Wednesday, 4 August 2021
Volume 753
Sitting date: 4 August 2021
WEDNESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2021
WEDNESDAY, 4 AUGUST 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Karakia/Prayers
Karakia/Prayers
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Te Atua mana, te ‘akameitaki atu nei matou iākoe, no to tākinga meitaki ta‘au i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te ‘akaruke nei matou, i to matou tu tangata, te ‘akama‘ara nei matou i te Airki Vaine, e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou ‘uri‘uri‘anga manako, kia rave matou i ta matou ‘anga‘anga i roto i teia ngutu‘are, na roto i te pakari, te tuatua tika, e te ‘akaāta no te meitaki, e te au, o to matou basileia Nūtirēni, na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia, ‘Āmene.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
DEPUTY CLERK: Petition of Mark Ross requesting that the House of Representatives urge the Government to pass legislation requiring that all front-line police officers in New Zealand carry firearms on their person at all times.
SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.
Papers have been delivered for presentation.
DEPUTY CLERK:
Fire and Emergency New Zealand Statement of Performance Expectations 2021/22
Government Response to the Report of the Education and Workforce Select Committee on its Inquiry into Student Accommodation.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.
DEPUTY CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for second reading.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, kia orana. Yes. In particular, I stand by the drop in our unemployment rate to some of the lowest levels in over a decade: 4 percent. The number of people unemployed fell by 12.4 percent, the largest quarterly percentage fall since the household labour force survey began in 1986, and this, combined with two record-breaking quarters of people cancelling their benefit to go into work, shows how effective this Government’s recovery plan is and how well we are managing the economy while keeping New Zealanders safe.
Hon Judith Collins: So why are there 68,000 more New Zealanders on the jobseeker support benefit than when she became the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, despite some of those record numbers, undeniably we have seen significant impacts on certain sectors of our economy because of COVID-19. But the fact that we have seen record numbers moving from jobseeker support into employment, or fall from our main benefits into employment, particularly in seasons where we don’t usually see that level of movement, is heartening. It demonstrates that programmes like the Flexi-wage and like Mana in Mahi are all making a difference in supporting employers to use the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and to bring on people who may otherwise not have received job opportunities.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with her transport Minister, Michael Wood, that “Auckland [would] not [be able to] reach its potential” without the cycle bridge she may or may not be about to cancel?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We absolutely have to bring different modes of transport and transport options between the North Shore and the central city. That is key, and I would have thought that the member would have agreed with that too, given, of course, her advocacy around a second harbour crossing. We remain committed to improving and increasing the different modes of transport between the North Shore and the central city. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! OK, I’m going to just do a general warning now. After yesterday, there were a lot of complaints about the noise from one party drowning out the responses from Ministers. I’m not going to have that sort of complaint after today’s, because we’re going to have only reasonable interjections.
Hon Judith Collins: When she said that the Mongrel Mob - led Kahukura programme pilot showed “signs of success”, what were they?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That was based on the pilot programme that was run the year prior, which demonstrated that in a short pilot that was held, there were no dropouts, a 100 percent drug-test pass rate, and 80 percent met all court and probation obligations. Obviously, it was a short period of time, but if we wanted to look beyond that programme, we could look to the programme that the National Party funded, which was very similar, which was called the Hauora Programme. They funded the Salvation Army, who worked with the Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob to establish the programme. Clearly, in Government they had one view; now they’re in Opposition, they clearly have another.
Hon Judith Collins: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a difference between the Salvation Army and the Mongrel Mob?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and I’m also clear that they weren’t—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough—Mr Doocey in particular.
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and I’m also clear that both worked together to form a policy and programme that was shaped entirely for the use of Mongrel Mob members. Again, I stand by my statement that the member obviously takes one view in Government and a vastly different one in Opposition.
Hon Judith Collins: Is she aware that the final application for the Mongrel Mob - led Kahukura programme was made just two weeks after the pilot was finished? Does she think two weeks is long enough to evaluate the success of a meth addiction programme?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Firstly, I dispute the premise of the member’s question. We have funded an organisation called Hard2Reach. The member should be familiar with Hard2Reach. Her Government funded it also, through Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK) and MSD—again, yet another example of when in Government the member has one view, and when in Opposition takes a vastly different one. I acknowledge also when the member was the Minister for Ethnic Communities, she also had no issue with celebrating the use of the word “Aotearoa”.
Hon Judith Collins: Ooh! What information did she seek on the participants in the Mongrel Mob - led methamphetamine programme before she approved its funding?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I will correct the member. The organisation that is funded is called Hard2Reach, an organisation that was funded through TPK contracts and MSD contracts when the member was in Government—demonstrating that they have been around for some time. The member asked a question around the process around the proceeds of crime. My recollection, and with some prompts, I received some information around the proceeds of crime programme in February. I asked for additional advice on the outcomes of the trials that the member references and also the perspective of the police. What I received in return was confirmation that the local police in the Hawke’s Bay supported the programme. That formed the basis of my and other Ministers’ approval of the funding.
Hon Judith Collins: How can the participants be “hard to reach” when eight out of 10 of them were already under the active care of the corrections system?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows from the funding of the Hauora programme, successfully navigating those individuals engaged in criminal activity voluntarily through drug rehabilitation programmes is no easy feat. The member will know that from her time in Corrections, or has she forgotten now that she is in Opposition?
David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister trust Harry Tam, or was his statement “Jacinda seems to trust me.” incorrect?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Our contracts are based on just that—contracts. Our providers are obliged to deliver on them. I don’t rely on trust; I rely on agreements and contracts that set out our expectations. If they are not fulfilled, they are not funded.
Hon Judith Collins: Was she aware when she signed off $2.7 million for the Mongrel Mob - led programme that participants would be doing gardening at Notorious Chain Dog president Sonny Smith’s house?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject the premise of that question, as I have corrected the member many times on. On the second point, this programme—I’ve had that question raised with me. The first part of funding for this programme was only delivered on 15 July. It is specified in the contract that it is for establishment cost. Future funding is specified as being around drug testing. Those elements of the programme required around medical interventions—it is all clearly set out in budget line items and in the contract. If it is not fulfilled, then the contract is not fulfilled.
Hon Judith Collins: Does she now regret cancelling National’s successful methamphetamine action plan in 2018, given the methamphetamine problem in New Zealand seems to have got remarkably worse under her watch?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Just to clarify: is that the methamphetamine programme which had a Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob funded for drug addiction and treatment? Just to clarify—just to clarify—is it that programme? Because, based on the member’s question, she would cancel her own action plan.
Question No. 2—Finance
2. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before I ask the Minister of Finance to answer, I’m going to ask the people on my left to be quiet. It’s now, I think, the third occasion where I’ve asked and I am just getting unhappy with being the recipient of the communications from people who think this Parliament should be able to be heard on the radio and on television.
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s economic plan to secure our recovery has led to more New Zealanders in work and higher wages. Today, Statistics New Zealand released the jobs figures for the June 2021 quarter. The data showed that the unemployment rate fell once again to 4 percent from 4.6 percent in March, with 17,000 fewer people unemployed over the quarter. The unemployment rate is now where it was in the pre - COVID-19 December 2019 quarter—and I want to make sure you hear this one, Mr Brownlee: the data also shows that the economy continued to add jobs with 28,000 more people in employment in the June quarter, split evenly between men and women. This meant people in employment are up by 63,000 since the September 2020 quarter when unemployment peaked at 5.3 percent. The underutilisation rate, which gives a broader measure of untapped capacity in the labour market, fell to 10.5 percent from 12.1 percent.
Helen White: What else did the report say about the state of the labour market?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Statistics New Zealand reported that the accelerating recovery is putting more money into New Zealanders’ back pockets. The average hourly wage rose 4 percent to $34.76 an hour compared with a 3.3 percent rise in inflation. New Zealand’s robust economy is seeing gains across a number of sectors including construction, retail, and accommodation, with most commentators expecting wages to continue rising over the coming year.
Helen White: What reactions has he seen to the positive job start-ups?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The consensus among economists had been that unemployment would fall to 4.4 percent. The result is also well below Treasury’s Budget 2021 update, which forecast unemployment to be 5.2 percent in the June 2021 quarter. In its review of the data, BNZ’s economists called the labour market report a “stonker” and that everything about the labour market data was stronger. ASB’s economists expect the momentum for demand in the labour market to continue due to New Zealand’s resilient economy. The ANZ bank added that it thinks it’s only the beginning of strong wage rises this year. There are some who can always see the negative whereas on this side of the House we can see New Zealanders working hard and getting the reward for that work.
Question No. 3—Immigration
3. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Yes, I stand by our Government’s management of the border to keep COVID out of our communities, to make sure that New Zealanders can get home, to reunite families, and to respond to skill shortages where we can. Throughout the pandemic, we have worked to strike a balance between protecting people, using the limited capacity we have at the border to bring people through, and making the best use of onshore workforce through changes to visa settings. In taking this approach, we have been able to bring in more than 17,000 skilled workers and their families to date, and we’ve also extended essential skills, working holiday, and supplementary seasonal employment visas to meet our onshore labour demands. We’ve also taken decisions to make the system as flexible as it can be to make sure we have the best use of these workers.
Erica Stanford: Why, despite a letter being sent to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in early 2019 to express the Government’s concern over Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) residency visa processing delays, has he done little to stop the visa processing times jumping from 11 months then to 27 months today?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. There are two issues there. The first issue is that the demand for the SMC process was much larger than expected, and managing the demand in terms of processing has been a challenge for Immigration New Zealand. Also, the second issue would be COVID-19 and the ability of Immigration New Zealand to process those applications, as well as the applications for the likes of critical purpose visas, which allow those 17,000 workers and families to come through the border when the border is closed.
Erica Stanford: Can he explain to the thousands of skilled migrants stuck in limbo why they should have any confidence that he will fix the residency backlog when, according to his office, he has only received one piece of written advice on this issue since the election?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because if you look at the decisions that we’ve made recently, we are watching and looking at options available to us when our border is closed. She may have seen on Monday that we announced the beginning of quarantine-free travel, hopefully, with the likes of Tonga, Samoa, and Vanuatu, in order to have Recognised Seasonal Employer workers here for the next harvest, and, about three weeks ago, the extension of essential skilled workers to make sure that businesses can continue to keep the workers that they have.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister stand by his answer to parliamentary written question No. 26322 that the health requirements of migrants do not discriminate on the basis of disability, and, if so, what does he say to the multiple families currently petitioning to stop the deportation of their disabled children?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The health requirements, or acceptable level of health requirements, that have been in place for Immigration New Zealand have been there for many years. They are there to ensure that people who come to New Zealand on temporary work visas don’t impose undue costs on taxpayers. There is the ability, if individuals or individual families want to take a specific case to Immigration New Zealand, or the Associate Minister of Immigration, to go down that avenue.
Erica Stanford: What does the Minister say to the Ōtaki community, who now face a three-week wait to see a GP after their migrant doctor, Dr Harding Richards at the Ōtaki Medical Centre, who looked after 1,300 patients—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! No. The member’s going to start again, having lost that one because she had three unnecessary bits of information in there.
Erica Stanford: Does the Minister believe that it is good value for money to spend approximately $6 million since 2018 to relocate migrant teachers to New Zealand, to then have those teachers leave because they’re stuck in an expression of interest (EOI) pool that is frozen?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Obviously, there was a need to attract teachers here when that decision and that investment was made. Obviously, no one knew that the border was going to close. As was said earlier this week, we’re looking at the resumption of EOI options as we speak, and a decision will come in short order.
Question No. 4—Prime Minister
4. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Kia orāna kotou katoatoa. Kia orana nga ‘anga‘anga raverave no te ‘epetoma o te reo Māori Kūki ‘Airani. Does she stand by her statement that “the Government is committed to eliminating racism in all its forms in Aotearoa New Zealand”?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Kia orana. Yes, and I’m particularly proud of the work—as part of our recovery—we’re doing to support Māori through, for instance, 13,900 more Māori women in employment in the June quarter compared to last year; 2,667 rangatahi are being supported through He Poutama Rangatahi; the investment we’ve made into Māori housing, including a $380 million investment around housing development; the establishment of a new Māori Health Authority; and up to 13,000 Māori children who are projected to be lifted out of poverty thanks to our investments in Budget 2021.
Rawiri Waititi: Is she aware of the radical discrimination that Māori face every election when the Electoral Commission give us confusing and inaccurate information about our rights and when tens of thousands of Māori—24,000 of us in 2020—are prevented from shifting to the Māori roll?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. I’m aware of calls that have been made since 2017—actually long before that—around the Māori Electoral Option and the fact that there’s only one opportunity for those who have the option of either being on the general or Māori roll to choose between the two, and that they don’t align with the election period when it’s front of mind for most voters. So that’s the reason we’ve said to the Ministry of Justice, “Please go out and consult on the possibility of changing up the Māori Electoral Option.” They’ve started that in June; that will run through to August. We’ve asked them to consult both generally but also to do some targeted consultation to get feedback particularly from Māori, obviously, on changes to the Māori Electoral Option.
Rawiri Waititi: Is she aware that due to the Māori Electoral Option occurring every five to six years across two election cycles that thousands of Māori are locked out of an ability to exercise their right to move to the Māori roll?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, and that’s why we’re undertaking this piece of work. But I wouldn’t say that that’s the only thing that has disenfranchised people. One of the concerns we had, for instance, when we came into Government, was that people’s vote can sometimes not count due to administrative reasons. If you, for instance, aren’t on the electoral roll and you go in and try and enrol and vote at the same time, that was disallowed previously. We’ve changed that. We’ve tried to simplify the process. We’ve reduced down the number of people who will have their vote disqualified as a result. Now we’re moving on to the Māori Electoral Option.
Rawiri Waititi: Does she accept that this policy sets up barriers for Māori who are trying to participate in our electoral system and our democracy?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I do. I remember when I first ran for Parliament in the seat that covered, in particular, Ngāruawāhia and Huntly. Frequently knocking on doors where I could see and hear from voters that not only was it confusing but they felt like they’d lost an option that they’d only come to think about at the time of the election, and that’s perfectly natural. I do want to find a better way and that is why we are consulting on this issue right now.
Rawiri Waititi: Does she believe that Māori should be able to shift between electoral rolls at any time rather than only every six years, and, if not, why not?
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yeah, and this is exactly why we’re undertaking this consultation right now. Also, what we want to hear about is whether or not it poses any—at the same time, we don’t want to disenfranchise people. We need to also make sure that we have a system that is robust, that people trust. So we need to also, on the flip side, hear from the Electoral Commission around any issues that might arise from the ability to move more fluidly.
Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response
5. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister for COVID19 Response: Meitaki maata, Vaa Tuatua. What recent progress has been made on New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccine immunisation programme?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Very good news. I’m pleased to report that as of last night, 2 million doses have been administered across the country, with over 42,000 doses given yesterday, a new daily record. These figures are great news, and they show just how far we’ve come from the beginning of this year. It’s also further evidence of the vaccination programme scaling up, and we are on track to offer every eligible person within New Zealand the opportunity to be vaccinated by the end of 2021, in alignment with the sequencing framework.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is our national vaccine supply running, and what other deliveries are we expecting from Pfizer this month?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The 25th shipment of Pfizer vaccine arrived yesterday, delivering an additional 357,000 doses; 240,000 of those doses are being distributed throughout the North Island. The remaining 143,000 are being sent to Christchurch so they can be distributed throughout the South Island. One and a half million Pfizer vaccines are scheduled to be delivered throughout the month of August. This is very good news and reassuring to see the supply of vaccine continually growing.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What other measures have been used in the roll-out of the vaccine immunisation programme?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health and district health boards have been increasing the use of workplace vaccinations, with the first workplace sites coming on stream. Vaccinations have also been taking place at marae, at various other primary healthcare places, including pharmacies and hauora providers and GPs. There are now 335 sites on board, and they are actively vaccinating. The first big event, where a number of people were vaccinated, took place in Manukau over the weekend, with over 15,500 people receiving their first dose of the vaccine. There will be another event at the same place in six weeks’ time, to give them their second dose. And I’d like to pass on my thanks to all those involved in that big event. It was a huge success despite what was predicted by some only a week before it took place, and they all deserve our thanks.
Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What lessons have been learnt from the mass vaccination event in South Auckland, and are we likely to see further events across the country?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One lesson would be that predicting the event was going to be a flop before it’s even happened is perhaps a little bit premature, but, most importantly, it has shown that mass vaccination events, or vaccination events at largescale, can work here in New Zealand. They can deliver vaccinations safely and efficiently to a very large number of people, over a very short period of time. So the event exceeded its target numbers. Some small tweaks were made each day, as they continued to refine that model further, and those lessons will be applied to further events. The whole process was very efficient. It allowed consumers to get in and out very quickly. There was very, very little vaccine wastage, which, again, is something that is very important. A very low number of any incidents were reported from that event. Those who took part in it reported that it was a very smooth experience. They had a good vaccination experience. We’ll certainly be looking to draw on that as we look to do similar events around the country.
Question No. 6—Immigration
6. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Yes, because, as I have said, I stand by our Government’s management of the border to keep COVID out of our communities, to make sure that New Zealanders can get home, to reunite families, and to respond to skill shortages where we can. Throughout the pandemic, we have worked to strike the balance between protecting people, using the limited capacity we have at the border to bring people through, and making the best use of onshore workforce through changes to visa settings. In taking this approach, we’ve been able to bring more than 17,000 skilled workers and their families into the country to date, while the border is closed.
Dr James McDowall: Can the Minister commit to a date that is more specific than “short order” for resuming expression-of-interest selection for the Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) to give skilled migrants certainty over their future?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I can commit to the fact that we are looking at the issue and very soon we will make an announcement of that decision.
Dr James McDowall: Why should migrants who have lodged expressions of interest for the Skilled Migrant Category have faith in this Government, if their Minister of Immigration can’t even commit to a specific time frame?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think, as I said in question No. 3, the member should look at the actions that we’ve taken in response to issues around the likes of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and essential skills visas. As we have said for a long time, we are constantly looking at our immigration settings and making changes when available to do so in a safe manner. We have said we’re going to make a decision on expressions of interest soon; I’m sure he’s looking forward to an announcement.
Dr James McDowall: Does the Government want to retain skilled migrants, such as much-needed doctors, and, if so, why are they not acting to give them certainty over residency?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Again, as I outlined in question No. 3, the two challenges with the current settings with the SMC, we do want to make sure we are retaining skilled workers in New Zealand; they are extremely important for our communities and for our economy, and soon we will be able to give them some certainty about those who want to have a pathway to residence here in New Zealand.
Erica Stanford: Can the Minister explain to the thousands of Kiwis trying to return home why skilled migrants are leaving the country due to residency delays, while, at the same time, the Government is announcing border exceptions for new migrants to replace them, who require space in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I said earlier, we’ve had 17,000 critical workers and their families come into the country. I acknowledge the difficulties that some people who would like to get their residency applications tended to cannot at the moment. But I think that would pale in comparison to the 17,000 people we have been able to let through, while the border was closed, on critical purpose visas.
Dr James McDowall: What does he say to skilled migrants who are being placed in the impossible position of choosing between supporting their family offshore by working in New Zealand or leaving the country so that they can join their family but would face an uncertain financial future?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: When the border closed, that obviously caused challenges for people whose families were on the other side of the border. When we are able to, in terms of managed isolation capacity, we have made decisions to allow families to reunite. As the member may have seen, the demand on MIQ places continues to be strong, and balancing the demand for New Zealanders coming home, for the likes of split families, and, also, for the likes of people who are given border exceptions, is a balance that the Government is constantly looking at to make sure that we can do what is right for New Zealanders who have the right to come home, for those families who have difficulties in being split, but also making sure that we support the economy.
Dr James McDowall: Can the Minister confirm that the wage requirement increase for the Skilled Migrant Category, effective from 19 July 2021, will mean that any applicant with a frozen expression of interest submitted before that date is no longer eligible to apply for residency, assuming they do not meet the new wage requirement?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I have said, we are currently looking at the settings for expressions of interest and residency. When we make the final decisions on that, I will be able to inform the member.
Question No. 7—Transport
7. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made on public transport projects in South Auckland?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’m pleased to report that the new Puhinui station in Papatoetoe is now finished. Thanks to the State Highway 20B upgrades completed earlier this year, the travel time between Puhinui station and the airport on the Airport Link electric bus is only around 10 minutes and they have a frequency of every 10 minutes. This means that anyone with access to the Auckland rail network has quick emissions- and congestion-free trip options to the airport.
Arena Williams: How has the project supported South Auckland’s economic recovery?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The Puhinui interchange has supported South Auckland’s economic recovery by creating over 150 jobs during construction, in part thanks to support from shovel-ready funding. It will continue to support the recovery by making it easier for thousands of Aucklanders to get to work. Auckland airport is one of the largest employment hubs in the country with more than 900 businesses around it, and their workers will have an easier way of getting to work now.
Arena Williams: How will it be part of continuing to improve public transport in the area?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It’s important to note that the Airport Link service connects up with Manukau station, which means a $2.20 25-minute e-bus trip to work or travel for people living around there. The Puhinui interchange has also been futureproofed for future rail upgrades, including space for additional platforms and for the airport to Botany rapid transit project, which will add a bus rapid transit bridge to better connect East Auckland with good rapid transit and the airport precinct.
Question No. 8—Broadcasting and Media
8. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Broadcasting and Media: Does he stand by the actions of his officials?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister for Broadcasting and Media): Kia orana again, Mr Speaker. Yes, in particular, their work to support the media sector through the impacts of COVID-19. In April of last year, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage worked with the sector to rapidly develop a $50 million media support package, and this support package focused on reducing costs and easing cash-flow pressures for a range of media organisations. The Government then built on this and in February announced a $55 million package to support public interest journalism.
Melissa Lee: What advice and actions has the Minister sought from his officials about the Public Interest Journalism Fund and the taxpayer-funded reporting of political matters?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As you will know, the decisions around the funding of the Public Interest Journalism Fund are decisions for New Zealand On Air. I have taken a very black and white approach not to get involved in any of those.
SPEAKER: I probably shouldn’t have let the supplementary come because it didn’t relate to the primary, but I was a bit late.
Melissa Lee: What advice and actions has the Minister sought from his officials regarding the statement of former newspaper editor and journalist Karl du Fresne on 18 July 2021 that—and I quote—“Any news outlet that seeks money from the fund is signing up to a politicised project whose rules are fundamentally incompatible with free and independent journalism”, and, if any, what are his views?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I don’t have a view on Mr du Fresne’s opinion—I disagree with it. [Interruption] Oh no, no, no. I disagree with the allegation—I disagree with the allegation. If the member is continuing the allegation that in any way the taxpayer funding that is supporting our media is giving a biased opinion of the media, I suggest she read Newsroom today for a glowing précis of my performance!
Melissa Lee: Do the Minister’s officials agree with his answer to this House on 6 May 2021 that there is “a well-established, tried, and tested system that makes sure media content funding decisions are free from political influence.”; if so, does the Minister agree with their assessment, and what will he do to end any taxpayer-funded political bias in our media?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Again, I won’t get involved in the decisions that New Zealand On Air makes around the Public Interest Journalism Fund. Again, I push back at any premise that there’s any bias of political reporting. She might want to read the New Zealand Herald for Derek Cheng’s “glowing” précis of my performance today.
Melissa Lee: Will the Minister work with his officials to revise his letter of expectation to New Zealand On Air to make sure that there is absolutely no political interference of biased reporting funded by the New Zealand taxpayer; if not, why not?
SPEAKER: Give us a third article!
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana. I’ve run out, sorry, Mr Speaker—for now. The member will know that the legislation in place around New Zealand On Air absolutely prevents political bias from happening. I don’t therefore think I need to write a letter, because they will have to follow the letter of the law.
Question No. 9—Conservation
9. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Conservation: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. What recent announcements have been made regarding Jobs for Nature projects in Northland?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Kia orana. I can say it was a good day for conservation, a good day for the taiao, and a great day for Northland on 29 July, when I announced a portfolio of 12 Jobs for Nature projects for Northland as part of the Government’s acceleration of the economic recovery from COVID-19. The investment of over $20 million will deliver real gains for both nature and the communities right across Northland. The projects will total 324 jobs. These are expected to be established over three years, while upskilling locals to move into other employment opportunities beyond the life of the project.
Willow-Jean Prime: What will the projects aim to achieve?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Well, in the beautiful rural province of Northland, these 12 projects have a range of objectives, including controlling predators in vitally important areas; protecting our forest giants, the kauri; restoring important dunes that are critically integral to the environment and ecosystem in the region; restoring the wetland systems in the region; propagating and planting of indigenous species—[Speaker gestures to finish] Sir, there’s so much more good stuff to go! Weed control, biodiversity protection—[Speaker stands]
Willow-Jean Prime: What efforts are under way to achieve a predator-free Bay of Islands?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Again, more good news. On 19 July, I announced that Jobs for Nature will be making a $4 million investment into the Northland region with its Predator Free Bay of Islands project. This project, led by the Northland Regional Council and supported by Predator Free 2050 Ltd, is a $50 million combined effort between community conservation groups, landowners, iwi and hapū, Kiwis for Kiwi, and the Kiwi Coast trust to eradicate predators from the three main peninsulas in the region. It is a great project and investment for conservation.
Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware of whether or not the Hon Shane Jones is willing to give up the title of the provincial champion to her?
Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Mr Speaker, I’m sure—[Speaker gestures to finish] Oh.
Question No. 10—Justice
10. CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Kia ora anō, Mr Speaker. Yes, in particular I stand by the progress the Government has already made over the last nine months to introduce counter-terrorism legislation and establish a single, broad policy to better prevent and respond to terrorism and associated activities; to strengthen the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, to introduce a new power enabling the seizure of assets of those associated with organised crime; to introduce legislation to protect against practices intended to change or suppress someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression; and to establish a review and public engagement on options to change our adoption laws to bring them into the 21st century.
Chris Penk: Under his proposed hate speech law, will political opinion be a possible ground for hate speech?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As has been clearly stated, the discussion document does not propose that but asks those who might submit about whether or not they feel that political opinion should be included.
Chris Penk: Is political opinion not a ground under section 21 of the Human Rights Act and therefore subject to being brought into the hate speech provisions as advised by the Cabinet paper and also the discussion document now open for public consultation?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It is, but the Government saw fit not to proactively suggest it should be a provision that should be a part of the amendments. We’re asking the question in a discussion document as to whether or not people believe it should be in there. We did not proactively want to put that in there as—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! I know Mr Smith doesn’t normally sit quite that close to me, but when he is this close, his very loud interjections go through my mike system and are amplified even further, and, therefore, I’m going to ask him just to turn his volume down a bit. Thank you.
Chris Penk: How can the Minister say that he is not proactively promoting political opinion as a possible ground for hate speech when it enjoys exactly the same status in the Cabinet paper and the discussion document currently up for public consultation?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, I’d suggest the member read the discussion document.
Chris Penk: In relation to his proposed conversion therapy law, does he stand by his answer to Heather du Plessis-Allan recently—the answer being “No, it’s not.” in answer to the question “Parents, for example, saying to a child who may be prepubescent saying ‘I want to go on hormone blockers.’ saying ‘No, you can’t.’—that’s cool with you?”
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The purpose of the conversion practices bill that will be read in Parliament tomorrow is very clear: it is to prevent the harm and encourage responsible debate or discussions around sexual identity and sexual orientation and gender identity. The purpose of the bill is not to criminalise parents. In fact, we’ve designed the civil and criminal provisions to ensure there is an extremely high bar for anyone to suppress the fundamental right of an individual to be freely able to choose their sexual orientation or their gender identity.
Question No. 11—Health
11. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made regarding hepatitis C?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Last week, I released the National Hepatitis C Action Plan, which sets out how New Zealand can eliminate this very serious disease by 2030. Hepatitis C is the leading cause of liver transplants in New Zealand and the second leading cause of liver cancer, but it is preventable and curable. The action plan will boost awareness and increase testing so that more people can get access to the latest treatment, Maviret, which can potentially cure 98 percent of people with chronic hepatitis C.
Sarah Pallett: How many people could benefit from better treatment for hepatitis C?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: It’s estimated that 45,000 New Zealanders have hepatitis C but only about half of those know they have it. Symptoms don’t appear until much of the damage has been done, and without treatment many people will develop progressive liver damage. The availability of the drug Maviret has been a real game-changer and has helped around 4,500 New Zealanders since it was funded by Pharmac in 2019. But funding medicines alone won’t achieve elimination. We need to make sure we find everyone who is at risk of or who has hepatitis C and offer to test them and treat them if necessary.
Sarah Pallett: What new approaches to the delivery of services are part of the action plan?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: A national awareness campaign will encourage people to talk to their doctor about whether they are at risk and if they need a test. The awareness campaign will also help tackle some of the stigma around this virus. At the same time, there will be an increased access to testing through nurse-led clinics and point-of-care testing in the community, as well as mobile clinics. A surveillance system and virtual registry will also be developed to ensure people don’t fall through the cracks and are connected with the treatment they need.
Question No. 12—Oceans and Fisheries
12. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Kia orana. Why is keeping the Total Allowable Catch for snapper at its current level not one of the options that MPI is proposing for the North Island’s west coast fishery, and does this show that maximising commercial fishing is more important to MPI than sustaining the recovering snapper population?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The rebuild of snapper stocks in Snapper 8 (SNA 8) is a good-news story. There is no doubt that the Snapper 8 stock was in a very bad place when the Quota Management System was introduced in the late 1980s, and by the mid-2000s the stock was very likely below what we would now consider to be a hard limit. Sixteen years later, we’re in a significantly different place. A stock assessment completed this year estimates the stock to be at 54 percent of the unfished level, well above the harvest strategy standard management default target. The advice I have: that it is appropriate to now consider increasing catch limits in some way. Fisheries New Zealand is consulting on four options for new catch limits and allowances in SNA 8. The final decision will not necessarily be identical to any one of the options. In answer to the second part of the question: with respect, of course not.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with Fisheries New Zealand policy that once a fish stock recovers to just 54 percent of its estimated unfished population, its total allowable catch (TAC) could be increased by as much as 133 percent; if so, why?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not going to comment as to what my opinion is as to where the catch limit should be set. I have to take that decision at the end of consultation, and I don’t think it would be in the public interest for me to comment further in the meantime.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree that since west coast snapper stocks have taken many years to rebuild after collapsing, now is the time to sustain those stocks rather than allowing them to be overfished again; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I would be failing in my duty if I allowed those stocks to be overfished again, and the House can be assured that I will not allow that.
Hon Eugenie Sage: What scientific evidence, if any, has he seen to support MPI policy that the management target for snapper in Snapper 8 should be just 40 percent of its unfished biomass?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve seen a range of advice in favour of that proposition and different propositions.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will the Minister consider amending the Fisheries Act to set a minimum biomass target of at least 50 percent for all fisheries as suggested by the recreational fishing group LegaSea; if not, why not?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not currently considering such a proposition, but that doesn’t mean to say I won’t in the future.
Hon Eugenie Sage: Will he seek advice from the Department of Conservation and Fisheries New Zealand on the impacts of increased commercial fishing around Kāpiti Marine Reserve on fish numbers within the reserve before he makes a decision on setting the TAC in line with the concerns of local community members and marine biology experts?
