Thursday, 24 June 2021

THURSDAY, 24 JUNE 2021

THURSDAY, 24 JUNE 2021

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

DEPUTY SPEAKER: E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Black Caps

World Test Championship, 2019-21

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice to congratulate the Black Caps on becoming cricket’s first world test champions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House heartily congratulate the Black Caps on winning the International Cricket Council’s inaugural World Test Championship.

The exhilarating final played against India over the last six days was in fact the culmination of two years of international fixtures, which saw the Black Caps defeat Pakistan, the West Indies, India, and Sri Lanka, and also England—although, somewhat bizarrely, that wasn’t part of the World Test Championship—along the way. All of this happened through the difficulty of COVID-19, and that makes this achievement all the more remarkable.

Throughout this time, the Black Caps have stood out for their determination and never-say-die attitude. In Mount Maunganui over the summer, fast bowler Neil Wagner bowled over after over, with not one but two broken toes, while driving New Zealand to victory over Pakistan. And even last night, wicketkeeper BJ Watling, who was playing his final test match for New Zealand, played through an agonising dislocated finger. In sometimes seemingly hopeless situations, the Black Caps have found a way to win.

Their ability to perform against a much larger and better resourced opponent was never clearer than in the final. Our representatives of the team of 5 million against those of a team of 1 billion saw the little guy come out on top. I want to acknowledge the talented and competitive Indian team, who played such a part in a rollercoaster of a game, that saw all possible results still live on the last day.

The win saw valuable contributions from almost every member of the Black Caps, but I want to pay particular tribute to the man who hit the winning runs, Ross Taylor. New Zealand’s all-time leading run scorer exemplifies the spirit and culture of this team. Having lost the captaincy of the side in 2012, he has continued to commit himself to the team and its culture and he has flourished in his batting role.

To all of the Black Caps and their remarkable captain, Kane Williamson, we are so very, very proud of the team. I have had the privilege to spend time with the Black Caps over the last few years, and they have a team culture that exemplifies the very best of Aotearoa New Zealand. They are frequently cited by other teams and commentators as playing cricket as it should be played—playing hard but always playing in a spirit of fairness, respect, and camaraderie. The team are humble, authentic, and deeply loyal to one another and to New Zealand.

In addition to Kane Williamson, in this regard, I also want to acknowledge the coach, Gary Stead; manager, Mike Sandle; previous captain Brendon McCullum and coach Mike Hesson; and all of the back room team. I also want to acknowledge David White, the chief executive of New Zealand Cricket, and his team, who have worked so hard to not only support the Black Caps but to genuinely make this a game for all New Zealanders.

In conclusion, I want to say that I was at Lord’s two years ago with a number of other members of the House when New Zealand did not win the one-day international World Cup. I say “did not win” because I am pretty sure that they did not lose either. That was a heartbreaking day for cricket fans, but obviously much more so for the players. Seven of those players were in the team today.

The resilience of this squad has been incredible. They are now the number one - ranked one-day international team in the world and are now the world champions of test cricket. We are so very proud of them. This is truly a golden age of cricket in our country and I’m sure that they will inspire young boys and girls across the generations.

Last night, we saw that nice guys can finish first. On behalf of the Government, I say congratulations and thank you to the Black Caps, world test cricket champions.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand National Party to support the motion moved by the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning’s victory over India in the World Test Championship final at South Hampton should be recorded as one of our greatest ever sporting victories. It has not always been easy to be a New Zealand cricket fan. It took 26 years for New Zealand to record its first ever test win in 1956 against the West Indies. We didn’t win our first series until 1969. Australia didn’t play us till 1945, and then we had to wait 28 years before they deigned to play us again. Eight years ago we were dismissed for 45 in South Africa, but we have always played with courage.

In 1953, New Zealand toured South Africa and the Tangiwai rail disaster occurred in the middle of the second test. Bob Blair’s fiancée was one of the 151 victims. The pitch was lively. Bert Sutcliffe and Lawrie Miller were hit by bounces and were forced to retire hurt. The great John Reid was hit five times and had to leave the field. Nobody expected Bob Blair to come out to bat, but Sutcliffe returned to the crease with bandages all over his head and, together with the devastated Bob Blair, put on a performance Brendon McCullum would be proud of, smashing sixes all over Ellis Park. As the Deputy Prime Minister has noted, we saw another example of that last night—not quite so damaged, perhaps, as Bob Blair psychologically or Bert Sutcliffe physically, but from BJ Watling, and he’s also referred to Neil Wagner’s efforts late last year.

This Black Caps team plays with a quiet pride and a fierce determination. They are conscious of our history. They are driven to be better by what came before and to leave the glorious game of cricket better than they found it. We don’t have the resources of Australia or England or India. We don’t have the wealth from television rights and the high salaries that brings. We’re a quietly determined country of 5 million, where our cricket pitches double as rugby fields and occasionally as rock concert venues. But today New Zealand stands on top of the world, world test champions. To Kane Williamson and the team and the support staff: we are so proud of you. We are proud of what you have achieved, winning series after series at home. We are proud of how you never give up.

All looked lost late last year against Pakistan, but you kept plugging away, and then Mitchell Santner took that last glorious caught and bowled in the dusk. Most importantly, we are proud of the way you play the game. After Grant Elliott smashed that six to win the semi-final in the Cricket World Cup in 2015, the first thing he did was go and hug a devastated Dale Steyn. And Kane Williamson, I note last night, went straight over to Virat Kohli after the winning runs were scored this morning.

There’s one person who I think this morning’s victory would mean more to than anyone else, and that’s Martin Crowe, who died just over five years ago. Before Kane and Luteru Ross Poutoa Lote Taylor came along, he was our greatest batsman. At a time of adversity for New Zealand cricket, he was a brilliant and innovative captain. He stood tall and led from the front. The way he played the game in the 1980s and 1990s is the way this Black Caps team plays the game. He was Ross Taylor’s cricket and batting mentor. So how appropriate that it was Ross Taylor last night who hit the winning runs with that trademark leg-side flick, and crowned New Zealand world test champions—well done.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to congratulate the Black Caps for winning the inaugural World Test Championship this morning. I’d also like to congratulate the Indian team for making the final and playing their part in a great match for cricket fans around the world over. There will be a lot of tired cricket fans in New Zealand, but I hope that you’re enjoying the wonderful achievement of our men’s team.

As others have mentioned across the House, I’d like to recognise the humility and sportsmanship of the Black Caps team. I think that the win today should be all the sweeter for New Zealanders, because of how this team have conducted themselves in both victory and defeat over the past few years. I want to give a shout-out to Luteru Taylor, who recently spoke about how his principal wouldn’t pronounce his name correctly when he was younger, and now he’s speaking about him being his authentic self. I hope we continue working so that all of our sportspeople—people of colour and our trans folk included—can be their authentic selves in the field.

Finally, I note that we’re really looking forward to Aotearoa hosting the women’s World Cup next year, and we hope for both of our premier teams to soon be world champions, and that we continue working as well for pay parity in sports. Kia ora.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to congratulate the Black Caps for winning the World Test Championship. As members can probably tell, based on how lively I look today, I tuned in very early this morning to catch the final run chase and it was well worth it. Seeing Ross Taylor and Kane Williamson bringing it home was very fitting. To defeat India, which is a powerhouse in the cricketing world, is an incredible achievement. The 2019 Cricket World Cup final is now firmly a distant memory.

Test cricket, in particular, takes a great deal of perseverance and planning, especially when poor weather is a constant frustration, and we also can’t emphasise enough the challenge of competing internationally during the COVID-19 pandemic. The players and their families have sacrificed a great deal with the extra travel and requirements and, of course, those who participated in the Indian Premier League this year had an especially tough time.

The media in India itself has been very graceful, and I think that is a testament to the positive culture that Kane Williamson has fostered as captain of the Black Caps. The Times of India stated: “New Zealand’s canny operators and their classy skipper Kane Williamson deservingly walked away with the [inaugural World Test Championship] title after a composed eight-wicket win”. They also stated that “Williamson is probably one of the few captains who have now got the Indian team out for less than 250 in six consecutive innings, a testimony to his brilliant cricketing acumen and near-perfect execution of plans by his bowlers.” These sorts of kind words and sentiments about the team have been echoed by media in all cricketing nations.

The Black Caps have demonstrated exceptional sportsmanship and character and are role models for all cricketers here in New Zealand young and old. I also hope that this victory inspires more young people to enjoy the sport, especially test cricket. On behalf of the ACT Party, I once again congratulate the Black Caps on this victory, and I’ll simply finish by stating that it’s a good time to be a Kiwi. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Maritime Powers Bill, the second readings of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill, the committee stages of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and the Gas (Information Disclosure and Penalties) Amendment Bill, and the third reading of the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No petitions or papers have been presented and no bills have been introduced. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: The reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:

petition of Jake Benge

petition of Kristina Todd

petition of Michael Greenwood

petition of Zhiqiu Ye

petition of Rob Wemyss.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Health

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Has he received any advice from health officials that restructuring the health system during a pandemic could negatively impact our ability to respond to a coronavirus outbreak?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Dr Shane Reti: When he states he is extraordinarily frustrated at his own inability to spend funds committed for mental health, what steps will he take to ensure the overall health system restructure does not go as badly?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I made no such representation.

Dr Shane Reti: How can New Zealanders have any confidence in his ability to deliver a transformation of the health system when the Government has failed to deliver on the mental health transformation it promised four years ago?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: In relation to the mental health transformation, I’m very pleased that in the less than two years since the 2019 investment in mental health reforms was made, we have added more than 520 people to the front line of primary mental health care and addiction, we’ve created a permanent mental health and wellbeing commission—an organisation that the previous Government scrapped—we’ve set up the Suicide Prevention Office, and we’ve provided additional funding for mental health workers and kaupapa Māori health services and Pacific health services and youth one-stop shops and a variety of other areas. We’ve done an extraordinary amount, and we’re not even halfway through the four- to five-year change programme.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he rule out having to send his health system restructure to the Government’s new delivery unit, given his failing mental health programme has been identified as one of its priorities?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We are a Government that ensures that we execute our plans very carefully, and we welcome appropriate scrutiny and assistance to do so.

Dr Shane Reti: Why hasn’t he addressed workforce shortages in health, given the nationwide measles and HPV vaccine campaigns have now been paused because resources have been transferred to the coronavirus response?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have made sure that workforce resources have been directed where the need is greatest, and right now, the vaccination campaign for COVID19 is very important. We’ve added to the vaccinator workforce in order to do that, and we’ve continued the roll-out of the flu immunisation campaign—that’s going very well. But given the borders are closed and the risk in relation, for example, to measles is much lower, we’ve been able to defer continuation of that particular programme, and we will pick that up later this year.

Dr Shane Reti: What health outcomes, if any, have improved to date since Labour came into office in 2017?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We have a growing confidence that we now have a Government that properly cares for a well-functioning health system that addresses the equity problems that have been endemic in our system for a long time. But, most importantly, the people are glad to have a Government that actually is serious about making a material, significant, long-term difference to mental health services, which were totally ignored by the previous Government.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s efforts to secure the recovery amid the uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have been reflected in confidence among small businesses. Today, Xero released its Small Business Insights data for May, showing growth in both sales and jobs figures for small businesses. For the fourth successive month, the index remained above 100, at 109 points, signalling stronger than average small business activity. Sales across New Zealand grew 6.2 percent in May, led by retail trade, construction, and hospitality. Jobs growth rose 4.7 percent, with the strongest regional growth in Northland, followed by Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, and Canterbury. Xero said the data showed small-business owners around New Zealand feel optimistic, but it also shows that firms are facing many challenges as we work our way through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Greg O’Connor: What other reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The BusinessNZ Economic Conditions Index points to the economy bouncing back reasonably well in 2021. The index sits at 12 for the June quarter, up six on the previous quarter and up 26 on a year ago. The BusinessNZ Economic Conditions Index tracks 33 indicators, including GDP, export volumes, commodity prices, inflation, debt, and business and consumer confidence. We do expect that there will be further volatility as the effects of COVID continue to show through, but the underlying picture of the New Zealand economy is resilient.

Greg O’Connor: What reports has he seen on the impact of the Government’s housing package on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: TradeMe reported today that since the Government’s new housing policy was announced in March, rents have slowed in many parts of the country. The TradeMe monthly rental index for May shows the national median rent remains static for the third consecutive month. This is despite predictions, including from some on the other side of the House, that the changes to property investor tax rules would see rents skyrocket. The fact this has not happened is good news, but we are of course aware that there is far more to do to solve our housing crisis.

Question No. 3—Statistics

3. DAMIEN SMITH (ACT) to the Minister of Statistics: Does he have confidence in Statistics New Zealand’s calculations of the Consumers Price Index generally, and its publication of annual inflation at 1.5 percent in the year to March 2021?

Hon Grant Robertson: The only Minister who counts!

