider the matter of cryptocurrency on the role of the Reserve Bank, given that there will be impacts in the financial system. So we’re really pleased with this piece of legislation. We’re sorry that the other side can’t agree with it. I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Just in time. Helen White.

HELEN WHITE: I was standing up, madam. The bill before us is a really interesting piece of legislation because it’s one of three, and it is a structural piece in the legislation which has been modernised from its original inception in 1984. A lot of water has passed under the bridge, and there’s been a lot of development since then, and this is a much more modern structure. I was concerned yesterday by some of the comments in the speeches of the Opposition, which talked about, really, a concern about the idea of collectivity. This is a very sophisticated world we live in, and we have many, many talented people, and actually the idea of a board having responsibilities is a good one. It does mean, as my colleagues have just said, that we are going to get many minds on to the same task, and it’s a cooperative way of working that I know that our current Reserve Bank Governor is quite capable of adopting because he has in the past in previous roles, and I respect him more for it. Actually bringing those minds to the table will be a check and balance in itself. The people that run our Reserve Bank, the governor and the people on the board, are actually extremely talented people who bring a variety of wariness’s from their work outside of this particular role to play in this role, and I am extremely grateful and respectful of that.

This piece of legislation will move the responsibilities from the governor to the board itself, and the governor plays an integral role there. It is also an interesting piece of legislation because it connects the governor with other institutions. So the governor will sit on the board as a chair, and he will also be playing a role in some of the other groups that are involved, and, again, they are going to be involved. So, for example, the Council of Financial Regulators involves actually a number of groups, so it will have the Financial Markets Authority, the Commerce Commission, Treasury, the Reserve Bank, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment all on it, and they will all be able to work together collaboratively. And one of the things the bill does is it actually provides for cooperation between those entities and it has information-sharing going, so long as it’s subject to the conditions that are imposed by the Reserve Bank.

The second part of this is that it is actually also about accountability of that institution, and we all know that it’s a very important balance. We’ve got a Reserve Bank that’s independent and that’s a very important and valuable thing, but we also need checks and balances. So, as my colleague said, it brings it into line with other Crown entities. And a lot of the actual way it checks and balances this are actually adopted, so they won’t be unfamiliar pathways but they’re here in the bill.

We have a clarity in this bill about the objective, and that’s a very interesting thing to happen. I think it probably is a sign of maturity, because words like “efficiency” are actually words that have been loaded up with politics. And “efficiency” for Mr Bayly is probably not “efficiency” for me. And actually, by getting the board to actually understand that its role is the stability of the New Zealand banking system, it frees it up to work. So it works alongside the finance Minister and under the direction of the finance Minister to some extent, because there is also the publication of a remit, which will actually mean that the board has direction in the right place, but it will make decisions about how to take the objective of any Government and actually make that work for the people in terms of getting that outcome, given its clear objective. So it’s a very interesting and nuanced piece of legislation, and it really does respect the people involved and allow them to do their job well, and I’m extremely proud of that.

One of the instruments that I just talked about was the creation of what’s called a financial policy remit. And that remit will be the thing that actually holds the direction of the finance Minister in it, and so it will set the policy in some ways and then it will be adopted. So how does all this work? Well, the Minister of Finance will appoint the new governance board, and that will have the powers and responsibilities of the Reserve Bank. The chief executive will also be the chairperson. That’s going to ensure that actually there is a lot of capture of information. And he—or she at some point, I hope—will also be sitting on other bodies so that there will be a lot of information that comes back that will be shared.

The process for the Reserve Bank funding will also be something that’s captured by this bill, and the Reserve Bank can recover its costs through levies, both capital and operating expenditure to some extent. And that is all covered off in the bill in terms of process. It will increase oversight in a way that is consistent with a Crown entity. So the Public Audit Act and the Ombudsmen Act will now apply to the Reserve Bank, and we will see oversight of it in that way. And the reporting will again be aligned to other Crown entities. The Minister of Finance might not have time to do that monitoring themselves, but they can delegate to a department—so it may be Treasury.

The functions of the Reserve Bank have also been articulated. So just to be clear, those functions are to act as a central bank, to act as a prudential regulator, and as a prudential supervisor. Those things were probably true, but now they’re very articulate. And so we really are setting things up in a way that’s really making everybody understand that role much more clearly. The Minister of Finance is going to issue this financial policy remit, and that will set out the objectives. The board will consider those remits. In fact, one of the changes we made was to make sure that there was enough capacity to change the remit so that the board could be not locked into what finance Minister one said if you, in fact, had finance Minister two. So they will consider the remit and they will look at these objectives, and then they will decide how they will achieve them. They will doing that independently, and they will be doing it with the strength of a group. So there will be an element, no doubt, of consensus. The Minister of Finance will still be very much doing their role, but they will be doing it in a much stronger way because they will have a collaborative approach themselves because they will have more than one person. I just really consider that one of the greatest strengths of the modern age—that we are doing things in that way. In addition, the Reserve Bank will now manage foreign exchange reserves. That wasn’t regulated in the same way and that is now clear.

So the key changes that were made by the select committee really were that the governor will now act as that kind of conduit between the board and the monetary policy committee. The chairperson—we very much did talk about the kind of conflict issues that were involved, so we were much more nuanced in the way that the chair would be involved or not involved when there were conflicts. So we considered those matters. We have addressed them as best we could. We did actually work collaboratively as a select committee for a large part of the time. While there is an oppositional view, now I would like to just, finally, acknowledge the work that was done in that select committee, and was done largely because I think even the Opposition would agree that there is so much common ground in this legislation. So much of it made sense and common sense, and, while we may disagree on a few of the nuances, I think we all agree that this is an important step for the country. I commend this bill to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with some regret that I’m standing up to talk on this bill in the second reading, because I think, if we think about the Reserve Bank, it is probably our pre-eminent institution in New Zealand. The previous speakers have talked about the importance of making a reference to Crown entities. I don’t accept that in terms of the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank holds a very important, fundamental part of our financial system, and I don’t think trying to correlate and set up institutional arrangements that suit Crown entities is necessarily the right approach.

We have a number of issues with this bill—which is unfortunate—because, as my learned colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse said in his speech on this bill, when this institution was set up with the current arrangements 30 years ago, there were some very important tenets that underpinned the structure that was in place. First and foremost amongst those was the need for independence and excellence around its operations. This bill is making a substantial change to that. The second thing was how it was going to conduct itself and its objectives, and, again, this bill is making substantial changes to that.

I think people forget that when we set up the institutional arrangements for the Reserve Bank 30 years ago, it was quite revolutionary. In fact, many countries around the world looked at New Zealand and subsequently adopted very similar structural arrangements for their own central banking systems. So here we are: we’re at a situation where this is the second of a substantial refit of the Reserve Bank. We passed the legislation that dealt with the establishment of the monetary policy committee—which, in itself, had some changes—and this is now starting to strike its quite significant structural issues with the Reserve Bank.

The first thing I’d say to you is the importance, when you’re dealing with New Zealand’s pre-eminent organisation—I think it’s absolutely vital—that we should have striven for more agreement around the key reforms that we’re talking about. The last thing we want to see happen is that when there is a change of Government, there is further tweaking to the Reserve Bank. That is not good for New Zealand. That’s why we were very keen to work in a collaborative manner to try and strike that balance. We weren’t able to do that, but I do acknowledge that in this bill there are many good aspects, so I don’t want anyone to think that we oppose the bill—large parts of it. We think that what it’s seeking to achieve is very good, but there are five crucial elements.

The first one is the issue around the structure, and I sort of alluded to that. What has been put in place is an executive board structure that is now having full responsibility for managing both prudential policy—the policies that apply to banks, in effect—and the insurance industry and the non-bank deposit takers. That means that we’ve moved from the model of one person who’s a specialist to now one of a joint board structure. It’s not only like a normal independent board structure full of non-executives; this is now an executive board. The big issue I’ve got is, first of all, in formulating that board, those members need to be of the absolute highest quality and calibre and expertise in the business of prudential and insurance management. I’m not sure that that depth of pool of people available actually is available in New Zealand, and there will be difficulty in trying to find the right people. This is a situation where we need very specialist skills managing and overseeing those very important functions. The role of the governor has been moved more to a CEO-type role; albeit that he or she will sit on the board. But that is a different structure, and I think it’s a fundamental change that people should be aware of.

The second thing that we have concerns with is this removal of the words around seeking to have an efficient financial market. I was not persuaded by Treasury’s representations as to why we should remove the word “efficiency”. As a party, we believe that it’s essential that not only do we maintain financial stability—which is the underlying premise of the Reserve Bank—but it should do so in a way that is efficient for the market. That word has been deleted, and I think it’s a fundamental word and, actually, one that many submitters actually disagreed with seeing removed from the core objective of the Reserve Bank.

The other aspect we have concerns with is the issue around remit setting for the Reserve Bank. We think it’s important that the Minister of Finance—whoever he or she might be in the future—has the possibility of making changes, though hopefully on very rare occasions. It’s only happened once, and the Minister used section 68B recently with regard to housing policy—and I think, in my personal view, used it ill advisedly. The issue with it is that we believe that if there is a situation where it is used—and it should be by exception, rather than the rule—then that should be subject to some parliamentary oversight. That doesn’t mean that the powers of the Minister of Finance should be fettered, but any changes should be subject to parliamentary oversight.

It also relates to the issue of functions, and some of the members have talked about it tonight. The way we’ve ended up in the bill is that a change to the bank’s function can only occur if it’s requested by the bank. So if there’s a disagreement and the Minister of Finance wants to make the bank focus on issues that he or she considers are very important, there is no ability to impose that on the Reserve Bank. Those functions can only be amended through agreement with and recommendation by the Reserve Bank. We, again, don’t think that’s appropriate.