Hon DAVID PARKER: I expect that all relevant matters will be brought to my attention through submissions and by the department.
General Debate
General Debate
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.
It is a great day to be here in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is also a great day to be part of a Government that is focused on the important issues, like keeping COVID-19 out of New Zealand, like making sure that New Zealanders have access to the COVID-19 vaccine, like keeping Kiwis in jobs, and like fixing the run-down infrastructure that we inherited as a Government. Great news today: unemployment back to pre - COVID-19 levels. Because of the careful economic management of this Government, because of the willingness of this Government to tackle the big challenges, keep the New Zealand economy moving despite the global situation, and make the big, bold calls when they needed to be made, we have one of the most resilient economies in the world, and I think all New Zealanders acknowledge that and they appreciate that.
Another big piece of news today: 2 million vaccines delivered across New Zealand so far. As a result of the speed of the vaccine campaign, we have been able to open up eligibility for the 55-plus age cohort five days early—five days early—from next Friday. That’d account for the majority of the members opposite, probably! Five days early from next Friday—that’s good news, and I know New Zealanders are looking forward to booking into the vaccine programme.
We are seeing record numbers of people signing up for apprenticeships and trades training, tackling the long-term skill shortages that have held those industries back in New Zealand. The Government’s programme to support New Zealanders into trades training through free apprenticeships and free trades training has helped 144,000 New Zealanders so far. I was delighted only a couple of weeks ago to attend an event held by the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation where they celebrated their 20,000th active apprentice—a record number of apprentices in the building and construction industry. That is great news.
So when it comes to demanding the debate, let’s talk about those things. If the Opposition want to debate the economy, if they want to debate unemployment, if they want to debate healthcare, if they want to debate education, we are right there with them, because I will put our record up against their record any day of the week. But they don’t seem to want to debate those things. Apparently, it has just come to their attention that some people refer to New Zealand as Aotearoa. Stop the clock. Apparently, this is news to them. What a terrifying prospect. Never mind the fact that it’s been on our money. It’s been on our money since the National Party were in Government. That seems to have escaped their attention. Kiwis—Kiwis—are we still allowed to call them “Kiwis”, actually? Do we have to call them “New Zealanders”? When our athletes come back, do we have to call them “New Zealand athletes”, or are we allowed to call them “Kiwis”, as we always have? Apparently, the language police in the National Party are going to determine what we’re allowed to call things from here on in.
But also on the other side of the House, of course, we’ve got the honest conversations being held up and down the country by the ACT Party—begs the question what kind of conversations they normally have, if they’ve just discovered the value of honest conversations. But we had a new one today from Melissa Lee. What a cracker! Apparently, their low polling’s all to do with the fact that Kris Faafoi’s purchased the media, and therefore it’s all stacked up against them. It’s working really well for him so far! But apparently it’s all Kris Faafoi’s fault that the National Party’s down in the doldrums.
Then, of course, we get the desperate tactics, the fake news that we see out of the National Party. Apparently, we ran out of COVID-19 syringes this week. Not a chance. Not even close. Made up. Not news. Not true. Capital and Coast District Health Board—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s not allowed to accuse Opposition members of making things up.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The news apparently that the Capital and Coast District Health Board were behind schedule and were going to flow through their vaccination campaign into next year: not true. In fact, the chief executive of the district health board went to great lengths this morning to correct that misinformation being deliberately spread about the vaccine campaign. There is enough misinformation about the vaccine campaign out there already from people who should know better. The people who should know better shouldn’t be adding to that misinformation as they have been.
I am very, very proud to be part of a Government that is delivering for New Zealand low unemployment, a booming economy, people in work, boosting trades training, and, of course, vaccines for New Zealanders.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): My speech is of a different tone to the previous speaker’s, but I do acknowledge everything that he says is right.
In 1964, my own father migrated to New Zealand from Samoa. He was part of the wave of Pacific migrants who entered New Zealand during the 1950s and 60s, invited to come here to Aotearoa New Zealand to address the workforce shortages that we were experiencing here. He came here, he moved to Taranaki, he worked on the railways, and he occasionally helped with haymaking. He played for the Taupō rugby and cricket teams. He met a farmer’s daughter and he had three daughters born in 1974, 1977, and 1980. He then went and settled in Waitara and worked at the freezing works.
It’s really hard for this daughter of a migrant to comprehend that the backdrop to that history and to the history of so many other Pacific people that came at the same time, or within those two decades, was a history where they were traumatised and terrorised, where they were chased down by dogs, where they were arrested unlawfully, and where they were harassed on the street. They were traumatised. So I am very proud to be part of a Government who, on Sunday, reached out to our Pacific community to heal the wrongs of the past, to officially apologise for what we have all known for a long time was wrong, and for mistreatment of the Pacific community of that time.
We were really clear that an apology is not just about the words to that community; it is about what we do moving forward. So it was appropriate that part of that included the extension of gifts in the form of educational opportunities for the Pacific community. Appropriate, because when our Pacific community migrated to New Zealand, on their minds was ensuring that they could work, that they could support their families back in the Islands, that they could get access to better opportunities for their children so that their children could have more than what they had access to growing up and whilst working those factory floors.
That extension of gifts, those gifts that were offered, do not sit alone; they sit alongside an agenda, a Government’s agenda that is very much focused on ensuring that all of our communities, including the Pacific community, get the opportunities that they deserve, the opportunities that they came here for: to get ahead. So I was relieved today to see that we have seen an improvement in the unemployment rates for Pacific people of 2.6 percent—a bigger jump than for any other group with regards to the latest unemployment figures.
It’s important, because we know that whenever there is an event of this type, a pandemic, a global financial crisis, there are particular groups in this country who are disproportionately impacted: Māori, of course, and Pacific being the other group. To see that we have not reached the lows that had been originally forecast is another relief. But to see that we are improving the situation for New Zealand broadly, but particularly for Pacific communities, for me as a Pacific Minister, is important.
It’s not just about the educational offerings that were given out at the apology. It is about our whole Government programme and what we are doing to support our Pacific community now and moving forward. Many of you in this room will know and our community will know that the programmes and the initiatives that we have put in place to respond to COVID have been targeted, and we don’t apologise on this side of the room for that. Our programmes, Mana in Mahi, Flexi-wage, He Poutama Rangatahi, and the supports on the front line at the Ministry of Social Development offices are all targeted towards supporting those who are most likely to be disadvantaged in a tight labour market and during an event like we are experiencing at the moment.
Those actions and the fact that we have invested in those places with a focus on those communities, including our Pacific communities, are indicative of the fact that our Government takes inclusion, participation, equity, fairness, and opportunities for people to get ahead in Aotearoa New Zealand seriously. We look forward to continuing that work in many different forms whilst we have the privilege of being in Government.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Democracy is the greatest form of Government that humanity has ever invented. It allows the citizens to peacefully send little messages to a failing Government, at the ballot box and sometimes before then, through the polls. The polls are crystal clear when it comes to a message on this Government. Right direction versus wrong direction, New Zealanders increasingly say that this country is going in the wrong direction.
The gap between ACT and National on the one hand and Labour and Greens on the other is closing, closing, closing—now only 10 seats, with two years to run. ACT is driving that change with some old-fashioned democratic habits of listening to voters, a 46-stop Honest Conversations Tour that has been packing halls from Ōāmaru to Stratford. Up and down this country, people come to say, “We are sick and tired of the way this Government treats us with contempt and makes promises and announcements but never follows through.”
The year of delivery, with no delivery. Then, there was the year of the vaccine. This Government couldn’t organise a vaccination at a pharmacy—that’s not a joke; it is literally true.
People are looking at a Government that is constantly distracted by gesture politics. It wants to ban gay-conversion therapy. It wants to ban hate speech. It can’t enforce the laws that have already been made. New Zealanders up and down this country are sick and tired of a Government that is busy banning new things, when it can’t keep them safe on the street. When women in central Auckland and central Wellington say, “I don’t go outside my apartment after 10 o’clock because it is just not safe on the streets of New Zealand’s largest cities at night.”, is it the time for the Government to be cracking down on gangs, cracking down on crime, or is it the time for the Government to be constantly seeking diversions?
On Saturday this weekend, there were two meetings. One of them at the Auckland Town Hall, the Labour Party and Government held what could only be described as a “rally”, apologising for immigration policy before Jacinda Ardern was born. Down the road, in Sandringham, at another meeting, politicians from every political party were listening to today’s immigrants separated from their children for over a year by this Government’s immigration policy today. Their apology would have so much more substance if only they were committed to dealing with today’s infractions.
In between central Auckland and Sandringham, I could take you to any number of places where people are living in motels—4,000 children living in motels, because this Government was elected to fix housing, but has fundamentally failed to do so. There are too few homes for the number of people living in this country, and the Government has failed there comprehensively.
What are we going to do about it? Well, throughout this three-week recess that Parliament has had, the ACT Party was not only listening—going up and down New Zealand, 46 meetings, packed halls, thousands of people—we were responding with positive ideas for a better tomorrow: how to crack down on gangs, with gang injunction orders that have worked in Britain and the US, instead of giving gangs money; how to get homes built, by sharing GST on construction and the jurisdiction of the council giving the consent for it to happen; funding infrastructure; opening up land for the future of New Zealand so that the next generation has a pathway to being part of a property-owning democracy; and painting a pathway out of COVID-19—out of COVID-19—that is intelligent, that works with private enterprise, that has a proper conception of risk, uses technology, and gives New Zealanders certainty about the future that we are facing. And where was the Labour Party? Apologising for things that happened a generation ago.
Here’s the thing: not one Labour MP was there to hear those immigrants suffering today. That is shameful. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I’m going to start off by just acknowledging that we have reached a low unemployment rate of 4 percent. It was announced earlier today. The thought that Grant Robertson was out there with shovels making that happen I find slightly interesting, particularly as the Government loves to take credit for this sort of thing, but it is good that we have a low unemployment rate. But the question is: having thrown $56 billion to get to that point, we should be expecting to see some decrease in the unemployment rate, but is this as good as it gets? Is this the lowest rate that we can get? Is this the best? Is this what we should be striving for?
I think members on the other side of the House might be reflecting on the same theme when they think back to May, just a few months ago, when Labour was polling at 56 percent, and now they’re polling at 43 percent. Was that as good as it got? I’ve got to say, on my reckoning, that would be 15 fewer MPs in this House, and I don’t know whether that is his strategy. But the one thing we do need in our workforce is we need skilled people, and having a low unemployment rate is good, even though we’ve still got 190,000 people on the unemployment benefit—190,000 people—but the major issue we’ve got is the lack of skilled people in New Zealand and just people to be able to get on and make it happen with businesses.
I’ll give you two examples. I’ve got a friend who has a kitchen business. They have been struggling so much to find staff. The last person they took on, they gave them a shot. It was a person who had been in prison, and they are now finding it so difficult, because even the people they’re taking on and offering very high wages to, they are not turning up to work regularly. He’s faced with the prospect of letting go a very, very significant client, because he knows he cannot deliver the type of product in the time that’s required. So his next option actually is to let go of the very important client he has, downsize, and fire another four people. That is because we’ve got a labour shortage. Some of it’s skilled and some of it otherwise.
I’ll give you another example. I went to a business that makes prefabricated materials for houses—and we’ve talked about housing a lot lately. This company is so worried about the lack of staff availability that they have imported the latest equipment so that they can process much of it in an automated session, using the latest equipment imported from Germany. The issue they have is they cannot even get people across the border to come and complete the installation of that equipment—and we’re talking about millions of dollars’ worth of equipment—because they cannot get them across the border. This what I’m hearing across the entire New Zealand. Every time I go to a business audience, the number one issue is the lack of labour.
It’s good that the Government is suddenly waking up to the idea of doing something with Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers finally, after months of doing that, particularly when they come from countries that have no COVID, who have been screaming out to come here, and we have an obligation in the Pacific through our Realm nations there particularly. It is a tardy and long-overdue response. But the basic thing that is happening is this Government is strangling businesses by not allowing people to come into New Zealand and actually help them do the work. I think the worst thing about this is that over time, and next year in particular, I think it’s going to be so much more difficult as we have Australians in here, we have the Canadians in here, poaching our best New Zealanders, taking them overseas, and we’re still going to be landlocked here in New Zealand.
The outlook for 2022 is absolutely horrific, and I’d just say to the members opposite: what you should do is pick up the press release from Erica Stanford and Judith Collins today specifying our immigration approach—namely, that we’re going to clear the backlog of people here in New Zealand who are seeking residency here in New Zealand. The second thing is to decouple the visa relationship with employers.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): I really don’t have a lot to say about that last speaker, Andrew Bayly, because really if that’s the best that that particular party’s got, then we can see why they’re concentrating on our side of the polls and not their own.
But I did want to just touch on the ACT leader’s contribution in this House, because, quite frankly, they showed how out of touch they are with the hurt and the shame that was caused by a dark history in this country with the Dawn Raids. I have never been so proud as I was when I saw our Prime Minister deliver an apology on behalf of this country to people whose hurt has stayed with them for so very, very long. And I am absolutely proud that we are now going to be giving the resources to the Ministry of Education to develop the resources to tell that history in schools. I think that it is well needed when you hear the interpretation from the other side of the House of that.
It is a great day here in this country. I am so proud of the work that this Government is doing when we see that both unemployment rates and underutilisation rates have dropped markedly in the June quarter—in fact, the largest quarterly drops that have ever been recorded. We are certainly a Government that is focused on securing our COVID recovery, and a key part of our plan is building infrastructure to create jobs.
With this in mind, as Minister for Women, I want to use the COVID-19 recovery as an opportunity to change and lay down the foundations to build back better for our women, and to make a more resilient future for our women and our girls. This means that we are working towards ensuring that our women are working in a variety of sectors and are better placed to tackle any economic crisis in the future, because we know from history that economic shocks disproportionately impact women in this country. We know that after the global financial crisis and after the Christchurch earthquakes, which were the most recent in our memory, but also after and during this COVID-19 pandemic, that women have been disproportionately impacted in the labour market.
Now, while we need to ensure that we are building back better immediately to ensure that disproportionate impact is minimised, we also need to ensure that when the next global market shock hits that women are not being disproportionately impacted. This is absolutely critical to the future of our women, and none of us can do this alone. So as a result, this Government has committed to producing a women’s employment action plan which will seek to address barriers and challenges that disadvantage women. This will give us a real chance to identify steps to support women to fulfil their potential.
I have been talking with many groups of women around the country who are wanting to contribute to this plan, including groups such as the National Council of Women of New Zealand, groups such as Pacific Women, and Wāhine Māori. I have met with many, many groups along the way. Today, I met with groups from Women’s Refuge out in Porirua. I also have been talking this week with women in horticulture who want to very much be part of this plan and feed into it, because they can see that they have this real potential now to build back better for women and into the future.
I have said to all of these groups: “What can each of us do collectively to increase the number of women in leadership positions and to increase women who are better utilised within the workforce? What are we doing as women in our workplace to encourage and support them to have aspirations and set goals and aim high? How can we not only attract women to these sectors but retain them in the long term?” I’m proud of what we are doing in this country to build back better.
JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure. I rise to take a call in this general debate today. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to speak in the general debate since we had the terrible flooding in Canterbury; so I do want to begin my contribution with some acknowledgments to people who were involved in that.
First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge our farmers and our rural community, who were so devastatingly affected by the floods that we had nearly a couple of months ago. It’s been a hugely stressful time for many of these people, and from what we have seen, though, they are extremely resilient, and we have come together quite beautifully as a community to support those farmers in that space.
I’d also like to acknowledge our mayor, Neil Brown, for his leadership and his fantastic communication skills with our community and nationally during that time, and behind every good man there is obviously a very, very good woman, and so it would be remiss of me not to mention our deputy mayor, Liz McMillan, who also supported in a really great way.
I think it’s important to acknowledge everyone who was involved at the time: Farmy Army, Student Volunteer Army, great initiatives like Taskforce Green, who I have heard since helped out in that flooding event and that a couple have gone on to employment in some of the farming areas that they may have helped out in. Rural support has played a huge and vital role in this recovery period as well.
I’d also really like to thank David Clark and Greg Anderson, our presidents from Mid and South Canterbury Federated Farmers, for their support that they showed our farmers at the time. Especially I’d like to thank Chris and Ann-Marie Allen, Stacey and Mark Stewart, Darryl and Lynn Butterick, Laurence and Phillippa Rooney, who allowed us on to their farms to see the devastating impact of those floods. They have such a huge, huge task ahead of them with their clean up, and so I wish them all the best in that. And I know it’s just not going to be an easy road at all; it is going to take months—who knows, possibly even years—to come back from.
I’d really like to thank our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who came down twice after the floods, and our mayor, Neil Brown, acknowledged the other day that because she did that, that made the community feel very, very supported and that we were thinking of them at that time. We also had Minister Faafoi, Minister Woods, and Minister O’Connor come down and visit, and we had the announcement of the $4 million to help towards recovery. Whilst we know that’s certainly not going to fix everything, it is a great help in going forward in supporting some of that financial recovery.
This Government is focused on our COVID-19 recovery, and what we’ve seen through that is a focus on jobs in infrastructure and training. I was lucky enough to visit Jenkins Contracting in Timaru the other day with my Education and Workforce Committee colleagues to see what impact that is having in reality and on the ground. In Timaru, we were lucky to have Venture Timaru, who took care of what was called the apprenticeship—I can’t even think of the word now—scheme where we got quite a high level of funding, up to $40,000 per apprentice. They were expecting this to roll out over 12 months. Well, all these spaces, 100 spaces, were filled within five months, and Grant Jenkins from Jenkins Contracting has taken on, I think, around six apprentices. He has said that what this has allowed them to do is take a chance on these people and give the more senior members in his workforce time—really good, quality time—to spend training up these apprentices, something that may not have been able to happen before, because, when you’re really busy, and we know the construction sector is hugely busy, time is of the essence to get jobs and things done for your clients. Having the ability to take on these people with that financial support has been absolutely fantastic.
We were also lucky enough to visit some places that were providing lunches in schools. I want to give a shout-out to Lunch By Libelle, who have employed 13 local people. They are actually living-wage employers, and they roll out 1,300 lunches per day in Timaru to our children who desperately need that. It allows them to work much better in school, pay more attention, and have the ability to learn. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): One hundred and ninety thousand—190,000—is a big number, but every single one of those is a person, a family, who’s doing it tough. So while Labour might crow today that the unemployment rate from a Statistics survey is low at 4 percent, what hasn’t shifted is the number of people who are dependent on the job seeker benefit, so, unfortunately, it’s not so positive and optimistic and upbeat for them. I want to see the Government focus more seriously on each one of those 190,000 New Zealanders, because they’re people who are struggling each and every day in each and every week. And at the same time, it’s enormously frustrating that businesses, large and small, are desperate for workers, whether it’s in agriculture, whether it’s construction, whether it’s in hospitality and tourism in my electorate, whether it’s in aged-care residential facilities. So here’s a message I got earlier from a constituent: “I need to vent to my local MP. With 117,000 people unemployed, according to Statistics, and 190,000 according to MSD, why are some more not made to work in agriculture and hospitality when employers are crying out for overseas people? No one even mentions the point. Why can’t the unemployed fill these jobs?”
I’ll give you one answer. I’ll give you one answer: because the obligations under this Government have been reduced. And what does that do? That makes it harder for the very people the Government is supposed to be supporting, who are currently unemployed and on the job seeker benefit to get a job, to get opportunities, to get back on their feet and have the ability to put food on the table in their own home for their own family. They’re quiet now—they’re quiet now. So there’s a mismatch there and while Robertson might come out and crow about the 4 percent, I want New Zealanders to think about the 190,000 New Zealanders, that’s 70,000 more—70,000 more—than there were when the Government came into office. It’s connected to hardship—it’s connected to hardship. So in the Ministry of Social Development’s own quarterly statistics as of the end of June, we’re, unfortunately, continuing to see vast amounts of hardship grants that are required: $81.1 million for accommodation-related. We’re seeing still massive spikes in food grants, for electricity and gas, medical-related costs, and accommodation-related separate to emergency housing. So this is not a rosy picture of New Zealanders going well and doing well, particularly when there are businesses desperate for workers and people who are looking for and supposedly available for work.
So the other part of the tragedy—emergency housing: now 4,300 children this Government has put in motels and not even taken the basic measures to protect their safety. They don’t know who’s there. They don’t know how long. They’ve got children next to gang members. They don’t care about the fact that they are witnessing sexual assaults, violence, prostitution, drug dealing each and every day. Oh, and here’s the good news, they’ve just started a complaints register—just. How many months, how many months later? How many years later? Four and a half thousand children is another number I want New Zealanders to remember, particularly when we have asked and asked and asked for basic safety precautions to be undertaken. But oh no, the Government can’t tell us exactly what criminals are where, how many in which motel. They can’t tell us—oh no, they’ve told us actually the motels that are getting the most money from taxpayers, so that’s useful—a million dollars a day—and, meanwhile, basic things like building more houses and emergency legislation that we offered the Government in January would get more houses built now.
Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In life there are some moments that when they happen you know you’re going to remember them for the rest of your life. I think for me, three of those moments have happened here in this House. I just want to take you back, by way of explanation, to my previous role monitoring child health, and I guess also the time of year we’re in, the middle of winter. Down South in winter it’s a beautiful time of the year. We’ve got those beautiful crisp mornings, you’ve got those amazing frost patterns that you scrape off your car windscreen, and we’ve got people flocking to Wānaka and Queenstown so they can ski in our beautiful southern landscapes.
But I think for my colleagues on the children’s ward, winter used to be a different time of the year, and what used to happen is that collision of cold, draughty rental houses, low incomes, and not being able to turn the heater on ended up with huge winter peaks in children coming to hospitals with respiratory and infectious diseases. And so, basically, in my previous role one of my jobs used to be to teach medical students about the links between child poverty and the thousands of sick kids we were seeing every year coming into hospital for poverty related diseases. What I used to talk to them about was the fact that if you took them back to the “mother of all Budgets” back in 1991, when we saw benefits slashed across the board and a whole lot of other policy changes, within two years what we saw is we saw child poverty rates spiking and then they never really came back down.
So then as the global financial crisis hit, a number of us working in child health started to get really concerned because what we were worried about was if we see these big rises in unemployment—and we knew our benefit rates were inadequate—we’d see a big spillover in child poverty. So we developed up this thing called the Child Poverty Monitor, which is still with us today. We went to a Paediatric Society conference back in 2019 and we lit a candle and we said, “We commit to monitoring the wellbeing of New Zealand’s children until the economic position improves.” And so every year we updated the monitor and every year it was exactly the same. So we’d say, “Look, there’s thousands of sick kids coming into hospital for poverty related conditions and our child poverty rates persist.” And every year I used to ask for the same three things. I used to ask for measures to improve family incomes and reduced child poverty, I used to ask for rental standards for houses, and I used to ask for measures to improve affordability of GP access, particularly after hours. So for me, having spent nearly a decade asking for the same three things, basically one of the reasons I entered Parliament was to escape my own personal groundhog day where every year I stood up and said the same.
And so the first moment for me that I will remember and I still remember was sitting in this debating chamber just before Christmas in 2017 and the Families Package passed into law. It was incredible after almost nine years of advocating for the same thing, within two months of coming in, we had the Best Start payment of $60 a week for newborn babies. We basically had something that we weren’t actually, as advocates for child poverty, asking for, which was the winter energy payment, and we also had increases to Working for Families.
And then the second moment was also just before that Christmas, when the Healthy Homes Guarantee Act passed into law. And, again, within a couple months of coming in that paved the way for those rental standards we’d been asking for for so long. And I think between that moment and the next one, we put a range of other things in. So, basically, we’ve increased the minimum wage progressively, so now there’s a lot narrower gap between the minimum wage and the living wage; we’ve indexed benefits to the average wage instead of the Consumers Price Index, that will make a huge difference over time; we’ve removed some of those punitive benefit sanctions; we’ve got low-cost doctors’ visits for community services card holders; and we also increased the benefits by $25 a week as part of the COVID-19 response.
But for me, from a historical perspective, it was actually sitting in the House—just back over there—a couple of months ago with the Budget debate, when Grant Robertson announced that we would be increasing benefits by up to $55 a week, with that first $20 coming in on 1 July this year. I think after three decades of those—you know, the “mother of all Budgets” impacting our children and young people in this country, seeing that huge transformational shift, saying, “We have now moved to address what had underpinned so much of everything I was seeing in terms of child poverty in those hospital admissions.”—So for me, we’ve got a long way still to go but I think the changes that we’ve made over the past four years have been incredible. And I’m looking forward to looking ahead into the next few years when we see many, many fewer children coming into hospital with poverty-related diseases. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s often said about politics that a week is a very long time. If a week’s a very long time, then a winter of discontent is an even much longer time—a much, much longer time.
So we’ve come back to the Parliament after the recess of three weeks, where some of us have been out working hard in our electorates, visiting businesses, talking to employers, talking to employees, and talking to people and listening to their worries, their concerns, and their issues with this current Government. And what do we find on the eve of our return to Parliament? A very telling poll. I’ve not ever seen in recent times so many scared faces sitting on the Government benches. Most of that back bench will be gone by the time the next election rolls around, because they have lost connectivity with middle New Zealand and they know it. There’s nothing like a bad poll result and a case of the political seasonal sniffles to give a party a bit of a wake-up call, and this Labour Government seems to have not yet heard the clarion call of the voters of New Zealand that their time is on short fuse.
So as I’ve tripped around the electorate of the Coromandel and I’ve talked to employers and I’ve visited other parts of the country talking to chambers of commerce and the like, employers’ groups, I’ve been talking to them about Labour’s so-called fair pay agreements. And what I’ve heard back is that there is an awful lot to fear about Labour’s fair pay agreements. Often I talk about how these were centralised closed-door agreements between big trade unions and big employers, made in Wellington, and they were a hallmark of the industrial relations landscape in New Zealand all through the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, and they were finally put to rest in the early 1990s. Since then, of course, we’ve had an opportunity to have enterprise agreements where individual employees and individual businesses get down together and they talk about wages and they talk about conditions, and they talk about terms of employment. Labour want to take us back to those bad old days. There are a lot of people my age and older who remember how bad that was not just for employers but for employees and our total economy.
But what’s been fascinating, as I’ve been listening to younger business people and employers around the countryside, is that they, too, are fearful of Labour’s fair pay agreements. They’re absolutely scared witless, because they say, “Well, where’s the democracy? Where’s the fairness? Where is the equity in what Labour are proposing to do?” And they understand that the real risk is actually just a return to union based negotiations that will dominate the industrial relations landscape. But the younger business managers and owners and operators and the younger employees who don’t remember the bad old days, they say, “Well, we want to have democracy in the workplace. We don’t think it’s fair. We don’t think it’s fair or reasonable that just 10 percent of a sector, of a whole sector, can decide the negotiated wage agreements for the other 90 percent.” And in some sectors it’s going to be as few as a thousand people in one sector group.
So just think, for a moment, about a large sector of the employee groups; let’s say, sales reps, for instance, of which there are probably about 100,000 in the country. They are probably going to end up being unionised, because it won’t be too hard to probably find a thousand sympathisers who will say, “Oh, yeah, you know, we want a fair pay agreement.” But the other 99,000 people who don’t want it are going to be forced into a negotiated agreement that is decided by big unions and big business behind closed doors in Wellington.
It’s part of a theme about centralisation, about ruling this country by proclamation from the Beehive, issuing decrees from Wellington. We’ve seen it in centralising health, centralising education, centralising the water arrangements, and now they want to take us back to the bad old days of a centralised—well, it’s not really a negotiation. It’s not a negotiation at all. It’s a system that will be decided behind closed doors, and the only thing that’s really different between now and the period back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is, of course, those closed rooms are probably not smoke-filled any more.
We know, on this side of the House, that one size doesn’t fit all, and actually employees and employers all around the country know that one size doesn’t suit all. There’s another often quoted rule of life and politics and history and that is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There is nothing broken with our employment relations—
SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be back in the House this week amongst my positive and proactive Labour party colleagues in Government, getting the job done. I certainly appreciated time back in Northcote seeing firsthand the difference that this Government is making to our North Shore community, and how we are delivering in our economic recovery.
The top of the list, of course, in Birkenhead, is our COVID vaccine roll-out, and across the road from my electorate office is the Birkenhead Vaccination Centre. Every day it’s full of local people getting their vaccines, and I want to thank the hard-working staff that are there doing an amazing job, providing an A-class service to our community.
A highlight for me last week is that I got to host our Labour infrastructure caucus committee at Kāinga Ora’s Northcote housing development. This is a transformational project for our community that started under the Clark Government, took far too long under the National Government—it stalled, actually—but I especially enjoyed meeting all of our apprentices that are working on building houses in Northcote, training up the next generation. It’s a really important legacy of this project, and it’s delivering for our North Shore community.
Now, the things that we’ve done—and this is a real list of achievements in the work that we’ve been doing and the fabulous outcomes of having a Labour Government, and a Northcote MP as a part of Government. We’re delivering on 1,550 new warm, dry homes, replacing 350 tired, old State houses that National didn’t. A third are Kāinga Ora homes for social rent, another third for affordable KiwiBuild houses for first-home buyers, and another third that are on the open market—233 homes have been completed under this Government, and construction commences for a further 300 this year. One hundred and seventy-four homes have been planned for the Birkdale - Beach Haven end of my electorate, on the other side. Last month I got to open 54 of 94 that we’ve opened since this Labour Party has been in Government. In addition to that, 736 homes have been consented in the last year in our Kaipātiki area—736.
But alongside homes, we have to build communities, and have infrastructure in place that supports these things to get done. So in addition to that, on Monday I had the privilege of attending the blessing of the newly built $19.5 million Onepoto Primary School in the heart of the Northcote Development. There’s three pocket parks alongside Onepoto as well, and the Awataha Greenway Project that brings a sense of environment back into our community. We’ve invested $58 million in the rebuild of Northcote College, and alongside that, invested millions in other local schools, including Northcote Intermediate School, Beach Haven Primary School, Birkenhead Primary School, and we’re not finished yet. That’s only eight months into my term as the local MP.
We’ve invested in our hospital, too. On the North Shore: $267 million, 120 elective surgery beds that under Minister Little’s watch we are getting done. And last weekend, alongside Minister Wood, we got on our bikes on the North Shore and we opened the Northcote safe cycling route and bridges connecting our community across the motorway.
We’re getting things done, and I’m very, very proud of the work, and bravery, that we are doing. But what we know is that population growth on the North Shore—and the statistic is that we estimate an additional 600,000 people by 2050. We need to plan now and invest in infrastructure to get things done. That’s why, under this Government, $31 billion has been invested in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project to get our local people moving. But as we know, there is no silver bullet to achieving our transport woes on the North Shore and the gridlock that we experience. We’ve got to have multiple modes connecting us from Northcote across the North Shore and across the city. We’ve got to see cycling, walking, cars too, we’ve got to have rapid transport, and also walking and cycling across the harbour. It’s one of our priorities, and, in particular, the comments of Minister Robertson—
SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Housing is a human right, and that’s where the Green Party has been very clear where we pitch our vision, our solutions, and our policies. I stand today as the co-leader for the Green Party to support the recent calls this week from the human rights commissioner but a call that has been long-time—around the world, in fact—to ensure that we really are treating housing as a place for people to put down roots, to have a sense of stability and security; a place that looks after people, that is healthy, that is warm; a place that is affordable; a place that is accessible, which we have a particular issue and challenge with at the moment; a place that is located where people can access places to play, live, work, and be educated, get their social needs; a place that accepts the diversity of the ways of living across different communities, that can respond culturally to the different needs.
