Wednesday, 11 August 2021

WEDNESDAY, 11 AUGUST 2021

WEDNESDAY, 11 AUGUST 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

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

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Barbara Joyce requesting that the House increase benefit levels or provide additional income support to Chatham Islands residents

petition of Democracy for Myanmar Working Group New Zealand requesting that the House urge the Government to recognise the National Unity Government (NUG) as the legitimate Government of Myanmar.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

I present an erratum to the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Results of our 2019/20 audits of port companies. That paper is published under the authority of the House.

A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing from the New Zealand Bankers’ Association.

SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration.

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): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s continued commitment to supporting people into meaningful and sustainable work as part of our recovery. Today, we announced that over 800 job seekers will be supported on pathways into employment, education, and training through funding into the Māori Trades and Training Fund and He Poutama Rangatahi projects. We’re already seeing the positive signs of this Government recovery plan, with unemployment falling to 4 percent. There are now 63,000 more people in jobs since September 2020, and another 31,000 entered paid work off the benefit in the June quarter. This Government continues to back our recovery.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did it take until 29 January this year for New Zealand to raise its first order of Pfizer vaccines?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Sorry, would the member mind repeating the question?

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, I would be happy to—thank you. Why did it take until 29 January this year for New Zealand to raise its first order of Pfizer vaccines?

SPEAKER: To raise its order?

Hon Judith Collins: It’s a term meaning to actually order.

SPEAKER: Right, OK. Sorry. [Interruption] Sorry, it’s not one that I’d heard before—that’s fine.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. Forgive me, Mr Speaker, I’m just not entirely clear on the member—is she asking the question over whether or not we increased our order in January, when we had a completed contract? I’m just not clear on the content of the member’s question. What the member will be aware of—and if I am given questions on notice, it enables me to give full time lines—is when we began our programme of ordering vaccines, we did take a portfolio approach. That was because there were a number of different vaccines in the market. Some—the RNA vaccines, for instance—were less well-known to the wider public health community. They were newer technological developments, and there were others that were more traditional. We took the option of ordering within each of those different portfolios to give us good coverage. As we progressed in some of those discussions, it was clear to us that there were some that were completing clinical trials earlier than others and some that had better data than others. So we made the decision ultimately to, in the end, go with a singular vaccine, because that gave us both logistical improvements, great efficacy across the board, and just the consistency for our population.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did it take until 29 January this year for New Zealand to order its first Pfizer vaccines when Pfizer is the only vaccine approved in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Oh, the member—if I may just go through the process again, we made orders before there would be approvals, and that was the case for every single vaccine that we’ve had. You make the orders because the approval process requires you to get manufacturing data. You wouldn’t get approval for a vaccine that you hadn’t, in fact, ordered and had the intention of purchasing, and so that’s just merely a sequencing issue. Again, I’m happy to go through the full process of ordering a pharmaceutical product in New Zealand, if the member would be so inclined. But, again, I encourage the member—questions like this, if you pop them on notice, I can bring down the time line for every single decision.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealand purchased 1.5 million doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine last year and that there is a technical process of issuing a purchase order for each delivery where the purchase order is issued within days of the expected date of that delivery?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes, I can. This is where, again, I just highlight for the member there is a process here where we enter into negotiations and contracts with companies to deliver for across our population and then go through a Medsafe process, and then we’ve got the deliveries themselves. As the member knows, we get about a four-week notice before they’ve come in and, as the member has said, there are some other technical elements that we go through. I think the member might be alluding to something that’s just factually incorrect here. Again, if the member puts things on notice, I can come down and happily correct her. If the member is suggesting that we didn’t actually have a contract with Pfizer to deliver for our population, she is wrong.

Hon Judith Collins: Is the Prime Minister saying that the Hon Chris Hipkins gave an incorrect answer to Chris Bishop when he advised him that the first order was made on 29 January this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. In fact, the member himself actually just reflected and interpreted what Mr Bishop has misinterpreted.

Hon Judith Collins: Has New Zealand ordered any booster shots yet?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Keeping in mind that we have more than enough vaccine already for our entire population and beyond—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am going to warn the Leader of the Opposition that she will not chip me when I call her to order. [Interruption] Well, sorry, there was a—well, Nick Smith’s not here now, so I don’t have that problem. But there was an indication in the—referring to the Prime Minister in a way which polite people don’t, which I thought came from the Leader of the Opposition. If it came from another member, I would like that member to indicate who it was.

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The MP who has indicated it was him is a man. I am a woman. I am right in front of you. If you can’t tell whether it’s me or not, please do not name me like that.

SPEAKER: Well, I apologise to the member. I did notice her lips moving.

Hon Judith Collins: By what date will everyone in New Zealand who wants to be be able to be vaccinated?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The same indication and timetable we’ve said all the way through. Our goal is by the end of this year for everyone who wants a vaccine to have access to be vaccinated.

Hon Judith Collins: And why were more than 70 unvaccinated port workers allowed to board a ship, despite her promising more than four months ago that unvaccinated port workers would be removed from the front line?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We traversed this in great detail yesterday. Of course, they have been able to access a vaccine since the very beginning of our roll-out. We prioritised port workers, so that was right at the start. We wanted them to be in that queue. One of the issues that was raised with us by port companies was that if we had critical port workers who did refuse or did not take up that initial offer, if we were to mandate it and have job loss, we may see a complete stop in some of our supply chain, which was already under a lot of pressure. We took the decision to mandate, but on a time line that, working alongside ports, they believed that they could work around if they did have critical workers drop out. I would highlight, in fairness to the ports, that, actually, of those directly employed by the ports, we’ve had reasonable uptake. It is often those who are contracted by the ports to come in where we have had lower uptake.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement that “This Government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand by our actions to improve openness and transparency. In fact, the most recent Transparency International 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks New Zealand first equal, again, which is to be celebrated. We’ve taken significant steps to increase transparency since coming into office. This includes the proactive release of Cabinet papers within 30 days of a decision, and the proactive release of ministerial diaries on a monthly basis, an innovation of this Government. We also supported the changes made this term to increase ministerial accountability to the House, including Ministers now—as we know—answering questions from members during ministerial statements, Estimates, and annual review debates. So, yes, I stand by that statement.

David Seymour: Why then were documents relating to the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Group released to select journalists privately yesterday, prior to the Government’s scheduled forum on Thursday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: My understanding is that they are now all publicly available. There is a press release of the advice, and it’s available to anyone who would choose to access it. The reason we did it in advance of the Government giving a response to the advice is actually because we wanted people to have time to digest the advice themselves. It also gives the chance for people to see what we had to consider, and because that is a forum where questions will be able to be asked, it gives people a chance to consider the issues that they may wish to canvass with the group that provided the advice. I do find it interesting that the member is criticising us for releasing the information that he wanted to see just yesterday. We’ve done that, but apparently now that is still not quite—

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very clear question: why did she choose to selectively and privately release it to some journalists? The Prime Minister had answered the question and carried on for some time after that, and I just ask that she be asked to follow the same rules as we are when asking questions.

SPEAKER: That is probably fair, but—and I will call the member in a second—I think it’s also fair that I do get complaints every now and again about Ministers not being as fulsome as Opposition members want. Where the response is trying to get the point of balance, it’s about right, and I think the tradition from this Chair has been to be more flexible with leaders of parties, which the member himself has benefited from on occasions.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will any other information relating to the reports of the Strategic COVID-19 Public Health Advisory Committee be released publicly, and, if so, will it be released publicly at once to everyone or just drip fed privately to some journalists?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I believe the member is referring to the concept commonly known as an embargo, and that is not uncommon to provide information under embargo to allow interviewers and journalists to prepare for interviews. To the primary part of the member’s question, though, we’ve released the totality of the advice that we received from Professor David Skegg and the group that we convened, but what I would also add is that that is not the only advice that, of course, we as a Cabinet take into consideration. We’ve looked at, for instance, the modelling released by Te Pūnaha Matatini and Shaun Hendy, we’ve considered the advice that we received from departments, including the likes of Treasury, we do have the groups led by Rob Fyfe and Brian Roche—and we also, of course, are keenly interested in their views—and, finally, I would also say that the advice of international organisations such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are things that Professor Skegg himself has used to inform his work, and we look at that data directly as well. We’ve also been very keenly watching the data out of the UK.

David Seymour: Were any of the recommendations generated by the group chaired by Sir David Skegg subject to the $252,945 worth of focus grouping and opinion polling undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) on the Government’s COVID response, and, if not, will she rule out focus grouping the recommendations she’s just released?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the first part of the member’s question: no, it has not. In response to the second part of the question: the things that the DPMC have made the decision to ask the public about have related in large part to vaccination, and I do think it’s important for us to understand why people choose not to be vaccinated. If the member is suggesting that we should not be interested in that and we should not be interested in issues of disinformation and how best to counter that, he can hold that view, but I would strongly disagree with him.

David Seymour: What new actions, if any—tangible actions—to be implemented in the next month will the Government take based on the information released today?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ll be sharing a response tomorrow.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s efforts to secure the recovery are being reflected in the jobs market. For the fifth month in a row, the SEEK New Zealand Employment Report shows a record-breaking number of jobs advertised, with job ads increasing by 2 percent in July from the previous month. For the year, job ads rose 88 percent while job ad numbers are now 27 percent above pre-COVID highs. Unemployment has fallen to 4 percent, reflecting the stronger than expected economic activity and an economy operating above pre-COVID levels.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the global context of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The OECD’s latest composite leading indicators show signs of a moderating pace of growth at above-trend levels in the OECD area. The latest indicators point to signs of a moderating pace of growth in the US, Japan, and Canada. Similar indications have emerged in the UK and in the euro area as a whole, including in Germany and Italy. In France, there are also signs of a moderating pace of growth with its indicators still below trend. All of this indicates that the New Zealand economy operates in a very uncertain and volatile global context and in one in which it’s important that we remain nimble and agile.

Dr Duncan Webb: What reports has he seen on the impact of the Government’s housing package on the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Today, the QV House Price Index was released and it shows that house prices are now becoming more sustainable, with quarterly price growth slowing for the third successive month. The average value increased 4.3 percent in the three months to the end of July, down from 6.6 percent growth in the previous month. Three-monthly value growth has more than halved since April. All of the 16 major urban centres that Quotable Value (QV) monitors have shown a reduction in quarterly growth compared to the previous period. As QV said today, “the market is clearly cooling now as a result of Government and Reserve Bank policy initiatives aimed at dampening the enthusiasm of investors.”

Question No. 4—Health

4. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Which of the new health indicators he announced last week directly measures waiting times for cancer management, if any, and how many people with a primary diagnosis of cancer have currently been waiting more than four months for management?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): To the first part of the question, the purpose of the health system indicators is to measure how the health system is operating as a whole. Every indicator relates to system-wide decision-making, except for the one relating to mental health treatment for young people because there is a particular critical need in this area right now. The member’s question doesn’t distinguish between targets, which encourage perverse outcomes that serve the needs of health providers rather than patients or the population they are part of, and the health indicators framework, which deals with the system-wide performance. Just to explain that: we all want fewer Kiwi kids being admitted to hospital for conditions which are preventable or that we manage through primary community care. The complexity is the significant variation in the practice leading to hospitalisation. So, for example, respiratory problems may be more prevalent in regions where it is colder or where there are higher rates of deprivation. The interventions by the health system in colder or more deprive d areas should be different to areas where other conditions are more prevalent. That is what the indicators will show. It’s how we will end the postcode lottery and it’s why we have the childhood ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations indicator.

To the second part of the question, maintaining waiting lists for cancer management is the responsibility of district health boards. All DHBs collect this information in a different way. This means that an accurate national view is not possible at this time. This inconsistency is why we have established Te Aho o Te Kahu, the Cancer Control Agency, and it is why we are reforming the hospital system across the board. However, what I can report is that the Minister of Health’s faster cancer treatment initiative aims to have 90 percent of patients receive their first cancer treatment, or rather management, within 62 days of being referred, and for the 2020-21 financial year quarter three—that is to say, the quarter ending 30 April this year—the national result is 85 percent.

Dr Shane Reti: Is the faster cancer initiative he has just described one of his health indicators?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, if the member’s first question is to be taken at face value, demonstrably he knows that it is not. The health indicators are about making sure the system as a whole runs to serve the needs of local populations and the national population as a whole.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he explain why last week’s health data revealed 30,000 people were waiting longer than the four months for hospital management, but his new indicator claims 3 percent more than planned?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The data that was released last week showed that there are waiting times for first specialist appointments, bearing in mind that some who have their first specialist appointment don’t go on to receive treatment and there are further waiting times, or a waiting list, for those waiting for treatment following their first specialist appointment. That has been part of the system for some time. The reality is, following the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the waiting time for those awaiting their treatment following their first specialist appointment is going down.

Dr Shane Reti: Why is he blaming the significant increase in patients waiting longer than four months for treatment on coronavirus when the wait list under Labour blew out from 2,000 people to 18,000 before the pandemic had even started?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, what I can point to is the disruption caused by COVID-19. In addition to that, what I can point to is the additional $282.5 million that this Government put into the hospital system to address those waiting lists over a period of three years, and those waiting times are coming down.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he name any one of his new health indicators that will improve in the first 12 months of his half-billion-dollar health system restructure?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The health system indicators will take effect from next year and they are about pointing out where the system is not meeting the population’s expectations. We know that, for example, in that ambulatory sensitive hospitalisation measure, the reasons why there are presentations to hospital for conditions that were, for example, the primary care system part of the health system working effectively—those people would not be presenting to hospital. So it is about having indicators that tell us where the system is in trouble so that we know where to go to fix the problem.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’m happy to announce that 10,497 vaccinators have now worked through the Pfizer vaccinator training course. With 5,114 of those people having been active in the vaccinator workforce since February, the increasing size and scope of the roll-out is clearly benefiting from their expertise. A huge amount of work has gone into having the vaccinator workforce ready to peak at the right time. The Ministry of Health predicts that we’ll need at least 1,600 fulltime-equivalent vaccinators during the periods of highest demand in September and October. Because many of the roles are part-time roles, during this key period we’ll actually need more like 6,500 people active on the vaccination roster at any one time, and hitting over 10,000 ready means that we’re ready to hit that goal.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How has the introduction of kaiāwhina vaccinators strengthened the wider vaccine workforce?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve seen a very strong response to our programme targeting kaiāwhina vaccinators—people already working in our health system in roles such as healthcare assistants. More than 250 people have signed up to be part of that, and 70 kaiāwhina trained vaccinators have already moved through that programme. Kaiāwhina have embraced the opportunity to learn how to vaccinate so that they can help to protect their communities. The programme is also helping us to boost the number of Māori and Pacific vaccinators, which will help to make sure everyone can feel comfortable when they access their shots.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What recent announcements have been made on extending accessibility of the vaccine to more New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Following a strong uptake from the 60-plus and the 55-plus age groups, COVID-19 vaccination bookings are now open to all New Zealanders aged 50-plus, or will be open from Friday 13 August, which is earlier than planned. This brings an additional 319,000 people into the programme, and they can start to take up their vaccines from Friday. Being able to open another age band so quickly is a good confidence booster in the programme, and shows that New Zealanders are embracing the opportunity to be vaccinated.

Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: How is uptake of Book My Vaccine progressing alongside the wider vaccination roll-out?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Contrary to some earlier predictions, the Book My Vaccine system has been very, very successful. The booking system continues to perform well, with a record 296,650 vaccinations booked in the last week alone. We now have over a million vaccinations booked in the system. In terms of delivery of the vaccines, as of midnight last night, 2,293,000-plus doses of the vaccine have been delivered.

Question No. 6—Revenue

6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Revenue: What reassessment, if any, has he made on the merits of removing interest deductibility from rental income now that public consultation has closed, and what is his response to Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand, who said the proposal risked making the housing affordability situation worse?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): The member’s premise is incorrect. Firstly, interest deductibility is not being removed for investment in new builds. Secondly, the public consultation was on the finer design details of the removal of interest deductibility for existing residential property and how the exemption for new builds will work. The consultation was not on the merits of the overall policy. The chartered accountants’ submission was one of many. The Government is considering all submissions and will make and announce final decisions on the design details in the coming weeks.

Andrew Bayly: Why does he maintain that interest deductibility on rental income is a tax loophole when tax professionals say that it isn’t?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There’s no doubt that the ability of highly leveraged investors to deduct interest in their property portfolios is a very significant matter in the market. We believe that action was needed. Investors in the housing market who were investors for rent increased substantially over the past year. In quarter four, at the end of last year, around 40 percent of all property transfers were to the owners of multiple properties, and the amount that was being borrowed by investors who can deduct their interest was increasing at a higher rate than was able to be borrowed by owner-occupiers. We stand by our view that change was necessary, and we also believe that the data—as the Minister of Finance outlined earlier—shows that this policy is helping turn things around.

Andrew Bayly: Can he confirm that long-term build-to-rent developments will be exempt from the new tax rule?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can confirm that we’re consulting on the details to ensure that new builds are properly exempt from the rules.

Andrew Bayly: Does he still believe, as he stated in his response to my oral question on 8 July, that it would be “absurd” for a landlord to evict their tenants if the removal of interest deductibility forced landlords to sell their property, despite Treasury advising it will?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Putting aside the fact that there is a four-year transition in respect of existing properties that are leveraged, the point that I was making was that if they do choose to sell their property, the house does not—I think the phrase that I used was sort of erupt into flames. It actually becomes housing stock for someone else to use, so the net effect on the housing market and the availability of housing would be nil.

Andrew Bayly: What proportion of the $800 million in extra tax that the Treasury forecast this change will cost landlords do officials expect will be passed on to tenants through higher rents?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The calculations as to what the tax effects of this are can’t be finalised until the design detail is.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about funding for health research?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Recently, I announced the latest round of research grants into some of New Zealand’s biggest health concerns. Cancer, diabetes, and heart disease research will now get support through health research funding. A total of $68.4 million has been awarded through the Health Research Council and covers 31 general project grants, five Rangahau Hauora Māori grants, five Pacific project grants, and four longer-term programme grants. The Government is committed to improving the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders, and research is a vital part of this endeavour.

Dr Liz Craig: What will this funding achieve?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The research funded will investigate issues ranging from vaccine hesitancy through to improving genetic diagnoses for tamariki across Aotearoa. For example, one of the researchers who received a grant is Dr Jason Gurney, who holds a Health Research Council Māori Health Research Emerging Leadership Fellowship. Dr Gurney’s project focuses on exploring the growing crisis of diabetes and cancer co-occurrence, and its impact on what happens to people with cancer. This research will allow us to predict how many people are likely to have both diseases in future, so we can not only plan for that but actually prevent the incidence of it. The projects funded this year show New Zealand developing innovative approaches that will have immediate effect on the health system, and that it has an agile and capable research sector that can respond to community needs and emerging health threats.

Dr Liz Craig: How will this research benefit Māori and Pacific people?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Māori and Pacific peoples are twice as likely to die young from conditions that could have been treated, and being Māori or Pacific even determines what sort of treatment you get—at least, it does at the moment. Our plan for dealing with this includes looking at why that is happening and finding effective ways to deal with it. Included among the successful applications are projects led by Māori and Pacific researchers and driven by kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies that will help to reduce inequities in health for Māori and Pacific peoples.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Transport: Does this Government intend to proceed with the “separate structure for walking and cycling alongside the Auckland Harbour Bridge” as proposed; if not, when will he formally cancel it?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): A separate structure for walking and cycling alongside the Auckland Harbour Bridge remains the preferred option within the New Zealand Upgrade Programme package, alongside our work to advance an alternative Waitematā Harbour crossing. As previously outlined, Ministers will make final decisions about how to take the project forward and give Aucklanders walking and cycling access across the Waitematā after receiving final advice from officials.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Are comments by New Zealand Herald political editor Claire Trevett that “[the PM] has all but confirmed the Government will scrap the unpopular plan for a $785 million Auckland cycle bridge,” an accurate assessment of the Government’s position on the bridge?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I’m quite certain that both Claire Trevett and myself are very pleased that neither of us have responsibility for the comments of the other one, but what I can confirm is that the Government does continue to look to the best options to give Aucklanders walking and cycling access across the Waitematā Harbour. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to reiterate that, again, yesterday I received a series of complaints about barracking drowning out answers, and—sorry, I should have stood up and that would have meant that it was less likely that there’d be interjection. Can people just wind it back so people who are trying to listen to this, some of whom think it’s important, can actually hear it.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I take your point, but the Minister made a reasonably wry remark that provoked some humour from this side of the House; in fact, it provoked some humour from his colleagues, notably the Deputy Prime Minister. We can’t get to a situation where the House can’t enjoy a moment of levity and respond accordingly, and I put it to you that that should be allowed and, in fact, encouraged.

SPEAKER: Yeah, and if there’d been a brief moment of levity as the member said, and not cries of derision drowning out the Minister, then I would totally agree with him. I’d love the place to be happier much more of the time.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: What has changed in just 68 days from when he said “Auckland [wouldn’t] reach its potential without it.”, and now, when it’s being scrapped?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I reject the assertion in the member’s question. The Government has consistently remained committed to walking and cycling access across the Waitematā Harbour—that is something that Aucklanders want to see happen. But we’ve always taken the point of view that we’ll listen to the advice, we’ll listen to the views that we hear, and we’ll make the best decisions about how we take that project forward.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: No, no, before the member goes, I just want to say that there are now members down the far end who are having conversations with each other which are making their way up here.

Hon Member: Humour’s contagious.

SPEAKER: It’s hard enough with the main problem causes without having additional ones adding to it, thank you.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can the New Zealand public distinguish between projects that are cancelled and projects that are delayed when the words “remains the preferred option” are used for both situations?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well, I’ve been very clear and the Government’s been very clear that we have an option that is in front of us at the moment. I think that New Zealanders are sufficiently aware of the fact that that’s the option but that the Government continues to consider the evidence. I don’t think that’s a particularly difficult concept for anyone to get their heads around.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he been thrown under the bus by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, and, if so, does he wish he was in East Auckland, where at least there wouldn’t be a bus to throw himself under?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, I haven’t, but if perchance someday I am thrown under the bus, I’ll have a check and see if the homeless man’s hiding under there too. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: All right, OK—both sides have had some fun.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is his top priority in the Transport portfolio reducing carbon emissions; if so, what steps is he taking to achieve this?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): It is one of my top priorities. Given transport has been one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand, the need to take action is very, very strong. So far, this Government has taken a number of steps, including continuing the work of the last term and investing record amounts into walking, cycling, rail, and public transport, rolling out our clean-car package to drive down emissions from the light vehicle fleet, taking a holistic view of reducing transport emissions through Hīkina te Kohupara, setting a target of councils only purchasing zero-emissions public transport buses from 2025, and decarbonising the entire public bus fleet by 2035. I look forward to confirming what other steps the Government will take to reduce carbon emissions in transport as part of the Emissions Reduction Plan a little later this year.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that emissions from the private vehicle fleet have grown faster than the dairy and manufacturing sector over the last five years, and are now over 10 percent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Yes, I can confirm those figures. There is a particularly challenging issue within the transport sector where the growth in transport emissions, including from the light fleet, has been very significant. The overall increase since 1990, for example, has been 90 percent—the steepest increase of any sector. This speaks for the need for us to take strong and urgent action to reduce that emissions profile, and that’s what the Government’s programme is focusing on.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Would it be possible under urgent climate time frames to reduce emissions from the vehicles we are importing without policies like the Clean Car Standard and Clean Car Discount, which set fuel economy standards and make low-emissions vehicles financially more attractive than high-emissions vehicles?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, I do not believe that that would be possible. New Zealand’s performance in this area has not been strong in recent years and, in fact, some makes imported into New Zealand have increased their emissions profile in recent years. Virtually every country in the OECD, with the exception of New Zealand, Australia, and Russia, has a clean-car standard - type of policy that incentivises car importers to bring cleaner vehicles into the fleet. The Clean Car Discount complements that policy by incentivising New Zealanders into cleaner vehicles. Not only is it the case that without those policies we would struggle to improve our fleet; the risk is that if we didn’t have those policies, we would, in fact, become the dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest vehicles as other countries increase their level of ambition.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can he confirm that the Ministry of Transport’s green paper on reducing transport emissions states, “To reduce and avoid transport emissions, central and local government have to reconsider planned investments in major urban highway and road expansion projects”?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It is very clear that if we want to transition to a decarbonised transport system, we are going to have to change the kinds of investments that we make across the system. New Zealand’s pattern of investment over about 70 years has been disproportionately focused on the roading sector to the exclusion of good public transport and low-carbon options. You can see, for example, in some of the recent decisions that we’ve made, we have been investing in rail and public transport and good quality walking and cycling options to complement the roading options that New Zealanders already have. It’s important that we give New Zealanders real transport choices to move around our growing cities and our regions.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can New Zealand afford to spend many billions on transport infrastructure that won’t reduce emissions over the next 10 years, like the majority of the motorways that make up the majority of spending in the New Zealand Upgrade Programme?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: As I previously commented, we do need to invest in infrastructure that supports a decarbonised transport sector. The Government has made a series of investments in recent years which are about rebalancing the overall spend that Government makes in the transport sector, and I’m confident that the balance is good, but we will continue to make investments in the infrastructure that will support decarbonisation. I note, for example, the record $1.3 billion of investment the Government made in the Budget this year towards revitalising New Zealand’s rail sector to make sure that we move more freight around our country in a carbon-friendly way.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Has he seen research that cycling, including e-bikes, is 10 times more important than electric cars for reaching net zero cities, and will he provide financial incentives for people to buy e-bikes and cargo bikes to replace their car trips?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: There is absolutely no doubt that e-bikes are a very, very important part of supporting people to have better access within our cities and reducing our carbon emissions. The demand in New Zealand for e-bikes is very, very high, so there’s good work happening there already. What’s really important is that we provide the safe infrastructure so that people who do take up e-bike options are able to move around cities and towns confidently. That’s why, for example, in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project package earlier this year, there’s a $1.1 billion investment over 10 years in safe walking and cycling infrastructure. The Government hasn’t made any decisions at this point about financial assistance for e-bikes, but we continue to consider a range of policies as part of our work on the Emissions Reduction Plan.

Question No. 10—Māori Development

10. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Māori Development: What recent reports, if any, has he seen on the Government’s Māori Housing Network programme?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): I have seen a report that shows the Māori Housing Network repair programme, which is administered by Te Puni Kōkiri, has delivered critical repairs to 1,471 Māori homes throughout Aotearoa since 2018. The repairs include reroofing properties to ensure they remain warm and dry, rewiring old homes so our people are safe and protected, replacing walls and ceilings that had been covered in black mould, and ensuring the house is secure by repairing broken windows and cladding. Everyone deserves to live in a warm, safe, and healthy home, regardless of where they are, and I’m proud of the work that TPK—Te Puni Kōkiri—is doing out in rural New Zealand to enable this to happen.

Arena Williams: How is the Māori Housing Network making a difference for Māori communities?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I recently visited Kaingaroa Forest, Murupara, and Minginui, where I saw firsthand the difference this programme is making for our rural Māori communities. In Kaingaroa Village, for example, I was invited into one of the homes by one of the ladies there, one of our kuia there, where I was told the difference that having a new roof and having the house rewired had made to her wellbeing and three generations of the one family who were living there. She said that the change in lifestyle was immense and that the whānau would never have been in a financial position to do the repairs themselves. We have reroofed and rewired over 90 homes in this little village, and, alongside other economic investments, the spring is starting to return in the steps of those who have called the village home for many years.

Arena Williams: How is the Government supporting the future of the Māori Housing Network?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Alongside the work being led by Ministers Woods and Henare to build new houses, this Government recognises that everyone deserves to live in warm, safe, and dry homes. That is why this Government, as part of our overall Māori housing investment of $730 million, assigned $140 million over the next four years to the Māori Housing Network, where we will build new papakāinga and undertake critical repairs to more than 700 existing houses.

Question No. 11—Energy and Resources

11. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Is it correct that she was first informed of a New Zealand - wide power emergency when One News called her just before 8.30 p.m., and when was her office first informed of Monday’s power emergency?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: Not quite. I was first advised of Monday’s power emergency by a text message from my press secretary at 8.36 p.m. in response to the phone call she had received from One News. A member of my staff in my office was sent an email from Transpower at 7.51 p.m. on Monday, which, understandably, the staff member had not picked up prior to the One News call. This morning, I met with the chair and chief executive of Transpower and received an apology for the lack of earlier communication with my office. Transpower agreed that earlier and direct communication was needed and will occur in future. My priority now is to determine what caused the power outage and what must be done to avoid it happening again.

Barbara Kuriger: Was the Minister advised by the office of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises about the grid emergency notice, and, if so, is she aware of when he was advised?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I don’t believe so, but I haven’t asked for a specific—I didn’t know to ask that particular question. I had a thorough briefing before I came, but that issue wasn’t raised with me.

Barbara Kuriger: Can the Minister confirm that it takes Huntly between six and 10 hours to fire up an additional generator, and can she also confirm that it takes her office more time to tell her about a power emergency occurring than it does for Huntly to fire up a generator?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, the member’s arithmetic inadequacy is disclosed by that question, which, of course, cannot be reconciled with the answer that I’ve just given her.

Barbara Kuriger: Does the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! At least two members there should be quiet if they’d like this member to continue with her questions.

Barbara Kuriger: Does the Minister agree that there was both a failure of generation and a failure of communication by the Government on Monday of this week?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t agree with the generality of that proposition. There was generation capacity available to be fired up that day that was not fired up. The cause of that, whether there was adequate information provided by the system operator, Transpower, or whether the responses of generators were correct or whether there was perfect information provided by the system operator to the distribution companies—all of those matters need to be checked. The first of those inquiries looking into that is required by a matter of contract between Transpower and the Electricity Authority within 48 hours of the event. [Interruption]

Barbara Kuriger: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: The member can keep going. I know that someone else might want to ask one, but he has to stand up first.

Barbara Kuriger: Is the Minister aware that at 1.02 p.m., Transpower issued a warning that there were insufficient generation offers for the evening peak?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, but the first I became aware of that was following the text message that I received from my press secretary, which led to my more detailed understanding.

Question No. 12—Health

12. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcement has she made about vaping?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Today, new regulations came into force to protect young people and non-smokers from the risks associated with vaping. The Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Act 1990 strikes a balance between ensuring vaping and vaping products are not marketed to or sold to young people, but are available for smokers who want to switch to a less harmful alternative. New regulations to achieve this cover a range of areas, including vaping packaging, product safety, and the responsibility of manufacturers and importers selling vaping products or smokeless tobacco products. Finalising the vaping regulations is a significant step towards our Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 goal.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will these new regulations protect young New Zealanders from the risks of vaping?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Many of the regulatory controls are to protect tamariki and rangatahi. To help reduce the attractiveness and appeal of vaping products to young people, we are banning the use of cartoons and toys on packaging. We have also made it mandatory to display R18 notices with health warnings in retail settings. Also coming into effect today are previously announced actions which include removing the temptation created by various flavours. We’ve banned generic retailers such as dairies, service stations, and supermarkets from selling vaping products in flavours other than tobacco, mint, and menthol. Only specialist vape retailers will be able to sell other flavours. From the end of November, vaping and smoking in motor vehicles carrying children will be banned.

Dr Tracey McLellan: How will these regulations help to build a healthier future for Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in this country. While not without risks, vaping has a potential to help people quit smoking as a less harmful alternative. Other measures coming into effect today to protect New Zealanders from the risks of vaping include making it compulsory for a health warning to appear on the front and back of the product packaging in English and te reo Māori, and safety messaging must also be displayed. Manufacturers and importers can now start to notify the Ministry of Health of their intention to sell vaping and smokeless tobacco products. From February next year, they must have notified the ministry before these products can be sold in New Zealand, and these products must meet safety requirements before they can be notified. The new regulations will reduce harm and are risk proportionate, cost-effective, and workable for the people they affect.

Urgent Debates

Electricity Supply—Power Outages

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday, I indicated that I had received letters from Simon Court and Barbara Kuriger seeking a debate under Standing Order 399 on the widespread power outages on the evening of 9 August. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Confidence in the electricity supply is a very significant matter. There is no other reasonably foreseeable opportunity to debate it, and there appears to me to be matters further to consider beyond the scope of the ministerial statement. Parliament is the place—while not all are matters to do with the electricity sector, some of which are private responsibilities—where it can be debated. It is the place where Ministers are held responsible for the overall system and the particular parts of the system which report to it. So I am going to grant the debate.