Again, this is something by exception, and the case in point that I’ve been pushing—and I’ve pushed the Reserve Bank on this issue on a number of occasions—is the issue of cryptocurrency. We’ve now got, embedded in this piece of primary legislation, the specific function of the Reserve Bank to monitor cryptocurrency, which is sort of a second rating issue. I think, personally, it should be a much stronger power that’s imposed on the bank. But, if there was a situation where the Reserve Bank chose not to do that—and there has been some reluctance by the bank to take a more active role in cryptocurrency at the moment; that may change over time—then the Minister of Finance has no ability to require that. Again, we think the right should be held both by the Reserve Bank, who may request a change, or by the Minister of Finance, but the trade-off for that, again, should be the ability and the requirement that those issues are reported back to the House and debated. It doesn’t, again, restrict or fetter the right of the Minister or the Reserve Bank to change the powers or functions, but it does at least give Parliament clarity and transparency around some of those changes.

The other issue that we’re concerned about relates to the issue of the Crown’s liabilities. Currently, the bank has the power to do quantitative easing and can purchase up to $100 billion of Government stock, and, at the same time, it has a $28 billion funding-for-lending programme. We think that if you’re trying to design a piece of legislation for the next 30 years—which, hopefully, we don’t have to seek further amendments to—then we should be forward leaning and should be anticipating what might go in the future. The way that the Minister of Finance has control over the obligations that the Reserve Bank might enter into, and that actually go on to the Crown balance sheet, loosely—if I can use the word “simplistic”—we propose similar arrangements that were put in place for the Bank of England by the British Government. There are many more ways that could be done more transparently, and it’s unfortunately one of the other issues that we feel we cannot support.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I rise to speak as the final member on the second reading of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill that has been supported to the second reading by a majority of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. In introducing this bill, I’d like to say that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 has not been comprehensively reviewed in over 30 years. Over that time, the Reserve Bank has changed substantially, and we have new expectations for regulation and monetary policy-making. The financial system and economic context have changed significantly, and the local and international best practice has evolved. The review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is an opportunity to update and modernise the Reserve Bank’s institutional arrangements.

The purpose of this bill is to “promote the prosperity and well-being of New Zealanders and contribute to a sustainable and productive economy.” There are three things this bill does. The bill strengthens the Reserve Bank’s institutional arrangements, enhances the bank’s role as a prudent regulator, and increases coordination in the regulation in the financial sector.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What was that about reading speeches, Ingrid?

ANNA LORCK: When I refer to the notes today that I will talk to, Mr Woodhouse, I’ve taken great pleasure in listening to all of you talk and give your own contribution to this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): But not the Speaker.

ANNA LORCK: It’s so important that when we do this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! But not the Speaker.

ANNA LORCK: Madam Speaker, yes. I’m referring to Mr Woodhouse, who has been so very, very concerned about independence. I agree with my colleague Deborah Russell, who talked about this, where Mr Woodhouse was very, very concerned that the independence of the Reserve Bank was going to be compromised. It is for this reason, he says, that the Opposition will not be joining in support of this bill. He is worried about the independence of the Reserve Bank. He feels that we’re going to compromise it. However, I agree with Deborah Russell and suggest that it is not a compromise. In fact, it is a changing of a relationship in a way that is appropriate for the times. In fact, there is still plenty of independence for the Reserve Bank.

Coming back to what I would like to talk more about, which is what this bill does. The bill currently before the House will reform the institutional arrangements of the Reserve Bank, as well as carry over the changes made by the 2018 Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Act. The key changes being made by the bill include adding an overarching financial stability objective to complement the recently updated monetary policy objectives; strengthening decision making through moving from a single decision maker, the governor, to a board model; and ensuring operational independence is balanced with appropriate accountability with a number of changes to update the Reserve Bank’s accountability and reporting frameworks to align with State sector practice. It will provide for a financial policy remit issued by the Minister setting out matters that the Reserve Bank board must have regard to when setting and implementing its strategic approach to financial stability, providing the Council of Financial Regulators with a statutory mandate to support effective and responsive regulation of the financial system by facilitating cooperation and coordination between its members.

Now, as we worked through the submissions on this bill, and also working through as a committee, we became very efficient in how we delivered this. This is a very, very efficient bill. I refer to three points. This bill ensures that the Reserve Bank is fit for current times. This is the legislation that is about how the Reserve Bank operates in order to achieve its objectives in a modern way. The world has moved on. The world has changed. If, in the 1980s, as my colleague Deborah Russell said, this House was legislating in the shadow of rampant inflation and an interfering Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, in this decade we are legislating in the shadow of the global financial crisis. We are operating in a different context. We know, as my colleague Duncan Webb, who is also the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, said, that something had to be done, and the great economic innovation of the time, of course, was the inflation target, signalling to let the market know that the Government, with the Reserve Bank, was committed to lowering inflation and would take the steps necessary. That alone had a very significant effect. New Zealand, in fact, was the first country in the world to do that.

This is a great bill. It’s an efficient bill and another great piece of reform of our monetary policy system which will put us on a great foundation for years and years to come. It does so by establishing the independence of the Reserve Bank, collective decision-making, and collective responsibility. This is a key aspect of this bill: coordination and cooperation.

Now, the last thing I would like to talk to you about is this word “efficiency”. There’s been a lot of debate about what is efficient, but I must say that really, what has worked in this is the efficiency of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We have been a team that has worked through many of the issues and challenges that have been debated at length. In fact, there are many parts of this bill that the National Party do agree with, and we’ve heard from Mr Bayly tonight talking about how there are many parts of this that National supports. It’s good to see that there is cooperation when working on our select committee, because that’s how we get good bills passed in Parliament.

As I turn now to what will happen in wrapping up, this bill is a result of an extensive consultation and engagement with stakeholders. The policy work was supported by a joint Treasury and Reserve Bank team, supported by an expert independent advisory panel. It is very important here that we recognise this in developing the bill so people can have confidence in the expert advice that we have been given. This bill is now anticipated to come into force on 1 July 2022. This will allow the new governance board to be established and the reporting requirements to align with the start of the bank’s financial year. The aim is to embed the new arrangements ahead of the implementation of the deposit takers bill, when enacted.

In wrapping up, again, I would like to thank all those submitters who have taken part in this. I would like to thank those on my select committee with me, who have all contributed greatly to this debate and also to putting this together. I think it’s really important, when we have the team working on all sides of the House feeding into this legislation, that we do listen and we do work together. That has been evident in a lot of the work that we do, and this is why we have such a positive engagement around the select committee, chaired under a very, very positive result that gets us the delivery that we are seeing tonight. This is how we make sure we do fantastic, hard work on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill. I am absolutely thrilled to be able to talk about this at its second reading. This is a significant bill, and I am looking forward to going through the next stages with it. This bill will ensure, as I said, it is fit for current times. It has the efficiency that’s needed to deliver the confidence we have, and by establishing the independence with the governor being appointed to the board, I would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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 75

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

Noes 45

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

Amendments agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is,

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I move, That the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s a pleasure to see this bill through to its third reading. This legislation is needed to enable the National Cervical Screening Programme to take advantage of modern information technology and also pave the way for HPV primary testing, which causes 99 percent of cervical cancers.

As we’ve discussed previously in relation to this bill, the current situation is that when a woman presents to a provider for cervical screening, if the provider isn’t her regular general practitioner, the provider will need to request by fax access to that person’s screening history. This happens via outdated technology, including fax. So this bill clears the way to allow health practitioners to have direct look-up access into the screening histories of participants in the screening programme, which will be secure by log-in and read-only access. This is the same as many other information systems used throughout our health system.

And if we just reflect for a moment on the importance of cervical cancer in countries without a cervical cancer screening programme, cervical cancer is one of the leading killers of women in the middle of their lives. And our cervical cancer screening programme does a good job of preventing that type of impact; however, we must improve it so it can continue to be a world-class system.

We have covered at length, during the second reading, some of the technical aspects of this bill, so I thought I would like to take the time during this third reading to cover some of the history of this screening programme to contextualise the present changes. The National Cervical Screening Programme was New Zealand’s first population-based screening programme, and it led the way for all our other screening programmes. The programme was established in 1990 after the Cartwright inquiry in 1988, which investigated allegations concerning the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital and several other related matters.

As a result of the inquiry, there were also important changes in other areas of health, which I’ll come to later. That inquiry arose out of a groundbreaking article in Metro magazine, written by Sandra Coney and Phillida Bunkle about allegations of women under the care of Dr Herbert Green at National Women’s Hospital. Women with carcinoma in situ, so early cancer, weren’t informed that they were the subject of cervical screening research. Dr Green had been monitoring them and not treating them. This went against the current practice at the time—it’s not a case of treatment standards evolving during the period of his practice; it was against practice at the time. As a result of this mismanagement, a number of women developed cancer and subsequently died.

I want to acknowledge some of the people that contributed towards the sweeping changes as a result of the inquiry. Firstly, Sandra Coney and former MP Phillida Bunkle, who were authors of the groundbreaking article and were also involved in the setting up of the Cartwright Collective: a women’s health advocacy group for cervical screening. Of course, Dame Silvia Cartwright herself—the judge who chaired the inquiry—and survivors like Clare Matheson, who spoke out to the media about their experiences, sharing their story publicly so that the public and the country could understand the very human impact of what had happened.

There were also medical advisers to the inquiry who subsequently had long roles in advising the development of the National Cervical Screening Programme. These include Professor Charlotte Paul, a specialist in public health and epidemiology; colposcopist Dr Gary Fentiman; and Dr Peter Sykes. Another person who was instrumental in the setting up of the national screening programme in the years after Cartwright was Professor David Skegg, an epidemiologist who continues to help the Government with many of the COVID challenges we are facing—recently serving on the Epidemic Response Committee.