If we had been approaching our housing solutions with housing as a human right over the many decades and successive Governments, we would not be facing the amount of harm and impact from unaffordability and a housing crisis that we are seeing today—an impact that has been the result of successive Governments giving far too much power to housing as a tradable commodity over and above housing as a place for people to live in, housing as a home over and above just a way for making a few people a lot of wealth and a lot of money. That is how we have allowed this country to treat housing for far too long, and so the Greens were absolutely supportive when we heard a recent call from the human rights commissioner. This is not just a housing crisis; this is a human rights crisis, and the Greens have been very clear that we need to put up solutions that can deliver those human rights aspects of housing, of an adequate standard of living to the many and not just to the few.
It is important that we understand that housing as a human right upholds Te Tiriti and indigenous rights as part of the overall human rights landscape, and that a key solution to our housing where Māori, who are absolutely one of the disproportionately represented groups in housing challenge, are able and enabled to lead housing solutions and able to lead with housing provision and supply in the way that Māori can organise and have power over community and whānau wellbeing. We also know that housing provision with community housing providers, including Pacific housing providers, is essential to uplifting a human rights approach to housing.
We don’t often enough as politicians focus on the 1.4 million, I think, who are also renting. Human rights are indivisible from who we might be, what our background might be as people, what our living situation might be today. Human rights apply to all of us, whether we are renting, whether we own a home—whatever living situation we are in, whatever community we belong to, whatever income we have to support ourselves. These notions of adequate standards of living are indivisible from our human rights, from what we have a responsibility collectively to provide all of our people in this country no matter who we are.
So the solutions that the Greens have always wanted to offer to meet the actual size of the challenge that we are facing are even more important today than in the couple of decades or so that we have been very clear about what is needed: essentially, interrupting, stopping urgently the speculative ramping up of houses being used as tradable commodities that is making it incredibly unaffordable for people to live in housing today in a way that gives people dignity. Having some rent controls right now, sadly, is needed, because it’s going to take far too long to bring our housing crisis and rental down to a level that is affordable, to give people some sense of hope and security. So I am proud to continue to put up the Green housing solutions and a human rights approach to housing. Thank you.
SPEAKER: Now, we have two people taking the call—two people attempting to take the call. The Māori Party, which has been allocated the call, has chosen not to take one today. I’m going to suggest that I take the leave of the House to have two calls each of 2½ minutes. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.
SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I wanted to use this brief opportunity to talk about the workforce crisis that we have in this country. At the beginning of the recess, I went out on the road, along with a massive number of people from the rural sector, to voice the concerns that we’re seeing around the overreach around Government regulation, particularly in that sector.
One of the key issues that we’re seeing, particularly in Northland—and I spoke with a farmer up there, Adam Cullen—was that there was a significant challenge around the turnover of the farm workers on his farm. He has one of his farm workers that have actually had to relocate to Australia because the Australian immigration department is so much more advanced than ours and has already offered his staff permanent residency.
The healthcare sector is also suffering from a workforce crisis—of which this Government is failing to listen to the concerns of those very workers on the ground. I was in the North Shore ambulance station only last week talking to a couple of the front-line medics there. The workload and challenges that they are faced with at the moment, primarily due to workforce shortages and crises, are significant. These are real people—young people within our communities—that are paying the price for action and non-delivery by that side.
The aged-care sector has got 900 nursing vacancies in this country and, probably, a number of thousand vacancies across the wider country in wider roles. Again, we are seeing no action from this Government around listening and putting in place practical applications and practical actions that will deal with closing these gaps. We have a thousand doctors and nurses sitting in the immigration queues, wanting to get into this country to fill the many thousand vacancies that we have within this country, and, again, we are told that we are planning and considering, but we are not taking action.
The number one issue that I hear, across the period of the recess with business, was the lack of workforce. Hospitality: in the Northcote electorate, The Engine Room restaurant in the electorate across the row here—where the MP Shannon Halbert was talking about how good they are—has actually gone and done their own petition because they are struggling with the significantly high number of vacancies in the hospitality sector. Yet their own MP is failing to act in his electorate to deal with some of those issues.
ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I would like to start with a massive congratulations to the Hawke’s Bay exporters of the year, Frost Fans. Frost Fans are a business that’s built on the back of a horticultural sector, and they are going places. At the exporter of the year awards we saw businesses celebrating the success they’ve had—yes, in a hard, tough year, but they’re out there celebrating and doing well. It’s been a big, big week in Hastings, because we’ve heard from the Minister of Immigration that this Government has announced that we’re opening a corridor with our Pasifika islands to bring in the RSEs. The RSE is a scheme, the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, that was developed under the Labour Government. It has been one of the single greatest tools that has driven this horticultural sector, and this is why we do it: because when you get the fruit picked, you grow long, full, permanent jobs for Kiwis, and that’s the important thing. In this year, in this season, we have seen 2,600 job seekers come off the benefit to come and work in horticulture. That is a fact, and those are the things that matter when we start growing jobs from the best place in the world to grow apples and pears.
I want to give a great big shout-out to the growers. They have developed excellent relationships with the Labour Government. They have been talking. They’ve had an open way through to speak with the Minister. It has been tough, but they are celebrating this week. We know that when it comes to this season we are going to pick, harvest, pack, export thousands of premium quality, beautiful apples that will go to the other side of the world. That’s what we do here in the Labour Government. We developed the RSE scheme. We are keeping it rolling out. Thank you, Mr Speaker: this is what matters on this side of the House where we’re working with business and growing apples, growing jobs. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill.
Bills
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill
In Committee
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House in committee on the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill. We turn first to Part 1, this is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Changes to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001”. The question is that Part 1 stands part.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to be debating this bill in the committee of the whole House. As I think all members will be aware, this is a bill about increasing the age of entitlement to New Zealand super and veterans’ payment from the current provision, 10 years, to 20 years. It is proposed under the original bill that this would take place over a staged process—effectively, for every two years, there would be a requirement for one extra year to be worked so that over a period of time, over the next 10 years, it would progressively move from a situation of if you were someone who wants to be entitled to New Zealand super, you would not only have to work for 10 years but, progressively over time, to have to work for 20 years before you are entitled to it.
Now, the big question around this is: when should such a provision start? I just want to acknowledge Minister Carmel Sepuloni for working with me to look at the commencement date. There have been discussions with the Retirement Commissioner, who expressed some discomfort that under the bill as introduced into the House, it would have allowed for that progressive increase to 20 years to commence straight away. By agreement with the Minister, we have decided and proposed through a Supplementary Order Paper that the commencement date is deferred not from 1 July 2021 but actually to 1 July 2023, so that people have more time to consider matters of their superannuation, and, if need be, to start planning for working an extra period of time, so that once those provisions start to cut in, then there is more time available to do the planning.
So I am very grateful for the Minister and, hopefully, we will be able to work our way through some more details, but I’m looking forward to the debate.
BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the member for his constructive work during the process and during the select committee process. As you can see, the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that’s been tabled by the Minister, I understand, has been in consultation with the member as a result of the Retirement Commissioner. Now, I just want to go back to what was agreed during the select committee period so I can walk through it, and then I’d like to ask the member a couple of questions in relation to those changes that have been recommended in the SOP, if that’s OK.
So if I look back during the select committee period, we had submissions from a number of submitters. In particular, I can recall the Browns Bay Chinese Society submission, and they had set out a table which is very similar to the one that is in the revision-tracked (RT) version of the bill that was reported back by the select committee. In that particular table—although it was slightly different in the RT version—I understand that we had come to an agreement during the select committee period that we would go by periods of dates so that there wasn’t so much of a cliff so that as soon as somebody had got to the point where they were able to receive superannuation, instead of just dropping off the cliff straight away from a 20-year to a 10-year applicant period, we would phase it in over particular periods. So if I looked at the RT version of the bill, I think it was clause 4, replacement section 8(4), it was around, I think, between 1 July 1957 and 30 June 1959 it was 11 years; if you look at 1959 and 1961, it was 12; 1961 and 1963, 13; and it carries right through to on or after 1 July 1975, which was 20 years.
That was a really constructive discussion we had during the select committee. I understand that a lot of the submitters—not just the Chinese association but there was a couple of others. I know that the reason that we did this again was to prevent that cliff face. There was also a really good example that was put in there by officials, which is quite unusual for a bill of this type, and that was around if “A person … is born overseas on … 1965, [they move] to New Zealand and becomes both resident and present in New Zealand on 1 July 2020 at age 55. The earliest date … which B can meet their can meet their total time requirement is 14 years later, on 1 July 2034, at age 69. B meets this requirement by being both resident and present in New Zealand for a total of 12 years, in the Cook Islands”. Now, if I look specifically to the SOP that’s been tabled by the Minister, my question is to the member: how did—I see they’ve shifted. They have moved based on SOP 58. Can you please give some background as to why the Retirement Commissioner recommended that move from 1957 to 1959 that’s carried out now in the new clause 4 in that SOP, please?
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you—very good question. So the primary driver in the discussion with the Retirement Commissioner that I had was she was particularly concerned that for people who are very close to retiring, even though the requirement might have been that they had to work for an extra year, actually for some that was quite unfair. And so she recommended that we should delay the commencement date to allow those very close to retirement age to be able to have time to work with their employers if they needed to work an extra year, rather than retiring to 65 they could work through to 66. So it meant not only could the individual plan what they wanted to do with their life but also, hopefully, they had the opportunity to continue working at the firm where they were employed. And so it’s just a pragmatic approach to literally trying to deal with the short-term issue of when do you start commencing this progressive stage-in. As you pointed out, in clause 4, effectively we’ve got the same two-year requirement bands, but what we’ve done is just pushed out the first commencement date to, effectively, 1 July 2023.
BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): I thank the member for clarifying that shift between what was recommended by the select committee and then the Retirement Commissioner. My question around that is—I understand perhaps the Retirement Commissioner actually asked for a longer period? I’m not quite sure; I’ve just picked up the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) off the Table today, but I understand that the delay, based on what is currently in the SOP, hasn’t gone as far as what she wanted publicly. However, I believe this phased implementation does strike a balance, as you’ve just discussed. What exactly was it that the Retirement Commissioner was recommending and why have we not gone with that extended period, rather than the period we’ve currently gone with?
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well, the discussion was around whether it should be between one and five years. Obviously, at that point we have had a bill that was introduced to the House that was talking about, effectively, an immediate introduction which had been recommended by officials. We had a discussion—and I’m saying she and I had a discussion. She had a view that it could be certainly longer than two years. Her approach was that we should make it as long as practicable, and she certainly talked about the five-year period. But, obviously, what you’re driving at is a question of discretion and judgment, and it’s something I’ve discussed with Minister Sepuloni as to what is an appropriate date. I think we both came to agree that we thought two years for a delayed commencement date. We’ve still got the same delay over the next 12 years before you get to the full 20-year entitlement, but it was all around just how long do you delay the start point.
Of course, from the Government’s perspective there’s quite a financial cost to that, and one of the reasons why we had a bit of a delay on this bill was that we had to look at the financial considerations—that’s something the Cabinet had to look at. And so we’ve struck a balance which we think is appropriate. Obviously, some people will want it longer. If you look at survey results, there’s an overwhelming desire that this bill be introduced and be made to be in effect very quickly. So you’ve got to get a judgment between those who think we should not be allowing people to come here and immediately get superannuation after 10 years and those who think we should have more delays, and I think we’ve sort of struck a balance on that.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, thank you, Madam Chair. This is a fascinating discussion and probably in my time here rather unique—where two things have happened that I think are quite significant. When a member’s bill is supported by both sides of the House, there generally is some sort of background horse trading with the Minister at the select committee period, and indeed that occurred. It was easy to do because there was a general acceptance that the bill as introduced while the purpose was understood the method was poor. The intent was fine, but the bill was not well written and we in select committee had to basically rewrite it. Now, the Ministry of Social Development and the Minister for Social Development and Employment were involved in that, and I thought we had reached what was an appropriate phasing of this and there was no indication from the Minister’s office or the ministry that there was any great concern.
I haven’t seen the advice the Retirement Commissioner has provided and that, frankly, is one of the problems that we have with trying to understand the value of this Supplementary Order Paper. I’m not personally convinced that it’s necessary, but I completely understand the sponsor of the bill, who wants to pass it, actually having Hobson’s choice, really, because we need the support of Labour members in order to get this bill through—so what the Minister wants, the Minister gets.
The second part of the unusual part of this is that at the committee of the whole House it’s very unusual for a Minister to put in such a substantive amendment to a member’s bill. The behind the scenes work is usually done through the select committee and the nod and the wink is given. But this is quite overt. It’s in the Minister’s name, effectively, and giving effect to her wishes. Mr Bayly has just talked about the costs of this delay, but as far as I can tell, on the table, there hasn’t been an assessment of what the cost of this change is. So my question to the member is: has he seen those costs in any great detail? Is he satisfied that that’s appropriate and that the Minister of Finance is satisfied with this? Because, actually, it’s not really a net cost, because the bill overall is going to save money over time. We’re just delaying not the start date necessarily but the effective date. So has the Minister or the Government undertaken an analysis of the costs or the savings that we won’t make now as a consequence of the two-year delay to the start of this?
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Yeah, there’s two points to that. The first thing is I just want to be clear that it wasn’t necessarily the Minister driving this delay. It was something I was very happy to consider, having spoken to the Retirement Commissioner. And of course, between the time that this bill was introduced and actually consulted on and the stage where we’ve got to today, we’ve got a new Retirement Commissioner. The previous Retirement Commissioner was very, very keen on making a strong recommendation that this should be brought in as soon as possible and very strong that it should be 20 years that we move to. The latest or current commissioner has a slightly different view, and that’s what reflects in the consideration in delaying this. Originally, the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) was in my name, but as a result of the need to go to Cabinet, it was agreed that the Minister would file the SOP, and, of course, she was in consultation with me. So I’m very grateful for that.
In terms of your second point about the costs, you’re right. What we’re doing with the delay if it gets passed is, effectively, foregoing a certain amount of saving of expenses, so it reduces the cost of superannuation for the Government. If it had been brought in, effectively, today, that would have meant that there would have been a lower cost for superannuation over the next couple of years. That’s the cost of delaying it—that saving in terms of superannuation. I haven’t seen the specific figures in response to your direct question, but it was something that the Minister said that she had to take to Cabinet and has taken to Cabinet, and Cabinet has approved it and, as a result, we’ve proposed this SOP.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, thank you. Look, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate in good faith on the merits of New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill.
I wanted to ask the member around the point of sustainability, because I note in the introductory remarks that the bill is intended to contribute to the sustainability of super. I wanted to ask, I guess, around the evidence the member has, or is aware of, around to what degree this bill will contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand super in the longer term.
Because what we do know from the initial briefings by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is that there is an expectation that, as we restrict people going on to New Zealand super, some migrants who need income support will end up going to a main benefit. While that number may be slightly lower, there’s higher operational costs to going from New Zealand super to a main benefit, due to just the complexity of the welfare system. I note that the initial briefing by MSD also notes that, in the longer term, the projected savings of this bill to super—and this was before the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced—are likely to be even lower now. It’s only 0.3 percent of the projected cost of New Zealand super.
So we do know that this bill will increase hardship somewhat to our migrant communities but that the sustainability and the cost savings are really minor. So I would love to hear—and this is my question—what further evidence there is, or just the member’s view, on how much this bill will actually contribute to the savings of New Zealand super. Thank you.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Very good question. I note that the Greens’ minority view in the report of the committee.
The simple fact is, if you look at what’s happening with superannuation around the world, most countries are moving to increasing the age of entitlement up to 66 through to 68. That has been the trend, and part of that has been brought on by recent economic events. But that has been quite a clear trend if you look across the OECD. So, obviously, at the moment we’re at 65, and that’s where we sit. In terms of the cost of super at the moment, it’s effectively about 4.8 percent. It’s the single highest amount of Government spending that the Government incurs every year in terms of social spending. It is expected to double, under the current projections, to just under 8 percent by, I think, 2040.
What people don’t realise is that even with our New Zealand super fund, which presently is over $50 billion—probably closer to $60 billion—that doesn’t get used to help minimise the cost of New Zealand super, it doesn’t kick in, until about 2033 or 2034. Even when we start to apply that fund—which possibly might be worth $100 billion at that stage—even starting to use it to top up the superannuation payment will only account for about 6 or 7 percent of the total cost of New Zealand super at that point in time. So New Zealand super is just an escalating wave that gets bigger and bigger, like a tidal wave, in terms of cost for the Government. As I’ve said before, in a generic sense, it doubles in terms of the cost of GDP of New Zealand from 4.8 to just over 8 percent.
What’s worse, if you look at it, and take into account health costs, by the time you take rising health costs and superannuation costs, you could easily project by about 2040—and certainly by 2060—that nearly half of our expenditure will be in just those two components. That’s why it’s absolutely necessary to start making these changes, and that’s why other Governments around the world have already started down this pathway.
So one of the ways to deal with that is, certainly, raising the age of entitlement. The second one is—and this is a smaller component. It’s only likely to affect about 6,000 people—that’s the rough guess of what we think—so it’s a small proportion, but it’s part of what virtually every other country in the world has moved to: a 20-year rule. We’re one of the few countries, alongside Australia, who have a 10-year rule at the moment, and by moving to 20 years over a progressive period of time, we’re actually bringing ourselves in line with most other countries. So that is the raison d’être about it, because we’ve got a tsunami of superannuation costs and this is one of reasons of how we might be able to deal with it.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you to the member for answering the question and, again, for having this debate, a really good debate. Look, I take the point of us being able to potentially have a debate just about the sustainability of New Zealand super as a whole, but this bill is very much specifically around the impact that our migrant population has on the cost of New Zealand superannuation, and it very specifically targets a community.
So I guess, wanting to keep it within the scope of the 6,000 people that the member alludes to that will be affected: how does the member justify the fairness of moving people to a main benefit and the potentially higher operational costs that somebody being on a main benefit may have in terms of taxpayer dollars? Also, when the member talks about the compounding healthcare costs, considering that those that may need to move on to a main benefit may end up being worse off and knowing that incomes are one of the most important determinants of health, does the member foresee some of those people affected potentially having deteriorating health outcomes and therefore having a higher need in the welfare system and the healthcare system, and potentially contradicting the purpose of this bill, which is to create sustainability within our income support networks?
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well, I think there’s a supposition in your questioning, because if you look at what’s being proposed, there is a staged delay before people are entitled to superannuation. What that means is that people have the opportunity and can and must work for a longer period of time. So what it’s not saying is: you’re not entitled to superannuation. The issue is you must have to work in New Zealand and be working here for a longer period of time. That’s what most other countries have moved to, anyway. So what we tried to do is come up with a practical way of getting to that point of a 20-year entitlement, which is by far the norm overseas. That’s my first point in response to your question.
The second one is I’m not actually persuaded by the issue of complexity. You seem to make out that it’s going to be very difficult and it’s going to be costly, or imply that it’s going to be costly, to administer the scheme. I’m not sure that that’s actually correct. It’s a pretty simple rule: for bands of two years, you may have to work at one extra year of entitlement in New Zealand, or if you’re from a Realm country—we’ve also extended the provisions to Realm countries; Tokelau—you know the three countries that are Realm countries. So that’s part of the provision.
The third area that we’ve been very careful to protect is actually refugees. So what it means is if you’re a refugee and you arrive here, and you’re 55 and older, you’re not caught by these provisions. You only have to work the 10 years, as long as you stay in New Zealand and work. That’s a specific provision to protect refugees. So if you come here at a younger age, then, obviously, you would need to stay in New Zealand and work for that period of time to be entitled to New Zealand super.
So we’ve tried to come up with a balance of looking at more vulnerable groups, particularly refugees. We wanted to make sure we protected our Realm country interests—very important in terms of superannuation. But this is a pragmatic way of trying to increase the entitlement over a period of time so that people have sufficient time to plan for it and to be able to meet their requirements in a way that they can and prepare for it.
DAMIEN SMITH (ACT): It’s a bad day in New Zealand for the Green Party, that purports to support various groups and the youth of New Zealand, by lacking the support for this bill. Let’s put on the record that they’ve let down that group today.
I think Mr Bayly and the Minister have reached a very sensible settlement in the two-year time frame. I think if you look at New Zealand super, it’s one of the few schemes internationally that gives everyone who fits the residency requirement a generous payment, and it’s the last line of defence in terms of keeping people from very difficult situations. So if you’re legally resident now for 20 years after the age of 20, it’s not means tested or income tested, and the two-year time frame and extension has the support of the ACT Party. We congratulate Labour, National, and ACT for bringing this to the committee today.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Helen White. Just before the member starts, could members, when they are wanting a call, make a call by addressing the Chair “Madam Chair”, which indicates—I’m telling the whole committee this—that you are seeking the call. Thank you.
HELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. This was one of the first pieces of legislation that I worked on in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I was very impressed with the cooperative way that things were carried out. I was interested in really considering the universal nature of our superannuation and the fact that, in fact, this was very different from the safety net that many of our migrants will have if they need it. This is a scheme that has been very much thought about in terms of the contributions that people make to it and what they get out of it. Obviously, it is taxpayers’ money. It is actually the superannuitants’ own money that’s going into the scheme, in principle, so it’s very important that we respect that and are careful with the way we use it.
I was interested to see the difference in the bill. When the bill first started, my understanding is—and I’d like your comment on this, Mr Bayly—that it didn’t really accommodate people like refugees, who are not people who have had an opportunity to contribute to such a scheme and were welcomed into our country on quite a different basis. So I was interested to see that; I was interested to see the accommodation of the Realm countries in that process. So I’d really like to hear your comments on that development of the bill into something that was, perhaps, more able to get consensus across at least three parties in that process in terms of what the purpose of the bill was and what it is now.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her question. I’m just looking at someone in the gallery who was involved in the original drafting of the bill. I just want to acknowledge the original sponsor of the bill, Mr Mark Patterson, who introduced the bill. The bill as it was originally introduced, if I’m reasonably blunt about it, was pretty simplistic in the sense that it made clear that we should move to a 20-year horizon, but, effectively, it meant that would happen overnight—the day following the passing of the bill, effectively, or the signing of the Act. Obviously, when I was asked to take over the bill—because, of course, Mr Patterson left in the last Parliament. He asked me particularly to take over the bill. I accepted that on the basis that, obviously, the bill needed a lot more work, and I think Mr Patterson, to his credit, would acknowledge that. But he’s put a bill in the House that has obviously got us to that point.
I do want to acknowledge the work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We did all work hard together, and also we had, gratefully provided by the Minister, officials to work on this. So, as you’re aware—more recently, but certainly what happened in the previous Parliament—there’s been a lot of work on the bill to get it to a stage where it provided for a more appropriate commencement date, it provided for a more staged approach to entitlement, it dealt with the issue of Realm countries, which we have a significant interest in and responsibility to, and it also dealt with the issue of refugees, whom we wanted to make sure were protected, because they’re vulnerable people when they come to New Zealand—they don’t have a choice. So those are sort of the four key aspects of this bill that through the committee we’ve worked through.
Obviously, the subsequent development is the discussions with the Minister around delaying the commencement date by two years. Personally, I’m very happy to recommend that. So I think, as a committee, we worked very well on that, and I think if we do get this through today, this will be a wonderful example of making progress on something that is a very thorny issue—namely, the cost and the issue of superannuation for New Zealanders going forward.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana, Madam Chair, and kia orana, Mr Bayly. Congratulations on getting this bill to this stage. Look, the provision I’m interested in is the one relating to refugees, which is new section 8A. Just a couple of things: as I understand it—and I’d just really like confirmation—what this means is that the law as it stands will, essentially, continue for refugees; it will be 10 years at most. It may not be something you’re able to answer, because it relates to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just keep the Speaker out of the debate.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The member may not be able to answer this, and I’m sure the Chair simply will not, but the question is that the Minister’s SOP reproduces the new section 8A, in clause 5, and I’m just simply not clear what the change is, unless it’s simply a comprehensive rewrite. My question is simply whether there are any changes, in the SOP, to section 8A or whether that’s simply a reproduction of 8A. That’s simply my question, because I can’t seem to see any substantive changes or whether the SOP really is just a rewrite of pretty much the entire bill. So perhaps you can help me there.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): It’s good to have professors of law involved in these processes, isn’t it? Effectively, the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is a rewrite of the bill. The issue, just to be clear, around the refugees is—and I’ve talked about before—effectively if you come here and you’re 55 and older, as a refugee, you only have to comply with the 10-year rule, but if you’re here for longer, you will have to comply for a longer period of time. But there’s that stop point of saying you do not have to comply with these regulations if you’re here aged 55 or over.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): So, just to be clear, Mr Bayly, there is never going to be a greater than 10-year period—is that, essentially, what you were saying there? Because as I read 8A—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Speaker?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The member—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Is the member suggesting that the Speaker is saying it?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No. Is that what the member is saying?
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Is that what the member is saying? Point of order, Madam Chair. If I may, there has been guidance around the use of the pronoun “you”, particularly when it’s a flowing conversation, and I might say that, given the direction around committee stage and the encouragement to have a bit of a Q and A, if I may observe, it’s very hard to have a free flowing Q and A—
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Thank you. I thank the member for the point of order, and the rule of thumb I use is that if the word “you” can be replaced with “one”, that is now permissible in the House. But if the word “you” is directed to a member, then I take it as if it is being directed at the Speaker and involving the Speaker in the debate. Does the member wish to continue his speech?
Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s helpful. So I’m just really asking the member to clarify that anyone who is in the country for a period of greater than 10 years, as a refugee, will automatically qualify when they hit their 65th birthday.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. So maybe I’ll just read this, from the commentary on the bill, to you: “Our amendment would retain the current 10 year residence requirement for a refugee or protected person who becomes a resident at age 55 or higher”. The amendment would ensure that the total residence requirement for a refugee is limited to no more than the difference between the date the person first becomes resident in New Zealand and the date on which they turn 65. So hopefully that will clear it up.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’d just like to pick up on the member’s points about the best practice overseas, raising the age of superannuation to between, I believe, the member said 65 to 68, and some of the conversation that was had during select committee, and, also, when I look back at the Hansard, around fairness. Indeed, this is a bill which is predicated on fairness both to those who are paying superannuation and those who have been in the country and have been paying superannuation and working for a long time, and balancing that with those who have an entitlement to superannuation yet may have been contributing to other economies, or perhaps have been doing unpaid work. I note in the Hansard it was mentioned that life expectancies are different in Aotearoa New Zealand; there are different ages. So, for example, for women, it is 83.5; for men, generally, it is 80; and when that is broken down for Māori men, the expectation is much lower: it is 73; Pasifika men, 75.5; Asian men, 85; and so on.
So I’m curious to know: when the member spoke with the Retirement Commissioner, was there a discussion around the fairness relating to the retirement age, and did the Retirement Commissioner believe that the two-year extension was going to be a better and fairer mitigation than perhaps raising the retirement age, which, in the earlier debates, had been suggested by Mr Muller from the National Party? And, secondly, did the Retirement Commissioner speak particularly about the ethnic minorities that might be adversely affected by this—that small cohort—and was there particular concern for that group?
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you for that questioning. The first thing I would just say is that this bill is about raising the entitlement from 10 to 20 years, not about raising the entitlement for anyone in New Zealand from 65 to 67 or whatever. So it is very specific, this bill; I’d just make that point.
In terms of the discussion with the Retirement Commissioner, it was about this part of it and her recommendation that we should be delaying the commencement date, as I’ve outlined previously—that was the focus of the discussion. So I listened to her and responded, and, obviously, we are where we are today with the proposed Supplementary Order Paper.
You referred to life expectancy—so, yes, there is differing life expectancy between Pākehā New Zealanders and Māori and Pasifika, certainly as you highlighted, and even between gender, women and male, and they are quite substantial. The other thing is—that you are probably not aware of—that if you look at the long-term demographics of New Zealand, if you go back over the past four decades, effectively the life expectancy of anyone living in New Zealand has, effectively, gone up one month for every year that they live. So for every decade over the last 40 years, for every decade, effectively the life expectancy of New Zealanders, on average, has gone up by one year. So there are a whole lot of changing demographics, so pulling out one sort of demographic is only part of the issue.
The wider issue that you are raising about the unfairness, or otherwise, of certain racial groups or even gender groups who have lower life expectancy and whether they should be, therefore, entitled to superannuation at an earlier stage is outside the bounds of this debate today. But I would say to you that it is a long-running issue that most Governments have looked at. It was an issue when we were in Government and, certainly, you’ve been in Government for now nearly four years. The issue and most of the advice—I think, if you look at the advice that most officials give you, if you want to talk about complexity, by doing and looking at those sorts of aspects, you bring an element of complexity that a member from the Greens was talking about, which would make it very complex. That is why, generally, the advice from officials is to stay away from that and just work on a blanket issue. But, as I’ve said before, it is outside the scope of this bill.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was very interested in the initial comments of Helen White—and I agree with them—regarding the degree of collegiality in the select committee on the first bill that she was part of considering. I sensed something of a surprise that there was that level of cooperation in the committee, and I think new members sometimes come in with this perception that we are sort of hammer and tongs at each other across the aisle. It is, I think, worth putting on record that that’s not the case, because the select committee is the engine room of our democracy, and we do work, I think, by and large, very cooperatively within it, including in the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
I raise that because this is what is slightly frustrating about the conversation that we’re having right now. This committee did work well to take a bill with great intent but not that well worded and make it better. But I note that, actually, as far as I can recall—and I can’t find the documentation—the Retirement Commissioner didn’t actually make a submission to the select committee raising any concerns. Now, I know that there has been a change to the Retirement Commissioner during that period and that somebody else has come in with a different view. That’s fine—I understand that. But one of the things that we could have done is actually answered some fundamental questions.
This is not a criticism of the sponsor of the bill, because he, quite rightly, is almost compelled, actually, I think, to agree with the Minister’s proposed amendments—and they’re well intended too. But it has created some confusion, because what we got in the departmental report and we were able to consider was some quite good information, as far as we could get, from the Integrated Data Infrastructure and from Immigration New Zealand about the number of people who might be affected by this change, and we haven’t been able to go back and sort of recalibrate some of that information as a consequence of the change to clause 8 as articulated in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I would like to know how many people who might have had a delay are now not going to have a delay, how material this change is, and what the cost of that delay is.
But for Dr Webb’s benefit—because he was, I think, not confused but asking questions about refugees—actually, the substantive change in clause 8 is not to do with anything to do with refugees. The simple change is this: the amended bill, as we reported it back from the select committee, meant that if one was aged 64 on or before 30 June, the time requirement would be 10 years. The amendment now means that one would be—and I’ve got to find my numbers here—62, I think, on or before in order to have 10 years, or is it the other way around, I think. I’m trying to see—
Andrew Bayly: It’s 64, is it?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes—so it would be the other way around. You can be younger now and still have a 10-year requirement. So there’s actually a two-year delay before the 11-year requirement comes in, the 12-year requirement, and so on.