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Statistics): The Government Statistician has statutory independence mandated by the Statistics Act 1975. In their production and provision of official statistics produced by Stats NZ, the Government Statistician has complete discretion as to how data is collected. It is not for politicians to decide what is and isn’t measured by Stats NZ. I have confidence in Stats NZ’s calculation of the Consumers Price Index (CPI) generally, including the latest release from March this year. I do want to thank the member for asking a stats-related question; the first in this portfolio since the election: 250 days, 64.11 percent of the year, two full CPI quarters!

Damien Smith: Exciting! How can he reconcile his confidence with PlaceMakers saying low prices have gone up 75 percent in the last year, and saying that quotes may only be valid for seven days, given the rapidly shifting prices?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Stats New Zealand’s calculation of the CPI follows international best-practice set out by the International Labour Organization. It’s a world-renowned agency that we should all be proud of. I believe them following best practice is the best way for this to happen; not for politicians to decide what should and shouldn’t be measured by Statistics New Zealand.

Damien Smith: How can he reconcile this claim with the fact that New Zealand businesses have been experiencing price shock, paying electricity bills that are up to 50 percent higher than last year?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The CPI measures items of consumption; it doesn’t measure items of assets. In respect of the member’s question, I think it is appropriate that an independent agency decides what is and isn’t measured, and that people use the index for the appropriate purpose.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about energy prices. Energy is not an asset; it is a supply and an input. He didn’t appear to address the question at all; he talked about something completely unrelated. We all know that CPI doesn’t include assets. That’s got nothing to do with it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have probably said to the Minister, “In so far as his ministerial responsibility …”. I think he has addressed it.

Damien Smith: Why is it that everyone is noticing higher prices and inflation, except for Statistics New Zealand?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I can’t answer for the member’s perceptions, but I do want to thank him again for raising issues of statistics in this House—as one member has already introduced to the debate, it is the only portfolio that truly counts!

Question No. 4—COVID-19 Response

4. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What changes have been introduced with the move to alert level 2 in Wellington, Wairarapa, and Kāpiti Coast?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Alert level 2 means that gatherings are limited to no more than 100 people in the greater Wellington region. People should stay 2 metres away from others in public spaces and at least 1 metre away in other places, such as workplaces, cafes, restaurants, and gyms. Face masks remain compulsory on public transport, and we encourage people to use those in other places where physical distancing is not possible or is difficult. Businesses can open, but they need to follow public health rules, including physical distancing, record keeping, and having a cap on the number of people to no more than 100. In hospitality, businesses should follow the three S’s: seated, separated, and single server. Schools and early learning services are open and children should attend unless they are unwell. Early learning services, schools, and kura are familiar with the alert level requirements and they’ve responded well to the change in alert levels.

Paul Eagle: Why is it important for people to follow these measures?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The decision to move to alert level 2 follows the Government’s repeated programme of going hard and going early. We moved quickly as soon as we became aware that there was an increased risk of exposure, in order to be able to stamp out the virus again should it have spread into our community. Getting people to follow the rules of alert level 2 and, in particular, to stay home if they are unwell or stay home if they’ve been asked to stay home because they were in a location of interest—that is the way we will ensure that COVID-19 does not get a foothold here, and it will mean that we can minimise the chances of having to have more extensive restrictions.

Paul Eagle: What other measures can people take to keep each other safe at alert level 2?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The nature of the exposure events that we are dealing with in this case really underscores the importance of people keeping good records of where they have been and when. In particular, the COVID tracer app provides a very powerful tool when people use it. If people have been scanning into those locations of interest, they will have received push notifications identifying that they are more at risk and telling them what we need them to do. That only works if people scan in regularly, so I’d encourage people to do that. I’d also reinforce the basic public health measure that we have been reinforcing since our COVID response began, and it should apply at any time, which is: if you are sick, please stay home; don’t go to school or to work or to socialise; and if you’ve got cold- or flu-like symptoms or aches and pains, call your doctor or call Healthline and ask about being tested. This will help to keep yourself and others safe.

Kieran McAnulty: Can he confirm that the border of the alert level 2 area is at Mount Bruce and therefore two of Wairarapa’s largest tourist attractions, the Tui Brewery and Pūkaha Mount Bruce, are operating under alert level 1 conditions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can indeed confirm that.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

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

Chris Bishop: Are there any locations of interest that have been deliberately withheld by the Ministry of Health in relation to this most recent Wellington case, similar to the four that were withheld in the Northland case in February?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In answer to the first part of the question, not to my knowledge. In answer to the assertion in the second part of the question, the only exposure sites from Northland, to my understanding, that were not publicly released were where there was a privacy reason not to release them, and where the people concerned, the people at risk, had been contacted directly.

Chris Bishop: Why was it not listed publicly that Unity Books in Wellington was a location of interest when the district health board rang them at 9.30 a.m. yesterday, and it was only put online at 11.43 a.m.?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I went through yesterday, the team worked right the way through the night, without sleeping, in order to assemble the locations of interest so that they could be released as quickly as possible on Wednesday morning, and they were released before 9 a.m. The details of the case were released around 6 a.m. I do want to compliment the team on the speedy work that they did trying to identify the locations of interest, the extent of risk in each of those locations of interest, and the public health requirements for the people who had been in those locations of interest so quickly. They did incredibly well, particularly bearing in mind that the people they were contacting—they were waking them up in the middle of the night in order to get further information from them.

Hon Grant Robertson: In light of that previous supplementary question, does the Minister recall criticism of the Government for not letting business owners know in advance of letting the public know when their business was a site of interest?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, I can recall that that was one of the criticisms. There has also been criticism today about the drip-feeding of locations of interest, which is also criticism coming from the same people who have been saying we haven’t been fast enough to release information about the locations of interest. It can’t be both.

Chris Bishop: Are there contingency plans in place in the case of community transmission in regards to vaccination, in light of the Auditor-General saying yesterday, “It is fair to say we didn’t think that the contingency planning was far enough advanced.”?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: This is an area where I do disagree with the Auditor-General. The Government has made the decision that the best place for vaccines is in the arms of people. Keeping a whole lot of vaccines in a freezer as a contingency in the event that we decided it was a good thing to do surge vaccination isn’t something that the Government has contemplated.

Chris Bishop: So can he just confirm then that the Government has not done any detailed scenario planning or modelling with regard to what a vaccination campaign would look like in the event of community transmission?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, that is not what I indicated. In this particular context, where we have a limited supply of vaccines, stopping the vaccine roll-out to vulnerable people in other parts of the country in order to increase the vaccine roll-out in Wellington would not be consistent with good public health practice.

Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth

6. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What recent progress has been made on the NZ-UK free-trade agreement?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: I’m pleased to announce recent progress that has been made on the New Zealand free-trade agreement (FTA) that will contribute to the wider work the Government is undertaking to support our economic recovery from COVID-19. As the first ministerial trade delegation since COVID-19 closed our borders, last week Minister O’Connor met with UK Trade Secretary Truss in London to push along our bilateral FTA negotiation. Ministers agreed that our negotiating teams will spend the coming weeks finalising details of our FTA, with the aim of reaching agreement in principle in August. New Zealand will be working to achieve a high quality comprehensive trade deal. Our priority is a deal that delivers benefits for all New Zealanders. That includes seeking elimination on all tariffs over commercially meaningful time frames, and that takes account of our ambition across the agricultural sector.

Ingrid Leary: Why was the Minister’s visit to the UK so timely?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: On behalf of the Minister, after five rounds of virtual engagement, there was real value in the Minister visiting London in person. Minister O’Connor’s visit shows how serious we are about the deal. It enabled him to engage in-person on our key issues and progress the negotiations at good pace. It also allowed him to speak to farm leaders face to face about how both of our agricultural sectors stand to benefit from the agreement. Moving towards an agreement in principle with the UK in August will confirm the parameters of the FTA and represent a significant step towards conclusion. We’re committed to making swift progress, but our number one priority is to secure an agreement that delivers benefits for all New Zealanders.

Ingrid Leary: Why is it so important that we get this deal right, and in a way that supports New Zealand interests?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: There’s some significant barriers that New Zealand exporters currently face in the UK, and which make it hard for us to compete with other exporters—for example, restrictive quotas that apply to our dairy and meat exports, and tariffs that make other New Zealand products like wine, apples, and honey more expensive for consumers in the UK. Removing these and other barriers will enable New Zealand exporters to compete on a level playing field with our competitors in the UK market. That is why it’s important for Minister O’Connor to front our ambition. This agreement will deepen New Zealand’s economic ties with the UK, and benefit New Zealand as we build back from the economic impacts of COVID. Finally, we’re seeking to secure ambitious and inclusive outcomes in the coming months, including through New Zealand’s proposed chapter dedicated to advancing Māori interests. The FTA will help address this. It is also an opportunity to lead on sustainable trade and put our Trade for All Agenda into action.

Question No. 7—Transport

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

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, particularly when I said yesterday that “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 cleaner vehicles into New Zealand.”

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, has he seen comments from Motor Industry Association CEO David Crawford last week, who said, “Speculation by Ministers of when models are coming to the market is unhelpful and potentially misleading. At worst, it becomes a death knell to business continuity.”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I’ve seen those comments from Mr Crawford. I’ve also seen the comments from Mr Crawford and the Motor Industry Association (MIA) welcoming the Clean Car Discount as an important tool to bring cleaner vehicles into New Zealand at a cheaper price for Kiwi consumers.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If he’s seen those comments, why does he continue to say full electric utes will be available within 12 to 24 months, when MIA advise they won’t be available till after 2025 at the earliest?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In the first instance, the member needs to be aware that 64 percent of the utes purchased in New Zealand will not be impacted by the Clean Car Discount scheme, because they’re bought and sold on the second-hand market to which fees and discounts do not apply. Secondly, in discussion with the MIA, I’ve confirmed that at least one manufacturer has the expectation that they will be bringing in an electric vehicle within the next 12 to 24 months and that others are working hard on doing exactly the same thing.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm that if, due to demand, funds for the car subsidies run out, they will be paused, and does the policy apply in reverse such that if the policy is bringing in more than it pays out, he will pause clean car fees?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The scheme is designed to be a fiscally neutral scheme, funded through a $300 million repayable loan from the Crown, and it has been structured in such a way that the scheme pays out and brings in income within the confines of that structure. It is not our expectation that that fund will run out anytime soon.

David Seymour: Point of order. I was extremely interested in the answer to that question: if there is more money coming in than going out, will the Government stop collecting the fees on the vehicles which have fees attached to them. Now, we didn’t get even close to addressing that, just various speculations, and it actually is something that I’d really like to know the answer to, and so would a lot of people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll get the member to ask the question again.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Can he confirm that if, due to demand, funds for the car subsidies run out, they will be paused, and does the policy apply in reverse such that if the policy is bringing in more than it pays out, he will pause clean car fees?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: In answer to the first part of the question, that has been made very clear that that is the case in all of the information that we’ve put out about the Clean Car Discount.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does the policy apply in reverse, such that if the policy is bringing in more than it pays out, he will pause clean car fees?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: That is not envisaged and is not part of the policy design.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In that case, if the target of 19,000 low- and no-emissions vehicles is not met next year, this will be a massive tax grab?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Government does not have a target for the Clean Car Discount scheme, but what has been announced is that all of the indications are—and all of the indications since the scheme has been announced—that there is huge interest from Kiwis in getting into cleaner vehicles. We fully expect that large numbers of people will come forward to take advantage of the Clean Car Discount.

Hon David Parker: Would it be necessary for the Minister to have obtained $300 million funding for the scheme if it was going to be, as the Opposition seem to think, a cash cow, rather than something that’s eventually repaid, funded at the start?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, the member is quite right. The design of the scheme is that the $300 million loan is repaid within 10 years. I think what all members need to understand about this policy is that Kiwis are very, very keen to get into cleaner vehicles at a lower price. I quote from one member of this House who has said that they have very much enjoyed the experience of getting into a Hyundai Kona vehicle because of the lower running costs, and I think that other people in New Zealand deserve that same opportunity as the Hon Scott Simpson.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been the practice of the Speaker, who you are acting instead of today, to award additional supplementaries, with a very strict rule when speakers are asking supplementary questions, if they’re interrupted by other members. During one of Mr Woodhouse’s supplementaries, there was a consistent barrage from Ms Genter. We don’t get many supplementaries, Mr Speaker. I think it would be good if we had a few more.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just in response to that, I’m not operating under that system. I’ve also not deleted any questions as well, and there was the same issue on one of the earlier questions, and I did not take questions off the member.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. OK, so just for clarity, when Mr Mallard is the Speaker, we’ve got the yellow card, up and down, points system, and when you, Mr Rurawhe, are acting, as the Acting Speaker in the Chair, that doesn’t apply. Just so we’re aware.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it’s not my intention to do that, and as I pointed out, there was an occasion—[Interruption] I’ll stand. There was an occasion earlier on when Mr Paul Eagle was asking his question; there were several interjections from this side. I did not take any questions off the members.

Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. By you saying you’re not undertaking that system, are you saying it’s not a good system, Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon Todd McClay: Point of order. I seek leave of the House for you to continue as Speaker!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not helpful, Mr McClay—ha, ha!