When I receive two applications for urgent debates on the same matter, preference is given to the application received first. Barbara Kuriger’s application was the first received, so I call on her to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

So Monday was a day in New Zealand where—we have been hoping for quite some time around the policies of this Government that the lights would not go out. Unfortunately, on Monday, sadly, our prediction came true for New Zealanders across a large part of the North Island. Now, in the ministerial statement, the Minister of Energy and Resources said New Zealanders “expect the lights to be on”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Minister of Finance.

BARBARA KURIGER: —“and the heaters to be running on a cold winter’s night.” So the first question around this is was this—so that’s why the situation unfolded, and my question around this was: was it avoidable? The Minister said it was unacceptable, but I ask, was it avoidable? Because it just seems that there are so many things that went on on Monday that seem to be unnoticed by this Government.

In the ministerial statement, “at 6.43 a.m. Transpower issued a low residual notice to participants following their forecast showing a deficit in generation during the forecast evening peak. Transpower requested more generation or less load.” And remember, it actually was an extremely cold weather forecast. There was a lot of snow blasting across the South Island and the peak of demand was always going to go up on that evening. Now, “At 1.02 p.m. … Transpower issued a warning” that there were insufficient generation offers for the evening peak, “and another warning was issued at 5.07 p.m. At 6.40 p.m., Transpower issued a request for network companies [and] direct grid connection[s] to shed load by 1 percent.” And then, “At 7.10 p.m., Transpower issued a grid emergency notice.”—a grid emergency notice that is required by law to go to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises with a dotted line across to the Minister. Now, we still haven’t had an answer from this Government as to what the Minister for State Owned Enterprises did with this grid emergency notice and whether anyone from his office notified the Minister.

Now, the disappointing thing about this was that the Minister said that she found out around about 8.30 on Monday night, and it has been reported that it was found out by the media. We’ve just heard from Minister Parker that it was a text that she received. Now, at 1.22 on Monday afternoon I received the Energy News via email, and it was already starting to talk about what had been happening earlier in the day. I’ve actually got that with me. And I would have thought that any Minister’s office or any Minister worth their salt would have actually picked up on what went on in the Energy News. Basically, it said, “Polar winds drive up load forecast: strong winds from the Antarctic are driving up electricity load forecasts around the country and the North Island in particular, where Transpower says residual generation will be below 200 megawatts for this evening’s peak. The system operator expects demand to peak this evening at 4800 MW in the North Island and 2200 MW in the South Island.” So I would have thought that if the Minister had been on her game, someone in her office may have informed her at that particular point in time, and so I have a question around why that did not happen.

I’m noticing also from the Minister’s statement—it said, in her ministerial statement the other day, “I will add that this Government has taken numerous steps towards ensuring the electricity market is working as it should”. Now, there seems to be a lot of finger-pointing towards the electricity market, but I’m wondering when the Government itself is actually going to look in the mirror and take some responsibility for some of what went on here. We look at the premature decision around the gas permit ban. Despite what we’ve been told, there have been some gas finds since the year 2000. It just so happened that the rig was sent away because it wasn’t considered an essential service at the time that COVID hit. So I’m really getting quite concerned that this Government is making some really, really poor decisions around how we actually make the system work, because it takes six to 10 hours to get a Rankine fired up at Huntly, but gas can be turned on very quickly. So some forethought into all of this—really concerned in the long term. I’m worried about the next eight to 10 years, and I worry how many more winters we’re going to have where we’re going to have a repeat of Monday night. So it’s a Government that’s sending us into an energy security issue.

Surprisingly enough, the Climate Change Commission said that New Zealand needs an energy strategy, and that seemed to take the Minister by surprise. The Minister thought that was quite a good idea, that we should have an energy strategy, and I was just a little bit surprised that it took till May 2021, after being in Government for 3½ years, to decide what the climate commissioner said was quite a good idea. I think in the rush to get to 100 percent renewable electricity with no plan, this Government has done us a huge disservice. Demand is going up. We hear every day from the Minister of Transport around electric cars. We have all of these virtue-signalling things going on around how we’re going to get to the 100 percent renewable electricity, and we get one cold winter’s night, and what happens? The lights go off. So let’s wake up, people, and realise that the demand is going up and the demand will continue to go up over time as people start to get into more of this renewable energy.

The Government wants everyone to use 100 percent—and we can debate that number, because 100 percent is a very expensive target to get to. We know that 95 to 98 percent is much more achievable and much more cost-effective. We need to look at what we can do in energy, per se. So the Government wants everyone to use 100 percent electricity in transport. The Government wants everyone to use 100 percent renewable electricity in heat processing, 100 percent renewable electricity in our homes. The question is: how are we going to stop this repeat performance from happening again? Part of the problem is the cut-off of the investment in the gas, which was premature. Gas is instant; coal Rankines are not.

Now, the Minister said yesterday that she was going to have an inquiry and she was going to try and find out and get to the bottom of what happened here. So I want to offer some questions for the Minister that I think that she should be throwing into the inquiry. The first one is: why did the Minister not know until 8.30 p.m., when the knowledge was becoming widely available, and it was actually on social media before the Minister was told? That’s the first question that should be asked: what failed in the Minister’s office?

The second one is: why were the Minister and her office not part of a comms plan? Because, actually, surely that’s the Government’s responsibility when there’s an event or a disaster going out there in the public arena. Why was the Minister’s office not part of a comms plan that helped people to understand what was going on? Waikato Police had to put a post on Facebook to explain to people not to call 111, because it was, in fact, a power outage—it wasn’t some other sort of emergency. People were ringing the police station, clogging up the 111 system. Imagine if there had been other sorts of emergencies, the phone lines would have been blocked and other people would not have been able to get through.

So, in a time and an age where this Government is spending more and more and more money on comms people, we don’t even have enough comms to get out the information that we’re having a power blackout. It was really concerning to see a mother on TV last night who said that the lights went out, she was trying to find her toddler in the dark, she was trying to feed her toddler, she was trying to keep her toddler warm—imagine how scary that is for some of our people out there.

It also must have been a heck of an event when those people who rely on electricity for lifesaving medical devices were alerted on social media that they should make their way to the hospital due to a power outage. That is just not good enough from the Government. That is something that I think the Government should really hang their heads in shame on, that one. The way they frightened people with life-threatening illnesses by not coming out and communicating this issue faster. Could the civil defence or other mechanisms been used? Could there have been a way that we could have front-footed this if the Government had not been asleep at the wheel? If someone in the Minister’s office had managed to pick up the Energy News at 1.22 p.m., even if they weren’t looking at their emails and watching other systems—I mean that’s their job: to make sure the lights stay on. If someone had just been awake, maybe the Government might have been on to this.

I also want to know, and it’s not been defined yet, but I think it’s something that the Minister should really put in to her inquiry, if she didn’t, is: why did the Minister not hear from the State-owned enterprises Minister’s office? There was a 7.10 p.m. grid emergency notice that went out and that is required by law to go to the office of the State-owned enterprises Minister. So when that notice went out, I cannot understand for the life of me why the Minister for State Owned Enterprises or someone in his office didn’t go about advising the Minister of Energy and Resources, because it was something like an hour and 20 minutes later that the Minister of Energy and Resources was alerted to the fact that there was a grid emergency notice issued. Was the Minister for State Owned Enterprises asleep, or perhaps was he out riding his bike?

So, you know, New Zealanders, as the Minister said, we can expect better. But I think the Minister needs to stop pointing the finger at every other possible option, and, when she does this inquiry, or when the people do this inquiry on her behalf, to look at all of the things that her and her office and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and his office could have done around this issue, because it’s all very well to point the finger forward, but when you point the finger forward, there are three fingers pointing backwards at the person who is doing the pointing. And so I want the Minister to put all of these questions into the inquiry. There must have been somebody within her office, within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, within somewhere that could have actually notified the Minister. I’m just standing here, gobsmacked, to think that this could have actually happened, and, you know, it’s just not good enough.

The Government is totally asleep at the wheel. So I want, also, when the Minister does her inquiry into how this happened, I want the Minister to also think about how this is not going to happen again. I want the Minister to know how she is going to keep us safe from power outages for the next 10 winters, because we know that the Government thinks that everything they’ve got in the virtue-signalling realm, around 100 percent renewable electricity, is actually at least 10 years out into the future. Minister Wood wants people to start driving their electric cars everywhere. That’s only going to exacerbate the problem. Next time we get snow, the time after that, we are going to have a repeat. Get your act together—it is not good enough for New Zealand.

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

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know I’m not allowed to mention the presence or otherwise of a Minister, but I am giving this speech today because the Minister is unavailable to give it. Could I begin by saying that regardless of the mechanisms and the rules of the electricity market in New Zealand, which are complex, it is absolutely the right of New Zealanders to expect that on a cold winter’s night—indeed, at any time of the day and night, on any part of the annual cycle of demand—the lights will stay on and the heaters will stay on and the system will stand up to the demands of a cold winter’s night. The situation that unfolded on Monday of course was unacceptable, and I want to go a little into what happened—and the member Barbara Kuriger, who has just taken her seat, has summarised that, but I’ll restate that—and then I’m going to make some comments as to how it is that we’re going to try to get to the bottom of what’s gone wrong here.

The system in New Zealand—you can’t store electrons in the electricity system. You can store fuel in the form of hydro or in the form of coal, and there is a complex system of rules that require every part of the system to be playing its part, from the people who generate the electricity to the Transpower grid that transports large quantities of electricity through to the local distribution lines. All of that is controlled by the system operator, which is Transpower, and Transpower has the job of forecasting future power needs and matching the demand for power with the generators who provide the power that’s transmitted to consumers. Now, they look out a few days. About 72 hours ahead of demand, they get serious about starting to try and predict future demand, and then, as they get closer and closer, they get more confident in their projections of future demand. They have got rules that they operate in as to whether they think that the prospective bids that they have from generators who say they’re willing to sell electricity into the system will match up with the anticipated demand.

On Monday, early in the morning, they put out a notice, which wasn’t a great alarm; it was just “Be aware that we think that we need some more generation bids.” Then, by lunchtime, by around 1 o’clock, they put out a more serious notice and said, “Look, we really could need some more juice here.” Then, in the absence of getting that required balance between generation and demand, they had to take emergency measures later that evening, telling the distributors of electricity to shed load in order to protect the system overall from collapsing. Some of the questions that need to be answered, as Barbara Kuriger rightly asked, is: was there proper communication with Ministers’ offices? And those are proper questions to ask. I would make the point that irrespective of what the communication with offices should have been, it wouldn’t have changed the practical outcomes on the evening.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Gerry Brownlee says “Oh, come on.” Well, actually, the switches and the bidding system and the requests for further electricity generation do not come from Ministers’ offices and never will, never should, and never did when he was Minister of Energy and Resources.

In respect of the questions that now have to be inquired into, I can inform the House that there are two inquiries. One actually arises from a contractual duty that Transpower have under their contract with the Electricity Authority that says, when there is an event that shows up as a threat to security of supply, they have to give an initial report to the Electricity Authority within 48 hours of the event. So that’s under way, and there will be some information provided to the Electricity Authority by Transpower in that regard. The Minister has instructed the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to commission a review, and that will include a consideration of all of the relevant considerations.

Was the peak demand estimate right? It was there or thereabouts, but it’s a proper question to ask whether they got that demand estimate right. The demand on the night was the highest ever, but should that have been estimated? They got pretty close to the actual demand figure, so it wasn’t that far out, but I’m sure that should be looked at. Was the communication to generators clear enough? Was the communication to local distribution companies clear enough and early enough?

I’m aware of one particular issue there that wasn’t quite right from Transpower. Transpower advised the distribution companies, who are, effectively, the people that hold the switches locally, that they were going to have to, for reasons of protecting the network and to balance demand, reduce demand by 1 percent. They then, in a short period thereafter, sent notices to the individual distribution companies that converted that 1 percent into a megawatt figure, and the translation of that looks like that it wasn’t correct. At least in some instances, some of the lines companies—including the largest lines company in the country, Vector—picked that up, and they verified the correct number and, therefore, didn’t use the other number, which was higher than the 1 percent figure that Transpower wanted. They didn’t use the higher figure; they used the verified number. Some other lines companies used the number that had been sent to them rather than the 1 percent, and that resulted in some people, and additional people, being, effectively, cut off the network. Therefore, the outage was, in those areas, probably larger than it would otherwise have been.

We need to look at whether there were appropriate attempts made at appropriate times to reduce some of the demand that could perhaps have been moved by some of the large energy users. Was the communication with them by market participants as it ought to have been? We don’t know the answer to that. Then, of course, we need to look at the question of what generators did—whether they brought on all of the available demand. Now, the Minister, in the House yesterday, said that Genesis Energy made a commercial decision not to bring on the number three Rankine unit at Huntly. She didn’t mean to imply by saying it was a commercial decision that there was some improper motive, trying to manipulate the market; she was just making the point that they made a decision. They prefer to call it an operational decision rather than a commercial decision, but the Minister’s office asked me, on behalf of the Minister, to confirm she wasn’t trying to imply some improper motive to Genesis, as she was just trying to describe what, in fact, happened.

Can I raise a couple of other shibboleths. This problem has not been caused by New Zealand’s reliance on renewable energy. That’s just factually incorrect—

Barbara Kuriger: It will grow. It will grow because of it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: —and I think the inquiries will bear that out. Beg your pardon?

Barbara Kuriger: It will grow because—

Hon DAVID PARKER: It will grow. The member Barbara Kuriger said it will grow as we push towards 100 percent renewables. Yes, the system will become more reliant on renewables, but, properly designed, the system can cope with that, as it used to in yesteryear. Actually, if you go way back, we had far higher percentage of renewables than we had following the discovery of the big Maui gas finds in the Taranaki region in the 1970s and 1980s. We can have ever-higher percentages of renewables and have security of supply. That same argument used to be run at me when I was Minister of Energy in the 2005 to 2008 period by the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who said we shouldn’t have had a target of 90 percent renewables, because that would put at risk security of supply. That wasn’t correct, and we’re actually up to about 85 percent renewables and doing very well. It was actually good of the prior National Government to continue with that ambition.

In respect of the issue as to gas versus coal at Huntly, you know, there’s something in that. You know, gas can be brought on more quickly than coal, and I’m sure that’s an issue that should be looked at by the planners of the system. That doesn’t mean to say that we shouldn’t be pushing towards higher levels of renewable, but there are proper questions to be asked as to whether the system, if it does need Huntly for the next few years to sit there as a dry-year reserve—as to whether we should have a pool of gas reserved for that purpose as opposed to a reliance on coal, which might, according to the member, take longer to kick into action.

A final point: some of the retailers have already said that they’re going to pay some compensation to people who were disconnected for a period. I’m not sure whether others will follow, but that’s a matter for them. But I absolutely agree that this issue ought to be inquired into properly and that it ought not to have occurred.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party absolutely supports an inquiry into what happened on Monday night. It’s very important that New Zealanders, and particularly vulnerable New Zealanders, are able to rely on our electricity system. I will speak about this specific issue, but I also will need to speak about the larger issue that needs to be considered when we think about how we are going to respond to what happened on Monday night.

On Monday night, there was incredibly high demand, higher than usual. Transpower almost got it right in their forecast: 7,100 megawatts. I just want to make the point that it’s not just about generation; it’s also about the things we can do to influence demand and to reduce the need to rely so heavily on electricity in times like this. So, for example, there are 31 million inefficient lightbulbs currently in New Zealand homes. If all of those had been replaced with appropriate LED lightbulbs, it would have reduced the peak load demand by 781 megawatts, bringing it down to 6,300 megawatts, which the system would have easily coped with, and it’s really interesting to hear members from the National Party acting like this is some sort of outrageous thing to say—like, wouldn’t it be better for New Zealanders if they had access to these appropriate efficient LED lightbulbs, which would have significantly reduced the amount of peak load, but it also reduces their own energy bills?

So, I mean, clearly there is a bit of a barrier to people switching from inefficient lightbulbs to efficient ones. They cost more initially, but—[Interruption] Sorry, Mr Speaker, I just—[Interruption] So I have an astounding number of idiotic comments being made at me—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and it’s infuriating.

SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. Interjections, Mr Brown, should be rare, reasonable, and preferably funny, and you’ve scored none out of three.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So, just to be clear, the Green Party’s position is that the Government could be out there buying people these efficient LED lightbulbs in order to not only reduce peak demand but to benefit those New Zealand households, because then they would have the light they need and they’d be spending less on electricity bills. It’s just the kind of simple solution that, apparently, right-wingers find impossible to get their heads around, and that’s why we haven’t had intelligent investment in efficiency over the years that we had a ridiculous National Party Government between 2008 and 2017, who did less than nothing and actually made our situation worse when it comes to actually preparing for the big issues that are facing us.

The other issue—[Interruption] It’s just very trying to have to deal with such ignorant comments constantly in the House. So my comments will stand: 31 million inefficient lightbulbs. If they had been replaced with appropriate LEDs, the peak load demand would have been 781 megawatts less. That’s 6,300 megawatts—it’s pretty substantial. I think most New Zealanders would think that is an intelligent investment for us as a country to make that doesn’t require generating more electricity, but it delivers benefits to New Zealanders in their houses and also benefits to the system as a whole, and that’s something we could easily be looking at. I will continue to suggest to the Minister that we find a way to promote these efficient LED lightbulbs in the short term, because, obviously, people across the House are very concerned about how we’re going to deal with electricity demand in the short term while we build up our long-term capacity of renewable and our ability to store renewable generation.

Basically, the other big event that happened on Monday night was, of course, the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which was unequivocal on the need to transition as rapidly as possible to zero-emission electricity generation. That does mean more efficient energy use and it means, as both the head of the International Energy Agency and, now, the Secretary-General of the United Nations have said, that for countries who are serious about contributing and pulling their weight in the fight against climate change, which is now an existential threat to people who are already alive today—it is an existential threat to our children—we cannot be looking for new fossil fuels. So the idea that the problem that we had on Monday night is going to be solved by increasing the supply of fossil fuels in the market, whether that’s gas or coal, is simply not possible. That is not consistent with a habitable climate.

So the people who are calling for that solution are in deep denial about what the scientists are telling us and about the alarm bells that they are ringing. It is literally impossible for us to find more fossil fuels and use that to generate electricity in the future and have a habitable climate, or be pulling our weight and having a habitable climate—those two things are not possible. What is possible—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to ask the member: this is not a debate about climate change, and I’d like the member to come back to Monday night and the events. Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I’m very happy to do that, but it was Monday night that the IPCC report was released. It was Monday night that we had the—

SPEAKER: Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. I wasn’t referring to the events of Monday night with the IPCC report. I was referring to the blackouts that occurred, and that’s what this debate is about.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes, and how we solve the blackout is not by finding more fossil fuels and using more gas. That is simply not possible, if one accepts the science.

One thing that I found really interesting in this debate is Barbara Kuriger’s continued insistence that it’s the Minister that needs to be held ultimately accountable for operational decisions made by a range of players, including partially privatised energy companies and State-owned enterprise lines companies, when clearly the moves made under the last National Government were to make energy less and less something that would be influenced by the Government of the day, and yet, when something goes wrong, they immediately say, “Oh, well, it’s the Minister’s fault.” Now, I am absolutely in favour of greater Government direction when it comes to our electricity and energy systems, because we have a collective problem here that we need to solve, and it actually is quite difficult for the Government to have an energy strategy when we have partially privatised “gen-tailers” who are now more focused on chasing profits for private shareholders than anything else. It’s very difficult to see when there is that level of market concentration in the generation space—it’s very, very difficult to see how the profit motive for private shareholders is going to lead to the “gen-tailers” providing more affordable, more renewable, and more secure electricity generation.

So, clearly, the mixed-ownership model is not something that has helped New Zealand avoid this situation. It’s something that makes it harder for the Government to respond and set a direction of public good, and, ultimately, that is what this debate is about. It’s about the impacts on the public when there are difficulties in forecasting demand and bringing enough generation on board, and if making private profit is the focus of the “gen-tailers”—thanks to the National Party, and I’m sure the ACT Party would have liked to go further when it comes to the privatisation of our electricity system—then it is simply not possible that we’re going to get the outcomes we want as a country if the “gen-tailers” can make more money from not bringing on new supply and ensuring that there’s sustained high wholesale prices over a long period of time. Certainly, a lot of small retailers are making that case.

We would like to see the Electricity Authority with more of a mandate to investigate and to ensure that there is structural separation between the retail and the generation parts of these businesses—if nothing else, separate reporting of both retail and generation—and that we can see transparency on price of transfers.

Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker? I think it’s me.

SPEAKER: Oh—the Hon Grant Robertson

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Infrastructure): Yes, I think it is. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for that. The facts of what occurred on Monday have largely been laid by out by Barbara Kuriger in her opening speech and also by the Hon David Parker as well, so I’m not going to dwell at any great length on those.

I would note, picking up a point that the Hon Julie Anne Genter was making just before she sat down, that if the Government was involved at the level that National Party members seem to think we would be, we would be getting the opposite criticism from them, that Ministers are far too involved in what’s going on here and that they actually shouldn’t be dealing at this very, very operational level. So the National Party can’t have this both ways. This is the system that their party created that is now what is in place in terms of the way in which our electricity market works.

Ministers are not happy with the lack of communication that came from Transpower in the first instance. We have made that very clear. Transpower have come into the Minister of Energy and Resources’ office and apologised for that, as the Minister said in his answers to the House today. They accept that communication was not good enough, and new protocols are being put in place to deal with it. But the suggestion that, somehow or other, this level of operational involvement by Ministers is what the National Party wants is somewhat ironic and odd, I think.

What I do think is raised by what occurred on Monday night is the question of what one does in the face of market failure, because it is quite clear that the electricity market—the system that has been designed—failed on Monday night. It failed to make sure that every New Zealander could be confident, on one of the coldest nights of the year, that there would be power available to them. In the end, approximately 28,000 households were without power at some point during that period on Monday evening. That is unacceptable—that is completely unacceptable. Even though the vast majority of New Zealanders went on unaware that this was taking place, for those people it had very serious consequences, and we do not regard it as acceptable.

So then the question has to be asked: well, what does one do in the face of that? That is why we have the inquiries that are under way. The first of those does have to go in the direction of Transpower. It is their job to do what they did on Monday, which is to issue the series of notices that they did, beginning at 6.43 a.m. and following that through until, finally, at 7.10 p.m., a grid emergency notice was issued. Through the process that Transpower has, we want the questions answered of what escalation processes occur during that time and what they do to make sure that there is a response from power operators to their requests. The failure for that to occur is substantial, in this case, and the reasons for it is part of the inquiries that are now taking place.

The role of the Electricity Authority is also a legitimate part of the question here. They are the regulator in this system, and I agree with Julie Anne Genter that questions are raised about whether or not, as the regulator, they have sufficient powers to be able to perform the role that it is quite clear that all members of this House are now saying. But let’s be clear about what that means: that means that the market-based system—the self-regulation system that was put in place by the National Party—is the thing that didn’t work on Monday night. So the National Party and the ACT Party, who will no doubt get up shortly, need to be able to answer the questions themselves about what they think the answer is here, because the answer isn’t letting the market run rampant, because that didn’t work on Monday night.

Then there is the question of what it is that the generators then did in response to this, and, obviously, that is the focus now for another part of the inquiry that takes place. Why was, from 6.43 a.m., followed by Transpower’s further warning at 1.02 p.m., and then its request at 6.40 p.m. for the load shedding to take place—why, through the course of that day, was there not the response that we might expect from some of the generators, in terms of what they would do in response?

As has been clearly indicated both yesterday in the House and today in the House, this was not a problem of whether or not there was capacity in the system in terms of generation, it’s just that that capacity was not unleashed. That is both the case in terms of the third Rankine at Huntly. It is also the case in terms of the fact that there was sufficient power being generated via the South Island hydro lakes, but that was not finding its way to where it was needed in the North Island. So this is not a matter of whether or not the physical capacity was there; it was not utilised, and that is a further breakdown and failure in the system and model that we have that is now being investigated.

A third point that I don’t think has been covered is actually the response that then comes from the lines companies and from those who distribute power directly to consumers. The amount of communication—and I take the point that Barbara Kuriger makes there about the communication to consumers—was, at best, haphazard and, at worst, did not give information to people in terms of what was about to happen to them. There is also a range of different responses, what are called ripple responses, which actually allow for some things like hot water to be switched off, rather than the lights to go out, per se. As I best understand it, most providers of powers did use a ripple response, but WEL Networks didn’t, and so that has to now be part of our discussion as to what technology was available to them, and why they did not do that as others did and have done in the past as well when situations like this have occurred.

So all three parts of that system do need to be well and truly analysed and thoroughly investigated. That is exactly what the Government—

Barbara Kuriger: And the communication to the Minister’s office.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —has now put in place. I do agree—and I’ve already said, for the member’s benefit—that the communication was not satisfactory. It was not satisfactory from Transpower, and I don’t believe, as I’ve just said, that it was satisfactory through the system at all. But that is the system that we currently have in place with us now.

We’ve also heard in the debate various concerns raised about whether or not, somehow or other, a move towards renewable energy is likely to make this problem worse. As Minister Parker has argued, that is not the case; that does not need to be the case. But if members opposite are concerned about the amount of generation capacity available right now today, well, if we wind the clock back to when you need to start a project in order for that project to be supplying power to New Zealanders today, that would take us right back into the term of the last National Government. So it isn’t actually how the system works to say that we can click our fingers and today that generation will be there. Seven years, on average, is the amount of time it takes. So Gerry Brownlee and Steven Joyce and the other Ministers of energy who were responsible for this during the last term of that Government might like to answer that question, as to whether or not there should have been—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I will.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —further generation capacity available.

In the end, though, Mr Brownlee, that wasn’t the issue. That’s the point. It’s a complete red herring that the National Party have been raising. That wasn’t the issue—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Try listening!

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! Oh, I have been Mr Brownlee, and I have heard, from members opposite, their criticism of where we’re at in terms of electricity generation, raising completely irrelevant points about the offshore oil and gas ban, the investment that is taking place now in renewable energy—and the Prime Minister outlined some of that in the House yesterday. But if members opposite are trying to claim that this was about a lack of physical generation capacity, that is not true. The capacity was there, it simply was not used on Monday night, and that will now be subject of the investigations that take place.

SIMON COURT (ACT): It’s now two days after an avoidable and costly failure of our critical power infrastructure that caused blackouts across the North Island. We’ve heard from the Government, we’ve heard from generators, the grid operator, and experts—what they think caused the blackouts. We’ve heard about a series of contributing factors, which is what you always hear after an airplane crash or some terrible industrial disaster, and that’s very nearly what this was. Contributing factors: planned maintenance on a big hydro dam in the South Island took one of their units out of production, a 400 megawatt gas-fired combined cycle power station in Stratford takes three days to fire up—that’s because it’s old, it’s ageing infrastructure—the Huntly generator taking 10 to 12 hours to fire up. That’s not a text message away, not like the McKee peaking plant, those two 50 megawatt jet engines in Taranaki, which are literally a text message and 20 minutes away from being fired up in an emergency. But they were already running at full noise, as was the diesel oil generator in Whirinaki—that diesel oil generator that’s a relic of a past Government intervention to provide additional peaking capacity that turned out to be so expensive and inefficient to operate that they sold it to the private sector, because they knew that it was better the private sector take the risk on peaking and managing this dry-year supply.

We’ve also heard about generators making profits, from the Green member. Well, it turns out—

Barbara Kuriger: Ooh, profit—that’s a bad word!

SIMON COURT: —that’s right—that making profits is the reward for taking risk with shareholder capital, and if you make sufficient profits, you can reinvest that into your assets to give better service to your customers.

David Seymour: Just blew Deborah Russell’s mind.

SIMON COURT: He, he! Now, we’ve also heard there’s a lack of direct Government control over markets and that there’s been a market failure. Well, I’ve done some research into the Electricity Authority, because imagine the Electricity Authority reporting to the Minister of energy. Imagine that their strategic ambitions include a low - carbon emissions distribution and supply system, a consumer-centricity to guide regulation and decision making. Competition must be thriving, yet there is no mention of security of supply or affordable electricity in this Electricity Authority’s strategic ambitions. And we wonder why the Government is thrashing around looking for someone or something to blame, because they haven’t given the mandate to their own regulator—what should the priorities be?

That’s why ACT is seeking answers to some very basic questions. When will the Government and the Minister of energy, Woods, admit their part in this energy crisis that ACT forecast months ago? Will they change anything about their flawed energy policy, which puts carbon emissions ahead of affordable and secure electricity, like the ban on natural gas exploration, when, as recently as April 2020, an international exploration rig found a commercial gasfield that rivals our largest gas discoveries. It’s right there off the coast of Taranaki, but they had to abandon their programme because the Government wouldn’t give them permits to stay here under COVID-19; they weren’t regarded as essential. Well, I tell you, that energy is essential, and we saw how essential it is on Monday night.

We’ve heard about the Government’s other crazy energy schemes, like the threat to build an enormous hydro dam at Onslow, drowning a UNESCO-level wetland and, potentially, with the Government’s intervention, stranding others’ electricity investments, stranding energy assets. Yet it’s a lack of affordable energy that’s damaging communities and making it harder for the Kiwi battlers who actually make things here in New Zealand to get on with their daily lives. The Government’s energy policies have led to cuts or complete shutdown in production at mills in the Bay of Plenty. The Glenbrook steel mill is running in low gear, and Methanex in Taranaki has shut off part of their production and 75 workers have lost their jobs permanently because that business, making some of the greenest methanol in the world that goes into all of our household products, has decided, actually, there is no long-term future.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to do what I did with the previous member and ask him to come back to the debate in hand.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, this lack of gas, not just for Methanex but to supply electricity producers like the Taranaki Combined Cycle unit at Stratford, has led to shortages. Those shortages have led to increased energy costs and job losses. It has also left families who depend on those high-paid jobs, those mums and dads, now in distress and having to think about their futures. Yet despite all these other energy policy failings, the Minister for energy is still blaming everyone else for this Government’s failure to ensure that New Zealand has secure and affordable energy and that we do not have more blackouts, because despite denials today, the inference made in the House yesterday by the Minister of energy was that generators had, for commercial gain, taken a decision to limit the supply of electricity. That appeared to be, on the face of it, a deeply cynical excuse and suggests that power companies are OK with mums and dads and small children and elderly people left in the dark on one of the coldest nights of the year, in pursuit of profit. What an appalling inference. I’m very, very pleased that the Minister’s representative has come to the House today and denied that, as far as is practical.

Then, the Minister’s claimed that the generators should have known to bring more energy on stream. Yet the Minister must be aware that generators will only respond to an actual declaration of an emergency and a direct request to fire up generation. They do not burn coal and burn gas and run power stations for free. The Minister has claimed that the market has failed, yet we know the market price for electricity peaked at $250,000 a megawatt hour. That sounds like the right signal to turn all the generators on.

The Minister believes that the goal of 100 percent renewable electricity, a goal which many have pointed out is impractical, is actually the way to ensure secure and affordable electricity. Yet the Electricity Authority has stated and continues to state that that will require careful consideration, which I understand is bureaucratic speak for “very difficult, if not impossible”. We know that every time more renewable energy is introduced into a supply network, that actually makes it more unstable because that energy is intermittent and cannot always be relied on. On Monday, despite all the other contributing factors that led to the train wreck or the plane crash of blackouts across the central North Island, the straw that broke the camel’s back was actually when the wind stopped and the wind turbines stopped turning. That’s when Transpower sent out the emergency alert: “We have run out of power.”

That is why ACT is demanding that the Government drop their ban on oil and gas exploration and let New Zealanders have a truly just pathway to a low-carbon future that preserves affordability and security of supply. We all know that natural gas has half the carbon emissions of coal. It is a truly just, affordable, and secure pathway to a low-carbon future. Let our businesses and our communities have affordable and secure electricity. Let’s keep New Zealand jobs here. Let’s manage our carbon emissions over the long term to meet our obligations, because the alternative hardly bears thinking about: more blackouts, more job losses, and a poorer future. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I do want to start by acknowledging and congratulating the previous speaker, Simon Court, on his dexterity. I mean, it is one of the most challenging things to do, I suspect, for an ACT member to explain away a market failure, when it is so apparent and so obvious and so right there in your face—if you’re a believer in markets, to then have to kind of awkwardly try to work out how the system should work better and then to come up with a solution which involves intervening, effectively, in the market to promote coal and gas as the way forward! You can see the dexterity in his argument, and I do want to acknowledge that at the outset.