In respect of refugees, I think it’s important to note that when a refugee is granted residence, he or she is not subject to the two-year stand down for any income support, whether that be jobseeker support, the invalid’s benefit, and so on, that a New Zealand resident who has arrived for other reasons might have. The select committee, I think we should acknowledge, was very careful in our amendments to the bill to make sure that refugees would not be affected at all. So the chair’s question—Dr Webb’s question—about how refugees are affected by the SOP, I just want to support Mr Bayly’s response. The answer is they won’t be, and all through this transitional period and beyond, the qualification period will be 10 years. It will remain 10 years, and I see the member—yes—nodding. Good, because that’s certainly my understanding.
I think that’s really important, but I do want to record that I am a little perplexed that we didn’t hear from the Retirement Commissioner, that we weren’t able as a committee to perhaps put the new SOP and turn the handle on it and then see what the impact is. It’s a minor irritant to what will still be, I think, a significant improvement that affects a very small number of people, probably aged between 50 and 64, maybe even a little younger than that—sort of between 46 and 64—but they have a long period of time within which to plan for that change.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to pick up on the exchange between Ingrid Leary and the member around the fact that, as the member has acknowledged, this bill is not about the overall sustainability of New Zealand super, or, actually, the age of retirement within the New Zealand super system. While I note that the member has said that the intent of this bill is to move us to where other countries have gone in terms of raising, I guess, the requirements towards New Zealand super, this is ultimately about a very specific population group that we’re talking about.
In regards to inequities within our migrant communities, I wanted to unpack on the comments around life expectancy. Does the member not see that there could be some issues and, that therefore, higher healthcare needs between migrant groups that have had disproportionate lower health outcomes and pushing these groups towards perhaps needing a main benefit or perhaps not even qualifying for income support at all, means that we could inadvertently be putting certain groups at higher needs of the healthcare systems?
The actual initial briefing by the Minister for social development very specifically touched on the impact this bill could have on disabled people. So I note in the initial briefing what the Ministry of Social Development was mentioning was that as people get older—and I think we all know this—there tends to be more of a need within the healthcare system and people may end up becoming disabled. So, as the initial briefing touches on, the outcome of restricting New Zealand super will be an increase in poverty and material hardship amongst disabled people affected by this bill, and while the initial briefing and the member’s own contributions and people across the House have said that the savings throughout this bill will be quite minor, we will see an increase in material hardship in some groups. I guess, to me, in terms of reaching a balance or reaching fairness, I don’t see much fairness in increasing material hardship for disabled people or perhaps other population groups.
I guess I am seeking assurances by the members that this bill is driven by evidence and by good research as opposed to an ideological drive to reach a place of sustainability when the evidence that we’ve been given says otherwise. So I’m just seeking assurances that we’re debating something that is evidence-based, not just purely ideologically based.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I move, That the question be now put.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Carmel Sepuloni’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 58 stand part.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 12
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 12
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Fair Residency) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Bills
Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 30 June.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill in the name of Andrew Bayly, the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill. What this bill intends to do, just to remind those members, is it seeks to amend the 2004 piece of legislation, the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act, to require licensed pawnbrokers, second-hand dealers, and also internet auction providers such as TradeMe to keep a supply of records in an electronically readable format which is able to be used for police computers and able to be used for law enforcement to track and trace stolen goods. While this change is aimed at making it much easier for police to do their jobs in order to hold those accountable who have taken items unlawfully and attempted to sell them, this is also a bit of an issue there where there is good intent—I guess the words are right. There is good intent, but Labour is not supporting this bill at first reading due to the concerns about the number of unintended consequences relating, in particular, to compliance costs.
That is where it is interesting. We often have members opposite complaining about compliance costs and the ongoing cost to small-business owners, particularly in a post-COVID environment, where there are a number of difficulties for small businesses right across New Zealand. So some of the issues raised with this good idea come to the implementation and how small businesses would be expected or forced to change accounting methods in order to adapt to this requirement to change into an electronic system. So, while Labour backs police to keep our community safe and—this is evident from the $450 million that has been invested in front-line policing services and our increasing our front-line response to up to 14,000 police—while we support investing in law enforcement and our justice system, we do not see this as able to be done in a way that is effective in achieving its intended outcome.
So the bill’s general policy statement has a couple of problems. It’s at this point I’d like to unpick some of the issues to look at how in the future we might be able to address some of the problems this bill has raised. How a business is expected to be forced to change its accounting methods is critical, but given the vast majority of those small businesses—and everyone will have one in their electorate: a corner store that sells second-hand goods, or is a pawnbroker and takes goods from people and sells them on their behalf. The accounting methods in those stores will be hugely variant, depending on where you go in the country and depending on the size of the business, and quite often those businesses are owner-operated. They are small-business people who are often semi-retired, or running a shop and able to run—and the ones in my electorate I can think of don’t even use EFTPOS, in some instances. So wanting to introduce a nationally standardised, electronically monitored system of tracking and tracing second-hand goods is admirable in its ambitions, but in its practicality is questionable.
These general compliance costs are exacerbated by the specific way that the bill is actually worded in regards to its record-keeping requirements. The bill’s wording requires that the electronic record—and I quote—is “electronically readable and usable by Police computers”. That’s where it’s quite unclear what it’s trying to do. Is it trying to talk to the National Intelligence Application, which is the national database that police use for intelligence, or is it for other purposes? So it is quite unclear what is intended by those “electronically readable and usable by Police computers” words in the general policy statement.
Secondly, I would like to point out the issue with the wording of this requirement—that it may prevent small businesses from using some basic, off-the-shelf, and, no doubt, probably far more affordable record-keeping software, because it may not be easily readable by those police computers. A lot of those small-business owners are using products that are able to be either downloaded for a small fee or purchased from a local electronic store, so the question is about how small businesses would be able to use this without forcing more expensive solutions that have compliance cost implications for those small-business owners. Although police currently have a Serial Number Automated Checker, which is known as SNAC—and that is in Counties Manukau—this is a system that’s not yet been rolled out nationally, more widely through New Zealand. So it’s difficult to know exactly what the requirements would be of the wording in the bill in order for these businesses around the country to come on board and to leave the door open—sometimes these situations would have unforeseen or unintended consequences.
Similarly, there are also some concerns on this side of the House in relation to the requirements of the penalties in this regime and how they would be implemented, and how implementing those penalties would have an impact upon small businesses. The way the bill is currently worded is that if police change their systems, or have a new requirement for what is specified in the bill, for the information to be usable by police and police computers, businesses affected by these regulations would have to immediately update their systems or potentially be subject to an offence, which is specified to up to $10,000 as a fine. The word is “Police usable”, and how that would have an impact directly upon small-business owners again is unclear in this instance. That sort of clarity would really need to be spelt out to the letter in order to make sure small-business owners are clear on what is actually required of them to comply with the law. This may, again, have unforeseen circumstances and very immediate costs on them, and that kind of cost could be seen as punishing them with a fine and drive a small business out of existence if they’re not complying. So that, again, has really caused a significant level of doubt in terms of how the practical implementation of this bill would operate.
We also have some concerns about how the police themselves would operate in this. They would need to update all computer systems around the country, and would face, potentially, quite significant costs to do so and roll out a nationally compliant system across New Zealand. This problem is exacerbated by the bill’s three-month commencement date. Having to roll out a nationally compliant system in just three months is practicably not achievable, as it would take a significant amount of work to get that under way.
We think it’s likely that regulated traders would transition gradually towards digital record-keeping, and that we should encourage that to happen. But, given the advantages, we support police engaging, as appropriate, to improve how they would engage with businesses, as they have done, as I’ve mentioned, in Counties Manukau. It was developed with the Serial Number Automated Checker system that’s under way there.
We do not believe that the blunt instrument of this bill is the best way to go about dealing with the problem that has quite rightly been identified by Andrew Bayly in this member’s bill. What this bill does is try to address the entire situation in one go, and really bites off more than it can swallow. So while the bill has got good intentions, we think that systems in place already need to be explored further, and we need to give far greater consideration to the implications and the unintended consequences for small-business owners to make sure that those changes can be put in place into small businesses before there’s a legislative requirement with hefty penalties trucking on down the road with three months for implementation.
In general, I would like to conclude by saying that, yes, our police do a fantastic job at working around the clock to make sure that stolen items are rightly returned to their owners when that is needed to be done and that there are good systems in place of checking when items have been provided to second-hand dealers. We would like to commend the member on the good intent of his bill, but the solution proposed has unintended consequences and is not practically deliverable to meet the problem which he has identified. So I wish to state that we will not be supporting this bill further. Thank you.
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is, as has already been said, a very practical bill, and it seeks to address a very discrete issue, which is to provide a national standardised electronic way of monitoring second-hand dealers and second-hand goods being sold and bought, which I believe police have sought. As has already been said as well, Counties Manukau police are already electronising their approach to this; we just don’t have the dealers doing it in the same way, and certainly not in a standardised way. Most pawnbrokers and dealers, including those that operate online, like on TradeMe, do so currently by way of keeping handwritten records, which are really difficult to access and certainly not something that in real time would alert authorities to the receipt of lost or stolen goods that are on another record being sought by their rightful owners. So this would, in principle and in practice, make that process more practically applicable and more accessible and more efficient.
For those reasons, the Green Party will support the bill. We do have certain concerns around the enforcement mechanisms and the enforcement being such a high fine. So we will be looking closely at what happens at the committee stage and how the practical implementation processes come into place, and we will be raising concerns about the way that ordinarily in our system of justice things like fines operate to persecute or prejudice certain communities. We will be looking at the way that those fines are both going to be regulated, made effective, and also the level of fines, which are quite high, and so would in practice undermine the ability of certain small-business owners to operate. We, again, know that, in terms of being targeted for both compliance with regulations and in terms of criminalisation, often it will be the lower socioeconomic Māori and Pacific communities that things get applied, and we will be looking at whether or not we can work to ensure that the practical intention of this bill, which is to electronically monitor the sale of goods that may be lost or stolen, and the practical impact at the other end are not disproportionate.
I do note that it will be applicable to things like TradeMe, and I think we’re a bit late in actually regulating online spaces when it comes to the sale and purchase of goods, in terms of the ethics. Something of an issue that’s been brought up to us, as the Green Party, has been, for example, the way that animals that are traded on TradeMe are treated, and animal welfare issues. But there’s a plethora of other issues in terms of both ethics and trading, the way that our tax system is applied, and the way that traders are regulated or monitored in those spaces, that we haven’t really engaged with as lawmakers. So this is one of the steps that will bring us closer to acknowledging that online spaces are like real spaces and require us to apply a values-based system, and also that actually electronic records are something that we are going to move towards in order to know these things and to regulate for the greater good. So this is another step towards that.
Given that the bill is of such a discrete purpose and effect, I won’t say much more on it, but we will be watching it closely in terms of its enforcement mechanism. But at this point we see this as being a small change that’s practical and has the potential to work well, so we do commend it to the House.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a short call on this bill today and to give some context about why me and my Labour colleagues oppose this bill. I’ll deal with that in three parts. The first thing I want to talk about is whether this change will, in fact, make it easier for police to do their jobs and police burglaries effectively; secondly, I’d like to just touch on—since this bill has drawn on the Counties Manukau example—some things which would be effective ways and are effective ways to assist the police in doing this very important work; and the third thing I’ll talk about is enforcement and the fine of $10,000, as my colleague from the Green Party has spoken about.
But on this first point of whether this bill would, in fact, make it easier for police to carry out this very important work of recovering and policing stolen goods and making sure that there is not profit being made from a trade in second-hand goods which are stolen, I’d first like to make the point that the bill does draw on the Counties Manukau example. As an MP from Manurewa and as someone who takes a real interest in the good work of the police in South Auckland, I have met with our local police about these issues, and it is something that our community is very concerned with. So I take my hat off to the police for the good work that they do here.
It is a Labour Government that has invested $450 million into the police force and has a growing police force not only in South Auckland but around the country. We’ve already met a target of increasing the police workforce by 1,800 people and are on track to meet the target of 1,800 new police front-line officers over the next five years.
Whether this bill will make it easier for that police force to police burglaries is a question which, I think, resoundingly is a no. That is because the requirements in this bill for businesses to update their systems will instantly face a fine of $10,000 actually takes us back a step for those businesses who, in the Counties Manukau area at least, are working very collaboratively and constructively with police to put in place a range of systems over a long period of time to deal with these issues.
Our local police in Manurewa have been engaging with certain areas in our town centres—that’s the Manurewa strip, the Manukau town centre, and the Clendon shops, which all have a high preponderance of second-hand dealers. What they are finding there is traditional, old-fashioned, beat cop - style policing, where these police are showing their faces at these businesses and are creating relationships which are enduring. That is what is having an effect in building trust with those businesses and allowing police to trial initiatives like the Serial Number Automated Checker, which the chair of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen, has spoken about as being an effective method. It would be walked back if this Parliament were to introduce a method of, essentially, requiring the police to issue instantaneous $10,000 fines to these businesses, where they have been building up these kinds of relationships over a long period of time, and I wouldn’t want to see that for the South Auckland police who have been involved in that work, or around the country, where these relationships are coming to bear.
Quickly, on my second point of what would make it easier for the police to be able to do this job around the country, it does come back to that point about trust, about those old-fashioned policing methods of establishing those relationships within our communities, which is going to make the difference here. It is about our police on the ground being able to have the conversations with second-hand dealers about where they are sourcing their goods from and also within the community of business owners who all know each other, at least in South Auckland, about who is following best practice and who isn’t, and the police being able to gather that information. It is also policies and programmes like the Manurewa police’s programme of leadership within Manurewa High School—a great programme where over many, many years, they have established a trusting relationship with school leaders at a high school level, and that filters out into the community to build those trusting relationships that are so important here.
Very briefly, on the question of enforcement, a $10,000 fine for these businesses whose customers are some of the most marginalised and some of the poorest people in our society, who are going to second-hand dealers in the first place, will simply shut these businesses down. It will make it impossible for those people to access the kinds of goods and the services for finance that they are accessing here, and I wouldn’t want to see that. That’s why I oppose this bill.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand to speak on the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill. I’d like to begin by commending the member Andrew Bayly for his good intent with this bill in its drafting. When I looked at the New Zealand Police website on dealer requirements for second-hand dealers, pawnbrokers, and scrap metal merchants, I saw that there’s actually quite extensive legal requirements needed in order for them to operate. They have to make sure that they gather names and addresses, verify the identity of the people that they purchase from, identify what’s been purchased, write down the serial numbers and identifying marks when it sold. All of this information is already being collected or it should be.
But when we looked at the programs that they’re wanting to implement, which is SNAC, or the Serial Number Automated Checker, of course that’s for the businesses in order for them to be able to put what they’re already collecting into a regime where police would be able to read it easily. I wonder whether it’s got something to do with the SNAP program as well, or the Serial Number Action Partnership, and that’s where people can go on to the New Zealand Police website and actually input their assets with their serial numbers and descriptions in there so should they be burgled or their house burns down, they can access that information, including serial numbers, for insurance purposes or for police purposes easily, anywhere, at any time.
So I do wonder whether or not there are actually police wanting to marry these two programs up, SNAC and SNAP, to make them a lot more effective. The change that’s suggested is actually in line with the purpose of the principal legislation and it aims to provide the “architecture for better Police interventions to recover stolen goods.” When you have a program that’s shown over a two-year period to resolve 99 burglaries and recover 177 stolen items, then you can pretty much suggest that that trial in Counties Manukau actually worked.
But we do question at what cost will this be to businesses. The 24 dealers were the trialists in Counties Manukau and 400 second-hand or scrap metal dealers are expected to be just in the Auckland area alone. Nationwide, I expect the potential number of businesses that could be affected by this would run to the thousands. It looks like that this program will actually help police to solve crime. I mean, it’s a program specifically designed to make the job of the police easier, faster, and more accurate. However, I ask again: at what cost to the businesses? There will be a requirement that the businesses who do not have computers will now have to invest in one, so that’s an added expense. I ask whether or not the businesses will have to pay for the program to be implemented into their work space, and is an internet connection necessary in order for it to work? Remembering that not every town in this country actually has access to the internet, will every dealer in the country be able to ensure that they have the equipment required to implement this program within a three-month period, and, if so, who will do the national training on its use and can they do it within that three-month period? Then, who, literally, actually pays for this? The system will mean that the dealers are out of pocket both for the purchase they have made from sellers and potentially for the program implementation itself as well as, I expect, its continued upgrade.
Police are the beneficiaries of this information and the cost savings for investigations and saving less time actually runs in their court. ACT’s highlighted just a few of the concerns around this bill, but we do support it to the select committee stage, and the reason for that is because the questions that we’ve just posed and that other parties have posed should actually be answered by the people that this would be affected by. I think that they deserve the chance, especially when we’ve had such a good trial in Counties Manukau, to actually be able to say, “Yes, we want to be a part of this.”, or not. It’s actually letting the people have a voice.
I said at the beginning of this speech that the change is in line with the purpose of the principal legislation. On that basis, we think this should go to select committee stage so we can hear from the second-hand dealers, from the pawnbrokers, and from the scrap metal merchants, and in that regard, we do support this bill.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise and, unfortunately, I am unable to support this bill. I suppose timing is, as they say, everything, and the time for this bill has not come, for the reasons outlined by my colleagues Ms Andersen and Ms Williams already.
I did a little digging and I went back and I discovered that the original Act here seems to have been—because, somewhat appropriately, this is a second-hand bill in more ways than one. The original bill is the Pawnbrokers Bill of 1908. Now, this was updated by the Labour Government of 2004, and in that case the review and the update was more than overdue. If I can just point your attention to one item, one of the things that that bill brought forward by the then Labour justice Minister Phil Goff did was to update the list of things that have to be held on to for a period before they are considered safe to sell. Under the previous Act, it was furs, suits, and gramophones, and it was felt at that time that some items such as compact discs, computers, and DVD players might be more appropriately on the list. In that case, it was a change whose time had come. In this case, it is not, because the compliance costs it will put on our small businesses, who are already trying and struggling, are too high.
So when I look at my own little town and I think of a little village that’s attached to the northern outskirts called Hikurangi, which is one of my favourite second-hand shopping expeditions, and I think of the small, literally mum and dad businesses that are running up there—Village Vintage Treasure, should you be up that way, is an excellent place to go to. The compliance costs on them were this bill to come into effect are beyond what I think could be borne, not to mention the smaller businesses around there which deal in goods which are necessary to my small and impoverished community. The compliance costs to buy a computer system—possibly not the right system for their budgets, because they will have to comply with police—the unforgiving timescale of three months to implement, and then the serious penalty of up to $10k for failing to comply means that any time the police change, my little business in Hikurangi is going to have to change too. It is also unforgiving for the police, who are going to have to roll out a standard system across the country nationally—again, within a very tight time frame. It is expensive. It is unrealistic.
More practical is to wait for the right time for a bill such as this, to allow small businesses to move into the digital age at their own pace, and we are giving them, in this Government, assistance to do so. I would point you to the Digital Boost Program announced in the Budget, which is going to help them get there. There is money there for 50,000 small businesses and microbusinesses to upskill in digital systems. They will then have to afford their systems. It’s going to take time. We are hugely behind our police and trying to support them in every way we can to do the incredibly difficult and huge job that they have before them—$450 million in investment is not a small business. We have given them the biggest workforce they have ever had: a 14,000 police workforce. I have spoken to my local police hui regarding crime, and they say that, yes, they are as well-resourced as they have ever been. That includes two community police officers in little Hikurangi, to the community’s great relief, where they are finding that—just as my colleague Ms Arena Williams said—the fact of just regular coppers on the beat there is making all the difference to crime in their community.
Mr Bayly’s bill is early. It is too early. It is going to impose burdens on people who are already on margins that are too tight. We need to allow these businesses to survive, to learn, and to go on when they are ready to adopt digital systems to thrive, as we all hope they will. In this Government, we’re giving them assistance to do that, but the time is not now for this bill, and therefore I cannot commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on this bill in the name of Andrew Bayly, the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard from other colleagues in the House today that the purpose of this bill is to require licensed pawnbrokers, second-hand dealers, and other regulated traders like internet auction providers to keep and supply records in an electronically readable format which is then to be used by police computers. The intent is to make it easier for police to locate stolen goods as well as to find the thieves who unlawfully took the goods in the first place.
Like others on this side of the House, I also support the intent of this legislation. The intent is honourable and it is to make it easier for police to locate these stolen goods, but I have, as my colleagues have also outlined, a number of concerns as to the unintended consequences relating to a few areas.
The first area is compliance costs by regulated traders that they would face, compliance costs to the police, and also a lack of clarity in the bill. For these reasons I cannot support this bill. However, as stated, I’m generally supportive of its intent, which is to support the police. I think it’s important to note that on this side of the House, we have supported the police in meaningful ways. We’ve invested $450 million in the police and we’ve seen the largest police workforce of all time, and this was also mentioned by my colleague Arena Williams, the MP for beautiful Manurewa, in her speech.
This bill will try and support the police by codifying an existing practice which the police are currently undertaking voluntarily with apparent success. So I ask then, where is the need for this legislation? In relation to my concerns about clarity, the meaning of records that are electronically readable by police computers is not, to me, clear. I fear it may be a step too far for some owners of small businesses, and also difficult, due to the lack of clarity, for them to comply with. The Serial Number Automated Checker—which is quite cutely, I thought, named SNAC—is not a system rolled out by the police throughout New Zealand, so it’s really difficult to understand what the effect or the implications of a nationwide roll-out would be, but undoubtedly it would likely mean additional costs for our police, and this, in my view, would be exacerbated by the bill’s three-month commencement, which is a very short time frame to ensure compliance. This very short time frame is coupled with a very high fine of up to $10,000 for non-compliance. To me, this does not appear to be something that would easily be implemented by many small businesses.
Interestingly, and as has been noted by other members in this House, this bill would, I think, impose significant costs to businesses, including small businesses and sole traders. In fact, small businesses could also face a change and additional cost if the police were suddenly to update their electronic record-keeping system. So if the police changed their system, this would automatically mean, according to this legislation, that the small businesses and sole traders would also need to update their systems. It is not outlined in the bill a delayed time frame if such a thing were to occur, and it could, as I’ve stated before, result in a large fine if there was non-compliance. So these are some questions on this side of the House that we are left with, having read through Mr Bayly’s bill.
This does not mean that we do not support digitisation of records, but, in our experience, small traders and second-hand dealers, if they are willing to do this and it is something that they have the capacity to do, will already be doing this. So we see no need to force small businesses to mandatorily digitise in this way at this stage. As has been mentioned previously, there is already extensive duties on second-hand dealers and pawnbrokers, and a quick Google search will show you the responsibilities that currently exist for them. There’s also, as my colleague Emily Henderson mentioned, a Digital Boost programme to assist businesses who wish to update their digital capability. So there is work under way, but I do not see a need for this particular bill at this particular time for something that already seems to be happening at the moment.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’ve listened with much interest to the arguments put forward by the Government members, who are clearly not going to support the bill. I do acknowledge ACT for their support. Look, I think the reasons put forward—
Hon Member: What about the Green Party?
ANDREW BAYLY: I’m sorry; I acknowledge the Greens as well. Thank you. I do acknowledge the Greens for their support. But the reasons put forward by the Government members, I would say to you are somewhat spurious. What is happening in the market at the moment is that if you want to get rid of stolen goods, one option is that you use second-hand dealers to pass those goods on. I’m not saying, and I want to be very clear—I’m not implying that all second-hand dealers knowingly trade in stolen goods. They do have certain protections that have just been noted. There are a lot of rules and regulations around it. But none the less, there are very clear examples of this happening regularly by certain individuals.
This whole initiative was at the request of the police. This is not Andrew Bayly dreaming up something that might need to be done. It came out of a meeting back in 2016 between myself and the Hon Judith Collins talking to our local police. They were the ones who brought to our attention this issue, and namely there is one particular issue that they highlighted. At the moment, as someone has noted before, second-hand dealers are required to keep a list of all goods that come in and who has furnished those goods, effectively who they’ve bought those goods from.
What happens now is that a policeman has to drive over to that second-hand dealer—so the time incurred in driving a valuable police car—sit down and record by hand what those transactions have been. That is a ridiculous, time-wasting exercise that the police quite rightly brought to our attention. I heard the Government Ministers going on about $450 million spent on helping the front-line police force. This is one of the easiest ways to take policemen and policewomen doing the most mundane jobs and actually getting them out, catching the criminals. Because what that officer will have to do is write down all the names and addresses, go back and then electronically enter them into a police system, and by co-locating and putting that into a database, they could then work out who’s trading goods.
What the police were telling us is there are many, many examples of individuals who might be trading across every month up to $20,000 by going around various second-hand dealers and just trading a small amount. But when you looked at it across a big region, you actually worked out that there were significant traders and in effect they were the outlet for crime. So it was the police who said, “This is a waste of time. Can you help us stop wasting our time?”
The Counties Manukau police had gone to the extent of having a very smart IT person who worked out and created this new platform called Serial Number Automated Checker (SNAC). So the issue, and what the bill is about, is not about imposing more costs on second-hand dealers, because all it now requires of them is to provide the records in an electronic form; it could be by a camera, could be by email, whatever the case might be. It is not imposing a significant, higher amount of compliance costs on second-hand dealers. What it’s saying is: please furnish the information in some form of electronic means. And the SNAC system is capable of being able to take various forms of electronic data and put it in, and immediately it goes into a system that means you can start tracking these criminals. That is the purpose of this.
The second point I’d say to the Government members is that the police actually helped me create the legislation, the proposed piece of legislation. I’ve heard a number of people say it’s unclear. Well, I think that’s a bit of a reflection on the way you perceive the police, because the police helped draft this bill.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to talk on the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill. Can I acknowledge the member who just spoke for that history and also the work that he has undertaken in terms of bringing this to the House. I want to acknowledge the work of the New Zealand Police just looking at what they had done in Counties Manukau. I know, and the member will agree with me, that this hasn’t been rolled out across New Zealand—I’m thinking of the Serial Number Automated Checker (SNAC) technology. In talking to our district police service here in Wellington, which covers up to the Wairarapa, the system’s not in place that is in Counties Manukau and I think Waikato also has it. But I think it’s also good to hear too that clarity around small business because, as it stands—we’ve heard my colleagues talk about this previously, but there are those unintended consequences around the small business compliance. And maybe if there was clarity around how that compliance would have played out—and I want to mirror some of the detail my ACT member in Rongotai talked about in terms of those essentials around equipment, internet cost, training—if those things had been clearer in the bill, I think maybe there could have been a different view here on the Government banks.
However, that’s not the case and what we are seeing here is that, as it stands, the compliance is unclear in terms of what those small businesses would have to do. I’m also not convinced that the police wouldn’t get the system and put it in place and then impose some sort of cost or charging or regime—it’s a better word—on to small businesses of varying sorts to say, “This is now the system, this would be the cost, and this would be maybe it’s annually, maybe it’s a template of some sort, but those costs—and then the possible accusations that we are doing this rather than being on the front line.” These are just some of the stories that fall into the unintended consequences. Despite the police having a “prevention first” mantra, there could also be an accusation that the compliance costs are such, where we have sworn and non-sworn police officers in the office administering a system which small businesses, those second-hand dealers who I have spoken to have said, “Look, if it was, say, to come for free, if we were going to be supported, given training over a longer period of time than the three months, maybe that would be something that we would look into.” But there was a fear that something that was introduced would look good initially but over time would then cost, would add to that, and to sum it up, the compliance costs or the cost of administering such a system over time.
The good news is I can say that all of them had—and I wouldn’t just call them handwritten notes, that would not be accurate, it would be inaccurate, but they had their own systems and when shown them I thought, “Wow, they can quickly get that information to police.” and many of them already do. We are making the assumption here that they don’t have a relationship with the police service within their districts. The ones that I spoke to do. They have very good relationships. They are often “wise enough”—that’s a good term—to alert the police up front to suspects that have come to mind. And they collaborate internally as a sector to say, “Actually, we believe that something just does not feel right.” So I wouldn’t underestimate those dealers who are already on to this in their own way.
But look, those are the concerns from the front line. You’ve heard from some of my colleagues about just that clarity. Someone mentioned that voluntary code. I know in other parts of enforcement—I’m thinking wheel-clamping here—there was a code there put in place. This one seems to work. But as I’ve distinguished amongst the different districts within the police, in Counties Manukau and Waikato, they’ve got SNAC. In other parts, things seem to be—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to take a short call on the member’s bill this evening, the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill, and I have listened both in my office and in the House tonight to the whole debate. I’ve actually enjoyed hearing the local examples from the member who’s just resumed his seat, Paul Eagle, but also from my colleague Arena Williams, who, of course, is in South Auckland, an area that has been the focus of some of the discussion tonight. I also enjoyed the contribution from Dr Emily Henderson. Of course, she is my neighbouring electorate, and I am very familiar with the store to which she was referring.
As I was preparing for this debate this evening, I was thinking about the huge number of second-hand dealers that we have across Northland. I myself actually really enjoy, what we call, hokohoko shopping, or second-hand shopping—a very keen shopper there. I think about a number of the hokohoko shops that I would go into and my real assumption would be—and it is an assumption, because I haven’t had the time to actually go in and check, but from the way that it’s all set up, the people who are running it, my guess would be—that they aren’t electronic. So you’ve already heard tonight, Mr Bayly, the reasons why Labour won’t be supporting your bill—this one; you got support on the last one, but in terms of this one—and it really is that concern that we have for the additional cost that it could impose on to our small businesses. Like I said, there is a hokohoko shop in every community I can think of with a little township in Northland, and I do worry that this could impose extra costs on them to modernise their systems, which I just don’t think many of them necessarily are. And while, during COVID, I was really pleased to see the support we were giving small businesses to try and digitise, to click and collect, and accommodate all of those, I’m not too sure how many of our hokohoko shops have actually used that opportunity for their business. It would be something interesting to see.
I think what I am struggling with, in terms of the bill, is using the blunt instrument of the law to try and achieve better systems and working relationships between the dealers and the police. So I do acknowledge the member when he said that he didn’t just dream up this idea; that it was something that he had talked about in consultation with the Police—
Andrew Bayly: No, they asked for it.
WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sorry—that they asked for it, and that they thought that this was something that could help them do that job better, but my simple response to that is that might be the case for the New Zealand Police, but it’s going to be at the cost of our small businesses in our communities. That’s the bit that I struggle with, because they would argue that they are paying taxes into our system and we are making decisions around the funding of the police and other things to be able to provide these services. I do think that the law is unclear about what exactly would meet the requirements of the Act, in terms of which electronic system and one that can be used by the police. So that system could continually change, and they might be required to continually update the software that they have and all of those costs that are associated with that.
You did mention that it could be something as simple as taking a photo and supplying it electronically. I don’t know that we need to have that in law to require them to do that, and a possible penalty of $10,000 if they don’t comply with that, when that could be a simple request from the police and voluntarily, cooperatively that is something that they could do. So my concern is that to achieve the outcome that you’re seeking using the blunt tool of the law and a $10,000 fine for our small businesses, I think, is unjustified and something that I would find hard to go back into all of my small communities with their hokohoko shops and say that we really need you to do this in order for us to try and address this crime.
Just finally, in concluding this, I do think about those who I have known all my life growing up, and the member who said that they know who some of these people are and they work closely with the police—I would believe that’s the same case in many of our communities too. Kia ora.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Andrew Bayly in reply.