Early on, the programme was regionally based—it wasn’t initially a national screening programme, and women across the country worked hard to encourage others to be screened, nurses took up roles as smear takers and trained as smear takers, and very dedicated women in health administration set up their own registers and set up measures to make sure that women were followed up.

After the Cartwright inquiry, the National Cervical Screening Programme has gone on to be nationally linked up and a number of positive developments in the quality of the programme have occurred over time, but it has not been without controversy, including when women in the Tai Rāwhiti region had errors in their slides being read and legislation was subsequently passed to ensure that the deficits in the programme then were addressed.

But Cartwright had wider impacts beyond just the impact on the cervical screening programme, and I think it’s worth going into those further as well—not just in New Zealand, actually, around the world. I entered medical school a decade after the Cartwright inquiry precipitated a range of improvements in our health system. The Health and Disability Commissioner framework was set up in response to that, and that’s the cornerstone of our patient rights practice in New Zealand. Our health ethics committees make sure we didn’t have the same problems with research without consent—informed consent practice improved in both research and clinical settings. I was very lucky as a medical student to be lectured on these changes by Professor Charlotte Paul. Charlotte’s teaching on these issues was informed by her firsthand involvement in the Cartwright inquiry as an expert adviser. And she also brought to that a deep knowledge of the complexities of screening and a moral clarity on the harm done to those women and the changes we needed to make to ensure that that never happened again.

Another important point about the inquiry that’s relevant to the changes we’re making in cervical screening now is the experience of Māori women. The inquiry was a turning point for Māori women’s health, because they had the opportunity through the inquiry to express deeply felt cultural beliefs about the sanctity of te whare tangata. And it bears repeating that the barriers for Māori in accessing cervical screening are not new. We have known about them since Cartwright, and we have struggled to address them for a long time.

So following on from the inquiry, legislation to ensure the protection of women and Māori data by way of the Health (Cervical Screening (Kaitiaki)) Regulations in 1995 was put in place. And the National Kaitiaki Group, mandated as part of the regulations, was established in 1995. Until these regulations came into force in 1993, the first interim National Kaitiaki Group representatives were women including Dr Erihapeti Rehu-Murchie, Dr Irihāpeti Ramsden, and Dr Lorna Dyall, and they were joined by Ramari Maipi and Keri Wikitera. Many other wāhine Māori have been guardians of Māori data on the National Kaitiaki Group since that time. The National Kaitiaki Group is important for being the first group in New Zealand mandated to manage Māori data governance. So I’d like to acknowledge all of the women who have served on the National Kaitiaki Group over this period.

In more recent years, wāhine Māori, particularly Dr Bev Lawton, have led research on cervical screening and Bev’s focus has been on the use of the HPV polymerase chain reaction test and self-swabbing in New Zealand. And we know from her hard work that self-swabbing, which is partially enabled by this bill, is a really much more acceptable way for Māori women to have their samples collected.

So following on from the Cartwright inquiry, it was felt that it was really important to legislatively mandate all aspects of the cervical screening programme, and Part 4A of the Health Act puts this into practice. No other screening programme is regulated in this way, but I think you’ll understand from the history why that is the case.

So by way of conclusion, this bill enables direct look-up access for practitioners to participants’ screening histories. It’ll make cervical screening more efficient, and it enables smears in a wider range of settings. Along with investments announced by this Government in Budget 2021, it enables HPV screening. This bill will enable the use of information technology and diagnostics to ensure we have a high quality and modern screening programme. A world-class screening programme takes constant work, and I am grateful to the many doctors, nurses, screening experts, health officials, and women’s health advocates who have brought us to this point. But more than that, these changes will enable screening to be performed in conjunction with the developments we’re making in HPV screening at home or in the community. HPV testing will also enable women to collect their own samples.

My view is that the women at National Women’s Hospital were harmed and experimented on because they were disempowered and discounted in the medical system. That’s why I’m leading changes that will take cervical screening out of the clinic into settings where women feel more comfortable, from something that is done to us to something that we can do for ourselves. This Government will also ensure that wāhine Māori find the procedures acceptable and that they trust that their information will be used sensitively. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Far be it from me to get in the road of what was initially a National Party bill, which made sense then and makes sense now. It’s sort of a small concern that it’s taken us this long to get to this point, and we can talk about that, but this was a pragmatic approach to solve a couple of problems.

The problems we had were that only a limited number of people could access the database—administrators—and for some reason still to be determined, faxing was the mechanism to input data and, actually as I recall from getting a consent form to get information out, they fax the information back, not at all suitable to the electronic age. Really, we were missing the opportunities that we could have had with modern technology. This was a pragmatic approach to solve those two problems, and I think this bill most adequately does that.

If I did look back and think about why it’s taken so long to get here, I think I’d probably reflect on the fact that the anticipation was that the cervical screening register would be updated and that it would be put on top of the bowel screening engine; that was sort of the mechanism—we do the core screening IT, and then each individual screening programme, be it breast, be it cervical, or coronavirus as it is here now, would sit on top of that core platform, and so most of the work would be done. As we found, it took a while—in fact there was an 18-month delay—to get the bowel screening programme out because that core engine took a little bit of time to develop. I think that partly explains why it’s been a number of years to get to this place tonight where we’re signing this through.

The select committee process was very fulsome and, as invariably happens with select committee, it added to this bill. The advice that we received from submitters was meaningful and useful, and helped us to make recommendations and changes. I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall, who was the chair of that select committee, and she particularly brought useful information around data sovereignty for Māori and particularly the National Kaitiaki Group. I was speaking with Louisa earlier around this bill, and reflecting back on the time we had through select committee, and the discussion was along the lines of how she was keen to see Māori as members of the Kaitiaki Regulations Rōpū, translating the information to data that Māori communities can actually use. She was thinking that the kaitiaki group can contribute so much more than what was originally intended. As we brought the thinking out of select committee, the Supplementary Order Paper that came through in the committee of the whole House was actually to backtrack some of the recommendations we had, because it turned out in the time frame from when we reported back to the House to now that the ministry had looked at what those recommendations were and decided some of them were not manageable for the outcomes we were looking for. We looked at that, we had that background knowledge that came through select committee, and decided that, yes, we could understand that position so we supported it in the committee of the whole House.

I also want to commend—I think in my second reading I erroneously attributed HPV to Bev Walding when, in fact, it’s Professor Bev Lawton. Bev’s done a marvellous job bringing cervical screening through into the HPV which we’re now going to roll out as a new screening mechanism. Disappointing it was turned down as a Budget bid in 2020, but here we are now, and that will improve the uptake in cervical screening for Māori, for non-Māori, and for women as a whole, as has been the precedent set internationally. This is why we were so enthusiastic for HPV to be the new screening mechanism, and I want to congratulate her and her team for continuing to press us, continuing to press policy-makers, with rational, reasoned thinking as to the benefits and the urgency around human papillomavirus screening.

While we’re talking HPV, we should just keep our eyes on a few things related, in as much as that we’re so consumed by coronavirus at the moment that the normal year 5 community vaccination of children in schools has been stood down because we don’t have enough community nurses to deliver that programme. Let’s remember the vaccines they give in year 5, in schools, is the HPV vaccine, as well as diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. So while coronavirus is an umbrella, all the other stuff that needed to continue on, all the other stuff we needed to do, we mustn’t take our eye off that, or there will be a tail of consequence of the course we did. And while we’re talking HPV and cervical screening, HPV is the year 5 vaccine we give in schools that has been stood down due to coronavirus, and we need to keep an eye on that.

In summary, this was a good bill when it started, it’s been made better by the select committee. We’ve supported the Supplementary Order Paper because that made sense, and we believe this will improve the access, the data analysis, and what we can actually do with cervical screening to improve the outcomes, particularly for Māori women, who disproportionately have worse outcomes, worse access, and later diagnosis for cervical cancer. We’re particularly keen to see if what we’re putting in place tonight can improve that in some way. This is a good bill, very glad to see it here. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to be speaking here on the third and final reading for this bill, the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. Just like the previous speaker, Dr Shane Reti, I sat on the Health Committee, and we heard a number of submissions on the bill. It was great to hear just the support people had for the changes that were being made. Even though some of the changes are just very technical, and it might seem that the changes are quite small, I think this bill has huge potential to, basically, improve uptake of cervical screening and to reduce inequalities and to save women’s lives.

I want to focus on just three areas tonight, and I think the first one is just something that seems to be quite small and technical, and that’s the change in definition to a screening test. What that change does is pave the way for HPV testing, which, obviously, as we’ve heard talked about tonight, has the significant potential to increase women’s uptake of screening. So what the new definition is: basically, it says, “a test, such as a high-risk HPV test or a cervical or vaginal cytology test, designed to identify women who may have, or are at higher risk of developing, cervical cancer or a precursor to cervical cancer”. I think what that does is futureproof the definition. So we’ve got HPV but we’ve also got some of the changes in terminology that are current right now.

I think, combined with the Government’s $53 million investment in this year’s Budget that’s going to pave the way for HPV testing, what that means is that, from July 2023, women will be able to access the HPV test. And I think that’s going to make a huge difference to many women’s experience. I think, first of all, embarrassment was seen, in many research articles, as one of the key barriers to cervical screening, in a lot of the literature. And I think, when you talk to people, that’s quite clear. I think the ability to self-test will make a huge difference for many women’s lives. I think, basically, being able to turn up to a healthcare professional and be able to take your self-test, your own swab, in privacy will make a real difference. Or women still can have a health professional take the vaginal swab if they so choose, but you don’t need the whole procedure that currently cervical screening needs at the moment.