What we have here, and it couldn’t be clearer, is a market failure. If we’re going to have a market-oriented system providing security of supply, then the market must deliver—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Explain that.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The market did not deliver, Mr Brownlee. We have a market—we have a market—the market did not deliver; the lights went out.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: How did the market fail?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That is a market failure in my book. How that is not a failure in Mr Brownlee’s book, I think he’ll explain in his contribution, I’m quite sure.

There are quite a few “blue herrings” being introduced into this debate, through the debate, and we’ve heard some yellow ones as well. One of them is that there wasn’t sufficient capacity in the system. We know for a fact there is sufficient capacity in the system. What didn’t happen was operationally the available capacity was not brought to bear in the market by the market participants. So we have a market. The market participants did not deliver what the market is supposed to deliver, which is keeping the lights on and the heaters on for New Zealanders.

So regardless of the machinations of the electricity market, though, I think New Zealanders should have a reasonable expectation that the heaters are running on a cold winter’s night, that the lights are on, and that is why the situation that unfolded on Monday night is unacceptable. The assurance, though, that we can give to New Zealanders is that we did have the physical capacity to generate; that is not in question tonight. And so these blue and yellow herrings about the journey we’re on to be carbon neutral and how this is the creator of the whole problem—people at home should not believe that.

In terms of the question that the members have asked previously around when I, as the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, was alerted to this, it was not before the Minister of Energy and Resources, so there was a failure of the no-surprises approach, in my view. The Minister of energy has met with Transpower immediately to address this issue and to seek to ensure it’s not repeated, and they are putting new protocols in place to ensure that that no-surprises policy does not fail in future. But, of course, that is kind of irrelevant, as the Minister of Finance—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not. It’s totally relevant.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —has pointed out, to what happened on the evening, because it is not the place of Ministers to make the decisions about when the power is switched on and off. And if Mr Brownlee wants to argue that it is, I will be most interested in his contribution, because on the one hand, we have those in the National Party who favour the market solutions. I’ve heard Simon Bridges stand up in this House when he was over on this side in a difficult past time, as opposed to the current difficult time for the National Party, when he argued that 15 years on from—the market just needed a bit more time to bed in. That was the reason that they were having problems with the power prices in the market when National were in Government.

Now, Mr Brownlee, who has been responsible as energy Minister for the market supplying power, for the way that it’s set up currently, seems to be arguing for a more interventionist approach. And it would be very interesting to see if he’s changed his mind and now thinks that Ministers should be controlling and making these decisions about when power is put into the market.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Don’t speak for me—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We’ll hear his contribution—we’ll hear. But right now, the Government is focused on ensuring that the right mechanisms are in place early enough to secure supply. Those questions are being asked. We don’t want to see this situation repeat. The market failed on this occasion, and if we want to have a market-oriented system supplying our power, we need security of supply and we need the market to deliver. It failed on this occasion.

I do want to say a couple more things—mindful of time—that kind of fall within my broader ambit. I’ve had reports from the Telecommunications Forum following Monday night’s power outages that they’re not aware of any significant impacts on telecommunications as a result of the outages, because, of course, their networks are built with a degree of redundancy, especially for short-term power outages. They have battery backups and generators. They were not actually required on this occasion. So I just want to put that on the record for the House, because questions have been raised about that. There were no disruptions.

Consumer New Zealand has also raised an issue around the right to compensation for consumers, from their electricity suppliers. And I do want to note, and electricity consumers do have a right to appropriate compensation, that some of the suppliers have already taken proactive steps and are supplying credits to people they supply electricity to. So I note that and find that encouraging.

So to round out my contribution, I do want to assure New Zealanders that we do have the physical capacity to generate the power that we need in our system. Commercial decisions, operational decisions, have been made not to put the generation into the market on this occasion, and the appropriate inquiries are in place because we believe New Zealanders need to have the assurance that security of supply is ensured.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Mr Speaker, the speech just delivered by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Hon Dr David Clark, I think very clearly demonstrates the problem that this country faces. A pair of Ministers, in this case, who appear to have very little understanding of how the system works, but worse than that, no understanding of what their own responsibilities are.

Now, Grant Robertson wanted to make the case, and I notice that the Minister who sat down now has just also tried to make the case that the National Party was saying that the Minister of Energy and Resources should have the big switch that gets flicked on and off at any particular time. We are not making that case. But what is clear is that under the current arrangements, the Minister has responsibility for security of supply, the Minister has responsibility for the direction of investment that occurs in the electricity sector, and the Minister, of course, overall, has a responsibility for the consumers who expect the system to always keep them supplied with electricity.

Now, there are protocols in place for how things should work. What is extraordinary is that there can be an alert put out at 6.40-odd in the morning and then repeated throughout the day up to midday, and still, apparently, no one from any ministerial office saw it. Now, it’s all right to swing round and swing back on Transpower or the systems operator, effectively, or the Electricity Authority and say, “They failed. They didn’t communicate.” That’s not reasonable, in my opinion, just to take the blame from one place to the other. They’re culpable, no question, and they need to have their feet held to the fire. But the idea of a Minister’s office stocked full of advisers on this particular issue, this particular portfolio, did not see an alert on the system early in the day. And what would the response be? They should’ve gone to the Minister and said, “Look, there’s an alert out there, do you want us to find out a little bit more about what that means?” There would have been a communication that started that that Minister over there knows would have amped up the circumstance and the concern to a much higher level than it appeared to be.

To find out that we go right through the day, and get to 5 o’clock in the evening, before there is an emergency declared, knowing at that point that there were constraints on solar, obviously; constraints on the wind turbines; and that it does take a long time—anybody would have known, anywhere, the 10-hour time to get the coal-fired plant going, the slightly less time to get a gas plant going. Also, at that point they knew the assessments were wrong. Well, why did it take until 5 o’clock to work that out? What was magical about 5 o’clock? Why didn’t they know at 1 o’clock in the afternoon—when they should have been able to see from some of the very good weather forecasting we get at the moment—what the temperatures were likely to be and anticipate what the demand could be?

So, then to say, “Well, the system completely failed.” is not a reasonable thing, and to say, “Oh, it’s all the market. The market failed.” That’s where Labour goes and hides on all these things. Blame someone else. Blame a system that is non - State-controlled and say that it’s nothing to do with them. It’s everything to do with the Government because, for a start, the generators are half owned by the Government, in the main. But let’s get back to the point. What they could have done at that point is start talking directly to the generators. The State-owned enterprise Minister can do it and say, “Is everything OK here? What’s the deal?”, not telling them what to do, but perhaps finding out why only half of the capacity of the Cook Strait cable was being fed. What’s so hard about asking that question? And why do we sort of say, “Oh, well, you know, that was one of those things.”? I think it was Minister Parker and Minister Robertson who talked about how you bid in for expected demand and everything else and put prices on; well, that simply indicates that the Government knew that there was a degree of gaming going on by the generators.

As far back as March this year, the Major Electricity Users’ Group were saying that the generators were keeping the supply right on the precipice of shortage. Well, why are they doing that? They’re doing that because that effects price, obviously. So if the Government was so concerned about this, why weren’t questions asked of the authority about whether or not that was actually happening? Why wasn’t that simply asked? Other commentators in the field have also been making those sort of predictions—notably John Kidd, one of the foremost commentators on the electricity industry in New Zealand—since early parts of this year. So it shouldn’t come as a total surprise that we got to this position.

Then, for the Government to walk in here today and for the Minister, yesterday in the House, to answer the questions and say, “Well, actually, there was plenty of capacity. Plenty of capacity, no problem at all.” Well, capacity is a faceplate measure. It’s like saying my car is a 341 cubic inch V8. It’s just a measure of potential capacity. Until the switch is turned on, the tap is turned on, or the gas is lit, nothing happens. So that’s not an answer. The answer part, though, is that the capacity wasn’t turned on. And it goes right back to that eye off the ball—14 hours with no Minister, apparently, knowing what was going on. I tell you what, that beggars belief. We accept them, because they’ve come in the House and said it. But it is very hard to understand how a Minister’s office can be so far off the ball.

The last time that we had this sort of problem in New Zealand, the last time we had a snap debate on energy in New Zealand was in the latter stages of the Helen Clark Labour-led Government. That was at the end of three years out of eight where we’d had massive electricity shortages. Well, Mr Robertson might want to criticise the arrangements that are in place at the moment—I don’t think they’ll be changed. I don’t think they’ll be changed. Now, we’ve had 14 years of not having to put up with this sort of stuff, and I don’t think we needed to put up with it this time, had there been a Minister with their eye on the ball. I think—well, the Minister over there sort of mumbles under his breath and said, “No, that’s not true, Gerry.” The fact is, the Minister did not know for 14 hours that the country was facing major shortages. How does that happen? That is a totally MIA thing. Then, of course, there’s the argument run, “Oh well, you guys didn’t pay attention to the renewable system.” Let’s be clear. Stats New Zealand have figures out today that tell a really interesting picture. New Zealand has fallen in just four short years from a renewable capacity over 80 percent to down around 70 percent of generated electricity. That’s just ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

Others, of course, have raised the issue of climate change and everything else. I won’t do that, Mr Speaker, because you’d want to contain me. But it is ironic, isn’t it, that on the day that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comes out with the new predictions about global temperature increase due to carbon emissions, this Government has an electricity shortage entirely due to the fact that we are now so dependent on fossil fuels to keep the system alive. I don’t know why that hasn’t been reported. I don’t know why some people who are absolute zealots for everything this Government does can’t see what a massive failing that is. And the other thing is, of course, this comes on top of months and months and months of industrial shutdowns, industrial slowdowns, and the commercial sector of New Zealand having to really, really turn the tap off because of that massively increasing price over time.

All of that, all of that is scarcity. Scarcity in a system that, as the Ministers have said today, does have the capacity to deliver the electricity that we need. So the question that has to be answered by the Minister is: first, what happened in the system of communication inside the Minister for State Owned Enterprises’ office, inside the Ministry of Energy and Resources’ office, inside Transpower, inside the Electricity Authority, and the communication from the generators to the systems operator as well, and from the systems operator themselves, given that they are a separate office from Transpower.

So we look forward to the terms of reference for this inquiry. We hope that they are comprehensive and we hope that the right people are put in place to inquire. Those right people are not the current Electricity Authority.

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr—sorry, Dr Deborah Russell.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the promotion. Let me be absolutely clear about the time line of what happened on Monday. At 6.43 a.m. in the morning, Transpower issued a low residual notice to participants in the electricity market. This is an absolutely routine notice—absolutely routine notice to generators—and is part of their daily forecasting as to what is going on. No one would ever pick up a phone to a Minister at that stage. Later on in the day at 1:02 p.m., Transpower issued another warning that there was insufficient generation coming in for the evening peak. Again, interesting. Nothing that anyone would pick up a phone for the Minister to—why? Because the market ought to have solved this problem.

By the evening, another warning was issued at 5.07 p.m., and it was time to get more serious at that stage. Perhaps someone should have picked up the phone at that stage. At 6.40 p.m., Transpower issued a request for network companies with a direct grid connection to shed load by 1 percent. Finally, at 7.10 p.m., there was a grid emergency notice issued. If ever there was a point to pick up the phone to the Minister, that is when it should have happened. It did not—it did not. In fact, at 7.54 p.m., Transpower sent an email to the Minister—an email.

So, whatever happened, there was a failure of communication, which Transpower has already apologised for—has already apologised for. People are putting into place systems to make sure it does not happen again. But let me go back to a critical point about what happened on Monday night. On Monday night, there was enough capacity in the system to generate the power that was needed. This was not a failure of the entire system to be able to generate enough power. The capacity was there. The problem was that it was not used, and 28,000 households ended up without power, and without power in the central North Island, which at this time of year is one of the colder places in the country. I’ve been in Taumarunui on a winter night and it is not a warm place to be.

So let me run through some of the known problems that caused the fact that we had an outage. Here are the known problems: the third Rankine turbine at Huntly was not fired up. If it had been fired up when that first notice came through, there would have been enough power generation in the evening. Even when the second warning came through at 1:02 p.m., if it had been fired up when the second warning came through—now, that turbine takes between six to 10 hours to fire up. Perhaps it might not have been online on time, but perhaps it might have. So the situation could have been saved at that stage.

So we need to have a think about why that decision was made not to fire the turbine up. Now, it turns out that Genesis made a commercial decision in that regard. That is because of the way—or an operational decision—the market rules are set. Perhaps we need to have a look at those. The fact is there was a problem of that turbine not being fired up, and we need to know why it happened and fix that problem.

The second problem: there was weed in Lake Rotoaira in the Tongariro scheme. Now, ordinarily, it’s kept clear of the intake in that scheme, but, as it happened, there was a south-east gale all that day, which pushed the weed into the intake. As it even turned out, the workers in that scheme actually had it under control until about, alas, just before the evening peak, just exactly when we needed it to be clear. So something went wrong with the way that the weeds are controlled—normally it’s OK, but it couldn’t cope that particular day.

There was a third problem. We know that Transpower actually got some of the calculations wrong. So some of the information that was sent through to some of the retailers in terms of how much power they needed to shed was actually incorrect. Now, stuff happens—stuff happens. This was a mistake and it wasn’t picked up and it resulted in those 28,000 households being without power. Again, something needs to be taken into account there and investigated.

So, in terms of those things, those problems, those are all problems, but where were the actual failures—the failures? Was it in the electricity market? Well, the market delivered a market solution. The trouble is, it was not the supply solution we needed. It was not the social solution we needed, which was for all our households to be warm and to have the electricity on one of the coldest nights of the year. So the set-up in the electricity system does not deliver the solutions we need. This is why Governments need to intervene.

There was a communications failure—there was a communications failure. Transpower did not alert the Minister in time, and there were further communications failures. We know that many of those people, those 28,000 households, were saying that if they had just had a few minutes warning, they could have prepared a bit better. That’s a very good point. So there was a failure there. But above all, I think the failure that the Opposition have tried to sheet home is they have tried to say it is a Government failure. That is false. “It is a failure on the part of the Minister.”, they said.

You know, we had some absurdities from the Opposition. Barbara Kuriger suggested that she had known about it from social media, so why was the Minister not on social media in the evening? What a ridiculous thing to say. For goodness’ sakes! Social media. Then she said, “Well, why wasn’t the Minister talking to the State-owned enterprises Minister in the evening?” Well, actually, the State-owned enterprises Minister didn’t know either, because Transpower had not picked up the phone, so there was an impossibility there. Then the next one was why wasn’t the Minister reading her email at 7.54 p.m. at night? We know the volume of email that comes into our inboxes and we know that a Minister’s email is monitored by staff. Staff go home in the evenings; it’s an entirely reasonable thing to do. So the Minister’s email would not have been monitored at 7.54 in the evening, and I suggest that, again, this goes back to the appropriateness of using email for an emergency situation. For goodness’ sakes! I’m surprised the Opposition wasn’t asking why the Minister wasn’t recalculating Transpower’s load calculations and sending out warnings there. I’m surprised they didn’t ask why she wasn’t cleaning out the weed in Lake Rotoaira.

The point is defined here where action needs to be taken, and simply bellowing that it must be the Minister’s fault ignores the realities of our system—the realities out of our system—that meant that we had a power outage, that we had households suffering through that evening. We do need to locate those failures in the system that night, and we’ve got two inquiries under way. One is the routine regular statutory inquiry that Transpower will run. One is the one which has been commissioned from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment finding out what went wrong, what can be done better, and putting better systems in place. The Ministers are doing exactly what they should be doing, taking responsibility for what they can fix, and getting it under way.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

And not only do I move the debate, I demand the debate! Ms Collins has said that National can easily win the next election, but only if the National Party focuses on the things that matter to New Zealanders, to those Kiwis who deserve more. The National Leader has called on her caucus, apparently, to stay focused and to not get distracted by the bait that is laid their way by the Government. So she is going to stay focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders, to those Kiwis who deserve more, apparently, such as the location of a portrait rather than some of the other things that might matter to New Zealanders, such as whether we can speak in two languages or not about our country. I am astonished, I have to say, at how long she was actually able to maintain her focus, between Friday afternoon and today’s “portrait-gate”.

Meanwhile, I actually do want to debate something that I think matters to New Zealanders a great deal more than the location of a painting—and that is climate change, something that I think is going to affect people a lot more than the location of a parliamentary painting. That is a debate that I am interested in having. Because, on Monday this last week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their latest scientific assessment about the state of things in relation to our atmosphere and our climate. It is of critical importance that this House pays attention to contents of that scientific assessment. What it essentially says is that the modelling that people were arguing about 20 and 30 years ago has actually turned out to be completely accurate, that global temperature increases are roughly in line with what the modelling predicted. The big variation, however, is that the effects of climate change—the droughts, the floods, the fires, the storms—are happening sooner, they’re happening more frequently, and the effects are more severe than the modelling predicted. In other words, for most of the history of climate change policy in Aotearoa and around the world, we have thought about climate change as something that is happening in the future, somewhere else, to someone else—to polar bears in the Arctic, in the future, maybe. But what this report shows is that the floods in Germany, the fires in Greece and in Turkey, the fires in the Port Hills and Nelson, the floods in Westport and North Canterbury, the catastrophic droughts that we’ve seen in Australia, in the Midwest of the United States, the Californian wildfires, the Australian wildfires—all of those disasters can show a direct line back to human-caused climate change.

Now, we have always had floods and fires and droughts and storms, but, as the modelling was saying for years and years and years and years, climate change acts to exacerbate those, to increase their frequency, to increase their severity, to change the actual nature of the event itself. When we had those horrendous rainfalls in the top of the South, around the Tasman and Nelson region a year or two ago, one of the things that came out of that was that the nature of the rainfall had changed from previous similar events. So we were getting these kind of rain funnels, enormous amounts of water coming into the hillsides at once, rather than a more even spread that you might expect from a regular rain pattern. What our scientists here in Aotearoa were telling us about that is that that change in the nature of that rainfall is part of the effects caused by climate change. These are the kinds of events that the IPCC report on Monday pointed to. This is the kind of thing that we are seeing more frequently here in Aotearoa, not just around the world but here at home. I think we have been complacent in our response as a country, in part because we feel that we’ve been insulated from the effects, or we don’t have a lived experience of the overall event. That is why this House must pay attention to that report. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): As James Shaw mentioned earlier, we received the exciting news from the National Party conference that the National Party would have a laser-like focus on the issues that matter to New Zealand, and today we discovered what it is—the greatest issue of moment to New Zealanders: the positioning of artwork in the parliamentary corridors. But I can reveal to you today that this focus for the National Party has gone beyond one portrait. It is now a series of commissions that the National Party have asked for to ensure that we get the big issues that are facing New Zealand in front of the people of New Zealand.

The first artwork commissioned by Judith Collins is a graphical depiction of the National Party’s laser-like focus on policies in New Zealand. [Holds up an abstract expressionist painting] This followed on from Matt Doocey’s commissioning of the highlights of recent National Party caucus meetings through art. In this picture here we can see how those National Party caucus meetings have been going. [Holds up a painting of the assassination of Julius Caesar]

The next commission coming from the National Party to focus on the issues that matter to New Zealanders is actually a commission from the Young Nats depicting their views around the National Party’s position on conversion therapy—an image that may be familiar to some members. [Holds up a copy of The Scream]

Then the next one came from Simon Bridges. He actually wanted a painting depicting his favourite historical figure that could go outside of his office. [Holds up a portrait of the Hon Simon Bridges] So that has now been found—that historic figure.

Now “Goldie”—Paul Goldsmith—wanted a Goldie to go up beside his office [Holds up a copy of a C F Goldie portrait] but actually it turns out to be a fake, so it’s going to go up outside Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop’s office, given their position on conversion practices. Then it turned out that Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop already had a picture of themselves outside of their office, [Holds up a copy of American Gothic] so they actually didn’t need that. Then finally, in the commissioning of artworks, to focus on the issues that matter for the National Party, Christopher Luxon has finished this painting called The Last Supper and he has made some special arrangements to make sure that the real JC is put in the middle of the Last Supper.

Meanwhile, on this side of the House we are actually focused on the issues that matter to New Zealand and tomorrow morning we will respond to the report of Professor Sir David Skegg around the next steps in how New Zealand deals with COVID-19, and I do think this is a moment to focus on the things that the Government said we would do in this term. We would, firstly, keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19; we would accelerate our economic recovery; and we would focus on those big issues around housing affordability, climate change, and, indeed, child wellbeing. The keeping of New Zealanders safe from COVID-19 is the thing that enables us to do those other things that are important to New Zealanders, and while from time to time across the House and from their former leaders we hear that managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) has failed, no it hasn’t. MIQ has seen 162,000 people, more than the population of Hamilton, go through there and at the same time keep COVID out of New Zealand. I think the people who work in our MIQ facilities deserve a huge congratulation from New Zealanders; not being run down by members opposite or their former leaders. Time and time again, it has been the work done at the border that has keep New Zealand safe.

Our elimination strategy gives us some choices—they are not choices that are available to other countries—because we have worked so hard to keep COVID out; because we have had, tragically, 26 deaths but so many more would have happened had we not taken the approach that we took. Meanwhile, we’ve been able to see the economy deliver 4 percent unemployment, more people in work, a growth rate back to where we were before COVID. We’ve been able to do that because we’ve taken a health-led, evidence-based scientific approach. We haven’t flip-flopped around on what the issues are. We haven’t lost our focus to go on to the big issues of artworks. We have focused on making sure that our approach to COVID puts in place the values that I think New Zealanders would want us to do: to look after them, to make sure they still have jobs, to make sure there is still a future. Tomorrow, we will outline those next steps, but I am an immensely proud of where we’re at and I’m very positive about the future for New Zealand if we continue to take that approach.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): We’ve become aware of two more secret documents that Willie Jackson has been working on. As well as He Puapua, there’s one around the number of friends Grant Robertson has in caucus, called “He Fewer-fewer”. There’s also another secret document around Louisa Wall—Louisa Wall, my friend and colleague, and the only Labour MP, in my view, with any fortitude. The secret document for her is how to manage Louisa Wall. It’s called “He Skewer-skewer”, and I understand “He Skewer-skewer” is co-authored by Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins, and Megan Woods. Apparently there’s also movie rights for the three authors, modelled on a 1970s children’s show called H.R. Pufnstuf, where Grant Robertson will be played by H.R. Pufnstuf, a slightly odd, too descriptive, green dragon; Chris Hipkins will be played by a very needy Jimmy the talking flute; and Witchiepoo will be played by—well, I’ll leave it to your imagination of those three authors.

So while the Government flounders around in a fantasy, we want to talk about how to make New Zealand a great place to live and raise a family. I’ve actually found a travel commentary that will help that discussion. The travel commentary is from a recent rail trip, and it’s titled, “A train conductor’s commentary: Labour’s ghost train from Hamilton to Papakura”. This is the commentary that the train conductor announces to passengers, and I think it will serve our purpose comparing this Labour Government’s failings with the issues National are focusing on.

The commentary goes something like this: “Good morning to Labour’s ghost train from Hamilton to Papakura, and welcome to both of you. I’m sorry, it’s Helen and Heather? Nice to meet you both. And what do you do? Oh, you’re in charge of Labour’s policy and—oh, coronavirus transfers to Middlemore. Well, nice to meet you both. Ladies and gentlemen, two pieces of background information about the train before we start: this is Labour’s ghost train from Hamilton to Papakura, and have you got a deal, because your $50 ticket actually costs the taxpayer $25,000.” What I can share with you is that the National Party will not spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on a ghost train that would be better spent lifting incomes so New Zealanders can raise a family and get ahead. “Ladies and gentlemen, the second piece of information is that this train is also known as the slow train, for the two hours and 30 minutes it will take to get to Auckland.” The National Party believes that we need to get New Zealanders home to their families safely and quickly. “So settle in, ring the siren, sound the bell: rolling on.

“Now, after we leave the station today, our first stop will be the Mongrel Mob pad in Frankton, where we’ll pick up Willie Jackson and Marama Davidson. They’re working on another $2.57 million Mongrel Mob meth proposal.” National believes we need to make our communities safer and reverse the growth of criminal gangs. Rolling on.

“Labour’s ghost train is now passing through Ngāruawāhia, the home of Tainui and the Kīngitanga, and to the east we see Ngaruawahia High School.” National supports education as a key tool in lifting people to achieve their goals. Ngaruawahia High has a large proportion of Māori students, and we want to educate them, too, so that they, and all Kiwis, succeed globally. Rolling on.

“Our next stop reflects the fact that we know you are taking Labour’s ghost train today because you can’t travel overseas. Labour is so badly managing managed isolation and quarantine and vaccination that you can’t enjoy the sights and smells of overseas travel, but don’t worry, here we are at Huntly, and the smell of Indonesian coal.” Labour is so badly managing energy resources that we’re burning Indonesian coal at Huntly to keep the lights on. Rolling on.

“We’re now passing through the farming community of Pukekohe, where we see unharvested vegetables rotting in the ground.” This is because there are no workers and produce cannot be picked. Our farming people tell us that significant natural areas and freshwater and climate change policies are causing irreparable harm. National stands behind farmers, and every single one of our key policy initiatives has a rural component. Rolling on.

“Labour’s ghost train is modelled on an overall philosophy of centralisation and leaving New Zealanders behind, so we’re now at a level crossing just south of Papakura, where the carriages will spontaneously uncouple, just like the Labour Government has uncoupled from New Zealanders. And as the Labour ghost train moves further away from New Zealanders, stuck in the abandoned and stationary carriages, Helen, Heather, let’s all say together, ‘Ka kite, New Zealand’, and let’s do a verse of ‘Now is the Hour’ as we reflect on the number of people being added hourly to the waiting lists while Labour’s health policy puts more bureaucrats in Wellington and less into doctors and nurses.” National will ensure that we have quality healthcare and mental health services that retain medical professionals.

“Ladies and gentlemen, we know you’ve seen the crowd building. That’s because we’re approaching Papakura, which is where the leader of the National Party, Judith Collins, is based. She stands strongly at the head of the National Party caucus and says that we want to raise the quality of life for New Zealanders and give them a good life. Ladies and gentlemen, I hope you’ve enjoyed travel today on Labour’s ghost train. Please let us know if you have. You can comment to us at www.whatawasteofmoney.co.nz.” Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Well, an interesting contribution. I just want to highlight that while we are very much focused on the serious issues, many of those serious issues aren’t often the easiest ones to address. Take, for example, responding to the pressing needs of COVID and putting the health of New Zealanders first. When members on the other side of the House wanted the borders open very quickly, without giving any consideration to the consequent impacts on our economy or on the health of our people, we resisted that particular move, because we knew that by keeping New Zealanders safe, putting a science- and evidence-based approach at the forefront of our thinking, and adapting to the science and evidence coming through along the way some one year later, we understand how important it is to balance both the social needs with the economic needs.

Then the other pressing issue was being mindful that we needed to ensure that we had a recovery strategy that was looking to invest in our regions, an approach that would keep doors open, local economies moving, but, again, all the while being mindful that COVID is a significant challenge. And we continue to focus on those long-term challenges that will actually help define what type of country we are, what type of economy we want to be, and that is why we are looking to address the issues of climate change.

I want to come back to our recovery plan and, in particular, one of the hard challenges, addressing waters infrastructure, because I recently announced a programme of work that would ensure that we could continue to move forward on a very significant set of changes that would position our country better. The depth of analysis that we’ve undertaken in the past four years demonstrates that not only is there a case for change but it is compelling and it is required, because the status quo is not enough. What we need to do is ensure that as every council is understanding and digesting the dense set of information to be able to move towards an approach to reform where everyone benefits, every resident and every household will benefit with the proposed changes. We too need to address the significant looming challenges of climate change that impact on councils, such as natural hazards that are happening more and more frequently, floods, fires, and the impact that that has on our residents in our communities. That’s why I am convinced that in reforming our three waters system, we are moving to a more affordable, sustainable system that will benefit all New Zealanders.

We know why we are pursuing these changes: (1) the current system isn’t financially viable or sustainable; (2) people are sick of being sick from having to cope with the impact of a vulnerable drinking-water system, no-swim notices for people who want to swim in their local beach or rivers, frequent boil-water notices in some of our smallest vulnerable communities, erupting sewer pipes into our streets, lead contamination in the water, consent-breaching sewage overflows into our urban rivers, streams, lakes, and beaches. We can’t sit by and wait. The Opposition would have us not do anything at all. These are some of the big, looming challenges. In fact, if I take some of the comments of the Opposition spokespeople in this area, they’re basically sending a signal to councils of “We’ll do whatever you want, and if you don’t want this, we won’t go there.”

This is a significant challenge that needs to be addressed. It is a challenge that we want to ensure that we can meet in order to underpin the type of recovery that will help us support regional economic growth, the creation of over 9,000 jobs, adding to GDP between $14 billion to $23 billion, and ensuring that the looming cost challenges over the next 30 years, of about $120 billion to $185 billion, can be met through reform. We know we need to pursue it. It’s not an easy issue. In fact, many of the challenges that this Government is meeting in relation to COVID, in relation to an economic recovery, in relation to addressing some of the foundational challenges that we have underpinning a successful economy is the type of approach that a responsible Government would meet, and I’m proud to be serving in it.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Sir Winston Churchill once said, “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” And, for the National Party, in terms of their reputation in the years to come, that’s about the only chance they have at the moment. Today, we caught an insight into the inner workings of the National Party and their total inability to focus on anything that actually matters to New Zealand, with their leader’s focus on the siting of artworks in the parliamentary corridors. But what was more concerning for me today, given the shift in the balance of power on the political right, was actually not what the National Party has to say, because from day to day their attempts to stir up rancid little culture wars have just kind of become the noise that we all hear for a few seconds and then block out—what was more concerning to me today, actually, were the comments of the ACT Party in response to our Government’s work to lead a responsible discussion about how New Zealand reconnects to the world in the time of COVID.

What we heard from the ACT Party is, in fact, what we have heard all the way along from them, which is that we should just put the evidence, the science, the focus on the wellbeing and the health of people to one side and just open up and risk it all. And what New Zealanders can see very clearly there is what it would be like under a Government of the right in this country. We would have a National Party weakened and shrunken, obsessed with trivial side cultural issues, and an ACT Party that would throw us open with the free-market zealotry that was so resoundingly rejected by our country after the experiences of the 1980s and 1990s. That would be what New Zealand would face under a National-ACT Government, and that is what we definitely do not need at this point in time.

This is a Government, on the other hand, that is focused on delivering on the things that really do matter for New Zealanders, and what can be more important in the world today than New Zealanders knowing and trusting that they have a Government that will continue to be vigilant, that will continue to keep them safe from COVID, and that will continue to listen to the experts and the science and put the health and the wellbeing of people first. Because, from that side of the House, time and time over the last 18 months, we’ve heard it from them: we should do what they’re doing in Australia, we should do what they’re doing in Sweden, we should do what they’re doing in Taiwan, in Vietnam. And time and time again, it has been the proven approach of this Government, in putting the wellbeing of New Zealanders first, that has paid off, and the good news is that not only has that ensured that New Zealand has preserved its COVID-free status, one of the only countries in the world to achieve that—and just look across the Tasman, at the struggles that our Aussie cousins are having at the moment, to know the strength of our approach—but, at the same time as we have achieved those outcomes, at the same time as we have kept our vulnerable people safe and healthy during the greatest public health challenge of the last 100 years, we have proven that, in prioritising the needs and the wellbeing and the health of people, we can actually look after the other things that are important as well.

This is a Government that is also delivering in terms of the economic rebuild from COVID—rates of growth as high as we had pre-COVID, almost record-low unemployment of 4 percent, hundreds of thousands of people getting back into the labour force, tens of thousands of young people taking up the opportunities of free trades training and apprenticeships to get jobs and build skills and make sure that we are set up to deliver the infrastructure that our country needs in the future. Things in New Zealand are going well, but these are challenging times and New Zealanders do need to know that they have a Government that is focused on these issues and not the sideshows of the Opposition.

We are delivering in transport as well, and over the last couple of weeks I have been very pleased to see the progress all around our country. Over the parliamentary recess, I joined with colleagues to open the new Puhinui interchange, a wonderful new train and bus station in South Auckland that will give Aucklanders the opportunity to use public transport to get to our airport. We dug the first sod on the Northwestern Busway. After the National Party widened the Northwestern Motorway, didn’t put any public transport capacity in, we’re coming back and giving the people of the north-west the ability to take public transport around their city. On Friday, I’ll be opening up the Awakino Tunnel, a part of the investments that we are putting into the regions to make sure that people have safe and fit-for-purpose transport infrastructure all around our country. And do you know what? In the first months of its operation, in July, the clean car discount saw 2,000 Kiwis buying new clean cars—a record month, the best we have ever seen.

