Wednesday, 29 September 2021

WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 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.

Motions

Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora—70th Anniversary

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the 70th anniversary of Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, with a preceding mihi.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that taking place? There appears to be none.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI: Ki aku maunga whakahī, aku awa whakairo whenua tēnā koutou katoa. Ka tika me mihi ki ngā māreikura o Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora kua riro atu ki te kōpū o Hine-nui-te-pō kau tonu te moe. Ki te hunga ora mā tātou ēnei mahi rangatira e kawe tonu ā haere ake nei. Ngā Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora whakanuia.

[To my proud mountains, to my rivers that carve out this land, greetings to you all. It is appropriate for me to acknowledge the esteemed members of the Māori Women’s Welfare League who have passed away. May you rest in peace. To the living, it is for us to continue their work in future generations. Let us celebrate the Māori Women’s Welfare League.]

I move, That the House note that in September 1951, the inaugural conference of Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora, the Māori Women’s Welfare League, was held in Wellington, with the late Dame Whina Cooper elected as its first president, and that the House celebrate the role of Te Rōpū Wāhine Māori Toko i te Ora in the advancement, enablement, and empowerment of Māori women and whānau.

Motion agreed to.

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

SPEAKER: No petitions, papers, or select committee reports have been presented. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her Government’s plan to reopen our borders, and by when will the almost 25,000 people who missed out on MIQ spaces yesterday be able to come home?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. I stand by the Government’s plan to reconnect New Zealanders with the world, which many will remember was released in August of this year. In particular, I stand by the plan’s objectives to stamp out the virus, reduce the need for further lockdowns, maintain strong public health tools, and develop ways for people to travel safely to and from New Zealand. I know how hard it has been for those New Zealanders wanting to travel back to New Zealand at a time when there have been severe constraints on our managed isolation system. And while an extra 6,000 people were able to book spaces last night, in addition to the existing 12,000 already booked till Christmas, that is why we have a plan to move past managed isolation, which we’ve signalled for the first quarter of 2022. But no New Zealander wants to travel to New Zealand and put their fellow Kiwis at risk, and that’s why we have a plan to open the borders in a safe way that doesn’t mean more restrictions at home than is necessary.

Hon Judith Collins: Why has she still not told New Zealanders the rate of vaccination that will allow us to reconnect with the world?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve talked about the need for high vaccinations at 90-plus. We’ve also talked about a time frame—the first quarter of 2022. We’ve been doing that since the beginning of last month when we released—on the advice of Professor David Skegg and his public health advisory group—our reconnecting to New Zealand plan. I note the member has taken a different view. She believes that we should adopt what is a broadly similar framework but much earlier. That runs the risk of having cases at our border unchecked when we have over, roughly, 1.5 million New Zealanders unvaccinated. It is, however, up to the member to justify her own plans.

Hon Judith Collins: What does she mean by “as high as possible”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That the more New Zealanders who are vaccinated, the less likely it is that we’ll need domestic restrictions, and the less likely it is that we’ll see hospitalisations that could have been prevented. I’m not alone in talking about 90-plus. That is where you’ll see the vast majority of health experts who choose to be named talking about vaccination rates. I note in the National Party plan there is no reflection of the kinds of local restrictions that would be needed with the plan that’s been presented today, because there is no question that there would be cases seeded at the border. All modelling that is undertaken suggests that would be likely, whether it’s Doherty or whether it’s Hendy, but I see nothing other than mask use to suggest there’d be any—

Chris Bishop: No. Read the plan.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —domestic restrictions to manage those likely cases.

Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

Hon Judith Collins: When will she tell—

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Bishop.

Hon Judith Collins: When will she tell New Zealanders what requirements someone coming from a low-risk country will have when flying home to New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member to the reconnecting to New Zealand plan, which the member probably would be able to answer that question herself, seeing her plan seems to draw on it. It has three pathways: low, medium, and risk. For those low-risk countries where they have—essentially, where they are free of COVID, then they would be able to travel, essentially, with no isolation requirements. For those from medium-risk countries—and they’re vaccinated—there would be modified isolation requirements. The difference between the Government’s plan is that we have talked about high vaccination rates in the first quarter of 2022. We have also prioritised New Zealanders here not facing undue and unnecessary additional restrictions to manage what would inevitably be a rate of seeded cases at the border. I refer the member to Canada. They removed all border restrictions for citizens who are double vaccinated, and, in some cases, they are facing a significant fourth wave, and it has meant that they have domestic restrictions. There is no free lunch. You do have to make trade-offs. We’ve decided to prioritise domestically trying to get the settings as low as possible for New Zealanders, and, in time we will see changes at our border as well.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she consider it a free lunch, then, for New Zealanders who are overseas being forced to watch dying family members take their final breaths by Zoom, because her Government was so slow to get the vaccine rolled out?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I really reject the member’s statement there. All of those situations are incredibly difficult, and every member in this House will have sympathy for family members who have been separated by COVID the world over. We do have a process that enables, in those situations, New Zealanders to get to the top of any wait-list to be able to make it home to see their family members. So I would, rather than put out information that implies otherwise, I would rather those New Zealanders know: please get in touch with the Ministry of Health if you have a situation like that so they can support you home.

Hon Judith Collins: Will her reopening plan allow double-vaccinated Kiwis in countries with low levels of COVID to come home for Christmas without needing to win the managed isolation and quarantine lottery?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Under that member’s plan, I’d be interested in what she defines as “low level”. We have already done so; we released it in August. But one of those green zones, as the member will be aware, was Australia. Things dramatically changed there and that obviously moved into a high-risk category. We have had the Cook Islands able to enter into New Zealand, but, of course, they’ve chosen to shut off to us. Where it has been low-risk, we have opened. In October, we will be reopening for Recognised Seasonal Employer workers from Vanuatu, Tonga, and Samoa. Where it’s low risk, we have opened, but, as it turns out, very few countries in this world right now are low risk.

Hon Chris Hipkins: To the Prime Minister, which does she think New Zealanders would prefer: a COVID-free Christmas or reopening the borders early and getting COVID for Christmas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Essentially, this is where, obviously, the National Party’s put their penny down. They’ve decided to move forward the border opening. Our view has been to get the restrictions right domestically, try and give New Zealanders as much freedom as possible, get those vaccination rates up so the impact of border openings is lessened, and move in the first quarter of 2022.

Hon Judith Collins: If her plan is to have as many people vaccinated as possible in the first half of next year but no particular number based on that before she can reopen, then why can’t she just get more people vaccinated now so Kiwis can come home for Christmas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that member’s question. But also, as we have traversed in this House many a time, vaccinations are currently available and ready for every single New Zealander right now. But if the member may choose to look around globally, every single country around the world, once they get to high rates, it does get harder. That is why we have already overtaken the United States on first doses, who has had vaccine available for months. Because there are some members of our population who choose not to be vaccinated, that’s the group I would hope everyone in this House would unite behind assisting to see the benefits of vaccine.

Hon Judith Collins: So under her Government’s plan, what happens when we get to the first part of next year and the vaccination rate hasn’t gone up into over 90 percent?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, as we’ve said, our view is that we can get to those high rates, our view is that we can do it within a reasonable time frame, but our view still is that in the first quarter of 2022 is a more likely time frame for being able to move on the border. But also I would caution the member that if she chooses to look at any international evidence—if she chooses to—she’ll see that most countries have moved on the border last. It is the last lever they pull, rather than the first lever. So rather than assessing the impact of vaccination on COVID rates, ensuring you’ve got your domestic settings right and protecting New Zealanders at home, the member instead wants to open the floodgate without getting it right first. That is rushed and it is risky.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister meaning to say that the border can’t be opened because, after 18 months, her Government’s still far from getting the domestic settings right?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No—absolutely not. But if the member thinks that domestic settings based on Alpha would be any good right now, then obviously he hasn’t looked at what’s happening around the world. In fact, the settings for vaccine under Alpha are vastly different to now. You have to adapt, and the benefit of the New Zealand approach has been that we’ve done that and we’ve done it very successfully.

David Seymour: Has the Prime Minister only just realised that there are new variants of COVID; and, if not, why is she so unprepared for them?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Mr Speaker, do I even have to answer that?

SPEAKER: Well, I mean, I could have ruled it out for irony. The member, I think, knew that I could have ruled it out for irony, but I think the Prime Minister’s absolutely capable of answering.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course the entire global community is aware of the range of variants that exist. But if the member is suggesting that we can base a research and evidence-based approach on a variant where most of the research around transmissibility, around infectivity, and around hospitalisation has only emerged since the latter part of this year.

Hon Grant Robertson: Further to the last supplementary question, is the Prime Minister aware of a document released yesterday that said that the Government was prepared for a new variant—released by the ACT Party?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am, but I’m no longer looking for any consistency in any Opposition’s plans on COVID.

Hon Judith Collins: Isn’t the biggest risk to New Zealand the fact that she delivered the slowest vaccine roll-out in the developed world while failing to invest in our health system to prepare for Delta?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely reject that, and also, again, as I’ve just said in a previous answer, we’ve now surpassed on first doses the likes of the United States. We’ve had the highest rate of vaccination per capita of any of the countries we would compare ourselves to. And while we’re at it, we’ve had the lowest case rates, the lowest hospitalisations, the lowest death rates, and some of the best economic performance in the world. The member cannot rewrite history. Our approach has been successful. The point is that COVID is tough on everyone and it’s not finished.

Hon Judith Collins: So if she rejects that assertion, then which country is the slowest in the developed world?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve just said, we have passed the countries the member has consistently compared us to.

Question No. 2—Environment

2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement that “we as a Government decided that we needed to introduce strict rules to stop the further loss of wetlands”; if so, does he intend for the changes now proposed to the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater to make it easier to consent activities such as quarrying, mining, and landfills within or near a wetland?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): In answer to the first part of the question: yes. In answer to the second part of the question: as the member will be aware, the National Environmental Standards (NES) was not intended to stop quarries and landfills. The member will also be aware from the publicly released discussion document that the proposal is that any amount of wetland loss caused by those activities will have to be offset elsewhere.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What advice has he received about ecological effects and the extent of further wetland loss allowed by the proposed changes to the NES provisions around quarrying, mining, landfills, and urban development within and next to wetlands?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The advice that I have received is that most of the wetland loss that we have seen is outside of those areas. I do understand the absolutism that the member favours, and, actually, I share her ambition to protect wetlands. But I think that almost everyone in this House understands that we need quarries, and, notwithstanding the member’s good work in respect of reducing waste, we also need landfills. Obviously, landfills are generally not on hilltops; they’re generally in low points, and so on occasions there is some modest loss of wetland that is unavoidable. We will be trying to minimise that and offsetting any remaining wetland loss.

Hon Eugenie Sage: When he said in this House in May, “that we’ve gone too far in the prohibited activity status in respect of some of [these] activities”, does he believe that in destroying 90 percent of our natural wetlands in Aotearoa we have gone too far?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I stand by both of those statements. I certainly think that we have to stand up for our remaining wetlands. It is true that even outside of national parks, we have lost 90 percent of the wetlands that we used to have, and that we have to do much better because in the last decade or so we lost a 20th of the remaining 10 percent. What’s proposed here in respect of wetlands and quarries won’t diminish the outcome in any material sense. It is necessary, but offsets in respect of what is unavoidable will be required.

Hon Eugenie Sage: With a Landcare Research study for his ministry showing that 13 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand’s remaining freshwater wetlands were damaged or destroyed between 2002 and 2015, how can New Zealanders have any confidence that the proposed consenting pathway in the NES will prevent further wetland damage and destruction?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I think we’ve got New Zealanders on our side in respect of this issue about the need to protect wetlands, and I’ve done a lot to promote that on behalf of the Government. In respect of the ease with which people have been able to nix wetlands in recent decades, that is over and is now illegal.

Hon Eugenie Sage: How will removing a prohibition on activities that destroy or degrade wetlands, such as mining and quarrying, support the 2030 goal of the Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy that “There has been no loss of the extent or condition of indigenous land, wetland, or freshwater ecosystems which have been identified as having high biodiversity value”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, that quote takes me back to the reference to absolutism which I mentioned in answer to an earlier supplementary. That absolutism is not possible. We do need quarries in order to produce gravel, in order to build houses and other infrastructure. We should, when we have quarries, be absolutely minimising the amount of wetland loss, but where there is a small amount of unavoidable wetland loss, that should be offset. We do need quarries.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the resilience of the New Zealand economy to the impacts of COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s scientific and health-led response to support the economy has been recognised by the global ratings agency Standard and Poor’s (S&P). S&P Global Ratings published its latest economic outlook for Asia-Pacific today, lowering its expected growth rate for the region in 2021 to 6.7 percent from 7.1 percent it forecast in June. New Zealand and Singapore were the only economies that S&P expects to have faster growth than it forecast in June. It upgraded New Zealand’s forecast growth this year from 4.6 percent to 5.4 percent. They said, “The strong growth recorded in the first half of 2021 means that we will see robust full-year growth in New Zealand, even after taking into account a sharp slowdown due to the recent pandemic-related lockdowns. We expect consumer spending and the labour market to remain resilient.” Standard and Poor’s expects New Zealand to record solid growth in the next three years and indicates a confidence in New Zealand businesses and workers that we have shown over the last year.

Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the contribution of the agricultural sector to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The economic recovery and our resilience is continuing to be supported by the dairy sector. Last week, dairy prices at the Global Dairy Trade auction gained 1 percent and follow a 4 percent gain in the previous auction early in September. The gains were driven by stronger returns for whole milk powder, which is a key indicator for the pay-out for dairy farmers. It shows that dairy is holding up well to Delta COVID-19 and does bode well for the Farmgate Milk Price due to the relatively large volumes of the product being traded at this time of the season, when production is near its peak. Fonterra’s mid-point forecast payout for the current season of $8 per kilo of milk solids would be the second highest in the cooperative sector. Overseas demand for our agricultural products remains robust, despite the volatile global environment, and we thank the sector for its contribution to the economy.

Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on the resilience of households to COVID-19?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest Westpac McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index report found confidence among households has eased following the rise in alert levels, but this is far less pronounced than last year’s lockdown. The index declined 4.4 percent to 102.7 in the September quarter, compared with the previous June quarter, and below the long-term average of 110.6. While there was some growing nervousness about the economic outlook, in the survey households said that they felt fairly secure about their personal financial situation. In fact, an increasing number of respondents reported their financial position had improved over the last year, and most expected that their finances would continue to strengthen over the coming year. This bodes well for the economy as our alert level settings are eased, and it shows that our science- and health-led response continues to work for the economy.

Question No. 4—Justice

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Justice: What consultation, if any, and with whom, did the Government take on the commercial tenancy measures announced on 28 September 2021?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Small-business owners from all over New Zealand have been contacting the Government to express that they’re feeling the impacts of the recent COVID alert level measures, and it was important for the Government to move quickly so it could deal with the concerns that small-business owners were raising. To ensure the measures we have announced would be effective, the Ministry of Justice met with the likes of the New Zealand Law Society property section to consider the specific legal instruments that have been proposed, and I’m advised that that group represents both landlords and tenants. The ministry also spoke to the Auckland District Law Society to understand the current situation with leases that address the COVID-19 situation. While the majority of businesses have arrived at an arrangement for a fair rent reduction when they are unable to trade because of the pandemic, for those who haven’t this could be the difference between staying afloat or not.

David Seymour: Did the Minister consult anybody representing the actual landlords, such as the Property Council, and how would he respond to their statement today that “What the Government fails to realise is that these property owners are the same people who are working hard to keep construction, development and housing projects going. They have effectively dropped”—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Interruption]

David Seymour: —“a bomb on their most vital industry.”?

SPEAKER: Order! Far too long.

David Seymour: Well, I’ve ended the quote now, Mr Speaker, and I—

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s finished his question.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As I mentioned, the Ministry of Justice engaged with stakeholders that represent both landlords and tenants. I understand the concerns that the Property Council raised as a result of the announcement that the Government made yesterday. I’d also, to counter that, acknowledge the concerns of many small businesses around the country who have been struggling since the higher alert levels and the impacts of next to no revenue as a result of that. So in terms of the announcement made by the Government yesterday, this Government deeply cares about making sure that we do everything we can do to support small businesses, and I thought that would be something that that member’s party would support too.

David Seymour: Did the Government consider the alternative of making the resurgence payment weekly so small businesses could pay rent, instead of rushed retrospective legislation that unprecedentedly undermines contract law in this country?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: A threshold to imply a clause like this in the remaining contracts that don’t have a fair payment arrangement was not a light decision to take. But we believe, given the impacts of businesses, particularly in the Auckland area, that the Government met that threshold in order to ensure that the Government was taking a number of measures to ensure that we can ensure their long-term sustainability.

David Seymour: What impact does the Minister think a rushed and retrospective interference by Parliament in private contract law might have on confidence in property rights and the rule of law among people thinking about investing in New Zealand?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I don’t necessarily want to rely on the impacts that the Government may think. I’d also be interested in some of those people who might be impacted by this. And I would like to quote from one piece of correspondence that we got back in the last 24 hours, where the correspondent said, “Big thanks to you for making these changes. This is an absolute game-changer for us as we navigate a long-term recovery for our sector in the hospitality sector.” The correspondent said, “We are all in uncharted territory with this pandemic. We are now confident that our sector will be an important part of the future economic recovery of the country.”

David Seymour: Will the Minister, on behalf of this Government, rule out any further such interference in private contracts that are rushed and retrospective like this one for the rest of the parliamentary term or may there be more to come for people who thought their property rights were secure?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: What I can assure the member is this Government will take seriously any measure that will help businesses that are feeling the impacts of COVID-19 and lockdown levels, that are under threat of going to the wall, to make sure that those businesses can stay afloat and continue to support jobs for New Zealanders.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

5. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. What recent progress has been made on New Zealand’s COVID-19 vaccine programme across regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yesterday, 44,000 doses were administered across the country, meaning that 78 percent of the eligible 12-plus New Zealand population now have their first shot. Significantly, we’re also seeing real growth in second doses, and consequently full vaccinations. In the last seven days, the number of Kiwis who have had their second doses has increased by almost 200,000, to 1.8 million—around 44 percent of the eligible population, and we’re zooming towards half of the eligible population being fully vaccinated. I can’t overstate the importance of those 1.8 million people now being fully vaccinated. It’s a hugely significant step forward for the ongoing protection of New Zealand.

Dr Emily Henderson: How is the vaccine programme progressing across the Northland region, particularly for different age bands?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The data that I have is 1,292,000 people across the Northland and Auckland metro region have received at least one dose of the vaccine, representing 81 percent of the eligible community, and 747,429 of those have received both doses and are now fully vaccinated. We are seeing really positive numbers, particularly from the 65-and-over age cohort in the north: over 235,000, representing 91 percent of the over-65s, have had their first dose, and 210,000, or 82 percent, are fully vaccinated.

Sarah Pallett: How is the vaccine programme progressing along the southern regions, particularly for ethnic communities?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, 768,000 people across—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Some of us want to hear the answer to this, and I don’t know whether it’s because the member’s mask’s slipping, but he is getting pretty loud. It is a serious question, and deserves the House listening to it rather than ridiculing it.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, 768,000 people across the South Island have had their first dose. That represents 78 percent of the eligible community in the South Island; 439,577 of those individuals are now fully immunised. Eighty percent of eligible Pacific people across the southern DHBs have had at least their first dose, 47 percent their second; 59 percent of eligible Māori have had one dose, and 31 percent have had both.

Barbara Edmonds: How are the Midland and MidCentral regions progressing with the roll-out of the vaccine programme, and what innovative steps are being taken to attract more Kiwis to be vaccinated?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Some good news: I can say that Capital and Coast and Hutt Valley DHBs currently top the table in terms of vaccines delivered across the country, and 1.2 million people across the North Island south of Auckland have had their first dose, with 677,778 now fully vaccinated. We’ve seen steps taken by a number of DHBs to help get people out to be vaccinated, including drive-throughs, pop-ups, mobile clinics, and household vaccinations. Education teams and door knockers have partnered with mobile vaccination teams. We’ve seen the targeting of rangatahi through high-concentration areas, including things like touch rugby, softball, kapa haka, and so on, in having vaccination available through those sorts of events. Many also will have heard about the now-famous bacon sandwich offered by the Taranaki DHB, which has attracted hundreds of locals to be vaccinated, and I understand the DHB doubled down on this today by offering a second helping of bacon butties at their vaccination site, alongside granola on the menu. I’m not sure that would drag that many people in for their vaccinations, but all ideas are on the table when it comes to getting people out and getting them vaccinated, and I thank all those working behind the scenes to make that happen.

Question No. 6—Health

6. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: Why, as at 6 September 2021, did our public hospitals only have 327 resourced ICU beds, when there were 358 ICU beds and ICU-capable beds available at the end of April 2020?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The member’s assertion that there were 358 ICU beds and ICU capable beds in our public hospitals at the end of April 2020 is wrong. I assume the member refers to the figure of 358 because it appears on the Ministry of Health website dealing with ICU capability and ventilators. I refer the member to the text accompanying that data: “The beds are predominantly within DHB hospitals but also include ICU beds available by agreement for use in private hospitals.” I’m advised that at the end of April 2020, an agreement reached with private hospitals during the peak of the first COVID-19 outbreak saw 30 beds kept available in the private hospital network for ICU patients. The figures provided for 6 September 2021 does not include those 30 beds. I might add that in addition to availability of beds since August last year, the DHBs have acquired additional ventilators and now have around 700 intensive care capable ventilators. We’ve commenced, also, a training programme to upskill nurses to work in an ICU environment, and we have trained roughly 1,400 nurses under this programme.

Dr Shane Reti: How does he explain his answer to written question No. 41987 showing that there is not a single new resourced ICU bed in any one of the three Auckland DHBs since the end of the first COVID outbreak last year?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, as that member well knows, the availability of ICU beds literally changes from one day to the next. It is dependent on the throughput of patients in hospitals for other treatments; also the availability of staff, because some staff available one day may fall sick the next and are therefore not available, and that will alter the availability of ICU beds. The reality is we have available at the moment roughly 325 ICU or ICU capable beds, but, through the additional measures taken since August last year, we can surge that through management of other demands on hospitals to 550 ICU capable beds.

Dr Shane Reti: What did he think would happen when the day the recent nationwide lockdown was announced, Auckland ICU was already at 120 percent occupancy, and how then were they expected to cope with the current outbreak when he has failed to build a single new resourced bed for them in the past year?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is not providing an accurate picture by any stretch at all. If the member looked at the availability of ICU—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s all right as he goes, but he’s getting very close to making an inappropriate accusation of the member. So I’m just warning Mr Little to take care in his response.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m obliged, Mr Speaker. The member’s assertion is incorrect. In terms of ICU capable beds available across Auckland at the commencement of the outbreak, there were differing levels of availability of ICU capacity between the three DHBs in Auckland. If the member’s concern is about facilities in our hospitals, and in light of the member’s party’s promises today about $3 billion spending, I just say this to this member: no one will believe that party, because, as we know, prior conduct is the best indicator of future conduct, and this tells the story. [Holds up graph] The amount of spending by that member’s Government on facilities in hospitals: $1 billion over nine years; $4.5 billion by this Government in three years. No one believes that member’s party when they say they’re interested in building hospital facilities.

Hon Chris Hipkins: What potential impact would wholesale reopening of the border this side of Christmas have on our ICU facilities?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I know that there are differing models that have been coming forward from the various modellers, but at a vaccination level of between 70 and 75 percent of our population, the demand for services on our hospitals because of the unvaccinated population would be heavy and considerable and would place undue demand on our hospital system. That is why maximising our vaccination level is absolutely critical and taking appropriate measures, realistic and practical measures, to lift our capacity is very important.

Dr Shane Reti: How is it possible that according to his answer to written question No. 42142, his health officials did not prepare a single report or make a single recommendation about ICU capacity at any time this year until five weeks ago when the latest outbreak was already under way?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I’ve said to that member many times, the work on lifting our ICU capacity started last year, in light of the outbreaks last year. That led to additional investment in ventilators, so we now have roughly 700 intensive care - capable ventilators. It also led to the programme to upskill our nursing workforce so that we now have an additional 1,400 nurses capable of working in an ICU environment. You know, it would be nice if that member acknowledged for once that his party, when it was in Government, did absolutely nothing to lift capability and capacity in the health system, and we are busily filling the gap.

Dr Shane Reti: Is he one of the reasons for Auckland being stuck in a prolonged lockdown, because he failed to build a single new resourced ICU bed in Auckland over the past year?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No. This Government has taken extraordinary steps since August last year to increase our ICU capacity and capability. If the member wants to point a finger of blame, look at his colleagues and ask himself what he was doing when he sat in that caucus when for two years in a row not a single dollar was appropriated to hospital facilities. Shame on that member.

Question No. 7—Arts, Culture and Heritage

7. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcement has she made about support for the arts and culture sector?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: Today, we announced a targeted relief package to support the arts and culture sector. The Government has brought forward $37.5 million from within the COVID Recovery Programme. This will span across protecting jobs and supporting at-risk organisations, key infrastructure, artists, sole traders, creatives, and projects, as well as a future-focused fund aimed at providing confidence for future performances and events. The package we’ve announced recognises that something more immediate is needed. We’ve worked with the sector to identify what the needs are, and now we’re delivering for them.

Willow-Jean Prime: Why is this support important for the arts and culture sector?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: the arts and culture sector have been hit hard, so we are supporting them as we have done with other sectors. They continue to be an engine of growth in innovation, helping to fuel our economy. The support announced today underlines the economic value of the arts, given the sector contributed $10.8 billion to New Zealand’s GDP in 2019 and has created more than 92,000 jobs. Today’s announcement is about protecting people’s jobs, incomes, and the livelihoods of those who make a living from delivering arts and cultural experiences here in Aotearoa.

Willow-Jean Prime: How can people in the sector access the support?

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: On behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: people will be able to access targeted relief through entities such as Creative New Zealand, the New Zealand Film Commission, the New Zealand Music Commission, and Te Papa/Museums Aotearoa. The Cultural Sector Emergency Relief Fund will open on 1 October and can be found on Manatū Taonga’s website. It is intended to be a last resort fund for organisations and sole traders. The support is there, and I wholly endorse the sector to tap on in to it.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions responding to COVID-19?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes. The Government’s pragmatic response to a one-in-100-year shock has ultimately been focused on protecting the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders. Going hard and early has given New Zealand valuable options that other countries have missed out on, and it’s meant that New Zealanders have lived some of the least restrictive lives anywhere on the planet over the last year and a half. Our response has also given us the space to look ahead, allowing us to do the necessary work behind our planned, phased approach to reopening our borders safely early next year. We’ve already announced some of the details of that back in August, and we’ll continue to share more details with New Zealanders soon.

Chris Bishop: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system is not a lottery?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Some elements of the MIQ system do have a degree of chance associated with them, but for those with an urgent and pressing need to travel, they can access emergency allocations; for those who have very significant national interest reasons to travel, there is an allocation of space for that as well. There are allocations of space for, for example, critical workforces that we need to get into the country, like our Recognised Seasonal Employer workers, and so on. So the latest system, I think, is fairer—the lobby system is fairer—than the system that existed before, where there was an even greater degree of luck associated with it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! The pair of you.

Chris Bishop: Will he allow fully vaccinated Kiwis in Queensland to return to New Zealand before Christmas without going into MIQ, and, if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: What we have indicated—I think it was about two weeks ago, we indicated that we have Australia on about an eight-week cycle, so, yes, there will be further reviews of trans-Tasman travel this side of Christmas.

Chris Bishop: When, if ever, will the Government allow businesses operating under level 3 conditions in Auckland to use rapid COVID tests to help protect their staff and the wider community?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Health are doing quite a lot of testing around rapid antigen testing at the moment. We haven’t made further decisions on where or when or how they may be deployed in the future.

Chris Bishop: Will he rule out reopening New Zealand to the world along the lines of the reconnection strategy given by the Prime Minister in August, at a level below 90 percent vaccination coverage, which seems to be the Government’s aim?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I’ve always indicated to the member—and the fact is, every Minister has said this, including the Prime Minister—we haven’t set hard and fast vaccination targets. Our goal is to make sure as many New Zealanders as possible get vaccinated. Ninety percent is a good thing to aim for, it is a good thing to strive for, but we’ve not set hard and fast targets.

Question No. 9—Health

9. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on support for youth mental wellbeing?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Today I announced that this Government has increased its targeted mental health and investment for rainbow young people, taking the total amount of funding past our manifesto commitment to $4.6 million. This package consists of $3.2 million for primary mental health and addiction services for rainbow young people across the motu, awarded to RainbowYOUTH and InsideOUT Kōaro; an $800,000 top-up to the Rule Foundation’s Rainbow Wellbeing Legacy Fund; and $600,000 to deliver rainbow competency training to mental health and addiction workforces.

Glen Bennett: What will this funding mean for rainbow young people’s mental wellbeing?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: We know the rainbow community is more at risk and likely to experience poorer mental health and wellbeing, discrimination, harassment, and bullying than the general population, and this is of course unacceptable. This funding is to support projects, activities, and rainbow organisations to improve mental health outcomes for future generations of rainbow communities. RainbowYOUTH can now extend its peer support service nationwide, and InsideOUT can expand its support service from 200 to 300 schools. Upskilling and supporting the mental health and addiction workforce will equip them to better respond to the needs of the rainbow community. The Rule Foundation has also approved grants to 12 initiatives to help people, including Māori takatāpui and Pacific peoples; Indian, ethnic, and migrant communities; transgender, non-binary, intersex people; faith and independent rainbow tradespeople.

Glen Bennett: What other announcements has he made on support for youth mental wellbeing?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On Monday I announced that more than 20 community-led projects received a funding boost through the Youth Mental Wellbeing Fund to keep doing the important work that they do. I’m also very pleased that the fund, which was brought forward due to the Delta outbreak, was increased from an initial $1 million to $1.4 million because of the number of quality applications received. We’ve learnt from previous lockdowns that they are particularly challenging for young people, so we moved quickly to make sure these supports could keep being there in their time of need. I might also add I’m very thankful for the support of our cooperation partner, the Green Party, in these initiatives.

Question No.10—Children

10. NICOLE McKEE (ACT) on behalf of KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: Is the wellbeing and best interests of the child or young person the first and paramount consideration of Oranga Tamariki, and does he believe that Oranga Tamariki has placed the wellbeing of the child before all other considerations in its actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): To the first part, it should always be yes. To the second part, no.

Nicole McKee: Is it Oranga Tamariki’s policy to reverse uplift children who have been placed in loving, safe, and stable families because of cultural factors?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’ll be Oranga Tamariki’s policy to prevent children from going into State care in the first place.

Nicole McKee: Does he believe Oranga Tamariki has placed the wellbeing of the child first if it seeks to reverse uplift of a Māori child because a family couldn’t meet the child’s cultural needs when a psychological report found it would be “extremely disruptive to her and could have significant long-lasting implications in terms of mental health”; if so, why, Minister?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It depends on a child’s circumstances. Like I say, the first move should be to prevent children going into State care in the first place. If they need to go into State care, then they should be, in my opinion, with whānau second. If there is no loving, caring family that is of their whānau, then any loving, caring whānau is what is in the best interests of the children.

Nicole McKee: Does he believe that Oranga Tamariki placed the wellbeing of the child first where a judge in a recent case stated that staff were driven “more by ideology than workable child-centred outcomes”; if so, why?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I have said that mistakes have been made and when mistakes have been made that Oranga Tamariki needs to fess up and fix things.

Nicole McKee: Does he agree with the statement from a judge who ruled against Oranga Tamariki in a recent case that the judgment of Oranga Tamariki staff “was influenced by a view that, regardless of all other facts and principles, Māori children must be with Māori caregivers”; if not, why not?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Because that particular case hasn’t yet ended—there’s still work to be done around that—I’d rather not comment on the judge’s decision.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by his statement that he is “confident that the border exception is meeting the needs in terms of the flow of critical health workers in”; if so, how many of the critical health workers who have been able to come into New Zealand since the border closed in March 2020 were intensive care nurses?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes, because critical health workers are, by some distance, the largest group of workers we’ve been able to bring across the border since we closed it to protect the health of New Zealanders in March of last year. As I told the House yesterday, we’ve been able to bring 7,000 critical workers, health workers, and their dependants into the country since August of last year and a further 7,000 in the period from March to August of last year to support our health system in the context of a global pandemic. This includes intensive care nurses, but, as I’ve told Parliament, Immigration New Zealand does not distinguish between nursing specialisations. If an applicant is a nurse, then they meet the Immigration system’s threshold for receiving a border exception and coming to New Zealand to support our efforts.

Nicola Willis: How is it that in a global pandemic, when we are so critically short of ICU nurses, the Minister does not know nor collect information about how many ICU nurses have entered New Zealand?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think I’ve already addressed some of that question, and I think my colleague, the Minister of Health, also pointed out why we are facing such a critical shortage of ICU workers. I’d also acknowledge that our solution to the problem isn’t one that the previous National Government took when we had skill shortages, and that was bringing all of that skill into the country. We have made efforts over the last 18 months to put in resources to train additional ICU nurses, which places us at about 1,400 ICU nurses fully trained at the moment, and a little over 700 trained for surge capacity, if required.

Nicola Willis: Is it then the case that Immigration New Zealand leaves it to chance that some of the nurses entering New Zealand might be ICU trained?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No, we don’t leave it to chance. We have a broad critical health border exception, which has allowed 14,000 people over the last 18 months—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m trying to hear.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: It is the role of DHBs to identify what shortages of skills in terms of the number of nursing roles that it might need and to attract them, and it’s the role of the Government to make sure there’s a streamlined process in order for that to happen.

Nicola Willis: When he said yesterday: “Instead of taking a sector by sector approach”, does he not think it would be reasonable to specifically prioritise targeting ICU nurses through the immigration system, given we are in a global pandemic; and, if not, why not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I will repeat: we have given a broad border exception for critical health workers so DHBs and other health organisations that need to bring workers in have the ability to bring in whatever skill they need. As I mentioned, we do face a worker shortage. Some of that is because of the catch-up work needed to be done because of decisions that the previous Government did not make. And I’d also point towards the efforts that I’ve mentioned before: by making sure we have additional New Zealand nurses trained to work in ICU units, which has given us a little over 700 more nurses available to deal with surge capacity, if required.

Nicola Willis: Will the new “2021 one-off residency visa for all migrant workers”, uploaded briefly today on Immigration New Zealand’s website, prioritise residency for critical healthcare workers?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: That member will have to wait for that decision. I believe someone may have got little trigger happy at Immigration New Zealand. But when the Government is ready to announce that, we will. As I said yesterday, it will be comprehensive and give certainty to both employers and migrants.

Nicola Willis: I seek leave to table a document that is not publicly available anymore, and that is a page from the Immigration New Zealand website, which refers to a 2021 one-off residency—

SPEAKER: All right, all right. I think the member described it fairly well earlier on. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Question No. 12—Local Government

12. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Local Government: Xiexie, Mr Speaker. What feedback has she received in relation to the Three Waters Reform Programme?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Xiexie, Mr Speaker. I’ve received vigorous feedback, as was anticipated at the beginning of the eight-week consultation period. During this time, the Department of Internal Affairs, Local Government New Zealand, and I have held over 150 engagements with councils, iwi Māori, the water industry, and other stakeholders. Almost all parties agree that the status quo is unworkable. Despite some much-publicised discontent, I am pleased with the number of councils, iwi, and other stakeholders who have engaged on the substance of the reforms and worked constructively to address several community concerns, such as governance arrangements, meaningful local voice, demonstrable consumer benefits, and broader local government roles and responsibilities. As part of this, I’ve signalled that areas like governance arrangements can continue to be worked on. It’s a critical aspect to get right, and I’m making sure we do. Many iwi I’ve spoken with about these reforms welcome the opportunities presented to advance their relationship with local government to develop local kaimahi in this industry and see future services that uphold te mana o te wai.

Dr Emily Henderson: Is it possible to achieve the stated benefits of the Three Waters Reform Programme through scale and aggregation?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and there are other benefits, too. Scale and aggregation provide for dedicated focus on water service delivery by professional, competent boards and a dedicated water infrastructure workforce, and it enables performance benchmarking between entities of a similar scale. Aggregation at this nationwide level also provides a strong platform for the inclusion of economic regulation that can see further efficiencies across the system. It also positions entities strongly to fund the significant investment we need in water infrastructure while making it easier for Taumata Arowai and regional councils to do their jobs in enforcing drinking-water quality and environmental regulations. Our goals are reliable drinking water, improved environmental outcomes, economic growth, and job creation, and by meeting these, we help tackle some significant wider issues: building more houses, climate change, and natural disaster resilience.

Dr Emily Henderson: Has a regional model, as some councils have advocated for, been considered as an option?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That’s a great question. Yes, this was considered. A regional model means that some regions, particularly our more sparsely populated regions and smaller communities, would face either an unaffordable and unsustainable investment requirement or further deterioration in the quality of drinking water, waste water, and stormwater. This is not acceptable to our Government. We cannot support a model that only looks after urban areas. Approximately one in 20 people receive drinking water that didn’t comply with bacterial standards. The challenges in delivering clean, healthy water that does not contaminate our beaches are experienced across the country, from our smallest towns to our largest urban centres. Even the local government sector’s own analysis has concluded that a more regionalised model is not financially sustainable and does not provide the nationwide health or environmental benefits we’re seeking. In Otago-Southland, as an example, their own advisers concluded that the challenges in addressing the ongoing service delivery requirements for three waters will likely exceed the capacity of Otago and Southland as a combined region. On the West Coast, independent advisers reached the same conclusion.

Dr Emily Henderson: Is she aware of the Auckland Council’s claim that they would not benefit from three waters reform, and, if so, has she tried to work through these concerns with the council?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I am aware of the mayor’s claims and I have engaged with him and the council on a number of occasions to work through their concerns. While I accept that Auckland has had some 10 years of experience of a level of aggregation under the Watercare council-controlled organisation model, it is not a perfect option for the rest of the country. Auckland Council is near the limits of its debt capacity, and one of the significant constraints for Watercare is a tied balance sheet to Auckland Council. To prove a point, in the next five years, Auckland ratepayers, under the status quo, are looking at a twofold increase in rates, while also deferring large numbers of three waters infrastructure projects. This would be unnecessary under our proposed reforms. The Auckland Council’s desire for proportionate control over entity A would mean that the balance sheet separation from the council and the consequent ability to raise debt to fund its infrastructure deficit would not be achieved without significant long-term commitment to underwrite the entity by the Crown. The whole premise of the reform approach is to move asset debt and liabilities to these multi-regional entities who can leverage from greater scale to fund long-term asset management and infrastructure investment.

Hon Eugenie Sage: When the Minister said yesterday that “Doing nothing is simply not an option.”, why does she regard a pause, as requested by many councils to enable discussion and further consideration of issues such as entity size, governance options, and stronger community and council engagement in decision making, as doing nothing, instead of partnership in action?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because I’ve given and undertaken to work with the sector around a partnership-in-action model, which enables us to work through the governance arrangements that have already been foreshadowed prior to the eight-week consultation and have been amplified in relation to the feedback. There are a number of other areas that I have noted in this House that will continue to be able to be worked through with the reform programme that I’m proposing.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a letter that I wrote on 13 July, not in the public domain, to Mayor Goff outlining a detailed response to the issues raised by Auckland Council regarding the three waters reform proposals.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. That may be tabled.

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

General Debate

General Debate

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. I want to take the time to acknowledge that up and down New Zealand there will be people who are hurting and struggling with mental health on any given day, but one in five New Zealanders in any given year struggle with their mental health. Four in five of us will struggle throughout our lives with a mental health challenge, so it is of importance to note this awareness week for all of us. There will be people in our lives who are struggling, who have never told us; there will be people who are quite open about it, and it is wonderful because they’ve been able to express their feelings and be able to reach out for support. But there will also be those people that we have never suspected that are struggling, because they show great confidence in life—and I know many people like this, who do actually struggle in silence.

I want to share a story of a person that I met earlier this year, because I think it paints the picture of the mental health challenges that we have in New Zealand. I was out at dinner and—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! It’s exceptionally rude to stand with the back to the speaker and to the Chair, and especially when one’s shirt is hanging out, it makes it even worse.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to share a story about a man that I had met earlier this year. I was out at dinner and I got talking to the table next to me, as you do. I thought that we were just going to exchange pleasantries, but I asked this person genuinely, “How has your year been?” I was expecting him maybe to talk about work or something, but he just said to me, “It’s been really hard. My daughter has an eating disorder and she’s not getting better.” I could tell that he was clearly struggling, because this was the biggest concern on his mind. I’m just asking, this week: please, everybody, reach out and check in with people who you may never suspect to be struggling, because it could be a conversation that you have that really helps to pull someone from a dark place that day.

We have heard from business owners who are struggling through COVID lockdowns with anxiety and over the stress of their businesses. We’ve also heard from students who are struggling with that fear of the unknown for the future and from parents who are really quite worried about their children’s mental health. We’ve also heard from grandparents who have been isolated and feeling extreme loneliness during this time. So mental health definitely affects all of us.

There is a continuum of care of mental health that we need to address in New Zealand. I think carers and nurses do a fantastic job in our mental health space. They genuinely want the best outcome for every person who comes through their doors. I’ve had the privilege of visiting a few mental health facilities in New Zealand and seeing that for people where it is their home for life, these carers are their family. For people who are in community suicide watch, for example, these people provide support, security, and peace at a time of mental distress.

But, unfortunately, good care isn’t there for everybody. I heard from a man who told me that the care that he received was like a flea on an elephant’s back and that under his DHB there was no other provider for him to access. So we need to do better to help people when they are reaching out for support. We have a lack of choice and accountability in the system. We need to have a proper system that takes care of people and puts people at the heart of mental health and addiction care.

The ACT Party’s solution to this is to empower people seeking help, to have a service that is tailored to their needs. Mental Health and Addiction New Zealand would be a new agency, a centralised agency that would be the only central interface for mental health and addiction care throughout New Zealand. It would develop expertise in evaluating data and evidence of what works, where the money goes, and to whom, because we know that there are services that work that should be given more money, and services that don’t that are being propped up by DHBs not holding them to account.

We need to do better for the wellbeing of all New Zealanders and making sure to ask that question: are we getting the best value for our mental health dollar? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It became clear from the very earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic that there were no costless decisions facing any Government in the world. In New Zealand, as we looked around the world and we saw the increasing hospitalisations and death rates in other countries, the Government decided quickly that we needed to move against that. That meant investing significant sums of money to support New Zealanders to stay home, to be able to stay attached to their jobs. At no point in this process did we take any of those decisions lightly.

As we now look, 18 months into the pandemic, New Zealanders can be proud of the approach that they have taken to COVID-19. It is one that has left us in a position of having one of the lowest mortality rates from COVID-19 in the world, one of the lowest hospitalisation rates from COVID-19 in the world, one of the fewest days of restrictions of any country in the world, and an economy that has thrived to the extent that today, Standard & Poor’s indicate that New Zealand and Singapore are the only two countries in the Asia-Pacific that they forecast to continue growing through the second half of 2021.

Each of those decisions came with a cost itself. Some of that cost is borne by everyday New Zealanders who have to abide by alert level restrictions, some of it is borne by businesses who are restricted in the amount that they can trade, and some of it is borne by New Zealanders offshore who cannot easily return to New Zealand. But all of that sacrifice is worth it today when we can say that, tragically, it is 27 people who have died—but it is only 27 people who have died.

We have a plan to reconnect New Zealanders to the world. We announced it at the beginning of August. It is a plan that continues the careful and cautious approach to balance the risks that we face with making sure that New Zealand comes through this pandemic together. It is a careful plan and it is one that we’re rolling out, and it stands in direct contrast to the risky, rushed, and reckless job we saw come out from the National Party today. Judith Collins called it “vigorous suppression”, having clearly mixed up her caucus notes with her COVID notes. Her approach, and the National Party’s approach today, should not come as any surprise, because throughout this pandemic, we have seen the National Party flip-flop around and try and move too quickly. They’re like a group of children in the back seat of the car yelling, “Are we there yet?”

It’s a global pandemic, it’s still going, and we continue to need an approach that carefully balances all of the considerations, not one that comes out as the National Party did today, with no numbers—no numbers about how many people they expect to come in when they open up the borders; no numbers about what that means for hospitalisations or for deaths. But we can help them here, because they said they based their plan on the United Kingdom’s. Well, if we compare that, using a per head of population measure, that would mean, for example, 16,000 cases a week, 460 hospitalisations a week, 54 deaths a week. These aren’t the numbers you’ll see in the National Party’s documents today, because they’ve rushed it out. They want to get ahead of the game, they say. All that does is expose New Zealanders to risk.

And we’ve heard a lot over this day about what a Kiwi Christmas is about. Well, for most New Zealanders, that’s spending time with their families, that’s making sure that they can enjoy what a summer is in New Zealand, and all of that is at risk from the plan that the National Party put up in front of us today. If there’s one thing that Judith Collins achieved today, it’s to rewrite the old Christmas tune: on the first day of Christmas, National gave to me: COVID. That’s where their nursery rhyme ends today, when it comes to the National Party. On this side of the House, what we want for New Zealanders is a continuation of the things that make people want to come back to New Zealand for Christmas—that we look after people, that we value people’s lives, that we support their businesses.

We have, as all countries in the world have, had to meet an enormous one-in-100-year challenge. There are no costless decisions. There are no easy decisions. But what we don’t need is risky, rushed, and reckless policies that the National Party are promising today. What this country knows is that this Government will continue to support them and their families to come out the other side of COVID-19 stronger, as we have shown over the last year.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to tell two sides of a housing story, because just in the last day, we’ve seen the latest CoreLogic data update: from 1 September 2020 to 1 September 2021, house prices increased by as much as 48 percent in every one of the 983 suburbs covered. Only 24 suburbs in the entire country saw increases of less than $50,000. The annual living wage in New Zealand is less than $50,000. Now, I know many people are aware that house price growth has been unsustainable, and it increased significantly in the wake of our initial lockdowns due to COVID. This is an understandable result of the increase in liquidity that was put out there by the Reserve Bank to try and keep the economy going. The problem here is that it’s exacerbating wealth inequality. Young people, Māori, Pasifika people—anyone who’s a renter is being rapidly left behind. I know that the Government is aware of this problem and has taken steps to address it, but they simply are not going far enough or fast enough to address this horrific inequality. I realise that the whole problem started several decades ago. The very fact that we talk about a housing market is a problem. The fact that we talk about getting on the ladder is a problem. Housing is a human right.

The other side of the housing problem we’ve seen today is the large increase in COVID cases that were reported today that are linked to transitional housing. When people are in poverty and they don’t have secure, affordable housing, there will be other problems, and particularly during a pandemic. This is not unique to the COVID pandemic. There are other problems: rheumatic fever, there are problems where people can’t address their substance abuse problems if they aren’t in secure housing, kids can’t get integrated into a school if the family’s constantly needing to move because they don’t have affordable, secure housing. People who are struggling on low incomes with precarious jobs and precarious housing are also struggling with things like high energy costs. It costs too much for them to heat their home, and that leads to a whole host of other health issues, not to mention exacerbating emissions from electricity use as long as we don’t have a 100 percent fully renewable grid.

So right now in Aotearoa New Zealand, housing is the biggest driver in wealth inequality, and we do need urgent action. There are a number of solutions that the Green Party has put forward for a very, very long time. Obviously, we do need more housing, but it can’t just be more housing anywhere and it can’t be just more housing by the private market. I acknowledge the Government has taken steps to scale up the public house build. It’s still not at the levels that we saw some decades ago on a per capita basis, so we need to increase the amount that Kāinga Ora is able to borrow in order to scale up development. But they also need to be working more with iwi and enabling papakāinga housing. Just because it doesn’t fit into the Western model that Kāinga Ora might be used to evaluating doesn’t mean it doesn’t play a critical role in solving our housing crisis.

