Thursday, 1 July 2021

THURSDAY, 1 JULY 2021

THURSDAY, 1 JULY 2021

The 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.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Leader of the House: On behalf of the Leader of the House, I can say that next week the Government will continue with its extremely busy programme of business, with a particular focus on making progress on the very significant and important Reserve Bank of New Zealand Bill and a number of other committee stages that we will take forward in the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The Leader of the House having arrived, do I direct my question to the former acting Leader of the House.

SPEAKER: No. The Leader of the House is here. He will reply on his own behalf.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): OK—just making sure the Leader of the House heard what the acting Leader of the House said in relation to—

SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a question?

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Yes.

SPEAKER: Well, ask it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The question for the Leader of the House is: with the drawing from the ballot of the Autonomous Sanctions Bill, which has previously been before the Parliament, does the Government have any intention to expedite the passage of that bill?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): The Government has no intention to expedite the passage of that bill. It was previously a Government bill that was discharged.

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

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

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Connor Sharp requesting that the House of Representatives implement a capital gains tax on residential property in New Zealand

petition of Don Richards requesting that the House of Representatives mandate the Reserve Bank to directly finance the COVID recovery and other essential infrastructure, cutting out the unnecessary bank middlemen

petition of Larissa Merz requesting that the House of Representatives urge the Government to replace the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system with an approach that involves double screening on arrival and provides for a choice between MIQ and a self-quarantine

petition of Trade Aid and World Vision New Zealand requesting that the House of Representatives, as a matter of urgency, enact modern slavery legislation that requires public and private entities to report on the risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and on the actions they are taking to address those risks.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission Statement of Performance Expectations for the Year Ending 30 June 2022

He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission Statement of Performance Expectations 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022

Civil Aviation Authority Statement of Performance Expectations 2021-22, Statement of Intent 2021-26

WorkSafe Statement of Performance Expectations 2021-22, Statement of Intent 2021-22 to 2024-25

Erratum to Stats NZ Statement of Strategic Intentions 2021-25

New Zealand Lotteries Commission Statement of Intent for the Financial Years Ending 30 June 2022-25, Statement of Performance Expectations for the Year Ending 30 June 2022

Earthquake Commission Statement of Intent 2021-25, Statement of Performance Expectations 2021-22.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the briefing on the 2017/18 and 2018/19 annual reviews of the Department of Internal Affairs

reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the 2021/22 Estimates for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence, the 2021/22 Estimates for Vote Security Intelligence, and the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence for the year ending 30 June 2021

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the interim report on the complaint about exemption to Maritime rule 53.4(2)(a), and examination of COVID-19 orders presented on 9 June 2021.

SPEAKER: The briefing and reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Resource Management (Regional Responsibility for Certain Agricultural Matters) Amendment Bill

Autonomous Sanctions Bill

Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill

Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s ability to deliver for New Zealanders and continue our strong economic recovery. Today, we have increased main benefits by an initial $20 per week per person, providing more support for 355,000 New Zealanders; we’ve reinstated the training incentive allowance, which was cut by the previous National Government; we have today launched the Ministry for Ethnic Communities; we have increased paid parental leave to a maximum of $621.76 per week; we have extended the unsupported child’s benefit and orphans benefit for short-term caregivers; and launched our new rebates for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. This is just some of a long list of initiatives that the Government is delivering on.

Dr Shane Reti: Do the current child poverty results reflect the fact that a key policy tool is benefit increases that are being cancelled out by the soaring cost of living?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is one of her new three-year child poverty reduction targets exactly the same target she previously set, and is pushing it out by three years an admission of failure of one of her primary targets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In answer to the second part of the question, no. We are on track to meet the 10-year targets. The initial three-year targets that were set were ambitious. We have now made further three-year targets, but we are on track for the 10-year targets.

Dr Shane Reti: How has the $100 a week increase in rents since she became Prime Minister affected the likelihood this year of her achieving all of the first set of child poverty targets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister: what I do know is that on all nine indicators around child poverty, we have seen good progress under this Government. The Government has never denied that there is more to do, but the significant investments we’ve made in lifting the income of the lowest-income New Zealanders is making a significant difference in lifting children out of poverty.

Dr Shane Reti: Why are there 1,500 more children living in poverty on the Government’s primary measure A, compared to when she took office in 2017?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is wrong, as he said in his press release yesterday. He was wrong then, as well. If he takes the measure from the correct date, where we are measuring on what this Government is responsible for, he will, in fact, see 25,000 fewer children in poverty.

Dr Shane Reti: When does she plan to achieve the target of lifting 100,000 children out of poverty, given from when they’ve came into Government, there are 1,500 more children living in poverty on one measure?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member, as I said in my last supplementary answer, is wrong on that matter.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) 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 ongoing support to secure the economic recovery is being reflected in the Crown’s financial accounts. The Crown accounts for the 11 months to the end of May 2021 were released today, and they show that the operating balance before gains and losses, the OBEGAL, was a deficit of $3.6 billion. That is $5.8 billion better than was forecast by Treasury in Budget 2021. Net core Crown debt stood at 31.2 percent of GDP, $6 billion less than forecast. While the Government’s books are in better shape than expected, we cannot afford to be complacent. We are still facing elevated levels of debt and OBEGAL deficit for some years to come as a result of the response that was needed to the pandemic.

Arena Williams: What is the impact on the economy of the country’s tax take?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealanders’ confidence in the recovery has been confirmed via an increase in tax revenue. Tax revenue was $89 billion in the 11 months to the end of May 2021, $4.1 billion above forecast. The improvement was across the board, with corporate tax being 13.7 percent higher than expected, source deductions revenue up 2 percent on forecast, and GST up 2.5 percent. Treasury notes that the positive variances reflect economic conditions being better than forecast. In simple terms, businesses are benefiting from New Zealanders buying their goods and services, which allow them to employ people, which in turn boosts spending in the economy. Nevertheless, the outlook does remain uncertain. The recent case of the Australian traveller in Wellington with COVID-19 and Australia’s growing outbreak, which has prompted the alert level rises, are signs that a resurgence in COVID cases around the world can make the economic environment more volatile, and we need to be cautious in response to that.

Arena Williams: What constraints are there on the economy during the pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economy’s performance has exceeded the expectations of most, but the recovery does remain uneven for some sectors and regions in New Zealand. There are supply chain issues, which, while mainly global in nature, are affecting the economy. The balanced approach that we took in Budget 2021 is appropriate as we work through the uncertainty. We will continue to keep a lid on debt while targeting support where it is needed most to accelerate our recovery and tackle those longstanding issues around climate change, housing, and child wellbeing.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Transport: What estimates, if any, has he been provided by officials on the cost of cutting greenhouse gas emissions through the clean car package?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for his excellent and timely question. The Clean Car Discount scheme alone is expected to prevent up to 9.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. The expected marginal abatement costs for the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard combined is estimated at minus $160 to minus $200 per tonne of carbon emissions prevented. The estimates are negative, meaning that they represent a net benefit to the New Zealand economy, due to large fuel savings for New Zealanders. In short, the policy will reduce emissions, clean up air quality, save Kiwis money, and reduce our reliance on volatile international fuel supply chains. No doubt the ACT Party opposes it.

Simon Court: What additional carbon emissions will be reduced by the clean car package, that would not otherwise have been captured under the emissions trading scheme cap?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: When the emissions trading scheme was established by a previous Labour Government, it was never envisaged that there would never be any specific measures to support New Zealanders to reduce their emissions. I do note that the analysis that has been provided shows that if we relied solely on the price of carbon to achieve the same kind of electric vehicle level uptakes as we will achieve through the Clean Car Discounts, then we would need to increase the price of carbon to approximately $575 per tonne, meaning an extra $1.30 per litre on petrol prices. If the member wants to campaign on that policy, then he is very welcome to do so.

Simon Court: The Minister has quoted a now debunked Ministry of Transport report—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask a question and will not make an assertion. I’ll let him start again, but this is the last time I’m going to let him do that.

Simon Court: So where does the Minister get his figures on the negative cost of carbon from?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: From the regulatory impact statement.

Simon Court: So how does that compare with the cost of reducing carbon emissions through the emissions trading scheme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, as I just outlined in my previous answer, if we relied solely on the emissions trading scheme and the price of carbon to achieve the same uptake of electric vehicles, we would have to price carbon at approximately $575 per tonne, compared to the current level of approximately $40 per tonne. That would be an extra $1.30 per litre on the price of petrol—that is not this Government’s policy.

Question No. 4—Local Government

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): My question is to the Minister of Local Government. What specific advice has she seen about the benefits of the Three Waters reform approach for cities—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to ask the member to ask the question as it is written on—and I’m just double-checking—the yellow sheet.

4. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Local Government: My apologies—my apologies. What advice has she seen about the benefits of the Three Waters programme approach for cities such as Whangārei and Auckland?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I’ve seen hundreds of pages of detailed modelling and research that shows that all communities in New Zealand, including Auckland and Whangārei, will be better off under the Three Waters reform proposals. It’s surprising to hear local mayors not supporting the reforms, given that yesterday I released council-specific information that showed that average household costs per annum in 2051 in Auckland of $1,910 would be reduced to $800. Then, in Whangārei, they would be reduced from $4,060 to $800. [Interruption] But that’s not all—

SPEAKER: Order! No. The member is a bit lucky. As I’ve indicated yesterday, I have received a lot of complaints recently about noise from the Opposition drowning out Ministers making replies. That was another case of that, and it will stop. Interjections are meant to be rare and reasonable. Those interjections weren’t. Now, I’ll say to Mr Goldsmith he came very close then.

Matt Doocey: Point of order. Yesterday, the Opposition sat through the Prime Minister chipping our questioners while they were asking their primary questions. Can I ask for some balance?

SPEAKER: I might balance it by applying the rules, but I won’t at the moment, because I’d prefer the member stayed in the House.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Just to recap, in Whangārei, average household costs per annum would be reduced from $4,060 to $800. But that’s not all. In Auckland, they will also receive better-quality services and address the major water services issues that have been outlined in my most recent correspondence to Mayor Goff.

Dr Emily Henderson: Is cross-subsidisation a valid concern, and what benefits would accrue for an entity that included the Far North, Whangārei, and Kaipara district councils with Auckland Council?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The extensive modelling and research which we published yesterday shows that Aucklanders will be better off under the reforms, even after joining up with Northland communities. I’ve heard calls from Mayor Goff, and it’s surprising to hear them, given the number of times the Government and the rest of New Zealand has stepped in to support Auckland’s shortfalls on infrastructure investment in the past. The real issue for Auckland is their constrained balance sheets and operational inefficiencies when compared to water entities of the same scale. As a Government, we simply want Aucklanders to save money, have access to safe water, and be able to go to their beaches and swim safely. Aucklanders want all of this. I would have thought that Mayor Goff would have wanted it too.

Dr Emily Henderson: Is she concerned that councils such as Whangārei and Auckland have signalled that they are not supporting the proposed Three Waters reform?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’ve released significant information yesterday on the specific benefits to Whangārei and Auckland and all other New Zealand communities for their ratepayers and water users through the reforms. I urge those councils to take the time to digest their information and share it with their residents, ratepayers, and householders. We need to continue to work together on this reform programme to ensure the delivery of these vital infrastructure services have the very best chance of success. Even though the benefits of reform to its residents are very clear, I do acknowledge that Whangārei is one of the very few councils in this country with very little debt. We’re working with Local Government New Zealand to address this specific situation and to put together an approach to support councils on these reforms.

Christopher Luxon: Supplementary.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Point of—

SPEAKER: Yeah, a point of order?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I’m happy to take the question.

SPEAKER: The member has to sit down if she’s going to take a question.

Christopher Luxon: Will she rule out forcing and mandating councils to participate in the Three Waters reforms?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I said previously, I’ve encouraged councils to ensure they have the full suite of information and research and modelling to be able to make a decision so they can see the benefits of reform and understand them, and then explain those benefits back to ratepayers. I’m sure all councils will want to be in that position prior to pre-determining an outcome that might ultimately negatively impact ratepayers. Point of order. I seek leave to table a letter and associated information related to Auckland and Whangārei. The letter is to Mayor Goff—my most recent one.

SPEAKER: One of your letters—a letter that you’ve sent?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I just want to query you on your statement that you just made in the middle of that question around significant feedback from members of the public around the behaviour of the Opposition during question time. You said that you’d made that point yesterday. I’ve looked back at what you actually said yesterday, sir, and you made a very general remark in which you said that you’d received “significantly more public reaction to misbehaviour in the House than I’ve had for some time.”, which at least implied—or at least explicitly said—all of the House was to blame. And you now seem to be saying, sir, that, basically, it’s the National Party’s—the Opposition’s—fault. I put it to you, sir, that when there is disorder in the House, or misbehaviour, it occurs not just from the National Party Opposition but from Labour members frequently using supplementary questions to take political flicks at the Opposition, which, of course, will produce elements of disorder, and, frequently, as has been pointed out by the chief whip for National, using the opportunity of the asking of supplementary questions to take flicks at the Opposition.