I think the other thing with the HPV testing is that then screening needs to happen less often. So, if a woman has a negative test, she can be reasonably reassured that she’s very unlikely to get some of those changes that lead up to cervical cancer within the next five years. And so what that means, from a screening perspective, is that women can be screened every five years rather than the current three, which will make a huge difference as well. Initially, women will still need to obtain their swabs via a healthcare provider even if they’re self-testing, but what the ministry is doing is looking at ways to make screening even more accessible, and that’s things like mailing out self-assessment kits and making sure that they work safely for women.

So, basically, what the research suggests—there’s been some recent research that’s looked at the impact that HPV testing would have in terms of screening uptake. And, in a recent study, that found that an offer of HPV self-testing could increase uptake of cervical screening by almost three times in under-screened Māori women. That’s a huge impact in terms of reducing inequalities and reducing barriers to screening. So I think one of those simple changes in the bill, changing the definition, has the potential to really make huge differences in people’s lives.

One of the aspects, though, that’s also been talked about is improved access to the information that you need as a screener, in terms of being able to look up the data on the register rather than having that information faxed through. I think there’s been quite a lot of conversations and people noting the old system of having their data faxed through to a smear taker, having to wait for that, and then moving forward. But I think, if you look at some of the inequalities, again, in our cervical screening rates, and making sure that those staff that are working for the ministry or DHBs who have been hired to follow up women who are, basically, not responding to their screening recalls and just seeing if they can get in touch and talk through that with them—and I think being able to do that work, a lot of that work in terms of trying to contact people, is basically happening in the evenings or after hours. And so being able to have the flexibility to be able to use the look-up access functions of the register is quite important in that respect, rather than having to wait for somebody else, who may or may not be on duty at the particular time, sending you that information through. So I think that again offers quite a big improvement in terms of reducing barriers to screening and access.

The direct access will be expanded also to include those who are undertaking research and evaluation, but just making it quite clear that those privacy protections—that protection of the register—will still be in place; so, basically, privacy requirements preventing unauthorised access and preventing publication of any information that identifies individuals. But also that level of protection in that the national screening programme manager still contains control over who’s granted access to the register, and it’s also got access as an auditable activity. So it means that those protections are in place. And there’s also, basically, an offence if you amend the register without the national programme manager’s authorisation. So I think there’s a range of protections in the bill so that, while we are expanding access to be able to look up data on the register for particular purposes, those protections are there.

Just in the final few minutes, I’d like to focus on the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Government has put through, and that relates to some of the changes around the regulations in the National Kaitiaki Group, and this was something that we spent quite a lot of time on, as a select committee discussing, because it’s really important, in terms of governance, when we’re looking at data that’s identifiable in terms of Māori data, that the kaitiaki group has approval of what happens to that data. What the SOP looks at is how we can make sure that those working within the screening programme can get on and do some of those more routine, mundane data updates without having to seek that approval but, at the same time, making sure that, if you are going to be publishing information which is identifiable in terms of ethnicity, in publications, then you do need to get approval from the National Kaitiaki Group in terms of the way that that occurs. Also, if you’re compiling statistics on other issues, the same thing applies—but, just in terms of the day-to-day functions, making sure you can do your data refreshes, your data back-ups, making sure staff can get on and do that at pace with the usual business of the work that goes on within the screening programme.

So, basically, what we’ve spent time on in the SOP is just clarifying those functions and what does need approval and what doesn’t, which is incredibly important because, where we’ve got larger inequalities in terms of access to screening, in terms of screening uptake, it’s really, really important that the National Kaitiaki Group has approval and has involvement in the publication of data that relates to Māori. So that’s crucial. And the kaitiaki group members and the ministry will be continuing to work together in partnership to strengthen Māori governance around the data within the programme. So that’s incredibly useful.

What I’d just like to conclude with, though, is just talking about some of the changes in the bill—not in the bill but in the way that the bill will then lead to—and particularly the use of HPV screening, because this is the research I quoted earlier. This was a study that was taken up in Northland, looking at women who hadn’t been screened for some time, a group of Māori women. What they found was, with the offer of self-screening with HPV then following through to who actually took up screening, 59 percent were screened, whereas, if they were just offered the traditional cervical smear, what they found was only 21.8 percent of those women were screened. That’s a huge difference. So what that was was, basically, 2.8 times more likely to be screened if you were offered this HPV rather than the standard cervical screening. So that’s the huge potential that we’ve got to reduce inequalities in cervical cancer by improving our cervical screening rates.

So, just summing up what this bill does, it does a whole range of things, but, basically we’re updating the definition of screening so that that does allow for HPV screening. It provides secure login access to those that need to use the register for a range of purposes, and also, with the Government SOP, it provides clarity around the role of the National Kaitiaki Group in terms of providing approval for the use of identifiable data where people are identified as Māori. So a really important bill—

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

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I’m acutely aware that I’m following on in my commentary from a Dr Verrall, a Dr Reti, and now a Dr Craig. I won’t be able to comment on the clinical aspects of this bill, but what I can comment on, on behalf of the National Party, as our spokesperson for women, is the benefits that the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill will bring to women across Aotearoa New Zealand. We in the National Party do have a long and proud track record of going into bat for, and ultimately creating and changing law that ensures improvements to, women’s health.

It was, after all, our party that instigated this amendment bill and, indeed, was in Government during the early 1990s when the National Cervical Screening Programme (NCSP) was rolled out. It seems that while the screening programme itself has grown and evolved since the 1990s, the technology unfortunately has not, which is why we are here this evening supporting this bill into law. It makes small, technical changes that will deliver big results. Who would’ve thought that in the 30-odd years that this screening programme has been in place, the dedicated health professionals like Dr Craig would still be relying on the same technology that they did all those years ago when it was first launched, and, indeed, a fax machine.

The amendments, that have been traversed and canvassed around the House, will allow health providers and staff to look up information directly using secure login via the internet. So it will, essentially, bring clinical information processes into the 21st century. I note in reading from submissions from those that have spoken to the Health Committee that district health boards particularly have submitted on this and they welcome the direct access to the NCSP Register, and they’re considering the amendments positive. Nurses, too, are saying that access to the full history of any woman will ensure recalls are not too often or too few and will allow HPV testing if and when required.

I thought interestingly, Family Planning provide about 19,000 cervical smears a year, and access to the NCSP Register will support greater efficiencies in cervical screening recall by being able to check directly to determine whether an individual on their recall list has had samples taken elsewhere since they last saw the patient.

While it will speed up the process for smear takers in primary care, importantly, it does not compromise patient privacy. On that note, some submitters have raised concerns that the access to confidential information is in breach of privacy law, but it is comforting to see the Privacy Commissioner has said that he sees no outstanding privacy issues. I would like to acknowledge Minister Verrall for sharing her thoughts as we traversed this issue during the committee of the whole House stage. I did ask about the robustness of the platform and the testing that has taken place around protecting data security, and she has confirmed to this House that it will be equivalent to the IT systems used by DHBs for other national programmes, so she believes it is robust. So while this platform isn’t unique, what is unique is how very specific this legislation coming through this House is and that it will also enable future upgrades and improvements both to the IT and the screening programme itself.

So, all in all, we on this side of the House support changes that will allow easier access to primary healthcare for women, therefore improving the lives and welfare of New Zealand women. I commend this bill to the House.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. It’s an absolute privilege to speak on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill.

I have fond memories of this bill because this was the first select committee I was a member of when I entered Parliament. So I want to acknowledge the team that worked this through.

As Dr Shane Reti has alerted us to and reminded us of how this bill has started in this House, I’m just going to give a summary of the points I’m going to talk about, because sometimes I talk for so long that I forget to cover the main points. So I want to give a summary of the bill. So the summary is that this bill will strengthen and improve the National Cervical Screening Programme. It puts in place rules that allow specific health providers to have direct access to participants’ screening history held on the cervical screening register, information which helps determine or recalls screening referral pathways, as the last member has alerted us to, changing the technology because the current law refers to fax machines. So this will enable a new IT system is placed to ensure access is secure to the register.

The Minister, Dr Verrall, had acknowledged that—in her contribution had taken us through the story and the history of how we came about it today. I want to acknowledge her leadership in telling that story, because it reminded us of exactly why this is needed. So the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was provided made it practical to ensure the changes to the National Katiaki Group can continue. The National Kaitiaki Group can continue to have oversight of the Māori data. I want to quote Dr Verrall, because she did say a quote: “A turning point for Māori women’s health about the sanctity of the whare tangata.” That’s where the Government’s SOP came about to ensuring that the National Kaitiaki Group can continue to have a good oversight of Māori data while at the same time ensuring the programme’s in tune with data, and information management activities can continue at pace.

Why is this important? This bill is important because it saves lives. One hundred and sixty women develop cervical cancer every year, and, sadly, 50 women die from it. This is sad. It’s just sad because almost all cases are preventable or can be treated if found at an early stage. So that’s why this bill is important.

The bill will improve services provided by health providers. When I made mention to access to information being faxed, that in itself sets us back decades, and a great barrier to access to information. So for health providers who provide cervical screening—which includes the medical practitioners, Family Planning as mentioned before, and sexual health clinics—nurses and midwives working in primary healthcare can have access to the data. Also having access—well, we all know, I’m not a doctor, but knowing my health history will help my doctor provide treatment for me. So access to a participant’s screening history information is crucial in terms of clinician decision-making when a cervical screening test is undertaken.