So we need to do more to enable community housing trusts, co-housing, and it’s vitally important that the housing supply that is provided is linked to infrastructure. This is where I know some of the other Opposition parties talk about the housing crisis as though it will be solved simply by freeing up zoning, allowing greenfields development anywhere. There’s no point having affordable housing if you don’t have affordable transport to jobs and access to education, to amenities. This is where we actually need a much more integrated, local government - led approach to structure planning so that developments can be provided in an integrated way, so we aren’t simply filling up greenfields north and south of Auckland or north of Wellington or outside of Christchurch with houses where the households will have to own two, three, four cars to get anywhere. Perhaps the housing seems cheaper and the banks more willing to loan on it, but if people are spending more on transport, it has the same impact on their income. So we need urgent action, and a wealth tax or a capital gains tax—

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): No matter where we are in New Zealand, each and every one of us has a role to play in our COVID-19 response and recovery, and vaccinations are our golden ticket to a life where we can be freer from the restrictions that we’re experiencing now. I would like to take the opportunity—and I know we all would—to thank the millions of people who have come forward to receive their vaccination. Over 5 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine have been administered so far, and it’s great to see so many people that are banding together to encourage everyone 12 and over to get vaccinated. It’s amazing and wonderful to see all the innovation that’s coming forward and to see communities bonding together to encourage those members of the public to come forward. We’ve seen the buses. We’ve seen my colleague here, Tāmati Coffey. I saw on your page, recently, hāngī being delivered out with each vaccine—how innovative—and I saw a big line-up of people wanting to get that vaccine at that time, too.

Getting vaccinated and encouraging loved ones to also get vaccinated is our best protection from COVID-19. That’s my why. It’s my why of why I am vaccinated. It’s because I care deeply about my loved ones, and I want them to experience the freedoms that we all deserve.

While relentlessly working, though, towards those freedoms, this Government is also looking after those who are being hit hard by COVID-19, and, as Minister for Women, I have recently announced a $2 million community fund to support vulnerable women and girls adversely affected by COVID-19. The Government has acted quickly and rapidly in this space to look after those who are most vulnerable, and I would like to acknowledge the previous speaker, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who started that fund last year in the first of our nationwide lockdowns. It proved to be an incredibly popular and successful fund. It is $2 million, and it funded over 155 organisations and helped and supported over 10,000 women and their families who were really struggling through the lockdown last year, which is exactly why this Government has instigated and started that fund once again.

While there are other Government funds that will support vulnerable New Zealanders, including women, through schemes such as the wage subsidy, we know that there are additional gender-based needs. These could include things like helping with leaving an abusive partner, and, very sadly, we know that that has seen an increase. Some of our refuges have seen an increase of domestic and sexual violence over the lockdown times. So the fund can be used for things like help with leaving an abusive partner, culturally appropriate supports for networks for migrant women, mental health support for LGBT-plus women, and a lack of access to basic toiletries—some things that some of us take for granted, but they are an exceptionally gendered problem during these times that makes those women so vulnerable.

The funding is to support organisations who work to improve outcomes for women and girls and who are seeing an increased demand for services and/or reduced resources because of COVID-19. We also know that some of our grassroots organisations who get very little other funding or Government funding do struggle over lockdowns and in times of lockdowns because other funding sources are prohibited to them during that time. So that is why we want to act quickly to support those organisations, who see so much hardship on the front line.

I do want to mention the objectives of the funding very briefly here towards the end, because the funding applications are open at the moment. I encourage organisations to make an application, but it does close this Friday, which is why I want to be clear on the objectives of the fund. They are to prioritise grassroots investments and making sure funds are spent to improve outcomes for women where they are most needed; to support women in all their diversity who face intersectional challenges within their community, such as Māori and Pacific; and to support the Government priorities such as ensuring healthy and safe communities, reducing family and sexual violence, and improving child wellbeing—and I remind people that it’s open until 1 October.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Voters and people watching this debate at home on their television or listening on their radio will have observed that when the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister come to this House hours after the National Party has released its 10-point plan for reopening New Zealand, and they come to the House as snarky and as irritable and as edgy as they were today—voters will know that it sends a message that, actually, the Opposition is the one that has the plan for the opening of New Zealand and bringing it back and removing us from the hermit kingdom.

When that doyen of the press gallery, none other than Barry Soper, says in an article headed today “Labour looks rattled and PM’s under pressure”—and he says “The Government is running out of fingers to plug the holes in the dyke”. He mixes his metaphors, because then he goes on to say, “It’s as though the stable door’s been ripped off its hinges and the horse is nowhere in sight. Everyone’s being caught by surprise with the Government being about as transparent as a brick wall.” That’s when people will notice. When someone of Barry Soper’s esteem and long standing in this place points out the truth about how this Government is floundering around, people notice.

It was this time last week that the good folk of the Upper Hauraki in my electorate were in a state of confusion and concern and worry because they had had COVID delivered to them—delivered to them, actually, by the Department of Corrections. There they were, a good community, a close-knit community, a small community, on the Auckland side of the Firth of Thames. In Mangatangi, in Kaiaua, in Miranda / Pūkorokoro—in that lovely area, that part of the Firth of Thames, they had had thrust upon them a bespoke level 4 lockdown. I listened to the Prime Minister deliver the bespoke level 4 lockdown to that community, and she made it sound as if it was a gift from upon high to those people—that they should somehow be grateful for the deliverance of a bespoke level 4 lockdown, once the Department of Corrections had delivered into their community a patched Black Power gang member, complete with a positive COVID case. Having infected members of the family and the whānau there, and pupils that had attended the local Mangatangi School, the community was thrust into this lockdown.

Well, that took place, and then we had a bizarre situation where at 9.30 on the evening when the level was reduced from 4 to level 3, a communiqué came out from the COVID boffins who announce these things at 9.30 in the evening and said that the level will drop to level 3 at 11.59 that that evening. So only a couple of hours’ notice—completely hopeless. At that point they had a southern boundary but not a northern boundary. So they were free to go anywhere north of the southern boundary at Maramarua but nowhere south, and that created confusion.

Then what happened is that we had a further reduction in their level: they dropped down to level 2. Well, what that meant then is that the old boundary was back in place. So during that period of time, that 48 hours or so, all sorts of things had happened. I spent most of last week dealing with cases where confused, worried, concerned constituents who were now on one side of a border that was different a few hours from the previous border—people who had bereavements, that had relatives in palliative care, that had jobs and work to do, and in some cases very concerning situations involving child custody, where the boundaries had changed, and no opportunity to make good on that.

But the real problem was the Department of Corrections, who, through their systemic failure, were unable to cope with a border situation that meant that notwithstanding they had opposed bail for this patched—

SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member, but I am going to require the Clerk to ring the bell as there is not a Minister present. Oh, sorry, sorry. The Hon Meka Whaitiri, I apologise—you’re so far away in these circumstances.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It’s the mask, Mr Speaker. So here we had the Department of Corrections clearly following a process that was put in place pre-COVID—that they would deliver to the home a bailed person from the Mt Eden Corrections Facility—and they clearly hadn’t changed their process to adopt for COVID. In the House last week, under questioning two days in a row from me, the Minister, Kelvin Davis, was simply unable to account for that. Well, that’s not good enough. It’s not good enough for the good people of Pūkorokoro-Miranda, for Kaiaua, or for Mangatangi. They deserve better from a Government that should have a plan, doesn’t have a plan—they’re welcome to use the National Party plan delivered today.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in the general debate today. I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging all of those in Auckland. Aucklanders are making the sacrifices for us all at the moment while the majority of New Zealanders get to enjoy quite relative freedoms whilst they do not. It’s their sacrifice that will allow us to eventually be able to reopen and move about the country as we once were, prior to this. They are doing the heavy lifting for the rest of this country and so I acknowledge you. I know that it is absolutely not easy for many of those people in Auckland who are finding it quite difficult in I think it’s 40-something days in lockdown, so we support you and we acknowledge you for all the work that you are doing for us.

I’d also really like to acknowledge all our essential workers—I’d like to name a few—particularly those who work in our supermarkets, whether it be serving us as we purchase our groceries, whether it be those that are having to be security on the doors, and actually having to deal with a few New Zealanders that can at some times be quite rude and impolite. So thank you to all of you who are doing those jobs.

I also want to acknowledge and thank our vaccinators. Our vaccinators out there are working really long hours. They’re doing an incredible job working towards keeping us all safe.

I also want to acknowledge our primary producers, because we know that our rural communities, our farmers, as they can continue to work as essential workers, are what is keeping our economy ticking along. So I think it’s important that we do acknowledge them. I have a large number of those primary producers in my electorate in—

Hon David Bennett: It’s going to only be for another two months—ha, ha!

JO LUXTON: —Rangitata, and I can see that Mr Bennett agrees with me; that’s great. Great to hear, thank you, Mr Bennett.

Hon David Bennett: It won’t last very long, though, Jo.

JO LUXTON: Thank you, Mr Bennett.

Hon Member: A good Labour electorate.

JO LUXTON: That’s right, a good Labour electorate.

Hon David Bennett: Won’t last very long.

JO LUXTON: Thank you. Thank you for that support, Mr Bennett; I do appreciate that!

It’s really interesting to note that after last year when we went into lockdown because of our COVID situation at that time, just prior to this one—I note that in Timaru the economy was ticking along and spending was up higher than it was prior to our last lockdown. In part, a lot of that is down to our primary producers, so I acknowledge you.

We do know that businesses are doing it really, really tough at the moment, some more than others, and that is why the Government has stood up support for those businesses in the form of wage subsidies that I know are extremely important in order to keep people employed during this difficult time. We have the resurgence payment available and small-business loans, and I do encourage businesses that are eligible to make use of those.

But vaccination is our way out of the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment. I do encourage everyone to get out, get vaccinated. It is simple. It is easy. I’ve had my first vaccination and I have my second one this coming Friday. And we know that children over 12 years old now are eligible and able to be vaccinated. Please do it. It is the best way to protect yourself and your loved ones, to be able to get our economy back up and running as it once was, and to be able to move about in our communities in a safe way. So please do get vaccinated. That is our key to being able to open up our borders and this Government has a plan to reopen its borders in a safe, managed way, and we do know that vaccination is our first step towards having this happen.

Unlike National’s, whose off-the-hoof plan—it seems to be very light in detail. It seems to be very risky. And I don’t believe that there’s really any modelling to back up what it is that they are supposedly planning to do. They would consider allowing up to over 12,000 people into our country per day with no or reduced isolation. We have worked far too hard and sacrificed far too much to throw it away over some off-the-hoof plan that members opposite are proposing, should they ever get back into Government, which I believe will be a very, very long time.

This Government has a safe plan. We all have a part to play. So get out and get vaccinated. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m going to talk today about lockdowns as well—COVID seems to be the theme of the day. But I want to focus on a medical practice in West Coast-Tasman. I had a chat with the co-owner and practice nurse at that clinic yesterday, and my heart broke for them. They employ 10 people at that practice, and they are vital to the community that they work in. They’re huge community contributors, and they are a critical part of the healthcare system in West Coast-Tasman. But they haven’t had a holiday for over two years, and the reason for that is that they have been using the skills of an offshore GP who comes to New Zealand every year. He has a great holiday here, because he loves New Zealand and he, at the same time, is able to give relief to the doctor and the practice nurse so they can have a break. But, of course, he’s been locked out, and he’s been locked out through the choked managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) system that is operating here in New Zealand.

But these guys have had no relief over the last couple of years, and have reached the end of their tether. That’s what was heart-breaking: they’ve been bogged down by the restrictions that yo-yoing in and out of lockdown—remember the yo-yoing? We weren’t going to have yo-yoing because we were going to go hard and fast in March last year. Well, we’ve yo-yoed in and out of various levels of restrictions for the last 18 months, and what’s happening now is they are finding it most difficult to maintain their energy—they have had enough.

But it’s not only just for them. It’s for other industries and businesses across the South Island. For some unknown reason—and we don’t argue with the lockdown restrictions, but we don’t understand them. So my colleagues from the South Island joined me in writing to the Prime Minister asking for the rationale, asking for the expert evidence that has been delivered to her so that she can make those decisions. Because everybody has trusted in those decisions and has played their part, but the team of 5 million, and this GP and their practice nurse, they need some time on the bench. But they can’t plan for that now, because they’ve got no one to relieve them, and there’s just not a surplus of locum GPs floating around this country.

So in terms of un-choking this MIQ facility, what happened then? The Government last week announced their big plan was to launch their “lotto lobby”. And so what they’ve got now is 27,000 - odd people trying to find 3,000 spaces in MIQ. And if you work it out over the three months that were allocated, it’s about 35 beds a day that they are releasing, and now, of course, we’ve got 20,000 - odd people on a waiting list in the “lotto lobby”, and it’s going to be just luck of the draw whether they will ever find a space. But I was able to say to this doctor and their practice nurse last night, “There is hope”. Because today, National launched their plan that shows New Zealand there is a way out of this dilemma that the Labour Party seems determined to keep us locked into. We will be opening up, and that is the plan that National has launched today.

But it isn’t just about unblocking the choked MIQ system; it is also about opening up the economy. If we don’t open up the economy, our children definitely—definitely our children—but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to be paying the price. This Government, up until the end of May, was borrowing $14 million a day. So this country is still being anaesthetised to the economic pain, and once that anaesthetic wears off it is going to hurt this country. We now, at the end of May, owed $101,000 million. Now, if places like that hospitality sector on the West Coast, in Fox and Franz, Haast, even in Golden Bay, and other places that are hurting—that GP practice is hurting. We want this Government to open up this country. National has given them the tonic to do that—

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Xiexie, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s always good to take a call in the general debate, and especially today, I have to say, because I’m here to share some good news and words of encouragement. And it’s all around the vaccination, because on the day where we hear the news that the National Party have released their alternative plan, that’s pretty dreary, we all need some good news in our lives. And I have to say that we are united and focused on our recovery for our communities.

We have a hard-working team here in this country—the team of 5 million. That’s right—the team of 5 million. And 5 million is a milestone that was reached earlier this week, actually, where we delivered the 5 millionth dose of the vaccine to our community. That’s based on a plan that actually works, and I’m proud of the efforts of people in this House, and I’m proud of the efforts of people in our communities all around the motu, because we all, actually, have a role to play.

The Deputy Prime Minister referred to the alternative plan earlier this afternoon. I have to say, when I was actually looking and listening to this 10-point plan, I wondered why it was around 10 points, and suggest that perhaps that might be just enough for one point per member in the National caucus to take some responsibility for. But the plan itself is calling for an early Christmas present, and that is COVID rampant in the community. They accept it over there—they accept that that’s what that Christmas present will be all about, but we on this side say, simply, that it is irresponsible, it is dangerous, and it is downright sloppy—downright sloppy. So we will have no part of that.

I want to give a shout-out to all the hard-working people in communities all around New Zealand, but, in particular, to those who are in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in Auckland. Our aroha—our love—and our thanks are with you and your community and our community at this time.

My colleagues have touched on some of the innovation that we are seeing all around the country. We’re seeing vaccinations take place in traditional forms, through GPs and other clinics, through pharmacies, and through mass clinics, actually, that pop up in supermarkets and malls and other places all around the place as well. But we also see this fleet that is emerging—a fleet of buses with different names so that we can engage with our communities—the innovation is so pleasing and welcoming to see.

I also think that it’s appropriate that we acknowledge and thank those employers who are doing the right thing, who are encouraging their employees to get the vaccine, to get vaccinated, knowing that for them and their workplaces, and their whānau, this will make a huge difference for them personally but also to them collectively, as well.

Closer to home, I want to thank my colleagues in the Pasifika caucus. You know, about a week ago, I didn’t know what a Reel or a Remix was, but my colleague Barbara Edmonds was able to upskill me in that area. I have to say that the social media is getting a little bit of a following from the Pacific caucus, but that’s an example of effectively ensuring that there is an important message that’s getting out to our communities: that we need to do things differently, that we need to go to all the nooks, all the crannies, all over New Zealand to ensure that people have the message, they have an opportunity, they know that it’s safe, they know that’s it free, they know that it’s accessible, and, at the end of the day, they know that it is absolutely worth it for them and their whānau.

In Palmerston North, I want to acknowledge the hard-working local folk. Just on Sunday, when I was driving past my community Central Energy Trust Arena: people inside the arena involved in that vaccination clinic, those out in the carpark who were dealing with the logistics, my colleague referred to essential workers in supermarkets and elsewhere—they all have a really significant and an important role to make sure that our communities continue to be safe.

Next week, I will go to Te Waka Huia a Manawatu Trust, which is located in the Westbrook-Highbury community in Palmerston North. It is accessible and available to all, but primarily a huge push to support our Māori and Pasifika communities. I’ll have my second dose there, and I know that others will as well. This is a great opportunity to ensure that everyone in our community, no matter if you’re in Palmerston North or anywhere else, knows that they are able to access the vaccine and that it is the right thing to do.

Just finally, I want to touch on funding for the police. And I want to say meitaki maata to my colleague the Hon Poto Williams for her recent announcement in terms of significant investments in front-line support and safety. And I think that it is timely today to acknowledge, as many members in this House acknowledge, that it is Police Remembrance Day, and this is the week where we acknowledge that. But I am proud to be part of a Government that is taking safety for our community seriously, and that we have the action to back that up. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland and the National Party spokesperson for rural communities and associate spokesperson for tourism. The thing I’ve been hearing again and again and again as I go around my communities in Southland is that we need a plan. We need to know where we are headed. It is uncertain times—COVID keeps throwing curve balls; that is granted—and there needs to be a plan for how we move forwards as a country, especially as we see that many other countries are starting to remove lockdowns, remove restrictions, and get on with it.

Unfortunately, this Government has not done so, and today the National Party has delivered a plan, a very carefully thought-through plan with 10 pillars to it, that gives us a real, pragmatic road map for the future and how we will get there. It is over time that we get on with it. In my region, I have Queenstown, for example—90 percent of local businesses report they’ve lost turnover of up to $100,000 per week during level 4, and 25 percent report that they do not expect to survive the recent lockdowns.

It is tough, tough times. We feel for Auckland, which is still in level 3, and it’s experiencing significant challenges of its own. We also know that over 50 percent of domestic tourists to Queenstown come from Auckland, and it is a community that we hugely value in that region. This town is built on an experience that requires human contact—the tourism, accommodation, hospitality providers. The South Island has not had a case of COVID since May 2020. I’ve heard from businesses who have borrowed against their homes to keep their businesses going and their staff employed, but they are running out of money. They need a plan and a plan for the future.

I’ve heard from businesses that they have already been at rock bottom for a long time. They’ve lost 80 to 90 percent of their turnover with borders being closed, and it’s difficult with the wage subsidy to look at another 40 percent decline that they have to prove to qualify for the wage subsidy.

If I move down through my region, I travel past Kingston, and north and south, and out to west and south and places like Athol, Garston, and Mossburn, where there are also huge challenges. This is a region that is always struggling for workers—just can’t get enough of them. We have contractors and dairy farm workers who are hugely valued in our communities but they have not been valued by this Government. We have found they have not had their residency applications processed and/or their visas rolled over, or they have been separated from their families for more than 18 months. They are leaving for Australia, they are leaving for Canada, and they are leaving for the United Kingdom—places that value their services, value their contribution to the local communities, value their contribution to the economy, and give them opportunities to become residents of those countries. And they give them opportunities to reunite with their children and their partners, their loved ones. New Zealand, shamefully, has not done this.

If I move to another part of my electorate, out towards Fiordland to the towering peaks beneath which there’s Manapōuri and Te Ānau, this is another region that is heavily dependent on tourism. I’ve heard from operators there that think their domestic tourism is probably reliant on roughly 70 percent of those coming from Auckland. So the lockdown pain that has been felt in Auckland has also been felt as far away as Fiordland, and deeply. I am hearing that there is a lot of fatigue in the community. They dealt first, early last year, with the loss of tourism from China, then the floods in February, and then they had the lockdowns, the loss of international tourism, and now the loss of most of their domestic tourism.

I’m hearing from community groups that are struggling. People who would normally donate money to community organisations and give food that could be handed out to less fortunate members of the community can no longer afford to do so. I’m hearing from folks who were volunteers, providing support to the community, who are hearing tough, tough stories that they are not trained or equipped to deal with, but they are doing their best to support their community.

If I move on to Lumsden, the shortage of teachers in that region of New Zealand has meant they haven’t been able to find the third early childhood teacher they need to keep the early learning centre, with 33 kids, open. This is a community that already lost is maternity birthing centre previously. We need to support these people.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Xiexie, Mr Speaker. There are many things I love about Kiwis. I love that we care and I love that we understand how important it is to work as a team, to benefit all of us—

SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! I warned Mr Eagle about his beak yesterday! Please put it away. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, I love how we continually punch above our weight, I love how we continually achieve globally way above expectations for a country of this size, and I love how much we love to win. We’ve done really, really well so far in fighting COVID, and I’ll tell you why I say that.

I come from a really small island, 9 miles by 5, of a population of about 104,000. It is a little wealthier, probably, overall than New Zealand. They have good healthcare and easily controlled borders, but they’ve had 9,988 cases of COVID on that small island, and 78 deaths. That is equivalent, if we extrapolate out per capita, which I know we do love to do, to 46,000 cases of COVID and 3,750 deaths. Do you know what? That is where we’d be if we took any notice whatsoever of National’s plan—National’s plan that can be summed up in a quote by Lord Farquaad: “Some of you may die, but [that’s] a sacrifice I’m willing to make.” The difference between Jersey and New Zealand can be seen in leadership, political will, as well as that Kiwi caring and teamwork.

Do you know what? I’d love to see us lead the world with our vaccination rates, because we have enough vaccine for everyone. We are doing really well, thanks to our amazing vaccinators. I’d like to say here that Christchurch vaccinators will be leading the country. They’ve been working so hard and I’m proud of them all.

But we aren’t going to be out of the woods until we’re all safe. What that means is following initiatives like the accessible events that we’ve been seeing in Ōtautahi—Christchurch—recently, events that are low sensory with longer appointments, and New Zealand Sign Language interpreters will be provided in other areas. The University of Canterbury: a shout-out to them; they’ve got an event on 5 and 6 October that will give you a free burger with your vaccine.

So let’s get our competitive spirit going. Let’s not sit at the bottom of the world. Let’s lead the world. Let’s not tolerate that 90 percent; let’s go higher. Let’s lead the world, but let’s bring everybody with us. Let’s make sure that we bring our youth with us. Let’s bring Māori with us. Let’s bring Pasifika with us. Let’s bring our vulnerable communities, our disabled communities with us. Let’s acknowledge the really hard work of those vaccinators. Let’s acknowledge every single one of those people that have come forward so far to get their vaccine. Let’s move forward together and enjoy one of the best vaccination rates in the world. Thank you for your time.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, tēnā tātou e te W’are, tēnā koutou katoa e te iwi.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, greetings to those in the House, greetings to one and all.]

It’s not often that Te Paati Māori are afforded the opportunity to talk for a short time in Parliament, particularly in debates, so we’re really keen to take this moment. I guess it’s because we’re often talking about what we have to do next, and today we’d like to talk and reflect on what we have done, and also taking on board, you know, kāore te kūmara e kōrero mō tōna ake reka. The kūmara doesn’t talk or speak of its own sweetness. But we are not kūmara. In fact, we are gardeners. Tangata w’enua always have been gardeners. Te Paati Māori did not grow in the ground; we grew from the ground. We represent a grassroots movement that was built from the ground up, proudly. A tangata w’enua movement that has overcome all odds just to be here. It was only last year that every political analyst, every media analyst, was saying Te Paati Māori were dead in the water, that we would be swept up by the incoming red wave. Minister Willie Jackson himself said he was here to destroy Te Paati Māori, yet here we are constructively working with the Government and also boldly holding it to task.

Just as our two-for-one campaign, we have shown tangata w’enua’s style of politics is much different than we have seen in the left and the right. So just like our sister Chlöe did in Auckland Central, Rawiri proved them wrong in Waiariki. Just as they were coming to terms with the return of Te Paati Māori, I picked up my surfboard and rode that red wave straight into Parliament beside him. Here we now have two cheeky Māori pebbles in your shoes who stopped a tidal wave and started making waves of our own. Two small voices in a large choir of tone-deaf politicians. But man, can we sing—and, I understand, popular on TikTok.

I’m going to remind what we have done. Aside from having the most kicked out co-leader, we have seen and been around, in this short time, seen the purchase of Ihumātao; the removal of barriers to establishing Māori wards; the procurement of 5 percent, which is still off our 25 percent; the replacement of Oranga Tamariki chief executive with a Māori leader—now, Oranga Tamariki, that still has a long way to go—[Interruption]—investigations into our broken criminal justice system, which I believe Minister Davis knows very well; the public holiday recognition for Matariki; te reo Māori and Māori history in schools; new investment in kōhanga reo and Whānau Ora; ratings reform for w’enua Māori; a new Māori Health Authority; seabed mining member’s bill; and the Māori targeted housing package.

While I commend the Government for reading Te Paati Māori’s manifesto and adopting many of our policies in the last Budget, it seems they have a lot more reading to do. Our primary healthcare is severely underfunded. We have underfunded dental care. Ambulance services still beg for funding every year to stay operating. And the Government refuses to fund lifesaving cancer drugs that are funded in comparative countries. They have also failed dismally to lower the cancer screening age for Māori to reflect the fact that we die 10 years earlier than Pākehā.

So while I have listed just some of the progressive changes we have effected in holding this Government to task, this House better be ready for a whole lot more. We will keep fighting for a health system that actually works in keeping our people well and protecting our w’akapapa as tangata w’enua. We will keep fighting to end the shameful disparities in income for Māori. We are here to undo the decades of under-investment, deregulation, and the gutting of social security systems that has caused this. We will continue to call out the Minister responsible for Oranga Tamariki. As the only restrained tangata w’enua party in Parliament, we are here to be an unapologetic voice for tino rangatiratanga, to rebalance the scales of power in Aotearoa, and realise the partnership that was envisaged. Mā te Māori ki te Māori mō te Māori e ai ki te Māori. By Māori, to Māori, for Māori, and according to Māori.

As my tungāne has said, a new Aotearoa is on the rise. When you told us we couldn’t wear our taonga, we made you change the rules. I dare you to tell us we cannot restore this country’s name back to Aotearoa. Nō reira, e hoa mā, e te W’are, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call in this debate. I’d also like to begin by acknowledging those who are in Auckland who are either watching this or who are listening to this debate; I acknowledge the challenging time for individuals in Auckland and also for businesses—particularly small businesses up in Auckland at the moment.

I stand by this Government’s COVID response. As a backbench MP in this Government, I acknowledge the work of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern; our COVID Minister, the Hon Chris Hipkins; and the other Ministers for the decisions that they have made throughout this COVID pandemic. If we compare the situation we are in in New Zealand to the situation other countries are in, I think it’s quite clear that this Government have made good, strong decisions on COVID, based on health advice—putting the health response first.

But what seems to happen is the Government does a good job on COVID, and then all of a sudden the Opposition—the National Party and the ACT Party—turn around and say, “Let’s open borders up. First of all, let’s open them up to Australia.” We’re like, “Well, hang on a minute, let’s just be careful, let’s just tread carefully.” And we carefully moved through. Then all of a sudden, things tend to settle down a little bit, and again, “Open them up.” Things start to settle down, the vaccine starts rolling out, “Open them up.” That sort of haphazard approach is not the approach we need to COVID. We need to take a careful, cautious health response to COVID; that’s what has served us well.

So it came as no surprise when we heard the announcement from the National Party: “Open. Throw things open.” Well, that’s not the kind of approach that this Government is taking. We’re taking a careful, considered approach, putting the safety and health of New Zealanders first.

I’d like to touch on the announcement recently by the Hon Kris Faafoi, in terms of Government support, particularly around the commercial rent. Now, before this announcement, I heard from quite a few business owners who were having a challenging time paying their rent—obviously, in terms of COVID—and then working with their landlords. The discussions were in a difficult place. They were telling me, “We need some support from the Government”, in terms of working through the situation.

I’d like to give a couple of local examples. One Hamilton accommodation provider, during the previous lockdown—I’m going back to last year—this person engaged with their landlord, and, basically, the landlord just said, “Look, I won’t talk to you. There’s no discussion to be had.” The landlord actually issued them with an eviction notice, whereas the tenant, all they were asking for was to be able to sit down and have a conversation to work through it. Another one was a bar owner; similar situation. So what the Government have done is put some supports in place whereby these business owners can have constructive conversations with their landlords, taking into account COVID. Because the reality is, when these leases were written, no one predicted a global pandemic and people being locked down, businesses being shut. It was probably the furthest thing from people’s minds when these leases were written. So I appreciate the leadership that the Government are showing in that space, and those business owners who have been talking to me also appreciate that.

I’d like to touch on the New Zealand economy. I think it’s quite clear that we have seen the resilience of the New Zealand economy during this time. Yes, we’ve been underpinned by a strong agricultural sector, which is certainly appreciated by this Government, and also a tech sector, which really hasn’t missed a beat—a growing tech sector. I read some reports which say that the tech sector is our second biggest contributor to exports at the moment, behind agriculture. It’s a sector that is growing very quickly, and there are more opportunities every day in this sector. So the diversification that’s been happening in the New Zealand economy over recent years, under successive Governments, has certainly held us in good stead.

In my final few seconds, I’d just like to touch on the support the Government have given the New Zealand economy through infrastructure investment, and that has also helped us through this COVID time. Whether it’s infrastructure investment in schools, hospitals; whether it’s the Provincial Growth Fund, the Infrastructure Reference Group funds. So this Government, instead of looking at an austere model, instead we’ve been investing—we’ve been investing in the key areas that create jobs and keep our economy going. I’m proud of the response of this Government, and we will continue to take a careful, cautious approach, putting New Zealanders first.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill.

This is, in a sense, a technical use of urgency. It allows the House to consider this bill without it needing to sit on the Table for the required period of time. If we were not to use urgency to progress this bill, it would not be available for us until after the current parliamentary adjournment. By using urgency to give the bill a first reading, we’ll be able to send it off to a select committee, and during that adjournment period the committee will be able to scrutinise it and report it back to the House in a fairly short turn-around timetable after the adjournment so that it can be progressed through the House. It contains COVID-19 response measures. There is a degree of urgency to it, so we want to get it through, but we do want to allow for the select committee to give it a quick consideration, hence the use of urgency now in order to get it to select committee as quickly as we can.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move that the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 14 October 2021—

SPEAKER: I’m just going to interrupt the member and ask him whether he was going to do, as had been indicated, that he was going to present a legislative statement?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I thought I’d do that after this, but, OK, yes. I do—no, not on this one.

SPEAKER: Not on this one? All right, continue. That’s not what my notes say, but that’s all right.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, no, Mr Speaker, I do. I present a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ll start again. I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 14 October 2021, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Last year, in the month before the election, the House passed two omnibus bills that were very similar to this one. They contained a wide range of measures that were designed to enable businesses, local government, and others to more effectively manage the immediate impacts of the disruptions that were caused by COVID-19 lockdowns. It is often the case, after a lockdown or after a period of restrictions such as the one that we’re currently experiencing and have recently experienced, that people are unable to comply with legislative provisions that apply to them. Things like deadlines for filing papers and so on. There are a range of requirements that need certain things to be done in person that cannot be done in person in the current environment, while we’re dealing with COVID-19. So there’s a need for us to make a whole series of minor, relatively non-controversial technical changes to legislation, with appropriate sunset periods, to make sure that things can happen in this environment that might otherwise not be able to happen—or we effectively might be forcing people to break the rules in order to comply with the rules. So this particular omnibus bill deals with exactly those sorts of issues.

In the tradition of the bill that we had last time, this one amends 15 different Acts and one set of regulations. The amendments are, in my view, largely common sense. They’re pretty practical solutions that deal with the challenges that have been caused by the current COVID-19 outbreak. So I’ll run through the amendments—some of the more controversial and interesting of the amendments—in a little more detail. Obviously there’s a lot of them, so I won’t go through all of them.

But two of the proposed amendments—and the ones that I suspect are going to generate the most debate—concern tenancies. One deals with commercial tenancies and the other with residential tenancies. There will be an opportunity for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider these particular amendments. The amendments to the Property Law Act support commercial tenants and landlords to come to agreements that adjust rent due under their leases so that the parties can share the financial burden of the COVID-19 disruption. It enables more businesses to remain solvent through the COVID-19 pandemic, and it provides a way to help resolve disputes if an agreement can’t be reached. The other set of amendments applies prospectively to potential future restrictions, and it’s what happens for residential property tenants in the event that they cannot leave their tenancy because of a COVID-19 restriction. So it’s important that we have a clear legal basis there for arrangements that have been entered into already, in some cases, but potentially could be entered into as a result of a future situation. So this is a prospective, not a retrospective, piece of legislation, so it would apply to future outbreaks in the event that it was needed.

Some other amendments that are of interest to the House. There are occasions were people aren’t able to comply, or have to stop doing something that there’s a public interest in them continuing to do, because of the various rules that exist around COVID-19 and in-person interactions. A good example of that is changes to the Gambling Act. Now, by and large, I’m quite cautious when it comes to making any changes around the Gambling Act, but this one deals with some use of the provisions of that Act that I think we would agree there’s a degree of social benefit to. Organisations like Coastguard New Zealand and the Heart Foundation use what are called class 3 lotteries to raise funds for the very important work that they do in the community.

Now, under the Gambling Act 2003, class 3 gambling operators have to sell their tickets either in person or via post. Last year, we made an amendment—with a sunset provision that is about to expire—that allowed those class 3 operators to use email or phone to offer their lottery tickets, with the payments being made online. Those provisions expire on 31 October this year, so not far away. Coastguard New Zealand and the Heart Foundation have told us that the change has actually been a massive help in their fund-raising, and they raised concerns that, with those provisions expiring, they would lose the potential to raise that revenue to support the really important mahi that they do within our communities. So the amendment to the Gambling Act that’s proposed in this bill will extend the existing provisions that we’ve put in place as a response to COVID by another two years.

Other things that the bill deals with, it helps our courts to operate effectively in the era of the epidemic. Coroner’s hearings would be allowed to be held remotely, we would be able to make greater use of the High Court to clear the backlog in District Courts, court rules will be able to be more easily modified to respond to the circumstances created by COVID-19. Other provisions help with administration, like the extension of statutory deadlines, as I mentioned. The use of electronic signatures and the ability to serve infringement and reminder notices under the Land Transport Act remotely, and again these are just pragmatic and sensible changes that allow people to stay safe whilst continuing to transact the business that they need to be able to do.

So most—as I said—of the amendments in this bill are small changes but they’ll make a significant difference, either to individuals or to organisations, and they again exhibit a fairly practical approach that we have tried to show as a Government when it comes to responding to the issues that COVID-19 has put before us.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. Can I just start by begging the House’s indulgence to apologise to drum and bass listeners around the country, who I inadvertently insulted this morning in launching National’s COVID-19 response plan, when I indicated that I didn’t like drum and bass music. I was not at all meaning to insult them and I will endeavour to listen to George FM more—

Hon Chris Hipkins: It sounds like they don’t like you much either.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, apparently George FM is creating a drum and bass playlist for me for Spotify, so can’t wait.

So anyway, I apologise for that. We will be supporting—

Matt Doocey: You were young once.

CHRIS BISHOP: I was young once, yeah, exactly. We will be supporting this bill through first reading with the caveat that this process is a shocker—it really is. I’ve expressed privately, and I’m happy to say publicly, our disappointment to the Minister at this. To have a bill drafted up, go through Cabinet on a Monday, be introduced to the House the next day, and then set down for first reading under urgency the next day is not a good process. It was justifiable last year. You could make a case it was justifiable last year because we were dealing with the teeth of the pandemic and people had to move quickly and legislation was taking effect and having effects that we needed to delay, fair enough. But a year later or more than a year later—18 months later—to not have the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed, so to speak, to use the vernacular, is not good practice. And we will support it to first reading, because we accept the case that there are a variety of different things that are happening that it would probably be good for Parliament to delay or alter or make changes to because COVID has had various effects on things and the alert levels are having those effects, but I want to say to the House now that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will have to do a very thorough vetting job and iron out some of the fishhooks in it before we in the National Party will support this bill at second reading and beyond.

I see the chair is here of the venerable Finance and Expenditure Committee. I used to hold that role. I see Dr Webb is here and Barbara Edmonds as well, and I’m going to have to rely on the committee, because I’m not a member—we’re going to have to rely on the committee—to do a thorough job. In that regard, it is not acceptable, in our view, that the Minister has indicated that the committee is going to be asked to report back by 14 October. That is not acceptable. That is in about 2½ weeks. And I want to flag now for the House that the National Party will be moving an amendment to the motion for the report-back date of 14 October to instead be 14 November 2021. That will give the House another month or so to really scrutinise this bill properly, and I think it’s a fair compromise.

In the ordinary course of events, you would send a bill to a select committee for four to six months. Our argument will be another month to really get to grips with it and that will allow the time for the House to pass the bill through all the rest of its stages by Christmas time, which the Government’s indicated they want to do. We don’t need 14 October. There’s more than enough time between 14 November and House rising for Christmas to pass this piece of legislation, so I think it’s a fair request. And I’d just urge the other parties here—the ACT Party, which is a long-time opponent of urgent legislation like this, but also the Green Party, who have spent a long time in their time in Parliament raging against the use of urgency and shortened select committee report-back dates. So I urge the Green Party in particular to join with the National Party and vote for a motion to amend the report-back time to 14 November, which would be an extra month beyond what the Government has flagged.

So I suppose the first point to make is why now—why this particular date? The Government has had quite a long time to get to grips with some of this legislation, and one could ask: what have they been doing in the last few months? Why do we have to deal with this now? This has not been well signalled, it has not been well planned for. We accept that there’ll be some disruption because of COVID, but, really, we deserve better as a Parliament than what we have got with this bill.

I want to flag up two particular things that the National Party is very concerned about. The first is this little amendment, which I noticed the Minister didn’t speak about, to the Local Electoral Act 2001. He didn’t mention that, and I’ll tell you why he didn’t mention it. It’s because the bill allows the Government to change the nomination times and nomination day for local elections. So the current law says—

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s the Governor-General.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, don’t say it’s the Governor-General that can do it. Dr Webb knows when it says the Governor-General that is the Government, because it’s the Government that instructs the Governor-General—that’s constitutional law 101. So the current law, section 73A, says the Government can adjourn nomination day for up to six weeks—for up to six weeks, right? So OK, that’s fair enough, because you need a bit of flexibility. This says the Government can do it multiple times—doesn’t set a limit for how often they can do it, but multiple times for six weeks at a time, including into the year following an election.

So the next local body election is 2022—that’s coming up, and there’ll be mayoralty changes round the country and it’ll all be very exciting—and I know that there’s one particular member of this House who’s gearing up for a bid for the Mayor of Wellington, and we look forward to that run, and everyone will be very excited about that. And there might be other members of Parliament who want to run for mayoralties and local councils—we’ll wait and see. But that’s 2022, OK. But what this bill does is it says the Government can say, “Actually, the 2022 local body elections, it is possible to continue to delay them until 2023.” And I’m sitting here thinking, “Why would the Government want to do that?” I mean, if you were being really cheeky, you would say they’ll just delay and delay and delay, so that when the member for Rongotai becomes the Mayor of Wellington, they might not have to have a by-election in Rongotai because we might get within the six months before the 2023 general election, when there doesn’t have to be a by-election. If you’re being really cheeky and really naughty, one would suggest that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Not the Speaker—Order!

CHRIS BISHOP: I would never want to do that because I’m not a cheeky person, but there’ll be people who speculate about that. So I think this is not a good provision.

And you’ve got to ask yourself: is it even really necessary? Local body elections, as we know, are done by postal votes. We had this situation last year where the Government essentially decided to delay the election for however long it was—four or five weeks. We had a bit of back and forth about whether or not that was a good idea, but that was voting in person, and you can sort of accept the case that voting in person at a time of COVID was a potential spread, but local body elections are done by postal votes—and some people think we should change that, but as of now they’re done by postal voting. There’s no election day for a local body; it happens over 3½ to four weeks. The votes go out, people fill them in—45 percent of people or whatever it is; we’ve got to get the rate higher—and they send them back. The risk of having a postal vote at a time of COVID is, I would have thought, not that high. So why is the Government seeking the power, through this bill, through the Local Electoral Act 2001 amendments—it just subtly sneaked in there in one of the Schedules, not mentioned by the Minister. Why is the Government seeking this power? So that is something the select committee is going to want to have to get to the bottom of, because it’s not clear at first blush why the Government wants to arrogate itself this power—extra powers—and if they’re actually needed.

I see my time is running to an end, so I’m sure that other colleagues will want to pick up on the other changes to the Property Law Act, which even the Minister accepts, in his speech, was controversial. He actually flagged it up for the House. In a rare moment of honesty there was actually an admission that that was actually going to be quite a controversial measure—it’s retrospective and it actually interferes in the sanctity of the contract between landlords and tenants. And I know that members in this House will want to get to the bottom of exactly why that is going to be the case and why the Government is advancing that. So we’ll vote for this bill, but with—

Hon Member: I’m not sure why, frankly.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I’m beginning to wonder myself now, but with severe caveats around the time frame and around some of the little, hidden measures in the bill that the Minister didn’t really want to talk about.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I thank the member Chris Bishop for his confidence in the committee. Should ever he want to come down, he’s more than welcome to help us out, because it will indeed be a busy committee.

Just a few short comments, really: firstly, one perhaps quirky one. I’m surprised to see in the Ministry of Transport amendments that they’re still using faxes in that ministry for sending notices, but that’s one of the amendments, and perhaps that will be the last piece of legislation that actually mentions the old facsimile machine and calls it a form of electronic communications.

But I think Mr Bishop was right when he identified the insertion of an implied term in commercial leases as one of significance that we need to have a good look at. Look, it’s significant in a number of ways, because it does defer to the parties in the first instance what a fair rent reduction in the circumstances will be. In fact, though, it’s worth noting that this is very similar to the Auckland District Law Society lease—I think it’s clause 27 which talks about premises being inaccessible and the parties having to agree a rent reduction. But look, I want to signal now that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be looking at this, and it will certainly be looking to key stakeholders to assist with that.

The other interesting feature of this piece of law is the compulsory arbitration, which we don’t see very often, but, again, it’s something that’s very common in commercial leases. So rather than people running into court, commercial lease-holders—you know, the retailers, the small retailers in those malls that have perhaps been doing it hard on bespoke lease documents, which aren’t tenant-friendly and aren’t particularly even-handed. They won’t be going into court on those kinds of things. They’ll be asked to go straight to arbitration, and those arbitrators will be experienced people in commercial property and they will be able to, essentially, value what the loss of occupation is worth and where that loss should fall.

Finally, I just would mention the Gambling Act amendments. Again, like Minister Hipkins, I’m a little cautious around that, but I’ll say I’m a holder of raffle tickets in the coastguard raffle. I have been the recipient of their services—thank you for hauling me to shore on that singular occasion.

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s the prize?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I won’t trouble people with the details. Talk to me later, Mr Bridges. It’s quite a story. But look, it’s not really online gambling; it’s simply purchasing raffle tickets by electronic payments on a website. It’s a little different from some of the other online gambling that goes on that’s a bit more pernicious. They have to hold a class 3 gambling licence already. I think that’s a good extension in COVID times to the fund-raising efforts of our important not-for-profits like the coastguard.

So I look forward to presiding on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and having a very good look at improving this bill wherever we can. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, which is an omnibus bill. I will be primarily speaking to the Epidemic Preparedness Act and the changes being proposed to that, but I want to start with the legislation that’s talking about roadblocks and paint the desperate and sad, tragic picture for the southern boundary for the Northland region and the Whangārei electorate.

Let me paint what happened here. So on 17 August, the Prime Minister at 6 p.m. announced that the boundary, the border, with Auckland—we’d all go into lockdown, and the Auckland-Northland border would be shut. Between 6 p.m. and midnight, which is when the legislation came into effect, or when the order came into effect, thousands of vehicles came into Northland. We were told by people at Green Bay that it was headlight to headlight, bumper to bumper.

The issue we’ve got with that is several-fold. First of all, they brought the Auckland risk into Northland, which has areas of deprivation and poverty least able to deal with infection—that wasn’t a good thing. Secondly, what it did was it burdened our infrastructure. So we know from some of the pharmacies out at Mangawhai, for example, that they had 60 percent greater uptake of prescriptions from Aucklanders from out of Northland areas. That takes a lot of work, to call back to an Auckland chemist, find out what they’re taking, then deliver it, so it certainly burdened our infrastructure.

The third point I’d raise before I go into the detail a bit more is that Northland was then required to stay in lockdown level 4 with Auckland, despite not having a positive coronavirus case. There was a positive case in Warkworth—that is not Northland. Yet Northland paid the price of another two or three days because—maybe because, and we’ve asked this question—thousands of Aucklanders came into Northland.

Rather than making that anecdotal, I asked this of the transport Minister, actually: how many registered licence plates crossed the toll booth north of Auckland between 6 p.m. and midnight, and how many of those registration plates were registered with Aucklanders? The number was actually 4,000.

Hon Member: How many?

Dr SHANE RETI: Four thousand. Now, what we needed to do, though, was take off those people from Auckland who would normally travel to Northland on a Thursday anyway. So I asked for the week as well. That was 1,000. So, net-net, 3,000 Auckland vehicles over that six-hour period traversed from Auckland into Northland and brought their risk with them—

Hon Simon Bridges: How many?

Dr SHANE RETI: Three thousand, and each one’s got an occupancy of roughly one and a half to two people. That’s 5,000 people who brought their risk into Northland. Not fair. That should have been managed. There should be no epiphany here. You’ve had 18 months—not you, Madam Speaker, but the Government has had 18 months—to figure out that border, and yet we still allowed 3,000 vehicles to come into Northland. Not a good thing.

Now, then what happened is we stayed in level 4, as I’ve said, because there was some risk, purportedly—and I’m making the case that maybe it’s those people who came from Auckland into Northland. The concern I’ve got there is that the three Northland mayors were told 30 minutes before that 4.00 p.m. announcement that we were staying in level 4. The concern I’ve got is that the three Labour MPs were told the day before and were “extensively engaged” in decisions that included boundaries and checkpoints like this bill is talking about. How can that be? What happened to our local elected mayors? Why did they get 30 minutes and were told, and the three Northland MPs were “extensively engaged” 24 hours beforehand? What I’m hearing: it was a slap for what the councils are doing and the position they’re taking on three waters. That’s what I’m hearing. I’m hearing that because Whangārei District Council has taken a position against this ridiculous asset-grab, they had the courtesy of 30 minutes, and everyone else had a full day. I’d suggest that can’t be right either. Our elected representatives, our three mayors told, and the three Labour MPs in Northland had 24 hours. So that’s something that needs to be attended to.

I want to talk to the part of this omnibus bill that’s called the Epidemic Preparedness Act. How can this be preparedness? We are so underprepared for where we are landing here at the moment. That seems a misnomer in terms. If we can look at some of the areas where we’re underprepared: Middlemore Hospital—really interesting. I wanted to know exactly how many cases at Middlemore Hospital were involved in that very first case where the man went through the emergency department (ED), short-stay adult, up to the ward, was coughing, had three other people in the room—how many total people were involved with that? Minister Little wouldn’t give us an answer to that. It turns out between 300 to 400 people were actually involved with that. In ED on the day there were 75 visitors. There were orderlies for radiology, there were linen services, there were food services, there were people across several wards because the air conditioning went across several wards.

What I’m really interested in pursuing is if we look at the ED services and radiology, they had one style of personal protective equipment (PPE), which included an N95 mask. Our orderlies, cleaners, and linen services seem to have just had a surgical mask. How can that be? Why are we giving some of our more menial workers, if you want to call them that—absolutely critical workers—less PPE than those who serve in other areas? That’s what bothers me. I’m bothered about that, and I will keep on digging and find out more, but there’s something not right there that we need to discover that the Minister does not want to be forthcoming.

Epidemic Preparedness Act—hardly prepared. In the middle of a pandemic, we’re figuring out hospital visiting policy. How many visitors can attend each hospital? That’s ridiculous. Yeah, it was all one region—Auckland, Waitematā, Counties Manukau. Waitematā and Counties Manukau seemed to figure it out. Why could Auckland City Hospital not figure it out? That needs some thinking.

I want to talk about epidemic preparedness. Where was our primary care? Where were our GPs, not just across the country but in Auckland? What I can share with you is that—because it’s just a written parliamentary question that came back 30 minutes ago—if we look before the outbreak, there were 372 GPs who’d said, “We want to vaccinate.” So at the end of July, 372 GPs across the country said, “We want to vaccinate.” How many were vaccinating at that time? A hundred and ninety-seven—50 percent of GPs who had said, over many months, “We want to be a part of this preparedness.” Only half of them were credentialled.