SPEAKER: OK, well, this is fairly easy to deal with. The first thing is if the member doesn’t like replies from the Government where they feel that supplementaries are being used inappropriately, then the member should bring it up at the time, not days later, or the following week.

Chris Bishop: It was a minute later.

SPEAKER: Order! Does the member want to stay? The other point that I’ll make is that yesterday, I was more generous than I was today as to the source or the reason for the complaints that I had been receiving. In fact, if I had to identify one person for being the source of the loud noise which was the subject of complaint, he’s not currently here, but it was the former member for Hamilton East. [Interruption] Mr Bennett.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, your final comment was out of order. We are rebuked often for referring to the absence of a member from the House, which is exactly what you just did.

SPEAKER: I apologise. I was looking for the member—I shouldn’t have referred to his absence. I don’t like criticising members in their absence, but, as far as that particular member is concerned, his repeated inane interjections are the subject of correspondence to me.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. We’re going to get ourselves into a difficult situation here, Mr Speaker. Is it now the case that if you agree with the correspondence into your office from members of the public—and, by the way, we have no way of verifying the veracity of that correspondence—you will—

SPEAKER: All right, the member will just take a seat. That’s the end of that, thank you.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

SPEAKER: No, I’m sorry, I’m not prepared to do that. I’m now going to go back and Chris Bishop will withdraw and apologise for his reflection on the Chair.

Chris Bishop: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Shall I repeat my question, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No—Michael Wood.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, particularly when I said earlier that the Clean Car Discount scheme alone is expected to prevent up to 9.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions up to 2050. As I’ve covered in the House today, the marginal abatement cost of that is minus $160 to minus $200 per year, representing a net economic saving to New Zealand which breaks down at the individual level to savings of approximately $7,000 over the lifetime of a clean vehicle that this policy helps Kiwis get into.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What does he consider to be worse use of taxpayer money: the $125 per passenger trip subsidy for a train from Hamilton to Papakura or the $2,200 subsidy per EV—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sorry, it’s mainly Mr Mitchell now, I think. Can the member start his question again?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Gladly. Which does he consider is the worse use of taxpayer money: the $125 per passenger trip subsidy for a train from Hamilton to Papakura or the $2,200 subsidy per EV being sent to Japanese exporters?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I fundamentally reject the calculations in the member’s question. As I’ve just outlined, the net economic value of the Clean Car Discount scheme is a positive one to New Zealand, not a negative one.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he agree with vehicle importers association CEO David Vinsen that the clean car scheme is “virtue signalling on a grand scale and at huge costs”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, but I do agree with the comments of David Crawford from the Motor Industry Association, who says that he’s delighted by the announcement, and the comments of the New Zealand Automobile Association, who say that it’s a very well-balanced policy.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he announced another six-month consultation on light rail just three months ago, was it his understanding that half of those six months would be spent doing nothing but designing a website and a map?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Again, I reject the assertions in the member’s question. In the space of approximately two months, the light rail establishment unit has now got under way with producing an indicative business case, which will inform Cabinet decision-making later in the year, and, as of today, has launched a major public consultation with the people of Auckland about how we finally take action to unclog Auckland’s roads—something that has been ignored for far too long.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does his need to seek social licence after four years of delay on light rail extend to the $785 million cycle bridge, and if so, when can we expect to see a website with a map for that project?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There will, of course, on any significant transport project, be engagement and consultation with the public, but I would urge the member, as he engages with these projects, to stop the sniping and actually to get on with the job that we all have ahead of us, which is to work out how we actually decarbonise New Zealand’s transport system—something that that member says in principle that he supports but opposes every single measure that will actually deliver it.

Question No. 6—Foreign Affairs

6. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What policies for regulating seabed mining in the Pacific, if any, is New Zealand promoting in its engagement with the International Seabed Authority?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealand is actively engaged as a member of the International Seabed Authority—ISA—in the development of a regulatory framework to govern seabed mining. The member may be aware that New Zealand is one of the few countries to have a robust regulatory framework to govern seabed mining within our national jurisdiction, and we’re drawing on our experience as we contribute to the development of the international mining code. In the Pacific, attitudes towards deep-sea mining are mixed. New Zealand does not take a position for or against mining on the seabed within the jurisdiction of Pacific Island countries. We respect the mana and sovereignty of these Governments. However, we continue to engage with ISA and call for robust legal frameworks, effective governance structures, and high standards of environmental protection. We need to work together with all our partners to advocate for a regulatory framework that provides for a high level of environmental protection. Over recent years, New Zealand has made several submissions to ISA to this effect and will be submitting a further contribution this week.

Teanau Tuiono: What is the Government’s view on Nauru triggering a rule at the International Seabed Authority which will allow seabed mining in Pacific waters by 2023?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Nauru’s decision to trigger the two-year rule at a time when the International Seabed Authority cannot meet in person as a result of COVID has been expressed by New Zealand as unwelcome and presents a challenge because of the COVID circumstance. New Zealand will, however, continue to engage within the ISA and will redouble our efforts to ensure seabed mining does not occur unless high standards of environmental protection are met. To this end, we’ll work closely with Nauru, other partners in the ISA area, and those sponsoring mining activities. A rushed process during the pandemic risks an inadequate mining code that does not appropriately protect the environment. This would undermine the reputation of the ISA and galvanise opposition to deep-sea mining. In-person meetings will be important to finalise the mining code.

Teanau Tuiono: In the preparation of New Zealand’s latest submission to the International Seabed Authority on Saturday, has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade consulted with representatives of the Pacific Blue Line, a coalition of organisations seeking a ban on deep-sea mining; if not, why not?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for this particular question, as I sought advice on the very issue of engagement, understanding that it would be important from a New Zealand perspective. New Zealand’s developed its contributions within the ISA through consultations with a range of relevant Government agencies and stakeholders. Public stakeholders, including Māori stakeholders with a known interest in oceans issues, have been invited to provide comment on draft elements of the mining code to inform New Zealand’s submissions. In particular, comments have been received from a number of stakeholders, including Greenpeace and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. Ministry officials have met with representatives of both organisations to discuss this issue and make it a part of our submission.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What specific environmental protections is the New Zealand Government seeking in the International Seabed Authority’s framework to regulate deep-sea mining?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re committed to ensuring that the ISA adopts a robust mining code that provides for a high standard of environmental protection in all deep-sea mining, including the application of the precautionary approach. This is consistent with the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which requires the International Seabed Authority to develop a regulatory framework that ensures the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-sea mining.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister support international calls for a moratorium on deep-sea mining?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We’re acutely aware of the environmental risks associated with deep-sea mining. As a member of ISA, New Zealand is working to ensure that deep-sea mining cannot take place unless high standards of environmental protection can be met. With regards to our advocacy within the ISA, New Zealand has continually engaged on the development of its draft regulatory framework for the exploitation of seabed minerals in the area, including submissions in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. We will submit a further contribution this week. We urge any country considering deep-sea mining to ensure it is only done subject to robust legal frameworks, effective governance structures, and high standards of environmental protection. We do this mindful that New Zealand’s own regulatory framework allows for deep-sea mining under certain conditions and subject to robust regulatory control.

Question No. 7—Workplace Relations and Safety

7. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What workplace relations and safety policies come into effect from 1 July?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Our Government is delivering on a range of commitments to support working New Zealanders from 1 July. We recognise that we needed to support security guards given that they are on the front lines in keeping our managed isolation facilities secure and doing other important work around our country. That’s why I’m pleased to confirm that as of today security guards have been added to Schedule 1 of the Employment Relations Act, helping to protect their employment conditions.

Marja Lubeck: What effect will this have on the industry?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: With these new protections, the 7,800 security guards nationwide will be able to keep their jobs and retain their pay rates and conditions when a business is sold or restructured. This will help stop the race to the bottom, where companies are undercutting each other, and lead to an industry that competes on service quality, which helps the companies already offering good conditions.

Marja Lubeck: What other changes have started today?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Today also marks one year of paid parental leave being boosted to 26 weeks, so it’s a good time that the maximum rate for eligible employees and self-employed people will increase to $621.76 this week from $606.46 per week in the previous year. We’re also delivering on our commitment to support the welfare of seafarers by putting seafarer welfare centres on to a sustainable funding footing. These changes show that the Government is committed to decent and dignified work for everyone in New Zealand.

Question No. 8—Justice

8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies on his proposed hate speech law changes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes, because this is a very important issue. It’s been raised for a number of years, and now most recently by the royal commission of inquiry report on the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques and also because, in previous national debates on this issue, that member himself said that we needed to have this conversation. And so we look forward to a constructive and mature debate nationwide.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, in light of that answer, that’s been raised for a number of years; the Government’s progressing these hate speech changes because it’s actually just something they want to do, not because of anything in the royal commission report.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, no, the royal commission, having inquired into the background events to the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques, having spoken to many, many communities, minority ethnic communities and minority faith communities, and heard their experiences and reflected on those experiences, and the sorts of expressions that members of those communities come up against every day in the community and in the nation’s schoolyards, made a recommendation that it was time to revisit the existing law on hate speech—section 131 of the Human Rights Act—to update it and align it not only with our international obligations but also with like-minded countries.

Hon Simon Bridges: Given his statements to the House yesterday that “The proposals in the discussion document maintain the thresholds for incitement of hate speech as they currently stand and look to narrow the definition of hatred”, why did he say in the introduction of that document itself that he is proposing changes to hate speech law that “strengthen Human Rights Act protections”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, anything that makes the law clearer and more accessible to citizens of this country and those called upon to enforce it is strengthening the law.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is the Government trying to maintain, as he said in this question time, actually, in answer to the first primary, or strengthen, as he’s just said, hate speech protections in New Zealand?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, as I said in my previous answer, making the law clearer and making it more accessible to people is strengthening the law. If what he’s asking is in relation to maintaining the law, maintaining current thresholds and the safeguards and protections that are in the existing law, those will continue. Those safeguards include that there can be no prosecution for hate speech unless it is approved by the Attorney-General.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of his view just now that he is, effectively, strengthening the law, how many more police prosecutions and convictions does he estimate, and will the Government be resourcing up the police accordingly?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, making the law clearer and more accessible does not necessitate an increase in charges or prosecutions of that particular law. It is about sending a very clear signal, as the royal commission recommended from its extensive engagement with minority, ethnic, and faith communities, that we need to do something better than we have at the moment.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is he now saying he’s just making it clearer and not strengthening it?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, no the member clearly hasn’t listened to my earlier answers. Making the law clearer and more accessible is strengthening the law. It doesn’t change the threshold, the prosecutorial thresholds, or the thresholds that judges will apply in relation to a prosecution.

Hon Simon Bridges: Isn’t the reality that he is clearly proposing to lower the legal threshold and broaden the law of hate speech by, for example, adding in words like “maintaining and normalising”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, no. The member is completely wrong, and the royal commission, in its analysis of its proposal was very clear: it did not accept that words like “incite”, for example, meant a great deal in modern vernacular. It looked to comparable jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, and found that language that is more consistent with people’s everyday use, like “maintaining hatred against others”, bearing in mind that any prosecution would have to be on the basis that that is an intended action, and would have the further safeguard of the Attorney-General having to approve any such prosecution. The law and the thresholds that it has to meet would not change.

Question No. 9—Health

9. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Associate Minister of Health: What announcements has she made about community maternity services?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Yesterday, I announced changes to the way community midwives are paid to better reflect the challenges they face providing care and support to mothers and whānau. Community midwives are paid through what is known as a primary maternity services notice. The previous notice was introduced in 2007. It was out of date, and provided no compensation for the additional time and travel required of some maternity care providers. This created an unsustainable business model for maternity in rural and highly deprived communities, and barriers to access. The new notice is more flexible and will provide greater funding to midwives working in more remote parts of New Zealand and when they are supporting mothers and whānau with complex clinical or social needs.

Sarah Pallett: How will the new notice better support community midwives and the communities they serve?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Midwives do an incredibly important job and they deserve to be backed up by a strong maternity system that makes it easier for them to do their job. The 2021 notice introduces rural practice, travel, and additional care payments to more equitably fund travel in provision of maternity care. This will help improve the sustainability of community-based primary maternity services, and it has been welcomed by the College of Midwives.

Sarah Pallett: What else is being done to strengthen maternity services?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Budget 2020 included the largest ever funding boost for primary maternity services. The Government invested $242 million over four years so maternity service providers, mothers, and their babies can receive more support. In the last year, we’ve expanded the maternity quality and safety programme in every DHB, we have updated national maternity clinical guidance and invested in information technology system improvements, and we have put $6 million into Te Ara ō Hine, an initiative designed to help attract and retain more Māori and Pasifika midwives into the profession by better supporting students in their studies. There is more work to do to strengthen our maternity services, but we are laying the foundations of a better future.