Question No. 8—Economic and Regional Development

8. NAISI CHEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What changes has he announced to Government Procurement Rules to support the objectives of the carbon-neutral Public Service?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): The Government has a clear commitment to show leadership on climate change, and part of this involves a transition to a carbon-neutral Public Service. Government agencies, quite rightly, need to play their part and lead by example and influence the private sector and NGOs. Alongside the Minister for Building and Construction, I have announced a new procurement guide for public agencies. It is designed to offer practical guidance to the public sector, to private sector suppliers, and construction and industry reps to make the right decisions, and to build a good understanding about the best way to approach tenders for public projects. I’ve long been a champion of greater use of low-carbon materials like timber in building and construction projects and we want that embedded in decision making and design thinking across the wider public sector.

Naisi Chen: How was this procurement guide developed?

Hon STUART NASH: This guide reflects the Government’s goal to transition to a carbon-neutral Public Service. A number of Government agencies, the construction sector, and industry groups have contributed to the development of the guide. While it is not designed to be a technical document, it is a first step towards supporting Government agencies to be a significant influencer for not only operating of the building but also construction itself. We know the greatest opportunity to reduce operational carbon emissions is at the planning and design phases of a project.

Naisi Chen: How will this guide work in practice for Government agencies?

Hon STUART NASH: The relevant agencies will apply the guide to decisions about new buildings with an estimated value of $9 million or over. They will record decisions about the way they choose design options at the outset. If an agency wants to proceed with an option that is not the lowest-possible carbon option available, then it must be signed off by the chief executive. It is great to see that the use of low-carbon materials will be embedded in decision making and design-thinking processes. It is also in line with the recommendations of the Climate Change Commission’s final report. The commission has confirmed that we are making good progress to reduce emissions, but a step up is now required. The transition to a low-emissions future will create jobs and new opportunities for Kiwi businesses. By signalling our direction now, we will provide businesses with certainty to invest in new technology or processes.

Hon Todd McClay: Meeting the Government’s new 5 percent requirement for Māori business procurement target, will Government contracts be awarded based on ethnicity to meet this target rather than the best provider of a good or service; and how will that meet the requirements of this question?

Hon STUART NASH: In answer to that, what I’ve seen of the development and the engagement of Māori businesses, they will well and truly meet that 5 percent.

Question No. 9—Health

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Matt Doocey: Why in the year to March 2020 did more than 1,200 children under the age of 12 have to wait more than eight weeks for mental health treatment?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a consequence of the years of underfunding by the previous Government, this Government has made a significant investment in mental health, and we are in catch-up mode. I am pleased to report, however, that in relation to the ring-fenced funding that DHBs get for mental health, since this Government has come into power, $318 million has been added to that ring-fenced funding. This year alone, DHBs will receive an additional $168 million more than they received in 2017 for their mental health services.

Matt Doocey: So why then has the proportion of children under 12 who are waiting longer than eight weeks almost doubled, from 12.7 percent to 23.6 percent, in the last three years under his watch?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have been the Minister of Health for about eight months, so we’ll get that correct. But it is very clear that mental health services are under pretty significant pressure at the moment. We know that. There’s been ongoing pressure for some time, and that is why when this Government took office, it took mental health seriously. It didn’t turn its back on the emerging crisis that has been going for some years now, and it has made the additional investments, continues to make those investments, and is determined to put right what the last Government left wrong.

Matt Doocey: Why, then, when he was health Minister, did he allow in the last Budget, with so much unmet need, $4 million to be taken out of mental health and redirected to the Crown due to lower-than-forecast demand for services?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If the member is referring to money from the COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund, it is different to the money that this Government has committed to mental health services and continues to commit to mental health services. There has been an ongoing, year-by-year, significant increase in the ring-fenced funding for DHBs to provide their mental health services. Some DHBs, of course, fund their mental health services more than just what they receive from that ring-fenced funding, but that funding has been increased, and this Government has investments, ongoing, to improve mental health services. The priority has been to fund the primary end of mental health care and addiction—that is to say the front line for people suffering mild to moderate mental health conditions. That was what was identified as the big gap. That is the gap we’re seeking to fill. By doing that properly—and we are less than halfway through the programme to fill that gap—that alleviates pressure on the more acute end of the services. That is the strategy that we are following.

Matt Doocey: Why does the Minister appear not to know about, from the National Mental Health Services appropriation, “$4 million of forecast savings … returned to the Crown largely driven by lower than forecast demand for services”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I do know is that this is a Government that has put in significant additional resources into mental health services, because the previous Government just turned their back on those people during an emerging mental health crisis for this country, and I am very proud of what we’re achieving so far.

Matt Doocey: So why are services seeing ballooning waiting times in the last three years, yet the Minister is claiming more money is being put in, but the Budget has $4 million being taken out of mental health?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I can say that in this year alone, an additional nearly $67 million went into the DHB ring-fenced mental health funding. That is just a small fraction of the commitment that this Government makes to improving mental health care and addiction in this country. It was neglected by the previous Government. They presided over an emerging health crisis and did absolutely nothing about it. This is a Government that takes it seriously and is doing everything we can about it, and we are less than halfway through a reform programme that is even now starting to make a significant difference.

Question No. 10—ACC

10. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: What is her response to the briefing she received from ACC which states that there are inequities in the way disabled people are treated by ACC?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for ACC): As a Government, we are committed to addressing inequities between the ACC health and welfare systems. Before we can do that we need to establish what they are and who they affect. That is why I commissioned advice on how the ACC scheme is serving women, Māori, Pacific, and disabled people and am awaiting advice on ethnic communities. I wasn’t surprised to see that there were inequities in the ACC scheme access and outcomes for those groups, but it’s actually exciting to have an evidence base for change, and I’m working with officials on options to address the inequities, also acknowledging the constructive support from the Green Party and Simon Watts from the National Party with regards to addressing those inequities.

Jan Logie: Does she agree that the ACC briefing clearly highlights the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and other rights violations for disabled people, and as a result, cannot be ignored or designated as out of scope of Government work programmes?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We certainly would not want to ignore the evidence that’s been put to us. The Government is committed to upholding New Zealand’s obligations under the UNCRPD. However, while every country that agrees to the convention has an obligation to implement it, there is no requirement to do everything at once. So I think it’s a recognition of the fact that this is ongoing work. We need to continue to do this. Also, acknowledging the independent monitoring mechanism with regards to holding us as a country to account for the UN convention, and the fact that we haven’t been able to report back to the UN because of what’s been going on with COVID and everything else, but that they will be holding a hearing here so that we can actually discuss the progress that’s been made and what else needs to be done.

Jan Logie: Based on the advice she received from ACC about the Wai 2575 inquiry, which states that there are significant areas for system-wide improvement in the Crown’s response to Māori with disabilities, what actions will she take now to improve ACC for Māori with disabilities and meet Te Tiriti obligations?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: ACC recognises its role in the wider Government system for supporting disabled people, including our whānau hauā. They are working with MBIE and Crown Law to engage constructively in the Wai 2575 inquiry, which will help to highlight areas for improvement in how the ACC health and welfare systems serve whānau hauā. But we already know that there are discrepancies in ACC system access and outcomes for Māori, which are likely to disproportionately impact Māori disabled. ACC is working to address those discrepancies through Whāia Te Tika, its Māori strategy. I acknowledge our Associate Minister for ACC, who has been leading that work.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister, are ACC’s new Māori programmes and strategies resonating with Māori, and what sort of response has she seen or received?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: They are resonating with Māori, and I do, again, acknowledge the work that the Associate Minister for ACC, the Hon Willie Jackson, has been undertaking. It was really heartening to see comments last month by a Papakura marae health clinic GP and University of Auckland associate professor, Dr Matire Harwood, who said, “This is an exciting time for ACC, never before have we seen any sort of major shift in the way ACC delivers care to Māori.” And, again, I acknowledge the role that the Associate Minister is playing in leading that work.

Jan Logie: Now that ACC is admitting to the “inequities between the level of support provided via ACC to people who become disabled as a result of injury, and the level of support provided through other parts of the system to other disabled people.”, will she advocate for the next stage of the health and disability sector review to include reform of ACC to help address this inequity?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think having an evidence base that highlights inequities is a very important platform for change, and we certainly will be looking at changes on that basis. With regard to the health and disability system review, can I say that just yesterday I met with—this morning, actually—the Disabled People’s Organisations Coalition and was really encouraged to hear that they are feeling engaged and positive about the work the Government is doing in relation to the health and disability systems review.

Jan Logie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not quite sure the core question about whether she’d advocate for the inclusion in their terms of reference was addressed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe it was.

Jan Logie: If ACC is out of scope of the health and disability review and the Minister has said she won’t consider changes to ACC until that review is finished, can she see that disabled people might feel that their needs are once again being put in the too-hard basket?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Just to clarify, I didn’t say that we wouldn’t be considering any changes to ACC in relation to addressing inequities. I didn’t say that that couldn’t happen because of the disability systems review, and I think, just to be clear, the health and disability systems review has broader implications for other agencies as well, and ACC certainly is one of them.

Jan Logie: So does the Minister think that the easiest approach to this longstanding problem might be to actually implement the recommendations of the 1967 royal commission on social security and commit to a social insurance scheme that cares for and supports people with impairments in one system, no matter how they got the impairment or whether they were working at the time of impairment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The original intent of the ACC scheme is to provide New Zealanders with cover for personal injury caused by accidents in exchange for them sacrificing their right to sue, and that is how we have landed where we are with the scheme that we have. I think we all recognise in the House that we’re very fortunate to have the ACC scheme. Internationally, I think it’s one of a kind, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t things we could improve with regards to the scheme that we currently have in place. As I said earlier, certainly looking at the evidence base in relation to inequities is a good platform for looking to change.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: What progress is being made on upgrades to regional highways?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): A number of projects are under way to help support our regions and their economic recovery. In addition to construction starting six months ago, planting has begun on the $620 million Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway, with the first 20,000 plants being delivered this week. This planting is the first of almost 2 million native shrubs and trees that will be planted as part of the project’s commitment to leaving the environment better than we found it. By sourcing the plants locally, we’re supporting the region’s economic recovery. The plants have been growing since last year at Kauri Park Nursery in Ashhurst, and 12,000 seedlings were raised at Manawatū Prison through a partnership with Rangitāne o Manawatū.

Tangi Utikere: What safety upgrades are being installed on our regional highways?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Safety upgrades are being installed in the Waikato to help save lives as part of our nationwide plan to make over 3,000 kilometres of roads safer. Works will be completed before the end of this month on State Highway 2 between Mackaytown and Waikino in the Karangahake Gorge, and State Highway 25 between Pipiroa and Orongo. Over the last couple of months in the region, we’ve already completed close to 140 kilometres of road markings, 50 kilometres of rumble strips, and around 220 new or replacement signs. Progress is also being made on our New Zealand Upgrade Programme project to install a roundabout to replace one of the most dangerous intersections, at State Highway 1 and State Highway 29 at Piarere. The preferred location has been chosen, and construction will get started early next year.

Tangi Utikere: What work is being done to upgrade the Forgotten World Highway?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As part of a package of work in the New Zealand Upgrade and Provincial Growth Fund projects on the Forgotten World Highway, work has started to build a new two-lane bridge over the damaged Manawawiri Stream culvert at Toko, east of Stratford. Other improvements planned for the Forgotten World Highway include sealing the 12 kilometres of unsealed road through Tangarakau Gorge, safety improvements, and a new bridge at the Kohouri Stream, and passing and way-finding opportunities. Once completed, the project will contribute up to $45 million to that region through increased tourism spend—

Barbara Kuriger: The project’s too slow.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —and up to 60 new jobs to support that tourism growth, and I note the interest of the local member.

Rachel Brooking: What projects are being completed on the West Coast?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Two New Zealand Upgrade projects are under way, and one is already finished. Guard rail is being installed on five single-lane bridges throughout the West Coast network, and work is under way to provide seawall protection to a section of State Highway 67 between Granity and Ngākawau. I’m also pleased to confirm that work has been completed to improve safety and access to the 130-metre long single-lane bridge to Franz Josef. The works included safety barrier upgrade works, pier-strengthening installation, and relocation and construction of a cycleway clip-on. It’s good to get on with this work that was neglected for so many years under the previous Government.

Question No. 12—Biosecurity

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand, having read Standing Order 164—I have registered my interest in a farm. I have read Standing Order 166 carefully, and before asking this question I would like to make it clear to this House that my farm has been affected by the M. bovis programme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 12, Mark Cameron.

12. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How is the effort to eradicate M. bovis tracking, and is it now in a management phase?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare)) on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: It is first important to note that this is a world-first plan to eradicate the cattle disease Mycoplasma bovis, in partnership with industry. Over three years ago, the Government, DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, and industry partners made a bold decision to go hard and commit to a 10-year programme to eradicate M. bovis to protect our most important sector and the economy. We know from overseas experience that if the disease was left to spread throughout our national herd, it would significantly affect dairy production and animal welfare. As part of this programme, we are also focused on protecting farmers’ welfare. Over the last 18 months, processes have been improved, with farmers’ feedback taken into account. This has resulted in quicker compensation payouts, more support, and shorter turn-around times for farms under movement restrictions. We know this is a tough time for farmers, and we don’t underestimate the effects on them, but we are committed to working with industry through this process. It is important to note that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) continue to evaluate the programme and identify lessons to improve our efforts in undertaking New Zealand’s largest biosecurity response. We are still in the delimiting phase of finding the remaining pockets of infection, and then we’ll move fully into long-term surveillance, ensuring that there are no undetected clusters of the disease still out there.