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s obviously not going to be the double today, but I am very appreciative for the support I had on my first bill. This bill, unfortunately, we haven’t been able to work collaboratively on, which has been unfortunate. Because I’ve tried to work with the Minister of Police on this a couple of times, but just literally haven’t been able to get to a stage where—some of the comments that have been said today are just patently wrong. Not because I suggest the members are saying things that are incorrect for malicious reasons, just simply because they are wrong, because they don’t have a great enough understanding of what’s in this bill.
What the bill seeks to do is to require second-hand dealers to provide the data they already capture in a machine-readable form to the police. That’s all it requires. The issues around penalties and this stuff we could have beaten out in select committee, but that is simply all it requires. That was at the request of the police; it is not me dreaming it up.
The reason why they requested, as I said before, and I’m just talking in reference to the MP for Northland, Willow-Jean Prime, who just spoke previously. The very issue that she talked about—the wide-ranging number of second-hand dealers around Northland—is the issue why the police want this in place. Because simply to travel across Northland, going into each one of those and having a policeman not only driving there but sitting down and taking all the notes and spending an hour or half an hour, whatever it is, and then going back to the office and putting it into the Serial Number Automated Checker as a system is incredibly time-consuming.
So the first thing is you talked about cost—cost to the business person. The cost to the business person is absolutely minor, because all it requires is a machine-readable form—they are already collecting the information. But the second cost that I find staggering that no one seems to take into account is the cost to the police, because they have to do this. Because if you want to get rid of stolen goods, one of the best ways to do it is to put it through a second-hand dealer. The second-hand dealer might be totally unsuspecting, because in many cases what we heard, and there have been hundreds of prosecutions now, is that they are very smart. They’ll go into a whole range of them across all of Northland and sell a small amount in each one of them, but it is only when you see the totality of what they are doing that police start to work out what’s going on.
But also it helps in the recovery of those stolen goods. All it comes back to is getting data regularly, quickly, easily, so that we have front-line officers catching the crims, not spending time driving around in the car and writing bits of information on a piece of paper and then going back to the office and entering it. So why on earth, even with all the money the Government talks about putting into police—this is one of the easiest ways to make sure there are more front-line services.
The third thing is you talk about the cost to the business owner, but what about the cost not only to the police but to the people who have had their goods stolen, who have suffered the crime? They’re the people who have lost their mementos, their housing, stuff that in many cases is precious to them. These are the bits that are taken to these second-hand dealers and sold. It’s not the only way they get rid of it, but it’s an important avenue for crime. So what about the cost to them and to society in general for not allowing the police the right to be able to get data that’s already collected in a machine-readable form? I just don’t accept the proposition about compliance costs. There is a cost to the police. There is a cost to the individuals who have lost those items. There is a cost to society in general. This is an easy way of dealing with that.
The other thing I heard about the legislation—as I said before, the police helped me draft the legislation. When we were in Government, I had police people working alongside me to prepare this bill, so the claim that I heard from the former police policy adviser Ginny Andersen I think was totally incorrect, and I’m surprised that she said that.
The issue of penalties could have been easily dealt with in the select committee, and the roll-out time—again, it’s an easy stroke of the pen—could have been delayed in terms of commencement date. Those are simple issues, but the simple fact is Labour is choosing not to support the police to do their job more easily.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers (Electronic Records) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 55
New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Noes 65
New Zealand Labour 65.
Motion not agreed to.
Bills
Income Tax (Adjustment of Taxable Income Ranges) Amendment Bill
First Reading
ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) on behalf of Hon Simon Bridges: I move, That the Income Tax (Adjustment of Taxable Income Ranges) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.
I have the pleasure of introducing this bill on behalf of the Hon Simon Bridges, who as the leader of National proposed this as a substantial issue, of dealing with the costs of living and making sure that New Zealand families were not disadvantaged through the rise of inflation and what it meant in terms of pushing people up into a higher tax bracket. It is a great piece of legislation. I’m very grateful that the Hon Simon Bridges, first of all, worked on the idea and then was lucky enough to have the opportunity to have this bill drawn from the ballot box so that we can debate this issue.
I think, in today’s context, where we are seeing skyrocketing costs of living, particularly the effects of that on people who are on benefits, low-income families, and superannuitants, the issue of tax creep is a very, very significant issue. We estimate that the average New Zealand householder is now about $9,000 worse off over the last three years as a result of increases in rent. We’ve seen rent increases over $100 per week, and of course people who are renting are, in the main, either young people waiting or hoping to buy a house, which is increasingly out of their reach, or people who simply do not have either sufficient income or sufficient deposit to buy a house. And, of course, with the way things are working and moving in the housing market, that is an unlikely possibility that is increasingly becoming a reality for many.
Now, we’ve seen increases in power costs, we’ve seen increases in food costs, we’ve seen increases in fuel costs—all that is making our lower-income people particularly worse off, and people are struggling. New Zealanders are struggling now under the burden of increasing costs, and most of that is driven by inflation. It’s certainly the measure of how we deal with the issue of costs of living, but inflation is driving a lot of those increases and making New Zealanders, effectively, worse off—less pay to have discretionary income, or even to meet the main parts of their household budget. And, of course, we had a Budget that was focused primarily on beneficiaries. A lot of money was directed toward beneficiaries, but nothing was, really, directed toward superannuitants and low-income families.
So this bill is about how we deal with the issue of inflation when it comes to tax, and this issue is referred to technically as “fiscal drag”, but, in effect, what it means is that, through the effects of inflation, as people’s incomes increase with inflation, they increasingly have to pay more rates of tax. So the current thresholds, as many will know, up to $14,000, you pay 10.5 percent; between $14,000 and $48,000, you pay 17.5 percent; $48,000 to $70,000, you pay 30 percent; and $70,000 to $180,000, we’ve got this new tax rate that this Government brought in only very recently, where you pay 39 percent—33 percent but, once you get over $180,000 you get to 39 percent. So we’ve now, effectively, got five tax rates. And, as a result of inflation, what happens if you’re on—let’s say you’re on $47,000; you then start to flip over as a result of inflation. You might start to flip over, increasing your tax rate from 17.5 percent to 30 percent once you get over the $48,000.
So, if it was a case of real increase in wages above the rate of inflation, that would be fine, but what this bill does is recognise that inflation is a major driver of how people get into a higher tax bracket. And so what the bill requires is for the Government, every three years, to look at what has happened with inflation, and the inflation rate it uses is the Consumers Price Index. There’s a whole range of different inflation rates and measures—Producer Price Index. But, for the purposes of this bill, it uses the Consumers Price Index and it says that every three years there is a reset to make sure that people, effectively, if there’s been a substantial amount of inflation, will be no worse off as a result of that inflation. That means that they will still be paying the equivalent amount of tax or the tax rate that would have applied if there hadn’t been inflation. So it is a very important one about making sure that New Zealand families and individuals are not worse off as a result of inflation.
So the costs of this are very significant. It is estimated it is roughly about $700 million in cost. It’s a very significant tax change that the Hon Simon Bridges is proposing, and, of course, it helps particularly those on lower incomes, because of where the banding works, but it is a way of making sure that we can support those people, and it is a way of allowing people to have more money in their pocket as they try and deal with the increasing costs that are currently happening. Of course, we’ve seen the rampant rise in inflation. We saw the recent rate of 3.3 percent that was just recently announced. That is biting into the pockets of New Zealanders. So, unfortunately, inflation is the friend of Government but the scourge of the working family, and from a Government revenue perspective, this is far reaching in terms of the projections for income that the Government will generate from personal tax rates.
The Government collects about $85 billion in tax. That includes all the different types of taxes, but a large chunk of that is from personal tax, and so this is a significant, significant portion, about 48 percent personal tax. So this is a significant portion of the tax take, and so it’s very meaningful in terms of New Zealanders looking at their situation and going, “Am I going to be better off as a result of this?” And one thing you can be guaranteed to say is that this bill will actually make New Zealanders much better off. There are some very specific clauses in it, but the new section YA 2A, which is a new section under clause 5, requires specified dollar ranges to be reviewed within 12 months of a general election to determine the need to be adjusted to reflect any percentage movement in the Consumers Price Index. And that is the key component of this bill.
So I think this is a bill that deserves a lot of merit and consideration. I hope the Government members will take this bill seriously, because there are different ways of trying to support families. One is to increase benefits, but that only supports those on benefits; it doesn’t support low-income families. Another way, and a valid way, of doing that is to deal with the taxation system, and one option is obviously to have tax cuts, but this is another option that we proposed prior to the last election, which is very meaningful, particularly for lower incomes, as a way of making sure that people can keep more of the tax dollar, so they can keep it to spend it on their families and to look after themselves so they can get ahead and, hopefully, for some of them, may even be able to save a deposit to buy a house, which at the moment looks an increasingly difficult proposition for many. On that basis, I support this bill and recommend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a mistaken bill. It is mistaken in terms of the dollar effect. It is mistaken as to whether it solves any problems. It is mistaken about the nature of taxation. It is mistaken in terms of the assumptions underlying it. It is mistaken in the use of the Consumers Price Index. And it is mistaken as to when this should all happen. Because it is a mistaken bill, the Government will not be supporting this bill. But let me take you through exactly why we won’t be supporting this bill, take you through at least some of these problems.
I want to start with looking at the actual effect of the move that is proposed to the tax thresholds. So, as Mr Bayly outlined, tax in this country, individual income tax, is done on a progressive basis. So we have tax thresholds, income between $0 and $14,000 is taxed at 10.5; between $14,000 and $48,000 is taxed at 17.5 percent; between $48,000 and $70,000 is taxed at 30 percent; between $70,000 and $180,000 is taxed at 33 percent; over $180,000 is taxed at 39 percent. Just to clear up one thing which some people often don’t quite understand: if you earn, say, $70,000, it doesn’t mean that all your income is taxed at 30 percent; it is only the income between $48,000 and $70,000 that is taxed at 30 percent, and amounts below that are taxed at a lower rate. That is what a progressive scale means. It means that people who earn more income pay a greater proportion of that income in taxation. So those are the tax thresholds as they are now.
This bill suggests that those thresholds should be adjusted by the inflation rate every three years. This is where, I think, it becomes critical to understand the actual numbers here. So I spent a bit of time working through the numbers and working through what it would mean for the first triannual change of thresholds. Of course, that involves making an assumption, so I assumed that we were running at, say, 2 percent inflation a year, which is not an unreasonable assumption. Over the course of three years, that results in a 6.01 percent change to the thresholds. So what does that actually mean for our thresholds? Well, it means that that first threshold at $14,000 goes to $14,857; then the next threshold at $48,000 just chunks up over the $50,000 to $50,938; the next threshold at $70,000 goes up to $74,000; and so on; and that final threshold of $180,000 goes to $191,000. So you get that shift in thresholds, and what that does is it has an effect on the amount of tax that people would pay.
So I worked through the numbers and, in particular, I worked through the amount of tax cuts that people would get—the actual tax cuts that people would get if the current tax thresholds were shifted by 2 percent inflation—2 percent each year over three years. It turns out that a person who earns $200,000 would get a tax cut of $1,200 a year, or $23 a week. A person who earned half that, $100,000, would get a tax cut of $556 a year, or $11 a week. And a person who earned around about the median wage—so it sits at around about $60,000 to $70,000, depending on which measure you are using and how you are doing it; I base it on about $65,000—would get a tax cut of $430 a year, or $8 a week: two cups of coffee, two loaves of Vogel’s, five loaves of white bread at the supermarket, $8 a week might get a glass of wine at the pub, or a beer; it wouldn’t be a craft beer. It is $8 a week, and that is for a person who is on the median income. So the effect on what money people have is actually quite small. So in terms of it actually putting a lot more money in New Zealanders’ pockets, it does not put a lot of money in the back pockets of people who earn the median income, and it puts even less money in the pockets of people who earn less than that.
Hon Member: It’s proportional.
Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Proportionately, people who earn more get a great deal more out of this tax cut. The person who earns $200,000 a year gets $1,200 a year out of it; the person who earns only $65,000 a year only gets $430 a year out of it. Now, that is the nature of progressive tax scales, but when the Opposition tells you that this will put more money in the back pockets of ordinary New Zealanders, they are not telling you where the true effect is—they are not telling you who gets the most out of this.
The first speaker, Andrew Bayly, said what we could with this—so he is mistaken about what people do with it. The first speaker of the Opposition had the temerity to suggest that if you went without two cups of coffee a week—and this will be dear to your heart, Ms Swarbrick—you could instead buy a house. What a ridiculous notion. We know the problem with house prices in this country, and it is not going to be solved by tax cuts. Foregoing two cups of coffee will not give you the money for a deposit on a house. The Government is working on that as hard as it can in other ways, but tax cuts is not the solution there. So it was a mistaken bill in that respect.
I also think it is a mistaken bill in terms of the assumption it makes about taxation—that the amount of tax that is collected by the Government to use for health and welfare and education and roads and all the things that we like to have in this country, to use in those areas—in education, where teachers are crying for more; to use in areas like health, where people with various diseases are crying for more money to be put into Pharmac; to use in areas like housing, where we know there is a desperate need.
The assumption that lies at the heart of this bill is that instead of trying to increase what Government is doing, we should keep it the same or reduce it—we should reduce it. The assumption is that the amount of tax that New Zealanders pay each year is the right amount already, because we set the threshold in stone and then only adjust them by inflation. There is an assumption hidden in there that the 30 percent or so of GDP that is represented by Government at the moment is the right amount. I suggest, given the failures from the Opposition over the nine years that they were in Government to address the critical needs that we have in this country, that Government has not been sufficiently involved in the economy, let alone reducing it—let alone reducing it.
I also want to address one further issue—one further issue. The way that this has been set up is that it would require the Minister—the Minister of Revenue, in this case; though, I suggest it is probably the Minister of Finance that ought to do it—to every three years make a decision about whether or not tax thresholds should be changed. Why not in the nine long years when they were in Government? Why is this a policy that has only come out in Opposition? Why is it something in terms of the inflation adjustments to the thresholds—the constant inflation adjustments to the thresholds—why was it not done while they had plenty of opportunity when they were in Opposition? They did not take the opportunity then because they did not want to have the triannual discussion about threshold taxes. All they wanted to do was to sit on their chuffs and do nothing. The do-nothing Government over there that in Opposition has lots of bright ideas but actually never put any of them into practice.
So there you have it, it is a mistaken bill. They are mistaken about the effects that this would have for New Zealand. They are mistaken when they suggest that it would enable people to buy houses. They are mistaken in terms of the assumption about the right level of tax already. They are mistaken because in all the years when they had the opportunity to have this discussion to talk about how New Zealanders should be taxed, and so on, to talk about what that taxation might buy, they did not do it, and suddenly they are doing it when they are in Opposition. That is why, on this side of the House, we will not be supporting this bill. It is wrong in substance, it is wrong in its thinking, and it is wrong in this silly idea that it would genuinely put more money in New Zealanders’ pockets.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7 p.m.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. At the beginning of the dinner break, the House was considering the Income Tax (Adjustment of Taxable Income Ranges) Amendment Bill.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. There’s been a lot of discussion about the content of this bill so far, so I should probably preface this by saying that the Green Party will not be supporting this legislation. One of the many reasons for that is, actually, to respond to some of the points that were being heckled before by those on the front bench of National, that this is somehow some ideological opposition—I would put forward the very proposition that this is actually an ideological proposal. We are all ideological because we have ideas and values, and that is the reason that we ran to be in this place at Parliament: to change the laws and to share those ideas and values, rally behind and campaign for them, and to, hopefully, change the rules.
So I guess to underpin some of the thematics or the reasons as to why the Green Party of Aotearoa opposes this legislation is to go into some of the thinking behind what we think of when we think of taxation, because it probably isn’t things like cancer treatment, or treatment for broken bones, or roads that we use, or the pipes that deliver water to our taps, or for the underpinning of the legal system that means that we all have rights when we buy things or when we contract if things go wrong. Nor do we necessarily think of the financial system that enables operation ease and security of banking, because this is the stuff that taxation pays for. This is the stuff that enables us to be a collective, that enables us to organise as a society, as a community.
Right-wing parties ideologically, to raise that point, have been, for a very long time—for decades—trying to stitch together taxation as this bogeyman. It means that people like Andrew Bayly can stand up with a straight face and say that this is somehow about beneficiaries and pensioners, when we had a breakdown of calculation by tax expert Dr Deborah Russell, who stated—and I think it’s really important to reiterate this—that to break down these changes as proposed would mean that somebody on an income of around $200,000 per annum would receive around $23 per week. Those on an annual income around $100,000 per annum would receive around $11 per week. Those on the median income of around $60,000 to $70,000 would get back around $8 per week. I would estimate that it’s probably about half of that, or even less thereof, for those who are pensioners and beneficiaries, once again reiterating that what we’re talking about here is crumbs for those who are on the lowest incomes and another slice for the bakery for those who are at the top.
This is the same guy and the same party who led a bill just earlier today to cut off more pensioners, migrant pensioners, from accessing superannuation in Aotearoa New Zealand. They’re also the same folks who oppose increases in benefits for the lowest-income New Zealanders. So let’s talk about the tax burden in this country, because there was a lot of heckling from the National Party just before about exactly this. They were talking about how they, when they were in Government, did make those changes to the taxation system, to those income taxes—and they did. They cut the top tax rates. And in order to help pay for that, they increased tax on goods and services, which is incredibly regressive, because guess what? It hits those at the lowest incomes the hardest. If we also want to dig more into this notion of tax burden, let’s talk about the fact that was revealed earlier this year: 42 percent of the wealthiest New Zealanders in this country pay lower effective tax rates than the lowest taxes that are paid by people who earn their money by working or through the benefit—that is, they paid an effective tax rate of less than 10 percent.
This is exactly the reason that when we’re talking about these things like taxation changes, we need to be bringing into it some serious evidence about where it is that we are investing that revenue into the infrastructure that all of us ultimately use, but also how disproportionately, when we’re talking about the costs of living—particularly as raised by Andrew Bayly in his contribution earlier, of the likes of housing in this country—which is not an issue when it comes to, for example, rents that are driven by inflation. In fact, again, as research has shown, since 1993, rents have effectively doubled whilst the quality of housing in this country has stayed relatively stagnant. The Greens could not in good conscience support this bill.
BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Kia orana tatou katoatoa to the House; thank you, Madam Speaker. There are times when the House comes together, and tonight, the very first bill that you saw on the Order Paper, which was in the name of Andrew Bayly, was an opportunity for the House to come together to support some residency changes to superannuation, which had consequential tax amendments. This bill is clearly not one of those times. I’d like to reference the comments by the member Dr Deborah Russell, which can be easily summarised as “This bill is a mistake”—a mistake—and one more time, it’s a mistake. The explanatory note of the bill makes reference to the cost of living, and, as Dr Deborah Russell had said tonight, for those on a medium income—she’d actually practically crunched the numbers—it’s $8 a week. For those on a higher income of $200k, it is $23 a week. This side of the House does not support this bill, as it disproportionately benefits those on higher incomes more than those on lower incomes, who tend to have greater need.
This is probably something for the member who’s sponsoring the bill to listen to: inflation is not uniform across income groups. That is a basic economic and tax principle. That’s why you have transfers if you want to help the cost of living, and you should be targeting it. That’s why you have Working for Families tax credits. That’s why you have the winter energy payment: to reduce expenses by targeting lower-income families. Lunches in schools, the removal of school donations—but the member sponsoring this bill wanted to challenge us, to say, “Did you actually look at the bill?” Well, for a number of years before I became an MP I was actually a tax adviser to, actually, some of the members on the opposite side of the House. So I technically reviewed this bill. If this bill had come before me when I was an adviser in a Minister’s office, I would have put a bright red line through it—bright red—because, fundamentally, it is a poor bill. I’m surprised the Opposition, which claims to be the most fiscally responsible economic manager, cannot see how much this fiscally is inflexible.
As covered in the explanatory note, it appears that this bill aims to improve the progressivity of the tax system—hence reference to the three-year automatic changes in living costs. Well, this bill is absolutely poorly targeted. Ongoing indexation as proposed in this bill would absolutely constrain the Government’s ability to be fiscally flexible. It doesn’t take into account the pure fiscal cost, which increases when incomes and population grow. In layman’s terms: what are you going to cut to pay for this? If the goal, as covered in the explanatory note, is to reduce taxes for households to help with living costs, then, again, inflation indexation is a poor way to do so through the tax system. That’s why you target, again, through transfers, such as Working for Families; such as the winter energy payment; or, for families, the Best Start payment.
The last mechanism in how you do it—in my opinion, the actual technical review of this bill—is absolutely unprecedented. I cannot in my tax career think of a time where you would give an unfettered level of authority to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and to the Minister—or, ultimately, to Cabinet—to have unfettered discretion in changing thresholds. There is a reason why tax is imposed by Parliament. This bill gives that discretion, effectively, to the Minister and to Cabinet. All it comes back to is supply. The reason why you come and impose the tax in Parliament is for supply, so that whoever is in Government has the ability to fiscally manage it. You’re saying it shouldn’t come through Parliament through this: that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue should be able to just do it; that the Minister should be able to just report to the House and do it. Again, if this bill had come across my desk, I would have totally scratched through it. Give me another example of where the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has an unfettered discretion or authority to be able to change tax thresholds in such a way. Give me an example, member sponsoring the bill, since you wanted me to have a look at the technicalities of this bill.
Hon Simon Bridges: It’s a statutory order.
BARBARA EDMONDS: Have a look at the bill. Have a look at the Income Tax Act. You’re looking at section YA 2—that is the definition of income. Even I know it’s the definition of income. So I suggest the member sponsoring the bill have a look at the Income Tax Act as it currently is set out and give me an answer as to whereabouts you see that unfettered discretion for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Madam Speaker, I hadn’t even sought the call. Thank you very much. I want to rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill. It is the right thing to support, funnily enough, for reasons that none of the opponents of the bill appear to understand. Let me lay that out and then give one objection ACT has that future support will depend on.
Inflation is back. Almost everyone in New Zealand is aware of it, except perhaps those working at Statistics New Zealand publishing the official statistics. You go and talk to people in the trades—they say sometimes prices and quotes only last seven days because their suppliers say prices are going to go up. You talk to people who are trying to hire staff—they say there is a bidding war on for skilled staff in this labour shortage. Wage inflation is going up, and what that means is that people have to earn more to buy the same stuff. As incomes rise so people can buy the things they need, what they find is they can’t buy more stuff but their incomes have pushed them further and further into higher tax brackets. So the average amount of tax they pay on a dollar they earn goes up because more of their dollars are in higher tax brackets, not because they can buy more but because inflation’s put the prices up—they’re just paying more tax.
Now, what’s interesting about this is that as this goes on, fewer and fewer low-income New Zealanders find that their marginal tax rate and their average tax rate is in the lower brackets. After a while, if we leave the brackets the same for long enough, then practically everybody finds themselves on higher tax brackets and our tax system becomes less progressive. Let that sink in for a moment. So the Labour Party, friend of the worker, friend of low-income New Zealanders, actually are opposing a bill that would have maintained the progressivity of the tax system by raising the tax brackets so low-income New Zealanders stay in lower tax brackets. This is the problem.
Chlöe Swarbrick gets up and gives us all the philosophy but she hasn’t thought about the basic arithmetic behind this bill, neither has Deborah Russell. The so-called tax expert points out that people who earn more and pay more tax will benefit more from tax reductions. Of course they will, that’s always true. But the relative effect of this bill will be to ensure that lower income people stay below the tax thresholds and pay lower rates of tax.
The previous National Government actually boasted that they had made taxation more progressive, and that’s why the ACT Party is supporting this bill to select committee but no further. Actually, we want lower, flatter taxes. We want all New Zealanders to pay the same tax rate on all income. If we’re going to do that, then we’re going to have a tax system which is fairer, where everyone pays the same rate, which is simple, which doesn’t involve accountants trying to shift income around between vehicles and between income years to lower the tax that they pay, and which has the right values that if you earn more you pay more but we don’t hit people harder with additional tax rates.
This bill is actually counter to the principle of lower, flatter taxes. It maintains the progressivity of the tax system. So we support it to first reading because we’re always eager to see tax reductions for hard-working New Zealanders. But we will put up an amendment to this bill at later stages which says this: “As fiscal drag pushes people into higher tax brackets and people pay a larger portion of their income in taxation even though inflation has eroded their purchasing power, here’s what should happen to the extra money that Government gets from fiscal drag: it should be used to drop the top tax rate so that our taxation system becomes lower, fairer, flatter, simpler, and more in line with the values of New Zealand, that if you work hard, it’s yours.” That has got the Labour benches confused. That’s why we’ll be supporting the bill to first reading, but we’ll need amendments at later stages. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may, I’d like to take a moment just to reflect on the politics of this bill. Currently, the income tax bracket changes require a law change, and the member who submitted this bill knows this and is trying to make it look like we would be voting against tax cuts, which is not so. So it’s a very clever move by the former Leader of the Opposition. I note that it is supported by the current leader of the opposition, the previous speaker David Seymour, who is not supporting it beyond the first reading, because obviously he needs to distinguish himself now, as preferred Prime Minister, between those two parties.
Madam Speaker, may I indulge you in how the argument from the opposite member works. The member says that inflation drives wages up and that leads to bracket creep. The member’s proposed bill sees every tax bracket change quasi-automatically based on inflation every three years, and it would require an order by the Executive Council, meaning the Government of the day would need to provide a veto against it. Can we please think about this? So the Government of the day is not required to actually state the tax changes that it supports; rather, veto against automated or semi-automated tax changes. That goes against the very democratic principles that this House is based on. [Interruption] Not only that, the change would require serious cuts to services while not delivering actually much money to Kiwis every week. [Interruption]
There are two reasons that I oppose this—
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! This is a robust debate, but can we keep the interjections a little more rare and a little more reasonable, thank you.
INGRID LEARY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are two reasons that I particularly oppose this bill. The first is about the process and the second is about the substance. The process really is around Government not being able to proactively set those thresholds, but rather vetoing if the Government of the day disagrees. To my mind, as a lawyer, it feels akin to something like changing the burden of proof. The reason is this: we have said no to income tax changes for 98 percent of Kiwis. That is what we campaigned on. That is what the New Zealand public knew when they went to the polls. They agreed or disagreed and they cast their votes accordingly. How would it be, then, to suddenly, after we came into power, due to inflation, change that threshold that we indicated of $180,000 for 39c upwards to $185,000 to $190,000? My colleague Deborah Russell is quite right in saying that it is not fair on voters, let alone taxpayers, to be able to spring these changes on them without that mandate to do so, that explicit mandate, given that taxation is one of the key issues that New Zealand people vote on. I’d point out that the Opposition had the opportunity to support this during the Clark Government’s time and they did not do so, nor during their nine years of Government. So I question why they would do that now.
Secondly, I look at the substance and, as has already been traversed, this bill disproportionately benefits those on higher incomes. It has a regressive effect, which is not surprising coming from the National Party and the ACT Party. Our focus is closing the inequality gap; it is not helping the rich get richer. My colleague Barbara Edmonds has already very carefully laid out the ways that we have been able to do that through our support: lifting main benefits, reinstating the training incentive allowance, expanding food in schools, and delivering more insulation and home heating, and so on. And I would just say that the policies that we’re implementing as a Government are clearly working. Today, we’ve seen unemployment has fallen to pre-COVID levels. We’ve seen that the average hourly wage rose 4 percent to $34.76 an hour. These are relevant to putting more money in the back pocket of everyday New Zealanders.
So while it looks seductive to think that this member’s bill will lead to tax cuts across the board, in fact the member’s bill will advantage those who are already advantaged. It will increase the inequality gap that clearly goes against this Government’s mandate, and I stand against it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I was going to start with a chat around Barbara Edmonds, who was once Michael Woodhouse’s tax adviser when he was in Government. And Barbara made the comment tonight that if she had read that, she would have put a big red line through it.
Hon Simon Bridges: But what does the member think?
ANNA LORCK: What I think, Mr Bridges, is I think that Barbara, Barbara Edmonds, who’s a member of our Finance and Expenditure Committee, who once worked for Mr Woodhouse—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Lucky thing, she was.
ANNA LORCK: Absolutely—and I think that Mr Woodhouse will agree she was a very good adviser, and she would have put a great big red line through this. You ask what I think? I think the advice that she has given tonight is something that I would listen to.
Then I would talk about Dr Deborah Russell—another tax expert.
Hon Simon Bridges: Run us through CPI.
ANNA LORCK: I’m going—do you want to talk about the Consumers Price Index (CPI)? Well, the CPI, as of course we know, is measured on a basket of consumer goods, Mr Bridges. And you know—isn’t that right? So, no houses, no houses included. So anyway, back to what Dr Deborah Russell said, and I’d like to reiterate it because she gave me a good lesson. I was really interested in this. She talked about what a 2 percent inflation rate over three years would put back into the pockets under this Bridges bill. Hmm! If you earn $200,000 a year, over three years that would be about $1,200 a year over it and $23 a week. That’s what you get if you earned $200,000 a year. Then if it was $100,000, it was about $500, and that’s $11 a week—$11 a week. Then we’ve got $60,000 to $70,000, and that was $430 or about $8 a week. Then when you get down to pensioners and beneficiaries, there’d be about half of that. Where is the equity and fairness in that, Mr Bridges? You know, where is the fairness in that? And then, you just don’t have answers—never have answers, Mr Bridges. Mr Bridges, this is your bill and by the end of us talking about it and shooting it down, at least the best thing about this is that someone else’s member’s bill is going to get pulled out of the ballot—hopefully, tomorrow—and get another good shot, because this bill—and I had a look at it, and I thought, “Well, you know, when you were in Government, why didn’t you do it then?”
Hon Michael Woodhouse: We did!
ANNA LORCK: No, you didn’t. You didn’t. You didn’t put this in. It’s not in law. Why didn’t you do it then? I can’t see why you wouldn’t have done it then if you were so passionate about this bill. I mean, seriously, maybe when you get to stand up and talk about it, you’ll tell us why didn’t do it. This is—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: The member’s run out of material.
ANNA LORCK: No, I’m engaging across the House, with the other side of it—
David Seymour: The member—she ran out of material three minutes ago.
ANNA LORCK: Oh, and then we get on to the ACT Party leader. Hmm! He’s got every answer to everything at the moment, because he’s just loving the sunshine—loving the sunshine, aren’t you? Loving the sunshine! Inflation is not about—this is not what this is about. This is it: National mocked inflation indexation of income tax thresholds during the Clark Government. National derided Michael Cullen’s proposed inflation adjustment to income tax thresholds in 2005, saying they were paltry.
David Seymour: Someone get that member some speech notes. Get the member a debate pack.
ANNA LORCK: Yes, I’m finding some notes now. And National did not introduce inflation indexation of income tax thresholds in their last nine years in Government, and now you’re sitting over there in Opposition and seem to think that this is a good bill. Well, I can tell you what: we’re going to vote it down because it’s not. Labour does not support this bill, which will disproportionately benefit those on higher income tax thresholds. This is not what this Government’s about. We’re here because we believe in fairness and that’s what we do. Good hard-working New Zealanders—that’s who we support. I am very pleased to be saying I will not be voting for this in the House tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m only sorry I’ve only got five minutes to actually refute the nonsense that we have heard, because the arguments we’ve heard from the left are, frankly, intellectually bankrupt. Dr Deborah Russell is no more a tax expert than I’m 6 foot 4. And I’m going to say this about Barbara Edmonds: Barbara Edmonds, at least she knows what she’s talking about. But I will say this: if she had come to my office and put a big red line through that paper, that would have been the last act that she would have done in my Minister’s office. Now, I say this: she wouldn’t have done that, and I actually admire that, because she has become as political as she needs to be and she has a strong future in this House.