What we know is that the credentialling time is at least six weeks. We know it’s an 80-page operating document. You’ve got to take pictures of your entry and exit, for goodness’ sake. How can that be? You might say to me, “Well, it’s an infectious airborne virus.” Excuse me, in 2019, under this Government’s watch, we had the measles epidemic. That’s also an infectious airborne virus—oh, by the way, with an R0 about four to five times more than what coronavirus had. So we trusted our primary care to manage infectious airborne viruses in 2019 when we needed them, but now they’ve got to do six weeks training, they’ve got to go through operating manuals, they’ve got to have two on-site visits. If we were Government today, here’s what we do: we would credential all vaccinating GPs and pharmacies today. We trust them. We trusted them during the measles epidemic. We should credential them today. That’s the sort of preparedness I’d be expecting in this bill that is clearly missing.

I want to talk about the preparedness around ICUs. That’s an unbelievable story. I actually recognise that part of our shortage here has been around ICU nurses. I get that. But how can it be that we have had not one new ICU resourced bed this year in all of the Auckland DHBs—not one? Furthermore, the Minister only requested a report on the capacity of ICUs in Auckland to manage coronavirus five weeks ago. He’s had 18 months since the first coronavirus outbreak. Delta arrived on 1 April. We all knew that ICU was going to be a pinch point, if you like. And the first time we get a report on it, or the Minister gets a report on it, is five weeks ago, several weeks into the pandemic, or our current outbreak. How can that be preparedness? Why is that not part of the Epidemic Preparedness Act that we’re talking about here today?

I believe that part of that preparedness—let’s remember what we’re doing here is several things. First of all, we’re trying to keep New Zealanders safe and we’re trying to protect the health system. That’s what this whole COVID response is about. That’s why we’re doing this here today. I believe they’ve failed on both parts of that, but particularly the second, to protect our health system. They’ve failed to build ICU beds, failed to bring in ICU nurses, failed to build negative pressure rooms. I can’t believe that the Auckland DHBs earlier this year said to the Minister, “We’ve got $6 million left from a building project underspent. We’d kind of like to spend it on negative pressure rooms.” and were told no. Then, three months later, in the middle of a pandemic, we’re building negative pressure rooms at Auckland and Waitematā. I can’t wait to see that letter. If that’s a forceful letter from the Auckland CEO begging for negative pressure rooms and the Minister says, “No, go back through the approval process”—which, as we know, in this Government’s hands is years—that’s going to be a letter that will come into public domain and be quite interesting.

I make my point that I’m focusing on the Epidemic Preparedness Act, which is part of this omnibus bill. That is a misnomer. This Government has not prepared us to protect us or protect the health system, and they are accountable for that. We will be supporting this through to select committee because in its wider frame we support the wider intent, but there are parts of this that sit very squarely with that Government over there. Thank you.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to be able to take a short call on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. The reason I want to take a short call is because we’re going to spend a few weeks scrutinising this bill.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, we want to know what you think, though.

BARBARA EDMONDS: And I thank the member over there, Mr Simon Bridges, for his confidence in the select committee, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, as we go through this.

Now, I want to acknowledge the number of public officials who put this bill together. That’s the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Land Information New Zealand, the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Internal Affairs. The reason why I’m acknowledging the number of officials that have put this bill together is because a little bit earlier today in the general debate—and I hope I had not heard right—I’d heard one of the members on the other side of the House refer to them as boffins. I think that was a sarcastic, particular view, because I see boffins as experts, and these public servants have been working hours and hours to be able to support this country get through to where we are. So it’d be really nice if the Opposition on the other side of the House actually gave them some credit and were able to cooperate and help us get this bill through.

I just want to look at one particular part in the bill—that’s Schedule 6, Part 1, which amends the Coroners Act 2006. Now, over the last year, being a new electorate MP, we’ve had to deal with the coroner’s office a number of times. This particular amendment allows them to do video meetings and teleconferences. It clears it up and allows them to be able to do that. My hope is this will be able to support the coroner’s office in what they need to do in order to get through the cases that they’ve got, and so I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is supporting this bill. We understand the reasons for why we might have a curtailed select committee report-back period, because most of this is just pushing out legislative deadlines, for really obvious reasons, but there will still be plenty of opportunity to scrutinise at the select committee, and, of course, our member looks forward to that.

I just wanted to briefly talk about a few things that we have concerns about, even though we are supporting the bill. I mean, obviously, at the time, last year, we did not support the fast-track consenting bill—so, the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020. This is one where the sunset clause is being extended. We still don’t see that that is the appropriate way to address any particular hold-ups to infrastructure delivery. Like, it’s really important that we get it right and that we have proper processes around protecting the environment. I do think that the Minister responsible has set a very high bar for getting through that fast-track consenting, but, ultimately, that is not the way to solve the particular challenges that we face with the Resource Management Act, and we’re looking forward to the new legislation that will replace the Resource Management Act in order to get better outcomes both for the environment and for communities.

The residential tenancies changes are welcome, but I don’t think they go far enough. Restricting terminations during outbreaks of COVID-19 is clearly something that needs to happen, but also there’s the issue around 90-day notice. So if somebody is issued a 90-day notice but then we go into a level 4 or level 3 lockdown for an extended period of time, it’s actually impossible for those people to look for alternative accommodation. For that reason, I think that probably we should be looking at whether or not the 90-day notice period is basically not counted during a level 4 or level 3 lockdown—

Hon Simon Bridges: This is crazy talk.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —because it’s not possible for people to look for alternative accommodation. What are they meant to do? They’re in a level 4 lockdown; they’re unable to visit other premises. Basically, everything to do with real estate is suspended at level 4, so it doesn’t make sense that the clock would be ticking on a 90-day notice to move out. It’s simply unfair for the people living in that property. I hear the Hon Simon Bridges saying that’s crazy. Obviously, the owners of private rental accommodation should have the ability to cast people out and make them homeless during a goddamn pandemic! What sort of morals do people in the National Party have that they actually think that the owners of property have more rights than the rights of New Zealanders to have a secure place to live in the middle of a pandemic? That explains why we have a housing crisis in this country, because that sort of person was in power for nine years while the supply of housing did not increase, there was no addition to the supply of public housing. It’s absolutely shocking and disgusting and immoral that anyone would hold that position, that owners of property should be able to profit at any price while we let people go homeless in this country during a pandemic.

Finally, when it comes to the changes to the Local Electoral Act, it will be interesting to see. It’s pretty obvious that if we were in a situation of a level 3 or level 4 lockdown, we wouldn’t be able to have public meetings. We wouldn’t be able to run a normal local body electoral campaign. So I think this is a pretty reasonable provision that has a number of safeguards attached to it. I don’t for one second believe the sort of bizarre conspiracy theories that were being peddled by Chris Bishop asserting that the Labour Government is going to use this power to somehow get an advantage in the Wellington mayoral race and not have to hold a by-election. I mean, that just sounds, quite frankly, a little bit deranged—although I guess that is where that party’s getting to. They’re really desperate at their 20-25 percent or less in the polls and making all sorts of random accusations.

But one concern I do have and that is not addressed in this bill, and that really should be, is the ability for New Zealanders overseas to participate in elections in New Zealand. That is a right that actually is very much jeopardised by the global pandemic and the fact that we have this strange constraint in our law that says you have to visit New Zealand every three years in order to participate in an election. Well, clearly, since the pandemic started, people have been advised not to travel. It’s extremely constrained their ability to return to New Zealand, and it’s quite possible that that constraint will extend for a period of—you know, now it’s been 18 months; it’s going to be over two years at best-case scenario.

To be honest, Andrew Geddis wrote a really excellent analysis of this. The requirement for New Zealanders to visit every three years in order to participate in elections is quite unusual, and if they are citizens of New Zealand, I really believe that this constraint should be removed completely. There are many citizens of New Zealand who, for whatever reason, are residing overseas. They still actively care about democracy in New Zealand. They want to participate in it—they are citizens, and they should be able to participate in it. I think that is an issue that really should be addressed in this legislation, or very urgently, because the Government is going to miss the opportunity to address this disenfranchisement of a huge number of New Zealanders who are stuck overseas at the moment and cannot return to New Zealand.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. It is a very good example of why this Parliament and this country need an ACT Party. When everybody else loses their head, when even the National Party say, “This is terrible, it’s an abomination, it’s bad policy, it’s bad process, but we’ll support it.”, is when you need an ACT Party to say that this policy is wrong and this process of rushing through retrospective legislation that interferes in private contracts is completely wrong, it should not be happening in New Zealand, and if it keeps happening, the whole country will be all the poorer for it. That is why this country and this Parliament need an ACT Party: to point out these very simple truths.

Let’s talk a little bit more about this legislation. There are a range of initiatives in here that most people would have no trouble with. Many of them involve processes and procedures where people need to meet in person to sign or submit a form for various legal reasons, and all this does is say that you can be absolved of that requirement. In relation to the Gambling Act, the Coroners Act, a whole range of relatively benign changes made to those Acts around timing and the fact it is sometimes hard to do business under a lockdown, that is all OK.

But what we object to is the changes that are made to the Property Law Act that undermine private contracts for commercial leases up and down this country. I want to make it clear to people quite how different this is from what Governments normally do and what this Parliament normally does in New Zealand. Sometimes, people find that the law changes and they have to change their behaviour, but the one thing that we don’t do is change the law that affects people who have already made decisions. So if you signed a lease document and you had an expectation that you could continue to collect rent and that you could put in place a notice if a person failed to pay it, then that is an expectation written down in a contract signed by two parties. Neither of them were forced to sign it, both of them had time to consider it, both of them decided it was worth entering into—and both parties believed that that contract was binding, to be interpreted by the courts if necessary. Under this legislation, this Parliament is saying, “Oh no, no, no. It doesn’t matter what your lease says, we are changing a private document that two individuals voluntarily entered into.”

What does that mean? Well, what that means is—this is important—that if you sign a contract with another New Zealander, under New Zealand law, you don’t know when the Government might come along and change the nature of that contract. The Government doing that is something that we normally associate with banana republics, with countries in South America, with countries in Africa, with places where if you try and make a deal and you think that your rights are secure, a corrupt Government can come along and dash your hopes. That is why those places, sadly, are much poorer than New Zealand. People don’t save and invest to become wealthier in those countries like they do in Western countries like New Zealand, because you always take the risk that some corrupt Government will come and take your rights away. Well, unfortunately, by putting this law in place, by Parliament changing the terms of contracts that people may have signed 10 years ago, this Government is making New Zealand just a little bit more like those other banana republics. That is unforgiveable.

That is absolutely unforgivable because it is something that no future Government can easily change back. Normally, if a Government changes, the next one can change the law back and say, “Actually, that was wrong. We’ve changed it now.” But no future Government will ever be able to restore the trust that is lost in the rule of law in New Zealand when a Parliament—this Labour Party – dominated Parliament—goes and interferes retrospectively in private contracts, with rushed legislation.

Now, here is the next thing. It’s bad enough that we’ve got a retrospective interference in a private contract, undermining the rule of law in this country—that’s bad enough—but they are not even following due process through this Parliament. They are using their majority to rush it through under urgency. So will there be proper consultation? No, there is not. Have they prepared a regulatory impact statement from Treasury weighing up the costs and benefits of this law? No, they haven’t. Will there be sufficient time, as they have indicated, under a rushed select committee process, for people who are affected by this law, to come out and say what is affecting them and have their views considered? Will there be time for that to happen in a couple of weeks? No, there won’t. Will this Government be waiting until that rushed parliamentary process is complete before the law comes into play? No.

Here is the third big problem. Not only is it retrospective, not only is it being rushed through Parliament, the Government is not waiting for Parliament. They say that “We’re announcing a law today and it’s in place from 28 September.” It is in place today. That whole democracy thing, putting it through Parliament, and the representatives elected by the people of New Zealand voting on it to actually make it a statute law, all of that stuff, that’ll come later. The Government is now making laws by press release, and that is banana republic stuff. That erodes the confidence that people have to save for tomorrow, knowing that maybe the Government will just take it all away. That is what is at stake with this legislation. That is what you get from a Government of children who don’t understand the implications of what they are doing to the future of this country, with their immature, ill-conceived, rushed, retrospective interference in the property rights, the rule of law, and the contracts that New Zealanders voluntarily enter into in a First World Western democracy—or at least it is for now.

So what should this Government have done? Well, they should have acknowledged there is a problem. Because they weren’t prepared for Delta, because they now have an interminable lockdown with no end in sight, small business is hurting, and they should have recognised that problem. What they should have done, instead of spending all the time we’ve had till now investing in bike bridges to Birkenhead, investing in the art in Te Papa, and spraying the COVID fund every which way, they should have been thinking about saving their money for a rainy day, and making the resurgence payment for small business weekly. Instead of messing with centuries of contract law and the property rights of New Zealanders, the certainty in the rule of law that New Zealanders enjoy, they should have used some of that money that they’re borrowing by the billion to compensate for small businesses that are actually affected by their ill-preparedness and their unending lockdown, by making the resurgence payment weekly. That is what they should have done, but no. Instead of that, they have decided to do serious lasting damage to the reputation of New Zealand as a civilised country with property rights and the rule of law where you can invest today knowing that your assets and your property will be there tomorrow. That is what they’ve done instead. They are now beyond an incompetent Government; they are a dangerous Government that does not understand the impact of what they are doing to the future of this country.

Once again, as often happens at times like this, there is one political party that New Zealanders can rely on to stand up, tell it like it is, and say, “No, this must stop, and if it doesn’t, every single one of us in New Zealand will eventually be far worse off than if it had stopped right now.” The ACT Party proudly opposes this abomination of a dangerous and damaging piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Before I start can I just point to the Huia Pin that I’m wearing at the moment—as many of my colleagues around the House are—to commemorate 33 police officers who have given their lives for the service of New Zealand. Today is the day they are commemorated.

It is very important that we do look at our history, because that speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat, David Seymour, could have been made here in the 1890s when New Zealand land reform was being done, when New Zealand was owned by 200 families. But for a very inspired Government, inspired by John McKenzie, we would have been in exactly the same place as those very banana republics that he is quoting, where all the wealth is in very few hands.

What the role of Government is to do, is to ensure that the wealth, the health, and the future prospects of all its citizens are considered. So when we look at this bill, that’s what this does—it ensures that at a time when we have had changes, considerable changes, we, as a Government, look at what needs to be done to ensure that everyone in this country gets the opportunities they need. We need to ensure that what needs to be done is done, and this legislation ensures that. So I have no hesitation in commending this to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, others in this debate on this side of the House have already indicated what an appalling process this piece of legislation is. Here we are, thrust into urgency, 18 months into the COVID crisis, by a Government that has completely lost control of its legislative programme, is asleep at the wheel, and has to come to the House to present under urgency an omnibus bill that will, literally, fix up dozens of small matters that need attention, which a Government if they were on top of their portfolios, if they were on top of their legislative programme and agenda, would have had sorted, giving full and proper process, proper parliamentary scrutiny, proper select committee scrutiny, to this piece of legislation and the changes that are contained in it.

And so my colleague Chris Bishop has very adroitly and articulately presented the case for why we oppose this urgency. And what he said was absolutely right: this is a Government that just is so far off beam in terms of their process and their agenda that they have to bring this piece of legislation to the Parliament, put it under urgency so that during the next fortnight recess, the select committee can hear and see and receive submissions. That process is simply appalling.

And to hear a Green member—the Green Party members used to stand in this Parliament on principle. They used to. They used to oppose that sort of thing. They used to actually have some principles. Now they’re entirely flexible, and it turns out that they have turned into a party that is literally just a party of private property denial. One of the things that is done in this piece of legislation is that it’s actually going to slow down a whole lot of climate change stuff. Now, the Green Party member didn’t mention that once. Oh, we have declared a climate emergency—I would have thought that the Green Party would have been encouraging the Government to speed up its process. They have to rely on Greta Thunberg to actually point out how slow the New Zealand Parliament has been in terms of this Government’s agenda.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did she say about Ardern?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Oh—asleep at the wheel? Oh, I remember what she said. It was “Blah, blah, blah.” “Blah, blah, blah” is what she said about politicians like our Prime Minister who talk a big game on climate change and then, under urgency, pass legislation that will slow it down.

And that is quite remarkable, because some of us in this Chamber remember a time when the climate emergency was being passed through, and all that sanctimonious, high-handed, grand gesturing stuff was being done, when the Prime Minister said, and I quote: “This is a declaration that will need to be supported by ongoing, continual action and activity.” That’s what the Prime Minister said when the climate emergency was declared. And what do we have now? We have this Labour Government coming to the House and introducing, under urgency, legislation that will slow down climate action—will actually slow it down.

But not to be outdone, then the Minister of Climate Change, James Shaw, the Green guy—the one that’s heading off on the big jet plane shortly to Scotland, with a crew of 14 people—said at the time when the climate emergency was introduced back in December 2020, “We have been reluctant to declare a climate emergency. It would just be empty words.”, he said. “It has to have substance.”, is what he said.

Well, anyone who will read this piece of legislation will know that what’s being asked here is that the emissions reduction plan that was set out in the legislation to create the zero carbon Act actually put in place some timetables, and it relied on the Government to actually meet those timetables. And what’s the first action of this Government in terms of their climate activity in action? Oh, let’s slow it down. Let’s delay the reporting times. Let’s link them into the Budget cycle. Now, there’s no logical reason at all why they need to be linked into the Budget cycle. In fact, if they thought at the time that it needed to be linked into the Budget cycle, they should have put it in the legislation—should have put it in the Act.

What is being asked now is an opportunity to simply slow down the process. Greta Thunberg is watching from the other side of the world, and she has highlighted that, in fact, when it comes to New Zealand’s approach to climate action, this Government has been very tardy indeed. And, in fact, we find out today that statistics released by Statistics New Zealand say that, actually, our climate emissions are increasing—a 2.1 percent increase in the last recorded year.

So shame on this Government for talking a big game and then slowing the process down. This is an appalling process and one that we don’t support.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): I commend this bill to the House.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you. Xiexie, Madam Speaker. I rise to take this short call on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, first reading. This bill is an omnibus bill that amends more than one Act. The intention of the bill is to make amendments to matters that are aimed at assisting the Government of New Zealand and the people of New Zealand to effectively manage and recover from the impacts of COVID-19. This bill amends or modifies a range of legislation, but I wanted to touch upon one of the Acts that it amends. Schedule 5, “Ministry of Housing and Urban Development” contains amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The purpose of this amendment is to support tenants to stay at their rental homes during future outbreaks of COVID-19.

Now, I wanted to touch upon one example: I know a family who moved house during the latest outbreak, during the level 4 lockdown. The landlord, by no fault of his own, said, “The house is run down, it’s a health and safety issue, I have to move you out.” So, because there is no law that stops that, the family had to comply and move. So that was a risk to the family and to all of us. It could cause a massive outbreak here in Wellington.

This bill does a lot of good things. It’s not how the Opposition makes it sound—everything is negative. It’s quite funny to see the Hon Scott Simpson talking in favour of climate change. When it suits your arguments, you do things and you say things that you actually don’t mean. We have to be consistent with our messaging, to ensure that people have the right to stay at home during the outbreaks of COVID-19. As the Associate Minister of Housing, the Hon Poto Williams said, this is about futureproofing tenancies. We need to help end the impacts of COVID-19, restrictions of COVID-19, to ensure our laws are fair, flexible, and responsive. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): This bill greatly concerns me. I mean, there’s so much to oppose here, I can’t see frankly how we can continue to support it post - select committee. I did administrative and constitutional law a long way back, and here we’ve got a bill which comes along and delays the regular provisions of the law and gives powers to individuals, to members of the executive, to the executive as a collective, over and above those regular provisions, at their whim, sometimes for a year, sometimes for a couple. Well, that’s what lawyers would euphemistically say is problematic; I say it’s wrong actually, to do that, and to do what this bill does throughout it without really good reason. As Chris Bishop said in his speech, in 2020, in the eye of the COVID storm, he could accept that; they were remarkable times and they required that. But in this bill, the Government does do it through into 2022 and I say that’s not just problematic, it’s plain wrong.

And what’s the reason here? Why on earth aren’t they doing that in some cases just for a quarter or the least possible—stopping, delaying the regular provisions of laws of this land if it’s really necessary. Let me give you a couple of examples in this bill. Firstly, they are fundamentally giving themselves the power to suspend local democracy—election year, next year. And I say that is plain wrong. Let’s take the case of my city—Tauranga. We’ve already got a situation where there are unelected commissioners who do the bidding, frankly, of Nanaia Mahuta. That’s the situation and it happened on one simple promise from Nanaia Mahuta that democracy would be restored in the election year of 2022. But this bill gives her the power, the Government the power, to do away with those elections. That is wrong.

Commercial leases—we’ve heard a bit about that. I say what’s happening there is not only a breach of contract, which, by the way, really, really matters—the certainty of contract is one of the bedrocks of our society and the civilisation which we had—but it does it in a way which is now all about fair proportionality in consultation. Well, actually, I think we know what that means. It’s giving a break to the renter. And you might say, “Well, that’s real good”, but actually I say there’s a bunch of landlords out there who are also doing it tough and this overriding of regular law without any consultation of anyone in this significant industry for our country is just plain wrong.

Actually, someone said very recently that some of the things going on at the moment in relation to COVID are a bit like North Korea. I have to say there’s a touch of that here. There’s a touch of the Muldoon in this law. Jacinda Ardern may not look like Muldoon, she may not have the style of him, but in this bill, with these provision, it’s a bit like Fitzgerald v Muldoon going back—he’d be proud, I think, of a law like this.

What’s more—the second point I want to make—is it’s lazy law. It’s a lazy, complacent bill that enables a lazy, complacent Government to be even more lazy and complacent than they are. You see, what this bill fundamentally says about the Government is that they can’t walk and chew gum. We all accept that COVID-19 is a very significant issue for New Zealand and the world. But what this bill says is they can’t focus on that and anything else at the same time.

See, you know, the answer from this Government is it’s all about COVID. Yep, COVID’s important. But then they’re excusing themselves from doing anything in climate change, from doing anything about housing, about roads, hospitals, schools—all the while, because of COVID, they excuse the borrowing of a billion dollars a week that will heap up and be a millstone around the neck of the next generations in this country.

I want to focus quickly on climate change because this is a Government—indeed, the Prime Minister—who said it was her nuclear-free moment, and yet what is she doing in this bill? She is excusing herself and her Government from really doing anything for a few more months. Why on earth, as a result of COVID-19 and what’s happened, they feel the need for that? Was James Shaw caught up in the COVID-19 response? Not even a little bit. And yet this lazy, complacent Government is doing nothing about it. Nuclear-free moment? My backside!

The third thing I want to say on this bill is: how about instead of all this mucking around, the Government actually comes up with a plan to open up? I know it’s radical, Mr Speaker. I know it’s crazy. In a sense, I would say: why don’t they pick a plan, any plan? They’ve got ACT’s, they’ve got National’s, they’ve got John Key’s. Pick a plan and do something. But instead they’re not doing anything—nothing—and that’s why we have to have this bill all the rest of this year into 2022. I say that’s a crying shame.

You know, Ryan Bridge, the new AM Show lead is entirely right when he said earlier this week that the reason there is no plan from this Government actually in relation to really anything that is of importance in this country right now, but certainly in relation to COVID-19, is because everything they do is poll driven. I could focus on the fact that they’ve done something I don’t think I’ve ever seen at a level like this before in the history of New Zealand, and that’s get the public health sector to pay for all those, in actuality, explicitly political polls, and the constitutional propriety of that, but anyway—be that as it may. They are running this country on poll after poll after poll, and again, as Ryan Bridge said, that’s because Jacinda Ardern is waiting for us, the people of New Zealand, to tell her the plan. She doesn’t have a plan. She doesn’t want to work up a plan. That would be too fundamental. It might get her in trouble. She might lose a few percent of votes—well, she’s actually done that in recent times. But the reality is she’s waiting for us to tell her the plan.

That is lazy. That is complacent Government. Leadership actually requires vision and a plan, and that’s true now not just in relation to COVID-19 but I’d say more broadly in our country on housing, transport, the economy, education, and health. I accept and I understand that the Government’s been burnt by KiwiBuild, by a cycle bridge that no one wanted, but actually, as it says in the good book, that Mr Seymour may know well—I don’t know—“Without vision, the people perish.” That’s where we’re at right now in this country.

Instead of that, we’ve got a Government that’s giving themselves powers, abrogating, getting in the way of the regular provisions and rules of Government, because actually they’ve been too lazy and poll-driven in their approach to do the hard mahi that provides not just the provision, actually the strategy and the plan for New Zealand in relation to COVID-19 but a host of other things in this bill, like climate change, like housing, and in a bunch of other areas.

Finally, this really, really matters not because of politics, not because of politicians like me standing up and making the points we do, but actually because right now in New Zealand, if there was a plan we would have a country where businesses wouldn’t be struggling as much with the effects of lockdown, where people wouldn’t be struggling as much with lockdowns as hundreds of thousands—in fact, one and a half million or more—are, in Auckland, where there’d be greater freedoms, where people would be able to see their grandchildren on the other side of the world, and on the other side of the world Kiwis would get what they thought, call them old-fashioned, was their God-given right to come back to the country that they live in and that they belong to. But they can’t, because we have a pernicious lottery-type system running at the moment because that mahi wasn’t done.

As I say, I understand the position of National to be we’re supporting it at first reading. Frankly, I wonder why, because it seems to me this is a bill that is pretty regrettable in most regards. Yep, Chris Hipkins will be able to point to the odd thing it does here, which sort of seems pragmatic and OK, but overall where they’re suspending the need to do anything about climate change, where they’re giving themselves the ability to do away with local government elections when they feel like it, and in a raft of other ways they’re giving themselves powers I don’t think they need to have at this time, it’s, as I say, highly regrettable.

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Mr Speaker, it’s a pleasure to be back in Parliament and to take the final call on this bill in this House. I want to begin by thanking particularly the staff at Parliament for all the incredible mahi that they are doing to keep all of us safe. I particularly want to thank the clerks, the messengers, all of our own staff, the security team, and the catering team, many of whom have been working from home and working exceptionally hard to keep this Parliament running.

I want to reflect on the speech from the leader of the ACT Opposition tonight, because, quite frankly, I found—

David Seymour: The ACT Opposition.

RACHEL BOYACK: The leader of the Opposition is fine by me. Quite frankly, I found it a bizarre speech from the leader of a party that claims to be the party for small business, because there’s a particular part of this law that we’re introducing tonight, which I want to reflect on, that the people in my electorate of Nelson have been calling for. A great proportion of our businesses, our small businesses, work in hospitality, in tourism, and in the accommodation sector. The biggest cost that they have been raising with me as their MP is the cost of rent to keep their businesses running. They have been coming to me, raising this issue, and the Government has responded.

We have responded by introducing law that will change the Property Law Act, and the reason we are doing that, Mr Seymour, is so that we can ensure our small businesses, our hospitality businesses, our accommodation sector businesses, our tourism businesses who face high rental fixed costs can survive. The feedback I’ve had from them today is that they are delighted. They are delighted that they are going to have the opportunity now to actually arrange a fair rent—because it’s what’s stifling their business. We know that in places like Nelson and places like Rotorua and Queenstown, this has been a source of concern and it’s been a source of frustration for me, which I said a couple of weeks ago, that large commercial landlords haven’t been willing in my electorate to negotiate a fair rent so that we can keep our tourism businesses open.

So I am delighted. It is bizarre to hear the ACT Party, which claims to be the party for small business, actually not backing a piece of law that will stop those small businesses from collapsing—because it will. And so on that note, it is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

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

Noes 10

ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 14 October 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

I had hoped that we would not find ourselves back in the position of having to deal with one of these pieces of legislation. The Government has taken the approach right the way through the pandemic that we should only use expedited procedures for emergency provisions as much as is absolutely necessary to deal with the immediate COVID-19 response. So when we passed the two omnibus bills that we’ve previously passed dealing with very similar provisions to this one, we deliberately put in them sunset clauses that meant most of those provisions then expired, even if some of them were desirable for the longer term.

I have taken the view that if there are longer-term changes that should be made, like things like being able to file documents electronically and affix electronic signatures, things that make common sense in the 21st century—if they’re desirable in the longer term, we should bring forward separate legislation that goes through a proper and considered process to make those changes, rather than to rush though changes that are then in place permanently. So we’ve taken the attitude that when we’re doing these types of approaches, we should do them for a specified period of time, and if they should then expire and things should either revert back to the way they were or where there’s a desire to keep them, that we can do that with a proper legislative process that is subject to the regular level of scrutiny.

Many of the measures that we are now re-enacting were going to expire or have expired or weren’t potentially foreseeable as necessary a couple of months ago. The Delta outbreak that we have been dealing with has meant that we do have to bring forward another bill, so there’s been some criticism from the members opposite: why is it that this bill, which has only been introduced this week, is now being progressed in such haste? I’m always open to conversations about progressing legislation through Parliament in haste. It is something that, as Leader of the House, I try to avoid doing. But when it comes to dealing—

Hon Member: Not very hard.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’ve actually used less urgency than most people who have held this role, and, actually, the Government does try and avoid the use of urgency unless there is a very good reason for doing so.

Dealing with this particular Delta outbreak, we do need to provide some of these relatively sensible common-sense measures. For example, the ability for the courts to clear their backlog of cases is dependent on this bill passing its way through the House, and of course we want to be able to do that very quickly. It is important that people do have certainty about knowing what the law is going to be, and so we want to make sure that for those who are currently finding themselves potentially on the wrong side of the legal ledger, we need them to know that we’re fixing that for them so that they can become compliant. So if there are deadlines that they have missed because they’ve been unable to—if they’ve not been able to file the documents or sign the documents that they needed to—because of COVID-19 restrictions, this bill will give them the certainty to know that they will be compliant with the law. So we want to get that in place as quickly as we can.

The last two bills didn’t have any select committee scrutiny. The reason that we’re now having another debate now is that we are sending the bill to select committee, but we’re only doing that for a period of a couple of weeks so that it can be scrutinised. The alternative would be just to pass the whole bill through under urgency, and then we wouldn’t be having this debate that we’re about to have now. Actually, our view is that if we can do a select committee hearing, even if it’s a short one, that’s better than nothing.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That the words in the motion “14 October 2021” be deleted and replaced with “14 November 2021”.

It’s not hyperbole to say that when democracy dies, it dies slowly. It doesn’t generally die by revolution; it dies by the thousands of little cuts into people’s freedoms and the ability to have their say on the place’s and Parliament’s actions and laws. This is an outrageous motion and one which must be strongly rejected by this House. I hear the Minister talking about how reluctant he is to use this power—how reluctant he is, and how reasonable and rare it is. Well, frankly, the words don’t stack up with the reality. We have seen this on far too many occasions. Now, I understand COVID provides a very, very difficult backdrop for policy makers and lawmakers to be able to respond nimbly when the occasion warrants it. All parties in this House have supported urgent legislation in order to give what I think are situational, extraordinary powers, necessary and appropriate but limited in their scope. But to suggest that this Government has used them reasonably and rarely I think really stretches belief.

We have a bill in front of us which is 43 pages long and is going to amend something like 17 pieces of legislation—

Hon Simon Bridges: 17?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —17, Mr Bridges—and we’re going to give the public of New Zealand who are affected by this 16 days, fewer days than the number of Acts we’re actually amending. The Minister says, “Oh, well, we’re going to give ourselves the power to sit when the House is sitting.” The House won’t be sitting; it’s school holidays. Now, that’s no reason for the Finance and Expenditure Committee not to meet, but he’s giving himself powers he doesn’t need, and that’s actually, I think, consistent with the theme of this Government.

Now, let’s go into some of the significant amendments that I think warrant a much, much longer consideration. I am absolutely amazed at the degree to which the Government is prepared to inject itself into the private property rights and contracting obligations through Schedule 5. I think a number of speakers—Mr Seymour, others; Julie Anne Genter, for goodness’ sake, has revealed what an interventionist, socialist party she represents, because this is without doubt a significant incursion into the private contracting rights of individuals. It’s true: COVID has created an enormous amount of tension. My party has advocated for increases in rental supports for commercial rental lessees and lessors who are facing difficulty through these times. That’s a better way to deal with this, and I expect submitters to actually come and tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee just that. But I think we need to hear from legal scholars, from constitutional lawyers, from property lawyers, from property owners, lessees, lessors. And we’re going to do that in 16 days and actually pretend that the committee is able to give itself an ability to say, “We listened carefully, we reacted.”? I find that incongruous and completely implausible in the extreme. It pays lip service to the select committee process, to the parliamentary process, and to democracy itself.

And let’s talk about democracy, because there’s a little thing in here called a local election, and there’re going to be many of them next year, right across the country, unless the Government doesn’t want them. The Government has given itself the power to amend that, notwithstanding—actually, my understanding is that the Electoral Commission already has similar powers, basic powers to suspend elections in an emergency. So I think there are some serious questions about the question of legislative overreach in the amendments to the Local Electoral Act 2001. It’s not just one; they could do a few: “One or more further orders may be made under this section”. Councils, voters, lobby groups will want to come and tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee what it thinks about those changes.

As some colleagues have said, there are some sensible, necessary, appropriate—albeit incredibly late—changes rendering this, effectively, retrospective legislation. Well, if it was that retrospective, one begs the question as to why it’s taken the Government so long to bring this bill to the House and why it thinks it’s appropriate for it to give itself and its officials and the Cabinet weeks, months at least, to prepare this and then give submitters 16 days, and then to look the public in the eye and say that is consistent with good parliamentary process, good democratic process. I, frankly, think that will massively fail any sort of test of consultation and of communication. I don’t know how long—I would like to hear from a member on the other side, if they can explain, how long it’s taken them to prepare this legislation, because, frankly, if it took less than six months, let’s give the public the same respect. Let’s give the public the same amount of time that they would need to give a considered response to what the Government believes is a considered bill.

The Government has thousands of public servants dedicated to building a policy picture and framework that’s informed this bill, amending 17 separate pieces of legislation, and the small industry groups, the Property Council, the people who support open democracy—there’ll be any number of groups. Tenants’ lobby groups support—what are they called?—the tenants’ union, I think. There’s a number—in fact, Ricardo Menéndez March may have been an employee of one of them. They won’t have very much in the way of resources to be able to respond to these changes in a manner that gets them ready to make an intelligent, articulate submission effectively by next week, because that’s when they’ll have to hear them. If there’s more than a handful of submissions, what will the Finance and Expenditure Committee do? It will take them as read and not hear oral submissions, or it will make those oral submissions so short as to render them effectively redundant. That’s the lip service that we’re paying to a process that is changing 17 pieces of legislation.

Nobody who believes in good parliamentary process could possibly support that motion, and so the sensible thing, I think, and the only thing that we can do, is to give them a little more time. My motion has added another month on to the period for consideration.

Hon Simon Bridges: That’s more than reasonable. Should really be longer.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It’s still not long enough—that’s right, Mr Bridges. I agree it should be longer, but we’re trying to find sensible solutions to a situation the Government has found itself in, not of COVID’s making but of its own making. We came out of lockdowns last year, and not a single member of Government went, “Gee, maybe it could happen again.” No, they wanted to call themselves best in class, leaders in the world, front of the queue. They were too busy giving themselves plaudits and congratulations and pats on the back to actually go, “What if this happens again? Have we got the legislative framework we need to be able to respond without that level of urgency?” Nobody asked that question. Well, I’m asking it now, and I think we should take at least 6½ weeks to be able to do that. That is why I have tabled this motion. It’s the least we can do. It will at least give my colleagues, who are actually pretty jaundiced about this bill—and we are supporting it, on a very, very fine basis. Unlikely, if we’re not going to get some decent answers to the questions that we have, to continue to be able to support it, and we’re not going to be able to get those answers if we give just 16 days for the select committee to come back and tell this House what they found. This is an appalling process, and it can’t be supported.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand, somewhat regretfully, in favour of Michael Woodhouse’s amendment. It’s definitely what you call a second-best alternative. He’s saying that a six-and-half-week select committee process might be the best we can get. I think that speaks to the quality of law making and the respect for Parliament that this Government and this Leader of the House really have. When he’s challenged on his respect for Parliament, he says, “Well, other people were worse.” Well, that’s got to be the lowest standard of leadership available—when things aren’t going well, find someone else who has done even worse. It’s hardly inspiring and hardly reassuring from the Leader of the House.

The reason I’m so concerned about this process being shortened by any length, whether it’s to two and a half weeks or to six and a half weeks—and it would probably be more honest to round it six or two; even the half’s not quite there—is that even the Minister himself has admitted in question time today that he hasn’t heard from the people affected. I asked Kris Faafoi, the Minister of Justice, the Minister responsible for Schedule 6, the schedule of this legislation that is being put together by the Ministry of Justice, who he has asked about the commercial tenancy aspects of this legislation. Who did he consult?

You might be able to make the argument that the consultation that took place before the legislation even came to Parliament could maybe make up for the lack of a select committee process. The Government’s made that argument with the counter-terrorism legislation. They said, “Look, we don’t need a full select committee process because we have actually done lots of consultation in the past. So we’re not going to get so much new information from the select committee process.” I think that’s a bogus argument, by the way. I think it is disrespectful to the institution of Parliament to say that just because the Government did its own consultation, Parliament, this House, these MPs, and its committees don’t need to do their own consultation. I think it’s a bogus argument but it’s an argument that could be made—that at least the Government asked people before it introduced the legislation—but, unfortunately, we know that that’s not the case. And here’s Kris Faafoi, only three hours ago, in question time in this House, saying, “I don’t necessarily want to rely on the impacts that the Government may think.”

Now, we’ll pass over various grammatical problems with that sentence, and say that I think what Kris Faafoi was trying to say is that he didn’t think the Government knew everything, because he went on, and his next sentence, which is a little bit better constructed, says, “I’d also be interested in some of those people who might be impacted by this.” Now, I just want to help. I think what Kris Faafoi was trying to say is he was interested in the views of those people. If he was trying to say he’d be interested in those people, as he literally said, then that raises more questions about what sort of interests Kris Faafoi as the Minister of Justice actually had in those people. But let’s assume he was trying to say he’d be interested in what sort of views that people impacted by this legislation might have. Well, you’d think he might have actually gone ahead and asked some of them what would happen to people who were parties to commercial tenancy contracts—how would they be impacted by that?

Well, it turns out that he actually hadn’t really done that. I asked him, and, again, this is only three hours ago, so it’s fresh but it bears repeating: what consultation, if any, and with whom, did the Government take on the commercial tenancy measures announced yesterday? He said that small business owners had talked to him and that they were feeling the impact of the Government’s alert level measures, and he’s absolutely right—they are. But just because people are affected by one thing, doesn’t mean it’s right to punish another group of people. The Minister then said that the Ministry of Justice met with the likes of the New Zealand Law Society and the Auckland District Law Society, and he wasn’t able to say that they had spoken to anybody who was a lessor. So when asked, “Who have you consulted?”, the Minister couldn’t come back and say, “Yes, we’ve spoken to people who are actually the people leasing out their property.” I think that’s a real shame, because we’ve got the Minister saying he’d like to hear other people’s views but also that he hasn’t heard from a whole half of this condition. So he’s talked to the Law Society. He’s talked to the Auckland District Law Society, and I think it’s worth talking to them. He didn’t tell us, by the way, what sort of advice he got. I guess that will have to come out under an Official Information Act (OIA) request.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just want to remind the member what we’re actually debating here.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The comments that he’s making—he needs to relate them to the shortened report-back time, which he hasn’t done yet.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I certainly have done that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you have not done that in the last—

DAVID SEYMOUR: I—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to argue. I’ve made the ruling, so the member should note it and carry on, not comment on the ruling.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, I make no comment on your ruling. I’m simply—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, just answering, it is. So just carry on.

DAVID SEYMOUR: OK, Mr Speaker. The structure of my speech to date has been to point out that the select committee process might be forgiven in its shortness and brevity if the Minister had done a large amount of consultation on the law prior to its introduction to Parliament. I’ve stated that I don’t think that that’s a valid argument, but nevertheless, it’s an argument that might not be made, and so you see, Mr Speaker, the logic here is that I’m commenting on the lack of pre-introduction consultation on the basis that the Government might believe it was a substitute for the length of the select committee process. It’s not especially difficult logic to follow, but I thought I would restate it for you.

The thing is that they haven’t heard from anybody. They’ve talked to these law societies but they haven’t heard what these law societies advised, and I was making the point when you interrupted me, Mr Speaker, that it’s going to take an Official Information Act request or other method to find out what that advice was. Now, Mr Speaker, here you go—the shortness of the consultation by the select committee means we won’t get there, because to get an OIA request, there’s 20 working days—four weeks—and the Government is proposing only two weeks. So, logically, we’re not going to be able to find out what sort of advice was received that the Minister referred to in his answers to questions about the legislation. So I hope this is all making sense to you, Mr Speaker. I certainly think it’s a very important matter.

Now, Mr Speaker, here’s the next thing. This legislation has a huge effect on all of those people from the property side, those people who are lessors. Now, to give a sense of the depth of feeling that will not be properly considered, hasn’t been considered so far because he didn’t say that he’d spoken to the Property Council, and it won’t have time to be considered at a two-week select committee, because they won’t have time to prepare their advice, and if they do that, there won’t be time to submit, and even if they did that, there won’t be time for sober consideration, and even if they did that, there wouldn’t be time for the select committee to draft alternatives.

Property law, especially for a simple electrical engineer like me, is pretty complicated stuff. [Interruption] Scott Simpson’s saying a grammar education doesn’t get you anywhere when it comes to property law. It’s very tough stuff. But here’s what people who are engaged are saying. Leonie Freeman, the chief executive of the Property Council, has said, funnily enough, “It’s a great day to be a lawyer, but a terrible day for property owners and tenants who’ve suddenly had their contracts changed without notice or consultation.” That’s what the Property Council are saying. Are they going to have the technicalities and the details that they’re raising considered during this process? Well, it wasn’t considered during any kind of pre-consultation, and there won’t be time to consider it in the time that remains. She goes on—and I actually know Leonie Freeman; she is a very impressive and smart person—to say, “What the Government fails to realise is that these property owners are the same people who are working hard to keep construction development and housing projects going. They’ve, effectively, dropped a bomb on their most vital industry.” So is this select committee going to be able to consider the flow-on effects from this legislation on housing and construction? Of course they’re not going to have time for that. That’s why this motion must be defeated or at least amended.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s, like David Seymour says, regrettable. It seems to me that we have to be debating this motion advocating for Michael Woodhouse’s proposed amendment to it for more time here. Of course, just very briefly, because I want to get to why more time is required and spend all my time on that, but just to record, of course, for those watching at home, the reason we are able to do this and debate this procedural matter, if you like, about time is because it’s not the usual amount of time. It’s very significantly less: weeks instead of, what is it, Michael Woodhouse? Four months.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Oh, it’s usually six.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It’s usually six months, I should say. So that is why we are in this position, and on that narrow point we are able to make the case for more time than literally just, on the Minister’s say so, submissions being heard if the committee decides to by 14 October.

What Michael Woodhouse has proposed is not another five or so months to give us the normal time frame. So as I think he said himself, he is being very reasonable with this amendment. He’s not going for a longer period; he is simply advocating for about a further month. So instead of 14 October, that would allow due consideration of this bill to 14 November of this year. Not a long time, and actually, frankly, a bit like National’s position on this bill, where we’re supporting, but I think we’ve got very serious concerns, I say I’ve got very serious concerns about Michael Woodhouse’s amendment, because it seems to me, actually, we could, possibly should, be arguing for longer.

Why is more time needed? Well, I’ll give a few brief reasons. Actually, there’s a question of fairness or proportionality. This bill—I know the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I think they used to once be a level under my purview as a leader of this House for a short period of time. It would have taken months to draft. It would have taken months for the instructions and to get all of the offices to say what would be convenient for you to put in this bill, and the Ministry for the Environment came back with their wish list and the Ministry of Social Development came back with theirs—months to draft and—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Only under a National Government.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, under Labour it’s a surprise they actually get anything achieved, frankly, but here they have brought a bill to the House, so we’ll give them that. Months to draft or to come up with, weeks for submissions—that’s a fairness thing to me. That doesn’t seem fair. More than that, it’s just—point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m trying to make some thoughtful points here and I just can’t hear them because the member standing up has his back to us now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Thank you. It’s tradition that, one, members don’t turn their back on the House for any extended time, and, two, having a loud conversation should actually go out into the lobby. I apologise to the member.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The second reason why more time is needed—again, I suppose it’s a fairness point or some would say it’s around an issue that begins with “h” but we don’t use, and that’s this—

David Seymour: Housing.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Housing—well, they don’t mention that word either, David Seymour, but that’s not—I want to stay on the point and purpose of this discussion. They have given themselves—that is the Government of the day and the Hon Chris Hipkins—in haste, powers, and they’re going to go through this hugely truncated process, to use at their leisure. These powers, above and beyond the usual powers that would be in place, are right through into 2022. So, again, I suppose it’s—I mentioned the H word, but it’s another fairness point that I would make here.

David Seymour: Fairness starts with “f”.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, that’s true. But the third and most significant reason I give as to why more time is required is the simple but, I think—and this is a very powerful point around the shared breadth of this bill and the complexity of its component parts. I want to demonstrate that in contribution. On the breadth, I think it’s 17 bills that are amended here, and of course it is an omnibus bill. I’m not challenging that; that’s something that the Government can rightfully do in a bill, but they are—

David Seymour: You learnt that in high school.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I learnt that in high school; it’s something—I don’t know. That’s Climate Change Response Act, Contract and Commercial Law Act, Coroners Act, Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, Criminal Procedure Act, Gambling Act, Land Transport Act, Local Electoral Act, Property Law Act, Rating Valuations Act, and so on and so forth.

David Seymour: What years?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, no, because I’m not filibustering here, Mr Seymour. I’m actually making, I hope, on point points—

David Seymour: Laser.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: With a laser-like focus on the issue.

David Seymour: How many bills?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, no, please, please, please, please, please. I’ve only got four minutes left and I want to use them on the things that matter.

So it’s the breadth of this bill. But allied to that and very much part and parcel—these aren’t simple laws. These aren’t the bee-keepers allowed to bee-keep laws; they are some of the most complex on our statute books.

David Seymour: Has the member talked to the bee-keepers?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, they certainly didn’t consult them in the making of this law, David Seymour, but they are the most complex laws, and I want to demonstrate that with just three of them.

The Climate Change Response Act and the climate change position here: well, what this bill does and why it requires significantly more time is it amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 by extending statutory time frames for key climate change policy decisions. Well, that’s euphemism for putting on hold the ability to do things on what I think is one of the most pressing issues of our time, but what a huge swathe of New Zealanders see as the most complex and biggest issue of our time. Actually, while I’m just on that, think about the people who would have submitted on this. Young people consistently say it’s the most important issue to them. It’s their future; it’s intergenerational. There’s the climate action groups, there’s the various high schools and so on, and that’s before you get to the likes of the significant NGOs and individuals. I have a constituent, Gray Southern, in my electorate who is hugely dedicated to the sole issue of climate change and the international response. He would absolutely make a submission, but if he does, I think the reality is he’s going to get three minutes if he’s lucky, if he’s even heard on this. So that breadth, that complexity, and the significance of that issue means more time is required.

The other example I wanted to use is the local body law and that issue. Well, if climate change is complex and significant, this literally goes to the democracy of New Zealand. And it’s not some minor technical amendment that’s being made. This is the power of the Government of the day to literally delay the elections. If for some reason—it doesn’t actually state the reasons—they don’t want to. They decide “Look, 2022 kinda doesn’t work for us. Tauranga, sorry, you’re not going to have it. We’ll keep Anne Tolley and her band of merry men to do their jobs.”—at $1,800 a day to Anne Tolley, I might add, not that I’m bitter. So just that issue alone would see submissions from the Tauranga Ratepayers’ Alliance, the taxpayers’ unions, just the Tauranga bit, and several others are there as well that would want to be heard.

The final one I want to mention is that very complicated—and I appreciate it’s a point David Seymour spoke about in this contribution—intricate area of law: property law and commercial contracts around landlords and their tenants. And just those words—they are new words, I believe. What is it, “fair proportion” or whatever? They are not words that have ever been used before. And given that there are, in some cases, many millions of dollars involved with commercial landlords and tenants, that should be something they should be able to submit on. It will literally see, one way or the other, millions of dollars of benefit to one side or the other. By the way, it isn’t always the tenant who is the poor one in the relationship. So these are all reasons why a period of a few weeks is not good enough.

We ask, and I agree with Michael Woodhouse wholeheartedly, for another month so this can be done, not properly but just a bit better, actually.

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment, which was going to be moved by me but was actually moved by Michael Woodhouse in the end—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: We’re a team.

CHRIS BISHOP: We are a team here, with a bit of nifty footwork—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It was very deft.