Question No. 10—Children

10. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Minister for Children: Does he agree with all Oranga Tamariki’s statements and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): No. I especially do not stand by the actions of staff members who were shown to have used unacceptable behaviour when restraining children in one of our care and protection residences. But I’m not the only one that does not stand by those actions. This morning, the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki, Sir Wira Gardiner, announced his intention to close the residence Te Oranga until the investigations are completed. I stand by his action because it was made in the best interests of the children in our care.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the statement of his chief executive that all Oranga Tamariki staff in care and protection residences were trained in the correct management of actual pain or potential aggression—or Management of Actual or Potential Aggression (MAPA)—hold technique?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes, they were trained in those techniques, but whether they applied them in the appropriate way is another question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What is the percentage of front-line staff at Oranga Tamariki who have completed the full MAPA training programme?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I would expect that anybody who works in the child care and protection residences would complete that training.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. I would ask that the Minister table the evidence to back up that the staff have been trained.

SPEAKER: The member can—no, she can’t, actually. If the Minister had a document and quoted from it, she could certainly ask for it to be tabled—in fact, require it to be tabled. I think when a Minister states his expectations, it is very hard to table what leads to that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What percentage of workers in youth care and protection residences are trained and qualified social workers as opposed to other support staff such as youth workers?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I think what’s important is that we have in these residences the right people with the right skills dealing with the children. Whether they’re social workers or youth workers is irrelevant if they have the best interests of the children at heart.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I’m not sure—to the Speaker—whether we got the answer. What percentage of workers in youth care and support?

SPEAKER: Sure, and because the member is still one of the relatively new team, there’s a Speaker’s ruling somewhere—around 183, I think—which indicates that if the member wants a specific answer, then she’s got to ask a specific question. You can’t just ask a general question and expect the Minister to have a whole pile of details, even if it is related.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Thank you. When was the Oranga Tamariki Child Protection Protocol last reviewed and updated?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I expect Oranga Tamariki to regularly update all of their protocols. But there’s one thing to have protocols; it’s another thing to actually apply them, and this is what has obviously failed. I’m not standing here making any excuses for the failings of Oranga Tamariki. What has gone on is totally unacceptable, and that’s why myself and the chief executive, Sir Wira Gardiner, are standing up and putting the children’s best interests at heart. When we saw the video the other day, within 24 hours the staff were stood down. Within 48 hours, that residence was closed. That’s decisive action.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I just would like to go on record that the question was: when was the Oranga Tamariki child protocol last reviewed?

SPEAKER: And it certainly was addressed. I am going to warn the member that having a running commentary about her dissatisfaction with answers is disorderly, and if she does it deliberately, it’s highly disorderly. I’m going to be generous and take this as a learning moment.

Question No. 11—Housing

11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: How, on a scale of 1 to 10, does she rate the Government’s delivery of its housing policies and commitments?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The member will need to be more specific. On her scale, is 10 the best? As in, this Government has delivered 10 times more affordable houses through its programmes than the previous National Government delivered through the special housing areas. Or does she mean that one is the best ranking? As in, our Government ranks No. 1 in the number of building consents ever seen in New Zealand, which contrasts with the record of the previous Government, when annual consents almost halved after the global financial crisis. But then there are other numbers that are way off the 1 to 10 chart, like the 7,863 public housing places delivered since we became Government—the most in a generation. Or is it the number of apprentices in the building and construction sector: 22,760 in May 2021, compared with 12,560 in May 2017? But we don’t claim perfection. We know that there is way more work to do after nine years of inaction under the previous Government, but we have an extensive work programme under way. There is no quick fix; what is needed is a Government committed—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I think the member has addressed the question.

Nicola Willis: How many of the 16,000 new KiwiBuild homes promised for delivery in the first three years of the programme have been built since the official count began on 1 July 2018?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member knows well that the KiwiBuild programme was reset in 2019, when I became the Minister. But I can tell that member that it is 10 times the number of houses for affordable homeownership delivered in the three and a half years that we have been in Government than the previous National Government delivered over nine years in Government.

Nicola Willis: By what date does she anticipate the Government delivering the 1,000 KiwiBuild homes it promised to build in the first year of the policy?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think the member needs to look at her questions. That is a reset programme; it does not have that target. But I will invite the member to have a look at the dashboard that is publicly available on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development site that we have built a thousand KiwiBuild houses; they have been sold. This is 10 times the number of homes for affordable homeownership than the previous Government managed over nine years.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that the Government’s biggest current KiwiBuild project of 176 homes at Ormiston Rise has gone into receivership, and by what date will those homes be completed?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The member has previously asked questions about that, and we’ve already had this discussion on the floor of this House. So the answer is: yes, the 173 homes—I think, off the top of my head—will be delayed, that that project is being worked through, and everybody is hopeful that those homes will still be delivered.

Nicola Willis: Does she think that Government housing policies are delivering, when there are four times as many at-risk people on the State house waiting list as there were when the Government came to office?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: At the risk of repeating the answer from the primary question, which I’m sure would test the Chair’s patience late on a Thursday afternoon, I do believe this is a Government delivering, because this is a Government that is finally building some public houses. The previous National Government not only did not build houses but it flogged them off, so after nine years in Government we ended up with 1,500 fewer public houses than they started with. That party should hang its head in shame.

Nicola Willis: Will she apologise to New Zealanders for the Government’s complete failure to deliver on its commitment to build 16,000 KiwiBuild houses by today, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I think what that member has to realise is that sometimes in politics—and, I think, members of her party should probably take note of this—one of the difficult things to do when you get something wrong is to admit it. That is what we did with KiwiBuild: we reset it, and we have been delivering. What I will continually apologise to New Zealanders for is the fact that we had a National Government who for nine years delivered nothing in public housing.

Question No. 12—Diversity, Inclusion, and Ethnic Communities

12. VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities: What recent announcements has she made about improving outcomes for ethnic communities in New Zealand?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for Diversity, Inclusion and Ethnic Communities): This morning, I launched the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! We’re not seals in here.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: We have over 213 ethnicities represented across Aotearoa. We collectively speak over 160 languages. Our ethnic communities make up nearly 20 percent of New Zealand’s population. This is the first time that they will have this level of representation in the public sector. It’s the first time that we will have a chief executive whose sole focus is lifting the wellbeing of our ethnic communities and who will have a seat at the top table. The ministry’s been a long-held ambition of our ethnic communities, and I’m proud to be part of a Government that has heard that call and responded to it.

Vanushi Walters: What are the key priorities for the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I was determined that the direction and the strategy of the new Ministry for Ethnic Communities would be shaped by the priorities of the communities it serves, and so we engaged with members of our diverse ethnic communities across Aotearoa to find out what was most important to them. That has then shaped the priorities of the new ministry. As agreed by Cabinet they are: to take action to promote the value of diversity and improve inclusion; to ensure equitable provision of, and access to, Government services for ethnic communities; to develop and support initiatives to improve economic outcomes for ethnic communities, including addressing barriers to employment; and to work to connect and empower ethnic community groups.

Vanushi Walters: What will the new ministry mean for our ethnic communities?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Our Government wants to ensure that New Zealand is a place where everyone can be and feel safe, valued, and heard, have a sense of belonging, and be able to participate fully. We know that there are opportunities but that some groups apparently are unable to access them. We’ve heard from our communities what those barriers are and where the opportunities lie. With the chief executive at the top table, the new ministry is well placed to make tangible changes through its own programme of work and influence decision making across Government to ensure better outcomes for our diverse ethnic communities. We know that there’s more work to be done, and collectively we can make Aotearoa a fairer, safer, and more cohesive society.

Melissa Lee: How will the ministry defer to the Office of Ethnic Communities currently operating, considering it will still be a—and I quote the Minister—“departmental agency of the DIA”, as she said yesterday at select committee, as it is currently now?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: As I mentioned in my responses to the previous questions, the main difference here is, firstly, that our Government in the last term invested in strengthening the Office of Ethnic Communities, including its community engagement function, and increased its funding that goes to grass-roots community organisations eightfold. This is the next step in the journey of creating a ministry, something that our communities have asked for for more than a decade. For the first time, we will have a chief executive, who will sit at the top table and be able to influence change. That is a significant difference, and while members across the House might sneer, our communities hold this very strongly. In terms of it being a departmental agency hosted by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA), the only thing that this new ministry will share with the DIA is the back end corporate functions, like procurement, like HR policy, like finance policy. I strongly believe that being able to share those functions and not reinvent the wheel, and actually focus the time, energy, and resources on our communities, will be beneficial.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill

1. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Member in charge of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill: What reports or reaction has she received recently in relation to the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Member in charge of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have received feedback that it is callous and cruel for Labour to delay this bill when the current verdict is—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, are you going to let me rule first? Parliament took a decision yesterday, and the member has to make it absolutely clear—I’m making it absolutely clear to the member that she does not have responsibility for Parliament’s decision. She can only answer on questions for which she is responsible.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. The question was: what feedback had she received? If the feedback that the member has received includes criticism of a particular party for their perception of a block, then how is that out of order? We’ve had plenty of references to political parties in question time today.

SPEAKER: Well, sure—sure. As was referred to, I think, earlier today or possibly yesterday in question time, having patsy questions which invite people in charge of bills to slag the Opposition is out of order.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order—I hope the member’s not going to reflect on the ruling I’ve just made.

Chris Bishop: Well, no.

SPEAKER: Well, he better not be.

Chris Bishop: Well, no, it’s a fresh point of order. Is the position now that you can receive feedback from members of the public and reflect on members of our side of the House who aren’t even here and call them “inane”—to quote you earlier—but members are not allowed to answer questions about feedback they’ve had in relation to other political parties?

SPEAKER: Right, right, I suggest one of the early things that the member should do is get a hearing or comprehension test as to my comments, and then he might want to come back.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to continue with this. Does Chris Penk want a supplementary or not?

Chris Penk: What are the member’s hopes for the next steps for the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That this bill will not be delayed further, because the current verdict is insensitive and deeply upsetting to the needs and feelings of those who have lost a loved one, adding further pain to people who are already significantly traumatised. Thanks, Labour.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the following sessional order be adopted: A leader of Te Paati Māori is entitled to one 20-minute call in the Budget debate, one 20-minute call in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and a five-minute call on any ministerial statement, and Standing Order 365 and Appendix A are to be applied accordingly.

Standing Orders give parties of six or more members opportunities to speak in some of the set occasions that we have here in the House, including the Budget and so on [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Both sides, please.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There were reasons why that particular provision was introduced some time ago, particularly in the introduction of MMP, when a number of MPs were moving around parties and there was a need for some certainty. In this Parliament, it has created an anomaly, in that it’s excluded just one party from being able to contribute on those occasions. This motion evens out that anomaly by granting Te Paati Māori the right to have a call on ministerial statements and for one of its co-leaders to have a call of 20 minutes in the Budget debate and the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. That brings them into line with the other parties in Parliament in terms of that entitlement. This sessional order will apply for the rest of this Parliament, and, as part of its triannual review, the Standing Orders Committee can assess whether the current rules about speaking rights for parties of varying sizes are appropriate for the longer term.

I would note that we have done similar things in the past, where smaller parties have had only one or two members. Similar provisions were in place in the last Parliament to allow the ACT Party leader, who at that point was a sole MP, to be able to participate in debates, and, if I recall correctly, similar provisions existed prior to allow the ACT Party, United Future Party, and, in fact, the Māori Party, when it had fewer members, to also be able to participate in those debates.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I thought I should take a call on this motion as someone who has had a bit of experience of the issue and some time to reflect on it. I spent longer than most as the sole member of a political party in this House and felt the specified party provisions keenly, and what they meant was that I was sometimes excluded from debate, but often was very grateful to the generosity and public spiritedness, I guess, of fellow members of the House who did allow me to participate in debates, such as the current Leader of the House, who was also then the Leader of the House and allowed me, as ACT leader, to participate in ministerial statements. But there were two competing principles that had to be weighed and, I think, were well balanced in those circumstances—that are not being well balanced by this motion. Those principles were that, while the Standing Orders—I think it’s 107(a)—do say that each party should be represented in each debate where possible, it’s also critical to maintain the principle of proportionality in the way that New Zealanders who vote are spoken for or represented in this House.

Now, the provisions that are being made by this amendment, in terms of speaking on a ministerial statement, I think are very sensible. They mean that, with the minimal distortion of proportionality, the Māori Party will be able to speak on ministerial statements—not so the provisions that are being made for the Prime Minister’s and Budget statements. Those changes, under this motion—what they will mean—are that the Māori Party, which already gets to speak, will be given additional speaking time, and so it actually goes further than it needs to in distorting proportionality to give each member a say. For that reason, ACT can’t support the motion. It does not balance the twin objectives of giving each party that, through the Electoral Act, is elected to this House a say in a debate but also making sure that all the people that didn’t vote for that particular party get their proportional representation.

I have to say, given the lack of logic behind the motion, one has to wonder about some of the motivations and the politics. I wonder if the Green Party have considered what Labour’s motivations are in bringing a motion that really favours the Māori Party. I wonder if they are thinking about future coalition negotiations, and if the Green Party have thought about what that might mean for their prospects. I wonder if the winners of six of the seven Māori seats, who are members of the Labour Party, have thought about the fact that, to the extent they’re concerned about the materiality of this motion, they are actually giving up speaking time to people who have actually tried to take their seats off them and will be trying to do it again in 2½ years’ time. Those are the sorts of questions about the politics.