I want to also refer to the National Cervical Screening Programme and how it plans to develop a new register. So the new register can, amongst other things, provide, as I’ve said before, secure information, secure computer direct look up, access to the register for health providers working in primary healthcare. The legislation changes will ensure that secure computer direct look up access to the register for health workers is explicitly and directly authorised by this legislation.

One of the concerns that one of the groups that submitted, the national Māori Women’s Welfare League—their concern was about privacy of information and about the ability of the kaitiaki group to maintain the access to data of Māori women, and this can still happen in this bill.

As much as I hate and it’s sad that I refer to 50 women dying from cervical cancer each year, the majority of those women are Māori, are Pacific, and are Asian. So this bill will, in its journey, help save lives. So the services provided by Māori and Pacific providers are primary health organisations. Some DHBs, one Whānau Ora commissioning agency, a non-Government agency—those services that provide the services will have secure access to information to be able to support women as they go through this.

We talk about in this House that it is a cervical screening programme. We talk about it in just words but for women it’s a journey that takes a lot of thinking to get done. But I just want to, if I forget in my contribution, remind women that it is a long journey to think about getting your screening done. It’s challenging for us to think about ourselves first, but really do make this a priority in your life. I want to challenge the men in women’s lives to make it a priority for yourself, because if your partner is a woman and you have daughters, it’s you—well, it is everybody’s responsibility to ensure that women get the help they need.

So also this bill, what the bill does, it clarifies the meaning. Like I said before, I’m not a medical practitioner, but we call it the “smear”. The words, the definition of “smear” is now no longer applied under this bill. The bill amendment has proposed the definition of “screening test” within; the phrase “smear” is removed so it’s no longer a “smear test”, that it’s a “screening”. So one reason for the amended definition, as I said I’m not a practitioner, moving away from using the term “smear”: sometimes it’s not a positive word to use.

I did mention before in terms of protecting the Māori data and how that will be protected in terms of clause 6A and the National Kaitiaki Group. The reason why it’s important to—why we should legislate this response in terms of 6A is because it is important. The National Kaitiaki Group is a group established under the health, cervical screening, regulations since 1995—that is important. In my second contribution, and I think today I mentioned it once is the whare tangata, which in Tongan we call it the fonua which is whare tangata. In terms of my understanding of how I translate my Tongan views, aligning it with Te Ao Māori, it is the “house of humanity”, and the data of Māori woman should be treated that way, that it is sanctity, that it is information that you would—because of the history that Dr Verrall had taken us through in her opening statement of how women weren’t informed about their information, how they weren’t informed that they were being used in a clinical test without them knowing, that’s why it’s important that the role of the kaitiaki group continue. The role needs to be still in legislation to keep that important in this bill.

In my last seconds of this bill, I want to acknowledge those who have lost their lives due to cervical cancer. Perhaps if we removed the barrier earlier we could have saved a few lives. But on that note, I commend this Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to be in support of this bill. At its heart, it makes information more easily available to the staff on the national screening programme so that they can do their work better on behalf of the people who need it. So on that reason alone we support it.

Throughout this process, as Minister Verrall has guided it through the House, we’ve consistently raised two issues, and so we want to just recap those and see where’s it got to through this process. So the first one is about inclusiveness, the acknowledgment that even though we couldn’t make the language in this bill inclusive, one day we’ll change all the language in all the bills and all the Acts. But we have been assured that this service is open and will be open to all the people with a cervix and vagina, the whare tangata—a much more beautiful language. That includes trans men, intersex, and non-binary people. Minister Verrall has also indicated that in the programme, with all the new technology that it will have, that people using that service will be able to self-identify their gender. There are very few places where takatāpui and rainbow people are able to do that. So while I have the floor I would like to do a shout-out to Minister Tinetti in the upcoming work on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, which will follow up from that already world-leading legislation on self-ID for drivers’ licences and passports with being able to identify gender on birth certificates.

In ngā kaitiaki group it was actually really lovely to hear Minister Verrall give that whakapapa of the group and of the screening programme, and it resonated for me in two ways. One of my aunties was one of the women affected when those mistakes were made in the Tai Rāwhiti, and she passed away after being misdiagnosed by the programme. Also, Erihapeti Rehu Murchie, who was one of the first people on the first kaitiaki group, a staunch advocate for Māori women and children for her entire life. She is someone that I mentioned in my maiden speech as having been an early mentor for me and I’m sure many, many other people through her incredible work. Also, the late Irihapeti Ramsden.

Over the years, though, the function of ngā kaitiaki, I think, became less and less important. And as the early papers show, there were several years there where no reference was made to them at all. I am really hopeful and confident with the new work around this and making more of an emphasis on that group, clarifying the parameters of their work, that that will become a staunch group advocating on behalf of Māori women and takatāpui. So everything we do to support this screening programme and every other programme like it will save lives. I’m very, very happy to come in this bill to the House. Kia ora.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party, I’d like to stand in support of this Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. It’s a very important bill. A lot of women out there fail to get their screening each year because they don’t get their notifications or they ignore their notifications, and it’s a very sad occurrence. And it’s also very sad to hear that faxing is still around. I’m one of the old generations. I still remember faxes and having to put that beautiful, heated paper into the fax machine where a lot of the younger ones will only know faxing by our beautiful new printers that we’ve got with a fax option that you put through the computer screen.

This amendment makes it a lot easier for data to be able to be sourced through modern technology. And we can keep a better track of where women are at with their lives. It’s very important that we have this modern technology in all our screening areas, just not this, and it’s really sad that it has taken us 30 years to get to this stage—it’s sad that it hasn’t been recognised beforehand and it’s taken this time.

My biggest thing—while we’re here, also as colleagues across the House—is actually to remind women not to ignore the messages that they received for reminders, because three years does come very fast when you’re busy and you tend to forget that that is up. Now also with the screening programme including HPV, the human papillomavirus, and that’s a huge thing. For me also, being an ex - lab technician, and how technology has changed even from when I was there as a lab technician.

But the biggest thing of all is that we’ve got to remember that we’ve got to make sure that we have services that are flexible, that will deliver what the customer needs in mind. That’s the biggest thing of all—that we are a service, even in health. It is a service, and we’ve got to make sure that we are giving the best service that we possibly can give.

Now, the biggest thing of all is ACT does support these changes in updating the technology as it will lead to efficiency, but it is better for both patients and those carrying out these screening tests, because it makes life easier for those nurses and our GPs to be able to get that information faster. We also know that it’s even difficult when we do move cities and towns to get into new GP practices—that sometimes our information does not follow us. So I’m only taking a very short call, because the majority of the people have gone through all the technical side of this bill. Most of all, we would like to commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise to speak in favour of this bill. Many of my colleagues across the House have spoken about the importance of this screening programme and of the improvements that are being made, but I’d just like to refer back to my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall when she was referencing the origins of this particular screening programme and referring back to the Cartwright inquiry. I’d just like to add my voice to hers in gratitude for the work of Sandra Coney, Phillida Bunkle, and, of course, Dame Silvia Cartwright. When I was studying midwifery was the first time I came across the Cartwright inquiry, and it’s deeply shocking to hear what happened, for the first time, to the women in this country and also to acknowledge that it happened against the current medical practice at the time. Unfortunately, obstetrics and gynaecology and maternity care historically have some dark areas, and that’s one of them. Another area of darkness would be the development of the Sims’ speculum that was done on the, obviously unconsenting, enslaved people. So there’s an awful lot of work and an awful lot of history that we have before us.

You’ll understand, when you hear about the Cartwright inquiry and of the experimentation that took place without the consent of the women involved, that this has generated in me a lifelong commitment to informed consent and also to advocate for the best possible provision for all, but for women in particular. In saying that, I’d also like to acknowledge the words of my Green Party colleague on the Health Committee, Dr Kerekere, who was speaking of the importance of inclusive language. It is really important. Though I would acknowledge that the majority of people who are affected by this bill would probably define themselves as women; obviously, not everybody with a cervix and vagina would do so. It’s really important that we do use inclusive language when we’re referring to these screening programmes.

So we’ve established that 160 women a year, so far, develop cervical cancer, and 50 of those will die from it. As my other colleague said earlier, this is just a tragedy. We, obviously, want to do everything we can to ensure that those numbers are reduced and that cervical cancer, if it exists, is detected early.

We’re changing one of the words in this bill so we’re actually referring not just to the cervix but also to the vagina, because the programme screens for vaginal cancer as well as that of the cervix. So I would acknowledge too the women and other people who experience vaginal cancer, and acknowledge the importance of diagnosing that early too.

The National Cervical Screening Programme has reduced the incidence and death by cervical cancer by half since 1990, which is an extraordinary achievement. We still have more to do; unfortunately, only 61 percent of eligible wāhine Māori have been accessing the programme, and we have explored the reasons for that, which, of course, backs up the rationale behind this bill.

I’m, obviously, delighted that Budget 2021 has put up to $53 million into implementing a new test for human papillomavirus, because this causes 99 percent of our cervical cancers. What we’re moving towards, in two years’ time, is a simple and quick swab that people can choose to do for themselves. As we said before, we’re moving away from the language of “smearing”, because what we’re doing currently isn’t smearing those cells on to the slide ourselves but actually using a soft brush to get some cells from the cervix and then put them into a medium before they’re looked at under a microscope.

To make the changes that we’re hoping to make, we do need new legislation. The key amendment addresses how we’re going to do it and for what purpose. What we’re going to be doing is improving services that are provided by health practitioners, and what we’re going to be doing is to enable them to access the records of participants in the screening programme more easily. At the moment, and certainly historically, we have had to do that via fax. My colleague Toni Severin was talking about being old enough to remember faxes. Well, I’m not just old enough to remember faxes; we’ve actually been using them in the health service for a very long time, and it’s good to see us moving forward. They’re horribly unreliable, and it’s really not the best way for us to be transmitting health information. So what we’re going to be doing is allowing health practitioners who are providing cervical screening to be able to access this information, and I’m looking forward to us being able to do so in a more effective way.