This is a Government, unlike that lot, that is focused on what matters: keeping New Zealanders safe, advancing our economic recovery, and building the infrastructure of the future for Aotearoa New Zealand.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this general debate. I want to just reflect on the recess. Many people ask me, “How was the recess? What did you get up to? Did you get a break?” Well, not really. Northland was really busy during the recess. We had more than eight Ministers visiting; we had visits, announcements, opening ceremonies. It was really a wonderful time for Northland and I am so proud to be the local MP.

It started off with the official ceremony for the expansion of the Ngāwhā geothermal power station, and I thought it was quite poignant to point that out this afternoon because the majority of Northland was unaffected by the power outage on Monday. In terms of that and, also, the recent unveiling, turning of the sod for the largest solar farm in Northland—and a few more to follow—I’m really proud of how we are setting up for our future with renewable energy.

It then followed with the Puketona roundabout, a $15 million investment by this Government. One of three new roundabouts that we are unveiling in the next coming weeks. So we’ve opened one. We also have the Kawakawa round about, which will be opening with the Minister of Transport next Friday.

Then it was on to Kaitāia, where Kelvin and I had a day with constituents. I just want to mention a group of young people that I met with, Tuhiata, where they came to me with a local issue of wanting to get rid of drug utensils from our local stores, something that I have brought back to Wellington to follow up on their behalf. I want to mihi to them for their advocacy.

I was then really honoured to host the Minister of Police, the Hon Poto Williams, where I was able to give her the opportunity to come deep into our communities, meet with our Northland leadership team of the New Zealand Police, but also to meet with our community advisory boards. We went and visited Te Ara Oranga, which is a methamphetamine programme between the Police and the DHBs and to hear success stories of that, and, also, we got to go to Moerewa, my home town, and meet with those who run Te Pae Oranga, one of our iwi community panels. I am so pleased that the Minister got to hear firsthand the impact that these Government funded programmes are having on justice issues in our communities.

Now, I also want to mention that she got to see a bit of that “Moerewa magic” and I hope that from that, she will see the success that that has had—that it should get support across the country. With $70 million, those panels are going to increase from the current 16 to two more very shortly, and up to 30 panels over the next four years. I believe it will truly make a difference for people’s experience in our justice system.

Then there was an announcement from David Parker for $400,000 to the Community Business and Environment Centre, where I took the Prime Minister to visit recently. They were successful in securing money from the Waste Minimisation Fund and they are going to be doing a composting project. The list continues, and I’m watching my time. The Prime Minister then returned, not even a month after her previous visit. She chose to come to Northland on her birthday and we were very pleased to host her. She made announcements for short-term roll-growth classrooms right across New Zealand, but in particular more than $11 million for Ruakākā primary school, Kamo High School, Whangārei Intermediate, Te Rangi Aniwaniwa, and Oruaiti.

We then went on to the Bay of Islands Hospital, where we were there to start the blessing of the stage two development for the hospital—a $14 million investment by this Government in our small hospitals out in the regions. That new facility will house the outpatients. It will have more primary care facilities—oncology, haematology, expanded renal care—and I’m pleased that it is in partnership with the local Māori health provider, the Ngāti Hine Health Trust.

The final visit was by the Minister of Conservation, Minister Kiritapu Allan, who came to Northland to announce over $20 million of funding for Jobs for Nature projects. Twelve projects in our region who are receiving support from that, with well over 300 jobs coming to Northland.

So it was a very busy recess. I am very proud of the work that this Government is doing. I’m proud to be the local MP; I am proud that we are delivering to our regions. I just want to use the final 30 seconds of my time, because it was one of the highlights for me, and that was the Speaker’s tour. The Speaker’s outreach tour came to Tai Tokerau. They went to our northern-most schools of Te Hāpua and Ngataki, and those young children living the furtherest away from Parliament got to experience Parliament in a mock debate, and, hopefully, it has made them feel like they are part of our democracy. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s something wrong in education in New Zealand, and parents are starting to worry. Our academic results in literacy, numeracy, science are heading downhill fast when compared with all other developed countries. We have a Government in denial. Changes in NCEA level 1 accounting, business studies, and economics, all becoming a generic “commerce”, show this Government’s priorities. Truancy rates are shameful: 67 percent of kids attend school regularly, and a report has been requested by the Education and Workforce Committee to try and find out why. We must get back to basics. All students who attend school regularly and can read and write will have a really good chance of succeeding in right. That’s a fact.

A teacher’s role is more difficult now due to successive Government policies, society’s expectations, and the way we’re told to treat young people. Teachers now have to be computer experts, writing reports that will probably never be read in case the Education Review Office turns up. They’re expected to be experts in their teaching field, but the teacher training leaves a lot to be desired. Here’s a quote from a trainee teacher: “I swear to God—and I’m not lying—we had one 1½ hour lecture on how to teach children to read.” That’s unacceptable. Teachers have to be social workers, truancy officers, dieticians—making sure parents have chopped their apples into small enough bites—and behavioural experts, dealing with an ever increasing range of abusive behaviours in the classroom that only a few years ago would’ve been deemed unacceptable. It’s a sad state of affairs when a student can tell a teacher to get “effed”, be dealt with by the school as they see fit, only for the school to be made to apologise two years later. Teachers also have to be sports coaches and mentors, after school and at the weekends—and I could go on. The pastoral care expected of teachers is hard work, and most of it used to be done by parents—as did early reading skills—and they get thanked with a wage freeze. Then these teachers have to go home and be parents to their own kids.

We have a Government that is not only obsessed with ramming its divisive agenda through every policy and bill it produces, but one that will quite happily make sure young people get the full force of this dangerous agenda. The proposed history curriculum is a perfect example of where this Government’s priorities lie. We all think New Zealand’s history should be taught in schools. It used to be—it was part of the social studies programme, and many projects were precisely aimed at informing each other about our history. But it did leave gaps, and these gaps should be filled with an honest, warts-and-all look at how New Zealand has developed over the last 200 years and beyond. We can’t cherry-pick history; it is what it is.

I come from Nelson. We have a fantastic Italian community who have been part of this country’s history for 160 years, and they’ve contributed heaps. Their story deserves to be heard, as do Nelson’s German settlers, who arrived in 1843 and without whom New Zealand’s wine industry wouldn’t be the same. My grandfather fought in World War I alongside the Māori, or Pioneer, Battalion against a common foe. I’m very proud of him and the contribution my ancestors have made to this country since 1842. We must teach our kids about the development of music, business, civil rights, science, and sport, in all of which every race of New Zealander helped shape this country to what we have today. The proposed history curriculum leaves very little room for these historical facts, and our kids deserve better.

The renaming and refocus of the Ministry of Education is a ridiculous, patronising document that deserves five minutes on it alone. Suffice to say, the Ministry of Education will now be called Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga, and the word “school” isn’t even mentioned in the document at all. That pretty much sums it up. I just wonder how many of the 1,500 new ministry ivory tower employees were involved in designing it.

We have a Government devoid of looking outside the square and that is more interested in preserving its union affiliations than caring for our young people. Mt Hobson Middle School in Auckland is a good example of a Minister who either doesn’t care or has just been too busy. With a proven history ticking all the boxes, we have a school desperate to get designated character school status and to fill a gaping hole in the education of diverse learners. But we have an out of touch Minister who thinks everything’s OK and ignores the anguish of parents who have to pay for their own teacher-aides for their children because the school can’t provide them. Charter schools worked, and ACT’s education policies put the kids first.

Schools should be the bastion of free speech, but even teachers are afraid to speak up in how they feel. Repercussions of saying what you want can destroy their careers. That’s really sad, because teaching is a fantastic, rewarding career. Parents have every reason to be worried about education.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thanks, Madam Speaker. I’m really delighted to take a call today in this general debate. I am the Labour list MP based in the Bay of Plenty, and I thought it was important to begin by just talking about where the Bay of Plenty is. We are in Pāpāmoa. We start in Pāpāmoa, going from the Kaituna River, Arataki, Matapihi, Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Hairini, Tauriko, and up to the Kaimais, and from the Wairoa River to Te Puna. The reason I thought I should say that is because we do not have the Port of Tauranga in that electorate. However, it’s a matter that is really important to us in the city. So we’re the outer suburbs of the city, and it’s a great community that I live in and play in.

I’m delighted to come here today to talk about the delivery that this Government has been performing. I’ve been in Parliament for nearly four years, and I thought about the reason why I came to Parliament. With your indulgence, I’ll just talk about that story a little bit. I was managing Tauranga Women’s Refuge at the time, and one of the reasons I decided—I remember the day that I decided—to come to Parliament, if I was lucky enough to represent this country, was I had a conversation with a family who had been in a safe house, and they were now safe in the community. They were due to leave the safe house, but we were unable to find them accommodation. We were unable to find them anywhere in the city to go, and the awful decision that came down to me was that I had to evict that family into homelessness in order to get them far enough up the list, in 2016, to get on to a waiting list to get into a home. So, essentially, they had a week at a time where they would be taken care of in a hotel.

That family chose to go back to the violence, and I felt morally corrupt. I felt morally corrupt having to give that choice to that family. So I came to Parliament because I was so utterly, utterly devastated by the state of housing in this country. As a consequence, I’m really proud to stand here today and talk about what we are delivering for this country. We have a long way to go.

Nicola Willis: Biggest waiting list ever.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: We have a long way to go. The biggest wait-list ever? At least we can get people on a wait-list. In my time, when I was working, people living in wooden shacks with floors—they couldn’t even get on the list, because they had coverage. Anyway, 8,000 extra warm, dry homes this Government has built. That is 74,337 public housing places between 2017 and 2021—8,121 more homes. This is a Government that is doing their very best—doing their very best—to help the people of this country.

One of the things that I think is really, really important to talk about is the fact that we have also increased—tripled, in fact—the community housing providers: $361 million. That’s three times what that Government was funding. This is about us looking at a problem—a wicked, difficult, intergenerational problem—and doing everything that we possibly can in order to fix that. I think that it is something that we can be proud of. There is more to do. There is always more to do in this matter, but we are making the effort, and I think that we are doing what is right for this country. We are concerned for the people of this country, and we are absolutely—absolutely—committed to fixing this wicked problem. We are delivering for New Zealanders. We’re doing our very best at a difficult time, but we are doing extremely well for the people of this country.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s fascinating that the only claim for delivery today has been a waiting list that’s approaching 30,000—sorry, a State house waiting list, the only claim to fame by this Government. And of course, because people—you’d expect it from me, I have to mention Sir Winston Churchill, because actually it’s not just what’s happened, but illustrative of actually what is beginning to happen with this Government. So a man who fought authoritarianism, fought fascism, fought against genocidal regimes, has been deplatformed by the Greens today—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: —who laugh, who laugh. They’re our modern-day iconoclasts, loving their cancel culture, getting rid of everything they don’t like. I’d actually encourage them to go and talk to their Māori Party colleagues because they are out there at the moment saying, “Te Ao Māori has no place for labels.”, which I think is probably a really useful thing the Greens could go to, because actually it doesn’t matter that he came from the UK or he may have been a Prime Minister elsewhere. He was a remarkable man. And according again to Te Paati Māori, Te Ao Māori, which I’m sure the Green Party loves, says there should be no labels. So that’s really important. Oh, by the way, and more of just an encouragement to my Labour Party colleagues, don’t tell the Green Party to walk down the Speaker’s corridor because there’s a picture there of Michael Joseph Savage and they might get a little bit upset about elements of his history, too.

So really important. Why? Because this is just indicative of what we get from the left wing. It’s about cancelling. It’s about deplatforming. This Government is pushing hate speech legislation. They’re passing a whole array of other legislation to limit what people can think and what people can say. It’s funny how they go quiet all of a sudden; they know it’s quite correct. As was intimated by someone earlier too, they’re trying to limit education, keep that well in control. No place for private schools. Watch out, integrated schools, they’ll be coming for you next because they can only be one source of truth—and that’s Jacinda Ardern.

Angie Warren-Clark: Scaremongering.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Of course, they still like their little slogans. I think “scaremongering” has been thrown. It’s funny how the things we say do come true.

The only other thing I’d quickly end with on this, because I don’t want us to all be about Winston Churchill, but one of the things I’ve noticed is they go, “Oh, culture wars, we don’t want the culture wars here.” Isn’t it fascinating that the only people who say to us they don’t want the culture wars are the side that think they’ve already won? Hmm, ponder on that for a moment.

So, let’s also talk about the fact, you know, deplatforming, cancelling things—let’s talk about the They Are Us film very, very briefly. We’ve known actually—and I look after the arts and culture area and what’s been absolutely fascinating is three sets of erroneous answers from New Zealand Film Commission hiding, effectively, or what appears to be hiding, the truth of when the producers were in contact with the Film Commission. We were told it was only a few months ago. Then all of a sudden it was a year. In fact, it turned out to be two months—two months—after the shootings. The most open and transparent Government ever and its agencies couldn’t actually tell this Parliament through written questions—couldn’t tell me and others—the truth until the third attempt.

Then get this: we went to the select committee—myself, Melissa Lee, Louise Upston—and said, “Hey, we’d like the New Zealand Film Commission to come in and just have a little bit of a kōrero, a little bit of a chat. We’d like a bit at a time, we’d like it be pretty free-ranging.”, and it hasn’t gone so well. We were limited to 20 minutes in total. The thing to really keep in mind there, of course, we’re the Opposition; we only get 25 percent of that time and we’ve been severely limited in what we can talk about. The most open and transparent Government ever—let’s pull down the paintings, let’s pull down the statues, let’s limit the education system, let’s not allow parliamentarians to do their job. Oh, and by the way, let’s get freedom of speech in there. But, hey, let’s switch. Let’s switch from picking on the Government completely—no, let’s just keep going.

I want to turn local. In Tāmaki in recent months—the best electorate ever. No, this is great, no one’s complained about it. There’s clearly consent: best electorate ever. Six of my dairies in the last few months, six dairies, have been ram-raided—six dairies in several months, some of them three times ram-raided; often young people, most of them under 12 years. A real problem—

Simon Watts: The same on the North Shore.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I hear my colleague Simon Watts saying, “The same on the North Shore.” We have a real problem with crime.

Simeon Brown: What’s the Government doing about it?

SIMON O’CONNOR: The Government’s doing nothing about this. Ram raids by children, gun crime—there’s basically a shooting every day in South Auckland. The police crying out, the Mongrel Mob basically seeming to be running things. Was it $2.75 million being given to the Mob? We’ve got a real, real problem here. So I just want to return to where I started. The Government has proudly delivered almost 30,000 homeless. But I can also tell you, in the seat of Tāmaki they’re delivering more crime and more failure.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, members opposite are using their time pondering; we’re on the other side a Government of action—

Hon Member: Busy.

TANGI UTIKERE: —and busy, indeed. But yesterday the House, as part of a special debate, debated the Dawn Raids. I want to acknowledge and thank the contributors right across the House for their contributions that were shared yesterday. Now, I was not born at the time of the Dawn Raids, but members of my Cook Island family were, and the pain that they and others endured, whether it be physical, whether it be emotional pain, obviously lasted for many years and no doubt has been a stain on New Zealand’s historical record as well.

I guess it has been difficult for members of our Cook Island, our Niuean, our Tokelauan, and our Māori communities, because they have been New Zealand citizens at birth and they were New Zealand citizens who were subjected to treatment that was racially motivated, inhumane, unethical, and unfair. So I want to place on record my thanks to the Government for doing the right thing in delivering an apology to our communities that has been widely accepted by Pasifika, pan- Pasifika and non-Pasifika communities, in it being in a culturally acceptable and appropriate way. So my thanks particularly to the Prime Minister and the Government for that.

The goodwill gestures that go alongside the apology will make a difference. As we heard in the House yesterday, words are significant, but actually Pasifika traditions are largely orally based, and so the goodwill gestures will go some way. The development of new Dawn Raid resources to support an accurate historical account of what happened; the Dawn Raids being taught in Aotearoa New Zealand schools, kura, whether it be through the historical or social science programmes; and obviously the provision of educational scholarships for members of the Pasifika community will go a long way. So in that sense, the Government apology has been well received.

But what also has been well received in my local community is that we are a Government of substance, we are a Government in action, and we are a Government that is delivering for the fine people of Palmerston North. For example, we are focused on the issues. For example, at last count, 13 Palmy schools are benefiting from Ka Ora, Ka Ako, the healthy school lunches programme. And actually, like others during the recess, I saw for myself the difference that this programme is making in local schools: in actual fact, tamariki of Terrace End School, where barriers are being removed for them and their whānau, where children are ensured that they receive nutritious meals, but also meals that meet their dietary and cultural needs as well, and more schools continue to come on board. Actually, Terrace End School is the same school that benefited from part of the $8.5 million allocation of building announcements made last week by the Minister of Education.

In addition, another school, Freyberg High School in Palmerston North, again, will also benefit from that same pool of money and actually having 11 of their teaching spaces brought up to modern standards. This, of course, is on top of the School Investment Package funding that schools all around the country have received. Just last week, principals that I met with were again thanking the level of support from Government for delivering for the community of Palmerston North.

But it doesn’t stop there. We have small businesses in Palmy who have benefited from interest-free loans that total $52 million. That’s right, $52 million to continue supporting—

Angie Warren-Clark: How much?

TANGI UTIKERE: —$52 million—to continue supporting local business needs. Kāinga Ora in Palmerston North are delivering public housing—the first time in many, many years. Good, solid, warm, healthy homes for whānau in my community. The most recent I visited were in Exeter Crescent and Kupe Place just this week as well, and we have excited whānau who want to move in.

On Friday, some of my colleagues are on a field trip to the mighty Manawatū and they will see firsthand progress with Te Ahu a Turanga, the Manawatū Tararua Highway—it will commence construction in January, a $620 million Government investment. They will see the good work of Food HQ. They will see the next stage of the Papaioea Place housing development, something that has been led by the local council in partnership with the Government to the tune of $4.7 million. And of course, that was recently opened by the Prime Minister visiting Palmy last month. Some good work is happening.

In conclusion, I want to actually wish happy birthday to my youngest brother, James Nikau Utikere, who turns 18 today. I do that because I’m proud of the fact that we are a Labour Government that delivers for 18-year-olds. We deliver for under-18-year-olds. We deliver for over-18-year-olds. We deliver for Māori, Pasifika, new migrant communities, for businesses, for organisations, and for the people in my mighty and fine, beautiful electorate of Palmerston North. It’s a wonderful time to be in Labour. It’s a wonderful time to be part of a Government that is delivering for our communities around the motu. Kia ora.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to be speaking in this general debate. I would like to talk about our education system. People contact us on a daily basis with their concerns about our education system. We know that if we want to have world-class living standards and world-class income, we have to have a world-class education system. My goodness, the alarm bells should be ringing at the moment. I listened to the previous speaker who talked about what they are delivering for under-18-year-olds. I’ll give him a very clear of picture of what’s delivering. I’m disappointed that Minister Willie Jackson is leaving, because I was going to give him credit for the—

Hon Willie Jackson: I’m here!

PENNY SIMMONDS: Don’t leave, don’t leave—for those charter schools.

So we should be looking with concern at what’s happening in our education sector. In 2018, our performance in maths put us in the bottom half of OECD countries: 22nd out of 37. We used to be fourth. Our education standards have been falling under the watch of Chris Hipkins. Students who attend regularly pass NCEA. Students who are absent half of the time fail NCEA. We are getting very close to half of our school students not attending school nine days out of 10. Who are the worst with absenteeism? It is our Māori and our Pasifika students that are attending less than anyone else.

Now, we used to have a bit of a solution here. They were called charter schools. They had in their contract a requirement for high attendance. None of our State schools have such a requirement. So despite all this virtue signalling by the current Labour Government that they are doing so much for our Māori young, they are doing very, very little, except setting them up for failure.

We know that our prison population is full of people who have significant numeracy and literacy challenges. So our young Māori and Pasifika students who are not attending school regularly; we are setting them up for failure, for gang recruitment, for unemployment, and for poor health outcomes. That is not acceptable, and my golly, there might be some apologies in the future being needed.

This Government has been fixated on lifting incomes through artificial means like lifting minimum wage and restricting new migrant labour. They didn’t care how much that impacted on our businesses. But the only real gains in income you get is when they are sustainable through increased productivity. Increased productivity only occurs when we have people with the right skills and the right qualifications. From early childhood through to primary and secondary school, through to tertiary education, we must ensure that New Zealanders are being equipped with the skills and attributes that will help to grow this economy.

The National Party has always understood the power of education. That is why the last National Government set and achieved ambitious targets to improve NCEA outcomes for school leavers and particularly for Māori and Pasifika students. National understood that one size doesn’t fit all and that we must provide choices for people to learn in different ways. For example, the charter schools, which provided better cultural context, better experiential learning, and a much better environment for many people to learn under—but the previous Labour-led Government took that choice away, and Minister Willie Jackson should be ashamed of that. He owned one, he knew how successful they were, and he should never have let it happen.

In 23 years leading the Southern Institute of Technology, I saw the transformative power of second-chance education. But Minister Hipkins has systematically gone about disestablishing that wonderful vocational education sector because he has an ideology that central is better. He took a $40 million problem and he turned it into a $120 million solution by spending more and more on layers of bureaucracy, layers of management, he took the accountability away—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member’s time is up.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): Kia ora. I’d like to start, today, my speech just by a little rebuttal there for Penny Simmonds. On Friday, I took a caucus tour through a whole lot of really amazing place in Auckland, and one of them was the Media Design School. It’s an absolutely wonderful university-type arrangement—so it’s after you have finished school, you go in and you actually do all sorts of things that are associated with gaming, and they’re associated with creative production—

Hon Louise Upston: It’s a private training establishment (PTE). Remind your colleagues, because they hate PTEs.

HELEN WHITE: —and I’d actually like to finish my speech. In that tour, I was really impressed with the people who were teaching there. I was impressed by their enthusiasm, but I was mostly impressed by the students. They were learning new things, they were getting good jobs, and they were very, very delighted to see a whole lot of Labour MPs listening and taking notes. They had a really interesting combination of objectives. Yes, they were profit-making, but they also absolutely stood by a social justice principle, so they were taking people who wouldn’t have necessarily been to a university and they were turning them into very creative, happy, high-end learners and earners, and it was a wonderful thing to see. So thank you to the Media Design School for hosting us.

I wanted to talk today just about transport in Auckland Central, because we really have seen a whole lot of delivery and change in that area, and we’re in the midst of it. I wanted to talk about one other place where we visited on that tour, which was a woman called Kirsten Corson is running something called Zilch. Zilch is a car sharing fleet, so it has cars you can go—they’re all electric—you can go and hire them, you can subscribe to them.

They also provide a service where—it’s another enterprise, but it’s connected, and it’s called Carbn Asset Management. They’ll go and they’ll look at your fleet and they’ll decide what kind of cars you need and when you use them, they’ll make sure people are sharing those cars. That is a way of actually maximising the use of an asset, but it’s also incredibly good for congestion, and it’s good for consumers because they’re not actually shelling out a whole lot of money. They’ve also got a business that finances electric car fleets. All of those things are things that this Government supports. Two of those enterprises, the Government has put in $5.8 million into supporting, and they’re all absolutely connected by a spirit of activism in the area of, really, environmental change. I was absolutely impressed with her, as were my colleagues, and to see somebody doing something like this and absolutely being supported by the Government, and nurtured by the Government, is a wonderful thing. My bouquets go out to her for doing something so brave and so innovative that will transform the streets of Auckland.

I also want to talk, just briefly, about the City Rail Link, because this is something that is actually going to be—it’s very hard earned, in Auckland, we’ve got a lot of traffic cones, a lot of inconvenient, a lot of heartbreak while it’s being done—but at the end of it, we are going to have an absolutely amazing city. We’re going to have a subway, and it’s going to connect our rail, and it’s going to mean that a lot more people can come into the city, it’s going to extend the range of where people can live, and it is going to absolutely transform our city. I’m hoping that, by the time it happens, we will be in a world of electric buses, electric ferries, and we’ll be in a world where we have a pedestrianised Auckland Central, where people can actually live and they can work and they can take their kids to school by foot. That’s what I want to see. I want to see an Auckland Central where we can scooter, we can bike, and we can walk, and we can do so in an environment which isn’t actually full of pollution. Because one of the other effects that we’ve got, the kind of structure we’ve had for so long, is that we have a city that actually has really poor air quality, and people die of it. I just really want to see this become a much healthier environment. This Government has supported that plan. So have the council, and, again, applause to the council. The master plan is a really good plan. I urge people to look at it, and I urge people to support it, even through the times when it’s quite difficult to live with. So thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 3 August 2021 on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Buckle in, folks, I’ve got a bit to tell you, OK? Standing Orders provide for 11 hours of debate on the Estimates. There are nine hours and 11 minutes remaining in the debate. The House has given leave to organise the debate by portfolio, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day, to speak to the indicated portfolios only. So the Government has indicated that—[Interruption] I’ll look at you, OK? I’ll look at you.

The Government has indicated that the Minister for Māori Development, the Minister of Police, and the Minister for Economic and Regional Development will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or a member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolio. The debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill.

The time in the debate has been allocated to parties on a proportional basis, and may be taken as parties see fit during the debate. New Zealand Labour has four hours 54 minutes remaining. New Zealand National has two hours 46 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 44 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 47 minutes remaining. Te Paati Māori has eight minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans, as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. Finally, I do urge members, when seeking to take a call, to stand up and seek the call. So the question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2021 stand part of the schedules.

Māori Development

TĀMATI COFFEY (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): Madam Chair, thank you very much, after waiting for your call for quite some time with anxious anticipation. First of all, can I thank the Ministers for presenting in front of the Māori Affairs Committee, both Ministers Henare and Jackson, on 30 June and 19 July respectively.

Vote Māori Development encompasses both the Ministry of Māori Development, otherwise known as Te Puni Kōkiri, and also Whānau Ora, which the Government has invested in across Governments for some time now and it’s making an absolute difference out there on the ground, in the grassroots level in our community. So the aim of Vote Māori Development is, of course, to improve whānau, hapū, and iwi conditions across all kinds of areas: economic, social, health, and also wellbeing.

It was indeed a pleasure to hear about the absolutely razor-sharp focus that the Ministry of Māori Development have got in the area of housing, and it is in this Budget, in this Estimates hearing, that we heard about the kind of investment that is being put into Vote Māori Development and, specifically, into housing. The total value of the Vote is $383 million, and the Vote includes an appropriation of $98 million specifically for Māori housing—an increase of $61 million, which is up 170 percent compared to the estimated actual of $36 million in 2020-21.

Now, that particular funding is aimed at improving the quality of homes for whānau most in need but also partnering with some of our iwi housing providers to create better outcomes and to accelerate housing projects across all parts of New Zealand. It’s been well received, can I also say, out there in the regions where there is a dire need for housing.

On top of that, Te Tumu Paeroa, through this appropriation, has been appropriated $5.1 million, and a total of $20 million over the four years to 2024-25. That’s going to support its capacity to be able to just naturally do its statutory jobs but also to help development on whenua Māori.

Outside of the Estimates process, we also heard from Te Tumu Paeroa, who talked about their project Te Tumu Kāinga, which is enabling Māori land owners to be able to develop into housing aspirations as well. So we support that appropriation.

Also under the banner of housing, Māori boarding schools got an appropriation through this as well—$9.3 million in each of the years 2021-22 and 2022-23—which is looking to improve the funding for infrastructure across four Māori boarding schools: Hukarere Girls’ College, St Joseph’s Māori Girls’ College, Te Aute College, and also Hato Pāora College. Māori boarding schools play a key and an instrumental part in the growing of young Māori talent, and they’ve been doing that for a long amount of time. Recently, we also heard—again, outside of the Estimates process—about the difference that boarding schools make, the ability to be able to house some of our young students, our tauira, and the difference that it makes for their educational achievement. So, again, we’re incredibly supportive of that appropriation.

Finally, just the difference that this appropriation is going to make to strengthening our te reo capability and our tikanga as well out there: $5.3 million in this financial year, and a total of $14.7 million over the four years out to 2024-25. That’s in order to be able to support the delivery of the Maihi Karauna, which is the Government’s Māori language strategy. We’re going to be able to do that through investing in organisations like Te Māngai Pāho—$10.5 million this year, and $42 million over the four years out to 2024-25—and also by supporting the sustainability of the Māori media sector.

The Minister came before the committee and talked about the good work that’s being done by a cluster of Māori media professionals that he’s managed to get together into the same area and talk about some of the challenges that are being faced out there in Māori broadcasting land—i.e., iwi radio as well. So this is going to make a significant difference to those organisations who are, again, out there at the coalface, doing what they can to be able to strengthen the Crown’s commitment to te reo me ōna tikanga, and I’m incredibly supportive of it.

We sat and we heard the Ministers—both Ministers—talk with passion about their various portfolios, and I’m incredibly supporting of the direction under Vote Māori Development.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask the Minister if the Government is developing a national declaration plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a priority for this Government, and, if so, why was it not listed as a policy initiative in Budget 2021/22? I would also ask the Minister if any funding has been allocated for the development of a national declaration plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and, if not, why not?

I would note that Minister Jackson, in a speech at Ngā Whare Waatea, said, “He Puapua is a collection of ideas, suggestions, aspirations and hopes for Māori—something to add to our discussions … the Declaration can be a bit scary when you first look through its gates. But once we talk about it together, wananga, and even argue back and forth about it—it will become a place where talking about self-determination is welcomed, a place where we can share our aspirations and debate our future. It will be something that brings us together as a country.”

I note that a declaration working group was set up by Labour in 2019 and consisted of five non-State representatives and four Government officials. Government promised transparency, and all New Zealanders deserve an opportunity to understand and engage in the issues being proposed in the He Puapua report. One of the report’s writers, associate law professor Dr Claire Charters, told me that she wished the report was used as an instrument to have a genuine discussion about what realising our international obligations and what Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires. I would ask the Minister to clarify what his position is on the authors of the He Puapua report, commissioned by Te Puni Kōkiri, briefing the Māori Affairs Committee on their thinking and the recommendations contained within that report.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Could the Minister, the Hon Willie Jackson, talk to us about the aspiration of indigenous peoples, talk to us about the aspiration of Māori, talk to us about the aspiration of tino rangatiratanga as outlined within this Estimates, and talk about how the foundation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, signed by that corner of the House by the then Prime Minister John Key, will actually help to meet those different expectations and the dreams and aspirations of tangata whenua?

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): What advice did the Minister receive, and from whom, that the Māori procurement scheme is only for 5 percent rather than the 25 percent as proposed by Te Paati Māori? What progress has the Minister made on the procurement scheme, has it been implemented, and how many contracts have been signed off? Will the Minister double funding for Te Mātāwai so that our people can lead their own te reo Māori revitalisation strategies? Does the Minister’s plan for implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples include supporting the push for constitutional transformation according to the Matike Mai report? Is it Labour’s policy to entrench the Māori electorates, or will they continue to force Rino Tirikatene to put this up as a member’s bill, which may never even get debated in this House?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I would ask the Minister what is the time line for public consultation on a national declaration plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? I would ask the Minister what is the time line for developing a national declaration plan for implementation on the rights of indigenous people, and releasing it for public consultation?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Could the Minister also talk to us in terms of the way that they’ve been rolling out the aspirations of tangata whenua in terms of the Māori Health Authority about whether there is scope in foundation within this year’s Estimates to build up those same aspirations in Māori Education? And could he also be specific and talk to us about how that aspiration would work for kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, also for wharekura?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s an honour to present in this debate, despite some of the strange questions coming from the Opposition. But I’ll answer a couple of them because they seem to have an absolute obsession with He Puapua, which, I’ve made very clear, is over—gone. However, I will acknowledge the mahi of our people in terms of He Puapua, as I’m sure all the Māori members here will. Claire Charters and Bill Hamilton and others who contributed to that document are brilliant. I mihi to them. Mihi nui ki a rātou mō tā rātou mahi ātaahua ki te whakatū, ki te kōkiri i tērā kaupapa.

[Thanks to them; sincere thanks to them for their beautiful work in instigating and championing that report.]