No doubt pretty soon, a representative of the Māori Party will get up and assert that, being mana whenua, it’s all the more important that they are able to speak. But I think it’s important also to recognise that 17 percent of New Zealand identify as Māori; 1.5 percent voted for Te Paati Māori. And so the question is not “Is this about more Māori representation?”; it’s about whether Māori representation comes from a particular party that is being advantaged by this motion more than is necessary to achieve the objective that I completely agree with and have benefited from: that everybody who, through the Electoral Act, gets to this House should be able to have their party’s view put across in the debate.

So ACT would like to tautoko the part of the motion that allows the Māori Party to speak on ministerial statements. That is the right thing to do and something that’s, effectively, been done in previous Parliaments. It’s a wonder that the Standing Orders Committee last term didn’t actually make that automatic, but the extension of speaking time on Prime Minister’s statements and Budget debates actually is against proportionality and therefore wrong. We should oppose it and maybe wonder why Labour is so eager to put it in place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak to this sessional order regarding calls for Te Paati Māori. First of all, we would like to give thanks to the Leader of the House for advancing this issue over the last few weeks, specifically in the Business Committee, and we appreciate the willingness of most members to ensure that we receive a good consideration to contribute to the proceedings of this Whare.

Since day one, I think Rawiri and I have made our presence known as Te Paati Māori, and I’m sure that the Speaker of this House enjoys us being back here.

SPEAKER: Rawiri Waititi.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Thank you—Rawiri Waititi. And what we do want to do is continue to be, as we were elected, the unapologetic, liberated voice for Māori. There is a change in Aotearoa, and we have been extremely fortunate and connected to the Aotearoa hou, the way that tangata Tiriti, tangata moana, tangata whenua want to unite and progress together.

Actually, I’m really surprised at how much my member beside me, the member David Seymour, is more aware of Māori Party politics and strategies than what, actually, as a co-leader I am, but what we do want to do is make sure that our contribution is valued and that we’re able to, yes, as he said, be part of a mana whenua unique voice in this House as the only tangata Tiriti, tangata whenua party that we have.

One of the other things that we do want to do also is that we’ve demonstrated that we take seriously our role, and we’re also prepared to unsettle and disrupt some of the discussions that need to happen in this House, including some of the colonised practices and views. So in that spirit, I would like to say that we are obviously supportive and would like this opportunity to contribute. We know we’re a small party, and we know that there are rules and tikanga that we have to follow as well.

So to be able to have this opportunity to contribute to the vision today, by passing this sessional order and ensuring that the only tangata whenua party in Parliament receives equity in the procedures and tikanga that govern this place—our rangatahi need to see a relevant party. They need to know that their voices are seen, as to our whānau, our culture, and our dreams. So I would like to thank you again for the consideration. Nō reira, tēnā tātou katoa.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. I’m happy to stand on behalf of the Green Party, who, when we do work and speak in this House, we do it based on our policies and what we want to create in this world, not on the motivations of any other party in this House. I also stand as chair of Te Mātāwaka, our Māori and Pasifika caucus in the Greens, to say how much we support this, because we believe it is essential that there is a party such as the Māori Party in our Parliament and the voice of the people who put them there.

I want to point out that during the campaign, Māori Television did research over all of the different electorates of the Māori seats, and that found that half of the Māori who voted for Labour predominantly wanted Labour to work with the Māori Party. So I think that when people made those votes, they did that on the basis that having the Māori Party here would add to the mix. So I’m pleased that this has been raised.

I think it’s demeaning and inappropriate that leaders of their own parties who have been elected and are sitting in this House have to ask permission to speak in key things, because it’s not all the time; it’s only sometimes. I want to point to the whakapapa of Tariana Turia crossing the floor on the foreshore and seabed legislation and then ending up creating the Māori Party, and the mana of the new party and to have brought the party back into the House. There are some things that we can say as the Green Party that probably other parties cannot say, but there are things only the Māori Party can say because of that specific mandate that they have. So whether it’s the Budget, the Prime Minister’s statement, or any ministerial statement, we totally support this.

We also would like to suggest it go further and that this happens automatically. The House has been sitting for many, many months, and I wasn’t aware that this was a provision that we could do. So perhaps it’s just been created, but if it has always been here, I’d like to suggest that next term, it is put in automatically so that parties don’t have to go through it. I note—and I support—that the rest of the House has on most of those occasions when the permission has been asked, we have unanimously granted it. So this seems to me, in some ways, an administrative thing.

I’m pleased that we can clean this up. I mean, I was elected as a list person. I’m not a leader of my party, so I bow to all the leaders in this House, and I expect that their people expect them to be able to speak for them. Kia ora.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a short call to indicate that the National Party will be supporting this motion, but in respect of the point that Ms Kerekere just made, I think it is important that we continue this conversation in the Standing Orders Committee. Firstly, I was one of the members that declined leave of Debbie Ngarewa-Packer to have this adopted by leave of the House, because I thought it was a better place in the Business Committee to have that initial discussion.

The motion, I think, is quite generous. I think one of the things I think I will be raising in the Standing Orders is the question of proportionality and duration. I think 20 minutes in the Budget debate and in the Prime Minister’s statement is quite generous for a party of that size. Bear in mind that when we come to the Standing Orders Committee considering this being made a permanent order, it won’t be about Te Paati Māori; it will about any small party, and we have had parties established after members have, perhaps, left other parties. I can think of Brendan Horan, who established a political party, and, respectfully, I’m not sure that the spirit of this would, sort of, survive the black-letter changes in the Standing Orders if it were extended, perhaps, that far.

So I think, while we do support this on balance, there is a continued conversation to be had so that we do balance the rights of leaders to be heard in important debates—I think that’s very important—but Mr Seymour does make a very good point about proportionality and the will of the people who have brought us here to this House. So I think, in supporting this motion, I look forward to a continued conversation about it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the following sessional order be adopted: A leader of Te Paati Māori is entitled to one 20-minute call in the Budget debate, one 20-minute call in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and a five-minute call on any ministerial statement, and Standing Order 365 and Appendix A are to be applied accordingly.

Ayes 110

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This is, in essence, a very simple bill. It removes an ambiguity that was created in the Education and Training Act of 2020 that drew into question whether or not the Minister, in specifying a funding condition around early childhood education grants, could specify a funding condition relating to the employment conditions of teachers. This bill removes the doubt around that and makes it clear that the Minister, in specifying conditions around grants, is able to do that.

This is necessary because the Government has made a commitment that we want to deliver better pay and conditions for those working in education and care services so that they are brought into line with the teachers who are working in kindergartens and primary schools who have pay parity. So we want to see that extended to the broader early childhood education sector, where those teachers working in that sector get the same qualifications, often have the same experience, and in many cases are doing pretty much the same work but are being paid significantly less. There are some other variations around employment conditions, including the hours that the centre is open and so on. That is a matter for the employer. What the Government is interested in here is the hourly rate, effectively, that people are being paid for that work. This provision will allow us to attach as a condition to a higher rate of funding the proviso that that higher rate of funding needs to be applied to the salaries of their teachers so that that money can flow through.

Let’s be very clear about what this bill is and it isn’t. It is not the funding rates. Those funding rates are under discussion with the sector. There’s a variety of views about what the sufficient level of funding in order to deliver pay parity should be. This bill does not deal with that issue. That issue is being dealt with through the discussion that’s happening at the moment around the future rates of funding. This bill simply allows for that differentiated rate of funding to be introduced, and then we are in the process now, in the passage of this bill through its final stages in the House, that will therefore allow the next part of that to happen, which is for those draft conditions to be put out for consultation and further debate to be held around that.

I also want to make it clear the Government doesn’t intend to impose additional conditions not related to salary in terms of employment conditions related to those grants. I’m aware that there’s been some suggestion that we’re already planning to do that, when, in fact, the two conditions being cited relate directly to salaries. So the condition, for example, that a person who has a certain length of tenure should be paid at least a certain amount is directly related to the implementation of salary progressions and salary steps. Both of the conditions that are being questioned relate directly to salary. They don’t relate to those wider terms and conditions.

If I look at some of the other wider terms and conditions there, things around the amount of non-contact time, for example, the ratios, the group sizes, and so on that may exist in other collective employment agreements, we do not intend to pass those through this mechanism to other parts of the early childhood education sector. Those are, rightly, employment matters for the operators of those centres. This is simply giving us the ability to say, if we are providing more money to deliver pay parity to increase the pay of teachers working in the rest of the sector, which the rest of the sector have been asking for—we want to make sure that the money that we’re putting in is actually going to that thing, and the ability to set this condition will allow us to do that.

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

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call on the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. The National Party voted in favour of this bill at the first reading to give it the chance to go to select committee and have a full—well, a semi-full process. It was obviously a very truncated process that we ended up with, but I’ll talk more about that later. But we did vote for it at the first reading to give it a chance for us to scrutinise it and hear from the sector, and indeed hear from the sector we did.

Now, the Minister has predetermined a number of things that I’m going to bring up, and indeed I will bring up those things, but, before I do, I want to just say that early childhood teachers are extremely valuable. Those formative years, between one and five, before children go to school, are extremely important, and the role that teachers play in those formative years is so very important. When we see teachers that are overburdened, overworked, stressed out, leaving the sector, something has to be done. And I want to put it on the record that the National Party certainly broadly supports paying teachers what they are worth and that we do recognise that there have been some issues with kindergarten teachers being paid more than their counterparts in early learning centres. What the National Party also wants is quality of service and the ability for people to be able to afford to send their children to early childhood education (ECE). That’s important, and I’ll come back to it later.

The Minister described the bill today—and indeed he did so in the committee when he appeared before us—as a relatively simple bill, not long or complex, and he made it seem like a small technical change that would be relatively non-controversial. But, indeed, we heard from over 550 submitters, many of them who were very concerned about what this bill would mean. We only had time to hear from 14 in person. I want to say today that I believe that the Minister probably knew that this actually would be very controversial, which is why we ended up with an extremely truncated process where we only had 14 days for submissions.

Now, if you think about the ECE sector right now, under intense pressure with massive staff shortages, 14 days to be able to understand what is being sold as a really simple bill, but actually has a number of unintended or potentially intended consequences, is not a very long time for centres who are stressed out trying to manage their way through winter flus and staff shortages. Then there were only three days in select committee for those submitters to be heard, and if they couldn’t make those days, well then, that was tough.

Now, those days and those times that were selected coincided with the times that the ECEs were open. Given the staff shortages, it’s no wonder that we only managed to hear from 14 of the submitters, who mostly spoke against the bill. I want to refer to just some of the comments from the submitters speaking on the time frames. Firstly, the Early Childhood Council said, “We are concerned that the Amendment Bill has been designed and presented without adequate consultation with the ECE sector.” And they also commented on the time that centres had to submit on the bill. We mentioned this at the first reading. We said that the sector had not been consulted, and the Minister disagreed and said, “No, that’s not true. I’ve consulted widely about pay parity.” Indeed, he has consulted widely about pay parity, but he did not consult on this particular bill. The Early Childhood Council and many of the centres mentioned the fact that they were blindsided by this bill—they had no idea that it was coming—and then 14 days to get their thoughts together, to understand the bill, and to submit wasn’t enough time. Now, the Early Childhood Council mentioned that, as did a number of other submitters.

There were many of them, but one of them I’d like to quote in particular was out of Arohanui Early Childhood Learning Centre, who said, “there has been a lack of consultation with the ECE sector and the Bill is being rushed.” The City Kids Childcare Centre said, “We need more time to respond with due consideration and it is difficult to respond to the proposals without more time.” Those are just three of the many submissions that talked about the fact that they didn’t have enough time to fully understand this bill.

There was no consultation with the sector on the bill. Yes, around parity; not around this bill. And I’m not surprised, even with the short time frame, we had many in opposition. For a relatively simple and non-controversial bill, I actually was surprised at the number of people who submitted. The way in which the bill was originally worded has some clues in it as to why the sector were so concerned and upset, because new section 548(5A), in clause 4, said “conditions or purposes—(a) specified under subsection 5(a) or (b)” may relate to matters that include employment conditions “(for example, remuneration).” So you can see that the first thing that jumped out to the owners of these early childhood centres, or in fact the Early Childhood Council was: what employment conditions? Because remuneration was just a secondary thing in brackets. Rightly so, the submitters said, “Well, what else is the Minister planning? What other conditions and terms is the Minister planning to impose upon us? And at what cost to us? And will we have a grant to cover those?”

So what ended up happening with the bill was it was changed to try and make it clear the Minister’s intention was not actually to impose any further conditions. But what we ended up having was—what we have in this bill is much the same. The Minister came to committee and said, “I don’t intend to impose any other conditions. Trust me, I won’t.”, was basically what he said. But when they reworded the bill, he made it very clear that, although the bill’s being reworded, he still has the ability to impose any conditions that he likes. So although the bill has been reworded, he has made it very clear that if he does want to impose other conditions, he will.