Some people have concerns when they’re looking at a direct access computer-based system around privacy, and that’s a completely legitimate concern and one that we have had to address, obviously, consistently moving forward from this bill. So just to reassure people, we are looking at only a read-only look-up access, so the people who are entitled to look at this information are not, by and large, going to be able to change it. It’s going to be very secure access, with a secure user name and password, and everybody that’s moving forward into being able to access information will also be subject to the Privacy Act 1993 and, of course, their relevant health professional regulatory constraints and employment and contract laws. All of their use will be subject to audit, which is something that we are, as health practitioners, really aware of as existing currently. It’s important to know that just because you are a health practitioner and providing that cervical screening yourself doesn’t necessarily mean that you have access to the information for anybody that isn’t one of your patients or somebody you’re providing care for. And it has to be in relation to the provision of that care. There’s very strictly defined access, and there is going to be, obviously, a consistent application of disciplinary processes if those are breached.

One of the other smaller changes that we’re looking at in this piece of legislation: as I said, we’re going to be referring to the vagina as well as the cervix because of the vaginal cancer risk, but we’re also using a wider definition of “screening test” rather than “smear”, as I explained a little earlier.

I think that we can all agree, across the House, that this bill is an important piece of legislation, and it’s really reassuring to see the agreement that I have seen and heard from all of my colleagues on all sides of the House. I would like to commend this bill wholeheartedly to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Harete Hipango—five minutes.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): E te Māngai, thank you. Look, this evening there’ve been a number of doctors in the House that have made “house calls”, which is something that I recall from my childhood days. So it’s been somewhat reminiscent particularly to listen to the expert contributions from those of you in the health sector. I acknowledge you for that; thank you.

I also recollect that I had the privilege of standing to address the House on the first reading of this bill. The House was full at this time. It happened to coincide with the Hon Bill English’s valedictory speech, and in taking that call I was cut short. I have a brief call this evening—again, soon to be cut short—but that does not in any way lessen the significance of this bill being passed into law with its third reading.

I reflect that at the time I addressed the House, I spoke about the vein and vernacular of a smear and disclose campaign, which was related—and I recall very vividly, back in 1987 and 1988—to the Sandra Coney and Phillida Bunkle Metro article “An Unfortunate Experiment”. We have moved fast forward in time where having heard about the unfortunate experiences of many women who have suffered the affliction of cervical cancer—and my thoughts this evening also turn to Tale Morrison, who was the champion for our women and our Māori women. Before she died—it was almost three years ago to the day—Tale was on a crusade. That crusade, I think many of us will remember, was one of “Smear your mea”. And hearing in the House tonight the kōrero that that terminology “smear” is no longer used, but that resonates with many of us and that was part of Tale’s tohu in what she left for us.

In talking about “Smear your mea”, I say that it is also important that there is no mea culpa, as a result of that, that we learn from those experiences. It just happens to be also—talking about cervical cancer and the old terminology of the smear and the smear campaigns—somewhat ironic that I address the House this evening, speaking to that subject, but I think it’s significant. This, importantly, is about where we’ve moved forward today and the information technology. Again, it’s very fresh in our minds what happened at the Waikato DHB with the technology and the flaws that come about. This legislation will ensure it’s not only expediting and making more efficient the access to information technology but about the protection of that also.

So, look, I was around in the 1980s—I was around a little bit longer in the days of the house calls from the doctors that were made as well. But it impressed upon me very significantly the impact of that unfortunate experiment and the investigative work that was done. Here we are today as a result of the intrinsic forensic examinations that have gone on, and this legislation will ensure the protection, because it is about the information on the National Cervical Screening Programme that is to be accessed, used, retained, and disclosed in the most efficient, effective, appropriate way. I, with privilege, commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a short call in relation to this important bill. I want to begin by recognising the words of Minister Verrall in the House this evening, but also recognising her work in shepherding this important bill through the House. I also want to recognise the important message that our Minister the Hon Kiri Allan sent earlier this year when she shared her story. The impact of her story has in many ways been a ripple that’s created a wave—a wave of conversations but also a wave of action, as many New Zealand women around the country have spoken to each other and made the trip to have their cervical smears done as well. Several weeks ago, I attended an event run by an organisation called Empower Her, which was an ethnic women’s empowerment event at the Fickling Convention Centre in Auckland. There were about 40 women attending the event who recognised the importance of Minister Allan speaking up and the impact it had had for them, as well. I have no doubt that her words have had an impact on several.

I had an opportunity to speak to this bill at second reading, as well, when I spoke about the fact that Māori, Pacific, and Asian women have lower rates of participation in the National Cervical Screening Programme. It’s a real priority, in terms of ensuring screening equity, to raise the number of women in those groups who are getting screened, and that’s the part of this bill that I’m really excited about: looking at how the bill will enable improvements to community-based screening support services. The way in which that will happen is that the fifteen district health boards will be undertaking community-based screening support services, contacting participants who aren’t responding to recall for breast or cervical screening. I do think we should never underestimate the power of a reminder. Sometimes it’s a reminder just for busy women who need a reminder to set their appointments, but other times it’s an opportunity to touch base with a healthcare provider, someone who knows their information, to ask all those questions that only that group of people can provide. It is hugely significant.

There are a lot of cultural changes we still need to navigate through to ensure that we see equity across screening stats, but if we are to tackle those really horrific numbers around cervical cancer, then we need a multi-pronged approach. We need to approach it with a scientific approach, with an education approach, but also with a cultural approach that recognises and doesn’t deny that cultural context exists. We need to capably walk through those cultural doorways and reach out with information, support, and options, and I do believe what’s exciting about this bill is that’s exactly what it does. It recognises cultural context by allowing things like being able to screen at home, in your community. It recognises cultural context by removing words that are seen as not encouraging people to turn up to those smears, to those cervical tests.

Finally, I just want to comment on the broad support across the House, which I think speaks tremendously to the importance of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call tonight on the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill, and like my colleague before me, Vanushi Walters, I want to begin by briefly acknowledging our colleague in this House, Kiritapu Allan. Last week, I spent two days in Kiri Allan’s electorate alongside my colleague Dr Tracey McLellan, and it was obvious to us how loved Kiri is by the people in her electorate, who wanted to wish her well everywhere we went.

This bill is for all the women of New Zealand who are at risk of cervical cancer, and especially those women who have lower rates of participation in the National Cervical Screening Programme, as has been pointed out: Māori women, Pasifika women, and Asian women. This bill will address those lower rates of participation by removing barriers to participation. This bill will save lives, and I just want to note Kiri’s words to not be whakamā and to get it done.

I want to thank and acknowledge the various Ministers who have worked on this bill—Dr Ayesha Verrall, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, and Dr Jonathan Coleman—alongside our current Minister of Health, Andrew Little, for the measures announced in Budget 2021 that will assist with the implementation of this bill. I’d also like to acknowledge the Health Committee and the officials for the high quality of their work on this bill, along with all the people who made submissions. I thank you for your participation in our democratic process, especially on such an important topic.

This bill removes barriers to participation in the National Screening Programme in two ways. The first, that many have mentioned tonight, is around improving the cervical cancer screening register and the IT systems in place to enable access to the register for health practitioners. The need for consistent, secure, and patient-focused IT systems is one of the reasons why we are implementing the health reforms necessary to ensure more consistency across all of Aotearoa and ease of access to health records for medical professionals.

Last week, I was speaking to a group of nurses in my electorate of Nelson about some of the IT systems they use and don’t use when they are supporting patients in their care. It’s quite common practice for patients to be transferred between Nelson and Christchurch, and sometimes those notes that they use are based on an IT system, but sometimes they’re handwritten notes. It’s been mentioned tonight that for the cervical register that we currently have, it uses a fax system. I actually am old enough to have used a fax system, in a number of my roles, actually, including a recent one when we all, kind of, couldn’t quite understand, those of us who joined the organisation, why faxes were still being used. But it just goes to show that in many parts of our health IT systems, we do have work to do to ensure that they are modern and fit for purpose. So by using a centralised register, it will ensure that our health practitioners have access to current information that they can access quickly to ensure they can support their patients to get the healthcare that they need.

The register will put controls in place to protect the privacy of participants on the register, which is very important. It will give look-up access that is read-only for practitioners, and a new offence has been added under section 112J of the Act which would make it an offence to amend the register without authorisation. As a user of health services myself, I have often been quite surprised that my own health information is not always shared between the health practitioners who support me, and I imagine a number of New Zealanders would also be surprised at that. We do need to balance the need for privacy with the need for sharing health information across providers, and I think this bill is an excellent example of striking that balance perfectly.

One example is the amendments that have been included that relate to the National Kaitiaki Group, and that has been mentioned tonight, about the importance of ensuring that data that is shared through the system doesn’t identify individuals, and those types of protections that we put in place when using the data from the register for research purposes, to ensure that we’re also protecting the privacy of patients.

I’ve just gone through the first main way that this bill removes those barriers, and that is around the incorporation of a new IT register, and in doing so ensuring that we can have a proper and accurate tool to use to know who is actually in need of receiving their cervical screen. But the second way, and another important way that this bill removes those barriers, is through expanding the definitions and processes used for screening. Some of the biggest barriers to cervical screening are those barriers that are deeply personal to people. Those of us who’ve had cervical smears know that it is a highly necessary procedure but that it can be difficult, awkward, embarrassing, and uncomfortable. For me, it’s been a procedure I’ve had to prepare myself for. I’ve sometimes been at a GP visit and been offered a smear; sometimes I’ve said yes, sometimes I’ve said no because it felt awkward—not the right time—and I’ve declined and made another time. For people who have survived sexual assaults, the idea of having a smear can be incredibly difficult. I want to acknowledge the women in this situation, one of whom is a friend of mine, and the doctors and nurses who do a wonderful job every day supporting women while they have these important and crucial tests. I’d particularly like to just reference my colleague Dr Leavasa from his previous, I believe, second reading speech when he talked about the care he takes as a male GP to undertake these screens for women. I just want to thank him for the care and sensitivity he approaches this with.