CHRIS BISHOP: It was very deft. Anyway, he moved the amendment.

I want to make two or three points. The first is that an extra month is an eminently reasonable request of the House. It’s eminently reasonable, and when we were drafting the amendment, we had to move quickly because this bill was dropped on us yesterday, and we have to take urgency to introduce it. Totally outrageous, the bill could have been—I don’t really understand, because the bill could have been introduced on a Monday and debated on Thursday, or it could have gone to Cabinet last week and been introduced last week, and then we could do it in normal time, so the Government has made a boo-boo there. But, anyway, when we were quickly moving, I said to Michael and I said to some other colleagues, well, let’s go for a month. Because the Government clearly wants to get it through by Christmas, and there’s some things in the bill which sort of sound reasonable and we do want to invigilate it at the committee a bit, so OK—let’s go for a month. Because two weeks, I think—I hope—if members reflect on it, they will acknowledge that two weeks is just no time. I mean, how can you really get to—this is a massive piece of legislation; it’s just impossible to get to grips with it in two weeks. That’s not reasonable.

So, 14 October is the motion moved by the Minister. It’s been sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and it will have two weeks there. Our position is—not unreasonably, I think—let’s just take the extra month. We can get it through by Christmas. Parliament’s not lifting until, I think, mid-December. I forget the exact date off the top of my head, but normally it’s about the 16th or 17th when we rise and we have the gallery party—that tradition started by Gerry Brownlee has been well-continued by Mr Hipkins, and we thank him for that, belatedly. So we can get it through by Christmas, but an extra month is pretty reasonable. And I know the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s got a lot on, and Duncan Webb runs a tight ship, I’m told—he’s a bit of a hard taskmaster, he’s got them meeting during the recess weeks, which, to be fair, not all committees do. They’re meeting during the recess, they’ve got the Zoom now, and he’s making good use of the functionality, and my colleagues on the committee, Michael Woodhouse and Nicola Willis, have mentioned to me before, there’s others that have told me he runs a good ship, and so I’m sure he’ll do a good job. We’re just saying, take the extra month. So I just think, as a matter of principle, that’s a good thing.

Then I want to come to, specifically—I’ve got to stop saying that word, specifically—some of the things that I think people will want to get into that justify the extra time. The first is the area I talked about in my contribution on the bill, which is the local electoral changes. Now, I have put up on Facebook the powers that the Government wants to give itself. Man, you would not believe the response—it is unbelievable. People are asking the question in the comments on Facebook—and on Twitter, to be fair; I don’t spend a lot of time on Twitter, probably spend too much time as it is. But people are asking “why?” Why does the Government want to give itself the power to delay the election without limit, on a six-weekly basis, all the way through 2023? Now, I could understand 2022—because that’s local body election year and the very difficult circumstance of level 4, maybe there’s an argument that you can’t even do a postal ballot, although I’ll come back to that. I think that even that argument’s erroneous, frankly—maybe, but 2023? Are we seriously saying that the Government can arrogate to itself the power to delay the local body elections on a six-weekly rolling basis for over a year? I just do not understand the justification for that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How does COVID get in the way of a postal vote?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well that’s a really good point, Michael Woodhouse. It’s an extremely good point. How does COVID get in the way of a postal ballot? We don’t have polling day any more in local body elections. Some people think we should go back to polling day for local body elections. To be honest, I’m actually one of them. I think that would actually raise the turnout rate. We went away from them on the basis that it would raise turnout. It did momentarily but now the numbers are way back below what they were, so I think we should go back to polling day, but that’s beside the point. Some people think we should, but the point is we don’t, and we’re not going to any time soon. The Justice Committee’s doing their inquiry. I think they actually recommended in the last triennial review that we should go back to polling day—it was certainly discussed.

But the point is, it’s a postal ballot. And are we seriously saying that things are going to get so bad next year—I mean, what does the Government know that they’re not telling us? Are we seriously going to say that things are going to get so bad in 2022 that the Government wants the power to, on a rolling basis—just to be clear, the existing law says the Governor-General, which is essentially the Cabinet, can delay a local body election, polling day, or nominations day, for six weeks, and they can do that once. OK? That’s probably about right, probably about the right balance, because you may have circumstances. But on a rolling basis, all the way into the year after an election, is just ridiculous. I’m sorry, it’s just ridiculous. I’m telling you now, people are going to link—and they already have—they are going to link this power to three waters. And the other thing they’re going to link it to is the Māori ward decision that was made earlier in Parliament this year.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those points might be correct, however the member needs to argue them in the context of a shortened report back time, which he’s failed to do in the last couple of minutes.

CHRIS BISHOP: So the point I’m making, sir, is that there’s going to be widespread angst about this. I just indicated some of the social media angst you’re seeing already. There is going to be widespread angst about that, and what that indicates is that there’s going to be a lot of people going to want to make submissions. I predict—I’m going to say this right now—the select committee will be inundated with submissions in the next two weeks as the committee considers this bill, and they’re not going to be able to get to them. That is precisely the reason why the House should vote in favour of the motion moved by Mr Woodhouse to give the committee extra time. Just a month. Frankly, even with the extra month—if we go through to 14 November—even then I’m not sure the committee would get through all the submissions which are going to want to consider the issue of the local body election issue in the bill.

The other issue that the committee really needs to take its time over, that justifies the extra time to get advice from the officials, is the issue raised by Mr Seymour and also other colleagues in relation to the Property Law Act changes. Let’s be very clear. This is quite nitty-gritty stuff. This is very tricky. Now, when I was at law school, I did not enjoy property law, and the reason I didn’t enjoy property law is because it is very complex. I was all about the public law, arguing about rights, and all that sort of stuff—that’s for me; it’s probably why I ended up in Parliament. But property law is very complex. Land law, the rights of tenants, commercial tenancies, covenants, all the stuff that I thought I’d forgotten that I haven’t. All of that stuff matters, and you’ve got to get it right. And this is retrospective legislation. That’s the other point. I’m telling you now, there are going to be potentially learned law professors and other scholars who are interested in this stuff who are going to turn up and castigate the Government for the retrospective nature of the legislation.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: If they have the chance.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s right, if they have the chance. People are not going to be happy about this. Parliament does not retrospectively legislate very often, and we only do so normally with a very good reason. The Government, frankly, so far has not—to be honest, I don’t think—pointed out a very good reason for the retrospectivity, and so people are going to be upset about that. So there’s going to be submissions. So, firstly, there’s going to be a lot of submissions on that point, just as a matter of principle, and then, secondly, you’re going to get the Property Council—I understand that they have some concerns around some aspects of it. The Property Council were going to submit, small businesses are going to submit; there’s an argument for some of the things the Government is doing. You’re going to see a bit of debate either way. That’s the point of the committee process. You go through the debates, you hear the submissions, and the committee comes to a determination as to which way it wants to go. That’s all fine, but the point is you can only do that on a committee if the committee can do its job. And 14 October is not anywhere near enough time.

And I have not even mentioned the rest of the bill. There’s 17 bills here. I mean, the Climate Change Response Act delay, in itself, is actually quite massive. I haven’t even mentioned that. I mean, that’s the issue—

Hon Simon Bridges: Jacinda Ardern says it’s the biggest issue there is.

CHRIS BISHOP: That’s right, Simon Bridges says it’s the biggest issue—you know, the nuclear free, might be the third generation. Well, there’s a delay to various aspects of it discussed by the Hon Scott Simpson. I haven’t even mentioned that yet, and I’m telling you now there are going to be some people out there—I’m thinking of Russel Norman from Greenpeace, and others—

Hon Simon Bridges: He’ll be scathing.

CHRIS BISHOP: He’s going to be scathing, I mean he’s never happy about anything, but he’s going to be very unhappy about this. He’s going to turn up and want to submit as well, and he’ll probably make a very lengthy submission—and I welcome that, good on him, that’s his right—and the committee’s going to have to go through that. Is it a good idea or not? The point is, the committee’s going to need more time than the bare 14 days. We’re not being unreasonable here. Just give ourselves the extra month, let the committee do its job, and consider it properly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. This debate is interrupted for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the referral motion for the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

SPEAKER: I have no problem with taking this motion. I have watched the last couple of speeches and I’m convinced that the issues have been dealt with. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

MAUREEN PUGH (Junior Whip—National): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: A point of order?

MAUREEN PUGH: Yes, please.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, this is going to be interesting.

MAUREEN PUGH: Well, there are 17 pieces of legislation that affect several spokespeople—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s not arguing with me, is she? You’re not suggesting that I reverse my call when I ask that the motion be put? That is—if the member was more experienced, I’d be convinced that she was grossly disorderly, and the result of that is to go.

Maureen Pugh: Can I seek your advice?

SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to risk having an early night, take another point of order. If it is out of order, the member will have an early night. I don’t know if that’s regarded as a reward or a punishment at the moment.

MAUREEN PUGH (Junior Whip—National): So, Mr Speaker, I just don’t know where, then, I would sit a point of order or where I would put a point of order if you’ve already put the motion. So how do I get a chance to put my point of order if you’re putting the motion?

SPEAKER: Well, the—it’s after dinner and I’m going to be reasonable, because the member did actually do exactly what I asked her not to do. There is no point of order that a member can take to debate whether the Speaker is going to put a closure motion. There is no point of order whatsoever.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion is agreed to.

Hon Member: No, there’s an amendment.

SPEAKER: Sorry? Oh, sorry. I apologise. There is an amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the words in the motion “14 October 2021” be deleted and replaced with “14 November 2021”.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 14 October 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for:

the first reading and referral to select committee of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2), and any instruction to the committee;

the third readings of:

the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill and

the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill;

the first readings and referral to select committees of:

the Civil Aviation Bill

the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill and

the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill; and

the committee stage of:

the Financial Sector (Climate-related Disclosures and Other Matters) Amendment Bill; and

the second readings of:

the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill

the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill

the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill

and the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I present a legislative statement on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2).

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2021, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The COVID-19 Public Health Response Act, first drafted in April 2020, is a very significant piece of legislation in our COVID-19 response. At the time that particular Act was put into place, we did not know how long we would be dealing with the pandemic, and there were a lot of things that we didn’t still know—at that point—about the pandemic. As the year has evolved—or the year and a bit—since that was passed, we have, of course, found out a lot more about COVID-19, about the sorts of measures that we need to take in order to be able to respond to it, the sorts of risks that we are dealing with, and the sorts of measures that we might need to have in place to be successful in our future response to COVID-19.

It is fair to say, as we head towards a more highly vaccinated population, that we are entering a new phase in our COVID-19 response. Some of the tools that we need in that new phase are going to be different to some of the tools that we needed previously. The stakes will also be quite high, though, for decisions that are taken not just by Government but by individuals.

So if I highlight one of the aspects of this bill, in particular, the increase in fees and infringements for those who break rules. At the moment, the consequences for someone who knowingly breaks the rules, it can be relatively trivial, yet the consequences of that decision can be very, very high. For example, what we call the border averters: someone who—as part of the trans-Tasman travel arrangement—travelled from a place where they were not allowed to travel to New Zealand to a place that did have travel to New Zealand, in order to get around border restrictions, and brought COVID-19 into the country with them would be subject to a relatively insignificant fine in relation to the overall cost of what they had done. So this bill provides the opportunity to increase those infringements and those fines for that type of activity, more in keeping with the scale of the potential offending that could be taking place.

It still reserves the ability to impose a fee at a lower level than having to through the courts to impose a fine at a higher level, but even then, the fee itself is increased; the ability to impose a fee of up to $300, as it was under the current legislation—which I think most members of the House would agree is a relatively small amount of money, given the potential severity of some of the things we’re talking about—that increases to $4,000, and again, I want to note that that’s in keeping with the potential severity and the potential consequences of people knowingly breaking the rules.

There are a number of other provisions in the bill that draw on the lessons that we have learnt from our response. The current outbreak that we’re dealing with is a reminder of the significant social and economic impacts that COVID-19 can have on New Zealand and the strain that it can place on our health system, the potential consequences of not being able to stamp out cases where they emerge, and not being able to continue to suppress the virus.

So to run through a few of the key provisions in the bill, it does extend the term of the Act from May 2022 to May 2023. At the moment, I think it is likely that we will need to be able to use the provisions in this legislation beyond the middle of next year, and so therefore, we’re extending the time frame for it. I’ve been on record many, many times in this House already, saying that I think that the New Zealand Parliament should only have on the statute book a piece of legislation of this nature for as long as is absolutely necessary. That is why we’re only extending for one further year, at this point, because I think it should be subject to regular review. I’d also point out that we are continuing the requirement for it to be regularly confirmed by Parliament—this piece of legislation. So the Parliament will continue to have opportunities to debate and to hold the Government to account on its use of what are extraordinary powers, and I don’t underestimate that.

The bill will help to futureproof the legislation, making changes that are necessary today, by ensuring that we’ve got sufficient flexibility to adapt to the ever-changing environment that we face. The primary Act enables the Minister to make orders to aid in the dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, including, for example, the ability to impose alert level restrictions. The alert level framework itself does not exist in law; the alert level framework is a guide that is set up by the Government that guides the decisions that we take in issuing orders under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act.

So whenever we make an alert level decision—people might be interested to know this particular piece of the process—Cabinet will agree to the parameters of whatever the alert level decision is. There’s typically then a notice period, depending on what the nature of the change is. Before that comes into force, Parliamentary Counsel Office will draft the legal instrument to give effect to those decisions. That then comes to me to read, to scrutinise, to sign; once I’ve signed it, it’s then gazetted, and at that point it becomes a legally enforceable order. Those orders are often arriving quite late in the piece. So when we bring areas either up or down the alert levels, often, we might be giving a period of—if we’re going up the alert levels, less than 24 hours, and the order sometimes is arriving not long before midnight, to take effect at 11.59 p.m. So the turnaround time frames are quite brief. That is one of the reasons why we do sometimes see that there’s a need to amend the orders that are put in place, because they are often put together very quickly, and while the Parliamentary Counsel Office do have a series of templates that they have worked up, there is a need in order for us to continue to adapt and evolve those.

This bill includes improved flexibility for the making of COVID-19 orders; the effective management of the laboratory testing regime and systems; the strengthening of the infringement regime, which I’ve already referred to; improved delegated decision-making—there are issues and there have been issues highlighted, in part, by the Regulations Review Committee, sometimes, about some of the things that I have delegated under the Act, where the Regulations Review Committee have argued that it could be inconsistent with the way the delegation framework in the Act operates, and so we’ve taken that on board and tried to fix those and amend those. Most of the delegations are pragmatic ones to allow decisions to be taken faster, where they concern individual people without them having to go through a ministerial decision-making process. But we want to make sure that that is transparent and that that is tidy, and so we’ve made some changes there. Some further changes to support the effective operation of our existing managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities, and some other technical amendment.

The specific legislative provisions for the operation of managed isolation and quarantine facilities—I just want to talk about those briefly. MIQ had been up and running for about five weeks at the time the primary Act was put in place, and things have changed quite a lot since then. So a number of the policies included in this bill, particularly those related to MIQ facilities, have been enabled already through COVID-19 orders, but are more appropriately put in place through primary legislation, and so that is what we’re endeavouring to do in this legislation.

I only have a few minutes left, so I won’t go through all of the other provisions of the bill in great detail, but what I will say is that, yes, we are intending to introduce this legislation and have it passed as quickly as we possibly can. That means that, again, this is a bill that is subject to a shortened select committee timetable—although I notice the select committee timetable that the members opposite were proposing for the last bill that the House just dealt with—but it is important that we have this in place. Particularly as we start to make changes at the border, it’s important that we have the new infringement regime up and running and enacted into law, because the consequences of people not following the rules, as we look to make changes at the border, are very significant, and there should be penalties for those who knowingly and deliberately break the rules.

So I do look forward to engaging with the select committee on what will be quite a tight time frame. I am sure that they will hear from members of the public on this bill. It will be a truncated process, but I look forward to continuing the debate when the bill returns to the House in November.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to signal that the National Party appreciates the reasons for the bill, but we will oppose this legislation, and there are a few reasons for that. That’s not to say that there’s not some useful things in the bill. There are—it’s definitely true—and there are, particularly, improvements to the rule of law, actually, because, as the Minister has highlighted, some of the operational protocols of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), as the legislative framework document prepared by the ministry notes, create a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability, and this produces benefits.

But the reason we will oppose it is primarily one of philosophy and principle, which is that the bill locks in the status quo, which is a highly restrictive regime in which New Zealand is locked away in splendid isolation at the bottom of the world. Some have called it the hermit kingdom, metaphorically, I think—although various commentators actually regard it as a literal description; I think it was a metaphor—but splendid isolation is not something we can continue for ever.

I want to signal up front that the Opposition has concerns around the time frame in relation to the bill. This is a bill that the Minister should have introduced earlier than now. I think I know what happened in the Cabinet Office legislative drafting process, which is the Minister, quite rightly, said, probably, earlier this year, “We’re going to have to update the Act because there’s a variety of sensible and useful amendments we need to do.”, and then all the agencies involved in the COVID response—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the Ministry of Defence, and everyone—all inputted into the process. Then every time they thought they’d sort of finalised a draft, somebody would say something like “Oh, what about this? We just need to add a little bit extra.”, and the time lines kept getting pushed out, and so we’ve ended up with quite a chunky piece of legislation.

Maybe you can make an argument that that was the right thing to do, but I think it would have been better to have seen it earlier, because the committee is going to have quite a compressed time frame. I think the Minister signalled a flag for 11 November, and the Health Committee chair here, Dr Craig—she knows we’re a pretty busy committee. We really are—we’ve got a lot on. We’ve managed to send the abortion safe areas bill back to the House, or we soon will, but we’re a pretty busy committee. So it’s going to be tight. It’s going to be tight, but we will get on with it because we’re a hard-working committee.

Some of the amendments in the bill are very sensible. I’ve already signalled some of the clarity around the operational practice of MIQ. That’s a good thing to put that into primary legislation, because if you actually read between the lines of the officials’ advice, it’s been a bit unclear the legal basis of some of what’s been going on in MIQ. I don’t make a big deal about that, but I’d just note that, because we had to stand it up really quickly, and everyone acknowledges that we do need MIQ. But it’s better to have that stuff as clear law.

I think one area the committee is going to want to get into is the issue of fines. Now, the Minister made a bit of a song and a dance in the media around saying he’s massively increasing the fines. It’s really interesting to read the regulatory impact statement (RIS) because it goes through, quite rightly, the range of options the Government considered to increase the maximum penalties, and I think everyone acknowledges that the penalties should be higher than what they are.

The officials recommended a 25 percent increase, so an infringement fee of $1,250 and a court-imposed fine of $3,750—that was option A—and they said that anything else would have “equity, proportionality, and consistency implications,”. Option C was 100 percent higher than the level in the bill, which is an infringement fee of $2,000 and a court-imposed fine of $6,000. It notes here, “The Minister’s decision to propose an increase in penalties beyond what is set out in the draft bill was not the preferred option recommended by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.”, and so what they’ve actually gone for is $4,000. It’s currently $300. The draft bill that was produced proposed increasing it to $1,000, and now we’ve ended up with $4,000. So this is a real increase in fines, and it may well be warranted. But it’s really interesting that it’s gone well beyond what the officials recommended was proportionate and equitable, and I think that is an area we’re going to want to get into at the select committee.

I mean, I’m all in favour of tough penalties for MIQ rule breaches. I mean, we’ve been on the record saying that—absolutely. But let’s get into exactly the reason for why they’re so vast and why there are proportionality implications.

The other really interesting thing just in relation the operation of MIQ is this little nugget, which I notice the Minister didn’t mention, which is the bill will allow—in fact, the bill will propose a requirement in the Act—for people undertaking MIQ to provide MBIE with contact information so that MBIE will be able to contact them once they’ve left MIQ for invoicing purposes. Now, what does that say? I think what it says, in the very austere language of the officials, is that up till now, or up till the bill passes, which will be some point later on in this calendar year—up until that point, officials haven’t had the ability to require people to supply their contact information. Because of that, they haven’t been able to invoice, and now I know why there’s $25 million, at last count, of MIQ fees that are outstanding.

Now, the Minister keeps saying, “Oh, the IT system’s problematic and we’ve had to have all these different databases and they have to correlate, and MBIE does one thing and Health does another thing and the exemptions are really hard.” There’s been a variety of different excuses given over the months as the overdue numbers keep racking up, but, actually, it turns out, when you read the RIS, it turns out that the major reason is that no one has been actually asking on a legal basis for the names and email addresses for people in MIQ so that we can send them an invoice. I don’t know if people have wised up to this, but it may well be that people just have not bothered to do it and because there’s no legal requirement to do it, there’s no ability to follow up, so, presumably, people have just been not supplying their names and email addresses and not supplying their addresses, and you can’t invoice people.

So that explains why the millions of dollars that people who have gone through MIQ owe to the New Zealand taxpayer have not been paid. The last time I looked, which was, to be fair, a couple of weeks ago, it was up over the $20 million mark, and there are people who have stayed in MIQ in August last year—August 2020; so a year ago—and who owe money to the Crown who haven’t paid.

Now, the amounts are 2,000 bucks, or something, for the August amount, and I’m not saying that the Crown should go after them, because they’d spend $2,000 drafting up the enforcement action to go after them. So that would be a waste of money, and I’m a fiscally prudent guy. I don’t want to waste Crown money, but when you’re talking about $25 million, then we’d get the debt collectors in, and one thing we will be interested to do is to see whether or not the bill allows for that to happen, because every now and then, when there’s a media story around the debt owed to the Crown, the Minister says, “Oh, we’re going to get tough.”, etc., etc. There’s been talk of debt collectors—and, in fact, I think even the Prime Minister said they were going to use debt collectors—and we’ll wait and see whether or not the bill that we’re passing allows for that to happen. So let’s wait and see.

The other couple of things I wanted to mention were what’s not in the bill, and that goes back to where I started, which is the philosophy behind it—so rapid testing, for example. In a world in which New Zealand begins to open, we’re going to need rapid testing, and I know the Government has got the technical group looking at it, but I think it’s tolerably clear that we’re going to need some form of rapid antigen tests in a new world in 2022, when the borders begin to reopen, because let’s remember that that’s ostensibly Government policy as well. The Government wants to reopen the borders as well, so with all the heat and light about National’s plan to gradually, very safely allow double-vaccinated travellers to come back—you know, all the heat and light today of “National wants to kill people!”—it’s actually Government policy to reopen the borders. Let’s not forget that, and that means COVID in the community, so let’s remember that. We are going to need rapid testing.

One good use of it right now would be at the Auckland level 3 boundary, and, look, it’s just ludicrous. These truckies are coming and going once a week, they get tested once a week, they could have COVID for six days in the meantime and spread it to literally thousands of people, and no one would know until they do a nasal test. So we should be doing rapid testing, and I accept that they’re not as accurate as the nasal test, of course. But when you do it on a daily basis, as Shaun Hendy and various other experts say, that makes up for it. So the bill says nothing about that. We should legalise them.

Through primary legislation, the bill should legalise rapid testing. It’s currently banned by dint of an order pursuant to the current Act. The bill should legalise it.

The second thing is that the bill should make provision for purpose-built managed isolation and quarantine. That’s been something that we’ve been talking about for a long time, and that goes to the philosophy underlying the bill.

So there are some good things in it. There are some good things in it, and we’ll consider it with due alacrity at the Health Committee, but we object to the time frame and we object to the philosophy. Thank you.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So just looking back to when all of us rapidly entered alert level 4 early last year, I think none of us knew what to expect, and yet when you actually look at what happened in the months that have followed, we’ve been incredibly successful at preventing the spread of COVID-19. I think a lot of that is due to the fact that we had a really good, consistent framework—a framework that included our very clear four-level alert level system, which we’ve all become incredibly familiar with—and also just very clear requirements about entering managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for anybody coming into New Zealand. Underpinning all of that has been the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. That Act has worked by allowing for the creation of orders which then result in the development of many of our public health responses that have influenced so much of our day-to-day life over the past few months.

I think the issue we’ve got is one of things this bill does is extends the life of that bill, because that bill is due to be repealed in May 2020, and so what this bill is going to be doing is extending that out till May 2023. As the Minister has already mentioned, there is a range of other things that this bill is going to be doing in terms of increasing some of the fines and fees relating to offences and non-compliance with these orders, also looking at a whole lot of changes around MIQ. So there is a range of things that this bill does, but the bottom line is it is going to make sure that we can continue to have an effective COVID-19 response into the future. So I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): The thing with this bill is—

SPEAKER: You’re allowed to take the mask off to speak, if you wish.

NICOLA WILLIS: Thank you. I will take up that opportunity. The thing with this bill is that it is a public health bill which corrects a number of measures that were put in place a year ago, when we first started responding to COVID-19. The question I think we all have to ask ourselves is: why is it now, within the heightened alert levels, that the Government’s finally getting around to doing the tidying up that, presumably, it could have done some months ago? Because a number of these measures relate to measures in the earlier bill that have been found to be inadequate, that have been found in practice to require tightening, or they are additional measures which the Government believes are needed to strengthen its response to COVID-19. And here we are, several weeks into a lockdown, and the Government is only now tidying things up.

National’s view is that, actually, a good Government that is genuinely dedicated to maximising its COVID-19 response would have come up with these sorts of proposals not in the heat of lockdown, but would have done it in an orderly fashion at an earlier date. The problem with the approach that the Government has taken here, in which it’s only now introducing these measures, is that it does mean that people will scrutinise and be sceptical about the rights that are being stepped on, because you do have to say to yourself, we do have to say, “Well, how long is it that the Government expects to have to use Draconian powers for?”

We are all, I believe, in this House, very hopeful that it is quite within New Zealand’s capabilities to vaccinate more of our population. In fact, here on this side of the House, we think that, actually, that opportunity should have been made available to more New Zealanders many months ago. As the Prime Minister and the Minister for COVID-19 Response have told us, when vaccination comes, we won’t have the need for these restricted freedoms any more; we won’t have the need for Draconian measures anymore. That need will phase out, if only we get our vaccination high enough. So in many ways this is a pessimistic bill we are debating, because what it says is, actually, we need to have even more measures for the future, we need to tidy up what we’ve done in the past because who knows how long the Government might need to resort to this sort of thing for. I am disappointed that we are not in a position where, in fact, this Parliament can be debating measures that show more freedom for New Zealanders rather than less.

Section 3 of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act concerns the repeal. Currently, the Act is repealed in May 2021, if not repealed sooner, and clause 4 of the bill extends that sunset provision to 13 May 2023. And there’s something interesting in that, isn’t it? Because what it tells you is when we first used these sorts of measures in 2020, when we first as a Parliament debated putting in place these sorts of things, Parliament’s view and the Minister for COVID-19 Response’s view at the time, when he introduced the legislation, was that that Act should only be in force until 2021—so quite a short period of time. But now, here we are 18 months later, and the Minister takes a more pessimistic view about how long this legislation may be needed for: out to 13 May 2023, a much longer period of time.

I may be wrong to read between the lines and read into that repeal a pessimism from the Government, but I would invite speakers opposite to explain to me why we need legislation of this sort in place until 13 May 2023. Because, surely, by then, New Zealand will have vaccinated enough New Zealanders and will have ensured that we have enough public health measures in place, we have strong enough ICU capacity, we have enough trained health professionals, we have good enough contact tracing, we have world-class testing. And so we won’t need the sorts of Draconian provisions relating to mandatory isolation, mandatory quarantine, and lockdowns that this bill provides for. I think that that is something very important for members to consider in the debating of this legislation.

I want also to highlight the issue that my colleague Chris Bishop talked about in relation to managed isolation and quarantine being able to get people’s contact details in order to invoice them. I would say that this is a classic case of where the practical hasn’t necessarily been thought of, because, actually, that should have been in place some time ago. Why are we only now getting to that?

The bill, of course, also increases the offences and infringement offences for people who intentionally fail to comply with COVID-19 orders, which I think is just a reminder to all of us how serious the measures are in here: that we are, in fact, ensuring that people who don’t comply with State restrictions are liable for significant fines. It also creates offences relating to the exercise of enforcement powers, so that offences relating to the exercise of enforcement powers—in section 27 of the principal Act, “A person commits an offence if the person obstructs or intentionally threatens, assaults, or hinders an enforcement officer”. Again, I look at that and I think to myself, “Well, shouldn’t that have been the case already? Why are we only now working this out?”

So, in short, National is very concerned that this bill speaks to a pessimism on the Government benches about the ability of the Government to manage COVID-19 in a way that means that we don’t need significant restrictions and Draconian public health measures into the future, that they envisage a future till 2023 in which the sorts of lockdowns and restrictions that New Zealanders have been experiencing will be perpetuated. We put to this House that, actually, this sort of legislation is very serious. It should be as time-limited as possible; actually, it should be put in place thoughtfully, in a timely fashion, not just in the middle of a lockdown. We also are of the view that it would be very good if the members opposite could put as much energy into actually getting vaccinations up and to ensuring that we are making sure we had the best testing regime, the best contact tracing in the world. We’ve had many months to do that, but, actually, in the months ahead, we should be more focused on that than on Draconian measures. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure of mine to speak today on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to start by thanking and congratulating this Government for, first of all, setting up a Minister for COVID-19. It is unprecedented to have a Minister responsible for a pandemic. Not a lot of countries have done something like this. And I want to thank the Minister for his COVID response in the last two years. I say this not only as a citizen of New Zealand, where I haven’t been infected by COVID, but also as a front-line healthcare worker when I was swabbing patients last year. I say this as a member of Parliament for 64,000 people in my electorate, and I say this as a member of the Health Committee, which this bill will go through.

Looking back at all the bills that have come through this Parliament over the last few years, I would say this has been one of the most significant to come through the Parliament. What’s happened now is, based on the feedback that has been received by the Government on the ground, there have been certain changes that have been made in this No. 2 bill. That’s what this Government is all about—listening to the people and reacting, compared to the Opposition where I can’t tell what their idea is because they’re saying the bill’s too late coming in, yet they don’t want to support it. If anything, I would have thought it would have helped to keep the bill deferred for a few more weeks because by that time the Leader of the Opposition might have changed and they might have a new strategy on this.

Somebody from the Opposition just talked about how a good Government would have had a bill like this earlier on. Well, you’ve just released your policy on vaccination—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I haven’t released any policies.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA: Sorry—I mean the Opposition. So I would like to say this is one of the most important bills to come through the House and the changes in the No. 2 bill only build up on the first bill which was a great piece of legislation needed to keep this country safe, and I would like to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party has largely supported the Government’s response to COVID-19, and I just want to again acknowledge how incredibly successful it has been—and all of the different public servants who’ve been working so hard, particularly in recent weeks, people working in regional public health who’ve had to do all the contact tracing, which has been incredibly difficult given the surge in cases and some of the complications around the cases. So I know this response has taken a huge effort, not just the Ministers and the Government officials that we see but also hundreds if not thousands of people behind the scenes working, the front-line workers.

It’s interesting, the debate in recent weeks where there are some prominent media commentators who’ve been arguing that we cannot continue like this, that somehow New Zealand’s out of step with the rest of the world, where, when we look at the other countries they’re talking about, you know, “It’s opening up”. That just means living at a kind of level 2 that has much greater restrictions than the vast majority of New Zealand has had for over the past year. We’ve had far more freedom because of the approach that we’ve taken to eliminate COVID-19 in the community.

That’s why the Green Party continues to support that approach that the Government has outlined, and then, even when we have a high percentage of people over the age of 12 vaccinated, that leaves a substantial portion of our citizens still unable to be vaccinated and still at risk of the virus. Personally, I think that we need to, at every step of the way, be considering how this affects the most vulnerable in our society, because, ultimately, that affects our entire society and that affects all of us. Just like early on last year, it was argued that somehow this lockdown was going to be bad for the economy. What it showed was taking a swift approach, taking an elimination approach actually was better for people’s ability to trade once we were able to eliminate COVID-19 in the community.

So this bill amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, which was passed in May 2020. The amendments largely make sense and we are supportive of them. We are only supporting this bill to select committee, because we have one significant concern, which I will come to. I realise that it’s not just a concern in this bill; it’s a concern with infringement fees generally and how they affect people quite differently based on people’s financial means. But I would like to just note that the delegation of roading enforcement powers to Māori and Pasifika wardens and iwi nominees is a positive step, very consistent with our previous Green Party support for iwi checkpoints. But the increase in infringement fees raises a concern, whether it’s to do with COVID-19 infringements or traffic infringements, or other types of infringements.

I completely understand the desire to have an infringement regime, to not always have to pursue everything through the courts-based system, but, unfortunately, financial inequality, income inequality, wealth inequality are quite significant in Aotearoa New Zealand, as much as we would like it not to be the case, and there are a whole number of policies that we could pursue to have a more equal society, which would be better for all of us. But the state that we’re in right now is that for some people a $100 infringement fine is catastrophic for them. And then there’s other people for whom a $10,000 fine would be nothing at all—you know, people who have tens of millions in wealth who really, for them, they could take a calculated risk and think, “Oh, if I have to pay an infringement fee, it’s worth it, because I really want to go to Wānaka to go skiing.”, or whatever it is. There are people of enormous financial means in this country and, for them, an infringement fee of hundreds of dollars means nothing at all.

So this was something that actually I found quite challenging when I was associate transport Minister, because I totally understood the desire to increase penalties for things like driving while using a cellphone, which pretty much one out of three drivers is doing at any point, especially at peak-hour traffic in the middle of the city, which is incredibly dangerous and potentially life-threatening to people outside the vehicle. But on the other hand, it’s simply not fair and can exacerbate inequality to simply put up infringement fines.

There are other jurisdictions that take an approach to infringement fees that it’s a percentage of your income or they use a proportional approach that makes it more fair so that it genuinely is an appropriate deterrent for people, no matter what their income or level of wealth. I think that is something that we really should be pursuing. I don’t think there’s any branch of Government that has got the capacity to take this on; that’s a different problem.

I note that when we often hear criticism of the Government’s COVID-19 response or their response on housing and other things, Opposition parties like National and ACT blame Government inability or lack of capacity, which is absolutely due to philosophical political choices made by National Governments—and sometimes in conjunction with ACT—to underfund and undermine the Public Service, because they don’t believe in Government. In the case of a global pandemic, it absolutely proves the need for a really well-resourced public health system. Even today, when people were talking about ICU capacity, yeah, we absolutely need additional ICU capacity—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I—

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and that could be part of this bill.

SPEAKER: It’s not, and I think I was a little bit liberal earlier with Mr Bishop in letting people discuss things which were not in the bill and maybe should have been. In the second reading you can do that; you can do it in passing. But it’s been a while since the member’s been focused on the specifics of this bill rather than general issues related to it, or matters to do with COVID that are not in the bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, most of what I’ve been talking about, Mr Speaker, was in fact the proposal to—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. When I’ve ruled, you don’t tell me why I’m wrong. All right? You just get on with debating.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We have significant concerns about the infringement fees. And if other parties in this House would like to see increased ICU capacity, they would probably have to support increased taxation, which would help pay for a public health system that would actually respond to having more COVID in the community.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). This is a bill that refines and extends the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. That is the law passed by this Parliament, I think it was last May, or maybe a little later in the year that allows the Government to do things like set alert level restrictions. It allows the Government to require people to be tested at borders, it allows people to be fined, it allows the Government to operate managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), and a range of other policies that it’s put in place as part of the COVID response to date. The reason that we oppose it is that at this point, 18 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, you would hope that the Government would have a bit more ambition than continuing the status quo. It’s a status quo that can best be described as a policy of eradication of COVID-19 by lockdown, with the dividends of being able to enjoy relative freedom with our oceans protecting us and allowing there to be no COVID-19 in New Zealand. There’s only a couple of problems with that strategy, and those are the reasons why we oppose this bill extending the length of the status quo.

The first problem with that strategy is that it requires New Zealand to be almost completely isolated. The restrictions on entering New Zealand, the requirements to have managed isolation and quarantine, have meant a 99 percent reduction in the number of people that come through the New Zealand border at airports and seaports. In normal times it’s about 20,000 people each and every day. MIQ, when you average it out, barely manages to process 200 people a day—that’s about 3,000 spots, 14 days of stay, gets you a bit over 200 people.

Now, that reduction in people entering New Zealand is something that cannot be sustained. In so many ways it is dividing families. It is preventing people coming home to say goodbye to dying loved ones. It exposes us to what has been termed “the hunger games”, where 26,000 people try to get in an electronic queue for 3,000 MIQ spots. It means people who need to renew and build additional commercial relationships by meeting people offshore don’t have the possibility of doing that. It means that our industries that depend on people coming—I mean, forget tourism, even just something as simple as export education—are unable to function. Those are the costs of a status quo that relies upon New Zealand’s isolation from the rest of the world.

But then there’s the strategy of using lockdowns. Lockdowns have been effective in an Alpha variant environment. New Zealand managed to eradicate COVID-19 from its shores, actually have no COVID in the country, three times: first in February of last year; again in August of last year; and then with a Valentine’s outbreak again in February of this year. But things have changed and that’s why it is wrong to have this bill that continues the same strategy, not just into 2022 but into 2023. What’s changed is that against a Delta variant we see a long tail of infections that have kept Auckland locked down now for seven weeks and counting. With 45 cases on the 43rd day it is clearly time to change the strategy. I looked, 43 days into the original 2020 lockdown there were zero cases. In fact, they actually reclassified one case, there were negative one cases 43 days into that lockdown. Today—

Chris Bishop: Negative?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, that’s right, Mr Bishop. They reclassified a case as not being a case, so therefore, there was actually negative one cases that day, 43 days into the March, April, May lockdown. This year, today with this lockdown, a lockdown aimed at beating Delta, 43 days in, 45 new cases and no end in sight. That’s why the strategy has to change, and that’s why putting in place a law to lock in the status quo is fundamentally wrong.

The bill then goes on to extend the penalties that people pay if they transgress the rules. Now, that in and of itself is probably not an entirely bad thing. The penalties for breaking the rules should be sufficient to deter people from breaching them. I think it’s reasonable to say that some of the penalties in the low hundreds of dollars for a lot of people haven’t been a reasonable consideration for taking risks that would have a widespread community impact. But, of course, you only need to do that if the intention is to double down on a strategy based on isolation and lockdowns. Locking down and locking out, isolating New Zealand from the world, that has become completely unsustainable. There’s got to be a better way.

Then there’s the question, as we’ve heard in previous contributions, of what’s not in the bill. If we were to have a progressive approach to COVID-19, we might, instead of extending the status quo and toughening the restrictions and giving the Government more power, be asking where are there things we could do to liberalise and improve the flexibility that all of the team of 5 million have to fight COVID? Well, actually, it should be the team of 6 million because we seem to have forgotten a million citizens currently not in New Zealand. Some of the things that a better policy might include is the simple idea of allowing rapid antigen testing. Not only has the Government not included rapid antigen testing in its response it’s actually prohibited New Zealand citizens from importing even the materials for any kind of testing technology that would allow New Zealanders to better respond to COVID, to more rapidly detect it, to more rapidly isolate if they had it, and to be reassured that we are not in danger of widespread transmission and widespread hospitalisation or, worst of all, death. But that’s the contrast.

We’ve got a piece of legislation where a Government that’s been completely caught off guard by Delta, not knowing what to do, has decided to rush legislation through the House because it doesn’t know what else it could possibly be doing. It was simply unprepared. We heard it today in the tetchiness of the Prime Minister when she was asked why she wasn’t prepared, why her Government’s response was not prepared for Delta. She asked you, “Do I even have to answer the question?” That is one of the central problems with this legislation. It’s not just the contents of it, it’s not just the extension of the status quo that it brings about it is also the nature of it, the timing of it, the way that it’s been introduced. The Government is essentially saying “We don’t really have another plan. We don’t know what else to do, but we anticipate that we could have the status quo of locking down and locking out for another year or more. So we’re going to give ourselves some insurance by putting in place the tools of central control of orders of what New Zealand citizens can do inside and if they’re outside the country, and we’re going to increase the penalties that we apply to people if they transgress them.” It’s the lack of imagination, the lack of preparedness and forward thinking that is so depressing for New Zealanders who are stuck suffering under the strategy of locking down and locking out, that are running out of money to keep their business afloat, that see no certainty. What this legislation says to them is, “You know what? We’ve got a long, long way to go, no light at the end of the tunnel, and no ideas for a better tomorrow.” That is why the ACT party opposes this legislation. Thank you.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise to speak with pleasure to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill obviously has much to commend it, but I was particularly interested to see the interest shown in the increase in court determined fines for the most serious intentional breaches, which are those which create the most risk to our communities. I was really interested to hear the views of Mr Bishop and Ms Genter, obviously coming from different points on the spectrum and obviously in disagreement on many points. I have to say I was somewhat surprised to note that National appeared to be soft on crime, which is not a position I’d thought to see them take this year.

But I really look forward to discussing this further in the Health Committee, one of the hardest-working select committees in this Government. Thank you so much. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much for allowing me to take this call, Mr Speaker. As you’ve probably realised during the day, I’ve been quite keen to get up and say something. So now is my opportunity. What I want to say is: how good was National’s plan today for the COVID-19 response? I just want to acknowledge our leader, the Hon Judith Collins; Chris Bishop, as our COVID recovery spokesperson; and our deputy leader, Dr Shane Reti; who, I think, did the work of a thousand officials and they published a very detailed plan. Their plan was about evolving and opening up to the rest of the world. It was also about dealing with COVID and this pandemic. Clearly, with this Government, it is all about lockdown, it is all about the control—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s now used 20 percent of his speech. He will get on to the bill.

MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It was interesting that one of the Labour callers said tonight that they were very proud of this bill because this bill showed that they had been listening and the changes in this bill were from listening. It is interesting because in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) around external consultation it said that time frames did not allow for external consultation. So I am not sure who they were listening to. In fact, they told key stakeholders that the way that they could become involved was to submit in the select committee process, which we find out today is only going to go for about six weeks. So here we have a bill that there has been no external consultation on and the ability for stakeholders to make a submission for what is going to be a rushed select committee process. On this side of the House, we don’t think that is going to be the way for making good law.

It is really interesting when you carry on looking at the RIS, and you look at the language and the proposition of why we need this bill. Of course, when you look at this Government, when it is about the failure of their plan, it is not their fault—it is not about the failure of the roll-out of vaccines; it is about the individual’s fault, isn’t it? Remember the KFC worker?

Hon Member: Yes.

MATT DOOCEY: Yeah, all their fault! So how do you give the public a kick? Well, let’s increase the infringement penalties. That’ll do it, because the risk to the country is the public not doing what they are told by the Government!

I think what is really interesting is when I’ve spoken on previous bills and the amount of times I’ve heard from the Government that just increasing the financial penalty doesn’t change behaviour. Yet let’s have a look at some of these increases. I mean, the infringement fee from an individual has grown from $300 to $4,000. Because, of course, when you look at the language being used it is that the failure of our elimination strategy won’t be about the Government’s performance; it will be about the public and their behaviour and are they responding to an ever-encroachment on their freedoms by this Government? One thing that we are hearing is the tension out in New Zealand of “When did we agree to have a Government in our life every day?” That is going to be the flashpoint going forward.

So I’m not sure how bringing in legislation like this that is going to be rushed—the responsible Minister hardly was able to explain it in his first reading speech. Maybe we will get the answers in the select committee process that will allow National to support this bill. But there is a lot in this bill that gives us concern, because what does it actually mean? What does it mean when you will withhold people’s personal possessions in managed isolation and quarantine? What does it mean when you cause an offence with an infringement officer who perceives you likely to contravene a rule—not contravene the rule, but likely to—and what is going to be the test of that? This’ll be interesting. This Government will rush it through in six weeks, and let’s see what happens at the second reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—a five-minute call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak on behalf of Te Paati Māori to the first reading of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). Te Paati Māori will not be supporting this bill in its current form. This bill represents a failure of inclusive leadership and a missed opportunity. It is a failure of inclusive leadership because the bill, and the original Act it amends, fails to provide a pandemic response that works for all, for all peoples of all cultures and socio-economic circumstances. It entrenches rather than eliminates inequities and disparities.

It’s a missed opportunity because the bill was the Government’s chance to put right some of their previous mistakes. It makes a number of reasonable amendments to the Act, particularly around managed isolation and quarantine, that we would have been happy to support. However, this bill also deals with the enforcement of the Act and associated regulations. Therefore, this should have been the Government’s opportunity to amend section 20, which enables warrantless entry of marae by officers of the State. The provision could easily have been aligned with the wording that was recently agreed to by a select committee on the Water Services Bill. That wording made it explicitly clear that entry on to marae and other private property can occur with consent or with a warrant. Currently, this Act still singles out marae, the cultural, economic, and spiritual centre of Māori life. This is despite the victory laps made by Labour last year when they announced the change of the provision. They tried to fool our people and pretend that the unwarranted search of marae was no longer there, when, really, all they have done was required a report which must be sent out to the relevant marae committee. That is sent out after they’ve done the search of our marae. Seriously, this is misleading.

The Government has a fetish for unwarranted search of our marae. What is with these fetishes? I have no problem kink-shaming this Government and their fetish with our marae. That is our last bastion of our mana motuhake.

David Seymour: This is great writing.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: These are decisions—thanks, David—by people who have no connect to keeping their marae warm. They don’t hold the keys of responsibility to ensure our kawa are respected. They wouldn’t know where to turn the power on. This is absolutely a breach of our tapu, coming on to our marae uninvited. This makes the Government an invader. The Government has not made a case for why warrantless searches should apply in our COVID response, let alone warrantless searches of marae, which is a clear Te Tiriti breach.

Today, on behalf of Te Paati Māori, I’m putting a wero to this House. That wero is to politicians from across the House and to officials from across the Public Service. Tangata w’enua will no longer tolerate these disgraceful attacks on our mana motuhake, on our marae. We will not allow the Crown to continue to breach Te Tiriti through this assertion of power over our people, over our w’enua, and our institutions. We will not accept that State invasions of our marae is a standard provision in legislation, as it seemed to have become in recent years. Both this Act and the Water Services Bill explicitly target marae. The counter-terrorism bill, which is being considered by the House this week, also allows for warrantless entry on to private properties.

Warrantless searches of any private premises is a clear example of State overreach, plain and simple. We have these basic legal and human rights protections for a reason. But specifically targeting Māori dwellings and institutions takes it a step further and is nothing more than colonisation and racism enshrined in legislation. I’m calling on the Minister for COVID-19 Response to amend the legislation and adopt the wording used in the reported-back Water Services Bill. There’s simply no excuse for failing to act. We will not sit idly by and allow the passage of this bill. We’ll be doing everything we can to scrap this backward, racist provision and make sure our whānau are aware of what you’re attempting to do again.

I look forward to the select committee consideration ensuring it is amended, while also taking the time to go through the bill in detail and examine the various provisions, including the other enforcement provisions. This House must ensure that enforcement is applied equitably rather than the double standards and racism that we consistently see targeted at our marae. Nō reira, tēnā tātou, tēnā koutou katoa.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take a call on the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2). Not sure how to respond, really, after the previous speaker, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, but I know that I’m part of a Labour Party that has a strong Māori caucus, committed to putting Māori to the front, ensuring that it’s not a fetish, but it’s a Te Tiriti responsibility to engage and walk alongside. As a proud member of the Labour Party, as an ally, as a tangata Tiriti, I am proud to stand in support of this piece of legislation. Really simply, the bill enables the public health response to COVID-19 to continue to function as it has, in a coordinated and orderly way.

Now, I’m really glad to be in a nation that is coordinated and orderly, and in my electorate of New Plymouth I’m really proud to see people adhering to the COVID-19 rules, people willing to do the right thing, not for themselves, but generally for the people around them—those at risk, those who are vulnerable. So I wanted to ensure that this is passed, to enable that public health response to continue in a coordinated and orderly way, and I support this bill.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) which amends the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. I feel like I’ve seen more of these pieces of legislation than most people should in their lives. I’ve been in the Regulations Review Committee and I wonder what that committee did before COVID! However, this bill is to bring about better reflection of the knowledge, supposedly, that this Government has of how long the public health response may be necessary. Now, that should put fear into most of our hearts, I would think. My colleague Nicola Willis said it shows how pessimistic this Government is, because, essentially, this bill allows the Minister to make orders to deal with COVID, for things like lockdowns and managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for a further 18 months, extending out to May 2023. That really should be alerting all New Zealanders to the possibility of how crippling this Government’s inaction could be for us.