But let me just say something about what the Green member Chlöe Swarbrick said. She accused Andrew Bayly of a right-wing ideology about this bill. Well, the sad reality is this isn’t right-wing ideology. This used to be the ideology of the democratic left. I’m no Keynesian. People know that I am preferring a supply side economics approach, but Maynard Keynes saw the value in this, and he said about this in 1933: “taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance, than an increase, of balancing the budget.” And that’s because the people on the other side do not understand the difference between tax rates and tax revenue.
But I’m not going to bother trying to convince them otherwise; I’m going to talk to the people who are listening to this debate, the people who supported Labour: the nurses, the teachers, the police officers who are affected by the drag that the tax programme produces.
Hon Andrew Little: Well, it funds their jobs.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now, 10 years ago the average salary—oh, the Minister of Health should listen to this. Ten years ago, according to an Official Information Act (OIA) request replied to by the Auckland District Health Board, the average Auckland DHB registered nurse earned $63,000. Ten years later, they earn $77,000. Now, in 2010—
Hon Andrew Little: Because of the pathetic pay rises under National.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Listen up, Mr Little. In 2010, that $63,000 salary was 10 percent less than the top tax rate. Ten years later, the average nursing salary was 10 percent more than the top tax rate. Now, I do the comparison. I would like to be able to compare what tax that person would pay 10 years ago compared with today, but because—and Anna Lorck and Dr Deborah Russell and Barbara Edmonds didn’t acknowledge this—the previous Government did lower tax rates, I need to use the 2010 tax base as the reference.
The analysis shows that that nurse is paying $1,878 more tax than they would have if the thresholds had been changed. That’s not more tax just because they went up in income; that is the premium for going into those top tax brackets: $1,878. Now, that registered nurse has tens of thousands of colleagues around the country, all paying $1,878 more because of bracket creep. The teachers, the police officers, the nurses, the nurse aids, the teacher aids that think they support this Government are being fleeced by the inflationary impact of tax bracket creep.
Now, at $700-odd million of this cost, yes, there is a cost, but I remind the House what the Government said when they increased the minimum wage. They said, “Oh, but that’s OK because those people will spend it and it will stimulate the economy.” It doesn’t matter how the money gets into the pockets of those hardworking taxpayers, the same benefit accrues when we raise the tax thresholds and lower the tax that those hardworking Kiwis pay. But we know that’s not going to happen, and it doesn’t happen not because, as I think Ingrid Leary said, it somehow means it doesn’t get scrutiny of this House. They don’t want to do it because they’re socialists. They want everybody to earn the same thing, they want everybody to pay the same rate. And I tell you what, that’s what happens in Venezuela and Cuba and Zimbabwe and North Korea. And if they want a tax framework that looks like that, they will get an economy that looks like those countries.
This is a really good idea, its time has come. Only a National Party in Government will deliver that benefit to Kiwis.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I believe it was Albert Einstein who said that the hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax, and what we’ve heard tonight—and I congratulate the member for having his bill drawn. Certainly, when one looks at some of the relatively minor issues that are in bills in the term, I think this is one that has some substance. It does have some substance. It’s got enough substance that, were we to pass it here tonight, were we to pass it at any stage, it would have a considerable impact on the way we do business as a country. Therefore, there is no way we should be debating it in isolation without a full understanding of the impact it will have down the track, because, as we all know, good policy is about ensuring we understand the unintended consequences, and there will be considerable unintended consequences were this piece of legislation—this significant piece of legislation—to go through without full consideration of what difference it would make right across the board.
I invite those opposite, because we will debate many bills today, this week, this parliamentary session, and generally during those debates—in fact, during general debates; in fact, during question time. Generally, the theme coming from the Opposition is we should be spending more money on the projects or those issues which they’re raising in this House. Well, of course, a simplification of the tax system means that that money has got to come from somewhere, and that is what tax is all about. Many of the arguments being put up here tonight, particularly by the Opposition, are very much strawman—or we should say “strawperson”—arguments, because they are arguments not about this bill; they’re arguments about whether we should pay tax at all. I give it to David Seymour. At least he is honest about it. He wants those at the higher tax brackets paying less tax. Good on him. He got up there and said it. Generally, people who are in that position think it, they act it out, but they don’t say it. So good on you, Mr Seymour, because what that does is ensure that as we look at this bill, whatever we do, we’re going to end up with more inequality.
Now, I was privileged enough to have a position before I came here which took me around the world. I was president of a world body, and I got to spend time in different countries with, generally, police forces but exposed to funding regimes. I looked at the northern European regimes, particularly the Scandinavian ones, and I would like to see this country compare itself with Scandinavia much more. The first thing that most New Zealanders, if they are lucky enough to get to Scandinavia—they’ll see that it’s a country that runs pretty well, pretty equitably, and the reason why is they are pretty cold countries, and the cold countries know that unless you actually work together, then things will not work. If you try to be an individual out there, try to live out alone and each man is an island or woman is an island—I’m getting good at that—you will perish. You simply will not survive. So at the basis of that cooperation of the Scandinavian model is actually a high tax model, a fair tax model.
One thing when you do speak to Scandinavians—they do pay a lot of tax. They get their very good hospital treatment free. They get their very good education systems free. So it’s important that when we look at any change to the tax system—and once again I congratulate the member for having drawn this very significant bill from the biscuit tin, but it cannot be seen in isolation. It is folly. There are tax experts on this side of the House. There are tax experts everywhere, where we’ll quote. The one thing they won’t do is agree. So what is important is that any significant piece of legislation like this that’s being debated must be seen in the whole. It must be seen in the whole of what we’re trying to achieve as a society, and certainly merely introducing a piece of legislation picked out of the biscuit tin that is going to ensure that we have less income to make sure that we are able to be that equitable society we decide to be is a poor outcome, and for that reason I cannot tonight support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise in opposition to this bill. I’d like to take the analogy that some of my colleagues have made and turn it round. The proposal here, as I understand the calculations from my friend Deborah Russell, is that a person on $200,000 would in their pocket have $1,200 per annum extra, a person on $400,000 would have $2,400 extra in their pocket every year, and a person that is only on $100,000 would get $556 per annum back in their pocket. That’s money that’s going into the coffers, at the moment, of the State and the State are using it to support a whole lot of things that need supporting. And the things that need supporting are absolutely targeted, I am proud to say, at our middle and low income earners. So that $2,400 that someone on $400,000 a year actually contributes by this method into the economy gets spent on things like lunches in schools, it gets spent on benefit increases, and that money, in turn, that is spent on benefit increases, goes straight into the economy.
Now, I actually happen to have the pleasure of the company of quite a few people who do earn $400,000 and more, and I would like to take issue—and I have before—with Mr Seymour on this. Those people are good people, but they do not work harder than our nurses or anybody in the lower brackets. I object philosophically but also practically to the suggestion that what we are doing is not looking after our hard workers. Our hard workers worked in COVID for very, very little. I was ashamed at some of the rates of pay that were around at that time for people who are actually pivotal to our economy. And I want to see an economy which really supports them and so I want somebody on $400,000, yes, to pay $2,400 more and I want to redistribute that money to people to support them in those other areas.
Hon Simon Bridges: She’s proud to be a socialist.
HELEN WHITE: And I am absolutely a socialist and pleased to be one, because it’s a very, very important thing that we actually address the gap between rich and poor in this country, because we will pay for it, Mr Bridges, in many ways. We have paid for it and we are lucky we haven’t paid for it more than we have.
We have a system where people have actually broken down as a consequence of this kind of cavalier policy, which in disguise it calls itself “fairness” and it calls itself “redistribution to working people.” Good, hardworking people apparently are going to buy a house with their $8. They are not. They are going to buy a house because this Government is going to support them into houses, because we are going to build houses, because we are going to actually produce emergency housing, and, actually, we’re not leaving them in cars, and this is a very, very important difference. So, yes, I think it is an ideological difference. I think it is a clear difference between this side of the House and the National Party and ACT. And I think what Mr Seymour has said when he said, “Let’s actually give this bill a go and add to it.”—a flat tax that actually means that the poorer people pay an obscene amount more than the rich people—it actually bares, it shows, what is actually going on in that party, and I hope New Zealanders take account of tonight’s comments because that kind of flat tax is actually about putting a lot more money into the hands of the wealthiest people in our economy. And guess what, Mr Woodhouse? They will not spend it in the economy; they will go to Fiji, if they can. They will go and spend it on expensive cars, they will not actually spend it in our economy in the way that our poorer people will.
It’s very, very important to me that we are closing that gap, that we are seeing the connection between people, because even if we are on extreme amounts of money in our careers—which we are lucky enough to be—we all have friends and relations and we’re all connected, and I do not want anyone left behind in this country. That is why I cannot see this bill as being anything but a stalking horse for actually putting $2,400 into the hands of our friends earning $400,000 a year. I want to see that money go absolutely to all the people in our lower brackets. Wages must go up in this country and that is a good thing. Thank you. That is why I will not be supporting this bill.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): It’s great to speak on my member’s bill. This is the first member’s bill I have ever had in 13 years get to this stage of the process. I regret I wasn’t here for my 10-minute speech. I am going to try and give one now in five minutes.
I want to say just one thing to the member that’s just spoken. She talked a lot about people earning $400,000 a year—the fat cats on $400,000 a year. They pay $136,000 in income tax every single year. That’s a lot of money.
This bill is about what’s called bracket creep. It’s been inevitable in recent decades that, over time, income earners, most of us, actually—hard workers, nurses, truck drivers, and the like—have moved inevitably, unavoidably, into a higher tax bracket and therefore pay more tax: that 10.5 percent to $14,000; the 17.5 percent from $14,000 to $48,000, where 1.8 million people reside; to 30 percent for the $48,000 to $70,000 bracket. That’s 700,000 people who’d benefit from this law. And then 33 percent; that’s for $70,000 to $180,000. That is 859,000 people. That’s not just some fat cats; that’s a lot of ordinary New Zealanders paying their mortgage who would benefit from that.
What’s wrong with this increase in tax over time when people are, as some of the members have said, earning more? Well, as incomes have gone up, so has the cost of living: rent, petrol, electricity, food—that Consumers Price Index (CPI) basket of goods that the member over there talked about. And by the way, it’s going up by—what is it?—3, 4 percent at the moment; the highest in a very long time. So people are paying more tax and, in real terms, they have less disposable income to help their families with. And the Government’s tax take, their big sack of money, Grant Robertson’s big sack of money grows and grows and grows as the Government has more and income earners who pay tax have less. In that regard, you might want to say that actually what this bill is really about—in addition to bracket creep, because it’s certainly about that—is cost of living. Rents are rising at the moment, petrol costs are rising at the moment, electricity is rising at the moment, and food costs are rising at the moment.
In terms of the specifics of this bill, I just want to make a small number of points. It amends the Income Tax Act 2007. It provides for a review. There’s been a lot of nonsense spoken over on that side about what this bill does. It only provides for a review by Inland Revenue’s commissioner every three years, within 12 months of a general election, “[to] review all specified dollar ranges to determine if they should be adjusted to reflect movement in the … [CPI] in the period since the specified policy changes were last reviewed.”
The other significant clause provides that if the commissioner concludes that the specified dollar changes should be adjusted in terms of CPI and the like, they are under the regulations. But significantly—and this is why, actually, the bill is fiscally neutral—“Despite … [that], the Minister may decline to recommend that regulations be made … and, if so, the Minister must present to the House … a report that explains their reasons for declining”.
A few things flow from this. Well, in 2019 when National first proposed this, the calculations in relation to the specified dollar ranges, assuming a couple of percent inflation, meant income earners would be better off $400, then the next time $900, then $1,400 with each adjustment. And if we don’t do that, by 2023 the average wage earner will have slipped into the 33 percent—second to top now, under the Labour Government—tax bracket.
The final point I want to make is that a lot has been made by the speaker over there—the member for Ōhāriu made the point about the fiscal costs of this and what it means for the Government. Well, actually in 2019 terms—it will be more now—it was about $650 million in foregone revenue for the Government. That said, I would argue it’s not properly considered foregone revenue but, rather, stemming the growth of tax by stealth to Grant Robertson and the tax man. The Inland Revenue’s coffers have been steadily growing as a result of bracket creep for the last several decades, actually, and this merely stems that tax increase by stealth, as I say, to Grant Robertson. He’s worried about the loss of revenue. He should be more worried about the loss of revenue to income earners, to everyday Kiwis who voted for him at the last election. But, actually, if they think about issues like this and how much harder it’s getting in an inflationary environment, I wonder if they will the next time.
In conclusion, this bill deals with bracket creep. It deals with the cost of living, and it stops those tax increases by stealth by Grant Robertson.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Income Tax (Adjustment of Taxable Income Ranges) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion not agreed to.
Bills
Regulatory Standards Bill
First Reading
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.
The Regulatory Standards Bill is part of an ongoing evolution of New Zealand’s constitutional infrastructure—and let me take you back to the very beginning. Our first Parliament met in Auckland for only two months. The contest at the time was whether the Ministers appointed by the Governor, who was appointed from London, should be responsible to the elected officials. In the end, the Governor prorogued the Parliament, and, in a fit of outrage, parliamentarians suspended the Standing Orders; half of them tried to climb up the walls out the Speaker’s gallery to deny the other members a quorum. And at one point, the Prime Minister, one Henry Sewell, I think it was, actually decked a member of the Opposition—something I sometimes think about at question time in our Parliament today.
One hundred years later, we had a Prime Minister called Muldoon, who frequently suspended the Standing Orders and passed all manner of terrible laws. He believed select committees were a waste of time. Over the past 30 years, with things like Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s Constitution Act, we have formalised and improved our processes and procedures for making laws so they are more accountable and more democratic. I’d add to that the Public Finance Act; the independence of the Reserve Bank in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. Another initiative that has started but is far from complete is regulatory impact analysis. Starting in the 1990s, through the 2000s, Governments have experimented with regulatory impact analysis but it has, by and large, failed for a couple of reasons; one is that it’s often not done. This Government, when elected in 2017, said, “It’s our first 100 days; we needn’t do it.” This is not a partisan issue; this is part of our evolution in terms of a country because the previous Government—the Helen Clark Government—did exactly the same thing.
When regulatory impact analysis is done, it so frequently does not meet the kinds of standards that are expected in Treasury’s analysis that have been set out as Government policy by various Governments. I was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform, a little-known position, but one of my jobs was to analyse the standards of regulatory impact analysis, and I found that it was often totally inadequate, and when we got independent analysts from outside Treasury to do it, they found the same thing.
This matters to New Zealanders because the quality of our regulation is one of the main determinants of whether or not people can raise productivity. There’s what experts call the productivity paradox: how New Zealand can have, on balance, pretty good policy settings by international standards and yet have low productivity growth over the last 30 years. It’s in the lower left corner—countries that have started with low productivity and have had low productivity growth in that period. Some people are going to say, “Ah, the last 30 years; it was the fourth Labour Government’s fault.” Actually, prior to that, it was worse through the 1960s and 1970s, when we had Muldoon and the kind of practices I’ve described. If we want to be wealthier and to be able to afford the kinds of things that so many New Zealanders want, we need to be thinking of ways to raise productivity, and one of those is to improve the quality of regulation with better processes for consulting and testing and defining the purpose of legislation and regulation to ensure that it meets the standards.
This Regulatory Standards Bill is an effort that has grown out of 20 years of work: initially, the Regulatory Responsibility Bill first introduced in 2006, and then there was the regulatory taskforce in the late 2000s or the noughties, which produced the Regulatory Standards Bill. This bill languished on the Order Paper for some time because what one finds is that few Governments in power are prepared to put these kinds of restraints on themselves; they prefer to be able to govern in the moment, even though there is plenty of evidence that is not best for investor confidence for New Zealand’s long-term prosperity. This Regulatory Standards Bill codifies what good regulatory analysis is with the principles set out in clause 6. It says that if Governments wish to make laws, they must make sure that they are consistent with the rule of law. They must not diminish the liberties of New Zealanders except as is necessary to protect New Zealanders’ liberties. It says that laws must not take property unless compensation is provided. They must not impose taxes and charges on New Zealanders without parliamentary consent.
Much of this is stuff that most people would take for granted. This Regulatory Standards Bill, like the Constitution Act and other constitutional innovations before it, codifies and puts them on the record. It also puts in place a number of requirements for good lawmaking questions that lawmakers—which means the Minister responsible in the case of a Government bill, the member in charge in the case of a member’s bill, or the chief executive of the relevant department in the case of a piece of secondary legislation—must sign a certificate saying the principles have been met. They must ask what problem we’re trying to solve. Do other laws already solve the problem? Is there an easy way to solve this problem without making any law? What are the costs of the law? Who pays those costs? What are the benefits? Do the benefits exceed the costs? All things that, I think, most people in this House would actually want a Government to do, as well as ensuring the relevant people have been consulted. This is just raising the standards of lawmaking and regulation in New Zealand.
Now, I know that there will be some objections but, first, I should say the second thing the bill does other than codify good regulatory impact analysis is it gives it some teeth, because what I found as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform is that my fellow executive members were all for better regulation; they didn’t want the restrictions put on them just right now. Everyone wants to go to heaven. No one wants to die. This bill actually gives citizens or perhaps their bodies—it could be farmers and Federated Farmers, for example—the ability to seek a declaration from the court that a particular law or regulation has not been made consistent with the rules set out in the Regulatory Standards Bill. Some people think that’s a big change. That’s why I’m asking this Parliament to pass it so it can be ratified by referendum in the same manner that the End of Life Choice Bill was passed by Parliament and ratified by referendum—and much of the bill is actually setting out the conditions of the referendum.
There are some policy objections that people have. Some people in the past—and this debate’s gone on for 15 years—have said it gives the courts too much power. Well, it certainly does allow the courts to pass judgment on the laws that Parliament makes, and that is new to New Zealand. But New Zealand is an outlier. We have no written constitution. We have no subnational Government, states, or provinces. We have no Upper House. We actually need to move closer to where most countries are that have some sort of constitutional principles that the courts can judge lawmaking against. It gives New Zealanders greater security, greater stability, so they can plan their lives, invest, and make for a more prosperous country. Some people will say that it doesn’t allow the Government of the day to legislate and serve the public interest they are elected to. Actually, it does. There’s an exemption that anything can be justified if it passes the test of being justified in a free and democratic society. All this bill requires is proper analysis of the laws Government’s making, proper transparency, proper reasoning to be set out, and people to be consulted. That’s all we’re asking for with this Regulatory Standards Bill. Just think for a moment what a Government or a member of this House is really saying if they are opposed to that.
Finally, I’d say I wrote in considerable detail a letter to representatives of each party. I actually customised the letters to address concerns I thought they might have or that some of their supporters or members might have. Not one of them replied. The National Party have indicated to me they will support it. I think that’s a real shame for the sincerity of people that come to this House. Nevertheless, I conclude that this legislation should be a cross-partisan effort to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure, its constitutional infrastructure, so we get better lawmaking and better outcomes for all New Zealanders. I’m proud to commend it to the House and, sooner or later, it will be law.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I would like to congratulate the member David Seymour for having his bill drawn from the ballot.
David Seymour: Thank you.
RACHEL BROOKING: Well done.
David Seymour: It was a big effort!
RACHEL BROOKING: A big effort. Very honoured to be able to speak on this Regulatory Standards Bill today.
Now, as the member has just said—David Seymour—there are very important principles for good regulation and good legislation: transparency, being able to justify what you do, and being able to explain it. That, I very much agree with.
I think it’s very important, before we get into the debate about this bill, that we talk about the name: the Regulatory Standards Bill. I think a lot of people, at first look, will look at this and think “Oh, it’s about regulation; it’s about secondary legislation”. But, in fact, it’s not just about that. It is about regulation, as we call it being secondary legislation, but it’s also about primary legislation; that is, the work that we do here in this House. When we make a bill and go through our select committee process and have our readings and debates, it’s saying that that process should be subject to the regulatory standards in there—what would be an Act.
So it’s important to acknowledge that it addresses both primary and secondary legislation. My focus tonight is on the primary legislation piece of this. Why that is, is because it is very significant. As the member just said, this will have a constitutional role. He’s talked about the infrastructure of the constitution and our way of making laws. He’s quite right. It is a big deal that if we had some way of involving the courts to be able to make a declaration that Parliament had not done its job as it should in compliance with the Regulatory Standards—as it would be—Act, then obviously that is a very significant change to our constitutional arrangements and that separation of powers, which the member has made very clear.
To be fair, we already have the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that to some extent deals with questioning what we do in this House. I think there’s some very important differences there. One—and the most important one, I would argue—is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act contains internationally agreed human rights. These are not contentious, subjective, political ideas; they are internationally agreed human rights. Of course, we know, under section 7 of that Act the Attorney-General can make a report about whether or not a bill is consistent with that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So, as I say, there is some similarity, but the big difference is the contested natures of the principles that Mr Seymour just mentioned and I’ll come to in a minute.
As we noted in the history lesson that we’ve just had, this bill has been around for some time. It’s been previously considered—and I’ll go to that in just a minute—but it’s important to note that, since 2011, when it was first on the table, as such, there have been three changes to the Standing Orders. There’s been the Legislation Act 2019 and most recently the Secondary Legislation Act 2021. That Act will clarify what secondary legislation is, what it’s called, and be very helpful and do a lot of the things that I think Mr Seymour is interested in. It was a massive piece of work. With the Legislation Act, the Parliamentary Counsel Office now has a role in terms of informing what good legislation is, reviewing it, and providing an annual report to the Auditor-General.
So going to previous considerations of this bill in a slightly different form, but the main principles still stand. The report of the Commerce Committee on the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2015 talked about the advice that they received, and how it raised certain concerns around the bill, which the committee considered should be brought to the attention of the public. The first was that the bill would result in an overlap of new with existing principles; secondly, delegated legislation already reviewed by the Regulations Review Committee—fantastic committee—would become subject to the statement of compatibility and court review processes prescribed in the bill; and some important principles have been omitted from the bill; then, also, it poses risks to the transparency of lawmaking processes; and finally, the Legislation Bill, which was before the House at the time, already proposed a structured process for the ongoing revision of legislation—and, of course, we know that’s been enacted in a couple of different forms since then.
The Regulatory Standards Bill, as we heard—there’s principles, they are found in clause 6, as the previous speaker said. They include the “Rule of law”, “Liberties”—the subheading is “Liberties”—and a lot of this deals with private property rights. So this is something that, obviously, the member and his party feel very strongly about. There’s also, then, the “Taking of property”: that there’d be full compensation for taking of property. These are differences from our current law. There’s also “Taxes and charges”, the “Role of courts”, and then “Good law-making”. Some of the issues in “Good law-making” at paragraph (i) are, in fact, already addressed in things like regulatory impact statements. At paragraph (k), it is said that to “be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.” While, at first glance, that sounds like a very sensible thing, and I would agree with it, there’s always political judgment in making those decisions, they are subjective things that politicians, who stand on manifestos, should be deciding; it should not be for the court. So that is why this is a very important debate to have on this bill.
Those principles that I’ve just outlined, they are consistent with ACT’s values, and the private property rights pre-eminence there. These are political choices. I’m hoping that they don’t reflect the political choices of other parties in the House. I note that other parties have different views and different choices, so it may be if somebody else was writing a bill like this they might say, “How is a piece of legislation consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our partnership there? How is it consistent with international treaty agreements? How is it consistent with climate change obligations? How is it consistent with community wellbeing outcomes? How is it consistent with revision of, say, public education, or, say, public healthcare and environmental protections?” These are all good political things that we should be discussing and debating in this House, and it is for this House to decide those priorities.
I’ve had the pleasure of reading a thesis. It was an Honours—
David Seymour: We all have our thesis.
Hon Member: Go on, summarise it for us.
RACHEL BROOKING: That’s right. Mine’s a particularly geeky pleasure there. So by E. M. Thomas, it was a dissertation for her Honours in a Bachelor of Laws degree at the fine University of Otago. It was dated October 2011, and it’s called “ ‘Tinkering in the Constitutional Shed’: The Regulatory Standards Bill and Legislative Quality in New Zealand.” I would just like to quote from the conclusion of that thesis—and it’s important to note that this thesis is talking about the same principles that are in the bill before us now. It says, “The [Regulatory Standards Bill’s] principles are controversial and are of uncertain scope and dubious orthodoxy. This is exemplified by the takings principle. The RSB [Regulatory Standards Bill] would not meet its own standards as the principles are vague, unclear and likely to destabilise New Zealand’s law. In turn, this would undercut the rule of law.” And it goes on.
So, in conclusion, this bill, if enacted, would add more red tape and confusion. The democratic process of electing politicians is to make policy choices. It is not the role of the judiciary to do this.
Angela Roberts: It’s our job; it’s not their job.
RACHEL BROOKING: That’s right. So for that reason, we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I congratulate the member David Seymour for having had the bill pulled from the ballot, the Regulatory Standards Bill. He identifies a problem that is a very real one in New Zealand in 2021—indeed, it’s been the case for the last four years, ever since I arrived in this place. Not because I arrived here, but because that coincided with the installation of a Labour-led Government, and now a Labour Government.
The problem with bad lawmaking, as I say, is very real in this building, by which I mean Parliament, and, of course, the executive wing of Parliament, the Beehive—physically and literally the seat of Government—but, of course, Government agencies throughout the land who impose regulations and other secondary legislation that, of course, has great effects on people’s lives. We don’t need to tax our imagination too strongly to think of examples of bad lawmaking that this bill is certainly designed to resolve and improve. A classic case—perhaps the classic case—would be the ban on natural gas exploration that has led, among other things, to an increase in the import of poor energy solutions, even from an environmental point of view—especially from an environmental point of view.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I ask the member to—[Gestures to the bill]
CHRIS PENK: Thank you. Whereby, of course, we’re importing more coal from Indonesia. So by way of example of the problem that the bill is designed to solve, we can observe that there is a problem with lawmaking in this country at the moment. I would argue that the best possible solution to bad lawmaking is to have good lawmakers, so, in 2023, that’s something on which I invite fellow Kiwis to join us in resolving in our own way.
For now, however, the remedy that’s before us tonight by way of this member’s bill is a Regulatory Standards Bill to improve the lawmaking processes, to add some certainty, to add some rigour to the standards that should already be expected of this place, but—as I’ve observed, and as Mr Seymour has himself observed as sponsor of the bill—are all too often disregarded, by the current Government at least. So it’s probably no surprise that National will support the bill at its first reading. I suspect it may also be the final reading of the bill, if the indications from across the House are anything to be believed.
David Seymour: Never give up.
CHRIS PENK: “Never give up” is the exhortation from the member himself, and, look, I’ll take at face value that the bill might have the opportunity to proceed at select committee, and so it would be worth sort of highlighting a couple of issues that we would look to thrash out at that stage, or certainly examine if the bill were to proceed that far.
So one is, of course, to examine the mechanism—the quality-control process, if you like. Some of that is by way of establishing a set of principles—in other words, giving power to the courts to declare whether the principles have been met, and, of course, also to require certification along the way by various key players that the principles had been met.
So, worth looking at the principles. These are all very good and worthy, as outlined in the bill. So key aspects such as avoiding the diminishment of a person’s liberty, personal security, and so forth, except as is necessary to provide or protect such liberty, freedom, etc. of other persons—classic libertarian philosophy, but I also happen to think something that any right-thinking person would actually say is entirely sensible stuff. Of course, subjective opinions might differ as to where we draw the line in any individual case. Value judgments are involved and the proposal of the bill is, of course, that we allow the court of law to make those judgments, as well as the lawmakers in the traditional sense of the word, the legislators in the executive of the day.
So cost-benefit analysis, as Mr Seymour points out, is something that’s been lacking in recent times—arguably over a longer period of time as well. But, of course, we would want to be careful in those certifications that the cost-benefit analysis not provide a right of veto to the Public Service by asking the chief executive of the public agency to certify before the third reading, failing which, you know, there might be serious doubt as to whether the law proposed by a duly elected Government could, in fact, pass.
So we don’t say that it’s perfect necessarily, but certainly National supports the intent of the bill. We recognise that many people up and down this country whose lives, personal and professional, impacted by bad lawmaking would want to see a rigorous discussion in the constitutional context of greater protections enjoyed in overseas jurisdictions that we might benefit from here. So, on that basis, National supports the bill, at least the first reading, and we look forward to hearing further in the debate.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call in relation to the Regulatory Standards Bill. I don’t support the progression of this bill through the House. While this is the first reading of this bill, I can’t help but feel a sense of déjà vu. Now, I’ve tried to work out why, and I thought initially that it was because this is a bill that is almost identical to the one introduced by Rodney Hide in 2011, but no, it wasn’t that! It’s because we’ve all already heard rather a lot about this member’s bill in the members’ questions when, in July, Mr Seymour had the entire ACT caucus stand and ask questions about the bill, using up about 15 minutes of the House’s time. There is a little bit of irony in terms of putting forward what the member proposes are systems to improve our democracy, while using systems in a way that is, in essence, in my view, wasting the House’s time. But let’s turn to the bill.
I’ll speak briefly to the reasons why we don’t support this bill, on this side of the House, which have been well traversed by my colleague Rachel Brooking. I refer to the fact that the bill is almost identical to the bill introduced by Rodney Hide in 2011, which Labour opposed then. The Government of the time didn’t progress the bill after the Commerce Committee examined the bill and recommended that it not be passed due to numerous issues. The Government who decided not to proceed with it was the National Government, and ACT was a confidence and supply partner at the time. What’s clear is that the then Government identified that it wasn’t a bill they could or should proceed with. So what’s changed with the bill? Well, almost nothing except for one significant thing, and that is that Mr Seymour has made the addition of a costly referendum.
So we could then ask: what’s changed that makes introducing the bill a viable course of action? Well, actually, there are things that have changed, but they’re not helpful to the progress of this bill. Since the 2011 bill, a number of changes have been made that improve the framework for making high-quality legislation that are demonstrably better than this bill’s proposals, especially, I would say, the introduction of departmental disclosure statements to accompany the introduction of most Government bills and substantive Supplementary Order Papers. The disclosure statement system is a better alternative than the certification of all legislation, as is proposed by this bill, because disclosing and explaining policy and process choices made in developing legislation is more inclusive and responsive than reporting on compliance with selected principles, stated in what is a very fixed form, which is what this bill proposes.
Every time this bill has been considered, the bill itself is considered fundamentally flawed, and the reasons for that are that it checks for quality of legislation which already exists, as my colleague traversed, for Government bills and are also set out in the Cabinet Manual processes. It cuts across and potentially undermines existing lawmaking processes, such as departmental disclosure statements and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports, which may result in certificates under both the proposed bill and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of the same matters. It confuses existing lawmaking principles and would likely create confusion and uncertainty in the courts and in Parliament.