This bill makes changes to the definition of “cervical screening”. As my colleague and chair of the Health Committee, Dr Liz Craig, pointed out in her speech, the bill removes the phrase “smear test”—and I think this is a good thing—based on the feedback that the word “smear” can be perceived negatively. The bill makes a small amendment to the definition of “screening test” to now include an HPV test. Budget 2021 invests up to $53 million to complete the design of this new test. This will allow women to self-administer an HPV test, removing a lot of that awkwardness and that difficulty that we face. It’ll take away some of those challenging times when you know you need to have a test but perhaps didn’t feel like it was quite the right time, if you know it’s something you can actually do privately and do yourself.

The bill will save lives, many of whom will be Māori women. The clinical modelling shows that it will save around 138 additional lives over 17 years. I’d like to reiterate the call from my colleague tonight, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, that, women, we need to be screened. It’s a step we can all take for ourselves and for our families.

I’d like to finish by acknowledging the support across this House for this important bill that will improve women’s health and save lives. I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to speak in support of this Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill in this, its third and final reading. In doing so, like my colleague I acknowledge the medical professionals that have spoken and given considerable technical expertise in their speeches. Throughout the passage of this bill, it has been noted that the changes are largely administrative changes and updating for all of the technology advances. Again, I’d like to acknowledge the health professionals involved in the National Cervical Screening Programme and, in particular, the nurses who have had to put up with the constraints of the lack of use of technology in the screening programme. As many of us have said, it’s almost unbelievable that the fax is still being used for something as important as conveying information to health professionals who provide services in the cervical screening programme. When we think of the potential issues around the use of faxes—the privacy, the lack of productivity as people stand around waiting—it’s just incredible that we’ve still been imposing this on our health professionals.

I do want to acknowledge though the submissions that came in that were obviously concerned about privacy issues—as they should be. It is really important to note that the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act 1993, the Health Information Privacy Code, the health professionals regulatory constraints, and the employment and contract law are unaltered by the amendment, and that should give comfort to those who particularly submitted on the issues of privacy.

As my colleague Dr Reti has already spoken about, this bill picks up on the work that was initiated by the previous National-led Government, and it’s pleasing that this Labour Government has continued the work of the previous National Government on this bill, when in so many other areas it would have been sensible to do that—and I think of the very topical areas such as mental health and roading initiatives where they chose not to do this. And so we compliment Minister Verrall on being much more open to that bipartisan approach.

We have been looking at the benefits that the bill will bring to the cervical screening programme. And of course, we’ve talked about the benefits of privacy, increased speed of the information, and also the futureproofing around IT upgrades and supporting the register and improvements to the screening programme through the use of technology over the coming years. But we also need to talk about those very real improvements that will come in, we hope, the very near future with the HPV testing and that is where we are likely to see real improvements in breaking down the barriers to accessibility.

I’m very appreciative of the very fulsome history that Minister Verrall gave us on the National Cervical Screening Programme, going right back to the catalyst for the inquiry, “The Unfortunate Experiment”, a phrase actually coined by Professor David Skegg from Otago University. So while it was incredibly important for us to recognise and acknowledge the history behind this bill, one of the most exciting and important parts is looking forward with this bill. I know that in my own region, the rates of screening are less than 65 percent for both Māori and non-Māori woman in the eligible 20- to 69-year age range and, really, we should be looking at 75 percent or better. So certainly there is the hope that the HPV testing, and, indeed, particularly the self-testing, will improve those rates and that accessibility is going to be particularly welcomed. So National certainly supports this Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill at its third reading and we commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is great to have this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill, and also to be the last call for this particular bill.

Before I speak to this bill, I just want to take this opportunity—this is my first time during this sitting block—just to acknowledge, as a former sports doctor for the Blues rugby franchise, just to say congratulations to the Blues rugby team who won against the Highlanders over the weekend, in the Super Rugby Trans-Tasman final.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The “almighty” Highlanders.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Also, just as a former sports doctor for the Manu Samoa team, who will be playing the Māori All Blacks this Saturday, I wish both teams all the best as it’s going to be a close session. So I’m looking forward to that match as well.

Hon Member: Cricket!

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Cricket? Oh, smears—let’s talk about the smears now. When we look at this bill, it is about strengthening and improving the National Cervical Screening Programme. Look, as a GP I am glad that this bill has come through the different stages and will be passed tonight. It is about not only having the access to, I guess we would say “new” technology; it’s pretty much old technology, to get rid of this whole faxing of results because we need to futureproof our system, and it’s about time that we did the same with looking at these results coming through. It’s about being quicker, it’s about being convenient, and also streamlining care—removing the frustration of our administration that are trying to get these results on hand.

Also, looking at the Supplementary Order Paper as well, and looking at the National Kaitiaki Group having good oversight in continuing this, because of Māori data and data sovereignty—as many of our colleagues have mentioned tonight, and it’s only about using what you need, read-only access, and making sure the process is much more efficient. When I look at the testing for the HPV virus, which is the cause of 99 percent of cervical cancers, the definition of the screening test changing to include the test itself, and also the Government acknowledging the $53 million in the Budget as well, enabling this HPV testing to go ahead—this will remove massive, massive barriers.

Again, I guess I mention what the member Rachel Boyack has mentioned before, and as I spoke in what I think was the committee stage—as a male clinician it is really hard when I do consult with our women patients who come through; I can see the dread on their face when I call their name and they’re coming in specifically for a cervical smear, that they would cancel, postpone, or—

Hon Member: Try being the patient!

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Ha, ha—yes! But this testing, this self-test, is going to be a huge game-changer for the system. Where I practise in South Auckland, Māori, Pacific, a lot of our religious and faith-based population—culturally, as well—it will bypass those two barriers and provide better access for our women to get that test for HPV.

We’ve heard about the stats—about 50 women dying from cervical cancer in the last year, about 160 women developing cervical cancer. That’s 50 families, 50 whānaus that have had their family member taken from them. It could be for various reasons, but one of them, high on the list, is getting a late diagnosis and late treatment, and having this self-test for HPV will definitely improve on ready access to intervention at the right time.

I also want to mention the preventative measure of the vaccine itself, the HPV vaccine. It’s also known as Gardasil 9, and I acknowledge what many other colleagues have said across the House of the nurses, the healthcare workers, that try to recall our young children to make sure that they get the HPV vaccine in order to prevent cervical cancer, as well. This is on the immunisation schedule for 11- to 12-year-olds, but it is recommended for between nine- and 14-year-olds, and the vaccine is given as two doses, at least six months apart. I just want to mention this because I know that many may not even know about the immunisation schedule for our young folk, and making sure that they get access to this HPV vaccine, as well. Those who are older, in the older bracket above 15 years old, will need to get three doses of the vaccine, spaced out within 6 months, but it is that key area between 11 and 12 years old that we try to target. Again, I mention the GP clinics and nurses. We usually have this dashboard that comes up on our computer screen that tells us where we sit on our targets to make sure that we are recalling these women, and also our young folk to get the HPV vaccine. It’s tremendous work, and again, going back to the results, getting faxed results, getting that upgraded to a new system would definitely help improve our recalling system, improve our intervention at the right time.

We’ve heard about the different populations in Aotearoa—Māori, Pacific, and Asian women—that have lower rates of participation, and this will definitely help target those different populations in order to get that earlier testing, earlier results, and earlier intervention, therefore reducing the risk of cancers. These are all the things that I did want to mention, but I also want to acknowledge my own GP college—Dr Samantha Murton, Dr Bryan Betty, the Māori and Pacific chapters of the GP college that do tremendous work, and not only them but also the nursing college, as well, that does great work in this space. Those are the people I want to mention and acknowledge.

That’s why I support this bill passing through. This is going to make a huge change for our wāhine in Aotearoa. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to the Gas Act 1992

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, the House is in committee on the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. Part 1: this is the debate on clauses 3 to 18 and the Schedule, “Amendments to the Gas Act 1992”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Government’s actions since 2018 won’t deliver more gas. It’s not clear why the Government needs more information about the lack of gas, but this is the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill, which is designed to establish a regulatory framework around gas information: information about the market, production, consumption, storage, and whether there are risks to security of supply—risks that could come from planned outages, from maintenance, and from inspections.

The Government was shocked back in 2018 when the Pohokura field was taken out of production and, at the same time, a regulatory compliance assessment on the Kapuni field resulted in a significant reduction in the supply available to industry and to generate electricity. We are seeing now significant energy shortages, gas shortages that have flowed through to wholesale electricity prices, gas shortages that have resulted in the importation of a million tonnes of coal more than normal in the last couple of years so that New Zealand is now reliant this winter on nearly 30 percent of its electricity being generated from coal, at a time when the Prime Minister has declared a climate emergency and when every reasonable New Zealander could expect the Government to have made some progress towards a low-carbon future. But they’ve been paddling the boat backwards. They’ve got the paddle steamer—the coal-fired paddle steamer—in full reverse. It’s going backwards down the river, far, far from the low-carbon future that New Zealanders have been promised and that we were told was, in fact, an emergency.