Now, this is important. The Minister today talked about two of the conditions relating to remuneration that will be attached to the grants. Now, these two conditions were never discussed, not by the Minister in his first reading speech, not by the officials. It wasn’t until members from my party—me, actually—questioned them on some of these conditions that they did actually admit that, yes, it will be the case that the teachers will go up the scale by tenure and not by performance. That’s something that was never mentioned. The second condition is the fact that the centres had assumed that where a teacher would start on the scale would be decided by them. Again, it wasn’t until we questioned the officials—who admitted that actually, no, the condition will be that it will be decided upon via length of service overall.

Now, these things are important to the sector. And although the Minister says, “Oh, well, we’ll worry about it later; we’ll kick the can down the road and we’ll discuss it later.”, it’s integral to this bill to know what kind of conditions will be imposed on centres. It matters because of the cost that will be imposed upon them. And I know the Minister’s saying, “Don’t worry about the cost. We’ll talk about the funding down the track.”, but actually, this bill is setting up the mechanism that will impose huge costs on centres, because the grants will not fully account for the teachers’ pay. So what’s going to end up happening is that the centres will have to make up the difference either by reducing their ratios, reducing the number of good qualified teachers, or upping fees to parents.

Now, going back to what I said really early on, the National Party has always said that the quality of centres and the ratios that they offer is important, as is the ability for parents to be able to afford access to ECE services, and this bill is going to compromise those things. And while the Minister downplays it and says, “Don’t worry about it; we’ll work on those things later.”, they are integral to this bill, which is why the sector does not—

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

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this second reading of the debate on the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. As the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee that considered the bill, I just want to start off, knowing my manners, thanking our wonderful Clerk’s team—the Minister’s officials, Parliamentary Counsel Office—for their hard work to help us report this bill back, in time, to the House. I also would like to pay gratitude to our submitters. I know that Ms Stanford talked about the time line, but yet 558 people managed to submit on this bill, and also we heard 14 oral submitters. We heard from a variety of parties in the industry. We heard from early childhood education (ECE) service owners or managers, we heard from teachers who work in, or have previously worked in, this sector, and we also heard from representative bodies, and I want to thank all of those individuals as well as the representative bodies for submitting on this bill.

Now, I know that the Minister spoke about a relatively simple bill, not overly complex—basically, making a small technical change that is needed for clarification on the subject matter. I know it’s easy when it’s a technical bill to convolute issues and try and make something more out of it and get the conspiracy theories going, but really what this bill is is it is actually just clarifying a simple provision.

And so what it is is it actually turns on whether the existing, and very broad, condition-making power, which is in place and which has been in place since the 1990 Act, is actually sufficient to be able to impose the salary-related condition on what is an existing bulk grant funding for early childhood education.

So to make sure that there is that clarity and nobody can be in any doubt about that, this bill makes that small technical change to section 548 of the Education and Training Act, an Act which underpins the funding system for early childhood education in New Zealand. Now, Ms Stanford did mention the submitters expressing some concerns, and I would like to dig a little bit further into that, because some of our submitters actually spoke about the proposed funding condition relating specifically to pay parity between education and service teachers and kindergarten teachers, so that’s what they submitted on, rather than the actual amendment of this bill.

So on pay parity, or teacher conditions in general, we had teachers tell us their stories of financial insecurity and hardship and, at times, their difficulty in finding jobs. But I would like to say that, contrary to the National Party member who’s just gone on record to—and I quote verbatim—“broadly support paying teachers what they are worth”, our priority actually is to completely support paying teachers what they are worth—there’s no putting of any qualifier on that particular statement.

Now, there’s also been a mention of kicking the can down the road. I think that is rather disrespectful. We’ve always said, from the start, that this is a small step; it’s a first step. We have, in fact, already made some steps in our previous Budget, but with this particular step we are showing that work is continuing, it’s not the end—we are very much looking forward to working with the sector, as the Minister has pointed out, in working towards pay parity in the last term of Government, as we have been doing for some time now.

Erica Stanford: Then why didn’t he consult on the bill?

MARJA LUBECK: And listening to the comments from the other side, given how fundamentally National seems to be objecting to placing conditions around remuneration on ECE funding, one has to query whether National is actually committed to achieving pay parity. Not only do they frequently vote against these bills but now they also seem to be making a lot of noise with regards to that particular aspect of this bill.

So, again, we’ve always said that this funding will be an interim step: the funding system for ECE will need to be reviewed in order to achieve pay parity. Again, we look very much forward to working with that sector, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I rise to speak against this bill. National is not supporting the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard a number of speeches already from the other side, which is to say, “Oh, this is not a significant change. It’s only a minor little technical matter—nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. Everything’s fine, don’t worry. It’s all steady as you go.”, and, of course, that’s not the case. What we’re talking about here is the Minister giving himself—or maybe later, herself—the power to set conditions. What’s been mentioned is pay rates, but it could be all sorts of other things, and we’ve seen every day, every week, from this Government, something new, some new idea that’s dreamt up on the backbenches or in the union rooms or wherever their ideas come from, for new costs to be added on to employers. And this Government will no doubt dream up some more.

What we’ve seen time and time again is this Government coming into this Chamber and trying to rush through legislation, under urgency, and not giving New Zealanders the opportunity to sincerely and properly engage in the laws that affect them. I just want to take a little bit of time to tease that out, because a lot of people tuning into this debate mightn’t follow the intricacies of the parliamentary process. But what’s meant to happen when Governments are changing laws that affect New Zealanders—and in this area it’s affecting the people who run and operate early education facilities, and there are many of those. Tens and hundreds of thousands of young New Zealanders’ children go to these centres, and their parents rely on them to do a good job, look after their kids, get them started on the process of education, and to do it in a good way. Many do. Some can do better. And it’s a very important sector, setting New Zealand kids on a path towards educational attainment in order that they may be properly equipped to thrive and succeed in the modern knowledge economy. So it’s important that we get it right.

Now, what’s supposed to happen when the Government decides that it wants to change the rules is that it’s supposed to consult the sector and then, ideally, put out some draft legislation so that people can comment on it, and then, once those comments have been carried out, they introduce legislation into this House. Then it’s sent off to a select committee, and the usual time is around nine months or so, so that people have the opportunity. The committee calls for submissions, and then everybody comes in, having had a chance to look at the bill and plenty of time to consider it and give some consideration—

Jo Luxton: Speak to the bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the process is important, Mrs Luxon—Luxton, whatever, sorry; I was getting confused there. Anyway, that’s what’s supposed to happen, but what’s happened here, and has happened time and time again from this Government, is they come in and say, “Oh, no we’re in an urgent rush. It needs to happen quickly. Here’s the piece of legislation. In fact, we’re only going to give you a couple of weeks to make a submission. We’ll listen to you for a couple of days, and then whoomph—we’ll pass it through.” There is always some urgency requiring this, and that’s what’s happened here. So even in the very short period of time they allowed for discussion of this legislation, some 558 submissions were made, indicating that there is real concern around this.

We heard the submissions, and we heard the concern that was being outlined. The obvious point that was being made by the sector was that if the Minister was genuinely focused on ensuring pay parity in the sector, he has the tools available to him to do that, and that is through the processes available to him right now in the way that there is an attestation by the providers about what they have done. So that process is available now, and the Minister could have availed himself of it. But, instead, he’s trying to rush through this legislation in an extremely truncated time.

What the submitters were worried about were all the additional conditions that may accompany the parity remuneration, and we’ve already suggested a few of those. They’re not funded at a higher rate to reflect the terms and conditions of these collective agreements that are reached with kindergarten teachers. There’s no extra funding coming through, so there’s one of two obvious things that can happen. A number of early childhood centres came in and said that, effectively, this will cost them about $40,000 a year, for example, in some of them. They’re not getting any extra funding to go with this, and so two likely consequences are either that the fees will have to go up to parents, and that’s the last thing parents need at a time when costs are going up everywhere, or centres might be inclined to slightly reduce the student to teacher ratios. A number of them have it higher than they need to have, and they’ll squeeze, and so the children will get less focused attention on them.

So what we’d have as a consequence of this legislation—and this is just yet another example of how this Government operates. They make big gestures, “Yes, we’re going to help this group.” But when you look into the details of the consequences of the legislation that’s rushed through under urgency without due and proper consideration, the most likely outcome is that there will be higher fees for students and parents to have to deal with, or lower ratios and more kids per teacher. That doesn’t seem to me to be a good outcome.

So what we have is the Government wanting higher pay rates across the board for teachers, which is a worthy object—they’re not prepared to pay for it and so the assumption is that parents will pay for it. I suppose parents may or may not thank them for that, but what they would have liked is for Parliament to have a proper opportunity to consider this legislation.

I suppose the broader question is: is this going to lead to better educational outcomes? Now, if you were to look at the evidence that the Minister came to the House with to indicate this legislation is going to lead to better outcomes by X, Y, and Z, you’d be struggling to find it, because he hasn’t, really. It’s just based on a decision that they’ve made. They want to give the Minister greater powers to direct independent private early childhood education centres about how they pay their staff and about the terms and conditions in which they operate. The outcome of that, as I said, is most likely to be higher fees for parents.

I suppose the question that many struggling working families will be asking themselves, when they’re faced with higher costs in so many areas—inflation is starting to rip in this country, and the higher cost of living is affecting many families, and there is difficulty affording housing and rents—and with all the other pressures that are piling up on New Zealand families, is: “Why is it the priority of this Government to ram through legislation quickly in this House which is most likely to have the outcome that my fees are going to go up? Why do they see this as a priority?” It’s a fair question to ask, and I’d very interested to hear from Government members as to why they think that’s a good idea.

Normally, in the normal democratic process that we have, we have several months and an elongated select committee process where people who are the most directly affected—that is, the early childhood centre owners and controllers, the parents, and the staff; all the people involved—have the opportunity to consider the impact of what is being proposed, and to then have their say and for that to be properly considered.

We on this side feel that it is wrong that they haven’t had that opportunity, and we are worried that this bill will have the opposite impact to what it’s intended to have, and that won’t be the first, unfortunately, or the last that we see from this Government that is like that.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and rise and take a call on this Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Before I do, can I just acknowledge all those early childhood teachers out there across the country who work extremely hard in sometimes extremely trying conditions, and they play such a vital role in the care and education of our young children aged zero to six years old. So just firstly to acknowledge them.

This bill is just a small, technical bill that clarifies that there is already the ability for the Minister to impose or have conditions based around funding. For example, currently now, in order for a centre to receive a certain level of funding, they must sign an attestation form that states that they pay their teachers a minimum base rate, and then from there on it’s up to them how much they pay. But in order to receive that funding, aside from that, the funding is based on the number of qualified staff that you have in the centre on the floor. It’s also based on the number of children and the different ages of children. So there’s certainly already conditions around the level of funding that centres receive.

As a previous speaker said, there had been some concerns that the Minister was going to impose additional conditions based around employment, but he did clarify that that was not the case. So this is small, this is technical, and it just reiterates that there are already the provisions in legislation for the Minister to impose certain conditions. So I commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s great to take a call on the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill, and I acknowledge that this is a first step. It’s a first step in what needs to be many steps. For me, the call for pay parity has been around for a while, and so the processes can be truncated, but the conversation and the discussion around the really important needs out there in the early childhood education (ECE) sector have been with the sector for quite some time.

I do want to acknowledge and join everyone else with acknowledging the incredible work that our ECE sector does. They do an incredible job teaching our tamariki. The first years in a child’s life are so important and set our children up for educational success. The future of our physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development is profoundly affected by our early experiences. At the heart of those experiences are the relationships children form with their parents and, of course, with their teachers, and ensuring that those teachers are paid properly is really, really important.

The Green Party believes that every child deserves a high-quality, free, accessible public education that gives them the best possible start in life, and we want all children to reach their full potential. But, unfortunately, not all learners get equal opportunities and recognition. This is particularly so in early childhood education, which is a sector dominated by private providers. There are serious institutional inequities, of which pay parity is one issue impacting the whole ECE sector.

We support this bill, but would also welcome action on concerns expressed by submitters about the implementation of pay parity and the possible missed opportunities of this bill. The bill is a clarification of the Minister of Education’s powers, but it is not sufficient to deliver pay parity itself—for example, any funding can be opted out by private providers. Further work would follow so that fair pay and working conditions for teachers can be delivered, no matter who their employer is.

For me, I have friends and relatives who work in the ECE sector, and, when this was announced, I asked them if they were going to get a pay bump. But because they had been working where they were for a while, that wasn’t for them. So it’s really important that we recognise this as a first step, and I look forward to all those additional steps to make sure that we are on the pathway to achieve pay parity, because the gap is massive in terms of that.

I’d just like to reference a press release, actually, that just came out from the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI). It starts with “A $100K difference in pay over ten years—union says ECE pay parity needs to be accelerated … The pay differential between ECE and other teachers is a key contributor to the shortage. NZEI Te Riu Roa estimates that within ten years, an ECE teacher starting their career today will on average have been paid more than $100,000 less than their colleagues in kindergarten unless the Government accelerates pay parity.” So that is the size of the gap, and the gap has been there for a while. This bill is a small, technical bill and it is a mechanism to help to actually direct some of that funding where it needs to go, but it really needs to be ramped up and connected in with that broader vision of ensuring they have pay parity across the ECE sector.