I thought it was a very brave and courageous move from them to put such a document out and it was a catalyst for this kōrero. At the same time, I want to mihi to my Uncle Moana Jackson and my wife’s whanaunga Aroha Mead, who are two of the original people who talked about indigenous rights—it must be 30 years ago—and have been role models in terms of this kaupapa, in terms of the United Nations declaration that was brought up by them in the 1980s and 1990s, when my Uncle Moana was talking about a separate legal system and certainly upset mainstream New Zealand at the time. I mihi to them for their work in terms of strengthening and identifying indigenous rights, rights that were recognised by the National Party and John Key in 2010, who took up the challenge from former party leader of the Māori Party Pita Sharples—the co-leaders at the time who talked about New Zealand buying into the declaration—and well done to National and the Māori Party at the time for following through in terms of the declaration.

So let’s be very clear: that’s what we’re talking about today and we’ve reignited the whole debate through He Puapua, and, of course, now we’re on track in terms of the declaration. I made a speech at Ngā Whare Waatea Marae which talked about how we would now progress in terms of the declaration. It’s a two-step declaration—it’s a two-step process, I should say, in terms of addressing the declaration. The first step will be negotiation or consultation with Māori. Now, you do that because it’s an indigenous declaration. I know that shocks and horrifies some of the National Party members, but when it’s an indigenous declaration, that means Māori first and foremost. That does not mean Pākehā people miss out. That just means we honour the obligation in terms of Māori and we talk with our people in terms of what they want, their hopes, their dreams—where do they see New Zealand in terms of tino rangatiratanga, in terms of kaupapa Māori, in terms of co-governance and partnership, which the National Party introduced with Ngāi Tūhoe and Tāmati Kruger some years ago, and embraced the concept of co-governance and partnership. We’re going to traverse all those areas over the next few months.

So our Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK)—just for the member who asked the question—are currently working with the Iwi Leaders Forum. By the end of August, they’ll seek ministerial approval for a targeted engagement strategy. I will be looking at that. After an approved targeted engagement, we’re going to commence consultation with iwi Māori right through to the end of November. It’ll be across all organisations, Māori organisations—not just iwi organisations—and it’ll be a focused, whānau-driven approach. In December, there’ll be a report back to Cabinet to seek approval in terms of drafting a declaration plan.

A governance group will be chaired by Professor Margaret Mutu and comprised of Dayle Takitimu, Aroha Mead, Liana Poutu, and Bill Hamilton, and they’ll liaise with Ministers. A steering committee comprised of Geoff Short, Tricia Keelan, and Dr Claire Charters will provide oversight to the project, and a working group comprised of TPK staff, Health Research Council staff, and Pou Tikanga - appointed staff will undertake the groundwork. So that’s the sort of process going forward, and of course we will be consulting with the rest of New Zealand, as we must and as we should, over the next six months.

So I think that the hysteria that the National Party have been trying to stir up hasn’t worked at all in their favour. As you can see, people are not particularly concerned about this kaupapa because most New Zealanders understand that for this nation to go forward, we must have strong partnerships. We must work together. We must share in terms of resourcing, and the National Party and Māori Party laid some of that ground work and we’re certainly continuing with the work, not doing a lot of things different other than providing much more resourcing.

In terms of rangatiratanga, I’ve always said to my whanaunga over there, Rawiri from the Māori Party, that there’s no—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member will address the member by his full name.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Sorry—apologies, Madam Chair. Rawiri Waititi—there’s no rangatiratanga in Parliament; only on your marae.

Rawiri Waititi: Don’t get nervous, Minister.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Only on your marae—there’s no rangatiratanga here. You come in and you bow to the Westminster system and that’s what it’s all about. It doesn’t matter how many hakas you do, this is not tino rangatiratanga territory. This is a Westminster set-up and the best thing you can do here is just get the deal, and the deal here for us is Māori resourcing and Māori funding. We got record Māori funding and resourcing, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee said, in the last Budget: $263 million of new money, $42 million put aside for Māori media, $20 million in terms of our whenua Māori. Through that type of funding and resourcing, we’re hoping that some of our groups might be able to achieve forms of tino rangatiratanga. But to think you can get tino rangatiratanga here, I think, is in la-la land.

In terms of procurement, progressive procurement spreads the benefits of the Government’s $51.5 billion spend per year on procurement of goods and services to the wider community—it’s now being spread—and we have Amotai who are involved with that. The member criticises the 5 percent, but the 5 percent was brought about by a former Minister Nanaia Mahuta, and I think she’s done a really good job in putting that percentage in.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, throw Nanaia under the bus!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We got a lot of—see, we can never win. The Opposition say it’s separatist and apartheid, having 5 percent in terms of procurement. The Māori Party call us sell-outs. So we can’t win—we can’t win—but we know we’re on the right track and our hope is, obviously, that we can increase that. But we’ve had a huge response in terms of our Māori and Māori businesses who are open to an opportunity they never had under the National Party.

In terms of where the question—

Hon Members: What about the question?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, I think I’ve answered a number of questions—I’ll keep going. In terms of Mātāwai, I think that question came up—Mātāwai—I’m dealing with the chairs at the moment. They’re finding their way, Mātāwai, at the moment in terms of how they work with Te Arawhiti. I think it’s important that we get the strategy right. If there is a problem, everyone’s related and everybody’s all been on the same boards. So we’re all going around in circles, and we have terms. Sometimes they’re with the Crown and sometimes they’re wearing the tino rangatiratanga hat—and we’ve got Wena Tait, who I’ve just appointed to Mātāwai. She’s been with Māori TV. Now she’s going to be my Crown appointment. You know, it’s only a small pool, and as I’ve always said—

Christopher Luxon: Point of order, Madam Chair. It’s a very entertaining conversation, as the Minister’s always very entertaining. But I’m not sure about relevance to what he’s actually talking about in answering the questions, because we’ve conceded some time and we’ve said we’ll do this in 20 minutes, and we’re not making the most of it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I thank the member. I thank the member for his point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I’m answering the question about Mātāwai, which was a question from the member, and all I’m saying is it’s very hard being Māori, operating on Māori initiatives, because people talk about conflicts of interest, and I always say, “Well, you can’t be a Māori if you don’t have a conflict of interest.” That’s just the reality. Because we’re whanaunga; we’re friends right across the spectrum. But I’ll take a break now, if someone else wants to ask questions.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that kōrero. I, unfortunately, think I ended up knowing less than I did at the beginning of it! There were a few statements in there that seemed to contradict one another, and I’d just ask if the Minister would clarify those for the benefit of those watching and members in the House. On one hand, he said that the He Puapua report is over and gone. On the other hand, he said it’s a catalyst for a kōrero with Māori. He’s also said in other statements outside of the House that he’s consulting with iwi and, in July, in fact, was going out for consultation on indigenous rights. I wonder if he would clarify as well whether he’s communicated to Dr Claire Charters that the He Puapua report is over and gone, because he’s also appointed her to the working group.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the concerns raised by members opposite about the shortening of time, I would therefore point out that the point of the Estimates debate is solely to discuss what is in the report, and He Puapua does not feature once.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. I’ll just have a yarn about that.

Nicola Willis: The Minister was happy to talk about it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members will be silent. Thank you for that point of order. I’m looking at Speakers’ ruling 134/4, “The Estimates debate is confined to current spending plans as contained in the Estimates document.” Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Point of order. The question on Te Mātāwai was clear, around doubling the funding, and he didn’t answer that at all; he talked about conflicts of interest.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. It is at the discretion of the Minister which questions he wishes to address.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): In terms of the Mātāwai question, there’s no plans at the moment in terms of an increased Mātāwai budget, but a tono has been laid down by the member’s whanaunga, and it will go under consideration for the Budget. But we’ll see how it stacks up against everything else. Now, in terms of the member over there, I can’t help it if the member is stupid.

Maureen Pugh: Point of order, Madam Chair. That was completely unparliamentary, and I think the Minister should stand, withdraw, and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. I am sorry; I was conferring with the Clerk, and so the member has taken offence—[Interruption] No, no, I’m asking a question of the member who took the point of order—has taken offence?

Maureen Pugh: I did take offence.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No—thank you. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. I’m in the middle of ruling. I’ll ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’m sorry, Madam Chair. I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order. I was watching very closely at the time that the Minister called a member stupid. He was looking at Kieran McAnulty.

Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I take no offence.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, before I take the Minister’s call, can I just call it, in the time-honoured tradition, one all?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you. I’m sure we’ve all got thick skin here; so, to whoever is upset, I apologise. Can I rephrase it? I can’t help it if the member is silly in terms of this kaupapa. I hope he doesn’t take offence to that. Offended? OK. But in terms—no, I can’t help it, because I’m very clear that the He Puapua work is over. He Puapua is not Government policy. I don’t know how many times—I know that the Opposition want He Puapua to be Government policy, but it’s not and they did a terrific job. Dr Charters is a renowned international law expert and is well placed in terms of her mahi, and she’ll be helping later on with our work. But it was really important work that they did, and I’m just pleased with the mahi they’ve done.

I think that the Opposition should congratulate us because we’ve got record funding in terms of Māori Development. We’ve got $42 million in terms of Māori media—the National Party never gave one cent in 10 years. Now we have an opportunity for our iwi radio network, for Māori Television, for Māori news, to do more. We’ve got $15 million in terms of Māori tourism. We’ve got whenua Māori being looked after, and housing—as our Māori Affairs chair said, $383 million in terms of Māori housing. I mean, things are turning around in the housing area, unlike they were in the time that the National Party was in. We’re talking possibly a thousand houses over the next four years, specifically for Māori.

We’re talking about repairs in the small areas like Murupara and Kaingaroa. I’m really proud of some of the work that’s happening at the moment, and you can’t doubt some of the mahi. We’ve got $20 million being invested into Māori schools, Māori schools like St Stephen’s and Hukarere. I just think there’s so much to be proud of. So I would urge the Opposition to stop being so negative and respect—particularly Mr Bridges, who’s trying to sell a book next week, trying to get everyone to go to the launch. He’s even asked my whole family to go to the launch—it’s just disgraceful!

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Can I ask the Minister to stick to the subject of the Estimates? Is the Minister finished? I’ll take another call.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Madam Chair, probably my original question got lost in the cacophony over He Puapua, but I just wanted to follow up again around Māori education. There’s this movement towards a Māori Health Authority, there are a lot of needs within Māori education, acknowledging that there is stuff in the Budget that was announced for Māori education, but what is the future for kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, and wharekura within that aspect?

Another question, which is not related to that one, is around Matike Mai. We hear about all the politics of distraction and all the confusion over there, and I would say that perhaps the solution is within the many, many numerous hui that were held to actually pull the Matike Mai report, and what the Minister’s next steps would be in terms of responding to that report—so two things. Thank you.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): Look, I think that something the Minister said before is actually important to call up. He said “It’s all about the deal.” And, actually, he talked a lot about the cash that he actually was getting out to his announcements, but there is a big difference between announcements and deals, and actual outcomes. That’s actually what we’re interested in, is outcomes, on this side.

I just want to spend a little bit of time just talking about education because, you know, educational attainment leads to higher wages and salaries, which ultimately leads to more freedom and choices for people—Māori people, non-Māori people, everybody, all New Zealanders. I guess I really want to understand from the Minister: fundamentally, what work does he think needs to be done to lift Māori attendance at school? Because when we look at it, actually getting kids, all kids, New Zealanders, into school is actually really important. And Māori are at around about 48 percent regular attendance at schools versus 60 percent for the rest of the country.

So I’m interested in what strategies does he think needs to be done to lift attendance? Does he agree that we need to be setting some targets to improve the number of students attending? And, thirdly, we had a really good model of charter schools that were actually achieving fantastic outcomes for Māori and that’s been thrown out the door. Why wouldn’t we do that again?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Madam Chair—and I’ll be leaving in two minutes because I certainly respect our whips saying that our time is over. I just want to quickly say to our Green member Teanau Tuiono that kōhanga and kura kaupapa has been looked after by Minister Davis who has actually put in funding that National refused to fund for five years. Rawiri Waititi’s whanaunga Hekia Parata refused to fund them and went down a track of not funding them, and the Ministers working in collaboration with the kuia Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi and kōhanga reo. I agree in terms of the equity arguments in terms of kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa.

In terms of Māori health, there will be bids put up next year, and in terms of all those questions from Mr Luxon, he can see me later on if he wants to have a cup of coffee. Kia ora tātou katoa.

Police

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The debate on the Police portfolio—the first call goes to the chairperson of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to briefly run through what the Justice Committee heard in relation to Vote Police during the Estimates session. Members heard a very good range of views and heard from the Commissioner of Police as well as the Minister of Police in relation to a range of issues. One of the main issues that was raised was in relation to gang crime and what the Government is currently doing in relation to countering some of the issues in the organised crime space. It was interesting for members to hear, from both sides of the House, what Operation Tauwhiro had set out to achieve from within baseline and how that as a pilot project would be continuing to be utilised to keep a check on organised crime and to restrain assets, firearms, illicitly gained items, as well as illicit drugs.

The Minister, when she spoke, highlighted the operation of Operation Tauwhiro and indicated how much had been seized over that project. There were 650 firearms seized over that period of time and also just shy of $3.5 million of cash, and also a significant amount of methamphetamine seized. Police told us that as a result of that successful pilot scheme, they would be extending the operation, particularly against the use of firearms for violence. They explained that the operation has been prioritised throughout the organisation as this had shaped the work of several different business groups.

The second main area that the committee heard about during the Estimates was Te Pae Oranga, which is an initiative that has gained funding through the recent Budget. We heard that the commitment for $70 million in the operating for Te Pae Oranga will enable 14 additional panels to be put forward across the country. We’re pleased to see that the programme had been given—it was actually $76 million, to be exact, in Budget 2021, and in that we heard about how the extra funding will be spent and where the value would be gained. It was also a question about what the role is of that in terms of intervening at the early stage, the benefits. The Police Commissioner spoke in terms of reconciliation and acknowledging where the root of some of those initial offending had happened, to make sure it got people on the right path and a different pathway to just prison, which can often be the case in some instances.

The third area that we heard about was seizing cash and assets from organised crime, and in particular the way it was termed was hitting them in the pocket, because that’s where it hurts the most. In terms of what that was, the committee heard about how there’s a switch in onus, how in the past if police were wanting to confiscate or restrain items that were potentially got through ill-gotten gains, then the onus was always on the police or the investigating authority to prove that that had been gained in an illegal way, and that’s often quite difficult to do. So what new provision we’ll make under the Government is that the onus is on the individual who’s got the item to prove that they obtained that through a legal means, and so that makes the ability to restrain, seize, those illegal items far easier for police to do.

Also, I’d just like to conclude by saying I was really heartened to hear how Police are continuing to improve efforts in reflecting our community by improving the diversity we have within the New Zealand Police. Police are tracking very well, and I’m interested to hear more from the Minister, if she’d like to explain how we will continue to move forward over the coming years to make sure that the police on the front line are able to engage and connect into communities from a wide range of backgrounds, to make sure we’re equipped in the areas of language and cultural expertise to make sure that police are working with communities and alongside and making those relationships that will last.

We heard a range of other operations, including Operation Trojan Shield, but in relation to the activity, we were very interested to hear how that ongoing activity, particularly in relation to organised crime, was tracking well. The committee had a robust and good discussion, and I encourage other members to contribute to the debate, but in general, I would like to hear from the Minister in particular around the ongoing areas where we’d like to see an improving of diversity in terms of New Zealand Police.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Will the Minister acknowledge that there is systemic racism in the police force, rather than just unconscious bias? Why are the police refusing to agree to an inquest into the death of Shargin Stephens, who was shot by police? Is there a specific programme focused on the rise of white supremacist violence, and, if so, why is it not known and have an identifiable name, like Operation Tauwhiro? How much funding has been committed to internal programmes focused on eliminating racism and bias in the police, and to programmes focused on Te Tiriti education, decolonisation, and inclusivity training?

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Minister. Minister, I see in the answers to Estimates questions that were asked that $23.5 million has been allocated for an effective administration of the arms regulatory system “for meeting Police’s obligations in regard to implementing recent legislative changes to the Arms Act and the ongoing improvement programme designed to meet public safety objectives and be a more effective regulator”. My question, Minister, is: when we are seeing extensive delays in renewing and new applications for firearm licences, where we have now thousands of people waiting over 12 months, my question comes down to, with the worsening inconsistencies that we’re seeing in administration, where is that $23.5 million being spent, is it going towards those licensed firearm owners who are now caught up in the changes of the regulatory system, and will we, in fact, see that money being used to establish the promised independent firearms administration authority? Thank you.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in this debate. My question is to the Minister, regarding the increased gang violence we’re seeing on our streets across New Zealand. This subject was raised in the select committee and the question was put then to the Minister: when will the promised legislation that this Government promised on 11 May 2021, three months ago, to introduce firearm prohibition orders, be introduced to this Parliament? The supplementary question to that: has the legislation even been drafted yet, because there have been 66 gang-related firearm incidences that the police have reported since the Minister made that announcement, but we still haven’t seen any legislation?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. The member from the ACT Party, I’m just getting that information, because it’s quite specific, so I will be back to you with that. Firstly, can I thank the chair of the committee, and can I thank the committee for all the work that they do. It’s not an easy area of work, but I know that the committee works tirelessly and diligently around that.

Can I first come to the member from Te Paati Māori. I think we’ve had some conversations about this in the past. The issue of the impacts on our most vulnerable communities in terms of the interaction that they have with the police—I have never, and I will never, term that in the way that the member has characterised it. The reason for that is that the police are going through a significant process of culture change at the moment, evidenced by being very clear that they want to be the face of Aotearoa New Zealand. When you come to the graduation—I hope you will take that offer up from us to come to a police graduation—you will see that police are increasingly reflecting back to us who we are as a nation.

At one of the graduations I went to—in fact, the very first graduation—more than 50 percent of graduates were woman. There were something like in the region of 13 different languages spoken, and what that speaks to is actually being reflective of our nation. If we are in situations where we are faced with some of the most difficult times, do we not want to be supported or engaging with people who are like us and who understand us? So there is definitely a lot of work that the police can do to shift who it is that they stop, how they make the decisions around charging, for example, and that is a piece of work that they’re going through at the moment. I support wholeheartedly that work, because there is no doubt that our Māori and Pacific are much more likely to be arrested and charged, and there is something that we have to do about that disproportionate rate.

There is also something in the fact that Māori and Pacific tend to be more victimised as well. So while I will not characterise it as racism, what I will say is there are processes within the police that disadvantage Māori and Pacific. There are probably people with some attitude within the police that need some changing, and I know that the police are working on that.

To come to the matter of the $23.5 million, I’ve had the breakdown of that. It’s a new allocation of funding. We are in the process of building the ring-fenced entity within the police. We’re building the team up as we speak, moving from casual to full-time permanent staff. Resources also allow for the development of a business case to establish a firearms registry, which will come into force in June of 2023. I do want to say that if there is one thing that we can do in terms of safety of our communities, it’s having the arms register in place, knowing who is licensed, being very clear about the weapons that they have. Actually having an understanding of how many weapons are in our community, I think, is one of the most important—perhaps the single most important—safety aspects that we can get to, and also making sure that those who sell firearms are very clear about the controls that need to go in place around that: that we secure them properly, that we are very clear about, you know, currently why someone would need to have several weapons.

I will come back to Mr Brown’s question that he keeps—

Simeon Brown: It’s a very good question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Well, it’s an important question to police. Madam Chair, I’m going to seek another call if that is OK with you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): In six seconds, you can.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. I shall do that. There’s no doubt that gangs—[Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Hon Poto Williams.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you—have a huge impact on our communities, and that’s why I completely support the work that the police are doing, particularly around Operation Tauwhiro. If there’s one thing that Jarrod Gilbert talked about, it was the ability to really get hard and fast with gangs and disrupt the violence and the impact of gangs. Operation Tauwhiro has been successful, and the member—the chair of the committee, actually—talked about what we had reported at the Estimates at select committee, and I just want to update the committee of the whole House that since the start of Operation Tauwhiro, we’ve seized 855 firearms, $4.87 million cash, seized 30 kilograms of meth, and arrested 744 people. That’s on top of the work that’s happening in organised crime work.

Simeon Brown: No, good stuff—good start—but how’s the FPO legislation going?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The firearm prohibition orders will be introduced by the end of the year, and that is part of the suite of measures to disrupt the gangs.

One of the most important things around disrupting gangs, though, is around the proof of assets. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act amendment was introduced by the Minister of Justice, and what that speaks to is ensuring that they have to prove where those assets have come from. As the chair described it, that is actually how we will hit the gangs where it hurts the most, and that’s in the pocket. We are talking about an economy that we can disrupt, and we are also talking about taking the ability to recruit our young people into the gangs by use of enticement, which actually has proven to be very successful. None of us want to have our people in the gangs, so anything we can do to disrupt that is really, really important.

But along that journey, too, we have to look at opportunities to help people to exit from the gangs. This is not something that the police do alone. They do a great job in terms of having alternative resolution pathways, such as Te Pae Oranga, which we have increased the support for by the tune of $70 million. Now, that’s a programme that’s endorsed. In fact, the patron of that is Kingi Tūheitia.

Simeon Brown: Forty percent failed to turn up.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: He is so—

Ginny Andersen: Cheap seats.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yeah. He’s—

Simeon Brown: It’s true. It’s in the paperwork.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Excuse me, actually you shouldn’t be speaking across the Chamber to each other. That is definitely for—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Would the Minister care to continue with her speech?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Yes, thank you, I will. I would actually like to continue with my speech without disruption from that member, who just keeps barracking. I’m just happy to stand here and respond in that way if that’s how you want to use your time, but you could also use your time—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): If the Minister could leave the Chair out of the debate.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the committee is suspended for the dinner break—normally a very popular announcement—and will resume at 7 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill. Before the dinner break, we were considering Vote Police and I call Nicole McKee.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for answering the question that I posed before the dinner break. But I’m going to come back to that question, the $23.5 million that’s been allocated for the effective administration of the arms regulatory system. There were a couple of comments made by you, Minister, about licensed firearm owners and also dealers—those that need to be taught how to make their business work more legally and effectively. And I find that statement discourteous at the least to those that have been abiding by the law. There’s 250,000 of them, and decreasing, that have actually been taught how to buy and sell firearms as part of the process for receiving a firearms licence.

Further to that, Minister, you mentioned about registration and how it will keep New Zealand safe. So one of my questions, Minister, is: with the $23.5 million allocation, how much of that is going to go to the implementation of the registry? And further to that, how is it going to help police to identify firearms that they find in illegal possession of people that have no serial numbers on them, which are required for an effective registration to take place, especially when the police themselves had noted in a reply to an Official Information Act request that 50 percent of seized firearms they receive do not have any serial numbers on them at all.

And if I may, Minister, one more question: with the answers to Estimates questions on firearms prohibition orders (FPOs), there is a building fund of $12 million that has been put aside for those FPOs. You have indicated that it will occur before the end of this year, but we are wondering whether or not you can share some information on what those FPOs will be like, especially seeing as there’s been a budget that has been allocated to it. And my last question, Minister, relates back to: when will an independent firearms authority be set up to effectively administer arms legislation and probably spending that $23.5 million in a better way? Thank you.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her question. Perhaps if I could start with the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) first. The intention for the FPOs—we will introduce legislation before the end of the year but the expectation of this Government has been really clear that we want to ensure that violent gangs, you know, and other criminals can’t use firearms to threaten and intimidate. Now, what we will do is the FPOs will prohibit high-risk people from accessing or being around or using firearms. So it will apply to the most serious offenders. The court will consider the person who is subject to an FPO as part of their sentencing following a conviction for a serious offence, and the qualifying offences for FPOs are serious firearms offences that would disqualify somebody from holding a firearms licence, serious violent offences as defined in section 86A of the Sentencing Act, the offence of participation in an organised criminal group, and also terrorism-related offences. So that is what is the intention of the FPO.

With regards to licensing and the broader discussion around the registry, we are in the process of building that at the moment. It will take about two years before we are ready to actually have a fully implemented registry system. So that is a process that’s already started. We’ve started to recruit people to start the implementation of that. I do have an arms advisory group that is supporting some of the work that we are doing. Cabinet hasn’t finalised the decisions on that so we’re still working through that process. We’re really clear. We want to get that right. The intention of the register is for us really to draw a line in the sand in terms of our knowledge of where firearms are in the community going forward, because we know that it’s very difficult—you know, we’ve got 30 years of not having a register to catch up. This is for us, being really clear—we want to draw a line in the sand. We want to start from this point forward having really good information about who owns firearms, how they’re being used, and, you know, where they are. So I hope that gives you a sense about the direction of travel. It will take us a couple of years to put that in place. And we’re working through that at the moment.

Nicole McKee: Firearms authority?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Now, I apologise, but I haven’t managed to write down the—

Hon Members: Firearms authority.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: —the apology? Sorry, would that—

Hon Members: Firearms authority.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: The firearms authority—let me get some more information on that and come back to you on that one.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from those comments, it does seem strange to us on this side of House that the firearms prohibition order (FPO) legislation that the Minister’s proposing there will be putting it in place for people who commit offences—they have to commit an offence—and I’d like the Minister to clarify this: someone will have to commit an offence, and then at sentencing they will be able to have an FPO put in place, rather than what the National Party is proposing, which is actually looking at people in the community who are already at risk of causing harm, and trying to prevent harm from actually taking place into the future. So I’d appreciate the Minister’s comments on that point, if that’s the distinction that this proposed legislation—whenever it does actually come to the House—will have.

The next question I’d like to talk about is the safety of our front-line officers, and it’s been in the media significantly in recent times, with police being shot at or firearms being presented at them. There was an interview which the Minister undertook on Newstalk ZB where she said, “I’m talking about the communities that I represent … the Māori and Pacific communities who told me, loud and clear, the general arming of police and particularly the armed response teams ARTs are a real concern to them.”

Now, the question I put to the Minister is one that many thousands of front-line officers have been asking. Firstly, to the Minister, do you stand by that comment? Secondly, who do you represent as Minister of Police? Because I put it to you that many police don’t feel represented by you as the Minister of Police, including many Māori and Pacific police officers who are working day in and day out on the front line trying to keep our community safe. The final part to that question is: is the Government considering widening the role of the armed offenders squad (AOS) or are the Police—I guess it’s an operational decision at the end of the day—considering widening the role of the AOS, which will, effectively, introduce armed response teams but simply under a different name or in a different way? I would like some clarity on those issues, thank you.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Firstly, can I say that my absolute commitment is to the safety of our police. They go out there every single day to keep their community safe—to keep our community safe. I’ve made it very clear that their safety is my utmost concern.

Just in regards of: who do I represent? I represent the interests of keeping our police safe. I represent keeping our community safe. I represent Māori and Pasifika who are disproportionately impacted by decisions that we take as a community, but also that are disproportionately impacted by all the negative statistics. I represent the people of Christchurch East. I represent people who want to see this country do better for its people. All of those people I represent.

Now, I’m really clear that when I went to—

Simeon Brown: Do you represent New Zealand? What about New Zealanders?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, if I could just ask that member—I found it incredibly annoying to try and answer his questions with the constant chatter that he—and look, it’s entirely over to him. I’ve got approximately two or three minutes left to answer questions. He can use that time by interrupting me or not, that’s entirely over to him, and I’m just asking him a little bit of respect to be able to answer these questions, if that would be OK.

Hon Todd McClay: People want the answers, not your excuses.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As I say again, it’s a little bit like an episode of The Muppet Show in here, with Waldorf and Stanley. So if you could just allow that—

Hon Todd McClay: Say that to the victims. Take it seriously for the victims. How about that?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: If the member would just please give me a moment to—

Hon Todd McClay: Do your job. You get a really big salary, do your job. Stop making excuses.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I’m very clear, that when I was challenged by the kaumātua at Matt Hunt’s memorial service that I am their whaea and I must keep them safe; that is my utmost responsibility, and I will do so.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Minister Williams, I saw that there was an appropriation that’s been put aside for a firearms investigation team, also known as FIT, and I, of course, have some concerns that that team is looking to investigate licensed firearm owners—and a big emphasis on them. I’m hoping that I’m incorrect on that, and am looking for some clarity as to what that appropriation means for the firearms investigation team, please.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I note that the Minister spent a lot of time reprimanding me, but she didn’t answer the question, which was “Are police working on expanding the role of the armed offenders squad to, effectively, introduce armed response teams?”, because, I tell you what, the people listening don’t care whether the Minister and I have a disagreement. The people listening and the police officers out there want to know what this Government is doing to keep them safe and keep the community safe. And the Minister has failed to answer the question—rather, trying to create some sort of pathetic name-calling in the House, which I think’s unacceptable. So I’d like an answer to that question when the Minister next takes a call.

The other topic I’d like to raise here in the House is around the number of police officers on the front line and on the beat. And I note that the number of police officers has fallen from 10,244 in March to 10,117 today as attrition creeps up and the number of graduates has stalled as the college was closed for six weeks. The question I have is: what is the Government doing to fill this gap in the short term to ensure that they are able to keep police on the beat? Also noting that there are 210 officers currently in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), serving at our MIQ facilities. And the other question I’d like to ask around that is: what is the future of police being at MIQ, given the fact that our police on the front line are feeling the strain of the fact that they are finding it challenging with the increased violence and the increased callouts in a number of areas? And is it Government policy to continue with this in the longer term? I’d appreciate some comments from the Minister on that.

Economic and Regional Development

JAMIE STRANGE (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this debate as the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I’ll give a brief overview of what we heard from the Minister in the committee, and then I’ve got three questions to pose to the Minister.

First of all, for the benefit of the committee, previously, responsibility for economic development and regional economic development were in separate portfolios. However, those portfolios have been combined into one portfolio for 2021-22. The funding in this Budget, we heard, supports economic development and the growth of international business and leads to procurement reform and public sector property management.

The main appropriations we heard from the Minister were $696 million for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to fund activities administered by Kānoa, which is the regional economic development and investment unit, including money for the Provincial Growth Fund, infrastructure projects, strategic partnership, and other areas. Also there’s money in the Budget for MBIE to provide policy advice and other services. There’s $262 million for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE)—and I’d like to just acknowledge the excellent work that NZTE do in terms of promoting New Zealand businesses on the international stage—and also $187 million for the New Zealand Screen Production Grant, which I will talk about a little bit more soon.

The New Zealand Screen Production Grant encourages film businesses to invest in New Zealand. We are seeing a lot of interest in New Zealand from overseas film companies, and I think some of the key reasons we’re seeing that is because we have a rule of law, we’ve had an excellent COVID response, and the film companies—like Amazon, for example—are particularly interested in what’s happening here in New Zealand, and they’re interested in investing. We’ve seen The Lord of the Rings filmed here previously to great success, and further Lord of the Rings work is being done at the moment.

Some international productions can qualify for an additional 5 percent rebate, which is what we heard from the Minister, and to be eligible they must reach certain levels of production-related spending in New Zealand, pass the significant economic benefits test, and provide value to New Zealand that meets or exceeds the size of a 5 percent uplift. So we heard about that policy, which I think was particularly interesting, as we diversify our economy and move into this high-growth area in terms of film.

I have three questions for the Minister. The first one is: we heard in the Estimates hearings about the importance of building digital capability to support small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Now, as we move into more of a digital age, it’s becoming very difficult for SMEs to compete with other SMEs if they don’t have a strong digital capability. The Minister just touched on this a little bit in the hearing, but I’d like him to please elaborate on specifically what the Government is doing to help small businesses in this area of becoming digitally enabled.

The second thing we heard in the Estimates was around the importance of Government streamlining procurement processes for companies around New Zealand. So I’m interested in how the Budget is improving a business’s ability to bid for Government contracts during procurement processes and how these improvements will help Māori and Pacific businesses, in particular.

The third question I’d like the Minister to please touch on is the aspect around industry transformation plans. So the Minister touched on that briefly in the hearings, but I’d like him to please elaborate on what this will mean for industries—first of all, specifically why the Minister has undertaken this work on these industry transformation plans, and what it will mean for industries, particularly like manufacturing, for example. So I’m interested in how the Minister will implement these to support New Zealand’s economic recovery from COVID. Thank you.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you very much. I mean, we’ve got great economic development progress in front of us. There’s a whole lot of work that needs to be done, and we’re up for it.