Now, I think that’s particularly pertinent when some of the things that are happening around the world show where we could be, and I note today that New Zealand has fallen by 37 spots on the global ranking for best places to be amid a pandemic. I know that the Government were very proud of when they were number one, but they have fallen from number one to number 38 out of 53 on a global ranking. We’ve fallen behind nations in Europe, in North America, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, and in the Pacific, and sitting at the number one spot now is Ireland, with a similar population to New Zealand. They have claimed the number one spot with 90 percent of their population over 18 vaccinated. In fact, they are considered to be the vaccine poster child.

I think it’s quite interesting to have a look at the factors that are taken into account with these rankings. Well, obviously, virus containment is one of them. Healthcare quality—well, that certainly wouldn’t have been working out well for us. We know that we have one of the lowest numbers of ICU beds per thousand head of population in the OECD—so there’s our ranking slipping immediately. Another criteria is vaccination coverage. Well, that wouldn’t have worked out particularly well for us either. Another factor is the progress towards easing border restrictions and restarting travel. Well, clearly, that wasn’t going to work well for us either. In these criteria they also looked at who had the strictest lockdowns, and here New Zealand did shoot to the front. New Zealand along with Malaysia were judged to have the strictest lockdowns of all 53 economies on the list. So it is no wonder our businesses are hurting.

Perhaps you’d like to know, Madam Speaker, who the top 10 countries are: Ireland, sitting there shining at the top; Spain, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, UAE, France, Switzerland, Canada, and Norway. New Zealand is faltering in the era of vaccination. Now, Shakespeare had a term for this—being hoist by your own petard. And if I was a little less precious about it and more true to my rural roots, I might say that the chickens have come home to roost. This Government has had an ideology of centralisation and “Government knows best.” They’ve had that ideology for education, for three waters, for health, and for vaccination.

This morning at the Health Committee we had a number of Māori health experts talking about vaccination and about Māori inequity in COVID. These women had a wealth of experience, but their wealth of experience and expertise had not been listened to. I found it incredibly humbling listening to the work that two of these Māori GPs had been undertaking. But one of those Māori GPs said how incredibly difficult it had been to be able to get registered to be able to use the vaccine. They had had to be incredibly committed to their patients. They had had to jump through all sorts of hoops to be able to distribute the vaccine. I thought it was incredibly sad that this Government had not recognised the wealth of experience and knowledge and capability at grass-roots level for our Māori communities to be able to get that vaccine out when we should have.

We then listened to Pasifika health experts, and we wondered why in some of the Pacific Islands they had been able to get to vaccination rates of—

Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just seek your guidance on the topic. This isn’t about general proceedings before the Health Committee. It’s about a piece of legislation before the House, which doesn’t appear to be being addressed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you very much for that. I think the member should be aware of the provisions in the bill, and I’m looking forward to her sticking a little more closely to the subject of the bill. Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very keen to stick to the matters around COVID and that this legislation will enable the Minister to be able to continue to make orders around COVID—that is lockdown levels, MIQ, vaccination, and those matters pertaining to COVID. I thought that vaccine was actually quite relevant to COVID, so I’ll continue on about the Pacific health experts who were able to tell us that a number of the Pacific Islands have been able to get to over 90 percent vaccination rates because they had used their community links. Then I look to what’s happening with the disabled community during COVID, and I despair over the vaccination rates for our disabled community. When it was sitting around 70 percent for the general population, it was 37 percent for the disabled community. I’m reading from one of the disabled advocates who said, “Most of the houses we are delivering food parcels to”—this is in lockdown, just to ensure that Dr Webb can see the relevance of it; lockdown from COVID—“have their curtains closed and are peeking through.”

Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The member is yet to refer to a single provision of the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Thank you very much. The Speaker is the sole judge of relevance, and I’ve asked the member to come to order. I’m listening and watching very closely.

David Seymour: Point of order. As you rightly said, the Speaker is the sole judge. The member is now trifling with you and undermining you. He’s done it twice. I think he should go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you very much for that advice.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m now enlightened because if the Government don’t see COVID lockdowns and vaccination rates as to do with COVID and legislation that enables these things to happen, then we are in quite serious trouble.

So delivering food parcels—they “have their curtains closed and are peeking through, so we’re seeing a level of isolation and fear that we’ve not witnessed before.”, she said. “We have this cloak of fear amongst our disabled communities, who don’t understand what’s going on because the information out there isn’t accessible to them.”

So my concern is that this legislation allows the Minister to continue to be making these sorts of orders, to continue to put us in lockdown, to continue to have MIQ, and it extends the possibility of that out to May 2023, when we can clearly see across the rest of the world that they are opening up and we are falling behind. Therefore we should be very concerned if this is the rate that this Government thinks they are going to get COVID under control in New Zealand. For that reason, for that very pessimistic reason, for that very concerning reason of the impact that it will have on our communities such as our Māori population, our Pasifika population, our disabled population, and our businesses, then we should be opposing this legislation.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really proud to take a call on this piece of legislation. I just want to remind members opposite that we are actually in the midst of a pandemic, in case they had forgotten—a pandemic that we have not seen the likes of before. And in order to deal with a pandemic such as this, we need to be able to adapt and evolve our legislation to ensure that we can deal with this current pandemic.

Part of this piece of legislation talks about an increase in fees and infringements based on the type of rules that are potentially broken, and if they are broken on purpose, then people should have to pay accordingly. We’ve recently seen young people hiding in the boot of a car on their way to attend a tangi at their marae, and, as a result of that, that marae is now in lockdown. So they intentionally broke the rules. So, therefore, we do need to be able to have the ability to ensure that people are held accountable for those.

We had Mr Seymour talk about how the Government should be a bit more ambitious than sticking with the status quo. Well, I say the status quo has seen us have more freedoms than many other countries around the world. If I think about Ireland that Penny Simmonds talked about, they have had 387,000 cases of COVID, 5,209 deaths, 1,497 cases yesterday, in comparison to New Zealand—total of 4,248 cases and 27 deaths. No deaths are acceptable, but comparing ourselves to Ireland, there is no comparison, Ms Simmonds. So I am standing here very proudly to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Instruction to the Health Committee

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 11 November 2021 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

There are a range of reasons why the Government wishes to progress this bill into law relatively quickly. We do want there to be an opportunity for select committee consideration of the bill; however, there are some provisions in this bill that are important to get into law sooner rather than later.

Chris Bishop: Which ones?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Most notably, the increase in infringements and fines for those who deliberately break the rules. But, as Mr Bishop asked, I would point out to him that, under his plan, he would need some of the provisions in this legislation in order to be able to enact some of the things that the National Party announced today—and the National Party are voting against the provisions that would allow them to do the things that they said that they wanted to do, today. And one good example of that, one example of something that we want to have in place sooner rather than later, is the broadening of the purposes for which orders can be made under the Act. At the moment, orders can be made to prevent COVID-19 from getting into the community. This bill allows orders to be made for the purposes of managing COVID-19 in the community—which is a given, if the National Party had their plan. At least they were open about that. COVID-19 would be spreading in the community if National’s plan was put in place, and so they would want those extra provisions in place so that they could actually have orders put in place for the management of COVID-19. So these things need to be put in place sooner rather than later.

To look at some of the other issues: now, the ability to have internal rules around the way managed isolation and quarantine facilities operate is important. There are aspects that are covered by orders at the moment that are more appropriately covered in primary legislation, and so this bill formalises and codifies that. That should be in place sooner rather than later, in the Government’s view. And the other thing, of course, is that it allows for the regulation of COVID-19 laboratories, testing, and supplies. And, again, we’ve seen an example just today, even, where people are talking about significantly surging up testing. These are the sorts of provisions that one would need to have in place if one was going to surge up testing to the level that some parties are suggesting. Similarly interestingly, those parties are therefore voting against putting those very provisions in place. Ultimately, improved, delegated decision-making is another area where the sooner that area of the law is clarified so that people are absolutely clear what can be delegated and how delegations operate. I’m relatively clear, but I do concede that the wording in the law at the moment could be clearer, and that’s exactly what this bill tidies up.

These are things that should be done sooner rather than later. The pandemic is not over, despite some people wishing it to be so. In fact, there are still some pretty big challenges to come, and some of those challenges will come as things shift up around the border. The changes in this bill allow us to stay nimble as the situation continues to change. I note those who are arguing that the changes that could be coming or that are likely coming should be accelerated are voting against the legislation that would allow us to respond to those changes, which seems farcical and nonsensical. But there you go. Politics is an interesting place to be at the moment.

So, ultimately, this motion still allows for select committee consideration. It is a short select committee consideration, but that is because there’s very good reason for having these legislative changes in place before Christmas.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to. And before I take a call, can I just explain to the House that this debate should be confined to the reasons why or why not the report date should stand. Members can refer to provisions in the bill and why members oppose or support the report-back date.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party stands in opposition to this shortened report-back date. For people who may have just tuned into this, the Government is trying to ensure that a law it wants to pass, instead of going to select committee for proper consultation of the public over six months like the rules of Parliament require, they want it to happen for about six weeks and report it back in November.

This is something that has gone on too long and is happening too often under this Government. It’s the second such debate that we’ve had in Parliament tonight so far. We have already had exactly this debate on the previous piece of legislation, the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill.

Hon Chris Hipkins: This from the party founded by Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas.

DAVID SEYMOUR: And the problem is—and Chris Hipkins says this is the party founded by Richard Prebble and Roger Douglas. Can he tell us what the relevance of this comment was?

Hon Chris Hipkins: Because they never consulted on anything.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, actually, I’ll have the record set straight, as Chris Hipkins says. They consulted very widely, and the Labour Party, then a fine party committed to better public policy, had in its manifesto that it would remove unnecessary regulation, and indeed they did. People voted for them on that basis and they implemented their agenda.

Hon Chris Hipkins: They sold everything off!

DAVID SEYMOUR: Chris Hipkins might be interested to know, now that he’s bought this into the debate, that that particular Government that Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble were an integral part of introduced a Constitution Act that stopped what used to happen; the disgraceful suspension of the Standing Orders, where people used to just say the rules don’t apply and do almost anything in this Parliament. They actually introduced, for example, the Public Finance Act so that Governments had to properly budget.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I have explained to the House that this debate has to be confined to members’ views on why or why not the report-back date should stand.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, thank you.

Chris Bishop: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to clarify, because I, for one, was enjoying that exchange and the Minister was making repeated interjections, so is it the case that a member can respond during the debate to the interjection in relation to that, or—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—thank you. I’ll take some advice on that, thank you. Thank you both for your points of order. Members can respond to interjections by other members of the House, but those responses should be in passing and should not then become the main body or an extended argument of their intervention.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I did want to set the record straight. To say that Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble never consulted on anything is grossly unfair, historically inaccurate, as I was just demonstrating for the education of the new Labour members who often aren’t particularly familiar with their own history.

If I really wanted to go off track, I might have referred to the first session of Parliament in 1854, in which the Standing Orders were suspended and it actually descended into a fist fight as members of the Opposition attempted to scale the walls into the public gallery to deny the Government a quorum. But, Madam Speaker, that would be going off track on this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I think it would be. I would invite the member to come back to the debate in hand.

DAVID SEYMOUR: No, no. I certainly won’t talk about that. We should actually talk about the shortening of this select committee, because it is, I think, increasingly relevant to democracy, not only in New Zealand but around the world, that we are seeing less and less respect for democratic processes. When this bill goes before a select committee, it’s not being examined by the half a dozen or a dozen members of a particular select committee, the Health Committee in this instance; it’s actually being examined by them on behalf of the citizens who elected them. The right to elect somebody, to speak for you, into a Parliament is something that half the world’s never had and that the other half has had to fight for desperately, and we throw it away at our peril.

We need to be perfectly clear that it’s not about rushing this legislation past those MPs; it’s actually denying the rights of those citizens to vote for a representative to scrutinise the legislation in any proper way, and it’s critical that if we have these rights we actually preserve them. And if you look at the wider context tonight, three bills in a row: the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. Well, that’s going to have a two-week select committee process, even though it is for the first time in a very long time, if not in New Zealand history, showing Parliament retrospectively altering the terms of private contracts. It’s never been done before. There’s going to be a two-week consultation on that.

And the bill that is scheduled to be debated after this, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, well, that was at select committee. Four months had passed. The members of that committee had been listening to members of the public making their submissions. And then what happened? We had our tragic event in LynnMall, West Auckland, at the Countdown out there. The Government panicked and decided to take that legislation away from the select committee who were just doing the important part of their work in the fifth and sixth month, where they actually take what they’ve heard from listening to people and put it into the legislation so we can actually have laws that benefit from hearing the public. What did the Government do? They said, “We’re going to drag that out of the select committee and we’re just going to do it ourselves.”

Well, this is something that has to be seen in a wider trend of a Government that is not giving voice to New Zealanders, is not allowing them to be heard. It’s a threat to democracy generally, because all around the world we see people losing faith in politicians. We see people losing faith in the democratic process. We see fewer countries practising democracy and those that do are not practising it as well as they used to. Don’t take my word for it. That’s Freedom House. They’re based in Washington, DC. They’ve been studying democracy around the world, civil liberties, and political rights—they’ve been studying those since 1944—and for the last 15 years around the world, the respect for and practice of democracy has been in decline.

We in this House have a duty to uphold what we have inherited. We stand here surrounded by the names of battles where usually young boys but also men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force have been sent to their death to uphold those values. And here we are, three times in one night, denying New Zealanders the right to have their legislation properly considered in front of a select committee.

In the case of this latest legislation, it’s being done simply because the Government wasn’t prepared. They’ve been underprepared all year. They took the world’s longest nap. They thought they had COVID beaten. They got to the stage where they actually thought it was a good idea to spend half a billion dollars on a boomer bike bridge to Birkenhead. That how off track they got. That’s how long their nap was. And then there was an outbreak, and they thought, “Oh, we should do something about that.”, and as a result of their own unpreparedness, they are introducing legislation and rushing it through undemocratically.

Now, I think there’s a simple choice here. Either the Government should accept that its response and its measures are late and give people the due process and opportunity to have their voices heard and proper lawmaking process considered, or democracy can suffer. That’s really the question. This Government’s level of organisation, this Government’s reputation; that’s one set of considerations. And the other set of considerations is the long-term health of New Zealand democracy and the simple idea that every adult New Zealander has the right to elect a representative to speak for them, go to select committees and scrutinise bills, and be heard—a proper democratic lawmaking process.

In fact, it is probably the singular New Zealand political achievement at a global level—the simple idea that every adult New Zealander has the right to vote, something that the Prime Minister and many other politicians in this House were celebrating just nine days ago on 19 September. And then what are we doing tonight? Three times in one night, saying: “Actually, the people that got represented, the people that got representation that Kate Sheppard and her petitioners won that right for, well, we’re not going to listen to them in select committee; we’re just going to rush the bill through, and who cares? The Government knows best. We don’t really need democracy.”

I think that is an enormous shame, but from a Government that was quite prepared to have stand-ups with two dozen journalists in a tiny room of the Beehive Theatrette but thought that having this Parliament sitting in person with them, standing on the same carpet as every other representative, was somehow far too dangerous—I’m not surprised that democracy is in a certain amount of trouble. And that’s why this motion to rush through select committee should fall tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, here we go again. It was less than three hours and 15 minutes ago that the Minister for COVID-19 Response stood in this House, wringing his hands, saying how much it pained him to bypass the normal select committee process, that he wanted things like that to be rare and reasonable, and then, again we’ve spent the last three and a half hours debating bills and report-backs that run roughshod over the very thing he claims to want to protect.

I’ve got to say that in his speech moving this motion, he made some extraordinary comments to Mr Bishop in respect of what other parties would do, because, this afternoon, a colleague of his described the National Party’s COVID plan as “risky, rushed, and reckless.”, and then asked what we were going to get for Christmas, on the first day we’ll get COVID. Well, actually, we don’t have to wait for Christmas to get COVID, because it is here and spreading in South Auckland, and I think we are going to be hearing an awful lot more about that, and that actually is very relevant to both this bill and to the time we are going to take to consider it and make amendments to it. I should add that the other irony of that is that Mr Hipkins points out that the very things that the National Party wants to see happen are going to be made possible by the orders that are made in this bill. So, on the one hand, they say it is rushed, risky, and reckless, but they are doing it as well. He then challenged Mr Bishop to say why he wouldn’t support this bill and its rushed passage. Well, the answer is very simple: a National Government would not have mucked around for months to get the necessary orders in place to enable the reopening plan to be made effective, and, actually, we wouldn’t be getting loved ones for Christmas; we would have probably got them for Labour weekend or maybe Matariki if it had been held this year, or even Easter, but it sure as heck wouldn’t have been at the end of the first quarter of 2022.

Now, if this bill only extended the term of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act by one year—and the Minister is claiming that is the substantive part of this bill—objectionable though that may be for some, including me, that we still need this, maybe it could have gone through a shortened process, because the scope of that change is relatively narrow. But the Minister actually understates the other things that this bill does and that warrant a very significant consideration, much more than the four and a half, five weeks that the Health Committee is going to be given to do that.

Not the least of which is the infringement regime being strengthened to increase the maximum fines and fees and enabling new regulations to set a sliding scale of infringement offences. If I read that correctly, it is an Act to pass a regulation to pass an infringement, and where are we going to find out and how much are we going to see of the scale of those fees? Are they going to be done in secondary legislation? Are they going to go before the Regulations Review Committee? I hope so because I know the very good people from the National Party on the Regulations Review Committee would scrutinise that closely.

There are two other things that concern me that the Health Committee really needs to drill into. Firstly, the empowering of the creation of orders for the purpose of requisitioning testing consumables and requiring labs doing COVID-19 testing to do so for the national public health response—so State intervention over private laboratories’ ability to do and not do things, or to transact business in a certain way free of interference from the State?

Now, there are a lot of people who have made a lot of money out of COVID. There is no doubt about that. I don’t discourage that. I don’t criticise that. That is fine. But for the Government to then give itself the power to interject itself, intervene in that transaction, even though it is actually the purchaser—so it, basically, doesn’t trust its own ability to create arrangements that would be suitable to both the purchaser and the provider—it is going to legislate to say, “We’ll just get what we want.” I have a bit of a problem with that, and I’m sure the people who are affected by it will want to talk to the Health Committee if, as I’m sure they will, they have concerns about that.

Then, we are expressly recognising the ability of the CEO of the agency responsible to impose room restrictions on people undertaking isolation or quarantine. So it is no longer the Minister’s problem; it is now going to be the chief executive. Arm’s length, further distance by the Government from the problem, and the problem is managed isolation and quarantine.

Now, in order to be able to scrutinise this bill within five weeks, the Health Committee is going to have to set aside other business. Now, I’m not sure what business is before the Health Committee at the moment, but my colleague Mr Bishop tells me that they’ve been meeting from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., so there must be a lot of it. Here is what is not before the Health Committee, and should be: legislation to reform the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act, which the Government tells us is going to be in force on 1 July next year. That should be what the Health Committee is doing right now. Shortening the select committee process for this bill further bumps the business of the committee and any ability for it to consider what some would call an important piece of legislation. It is certainly a significant piece of legislation for our public health sector—we haven’t even seen it yet—but there will be even less time for the Health Committee to be able to do that and its other business as a consequence of this.

That is consistent with a pattern that we are seeing, because the Finance and Expenditure Committee has even less time than that to consider the omnibus bill that has gone through, and it should be focusing on $41 billion of imprest supply that we don’t know how it is getting spent, the Crown accounts that are about to be released, and a plethora of other important issues before the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

So two of our most influential standing committees have now got to disrupt their normal business and squeeze through in an impossibly short time frame two COVID-19 response bills because this Government cannot get organised enough to say, “What are we going to need off in the horizon? What are the burning bridges from a legislative perspective that we need to make sure we have covered?” And yet this is, virtually, retrospective—again. The second bill that we’ve seen tonight that is, effectively, retrospective legislation where we are going to ask submitters to rush their submissions, to have lip-service paid to their oral submissions, to get officials to burn the midnight oil, as usual—it’s not as if they don’t work hard enough anyway when getting these bills through—in order so that the Government can just get what it wants.

Well, I probably did use a bit of hyperbole in my first debate speech on the shortened report-back motion in the previous bill. Actually, with the pattern that is emerging, the death by a thousand cuts of democracy in this country continues. It is a very, very sad day for the manner in which this country sees its laws passed, and the disrespect that it pays to its electorate, its voters, and its submitters. This has got to stop. We strongly oppose the report-back motion. I think it would be appropriate for there to be perhaps an amendment, I don’t know; there is certainly an opportunity to do that, but, you know, it would certainly need to be longer than the five weeks or so that we’ve given it. I will leave that for others to consider it. But with that, I strongly oppose this motion.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, 11 November is the day the committee or the day the Minister wants the shortened report back to be. I was sitting here thinking 11 November—why does that ring a bell with me? It’s Armistice Day, but it’s also the day of the dismissal in Australia. It’s the day that the Governor-General was instructed—it’s the day of the Whitlam dismissal when Sir John Kerr dismissed the elected Prime Minister of Australia. Of course in Labour Party legend, this is the end of days. I’m sitting here thinking “And that’s relevant.” Some people might think, “Well, why is that relevant?” It is important because—it’s obviously not an extreme that is happening here but, as Michael Woodhouse just made mention, the slow whittling away of democracy and the way our system works is occurring. This is obviously not as extreme as the dismissal but it’s in the same vein because here we are expanding, extending, or potentially extending, the powers, enormous powers, the Government’s given to itself, or the Parliament has given to the Government, under the existing COVID-19 Act. They want to just have a very short select committee process and not allow the Health Committee to do its job and examine the bill properly.

There are two particular things I think the committee needs more time to look at. The first is the penalties. Now, I’ve been reading through the regulatory impact statement in relation to the penalties for non-compliance, and it is actually very concerning because the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee says, as a matter of public policy, that in general infringement fees should not exceed $1,000, and if they do exceed $1,000, preferably the amount is fixed in primary legislation. Well, somewhere between the drafting of this bill and the draft bill prepared and the actual bill that we have before us, the Minister decided a good penalty would be $4,000. Now, I’m not saying that’s necessarily the worst idea but we’re going to have to get to the bottom, as a committee—and I’m on the Health Committee now—of exactly why that happened, and how we’ve ended up with this very large increase in the penalties for breach of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ).

Obviously, we’re in favour of penalties and infringement notices, but that is a massive increase, and the officials actually advised against it. They didn’t just advise against it. They said 25 percent higher would be the right thing to do—an infringement fee of $1,250. They gave two other options, $1,500 or $2,000, and the Minister’s gone for $4,000. So I strongly suspect he’s just kind of put a finger in the wind and said “What sounds about right? Four thousand bucks. Well, that’s tough. That’ll give me a headline.”—‘Minister cracks down on MIQ absconders’ or something. You know, it probably did give him a headline. I suspect the reason I know about it is because it was in the news. That’s all good. But we’re going to have to find out exactly why we’ve gone for $4,000 because we’re dealing with issues of rights here. So that’s very important. I, for one, would want would want to hear from the legal beagles who monitor these things. Graeme Edgeler’s going to make a submission, I’m sure. We’re going to want time to consider Mr Edgeler’s submission alongside others.

The other thing that we’re going to have to consider—and this actually goes to the heart of the legislation and is another reason for a decent look at it at the select committee—is how long are we going to need this legislation for? That kind of goes to the heart of our COVID response. I heard the Minister’s speech. The Minister said “Well, even under National’s plan you’ll need various elements of it.”, and that’s true. No one’s ever denied that. He seemed to think it was a slam dunk argument, but we accept that, of course. In responding to COVID the Government does have to give itself the ability to move with flexibility, and I think that, in general, the orders that the Government passes in relation to mandatory testing and things, when they’re actually enforced—because there was quite a long time there where the Government had the orders in place, or they said they had the order and no one was actually doing the enforcing. It’s only in the recent last couple of weeks or the last few weeks that there’s been a huge enforcement. Generally that’s worked pretty well.

So no one’s pretending that we’re not going to need some piece of legislation, but how long for? The Minister said, in his contribution, and I give him credit for this, no one wants a piece of legislation like this for longer than is absolutely necessary. I know Chris Hipkins is a—to be fair to him—dedicated parliamentarian who believes in the rule of law and believes in Parliament for the sake of a Parliament, and the benefits that a Parliament brings. Some of the things that Mr Seymour talked about are relevant here as well. I know that Chris Hipkins believes in that. But we are going to have to get to grips with the issue as to how long the Act is going to have to be extended for. That is a difficult, tricky issue because it involves the operation of MIQ. It involves our border restrictions and how long they might be there for. It involves whether or not we’re going to gradually open up.

There’s been a lot of heat and light today, and, you know, a few Labour Party backbenchers very unfortunately said a few things that I think are going to come back to haunt them in the next few months about how the National Party wanted to kill people because they wanted to open the borders. By the way, news flash to the New Labour backbenchers, that’s Government policy—or at least apparently it is, purportedly it is, Government policy to gradually open the borders. So I look forward to you castigating the Prime Minister when she duly stands up in a few weeks and gives a speech about how double-vaccinated travellers are going to have greater freedoms to come back to New Zealand. So all of the criticism about National wanting to kill people in their beds, which have been lobbed by Labour members today, will sound reasonably delicious when the Government announces a similar policy, because we all know that’s happening. In fact, it’s kind of already been announced, at least ostensibly a couple of weeks ago, in the Prime Minister’s reconnecting New Zealand speech. So those comments will haunt them. But we’re going to have to get to grips with that. What does that mean in terms of our overall COVID strategy, and what does that mean in terms of our response?

One issue we’re going to have to grapple with is rapid antigen testing, for example. It’s explicitly banned in New Zealand. One of the orders that has been issued pursuant to this Act basically—or it doesn’t basically; it does—prohibits people from bringing rapid tests into the country unless the Director-General of Health allows them to, and so far, he’s said no, apart from 30 or so cases which he’s allowed for the ministry. So if you’re the Ministry of Health you can have a rapid test to test it or for various reasons, but if you’re a pharmacist, or you’re a school, or you’re a trucking company who wants to test your workers at the Auckland boundary on a daily basis—that would be a sensible thing to do—you can’t. You are banned from doing that. So we’re going to have to get to grips with that through the legislation as well. I suspect there are going to be people who turn up to the committee and make that exact point that I’ve just made, and we’re going to want to hear from them.

I think we’re going to have a lot of submissions, and that’s the final point I want to make as to why we need more time. I think there’s going to be a lot of people who go and make submissions in relation to this. I haven’t even mentioned the Borrowdale litigation before the court, which actually is relevant. Andrew Borrowdale—I’ve never actually met him, but I’m told he is a former parliamentary draftsperson. You could describe him—since we’re talking about history; I started my speech talking about the dismissal. To go to the 1970s again, he’s sort of like a modern-day Fitzgerald. For the listeners with long memories, Fitzgerald was the man who back in 1975 said to Muldoon, “Actually, Robert, Prime Minister, just because you said on the election campaign trail that you’d get rid of the Labour Party superannuation fund mandatory contributions”—that operated from 1974 to 1975, I think; about nine months—“doesn’t mean you actually have. You have to legislate for that.”

One of the greatest things I ever got when I first became an MP was from very good lawyer friends of mine, Gareth Richards and Jonathan Orpin, both barristers. They gave me a framed copy of the whole Fitzgerald v Muldoon judgment, and it’s on my office wall. The reason they gave it to me is because it’s a tribute to the power of Parliament and the rule of law. The whole principle is Prime Ministers don’t get to make the law by themselves. Parliament makes the law, actually. The Prime Minister can’t just decree things to be the case; only Parliament can do that. Why is that relevant for this? It’s relevant because we’re going to have to grapple with the powers that the Parliament gives to the Governments to make orders under this Act. In relation to the Borrowdale legislation, that goes all the way back to the powers that the director-general exercised under the last COVID legislation and the last COVID lockdown. So those fundamental issues of constitutional importance raised by Mr Borrowdale, harking back, as I say, to the Fitzgerald v Muldoon days in 1975, we’re going to have to grapple with again. Those are deep, fundamental issues, and the committee needs time to deal with it. November 11 is too short a time to do that properly. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. Hubris is a word we hear a lot on this side of the House when referencing what this Government does. And this piece of legislation and its truncated process is just another illustration of a Government that seems to think that urgency is the best way to offer sensible public policy and lawmaking.

I think we’re acutely aware of the difficulties that this country’s facing with COVID-19, especially given the Delta variant that we’re all, as a country, dealing with. But when you look at the legislation, the lack of rapid antigen testing, as I think the previous speaker alluded to, that this bill would not have the oversight for, the managed isolation and quarantine facilitation and border restrictions, this warrants a select committee process. We need the Government to allow the public to weigh in on this. This is a truncated process and this legislation speaks to a wider concern and the public should have a position to weigh in on it.

So look, we’re quite clear on it as the ACT Party: we’ve got a Government that seems to use urgency to expeditiously create policy on the fly. We cannot support this in this current iteration. It’s an erosion of all things we do as legislators representing New Zealand.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we’ve talked about this date of 11 November, and I’d have to say, as a member of the Health Committee, it was only today that we were looking at all the DHBs that we have to review. I’m quite concerned that if this bill comes and takes our time in the next four to six weeks, we’re going to be pushing back on how many DHBs we will be able to look at.

But I was very, very concerned when I looked across at the vitriol, really, of some of the backbenchers from the Government to the discussion that I was having about the ratings and rankings of New Zealand in this world ranking of who’s doing well with COVID. It’s interesting. It’s not too long ago that the Government were crowing about being number one, and very, very quickly they wanted to shoot down how reliable any ranking might possibly be, and wanting to explain to me how wrong I was. Well, I can assure the Government I wasn’t doing the ranking. It was Bloomberg’s ranking, and it was the same one that they were very, very keen to be proud of not too long ago.

But what it does show how incredibly inward-looking the Government is becoming, and how concerned they are with any criticism. So that really relates to this needing more time to ensure that more people can critique this legislation. As I said today in the Health Committee, we had Māori health experts, we had Pasifika health experts. I’d have to say there was an enormous amount of reluctance from the Health Committee Labour Government members to hear from these people. That keeps reinforcing to me how concerned this Government is about only looking inward and about stifling any consultation or any discussion or any support or suggestions that may come from a consultation process.

So I’m really concerned that if we don’t have that more extended amount of time to hear from people, it’s going to be very easy for the Labour members on our Health Committee to be very, very selective about what they listen to. After all, this is the consultation process for people who might have better ideas for this Government—from Māori health experts, from Pasifika health experts, from advocates from the disabled community, from business people, from those who have had to go through managed isolation and quarantine. This is the one and only opportunity that they get to have some input into this.

I’ve been sensing frustration from constituents who email on an almost daily basis saying, “How do we have a say on what’s happening? How do we tell this Government how undemocratic they are getting? How do we express our concern for the way they are running this country?” The reality is the select committee is how and when they get an opportunity. People are becoming increasingly cynical and sceptical about whether this Government actually wants to hear from them and whether this Government is genuine in wanting to carry on with the democratic process that these people have a right to be involved in. I see that on a daily basis—that scepticism: will there be any opportunity for them to have any input whatsoever into what is happening in this country? I’d have to say many of them are people who were Labour voters who have then said, “I’m disillusioned with the direction of this Government. I’m disillusioned with how inward-looking they’re getting, with how they want to shortcut the democratic system and process, with how they are so reluctant to hear from anyone from outside their own circle.”

There’s a huge increase in fines for the infringement offences. I would have to say that goes against everything we heard in the select committee today about engaging with the community, working with the community, being in touch with the community—be it Pasifika or Māori or disabled community. Putting higher infringement offences into this legislation gives a very clear message that we have no intention of educating and working with you; we just want to punish you. Sorry, I’ll be careful about using “you.”

So I’m quite concerned, again, that the shortened time will not give key people the opportunity to explain to us how counter-productive this increase of infringement offences could be in the legislation and in the management of COVID. So I won’t take up too much more time other than to say, for the same reason that we have been opposing these shortened select committee processes all night, really—all night: it is because it is eroding the democratic process that people in this country in this extraordinary time expect to still be able to have a say. The select committee process is the one time and place they can. We oppose it.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to oppose a shortened report back for this piece of legislation, and in doing so, I want to remind members of this House about how serious a piece of legislation this is and how, in fact, that warrants more thorough scrutiny than normal pieces of legislation. Yet we are here tonight being told to do the opposite. Here we have the Government asking for an extension of the most extraordinary powers a Government has granted to itself possibly in decades, and the Government, in asking for an extension of those powers through to May 2023, has said that it does not wish for that to be thoroughly scrutinised through a normal-length select committee process. On this side of the House, we raise our objection to that because we think it is more important than ever that there be appropriate democratic scrutiny of the measures contained in this bill.

So let us remind ourselves of the substance of what it is that the Government is saying we need a shortened process for. Well, possibly the most significant clause in the bill is that which extends the sunset clause for the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act to 2023. This builds on a piece of legislation that was introduced in 2020 that includes powers to require people to stay in a particular place; that require people to stay physically distanced from any person; that can give the director of health or the Minister of Health the power to tell someone that they must refrain from participating in gatherings, that they must refrain from travelling; gives a Minister or the Director-General of Health the power to say that someone must be isolated or quarantined in any place, in any way; that a person must report for medical treatment or must undergo medical examination or testing; that they must provide information for contact tracing. These are significant powers for the State.

New Zealanders over the past 18 months have by and large cooperated, because the view that people have taken is extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. They have placed enormous trust in institutions and individuals and public health advice and have given up their freedoms because they’ve been told that that is what is required to keep one another safe and to prevent death. But it is appropriate that when those measures move from being temporary in nature, from being a one-off response to an emergency in 2020, to being an extended set of powers to last right through till 2023—another 18 months—the New Zealand people have the opportunity to thoroughly scrutinise the measures and to thoroughly scrutinise the additions to those.

In this bill, we also have new measures, and what I would point out is that a number of the measures that are being proposed in this bill are things that the Minister for COVID-19 Response says are needed now and needed in a hurry but yet it would be perfectly reasonable to expect that a diligent Government would’ve anticipated, ahead of right here and now, and made changes with a thorough scrutiny and thorough process—things like “enabling the chief executive of the responsible agency to make rules for the day-to-day operation of MIQ facilities”. Well, managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities have been operating in New Zealand for months, so it should’ve been perfectly reasonable to expect that the Minister would bring to this House legislation to clarify that power in advance of today and, in doing so, would invite appropriate and thorough scrutiny. A shortened report-back period simply damages the trust between the elected and the electors because it says, “We don’t need your input on this one.”

The bill also does things like recognising “the ability of the chief executive of the agency responsible for MIQ”—which is, of course, right now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—“to impose room restrictions on people undertaking isolation or quarantine”. Again, this is a measure that, actually, many, many New Zealanders will take a view on, and, actually, there should be no reason for the Government to fear scrutiny of whether or not that power is appropriate, to invite scrutiny of whether or not it’s been framed up correctly and whether or not it fits within the right parameters. The trouble is, when you’re doing extraordinary things, it is more important than ever that people have faith that robust processes have been used to form restrictions, that appropriate risk assessments have been done, that there has been the necessary balancing of the need to do something in order to protect public health against the potential incursion upon freedom. We are best as a Parliament when we let sunlight upon those judgments, and the problem with shortened report-back periods is there is a sense that someone is trying to reduce the window for that sunlight to peer through.

I would put to you that one of the challenges we have in New Zealand right now is that there are some people who are sceptical, and I say that we should actually be open about everything that we are doing and we should allow absolutely thorough scrutiny and we should oppose motions to shorten the scrutiny of some of the most serious legislation this Parliament has passed in my lifetime with significant powers and extension through to 2023. I put this to members opposite: when the Government first locked down in 2020, did anyone expect that they would then be saying, “We need the same powers to lock down right until May 2023.”? I would argue that that is something that should be discussed fully and that New Zealanders should have the right to have their full say on. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the COVID-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 11 November 2021 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill.

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

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move, That the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This is one of these unfortunately necessary pieces of legislation, as we see the nature of terrorism change both, unfortunately, here at home and offshore. Weeks ago, the United States, unfortunately, commemorated 20 years since the attacks on the Twin Towers and other notable sites in 2001. Back then, terrorism in its guise, then, was very much the spectre of large organised terrorism groups, as we saw back in September of 2001 in America. The nature of terrorist attacks is changing internationally, and has, obviously, unfortunately, reared its ugly head here in New Zealand. I do want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the victims of the more recent attack on 3 September in LynnMall, and wish, from this Parliament, them all the best and to that community too; also to the family of the victims and those injured in the mosque attacks of Christchurch two or three years ago. Both of those events were horrible and tragic events that, unfortunately, let us know that New Zealand is not immune to hateful intentions from those who want to disrupt our peaceful and diverse way of life.

This piece of legislation recommits that the Government is committed to mitigating the risk of future attacks, as was mentioned in the committee stage yesterday. It’s impossible to guarantee further attacks happening, but the new measures within this piece of legislation mean that the authorities will have more powers in order to prevent the planning and the undertaking of further attacks.

I do want to pre-empt something that, I think, will come in terms of criticism from a couple of other parties in Parliament, around the thoroughness of the consideration of this piece of legislation. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the work of all members of the Justice Committee, led by Ginny Andersen. Despite the point that some parties got to try and find a point of difference around this piece of legislation, I understand that the members of this Justice Committee worked extremely well and thoroughly, and gave this piece of legislation a thorough going-over at select committee.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Simon Bridges, who is in the House and I’m sure will be making a contribution soon, and thank him for his contribution in the second reading, where he reinforced that this piece of legislation did have a thorough going-over at select committee, that submitters who had concerns about some aspects of this select committee process, or the bill in general, did have a fair hearing, and the select committee reported back, I believe, on 5 September, after the lion’s share of the consideration and work on this piece of legislation had been done. We also made a commitment that weekend to ensure that this legislation would pass as soon as possible, before the month of September was out, because we do believe making sure that giving the authorities the power to prevent and stop attacks happening was important when the piece of legislation was going through the House. So any suggestion that this did not get a fair hearing, and a considerate hearing, at the select committee is entirely inaccurate.

There were some concerns about consultation from the likes of Māori stakeholders through the select committee process. I would reiterate the message that I have given in other readings: that the nature of counter-terrorism legislation and the ability to pre-consult on these issues is a tricky balance. If you do that too widely, you can open up gaps in the proposed new regime, and we saw fit that the select committee was the appropriate place to undertake the consultation, although there were concerns raised there.

The most substantive change that we are making in this legislation is the introduction of a planning and preparation offence. As was mentioned in the House yesterday, a High Court decision of last year, where a High Court judge essentially said, “The case before me, while maybe concerning, I cannot bring or make a judgment on in terms of planning and preparation, because there is a gap in the legislation, where it might be an offence to carry out an attack, but the statutes of this country do not include an offence in terms of the planning and preparation.” This particular offence was one that was recommended very highly by the royal commission of inquiry into the mosque attacks. It brings us into line with similar countries which we compare ourselves too—the likes of Australia and the United Kingdom—to make sure that we do have offences where the authorities can bring about a case to show that there is the three pillars of a terrorist attack, in terms of motivation and intent and purpose, and where a number of elements have come together with that planning and preparation, that now, once this bill is passed, the authorities will have the ability to bring charges in that respect.

There were also concerns raised by a number of organisations and political parties in terms of the seriousness of the crimes, and also the potential for the misuse of this legislation by the authorities, given some of the past experiences of some groups here in New Zealand. There are protections within this legislation to ensure that lawful protest will not meet the threshold of a terrorist attack or terrorist intent, if those three pillars are not met, and then there’s the added protection of making sure that the police or the Crown has to get approval of the Attorney-General in order for a prosecution for one of these offences to be brought to the inside of a courtroom.

The other substantive change is around the introduction of control orders for people who are found guilty, and imprisoned of a terrorist offence here in New Zealand. That is a big change off the back of the changes that were made by the Hon Andrew Little back in 2019, but do go to ensuring that, again, the authorities have the power to monitor in some way, shape, or form those who have been convicted of terrorist offences here in New Zealand if they do believe that they still pose a national security threat here in New Zealand. That, again, is an unfortunate reminder of the fact that terrorist threats do exist domestically, and making sure that we give authorities the power to do that is again one of the substantive changes within this piece of legislation.

Again, just to conclude, I’m thanking the Justice Committee for its work. Also thank you to the officials from the Ministry of Justice for the way that they supported the select committee, which has been noted by a number of members on the Justice Committee. Also acknowledging, again, the victims and the families of victims in the two more recent incidents that have happened in the last two or three years. Again, this piece of legislation is being put in place to give the authorities more powers to prevent those kinds of attacks happening. We hope that they use those wisely, but that they are effective at preventing those attacks happening again.

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

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand’s a country that has been incredibly blessed, in that it hasn’t for decades—decades—suffered from extreme, warped ideologies that have led to terrorism. But what is true is: in very recent times, the last couple of years, we have been—euphemistic, really, to say—unfortunate, very unfortunate. We’ve seen heinous attacks by an extremist in Christchurch, and, just in recent weeks, an awful terrorist attack, again fuelled by extreme, warped ideology, at LynnMall Countdown in West Auckland. And it’s a very sad thing, something I think most New Zealanders would say is foreign to us—and yet it’s not. We’ve seen it, as I say, in recent times. And when I think of that most recent attack, I’m just, personally, very thankful to all those who were involved in helping—of course, the police themselves, but those that were brave and helped bring the man under heel, as it were. I think of those who were wounded in his stabbing spree, and just repeat what I know all members of this House would think and say—that is that terrorism, fuelled by that sort of extremism, has no place in New Zealand society or, indeed, globally. It has no place.

With the terrorist in this case that I’ve been talking about, most recently, he was under supervision from authorities—I say “authorities” because I’m sure it was more than simply police; it was other security authorities as well—it would have been truly significant, many millions of dollars’ cost to New Zealanders. He wheedled his way through many a court case, actually, in the courts of New Zealand. I think the Chief Justice put out a synopsis or summary of those cases, and, again, the costs would have been many millions of dollars, I’ve got no doubt, from this man.

As the justice Minister, Kris Faafoi, has said—and I acknowledge all he said; I don’t agree with everything he did say—one of those cases, perhaps the most significant in a precedent sense, by Justice Downs, was sent to the Attorney-General, possibly the justice Minister and others in Government, to outline a gap in the law. That gap was really around the planning and preparation of terrorist acts. This bill deals with that gap, and I think Andrew Little said at the second reading, it’s not as a result of that case law; it’s already something that the executive was minded to deal with. But, nevertheless, it does deal with that gap. I asked the Minister at the committee of the whole House stage and he confirmed he believes it deals with it comprehensively.

It also deals with certain recommendations from the royal commission on the Christchurch terror attacks. It deals with certain international obligations, through UN conventions and the like, and there are many, many things, technically, the law does—I want to say many, many; it may be several. I listed some of them in earlier contributions, so I’m not going to technically go through those various worthy elements of this bill.

Suffice to say, a couple of things: we support this law. It’s the right thing to do, in terms of the changes and improvements it makes. Probably—and I don’t simply say this in hindsight, with what has happened in recent times—the most significant element of it is the creation of precursor offences to terrorism acts, and the planning and preparation offense in particular. We spent some time on that in select committee, to address the gap that I’ve already discussed.

I just want to finish, not politically with a small “p” but, I suppose, a big “P”, I should say, but with some small “p” political comments. The first is one the Minister has emphasised, and emphasised that I emphasised, and that is that this wasn’t a rushed law. It’s entirely incorrect as some members of the House say that somehow we rushed this up, sped this up. We didn’t. It went through a thorough select committee process. We heard all submissions. We were in deliberations on this bill, in fact, eerily, really, at and around the time of the recent terror attacks.

I won’t say I can’t understand the opposition to this bill. We heard submissions from civil liberties groups, and I deeply respect their views that we should cherish and guard our freedoms and our liberties. Liberties for the worst, if you like, are the price for a civilised society. So, in hindsight, I don’t dis-understand the opposition to this bill, but I do say, from the parties to my left that do oppose this bill, there is an opportunism to it. I don’t think it should be around a rushed process or some such. They’ve got principled objections—well, that is one thing. But, actually, it seems to me, technically, in terms of process—and we can’t say that about a lot of the bills. The other bills that have been through this Parliament tonight are a shambles of a process. But this one has had a good process.

National takes terrorism very seriously. We perceive ourselves as a party of security and law and order, and that’s why we have recently made the Hon Mark Mitchell, MP for Whangaparāoa, spokesperson in this area—someone with deep expertise and experience, in arenas like Afghanistan and Iraq and other places; with a real knowledge about these issues. He would have, I know, desperately liked to have been here today to talk about this bill. He has a first-hand knowledge of these issues in a way I don’t and, I suspect, really, any other member in this Parliament does either. But that creation of his role is a sense with which we as a responsible large party want to do the right thing, the responsible thing, around security and law and order. And I acknowledge, actually, we’re not the only party in Parliament that does that in Government. The Labour Party has brought this bill to the House.

So I don’t need to keep going. Sadly, terrorism now is a feature of New Zealand. I hope it isn’t again, but it has been in the last couple of years. This bill fills gaps, it improves our legal regime, to make future events less likely, and that’s got to be a good thing. National, as the responsible party on these issues, wholeheartedly, as it has at all stages of this bill, supports it.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ll take a brief call on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. As chair of the committee, it has been a thorough process and it has been a difficult task in confronting some of the hard issues—particularly given the fact that New Zealand had a recent terrorist attack, just on 3 September, which was right at the final stages of when this bill was going through consideration and deliberation.

So, at that point, I would like to acknowledge those victims in Auckland—LynnMall—and their whānau. I’d also like to acknowledge those victims in New Zealand from the March 15th attacks in Christchurch, which was really the generating reason for this legislation to be drafted.

This legislation, really, came, in part, by responding to the report of the royal commission of the inquiry into the 15th March terrorist attacks, and, in particular, it implements recommendation 18, which is giving a priority to considering precursor or preparatory offences. That is exactly what this legislation does: it enables those people who work to keep New Zealand safe to put into place protections when someone has been identified as a risk.

I’d like to note that the bill also provides an extension for control orders. It is interesting to note that no counter-terrorism measure is ever going to be guaranteed to prevent a terrorist attack. There is no cast-iron guarantee that these tools will, in fact, work, but it does enable New Zealand to respond and be ready in a much greater way than we have been in the past, and particularly given that the past two terror attacks that I’ve referred to are both from lone actors—while in the past, our terrorism legislation has been geared to wider groups.

So overseas experience indicates that things like control orders can be a really successful way of preventing some types of behaviour, particularly of radicalising groups and individuals. Those independent reviews in other countries—the UK and Australia—show that they have been a useful tool for managing that.

This bill, really, strengthens our counter-terrorism laws to better prevent and respond, and these changes will also enable police to intervene earlier—and, if it saves lives and makes New Zealanders safer, I believe that’s a good thing.

I’d like to close by acknowledging the police, who have worked incredibly well over the period of both of those terrorist incidents in New Zealand, but I would also like to acknowledge the officials. When they appeared before our committee—there is a thorough departmental report that I encourage all members with an interest in this area to read; over 160 pages that really goes into the detail of what the risks and the benefits of introducing this type of legislation is—every question that the members from both Opposition and Government asked those officials, they had a full answer to be able to put our minds at rest as to the steps this legislation was taking and whether it would lead New Zealand down the right path.

I am happy, as the chair of the committee, that consensus was generally reached amongst those members, and thanks to that, largely, is due to the hard work of those officials, to be able to satisfy the request for further information and make sure we were taking a step in the right direction. So, without further delay, I wish to commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise as the member of Parliament for Southland to speak on this bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. The purpose of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill is to strengthen New Zealand’s counter-terrorism laws to address contemporary terrorist threats, which come in all sorts of different shapes and guises, as we’ve seen, unfortunately, with the March 2019 attack in Christchurch, and I express my sorrow and thoughts for the victims and family of that attack. Then we’ve had the recent 3 September 2021 attack in LynnMall, Auckland, and, again, my thoughts and my heart goes out to the victims and their families of that attack. Both of these were lone wolf attacks and show how very challenging these are to counteract, and that is not unusual around the world.

This bill aims to improve the clarity of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and provides law enforcement agencies with clear legal authority to prevent and disrupt terrorism-related activity. The National Party has confidence that the right balance between liberty and security has been struck in this bill, as it has been on foot since 2008, when the work first started, with officials being directed to explore possible improvements to counter-terrorism legislation. It has gone through the Justice Committee and has been thoroughly considered. So this bill has been brought forward, but it has been carefully considered and the right balance, we believe, has been struck.