At the end of the day, it’s going to be money, it’s going to be funding, and I’m sure that those of us who have worked in the education sector are aware of the pressing needs of the education sector. I was just out at Hutt Valley High School, where they’re fixing up their mouldy buildings, but there are a number of schools whose buildings are going to need significant repairs, and that is another big-dollar item.

So I think it’s really important that we put down exactly what we need right across the educational sector, but especially with the ECE sector, so that we’ve got a fair amount, actually, so that when we take these next steps—look, my expectation is that it needs to be followed up in the next Budget, and then the next Budget and then the next Budget, if we are going to really get serious about making sure that we are doing what we need to do to support teachers in terms of their claims for pay parity. When we have those numbers, then, possibly, the Minister has got a very clear picture of the sorts of things he’ll have to ask the Minister of Finance in terms of the money he needs to shake out of the money tree to actually sort out the issues that we have right across the education sector.

So, in summarising, the Greens support this bill. We see it as a first step of many steps, and we look forward to those many steps being: adequately funding and supporting our ECE teachers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to address the issue of pay inequities in early childhood centres with kindergarten teachers by giving the early childhood centres the opportunity to get a slice of a $170 million pie if they agree to paying staff what the Minister says.

Currently, it’s obviously an unfair system; everyone knows that, and it needs to be fixed. If you’re doing the same work, with the same qualifications, it makes sense you receive the same pay. But business owners also need the flexibility to pay some staff more and some staff less if they want to; it’s their business. Not all employees are the same and, contrary to popular thinking, some work harder than others and actually deserve more pay. ACT supported the bill in its first reading because we know the great job that the early childhood centre teachers do. We all have examples of how good teachers can make a huge difference in a child’s life and, ultimately, their future, often doing the job of a busy working parent whose life makes it impossible for them to be there.

It became obvious during the select committee process that things weren’t quite as straightforward as was being presented and that there might just be an ulterior motive at play. The short time frame for submissions was a concern expressed by a lot of people, and the timing of the hearings, and a number of more technical details regarding the wording and the motives. Overwhelmingly, the early childhood centre owners said they agreed their employees deserve to be paid more. Like all businesses, they value their employees. They train new ones; they care about their welfare. It’s in their best interests to have a happy workforce, as well as the employees’. This is something that a Christchurch early childhood centre owner wrote: “I want to be able to give increases to my teachers, many of whom have been with me for many years. They’re looking forward to it. They deserve it. The wage gap between unqualified and qualified experienced staff has eroded away due to minimum wage increases and the recent wage increase for newly qualified staff. We’re going to lose many qualified and dedicated teachers from our workforce if we can’t make pay parity work. And it will happen soon. They’ve waited too long.”

Most submitters said the consultation process was flawed, as in there was none. It reminds me of when I was working for the police a few years ago and we had a consultation process—until it was explained to us that police’s definition of “consultation” was to fairly inform; in other words, to tell you what’s going to happen but tell you nicely. Anyone reading the Ministry of Education document about this bill would assume that this definition is pretty appropriate for these changes. The Minister has said the extra funding must be earmarked for wages, but the wording of the amendment makes it clearly obvious that it leaves a lot of scope to make any sorts of other rules. “That is not my intention” rightfully doesn’t give anyone confidence that this power will be used for other employment-related matters.

I’d like to read from the Early Childhood Council’s CEO: “The Minister told the committee ‘I have no intention of telling centres how to run their business.’ They sought and received assurances from the Ministry of Education and between then and now there have already been two amendments, rules that the Minister is imposing. One is the centres will be required to implement a process that mimics the conditions of the kindergarten teachers. The second is centres will be required to implement a process defining how a teacher’s prior experience is measured. These weren’t mentioned in the initial briefing.” He also goes on to say, “We support and welcome the commitment to teacher pay parity but our fear is that bringing the kindergarten teachers collective agreement into the picture would lead to new conditions and increased compliance burden on centres, and a push to unwanted collective agreements across the sector. The fears appear to be well founded. Our members are deeply concerned about what they consider underhanded efforts by the ministry to dictate the employment responsibilities of independent businesses, all without consultation.” These businesses are really hard-working businesses and they already have, as he mentions, 303 pieces of compliance for every minute that they’re open.

Almost all of the submitters said that they agree with the sentiments of the bill but that the funding for what it is asking for just isn’t enough. If the Government is going to impose conditions and dictate terms, they must fund it appropriately. From an early childhood centre in Auckland: “Funding for us covers about 20 percent of the additional cost in salaries.” Everyone that they speak to is coming to similar conclusions. The figures just don’t add up, and make most early childhood centres unviable. All of the owners said, if they were to survive, they would have to increase fees and have higher ratios of students per teacher. Again, from an early childhood centre owner in Auckland: “The only option we have is increasing our fees. I’ve calculated a minimum increase of 10 percent is required across the board to cover the additional cost. However, that becomes unaffordable for parents.” And another one from Christchurch: “Two of the ways that the Ministry of Education measures quality of a centre is if a centre has low adult-child ratios and also if it has a low turnover of teaching staff. This funding model rewards the exact opposite. It makes it good to have high numbers of children for each adult and good to employ staff who have only recently qualified and registered.”

These are unintended consequences of rushed legislation and poor or non-existent consultation. It’s another example of the Government making public sector businesses run their businesses the way that the Government wants them to, and we’ve seen a constant attack on small businesses, over the last wee while, trying to make a living and employ New Zealanders. I’ll mention again the minimum wage raise, the 90-day trials, the ridiculous compliance, the regulations, and the list goes on. It’s the attitude that “I know how to run your business better than you do” and an unfortunate, ignorant, but all too common sentiment that if you can’t run your business with these conditions we impose on you, then you shouldn’t have a business. There’s a bigger picture.

I will end with another quote from a submission, which describes the plight of most early childhood centre owners: “On the surface, it sounds good. The general public and our teaching staff think it is a great idea, and a done deal; however, when I do the numbers, it is hugely disappointing because the funding increase is nowhere near enough to support the steps. As a director, I cannot jeopardise the viability of the company by knowingly doing something that makes it unprofitable. I don’t want to go bankrupt. In its current format, it is not workable, but neither is the current situation of inequity.”

Like I said at the start, things need to change, but this bill deserves a thorough review, consultation that is listened to, adequate funding, and solutions that respect both the hard-working owners of the early childhood centres and their hard-working employees. This hasn’t happened, and for these reasons ACT opposes the bill. Thank you.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you for giving me an opportunity to take a stand and take a call on this bill. I’m really disappointed about the confusion, and I don’t know if that is because people can’t get their heads around it or they can’t be bothered getting their heads around this bill. It is quite simple.

It has been interesting, and I recognise the tension that has been mentioned as we try and balance a business owner’s freedom to determine how they deploy resources, with their obligations and the responsibilities that come with Government funding. So bulk funding of salaries actually enables business owners to determine resource deployment, supports innovation and setting up their centres so that they’ve got appropriate conditions for their learners’ needs. But, unfortunately, the burden that comes with inappropriate funding models, or inadequate funding, actually falls on the provider. It leads to those providers having to make compromises, usually on pay or conditions. What happens is: conditions become a priority because things like staffing ratios and release times are the things that are most closely and obviously connected to learners’ conditions. So what happens is that the business owner compromises and says, “Well, I can’t do pay and conditions, or I choose not to, so I’ll stick to conditions because that’s important for the company.”

And we understand those decisions have been made. So this Government has provided $170 million more to support centres to step up and address those pay inequities. That additional funding is ring-fenced. We’re not just throwing more money and saying, “Do what you like with it.”; we’re saying, “If you want this money, you need to spend it on pay.” It is really simple. There is no obligation to take the money. If you want to take the money, it is to go towards pay parity. It is quite simple.

The controversy that was raised is about the funding model and the frequency. And I want to thank and encourage all of those submitters to continue and engage with the ministry to fix the funding, not the legislation.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to talk on the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill second reading. I obviously stand on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for the North Shore. National oppose this bill. And I’ll tell you what, as a father of two young boys that have been through the early childhood system, I do want to compliment all of those early childhood teachers and support staff that work throughout that sector, particularly those in my home electorate of the North Shore who do an absolutely wonderful job for our tamariki, our young children, in equipping them well for the challenges of the future.

In particular, around this bill, our challenges are very much around the fact that the significant, I guess, strength of the current early childhood system is that it provides parents and participants within that system with flexibility and choice—all right? The system allows me as a parent, or others, to decide where we send our kids and what type of institution. It also provides that flexibility for those businesses to be able to deploy the revenue that they receive in the areas that they believe is going to provide the best outcome. From my interaction with a number of these private centres, particularly in the North Shore, they are hugely focused and motivated around ensuring that they provide absolutely best-in-class services to our young people. They are hugely passionate and hugely care about that.

One of the challenges around this bill in particular is that this is going to bring in additional constraints on those businesses. It is another example from the other side of the House here of overreach of regulation, trying to tell business how to run their business. Well, I’m sorry; with respect, businesses know how to run their businesses, right? They don’t need a Government telling them, “This is how you spend your money. This is where your money needs to go. This is what you need to do.” You know, sort of that parent-child relationship, which I think is very much where this side of the House sees how they should treat State control: overreach and regulation. That is a significant burden that is placed within and across our small-business communities across this great country. I think it’s a travesty. I think it is really, really, another example of what has been a difficult year for our small-business community—and particularly those within the education and training area, because of the impact of COVID and the changes with lockdowns and all the other stresses that have come across. And now what they’re seeing from this Government is additional processes, procedures, regulation, and, at the end of the day, cost on them in order to do that.

What I want to also refer to there is around the 560 submissions that were received on this bill. The majority of these submissions were opposed to the Minister having significantly more influence, particularly around the employment conditions related and aligned to those collective contract arrangements. This is estimated—in terms of if I talk about cost burden on these businesses—somewhere in the region of an additional $14,000 to $110,000 per business. And some of these businesses aren’t big, but there is a complete disregard from that side of the House in terms of the imposing of additional costs, significant costs—110 grand; that is a heck of a lot of money for some of these small businesses—and this is what I refer to as another sea anchor being thrown out of the back of the boat to drag along and slow down our business community, when they should be being unshackled from regulation and allowed to get on and prosper and share that economic growth with this country.

But what is very clear from this Government is that that’s not how they operate. That’s not their modus operandi. They want to do everything within their power to overregulate, to overreach with regulation, and to impose additional costs on business, and I think that is an absolute disgrace.

I want to finish—again, to those staff out there working within the sector, I’m sorry, but I think this probably is going to go through, no doubt, but we are very firmly opposed to this bill. Thank you.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Today is a great day for ethnic communities. For the first time in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand, ethnic communities have their own ministry that will be dedicated to looking after the ethnic people in this country. That goes to show that when you have the Government that actually values everyone, the Government that’s dedicated to looking after every Kiwi, that’s what happens. I just want to mihi to our hard-working Minister, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, for the hard work she has done to make this happen.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! And now the member will come to the bill.

IBRAHIM OMER: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call to speak on this very important, I believe also timely, bill. As the Minister explains in his legislative statement, this bill intends to amend section 548 of the Education and Training Act 2020. This will confirm the power of the Minister of Education to set conditions on grant funding for employment relations purposes. These small but very important changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 will allow us to deliver on our commitment to move towards closing the pay gap. This amendment will push forward achieving pay parity for education and care teachers in comparison with kindergarten teachers, who are generally paid at higher rates. Pay parity in the early childhood education (ECE) sector is well overdue, and our teachers have been praying for it. I’m very proud that this Government is taking yet another important step to resolve this critical issue.

This issue will have had very longstanding consequences for both teachers and employees equally. As stated by the New Zealand Educational Institute in their submissions, employers in major cities have been reporting of the ECE severe teacher shortage, yet we have heard Chris Baillie quoting employers after employers about why this bill is wrong. I’ve also heard from Mel Burgess, who runs the ECE centre in Newtown: “Pay parity overall would help address the early childhood teacher shortage crisis. For our centre, it would mean that we can get qualified relievers when staff are away sick. We would then find it easier to maintain our goal of 100 percent qualified teachers.” This is what it’s going to do for the employers. It’s not bad news, as the Opposition makes it sound.

We have to listen to the voice of the ECE teachers. We have to value the precious role they play in our society, looking after our children at the most critical stage of their development. We have to acknowledge the unfair expectations in the sector where ECE teachers are made to put up with the standard that they earn less than they deserve. In the end, it’s about fairness, that people doing the same job receive fair pay. It’s about valuing the hard-working ECE teachers. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. I sit on the select committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, that considered this short, technical bill.

We heard a lot today in the House about what this bill may do, but I think it would be pertinent to look at what this bill actually does. It is a technical bill that implements new sections 548(5A), (5B), and (5C), that were amended with further clarity at the select committee, which I thought was a very collaborative process in relation to looking at the wording of those particular sections, which are very brief in their nature. These new sections would clarify that a desirable course of action is available to the Minister, and that course of action is that he or she can specify that funding is available for the purposes of employment relations, and that’s when providing funding for early childhood services and certified playgroups.