But let me answer the chair’s specific questions to start with. What we found during COVID is that businesses that were digitally enabled had an immediate advantage over businesses that weren’t digitally enabled. What McKinsey & Company—which is an American consultancy—found in the States, which I think is probably mirrored in New Zealand, is that there was about five years’ worth of digital enablement compressed into eight weeks as businesses sought to be able to generate revenue through some way, shape, or form. This happened in New Zealand through the click and collect. But what we found is that we need to move forward in terms of digital enablement.

There’s something called the digital adoption curve. It’s your stock standard bell curve. But that’s been turned on its head as businessmen and women who, in the past, would have no interest in digital enablement because they’ve been doing something the same way for years, and, as far as they’re concerned, there was no place in their business for digital technologies, have now found that, in fact, in order to do business in this country, you need to have some form of digital competency. I used to say before COVID, but, certainly, this has amplified since COVID, that I truly believe that this will be the last generation of small-business owner that will survive, let alone thrive, without being digitally enabled. The reason I say that is everything we are doing, every innovative thing we are doing across Government to support business is based on a digital platform, whether that’s paying your taxes through Business Transformation in Inland Revenue, whether it’s through procurement, whether it’s through e-invoicing, the New Zealand Business Number, it all rests on digital platforms.

But we do also recognise that there are a number of small-business owners that, in fact, have not started on that digital journey and are not too sure how to start on that digital journey. So we’ve set up something called Digital Boost—$44 million in the Budget—and it is a fantastic programme. Actually, it’s more a project where there are a whole lot of videos online that business owners can jump into at any stage of their digital journey right from the very beginning, all the way through. They can do it in their own time, in their own space. There is a support team that they can call to get answers if they’re a little bit stuck. One of the things that’s made it so successful is there are a whole lot of case studies online from people like Stan Walker, for example; Ardie Savea; Julian Savea—I think it’s Julian Savea, actually, who’s a small-business owner himself— Mils Muliaina; you know, these iconic New Zealanders who are actually small-business owners in their own right. They’re on board saying, “You know what. This is a great, innovative effort. Jump on board. Have a look. It’s easy. Do it in your own time.”

Because what we do know is if we ask people to turn up to classrooms or we provide a whole lot of esoteric products, then people aren’t going to turn up. It needs to be done in their own time. So one of the major drivers in the small to medium sized enterprise (SME) sector for this term is that digital enablement. So far, over 25,000 businesses or people, individuals, have taken it up, and it’s spreading. But this is vitally important for businesses to operate in the 21st century. As we have heard today, you know, COVID is not over as far as we’re concerned. Businesses need to be ready just in case, but they also need to be able to drive efficiency. This is what this will do. It’s not necessarily about employing more people. It’s not necessarily about increasing productivity. It’s just driving efficiency. Craig Hudson, for example, the CEO of Xero, has said that, you know, a lot of his clients—this is the same for MYOB and other accounting practices, I must say. But Craig Hudson has said that all the businesses on the Xero platform create a whole lot of data, but very few businesses actually use those data to make informed business decisions. So digital enablement is really important.

You talked about the ITPs. So there are seven ITPs; these are industry transformation plans. These are areas where we believe as a Government we can do a whole lot better, whether that is driving productivity, whether that is increasing or gaining some form of global competitive advantage, but it’s working with key stakeholders, iwi, Government, of course, key stakeholders, bringing them together in a dialogue around how we can do things better. Now, we’ve allocated a lot of money for this in the Budget. It’s a very serious process. Out of this will come a series of recommendations around driving productivity growth, gaining some form of competitive advantage, and being where we need to be as a nation, positioning us forward. Because one thing we have done, and one of the first things I did when I took over this portfolio was to say, “What is the role of Government in driving economic growth, and does the Government actually have a role in terms of driving economic growth?” I quickly came to the conclusion that in a country of 5 million, and certainly in the COVID environment, we have a really important role of getting those settings right so businesses can be as good as they possibly can.

In the ITPs we’ve got the construction sector, we’ve got AgriTech, we’ve got advanced manufacturing, we’ve got food and beverage, we’ve got forestry and wood processing, and we’ve got tourism. All these areas are areas that we know we are experts in. These are areas that we can do better. We have global competitive advantages in some of these.

I mean, food and beverage, for example—you know, we go to the world with what I think is one of the iconic brands. The reason why the primary sector is doing so well in a COVID-affected world is because people trust the integrity of “Brand New Zealand”. Now, what we must do, though, is leverage off that brand and do better, capture more along that whole supply chain and determine what parts of that supply chain we need to own, where we can do better, where we can mechanise, and how we can really enhance that global competitive advantage.

Forestry and wood processing is an area that I’m in charge of, obviously, in another portfolio, but again, that is an area where we are about to become the world’s largest exporter of logs. Now, we believe there is an absolute potential to capture so much more margin and value down the supply chain. But at the moment, it’s not happening. So we’ve gathered a whole lot of people together and said, “What do we need to do? What incentives do we need to put in place? What settings do we need to change in our economy? What incentives do we need to put in our economy that will allow us to process more logs into lumber that goes into our market, as opposed to sending logs offshore?” If it was simply a matter of importing timber offshore—

Hon Todd McClay: Most of the ones we export don’t go to lumber, do they?

Hon STUART NASH: —then the world would be an easy place. But we want to cut up a lot of these logs, like we do in your neck of the woods, Mr McClay. I mean, the interesting thing is, actually, the largest investment into wood processing is in New Zealand in Red Stag Timber, and we’ve supported them. It’s fantastic. But we need to ensure that the settings are right, so those who want to invest in wood processing can do it. Hence just one of the examples of the industry transformation plans.

Now, the other point you mentioned, the other question around procurement—so the Government spends about $51.5 million a year. Of course, we’re the largest spender in this economy—

Hon Todd McClay: A billion dollars a year.

Hon STUART NASH: —a billion dollars a year, sorry. We need to ensure that we get this right, have a sense of transparency in how we’re doing this, but also to ensure that it meets a lot of our wellbeing targets and our objectives and our philosophy as articulated by our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister.

Now, at the moment, I’m not 100 percent confident that we are getting best value for money. In the past, what’s happened—and the Hillside workshops are a classic case—is Governments have said the lowest price gets the tender. You know, from some sort of metrics you could say, “Well, that makes sense.” But as we often know, the lowest price is not necessarily the best price, and Hillside is a classic case. The previous National Government decided we’re going to scrap Hillside, we’re going to buy a whole lot of trains from China. A whole lot of trains from China, they came in, they were filled with asbestos—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I’ll ask the Minister to stick to within the scope of the Estimates debate.

Hon STUART NASH: OK. Thank you. So what we want to do with procurement is actually be a little bit more targeted to ensure that all our communities actually benefit from Government procurement. A classic case is—you know, this is a hypothetical case, but it goes to the point—for example, if the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment went out and said, “We want to do a national catering contract.”, then there would be very few businesses that would have the ability to actually take on board a national catering contract. But if we chunk it down into the regions, then what we do is we empower a whole lot of SMEs to actually get involved in Government procurement and be part of the whole system, which will allow us again to empower SMEs, empower regions, and drive growth in a way that has benefits over and above the pure cost one. As mentioned, just because it’s the cheapest, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best.

So we’ve been looking at things like apprenticeships. You know, who are the owners of these companies? We’ve already been very clear. We want to empower Māori SMEs to be able to be in a position where they can bid for these contracts. We want to empower SMEs so they can be part of the whole procurement process as well, because we believe that the Government can be a really strong enabler in the Government procurement space to drive the sort of changes in our economy as well. A classic case is Minister Shaw and I co-chair the carbon neutral State sector 2025 drive. That is a classic example of using Government procurement to drive the sort of outcomes that we believe are necessary to be as good as we possibly can be.

The last thing I’ll mention to that is Government procurement—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Give us one example.

Hon STUART NASH: I’ll give you an example, Mr Brownlee. Thank you very much for the opportunity. Any building that is built by the State or for the State over $9 million we have said it must be built from the lowest-carbon product. So it’s basically a wood-first policy. It is fantastic because it will make sure that we walk the walk. If only you had built Christchurch back in wood, it could be a 21st century—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order!

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Chair, thank you. Minister Nash, I want to come to the conversation we had in committee around The Lord of the Rings and Amazon and the filming of the first series. Your Government decided to give an extra 5 percent take-up of the money that Amazon would spend in New Zealand to them, over and above the scheme that was put in place by the National Government that has brought many films to New Zealand. I asked you at the time why an extra 5 percent was given, and we asked when the filming started. It’s important the taxpayer gets to know whether or not commitments were made before filming started or afterwards. Your official said he thought—in fact, he said—filming started in the latter part of last year. Newspaper reports had suggested filming had started earlier in the year. I’d like to ask you, Minister, if you could clarify exactly when filming started on the Lord of the Rings series.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you very much. I can’t tell you the exact date filming started, but what I can tell you, as the member Todd McClay has outlined, is that Lord of the Rings received about $160 million in grants from the Government, but they spent $650 million, and the memorandum of understanding (MOU)—

Hon Todd McClay: Is that the extra 5 percent?

Hon STUART NASH: So $160 million is the total amount that they received, including the extra 5 percent. But the $650 million is how much they spent, and what this has done is it’s created—we signed quite an innovative MOU with Amazon when we went into the deal. There are a number of things that Amazon have said that they will deliver: internships, for example, and technology transfers. We can use some of the filming from Lord of the Rings to promote New Zealand. An interesting fact, which is quite enlightening, actually, is the Lord of the Rings movies and the Hobbit movies, as opposed to the series, which has just been filmed—I think it’s about 17 percent of visitors to this country—

Hon Todd McClay: Higher.

Hon STUART NASH: —or is it 19 percent?—said they came here, they came to New Zealand, because of what they had seen from Lord of the Rings. So what we do know is the power of such a successful production like Lord of the Rings has the ability to add significant value to our economy.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you. Minister Nash, there’s no question that the scheme the National Government put in place is a good one, and brings a benefit to New Zealand. Your party opposed it at the time, but I’m very pleased you’ve decided that it is worthwhile. I want to come back to my question, though, because the Government decided to give an extra $100 million to Amazon for the filming of this series in New Zealand. You said there was no commitment to any future series, and it was quite unusual for that to happen. In fact, Amazon, in other parts of the world where they’ve filmed where they have received subsidy from Government, have committed to more than one series, in the cases of Australia and Ireland. Equally, Minister, you said in committee that there was a concern that they could go somewhere else. You said at the time that this agreement wasn’t signed under you, it was under a previous Minister. In fact, your words were, when I asked you, “No, that was already signed before I came on board.”, and when I asked you when the memorandum of understanding was signed you said it was in April 2020. Do you still stand by that comment given to committee?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s a couple of things I’ll say with regard to that. First of all, you are never going to commit a studio to a second series when the first series cost $650 million and we do not know if it’s going to be successful. We’re assuming it is going to be successful, and if it is successful, then they are talking about eight series. They could be here for 10 years filming something iconic. But if it’s not successful, then of course they’re not going to come back. So we can’t pre-empt that; nor would we ask them to.

The other thing I would say is that the member Todd McClay talked about Australia. What I can say happened in Australia is that the Australians actually withdrew all their subsidies, and they lost 97 percent of their film industry. We do not want to be in that position in any way, shape, or form, but we didn’t grant them an extra $100 million. Keep in mind they were eligible for 20 percent. They were eligible for another 5 percent if they met a whole lot of terms and conditions, which they did. But in terms of when they started filming, when the memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed—the MOU was announced on 16 April this year by myself. I wasn’t part of the negotiation team, but I just think that this is a fantastic opportunity to not only showcase the best of New Zealand but also build a really innovative film industry in this country, provide a level of certainty to those who work in the country, and also prove to the global film sector that we can make the very best in the world. I think from all of those perspectives, it’s been hugely successful.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Minister Nash, thank you. The New Zealand Herald reported that 800 cast and crew were involved in a West Auckland shoot for The Lord of the Rings in March 2020. You said in committee that you weren’t the Minister at the time that this came on board, and the memorandum of understanding was signed in April of 2020. Equally, your officials said that filming started in the latter part of last year, but those 800 cast and crew who were on board as part of the shoot in March of 2020, who had to stand down during lockdown, were already employed. Minister, you said in a committee that the agreement was signed in April 2020, but in a written question to you from me you have confirmed that actually that agreement was signed on 23 December 2020, to give the additional 5 percent uptake after filming had started.

So I ask you clearly, Minister, when filming had already started in New Zealand, why did you negotiate—your Government, when you were Minister—an extra 5 percent when 800 people were already employed in New Zealand? Why did you tell the committee you weren’t the Minister at the time, and it had been much earlier? What additional benefit does New Zealand get for that 5 percent, which is $100 million? And when you just said it wouldn’t be right to ask whether they would do any more series in New Zealand, are you saying you gave them an extra $100 million and didn’t even ask them whether there could be a commitment for more filming in New Zealand of future series?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): First of all I would say we didn’t give them an extra $100 million. As I have said, they got $160 million in totality. They spent $650 million. They got $160 million. So what happens is they were eligible for 20 percent. If they met a whole lot of terms and conditions, then they got another 5 percent on the 20 percent. Now, $100 million is not 5 percent of $160 million, Mr McClay. All I would say is this is a fantastic example of New Zealand leading the world in the most expensive TV series ever.

Now, as mentioned, we are never going to get a commitment from a studio to film season two without knowing how successful season one will be. If season one proves a flop, and I very much doubt it will—the trailer’s out there. Take a look at it; it looks fantastic—but if it does, of course they’re not going to come and commit another $650 million. If it is a success, which I have every confidence that it will be, we could see another seven seasons filmed in New Zealand, and that provides a whole lot of certainty to a whole lot of really high-end people. And, again, what it does is it sends a very clear message to the global film sector that we can make the best movies, the best series, in the world, because we have the best people in the world.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I thank the Minister in the chair, Stuart Nash, for his contribution so far. I wanted to ask about three different issues that the Minister alluded to in an earlier contribution. One is the issue around timber processing here in New Zealand. Certainly, out there in the building sector there is a lot of concern that right now it’s extremely difficult to get processed timber, that a large number of sawmills have closed down in recent years, and that in particular cross-laminated timber (CLT), structural timber, which is a huge opportunity for us to deliver the sustainable wood-first buildings in public building—some of those cross-laminated timber outfits have even not been able to make it. So I’m just wondering if the Minister has any more detail on short-term solutions that the Government could engage in to deal with this current crisis as we’re trying to build a lot of homes and we are seeing a shortage of ability to process our own logs and even some forests deciding to cancel contracts to sawmills here in New Zealand in order to ship logs back to Japan, when it’s a Japanese-owned forest, for example.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): First of all, I would say—and I’ve been on record as saying this—in the 1980s, when we sold our forests, we actually sold our ability to control a lot of the forest industry. So we’re a little bit of an outlier in the world, actually, in that the State does not own its own forest. It’s almost impossible for us to dictate to any owners what they can and cannot do with their forest. What I will say is that the Provincial Growth Fund has invested money in Red Stag, in their—I think they’re a CLT plant, but it’s certainly an engineered lumber plant, which will have the ability to provide engineered lumber to the house-building sector. We’ve also invested money in Wood Engineering Technology in Gisborne, which has allowed them to put together one of the most innovative plants in the world in terms of processing timber.

So in terms of the Provincial Growth Fund, we have made a lot of investment to get these mills off the ground, so to speak, I suppose. You are right: a number of sawmills have closed over time. Again, it’s difficult for us to put interventions in place to stop these sawmills from closing. Obviously, they don’t approach Government and ask for money, but we’re not in a position to do that. But what the Industry Transformation Plan (ITP) will do is it will take a look at the settings under which people invest in the forest sector and say, “Have we got these right?” If we haven’t got them right, then I expect a series of recommendations to come out of that ITP that I will then take to my Cabinet colleagues to see if we can actually implement them in order to improve the incentives for investing in the forest or in the timber processing sector.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Two other questions about Government procurement policy, and one is around buildings, if it is through your ministry that there could be a signal to have pilots for buildings built to a Passive House standard, particularly schools, or if that’s a decision that is simply left up to the Ministry of Education—just more clarity on how that approach to procurement works. Then the second point is around the—there’s a bus company, bus manufacturer, in Christchurch which actually designs and builds buses, has their own intellectual property, even software, as well as the actual buses themselves. They produce electric buses, hydrogen buses—Global Bus Ventures, GBV. I guess my question is around Government procurement of electric buses, because, clearly, we’ve signalled that we want to shift public transport to being renewable. Councils are in varying positions to be able to make those outlying capital costs, and some have already been making decisions where they’ve prioritised purchasing electric buses from China. There are questions about whether or not those buses have been constructed using Uyghur slave labour.

So I’m just wondering—I heard from Global Bus Ventures, which is an amazing kind of company to have here in New Zealand, employing a lot of different skill sets, that when they’ve tendered for contracts in Australia, they’ve missed out despite having a better product at a better price because states in Australia have a local procurement preference, and yet there’s nothing like that in New Zealand. So I’m just wondering if you see any opportunities through a procurement process to take advantage of some of the skills and grow some of our local talent when it comes to electric buses or zero emissions buses.

Finally, sorry, just on that last point about timber, in addition to supporting timber processing, do you see any potential for supporting renewed public ownership of forests themselves, either at a local, regional or central government level?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Thank you very much. Let me answer those three things, first of all. So, procurement—how procurement works is we set out guidance, OK? So it’s not centre-led. We provide what we think is quite sound guidance around what agencies must do in terms of their procurement, how they must do things. We’re looking at the model at the moment—when I say “we”, myself and Minister Grant Robertson are seeing if this is right. We don’t think we’re going to go back to the national stores where you’ve got to come to the Government if you want to buy pencils, but we do think that the guidance we need to put in place needs to be robust. I mean, I’m looking at the English model, for example, at the moment where in the senior leadership team of large agencies there was a dotted line through to the agency head as well as through to Government procurement. So we’re looking at different models around how we can use procurement to drive the sort of innovative development we need.

In terms of buildings, I think that from the Prime Minister down, we have made it very, very clear we are keen to decarbonise our whole economy, and building is one sector where we believe we can do that. It’s the reason why, for example, as I mentioned to Mr Brownlee, we have a policy in place now, or guidance in place, that if it is $9 million or above and it’s built by the Government or for the Government, it must be built out of the lowest-carbon materials possible, which is, in essence, a wood-first policy. Now, if it is not being built out of wood, then it has to be signed off, and I’m bringing that exemption into my office, so I have complete oversight of this. But the Ministry of Education, I understand, is leading a lot of this. Minister Shaw and myself are leading stuff around Green Star rating for commercial buildings. So we do see the building and construction sector as really, really important in driving the decarbonisation of our economy.

And this comes to your question about the procurement of buses. Now, I can’t speak specifically about that company or situation. I do know that they’re building a hydrogen bus. They’re trialling a hydrogen bus, which is being funded by the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority, I understand. So we are certainly working with them in innovative technologies, but, again, when I talked about decarbonising our economy through the construction sector, obviously the transport sector is something that we are working incredibly hard to decarbonise. In fact, there are very strong obligations we’ve got to meet, as you’ll be aware, and we know if we don’t work incredibly hard to decarbonise the transport sector, we won’t come within a bull’s roar of meeting our obligations.

So whilst I don’t know much about the company you’re talking about, I do know that they are absolutely on the radar of the Government. I see Government procurement as playing a really, really important role in terms of driving the change we need in our economy, and this sort of company, from what you’ve mentioned, is the sort of innovative company that I think will be at the forefront of where we need to be in terms of technology.

The last point you made is around nationalising some of our forests. We won’t be buying our forests, but one of the things that I’m looking to do with the new Forest Service is work very closely with stakeholders like iwi Māori, like regional councils, like landowners to plant a lot more. We have to do this under the emissions trading scheme anyway—well, we don’t have to, but it’s something that we’re very keen to do. The Forest Service has identified about 2.7 million hectares of land which should be in some form of forestry, whether that’s a permanent forest sink because of conservation or ecological values or in production forestry because it is simply unproductive to put livestock on that land. So there is a whole lot of land that has already been identified in this country which is more suitable for forestry than any other land use. But I will go back to—it is about right tree, right place. But all the areas that the member has mentioned we are doing a lot of work in progressing.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Minister, I just want to clarify, if you could clarify this for me in the remaining time. Filming for The Lord of the Rings had already started last year, there were 800 people locally employed in production and filming at a time before your Government decided to sign a memorandum of understanding for an extra 5 percent, and that was signed on 23 December when you were Minister. My second question would be: has your Government committed to fund or build any studios or facilities for Amazon and Lord of the Rings as part of this, away from the 5 percent, from tourism funds or Film Commission funds or from the various funds that you have available to you or others in Government to help with this facility?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): I mean, I made an announcement last week, I think it was, might have been the week before, of a $30 million investment into two sound stages in Auckland.

Hon Todd McClay: No, I’m asking about Amazon.

Hon STUART NASH: It is not specifically for Amazon; it is to increase the infrastructure we’ve got there, to attract a whole lot of different businesses and movies—

Hon Todd McClay: But I’m asking about Amazon specifically.

Hon STUART NASH: —into this space. Keeping in mind, that the Screen Production Grant has been accessed by a hundred different film companies. So there’s a lot that’s been done in the space. This is not specifically for Amazon, this is to ensure that we are the best in the world so that we can attract the best in the world. But, as mentioned, at this point in time Amazon has not committed to series two. They’ve finished filming series one, they’ve announced the date when it’s going to be released. If it is successful, as we all believe it will be, then there is the potential for another seven seasons, which is about another ten years’ worth of filming, which I think would be fantastic in terms of providing a level of certainty in an industry which is a little bit precarious. Keeping in mind—and I reiterate—this is the most expensive series ever filmed, the most technologically advanced series ever filmed, and also what it did is it leveraged off the expertise of a whole lot of New Zealand companies, so it actually grew the tech sector, the film sector—86 percent of people on-set were Kiwis.

The other thing I will say is there’s a study that was done in 2020 which showed that 60 percent of money spent by the film industry was spent in other sectors of the economy. So keeping in mind, when Amazon started filming, we were in a very precarious state in terms of our economy. We didn’t know what was happening, right. We were actually forecasting 10 percent unemployment. So these were guys that were going hard out, putting money into our economy, employing a whole lot of people, when we were at a very precarious state of the economy. Look, I’m a huge fan of what Amazon and what Lord of the Rings has done, I think we should be celebrating this, and I’m certainly one to do that.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I move that the committee report progress.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the report be adopted. I’ll put it again. The question is that the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

Second Reading

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI: I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill be now read a second time.

This bill was subject to robust debate at the Governance and Administration Committee in 2018. The select committee reported back with an enhanced version of the bill, with amendments that did a number of things. The Government supports the amendments presented by the select committee in 2018, and, as the Minister for Internal Affairs, I’m pleased to be progressing the bill.

I have identified several improvements to these amendments that I believe will better support the needs of transgender, non-binary, and intersex communities and individuals of all ages. These amendments are contained in draft Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59 that was released yesterday. We want to ensure that these provisions adequately support the people they purport to serve. I’m, therefore, now not only resuming progress on this bill by caring for the committee’s 2018 recommendations but I’m also signalling my intent before the House to invite the Governance and Administration Committee to use its inquiry powers to consider Supplementary Order Paper 59 following this second reading. I will be requesting a full public submission process be part of this inquiry to ensure New Zealanders can have their say. I’ll come back to speak to that part of the bill shortly, but, firstly, I’d like to outline for the House the substantive parts of the bill in regards to the administration and upgrading of our Births, Deaths, and Marriages register.

Fundamentally, this bill makes important changes to New Zealand’s register of Births, Deaths and Marriages, a national record that collates information from our first to our last breath, and a lot of very important life events in between. Protecting the integrity of this record is critical. New Zealanders, rightly, have a growing expectation that all Government services are accessible through the online and digital platforms they use. The bill underpins how we create, change, use, and access identity documents in a way that reflects and supports the ever-changing profile of our communities.

The bill establishes a legislative framework that will facilitate the development of new access channels for all Births, Deaths and Marriages information, and allow greater electronic access to information. We’ve taken the utmost care to ensure that we are also mitigating the misuse of information, through robust criteria and evidence of identity that can be verified online.

These are all important changes, but one of the changes that came back from select committee in 2018 has been subject to a fair amount of public debate, and that is around the gender self-identification provisions. The process to amend registered sex has not changed since 1995, and yet, as a country, we have. This Government believes that all New Zealanders, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or sex characteristics, have the right to safety, dignity, and to live free from discrimination. Yet our current law requires transgender and intersex New Zealanders to undergo a complex, intimidating, and often inaccessible process based on the provision of medical evidence to amend the sex on their birth certificate. A survey in 2019 found that 83 percent of this community did not have the correct gender represented on their birth certificate.

Today, we are proud to be the most rainbow Parliament in the world, and yet, for many of our rainbow community, basic life events where a birth certificate is often used, such as enrolling a child at school or opening a new bank account, become a moment of stress, forced outing, and discrimination. And as Minister of Internal Affairs, I think it’s unacceptable for us to continue using a government-issued birth certificate that causes pain and discrimination for some New Zealanders. Under this bill, transgender, non-binary, and intersex New Zealanders will no longer require proof of medical treatment or to show a court that they physically conform to the deeply held and lived knowledge of who they know themselves to be.

I’d like to take a moment to put some facts on the record, as there has been some confusing information about what this bill will and won’t do. So, to be clear, you can already change the gender on a birth certificate. The change of your gender on a passport or a licence already can happen. The bill does not propose changes to the way we collect or record sex information at birth. What we are proposing here, and what I am asking the select committee to use their inquiry powers to look at, is removing what are, frankly, unnecessary barriers for a small but important group of New Zealanders to identify their gender on their birth certificate. This isn’t something that has been dreamt up overnight; this has been part of a substantial policy process to do what this Government knows is the right thing to do for our transgender, intersex, and non-binary communities. I don’t believe that these changes will impact, impinge, or threaten the rights of any other New Zealanders, but they will increase the rights of some vulnerable members of our community who deserve the dignity and right to be able to self-identify their gender on their birth certificate without financial, medical, or legal barriers.

We are also not alone in making these changes. Since 2012, 15 other countries have adopted a self-identification process, as well as the Australian states of Tasmania and Victoria. There has been no substantial evidence found on any serious or unmanageable consequences of introducing a self-identification process. However, if any unintended consequences do arise, we have built in a statutory review of the self-identification provisions five years after the commencement of this bill, as per the 2018 select committee’s recommendations.

The SOP also has an 18-month transition period, which is slightly longer than what I had initially hoped, but we do think it’s necessary to ensure this legislation provides the framework intended and that technical infrastructure is in place and ready to give effect to the changes in a way that works for all involved.

Another aspect of the self-identification provisions that we have given careful consideration of is the rights of transgender, intersex, and non-binary children. This Government believes that children are aware of their gender from a young age, but the Act does not reflect this. The bill also introduces two age categories with different requirements that focus on consent and reflect the cognitive development of older adolescents. The draft Supplementary Order Paper 59 released recommends that young people aged 16 or 17 years can apply on their own behalf and can choose to accompany this with either consent from a guardian, or a letter of support from a suitably qualified third party. For under-16s, they still require their guardian to apply on their behalf. This approach is consistent with other legislation in New Zealand—for example, 16 is the age at which you can apply for a learner driver’s licence and consent to general medical procedures.

Before I conclude, I want to briefly outline other policy changes the SOP makes to improve on the foundations provided by the select committee. A key amendment is to allow for multiple changes of a sex marker, in recognition that gender can be fluid and can develop over the course of a lifetime. The Government also proposes setting in regulation a wider range of sex markers than those outlined in the bill. Again, this is to ensure that regulation can be adjusted as gender theory and terminology evolves, and allows for a culturally inclusive marker.

Another area of further consideration is access to self-identification for people whose births are not on the New Zealand birth register. This is a complicated area, given New Zealand’s legislation has no jurisdiction over offshore regulations. Therefore, New Zealand’s self-identification provisions cannot be used to change the birth records of another country. The Government recognises this causes concern for some New Zealanders and residents who were born overseas, and my officials are currently working to address this issue as the bill progresses.

In order to progress this important work, following this debate I will write to the chair of the Governance and Administration Committee and request that it conducts an inquiry into the draft Supplementary Order Paper, to give effect to the proposals that I have outlined today. I will also request that the committee call for public submissions. It is my intention to progress the bill to the committee of the whole House stage in three months’ time, as the House would benefit from having the select committee’s report available for debate prior to the committee stage. I will also present another Supplementary Order Paper, unrelated to self-identification, at the committee of the whole House stage that will include minor and technical amendments.

The bill and proposed amendments are consistent with this Government’s focus on ensuring better health and social outcomes for all New Zealanders, and I am extremely proud to commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I rise, as the National Party’s spokesperson for women, to take a call on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, which National is pleased to support tonight. Can I start by acknowledging the trans community of New Zealand who we welcome, we embrace, and I commit now that, so long as I am a member of this House, I will work to advance their rights and protections—and I say that to every single woman in New Zealand, irrespective of the sex marker on their birth certificate.

This bill has had a complicated passage through the House so far. It was originally introduced four years ago to re-enact and update the 1995 legislation. The bill, as introduced, included provisions around digital access to information and responded to the review of burial and cremation law by the Law Commission. The House was unanimous in the first reading, and its contents were well canvassed by the select committee. So why are we here four years later for the second reading debate? It’s because of a wholesale repeal of current law requiring people to get a Family Court declaration to change the sex recorded on their birth certificate. That has been the law in New Zealand for 25 years and, as Crown Law has observed, the fast-paced social recognition of a diversity of genders and self-identification has outstripped the legal framework to accommodate it.

After the select committee received a number of submissions about the limitations of the existing process and without any further public consultation, it decided to replace it with a new administrative process based on self-ID. But it got messy. In February 2019, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin, announced the bill would be deferred to deal with problems caused by that select committee process. She said, at the time, that the changes had been made without adequate public consultation and that this had created a fundamental legal issue. Six months later, she announced some interim measures to make things easier, like waiving fees for applications, and also announced the establishment of a working group to provide advice on how to further reduce barriers. In April this year, Minister Tinetti announced more changes to improve the current regime, following that working group report. So that brings us up to today, where we are debating the bill’s second reading before a draft Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is referred to the select committee for public submission and consultation.

It’s, frankly, been an odd process. For whatever the reason, the Government’s decided to have a second reading and refer the draft SOP to the committee, instead of the bill itself. Now, I sit on the committee that will consider it and would like to remind the Government that in its 2017 minority view, National set out four concerns about the proposed changes. They were the consequences of proceeding with the reforms before amendments can be made to the Corrections Regulations, the broad scope of the definition of “health professional”, that lack of defined criteria or tests determining a change for under-18s would be in their best interests, and that there be no defined test to determine if the consequences of an application are truly understood by an eligible adult. Because of the process adopted, though, none of these issues has been able to be addressed in the text of the bill that we’re debating tonight. So I thank the Minister for circulating her draft SOP and legislative statement yesterday, so I’m not flying totally blind.

The proposed amendments will address some but not all of our concerns—for example, the definition of “health professional” has disappeared altogether and been replaced by “suitably qualified third party”, which we’re now told will be defined post facto in regulation. Most people in this House are aware that definitions of terms in legislation should not be left for regulation unless there’s very good reason to do so and I’m not convinced that such a reason’s here. We should be dealing with as many issues as possible up front; not kicking them down the road. I’m also concerned about the 18-month transition period that the Minister’s mentioned. My view is that we are better if we can agree the detail and get the work done immediately rather than leave them to be worked out for another year and a half, bearing in mind this bill has already been before the House almost four years. But we in the select committee can have a look at these issues in detail, along with other legal uncertainties detailed in that Crown Law advice.

Critically, New Zealanders will now be able to have their say. I think we’re all aware that the insertion of the new provisions at the end of the last select committee process has caused much angst. To all the women, groups, and organisations who have taken the time to write to me and to speak to me, thank you. You’ve educated me. I’ve listened to your views, your concerns, your fears, and now you get a chance to make them public.

I’m a former journalist who’s made every effort to approach this bill as objectively and as impartially as I possibly could. I’ve not listened to hyperbole and I’ve not been swayed by hysteria. What I have done is met with every single group and person who has asked me. I’ve read every single email that has been sent to me. I’ve read websites. Some, like the parents of transgender and gender-diverse children—and I’ve conscientiously listened to every single view offered to me. I’ve heard loud and clear the concern from some groups that allowing people to change the sex on their birth certificate, according with how they self-ID, will lead to an increase of male-bodied people in changing rooms or bathrooms. So, in front of this House, I give my assurance that while I hold a seat on the Governance and Administration Committee, I’ll ensure your voice is heard. For that, I might be called a TERF—a trans-exclusionary radical feminist—but I’d like to assure this House that I am neither exclusionary nor radical. But some of the vitriol that I have seen online has been nothing short of vile. There is no place in New Zealand for the abuse that I’ve seen coming from some quarters and it needs to stop because nobody wins, least of all those who are publishing it.