Mark Cameron: What is being done to support farmers after the Otago University study found that the Government’s M. bovis programme “inflicted significant and lasting trauma on farmers whose stock were culled”?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: We understand that some researchers from Otago have been studying farmers’ experience in the M. bovis programme. We believe this work is still under way, and have not received a formal report. The programme understands that the farmers surveyed were affected in the early stages of the programme. We know the M. bovis eradication effort has been challenging for farmers involved, but has substantially improved over the course of the programme. We have listened to a lot of farmer feedback, and our programme staff have been very focused on farmer welfare, including getting farmers through the process faster, with more support and shorter turn-around times for farms under movement restrictions. Alongside our partners, we have improved the compensation process, with claims paid as quickly as possible. We and our partners DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb New Zealand are continuing to work hard to support the wellbeing and recovery of those impacted by M. bovis.

Mark Cameron: How will he respond to the finding: “A dominant theme of the research was the intrusive, impractical and inhumane nature of … MPI’s … programme, in which local knowledge, expertise and pragmatism were ignored in favour of inefficient bureaucratic processes”?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: As I referenced in my primary answer to the question, we acknowledge the challenge that farmers were under. We have made significant improvements to the programme.

Mark Cameron: Is he confident that the process will improve and farmers will be more supported in the future than they have been?

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes.

Special Debates

Student Accommodation Inquiry—Report of the Education and Workforce Committee

MARJA LUBECK (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): I move, That the report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Inquiry into student accommodation be noted.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to start off this special debate into the report of the Education and Workforce Committee’s inquiry into student accommodation. As the chair of the select committee, I thought it might benefit the House for me to show how we came about this report and speak on the process that we went through and, as well, the findings of our report.

In 2020, the Education and Workforce Committee for the 52nd Parliament opened an inquiry into student accommodation because it wanted to learn more about students’ experiences and recommend what could be done to improve the systems and processes associated with student accommodation. The terms of reference for the inquiry, while we centred them around the student experience, were kept broad to allow the committee to investigate the range of issues and concerns raised through submissions, but also as a means of starting a dialogue between all the parties and how we could raise the standard of student accommodation in New Zealand. We wanted to learn more about how student accommodation providers were performing in regards to pastoral care, transparency of decision making, and cultural competency, as well as the role of those servicing student accommodation, particularly for residential assistants (RAs), who tend to live on site and provide ongoing pastoral care to their residents.

This inquiry was also designed to help inform the development of a pastoral care code by the Government. There is an interim code at the moment, which was introduced by the Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins. This interim code, which was supported by all parties, was introduced following the tragic death of Mason Pendrous in 2019, whilst living in student accommodation. Following the establishment of the current 53rd Parliament, our select committee re-adopted the inquiry and received 148 submissions and heard 30 oral submissions, including a variety of students, student associations, owners and operators of student accommodation, and tertiary education providers.

During this time, the Government was continuing its work on developing the new code of pastoral care. This will set out the expectations that tertiary organisations and accommodation providers must meet for student wellbeing and safety. Our terms of reference guided our work on this inquiry, and after listening to all the submitters, the committee’s conclusions fell into four main themes. We therefore structured our report according to these areas of the student accommodation system which seemed to be most in need of improvement.

So if I then start with the first area: we heard concerns around the transparency and accountability of the governance structures present within student accommodation. Submitters told us that finding this information can be difficult and that can then lead to a lack of understanding around who is responsible for what particular decision making. We heard from the submitters that this has practical implications, as a student may not be able to identify the appropriate point of contact for an issue they’re having and how they can resolve that issue. The Tertiary Education Union told us, for example, that due to a lack of clear and accessible information pertaining to complaints processes, policies, and governance structures, it is currently difficult for learners in student accommodation to seek adequate assistance in instances where conflict resolution is required.

Now, this particular issue of dispute resolution was then our second theme in our findings. We heard from students and student associations that more needed to be done to support students through the process and that some students had an apprehension about raising an issue as they felt they could potentially risk losing their home. Dr Myra Williamson spoke to this power imbalance in her submission, and she compared it to a line from the Eagles’ “Hotel California”: “You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.” And I believe that this may be the first time ever that the Eagles were referenced in a submission.

Submitters gave us many suggestions on how the student voice could be brought into the decision making and how information can be appropriately disseminated to enable full participation in that particular decision making. Our report recommended that student accommodation providers be required to practise the details and the outcomes outlined in the proposed education code of practice 2021. These would provide for students to be engaged in the decision making at a level where they are empowered through access to information and with access to a more strongly connected internal complaints process, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority complaints process, and the dispute resolution scheme in a proposed code of practice.

We also investigated how wellbeing and safety of staff in student accommodation was handled. In that particular regard, I want to make a mention of the high level of professionalism that there is amongst student accommodation staff. We know that accommodation staff across the board work hard and are dedicated to meeting residents’ needs and ensuring residents in student accommodation have a positive experience. Student accommodation is increasingly becoming a professional career path, and through the inquiry, the committee heard from current and former staff who have been working in this sector for a long time and have a wealth of experience. In addition to the long-term accommodation, staff are residential assistants. These roles are filled year on year by senior students and play a key part in a wider student accommodation staff support provided to residents, including, for example, initial residential support and response in identifying situations for follow-up escalation.

The committee welcomed the focus of the proposed code of practice on wellbeing and support and recommended that ongoing training should be provided to accommodation staff, including RAs, so they can perform their roles more effectively and raise the standard of the training that is provided.

Many submitters told us, including the New Zealand Union of Students’ Association, about specific areas they believe the training should include, from understanding of the Tiriti, diversity and cultural competency, physical and sexual violence prevention, and responding to mental health issues and suicide prevention. It became clear, hearing the submissions, that there was a great variety in the number of residential assistants, training, timing of training, and also expectations on them in the role. But although accommodation staff play a vital role in supporting residents’ wellbeing and safety in student accommodation, it’s important to remember that they are not the silver bullet. Accommodation staff sit amongst a wider support network available to residents, including support provided through the tertiary education provider.

So I spoke about four themes—so then I get to the final, fourth, theme, which is the emergency preparedness of tertiary education providers and their response to COVID-19. When New Zealand went into a lockdown to prepare for COVID-19 and stop the spread, the students, education providers, and accommodation providers faced uncertainty, and that led to inconsistency in the level of support and information provided to students.

We noticed that there is work being done in the proposed code to outline expectations on accommodation providers in terms of emergency response planning, guidance given to residents in an emergency situation, and on the reasonableness of accommodation providers’ refund policies, because we heard from many students about financial insecurity and they felt it was unfair that they had to pay their fees living off premises during the lockdown. So we endorse those expectations and we look forward to seeing how these submissions will inform the ongoing work that the Government is doing.

I really enjoyed working on this inquiry. All members of our select committee worked really collegially, and we look forward to the Government’s response by early August of this year.

I would like to thank everybody who made a submission during this process—the experiences that people shared with us, all of their stories. They have significantly contributed to the work and the recommendations that we subsequently made to the Government. The stories that we’re told will inform the next steps that this Government is taking, what we’re doing on the new pastoral care code of practice, and the dispute resolution scheme. That particular work will be informed by all of the stories and submissions that we heard.

I would also like to thank the officials, the advisers, and our fantastic Office of the Clerk team that supported our select committee through this particular work.

I’d like to thank my committee members, who all took part in this inquiry, for their collegial stance during the whole inquiry, so that’s Camilla Belich, Paul Goldsmith, Jan Logie, Jo Luxton, Ibrahim Omer, Angela Roberts, Erica Stanford, and Chris Baillie. Jamie Strange and Penny Simmonds get a special mention for taking part in the latter part of the inquiry. And, of course, it would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick, who was the Greens spokesperson on tertiary education at the start of the inquiry and she continued to play an important part during the inquiry in this term of our 53rd Parliament. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to speak on behalf of the National Party around this inquiry into student accommodation. And I want to start by acknowledging the many submitters who responded to the question raised by this inquiry and made their thoughts known and took the time to talk to this committee and to have their voices heard. I want to acknowledge my colleague Penny Simmonds particularly, our tertiary spokesperson, who has been working closely on this and is, unfortunately, away in the South Island today. But she, like myself and many of us on this side of the House, are naturally very concerned to ensure that students in this country get the best experience that they can during the student accommodation phase, if they, indeed, use it during their university time.

It’s a big part of the tertiary experience for many young men and women in this country, most often in the first year, having left home, sometimes going to another city, sometimes actually just going down the road in the same city to have the experience of living in a hostel and the wonderful social times involved in that. And most of the time it goes very well, and great memories are formed, lifetime friendships are formed, and people go on to study and to live happy and healthy lives. And the less that the parents know about the details of what goes on in these particular student accommodations the better. I know myself, having the prospect of some of my children heading off in this direction in the next little while, I’m not sure that I necessarily want to know exactly what happens. But I’m confident—

Simeon Brown: You’ll see it on TikTok.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, that’s right. TikTok is sometimes useful in getting an idea of what’s happening.

Nevertheless, with the numbers involved—so, like I say, most go along into student accommodation, whether through the university or tertiary provider or through some sort of charitable foundation or a church or something like that. They come through and they have a good experience. But, of course, with the numbers involved—tens of thousands of students—there will also always be problems, there will be tragedies, there will be extreme personal circumstances through that period. And this inquiry was sparked by one such tragedy: that of the devastating loss of Mason Pendrous in 2019 and the circumstances around that. And many people were naturally concerned by that and wanting to ensure that we did have systems in place across the sector to try and reduce the chance of something like that happening again.

But when we step back and look at the question of student accommodation, the thing that probably wasn’t a focus of this inquiry, but may well have been, is the more fundamental issue of affordability, because that is a big element of it. There’s no question that student accommodation generally, whether they are provided by the institutions themselves or elsewhere, is relatively expensive. Of course, particularly in the university setting, where it might only be 30 weeks a year or less where people are needing to be accommodated, that does create its own sort of difficulties from an organisational point of view, and then there are the wider expectations of being fed and looked after. So it’s an expensive proposition, and many families struggle with that cost, and many students, of course, are very mindful of taking on student debt. So we all have an interest in ensuring that the sector is as efficient as possible.

And the very worst outcome of such a review like this would have been if the rest of the committee had listened to the Greens’ proposal, which was to do away with any private providers in this sector, which is not, I suppose, unexpected from the Green Party, but that would have been, I think, a very bad outcome. Everybody knows that the universities in this country are not necessarily always the most cost-efficient organisations in the country. I don’t like to be unkind to the university sector, but it is not necessarily the most cost-efficient sector in the country. I always found it very easy to wind up the previous vice-chancellor at the University of Auckland by pointing to the fact that the university bought a very large section in Newmarket and had plans to do something with it over the next 50 years, but didn’t seem to be in any hurry, and clearly they had more money than they knew what to do with if that was the circumstance.

So what you have is organisations that are incredibly administratively heavy and quite expensive, and so it is critical that the sector also includes private sector providers and not-for-profit providers to keep the institutions themselves on their toes and to drive down costs so that students are not overburdened with debt going into their lives. And, of course, it plugs into the wider housing affordability issue, which I think is one of the critical issues facing this country at the moment. And there has been an explosion in growth in the development of particularly institutional tertiary education - provided housing and accommodation over the last few years, driven primarily by the very shortage of supply of housing in our cities—particularly in Auckland—and the cost therein. That is, of course, a much broader discussion, but it is an essential context to what we’re talking about here.

In terms of the actual focus then on the student accommodation, I mean, we have to not just conclude that the solution to every problem is yet more regulation and training and further requirements, because we do recognise that there is a clear relationship between some of those regulations and requirements and cost. Ultimately, it is those students that bear that cost. And we don’t want our young people starting off their working life overburdened with debt any more than they need to be. So we want to have a simple and clear and effective way of ensuring, first and foremost, there is clarity of information, so that there’s no misunderstandings about the rules and the liabilities when people change their mind, when they want to move, and what they’re going to get and what they’re not going to get. And the code of compliance that was drawn together quickly in response to the terrible case a few years ago steered in that right direction, and the draft proposals around that code that we’ve developed in the course of this inquiry make sense. Likewise with dispute resolution processes, again, having some clarity there is helpful.

And thirdly, in the area of having some recognised student voice in the process—equally important. Again, one or two people suggested that students should be on the governing board of all such institutions, and that doesn’t necessarily make sense, particularly in the company context, but there can well be some way of having that voice extended and included in the discussions.