Now, in this stage of my review of the bill and its history, I was curious about whether there were comparable systems, as proposed in this bill, in relation to other jurisdictions we commonly look to. In Australia and the United Kingdom, there is no equivalent to the proposals in this bill, but both, as expected, have systems that set out high-level considerations for the development of legislation—for example, in Australia, the Legislation Act 2003. So, again, I would say that I do not support the progress of this bill through the House.
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to begin by congratulating the member David Seymour for having this odd and interesting, in some ways, bill pulled from the ballot. I also commend him for the approach that he has outlined by way of contacting members from each party—though I didn’t, in fact, have that communication, as the justice spokesperson for the Green Party, but maybe next time!
I also want to begin by commending the aspect of this bill, which, as a former human rights lawyer, I do find commendable and interesting, which is to say that we should have, as lawmakers, guidance from our higher courts when we do legislate or when previous Parliaments and Governments have legislated in a way that sits inconsistently with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is something that our Privileges Committee is considering at the moment in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself, and it is an exciting time to have that full package of rights in Aotearoa New Zealand recognised as significant enough to have input from our higher courts.
What we as Greens don’t agree with in terms of this particular bill, and every iteration of it that has come to Parliament before now, is the subjugation of certain rights below individual property rights, which this bill seeks to elevate. That is not in the public interest. We point, in particular, to the fact—and I would highlight, again, as someone who values the international rules-based order and the package of rights that we’ve all ascribed to in this country—that human rights are indivisible. So we have civil, political, cultural, economic, all together. That means that you can’t say that an individual’s property rights can sit above something like putting health regulations and health warnings on tobacco, which this bill may curtail. You can’t say that our environmental rights are rights to a healthy environment by setting the carbon price, for example, should be weighed up against an individual person’s economic rights. We wouldn’t want Governments and Parliaments to engage in a weighing-up process that places special emphasis on individual economic rights, a neo-liberal system that has failed again and again, that has caused havoc across the world, above the collective rights of us all that we know, ultimately, benefit us as individuals.
This bill is not commendable, but the principle of having a regulation and a court intervention into whether or not lawmaking is consistent with rights is. But let’s take all of our rights, the full package of rights—the full package of rights that again and again we’ve all agreed need to be taken together as being indivisible, as being interdependent, as sitting together, and look at the way that we can have court rulings that point us, as lawmakers, in the right direction in respect of them all. That is what the Privileges Committee is doing right now. That is what makes me happy. This bill—and others have said, and this is getting down to the detail of it now—doesn’t do that. So, in principle, we oppose it.
But, also, in terms of the mechanism, it sits uncomfortably with what others have pointed out is now the regulatory impact statement. It seeks to take very, very specific rights and ways of lawmaking and put them next to what are quite general principles. One of the things that is puzzling to me is the requirement to produce benefits that outweigh the costs of legislation to the public or persons. That seems vague. That seems like what lawmakers do any way. Every Government, every Parliament, would purport to say that we are balancing the interests of individuals in the public when we legislate. So what is this adding? What is it adding on top of the regulatory impact statements, on top of the Bill of Rights Act section 7 declarations of consistency?
It is a bad piece of lawmaking. It is based on principles that don’t uphold the public good. So I don’t commend it to the House.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I cannot commend this bill to the House. I have been having the interesting experience this evening of trying my hand at whipping. I’m learning a few things about how to regulate a caucus, and I think they apply to this bill. One: need to stick with systems that are simple, systems that are tested, and there’s no point trying to invent rules when they aren’t necessary. My friend Ms Brooking referred to a thesis which was on this very bill in its previous incarnation, called “Tinkering in the Shed”. Conversely, Mr Seymour referred to this bill as part of the evolution of Parliament. I think that the only evolution that this bill represents is the sort that is produced by tinkering in the shed. Frankenstein would come to mind, except that I think Frankenstein was constructed of a number of dead bodies, whereas this seems to be pretty much the same dead body as Mr Hide’s bill from 2011.
Now, if it isn’t Frankenstein, and it does appear to be the same body as 11 years ago, then maybe we’re back with the Neanderthals. I do realise that a week is a long time in Parliament. I’m not quite sure what 10 years represents, when you’re going to try to revive something that was dead in the water then. It is somewhat surprising also to find that the members opposite are actually supporting this bill, because it was so comprehensively panned in its last incarnation by—let’s just check this out—I think it’s the Legislation Advisory Committee, the Office of the Clerk, and the Regulations Review Committee, as well, when they submitted to the Commerce Committee. It does seem to me that when people who are excited enough about the prospect of regulation review that they are prepared to sit on the Regulations Review Committee actually do not want and refuse to recommend a bill that is going to give them more opportunities to review regulations, then, Houston, Mr Seymour has a problem!
I am, however, going to commend him for one thing, and that is recycling, because we are in the era of climate change, and so it’s really nice to see the ACT Party get on board in at least one respect. This isn’t evolution. This is pretty pointless, with respect. It’s fascinating, really, also, because here we have the member who earlier this evening was proposing a flat tax rate, partly on the basis of simplicity, I believe, and what he wants to do now is complicate the process of lawmaking. It seems a little odd, I have to say.
So let’s have a look at the reasons why the 2011—oh, sorry, the 2021 predecessor—bill was comprehensively panned, because they were very, very good reasons, and those reasons have only gotten stronger in the intervening 10 years, or, as we say it in Parliament, millennia. The changes that we have had in the last 10 years have addressed the original concerns, and they do it better than this bill ever will. We have the Cabinet Manual, which now makes changes and checks required for Government bills. We have the disclosure statement, where Ministers must explain the policy and process reasons behind the proposed bill. The principles that govern a disclosure statement under the Cabinet Manual are far more inclusive than those that are involved in this particular bill. Furthermore, they’re slightly more inclusive in the sense of the other Acts that they take note of, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Legislation Guidelines and the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, the Cabinet Manual, and—oh my goodness—the Treaty of Waitangi. Who would have thought that it might be important in selecting the principles to take into account when you review your legislation that we might look at the founding document of this country? Not Mr Seymour, apparently.
Conversely, what they are interested in, as some of my colleagues have pointed out, is property rights, and property rights in the sense that they’re not provided for in other legislation. Despite Mr Seymour’s statement that this is a bill about principle, it’s not. It’s a stealth attempt to get policy into the Government, and it is unnecessary, pointless, and, frankly, a zombie bill.
Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Speaker, thank you very much. We proudly support this piece of legislation, the Regulatory Standards Bill. That last speech in the House is a reason for two things: number one, a smaller Parliament, and, number two, the adoption of this piece of legislation, because when I have a look at the debate notes I have in front of me—which I’m not reading because it’s not a speech—it says that one of the principles of the legislation is not impose a tax except by or under an Act of Parliament. Well, the Labour Party has never seen a problem it doesn’t think a new tax will solve, and it’s never seen a regulation it doesn’t believe should be in triplicate. Actually, the thing about this Parliament is we get to debate long into the night the implications and importance of legislation, and the problem with regulation is Parliament doesn’t get to debate it; they just give the authority for someone else to set it, there is a very small amount of scrutiny, and regulation and overbearing regulation actually costs. It costs New Zealanders in their homes, it costs them in their businesses, and it costs us in the economy.
This bill is very straightforward. It is a good thing. It says it should “not diminish a person’s liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of [their own] property” by regulation. Well, a law might do that, but we would have a full debate and a full process. When was the last time a committee in Parliament actually got to debate a regulation in full, as it does a law? The point of this is that they don’t get to. This draft legislation says “not take or impair property without the consent of the owner unless certain criteria are satisfied”. How is it the members opposite think it’s a good thing that a Government can pass a regulation or, even worse than that, that, actually, as lazy members of Parliament and a lazy Government, their Ministers allow their officials to do it, to set the regulations and bring them forward? There are lots of Ministers on that side that sign them off, because the papers are very large and, actually, to read through them late at night would be too hard.
There is too much regulation in New Zealand. All you’ve got to do is look at the regulation the Government has passed since the election: costs upon businesses. They say it’s good for New Zealanders, but, actually, if we look closer, that’s why we are now a more expensive country than we’ve almost been at any time before. It’s why the cost of living has gone up so very, very much, and it’s why the costs on businesses is so much that they have to pass them on to consumers—the very people that the Labour Government says they want to help through overbearing regulation. There isn’t a problem that this Government and the Labour Party doesn’t think you can solve with a new tax, and there isn’t a regulation they don’t like and don’t think should be in triplicate.
What the Government members should be doing is supporting this so it goes to a select committee, so they can argue it out there, but they won’t because, actually, they don’t get to do that when it comes to a regulation and a bill that would say to this Parliament and to the Government that you can regulate, but you need a framework to do it. The public deserves to understand that the regulation is in the best interests of them, and that it’s not a lazy way to pass law, rather than coming to Parliament and actually having the debate, so that Kiwis, New Zealanders, don’t get to have their say. They should send it to the committee to discuss it.
It’s deeply, deeply disappointing that every member opposite in Government has stood to speak on this bill and actually talk about why it might or mightn’t have been all those years ago, because, actually, 10 years ago when Parliament looked at this, it was a good idea, it didn’t get to pass. It is an even more important idea today because New Zealand has more regulation in place than ever before.
Do you know one of the regulations that was passed, actually? It says down in the South Island that, actually, every year an office has to have its entrance checked by the council to decide if it’s safe—even ones where the public can’t come in—at a cost of at least $1,000. Now, that might be a well-meaning regulation but if it costs every business $1,000 for somebody to show up and check under that regulation if it’s safe for the public to come to a place where the public is not allowed to come into, it’s bad, bad regulation. This piece of legislation would solve that.
There’s not a single problem that Labour doesn’t think a tax can’t solve, and there’s not a single regulation they don’t think should be in triplicate. It’s good legislation. It’s disappointing—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. It’s a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill, and I thank the member David Seymour for bringing it to the House, but it is a bill that Labour opposes, and I’d like to talk about the reasons for that. But first, let me give you some context about why I care about this bill. I think New Zealand’s democracy is something that we are all very, very proud of. In the same way that we look at our sporting heroes in the Olympics and draw an extraordinary amount of pride on an international scale, we too look to our democracy—it’s fast, it’s nimble, it’s inclusive, it’s representative—and say that’s something that we can be proud of as New Zealanders.
The basis of our Parliament is sovereignty, where Parliament, because it is representative, can make law that protects and serves its people of the day, and improvements to those rules are welcome. They’re something that I would love to talk about to the member who has brought this bill, and I’m sorry that I’ve missed his emails on it, because this is important for us all. There is some level of forgetfulness on the Opposition benches here when harking back to that 2011 select committee, when National was in Government and found this bill to be lacking then, but in Opposition wants the legislature to be empowered to keep the executive in check. But that’s not really what I want to talk about. I want to tell you about whether these proposals do, in fact, lead to better law, and then to examine a quick question about what does lead to better lawmaking and lift productivity, as the member is trying to do here.
The answer to whether these proposals lead to better law is quite simply no. They’re political principles in this bill, they’re not bipartisan, and we haven’t arrived at those principles through a bipartisan or cross-party process within this Parliament. There are a number of members here sitting with me tonight who love the Standing Orders, who love to talk about regulation, who love nothing more than to find Chris Penk in the corridor and talk to him about how we might consider secondary legislation and those world rankings.
David Seymour: Name them.
ARENA WILLIAMS: I might be talking about ourselves! My point there is that improving the laws with which we make laws is something that all parliamentarians have an interest in. Whether we are in Government, whether we are in Opposition, to take a long-term view is a special privilege that parliamentarians have and is the best part of serving in this place and finding ourselves the guardians of our parliamentary democracy.
This bill does not in fact protect our parliamentary democracy. In fact, it introduces a set of principles which are supremely partisan and political into a system which does not need more partisan input. It needs a long-term view. It needs a system where the courts aren’t invited into the role of the legislature, because when the legislature is strong and the courts have a clear role in findings of judicial review through the Bill of Rights process, then we have the harmony in our system which exists currently, which is the envy of the rest of the world.
I’ll just give you an example of that. In the 2019 Legislation Act, which was something which came out of a review of the Standing Orders—and may I commend the Leader of the House, Chris Hipkins, for being a bit brave in Government and looking at that review of the Standing Orders and saying, “Yes, this is something that we can do to strengthen our legislature, to check the executive in a way which is helpful for all parliamentarians and good lawmaking.” It’s a useful piece of legislation because it defines the place of secondary legislation and the role of Ministers when they are granted powers in legislation—whether it’s Gazette notices, regulations—and it makes it clear what the powers are of the Regulations Review Committee, which, when used properly, is a very powerful body within our Parliament.
So this bill would seek to sort of quasi-entrench this principle of liberty, but that is something which is already enshrined in our Standing Orders, which are themselves rules about the rules. At Standing Order 327(2), the grounds that the regulation may be drawn back to the House includes “trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties:”. When we have a well-functioning Regulations Review Committee, that right is well upheld by our legislature. I’m disappointed I don’t have more time on this, but I’ll finish with a plea for more bipartisan discussion on the ways that we can make our legislature function better.
PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this Regulatory Standards Bill at its first reading, a member’s bill in the name of David Seymour, and I congratulate you, Mr Seymour, on having your member’s bill drawn.
The bill has a noble intent: to improve the quality of regulation in New Zealand—and heaven knows we need it after the last four years—through a set of principles and robust analysis that all legislation and regulation would have to comply with. My colleague Mr Penk has emphasised already that over the last four years, this Government has pushed through, and often under urgency, very poor-quality legislation which has imposed numerous regulations with little or no analysis to them and with no understanding of the consequences and impact that often has passed significant cost on to our businesses and, therefore, on to our economy. Political ideology without understanding potential impact, and it’s led to particularly bad lawmaking.
Now, unfortunately, this current Government doesn’t understand very much about cost-benefit analysis. I’m not even sure that it knows what it is, because if it did know what it is, it certainly wouldn’t have announced a $785 million walking and cycling bridge in Auckland, and, at the same time, it has cut $7.5 million from roading and bridging funding in Southland. The notion that there should be some benefit for spending is quite foreign to this Government. Roads and bridges in Southland carry milk tankers and stock trucks and log products that earn this country export dollars, or at least they did until a number of these roads and bridges had to be closed because of funding cuts. So, clearly, cost-benefit analysis is not a strength of this Government.
But this bill would bring in good, robust regulatory principles and analysis. This bill would provide an improvement in our lawmaking.
While we do have some reservations—and certainly we wouldn’t want to see judges legislating from the bench—we would look forward to being able to work through any of those reservations in the select committee process. We’d certainly support a bill that seeks to improve the quality of our country’s laws and regulations, and you’d have to say to any member of the public watching this that they would be questioning why all of the members in this House wouldn’t be wanting to see robust analysis or wouldn’t want to see some sort of standardisation that enabled good, consistent, high-quality lawmaking from everybody in this House.
So I stand here supporting this bill today, and, sadly, it sounds like the other side don’t have the same aspirations that we do for seeing an improvement in the lawmaking, but given the previous four years, they should have. But I certainly support this bill. Thank you.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): “Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Those are the famous words, of course, from Sir Winston Churchill in 1947. The system is not perfect. However, the proposed bill not only adds more red tape, it actually creates a dangerous constitutional shift which we cannot support.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Green member Golriz Ghahraman when she talks about the way that this bill would diminish public rights and collective rights over individual rights. Most of our kōrero in this House is about those very issues—competing rights; where do we draw the line?—and I note that Chris Penk, the member opposite, opportunistically used this opportunity to talk about particular lawmaking that he didn’t agree with. However, just tonight in this House, we saw the fair residency bill, which was originally introduced to the House by New Zealand First MP Mark Patterson, it was in need of a fair deal of panel beating, as was said by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who also sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee with me. We did do that panel beating in select committee, that is the purpose of select committee, and it proves that we can get to very good outcomes through the processes that already exist.
The bill that the member has put up seeks to either go along side or usurp—I can’t quite work out which—the Bill of Rights, which are based on human rights, and Mr Penk, again, has talked about any right-thinking person agreeing with those principles. He also admitted that the devil is in the detail and that that would be for the courts. My point is that it is not for the courts to decide the devil in the detail. Those are matters for elected representatives, not for appointed court officers.
The other part that points to the danger of this bill is Mr Seymour’s preoccupation with low productivity. I thank him, actually, the “Leader of the Opposition”—Mr Seymour—for being so up front about what he—
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As flattering as that comment is, Standing Order 37 states the Leader of the Opposition is “The leader of the largest party … not in Government”. The member should be more respectful of the Standing Orders in this House—much as I enjoy it.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, fair enough, and I think the member should refrain from that in the future.
INGRID LEARY: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I must have been watching too much of the news.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t—no, no, no, no. You do not get to respond. You take the ruling and carry on.
INGRID LEARY: Sincere apologies, Mr Speaker. I was referring to the member’s obsession with GDP, which is really about productivity, and his obsession with individual property rights and no regard for wellbeing, and the bill does really tinker with the constitutional shed. The system currently is not perfect. We have no written constitution; we have no second Chamber; we have the complexities of MMP; we have amendments available by Supplementary Order Papers, which is also complicated; and there are questions over the perceived independence of Parliament from Government. However, GDP and legislative quality are not causally linked. It can be to do with drafting issues, it can also be through poor implementation, or, actually, context can have an effect, such as COVID.
What the member is seeking to do is to enforce a cost-benefit analysis and efficiency on to the way that we look at policy making, where individual property rights lord over everything else, and where it is all about GDP. We are now in 2021, we’ve had several Wellbeing Budgets, we have a Living Standards Framework, and the bill oversimplifies the principles and it suggests that everything can be done tagged only to GDP and not these other important principles. It has no regard for the Treaty of Waitangi, no regard for international treaties, and it simplifies a notion of property. Property is not a clod of earth; it is a bundle of legal entitlements. There is a mythology that individual property rights are more absolute than collective rights, and that is simply not the case, and it is up for the members of this House to make those calls.
I agree with my colleague Vanushi Walters. It’s ironic that what the member is seeking to do with this bill is actually impinging on the sovereignty of Parliament. He is inviting policy to be determined by the courts, and that undermines the balance of the constitutional power in New Zealand. I thank the member very much for writing to us to explain clearly the reasons for his bill, and I’m afraid from me it’s going to be a Dear John letter back to Mr Seymour.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: David Seymour, in reply.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to reply to some of the things that people have said, starting with Rachel Brooking. I want to thank her for a very considered reply. She had clearly taken the time to think about the policy issues behind the bill and give at least some idea of why she might be opposed to it. Her argument, if you were to summarise it, seemed to be that introducing this bill into law would put some policy values ahead of others. That is simply not true on any reading of the bill. The bill doesn’t stop a Parliament from making any particular law. What it does require is that Ministers, chief executives, and members in charge of members’ bills, when making laws and regulations, are transparent about how they’re doing it—about what they believe the costs and benefits are. It doesn’t prevent a law from being made, and I think that objection is a real mistake about what this bill does.
It’s a similar objection sometimes to the Reserve Bank bill. It doesn’t involve Reserve Bank independence; it involves Reserve Bank transparency. In a very similar way, this simply requires the publication of a certificate showing that the lawmaker has at least attempted to follow the principles of good lawmaking, and for failing to either publish or actually follow the principles, they can face a declaration from the courts that they have failed to make laws in accordance with good principles. That doesn’t invalidate the law.
She also went to the trouble to download a Master’s thesis from a student at Otago. That is a well-known criticism. One of the things it says is that the problem of poor lawmaking is not widely accepted. Well, that might be true if you’re a Master’s student at Otago, but I can tell you that out in the rest of the world, complaints about the quality of regulation come up every day. There is a problem to be solved, and this solution does not constrain Parliament. It requires it to be transparent and gives people a say if Parliament doesn’t follow its own rules.
I’d like to thank Chris Penk for his support. I’d like to say to Vanushi Walters that I couldn’t actually find anything of substance in her speech to respond to—I’m sorry about that. Golriz Ghahraman raised the question of whether it would be possible to make legislation for tobacco control or to restrict carbon emissions. It certainly would. On carbon emissions, one would simply have to show there’s a market failure. There’s a tragedy of the commons. There’s a justification in a free society to actually have restrictions on property rights, to put those rules in place, but a Government would have to show that the benefits of that law outweighed the cost. I think an emissions trading scheme would actually quite easily pass under the Regulatory Standards Bill.
Golriz Ghahraman also said that it would diminish other human rights or public rights. That’s simply not true. She also said she didn’t get my letter. I apologise. I sent the letter to Chlöe Swarbrick, and I’m sorry to hear that Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t pass it on—there may be something going on there.
Emily Henderson’s speech: I tried to write down notes for everybody that I could respond to. All I could say is that I grew up in Whangārei, and if Emily Henderson speaks the way she spoke tonight in Maunu, in Tikipunga, in Onerahi, Whau Valley, Kensington, down in Vinetown, then she may be a one-term MP. The alternative is that she actually speaks differently there from the way she is here, and what does that say about her character? That’s all I can say in response to her.
Penny Simmonds: well, she said that she was worried about—thank you for the support. But she said she was worried about judges legislating from the bench. That’s clearly not the case. Judges can issue declarations which will have an effect on the reputation of lawmakers—it may force them to reconsider their law—but judges cannot legislate from the bench. They can only issue declarations under this law, so I don’t think that’s true.
Ingrid Leary made a point that a number of people have made, which is why would you want to introduce more red tape, and this kind of intersects with an argument that also Rachel Brooking made that there’s already a number of provisions which require high standards of lawmaking. You can’t have it both ways. Either these provisions are already there and are required—I would argue they’re not—and, if they are, then there shouldn’t be any problem, because no one will ever get a declaration in court that laws haven’t been made properly. One way or another, if they think everything’s perfect, they should support the bill—why not put it into law? On the other hand, if they think lawmaking is currently inadequate, then perhaps we do need the bill.
That’s my response to some of the objections. I commend this bill to the House and I hope people will reconsider their support on the other side. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 43
New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.
Noes 77
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion not agreed to.
Bills
Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill
First Reading
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the introduction of this bill, the Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill. This bill will update the Land Transport Act to ensure vehicles responding from lines companies to electrical emergencies are able to display lights, and that other vehicles must make passage for them.
This is my second bill which I’ve had the privilege of having pulled from the ballot, and one which seeks to create a solution to what is a very serious problem, particularly in our bigger cities, where congestion is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, not only for New Zealanders going about their ordinary lives and getting home from work but also for those who are responding to emergencies and needing to be able to move quickly through traffic. When an emergency occurs in New Zealand, our fire, ambulance, and police services have the ability to be able to turn on lights and sirens and have traffic move out of the way so that they can respond quickly to emergencies, whether that be a crime, a traffic incident, a fire, or a medical emergency, or often to what is an incident resulting in more than one of these services being required at the same time.
This bill seeks to create an additional category by allowing vehicles responding to electrical emergencies to be able to have flashing lights installed on their vehicles, which will enable them to move through traffic more quickly and better support other emergency services in situations where there is damage made to the electricity network and which poses a risk to public safety.
Electrical emergencies can be very serious and lead to life and death consequences. In Auckland, on average, a car hits a power line every single day, with fire and ambulance services often unable to respond to the person in the car until lines companies have arrived to the scene and disconnected the power. While the fire and ambulance services are able to display lights and use sirens and move quickly through traffic to arrive at the scene of the accident, the vehicle responding to the electrical emergency or issues is stuck in traffic, with the fire and ambulance crews unable to respond until the power is disconnected.
A good example of this was on the Mount Wellington Highway in Auckland in 2018, when a car collided with a power pole which not only left 1,416 customers without power but where the electrical response crew was stuck in traffic trying to respond, with a delayed response due to traffic, as the incident took place at 4.40 p.m. in Auckland, one of the busiest times on the roads in Auckland. Another example was in the Auckland suburb of Saint Johns, where there was a fire in an electricity pole on one of Vector’s electricity assets. Whilst there was minimal disruption to the electricity supply for customers at the time, there was a wider safety risk with the electricity assets being on fire. In this case, the incident took place in the morning, with the response vehicles taking over an hour to be able to get there due to the morning commute.
These cases not only highlight the issues with the incidents that must be responded to where there is an emergency event, and the fact that getting through the traffic delays the response time, but the fact that this also impacts the speed at which customers who are affected can have their power restored, many of whom are medically dependent customers of electricity.
Medically dependent consumers of electricity are people who depend on mains electricity for critical medical support such that a loss of electricity may result in loss of life or serious harm. People who qualify for this may require ventilators, oxygen concentrators, or ventricular assistance devices, with electricity suppliers having things that they must do to ensure that these people have the best possible access to electricity. Responding to electrical outages more quickly could mean the difference between life and death for some electricity consumers who are medically dependent on these machines. This highlights the fact that people’s lives and businesses are becoming increasingly dependent on an uninterrupted supply of electricity. If response crews had access to flashing lights in every situation where congestion is a problem, response times would be reduced and would speed up power restoration considerably, particularly for those whose lives are put at risk.
There are also already exemptions where other responders to emergency situations have the abilities to display lights so as to navigate through traffic. Doctors, midwives, and some nurses are able to use flashing lights, which allow them to move more quickly through heavy traffic while keeping to the speed limit, saving precious time in situations where there is a medical reason to do so. It makes sense that similar powers be given to those responding to electrical emergencies for the reasons given above.
Not only are there already similar provisions for doctors, midwives, and some nurses but the issue that this bill seeks to address has been recognised by Auckland Transport, where they have allowed vehicles in Auckland responding to electrical emergencies to be able to use bus lanes in the Auckland roading network. Whilst this makes a small difference, this benefit only exists where a bus lane exists, and only exists in Auckland. This is a problem not just in Auckland. Congestion is something which is becoming increasingly worse across New Zealand, with TomTom Traffic Index statistics listing Auckland as having the second-worst traffic in Oceania, with congestion also increasing in other cities across New Zealand. There have also been many recent examples where storms in Auckland have caused significant damage and significant congestion. Recent storms and the Auckland Harbour Bridge clogging our roads across Auckland only highlight—
Shanan Halbert: Good example.
SIMEON BROWN: —this issue even more frequently. I see the member for Northcote there is very keen on a cycle bridge, which won’t fix this problem. We actually need a new second full crossing if we’re going to actually fully unlock that particular issue.
According to Auckland Council, Aucklanders are spending about 20 working days stuck in traffic each year. Traffic congestion costs up to $2 billion a year in lost productivity. These statistics simply demonstrate how difficult it is for Aucklanders to get around a city, and then when you put on top of that where there’s actually an emergency, it really highlights how challenging it is for them to be able to respond as well.
So this bill I’ve brought to this House is very limited. It will not allow lines companies to use this power without cause. The bill is tightly confined to only allow the use of this power to be used where there is damage done to the electricity network and there is a risk to the public safety. We’re not going to see electrical response vehicles constantly seeking to get around Auckland faster for their day-to-day business. This is tightly confined as this is about situations where there is a risk to public safety and to life.
I hope that all members of this House will support this bill. This bill seeks to make a positive difference with which the average Kiwi will see is sensible. It is an easy change and could indeed save lives. Passing this bill seems to me, to use a colloquial phrase, a no-brainer. As such, I have great hope in commending this bill to the House and, in particular, the Labour Party giving it its full support.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I’ll start, as we traditionally do on a Wednesday, on a members’ day, by congratulating the member Simeon Brown for having this bill drawn out of the biscuit tin, and I’ll congratulate him on his enthusiasm for the bill. He looks at it and thinks “This seems like a good idea”, and like so many things that do come before this House, they looked like a damn fine idea. But when they are actually giving some scrutiny, and I’m afraid, Mr Brown, some history, then things look a little different.
Now, I sometimes do tend, when I see these things come in, to dig deep into my memory, which, I’m fortunate, looking around the House, is a longer memory than anyone else in this House—even your own, Mr Speaker. But I can remember a time when police cars didn’t have sirens; they only had little red lights. Now, I’m not sure if anyone in this House will actually remember when police cars just had little red lights on their grey cars, but that was the police which I joined. They had previously had sirens, but, as a result, the folklore was—whether it was true or not—that a certain inspector had raced home for lunch using his siren and had been caught and prosecuted, and so, as a result, the commissioner of the day said, “Right. No more sirens.” So that meant that a generation of police officers like myself were then forced to try and get their way through traffic with little red lights, or, actually, subsequently, little blue lights, in the middle of our Holden Kingswoods and Holden Belmonts—when we weren’t stopping because the gears had jammed—trying to actually get to where we were going.
In fact, I do recall in the Evening Post—again, showing my age—a reporter wandering down Lambton Quay had heard a police car with apparently a siren going as it raced to a job down Lambton Quay. Now, I happened to be in that car at the time. I was the driver, but my passenger was on the PA, or public address system, whistling and trying to emulate a siren so that we could actually get to where we were going as quickly as possible, because it was pretty hopeless trying to get there just with this little blue light.
Just as an aside, when the blue lights were introduced, I can say that I was in the first police car that crashed that ever smashed a blue light, in racing to a major incident in the Newlands Arms Hotel. We hit a fog layer, went through the fog, and my erstwhile companion Dave Potaka didn’t know there was a curve in the road and we ran along and smashed the blue light. Again, another little pat to fame. But I digress, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: You certainly do.
GREG O’CONNOR: I know we are here on this serious matter of why we should look at the possibility of these particular emergency vehicles having a flashing amber light.
Why I did take some time to get to this position is that the reality of it, this history of how we’ve got a number of vehicles around there with amber lights, and why it is not a good idea to put another amber light there with rights—it is not a particularly good idea. I would invite all these members, when they leave here and return to their electorates, to actually have a look out and see how many vehicles there are out there with amber lights on the top of them at the moment. There are a considerable number. If you happen to be anywhere near a major construction site, if you happen to be anywhere near a mining site—locally, in Wellington, you will see that every single vehicle that actually comes off Transmission Gully has all got an orange light. They haven’t got any ability or any powers with them, but they have these lights because they are safety devices. So were we to put another vehicle on the road with a right or ability to use these particular lights, it would just add to confusion.
The other thing, if you are ever in a vehicle without a siren and with a light on, and even with a siren, is to just see how motorists actually react to it. Again, I’ll invite anyone who sees an ambulance, a fire engine, or a police vehicle approaching an intersection to just see how the public behave. Actually, if you have an inexperienced, ill-trained driver behind the wheel of the vehicle with a siren, as you will know, it could actually create more danger—create more of a peril situation if you don’t actually approach it properly. Just imagine the scene where you are sitting on the motorway, as described by Mr Brown, and all of a sudden you’ve got this orange light flashing behind you. I suggest that any driver who is in that situation, trying to get to the sort of situations he described, is not going to get very far just with a little amber light going on. No, what they will do is they will put their hazard lights on, as I have seen many a dog control officer do, racing off to a scene. They’ll probably be tooting their horn, and they may even be—going back to my little situation down on Lambton Quay—having some sort of PA system emitting all sorts of noises trying to attract attention.
The other thing that happens, also, is you’d probably find that if this vehicle is required to go to an emergency, there will have been a lot of emergency vehicles on their way there too. So there will be considerable sirens; there will be considerable lights. Now, there is American research that actually shows that when motorists are confronted with flashing lights, they will intuitively go towards the flashing light. So when you look in your rear-view mirror, or if you are approaching an intersection and you see flashing lights, what people intuitively do is actually go towards them.