I would note that there are some new offences that have been created by this bill and new offences must be carefully considered to ensure that the right balance is struck. These new offences would criminalise travelling to, from, or via New Zealand with the intention to carry out a terrorist attack, to plan or prepare for a terrorist attack, and to have weapons training or combat training for a terrorist purpose. It also amends the definition of “terrorist act” by changing some of the purpose and intention elements.

It’s important to have a look at the new definition of “a terrorist act”. It contains three elements. The first element is an intention to cause serious outcomes, such as death or bodily injury. The second element is for a purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause. The third element is an intention to cause fear in a population, or coerce or force a Government or international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

It’s important that there are those three elements, because there has been some concern raised—and the Green Party has rightly raised the concerns expressed by some folks—that activism could be caught by this legislation. The select committee heard from Paul Elwell-Sutton, the council of trade liberties, that he recommended “activism” be excluded from the definition of “terrorist act”. The officials did not consider this to be appropriate s for conduct of any kind to be captured by the terrorist act definition, all three elements of the definition must be met. This includes the intent to cause one of the serious harms, such as injury or death. It is difficult to countenance any activism which would intend to cause harm or death which would be legitimate, and, certainly, I don’t think it could be classified as legitimate if its intention was to cause injury or death. Therefore, legitimate activism will not be captured by this legislation.

Clause 6 also has an amendment from what was originally intended to be “induce terror in a civilian population”, which existed previously, was to be changed to “to induce fear in a population.” And although I’m not a member of the select committee, I did happen to sit on it when this question was being raised, and I did ask some questions. I did have a personal concern that that would dilute it too far. I’m pleased to see that it has been amended: “induce terror in a civilian population” would now be “to intimidate a population”, which is a higher threshold and I think it is the right one.

“Carrying out includes preparations, credible threats, and attempts” is in new section 5A, in clause 6. And it requires some actual knowledge. So there has been quite careful consideration to how this bill has been drafted.

If I look at clause 10, “Section 8 amended (Financing of terrorism)”, I note that the purpose of this clause is to comply with New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations Security Council resolutions. And, in line with that, the bill inserts “material support” into the scope of what cannot be provided to a designated terrorist entity and also criminalises support that has been provided recklessly. I note that there has been some concern raised that there would be legitimate aid organisations—that people would seek to support places or people and children, for example, in a war-torn environment—and they could be captured by this; however, there is a carve-out which addresses this, and that is in subsection (5), which says “Material support excludes humanitarian support to satisfy basic needs”. And it goes further to note: “[if that] is provided (a) in good faith for genuine humanitarian reasons; and (b) impartially or neutrally as between people who have those needs.” So there is a carve-out that explicitly protects those people who wish to provide support to those in war-torn environments that’s for a purpose of assisting people for humanitarian purposes and not to support, or be reckless as to support for, terrorist organisations or aims.

I’ll just have a look at new section 13AA, which is: “Providing or receiving weapons training or combat training for terrorist purposes”. I note that there has been some concern that this could capture people who receive training for reasons of self-defence. However, I note that the person, to commit an offence, would have to do so if they provide or receive weapons training or combat training and knew that the training was provided or received for a purpose which would include to carry out one or more terrorist acts, whether any or all of them are actually carried out or not, and/or to enhance the ability of any entity to carry out, or to participate in the carrying out, of one or more terrorist acts, whether any or all of them are actually carried out. So that would clearly exclude someone receiving training for the purpose of self-defence. Someone receiving training for self-defence would not also be doing so to carry out a terrorist act.

I note that another concern that has been raised is proposed warrantless powers, which the police or other relevant agencies need to detect concerning behaviour, so that they can act effectively to prevent a terrorist act being carried out. Given the fluid and unpredictable nature by which planning may move to more advanced conduct to commit a terrorist act, warrantless powers are necessary to identify the relevant behaviour and to intervene quickly to prevent such activity escalating. Police need powers to take appropriate action to intervene to preclude the attack and, without warrantless powers, that may not be possible until too late. The way this has been framed is appropriate. The exercise of the warrantless powers in question requires reasonable grounds to believe that evidence relating to the planning or preparation offence is in the place of or on the person to be searched. In relation to searches of place, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that, if entry is delayed, the evidential material will be destroyed, concealed, altered, or damaged. Reasonable grounds to believe requires a high degree of certainty from the officer exercising the power. It does not permit fishing expeditions in the hope that relevant evidence will be obtained or a mere hunch that, unless entry is secured, the evidence may be destroyed, concealed, altered, or damaged. Again, the right balance has been struck here.

With that, I’ll just wind up my comments by noting that the National Party takes the security of New Zealanders very seriously, and it’s a pleasure to note that the Hon Mark Mitchell, who would have loved to be here tonight to speak on this, given his deep experience in this field, is now the spokesperson for counter-terrorism and will do a fine job of that. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to take a short call on this matter, where it was my privilege to sit on the Justice Committee and to consider this bill, the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill.

I want, first, to acknowledge the victims of the Christchurch attack and, more recently, the LynnMall attack. I, secondly, want to thank, as the chair Ginny Andersen did, the officials who worked so hard to ensure that we had the right information before us. But I want to focus, in my few words, on the submitters, because there were serious issues raised. This is a very serious piece of legislation. I want to join, actually, with Mr Bridges in assuring those submitters that we did not truncate the process of consideration for this bill. It was deeply considered and their words were heard, with the help of those officials. There were intense and robust discussions. We questioned ourselves, but, ultimately, we believe that this bill is important for the protection of New Zealand and the prevention of further attacks. And I wholeheartedly and conscientiously commend this bill to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Here we are on the night shift.

Nō reira e mihi ana ki a tātou katoa ki te Whare. Heoi me mihi au ki te whānau ki New Lynn, ki a Tāmaki ki te uru. Kei reira te ngākau e rangona ana ngā kōrero. Kei reira te ngākau o te katoa o tēnei whare, otirā ki ō tātou nei whānau Ihirama ki Ōtautahi.

[Greetings to everyone in the House. I must acknowledge the families in New Lynn and in West Auckland. My heart is there hearing the stories. The hearts of everyone in this House are there, as well as with our Muslim families in Christchurch.]

I’m just reiterating the mihis and the greetings and the solidarity that this House has shown to the families in New Lynn who bore the brunt of the horrific attack just recently, and I also remember our Muslim whānau who suffered a terrorist attack just a couple of years ago as well.

I would also like to thank the Auckland MPs who are keeping us safe by staying at home, and, actually, Golriz Ghahraman—I’m substituting in for her to speak on this bill. So it was when we were having the committee of the whole House, I had a lot of questions to ask and a lot of questions to try to really get my head around in the short time I’ve been with this bill, to understand the process of the select committee.

I think it’s really important for us to remember to centre Christchurch and to centre those lives that were impacted and to have a reminder of what the royal commission report said—that the counter-terrorism services disproportionately targeted Muslim communities rather than the threats by far-right terrorism faced by that community, and it’s important for us to hold on to that.

I want to acknowledge all of the concerns of all the various parties that participated in the Justice Committee. I heard the intention. I heard the commitment, and, also, we fully support a justice system that values social responsibility, appropriate decision making, and non-violent conflict resolution. These things need to be paramount, but the thing is: timeliness needs to be important as well so that we get the balance right.

So, for us, the balance has not been struck. We have, generally, three concerns, and we talked through some of that in the committee of the whole House last night. Firstly, the legislation, although improved, may still capture direct-action activists and protests. Secondly, the new planning or preparation offence has been characterised by some experts as thought crime, difficult to define in practice or defend against in a legal proceedings. And, thirdly, the terrorism control order is being expanded to people convicted in New Zealand, when the whole premise of this regime was to be about the difficulty in gathering evidence to prosecute foreign fighters returning home.

All of this can be sorted out but we need time in order to do that, and also a reminder that we’ve got the SIS and the GCSB. We pass legislation so that they will show up earlier, so that we could quiz them as to what went wrong in Christchurch. Why were they watching Muslim whānau, when they should have been watching white supremacists? Why did they allocate their resources in such a way? These are really, really important questions, and we think that would have given us a wider view and a more deeper context to really consider this legislation.

Yesterday, the Minister did talk about the “new legs”, I think he called it, within this legislation, and those three legs within the legislation are legs of motivation, intent, and purpose. But I come from communities that want to know what those legs will do and whether it’s three legs or four legs or eight legs or a whole octopus of legs, what we want to know is whether those legs are actually going to stomp on us. One of the things that we haven’t really discussed tonight is implicit bias, which I think is the PC way of saying “institutional racism”, which is rampant throughout the agencies. Every other week, there is a headline that says that brown people are disproportionately impacted, that there is racial prejudice within the agencies. Unless we get a fuller scope of actually what that looks like, how can we, then, fully commit to making sure that we scrutinise bills correctly and promptly?

This reminds me of a whakataukī, which goes, he kōkona whare e kitea, he kōkona ngākau e kore e kitea—the corners of a house can be seen but not so the corners of the heart. He kōkona whare e kitea, he kōkona ngākau e kore e kitea.

The State has a long history of watching our communities, watching activists who stand up for social justice and the environment, and watching minorities. They watch us a lot, and yet, with all that surveillance, I feel that they still do not really see us. I think about what happened in terms of 2007, with the raids that were directed against Tūhoe in terms of the lessons learnt by the agencies; they clearly didn’t learn them. In 2019, we saw that, because they were looking in the wrong direction. That was acknowledged by many submitters, and, as a reminder, the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act was passed in response to the US war on terror. So we imported what was happening overseas to what was happening here.

Just as a reminder, people, in 2007, in that action against Tūhoe, there were 300 police who raided houses all over Aotearoa New Zealand and arrested people on warrants issued under the Terrorism Suppression Act. Lives were turned upside down as the police searched for evidence of terrorism. The village of Ruātoki was locked down and houses were also raided in Wellington, Auckland, and Palmerston North.

In court, the evidence eventually crumbled. None of the 18 people who were eventually arrested faced charges under the Terrorism Suppression Act, after the Solicitor-General ruled that the evidence was insufficient. Again, that whakataukī, “He kōkona whare e kitea, he kōkona ngākau e kore e kitea.”

They raided houses in Auckland and Wellington, they locked down Ruātoki, and also in Palmerston North. I know that because my house was one of the houses that was raided in Palmerston North. When they come for us, they come for us at dawn. Sometimes they knock on the door; sometimes they just barge on through.

On that day, I had actually just returned from Australia, where Aboriginal communities had been organising against the northern intervention—the military intervention into their communities. I’ve got a longstanding relationship with a friend of mine who’s from the Borroloola community, and I’ve spent some time up in Garawa country. So as we were over there, as Māori supporting Aboriginal communities against military intervention on their land, it was happening in Ruātoki.

So I came home, and the very next day, I got the knock on the door. I opened up the door, the police were there—a lot of them—and they had what looked to me to be like a phone book’s length of a search warrant. So what happened in that particular moment was—because I had my third child, who was a couple of months old—that the first thing that came to my mind was “I think these people might actually give me a hiding in front of my kids.” That’s what I actually thought.

So they went through all of my stuff, and it turns out that law degree I got from Auckland University turned out to be really, really useful. But, in the aftermath of that, it had a very chilling effect on my community. It had a very chilling effect right across Aotearoa New Zealand.

One of the people that was also raided in Palmerston North, she came to my house and said, “Hey, look, my dad wants to talk to you.” I’d never met these people before, and one of the orderlies who worked at the hospital, I knew him, and I went up to talk to this man, and the only reason why he was in hospital was because he had collapsed as they had arrested him. He had collapsed in the prison cell.

So what I’m saying here is that these things need to take time, and I don’t think the time has been taken here. We need to walk with communities. We need to walk with those communities that will be impacted. As a reminder, once again: there is racial prejudice within our police force and within our agencies. They disproportionately target communities like mine. They disproportionately target communities like our Muslim whānau. They disproportionately target environmentalists and social justice activists. We need to properly investigate and to really pull that apart before we give them more tools.

Before we give them new opportunities, new rules, and new tools to use, we have to make sure that they’re using the ones that they’ve already got properly, and we have not had that proper conversation. We need to have that conversation, as well, especially when the SIS and the GCSB show up, so we can find out what they weren’t doing and where they were spending all their time.

Me mutu au i konei ki runga i tēnei o ngā whakataukī e rangona nei ngā taringa ki Te Urewera. “Ka warea te ware, ka area te rangatira. Hongihongi te whewheia, hongihongi te manehurangi, kei āu te Rangatiratanga.” Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

[I must finish here with a proverb that hails from the Urewera. “Ignorance is the oppressor, vigilance is the liberator. Know the enemy, know the destiny, determine our own destiny.”]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning for the extended sitting. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2021

(continued on Thursday, 30 September 2021)

Bills

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mōrena mai tātou katoa i runga i te tukunga iho o rātou mā te wāhi ngaro, tēnā koutou.

[Good morning everyone under the guidance from above, greetings.]

The House is resumed. Members, when we rose last night we were on the third reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. We’d just completed call No. 6, now it’s call No.7.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mōrena, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I stand to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill, the third reading. Before I start, I’d like to acknowledge the victims of the Christchurch massacre in 2019, as well as those that were affected by the LynnMall terrorist attack at the beginning of this month.

I think it is important that we do look to change our terrorism laws. There were some gaps in there that had been needing to be fixed, and the ACT Party were definitely wanting to get in behind and support that. But what we don’t agree with is the time frame being brought forward, and this is why we are opposing supporting this bill. We believe—actually feel—that the movement of this bill at speed is virtue signalling, and it’s virtue signalling off the back of these terror attacks. Now, we had that happen back in March and the effects of rushed legislation are still being felt by many, to the point where some of our administrators are struggling to administer the law that was rushed so quickly. So we think that, when it comes to terrorism, we need to ensure that we have the ability to be able to go through a good lawmaking process and make sure individuals, minorities, and ethnic communities are not caught up in the speed with which we legislate.

Members opposite have said that we went through a thorough process. Well, we did, and thank you to the Ministry of Justice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for coming up with some of the changes that were needed. But it wasn’t, in my opinion, thorough enough. The bill itself was meant to be reported back to the House on 5 November—quite fitting, really, when you think of terror attacks and Guy Fawkes. Maybe they didn’t want to have it on that day and brought it forward, but, actually, it just comes back to virtue signalling.

I asked the Minister whether or not there were aspects in this bill that were going to make New Zealand safe and to stop a LynnMall terror attack—in fact, I asked the Minister “Is any chance that the aspects that we’ve changed in this bill would have prevented the LynnMall terror attack?” He, effectively, said he couldn’t answer that. So we’re asking again: why did we have to rush this through, when, in actual fact, it wasn’t going to, or couldn’t, make a change to what happened on 3 September?

We are quite worried—the ACT Party—about the disruption to civil liberties. We have that with the increase in the ability to use the search and surveillance laws—surveillance we see, quite often, of people just going about their normal everyday business. While we are glad that we did reach agreement across the Justice Committee on changing the word “fear” to “intimidation”—that came out of a good, robust debate—I still wonder at lowering that threshold from terror to intimidation and how it will affect those civil liberties of the people that we are trying to protect.

There is, obviously, quite a number of concerns that have been raised across this House. We talk about the speed. We talk about the impediment on civil liberties and freedoms. Our Green Party colleagues also raised a number of issues, and I think that those issues could have been thought out, discussed, and debated if we had the opportunity to go through to 5 November and see this bill without it being rushed through Parliament.

The last time that we spoke with legal experts on the bill, they were not convinced. They were worried that we had impeded on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—and this was the human rights commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and the New Zealand Law Society. So we’ve had organisations that did raise some concerns, as well as two parties here.

Now, ACT was prepared to streamline this bill so that we could get some of those gaps that had been identified fixed, and then continue to work on the areas that both the Green Party and ACT had concerns with. But we were not able to do that and that’s why we are objecting to the process of pushing this bill through so quickly. It would have been about making sure that we could keep the country safe by filling in those gaps but still allowing the democratic process of addressing the concerns that other parties have had.

This bill is so vast in its scope that when we look at recommendation 18, made after the royal commission inquiry, we see that this bill goes further—a lot further—than recommendation 18. That’s why we feel that it actually warranted a better, longer, and fuller discussion. We feel that we may not have been able to find that fine balance between protecting the community and that community losing some of their civil liberties just because the process was, ultimately, rushed. The line has been crossed, and this Government has deemed it to be justified, and we don’t think that that’s justifiable. Virtue signalling is not good lawmaking, and the people of New Zealand deserve better from us as lawmakers. We oppose this bill in its third reading. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā tātou katoa i tēnei ata. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to take a brief call on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. It was a privilege to sit on the Justice Committee, ably chaired by Ginny Andersen. It was a very interesting select committee process—the submissions that we received but also the engagement, thorough engagement, with the officials as we discussed and debated, questioned and probed—in particular, for me, the definitions of “terror” and of “intimidation”; that was one that we spent a lot of time on. I really appreciated the efforts of the officials to help us truly understand the difference between those, and where we landed, with agreement, with the Opposition, the National Party, in terms of recommending, as a way forward, that “intimidation” be the definition that we use.

We have this legislation because of a recommendation that came out of the royal commission into the March 15 attacks, and it was really unfortunate that during the select committee process, we had another situation occur. But, prior to that situation, we had actually heard all of the submissions, we had received the advice from the officials, and we had had a lot of discussion and debate, so I reject the previous member’s, Nicole McKee’s, assertions that this is virtue signalling; it certainly wasn’t—it was already a process well in train, and it was to try and prevent that very situation that occurred.

I do not want to prolong this debate any further. I want to make sure that we have this legislation in place so that we can have better protections for terrorism in Aotearoa. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call the Hon Michael Woodhouse—five minutes.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to join with colleagues across the House in extending concern, support, and aroha for all of those people who have been affected by terrorism and terror attacks, not just here in New Zealand but right around the world.

Look, there’s no doubt that in my lifetime New Zealand has changed. It’s changed overwhelmingly for the better, in terms of our understanding of, and diversity of, people and views, but despite that, there is a strong perception, which I understand, that there is an increasing intolerance of difference—difference of view, difference of belief, difference of appearance. We get taller buildings but we get shorter tempers; we get wider streets but narrower minds. Even though there is such an enormous access to knowledge, there is a growing ignorance, actually, of our history and of the history of other parts of the world.

So it’s easy to have a fairly jaundiced view of society at large. I don’t share that. In the previous Government, it was my privilege to be the Minister of Immigration—I was for nearly five years—and it took me into parts of our community that I would never otherwise have seen, and that was a huge privilege. I have to say, some of those communities had significant challenges, challenges that we as a Parliament and as a democracy need to overcome.

But I have a much more sanguine view of where New Zealand is at, and that is actually backed up by data that is collected. It’s important, I think, to recognise that New Zealand ranks first in the world for celebrating indigenous culture. By no means are we perfect, but being first is a pretty good start. In terms of tolerance of immigrants, we rank third behind Canada and, I think, Iceland, in the manner in which we accept immigrants into New Zealand.

So there is, I think, reason to be more optimistic, and this debate has been a real challenge, I think, in the passage of this legislation because it deals with such difficult issues. But I don’t share the views of Ms McKee either, actually. As Willow-Jean Prime has said, I don’t think this is virtue signalling, but I don’t think we should be naive to think that the passage of legislation is going to change behaviour or belief. That’s where society comes in. It can raise conversations. It can highlight areas where there are problems. But it won’t change behaviour, belief, and culture. The public need to do that, and we do that with conversation, with understanding of difference and the reason for it, and I think we are on the right path.

I think it’s also worth pointing out that the terrible incidents that we have experienced in New Zealand, as others have pointed out, have been perpetrated by people who are not part of large groups who hold these heinous views, and, actually, that makes it quite a bit more difficult to detect. But the parts of this legislation that criminalise behaviour that might be being conducted by what’s known as “the lone wolf” will certainly assist; it won’t solve, but it will certainly assist in enabling society to condemn that sort of behaviour more appropriately. I hope we never ever again see the events of March 2019 and of what has happened in the last month, or so, in New Lynn.

This is a good start and I commend the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Rawiri Waititi—five minutes.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill. I want to begin by extending my aroha—the aroha of Te Paati Māori—to victims of the terrorist attack in New Lynn. Our aroha goes out to the victims of the March 15 attack in Ōtautahi, which was the original catalyst for bringing this legislation before the House. We unequivocally condemn all acts of violence and terror. That is why, when we think about the victims of terrorism, our thoughts also go back to generations of tangata whenua and first-nations peoples who have suffered from this country’s history of State-sponsored terror.

For our people, this has been a reality since the colonisers reached these shores. I think about the women and children brutally shot down and burnt alive in Rangiaowhia on the Sabbath in 1864. This was terrorism. I think about the people of Parihaka, who were invaded, raped, and dispossessed in the systemic campaign of terror in 1881. This was terrorism. I think about my Tūhoe people at Maungapōhatu, under the leadership of Rua Kēnana in 1916, who was arrested, his son murdered along with others, and women raped and terrorised for exercising their mana motuhake. This was terrorism. I think about the atrocities inflicted on our tangata moana, our Moana-nui-a-Kiwa whanaunga in the Dawn Raids between 1974 and 1976. This was terrorism. I think again of my Tūhoe people as they once again suffered State-sponsored terror when, in 2007, heavily armed officers, working like assassins in a foreign war, stormed school buses in Ruatoki, locked kaumātua in garages all day, and, essentially, put Te Urewera under martial law. This was terrorism. I think about my personal experience of the raid by the New Zealand Navy and the New Zealand Police on my people of Te Whānau-ā-Apanui in 2010, when we peacefully protested against deep-sea oil drilling company Petrobras in the Raukūmara trench, within our tribal territory, when our skipper of our iwi boat was arrested and left two of our iwi kaumātua to navigate their way back to the port in Tauranga. This was terrorism.

All these acts were enabled by legislation that passed through this House, laws that have labelled our people terrorists. The recent act of State-sponsored terror on Tūhoe was done under the guise of anti-terror legislation, which goes to show just how dangerous these laws can be and that they can perpetuate the violence they seek to end. One of our strongest concerns with this bill is the new planning and preparation offence, which is intended to be used to prosecute would-be terrorists before they’ve even committed any violence. It is quite likely that if this proposed legislation was on the books in 2007, particularly this offence, the State would have had legal power to convict my Tūhoe whanaunga. We saw that they tried their very best to get Terrorism Suppression Act offences to stick. In the end, they failed. They resorted to firearms charges. It would have made it far easier for the State to succeed against our people if they could have simply alleged that they were thinking and feeling, and use the evidence in court.

Legal and human rights experts, including the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, have expressed serious concerns with the way that this bill attacks fundamental human rights and freedoms. It’s pointed out in their submission: “Conspiring to commit an offence has always been an offence in Aotearoa. Indeed that is the name of section 310 of the Crimes Act 1961”. Other provisions are also deeply concerning, including the power to search properties, vehicles, and individuals without warrant.

Once again, this Government is creating laws that disregard basic legal and moral protections of rights, including privacy, that are the bedrock of our human rights framework. We all support keeping our people safe. We all want a country free of violence, discrimination, racism, and terror in all forms, but the way to achieve that is not through Draconian legislation. Our people know, without a shadow of a doubt, that this will be used against the surveillance and criminalisation of tangata whenua and minorities; hence why the minor parties stand in solidarity today. Shame on this House today for supporting such a fundamental erosion of human rights that we hold dear in Aotearoa. Te Paati Māori is proud to oppose this bill. Kia ora tātou.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Salaam alaikum, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to take a call on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill at third reading. As we prepare to pass this bill today, I too wanted to pay my tribute and my aroha to the victims of the LynnMall terrorist attack in September, earlier this month, and also to the victims of 15 March 2019, and also to the victims of global terrorism who have been victims of evil attacks all over the world.

Today is a good day. By the time we pass this bill, New Zealanders across the country will be reassured and they will be feeling safe. While this bill alone won’t stop future attacks, combined with other measures it will do the job and it will keep us safe.

I’d like to comment on the members of the ACT Party who said that this bill will never stop the attacks alone. This bill was not designed to stop attacks itself, but combined with other measures it will, because it simply provides our law enforcement agencies with a clear and legal authority to prevent and disrupt terrorism-related activities by creating new offences to criminalise terrorist activities. This is major and it does this by extending the control order regimes. It’s a clear message to those who dare to want to hurt us, to unleash attacks on our country. Terrorism has changed its face, it has changed the way it operates; organised terror groups are not the only threats any more. Lone wolves pose the biggest threat today, so our laws have to reflect this.

The two terrorist attacks committed in our land—by doing so, they tried to change the way that we live our lives. They wanted to take away our sense of safety. They tried to shake our trust in our law enforcement agencies. They tried to impose ideology that’s not welcome in our country, but we stood firm. We refused to be intimidated. We rejected the notion of being divided as a nation, as they wanted us to be. That doesn’t mean that we should be complacent and relaxed. We’ve got work to do. We need to consolidate our laws, give our law enforcement tools to protect us to do their job, and that’s exactly what we’re doing today.

I was so proud of the way that our country responded to all the attacks, but I’m also proud today as we prepare to pass this bill—I’m again proud. This bill was carefully considered and the policy in the bill was developed through a comprehensive process to make sure it doesn’t compromise rights recognised in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I’d like to thank the Justice Committee for the good work that they have done considering this bill. I’d like to thank the submitters. I’d like to thank all the staff that worked hard on this. I’d also like to thank the National Party for their positive contribution, especially the Hon Simon Bridges and his positive remarks last night. Lastly, I’d like to thank the Minister of Justice, the Hon Kris Faafoi, who has done such a good job in putting this together. This is a hard-working Minister who has just today put out another announcement on immigration, and we couldn’t be more proud. This Government is moving on with the mahi quietly—talking less, working more. With that, I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Nei koutou mā. September 11, 20 years ago—or 9/11 as it’s well-known globally—was a moment in our living time when our world changed. An act of terror froze the moment in time, and the chilling effects of that have been prolonged and have struck at the Western World’s sense of security and freedoms, with that strike to be counter-attacked. So I take a stand this morning to strike back against acts of terrorism. Jointly with the Government, the National Party is supporting the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill.

The contributions in the House last night, and with more to come this morning, come from perception and perspective. The reality is that we have a duty as lawmakers and as legislators, and the reality that our world is faced with is that our safeties, our freedoms, and our security have been under attack. I take this call addressing perspective and perception but also dealing with the fact and the reality that the safety and security of New Zealanders is front and foremost.

I was reminded this morning, in reflecting on what happened 20 years ago, and I distinctly recall being woken by our 9-year-old son. He came to his mother and father and said, “You must come and see this on TV, Mum and Dad.” We saw the reality of the strikes on liberty and freedom in New York City, which is symbolic with its Statue of Liberty there. We witnessed towers tumbling and freedom crumbling and a strike at the heart of the Western World and at the perception of freedoms and security.

It struck me also this morning that 20 years later, on 9/11, little did I realise not only the impact that morning had had on the world—global—sense of security but how it impacts and imprints on each of us personally, and it struck me that the reason my son happens to be living and working in New York is because of what he witnessed, I believe, as a 9-year-old child. He’s now working in a space addressing world peace and global security.

So I come to the purpose of this bill now, which is that in New Zealand we deem it a duty and the obligation to better prevent and respond to terrorism and associated activities. We have heard contributions in the House in this third reading of the bill about the impact of the strike at New Zealand’s sense of security with the recent events that have occurred, most recently in New Lynn, and then, more recently, what triggered a reset of New Zealand counter-terrorism legislation with the Christchurch mosque murders on 15 March 2019. So that is the contemporary realisation of terrorism that is in our world and that is on our front doorstep at home, here in Aotearoa. But I also reflected as well that New Zealand’s history is one where we do have acts of terrorism that have been perpetuated through the development of our nation. The Māori Party referred to some of those incidents, and, again, we speak from the imprint of what’s impacted on our lives and on our whakapapa. So counter-terrorism is a reminder to New Zealanders listening in.

We have a history that dates back to Parihaka on 5 November 1881. The Māori Party’s Rawiri Waititi has talked about the impact of the Tūhoe raids on his people. That was on 15 October 2007, under a Labour Government. That struck at the heart and the core of the local people’s community’s sense of freedom but also trust. The contributions this morning have talked about the relevance and the importance of humanitarian rights and responsibilities, and that has been front of mind for the contributions and the submissions and the learnings by the members of the Justice Committee.

Part of the history of terrorism here in Aotearoa New Zealand also—and I distinctly remember this; I was a law student—was on 13 November 1990. In the Aramoana massacre, 13 people were killed. One of those was a police constable on the front line in defence of his local community. And just yesterday, we had the New Zealand Police commemoration day of all of those front-line police officers and also employees who have acted in defence of our nation.

Then, again, that moves me to the most recent event of terrorism, a strike at the heart of our sense of security here in Aotearoa New Zealand: the LynnMall attack. So the terrorism is real. We tuck it into the back of mind, and then it just propels and projects us into this sense of reality when it strikes at the heart of what’s happening in our communities. So to hear from the ACT Party, saying that there’s been insufficient time for this bill to be considered carefully, I do not agree with.

The history of this and the reason for this bill coming to be is that it’s an omnibus bill that is reflecting on the global impact of terrorism as it strikes us on our front yard. So there has been sufficient time, because post-9/11 in 2001, the United Nations presented its resolution. That resolution was Resolution 1373, and the history of this is annexed in Schedules 4D and 4E in Schedule 2 of the bill, soon to be law. That Resolution 1373 in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 just declared the necessity for member States to cooperate in order to prevent and to suppress terrorism. Then, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 of 24 September 2014, again, propelled and projected New Zealand to come up to speed with its legislation, because we were behind the eight ball on that And, as a result of that, there was the commission of inquiry which had been triggered by the Christchurch attack on 15 March 2019. So for the ACT Party to say that there’s been insufficient time for the consideration of New Zealand’s counter-terrorism legislation is not correct and it is not fact.

It is all well and good for members of Parliament to speak about perception and speak about feelings and emotion, and that’s not to say that we don’t feel it or that it doesn’t impact or imprint on our lives. But the reality is that we have to deal with facts, and the fact is that we have a responsibility, as members of Parliament and as a representation of our nation, to advocate for the protection of rights and freedoms but also, importantly, for safety and security. That’s what this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill does. Being an omnibus bill, it factors in the counter-terrorism legislation that we’ve had well and truly entrenched in our country—the Terrorism Suppression Act being but one of those pieces of legislation.

The commission of inquiry reported back in November 2020 the relevance and significance of New Zealand to come up to speed and pace with the United Nations Security Council global protections. That is what this Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill does. We have a responsibility as a nation to provide for the safety and protection of our citizens.

In closing, I wish to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell. He’s taken the lead on this and he’s front-footed it. National has appointed him as the spokesperson for counter-terrorism. He has vast experience on the ground. He would very much have liked to have been on the ground today in Parliament to commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 98

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.

Noes 22

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I present a legislative statement on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI: I move, That the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

We are pleased to see that the majority of the House here today is committed to supporting parents and their children in the welfare system by removing the subsequent child policy from the Social Security Act 2018 and the Social Security Regulations 2018. I would like to thank the committee of the whole House for considering this bill. This is an important piece of legislation that will reduce inequity in the welfare system and progress our welfare overhaul work programme, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank and support and acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, for shepherding this bill through and the huge amount of work that she and her officials have done to bring this bill to this stage. I would also like to take this opportunity on her behalf to thank all the members of the Social Services and Community Committee and those who made submissions to the select committee on the bill.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG), who recommended the removal of the subsequent child policy in their advice to the Government in February 2019. The WEAG’s report on how to best give effect to the Government’s vision for the future direction of the social welfare system remains an important piece of advice for our welfare overhaul work programme.

The Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill will remove the subsequent child policy from the Social Security Act 2018 and associated Social Security Regulations on 8 November 2021. This will mean that a child who would have been deemed to be a subsequent child under the current policy will be treated in the same way as a non-subsequent child for the purposes of setting their parents’ work or work preparation obligations and determining eligibility for sole parent support. The practical impacts of this change are that parents will have more flexibility to spend time with their children, and the welfare system will be simpler and fairer for groups who are disproportionately impacted by the policy, such as Māori and women.

The bill also sets out transitional provisions related to the removal of the policy, which come into force on 11 October 2021. This will improve the client experience for clients with a benefit application or change in circumstances around the time of the policy’s removal by preventing multiple changes to their benefit type and work or work preparation obligations within a short period of time.

The subsequent child policy was introduced in 2012 by the then National Government and was intended to address the concern that families who have a subsequent child or children while on benefit were at an increased risk of long-term welfare dependence due to detachment from the labour market for long periods of time. Where the subsequent child policy applies, the client will have work preparation obligations only until the subsequent child’s first birthday, after which their obligations will be based on the next-youngest non-subsequent child. This means in some instances parents of subsequent children have full-time work obligations from their youngest child’s first birthday. Since amendments to the system of the main benefits in 2013, the subsequent child policy has also impacted eligibility for sole parent support. From a subsequent child’s first birthday, the client’s eligibility for sole parent support is determined based on the client’s next-youngest non-subsequent child.

Ensuring that work obligations were not reset beyond the subsequent child’s first year was intended to afford clients earlier support and assistance to secure paid work and the social, financial, and developmental advantages this provides to the family. It is important to note, however, that the policy has not achieved its intended purpose. The Ministry of Social Development’s modelling on the cohort affected by the policy has found no strong evidence to suggest that the policy has been effective in reducing time on benefit or improving financial or social outcomes. In fact, we know that there are a large number of factors at play as to whether a person is actually able to work, or to work all the hours of the work test. This includes, for example, their support network to help with their caring responsibilities, their level of training and experience to enter employment, and the availability of suitable work at the time of their access to employment-focused case management.

As at 30 April 2021, approximately 11,400 clients are impacted by the policy. For those people, the subsequent child policy is resulting in inequity between subsequent and non-subsequent children and a lack of flexibility to spend time with children in their early years, and is disproportionately impacting on Māori and women. Removing the policy will have a number of positive impacts on whānau and children. We know that parents’ fundamental caring responsibilities and the needs of their children remain consistent, regardless of whether a child is subsequent or non-subsequent. The policy’s removal will increase equity in the welfare system by returning families with the subsequent children to the usual work and work preparation obligations, treating them the same as any other whānau.

New Zealand’s welfare system must adequately support employment and training and also recognise the value of unpaid work such as caring and volunteering. The consideration of an additional child’s age when setting work preparation or work obligations will afford parents the flexibility to determine what is best for their family and prioritise either returning to work or caring for their child. We know that the first thousand days of a child’s life are critical for their long-term development. Whilst there are benefits to moving into sustainable employment that may make an earlier return to work the best option for some parents with a subsequent child, other families may benefit more from the parent being at home with their subsequent child. This Government respects that choice. For parents of subsequent children who do want to return to work earlier, they will still have access to employment support and be supported to transition to the workforce.

Removing the subsequent child policy will lead to better alignment between work obligations and Government-funded early childhood education, which is available for up to 20 hours per week from the time a child turns three. The removal of the subsequent child policy will therefore ensure that childcare support is available to parents when their part-time work obligations commence from their youngest child’s third birthday.

The setting of work or work preparation obligations that recognise the age of all dependent children in the family is likely to reduce stress for the affected whānau, which may also have positive impacts for mental health and wellbeing. This was a strong theme raised by submitters to the select committee, and we as a Government are proud that this bill will address their concerns.

Clients who become eligible to receive sole parent support may also be able to access additional support not available to recipients of jobseeker support. This includes the work bonus, which is a payment that can be made to clients or partners on specific benefits who do not have either part-time or full-time work obligations and who cancel their benefits to move into employment. Clients on sole parent support with work preparation or part-time work obligations may also be able to study full-time through the Training Incentive Allowance, which this Government has brought back in.

We know that changes in the welfare system are required to ensure it is fair, accessible, and fit for purpose for all New Zealanders. The Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill forms part of our work to review ineffective obligations and sanctions in the welfare system, with an initial focus on those that impact children. This bill builds on our progress to date in the welfare overhaul work programme and supports our vision to ensure that people have an adequate income and standard of living, are treated with and can live in dignity, and are able to participate meaningfully in their communities. This Government will continue to explore how we can best support earning, learning, caring, and volunteering in New Zealand. On behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this third reading of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, we need to be very clear about the origins of this bill, what it does, and what it doesn’t do. So given that this is purely winding back a policy that was introduced by the previous National-led Government, I thought it was important just to actually put on record what was behind it so that the public who are watching this debate can choose for themselves: benefit or not.

So the focus of the National-led Government at that time was to support those on benefit to move off benefit where possible, so that they could have a better quality of life and a higher income and greater opportunities. It was about providing a focus on work and work preparation and making sure that connections to the labour market were carried out as early as possible.

New Zealanders, by and large, of course want to financially support themselves and want to have more choices available, and the National Party has a very strong track record of wanting to see New Zealanders have opportunities, instead of being trapped in a life with limited choices and being dependent on a benefit. We don’t want to see the life outcomes that often follow—and the evidence tells us this—of long-term benefit dependency such as, particularly for children, material hardship, poor educational achievement, and, often, poorer health outcomes.

Helping parents into work improves the social economic outcomes for themselves and their children. The OECD has this to say—and I quote—paid work “is the most effective way of reducing the risk of family poverty, enhancing child development, and generally giving children the best start in life.” So, of course, if we talk about subsequent children—as this policy is removing—that of course delays the move into paid work, and so let’s be clear that the Labour Party is very clearly, and with an ideologically-driven position, removing the ability for parents to get back into work of some shape or form at an earlier time frame.

Let’s just have a look at what that potentially means. So what the evidence tells us, particularly for a teen parent, is that if the teen parent that goes on a benefit under the age of 20, the lifetime that that young person is on benefit is 14 years. So I want you to think about—and I want this House to consider—the impact on the children in that household, because that’s what this is about. This is about, or it should be about, reducing the long-term harm and hardship and improving the long-term outcomes for those children, but no—Labour don’t want to consider that. They don’t want to consider the long-term outcomes.

It’s really interesting, because when we were going through these changes, I remember a constituent coming into my office in Tokoroa. She sat down in front of me and she said, “I’m a solo mum and I want you to take a message to Paula Bennett.”, and I thought, “Well, this will be interesting.” I braced myself—I did. I braced myself, and she said, “I want you to say thank you to her. I want you to say thank you to her, because the part-time job that I now have has made an enormous difference to me and my family.”

That is the difference that work makes, because she had significantly more income coming into her household, and—let’s be clear—it is bloody hard. I’m not the only person in this Chamber who has been through it. It is incredibly difficult—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry for interrupting the member. I’d just ask the Government whip to keep it down. I find it difficult to hear the speaker when he’s got his back turned and—

Kieran McAnulty: My apologies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: —having a loud conversation. Sorry about that—the Hon Louise Upston.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yeah, so the reality is the other side actually don’t care about the long-term outcomes of children in New Zealand, and they don’t care about the fact that real people share real experiences. They very deliberately turn their backs and don’t want to hear about the real opportunities, because this is what it’s about—this is what it’s about. It’s about the long-term impact on children in benefit-dependent homes.

So you want to talk about hardship. Where are the children that live in material hardship? They are in benefit-dependent homes. So, yep, you can lift benefits, and National did—first time in 40 years. We focused on the children in benefit-dependent homes. But what is the long-term impact of trapping a child in a household when the only income coming in is a benefit?

So what is this policy doing? It is going to remove the opportunity of parents getting ready for work, having discussions with their case manager about the sorts of things that are practical to support them—

Hon Peeni Henare: Shameful!

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —into employment. No, what is shameful is trapping thousands of children into material hardship. Do you want to know the numbers—do you want to know the numbers? Here we go. This record: 30,000 more children are living in benefit-dependent homes under your watch. In four years, 30,000 more children are living in material hardship because of that Government and your failures—failures to lift children and provide opportunities—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We’re getting a barrage of interjection, which is out of order. I apologise again—the Hon Louise Upston.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. You can tell when you touch a nerve in this House, because the reality is—and I want these figures on the record—30,000 more children are living in benefit-dependent homes under this Government.

Children in poverty? Prime Minister Ardern says this is her reason for being—this is her reason for being in politics. In September 2017, she said Labour would reduce the number of children in poverty by 100,000. She specifically said that this was measured by the number of children living in households earning less than 50 percent of the median income. Oh, guess what? There are 1,500 more children living in child poverty on her measure, the measure that she said was the most important, instead of the reduction of 100,000. So I ask the question: in this policy, are you harming children or are you helping them? Their long-term opportunities will be damaged by this policy.

So let’s be very clear about that: this is not a pathway to work; this is not a pathway to opportunity. If you have been out of work and disconnected from a job for a long period of time, it is incredibly difficult to get back into work, and this very policy is forcing that upon more families, and more children in those families will be harmed as a result.

As I said, it is incredibly challenging making that transition, and that’s why the intent of the policies that were changed under National was not just about the obligations. They were very practical, sensible changes around childcare, around transport, and around additional financial assistance, and about being creative in terms of how you actually supported parents into suitable work.

I think back to the constituent, the woman who sat in my office in Tokoroa and said “Thank you.”, because the opportunity for her to have more income coming into her family, and the opportunity for her to have hope and to see a path forward where one day she would be off a benefit, she would be in a better job—not just a job, actually. She was really ambitious in terms of where her career was going to go. Isn’t that what we want? Isn’t that what we want for every parent and any person who’s on a benefit? Don’t we want practical measures that support them to stand on their own two feet and to have children who are raised in households of aspiration? No, clearly it’s not.

This is an ideologically-driven bill—that is all. It is virtue signalling. It does nothing. It will harm and hurt children and their long-term futures, and Labour should be ashamed of bringing this bill into the House. That’s why National strongly opposes it.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I rise to speak against failed policy and to say thank you to the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for ensuring that policy is right, for her passion, for her drive, and for her commitment to ensure that our welfare system is affirming of all people, offering a hand up, offering options for the future. That’s why this bill is so important.

Currently, the policy is discriminatory, based on judgmental and stigmatising attitudes towards predominantly solo mums. Currently, the policy is disproportionate. It impacts Māori by 56 percent. It impacts women by 86 percent.

We on this side of the House believe in solo mothers. We believe in their potential. We want to support their aspirations so that solo mums and their whānau can get ahead. We’re about investing in our solo parents: supporting, upskilling, training. That’s why we’ve reinstated the training incentive allowance, enabling—enabling—not punishing solo parents who have children. I want to thank the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for your drive to overhaul the welfare system, and I commit, and commend, this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Quite an emotive start to the debate on this third reading of the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill.

There have been some very articulately put points made by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, and I take heed of what she says, because she comes from a wealth of experience in this area. She has been here long enough to have seen the patterns over time and to have seen the policies that have worked and those that don’t work, and I just refer to the comment that the member across the House made about this being a hand up for people on benefit. This is a handout, and what happens when you increase money is that you increase dependency.

But of course we all want people to live out of poverty, so I challenge the Government: why aren’t they giving even more money to people on benefit if that is the answer? At the moment, people who are dependent on the State for their income are going backwards. They’re going backwards on the measures that the Prime Minister herself put in place. Material hardship is getting worse, and, as a consequence, the impact on children is getting worse, and their long-term outlook is looking poorer.

Now, we don’t want our children to be locked into the benefit dependency cycle, because the evidence around the world is absolutely clear that the longer people stay trapped as a dependant of the State, the worse their outcomes are and it’s interesting to go back to the different advisory groups that have been around advising policy development. I look at the Welfare Working Group that advised the policy that the National Government brought in in 2010, and then compare it, less than 10 years later, to the advice that has advised this policy direction.

There is no one going to argue that people at the lowest socio-economic levels in this country need more money—absolutely. But one of the best ways that they can increase their incomes is by being in work, either full-time or part-time. I have my own lived experience of that with my two children, living on benefit. It wasn’t until I started working part-time that I actually started to break out of that cycle.

The analysis that was used when developing the existing policy was very clear about the numbers of children in this country living in a benefit-dependent home, and at that stage, we had one in five children who spent seven years of their childhood, up to the age of 14, living in benefit-dependent homes. Now, that is not only a huge burden on those families to be struggling in that way but it’s also a huge burden on the State. As we heard from the Hon Louise Upston, we now have 30,000 more children in benefit-dependent homes in the last four years, and I think that’s a terrible testimony to the policy direction and the economic direction that this country is heading in.

I would just like to go through some of the criteria that was in place, or is still in place, until this bill goes through—for people on benefit to prepare themselves to work. The first one is to “be available for and take reasonable steps to get a suitable [part-time] job.” The second one is to “take any offer of suitable … part-time or temporary work, or work that is seasonal or subsidised”, to “attend and take part in any suitable job interviews we ask you to”, to “take and pass any drug test potential employers or training providers [might] require”, to “attend and take part in interviews with [the Ministry of Social Development] as required”, to “work with us to plan how you’ll find a suitable job”, or to “take part in any other activities that we refer you to, such as attend any job training courses, seminars, work experience or work assessments … that will improve your work readiness or help you get [ready for] work”.

They are not onerous obligations on someone who is receiving a benefit, I would argue. It is actually quite reasonable because what we want for people is for them to be able to return to the workforce, because we know when they do, their children’s opportunities are greatly increased.

I was so impressed with a submission to the select committee, I read it in my second reading speech, and I’d like to go back to it because I want to have it on the Hansard for Ali Haidari. He made a submission as a young person, and I was so impressed with his objectivity around this. Part of his submission said, in talking about this bill, that “it will stop parents or a sole parent to get into the workforce as they now have an extra child that they need to look after. Especially for families who rely on the government benefit which [is simply not] enough for them to raise more kids and if they do have another kid, then they do not have enough financial support or they are sitting on a government benefit which just isn’t enough for them to raise more kids. That’s where the child ends up in poverty because the parents cannot financially support them and they are facing hardship.” So I think that pretty well sums it up from a young person looking from the outside in, and I hope that Ali goes on to have a very successful and productive career.

We all know that the welfare system in this country is a safety net and we need that safety net in this country, but that’s what it needs to remain. But we also need increased and improved employment support for those that are on benefit.

So I ask the Government what is replacing those obligations for starting to think about work, for the training opportunities, for the work-readiness that they may have to participate in, because if you remove those obligations and you remove the time frame that you have for someone on benefit to begin thinking about their future and begin thinking about re-entering the workforce, then you also stop them from actively thinking about what they need to be able to provide in terms of training for themselves to get back into that workforce. So they need to be thinking about the types of work that they might want to go into, and then what kind of training or additional education, or even the childcare that they may require, the travel expenses, etc., etc. Without that obligation to think about a time limit, then they don’t have to think about how they retrain and re-enter the workforce.

The point of the subsequent child policy was actually to reduce the risk of long-term welfare dependency. We want our children to have hope for the future. We want their parents to be actively contributing. We know that when they go to work, their self-confidence increases, their social interaction improves, they work to a routine and so their children live with a routine, and the outcome in the long term is much improved. Anyone can give a child a lolly and they will survive for a short time on a sugar rush, but after the sugar rush comes the crash, and that’s what we want to try, on this side of the House, to prevent from happening.

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

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Xiexie e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to speak very briefly. I find it very difficult to hear the comments from across the House. Maureen Pugh, the speaker opposite, has just commented that the point of the law that they introduced just under 10 years ago was to reduce long-term benefit dependency. Well, if it had done that, we wouldn’t need to remove it. There is absolutely not a skerrick of empirical evidence that this law does anything other than put women and children under intense stress, and we heard that from all of the experts who came to see us.

I am very proud to commend this bill to the House, and I do it in the name of Jenny Kirk, the Birkenhead MP from the late 1980s, who died this morning. Moe mai rā, Jenny. You were a great advocate for women and for children.

Jenny was a solo mother when she campaigned in Birkenhead. She told me how she wore the same shirt every day because it was the only good one had. She knew about the struggles of women and children. She knew that that law was an appalling one, and we have done the right thing. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Green Party in support of this bill—wholeheartedly in support of this bill—that removes the punitive, discriminatory subsequent child policy.

The Green Party believes that everyone deserves enough to live with dignity, to support their family’s wellbeing, and to participate in their community. Income support can alleviate poverty and encourage all people to participate in a free and fair society to their maximum potential. We’ve long advocated for benefit levels to be set at levels that enable people to meet their own basic needs without having to resort to charity or begging, or more appointments, going through the details of their life and their bank accounts. We’ve also long been clear in our view that benefits should not be reduced or sanctioned as behaviour control tools. We do not believe that precariousness helps build good citizens, good community, or good family members.