The only point I would make around the frequent references to the need for consistency throughout the sector—and I don’t see that myself. I don’t think the world has to be the same everywhere. You can have a variety of experiences and a variety of providers, just as you do when students leave the student accommodation and go into flats—they have all sorts of weird and wonderful experiences and different approaches, and everything doesn’t have to be consistent. But what we do obviously need to have is student accommodation that is safe and where there is clarity around the expectations about what you do get and what you don’t get, and where, if things go wrong, there is a good, clear process to deal with such disputes. And in so far as the code brings better progress in that area, we in the National Party support it in that respect.

But I suppose my final point to make is, when we talk about student accommodation, the broader issue that is most concerning to parents and students themselves is the overall affordability of the process so that they can have that wonderful experience of being in the hostel and forming those lifetime friendships without saddling themselves with unsustainable debt. And in that way, a real focus on the effectiveness of housing policies—

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

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. A few months ago, we sat in a select committee and the organiser of Rent Strike VUWSA—that is, Victoria University of Wellington Students’ Association—Azaria Howell waved around a packet of two-minute noodles. This was our symbol of the money left behind in the pockets of students and whānau after student accommodation was paid for—in fact, on the flip side, the quality of the sense of wellbeing that she felt she was receiving from her student accommodation provision. It reminded me of the point made by students a wee while ago that when you’re broke for a few years, that’s not any more just being broke, that it’s not some temporary rite of passage; it is, in fact, poverty.

We’ve rightfully spent a lot of parliamentary time debating housing in this country, and the Greens have fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of the 1.4 million New Zealanders who rent are also in that picture. But student accommodation, which is home to thousands, particularly thousands of young New Zealanders, has never really been a particularly well understood part of that puzzle until this inquiry came along, and this inquiry came along because things weren’t working all too well.

The year 2019 saw the devastating death of Mason Pendrous in a University of Canterbury Hall managed by Campus Living Villages, or CLV. My greatest condolences to his family. And here I want to actually pay tribute to the words of his stepfather, Anthony Holland, who said, and I quote, “He wasn’t a young man that died alone—he’s a young man that changed the law and it doesn’t give me comfort, but it makes me feel a little bit happier that he’s changed the world.” “He was a very, very bright, very mature young brave man.”

Within a few short months thereafter, everybody in this Parliament voted to implement a legislative interim code of conduct on pastoral care. The intention was there but, unfortunately, the teeth to enforce the rights of students were not, and in March 2020 the global pandemic reached our shores. In our country’s first COVID lockdown, my inbox—and I’m sure those of my colleagues in this Chamber—were flooded with tertiary and polytech students who’d had conflicting advice about whether to stay or to go. Others were being charged for vacant rooms, including those that they had been locked out of. The more that I dug into these issues for students, the more roadblocks I found and the more complex I found this area of student accommodation was.

In fact, it felt, or turned out, that the rules were set up to exclude them from access to the rights that are enjoyed by other residential tenants—those are renters—and financial compensation for wrongdoing, access to the Tenancy Tribunal, and, in fact, also to enable certain suspect developers to market student units to investors with an effective guaranteed return on that investment because of explicit long-term contracts with certain providers, despite having no meaningful obligations in the alternative.

I reached out to the Minister of Education—and I want to thank Chris Hipkins for responding to me—about the desperate need to improve, not just formalise and make permanent, that interim code of conduct, because it was falling short. So thereafter, across this House we instigated the inquiry into student accommodation. I want to thank members across the House, notably also my forebear in Auckland Central the Hon Nikki Kaye, for not just entertaining the idea but for collaborating so wholeheartedly in it.

As has been noted, the Greens were proudly the only party to maintain throughout, as reflected in this report, that student accommodation should not be for profit. When a priority like that competes with wellbeing, you can understand why students come out sometimes feeling like cash cows. I am also incredibly proud of the work that will see real mediation avenues with compensation available for the first time to students. This won’t sit in the Tenancy Tribunal, because, as we identified, they aren’t quite equipped with the right kinds of expertise, because student accommodation provision, importantly, has far greater expectations placed on it. We will also see greater transparency of services, costs, and expectations published online, and it will all be monitored by an independent body, not the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.

Institutions throughout this inquiry told us that they were doing great and had been unfairly targeted. But students told us that they wanted and needed stronger protections. When we raise standards, we ensure that nobody is left behind and provide a platform to showcase reputations that truly go above and beyond.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I rise to take a call on the Education and Workforce Committee’s student accommodation inquiry. The purpose of the inquiry was to look at the existing situation with student welfare and the availability of places for students to live. The experience of leaving home, meeting new people, and experiencing new things can be a daunting thought for both students and parents. What’s more important than caring for our kids, making sure that they’re safe and happy? The inquiry endeavoured to find out the issues and put processes in place to minimise the stresses of being a student.

Having spent a very short time in Weir House while studying at Victoria University, I can’t really speak from experience, and I was lucky to find alternative accommodation when the hall life didn’t suit me. But it was a lot easier way back in the 1980s. Ultimately, the issue of student accommodation, or lack of it, is a housing issue, and there are just not enough places. Students are being encouraged to do further study, and not a lot of thought has gone into where they’ll live. Housing and the hall stock are just not keeping up. Lack of competition in the rental market has flow-on effects, and correcting this imbalance is a huge part of ACT’s housing policy.

Private providers are fulfilling an important role in alleviating the shortage problem and providing accommodation for those students who prefer the independence and ability to prepare for life after study. These providers are often chosen by the student as part of the experience, and, as with all landlords, there are standards that should be met. Monitoring that this happens should follow landlord-tenant arrangements. Most parents would ensure that this happens if they were worried about their child’s welfare, and most landlords want to provide a good service.

It became apparent through the submission process that not all student accommodation was bad. In fact, most enjoyed the hall environment. But a number of issues that have been highlighted could be managed better. I feel a number of the submitters expressing a positive view of hall life didn’t really get a fair hearing, and their positive views were often dismissed or even viewed as having another agenda. These were students who had gone through the system—not the providers, who have a reason to say good things. These students had good stories to tell.

Student welfare must be a top priority when thinking about the big step from home to some form of study. As I mentioned, the experience can be quite daunting, and parents have enough stress in their lives than to be constantly worrying about their studying child. There needs to be a structure, an understanding, and standards to be met by the providers, but we must be careful not to quickly lay blame, should matters arise. The residential assistants, or the RAs, need to be looked after, trained well, and have clear guidelines to enable them to take on the challenge of other students’ problems. Students need to know where to go and who to talk to if they are experiencing difficulties.

Students must also be constantly reminded that they chose to leave home—in most cases, but that is another matter—and start their life adventure. Too often, the age demographic that we’re looking at want the rights of taxpaying adults but the responsibilities of children, and I say that as a father of 18-year-old twin girls. There’s a happy medium. I welcome the recommendations of the committee but urge caution with the way they are enacted. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise to speak in this debate on the report on the inquiry into student accommodation, not as a member of the committee but as a mother of two university students, and also as the MP for Ilam, which is where the University of Canterbury sits.

As we’re aware, this inquiry was triggered by the tragic death of 19-year-old Mason Pendrous in his room at the University of Canterbury. I’d just like to take a moment to talk a little about Mason, in the words of the Hon Justice Toogood in his report. He said that, “Mason was regarded by those privileged to know him as a very likeable, friendly and helpful person, with a quiet, independent personality and a quirky sense of humour.” I’d also like to acknowledge the profound losses of Mason’s stepfather, Antony Holland, who he called dad, and his dad, Steve Pendrous. My younger daughter was the same age as Mason in 2019, and also at university, and so I can only begin to understand and imagine the depth of their pain, and will apologise for any additional distress that this process will undoubtedly be causing.

As parents, we know that our young people are profoundly vulnerable when they first leave home to go to university or take on further study. They are most vulnerable, at a time when they feel invincible. Above all, what we want for our children and young people is for them to be safe. Now, we know that university accommodation typically costs more than accommodation in the private sector, and the expectation with that additional cost being that there will be a little more oversight and that students will get a student experience whilst also being close to their peers. But this inquiry has shown that this increased perception of safety is just that in many cases—a perception—but there is a great deal of variation across the country.

Here I need to acknowledge the commitment of the leadership team at the University of Canterbury, led by Vice-Chancellor Cheryl de la Rey. I’d like to outline a few of the changes that they have instigated since the tragic death of Mason. They have a totally new framework now for pastoral care in all their halls, and don’t offer semi-independent accommodation packages to their first-year students any more. They’ve made significant and immediate increase to the ratio of residential assistants who live on sight, and these are often senior students who provide oversight and support. The students will often reach out to the residential assistants when they have a problem, but this report did highlight that some providers didn’t have an effective escalation process, so this needs addressing, clearly. In Canterbury, the management of all halls has been strengthened, and they’ve established a student success framework with an e-learning platform called Analytics for Course Engagement, or ACE, which has been really successful at ensuring that there’s greater tracking of the students’ progress as they continue through the university journey. It’s been particularly successful during the COVID-19 lockdown, because it enabled the student advisers to monitor the student wellbeing more effectively, and so successful has it been that University of Canterbury is working with the Tertiary Education Commission to explore future implementation at other tertiary institutions. In addition, they’ve created a buddy system, which is available for all first-year students, and expanded the induction process and programme, which covers support services.

So, in short, whilst I am really heartened to see the University of Canterbury take a lead in making some positive changes, I would urge continued improvement, and I would also urge all of our tertiary institutes to keep Mason Pendrous in their thoughts as they work to make their positive changes that are so needed. As my colleague across the House Chlöe Swarbrick just quoted, from Mason’s stepdad, his dad, “He was a young man who changed the world.” Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to join colleagues in the House this afternoon in speaking to what I think has been an important inquiry into student accommodation and in actually acknowledging this special debate process, because I think it gives the opportunity to dig into some issues that have concerned members across the House for quite some time.

This inquiry was triggered by, as we’ve heard, the tragic death of a 19-year-old student, and an inquiry has explored some of the complications or challenges that arose, which Chlöe Swarbrick spoke about, particularly during the COVID lockdown periods. But I think we would be kidding ourselves if we didn’t put on record that some of these challenges have existed in student accommodation for quite some time, and it’s the challenge of consistency that I think the inquiry has been able to examine.

One of the things that I think every student would expect when they embark on their tertiary education is that if they choose to live in student accommodation, that experience supports, enables, and enhances their learning and their life. And as others have mentioned, we as parents often send our children—and they are children—off to university, and it’s a transition between children, young adults, and their entry into the world, and I think perhaps at times what has come out of this inquiry is the appreciation that a young person might leave home confident about their next steps but then is confronted with the reality of what it means to have left home, what it means to be independent, and what it means to have to deal with some of these challenges on their own, and their ability would be hugely variable in terms of navigating what support is available and what voice they have in being able to raise concerns.

One of the things I wanted to put on record for my colleague Penny Simmonds, who was lead on this inquiry from the National side, was the need to ensure that any complaints mechanism or dispute resolution mechanism is simple and easy to access. One of things that sometimes we can do with the best intentions here in Parliament is add regulation and add layers of complexity that actually remove and get a step further away from what I think young people need to do.

I think there’s also an expectation from parents when they are sending their children to university—and many of the parents are the ones financially supporting their young adult—that they will be in an environment that’s safe and, yes, while I agree with my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, many of us don’t want to know the details of what occurs while they’re there, but we do want to know that they are going to be safe and that if there is anything that concerns them, they have the ability to raise it.

Some of where the issues have come up is around the residential advisers, the RAs, and I think they’re a really important part of the hostel, student accommodation provision. But my understanding from conversations from RAs and also from students and from the hostel providers themselves is they’re more like a big brother or big sister. They’re not social workers. And that’s where I think at times some of the challenges that young people have brought to RAs may well be beyond their capacity or capability, and the RAs have wanted to support the young person and to support the confidentiality of the conversations that have occurred, but through a lack of capability have then been out of their depth and unable to provide the support that we think needs to be provided.

I think that’s one of the areas that’s going to be really important. I agree with my colleague Paul Goldsmith that we must ensure there’s a range of choices available for students, for families, both for the first year and beyond, but that environment must mean, if it is a hostel or student accommodation, as we’ve talked about in this inquiry, that there is support and there is easy access to raise concerns, and that when concerns go beyond the ability of the person that first deals with it, there is an easy process to then help that young person navigate to other services. That may also mean reaching out to that young person’s family to help them navigate that as well. I am pleased that this inquiry has been supported across the Parliament with the intention of improving the student experience for every student.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like many of the previous speakers in the introduction to the inquiry, I’d like to start with acknowledging the death of Mason Pendrous and the tragedy that that was. Like his father has said, it’s good to see that there was progress made both in 2019 and now with the inquiry and further piece of work. I’m not on the select committee that was discussing or doing the inquiry but I was part of it for some of the time and I was able to hear some very moving submissions.