As members of this House, we are, first and foremost, legislators. We have a duty to examine all the consequences of changes that we make to the statute book whatever the policy area. In many areas, including this one, we must do it with the utmost sensitivity and without ever forgetting that we are making decisions that will affect the daily lives of New Zealanders. There can be no denying gender transition is a long, hard road. It can be full of confusion, trepidation, heartbreak, but also joy. It takes heart and it takes guts. And to those of you on that journey, may I offer my deepest respect—respect for your sincerity, your determination, and your belief in your sense of self. I have a strong belief that both the Government and this Parliament have duties to New Zealanders to make progressive, humanitarian updates to law, especially when the law makes the lives of some New Zealanders harder than it does for others. We should reform and we should liberalise where we can. And as a member of a party that emerged out of a great reform and liberal era some 85 years ago, I’m proud to be continuing that movement.

It is imperative that the public, the experts, the clinicians, and trans New Zealanders can all have the opportunity to have a say and feed into this legislation. Organisations, groups, and individuals who have concerns about the impact of sex self-ID have not had the opportunity to contribute and be a part of the democratic process. It is now time for their voice to be heard. It has been a messy process, but I look forward to the select committee consideration of the proposed changes and to seeing if we in this House can produce a high-quality piece of legislation for all women. And I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the second reading of this bill, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. It is a bill that has been on the Order Paper for quite some time. It is historical in nature, I guess, and I just want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti, for, effectively, pushing the go button again to kickstart the process. I have to say that I’m pleased to learn this evening that the Opposition will be supporting the progress of this legislation.

There are many things in life, the integrity of which is so important. Births, deaths, marriages, and civil unions are four examples that are covered by that level of importance. They are important for those who are subject to the issue of the certificate itself or who are subject to the issue of the licence, but they’re also important to those further down the track: for family research, historical research, and genealogical purposes as well. But what is also important is the accessibility of those documents—that, apart from being accurate, they are also accessible in a way that is meeting the desires of modern times. And that is exactly what this bill does do.

Many people will know, for example, that when it comes to marriage licences, the old approach was that you would have to trot down to the District Court, complete the paperwork, and then the celebrant would be required to lodge that with the District Court. That is not the case anymore. People can apply for those licences online, and a celebrant simply needs to take a snap—a photo—of the documentation and email it through. So times have very much changed.

I want to thank the Minister for her tabling of draft Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 59, because what that does is seek to address discrimination, pain, and hurt that is experienced and felt by members in our community because the current law actually prevents them from truly, in an administrative sense, identifying themselves as who they wish to be in a non-complex way. The current law actually does not support the validation of identity for many who face other barriers around being identified as who they truly wish to be. And so Supplementary Order Paper 59, effectively, delivers on that.

I want to indicate that, as the deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, I am looking forward to the select committee availing itself of its inquiry powers to consider the draft SOP. I know that is a committee that is collegial. It works really hard, and I look forward to the public submissions and that process being open to allow members of our community to submit, and we look forward to hearing from them. But I do expect to hear from members of our rainbow community. I expect to hear from members of our Māori, Pasifika, new migrant community, and also other communities in Aotearoa New Zealand. I’m delighted that the second reading has come and that this draft Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the Minister’s name will be referred to the select committee. I commend this to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the second reading of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill tonight and to support taking this bill back to the select committee. I rise not only as a member of the National Party caucus but also as chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, and I would like to echo the words of Mr Tangi Utikere, which is that we are a good, collegial committee and we will make our best endeavours around doing our best with our inquiry powers on this piece of legislation.

What I would also like to do is say that this bill underwent its first reading such a long time ago, in December 2017—and it has been expressed tonight that the time has come to bring it to the House—but the select committee at that stage made substantial amendments, including an allowance for individuals to change the sex on their birth certificate via an administrative process based on self-identification. The change occurred after the public submissions had closed and following the presentation of a petition with 23 signatories.

Now, what I would like to say about that is I really want to commend Minister Jan Tinetti for coming in and being very thorough with the legislation which she puts in front of the House and for recognising the fact that those changes had been made. The bill had previously been withdrawn by the then Minister of Internal Affairs, Tracey Martin, in February 2019, noting the significant changes. Minister Jan Tinetti has come in and recognised that those changes were rather too significant to just plough through with the bill. As we often see with pieces of legislation, sometimes pride in having things getting passed gets in the road. This Minister, I believe, is a good Minister, who is intent on making sure that the legislation that we pass ends up in a very fit for purpose state.

So the National Party minority view that went with the first session of this through the Governance and Administration Committee back in 2018 included: “members are broadly supportive of the bill as introduced into the House in 2017, along with the technical and clarifying amendments recommended by officials. While the National Party members do not wish to stand in the way of reform of self-identification of nominated sex on birth certificates … serious concerns remain with respect to some aspects of the recommendations.”. The specific aspects of those were: “proceeding with reform before amendments to Corrections Regulations 2005 are determined; the broad scope of the definition of health professional; no defined criteria and/or tests to be applied to determine that a change to nominated sex for under 18 year olds is in the individual’s ‘best interests’; no defined test to evidence that the consequences of an application are truly understood for an eligible adult.”

So those were our concerns, and they weren’t just the concerns of the National caucus. Obviously, Minister Tinetti has become aware of a range of concerns, and I welcome her Supplementary Order Paper 59. Obviously, there’s been some work done here, because there’s some changes in here that we will definitely be looking at as a committee.

I want to give the commitment that the Governance and Administration Committee looks forward to using our inquiry powers and being objective and thorough. We’ll be listening to the feedback that comes through to make sure that this bill is fit for purpose so that we can bring it back to the House in a state where we can stand and say that we have listened to the concerns of the public, we have taken the submissions in, and we have fully considered them and turned the bill around. We will bring it back to the House so that we can be comfortable that the legislation has had a fair hearing from the public, because, at the end of the day, when legislation hasn’t had a fair hearing from the public, it doesn’t always turn out in the way that is expected, and, again, I commend the Minister for taking this into account.

So, with that, I recommend and commend the second reading of this bill. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. I want to thank Minister Tinetti for her leadership on this bill, and the former members of the Governance and Administration Committee and officials for their work.

While this bill has been in the public eye for a number of months due to the amendments surrounding self-identification on birth certificates, the bill also makes changes to how New Zealand operates the Births, Deaths, and Marriages register. Put simply, the bill makes changes to the register to allow greater electronic access to information, while also mitigating the misuse of information through robust criteria and evidence of identity that can be verified online. This will ensure the right balance is struck between individual privacy and access to personal information for New Zealanders.

Since this bill was first introduced and considered by the select committee, the committee—following submissions—reported back to the House with suggested changes that would remove unnecessary barriers for people to self-identify their gender on their birth certificate. Under our current law, transgender and intersex New Zealanders have to undergo a complex and inaccessible process based on medical evidence to amend the sex on their birth certificate. This process excludes people who are unable or unwilling to undertake medical treatment as part of their transition. This means that many people who are transgender do not have their correct gender represented on their birth certificate. The bill will allow people to change the sex on their birth certificate by moving to a self-identification process.

Some of the criticism pointed at this bill suggests that the current process is working fine and doesn’t need to change. However, I note that New Zealanders can already currently self-identify their gender on their driver’s licence or passport.

It has been unfortunate and distressing that some groups have sought to demonise trans people by claiming that men will change the sex on their birth certificate so that they can access women’s spaces such as prisons, changing rooms, and women’s refuges.

Before entering Parliament, I was a board member at the Nelson Women’s and Children’s Refuge. It is not the policy of Refuge to require a birth certificate to access the lifesaving services of Refuge. Our policy is inclusive of diversity. The Nelson Women’s Refuge’s diverse-needs policy states, and I’ll read it, “The Refuge understands that gender identity can be non-binary and is open to providing services to cis wāhine, transgender, genderqueer, intersex, or people who choose to live with a more fluid gender identity.” Furthermore, it states, “The Refuge respects the right for clients to choose not to disclose their sexual identity.”

For so-called women’s advocacy or rights groups to suggest that the work of Women’s Refuge will be put at risk and that women will be unsafe because of this bill is outrageous, it is wrong, and it is disgraceful. As a woman who has campaigned and worked for women’s refuges, I’m offended that these people suppose to speak for me; they do not. Likewise, it would be most unusual to ask a woman to produce a birth certificate in order to enter a public toilet or a changing room. I have never been asked to produce a birth certificate to enter a women’s space, and it’s disgraceful to suggest that this bill would make women’s spaces unsafe for women.

Another area of further consideration that the Government is looking into is access to self-identification for people who were born overseas. This is a difficult task. It’s a situation that causes distress for people, including one of my own constituents.

Our young members of our rainbow community can be subject to discrimination as they go about their daily lives, at school, at work, at church, and in the community. For transgender New Zealanders, this discrimination can be even tougher.

In Nelson, over 100 people—many of them young—protested against this campaign of misinformation. I want to acknowledge the work of Q-Youth, Nelson Pride, and all their allies for their work in pushing back on the damaging and hurtful misinformation put into the public domain. I am incredibly proud of them, and I want them to know that I have their back.

As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee that will be considering this bill, I look forward to hearing from our diverse communities about how we can continue to make Aotearoa a safer and more inclusive country. I am very proud tonight to commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): It is with great pleasure that after generations of systemic discrimination and decades of community activism, the Green Party is proudly here today to maintain our long-stated policy that takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary people should be able to self-identify their gender on their birth certificate, so that all New Zealanders can have documents of identity that reflect who they are. Ngā mihi ki a Minister Jan Tinetti for bringing this bill into the House, after it has been stalled for so long. We acknowledge there are many other aspects to this bill, but we are focusing on legal gender recognition tonight.

August 2021 will go down in the history books as one of the most momentous months for rainbow communities, because, only last week, the conversion practices bill passed its first reading and Laurel Hubbard competed as the first openly trans woman at the Olympics. Who knows how well Laurel could have performed if the entire world wasn’t watching her so closely, with so many of them judging her, not just for being there but for her very existence. Tēnā koe e te rangatira. Greetings to all of you in the gallery tonight, all our youth leaders, all of our community leaders, and a particular shout-out to Mani Mitchell, whose leadership for intersex people has taught us all, and as a mentor to me, tēnā koe.

The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill has arrived here today without the fanfare that accompanied the conversion practices bill. It is, however, no less significant. I offer a peppered whakapapa that got us to the point. It is by no means the full extent of organising in our communities, or even in this House. As with many of the issues facing people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics, the discrimination against us can be easily traced back to colonisation and the way that early colonists and missionaries pathologised and criminalised us, and any person who did not fit their construct of a real man, a real woman, and people who should be in heterosexual, non-monogamous—no, monogamous!—relationships. Our people rejected and subverted it back then, and we’ve continued to do so ever since.

Fast forward to this century. In 2004, the first openly trans member of Parliament in the world, the legendary Georgina Beyer, had her member’s bill drawn from the biscuit tin to specify gender identity in the Human Rights Act. The acting Solicitor-General at the time, however, concluded that trans people were already included in the sex section of the Act, so she withdrew it. The Human Rights Commission has maintained since then, and even before then, that that it is the correct position. However, gender expression is not included. After extensive consultation in 2017, the Human Rights Commission produced To Be Who I Am, Report of the Inquiry into Discrimination Experienced by Transgender People. It identified the lack of protection for trans people, whose documents of identity did not match their actual gender identity or expression. Unfortunately, though many of us cited it, the recommendations contained within were left to languish. Until, that is, in 2012 as a direct result, the Department of Internal Affairs amended their passport policy, allowing holders to select F, M, or X options for their sex, through a statutory declaration process with no requirement for medical evidence. In 2013, the New Zealand Transport Authority—you know, that radical department—followed suit, with options of male, female, and indeterminate. So, contrary to the ominous predictions and fearmongering of anti-trans lobbyists, no women’s rights have been eroded since then, in changing rooms, bathrooms, or anywhere else. What has happened is that trans, intersex, and non-binary people have gained some more dignity in their lives.

Also in 2013, trans activists and allies wrote the first Universal Periodic Review to the United Nations which raised this issue—shout-out to Joey Macdonald and Jack Byrne and all the other activists who fed into the work at that time. Around that time, my colleague and long-time rainbow leader in this House, the fabulous—but humble—Jan Logie ran a consultation with the trans community to identify the issues they wanted the Green Party to progress for them. Jan met with Allyson Hamblett, another trans woman, regarding their struggles with legal gender recognition. Jan supported Allyson to make a petition.

In 2015, a coalition of rainbow organisations was formed in Wellington—shout-out to InsideOUT, Tīwhanawhana, Bella Simpson, and other groups who are part of that coalition—and we took a series of recommendations to Parliament, and, of course, this was part of it. The International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia Coalition presented again in 2016, and has maintained contact with the Parliamentary Rainbow Network ever since. Allyson Hamblett presented her petition in 2016. It called on the Minister of Internal Affairs to enable adults with intersex conditions, trans, and other gender-diverse adults, to change the sex details on any official documentation. In 2017, the Government Administration Committee agreed, and recommended that the Minister of Internal Affairs instruct officials to review section 28 of the Act, with a view to amending it to an approach predicated on self-identification. I acknowledge the members of that select committee, the chair Hon Ruth Dyson, Matt Doocey, Paul Foster-Bell, Hon Nanaia Mahuta, Hon Scott Simpson, and Jan Logie, who replaced Barry Coates for the Greens. I am told that one National member uttered the fateful words, “Why would the court get to decide someone’s gender?” Why indeed? The Hon Ruth Dyson spoke directly to the Minister at that time, who was Hon Peter Dunne, who was very receptive. In that same year, the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill was first introduced to Parliament. The select committee heard the evidence of the multiple activists, however, as we’ve been told, the Minister decided not to proceed.

In 2020, the PRISM report—if you’re involved with rainbow communities, you should be very familiar, and if you have not got this, then I suggest you do—Human Rights issues relating to Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Expression, and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC) in Aotearoa New Zealand. Shout-out to Taine Polkinghorne from the Human Rights Commission, who co-ran the consultations and wrote this report. It states the current process “presents an obstacle to the full enjoyment of the right to legal gender recognition by restricting access and privileging those who pursue a medical transition. Such a process is inconsistent with the rights to bodily autonomy and integrity due to the requirement of modifying one’s body in order to acquire a birth certificate displaying the correct sex. UN bodies have found that if a person is forced or coerced to undergo surgeries or hormone treatment in order to obtain legal [documents], this may amount to ill-treatment or torture”.

So let’s look at the legislation itself—the light reading of 118 pages we got given yesterday. This process will enable trans, intersex, non-binary, and takatāpui people to move from a Family Court process to one where they can make a statutory declaration. It is only fair that every takatāpui, trans, non-binary, and intersex person born in Aotearoa should be able to change the gender marker on their birth certificate through a process that is mana-enhancing, accessible, and affordable. We think this Supplementary Order Paper is close to achieving that. We do have some issues. We’ll continue that conversation inside the select committee, but, particularly for tonight, I want to point out that we agree that there must be pathways for New Zealand citizens who were born overseas, migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers to obtain certificates or other documents of identity issued by Internal Affairs in their self-identified gender.

To conclude, I look at where we have come to, and I wonder what we can learn from all of this. Number one: all the hard work is worth it. Every hui, every submission, every petition—it is worth it. All the collaboration, the checking of each other’s work, making sure we have consistent language, the tiredness—it is worth it. Number two: we have allies who will help us and who will stick their necks out for us, in the community and in this House. Never pre-judge somebody based on their political affiliations. We do not know what is happening in their lives, we do not know what is happening in their heart. To conclude: as a takatāpui cis lesbian femme ally to our takatāpui, trans, intersex, and non-binary whānau, to all of those here and those of you watching, and in honour of all of those we have lost because of that discrimination and violence against you, I am very proud to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill. This is a piece of legislation whose original genesis might have been described charitably as pedestrian. Rearranging some of the administrative provisions in law for the registration of births, deaths, marriages, and relationships may not have been the kind of political projects that brought the original Minister to the House and made them want to pursue a political career. Needless to say, as people who have followed this issue will be aware, at select committee stage it entered into political controversy that is best located in a long tradition of New Zealanders moving toward the light of liberty, a tradition that has seen New Zealanders, over time, gradually gain additional freedoms and additional equality between different New Zealanders. It’s a very proud history, although it has often been a fraught one.

Perhaps New Zealand’s greatest political achievement, votes for every adult New Zealander—the first truly world-leading political achievement of our country—was none the less controversial in its time, difficult as that may now be to imagine. As we have gone on, equality in terms of sexuality in this House, the civil unions and then marriage equality, and, dare I say it, the End of Life Choice Act, have each increased the freedom of New Zealanders to live as they wish to live, to be who they want to be, and to have autonomy over their body. It is a very proud tradition, but in each case there have also been people that have objected, for a range of reasons—some valid; some not. So has been the case with this piece of legislation.

It is clear that there are many New Zealanders who feel that their identity at birth does not represent their true identity, and the way they feel about that may change over time. I think it’s important, and I think it’s important to put on record for people who doubt that that those feelings are sincere and genuine and are supported, actually, by considerable objective evidence too. None the less, it is important that we also listen to a variety of voices. This is where I would like to commend the Minister for not only the policy changes that she’s proposed in this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) but the procedural dexterity that she has shown in being prepared to send the bill back to select committee to hear more voices and give it further consideration.

I hesitate, but I can’t help myself from comparing that to some of the instances of legislation that has been rushed through the House in this and the previous term of Parliament by this Government. But the Minister responsible for this bill, Jan Tinetti, has chosen to do the opposite. She’s chosen to send the bill, after a long period of consideration, having previously been to a select committee, back to select committee again, with a considerable number of changes proposed. Most critical among them takes into account some of the objections that have been raised and acknowledges that there will be times when, for some legal purposes by some entities, the sex identity that was given at birth may still be relevant to some people for some purposes, and I think that the Minister has artfully allowed for that possibility in the way that that SOP is drafted. That, I think, is not only good lawmaking, it’s actually good citizenry to promote a process that allows all voices to be heard and all considerations to be made in what has been a sensitive issue for people on both sides of a debate.

The ACT Party looks forward to the bill being considered in select committee. We look forward to this legislation progressing to achieve the many noble—if pedestrian and, perhaps, perfunctory—tasks that it was originally launched to do, but also to resolve what has been one of the more controversial issues in New Zealand politics. That is the kind of progress that New Zealand has always managed to make in the end. It’s one of the things that makes me proud to be a New Zealander, to live in a country where, through civil conversation, we ultimately resolve issues and manage to live together in relative harmony.

With that, I commend the bill to this House on its second reading. I look forward to the select committee process and a further committee of the whole House process, where we’ll be able to truly say that this piece of legislation has been given the full complement of consideration that a piece of legislation can have from our democratic process, and that we will be a better and stronger country for it, a more compassionate and inclusive society for it, and that is lawmaking at its best. I commend the Minister in particular and this bill to the House at its second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to jump straight into it. Thank you to our Minister, Jan Tinetti, for bringing this to the House. Thank you to the other parties of this Parliament for also putting in your support behind it. Also thank you, of course, to the people that submitted, that took that time three years ago to front up to the select committee and put their thoughts to it. I’m going to focus on the self-identification of birth certificates, because for me, this is the game-changer. This is going to be the thing that allows our trans community across the country to breathe a sigh of relief tonight and, hopefully, reverse some of the negative outcomes that we know plague our trans community. Tonight, we’re talking business. So let me get into it.

First of all, I want to start with a submitter who took a cultural lens to this whole debate. They said, “In Aotearoa, traditionally, Māori allowed a space for a wide range of gender definitions. It has been through a process of colonisation and cultural genocide that these were reduced to two—and that gender is biologically determined. Within Aotearoa—that same characteristic of gender fluidity is now linked to disproportionately high rates of assault, [of] murder, [of] suicide, particularly for Māori and Pacific Island transgender youth. The inability to have your gender identity publicly acknowledged has been linked to all kinds of fatal outcomes in multiple studies.” The submitter said, “It is … my submission that any move to reduce gender to biological determination places Māori and Pacific Island youth at continued (and increased) risk of suicide.” That’s from Tina Ngata and I thank her for bringing that kaupapa kōrero to the fore.

Another submission talked about the great lengths that trans people go through under the status quo, the discrimination that they face. They talked about applying for a job; using a birth certificate, which might be the only form of ID that you have; the potential discrimination in the hiring process; and the trauma. That said, also enrolling in things like study, which for many of us is just a very easy process to go through. But when the gender doesn’t match the person that’s sitting in front of the administrator, the registrar, actually, that creates quite an incredibly intimidating and off-putting situation. It can make things quite overwhelming. Copy that same situation over to access to healthcare, access to Government services, Government support. Especially when you’re travelling and living overseas, if your birth certificate is that thing that you have to use, again, it traumatises and re-traumatises our trans community. And that was a submission that was put forward by the Intersex Trust Aotearoa New Zealand. So thank you to Mani and to Aych for bringing that submission.

The other submission that I wanted to talk about was from Sharyn Forsyth and Tommy Hamilton, both champions within the community, and they put in their submission on behalf of Parents and Caregivers of Transgender and Gender Diverse Children in New Zealand. The group has approximately 180 parent and caregiver members from across New Zealand. If nothing else, if there is a family out there that didn’t know that this group exists, now you do. But what they took lengths to point out was that the protection of our children through this whole process has got to be something that we think about front of centre. They said, “We’re interested in this Bill as gender identity, and the social and legal recognition of that gender identity as expressed by an individual, is considered to be a key factor in positive mental health outcomes for our children and other gender diverse individuals. When our children live their lives as one gender, and then are forced through legal documents to be referred to as a gender that isn’t their own, it hurts them.” They go on to say, “We have experience of our children being singled out (… [say] on domestic flights) because they are ‘in the system’ as their biological sex as opposed to their gender—and this leads to scrutiny and questioning and embarrassment.” They have seen that in their own children’s lives, that being mis-gendered makes that far, far worse.

So, to all of the rainbow community that are out there listening tonight and to all of our allies that are swinging into support, we want to say to our trans community: “Your lives matter, your stories matter, your struggles matter. We see you, we hear you, and tonight we stand beside you.” Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to speak in the second reading in support of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill, which is, of course, a very clear example of how societal change isn’t matched by legal changes. When the bill was first introduced in 2017 in August it was, of course, a National Government at that time, and it was changing a piece of legislation that had only been introduced and passed in 1995. But even within this short period of time, things have changed further.

As others in the House have talked about, the fact that it was introduced in 2017 was pretty straightforward—pretty straightforward in terms of just modernising some of the access, the ability to change information and access records. It also was looking at burial and cremation law. In 2018, there were significant changes that were recommended. Part of that came from a petition, and that just demonstrates for people who are considering petitions to Parliament that what you do, what you present to Parliament, can make changes. So I would encourage people who want to engage with the Parliament to do exactly that. So the petition to the Governance and Administration Committee did lead to quite substantial changes to the bill, which allowed people to change their sex on their birth certificate via an administrative process based on self-identification. Of course, it was then withdrawn in 2019 by the then Minister, Tracey Martin, and Jan Tinetti has done a significant amount of work in 2021 to draft a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), SOP 59, that has been discussed at length today.

I do want to put on record, though, the concerns that my colleague Nicola Grigg clearly outlined and the concerns that the National caucus put in the minority view. I would urge members of the select committee that is going to be dealing with the inquiry to also consider the issues or the concerns that were raised at the time. One of the things that I think is unfortunate is that most people don’t get to see the working mechanics of how a select committee actually engages. That’s always been, probably, a disappointment of mine, because if you think about where the real work of parliamentarians occurs, it’s often in that select committee. So I am going to take this opportunity to urge the members on the Governance and Administration Committee to not only deal with the issues in the SOP using their inquiry powers, which is an unusual kind of mechanism that the Minister’s chosen, but also consider the other issues and concerns that the National members raised in the minority view.

So there is an opportunity for further input and scrutiny, and I’d encourage people to take the opportunity to do that. As the ACT member David Seymour outlined, it is a sensitive issue. I would say it’s also a complex issue, and one we shouldn’t shy away from: the very important need to make it easier for a person to change their sex recorded on their birth certificate and the need to maintain women’s rights to retain protected spaces and services aimed at women. So I do encourage the public to participate in the inquiry, and I do encourage the select committee members to consider the issues on the table. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa i roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei pō. Koutou e whakarongo mai ana ki konei, ki te kāinga hoki, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koutou. E te Māngai o te Whare e tautoko ana ahau i tēnei pire pau te kaha nā te mea ki ahau, mōku ake, he aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te rongo i ngā kōrero a ngā tāngata mō rātou tēnei pire mehemea ka tutuki ō rātou wawata me ngā raruraru e pā ana ki tēnei take nunui mō rātou. E te Māngai o te Whare e tautoko hoki ana ahau i ngā kōrero a te kaikōrero a Tāmati Coffey, kātahi anō ka mutu tana kōrero e pā ana ki tētahi tono, ā, nā Tina Ngata. E tino hiahia ana ahau ki te rongo i ngā kōrero o Te Ao Māori e pā ana ki tēnei take nui. Ka huri atu ahau ki tērā atu o ngā reo.

[Madam Speaker, my greetings to you, to everyone in this House this evening, and to those listening here or at home. I resolutely support this bill because to me, personally, what is the most important thing in this world? It is people, it is people, it is people.

I would like to hear the opinions of the people whom this bill is designed to serve, whether it meets their aspirations and whether there are any problems for them relating to this major issue. I also support the words of Tāmati Coffey, who has just spoken regarding a submission on this important issue made by Tina Ngata. I very much want to hear the voice of the Māori world regarding this important issue. I will now turn to the English language.]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on the bill this evening. I firstly wanted to mihi to all of those who are here tonight debating this, also in the gallery, and those watching at home. It is a very important take [subject] to many people, and I wanted to remind everybody of a whakataukī that is very famous up North: what is the most important thing in this world? It is people. It is people. It is people. I hope that during this debate, we remember that whakataukī.

I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Jan Tinetti. Her and I are walking friends, and so we go for a walk during the dinner break. We have talked about this issue and how challenging it can be at times, from the type of correspondence that she receives on this issue, but I am really proud of the principled approach that she has taken to doing what is right and what is fair to a group in our community. So I’m pleased that it has made it to this stage in the process.

I did want to highlight a couple of things from her speech that really struck me. I think the real issue that I agree with is that people are being caused pain and discrimination because of a Government-issued birth certificate. You know, I think back in our history and this hasn’t always existed, but since it has existed, it has created a problem for some people. Under this bill, transgender, non-binary, and intersex New Zealanders will no longer require proof of medical treatment or to show a court that they physically conform to the deeply held and lived knowledge of who they are and who they know themselves to be.

The Minister gave, in her opening speech, some evidence which I think is really compelling. When a survey was undertaken in 2019, 83 percent of the community surveyed did not have the correct gender represented on their birth certificate, and it’s those people in that percentage who responded to the survey that I think we really need to concentrate on and focus on. So I’m pleased that the Minister is recommending that this be referred back to the select committee, that there be an inquiry process, and I really hope that for those who are impacted by this legislation, for those who this legislation is intended to serve, they submit and tell us whether it meets their needs or not. I’m not a member of that select committee, but I really do hope that they feel safe and able to participate in that process.

Also, for those that might be listening, a point was made that while New Zealand does lead in many areas in the world, this is actually one area where we aren’t. There are at least 15 other countries in the world who, in fact, already do this, and so I think that it is time for us to get on with it, to refer it to the select committee. I encourage everybody to participate in that process, particularly those who this legislation is intended to serve. Tēnā koe.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Thank you, Madam Speaker—and as I say that, I think maybe Standing Orders need to be reviewed when it comes to “Madam Speaker” or “Mr Speaker” and other forms, again, as we are here looking at titles. Firstly, this evening, I want to say a big thankyou to our transgender, non-binary, intersex, takatāpui, and gender-diverse whānau—thank you for bearing with us; thank you for waiting for us to get to this point.

Now, this bill brings our Births, Deaths, and Marriages register into the 21st century. Now, this isn’t just a technology thing creating greater access; this is also a cultural thing. This is also a space that brings modern society into this legislation. As we know, and as Tāmati Coffey spoke about earlier—around Māori language in terms of those pronouns, or lack of, and, of course, in our English language, if you’re referring to others, there’s the four: there’s he, she, he—him, her—sorry, that wasn’t that hard was it! But, of course, if we go back in time, good-old English actually didn’t have that, back many, many centuries ago; “thee” and “thou” were used commonly. So we are always on the move as a culture and as a nation. I’m proud to be part of this Parliament, as we progress and as we ensure that we are an inclusive nation.

I came into this House because I knew what it was like to be on the margins, and I came into this House to ensure that my voice was part of the voice of the margins here at Parliament. I want to speak up for our community. I want to give a voice. I hope that this piece of legislation helps to remove the shame and the trauma that comes when having to negotiate paperwork and birth certificates.

Thank you to our Minister Jan Tinetti, as she said earlier, and was referred to just before, in that survey in 2019, 83 percent of our transgender, intersex, and non-binary whānau did not have the correct gender represented on their birth certificate. I dream of a nation that loves, nurtures, and includes all people, where our transgender, intersex, and non-binary whānau feel affirmed, empowered, and free to have their gender that they want on their birth certificate.

I want to thank all the parties in this Parliament for supporting this piece of legislation. This bill is a bill that is deeply affirming for some in our community. I look forward to the day when gender identity is not even considered. I don’t know about going back to a day when we use “thee” and “thou”, but maybe a day when “they” and “them” is common place. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): The key thing whenever we get into the space of rights, and particularly what we’re talking about here at the core of one’s identity or the community at large, is there’s competing views. And there’s probably nothing more essential than the sense of one’s biological sex and then the sense of one’s gender identity and how it’s expressed, not only in itself but then how the community receives that. So I think it’s a very positive decision tonight that the House, by the sound of it, is going to pass this second reading, but, importantly, put the bill—or parts of the bill, effectively—back to the select committee through an inquiry mechanism to have a discussion, because if one thing has been very, very clear, it is that there are, if you will, two sides to this discussion, this debate, and both have said they want a chance to speak. So I think that’s a very healthy way forward, but the key, too, for any debate and discussion is respectful, rational debate. That’s something I’m looking forward to, I’m sure, from members of Parliament who sit on that committee, and it’s something that I look forward to seeing much more of from the communities who come before the Parliament to share their views.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I wish to begin by thanking the Minister of Internal Affairs for bringing this Supplementary Order Paper 59 to the House and for sending it to the select committee for an inquiry. I wish to thank all the speakers tonight who have approached this matter very carefully and, I think, respectfully. I want to reflect on the words of a wise man—Damien O’Connor, for the record. It’s something that Damien—Mr O’Connor, Damien, whatever: that man—

Hon Peeni Henare: “Chainsaw”, “Chainsaw”.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —“Chainsaw”, “Chainsaw”—said to me, as a relatively new parliamentarian, and some others about a year in. He said that in this House, we don’t legislate for the ordinary case; we legislate for the margins. And tonight, we are here legislating for the marginalised to try to help make the world a better place for people who have been pushed to the margins of our society. I’ve reflected on that for a long time, that legislating for the margins, realising that our job here as parliamentarians is to protect the vulnerable, is to support those who need extra help, and is to support people in unusual circumstances who just wish to lead ordinary lives. That is what we hope to enable them to do.

I know that some of the people listening in tonight won’t understand what it’s all about. They just don’t get it. You know, what’s the problem with birth certificates and sex and official documents and the like? And, you know, that’s a pretty easy position for someone who is cisgender to take, for someone who just exists in the body they were born with and no worries about it. But actually those of us who are cisgender don’t need to understand. All we need to understand is that our trans whānau would like us to make this change to make their lives better. So that is what we are about. So, tonight, I stand here for Kate, for Lissa who comes to see me in my electorate office from time to time, for Roy, for Sarah, for Cushla’s stepson, for Anna’s boy, and for Emma’s boy. These are friends and friends’ children who are working through this difficult process which should not be difficult. That is who we are here for tonight: for the marginalised.