I’d like to take a moment—with your indulgence, Mr Speaker—to plot the recent political history of this bill, as a different story has been told from this further right side of this House. So in 2017, our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Party going into Government confirmed that we both—Labour and Greens—wished to overhaul the welfare system to ensure access to entitlements and to remove excessive sanctions, and to review Working for Families as well, so that everyone in this country would have a standard of living and income that enabled them to live in dignity and participate in their communities and that lifted children and their families out of poverty. It’s something that I feel really proud of in terms of that commitment.

As a result of this agreement, the Government set up the Welfare Expert Advisory Group (WEAG) to provide an evidence-based road map for welfare reform. The Welfare Expert Advisory Group was led by Governor-General designate Dame Cindy Kiro and was made up of a really wide-ranging group of people from academics, health, community organisations, professionals, and business people, to people with lived experience of the welfare system. In their report, they noted that “Agreement is near universal that the benefit and tax credit systems are unmanageably complex. The level of financial support is now so low that too many New Zealanders are living in desperate situations. Urgent and fundamental change is needed.”

The social security system needs to recognise that most New Zealanders are willing to engage, participate, contribute, and do their fair share for their communities. That is the starting point of this discussion. It is that people want the best for themselves and their families without the requirement of having to wait for the National Party to tell them what to do.

They further noted that “The current system is based on conditionality including sanctions and is tightly targeted, with inadequate support to meet even basic needs. The experience of using the system is unsatisfactory and damaging for too many of the highest need and poorest people.” They heard overwhelmingly in consultations right across the country that “the system diminishes trust, causes anger and resentment, and contributes to toxic levels of stress.” That does not support our families. That does not support our children. That does not support us in our shared effort as a country to have the best outcomes for all of us.

So now we’re two years on from the WEAG report and two Budgets on, and this is the second piece of legislation and the second sanction to be removed. It’s fair to say the Green Party would have liked to have seen a bit more progress and for things to have happened faster, because this is urgent. That sense of trust between people and Government and security in our communities, we see it through the pandemic: we need each other, and to be able to rely on each other, we need to have confidence in our systems and in each other. Punitive, paternalistic, and, I would say, violent—in the extent that it does ignore the humanness of people—policies undermine that collective effort.

When I’ve heard some of the speeches from the National Party today, honestly, it has really—I’ve found it a struggle to listen to. Some of the comments about looking at the evidence of this being in the long-term best interests—they are completely refusing to acknowledge that the evidence does not support this policy having any positive benefit whatsoever. So the rhetoric in the face of the evidence is just deeply, deeply jarring to me, particularly when they talk about supporting people into work and say that this policy—which is being overturned, thankfully, in the legislation today—is essential for supporting people into work. The evidence says no.

But it’s also the complete disconnection from the fact that many people want to work, and they will do that themselves when it’s the right time for them, but there is no belief in people. It’s just a sense of “These are people that cannot do anything for themselves until we tell them what they have to do”. There’s some deep problems with that, and I really think they need to analyse, particularly when it’s in contrast to the reality that the National Party oversaw the diminishment of employment services within our Work and Income. So they spoke about supporting people into work while they actually oversaw the taking away of supports to help people who wanted to get into work to be able to get into work and good jobs. Those things do not go together, and actually show to me the lie of what this was about. It was about forcing people into low-paid jobs and stigmatising people, and that did not serve us as a country.

The previous speaker Maureen Pugh went through and said, “Well, these are the obligations. That’s not really particularly onerous, is it? I think that’s fine.” I’d just like the House to imagine a scenario that I think is fairly typical. So Tina—she’s got three kids: a six-year-old who’s just started school, and it’s about 2 kilometres away; a three-year-old, who is both clingy and hyperactive all at the same time; and a one-year-old, who often gets sick, probably because of the cold, damp houses that they’ve been moving around in between. Tina is a sole parent, not by choice, but by circumstance, and she is grieving for her lost relationship and sense of her own future and is battling depression. She lives in a low-income area, is disconnected from family and friends, and is struggling to pay her bills, and to get her child to school and back and get her three-year-old to childcare, as required by Work and Income, in another place altogether while meeting her bubba’s needs and staying afloat. I think that that should rightly be considered an achievement for pretty much any of us if we were in that situation.

This scenario is not an unusual one and there are many variations to it, and the response from my perspective to that situation is “How can we help, Tina? What can we do to make your life easier to be able to support yourself and your kids?” But, actually, the policy we’re getting rid of today, instead of saying “How can we help?”, it said, “What more obligations can we put on you, Tina? Well, we’re going to make you go to a work preparation course, we’re going to make you prove that you’re looking for work, and we’re going to force you into a low-paid, part-time job, if we consider it suitable.”

That is not a policy that is affirming of family or children. That is a punitive, discriminatory policy that I am pleased to see the back of.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT and Karen Chhour, our spokesperson for this, to take a short call on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill.

ACT opposes this bill and it’s certainly not because we don’t care about mums and dads and kids, but, in fact, it’s because of the opposite—we really do care. We all want the best for our children and the people who surround them, who look after them and love them and who are role models for them. It’s the way that we do this that sets us apart—the left and the right. The difference in our philosophies is pretty obvious in most bills that come across this House, but none more so than in this particular bill.

The Government believes that every person is entitled to be looked after by the State, no questions asked, to a degree that gives them the dignity and the fulfilment which is equal to someone who gets up, organises their children in whatever way they see fit, and then goes to work and pays taxes. ACT believes people should be looked after when necessary—a safety net available to anyone in real need—but we also believe that people who accept being looked after also have a responsibility to the society that pays for that assistance.

I heard over the last week that this particular policy affects Māori more than others, which could be so. But Sir Apirana Ngata, a great man often described as the foremost Māori politician to have ever served in Parliament, once said that his people should never be given welfare. He could see the danger, and it’s certainly not a race issue. This should be a discussion that we’re all open to having, putting forward ideas, opinions, and anecdotes, looking at the facts and statistics, however irritating they may be to our personal ideas—all of those things that a society with free speech can openly express without being condemned for having a different view. It is very unfortunate that this isn’t the case in the current environment.

Anyone with kids knows that to build empathy, appreciation, good work ethic—all of those things—they should teach their children to work and save for themselves, put in some effort, and not just expect things to be given to them. They’ll treat a bike that they’ve saved for and bought much better than one that’s just given to them without any effort. That’s just human nature.

It’s the same flawed philosophy that the Government has shown in many other bills. For example, the increase in minimum wage: the belief that by paying people more they will work hard and appreciate their job, rather than by paying those people who work hard more. I love their optimism, but it shows an incredible naivety in how the world works.

Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, if possible, the need for welfare. It shouldn’t encourage dependency and discourage people from going out to work. As a business owner, I know this is a fact. I have numerous examples.

ACT’s principles of personal responsibility and freedom of choice are at the heart of this bill. Life isn’t easy, and it shouldn’t be an option just to opt out of the workforce and expect to be looked after. Many of you will be familiar with Alan Duff, of Once Were Warriors and Duffy Books in Homes fame, who wrote: “So much of what is wrong with the thinking created by welfarism, it says the world owes people a living. We need a voice to yell ‘We don’t want your handouts!’ We want, if anything, to be pointed in the right direction to help ourselves.” Maybe he’s wrong—what would he know? The real shame is that he wrote this book in 1993, and, because of poor policy, nothing has changed, and, in fact, it’s worse. In the book there is a chapter—a whole chapter—“The curse of welfare”.

While listening to previous debates on this bill, I heard an interjection that ACT’s position was like going back to the 1970s. You just have to wonder how they will describe the upcoming compulsory unionism or fair-pay agreements bill. But that’s for another day.

It amazes me that the teachers in the Government go along with this ideology. Getting the best out of students requires pushing them out of their comfort zones, knowing that success comes from the inside; and, once they get a taste, the only way is up. Or do we just give kids the answers and tell them “We’ll look after ya.”?

The great Thomas Sowell once said, “The welfare state is not really about the welfare of the masses. It is about the egos of the elites.” Although done with the best intentions, I think this is true. We oppose this bill.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to stand in support of this bill, and in doing so, I’d like to acknowledge Minister Carmel Sepuloni for the work she’s done in bringing this bill to the House. This is a great moment, to see this bill get to third reading.

While I didn’t sit on the select committee that heard the submissions, I am very happy to support the bill because of the impact that it’s going to have on children’s lives, because if we’re removing subsequent child policy, what it means is that with respect to their parents’ work obligations, children will be treated equally in the welfare system irrespective of whether they’re a first or subsequent child. What that does is it means that parents have that choice returned to them in their children’s early years, about whether it is that they spend some time with their children in that crucial period of their children’s development, or whether it’s their own choice to go out into the workforce to earn income for their family. So it’s really, really important that that is being restored.

I just want to look back, and, as a Government, we have increased benefits, we have put the Best Start payment in for newborn babies, we have indexed benefits to the average wage, and so getting rid of ineffective and inefficient sanctions is a really important next step in making sure that our welfare system is fairer. So I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, like my colleagues, rise in opposition to the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. I’m the National Party spokesperson for women, and I want the women of New Zealand to thrive—not survive, but thrive. We on this side of the House are ambitious for women and especially for solo moms, especially young solo mums. But there have been a few cheap shots, I think, thrown around the House this morning—you know, words like stigmatism are being thrown around. We’re not here to stigmatise women. We’re here to advance them and their families and help them to see a way towards a better life for them and their kids.

I think it’s becoming clearer and clearer that never before has a Government that proclaims to be progressive been actually, in fact, incredibly regressive in the policy it brings in front of this House. You know, I’m just still a very new MP, but so often I find myself talking on social policy that is ideological and has well-intentioned, highfaluting intentions that will actually make things worse for the people it impacts in the long run. So today, sadly, this subsequent child policy removal amendment bill will, effectively, become law. It’s a bill that’s a result of a Labour Party campaign promise, and, as always, it was about the PR and not necessarily the policy.

I think, in passing this law, the Government needs to take into account that it was actually brought into law in the first place by the Hon Paula Bennett. Paula Bennett, as a teen mum on a benefit, she has experience—real, lived experience—in this space. She actually brings some credibility to this discussion—

Hon Member: And Maureen.

NICOLA GRIGG: —and I don’t think—and Maureen Pugh, and other colleagues on this side of the House as well.

Hon Members: And Louise.

NICOLA GRIGG: I could run through the list of names, but thank you. There are many. There are many women in this House, irrespective of the colour of the team they play for, who have this lived experience, and I think all of them would acknowledge that once they’re back in the workplace, once they’re earning money, and once they’re improving the wellness of their family and their own personal wellbeing, it is better for them and their sense of self in its entirety.

But this policy that Paula brought before the House was primarily about obliging women, once their youngest child turns one, to just start looking for work. Listening to some of the speeches here this morning, anyone would think we were tearing babies from breasts and forcing women into the workplace. That is simply not the case. The safety net has always and will always be in place, so much so that under the National policy, the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development was afforded powers to enable them to intervene at such time as they saw cases where women needed extra help. It is a flexible system designed to motivate mums back into work while still providing support for those with kids who might be older than one with more complex long-term needs.

Today, the House is being asked to reverse a policy that actually came into place alongside a suite of policies, and that has, conveniently, been forgotten in the arguments from the other side of the House. They were all about helping people off a benefit and back into either education or the workplace, or to just start looking for work. It is not the bogeyman that the Government tries to proclaim it is. It is about having children being able to grow up in a household that is ambitious and forward-looking. But today, this House, unfortunately, is going to throw that all out of the way and put in place a roadblock instead that will prevent people from being inspired and encouraged to enter the workplace. Because of that, I, along with my colleagues, oppose this bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand and rise with great pride to support this piece of legislation, and I do so as a member of Parliament who has real, firsthand, lived experience as a sole parent on a benefit who had to rely on food banks, etc., to help feed my family.

The rhetoric and reckons that have come from the Opposition this morning that sole parents are perhaps uneducated and unmotivated is, quite frankly, revolting. There is no evidence that this piece of legislation will create dependency. There is only evidence that the previous policy has not worked.

I commend Minister Sepuloni for overturning what was a punitive, discriminatory, and, quite frankly, disgraceful piece of legislation brought into this House by that party opposite—the National Party. Shame on them.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure of mine today to speak in the House on the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. I know that Minister Carmel Sepuloni is watching this on TV and I just want to say to her—

SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot refer to people watching this on TV—

Dr GAURAV SHARMA: My apologies.

SPEAKER: —or in the gallery or anything like that.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA: I just want to congratulate the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. It is one of many in a range of reforms that the Government is undertaking in helping fix the issues that were created by the last National Government. This bill fixes a lot of issues, but it corrects some of the intergenerational issues that arise from parents not being able to take care of their children because of a hole in the system that was created by National.

This bill is a step towards ensuring that the future generation is taken care of at an early age so that when they grow up, we can avoid a lot of the social challenges people do face at that point. So I would highly recommend this bill to the House, and I look forward to it being passed.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Eighty-four thousand—that is the number I want people to think about when they think about what this bill, the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill, is doing. Eighty-four thousand—that’s more than live in the city of Palmerston North, and that number is the number of additional New Zealanders who are dependent on a benefit under this Labour Government; 84,000 more New Zealanders not working, dependent on the Government for their income. And this in a time of low unemployment, in a time when our industries are crying out for workers, where the growers literally can’t find people to pick the fruit from the trees. And under Labour there are 84,000 more people dependent on a benefit.

Now, here’s the next number I want you to think about, because this number is the bit that shows the true, shallow nature of the compassion that members opposite talk about, and that number is 30,000. That is the number of additional children now living in households where mum and dad, or mum or dad, depend on a benefit for that family’s income. Thirty-thousand more children—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. I want to remind the member we are speaking to the third reading of a bill. It’s the bill as it has come out of the committee of the whole House stage. It’s a specific bill, and the member hasn’t even glanced in its direction yet. The member will, from now, speak to the bill if she wishes to continue.

NICOLA WILLIS: What this bill does is remove work expectations from women who have children while they are on the benefit. It entrenches dependence on welfare for a significant group of parents, and it is in that context that I point to the crisis of dependence that is emerging under this Government.

I will take you to why it is that we want to encourage parents into work, because there is a view on the other side that it is somehow uncompassionate or unsympathetic to say to a mother, “Actually, we think it’s time you prepare for work. It’s time you make yourself available for part-time work. It’s time you make yourself, eventually, available for paid full-time work.” Because that is the status quo that this bill seeks to change. This bill takes away those requirements. And we say, on this side of the House, that actually, when you do that, what you are doing is you are removing the expectation that people will take the best known, the best walked path out of poverty. What is the biggest predictor of child poverty? What is the biggest predictor that a family will face material hardship? It is that that family remain dependent on the State for their income through welfare dependence, and this bill says that people will not need to face work tests when they have subsequent children on the benefit. This bill says that when a parent has a subsequent child on the benefit, the expectation will be that they can stay on that benefit until that child is 14.

Members opposite say that this is going to be good for children and it is going to be good for parents, and what we say, on this side of the House, is that what we think is a lot better for children and parents is where they face strong incentives—not just incentives but expectations—that they are capable of returning to paid employment, with all the benefits that that brings. The research into this is clear: people in paid employment have increased confidence, they broaden their networks of support, and they have more social interaction in the community. We know that when people enter paid employment, that disrupts intergenerational cycles of poverty. It enhances child development, because parents who are in the workforce demonstrate to their children what can be gained from work and pass that imprint on to their children. So what this bill shows is a poverty of ambition for mothers who have children on the benefit.

I want to point out, in response to some of the claims made by members opposite, the reality that faces working parents up and down New Zealand. I want to acknowledge and recognise the mothers and the fathers who do access, who do make the decision to balance paid work and caregiving responsibilities, because the claim made by members opposite and in the purpose statement of this bill is that, actually, it’s very terrible for children when parents return to work—it’s stressful for the family; it’s going to have all of these adverse consequences for children and for parents. That is one of the major claims made for this piece of legislation, and I think that that is disrespectful of the mothers and fathers up and down the country who make a decision, when their child is 12 months old, or six months old, or whenever they see fit, that it is in the best overall interests of their family that they return to paid employment.

And some mothers make that choice because they look at the pathway ahead for their children and they think, “I want to provide them more material security. I want to be able to meet the rent each week without being stressed out about it.” And they go and they do cleaning shifts, and they work in takeaway restaurants, and they return to all sorts of employment, not always because it feeds their ego or their status but because they believe it is the best thing for their family. And what members opposite would have you believe is that mothers only ever return to paid employment because nasty people make them do so. And they would prefer a situation where those who are dependent on the State for their income do not face incentives to return to work. And I say, well, that is disrespectful of the thousands of mums and dads across the country who make considerable sacrifice by leaving their young children at home, by dropping their young children into day care, because they have made a judgment that the best thing overall for their family and for the hopes of their children is to be in paid employment.

Why should we have a poverty of ambition for those who are currently on welfare? Well, actually, we should have the highest expectations for them, because it is really important that they have a way out of poverty, and we should not consign them to 14 years on the DPB, which is what this bill would allow for, and pretend that that’s compassion. Actually, on this side of the House, we have a lot of empathy for people who have limited incomes and who are working incredibly hard to raise their families. That is stressful and that is hard. But what we also have for those people is compassion that they need more money, and members opposite may think that there is a never-ending money tree at the end of the garden, but there isn’t. There will never be enough benefit lifts to equal the wealth that comes from paid employment and an aspiration for further promotion for bigger pay packets.

And I’ll tell you how that happens: it happens because you return to work part-time as a mother, as is actually required by our current law—you face an incentive that once you have that subsequent child, you have to make your absolute best efforts to return to work—and when you take that chance, you take that part-time work, and you build from there, you meet other people, you gain a sense of self, you establish a relationship with an employer, then in time you can get that promotion, then in time, when your child starts school and things are easier, you might be able to get full-time work, and suddenly you can put more on the table for your kids. You can give them a better future. That is the aspiration we have on this side of the House. So we will not be told by members opposite that this sort of legislation is somehow compassionate. It shows an absolute poverty of ambition.

Before I sit down, I want to acknowledge the Hon Paula Bennett, whose vision was to create a system in New Zealand where welfare was a safety net that encouraged people to be ambitious for themselves and what was possible for them. The subsequent child policy was a change she introduced. It was a great thing to do. It recognised that work is the greatest liberator, that increases choices and opportunities. Members opposite may not understand that, but they should think about the children they are consigning to poverty as a result.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour—Wairarapa): I can assure you, sir, that this side of the House does understand that. That is why we have raised the minimum wage. That is why we have improved workers’ conditions, because we understand the benefits of work. That side of the House doesn’t have a monopoly on understanding that, but here’s a few facts for them—here’s a few facts for them that they have omitted in the debate for this bill, which all it does is it removes a provision that doesn’t work. That’s a fact: it just removes a provision that doesn’t work.

But here’s a few facts. The last Labour Government, before they were in, had a lower unemployment rate than National ever achieved. This Government has a lower unemployment rate before and after lockdown than National ever achieved. So they can throw around all the numbers they like, but it’s the investment in programmes like free apprenticeships and it’s the investment in programmes about skills training and the support schemes around getting into decent work with good conditions and good pay—that’s what makes the difference.

But here’s another fact: every single speaker on that side of the House has mentioned Paula Bennett. Paula Bennett got a degree, benefiting from the training incentive allowance. When she was the social development Minister, she took that allowance away from beneficiaries—

Hon Member: Pulled the ladder up.

KIERAN McANULTY: Pulled the ladder up behind her. I will not be thanking Paula Bennett, but I will be thanking the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for bringing that allowance back and giving hope to people. They don’t need these sorts of measures.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order! I reminded members on the other side of the House to stick to the bill. This member will too.

KIERAN McANULTY: Fair enough, I was going to wrap up anyway. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Civil Aviation Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Civil Aviation Bill.

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

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move that the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a first time.

The bill is introduced under Standing Order 264. In an integrated transport system, we need all transport sectors to be highly efficient and to work together to bring economic benefits, jobs, and opportunities for New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Order! I think the member might have missed something at the beginning of his speech. There’s a question—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I apologise. I move—

SPEAKER: I think we’ll—the member’s not getting extra time, but he better start again.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I move That the Civil Aviation Bill be now read a first time. [Member pauses]

SPEAKER: I nominate that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I nominate that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—

SPEAKER: —can consider the bill.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —can consider the bill.

I do apologise to the House; I did not have those words in front of me. I am reading—obviously engaged on behalf of the Minister responsible at short notice.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I just seek your guidance on this, Mr Speaker. What we’ve just essentially had from you and the Minister is a call and response in which you as the presiding officer of the House give the Minister the words to say, to move the particular motion. Is that in order, where you actually tell him what to say, then he repeats it back to the House?

SPEAKER: It certainly is. I’ve seen it happen on many occasions in the past, more often actually, for junior Ministers. But sometimes when Ministers are acting for other Ministers, it happens. And I think it’s fair to say if one consults with one’s colleagues, I do it a fair amount of time for them in order to get their form right or their people here.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: If this is going to discuss the same matter—

Hon David Bennett: Yes.

SPEAKER: Well, the member’s not going to, because that would be highly disorderly, and if he did that he would have to leave.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I was saying, the integrated transport system we need for this country requires all sectors to work together for the benefit of our country, to bring jobs, economic opportunities, and—

Chris Bishop: Point of order. Normally, at the start, the Minister presents a legislative statement, moves that the bill be read a first time, and indicates what committee the bill will be sent to. So far, we’ve had no indication of where it will be sent.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member, Mr Bishop, criticised me for indicating to that member what he should say. And he did say it. He might have parroted it, but he has done it.

Chris Bishop: I didn’t hear him say, “Transport”.

SPEAKER: Yes, he did—yes, he did eventually. Right, Dr Clark, keep going and no extra time.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the irony of that is lost on the member.

Well, as I was saying before I was interrupted, it is important to have an integrated transport system for economic opportunity for our country, for jobs, and to make sure that we connect our aviation system up and ensure it is underpinned by good, solid modern legislation and regulation. For an island nation, a safe and secure aviation sector is incredibly important and no more so than in the time of a COVID-19 pandemic.

This has been brought into sharp relief, of course, and particularly as we look at our position and connection to the rest of the world, when we see our transport system perhaps more vulnerable but ably supported. And I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance for his support through this period to make sure that our aviation sector continues to do the job that it is there to do. But back to the bill, which does indeed ensure best practice, modern safety and security approaches to help position the sector for recovery from COVID-19.

The Civil Aviation Bill represents a significant modernisation of aviation legislation whilst preserving the fundamentals of the current law. It repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and also the Airport Authorities Act 1966 and pulls them into a single platform for safety, security, and economic regulation for now and for well into the future. The Civil Aviation Act 1990, of course, governs New Zealand’s civil aviation system and sets the overall framework for safety and security, and this bill brings that together with the 1966 Act, the Airport Authorities Act, which provides the statutory regime for local authorities and other persons such as airport companies, to establish and operate airports across the country. Both Acts, of course, have been amended over time, but it was timely to have a complete overhaul of the legislation and bring it all together in one place to get rid of ambiguity, make sure it’s clear for interpretation, and to prepare it for the future, get rid of the redundant provisions that there might be in it and so forth. It has been subject to an extensive consultation process. There was an exposure draft of the bill, which was released in 2019, and the range of proposals therefore have been widely consulted on with the aviation sector.

Now, the primary objectives of the bill include improving aviation safety and security, encouraging effective competition and licensing regulation for international air services, preserving New Zealand’s national security, and enabling the aviation regulator and aviation businesses to adapt to changes in technologies and business practices. So it will be a more flexible regime that is fit for purpose now but allows for the kinds of changes that might be required in the future. The Minister of Transport himself takes very seriously the responsibility of the Government to ensure the safety and security of everyone in the aviation system, and I’m sure all members of this House will respect that particular objective.

Now, there are a number of things that appear in the bill that warrant specific mention. One of them is the response to the tragedy in Carterton, the balloon tragedy where drug and alcohol impairment was involved, in 2012. And I do want to acknowledge the family involved and their advocacy for change in this respect. It became clear as the nation grieved that alcohol or drug use played a central role in the crash. And so, again, to those families involved, I offer my deepest condolences. Since that day, as I’ve said, the families called for reform of the law and their advocacy is represented in this bill. I’m proud to say that this bill adopts a stringent approach towards drug or alcohol use in the aviation system.

It’s a large and complex bill. It contains almost 500 clauses. It has had that extensive engagement with the aviation sector that I’ve mentioned. And whilst we know not all tragedies are preventable, we know we can reduce the risk of crash if a zero tolerance approach towards drug and alcohol impaired operators is actively enforced.

In terms of national security, that’s one of the other areas of major change in the bill. To preserve New Zealand’s national security and interests, the bill clarifies the powers of the Minister of Transport to consider national security risks within the aviation system and to make rules about when national security considerations might need to apply.

In the time available, I just want to cover the fact that aviation security’s in there. It clarifies the powers, the protections and tools aviation security officers have at security designated aerodromes. There is a remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft regulation in there, recognising the changes in that sector since those 1966 and 1990 Acts—quite significant changes in the use of autonomous aircraft and the like. It also regulates the financial penalty levels that are appropriate for the severity of an offence in the aviation system. They come into effect. Lost or damaged baggage claims are covered.

So in conclusion, I want to be very clear that our aviation system is vital to New Zealand’s prosperity, to our connections with the world, to our social and economic connections in a long, thin nation, a long way from markets. The bill, which has been in development for over five years, represents a major modernisation of civil aviation legislation. And this Government is a Government that’s committed to safety and security in this sector and to help position the sector for recovery from COVID-19.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Minister and look forward to the safe passage of this bill. I commend the Civil Aviation Bill to the House.

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

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Civil Aviation Bill that’s before the Parliament today will be supported by the National Party. As the member said, it’s one of those issues and areas of transport that over time needs to be relooked at and reinvigorated to make it more in line with modern practice. However, this bill does have a number of concerns in it that the National Party will be taking to select committee. So we are supporting it in the first instance, but we want to see some change in this bill as it goes through the process of the committee.

I am sure that submitters will be of the same ilk. They will be seeking some changes to make this bill actually much more responsive to the sector rather than what does appear to be, on the first instance, politically driven and more official dominated than what would actually be needed if you were actually doing the normal kind of reform process when a bill has been around for 20 or 30 years.

There are some issues in the bill that haven’t been talked about by the Minister. There’s some work in there around drones that one of our colleagues had in a member’s bill some time ago, and it’s good to see that that’s being addressed by the Government finally, but they could have supported that member’s bill at an earlier stage, which would have enabled us to have dealt with that issue, which has developed in modern airports around the world as that technology has advanced to the private individuals that own drones.

There are some big areas that there will be some concern around. Really, the philosophy of the bill doesn’t really take into account modern practice around how airports and the aviation sector could be managed when we look at best practice overseas. There’s a concept of just culture in the aviation sector, and that means that you learn from mistakes rather than trying to find necessarily the mistake or the reason or try and sanction that person. It’s about getting that information so that the mistake doesn’t happen again or the incident doesn’t happen again. And it’s mentioned in the bill, but it’s not actually promoted. And there’s no actual use of this bill to actually tease out and make that a more constructive concept that could well be done in this bill. So we look forward to, in the select committee, greater discussion of just culture and how that actually could play out in this bill.

The bill also doesn’t really look at how we could look at the New Zealand aviation sector, which has a lot of smaller players. There may be an option for a two-tiered approach that is seen in other countries but it is not being promoted here to the extent that it could be. So that’s one of the things that I’m sure will come up. There are international approaches to how companies enter the aviation system and the audit processes around that, and that’s something that needs to be addressed in this bill as well—there really hasn’t been the opportunity to make it internationally efficient and competitive, as this bill could make our sector if we had the right rules in place there.

Then there are some other issues around some more political context to this bill. And you see that in the Public Works Act, for example. There’s a requirement there around Land Information New Zealand’s CEO being for the buy-back process. And I just want to read from the Cabinet paper on this bill, which says that the exercise of such powers requires the scrutiny, accountability of central or local government. The next two paragraphs down say that the Government is best placed to assess whether surplus land meets these steps. And then the next one says that the Crown is best placed to undertake the offer-back process of surplus land.

It’s very much a socialist agenda that you would see from this Government, where they know best and they’re saying that they’re going to make better decisions than local government or corporates that actually make the investment decisions. They’ve built up these assets for many years, they see the potential of those assets to deliver for their communities, and yet it’s going to be overridden, essentially, by the mandate of some Minister that knows best. And that’s the central theme of their approach in that area. It’s very dictatorial, it’s very much what we expect from this Government, and it’s very much that Wellington knows best, rather than what every region, city, or town knows. And so I think that’s something that needs to be addressed at the select committee.

It takes a negative view of the corporate sector. It says that airport companies have commercial incentives that potentially conflict with the objectives of this Government and the provisions that the Crown might hold. So, you know, basically what they’re saying is that they don’t trust local communities. And we see that through a lot of legislation that they have been putting in place in recent years. This is just another example of that in an area which didn’t need necessarily to have that degree.

If we look at another part of that Cabinet paper as well, it does raise some other issues around another part of the requirements for airports where they’ll be required to consult with central government on their spatial plans, and in licensing them, there’s going to be enforceable regulatory undertakings (ERUs) that will apply to them. And it’s really about more costs, more reporting, more Government influence, more Government control, and they’re creeping into these, potentially, private enterprises and local body enterprises that actually have proven themselves to be very effective over time and very efficient and actually very important for the growth of regional communities. And it shows, I think, a misunderstanding by the Government of how actually our communities in New Zealand work. They facilitate an approach that’s centric in Wellington—that everyone knows in Wellington what is best for the rest of the country, whereas our regions and our regional airports operate slightly differently. They have their own goals. They have their own intentions. Sometimes they want to keep their powder dry for resilience reasons, to actually give some motivation to their community that they have that transport avenue available to them.

What we’re seeing here is a really one-size-fits-all approach. We saw that with the clean car bill, where they brought a tax in on all cars just to basically pay for their vision of electric vehicles, which completely was not going to happen. And we’re seeing that sort of same structure, that same ideology, coming through in the base of this bill, and it’s not needed here. I’m sure that as this bill goes through the select committee process, we’ll see that airport companies, the sector that is involved in advocating for those in the airport industry, will be able to have a much better approach to this and probably will be much better at self-regulating than having an overt Government regulation that is out of line with what’s needed.

The airways are a huge part of our New Zealand transport network. We need to be reassured that they will be working in an effective way. There are some good things in this bill that are needed. It is 20 or 30 years since the last bill was done in this area. That’s, of course, going to come through, but we do have some concerns around some of the underlying tone and structure of the bill. We feel that it doesn’t really take advantage of this opportunity to look at best practice overseas and see what would actually work in the New Zealand environment, and it’s very much an ideological, Wellington-based approach to transport and to aviation when the sector would have some really great ideas that we could implant into this bill and actually make it work. It also has a very control approach.

Now, I don’t know if the bill is actually legally binding since the Minister broke the rules when he initially brought this bill to the House about 10 minutes ago. So it would be great if that was actually determined—if this bill has some legal effect—in view of the mistakes made by the Minister 10 minutes ago. But assuming it is going through and progressing, the National Party will be supporting it but we would like to see a much better approach at the select committee.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): The irony of that member decrying Wellington intervention when not long ago he was demanding the Government virtually nationalise a dairy company which was about to be taken over by an overseas company, so it’s an irony-free zone for that particular member. But—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order. The member’s making an accusation which is simply not accurate. Would he like to explain further so that we can discuss that and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The member will resume his seat.

Hon David Bennett: —see what’s actually happening. I never said about nationalising anything. That’s a Labour Government approach.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will resume his seat.

GREG O’CONNOR: As the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee which will be considering this bill, I’m very much looking forward to having it—a bill that is very much a moderniser. And I just look at the changes that have taken place in the aviation industry in the time since it was last modernised. We’ve had the sale of many of our airports in New Zealand, but one of the big things we’ll be looking at here is drones and the lack of real good legislation to control that. They are the factors that are going to be considered in this bill. Of course, national security checks; again, 9/11 has occurred since then, so again it’s about making sure that the necessary security that has arisen and concerns around that are incorporated. Drug and alcohol management will be considered, and emissions, and it just ensures—perhaps to the concerns of the previous speaker—that there is a just culture that ensures that safety is balanced with ability to self-report.

So I’m looking forward to being the chair of the select committee which will consider this bill and I commend it to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): National is supporting this legislation because we do think it’s important, but as our spokesperson, David Bennett, said, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I, listening to the debate so far, was quite hopeful that they could be addressed in a constructive, intelligent, focused, dedicated way, until I just heard that Greg O’Connor is the chair of the committee that will deal with it. The first thing he did was he started talking about some dairy company, which is not covered by the scope of the bill, and then he took a whole of—a whole of—one minute and 43 seconds to say how important it was and the great work the committee would do.

Greg O’Connor: Quality not quantity, my friend.

Hon TODD McCLAY: There’s a reasonable chance his interjections will be longer than his blimmin speech, which is something. It’s quite ironic because he did say that this is important. If this is an important piece of legislation, members of the Government should take more than the few measly minutes they are to talk about it. And the reason for that is that we have airports up and down the country; there are a lot of things that should be important, should be discussed at first reading and at all other stages, but here’s the thing: they’re ticking the boxes and they’re going to rush it through quickly, at least in as far as their speaking is concerned.

There is an opportunity for all parties in this Parliament to work together to make this better than it is, because there are some things that need to be delved into a lot more deeply. But that’s only going to happen if the Government actually pays attention to it rather than rushing things through, coming back to the House, and saying “We’ve done our job. We’ve finally started to pass some legislation.”

There’s parts of the legislation I want to speak at to some degree. But the first, really, is around secrecy. Now, New Zealanders, before the Government locked us down last year, used airports much, much more than they do. Indeed, $17 billion worth of exports came into the country through our international borders, airports, when it came to tourism. None of that is there any more. All Kiwis have an interest in this legislation being correct, the Government getting it right, and there should not be any secrecy. There should not be anything hidden. All the advice the Government has received, they should share fairly and openly when it comes to safety and security, but the last speaker, Greg O’Connor, spoke much more about culture in his one minute and 43 seconds than some of the detail.

One of the important parts of this, as in what’s changed, is around remotely piloted and autonomous aircraft—drones but many other things. Some of that could be that one day aeroplanes will take off and land by themselves without a significant amount of human intervention. But in the meantime, there are the challenges around increases in the use of drones and the impact they could have both around airports but from an airport. If I have a look at the regulatory powers statement that has been provided to the Government, and the Government has released in the House, there is an awful amount of black ink in here. There are many, many parts of this document that have been blanked out by the Government. And they owe it to us—the Minister, when he spoke earlier—to explain why that is.

The reason this is important is the Government has made decisions around security, around safety, around what they’re going to do with these autonomous aircraft; why they’re at risk, why they need to be dealt with, why they’re taking two pieces of legislation and putting them together with the hope that it will be better. But they have not provided all of the advice they’ve received to make those decisions to the public, to the Opposition, or to, I would hazard a guess, even Labour Party backbench MPs. So the Government is asking us, the public, to trust them with security, but they’re not providing the information that they’ve received to make these decisions.

Secondly, they’re also not explaining why they won’t release it. I would hope that other members of the House, when they speak, would take some time to explain that. I’m sure there’s a very good reason, actually. Not everything is always put in the public domain. But in this instance, when it comes to security and decisions the Government is making, it should be released.

You know, the thing about the borders, the airports, the people that work there is they’re very, very professional. Another area where the Government hasn’t provided enough information around our airports and aviation is when it comes to COVID and the border. I draw a comparison to that because in the case where we’ve seen this virus get over the border and back into the community with successive lockdowns in Auckland last year, where we had border workers that weren’t vaccinated and many that still probably aren’t, where they’re not allowing the testing they should that the rest of the world allows, the Government says “Trust us.” But in this legislation, when it comes to national security checks, the way they’re going to look at drug and alcohol management across the border, these remote and autonomous aircrafts and so on, they’re saying “Trust us again.” and not providing the advice.

There is one part of the legislation I think is very important. It’s not all that exciting, but I do hope the committee takes the time to understand it and make sure it works, and that’s around airline alliances. Pre-COVID we had a very open borders policy, a free-skies policy, where within reason we wanted airlines to come here, because when more airlines come to New Zealand, they can bring more visitors. I see the Minister of Tourism is here. He doesn’t want all visitors, just a few high-paying ones, but they do bring visitors. But, at the same time, when those visitors come on the aeroplanes, even when they are budget aeroplanes, when they leave again, those aeroplanes take New Zealand goods with them for export, and that’s very, very important.

So we need to get these rules right around airline alliances, the regulatory decision-making. It should not just be left to the Minister or Cabinet to set many, many regulations, because regulation is not necessarily the way you fix all problems or make things better or easier or simpler. In fact, regulations often have the opposite effect. But in this instance, it is very important. Airlines will want to come back to New Zealand again. We need to make sure there is a good regulatory framework that meets the requirements, the expectations of the public, but at the same time encourages them to come here; doesn’t discourage them.

Again, slightly away from this, not in the legislation, but it is linked, I notice this week the Government has announced that the border clearance fees, costs, taxes, actually, at our airports—at our airports, not covered by this bill but actually have the same effect as things within this legislation—are to be more than doubled; a 117 percent increase. What that actually suggests to people who might want to come to New Zealand, Kiwis who want to come home for Christmas, if they could get a spot in managed and isolation quarantine, is that, actually, the Government’s going to charge them more.

All of these things are linked. You can’t just take this legislation by itself and say we’re going to do some work here, we’re going to do it better, and it has nothing to do with all of these other things at the border, because they are linked. It is a cost. It is a tax. And if the Government is as ham-fisted with this legislation as they have been, as an example, on the border when it comes to COVID management, when it comes to the taxes that they charge there, then they won’t get this right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just come back to the bill.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, Madam Speaker, I know, but I am trying to bring it back to this in as far as examples elsewhere of what the Government has done around the border that have not helped, and if they follow the same procedure or make the same types of decisions with this legislation, then, actually, it won’t be better. We will have missed an opportunity.

National, through our spokesperson, the Hon David Bennett, have pledged to be constructive, to work with the Government to find solutions in all of these areas. I noticed some of the stakeholders who have looked at this already, who actually are the experts—much more than the Minister will ever be, or many of the officials—the people who have skin in the game, have cautiously welcomed this, at least supporting it at first reading, they believe, to iron out some of the challenges that the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand have said they have concerns around entering and remaining in the aviation system. The independent appeal authority, reasonable cost—reasonable cost always comes up. The challenge we have is there’s never a problem that the Labour Party doesn’t think a new tax or a new levy would fix. But, actually, they in themselves will create problems, and best international practice is very important. Just don’t adopt it because they’re doing it overseas, but if it is best practice, why don’t we bring it here rather than having to start from scratch and New Zealand trying to make things up as they go along, through the Labour Government.

The Airports Association has concerns around the clarity of the Public Works Act. David Bennett mentioned this—changes and enforced regulatory undertakings. That’s because they want certainty. They don’t want the Government just to use the Public Works Act to do whatever they want, because this is a Government with a majority that does just whatever they want, not what’s in the best interest of the country or of the stakeholders they’re dealing with. They must listen to the New Zealand Airports Association and the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand. They know more about this than members opposite ever will, or that we will on this side of the House. It is upon us to listen to them when they come to the select committee.

The New Zealand Airports Association, the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand—their opinion is to support the bill at first reading and they ask for their concerns to be looked at and considered. We’ll be constructive. We’ll be supporting this. But members opposite need to take more than one minute, 43 seconds in their debate if they actually want the public to take them seriously.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. When a Minister introduces a bill, they have a very specific set of lines they have to read out to be a legitimate introduction of a bill. This did not happen in this case. I would like your guidance as to whether that requirement has been satisfied, because—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK, thank you. Thank you. I was not in the Chamber at the time of the referral of the bill. However, I am advised that the referral motion was ultimately presented correctly—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I wasn’t in the Chamber. I will refer to the Clerk—bear with. Right, so I am advised that what I said stands. The referral motion requires the Minister to nominate the select committee to which the bill is referred, and I am told that that is what he did.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you. That did occur after being prompted by the Speaker, and we as ex-Ministers know that that is not a legitimate way of processing that application—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you—

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and that it has to be done by—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you; the member will resume his seat. I have ruled, I have taken advice. The referral motion was ultimately done correctly.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I’m hopeful that the constructive feedback was the intention of that member’s question. I certainly just want to add my weight to commending the first reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.

Can I acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—all members, including the chair here—and we’re looking forward to working through this. One of the compliments I want to pay that committee—which I am a member of, dare I say it—is the robustness of the process from the officials. It’s been questioned. I know these stakeholders well. I have two airports in my area, and I talk to the Airports Association and associated businesses that come with such work as this.

There are some key points that have not been mentioned. One of those is the intention of this bill to reduce the emissions in international aviation and, really, our obligations to do that. That’s something that hasn’t been mentioned, but that is a goal of this Government across all transport modes. We’ve talked about drones—which has been covered, I think, by previous speakers on this side in particular—and some of those concerns about better cooperation agreements between airport authorities.

This is a good piece of work. I am happy to hear the words that we are working constructively on the other side of the House. I’m sure that this will get full approval. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. The Green Party will be supporting this bill at first reading. We will wait until the select committee to confirm our support beyond that. I acknowledge what the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, said about this bill taking the steps to implement CORSIA—an international agreement coming out of the Paris Agreement—which is the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. This has been a major lacuna, if you will, within the international agreement space that we haven’t been measuring or requiring reductions from international aviation, which is a significant contributor to carbon emissions and climate change. It’s been lacking in previous agreements. So CORSIA is just the very first early steps on that, and it’s good to see it implemented.

But unfortunately, within this bill—and there’s quite a lot the bill does, I know it’s been worked on for quite a number of years at this point—it doesn’t go further on the different regulatory changes that we will need to support reducing emissions from air travel. So what would be really interesting, I think, at the select committee is to consider whether there are changes that need to be made that are within the scope of this bill. As there are new regulations on remotely piloted or autonomous aircraft, what about electric and hydrogen powered aircraft? Are we ensuring that we can take up the zero emissions or very low emissions technology as quickly as possible? Because it is going to be very important in a country like New Zealand that we do have opportunities for low emissions air travel.

The second point of interest for me is around the drug and alcohol management, including mandatory random testing of safety-sensitive workers. I mean, on the face of it that sounds very reasonable. My guess is that’s already happening, and certainly we saw something similar with a recommendation around the maritime sector implementing mandatory random testing of workers in the maritime sector, including recreational outfits that were doing things like white-water rafting, etc. Safety is very important but there is a question about whether the particular type and regime of random testing is actually getting the outcomes that we want in terms of safety. Because not all substances can be tested for. There can be unintentional consequences like encouraging people to use other recreational substances in their time off that don’t show up in the drug testing, even though they’re objectively worse for the people. So there’s some concerns we have around that.

I just remember very clearly in the last term of the National Government a similar regime was proposed for the maritime sector and submitters were roundly opposed to it—not opposed to safety and not opposed to ensuring that we have a regime that successfully ensures that people are not under the influence of impairing substances while working, especially if they’re safety-sensitive workers, but rather that the specific regime that was proposed at that time wasn’t the best way. So we will see at select committee if we can support that or if improvements can be made.

Another concern the Green Party has is whether there will be sufficient checks and balances on security and search powers. Then, finally, on the regulation of airports, I think this is really, really interesting, and it’ll be very interesting at the select committee to see what this includes, because airports in New Zealand are not all publicly owned. Some are substantially privately owned, and yet they are natural monopolies. They are significant trip generators. If the land around airports is used for other types of development, not involving air travel, it can put huge pressure on the transport system for an area. So, for example, if it’s a commercial and retail development, which has happened significantly around Auckland Airport, I can understand why that’s in the interest of the airport itself. But there has to be a requirement for the airports to participate in and kind of contribute their fair share to the transport infrastructure that is needed to manage the demand that’s generated by that land use, whether it’s air travel or a commercial and retail development. Either way, we should have an expectation that if an airport is privately owned, operating for profit, it’s none the less going to be required, like any other significant monopoly trip generator in the area, to support public transport.

I think here in Wellington we’ve seen the airport at every step undermining public transport access to the airport to the extent now we don’t have a public transport service to the airport. They shouldn’t be able to charge unreasonable fees or put the public transport out of the sight of people arriving on airplanes because they have an interest in making money off of taxi stands and parking charges. So this is a public good. I think requirement is that we should expect airports to support the transport objectives of a city and region, and that they should be required to play their part in that. If they have financial interests in doing otherwise, they should not be able to pursue those, because that is a private benefit socialising a public cost. So they’re privatising the financial benefits and socialising the cost, generating more traffic, causing more congestion, potentially forcing central government or local government to spend huge sums of money to try and increase capacity for private vehicles so they can make more money off parking and taxi stands, when what is really going to work better for the whole network is really efficient, affordable, reliable public transport that moves people efficiently into and out of this area.

Of course, there’ll be a need for roading, but ultimately roading is more efficient if we have a reduced need for people to all travel in single occupant vehicles. So if we have good public transport it will make the whole network work better. So I will be very interested to see whether the emission reduction units are giving sufficient ability to local and regional councils to set expectations that an airport will comply with and support the objectives of the metropolitan transport infrastructure in that area. I don’t think they should be able to undermine public transport in order to make more money off parking.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT is going to support this bill to select committee, though there are a number of things that we would like the committee, which I’m part of, to look at, based on our communications with stakeholders, including Aviation New Zealand, which represents the lion’s share of operators. It’s interesting, speaking of Aviation New Zealand, I know this bill has been in development for some time, and a previous Minister of Transport, the Hon Phil Twyford, who so eloquently introduced this bill to the House today, never met with them in his time as Minister. The same goes for the current Minister, the Hon Michael Wood—still hasn’t met with them. So when they talk about all of the consultation that’s happened throughout this bill, I think they probably could do a little bit better.

Anyway, the first issue that I wanted to raise for select committee is the bill fails to differentiate between general aviation and commercial aviation. This is a bit of a problem because it creates a blanket set of rules that are applied to both, rather than taking a risk-based approach. To stop unnecessary bureaucracy you’ve got to make sure the regulation is proportional to risk. So that should really be looked at. It is quite a concern that we’ve heard from the stakeholders.

The second point is that there are some concerns around the expanding enforcement capabilities. Some have suggested it may be unreasonable to expect police to know the intricacies of aviation law when there are so many variables, certification, and different operations going on. So without extensive training, the sector is a little bit concerned about enforcement. They would appreciate some clarity. Some questions are: how can they be sure that they’re familiar with the rules so that they don’t shut down legitimate operations, who exactly bears responsibility if they make a mistake in the process, and will there be compensation? So that’s the second issue I’d like to raise.

The third thing, and it has been canvassed by a few members of this House, is around just culture. The aviation sector has been calling for a just culture provision for a while now. It exists in many departments and organisations, and they believe that not having a punitive approach to health and safety is consistent with the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, of which we are a signatory. Annex 13 outlines that the only purpose of conducting an investigation is to prevent further ones. They believe that the provisions are a great tool—encourage honesty and cooperation, so when something goes wrong, you can genuinely improve safety. Because you don’t want to foster an environment where people are afraid to speak up and not be compliant. So the sector very much wants clarification on this, because the bill purports to introduce just culture, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of detail.

The final point is a call from the sector for an independent disputes authority. This is not necessarily a deal-breaker, but rather a “nice-to-have”. An independent disputes authority would keep checks and balances on Government power and it would be a great help in the way of minimising wasted time and money, and, in any case, the Director of Civil Aviation can always exercise discretion. So notwithstanding the points that I have raised, ACT is keen to see this bill go to the select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Civil Aviation Bill at first reading. As we’ve heard from previous speakers, New Zealand is very much dependent on a reliable aviation system. We are fairly sparsely populated in some areas, and we’re a long, thin country. We do, by and large, have an excellent aviation system, and we saw that during COVID: the aviation sector really came to the fore in terms of supporting our country.

One aspect I’m really interested in hearing teased out a little bit at the select committee is the aspect around autonomous vehicles, and I mean vehicles like drones, for example. You know, there is certainly potential for future use in this area in terms of beyond the line-of-sight use of drones, whether it’s for delivering medicines to rural areas, whether it’s for delivering things like pizzas to people. But, certainly, there’s lots of potential in this area, and I will take a particular interest in that aspect as this bill goes through—just to sort of see what opportunities there may be in the future for this area. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tim van de Molen—five minutes.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I shall make sure that I utilise my time because this is an important bill and, unlike members of the Government, we think it needs decent scrutiny. I’m holding it right here, and we’re hearing from Government members about one minute worth of contribution in each of their speeches for a bill of this substance. Quite frankly, it’s disappointing from the Government members, and I would suspect the industry, as we do on this side of the House, would have hoped for more from a Government putting through a pretty important piece of legislation for the sector.