My own experience with student accommodation is that I’m a proud Otago graduate but at the time that I was at university living in Dunedin I was not able to go to a hall, as they were, because they were all so full up and so popular—and they are a really important part of that Otago University experience, I think. The OUSA, Otago University Students’ Association, submission said that there’s over 4,000 students at Otago in this type of accommodation. When I was going through university, there was certainly the range, and there still is, of the trust-based—as in governed by a trust—type of hall and also the ones run by the university. My husband went to one that was run by—it was religious. Then when I was living in Dunedin as a lawyer, I was on the advisory board of one of the university ones that was different from a lot of what we’ve heard about in the inquiry because it was postgraduate and internationally focused. I was also involved during my time at the university as a university student representative on the university council, which is obviously relevant to the governance of these university-run student hostels. But what I heard when I was sitting in the select committee was that there was much more diversity than what I witnessed as a student and adviser, and that, in fact, there are a lot of privately run, for-profit, and also joint ventures with different universities and institutions with private providers.

So what I’m particularly interested in with that background is the role of students in leading and directing and improving what it is that student accommodation can offer, and I just would like to go now to the Otago University Students’ Association submission that was on this point at 3.4. It says that “Many students’ accommodation providers currently do not allow for student input within their governance structure. Given that student accommodation is inherently provided for students, it is imperative that students be given a say in the services they are provided and the governance of the organisation, which provides them. Therefore, we believe that all student accommodation providers should be required to have student input and representation in their governance. This will ultimately make student accommodation better for everyone.”, and that is something that I endorse.

My experience is that where students are involved in participating in what happens with their place of residence, that does then support the wellbeing that some of the other speakers have spoken about. My friend Ibrahim Omer is not able to be in the House today and he is a permanent member of the select committee and cares greatly about this topic, and so I asked him if there was anything that he particularly wanted me to say. He did say that this pastoral care code really does need to be the focus of the continued discussion from the inquiry, and that it’s important that we get it right. Like me, he’s a fan of student involvement and thinks that it’s very important to work with students because they are best placed to speak for themselves. Being a permanent member of the committee, Ibrahim Omer heard a lot of emotional testimony from students who really shared their views and they do need to be listened to both for the work of this inquiry and the future. He also noted that some student accommodation has been toxic, especially for migrants, and that it’s especially important that student providers do have cultural competence training—and this has been part of one of the recommendations of the inquiry, at recommendation 7. So on that note, Madam Speaker, thank you for enabling this discussion of the inquiry and thank you to the select committee for the very good piece of work that they’ve produced.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a short call on this inquiry into student accommodation, which the Education and Workforce Committee has done an excellent job on. I do just want to acknowledge my colleague in the Green Party Chlöe Swarbrick for bringing this to the attention of the House, but also my former colleague Nikki Kaye, who was a big supporter of making sure that this inquiry did take place due to the fact that it is a very serious issue.

There are many thousands of New Zealanders who live in student accommodation and who rely on the services that are provided and, as has been said from a number of previous speakers in this debate, there is a duty of care to those young people as they step out of their parents’ homes and as they enter the big, bright, sparkly world and as they get on their own two feet. It is a challenging time in young people’s lives but also a time of great opportunity. It’s important that the right care and support is there for those young people so that they are able to thrive as they grow up and as they go forward in their lives.

This particular inquiry has, I think, unpicked a number of the key issues. I didn’t sit on the select committee but I was on the Education and Workforce Committee in the last Parliament and so am very aware of many of these issues. Obviously, there’s the very sad passing of Mason Pendrous, and there were significant issues that took place during COVID-19 and young people, effectively, being put in very awkward positions going home but still having to pay for accommodation and the many challenges that took place during those lockdowns for young people in these circumstances.

I do think it’s important that there is that cross-party support for the code, cross-party support for the better and, I guess, more transparent responsibilities upon providers to ensure that they are living up to a code which does mean that students living in that accommodation have the right processes to make sure that they have their concerns heard and that changes are then able to be made. I think that’s certainly something that was reflected very much in the submissions. I think Parliament did act in relation to some of those issues by putting in place the code. But there is always more to be done. I think some of the recommendations which are being made in this inquiry reinforced the importance of having the pastoral care of tertiary and international students’ codes of practice.—making sure that that has the right balance between the responsibility of those people who own and operate student accommodation and the rights of the people who are in there.

As my colleague Paul Goldsmith did allude to, the National Party didn’t support the proposal put forward by the Green Party that all student accommodation should be provided, essentially, by the State. One only needs to look at the many challenges the Government is already facing in the housing space to know that this is not necessarily the answer in terms of trying to fix the problem. There has been, I think, an increase of four or five times the number of people in emergency accommodation on the social housing waiting list. There are serious and significant challenges facing New Zealanders in these areas, and to essentially say that coming in and making it publicly run is not necessarily going to fix the issues. The Government does have an interest in ensuring that they are appropriately run, as the Government has an interest with the Residential Tenancies Act and other legislation around other accommodation rules and regulations, but that does not mean the Government should be the sole provider of a particular service. That’s where the National Party’s view very firmly stands; that this code is important, it must have the right balance, but stepping forward and saying that the Government should effectively manage all student accommodation is not necessarily the answer to this issue. We commend this report to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this inquiry conducted by the Education and Workforce Committee, of which I am the deputy chair. Like other speakers, the first thing I wanted to do was to acknowledge the friends and family of Mason Pendrous and acknowledge the tragic circumstances of his passing. I hope no other family has to suffer in this way, and it was good to hear the changes implemented by the University of Canterbury, as mentioned by my colleague Sarah Pallett.

This inquiry is particularly important to me as a former student representative. Last year, I spoke to the conference of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations, and one of the key issues for the student representatives there was this inquiry and its progress. Most if not all of the associations present at that conference had submitters to this inquiry, and they were keen to see changes made for the benefit of students and their families. I hope that the findings and changes as a result of this inquiry start to address the needs that they had identified.

I thought in this short call I would just go through some of the key recommendations made by this inquiry. I’m not sure if I’ve heard other speakers go through all of them, so for the benefit of the House, I thought that would be a good use of this time. The first recommendation was to improve transparency of providers, in line with the requirements in the pastoral care provisions that cover international students. This is a key theme of this inquiry. It is to align the pastoral care that exists for international students with the care that exists for domestic students, and I think that this is a very apt thing to do and will mean that the care that all students receive is more aligned.

Another key theme and recommendation was increasing the student voice in providers’ decision-making, and this has been mentioned by a number of speakers, most recently my colleague Rachel Brooking. I think that this is a requirement that currently does also apply to international students. So as a former student representative, I have often thought about the value of student input into student affairs and student representation into the needs of students, and, obviously, I support that recommendation.

It also looked at and recommended stronger protection for the rights of students. The committee recognised the inherent power imbalance between students and accommodation providers. These issues were in turn highlighted by the COVID-19 lockdowns, with students submitting that it was hard to get providers to engage, respond, and resolve problems. Students were unsure of their rights, especially in relation to key provisions like terminations of tenancy, so the committee has recommended clear rights and obligations and robust dispute resolution systems to address this.

The fourth recommendation is similar to the third. It recommended raising the standard of the internal dispute resolution systems that providers have themselves, to greater align with the code that currently applies to international students—so not exactly the same point, but looking at those internal processes and making sure that they align—which I think will definitely be something that would improve the experience for students and providers.

The fifth recommendation that the committee looked at also concerned dispute resolution and suggested strengthening the connection between providers’ internal complaints procedures, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority complaints process, and the proposed new separate dispute resolution process that would exist for providers and students using this accommodation. I think this is a sensible recommendation that would provide greater clarity and consistency for the students that are using the accommodation.

The sixth recommendation suggests further alignment, again, between the international and domestic code, and the last—seventh—recommendation focused on residential assistants (RAs), the people that support students within that accommodation. It suggested training be provided to all RAs. Many in this House may remember when RAs were simply students who had gone through the accommodation the year before, and often did an excellent job of pastoral care, despite sometimes the lack of training and support. Submitters also notably asked the committee to prioritise the health and wellbeing of students and look at disaster preparedness, and I hope this is considered when the Government responds to this inquiry.

So, in conclusion, we look forward to the Government’s response to this inquiry and the proposed pastoral care code and proposed dispute resolution scheme, and hope that when this is put in place, it results in an all-round safer, secure experience for tauira and their whānau.

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

Bills

Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I seek leave to present a more recent version of the legislative statement that was circulated this morning, which better reflects the changes that were made to the bill at the select committee stage.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you Madam Speaker. Given that, I move, That the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

The Government is committed to strengthening the Family Court, and this bill forms part of a long-term programme of change focused on improving access to justice for children, for parents, and for whānau in care of children disputes. This bill will also enhance children’s participation in the proceedings that affect them and help to ensure that children feel supported and informed as they move through the Family Court process. It will also expand lawyers’ duties in care and protection proceedings and reinforce expectations that people should be protected from family violence.

The bill has been considered by the Justice Committee, and that committee recommends by majority that it be passed with sensible amendments, that I support in full, to four clauses. I thank all members of the select committee for their thorough consideration of the bill. Sixty-seven submissions were received on the bill from people and organisations with valuable and varied experience, and the resulting changes have, the Government believes, strengthened the bill.

The purpose of the bill is to reinforce the expectation that a child should have reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their care and welfare, and to ensure that lawyers who are appointed to represent children in proceedings in a Family Court are suitably qualified to represent the child or young person and that they explain the proceedings of the court to their clients. It also requires lawyers to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes in order to minimise harm to children, families, and whānau, and also to reinforce the need for the court to recognise and to respond appropriately to family violence, particularly the impact it has on children.

The bill does not lower existing application thresholds, nor does it put more disputes in court or encourage a more legalistic approach. The bill also does not remove or omit recourse to alternative dispute resolution.

At this point, can I acknowledge my predecessor in this portfolio, the Hon Andrew Little. Last term—I believe, in early 2018—he set up an independent panel to examine the family justice reforms of 2014. That panel identified that there is limited participation by children in issues that affect them, and there is concern that children’s views are not obtained and considered both in out-of-court and in-court processes. Studies do show that children want to be involved in decision making and can experience immediate and long-term consequences if they aren’t listened to, which includes feelings of being isolated, lonely, anxious, and having difficulty coping with stress. To respond to these issues, the bill will amend the Care of Children Act to establish a new guiding principle that a child should be given reasonable opportunities to participate in any decisions affecting them during the court process, and also to provide express reference to article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, reinforcing existing expectations about the view of a child.

The bill will also amend the Family Dispute Resolution Act to ensure that the children who are subjects of a dispute are given any reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions affecting them that the family dispute resolution (FDR) provider considers appropriate. The bill also emphasises the importance of engaging children appropriately in processes that affect their care. Providing children with an opportunity to express their views can help parents focus on the needs of their children rather than their own conflict in a dispute that either goes before the court or does not. It can also help children adjust to their parents’ separation, including improved mental health outcomes, and it can contribute to more durable care arrangements at the end of a FDR process or a court process. Overwhelmingly, children want to participate in family life, to have a say, and to have an opportunity to make their feelings about the parental conflict known.

The independent panel that I spoke of earlier also identified that there is considerable variation in how lawyers for a child obtain and represent the child’s view, and there is no legislative requirement for lawyers to understand a child’s cultural background. In responding to these issues, the bill will amend the Care of Children Act to require that on appointing a lawyer for a child, a lawyer’s personality, their cultural background, training, and experience must be considered, and to require that a lawyer appointed to represent a child must explain the nature of the proceedings to the child in a manner that the child is most likely to understand, and support the child’s ability to express informed views. These amendments are intended to ensure that children feel supported and informed as they move through the Family Court process.

The panel also identified that the family justice system does not respond well to family violence, particularly the impact it has on children. So, again, the bill will amend the Care of Children Act to require that the court must have regard to the principles set out in section 4 of the Family Violence Act, emphasising safety as a primary consideration in the assessment of a child’s situation. The bill signals this Government’s continued focus on enhancing safety and strengthening responses to children at risk of family violence.

The panel also identified that delay is widespread and it undermines confidence in the Family Court and contributes to deepening family and whānau conflict. The bill will also, again, amend the Care of Children Act to impose a duty on lawyers to promote the resolution of disputes as safely, fairly, inexpensively, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice. This amendment is intended to lead to better, less harmful outcomes for the child, it will be beneficial at the time when the Family Court is under significant pressure, and it will save capacity for those requiring timely judicial intervention. Since 2014, when those Family Court reforms were made, an increase in delays has meant longer resolution times in care of children disputes and the parents of children being left in limbo, and there are around 16,000 children subject to Care of Child Act proceedings in the Family Court each year. We know that Care of Children Act applications take, on average, 300 days to resolve, and this is particularly detrimental to children, as their sense of time is slower than adults. It may also mean that children do not have contact with one parent for an extended period of time, which may lead to a degradation of a relationship and limit the child’s participation in the parent’s culture.

I want to thank the independent panel again for the report on the 2014 justice reforms, ably supported by the expert reference group. That report has informed the development of this bill and will provide the foundation for further reforms in the family justice system. The Government remains committed to addressing the issues identified by the panel, as well as broader underlying systemic issues and barriers to access to justice, and we know that that will take time.