I urge those who submit to the select committee to remember to treat this process with care and respect. Why? Because we are talking about the marginalised and we should have more care and more respect when that is what we are doing. And so with those words, I commend this to the House.

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

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I move, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The aim of this bill is to establish a new roadside, random oral fluid testing regime to deter people from driving after consuming impairing drugs, and at this second reading debate, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for their work on the bill. I also want to extend thanks on behalf of the Minister of Transport to members of the Independent Expert Panel on Drug Driving for their considerable expertise in developing the advice for this bill. Of course, this is also the moment to thank all of those who came along to the committee and submitted their views on the bill.

Our Government is committed to improving road safety outcomes on New Zealand roads, and improving safety and saving lives is at the heart of this bill. Over the last five years, it’s disturbing that the number of deceased drivers found with drugs in their blood is at unacceptable levels. A driver who’s consumed drugs not only puts themselves at risk but, of course, they also put the lives of other road users in peril.

In 2019, 110 people were killed in crashes where a driver was found to have drugs in their system. That represents, shockingly, nearly a third of all road deaths.

I think one of the interesting things about this bill and the strong support there is for this reform here in Parliament but also across the country is that even at a time when there is growing public support for a more liberal and enlightened approach to dealing with the harm that drugs do in our society, and there’s growing support for an approach that is less punitive and that takes a health-based approach, at the same time there is an appetite for a tougher, less forgiving approach to people who put the lives of others at risk on the roads by consuming drugs before they drive. It might seem a paradox, but, actually, it’s not, because both approaches are about minimising harm and reducing the risk to people’s lives.

I want to focus, in my brief comments, on the amendments contained in the bill as reported back to the Parliament. The changes include setting criminal limits and blood infringement thresholds for 25 impairing drugs, and that has been informed by the advice of the expert panel on drug driving that I mentioned earlier.

Secondly, we are ensuring that drivers do not receive an infringement defence when they have only low levels of a drug in their blood that are unlikely to be impairing. We are amending the bill so that criminal limits and infringement thresholds can be set and amended by Order in Council in the future so that we can respond to changing drug use patterns and new information about drug impairment.

A new medical defence pathway for drivers who have consumed a prescription drug in line with advice from their medical professional—this would provide drivers with access to this defence for oral fluid test results without requiring them to take a blood test—and we’re adding some more requirements around the approval of oral fluid testing devices to ensure that this process is robust and transparent. Finally, we are ensuring that the new criminal limits and blood infringement thresholds are incorporated appropriately into existing drug-driving offences in the Land Transport Act.

This bill is a key part of the Government’s Road to Zero action plan for improved road safety outcomes. It’s a massive programme of change in our transport policy. It covers everything from an overhaul and modernisation of the entire regulatory system through to this bill, and the investment of a great deal of money in the redesigning and re-engineering of our transport infrastructure to save lives.

This bill aims to reduce road trauma by improving the approach to detecting and deterring the high-risk behaviour with drug-impaired driving. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 24 has added criminal limits and blood infringement thresholds for 25 drugs, as recommended by the independent expert panel, and I’m pleased to report that amendments in the SOP have addressed many of the concerns raised by submitters and those of the Attorney-General. So, again, let me thank those who made a submission on the bill who have improved it and all the work that was done at the select committee—thank you for all that contribution to the democratic process.

Our Government is committed to improving road safety outcomes. Too many people die and are seriously injured on our roads each year. The level of trauma being sustained by the people of New Zealand is completely unacceptable. We can do better. This bill is an important step in taking us there. I commend the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill to this House.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill in the second reading. And can I also firstly acknowledge the Minister . his opening comments and also the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the chair, Greg O’Connor—he chairs that committee. He has been a serving police officer and also a president of the New Zealand Police Association, which made a very compelling and strong submission to the committee as well.

The committee had several issues that we really pored over and discussed; some of them worried us—some of the issues that were raised by the Attorney-General and the Regulations Review Committee. And I think that the committee members, led by the chair, did a thorough job of making sure that we went over it and tried to return this bill in the best possible shape it could be to continue to get support from the entire House.

I have to say that I feel very strongly that it has taken us too long to get the bill here. I think, with the Minister’s opening comments, I reflect on the fact that we lose eight Kiwis every month due to people driving under the influence of drugs on our roads. And so it just highlights for us the importance of actually the passage of this bill, to get it through, and to allow the police time to operationalise it, because there’s actually going to be a lot of work to train staff to actually be able to operationalise this and make sure that it’s actually effective on our streets to keep our communities and our road users safe.

I do just want to go over a little bit of the history of the bill. Alastair Scott actually brought a bill to this House in 2018—a very similar bill—around implementing roadside drug testing. Unfortunately, it was voted down and there were several more efforts to get the bill introduced that failed. I don’t know whether or not we got caught up in the fact that there was a referendum that was coming towards the country rapidly around the legalisation of cannabis and there were concerns around, depending on the result of that referendum, how it was going to impact and have effect on the drug-driving amendment bill. In my view, we should have separated those two things out. We should have stayed solely focused on the drug-driving legislation and allowed the referendum and the people to have that say as a separate matter. If we needed to make amendments or changes to that legislation, then we could have done that.

I do want to make a special mention of Matthew Dow and his family, who have worked extensively with Nick Smith on this issue. Just to give you a bit of history, Matthew Dow was a young Nelsonian. He was killed on the Appleby highway on the last day of 2017. He was driving home from Kaiteriteri to Nelson to meet his family for New Year’s celebrations. A reckless, drug-impaired driver under the influence of a cocktail of drugs, who had had multiple police reports already that day for his erratic driving, crossed the centre line of State Highway 60 and smashed head-on into Matthew. Ambulance drivers described it as the most horrific scene that they had attended, and some of them had served up to 30 years—he didn’t stand a chance. He is just one of hundreds, unfortunately, that are killed due to the actions of drivers under the influence of drugs. His family, Karen and Peter Dow, organised a petition two years ago to try and get the Government to move. Finally for Karen and Peter, and in Matthew’s memory, we are moving forward and I am proud to be here tonight taking the first call for National on this bill.

We heard several submissions. One of the submissions that was compelling was from the New Zealand Automobile Association (AA). Their submission basically made the following points: the bill strikes the right balance to enable meaningful enforcement action against drivers who are drug-impaired while having safeguards in place to ensure individual rights and freedoms are protected. We felt very strongly too that those had to be in place, and there was a lot of debate around transitioning through the oral test through to the option of actually having a blood test. And we debated it quite a lot around the fact of should the person pay for that blood test if they elected to have it. We felt that if they had a blood test and it came back and it was negative, then there should be no cost associated; if it was positive, then actually they should pick up the cost of that.

The AA supports the provision in the bill requiring either two positive oral fluid tests or a positive blood test to trigger enforcement penalties. They also support the two-tier approach for infringements for likely lower-level impairment and criminal offences for likely higher-level impairment. They said we need to be sending a much stronger message to drivers that if they are drug impaired, they risk being tested and caught. According to a University of Waikato study, 60 percent of drivers thought they were likely to be caught for drunk driving, where only 26 percent thought the same for drug driving. So 60 percent of drivers thought there was a high chance of being caught for drunk-driving, which actually is a very good deterrent in itself, whereas only 26 percent of people thought that they’d be picked up or caught for drug-driving. A Waka Kotahi review on drug-impaired driving noted that effective deterrence requires highly visible general deterrence components.

Roadside oral fluid drug testing will be a crucial factor here. We talked a lot about roadside testing, and there were very valid concerns raised by committee members around concerns of different groups being targeted with random roadside drug testing. We did talk about that a lot. My own personal feeling was that having been involved, having served in the police myself, and having been part of a random roadside breath test, it is quite simply that it’s random—it’s whoever pulls into that checkpoint will actually be tested. There was no specific targeting or singling out any group. It was quite simply a matter of whoever came through that roadside testing. Actually, I have say I’m very pleased to say that in my own electorate the police are still proactive and active and out there stopping motorists coming through checkpoints. I’ve been stopped twice myself and I expected on both of those occasions to be tested, which I was. And it’s very simple now with quite simply talking into the device that the police have, stating your name and address, and they can very quickly tell whether or not there’s alcohol detected on your breath.

We hope that the drug-side testing will transition and become good enough that it’ll cause very little disruption in a motorist or a person’s business, but it is going to take time, because it is obviously going to be a new regime in New Zealand. Police will need significant extra resources to deliver the testing programme—that is without a doubt. We had assistant commissioner Bruce O’Brien there advising the committee. He was very, very good and succinct in his advice to the committee, but he did make it clear that it was going to be a big programme that was going to require time to train the police and to operationalise this.

We had a submission from Fulton Hogan. Fulton Hogan employs more than 7,800 people across New Zealand, Australia, and the Pacific. They maintain roads for 26 local authorities and one third of the State highway network. Their vehicles travel 100 million kilometres a year. Fulton Hogan use temporary traffic management to protect staff and the public within worksites. Controls assume largely compliant and predictable road use. Unpredictable behaviour, whether impairment or otherwise, is a serious threat to road workers and to the public, and contractors cannot control unpredictable driving behaviour. Impaired drivers need to be prevented from driving to enable contractors to maintain and improve transport network safety. So they were very, very, very clear in their support for this bill.

We had a couple of submitters that submitted to the committee, and they were obviously users of cannabis products and various drugs. They tried to convince us that this made them better operators of vehicles, but we asked them for any scientific evidence to be able to back that up, and they couldn’t provide that. But in their own minds, they think that when they’ve had a couple of joints, they were better drivers and they were safer on the roads. And I think that that highlighted for us just why it was so important to have this regime in place, because there are people that genuinely take drugs, consume drugs, and feel emboldened, and feel that they’re actually safer operating a vehicle—and they were bold enough to come in front of the committee and actually make submissions like that.

Look, I’m only half way through the comments that I wanted to get through tonight, but there will be further chances to speak to the bill. But I am very happy to be standing tonight in support of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. It should have been here earlier; it’s here now. Let’s get this bill through Parliament and passed as quickly as we can. Thank you.

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

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to reiterate the words of the previous speaker that it is nice to have a piece of legislation that comes before a select committee where there is a determination to do one thing: to make it a good piece of legislation. Certainly, that was the case with this piece of legislation, ably assisted, I might say, by the expert panel. We had Dr Helen Poulsen come. One of the issues—and again, it was touched on by the previous speaker—was it’s very easy for a piece of legislation like this to become mixed with one’s views on cannabis and other drugs, the legality and otherwise, and so it’s very important to make sure that this is a clinical bill, evidence-led, and that any legislation we pass through here is about one thing: making our roads safer. Making our roads safer means it must be about impairment, in the same way that drink-driving is about not just intoxication; it’s about whether someone should be safe to drive.

The reassurance we got was from the expert panel, from Dr Poulsen, in things like the degree of science they were able to bring to us. I’ll just quote one of the findings: “When cannabis is inhaled, maximum blood THC concentrations occur within minutes of dosing and reach the maximum while a cannabis cigarette is still being smoked.” I won’t read the whole thing. This is the sort of evidence they were able to bring to us, because, again and again, Mr Mitchell has talked about those who have come before us who believe that cannabis should somehow be exempted or that it doesn’t make any difference. It’s also very important to remember that within this, the substances, the six most prevalent impairing drugs which will be able to be tested for are THC, obviously; methamphetamine; benzodiazepines; MDMA, better known as ecstasy; opiates; and cocaine. Of course, these—and I know it’s quite interesting. In police, the surveillance squads who follow drivers are ones who have a lot of expertise in this area, because they know pretty much what those they are trying to surveil—what sort of drug they are likely to be on by the degree of impairment. Again, it’s important to remember this is about degree of impairment.

So we did hear some very good submissions from the Police Association, the Medical Association, the Road Transport Forum, just to name a few. There were those, again, whose submissions may have just become mixed up with their politics or their belief around drugs, and there’s certainly a move around the world and in New Zealand to talk about dealing with drugs as a health issue, but there is no more health issue than those who are in the trauma wards of our hospitals who see, week after week—in fact, the statistics show a third of those who die on our roads who have been drivers in accidents have some sort of drug in their body. A third. Think about that.

So just to go to the technicalities of this, the testing devices will be designed. They are oral testing devices, relatively easy to ensure that the drugs that are to be detected are to be detected. I think one thing I will leave you with and leave those listening behind with is an absolute assurance that this is science-based and that the politics that will inevitably surround anything to do with drug-driving, and particularly anything to do with cannabis—you can rest assured that the legislation in the form it is in, the testing devices in the form they are in, are guaranteed to ensure that this is a safe, scientific approach. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending this to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to join with the Minister and colleagues who have already spoken on this bill—the first two of whom were on the select committee—in commending this bill and in thanking, firstly, the members of the select committee, the officials, and also those who submitted on it. I wasn’t on the select committee and others will be able to speak with more authority about that experience. But I want to take the House back a little back further to the genesis of this and provide a perspective on why we’re here and why we’re here now and not earlier.

In early 2009, when I was a very fresh, new member of Parliament, I was a member of what was known then as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and the first bill that brought the roadside impairment test regime in was being considered by that committee. One of the senior members on that committee, the Hon Trevor Mallard, on the day that New Zealand Police came in to demonstrate the roadside impairment test and how it would be carried out, decided that the newest member of the committee should actually embark on that test. So in the middle of the select committee room 4, in front of the media and a number of officials, I actually walked the line, touched my toes, turned around, did all of the things that needed to be done on a roadside impairment test and found that it was actually pretty difficult to pass even when one was not impaired by any substance.

Tim van de Molen: Did you pass?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I did pass, you’ll be pleased to know, Mr van de Molen, and we went on a discussion about why this was all necessary, because there were emerging technologies at that time which showed—saliva testing. We knew that the illicit ingestion of substances was illegal, but we wanted to make this very much a road safety issue, not a criminal issue. What we heard at that time was that the saliva-testing regime—the measurement of the degree of impairment at that time, that was 13 years ago, was not as specific, sensitive, and there wasn’t a sufficient correlation between the degree of, say, THC in one’s system and the level of impairment. One could smoke a joint the night before, wake up relatively clear-eyed, but still have that in the system. That contrasts with blood alcohol and breath alcohol, where there is a high correlation between the amount of alcohol in the system and the level of impairment. And that was our difficulty.

Now, fast forward to 2013 and 2014, and I was the Associate Minister of Transport with responsibility for road safety. In that period, there was a tremendous tragedy on the State Highway 1 near Foxton, where a truck driver, not noticing roadworks had stopped a number of cars up ahead, rammed into the back of a line of cars. Those cars concertinaed and one of them burst into flames, killing a mother and son. It was a tragedy. And the driver was taken to Palmerston North Hospital where a blood test was taken that showed THC was in his system but, because he had not embarked on the roadside impairment test that we had passed the bill for, he was not able to be charged with drug-driving causing death. Indeed, he was being charged with careless driving causing death and, understandably, that caused a tremendous amount of anger. I had to go on, I think it was, the Sunday show profiling that and defend the process, which was pretty hard, I have to say. A very probing interviewer said to me, “Look, it’s really clear. He had THC in his system. That probably caused the accident.” And all I could say was, “Yes, but probably wasn’t the burden of proof.”

At that time, there was also quite a good advance in the technology. I was in the UK as police Minister a year or so later, meeting the UK Minister, and they’d just introduced the saliva testing regime. I think from memory, because cost was an issue, it was about 20 quid—£20—a test, so it was relatively inexpensive. I raised the question of the correlation between the level of THC or cocaine, or whatever it was, and impairment, and he basically said, “We don’t care.” They did have a per se threshold, by the way, and if that was set too low or too high the risk that a person takes when they take illicit substances and they get behind the wheel of a car is theirs. I’m really pleased to note that I think we are approaching that regime at the same time as the science and the technology has advanced even further. So I went back and I asked officials. I asked Police, Transport about whether or not this was a regime whose time had come. The officials actually were still very cautious—and I have to defend the Hon Julie Anne Genter against the criticism that she had when she first became associate transport Minister because actually all Ministers can do is act on the advice of the officials and that was certainly the advice we had. So I am pleased that we are here doing this. The technology has advanced and, yes, there might be an argument that says we could have moved a little quicker but we are here and that’s the right thing to do.

I also want to join with my colleague Mark Mitchell in acknowledging, firstly, Nick Smith, who advocated for the family of the late Matthew Dow but also the hundreds of families around the country who have been traumatised by road collisions caused by drugged drivers. I cannot imagine what that must be like and I’m confident that as a consequence of this legislation we will be giving police more powers to prevent that tragedy and that carnage. I think it’s appropriate actually that the second and third speakers in this bill are both former police officers. Neither of them talked about it in detail but I know both of them have attended incidents and seen things that no one should have to endure. It’s difficult for our first responders also to deal with those things, and all we can do to reduce that harm I think we should. I am really pleased we’re here and I look forward to this improving safety on our roads.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, and good evening to everyone. I will take a short call this evening to talk on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. I’m a part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, led by Greg O’Connor, and I acknowledge also my colleague Mark Mitchell—and the generosity of the North Shore—for the work that we do do in that particular select committee, because it does require a level of attention from all sides of the House to ensure that we get these particular bills right, and right moving forward. There have been some challenges in leading up to where we are this evening in this second reading.

I go back to the survey of the Drug Foundation back in 2009, and at that time that survey told us that almost a quarter, 25 percent, of people that were surveyed had got behind the wheel and driven under the influence of, at that particular time, cannabis, the drug of choice. Then we fast-forward, sort of, 12-odd years to 2021, and now we’ve got a mix of drugs across Aotearoa New Zealand that a number of people, communities, and, in particular, young people are accessing. I guess in this particular bill what I am happy with is that we’ve started to broaden the drugs that we are testing for, the drugs including, of course, cannabis and THC, methamphetamine—rife across our communities—MDMA, ecstasy, opiates, and cocaine. You know, that’s a real reality check to all of us in what is available and out there.

This bill in particular makes steps towards keeping both drivers but also family members and people in our communities safe. We’ve got to take action. It has taken a while, as the Opposition has said, but under this Government, I’m happy that we’ve proceeded forward, we’ve got the bill right, and that we’re testing where we need to. So, without further ado, I’d like to commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koe.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to start by acknowledging that a lot of effort went into the design and drafting of this legislation to ensure that it could meet both the concerns that have been raised about the potential impact that impairing substances were having on our deaths and serious injuries on our roads, and the fact that there’s actually quite a bit of uncertainty still with the tests as they are, and about their ability to establish impairment alone. So a lot of work has gone into this legislation as it’s proposed to ensure that there would be minimisation of false positives and to ensure that there is as good a relationship as can be established between a given saliva level and impairment. Of course, there’s no ability through the saliva tests alone for anyone to get a criminal conviction. This was really important because the saliva tests cannot provide the evidential standard that would be needed to give someone a criminal conviction for driving impaired.

Now, I just want to, especially, acknowledge all the pain and suffering of those families who have lost people due to any sort of car crash or vehicle crash and acknowledge that it is particularly painful in those cases, like in the case of Matthew Shepherd [Matthew Dow], when the driver was known to be under the influence of impairing substances and a repeat offender. But those tragedies alone are not a reason to rush to a particular legislative solution unless we have enough evidence that the legislative solution is actually going to be a solution and is actually going to reduce impaired driving. In the case of Matthew Shepherd [Matthew Dow]—and I did meet his family—this legislation would not have made any difference in that case, because that driver had already been reported to the police, was already driving erratically, and the police already had tools in place to do a compulsory impairment test. So it wasn’t the lack of random roadside drug testing that that led to that; it was insufficient police on the roads and insufficient response to the complaints that were being made.

So while it’s an incredibly emotional issue, we have to be really focused on the evidence. I have to say it was a privilege for me, having been somewhat involved in the drafting of the original legislation, to be able to sit on the select committee and hear the submissions. One thing that I’m slightly surprised about that we haven’t heard tonight is the number of submissions from health professionals and scientific experts that made it very clear that there’s extreme difficulty to reliably establish an equivalent blood level of a substance with an oral fluid test result, and that neither of these can actually be correlated with impairment. It’s much more difficult than in the case of alcohol, and it’s particularly difficult with some substances.

Yes, there’s no doubt that there were a couple of unreliable submissions that you would always get in front of the select committee of, you know, people who maybe haven’t brought a lot of research and evidence to their submission. But there was a huge number of very well researched, evidence-based submissions from Wellington Regional Public Health, the New Zealand Medical Association, the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and even the independent expert panel itself made it very clear there is no simple relationship between the dose of a drug and the resulting impairment of driving. The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners states that “the testing framework proposed is not supported by reliable scientific evidence of correlation between presence of substance and impairment.”

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists was concerned that a harm-minimisation approach is not implemented by this bill, as well as noting that—and I quote—“The presence of drugs in a person’s oral fluid or blood does not directly relate to impairment. … We call for greater research in understanding the link between substance misuse and a person’s impairment.” The New Zealand Medical Association echoes this, stating, “the science to support roadside oral fluid testing is not quite sufficiently advanced, although it is rapidly evolving. Key concerns include the inability of oral fluid testing to detect impairment, the absence of well-defined threshold levels and impairment limits for many drugs, and the potential for the Bill to exacerbate inequalities for Māori in the criminal justice system.”

So when we look at the submissions that were presented, an overwhelming number from people who presented actual research and have a professional health background, raised these very significant concerns, despite the best efforts to design a regime which would give us certainty of being able to test for a proxy for impairment. And that really is the ultimate goal, right? If we want a safe road network, if we want safe drivers, I completely understand that we need some tool to try and deter impaired driving and to detect impaired driving and to do so in a way that will enable us to actually get those impaired drivers off the road. The Green Party’s completely supportive of that.

What we are very, very happy with is that the best efforts have been made to design this bill to minimise risk, but we do feel that some additional improvements could be made to reflect the weight of submissions that suggest that, actually, there is not enough evidence to give these powers and to put such weight in saliva testing and blood testing.

So we believe that following the submissions to the select committee, there are two improvements that can be made to the bill, and we will be moving these in the committee stage, and we are very open to support from other parties. One of these is to really instantiate a robust independent review several years after the implementation of the bill. The other one is really just to reflect the fact that we cannot know before implementing this legislation that it will be effective at its stated objective. It is important that we take an empirical approach to this.

So if it turns out that this regime is not effective at reducing impaired driving, that it hasn’t had the desired consequences, and that it is resulting in unfair targeting of certain populations, it will be incredibly important that there is some requirement or impetus for the Government of the day to respond to that evidence and to change the law and potentially to say, “Sorry it didn’t work. We’re going to have to take a different approach. We might have to go back to more resource for compulsory impairment testing or we might have to do more research into alternatives to saliva tests.”, which I have no doubt sound really easy and effective, and the Police Association came and told us that was definitely what they wanted, but we want the test that is out there and applied to drivers to actually detect impaired driving and to discourage it.

So the Green Party will be voting for this at second reading. We will be moving several amendments that we think are entirely reasonable amendments that will help address some of the uncertainty. Given the scale of the problem with impaired driving in New Zealand, we are open to testing this regime, but we believe that there simply is not the evidence beforehand to prove that it will achieve the outcomes we want and that we can minimise the risk of harm to those vulnerable populations. So the Green Party will be looking to improve the bill, with just two very minor amendments that will help improve and give confidence to New Zealanders that we are going to take an empirical approach, that we are not going to be swayed by emotive stories and then impose something that doesn’t actually achieve the objective.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a really difficult issue, because the science and the technology doesn’t quite match up with our aspiration. I have three teenage boys. The eldest has his driver’s licence and, like a lot of young people, has an active social life. I hope and trust that he makes the right decisions every time he gets behind the wheel, but I don’t have control over him and I don’t have control over what other people do on the road when I’m driving. So it’s important that we have a means of deterring people from getting behind the wheel and driving while impaired. That includes not just illegal substances but also prescription medications or medications that may be misused.

When I’ve looked at the submissions—and the Green Party and the ACT Party did come to a differing view on the bill—we have reservations because at this point in time it’s not possible to create a link between an oral fluid test, a blood test, and impairment for certain types of drugs. It’s because drugs that have been illegal for such a long time, like psychoactive drugs, have not been assessed with sufficient academic rigour for their impairment for us to be able to make that very important causal link between somebody driving or operating a motor vehicle—or it could be a piece of plant and equipment on the road—having a positive result with an oral fluid test, having a positive detectable result with a blood test and a level of impairment that would cause concern, because, as with alcohol testing, it’s well understood that there is a limit for a reason. And we accept that a person of a certain body mass or even one or more genders might have a different response to alcohol. So while you might pass a test, actually depending on your fatigue, whether you’re dehydrated, what your emotional state is, your response to alcohol might be much more severe than actually what the test result at the roadside evaluation tells you.

Many people have claimed that they can beat the test, they can drink more than what is recommended, whether it’s one drink per hour, and their bodies can cope with it. But many other people will tell you that that limit doesn’t apply to them. They can’t drink at all because they feel funny and uncomfortable getting behind the wheel. So if we’re thinking about what’s the purpose of the legislation—to deter people from driving while impaired, to reduce the harm that people who are driving while under the influence of drugs cause through motor vehicle accidents, through injuries and, worst case, through fatalities and harming others—then what are we going to do to solve that problem? And we do have some reservations that the proposed purpose of this bill and the functions that are set out in it actually don’t line up.

However, the ACT Party will be supporting the bill at this reading with reservations, and they’re reservations that we’ve outlined in the report back, in our differing view that we share with the Green Party, that the very medical professionals who we trust to make judgments about health and wellbeing—medical health, psychological psychiatric health—have raised significant concerns about that relationship between impairment, testing, and criminalising people for failing a test without actually being able to confirm whether they’re impaired.

So we do have concerns about that and we believe that there needs to be a tension, a stress imposed on officials who would be administering this bill down the track to gather the data, to actually demonstrate, if possible, a causal link between the oral fluid test result and impairment. Now, this research is going on around the world and states like Victoria, South Australia in Australia have struggled to align those two sets of data. But just because a task is difficult doesn’t mean we should shy away from it.

In fact, New Zealand companies like Rako, for example, have developed a wonderfully effective and efficient saliva test for COVID-19, which, despite the reservations of this Government—which recently reports that they’ve conducted only 15 tests with this wonderful Rako saliva test that the US military and various other organisations are using. In fact, New Zealand, of all places, probably has the technological capability to develop oral saliva testing for impairment. So let’s trust those scientists, but we do need to collect the data. It does need to be reported back.

There is a concern that officials who are given a regulatory licence will simply run away with it, promise the Earth to their Minister and to the public, but very, very rarely return with the evidence that the legislation that they’ve asked for is working, and to actually ask for tweaks. Because nobody who’s asked for something, promised that it would work—those people very rarely have the courage to come back and ask for it to be fixed afterwards. That’s why we need to get it right this time.

So what we’re proposing is that the legislation is amended and we’ll be working on Supplementary Order Papers with the Green Party to have the legislation amended at the committee stage. We need to apply an acid test to the bureaucracy. We need to make sure they understand that we’ve given them a licence but that it’s not enduring and that within five years this legislation should expire unless they can demonstrate it’s actually working.

Barbara Kuriger: We apply that to everything.

SIMON COURT: We should, as our colleague, the member Barbara Kuriger, suggests apply this acid test to all Government legislation, but it is particularly appropriate for this one. So on that note, again, ACT will support the bill at this reading and we look forward to continuing to engage with the Government and other parties to make it better legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Mālō ‘aupito, Madam Speaker, and I rise to take a very, very quick call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill tonight. I also want to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, the chair Greg O’Connor, our officials, the expert panel, and the submitters for some great improvements to the bill, but also some really robust discussions while we were at it.

This Government is committed to ensuring we improve the road safety outcomes on the road, and that’s what this bill does. Someone who consumes drugs and decides to drive not only risks their own life but risks the lives of other people on the road, as well. This will introduce a compulsory random roadside oral fluid testing regime or scheme for the police to stop motorists and carry out that oral fluid testing, similar to the approach of the drink-driving enforcement. This bill adds safeguards to protect against those false positives. As a member earlier said, it avoids the passive exposure or low-level residue amounts being picked up and acknowledges people taking medicines in line with their prescriptions. Ultimately, this bill is about improving our road safety, and for that reason I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on and support this bill tonight, and acknowledging, in doing so, the contribution of former member Alastair Scott and also Nick Smith, who had some very passionate views in this area, having been through some experiences with parents who had lost a son in particular, and probably others. In speaking to this bill tonight, I’d also like to mention the Porteous family and others from Taranaki who went through an awful experience a few years ago where there were seven people killed in one accident and they were part of four innocent parties in one car, and they had actually been killed by someone under the influence of drugs driving a vehicle. That driver was killed, two members of the driver’s family were killed, and there was only one person in that car that survived. There are some very sad tragedies that happen. So our thoughts are with everyone who’s lost family members in tragic circumstances, and particularly around the context of why we’re supporting this bill tonight.

Beyond that, I’m just a little amused at what I’ve seen since I’ve been in the House tonight. It’s not very often that I watch the Green Party and the ACT Party collaborating on something, so that’s just been a little bit interesting. But what’s really bemusing for me is that in December 2019, the then Associate Minister of Transport, Julie Anne Genter, said, “I intend to introduce a bill to the Parliament early next year to enable oral fluid drug testing to begin in 2021.” Well, here we are in 2021, and the bill was supposed to have been passed by now. We’re up to the second reading, so at least that is some progress, but, you know, what’s even worse is that when presented with advice, Julie Anne Genter claimed random roadside saliva testing was “too intrusive” and “extremely expensive” and rejected the officials’ proposal.

This is something that often we see with members of the Green Party, who live in a world that tends to be rather idealistic, and then when the science is applied to the ideas that they come up with and they’re given some science and they’re given some official advice, at the end of the day they turn round and go, “Well, that wasn’t such a good idea, because something we were proposing that we thought was a good idea might actually backfire on us, so we decide it’s not such a good idea any more.” So I’m not sure how confused Julie Anne Genter is over all of this. I know we do have to be careful with regulations and we do have to be careful with what we’re proposing and we do have to know that the drug testing is doing the right thing, but science will do that. And we’re hearing in the House tonight that there are ways and means around that—doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be cautious, but it doesn’t mean that you can completely do an about turn when you don’t like the advice that you’ve been given because it backfires on your good intentions in the first place. So I have to wonder, in proposing this legislation in the first place, how much homework that Minister did at the time, because she should’ve taken that advice and decided what was the right course of action for her as a Minister before she actually got up and proposed it.

But having said that, we are pleased now that it’s back in the House. It is good to be standing here and supporting the bill. National believes we should’ve just got straight on and changed the law as soon as the advice was given. We do note that this Government has chosen to delay it, but, nevertheless, we’re here now. We’re supporting it, and we’ll work our way through the next stages of the bill, because in the end, too many families are losing loved ones. We have regimes for driving under the influence of alcohol, and this is the next step in the process. We all know that drugs can be a pretty serious scourge on our world anyway, let alone somebody getting behind the wheel of a vehicle and driving a car. So it’s a pleasure to support this bill. Thank you.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I join the rest of the House in supporting the sentiment and the intention behind this bill. I commend it to the House.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s certainly—to see the eagerness to have this passed tonight; I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): The National Party is really pleased to continue our support of this bill as well, and we think it’s an incredibly important piece of legislation, and we commend this bill to the House too.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): I can only join my colleagues and, actually, first of all congratulate the House for actually, at this point, all being in consensus on this. I actually just perhaps want to take the time to have just one particular thing that I’d like to talk about, and that is the saliva testing itself. Now, Mr Woodhouse talked earlier about how this had been earlier floated in a time when the science around saliva testing was not very sound. I was thrilled to see that it had improved, because I actually worked on a lot of drug-testing cases in the employment arena, and at that point there was a real difference between the testing that was available with regard to urine testing and the saliva-testing process, and one is much less invasive than the other.

The saliva testing has improved markedly, but it also does something quite special in this area. It will focus on the recent use of the drug. There is a little bit of confusion around this. This piece of legislation is about recent use, and by talking about recent use, what we’re actually doing is focusing on changing our culture out there so that our drug users in the community get the message: do not drive when you have been taking drugs of any kind. That is true too of alcohol. It is something that I would like to draw a line across, because these are all drugs and they have all been harming our society, and they are not appropriate when driving. So the saliva testing is a real step forward, and for that reason, I think we have a sound piece of legislation here. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 118

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 2

Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.