It was arguable that these conditions could be specified under the existing law, section 548(5), but this technical amendment makes it absolutely clear that these conditions can be made when the Minister is determining funding and that it can be for employment relationship purposes. As a former lawyer, I can see that this change is desirable as good legislative drafting practice to ensure that the law is clear and understandable and to remove any possible doubt as to its meaning, which I think everyone in the House can agree is a desirable aim.

In terms of the specific change, it paves the way clearly for pay parity in the early childhood sector, which is under discussion at the moment with the sector in relation to rates, as we heard in the Minister’s first speech in relation to this bill today. This bill proposes an interim step. It’s not a pay parity bill itself, but it paves the way for pay parity in the early childhood sector, and this is work that the Government is committed to, and this work will be progressed with a separate funding mechanism which is not provided for in this bill.

This is consistent with the Government’s work to ensure fair remuneration, free from historical, often gendered norms. This includes the area of work on pay parity, as has already been discussed at length in relation to this bill, but also this Government’s work on pay equity. Members will recall the Government’s work on amending the Equal Pay Act to ensure claims of equal pay for work of equal value can be made in this country, allowing traditional female workforces to finally be paid what they are worth. Early childhood teachers are a predominantly female workforce and deserve pay parity.

Funding has also been set aside to work with Kōhanga Reo to improve staff pay. This is important for equity but also in relation to the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I would like to thank the many submitters, many of whom were very passionate educators in this sector or owners of early childhood centres, and almost all of whom—and I cannot think of an exception—wanted the best for both children and teachers in the early childhood sector. I think we received 558 submissions and 15 oral submissions.

Those opposite have said that this has been a truncated process. While the process was short in its duration, I found it both helpful and elucidating, and found that there was a significant amount of participation from within the early childhood sector, both from unions, teachers, owners of centres, and, in fact, individuals who were very, very interested in submitting on the bill. Much of the substance of those submissions was not focusing on the actual content of this bill, which I’ve said is actually a technical amendment to allow funding to be specified and allow clarity for the purposes of that funding specification by the Minister.

Most of the people who submitted on the bill were actually talking about the funding mechanism in relation to pay parity, which they had various views on—almost all supporting the aim of pay parity, like this Government. So it was not the substance of this bill that those opposite were reflecting on in relation to their opposition to the bill; it was actually, possibly, issues that they had with a different thing, which is the funding mechanism.

So, in conclusion, this bill is a technical bill. It will provide clarity and a path forward for the Government to continue its work in relation to fairness and equality in relation to pay, and therefore I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): This bill is a Trojan Horse. It is not a pay parity bill, as the previous Labour speaker acknowledged; rather, it is a specific tool to give the Minister of Education the ability to dictate the employment, terms, and conditions of private businesses’ employees. It is a direct intervention from a Government Minister who proudly aligns himself with a union movement that has a stated goal of State control of early childhood education.

I want to remind the members opposite of how much New Zealand women, in particular, but New Zealand families, in general, have gained from the genuine diversity of the New Zealand early childhood education sector, because that is what is at stake here. What we have in New Zealand is a vibrancy that comes from not having, simply, kindergartens, and the union collective agreement that goes with them, but also community-led centres, privately owned centres, Montessori centres, Rudolf Steiner centres, centres with 20 kids, centres with 100 kids, centres in the middle of cities, and centres with farms.

Intrinsic to that and why that has happened is because up and down this country there are mums and dads, there are former teachers, there are people who have said, “I’m going to invest my money in an early childhood education business, and I’m going to provide what the families in my community want.” And when those people make that decision and when they invest in that early childhood education centre, I’ll tell you what they also do: they decide how best to deliver that service. And, yes, that includes how much they will pay their staff. And, yes, that includes under what conditions they will give their staff promotions; under what conditions they will say, “I’m going to step you up to the next level of pay”. That is a really important part of how those owners manage their businesses, and this bill puts that power directly at risk. It authorises the Minister of Education to attach conditions to Government funding to achieve a broad range of employment relations aims.

Now, I want to be very clear: right now, in New Zealand, there are too many early childhood teachers who are not getting paid enough. National values their work. We know what a difference they make to the lives of young people, and, in fact, the lifelong difference the work of a good early childhood teacher can do. National supports the notion that, actually, we need to have more fairness between what a kindergarten teacher gets paid and what a teacher in a non-kindergarten early childhood education service gets paid. And that is why, at first reading of this bill, we said, “Well, look, we’ll take a look at this, because, in principle, we don’t have a problem with the idea that the Minister will provide more funding to centres to ensure that teachers are getting fairer pay.” But that is not what this bill is, because the only way—and Labour speakers opposite have acknowledged it—that teachers will actually be paid more is if the Minister of Education puts in the funding to achieve that.

So I want to turn to what early childhood services themselves have told us about what they see in this bill. I thank the more than 550 people and entities who took the time to make a submission on this bill, who were given only 14 days to do so, who are running businesses that are literally running all hours of the day, looking after young children, and took the time to submit, but who only had two days to actually come and present their submissions, because this Minister decided to curtail the process. He did not want a detailed examination of exactly what is going on here. But let me, in this House, take the opportunity to tell you their concerns. What they say about this bill is that without the funding being guaranteed, attached to the employment conditions that the Minister may or may not dictate, they are going to be faced with stark choices, because if the Minister says, “Well, from now on, you need to step your teachers up to this pay level after they’ve spent this many years.”, or, “You need to make sure that they are doing this or that.”, then that comes with a cost, and the Minister is not guaranteeing that he will pay for that. So how will the early childhood centres fund that?

Well, they’ve got a few choices. One of the choices is lifting the fees that parents pay. Some may choose to do that; it will be just another cost of living increase from a Government who has callous disregard for the fact that its decisions have to be borne by someone. Others won’t have that choice, actually, because others are running early childhood services in communities where there are very few resources in the families whose children attend them. We know this because there has recently been a report which says that New Zealand has some of the most unaffordable early childhood education in the world. We are actually OK on the quality scale, according to the international comparisons; where we lack is affordability. So what the services tell us that this bill means for them is that the choice they may be forced to make is that—dictated to about the employment conditions they must provide, potentially aligning them with a collective agreement for union requirements—the way that they will have to meet that cost is that they will make cuts to quality. And do you know the number one way they’ll do that? They’ll say, “We can’t have as many staff anymore, because we can’t afford them, so we will increase the ratio of children to teachers.”

I’ve spent some time reading the evidence of what works in early childhood education, and I’ll tell you one thing: the more vulnerable you are—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Keep the Speaker out of it—

NICOLA WILLIS: —excuse me, Madam Speaker—the more vulnerable a child is, the more at risk they are in their home circumstance, the more important it is that they have stability in their caregiver and teacher relationships at an early childhood service. It can be very challenging to create continuity in those relationships, and stability in those relationships, if the ratio of children to teacher gets higher and higher and higher.

What we see here in this bill is the inevitability of a trade-off. Members opposite can say, “Oh no, there’s no trade-offs.”, but we live in the real world and we’ve listened to the more than 500 submitters who have said, “I’m running an early childhood service”—most of them, actually, run it for passion and for love because they love young children, they love teaching, they want to make a difference to those kids. And what those owners are saying, and we are listening to them, is: “If you force me into rigid requirements for how I”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

NICOLA WILLIS: —sorry, Madam Speaker—“If we are forced into rigid requirements, then, actually, we will lose flexibility, we will lose dynamism, we will lose the ability to do what we do so well. And we are very worried, indeed, about that.”

So I want to say, again, very clearly: National values early childhood teachers. We believe it would be very simple to ensure that their pay is better aligned with kindergarten teachers by increasing the attestation rates for their minimum pay. That is an option that is on the table for the Minister of Education right now. We have heard no good reason why it is necessary for him to introduce new tools which allow him to attach other conditions to achieve employment relations aims. We mark, in this House, the beginning of a slippery slope, we mark the stated intention of this Government’s allies to have complete State control of the early childhood education system, and we state our opposition to that.

To the early childhood services out there who provide diversity, who look after their teachers, who love teaching kids, who have done the great things that have made such a difference to New Zealand culture and society, who have extended their hours beyond what kindergarten has ever provided, who have provided programmes in school holidays because some people can’t get the school holidays off, who have said, “Actually, our parents need to be here at 7 in the morning because they’re shift workers.”, to those private early childhood education services who have innovated, we say: we value what you’ve done, we don’t want to get rid of you. That’s what Labour is up to. This bill is sneaky, it’s a Trojan Horse, and it should not stand.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): I’m astonished, and I’ve got to give the previous speaker, Nicola Willis, credit, because that is a remarkable ability to stretch out very, very scary outcomes from what is, essentially, a technical bill. What this bill will do is clarify something; that’s it. It doesn’t introduce new powers. The powers already exist—they have since 1990—but it clarifies that the bulk funding can be used for the purposes of wages; simple as that, so that there is no confusion.

What I heard over there is the same sort of rubbish we’ve been hearing from the National Party for generations. We hear a lot of lip-service, because, of course, they will want to go to their local early childhood centres in their electorates and pose for pictures and post them on Facebook. So we hear a lot of lip-service, but what we don’t hear, actually, is a commitment to pay parity. What we don’t hear is an acknowledgment that if we’re going to get there, we actually need to do something about it, rather than just stand there like they did when they were in Government for nine years and say, “We value early childhood education.”—then, when the discussion came to actually doing something about it, what did they do? Nothing. Did it achieve anything? Nothing. And they can get as angry as they like, but the facts stack up. And even the claims in the previous speech don’t stack up. They ignore the fact that there was $170 million over four years in the 2021 Budget, building on the $150 million that was in the Budget before, and they use the age-old scare tactics of “The Minister is aligned to the unions.” Hello, we’re the Labour Party. Everybody knows that we’re aligned to the unions, because we are the party that lifts wages and improves conditions.

Nicola Grigg: And crushes productivity.

KIERAN McANULTY: We hear the scaremongering tactics of those yelling over there and saying that intervention is not the way to achieve good wages—the free market, that’s what that is. That stuff was debunked years ago. The trickle-down theory is what we’re hearing. If we took the alternative approach that’s being proposed to this bill here, what we would see is wages going backwards in real terms, conditions being dismantled like we saw over many, many years. And this bill brings in a very simple, technical change that allows the Government to then actually achieve what that party has been giving lip-service to for many, many years, and that is pay parity.

The question that I want to pose is: why are they satisfied with people working in an industry with the same qualifications, the same skills, and the same experience getting paid less than others? Why? They don’t have an answer because they cannot justify it. We are not satisfied with that. This technical change in this bill will allow this Government to actually do what other parties have promised and never delivered. We are not satisfied, and it’s not just in early childhood education; it is across the board that we believe that people should get paid a decent wage and good conditions and have the ability and the right to be able to negotiate for that and actually have the provisions in place set by this Parliament to allow them to do that. And in an industry like early childhood education, it is this exact provision and this clarification that will allow the Government to achieve it.

Now, if I am lucky enough one day to be a father, and my children go to an early childhood education centre, I want the confidence that their teachers’ skills and experience and qualifications are being valued. Now, we heard all sorts of scaremongering around diversity of choice. The question I pose is: where in this bill does it say that diversity is going to be undermined? It doesn’t. It’s a fantasy. We heard all sorts of talk of nationalisation of the industry. Where is it in the bill? Again, it is a total fantasy. We hear, again, lip-service—too many teachers are not being paid enough, that’s what they said. Too many are not being paid enough, but what did they do about it? Nothing—absolutely nothing. They hear a lot about values, and a lot about support, but it’s just talk.

We heard the quote a couple of times in the previous contribution from the last speaker: National supports the notion—the notion, the idea, the theory. They don’t support it; they support the idea. New Zealanders are sick of hearing about support for ideas; they want action. That is why this technical change will enable that to occur.

I commend the Minister for introducing this bill. I commend the members on the Education and Workforce Committee for clarifying what this is about for those that may have heard some of the stuff that we heard on the other side tonight, actually believed it, and got worried, came into the select committee to submit, got the clarification, and have gone away satisfied that this is actually going to achieve our mutual goal of valuing early childhood teachers and ensuring that we actually achieve pay parity. It’s been talked about for too long; this Government is going to deliver it. The National Party had an opportunity to join us, and they’ve just sent a message to all the early childhood teachers in their electorates that, actually, all they are is talk.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (Grants—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 June.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this third reading of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill—and it’s in the area that I’m well-versed in, having practised, as people know, as a child advocate for a number of decades.

So in taking this call, I reflect that when I last stood in the House on a similar bill, which was the supporting families in court legislation, I spoke and said that it was a done deal. This is a done deal as well. The reality is that the Labour Government has a majority of 65 votes, their view has been well canvassed and expressed in the Justice Committee report, and it’s going through. So when I spoke on the supporting families in court legislation bill—this now being the supporting children in court legislation bill—I indicated that our children deserve better. And I speak from that point of view, having been a child advocate, a court-appointed lawyer, for a number of decades. I say the same thing again: the last bill was rushed through, under urgency, without the opportunity for a full, thorough, robust debate and contribution from those who know full well about the implications of such law to be.