This bill forms part of a wider programme of work to support families through the family justice system. The latest phase includes the establishment of Family Court associates to reduce judges’ administrative burdens and enable faster resolution of disputes in the Family Court, a consideration of a review of the Family Court Rules to better facilitate the efficient operation of the Family Court and meet the needs of an increasing number of self-represented litigants, improving the recruitment and retention and support of specialist report writers to preserve the Family Court’s access to expert information, and enhancing family justice professionals’ training to ensure they have the skills and resources to identify and respond to family violence.

Together with this bill, these initiatives will promote our vision of a family justice system that is safe and responsive to the diverse needs of those who are going through it, and where all parties should and will have a voice. It is a family justice system that continues to place a child’s wellbeing at its heart. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. At the start of this debate, the Minister sought leave for the tabling of an amended legislative statement, which the House granted. But I’m reminded, as a member of the Standing Orders Committee, of the purpose of that statement. The 2020 Standing Orders report made it very clear that the corollary to the tabling of a legislative statement was to allow the Minister to engage in a more free-flowing debate, and the expectation was that Ministers—certainly, Ministers who are in charge of the bill—would not be reading their speeches. Now, I point this out not to criticise Minister Faafoi, but just to highlight that, actually, this has become a trend over the last few weeks, and I would suggest to the House and to Ministers listening that there is a real value in this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that I hope can be encouraged.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that—thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. The National Party believes that this bill has good intent, but the National Party will not be supporting this piece of legislation due to the fact that it will make very little difference for children and young people and is more likely to see more cases being seen in the courts rather than being sorted out out of court, and that is something that we and many submitters see as being of very serious concern.

The history of this legislation goes back to 2011, when the National Government directed a Ministry of Justice review of the Family Court which resulted in major reforms to the family justice system in 2014. This bill is, essentially, trying to unwind those pieces of legislation and the impact that they did have on resolving family disputes in what was a relatively quick time frame. There was a 2014 report which was done to look at the outcomes of those reforms, which showed that in-court processes for these resolutions took approximately, on average, 268 days. Out-of-court resolution could be achieved in only 37 days, on average—a far better outcome in these cases. This legislation seeks to unwind some of these reforms and has, in my opinion and National’s opinion, been something which, effectively, is an outcome of what has been a long and meandering process by the Minister of Justice to, effectively, look at unwinding these reforms.

In 2018, the Minister of Justice established an independent panel to evaluate the 2014 reforms. It’s now 2021—three years later. After this working group put together its recommendations, we’re finally here at the second reading of this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is very inconsequential, but it is going to make a difference in that it will make things more timely and will make things more difficult to actually get resolutions. What we’re talking about here is, effectively, after three years, a two-page bill, which is seeking to make substantive changes but, effectively, makes very little, but it will have very poor outcomes.

Listening to the submitters, there were a number of concerns raised about what evidence there was and what research there was to show an evidence-based model for children’s participation and guidelines about the circumstances where children should be involved. There were also concerns raised about the impact of having more lawyers involved in their situations and what that would actually do to get these things resolved. There was particular concern raised by some organisations which said that “In terms of successes experienced by out-of-court mediation, it is proven to be the optimal way for resolving disputes. Court can be disruptive and destructive for relationships and should only be used in a small number of cases. Mediation provides the opportunity for relationships between parties to be healed.”

So on this side of the House, we’re saying that, actually, what this piece of legislation does, whilst it has a good intent of trying to provide a stronger voice for the child—what it, effectively, will do is mean that the situation and the conflicts which are trying to be resolved become more lawyered up and take longer to be resolved, and that will lead to worse outcomes in these circumstances.

There was particular concern raised about new section 7, in clause 7, which puts in a requirement that when appointing a lawyer to represent a child, the court or registrar must take into account a range of different factors such as the personality, cultural background, training, and experiences of the lawyer to ensure they’re suitably qualified to represent the child. The question was raised: what is the training that is given to the registrar to actually ensure they are able to take into account all of those factors? Where’s the confidence going to be in the system to actually ensure they’re going to be able to take into account all of those factors that those children have so that they can actually appoint the right lawyer? There’s also a concern around the lack of training and lack of skills of potential lawyers in this case to take into account matters such as child development, psychology, and sexual violence—serious issues which need to be faced in these circumstances.

So whilst we agree that there are concerns around this, we want to ensure that if the professionals are getting involved, we want to see the right professionals with the right training, and we don’t feel this simple piece of legislation, which makes simple changes, is actually going to deal with the complexity and the real, serious live situations that these children are facing. So this piece of legislation, whilst well-intentioned, effectively, takes us back rather than taking us forward, and it doesn’t actually address the real issue which needs to be addressed, which is ensuring that these resolutions are dealt with in a timely fashion. Our fear and our concern is that it’s going to increase those time frames, which means young people and families are not getting their disputes resolved in a timely fashion.

The old saying is that “Justice delayed is justice denied”. We want to see these situations resolved as quickly as possible for the benefit of all parties involved. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I stand and appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill as the chair of the Justice Committee and after hearing all of the submitters who came forward to share their views on this particular piece of legislation. I think anybody in this House today who has either done constituent work or has known somebody who’s been through the Family Court process will know that it can be a particularly harrowing experience and that the challenge that lies before any person that goes through the Family Court process during, no doubt usually, a relationship breakdown is to be a big enough person to put the needs of a child, or your children, before your own. At the time when a relationship has broken down, emotions and feelings can be particularly raw, and it is sometimes processes that exacerbate those tensions and stop us from focusing on putting the needs of children first.

This bill attempts a long journey in attempting to rectify a process that has been overly combative and, quite frankly, traumatic to many families who have been through it already. It is sad and distressing when a focus is placed upon the breakdown of a relationship, rather than on putting the needs of the child first. So what this bill does is to emphasise children’s wellbeing and also it values engaging children appropriately in decisions that directly affect them.

We’ve already heard from speakers today about the changes that happened in 2014 under the last National Government, and while, as Simeon Brown, the last speaker, mentioned, they were designed to de-lawyer or to take things out of a courtroom context, the reality is that at the time when someone is coming to this point, mediation or a lower level sometimes isn’t just appropriate. After a relationship has broken down, it is incredibly difficult to facilitate always in those contexts, and that was really evidenced in the fact of the huge increase in without notice applications. They completely shot up over that time, after the 2014 changes, and that resulted in excessive delay. I agree with the member when he states that justice delayed is justice denied, because that is exactly what has been happening with the Family Court system over the last decade.

So what will this bill do to remedy those factors? I just want to highlight again, before we go to the submissions and speak to some of the key points made, that this is the beginning. We have a long way to go. This bill will be part of a range of measures that will attempt to make our court system far more user-friendly to the people who have to be at the heart of it.

The submissions that we received were very interesting and they spoke to some of those things that we saw in the report that was commissioned by Andrew Little back in 2018. So, in 2019, we had the report that looked at those clear problems, and they were that the participation of children wasn’t good enough, that there was very little recognition of cultural diversity or different cultural backgrounds and that wasn’t taken into account by the courts, and it was also the delay that I’ve already mentioned. There was a huge delay, and sometimes that delay even intensified the trauma and the stigma that some families were going through, particularly when that related to family violence. The last point that was found was that there was a real lack of the ability for the court to be able to respond to family violence, particularly with children being involved.

Look, I’ll briefly touch on some of the submissions we received, because the heart of the submissions that the committee found really useful was focusing on what is that role of involving the child. That’s a very difficult balance to strike—at what level should that be happening? Many of the submissions were made on those two key professional roles within the family justice system that facilitate children’s participation, and that is the lawyer for child and also the family dispute resolution (FDR) provider.

We had a really thorough submission from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, and it was interesting to note that he submitted that the lawyer for child needed more training on child rights and participation and care and protection issues. That was emphasised also by other submitters such as Save the Children. I thought it was worth noting around family dispute resolution providers that the FDR centre observed that the bill didn’t alter the practice, because they are already carrying out child-inclusive mediation that involves the appointment of a professional who is specifically trained and experienced in child inclusive process. As a result of some of those submissions, I’d like to note that the Ministry of Justice has begun a procurement process for a stocktake of appropriate models for child participation, including FDR, and is expected to include a wide range of how is it best to engage children and have their participation in that process while not making it overly burdensome on the child. So I think the fact that that process is under way will no doubt provide a greater flexibility and a greater understanding of what will work best.

I would like to wrap up today by really touching on what the bill does and showing how we attempt to begin this journey of rebuilding a system that has been really broken for a long period of time. We saw that in the submissions process. Many of those submitters, I would like to acknowledge, who didn’t submit specifically on a part of the bill just spoke about how difficult the process had been for them, how awful it was, and how some of those issues had not been addressed, but they’d just sort of been spat out the other end.

So really what the bill will do is to reinforce the expectation that a child should have a reasonable opportunity to participate in those decisions that directly affect them and their future to give them time to process a marriage separation and to be understanding and cognisant of the impacts, and to also ensure that lawyers appointed to represent children in proceedings are suitably qualified to represent a child or a young person and that they explain the proceedings to their client in the appropriate way. There’s also a requirement for lawyers to facilitate the efficient resolution of disputes in order to minimise harm to children, families, and whānau, and, lastly, it is to reinforce the need for the court to recognise and respond appropriately to family violence, particularly the impact it has on children—and how important it is, given the situation that New Zealand now confronts, that our court system is able to respond to that adequately.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we want to strengthen the expectation that children are provided with opportunities to give their input when appropriate. We want to promote better outcomes for children and child wellbeing in our country, and we want to do that by having a system that’s flexible and giving enough to enable that to happen in the right way. Finally, we want to give better effect to children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child because that is the right thing to do. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is a privilege to be able to speak to the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill because it is such an important area for our country and, of course, most particularly, for our country’s children.

The bill is well intentioned, as indeed are those who work in this crucial sector. I haven’t met a person involved in the provision of justice for young people and others in the Family Court arena who is not motivated by good intentions.

It is worth noting—and I do so in an entirely non-cynical manner—that for a lawyer to zealously represent the interests of their clients in a courtroom may result in a more lengthy, more adversarial process than would otherwise be the case if, for example, there were out-of-court settlements. That is a feature of that system, not a bug. So the question then in the background to this bill, and, indeed, any changes that may be made in the Family Court and children-affected system in particular, is whether there’s a better way. Is there an opportunity instead to have disputes or scenarios resolved other than by involving lawyers and adversarial court processes? The answer of course is yes, and notwithstanding that our court system as it currently operates is not perfect, we have an opportunity every time we stand in this House to speak on a piece of legislation or Government policy to suggest a way that things could be done better than is being proposed, which is not, of course, the same thing as to say that the system as it currently exists is perfect—frankly, it is not.

I was not a member of the Justice Committee for all of the deliberations and the hearings and so on, but I do join others—and I note the chair of the committee has quite rightly thanked those who have participated in that process. I followed this issue with some interest, including as the court spokesperson for my party.

The background to the review that was commissioned in 2011 and ultimately crystallised in the form of law changes in 2014 was that the system as it existed then had major problems. The problems were those of delay, and, of course, it’s such a hackneyed phrase as to be almost in the category of truism that “Justice delayed is justice denied”. I think we can all agree in this House that more speedy resolution of matters before courts is in the interests of all concerned, including, again and particularly, the children involved. The reasons for this—if they’re not instinctively obvious to anyone listening or those who have been unfortunate enough to have been personally involved in such matters—include that tensions tend to be entrenched and increase, rather than reduce, over time where protracted disputes take place. So for that reason, any time that we can avoid protracted delays in court processing times or legal processes in general, then that’s something that we should aim to do as a Parliament.

The very worthy intentions, principles, and various other additions that are made in this bill before us—and to amend the Care of Children Act—are in the category of things that should be happening anyway or that could or should be improved, where improvement is needed, by ways other than legislation. So, for example, we see that a new principle related to a child’s welfare and best interests is to be added to say that a child should have reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions affecting their care and welfare and that their views should be taken into account commensurate with their age and maturity. Well, the reality is that if any lawyer is not taking into account the interests, needs, and ability, to the extent that it exists, for their clients to participate in decisions, then he or she is not doing their job very well at all, and, of course, that more general principle that a child’s interests are the paramount consideration in such matters should apply, I believe, to the way that any lawyer would approach their task in such matters.

Similarly, to appoint a lawyer who is going to be able to represent the child best, taking into account the various factors, and the point that was made by Ginny Andersen regarding training for lawyers representing a child. For more training and more expertise to be provided is very worthy, and I don’t think anyone could argue with her or, indeed, the Children’s Commissioner on that. Indeed, I’d strongly agree. But, again, that is not a matter that needs to be legislated. It should not need to be legislated; in fact, it does not need to be legislated.