Now, again, I’ll go back to the member here who has brought this bill. There is a very good reason, and looked at in isolation, without dissecting your arguments, Mr Brown, I can see that there are reasons. Without taking into consideration, out of context, and just looking at it alone without any history, it may actually seem on the surface a very good idea, like many pieces of legislation—particularly members’ bills—that come before the House.
So what I’ll be saying is that we have to ensure that if we’re going to put another set of flashing lights—particularly if it’s someone’s rights on the road—we have to be very careful, firstly, to educate the public. Now, that would be quite interesting.
The previous debate was about making sure that we look at the regulatory consequences of any legislation. Well, one of them would probably be having to rewrite the road code, for a start, and for a party supposedly worried about the Government spend, just be very wary when you do, because the other thing with the orange light—at the moment, no vehicles with orange lights actually have any powers. We have red lights and we have the police vehicles with the blue lights, and I’ve already explained the change from red to blue. Apparently, there was some science at the time that showed that with blue lights, people do notice them particularly, much more than they do red lights. You’ll see also that most cars now have blue and red flashing lights. Again, the important thing is that they go with a siren, because it is the siren that will actually attract you first, so then that allows them to go through the traffic.
In my experience and the experience of many of my colleagues, where an emergency vehicle is required to get to somewhere like the Auckland Harbour Bridge, the smart thing to do is to actually get a police car to escort them, in the same way that often happens—and already the member spoke about midwives. There’s many a midwife—in fact, there may even be, statistically, someone in this House who was born in the back of a car, because it is not an uncommon occurrence, and generally, when that happens, the first thing that we’ll do is that a police or other emergency vehicle will actually be dispatched, despite the fact that they actually have the ability not to go through or break any law or to speed, but to just have the ability, currently, to put their lights on. Essentially, it means that they’re unlikely to be charged.
Like all these things, it’s when something goes wrong that, really, it will be tested, and “going wrong” means that it would generally be an accident. Sadly, even with experienced fire staff, police staff, and ambulance staff, serious accidents still occur, because, actually, having the ability to go through red lights, to go to speed, or to go into lanes or places where the general public would not be expecting to see a car, does create issues.
It may well be, again, some of the rationale for allowing, particularly, people going to electrical emergencies to get there quicker—it is something that will not be solved and it never should be solved by a member’s bill in this House. It is something that, again—as I’ve spoken about previously—the law of the unintended consequences in a situation like this will be considerable. So I am not going to stand here and say that it is necessarily a bad idea, but without taking into consideration the implications for other road users, this is a bill that if it is to be considered, it should be considered within a package of other proposals to ensure that we do actually understand the consequences. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.
TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am slowly moving towards the light of illumination, and I would like to thank Greg O’Connor, the previous speaker, for all the lights that he has provided on that road to greater wisdom and illumination. We heard amber lights, blue lights, red lights, I was waiting for purple lights, and it actually reminded me of—
Greg O’Connor: In the Green Party room.
TEANAU TUIONO: Ha, ha! It reminded me of “blue light” discos, actually. That’s quite appropriate, since the member probably hosted and ran a couple of those “blue light” discos—and I know that will be meaningful for those of us around the House that are kids of the 1980s.
But holy road congestion! When I took a look at this bill, it looked like it had been dreamt up in an Auckland traffic jam, because the word “congestion” just leapt off the page to me. I looked at it, and, as a previous Aucklander, I know that for those of us who have been in those Auckland traffic jams, you kind of get caught in it. Google Maps says it’s about five minutes away, but actually it’s 50 minutes away, and you have all these sorts of ideas. You have all these sorts of daydreams. But what I would suggest is that if we sorted out the congestion problems, we could dream about other things—we could dream about other things. We could get back to fantasising, maybe, on some of our more favourite subjects, like gangs or so on and so forth, giving more room and ability to dream those bigger dreams.
As the Greens, we support public and active transport, because we know that when you get people out of cars and into other modes of transport that, of course, actually deals with the congestion issues. It reminds me of a quote I saw on a TED Talk by Enrique Peñalosa, where he said, “An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather where even the rich use public transport.” So viva public transport—long live public transport.
I was heartened by a bit of the media around the new Puhinui transport hub there in South Auckland. As someone who used to live in South Auckland and often returns to the sacred soils of South Auckland to rejuvenate my wairua and spirit, I was glad to see that Puhinui had actually been changed around. So I look forward to giving it a go and giving it a whirl, because I remember in the mid-1990s, when I used to go past Puhinui, there wasn’t much to look at. So, hopefully, when those sorts of initiatives get people off the roads and on to rail—because rail is good—and other ways of public and active transport, that means that there will be less congestion and we can think about other things.
This bill requires the Minister of Transport to make regulations that allow vehicles which are responding to electrical emergencies to be able to display lights which require general traffic to pull over and let the vehicle through. My understanding is that the bill is specifically trying to address an issue that Vector brought up that they were having in Auckland. We know that traffic congestion is consistently causing material delays to crews accessing sites in order to restore safety and, ultimately, power to customers in unplanned outages and safety events. Emergency responders are sometimes waiting for electric crews to show up to turn on their locations to turn the power off so they can safely respond to an emergency. That’s a good thing. I think all around the House we would say that’s a good thing. But the thing is, do we need primary legislation to be able to do that? Do we need primary legislation to do that? Could this actually be done in the regulations?
It is also not clear how significant this problem is. My understanding is that Vector are already closely working with Auckland Transport and have access to bus lanes in the city. Vector says that while this has been a significant help, there are still issues with congestion in the way that they want to have red and white flashing lights, but I think that conversation needs to continue. It needs to continue because that seems like a more appropriate pathway in order to sort this issue out.
Then there is also the safety issues that were picked up over here as well. We’ve already got a tonne of people on the road with flashing lights, different amber lights, construction companies, mining companies—all these other different vehicles. So that would actually cause a potential safety risk by allowing too many vehicles to have flashing lights.
This is the thing, and I want to end with this: there are other ways to deal with this issue. We could pick it up in the regulations. There could be more bigger and broader conversations with the agencies involved. We don’t need more lights on the roads—it becomes a safety issue—and we don’t need our roads looking like a discotheque, because that’ll just keep things too busy. So, unfortunately, we cannot support this bill.
TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Meitaki maata e te Vaa Tuatua, and happy ‘Epetoma o te reo Māori Kūki ‘Āirani, Cook Islands Language Week, Mr Speaker. And if I can just take a second, just to say that the theme for ‘Epetoma o te reo Māori Kūki ‘Āirani is ‘Ātuitui’ia au ki te Oneone o tōku ‘Ui Tupuna, which means, connect me to the soil of my ancestors. And to my Kūki brothers and sisters and the mamas, I hope I didn’t butcher that too much. Happy Cook Islands Language Week to everybody.
It’s always a privilege and an honour to be here in the House of change but also to have the opportunity to talk on bills and legislation and possible legislation that comes through this House. Being on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is why I’m speaking on the Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill tonight.
Can I first acknowledge the member Simeon Brown for your member’s bill being pulled and for bringing this to the House tonight. My understanding, having read the bill and also hearing from the member Simeon and others in the House, is that the member proposes that the Minister makes a ruling to have a fitting and use of a “make way” beacon, essentially for electricity utility vehicles responding to network supply emergencies. I understand that the function of that beacon would be similar to what we have now in our other emergency response vehicles beacons and people on the road would move out of the way essentially when those emergency beacons come through. I know that there currently is no beacon for this purpose.
I understand that the member wants to put this through as a bill, as a legislative change. However, my understanding is the same as the member from the Green Party, that Waka Kotahi already have discretion under section 166 of the Land Transport Act to grant exemptions to the rule, as deemed appropriate, and have reached out to Vector to have a discussion around how they can better assist utility vehicles navigating the heavy peak traffic of Auckland, as this is essentially where this is probably the most needed, if at all. So for me, that tells me that there’s another way than going through the legislative route.
And when you do that, you’re looking at this being your first reading, taking it to select committee, the time and the resource that’s involved in that and then, on top of that, having the time for people to be able to make submissions on that, using the resource and the time of our awesome parliamentary staff as well as our own time. If there was no other option, if there was no other way, absolutely take it through that route, but for me, there is another option rather than using the resources that we have limited now—being able to save those for things that don’t have other options, don’t have other ways, and that need to go through a legislative select committee and reading process.
So for me, I believe that you have another option here in terms of Waka Kotahi having that discretion under section 166 of the Land Transport Act. My hope would be that we have Vector reach back out to Waka Kotahi, have that kōrero, have that conversation around how they can work better together to be able to navigate that really thick peak traffic in Auckland. Then that’s kind of also saved, like I said, time, resources here in the Chamber with our amazing parliamentary staff, the clerks—and actually it probably would be quite a lot faster if they were able to have that kōrero and start to look at other ways, rather than relying on tying up really valuable time and resources here in the House.
So for that reason, I believe and I hope that Vector or Mr Simeon Brown can maybe go back to Vector and encourage them to talk to Waka Kotahi and take them up on their offer of working together. That would be a better way to be able to get through this issue, which is important to you, Mr Speaker, as well as to Mr Simeon Brown. For that reason, unfortunately, I won’t be supporting this bill.
SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So we’ve heard a proposal from the member as to why we need vehicles responding to electrical emergencies to have special powers—the same powers that are afforded to others responding to emergencies. It’s because the traffic delays the response times. It’s because customers need power restored quickly, particularly to businesses and families and those who are medically dependent on electricity. It’s true: electrical outages have real impacts. The Eaton annual blackout tracker, an Australian company that tracks the performance of electrical networks—their data shows that in the 2017-18 year across New Zealand and Australia, there were 327 blackouts affecting 1.7 million people. And in 2018-19, the most recent year they have data, there were 167 outages affecting 1.1 million people. That is a large number of events.
However, most of these events are caused by storms or other actions which are not human induced. And what I understand the member’s concerns to be, in particular, are around those events that occur because of an accident during peak traffic times and where it is very difficult for a contractor to get there and fix it. And so the member proposes the contractor to be given a special flashing light to go to the emergency. Well, I’ve managed teams of contractors, men and vans, and I tell you, they are not the same quality of driver as professional Fire and Emergency drivers. I would not want them to be upgraded from the orange flashing light to a green, red or blue. They are not qualified and the member has not outlined how these drivers may become qualified.
But I want to offer you a personal perspective. There are options. Now, some years ago I could have benefited from a midwife with special emergency powers when I was standing knee-deep in a birth pool in my home in Titirangi; begging my wife to keep the baby on hold until the midwife got there; getting those phone calls, “I’m nearly there. I’m stuck in traffic.”, 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon. I wished my midwife had had that green flashing light. But it turned out that a quick rally around—a phone call around friends—produced a fire officer and a police officer who came to my home and stood by to give me the assistance I needed.
My proposition to the member is, whether you’re trying to be a midwife or you’re waiting for someone to come and put your power back on, if it’s a real emergency Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) and the ambulance service will be there to help you. If there’s an accident or an event and you can imagine there’s a power line across a car or somebody is suffering because they’re trapped in their home because of an electrical fault, then the network companies have the ability to disable the circuit in your area and once it’s made safe, they can very, very quickly come in and fix it. The other thing they can do is they have a register of people who are medically dependent so in the event of an emergency which knocks out the power, they can send suitable people—ambulance or FENZ—to go and help the people who are medically dependent and make sure that they don’t suffer.
So the ACT Party believes that there are, in fact, existing provisions for organisations that need emergency-like powers to navigate their way through traffic, to seek those powers from Waka Kotahi, the New Zealand Transport Agency, to seek an exemption. The ACT Party believes that the existing provisions are adequate and for that reason we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a pleasure to be speaking on members’ bills, and tonight it’s the “Land Transport (Lots of Different Coloured Lights) Amendment Bill”, because that’s what I was reading when I got the notes. I went, “Never have I seen a bill that has described all the different coloured lights.” I really think that the member for Pakuranga really wants a light for his own vehicle downstairs or in East Auckland there to run around in. I wondered whether that was the true thing, whether he’d like a little blue light or an amber light, some white stripes, some stars on it. I don’t know, but I think there may be some underlying hope that he can slip a little light on the old electric vehicle—Parliamentary Service logo, all the rest of it—a little bit of a light on top. I’m not sure.
But more seriously, we’ve heard lots tonight about these lights, and I’ve learnt a lot. One thing I’ve learnt is that there’s a real Auckland problem. The last time I was in here, we were talking about second-hand dealers and issues with things like that. That was an Auckland problem. Now we have the second Auckland problem bill, around lights, around electrical trucks.
Can I just share a wee story about an electrical truck. The last time I was on the Chatham Islands, I saw Chatham Islands Electricity and I thought “Oh, there’s a truck.” It’s the only truck on the island. There was a cow stopping it from getting into a fence, but no light needed for that, just a simple wooing of the cow on the side of the road, in the new truck—funded by the Provincial Growth Fund, I might add—and in through. So I thought, “Well, maybe even on the Chatham Islands they don’t need a light, and therefore this is really just an Auckland problem.” Maybe once some fabulous work happens on Auckland’s transport networks, together with the discretion—and it’s happening—of Waka Kotahi, then there really is just no need for this bill.
I know, as I said at the start, there’s some excitement around lights, and it brings back memories of little lights. I think of my six-year-old with little police cars driving up and down the lounge and other places. Obviously, the member got a little excited and then picked this bill up, thinking “Yep, this is a good idea.” Clearly, I’m really not sure. When everything else is already sorted with the rest of the emergency services, Waka Kotahi—the rules are in place for granting exemptions, and we’ve heard that they can turn power off at substations.
Always good to listen to all the speakers before you, because they actually build the picture up, and then you get the answers. In fact, I believe the member is probably feeling a little embarrassed now even putting this bill forward. You are—I know. So, really, there’s not a lot more I can say, other than that those unintended consequences about putting forward to have a different coloured light, all the marketing, and all the pain and all the resources—I’m thinking of the campaign that you’d have to do to even teach Aucklanders how to drive properly.
Ingrid Leary: Lost luggage.
PAUL EAGLE: Lost luggage—anything. I wonder what colour the light would be. We haven’t really discussed that, but who knows. It would have to fit in terms of the rainbow-type colour range.
Hon Member: Pink ones.
PAUL EAGLE: Maybe pink lights. The member for New Plymouth has suggested pink. It’s not a bad colour. My shirt is raspberry, so maybe a raspberry-coloured light could be OK.
In all seriousness, what we’ve heard tonight is the fact that there is a good intention, but like all good intentions, there are some unintended consequences. Those have been explained tonight, and I’m repeating myself if I said that the provisions are there already and to say that this is really not needed. So I want to commend the member for having good intentions, but in all reality, we can’t waste any more time and resources of this House, and we will not be supporting it. Kia ora.
RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. That was a little bit of a surprise to stand up and take the National Party call.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it’s a Labour call.
RACHEL BOYACK: I want to congratulate Mr Brown on putting a bill forward that was pulled out, but it appears that maybe not many of his colleagues are keen to stand up and support him on this bill. So I’m looking forward to hearing from some more National Party MPs tonight on why this bill is just so necessary.
Look, as my colleague Terisa Ngobi pointed out, this bill is a bill that is a solution looking for a problem. I do accept—
Simeon Brown: But there is a problem—there is a problem.
RACHEL BOYACK: —that in Auckland there are challenges, Mr Brown. Interestingly, he may like to know that I lived in Auckland for eight years and didn’t own a car, and managed to actually navigate my way around Auckland as a student and a worker using buses, trains, and a lot of walking. It wasn’t actually until I moved back into the heartland of the provinces that I started using a vehicle. So I would suggest that this is a bill that is designed around a challenge in Auckland that I acknowledge is a genuine challenge, but, actually, across the rest of the country it’s a bill that’s probably not needed.
I might just talk a little bit about why in my electorate of Nelson I don’t think this bill is actually needed. In the last few years we’ve had our share of natural disasters. We’ve had fires, we’ve had cyclones, we’ve had rain events. We’ve had significant incidents, actually, where people have had trees come down over their vehicles. Some of our journalists, people like Tracy Neal when she was working for Radio New Zealand, have actually been put in very, very dangerous situations. But this is not an issue that has then come up, saying, “Oh, and we had a problem in our community that vehicles who were going to deal with power and gas outages couldn’t get through.” It’s not something that’s been raised in a media story. It’s not something that’s been raised with me—
Chris Bishop: That’s right.
RACHEL BOYACK: —because, Mr Bishop, it hasn’t been an issue that we’ve had to deal with, actually. The issue has been one that appears in Auckland, and I would like to suggest that actually, rather than coming up and using the House’s time on unnecessary legislation, there’s some alternatives that we could look at, and I’ll get to that soon.
We’ve talked a bit tonight about unintended consequences, and one of the unintended consequences that hasn’t been raised but that I would be concerned about is we already have issues globally about people not actually pulling over for emergency vehicles. It’s actually one of my biggest bugbears. When I’m driving through the city and I see a police car or an ambulance come through and I see people not pull over, it really irritates me that people are not actually following the rules to ensure that people can be looked after safely.
Chris Bishop: Do you drive down Rocks Road?
RACHEL BOYACK: Ha, ha! We can talk about Rocks Road another time, Mr Bishop, but you guys never funded it. In nine years you didn’t, did you? No, no, no.
Chris Bishop: That’s true, but how are you going?
RACHEL BOYACK: Oh, look, Mr Bishop, I’m feeling pretty confident about Rocks Road, but back on to this bill—back on to this bill. One of the challenges, as the Green Party member, Teanau Tuiono, who has now left has talked about, is if we add more complexity to the system—more coloured lights, more vehicles that people need to pull over for—it creates confusion, and I think it would have an unintended consequence of making the system far more complex for drivers and making them actually less likely to pull over for those vehicles.
I think there are two important solutions here, specifically for Auckland. One is that I think the members opposite need to embrace new forms of transport, such as improving our bus system, improving our train system, improving walking and cycling options—actually dealing with the congestion, because if you put more cars on the road, you get more congestion. So actually committing to reducing congestion, talking to your fellow Auckland MPs, talking to Waka Kotahi, talking to Auckland Transport, talking to other MPs to actually come up with an Auckland solution—that is actually what needs to happen here, rather than wasting the House’s time with unnecessary legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Well, Mr Speaker, thank you. Kia orana. It gives me a real buzz to be able to stand here today and talk about the Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill, and I am delighted to take a call on a member’s bill in the name of my very energised friend here, Simeon Brown, the great MP for Pakuranga, my neighbouring area.
What a fascinating evening it’s been, because what we’ve heard from the other side is really a series of excuses for why it’s just all a bit too hard. We’ve got Mr O’Connor who’s getting migraine headaches from coloured lights. We’ve got other people saying it’s just a little bit too much work for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and the member for Northcote and I both know we spend a third of that meeting discussing what’s on the morning tea agenda and whether Mr Eagle has secured product from the Chatham Islands or not.
Chris Bishop: Is that right?
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yep. And the third excuse was a classic: it’s just an Auckland-only issue. There are only 1.7 million people living there, but let’s just forget about that! I just think the average New Zealander watching this this evening is looking at this, going, “This is a pretty common sense, practical, no nonsense, straightforward sort of bill and we should be doing it.” And I think “Too many lights”, “Too much work”, and “Just an Auckland-only issue” probably really isn’t good enough.
If we cut to the chase, this is really, at the heart of this issue, an issue around road congestion, and let’s just be really honest: in the time of this Government, road congestion has gone from 77 hours in 2017 to 95 hours in 2019. That means the average Auckland motorway user is spending almost 2½ work-hour weeks per year in lost productivity, just sitting on the motorway, going nowhere—up 23 percent; so an incredible loss of daily productivity, a huge loss in terms of just inconveniencing people’s daily lives, as they go to work, as they go to get educated, as they do a bunch of things. And I can tell you the fine people out in East Auckland who are from Pakuranga and Botany know all about this, because they’ve been paying a regional fuel tax for the last three years and they’ve got no public transport options there. In fact, the only one that was being built was something called the Eastern Busway. It’s been going for almost 20 years. It got delayed another two years as a result of—
Simeon Brown: Why’d it get delayed?
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m going to tell you why it got delayed: because this city is gridlocked but this Government isn’t actually funding critical projects. It likes to talk about it, likes to announce stuff, likes to allocate budget, but it doesn’t understand you’ve actually got to do stuff and how to actually execute things and get things done. But the good news is the $785 million cycle and walking bridge, which the member for Northcote has been so excited about for 61 days. I know Mr Wood is calling it a current proposal, but it’s had a lot of resistance. Did you get that one, Mr Seymour? Resistance—another electrical pun.
David Seymour: I’m an electrical engineer; I know all about it.
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, it’s good. But 61 days, and that’s now gone. So maybe there’s some hope that we can use some of that to get some things done, but until fundamentally the Government bins the bridge, until it starts investing properly in roads, there’s no way that we can get vehicles that are responding to electrical emergencies through that gridlock as quickly as we need to.
Over the weekend, we saw in Auckland some pretty extreme weather events. Trees hit cars, fences got blown down, power voltage lines came down. It was a really tangible example of what’s at issue here. And the bottom line is that this bill is pretty straightforward. When you just zoom out and take a look at it, this sort of legislation already exists in places like Sweden and France—very, very normal to help vehicles to respond to electrical emergencies really quickly. The proposals that my good colleague is recommending are very targeted, small adjustments to the Land Transport Act. We can work out the type of lights, we can make sure other motorists pull over and give way as they go through, and we’ve well defined what an electrical emergency situation actually is.
As my good colleague pointed out, there is a car crash, a car hitting a power pole in Auckland, every single day on average.
Chris Bishop: Every day?
CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Every single day. A car hits a power line every single day, and that has some pretty grave consequences, and if you just think about—I know everyone’s being quite flippant about it this evening, but there are some really serious things here: people who are relying on power for their health reasons, people who are medically dependent on power. They genuinely create life and death consequences. First responders can’t respond to accidents until powerlines have been resolved, and having Vector trucks or lines companies stuck in traffic before they can actually get to the car or to the victim is a real problem. So, as Vector has said, this bill will actually save lives, and that’s quite a serious thing; that’s something that we should be really fixated on and we should be able to do something about it.
I’d just say to you that these lines mechanics don’t bike themselves over the new bicycle bridge—you know, for 61 days it’s been in existence. They can’t walk or they can’t catch the bus. So the public transport arguments that our Green member Teanau Tuiono made are interesting but are not particularly helpful. At the end of the day, I’d just say that this is an excellent, very practical bill. People watching this will say, “That is common sense. It makes sense. It’s a good thing that would improve my daily life and we de-risk the whole situation.” So thank you very much. We commend the bill to the House.
SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity this evening to speak on the Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill. Coming out of that last speech, it just shows how the National Party are really focused on the wrong things, and this is just another example. This morning, we talked about Aotearoa New Zealand as a priority for a debate, demanding the debate; He Puapua; gangs. We’ve got all these things that are not relevant to everyday New Zealanders.
But I’ll come back to Simeon Brown with respect, and congratulations to you, Simeon, for pulling your member’s bill out of the ballot. There is, I guess, principle in this that I appreciate that you are trying to address—the wellbeing and emergency of certain New Zealanders, and, this evening, we’ve particularly talked about those in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, and I accept that and acknowledge that particular part. I guess the compelling evidence that you’re talking about tonight and the reason why you’re asking to support this is particularly the issue with congestion in Auckland. I accept the points of Mr Luxon that we have real congestion challenges in Auckland. Nobody’s questioning that. The question is: who’s getting on and doing the mahi, who’s doing the work, and who’s got the plan, actually, to get things done? I do find it disappointing, Mr Luxon, that you have a low view of the quality and time spent in our Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I suspect that you should possibly review your conversation in that meeting itself. But what I do know is that the important work that we are focused on in that select committee, as an example, is going through the process of important matters like the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. That was a very good piece of work that we worked on collectively to ensure that New Zealanders are safer on the roads. Credit where credit’s due.
The challenge—and where I say that National is not focused on the right things at the moment and everyone knows it across Aotearoa New Zealand—is that why would we put this particular bill through a select committee process? Why would we take time up in the House to discuss something that we are already able to achieve, Mr Brown? And the thing is, is what we see in this is that, yes, New Zealand Transport Agency—there is a discussion that is able to happen to resolve some of the challenges that you’re raising. And I ask you: why have you not brought those parties together to come to a solution to work it out and why is it at this stage that Vector has not engaged with the Government agency to seek a resolution should those lives be so important? Because when it’s at the cost of lives, we just make it happen. We put the politics aside, bring the parties together, and come to a particular resolution.
But coming back to congestion, and we keep on talking about the things that we need to do, the reality is that the National-ACT Government didn’t do anything in transport in Auckland. There was low, low investment over that time and that’s why we’re in the space that we’re particularly in now. But congestion can’t be solved by shifting parts around. In Auckland, anyone that understands transport and congestion—roads are congested at particular parts or times of the day. They’re not congested 24/7, right? And so you’ve got to understand and read the data and read the evidence as to how you decongest our roads at that particular time. And our very important Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that I’m signed up to, is doing the work to address that particular issue.
So coming back to: is congestion the compelling reason why we should support the bright lights of this particular bill? No, it’s not. It’s something that we are able to achieve now, Mr Brown, and I reach out to you. Encourage these parties to come together. Stop using congestion as the issue; we can make this happen now. The work that we need to do is get on, build the infrastructure that we need across Auckland to decongest our roads and make way for those that need them. That’s what is important here. We’ve got to focus on the things that matter and taking up the time of this House, taking up the time of select committee is not the best use of the work that we are about to do.
HELEN WHITE (Labour): I rise to take a call in opposition to this bill, and I do so having had a look at the Land Transport Act and also at the regulatory systems Act and thought about the best way to deal with an issue like this. Now, Simeon Brown says that he wants to have a bill that’s specifically about vehicles that do electric emergency work. What about the gas area? What about chemical spills? What about other people who might need this? Those are the types of people who actually go to the right agency, which is Waka Kotahi, and they go through a process and they actually are looked at in their merit. And that Act sets out the capacity for that agency to go through and look at the particular group asking for this kind of status and the needs of the community with regard to that. That is a process that’s set up, and for the life of me I do not understand why Simeon Brown would not actually use that process and why Vector Energy wouldn’t use that process. It does seem to be a piece of legislation that supports one particular lobbyist that has gone to the National Party, and Mr Brown has put up a bill specifically for that group. And I take my friend in the ACT Party’s view—
David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order, David Seymour—I’ll just get Helen White to sit down.
David Seymour: Learn the rules. Standing Order 121 says it is outside of the Standing Orders to impugn or impute an improper motive to a member. Now, what Helen White, the member for Auckland Central, has just done—
Chris Bishop: She’s not the MP for Auckland Central.
David Seymour: Oh, she’s not the member for Auckland Central?
Chris Bishop: She lost.
David Seymour: Oh, sorry.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you get to the point of order?
David Seymour: Yeah, sorry, I apologise to the member.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: And, actually, before you do, I’m going to require Chris Bishop to stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Chris Bishop: What, for pointing out the truth? I stand, withdraw, and apologise.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no, not for that. I’ll tell you why: points of order are heard in silence, as he well knows.
Chris Bishop: Fair enough. I withdraw and apologise.
David Seymour: The accusation and imputation of improper motives on to the member responsible for this bill are unparliamentary. We can’t have our standards slip to where people are just slagging across the House telling people that they are corrupt and have impure motivations to bring a bill to this House. I think the member has to withdraw and apologise for that comment. It’s clearly in contradiction of Standing Order 121.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s not what I heard, so that might be your interpretation of it. There are certain things that members can say, but that was not to the point that I believe that she has broken a Standing Order.
HELEN WHITE: Thank you, sir. In fact, just to take that point, there is absolutely no way I would do that. I am lobbied all the time, and I don’t consider it corrupt to listen to the lobbying, but I do think it’s an important thing to point out that this bill only looks at one group of people who may be irritated by having to go through a process that actually respects the rights of everybody and balances them and weighs them.
We’ve had a lot of points made tonight about “What if everybody wanted this and everybody had a different coloured light, and would it work?”, and it probably wouldn’t. We’ve had actually one of your own colleagues in ACT talk—sorry, David Seymour’s own colleagues in ACT—very compellingly about the need for some people to get a better run than others in terms of things like midwives or doctors, and those people actually have been through a process. They don’t all have their own Act. They go through a process and respect that process, and that’s the way we do business, and it’s a good way to do business. In something like transport, those agencies have the best knowledge of those things, and we have delegated those kinds of considerations to them and given them rules in the legislation which they will follow to get there, and that seems a very sensible system to me.
I do wonder why these bills keep on coming up that actually just do something already in law. I wonder if there is a bit of a vacuum here, where people cannot come up with something that’s actually original. There’s so many gaps out there at the moment that we actually do need to fill, and on my side of the House, I believe that may of the backbenchers are coming up with really great new ideas. They’re fresh ideas. They’re bringing things to the table. So this is not something that I do think needs to be done or, in fact, would add to anything. In fact, I think it would erode the rights of others, who stand alongside workers like the workers at Vector and actually need just as much consideration and actually have gone through respecting the processes that are there. So I urge Vector to go back and talk to the right agency and go through the proper process and be considered and have a measured, weighed decision in the legislation that I trust will work.
I would just like to talk about the congestion in Auckland for a minute and the relationship to this. I don’t really think it’s relevant. I take the point from the ACT Party member who spoke before, Simon Court, where he talked about the fact that this is an issue really where you’d need to train people. You’d need to make sure that they were actually able to use these. You need wraparound in that way, and that is very important. Actually, in a congested city, that becomes even more important. So I don’t think that this issue is created by congestion; I think it’s an issue that has arisen because one particular group doesn’t want to go through the proper process for going and doesn’t want to be measured alongside other groups that may have a competing right and need for this. So I am absolutely confident that Waka Kotahi will look at this situation in a good and well-informed way, and I look forward to a process that is more appropriate, and for that reason we simply cannot support this legislation.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I rise disappointed with the out-of-touch members on the other side of the House who don’t even understand what’s happening in their backyards in Auckland, which is full of congestion, which is hard to get around, and this bill is trying to seek a solution to a problem which will and could save lives for people where there are electrical emergencies. The cases that I put forward are where there are people who—there are accidents where cars go into electrical power lines where the electrical response vehicles can’t respond quickly due to the fact that they are stuck in traffic while police and the ambulance and fire brigade are there and they can’t do anything until the power is off, people who are medically dependent on electricity.
This is the Government which is meant to be about kindness but has nothing to say about the people who are the victims in this situation. The Labour Party and the Government—all they had was excuses: “This is too much work.” Well, I’m sorry. Sometimes it actually takes a bit of work in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to actually do some work. Sometimes you actually have to do some work around the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
This Government hasn’t delivered on one single transport project in Auckland. Your cycle bridge over the harbour bridge—that’s about to be a “gone-burger”. It’s about to be gone. Just so you know, if you’re an electrical response vehicle person, you can’t actually get all your tools on the bus or train. You actually need a vehicle. And you can’t get them on your bike either. You’ve actually got to go down the roads and those roads are getting busier and busier in Auckland but also across New Zealand in our other major cities. This Government is out of touch with the needs of New Zealanders. This bill is about addressing one of the significant issues which needs to be addressed. I commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Vehicles Responding to Electrical Emergency) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 33
New Zealand National 33.
Noes 85
New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.
Motion not agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it’s come time for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.