Chris Bishop: It’s eight years in the making, this bill.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: It has indeed been eight years in the making, which was started under National because we identified that innovation, progression in the sector is an important consideration that needs to be regularly updated. Unfortunately, no action was taken under the last three years of the Labour Government. But, finally, now we are in a position where the Civil Aviation Bill has come to the House and we are seeing a whole raft of proposals, as evidenced by the significant volume of paperwork here in this bill, although, it would appear Government members are not across the detail given their very sparse contributions so far.

Now, as we’ve heard already, in some aspects aviation is a critical sector for New Zealand. Now, we did enjoy a robust $17 billion international tourism sector prior to COVID. Of course, that has changed dramatically as a result of the manner in which COVID has been managed and the decisions that have been made around what can or can’t operate and how that impacts on different sectors, and we’re seeing that here in the aviation sector in particular. So it is timely, though, that given it’s taken us eight years to get to this point, we are now making changes so that when we are looking to reconnect with the world—and National came out with a fantastic plan to do that just yesterday—the aviation sector will be better placed to facilitate that, to speed up, to increase the efficiency, to make it easier to use, whilst at the same time ensuring that safety and security are maintained to the high standards that would be expected.

Now, there are a couple of aspects specifically that I did want to touch on within this. One of those was around the potential of UAVs, the unmanned autonomous vehicles; the drones, if you will; different emerging technologies that are coming into play. Some of those we know about, but I’m quite excited about the potential for those that are not yet discovered. They may be in place in 12 months’ time, 24 months’ time, who knows? We have an incredibly innovative tech sector here in New Zealand. Again, it needs a bit more stimulus and National has a strong plan to grow the tech sector, too. There are opportunities there that under this bill we can help to futureproof for some of that. When I think, particularly for rural areas, like my constituency of Waikato, there is a lot of potential for these sorts of technologies. We’re seeing already some amazing advances in the agritech space around how drone technology can be utilised on farms for a whole manner of different things: spray applications, stock management, moving the stock, looking at different soil types, fertility requirements, pasture growth rates—all these elements that can or will soon be commercially available for farmers to use.

So, of course, if we’re going to see increasing uptake of these sorts of technologies, then we need to make sure that the rules around managing and enabling this to occur are tightly controlled, well understood, and as easy to navigate as possible for those potential users. So alongside that, of course, people would be aware; you’re seeing a lot more use of drones by the likes of real estate agents as well, for everyday listings of properties. These are the sorts of areas where even a few years ago we would not have envisaged, necessarily, this sort of thing happening. It has. I’m sure there will be many more in the next few years that we’re not envisaging, necessarily, right now, that will come into play as well. So we do need to make sure that we have strong rules in place around that. But I do just want to touch on the point that Dr McDowall raised as well, around the compliance, the competency of the enforcement mechanisms within this bill as well. And that is one area that I have heard locally is a bit of a concern, and so I’m sure we will see that canvassed through the select committee process.

I do very much look forward to hearing from submitters on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I encourage Government members to do the same so that, perhaps, in future contributions, they can make more than a paltry minute to such a substantial piece of legislation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to rise to have a short call on the Civil Aviation Bill. Contrary to the comments from other side of the House, something has been done about this bill since the previous term. There was an exposure draft in 2019 and there were numerous consultation papers during the previous term of Government. I acknowledge that this review did start in 2016; however, we’ve taken it forward. It updates the Civil Aviation Act, which is from the 1990s and the Airport Authorities Act, which is from 1966. It is always good to refresh the legislation. I’m looking forward to seeing the submissions on the bill. It will be scrutinised heavily at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for letting me take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill, and I’m just glad that we can get on with it and get the work done. The workhorse, the engine room which is the select committee space, is where we want to get it on to and get on with the work, rather than dilly-dallying, chitter-chattering away in the House around this.

We are committed to delivering and to making sure that our civil aviation and airways are safe and, as my colleague Barbara Edmonds, who’s just sat down, said, these are laws from the 1960s and laws from the early 1990s. We need to be fit for a modern society. We need to be fit for the future. Coming from Taranaki, we’ve just opened the new airport last year, which sees almost half a million passengers through. Back when the original airport was opened in the 1960s, there were less than 60,000.

So a lot’s changed and, obviously, we need to ensure that our airways are safe. So I commend the Civil Avialil—the Civil Aviation Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): A technical term?

Glen Bennett: Yeah.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we’re hitting a new low. I don’t think the speaker before me, Glen Bennett, even managed to get to a minute. I’m rising to speak in support of the Civil Aviation Bill, which repeals and replaces the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 with a single Act that will perhaps better respond to the industry’s future challenge. I’d have to say, when I put my hand up to become a politician, I thought I was coming to take part in a democratic process that would be both respectful and mindful of the people of New Zealand. I would have to say the arrogance and the disrespect that is being shown by the Government speakers in this House to the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, who pay their wages, is astonishing. I would hope that there are some new MPs that came in at the same time as me that feel somewhat disillusioned and somewhat embarrassed by what they are being asked to do here today, because I think the people of New Zealand should be able to expect us to debate fulsomely in this House legislation which is going to impact on them. They should expect a little bit more than a few seconds of discussion before they sit down.

Civil aviation isn’t something that I’ve been very involved in, and one of the beauties of getting to speak on bills that are not in your area is that you can take some time to look into it and why the bill is there and relate it to your own electorate—again, those people that pay our wages so that we can sit up here and show them some respect. So I’m pleased to have looked at the impact that this might have on not only the main authorities but also on individual airports and ones in my area.

Some of the main provisions around it take into account that we’ll have remotely piloted or autonomous aircrafts. As my colleague said, drones that wouldn’t have been thought of a few years ago when legislation was put in place now need to be accommodated in this legislation. Drones, of course, are doing some incredible things in our productive industries, and I think of the uses that they are being put to in our primary sector and the difference that they are making for some of the high country stations, for some of the more remote farms, and in times of emergency for flooding. But it’s really important that people who are operating those drones have the responsibilities laid out very clearly for them, which, of course, this legislation is going to be able to do.

The aviation authority, the aviation sector prior to COVID, was, of course, incredibly important to our GDP, supporting around 11.2 percent of it, enabling our $17 billion per annum tourism industry, and also enabling our $5 billion international education industry, the two of which actually are quite intertwined. So it’s a very important enabler to ensure that we have our airline industries operating appropriately.

Unfortunately, a member prior to me got the dates wrong in terms of when this legislation started. It actually started in 2013. National launched a review of the Civil Aviation Act with an aim to refresh and improve the usability of the legislation around it. And things have happened—many things have happened, not just things like the drones but, of course, that ever-changing and evolving global environment of security around our airports. I look at how that’s changed even small airports like Invercargill with the security that we’ve had put in there, and I congratulate the general manager, Nigel Finnerty, and his team for the great work that they’ve done there. It’s important that we get that security right for the produce that we export through our aviation industry, and I think in my electorate, or in my area—sorry, Joseph Mooney, my colleague; I may be pinching a little bit when I say about some of our high-value seafood like crayfish, which, of course, comes out of Te Ānau, a lot of it, out of Fiordland, and also some of the high-value horticulture produce like tulip bulbs, which are growing by the millions in a farm next to our farm. So that importance of security is not only for people but for the produce that earns the GDP, that allows people to be able to pay taxes and pay for our salaries up here, which I would urge that other side to think of every time they stand up for 30 seconds and disrespect those people.

National wants to be very constructive with this. Of course we understand the importance of this. We understand the importance of aviation security, of national security. We are very pleased to see that it improves the safety through drug and alcohol management. Of course, following that dreadful Carterton balloon incident in 2012 and the tragedy that those families that were involved with that suffered, we need to have better fit for purpose legislation around drug and alcohol management, improving the safety and security of our aviation system. So there are important elements of this bill that deserved, quite frankly, more than less than a minute’s contribution from the previous speaker from the Government. I would have thought they would have wanted to have a debate around some of these matters.

The other points that I’m very keen to see debated at the select committee, or see extended there, are some of the feedback that has come from stakeholders. Obviously, the New Zealand Airports Association should have considerable submissions that they want to make in this. They certainly have indicated that they have concerns around the clarity of the Public Works Act changes and the enforcement of regulatory undertakings, and they have noted they’d like to see a wider approach to the review of airways. The select committee will be an appropriate process for them to be able to do that. The Civil Aviation Authority has noted some concerns around the entering and remaining in the aviation system, the independent appeal authority, reasonable cost—and all our industries are obviously concerned about costs that we impose on them through legislation. They also want to be sure that our legislation benchmarks itself with best international practice—all of those things very reasonable comments that we would hope will be teased out and fleshed out in the select committee process.

But I would have to say that it has been certainly a long time getting to this point, starting back in 2013, and I acknowledge those in the National Government at that time who had the foresight to instigate this review. I would like to acknowledge those in the National Party who have chosen to read the bill and scrutinise what’s in it and speak fulsomely in their opportunities here this morning. I’d like to acknowledge how this bill is going to pick up on the changes, the ever-evolving nature of our aviation industry, and the work that we have to do to ensure that we operate at a standard that is appropriate for us to be able to open up safely as a country to the rest of the world, because on this side of the House we know that New Zealand cannot be self-sustaining, sitting here thinking that we don’t need the rest of the world, because very clearly we do. Very clearly, our exporters and our business people know that, and it might be more respectful for the Government to acknowledge that as well. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Civil Aviation Bill, but I must say it’s disappointing to follow a member who wants to spend a significant amount of their time focusing on this side of the House rather than on the bill itself. The appropriate place for this debate to continue is in the select committee, and I know that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will do an excellent job of looking at the bill.

As my colleague Barbara Edmonds pointed out earlier, this bill under this Government has actually had significant consultation with industry through the exposure draft. So I just wish to point out that there has been that opportunity through an earlier exposure draft for a lot of that important consultation.

Many members today have commented on an important element of the bill, which is around working to reduce emissions in the transport industry. It’s an important part of our response to climate change.

There was another important little point in the bill—specially for the National Party—which was the section on lost luggage; the section on lost luggage which I’m sure was inspired by the former member Nuk Korako, who introduced an important member’s bill on that very, very important matter. So I was very pleased when I did read through the bill to see that important section on lost luggage and will dedicate that point to the National Party.

I have the privilege of being the MP for Nelson—the sixth busiest airport in New Zealand and the number one regional airport in New Zealand—and I just note that there’s an important part of the bill that does look at how airports work on their spatial plans and work alongside both local and central government in introducing those plans.

So on that point, this bill needs to get to select committee so that we can continue the important work on it. On that note I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Electricity Industry Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: I present a legislative statement on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill.

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

Hon STUART NASH: I move, That the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 March 2022. I intend to move that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, 196(1)(b) and (c).

The bill will implement a number of recommendations from the 2019 Electricity Price Review, to improve the electricity regulatory system and ensure it is more fit for purpose, in light of significant changes occurring in the industry. The main amendments proposed to the Electricity Industry Act are strengthening the consumer voice: consumers, and particularly households and small businesses, struggle to make their voices heard and to engage with, and exert influence over, decisions affecting them in the electricity sector; (2) clarifying the current ambiguity regarding the Electricity Authority’s power to regulate to protect the interests of small consumers; (3) addressing the need for more adaptive regulation to respond to technological advances, especially where regulated monopolies are competing with other businesses to sell services to consumers; and (4) clarifying that the Electricity Authority should be able to regulate all parts of distribution access to agreements, as it already does for transmission access agreements.

The 2019 Electricity Price Review identified that residential and small business consumers struggled to be heard on decisions affecting them in the electricity market in New Zealand. This is often due to technical complexity and a lack of time and resources. The bill provides for the appointment of a consumer advocacy agency to provide evidence-based advocacy for household and small-business consumers. Having a strategy basis for this consumer advocacy agency may enable it to be funded from the electricity levy. The bill will add an additional objective to the Electricity Authority’s statutory objective, which currently is to promote competition in, reliable supply by, and the efficient operation of, the electricity industry for the long-term benefit of consumers.

Despite the reference to, and I quote, “the long-term benefit of consumers”, there is uncertainty about the Electricity Authority’s jurisdiction to protect small consumers. The bill will give the Electricity Authority an additional objective of protecting the interests of household and small-business consumers in their dealings with industry participants. This will clarify and strengthen the Electricity Authority’s important role in protecting household and small-business consumers in their dealings with industry participants.

The 2019 Electricity Price Review preferred to give the Electricity Authority a consumer protection function without also changing its objective, to minimise potential unintended consequences that might result from changing the objective. However, further analysis concluded that it is prudent to also change the objective due to the risk that a consumer protection rule might be considered inconsistent with the existing objective. For example, a requirement for retailers to make reasonable efforts to contact a consumer before disconnecting the power for non-payment of a bill could perhaps impose disproportionate costs on some retailers, making them less competitive and thereby reduce competition. Protecting small consumers is intended to be a relevant consideration for a relatively small portion of the Electricity Authority’s work. It is expected to come into play only when the Electricity Authority is considering the conduct of retailers and other participants that deal directly with small consumers where there is an imbalance of power in those relationships that can result in adverse outcomes for small consumers.

The need for more adaptive regulation arises from emerging technologies and services that blur the boundaries between generators, distributors, and retailers. The bill will give the Electricity Authority greater flexibility to respond quickly, if necessary, to develop rules that can respond if existing participants used monopoly or market power, deliberately or inadvertently, to deter competitors from entering the market for such products and services, or to disadvantage those already in the market. This will help ensure that consumers can benefit from new products and services that offer high quality, lower cost, or more choice, enabled by these emerging technologies and services. The 2019 Electricity Price Review found that the lack of standardisation of terms and conditions for network access agreements between distributors and other parties seeking access actually raises costs and impedes competition.

The Electricity Authority has made good progress in addressing this issue under the default distribution agreements through existing co-provisions, but this was impacted by legal action questioning the Electricity Authority’s ability to regulate distribution agreements. The bill will enable the co-provisions to regulate distribution access, terms, and conditions as it already does for transmission.

The bill also provides for other matters that will improve the electricity regulatory system. It will clarify and improve the Electricity Authority’s powers to gather information from industry participants, for the purpose of carrying out reviews or investigations requested by the Minister of Energy and Resources. The Electricity Authority’s current information-gathering powers cannot be used for the purposes of an inquiry requested by the Minister of Energy and Resources. This interpretation defeats the intent of the policy, which is that the Electricity Authority should be able to use its information-gathering powers when undertaking a review or inquiry requested by the Minister of Energy and Resources.

This bill will enable the Minister of Energy and Resources to amend the code if there is not satisfactory progress on specified matters. This will be a time-limited power to ensure timely action by industry and the Electricity Authority to consider and progress improvements to the retail and wholesale electricity markets for the benefit of consumers. The Government expects that, taken together, the changes proposed in the bill will ensure the electricity regulatory system is more future-fit, in light of significant changes occurring in the industry. I commend the bill to the House.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In listening to the Minister’s speech on this bill that we’re discussing today, it was rather interesting, for a start, that the Minister said he intends to move at the appropriate time that this bill is reported back by 31 March 2022. So I just did a quick count, as you do, and realised that’s six months, and I thought, “Whoa, that’s a bit of a change for this Government—to actually be giving people time to come in and do some submissions.” I will give the Minister a tick on that one.

Hon Stuart Nash: Thank you.

BARBARA KURIGER: The ticks are going to start running out soon or later, though. [Interruption] Exactly. So this is a bill that is partly put in place to protect consumers, and no one would have any problem with that. No one on this side of the House has a problem as it is very difficult often for small consumers who have a problem to be able to be heard. The question is whether we need another body to do that—we have the Commerce Commission. So that’s one of the questions that we will certainly be looking at having answers to as we move through the select committee process.

Residential and small businesses do struggle to be heard. But the big problem we had this year, actually, wasn’t with the small consumers wanting to be heard. We had awful problems this winter partly because the hydro dams were low, partly because the gas was low, and we’ll have serious debates as we move forward in time as to the causes, or not, of that problem. Some of them were in the gas fields and some of them were brought on by Government decisions. The wholesale prices that happened in the electricity industry this year were horrendous for our processing businesses, and we have businesses that know that if they have to put up with that for a series of winters to come, they’re probably likely to pick up their processing and take it offshore if indeed that is possible. If one is a milk-processing company, then it becomes less possible to take raw milk offshore to process it.

Since I’ve been the spokesperson for energy, which was around last November, I’ve talked to a lot of people in this industry, and I think there’s one word that is probably used above any other word and that is “uncertainty”. The big problem that we have with this piece of legislation is the fact that it gives the Minister permission to stick her fingers in the gearbox of the electricity sector once again. And it appears that every time the Minister and this Government start interfering with the electricity market, the electricity suppliers, it goes wrong. So we can start with that awful decision around removing the oil and gas permits. As we know the climate commission has said that we’re going to need gas as part of our transition for a number of years to come, and it was a very short-sighted decision that led to that. So that was the first piece of uncertainty.

The second piece of uncertainty is this project that’s going on, costing $100 million, deciding whether or not to do a project called Lake Onslow. Very few people are in favour of Lake Onslow and that’s the other thing that is constraining the market from investment, because when the Government goes and puts a proposed project out there with a proposed cost of $4 million, we all know that’s going to be a joke; it’s more likely to be double that, as it is with most projects. And it’s centred around a couple of wetlands, and we all know how that goes under the current Resource Management Act. So we’re 10 or 15 years away. Even if that idea was to eventuate, we are 10 or 15 years away from having that done.

The third thing that this Government is doing to create real uncertainty in the electricity and the energy market is that they’re taking their time around what the climate commission has pointed out to them, which is that the 100 percent renewable electricity target is the wrong target to be going for. I think the Minister probably would have seen graphs similar to the one I’m holding that show that you get to 95 percent and then all of a sudden the costs go up, and I ask myself every day—and I ask the Minister—and I would like to get some answers around this. If we took that away money that was spent trying to get that last 3 or 4 percent of electricity that was used in the energy sector—where we have real problems with emissions from transport and heat processing, creating a big problem—took it away from that sector, we would get to our climate change goals much faster.

So what we are seeing as a result of this Minister putting her hands into where—they should stay in the governance process and not in the management of this. Back in 2016, on 9 August—9 August has become a really significant day in the electricity industry, because that was the day the lights went off, on the coldest day that we’ve had this year. So that’s to that point. That’s when the communication outage took place. It turned into a power outage but it started off as a communication outage, one which the Minister found out about from a 1 News reporter calling the office, which doesn’t really give me great heart that anyone communicates in the Minister’s office or in the office of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. So the Minister initially strikes out at Genesis Energy and says, “Oh, they made a commercial decision.” When we find out what actually happened, Genesis Energy had no time to heat up the Rankine to burn more coal, which, by the way, is the result of Government decisions. Hence the lights went off. So it didn’t turn out that that was the problem at all.

I have asked the Minister in written questions as to whether she intends to apologise despite a slight back-down by Minister David Parker in the House at the time on that statement, which wasn’t his. The Minister has not been very keen to front up and apologise to Genesis Energy for making that statement.

So going back to another 9 August 2016, “New Zealand heads towards 90 percent renewable generation”. Currently, and this is just one page from 18 July from the system operator, “Renewable generation for the last four weeks, 76.7 percent.” I think last week it was actually down under 75 percent. So this Government has taken renewable energy—and we know that the Government can’t make it rain; we accept that. But there are a lot of decisions that the Government’s actually taking that have had huge effects on this. So that is why the National Party will not be supporting this bill at first reading. We do believe that, yes, there are some consumer issues in there that could be improved, but we don’t believe that the Minister needs any more power in the electricity industry than what she’s already had to cause the problems that we’ve already got.

I just want to make a quote. Back in 2019 when the Minister said we won’t die in a ditch over the last couple of percent of renewable electricity if it places unreasonable costs on households and puts security of supply at risk, there was no announcement on Onslow made at that time. But by the following year, it doubled down on the target and it moved that the Onslow project was going to take part. It’s not specifically related here but we do have concerns about the technical ability, which we’ve raised a number of times, of the people in that group.

So just looking here at the bill in terms of the departmental disclosure statement, “The Panel considers that the level of analysis is sufficient for most of the proposals as it’s commensurate with their size and expected risk and impact. However, the analysis of costs and benefits and of safeguards is incomplete around the proposals to: extend the Electricity Authority’s power to regulate monopoly businesses’ involvement in emerging contestable markets; and to provide a regulatory ‘back-stop’ mechanism. The Panel recommends that MBIE do further analysis of these two proposals and update the RIA prior to tabling legislation in Parliament.” So this is another poorly thought-out bill that will have bad results. We oppose it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this excellent bill as the Government continues to do good work in this area. I think it’s important at this time, though, to look back a little bit, because if you look across New Zealand we have a lot of infrastructure that’s been built over the past—well, in this case, over a hundred years. In fact, the first hydro dam was built in 1885, and it was built in the province of Otago at Skippers Creek. We had a few more built after that in the early 1990s and then quite a significant building of hydro dams between the 1960s and the 1990s. I’d like to acknowledge all of those who worked incredibly hard, men and women, to build these dams—this infrastructure that we have. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if we didn’t have that infrastructure, so certainly very important.

We’ve heard from the Minister what the bill does. I understand it’s coming to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which is a very hard-working committee, and we look forward to receiving a number of submissions on this bill. I’d like to thank the Minister for her work in this area and commend the bill to the House.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There is a trend developing today in this House when members of the Government speak. Firstly, they say the Government is working hard. Secondly—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, that wasn’t meant to be funny but it is. Secondly, on these really important pieces of legislation, they are speaking for about one minute 23. Imagine if they were really, really, really important pieces of legislation, the public may get three minutes or four minutes out of them. Here is the problem with this Government: talking is not working and working is not talking, unfortunately.

I met a builder in my electorate a little while ago who was complaining that he never built any houses because all he did was talk. Here’s the problem with this piece of legislation. When the chair of the committee stands up and says his committee is hard-working and the Government is hard-working and the Government, actually, say, “We care about the price of electricity and the impact it has upon consumers, so let’s set up somebody to talk about it.”, it doesn’t help people pay their electricity bills. It certainly doesn’t bring it down. I guarantee you, having listened to the speeches in the House from Government backbenchers that range from one minute 23 to one minute 47 if they drop their notes, that actually the talking that will be done won’t even make those consumers feel better.

The electricity industry is a very, very challenging thing to get right. A former member of Parliament for Rotorua who was charged with making reforms many years ago—actually, in the end, it was one of the reasons, perhaps, that it cost him his seat. Here is a salient lesson to the Minister, because the chair of the committee just started talking about the very first hydro dam that was built in New Zealand. I didn’t know whether the Government was taking credit for that or blaming National for it. But the point here is, actually, when it comes to a history lesson, history does repeat. If a Government talks and gets regulation wrong—and I think this Government has a real challenge coming when it comes to electricity in New Zealand.

What we didn’t hear from the Minister, when he read the speech, or the chair of the committee, was just what happened this year alone. We’ve canvassed it in the House. But if they actually care about the cost of electricity upon consumers, both the household—who are crippled by cost of living, rents through the roof, food has gone up, electricity is challenging for them—mums and dads who are working hard, the working poor, who are having to choose between paying the bills or feeding the kids. If they actually cared about that, they would have talked about the blackouts that happened this year. There were a lot of excuses from the Government. I mean, the most appalling thing, I must say, when it comes to the explanation the Minister of Energy and Resources gave in this House was that she found out via the media. Oh, my gosh.

So here’s the challenge that we have: blackouts this year, more coal imported than any year ever before, a gas ban that, you know, we can argue about, but is having an impact upon investment and electricity, the number of trucks rolling down the highway from Auckland in lockdown to the Huntly power station to generate electricity from coal. And what the Government wants to do, the solution is, a committee to talk about these things, to give consumers a voice. Well, for constituent MPs in our electorates, they already know consumers have a voice and their voice is, “We need help, real help. We just don’t need talk. We don’t need a Government that’s saying we’re working hard, that we understand, that we care.” Caring doesn’t turn the heater on, doesn’t help a consumer pay the bill, and New Zealanders are struggling.

This will come before the committee. It’ll be like other bills we’ve had in the energy sector that have come before the committee: the Government won’t actually listen to submitters. Now, you don’t have to do everything a submitter wants, because, of course, there will be many, many different views that will come before the committee. But one of the great things about a sector like this is there are real-time experts out there who have experience. Sadly, I remember when I was a Minister, officials don’t know everything. It’s easy for a Minister who’s under pressure, who has far too much to do, to just assume the officials know what’s best and what’s right. But you’ve also got to get out of the offices in Wellington that don’t have the windows and listen to people on the street about what’s affecting them, and then go to the sector and listen to the reasonable experts, the ones that are experienced, that this is their life work, about how to make it right, how to get it right. Very, very few of them would say, “The very best thing you could do is to set up another agency to talk with little power, if any at all.” It’s not going to make the change or the difference that they hope.

That’s what this Government will be judged on, not the announcements, not the “We’re working hard. We’re a great Government. We’re hard-working.” It’s whether or not they’re making a difference to people’s lives. Sadly, this legislation won’t. The Government has missed an opportunity to actually do something about the cost of energy and electricity in New Zealand.

I would imagine that we’ll see the Minister of energy again attacking the generation companies, because she likes to do that. If ever the Government is under pressure, the media notices there are blackouts, they go on attack mode, and they spin. They attack those who are generating electricity or they attack the companies who own the lines and move the electricity around the country. Or what they often do is they talk about the retailers; they are the ones who are actually responsible. Well, the Government has the regulatory tools, they have the ability, with their large majority, to do what’s right for New Zealand. Instead, they do just what they want to do, whatever they want, and, sadly, this is a missed opportunity here.

They could actually say, “We are going to find ways to have more generation in the short term as we move towards the goal that we have of sustainable electricity production.” But we have to remember that when they came to Government four years ago, we had one of the most sustainable energy sectors in the world, and, actually, it’s gone backwards. Unfortunately, we are not as sustainable, our electricity production in New Zealand is not as renewable today as it was when they came to Government four years ago, because of all of that coal that’s coming from Indonesia. That’s a very sad thing because we could have stood on our record and been proud of what we were doing around the world.

This legislation does nothing about that. They talk about all the schemes that they want, pumped hydro, all the other things that they’re talking about, which are not in the short term and the medium term; they’re a long way away. It’s almost like Think Big all those years ago. Think Big, except the Government is not “thinking big”. They’re thinking about the next press release. They are thinking about the next slogan. They’re thinking about how to divert attention from the things they are not doing and not doing well, hoping the public doesn’t notice.

Here is the problem for the Government: every single month the electricity bill turns up and eventually those press releases, they realise, don’t help the bills to be paid. Bits of legislation like this will come to the committee and we will give a fair hearing. They won’t make one bit of difference to the blackout that’s happened this year, to the oil and gas ban. So we can’t have gas as a transitional energy source to give certainty, to the coal that’s been imported into New Zealand from Indonesia, and to the lack of new generation.

The National Party is very proud of the work that we did in Government to balance this out, to have a time line to start moving towards a sustainable energy. But we also need energy security and energy independence, and that’s something the Government has thrown out the window purely to make announcements. If this legislation was going to make it easier for consumers to give businesses certainty, to make sure that at the very least costs didn’t go up, let alone come down, we would happily support it, we’d work with the Government, but it doesn’t do this. What it does is it sets up another body to talk.

When members opposite say that they are hard-working, working is not talking and talking is not working. The only way that that builder I gave the example of earlier actually can build houses is stop talking, pick up the tools and actually do the real work. That’s what the Government needs to do when it comes to energy production in New Zealand.

The very best way to look after the consumer, if the Government doesn’t know what to do about energy, is find other ways to reduce costs on them: make sure the rents are not going up as much as they have; make sure the fuel costs are not going up; stop piling tax upon tax upon tax on the poor Kiwi household; stop bringing out new rules and regulations on businesses large and small when they struggle, so they have to pass the cost on. Because Kiwis are struggling. There is such a thing now as the hard-working poor, people that go to work every day, mums and dads, 40 hours to 80 hours a week between them, who cannot pay their bills, who have to choose between paying the bills that the Government are ramping up and feeding their kids. They’re the ones that deserve the break. They’re the ones that deserve more than a talk shop, a committee that’s going to talk to make them feel better. The way to make them feel better is bring the electricity costs down.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise to speak on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. A previous speaker from the other side of the House talked about how this was the Minister sticking her fingers into the gearbox. I think it’s more around the Minister ensuring that there’s a really good tool box that can be used to ensure that our electricity industry is fit for purpose, to care for people, to also, obviously, as it talks about, strengthen the consumer voice. That’s for our consumers, for our small households, for our small businesses, to ensure that they have a voice. Now, back in 2019, there was the Electricity Price Review, that talked about and explored what was going on for households and for small consumers, and they were struggling to be heard. So we are putting something in the tool box to ensure that they are heard and that they are supported.

Now, we’ve heard lots around our short speeches today, and in the words of the great Bryan Adams, “With few words one can speak the truth.” I thought that was quite good. I look forward, as a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, to listening to the arguments, to listening to the opportunities, the possibilities from the sector, from consumers. In the words of Florence Nightingale, “people have founded vast schemes upon a very few words.”

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting this bill. I note that it’s an outcome of the Electricity Price Review, which was undertaken in the previous term of Government, and many of the recommendations fit with Green Party policy, although I would say that the recommendations from that review don’t go as far as we think they should. One of the positive things about this particular bill I think will be this establishment of an agency to advocate for consumers. I think that’s definitely needed and will be worthwhile.

However, there are some things that I think are being put off until there is the establishment of the agency that could be done sooner. So, for example, Powerswitch is extremely difficult for most people who are the most vulnerable, on low incomes, to navigate, and part of the problem with Powerswitch is that it’s really difficult for the people running Powerswitch to know what particular product a consumer has from a particular electricity company. So that makes it really hard to evaluate whether they are on the best product and whether they can save money by switching to a different one.

There are some really simple changes that can be made really quickly like requiring every individual product to have a code or a number, which Powerswitch would have the information about, from all of the providers, and that that number or code be published on any electricity bill. That will make it really, really easy to give good information to consumers. I don’t think we need to wait for an agency to be established to require this, but, unfortunately, the Electricity Authority has been extremely hands-off and really hasn’t taken, I think, up the responsibilities that it has to make sure that the market is fair and working in favour of consumers.

So I think it’s great that these changes are proposed. I think it’s unfortunate that it will take some time to be implemented. It clarifies the electricity industry code to ensure changes can be made to protect the interests of households and small businesses. It makes some of the changes to enable flexibility around new technologies, like regulation of lines companies who also provide home solar panel services. And I think this could be quite useful to encourage the uptake of solar. Clearly, the status quo is not fit for purpose in this respect. We haven’t really facilitated the uptake of solar in any big way in New Zealand, and I think most people think that’s a missed opportunity. I mean, you look at countries like Germany, which have lower sunshine hours, fewer sunshine hours than New Zealand, and yet they are generating huge amounts of their electricity from solar because of really proactive Government policies that have supported that, and, of course, that is part of our transition to more renewable generation—to enable more distributed renewal generation like solar.

So I think the steps within this bill will be positive and they will have a positive impact for smaller retailers, as well. They’re a really important part of how we ensure that there is good competition and that the gen-tailers aren’t just, sort of, making massive super profits at the expense of consumers. We see that with some of the smaller changes the bill proposes, like enabling or giving the power to the Minister to directly amend the code if the Minister is not satisfied with industry behaviour. Currently, only the Electricity Authority can amend the code.

I think this is quite an interesting development and it means that some of the changes that the smaller retailers and consumer advocacy groups have been calling for to ensure that the gen-tailers are required to operate fairly can happen. So requiring transparency, for example, so that gen-tailers have to release information about internal transfers and potentially forcing them to sell a proportion of the electricity they generate on the open market, rather than trading it internally. I think those are really important powers.

I think the ideology of the 1990s in the electricity reforms was that simply by trying to create a competitive market, we would get the best outcome for consumers and lower prices, but, clearly, that has not been borne out. I think part of the problem is that maybe this would have worked in a larger market, but New Zealand is a small country and we seem to have this problem in a whole range of areas. Whether it’s supermarkets, electricity generation, banks, or building and construction, we tend to quite quickly be dominated by a few big players—somewhere between two and four—and they’re able to use their market power to extract excessive profit, and this is at the expense of consumers and businesses.

The other way that we’ve been let down by that approach is a lack of a strategic approach to transition to renewable electricity. I note that previous members in this debate have argued—and it is a tragedy—that our emissions have gone up from electricity generation because we have been burning more coal over the last few years, but this is a direct result of a lack of ability in our electricity system to have a strategic plan to deliver what’s best for New Zealand and best for New Zealand’s climate. The Green Party—Jeanette Fitzsimons—was talking about this in 2005, and probably before that, to be honest. She was working really hard on it in 2005 to 2008 as the energy efficiency and conservation spokesperson for the Government.

The Green Party has said for a long time that we need a plan to transition to renewable generation and to transition Huntly to have an alternative for baseload electricity generation that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels, and yet successive Governments ignored that, but most particularly the last National Government, because their largest change is a direct result on why we haven’t had increased renewable generation provided in recent years. The major energy users group put out a report just a few weeks ago showing that over the last 20 years, Meridian has been making excessive profits, but particularly in the last five years, since the partial privatisation of Meridian.

So it’s no surprise that if you partially privatise these sorts of companies and you’ve got private shareholders directing the behaviour of the company, they’re going to maximise short-term profits over long-term benefit to New Zealand, and that’s a direct result of National Party policy in the last National Government. You never heard them talking about a plan to reduce our reliance on coal. We never saw any investments made to have an alternative to baseload, and it’s not a problem that can be solved in one year or three years or four years, even.

This is a long-term problem that now the Government is grappling with, but it’s not a result of this Government’s policy that we’re burning more coal. It’s a result of a decade of inaction in terms of investing in renewables and setting up the type of regulation like that which is in this bill, which would have enabled the incentives so that we would have more renewable generation and we wouldn’t be so reliant on fossil fuels at the peak time.

If we’d had improvements to building standards 10 years ago, when we needed them, we wouldn’t have had so much demand in the peak of winter for electricity. So we need a long-term vision and a long-term commitment to sustainability, to climate action, and to the collective public good here in New Zealand, and that can really only be delivered by a philosophy that understands that trying to maximise profits for private individuals who happen to be investors in the electricity companies is not the way to get the best outcome for New Zealand as a whole or the climate.

So the Green Party is supporting this bill. We would support further and faster action on many of these areas to protect consumers but also to incentivise renewable generation, be that distributed or in a more centralised way.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACT cautiously supports this bill to select committee to hear from stakeholders and to determine which parts of this are actually needed. The aspirations sound lovely: it seeks a better functioning system with increased competition, better access for new entrants, and lower prices. So we support aspects of this bill, for instance improving the arm’s-length rules where vertically integrated businesses may have different functions such as for generation and retail distribution and that sort of thing. And it is good that the bill is addressing anti-competitive behaviour, such as excessive self-dealing when a generator sells to its own retail arm at a price that is lower than its competitors. Furthermore, the changes to the terms and conditions and the powers of the Electricity Authority appear to have minimal impact, but if they are well worded and drafted may improve the performance of the market, and the increased oversight could be justifiable.

We are, however, highly sceptical of the consumer advocacy agency, which could be a little bit of a Trojan Horse. There is a risk that such an agency will be stacked with anti-business types who will advocate for more bad Government energy policy at the expense of consumers and businesses. These are the sorts of policies that we have seen lead to power shortages, increases in wholesale electricity prices, gas shortages, record coal imports and burning, and a raft of other consequences such as manufacturers closing down and job losses as a result of high energy costs.

The Government states that consumers struggle to make their voices heard and exert influence over decisions affecting them in the electricity sector. We point out that the market already does provide consumers and enable consumers to have their voices heard, in the way that they can switch providers. There’s more than 40 to choose from, and they’re doing so at a rate of—I think it’s around—400,000 per year. So ACT does not agree with the need for this agency. We don’t believe it’ll help consumers. Rather, it will just create avenues for more quasi-Government policy promotion through offices staffed by friendly faces.

So in summary, on balance, there are sufficient positives in this bill that we want to see it at select committee to be debated and improved, and we challenge the Government majority on the select committee to actually listen to stakeholders and experts. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe, e te Mana Whakawā. Look, that was actually a good speech from a thoughtful Opposition member. Glad to see that the ACT Party is acting as a responsible Opposition in supporting this bill to select committee, and good to hear those thoughtful contributions on the competition aspects of the bill and the need to make sure that the large players, in dealing, essentially, with themselves, are subject to appropriate disciplines. And also, I must say, an excellent contribution from Julie Anne Genter as well.

Of course, we would expect the ACT Party to be concerned if there was a strong consumer voice to balance out the dominance of business interests in the electricity market, but that’s a matter that we’ll happily have a debate on at select committee. I think it’s really important that consumers don’t have a disparate voice where the strongest thing they can ever do is change from one provider to another provider. I think it’s important that they can have an organisation which is resourced to gain evidence and do research around whether or not they’re treated fairly, and that’s one of the things that this bill does. But great to see the ACT Party acting as a thoughtful Opposition in taking this to select committee for a robust discussion around these points. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call the Hon Scott Simpson.

Hon Scott Simpson: Is it a split call, Mr Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call—five minutes.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that is a solution looking for a problem. It’s typical of socialist, left-wing Governments to come up with this sort of thing where their answer to a challenge that they perceive to be real and prescient is to set up a committee—set up a committee, palm it off to a group of people who will be appointed, probably, on the basis of their political backgrounds rather than their ability, and generate daily sitting fees and the like and produce reports. And nothing will change—nothing will change. So this is something that’s become a hallmark of this socialist Labour Government, is to set up working groups, committees. That creates the sense of something happening. It creates a sense of momentum. But in practical, real terms, nothing happens, because the delivery is non-existent.

Now, this bill seeks to establish a Small Electricity Consumers Agency, and that’s the grand gesture, and—and it’s the “and” bit that’s important—empowers the Minister to amend the electricity industry participation code. That’s the bit that is the scary part, because you have, on the one hand, the grand gesture, which is to set up the warm fuzzy sounding Small Electricity Consumers Agency, which, on the surface and on the face of it, sounds very reasonable. But, actually, it’s the empowering the Minister to amend the Electricity Industry Participation Code that is the teeth within this piece of legislation. So it’s smoke and mirrors over here, and don’t look too closely at the Minister and the Government overreaching in terms of their power and control and ability to meddle and put their fingers into the marketplace and meddle in a way that they see fit. It’s, as I say, characteristic of a Government that likes to meddle on this kind of grand scale.

I’m a driver of an electric vehicle (EV) and I have been for three years. I’ve nearly done 100,000 kilometres in my 100 percent electric vehicle and I love it. One of the things that has occurred since I started driving an electric vehicle is that it’s changed my relationship and understanding of electricity as a consumer. I have found that, whereas for years and years and years, and particularly during the years when my children were teenagers and they’re going through that period of time when they seemed to use a lot more electricity than anybody else in the universe, I would just pay the power bill each month. I’d occasionally give them stern lectures about the necessity to turn off lights and unnecessary heaters and don’t have such long showers. But as I say, that’s a teenage thing, and they sort of grow out of that. They grow out of it enough when they start paying the power bills themselves, when they become consumers themselves. I’ve noticed this and I speak from my lived experience of this. They do get it eventually.

But I have found that my relationship with electricity has changed since I became an EV driver, and I’ve gone to the extent of having solar installed on my roof. I can sit in this Chamber sometimes and put on the app on my phone and see how much electricity is being generated in the beautiful Coromandel as I sit in this Chamber. What that tells me and what that little journey of electricity exploration has taught me is that actually there is much that could be done to make consumers more electricity-focused and understanding.

Now, some of that is not about setting up an agency of the sort that is proposed in this bill. Some of it is about making it easier for consumers to have a better understanding of what their electricity use is, how they can reduce their electricity consumption, how they can be more efficient, and how they can achieve a faster move to the electrification of our economy that’s going to be needed as we transition to a climate-focused world where we remove ourselves from fossil fuels. The answer to this piece of legislation is actually not to create a grand gesture, Government Labour Party type of new agency or committee or organisation. The answer is actually to just allow consumers to be more flexible, more useful, and to make it easier for people as individuals to understand what their electric electricity usage is happening.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. It’s always a pleasure to hear that there could well be environmentalists on the other side of the House. But the point I want to make is that as well as making changes at an individual level, which is something we all must do—and I’ve recently taken up the use of an electric vehicle, but a bicycle version—we also have to make system-level changes to the electricity industry. That’s something that this side of the House believes: that when we’re making change to how we do things in this country, we need to take better choices as individuals, and we also need to be prepared to make changes to the system that will improve those systems.

This morning we’ve actually had another power outage in the South Island, thanks to a fault at a substation near my electorate of Nelson, and it just shows just how important it is that we are ready to make these changes. In this bill, in addition to the consumer advocacy agency, we’re also going to be making changes to the Electricity Authority statutory objectives to ensure that one of the new objectives is to protect consumers—is to protect against the use of monopoly powers by distributors, and including mechanisms such as ensuring that the terms and conditions between distributors and other parties are fair and reasonable.

And so it’s a pleasure to hear that the ACT Party will be supporting this bill. But on the other side of the House we hear much wailing, much gnashing of teeth about how we need to improve this sector, and when it comes to putting up legislation in front of this House, the other side of this House in the National Party decides, “Well, we want to talk about it a lot, we want to whinge about it a lot, but we actually don’t want to get up and make change.” On that note, I am fully in support of this bill and I commend it to the House.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to be able to take a call on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. I just want to address a couple of comments from the other side of the House in relation to this bill. They say it’s a bill that’s looking for a problem. Well, clearly they have not actually picked the bill up off the Table to read to, because it’s very clear in the bill what it’s trying to achieve, the problems that have been set out. I quote: “Electricity consumers, particularly households and small businesses, struggle to make their voices heard and exert influence over decisions affecting them in the electricity sector.” Again: “Small electricity consumers can be vulnerable in their dealings with electricity industry”—competition, around “limiting competition to the detriment of consumers”. So there are problems that this bill is trying to resolve. This is why we’re supporting it through to the select committee, so that we can hear from submitters, hear their voices and understand what the impact is on them, both as consumers, both as retailers. So I commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very opportune that I stand to speak to this bill today in its first reading. Look, we’ve heard plenty of comments from my colleagues on this side of the House about the mess that the electricity industry is in. Actually, it’s not just the electricity industry, it’s the energy sector entirely.

It’s quite coincidental, as one of the members referred to before, that we have just experienced yet another blackout in this time and the whole of the West Coast goes out. I’d just like to read one of the updates that happened after that. It was nearly an hour following the blackout where the local power authority, Westpower, says that “All of South Westland has power restored due to local generation from Amethyst.” Now, Amethyst is a small power scheme in Westland and it’s a sister project to the Waitaha power scheme that has been sitting with the Government for a concession—originally turned down, but we continue to lobby for it to be granted. Today has given us an absolutely classic example of why places that are remote, like the West Coast, need to have local generation.

So we on the Coast were without power for about 45 minutes, but other parts were without power for an hour and a half. Does this bill help generate electricity? Does it help the energy sector to give them confidence to invest in more generation? No, it doesn’t. What it does is sets up yet another level of bureaucracy. The consumers actually don’t care about that level of democracy, and we think that we’re going to do those small users, small businesses, private individuals a favour by having another level of bureaucracy!

But guess how it’s going to be funded? That’s right. There will be a levy. There will be a levy paid by consumers to fund this new level of bureaucracy. And where does that cost fall? It falls back on the consumers, the very people that the Government assumes it’s going to be helping. But in actual fact, they are going to create another layer of cost, but we don’t know what that cost is going to be. And the reason we don’t know, and I’ll read it out of the debate notes on this bill, is because, it says, “The analysis of costs and benefits and of safeguards is incomplete around [a couple of] … proposals.” One of them is “to: extend the Electricity Authority’s power to regulate monopoly businesses’ involvement in emerging contestable markets; and to provide a regulatory ‘back-stop’ mechanism.” And it even says, in the recommendations from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), the recommendations to the Minister, “that MBIE do further analysis of these two proposals and update the RIA prior to tabling legislation in Parliament.”

Did that happen? No, it did not happen. This bill is incomplete. It has not got the assessment that is required to make a decision on implementing policy unless the costs and the safeguards have been completely analysed. And so once again, we’ve got the Government looking for sound bites in the media to make it look like they’re doing stuff. But actually ask the people on the West Coast this morning what they would rather have. Would they rather have another bureaucratic body set up that they are going to have to fund or would they rather have the lights stay on when they turn the switch? I think I know what the answer to that would be.

There’s been a few comments made, and I refer to one that my colleague Barbara Kuriger made this morning, saying that the Minister stuck her finger in the gearbox. Actually, I think she stuck her fist in the turbine, because what she’s doing is grinding the energy market in this country backwards. And it’s very clear to see, because we’ve got our “clean, green” and our “nuclear moment” philosophy from this Government, and they’re the very people who are importing coal at record numbers. Last year, in 2020, over a million tonnes of coal were imported into New Zealand, and in the first quarter of 2021, that number has been 300,000 tonnes of coal. So for a “nuclear moment”, we are actually going backwards.

I think the Government has its priorities completely back to front if they think having this bureaucracy set up is going to make any difference to electricity security or energy security in this country. And according to the preparation I did for this bill, the Minister still hasn’t completely explained why it’s necessary to set up a Small Electricity Consumers Agency rather than boost what we’ve already got, which is the Commerce Commission. So why isn’t the Commerce Commission charged with being a voice for small businesses and for domestic users? They’re the very people with the skills. They’ve already got an established system in place, and the Minister could quite easily ask them or instruct them and fund them to undertake the work to be that voice for small business and domestic users.

Basically what MBIE was saying too, in their preparation for this, is that MBIE does not consider the cost as being worth the benefit. Isn’t that interesting. So when we’re told by the Government that they always follow best advice, and that’s always their fall-back position for some of the decisions that they make—yet when they don’t want to listen to that expert advice, they completely ignore it. And we’ve got now MBIE themselves saying that they do not consider the cost of this new body to be set up, the Small Electricity Consumers Agency, as being worth the benefit.

And one other thing that this bill is going to do is it’s going to give the Minister powers to intervene. At the moment, we have almost an arm’s length relationship there. And that separation between the Electricity Authority—and they are an independent entity—and the Minister has to be respected. But once again, we’ve got this Government overreaching and sticking its fist in the turbines and grinding things to a halt, because they are continually of the belief that they know best. Well, we’ve seen the disaster that that’s creating in this country, and the energy sector is now facing enough issues of its own without having the Minister spooking the sector yet again. If you think about the spontaneous decision that happened to stop oil and gas exploration in this country, it spooked the investors and they’re gone. And even though we might say we’ll unwind that decision, actually the investment has gone with them. So there are a lot of things that cannot be undone once the mistakes have been made.

But the other one that has spooked the industry is the announcement of the Onslow project. Now, the Onslow project is touted as being New Zealand’s answer to electricity shortages and security of supply. So we’ve got a body of eight people set up; that’s the expert advisory group. Twenty-five percent of that group comprises of an activist from Greenpeace and the person that set up the School Strike 4 Climate. They are part of a $300 million budget, providing expert technical advice on a multi-billion dollar project. It just beggars belief to think that we are relying on such input to make major investment decisions for this country.

So while we’ve got the Government over here on one hand saying, “We’ve got the answer; we’re investing hundreds of millions of dollars into a feasibility project.” and, on the other hand, we’ve got potential investors saying, “We don’t need to do anything because the Government’s in competition with us and we’ll just leave it to them.”, who misses out? The consumer.

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

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): There was a time members in this House actually could have advocated on behalf of consumers. However, because the electricity reforms were meant to introduce competition, which was meant to bring prices down, the opposite happened, because the generators and the retailers, particularly the generators, have got an incentive to keep the electricity supply absolutely at the margins, and that’s why we are seeing the major outages we have. What this bill does is strengthen the Electricity Authority’s ability to actually advocate on behalf of consumers in a way that members in this House once did. It is very good legislation, it is necessary legislation, and I do congratulate the ACT Party for their support, because they have seen through what this is doing. I commend this to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 87

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

Noes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, that concludes the extended sitting. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.57 p.m. (Thursday)