I say that again, because the National Party, quite rightly and properly, opposes this bill at this time. One of the core reasons why it’s opposed is that those who advocate from a specialist, practice, and expert position point of view, as advocates representing children in the court—that is, the family law section, which represents some 11,000 practitioners, half of whom have more than 20 years’ experience—made a submission to the Justice Committee saying that this bill should be deferred until there has been not just anecdotal evidence provided but thorough research around the “how to”, the methodology on the best practice for representing children in the court. That view has been dispensed with, because why? It would seem that the Labour Government knows better than the specialist practitioners who represent children in the Family Court.

I’ve returned to this House; I wasn’t a member of the Justice Committee at that time. But I am, I believe, the only member in this House who has been a Family Court child representative, for almost 30 years. This bill is a done deal because it’s doing over what would be the best practice for children in terms of their representation and the model for that. That is clearly the evidence that was put by the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society to the select committee. But, for some reason, the Labour Party, the Government, knows better than everybody else, and this is being rushed through. The recommendation was to defer it until such time as not just the national evidence, but the international modelling—because New Zealand is well known as being an international leader in terms of child advocacy.

Another example of that is our system in the Youth Court. Why are we short-changing the best representation for our children? And I also share with you, in the short time that I have left for this call, that even absent such legislation, we have Family Court practice guidelines that have been well-researched, well-provided, not just by the judges but senior counsel for all the years of our specialty of practice. But also the other specialty of practice that’s been overlooked in this bill is the significant role that psychologists have, that counsellors have, that those other experts and specialists have in terms of the advocacy and representation of children—not just their views, not just their best interest, but the paramountcy of their welfare.

So it’s regrettable that, again, for some reason, this Government seems to think that they know best, they know better than what the experts and specialists do in this field, and in so doing it’s a done deal, and, again, our children are going to suffer the consequence of being done over. I don’t commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you. I’m happy to rise and take a call on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill at second reading. In doing so, can I just acknowledge the Justice Committee. Like the member Harete Hipango, who has just resumed her seat, I am not a member of that committee but I acknowledge the work that they have done in allowing the bill to reach this point in its progress in the House. I also want to very briefly just acknowledge two ministerial colleagues, the Hon Andrew Little, who started this piece of work previously, and the Hon Kris Faafoi, who has picked the baton up and has taken it forward.

I think it’s really important to remind the House that the genesis of this piece of legislation comes from the review that was undertaken around the 2014 reforms in this area and that it was done by an independent panel. This fundamentally is about access to justice for children. And as the member who has spoken previously no doubt accepts, these are often complex situations and complex predicaments.

I guess what I’m delighted to read, through the select committee’s report in having the bill come back to the House, is they identify four amendments that they believe will inform the bill and make it more workable. The first one is, effectively, around a stocktake to ensure that the date upon which this piece of legislation comes into force is delayed so that there is actually a piece of work that’s undertaken to ensure that the further training opportunities that will be needed, to ensure the participation of children appropriately through this process, is actually up to spec. And I think it’s appropriate to, in that light, delay the implementation of this to ensure that we’re not putting the cart before the horse, because that certainly wouldn’t result in pleasurable outcomes, in that sense.

The second amendment is around the strengthening of the provisions that allow for a child to participate in procedures, and this is not purely strictly related to the age and maturity of a child, but rather that the child needs to be capable of forming their own views. We all know that circumstance and context are two different things and they will mean different things to different people. So, again, another example of a suggested change from the select committee that will make the bill more workable.

The third is around the requirement for lawyers to, I guess, consider the safety considerations as being paramount throughout all of this engagement. So not a pure focus on reconciliation as a form of, I guess, mitigation, but rather ensuring that while reconsideration might be part of that piece of work, fundamentally the safety, and particularly the safety of the child, is paramount in that consideration. The fourth one is a technical one, which ensures that there’s some parallel alignment with the other piece of legislation, the Family Dispute Resolution Act.

There is one piece within the legislation that I think is a good move, and that is around the requirement for lawyers who are engaged or appointed to work with and represent the child through these proceedings—to ensure that there is a connection, whether it be through training, through background, around the lawyer’s personality, cultural background, and the like. And as I’ve mentioned earlier, these can be complex and very difficult issues that can arise throughout this process.

But like the member, in terms of experience, what I would say is that I have presided over sittings of the District Court in the District Court and the Youth Court jurisdictions, albeit through bail and remand hearings. And I have to say that I think it’s really important that the fit, the connection with the lawyer and client, is extremely important, because those who represent young people as youth advocates in the District Court, and the Youth Court in particular, have to fit a particular bill. Not all lawyers undertake Youth Court work, and that shouldn’t be any different for those that are engaged to work on behalf of children—that the lawyers who are engaged to work alongside children are a good fit, whether that’s around personality, cultural background, experience, all of those sorts of things. So having a bill that would allow for that is really, really important.

I’m delighted that this is another piece of the suite of changes to make our justice system more accessible and more fair. On that basis, I again thank the select committee for their work and I commend this bill to the House.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I’m pleased to be taking a call on the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill. I’d like to reassure the member from the other side of the House who was concerned that there was inadequate consultation with the experts around this bill. I’m really, really pleased that the Justice Committee had access to Dr Emily Henderson, who is not only a criminal court academic and reformer but a Family Court lawyer and an expert in child witness processes. The select committee can be very confident that they had very sound, world-class advice about the best way to resolve the issues that this bill is attempting to resolve.

I discussed this bill with her and she reminded me that it is part of a reset of the Family Court, which, as a review by the Minister Andrew Little in 2019 discovered, has become unbalanced, overstrained, and not responsive, especially to the needs of tamariki Māori. This bill actually reinforces and strengthens responsibilities on professionals, lawyers and mediators, to respect and facilitate children’s voices in disputes over their care. That is the heart of this matter: enabling our children’s voices to be heard. There is nothing more powerful to a young person than feeling that they have some control over their lives, and when they don’t, it can be devastating.

It also reinforces and strengthens lawyers’ responsibilities to seek to resolve cases quickly, fairly, and cost-efficiently, but also safely, because in many cases childcare disputes involve violence and abuse, which create extreme imbalances between parents’ bargaining power. This is why the Opposition are wrong to criticise the bill, as they do in their alternative report, for placing too much faith in lawyers. In a place like the Family Court, where disparities in power are so common, lawyers are a vital tool to achieve some sort of parity and rebalancing, and enable disempowered people to access justice—our most vulnerable, our children and women, to have a voice and to get a successful outcome. This isn’t to disparage alternative dispute resolutions, but most cases which land in the courts require the greatest of expertise and strong representation.

She reminded me how the changes that Collins made in 2014 which cut lawyers from the early stages of proceedings—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will refer to another member by their full name.

ANGELA ROBERTS: I beg your pardon. There were cuts made, and what happened is the rate of emergency applications moved from 30 percent to 70 percent of all applications, reversing the previous proportions. This wasn’t because lawyers were trying to keep work; in fact, most Family Court lawyers are hugely oversubscribed. What it did—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but I was waiting for the member to correct her speech.

ANGELA ROBERTS: Oh, I beg your pardon—for Judith Collins. I was referring to the Hon Judith Collins and her reforms.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

ANGELA ROBERTS: Thank you for your support and advice to get it right. So the changes have been really negative, and most Family Court lawyers, the use of them, the need for them, it reflects client anxiety about self-representation in such stressful times.

International studies in the UK, the US, and Australia show lawyers in the Family Court shorten cases, promote resolution, and cut costs, not the other way round. Like I say, when you look to the evidence and you’re looking for solutions and you’re wanting to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable, then you do what the evidence says is sensible. There’s no doubt the Family Court is strained and needs a reset, but it needs to recognise lawyers as part of the solution, and to this end, this bill refocuses and reinforces lawyers on their responsibilities to resolve cases efficiently and fairly and also safely. That’s what we all want to do: make sure that the outcomes are best for our most vulnerable. So I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in respect of the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill and to speak in opposition to this bill. The National Party is proud of its record in taking extensive reforms of the care of children regime in 2014. Those reforms were intended to shift the focus from in-court resolution to encouraging parents to reach agreement for themselves through out-of-court processes. Fundamentally, the focus must be on what is best for the child and children, and the key question is how to get there.

The key concern that the National Party has with this legislation is that it is bringing lawyers back into the process and involving them in the court process to a degree which will actually have an adverse effect on children. The National Party believes that other professionals with other skills more relevant to issues such as child development, psychology, or sexual violence would be better placed to address and deal with this.

I understand that other comparable jurisdictions were looked at. With this law, New Zealand will see more cases in court with more primacy provided to lawyers than in any of the several comparable jurisdictions that were looked at, by what I understand the select committee looked at.

Following the reforms in 2014, concerns were raised that some reforms have had a negative impact on children, parents, and whānau, and have exacerbated existing issues. The final report of the independent panel examining the 2014 reforms found that while the system on the whole is sound, there is limited participation by children in issues that affect them and there’s concern as to whether their voices are heard and whether their views are taken into account, both in and out of court. In court, a lawyer for a child is appointed to determine and represent the child’s views. The independent panel found that there was considerable variation in how lawyers for children approached that task.

This is the second of two Government bills which form part of the legislative phase of a long-term programme to change the family justice system. This is contrary to findings of the Ministry of Justice, which has been monitoring and researching the 2014 reforms since their implementation. The evaluation by the Ministry of Justice found that the system was fundamentally sound—i.e., that out-of-court processes are the most effective and sustainable solution.

Reintroducing lawyers will reinstate children’s adversarial experience of the courts, which the 2014 reforms aimed to stop. Out-of-court resolution is by far the most effective method of resolving disputes between parents, and when the matters are brought into court, it necessarily involves an adversarial process, particularly when lawyers are engaged in that process. It is our deep concern that it will not ultimately be in the best interests of the children involved, and it will not minimise harm to children from court delays and adversarial processes.

A significant concern, having been a lawyer in the courts, is the length of time it takes for hearings to happen, and I know from my own experience that many, many, many months, and sometimes much longer than that, can be involved for children and other participants in the court process in waiting for matters to be resolved. This, unfortunately, will not be solved by this bill, and having more lawyers and, ultimately, more court hearings will inevitably entail more delay and a longer time until children’s need are met.

I’ll just say that I wasn’t a member of the committee that looked at this, but I understand that in relation to child participation, the committee heard from multiple submitters that it’s not in every instance in a child’s welfare and best interests to actively participate. For example, where it involved confronting trauma or significant family acrimony, it could, in fact, be harmful. Additionally, overexposure to multiple professionals and to the court case can lead to a sense of responsibility for the child for the decisions made, and, ultimately, that should not be a burden borne by children.

So, regretfully, it is our positon that this is not the right approach to solve the issue for children, and it will ultimately lead to an extension in the court process that will not be helpful to solving issues in disputes between the parents over the best care and welfare of the children involved. So we do not support this bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Just reflecting on the previous speaker, Joseph Mooney, I think there wouldn’t be anyone in this House or, probably, anyone in this country who would think that by the time these issues get to court, then something hasn’t gone wrong, and it would be so much better if everything in life could be resolved without the intervention of lawyers and courts. However, that’s not the world we live in, and this bill is here to address those situations where those other systems—whether it be parenting, whether it be marriage, whether it be whatever could have intervened to stop this happening—has failed.

So what this bill is about is ensuring that once we do get to the stage where we are in court, we focus on the right things. Anyone that’s ever been in a Family Court—and I assume the previous speaker has been, with his profession; I know a few on this side will have been—you actually see the looks on the faces of the young people, particularly, or the children there who are bewildered by the surroundings. They are bewildered by the fact that they are really, by the nature of the beast, expected to take sides, and bewildered by the fact that everyone in the courtroom is often someone who looks very differently and sounds very different from those in the world that they have grown up in—that look of bewilderment means that you just understand that trying to make some sense, trying to allow those young people or children to walk out of there with some sense of, I would say, satisfaction but at least some sense that the outcome is something that is going to benefit them is, really, what this bill is about.

I think it’s important that we actually have a look at what it was intended to achieve: just to reinforce the expectation that a child could have reasonable opportunities to participate in the decisions affecting their care and welfare. As I look through the submissions on the bill, I’d probably look at the Law Society submission, who noted that it is now well recognised that the views of even very young children can provide important information for decision making in parental disputes. I think that probably of all the submissions, really, drew my attention. If we can build—and this is the attempt of this bill: to build around that expectation.

Of course, having the right lawyer—again, I reflect on the previous speaker. It’s a shame that we have to have lawyers at all, but I suppose I would say that as an ex - police officer. But, certainly, once we get the lawyers involved—that we get the right lawyer, people that actually do understand and, more importantly, can speak the language of the child. Again, my reflection or my memory of this system is having young people or children have matters explained to them and standing looking blankly—the inability to speak language that the child will understand. That is a very important factor, because this is often the last chance saloon. Getting it right here is going to have a complete and utter subsequent direction for this child in the future.

So it also is to reinforce the need for the court to recognise and respond appropriately to family violence, and particularly it has on children. We’re building a picture here where we must take cognisance that by the time people walk out of this court, there is at least some sort of judgment, some sort of satisfaction, and by focusing on the needs of the child, it will at least give some chance—the best chance—that it will be the right solution. So to that end, I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 40

New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.