Allow me to conclude my remarks by noting that the error that the Government makes—and I make this comment respectfully because I do believe that they wish to have a better system of justice for the Family Court. But the error that they make in the reforms that they are undertaking whereby they are, essentially, reversing the 2014 reforms without saying “Is there another way to improve upon them?” is to conflate access to justice, as a phrase, with access to lawyers. The purpose of resolution being sought in these matters is, of course, that the parties are able to get on with their lives in the most reasonable way that causes the least damage to those involved—including the children, but not only the children—and to allow our system to have out-of-court settlements wherever possible. That is not in the case where there is family violence at issue, because we agree with the Government that in such matters they are naturally adversarial and it is important to have lawyers to protect the fundamental trial rights of those involved. But, wherever possible, this Parliament and, indeed, the Government should be looking for ways to improve access to justice in the holistic sense of that phrase—less of the delays in the justice system that we’re seeing increasingly across the sector. For this reason, as others have said, we do not support this bill.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take a very short call in relation to this bill as a member of the Justice Committee.

There’s a book written by the author Jana Mohr Lone titled Seen and Not Heard: Why Children’s Voices Matter. In its abstract it says this: “How might society benefit if children were recognized as independent thinkers, capable of seeing clearly and contributing in valuable ways to our world? How would children’s lives change if what they said was not often ignored or patronized?” In a series of conversations with children about many of life’s important questions, the book reveals children as perceptive and original thinkers in discussions about the meaning of childhood, friendship, justice, fairness, happiness, and death. The book invites us to rethink our beliefs about children and become more receptive to the ways we can learn from them. It’s worth a read, and perhaps a wee book recommendation for my colleagues across the other side of the House.

I was heartened to hear Chris Penk recognise the importance of listening to children’s voices, but I would challenge his summary at the end in terms of having access to lawyers. I think this is about having access to a voice, having access to space, and that is, essentially, what this bill is all about.

I won’t summarise what’s contained in the bill or the issues it addresses. I think the Minister and the chair of the Justice Committee have done that very well. All I will do, to conclude my contribution today, is quote from the Auckland Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children, made up of 13 preventing violence groups who submitted to us, the committee. They said, “This Bill amends the Care of Children Act … to prioritise the rights of children as prescribed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Family Violence Act … These rights were removed in the 2014 review of the Family Court, despite many submissions that spoke of the importance of not just retaining the (then) current clauses but strengthening them. We congratulate the government on reinstating these protections for children.” I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with pleasure I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the Family Court amendment bill, and I didn’t have the pleasure of sitting through the select committee to hear the submissions on this bill, but from the report I do want to commend the work of the committee. It’s really obvious from the report that there was careful listening to the submissions and amendments made. While some may say it’s not really significant, actually, I believe, it will make a profound difference in terms of ensuring the outcomes of the intention of the bill, so I want to acknowledge the committee.

There’s been a bit of mention of the origins of this bill being the work initiated by the Hon Andrew Little last term in Government, and the establishment of the independent panel to examine the impacts of the 2014 reforms that we’ve heard from the National Party were really effective, which was—strangely—not what that independent panel found, which was no surprise to me, I have to say. I got to sit in, in the 2000s, on some of the submissions leading to those 2014 reforms, and it’s not often you get such different organisations all up in arms about a legislative change. It was Women’s Refuge, it was children’s organisations, it was lawyers, it was the judiciary. Everyone was saying, basically—slightly paraphrasing—that this prioritising of saving money over safety will not work because, actually, it will incentivise people to take this track through the courts, and that is exactly what we saw as a result: increased concerns coming from our communities about what was happening in our courts, increased concerns around the safety of our children, and definitely an increase of without notice cases going to our courts and a sense of them being overwhelmed.

Just also to acknowledge, you know, I’m not that much into pegging things on previous people, but there was an element of like you went to the Family Courts and you just saw these piles of paper, because the previous National Government hadn’t even resourced digitising that work—just how overwhelmed our courts had been by their neglect and prioritisation of cost-saving over the question of how do we provide the support that our families need to ensure safety and resolution at a time of conflict when families are not able to resolve things for themselves. That is a really important point for, I think, every member in the House to understand, and I think it’s been well understood by the committee that considered this, and the Minister. Quite often, we talk about families using the Family Court as if they’re every family, but actually it’s only families that could not resolve things themselves. Inherently, all of the families going there are at a point of breakdown and conflict. A very large proportion of those families will have a dynamic and history of family violence.

While we support this bill, I do just want to flag a concern that I have. I believe there’s potential in our existing legislation to move some way, but we do not have a test or an assessment for family violence or child abuse in the Family Court. That, I believe, leads to a lot of uncertainty and a failure and a muddying of our responses, because we’re responding to every case as if—people feel as if they’re being judged as an abuser when they might not be, or there’s an assumption through the court that, actually, both of these parties are equal participants when, in actual fact, that is not true. We don’t have a test to do that assessment, whereas some other jurisdictions do, and I believe that that would fundamentally strengthen our response and ability to keep our children safe.

I do want to note and particularly congratulate the committee on the recommendation for the delay of the implementation of specific clauses in the bill. That is particularly around enabling the Ministry of Justice to do the work on the stocktake to help develop guidance and resources in identifying where further training for family justice professionals is needed, because getting a child’s voice is not something that most people have the skills to do, particularly when we don’t have an assessment of where there is a context of family violence or a history of child abuse. There will be for those children fear as a really significant player in their ability to develop a relationship with the person who is representing them and be able to articulate what they want and need for their family in the future, so we need to ensure that our system trains and resources everybody to have the time to have those conversations and to be skilled enough to develop those relationships and gather that voice.

I do just want to touch on too and acknowledge the Government for the work with Women’s Refuge in resourcing Women’s Refuge, and the announcement this week—the story in the paper—about the work that they’ve been doing for the last two years around gathering the voices of children who have been coming into refuge. They are now working, with Ministry of Social Development funding, on being able to develop a pilot to respond to what the children told them that they need, and this we have to build this in to every part of our system. The kids know what they need, but it takes real skill and effort to enable them to safely articulate that, and part of that being safe is being able to respond to what they tell us, so that they know that if they say something, people will listen and act.

That is another part that I want to commend in the change from the committee, in that they’ve strengthened that part around the push for the courts to listen when they’re hearing this evidence. While we heard from the National Party that the lawyers should be collecting this information, that it’s just good practice for a lawyer, and that it doesn’t need to be in legislation, actually, that is not the case, and for the court to take that into consideration, it actually requires legislation. So I hope that through the process of this further consideration of the bill, National will actually catch up with what the panel said and recognise that their reforms didn’t achieve the results that they wanted, and, actually, if they’re wanting this outcome around safer families, then our Family Court plays a critical—critical—role. These reforms are part of a massive programme of work that is needed.

I also just want to touch on the point around the duties of lawyers and the changes made in the committee around promoting conciliation, which was in the initial legislation. If we’re thinking about just families in general and we put ourselves, free of violence, in that context, we’re like “Yeah, of course, we don’t want lawyers promoting adversarialness between parents. We want them to promote conciliation.”, but if we then think about what that might mean in the context of family violence, I am hoping for everybody there are big red flags going up around the danger of that—of people who don’t have power, who don’t have voice, being pushed into agreeing to things that will not be for the benefit or the safety of themselves or their children. That is a feature of some of the practice within our courts at the moment that I believe we need to strengthen, so it was really great to see that amendment providing a check on that.

While supporting the principle generally, I do think there is more work to do, and what I would have liked to have seen is the recommendation from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women that we had restored the Bristol clause to the legislation that when there is an accusation of family violence, there is a risk assessment that the court goes through in response to that in terms of considering the welfare of children. We don’t have that—

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

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. While we have had discussion about the 2014 reforms, I actually want to put a lot of my focus on the children when I do my speech here today.

In 2014, there were major reforms that had occurred to the family justice system. The intent was to have a system that was also recognising the needs of our children as they navigate their way through the Family Court system. The kids often find themselves caught in the middle of family disputes, and it’s through no fault of their own but rather the circumstances of a breakdown in the family relations—situations for which the children have no control, situations where there is absolutely no understanding, in some cases, of what is happening or why it is happening. For this reason, they need to have support, and the reforms showed that they were not getting that.

It was hoped that the Family Dispute Resolution service would be able to assist, and I am sure that in some cases they probably have. However, a review was also undertaken in May 2018, and that review found that there were still some areas that need work, and these require legislative changes. The review identified areas that they hoped would help our children to understand what’s happening to them, what’s happening to their families, and, importantly, what role these complete strangers are playing in their lives. Their lives have been turned upside down by broken relationships, and they have become the by-product of those breakdowns. In order to recognise their needs and to hear their voices and acknowledge that the kids are actually caught up in this institution that is the Family Court justice system, we have to legislate that ability further.

In select committee, we had discussions on lawyers being appointed based on their cultural background. While I acknowledge this and I agree with the chairperson’s account about making sure that we have the best persons appointed for the children and to represent them, I do not agree that a lawyer with the specific cultural background similar or the same as the child that’s caught up in this system is necessarily going to be the best advocate for that child. We should be ensuring that we appoint the best people who can understand the needs of the child, and the appointed counsel should be the best one suited for that child, regardless of their race, their culture, or their colour.

I’m going to get to the stocktake now. I think stocktake is really important. After the 2014 reform, we did have some changes implemented that were not based on what was workable, but rather on what was thought to deliver the better outcomes. Having a stocktake to assess what works and what doesn’t is, therefore, essential. It’s not ideal that we get under way without a full stocktake having already happened, but we have to make sure that we don’t delay any further, and legislate in a way that the children can be cared for and respected while that stocktake takes place.

When the Green member mentioned that there were tests that were missing that she was concerned about, I’m sure that the stocktake will actually take that into account and address some of the issues that she raised there about family violence assessment. I don’t think that in this case it would be a trial and error process, and I don’t think that it would be detrimental to a child. We found over many decades, however this system has worked and hasn’t worked, that we have to make sure that we get it right, and we can only do that by implementing regimes and then figuring out what is actually working best for our children and what’s bringing the best results.

This now brings me to the start date. I would think that allowing a staged implementation of processes by way of Order in Council by the Governor-General, once the tools and the guidance have been established, is actually quite important. We have an option of either implementing it two years after the Royal assent, but that would possibly restrict us to not implementing something that is not ready or implementing something in a rush, pushing through something that’s not ready because it’s actually attached to a deadline.

The intent of this bill is to allow for children to be given reasonable opportunities, and so if we can start to implement by Order in Council, when we have this stocktake, those rules and guidelines in place, I think that would be better and beneficial for the children. We want them to be able to partake in discussions about what’s happening to them, and we need to make sure we have those tools ready to undertake that task, manufacture them to the best of the ability for the children, and then be ready to allow it to happen when those tools are actually fit for purpose.

On one hand, it’s important that those children who understand what’s going on are given the opportunity to have a say in the outcome of their living situations, but on the other hand, there is concern that children could potentially be used by arguing parents to sway outcomes, and that younger or less mature children may find this process stressful. It could be confusing for them, and the potential for anxiety to arise when a child feels that they have to choose between one parent or another is not something that we should be supporting through legislation. So as to allowing the voices of our children to be heard, it’s worded as an opportunity, and we need to ensure that very clear guidelines are in place to make sure that the children are not adversely affected by good intentions to give them their voice.

In determining who should be given the opportunities, the recommendation has been made to change the wording within the bill from “age and maturity” to “is capable of forming their own views”. In my humble opinion, that is too broad. As a mother of four, my kids have all been able to form their own views at a very early age, and not all their views actually made sense, nor were they made for the right reasons. I still think that age and maturity mean a lot here and should not be removed.

Clause 9 of the bill would remove one of the lawyer’s duties to promote conciliation, and we agree with this change. The parents’ lawyers can have that role. The role of the children’s lawyers should be to look after the children, not the circumstances that got those children into the family justice system in the first place.

Our children must come first. Giving children opportunities to participate in these decisions will affect them in a positive step, but ensuring that they understand what is going on in this new and often frightening world that they are thrust into is an essential step. We commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee, I am happy to take a very brief call on this bill. Perhaps a minute and 30, on the clock—we’ll see if I can do that. I’ll take you through the three points that the bill does to give you some insight into the committee’s reasoning which happened around the table, because what we saw in the Justice Committee was both sides of that table engaging very deeply on these issues.

Now, the first was that children should have reasonable opportunities to participate in decisions which affect them, and I thank my colleagues and particularly the Hon Simon Bridges for his thoughts on this. We disagreed, though, and I think the Opposition commentary on this was that it really should be happening anyway and that this legislative change is not required. But what the Government members found after engaging with the submitters on that point was that it was a question of fact: was it happening, was it not, and if it wasn’t, legislative change is required. We came to the view after engaging with the lawyers and with the submitters on this point that it wasn’t happening enough and that change was required to make sure that children could participate in a way which would allow them a greater sense of justice in the process.

The second point which came up was that lawyers appointed to represent children must be explaining what’s happening to the children. On the other side of the table, we heard this idea that justice delayed is justice denied, and that this would introduce longer time in the system. We didn’t think that was the case. We believe that there’s no justice in a decision which affects you personally that you don’t understand from the process and that you didn’t have a voice in.

So we’re proud to be voting for this bill tonight, because it gives effect to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It allows families in a situation of breakdown and conflict who could not resolve their issues by negotiation to have more support for the people who matter most to them, which are their children.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the debate on this bill is interrupted and is set down for further consideration next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 June 2021.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 4.55 p.m.