So here we are to consider at committee stage this bill, the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill. I want to give those watching what’s going on in the House tonight and wondering what is it that this bill is designed to do and why we need this regulation an example of why it’s really not needed and why it’s simply an example of Government overreach and regulation. They are regulating a group of businesses that they don’t trust, which probably puts those businesses in the same category as all the other businesses in New Zealand.

But I want to give for those watching at home who may not know much about the Gas Industry Co.—it’s a private market manager. It’s an example about how the private sector can manage its own risks. Actually, if you compare it to the Transpower information disclosure about electricity generation, it’s far and away more detailed, it’s far and away more clear how much gas New Zealand has got in storage and when the outages are going to occur, and it gives businesses plenty of information with which to plan their own activities—those gas users, those energy users, who depend on gas for their business. [Holds up graph] So what it shows you is outages here, when they’re planned. Some last for days; some for weeks. It shows you how much gas is in storage by month.

As you can see on this far side of the graph, New Zealand has been drawing down gas at a phenomenal rate over the past few weeks as dry conditions persist, cold weather hits, and we have no choice but to use thermal generation. So it’s either gas or coal, and I would suggest—as does Europe, as does the United States, and as does every developed economy in the world—that gas is a far preferable fuel to coal, particularly imported coal.

Now, the ACT Party believes that businesses and industries and sectors should be able to demonstrate they can manage their own risks and that where there’s a public good in having information about what those businesses do, those businesses should be able to manage their own risks, and there’s no need for Government regulation unless there is a risk or a public good that can be adequately justified. That is why ACT proposes a number of amendments to this legislation.

We propose two specific amendments that were asked for by the gas industry and their customers—firstly, to establish a much higher test for whether regulation is needed. It shouldn’t be on the whim of a Minister as to whether a regulation is imposed on an industry. When an industry is already adequately reporting its own risks for the public and for their customers, that should be sufficient. That’s why ACT believes—and our Supplementary Order Paper 41 sets out quite clearly—that the regulatory test for whether Government should regulate should be comparing the current voluntary scheme, with hundreds of disclosures—hundreds of disclosures, in fact—in great detail that looks something like this. [Holds up another graph] I’m not sure whether the Minister or the Minister’s staff have gone on to the Gas Industry Co. website and looked at the quality of disclosures or looked at the way that the industry and the Gas Industry Co. investigate them and close them out. I’m not sure if they have looked—I’m not sure if they’re interested. But if they were, they might find that the job’s already being done by the sector and there’s no need for this regulation.

That is why ACT proposes a very high, strong test for the Government to impose further regulation, and that it must be to compare any regulation against a successful voluntary scheme that’s currently running, whereas the current bill as proposed compares whether regulation is needed to a blank slate—an absence of reporting—as if there is no voluntary scheme. In that case, what the Government is proposing sets up a fake regulatory test. It is not a valid way to approach whether regulation is needed.

So what ACT proposes in Supplementary Order Paper 41 amends the bill so that any test of whether regulation is required is a much higher bar. We believe, based on the investigation that we’ve done in looking into this problem and actually going and talking to stakeholders—the ACT Party believes that the system that they’re currently providing information to the Government, to the public, to customers, and to competitors is working fine and that no further regulation is needed.

There is an additional amendment that ACT proposes, and that is to establish a very high bar for Government to require, if there is to be regulation, a very high bar on any disclosure of commercially sensitive information. These businesses that produce gas and that supply gas to downstream producers of petrochemical products, like Methanex and others that supply gas for electricity generation, are very, very concerned that disclosing information about their contracts, about their future intentions, and about negotiations with their customers or with each other as to how much gas could go where—they believe that that will put them in a very difficult and dangerous situation and it may, in fact, disadvantage them when compared to competitors in the electricity industry or each other. So ACT’s tabled amendment inserts a new clause, clause 11AA, which sets a very high bar to protect disclosure of commercially sensitive information other than to the industry body or to a Government department.

The industry, rightly, is very, very nervous about further interference by the Government in the gas sector and in the energy sector. They’re very, very nervous about proposals to build large hydroelectric dams, so large at a cost of billions of dollars—probably more than 10—abating carbon at a cost of maybe thousands of dollars a tonne, rather than the emissions trading scheme’s 50. They’re so afraid of this interference that they’re actually very reluctant to make any investments at the moment, and, in fact, the security of supply that the Minister and the Government are so concerned about is likely to be far more precarious than any estimates they have made.

The Gas Industry Co. is currently consulting with its stakeholder groups and with customers and more widely on ways to mitigate scarcity and security of supply issues. They have asked a number of questions like, essentially, what is the unintended cost of the Government’s poor attempts at regulations already, will they result, essentially, in a crashing out of gas supply to the market, and is there a risk that the lights go off in New Zealand much sooner than the Government anticipated?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’ll just take a short call to address some of the questions that the member put there. The first, I guess, is around the problem definition, and the member asked why it was that this regime was being put into place. That’s spelt out very much in the preamble to the legislation; that in 2018, there was a convergence of events around gas infrastructure that led to gas outages of the Pohukura pipeline. What this brought very starkly into relief is there simply was not an adequate disclosure regime for industry, for the markets, for anybody to understand the flow-on implications of what was happening. There was a situation where those that were reliant on that gas for producing electricity had no oversight of what was happening. What is more, they could not get the information that was required from the oil and gas companies in order to be able to function properly as a market. The consequence of this was very high spot prices. Something that became very clear to me as a relatively new Minister of Energy and Resources was something needed to be done about it—that we could not have a regime where there were some industry participants that were having to put drones into the air to fly over the pipeline to try and figure out what was going on because we had a voluntary regime that simply was not delivering the disclosure that was required. So that is why this legislation is before the House and why it is necessary.

In answer to the member’s questions around the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), the Government will not be supporting the SOP that the member’s put forward, and there’s a number of very sound reasons why we won’t be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. But I do congratulate the member for thinking about it and for taking the time to put together alternatives to the legislation. I would make the point where you say that industry doesn’t want this regulated regime of disclosure. I am yet to meet an industry that comes and asks the Government for regulation. Usually, it’s in result to a need to ensure that you have a functioning market, which has very much been identified through the 2018 situation that came in here. The SOP will affect the Gas Industry Co (GIC) regulatory recommendation process, and therefore will have a much broader effect on the regulatory regime than what is included in the SOP’s explanatory note. The way in which it is drafted means it will spread much further throughout the regime than I think the member—certainly through the explanatory note to the SOP and certainly through his contribution to this House—intended. I’m very confident that the current procedures that we have in place to consider industry voluntary alternatives are robust enough and can reside within there.

The member mentioned the fact that the GIC is currently out there consulting with members around how we ensure security of supply as we go through a transition, as all nations across the globe will, as we transition away from fossil fuels. They are doing that piece of work because I commissioned them to do it at the end of last year. I asked them to go out and do this piece of consultation because we must have a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose for us to have a transition away from fossil fuels but also protects consumers when we go through that. Critical to that is having adequate transparency provisions in our regulations to make sure that we can start to think of an energy system, that we don’t have our electricity industry having to wonder what’s happening in another part of that energy system, that we can actually have windows right across that energy system.

The member also continues to repeat some points about our decisions around the ending of offshore oil and gas exploration in 2018 somehow leading to the market conditions we’re seeing now. We’ve discussed many times with that member the fact that, actually, that simply is not the case. In fact, it was found, during the election campaign, to be an untrue statement. A certain political party was told to stop saying it because it was so untrue. But what we do know is that we do have to prepare for a transition away. We’ve recently seen the international energy agency come out and actually say that the path that New Zealand’s going down is something that the world needs to look at, that simply continuing to issue exploration permits for oil and gas is an untenable position for countries to find them in. We need regulation to match that.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to stand here this evening and support ACT with its Supplementary Order Paper. While we need to know how much gas is in place in this country, there is a voluntary regime currently, and I’ve just got a number of questions for the Minister tonight that I’d like to ask.

The Minister talked about a convergence of events before that happened in 2018, and often waxes lyrical about Pohokura, and we do know that there were faults with Pohokura. These faults are still trying to be rectified, and our people are working hard on that. But when the Minister talks about a convergence of events, there were other events that happened in 2018, and they were decisions that the Minister and her Government made against advice of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment around the future oil and gas permits, and the Minister continues to say that that had absolutely no bearing on the situation that we find ourselves in today. So I would like the Minister to answer the question as to whether she has any proof that that had no bearing—the removal of all of the investment that’s led to so many fields being turned away from—on what’s happening today.

The second question I would like to ask the Minister is—she mentioned when she was speaking before about the voluntary regime and how that lead to this situation. My understanding is that the voluntary regime came into place after the problems at Pohokura, and, when we went through the select committee process, the question asked was “Have there been any breaches of the voluntary regime?”, and no one was able to point to any breaches of the voluntary regime. As Mr Court mentioned before, it’s working perfectly fine.

So I’d like to ask the Minister those two questions: what proof does she have that the political decision has had no effect on the gas fields; and, secondly, when did the voluntary regime come into place, and does she know of any breaches of the voluntary regime?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I’d just like to answer the question, first of all, about whether our decision in—I think it was—April of 2018 had any impact on something that happened in the spring of 2018 in terms of gas production. I am sure that member, coming from Taranaki herself, knows that there’s a bit of a longer lead time between issuing a block offer and getting to production than a few weeks in terms of that. So I think I can say that without a shadow of a doubt, the decision of our Government to end the issuing of new oil and gas exploration permits offshore in April 2018 had absolutely no impact on what happened in the spring of 2018. In fact, any of those permits that would have eventuated after the 2018 decision actually wouldn’t be into production until 2027.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

TEMPORARY CHAIRPERSON (Chris Penk): The committee has considered the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

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

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.