Wednesday, 20 October 2021

WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): 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.

Speaker’s Rulings

Written Questions—Replies

SPEAKER: Members, at the request of the Minister of Health, I’m going to rule on concerns about replies to written questions. Ministers have a responsibility to the House and through the House to the country to account for the public offices they hold. Questions are an important element of this accountability and Ministers should therefore take questions seriously and endeavour to give informative replies to questions they are asked. Speakers’ ruling 186/5 applies equally to oral and written questions. Consistent with the importance of questions, I remind Ministers that they should not commence answers to questions with a political attack—Speaker’s ruling 191/3. This is especially true of answers to written questions which do not contain political statements and are not asked in the heat of the debating chamber.

Generally, where a member is concerned with a reply to written questions, they are expected to raise it with the Minister first—Speakers’ ruling 196/4. However, when an answer commences with an unnecessary political attack on another party and especially when the matter has been raised in the past, it is reasonable that a member raises it directly with the Speaker. For the sake of clarity I am now ruling that such matters may be brought immediately to the Speaker’s attention without raising them with the Minister first.

Finally, I would remind Ministers that I endeavour to be courteous and helpful in my written correspondence with members and I would appreciate that approach being reciprocated.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could also look at the nature of some of the questions that are being lodged. As a result of a decision that you made—I think it was earlier this year—to allow more than two legs to a written question, the nature of some of the written questions has become more political, and in terms of the nature of the exchange that we have here in the House, I think there has generally been an approach that if a member asks a particularly political question, then they can expect a particularly political answer. Now that questions can be longer and can contain more quotations and statements, by definition they often are becoming more political in nature, and I think it would be somewhat unfair to say that a question can be more highly political but an answer to it could not be.

SPEAKER: I will be absolutely willing to look at that if members choose to bring them to me. The ruling that I attempted to make in the past was not to allow more quotations but to allow multiple legs in order to have Ministers answer one question rather than 200 or 300 containing very similar information. It was an attempt to make it easier for the House and to make the system more efficient, and I’m quite happy, if Ministers feel that written questions are outside either the letter or the spirit, for them to bring them to me directly.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Just further clarifying what I was saying, Mr Speaker, I guess what I was asking is that where members who are receiving an answer raise with you the political nature of the answer, in assessing whether any further action is taken you’ll consider the nature of question that has been asked.

SPEAKER: Absolutely, and I did on about half a dozen occasions in this case.

Obituaries

Sean Wainui

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate mō he tohu aroha [as a sign of respect] for the passing of Sean Wainui.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: I move, That this House express its deep sadness at the tragic passing of Sean Wainui, nō Ngāi Tūhoe, Te Āitanga a Māhaki, Ngāriki Kaipūtahi, rātou ko Ngāti Porou, aged just 25, recognise his contributions on the rugby field with the Bay of Plenty, the Chiefs, and the Māori All Blacks, as well as in Te Ao Māori and his wider community; that this House offer its condolences and aroha to the whānau pani [bereaved family] at this time as whānau travel back to Whatatutu where he will lay in his whare tīpuna, Mangatu Marae me Te Wainui Marae, and particularly send our awhi and manaaki to his wife, Paige, and their tamariki, Arahia and Kawariki.

Ki te hunga mate, koutou kua riro atu, koutou kua takahia nei i ngā tapuwae o ngā mātua tīpuna, e moe. Mauria mai ngā tini aituā, hei tangihia, hei maumaharatia. Haere ki te puna wairua, ki te puna roimata, ki te puna tangata. Haere, haere, haere atu rā.

[To you who have passed. To you who are following in the footsteps of the ancestors, be at peace. Carry with you the many calamities that need to be mourned and remembered. Go to the spring of wellness and spirit, to the well of tears, and to the source of life. May you rest in peace.]

Motion agreed to.

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

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

SPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Annalice Rayner requesting that the House of Representatives amend the Accident Compensation Act 2001 to include sensitive claim cover for “mental injury” caused by image-based sexual abuse.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2020-21:

New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade

Inland Revenue

Crown Law Office

Te Puni Kōkiri

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Defence

Ministry for Women

Ministry of Social Development, and

Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

annual report for 2020-21 of the Ministry for Primary Industries, incorporating the Minister’s reports on non-departmental appropriations, and

statements of intent for 2021-25:

Crown Law Office

Ministry of Defence, and

Ministry for Women.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) 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 all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, including the work to keep the unemployment rate in New Zealand as low as possible. Unemployment for the June 2021 quarter was 4 percent, 0.6 percent lower than the March quarter. Of particular note is the unemployment rate of women, which has fallen from 5.8 percent in September 2020 to 4.3 percent last quarter. But there is still work to do. That’s why we’ve reinstated the Training Incentive Allowance, supporting 16,000 people to retrain, gain higher skills, and transition into new careers. Sole parents, disabled people, and carers are among those most affected by the economic impacts of COVID-19. They also face higher costs and barriers to education and training. Alongside the Flexi-wage, He Poutama Rangatahi, and Mana in Mahi, these are initiatives where we ensure that we leave no one behind.

Hon Judith Collins: Will she announce a concrete plan on Friday that gives certainty to Aucklanders that the lockdown will end before Christmas, or is she prepared to leave Aucklanders behind?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That is something I spoke to extensively yesterday in this House, in a press conference yesterday, and in media yesterday, and the member knows the answer is yes. We will be presenting greater detail around what a framework for protecting New Zealand in a highly vaccinated environment will look like.

Hon Judith Collins: Why is she making Aucklanders, who have been locked down for 64 days, wait until Friday for a stage-managed pronouncement on whether or not they’ll be locked down for Christmas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I reject some elements of that member’s statement, but I also note that the member has released her version of a plan, which includes both targets but also a date of 1 December. So I think what that’s acknowledging is that there’s, obviously, some work to do to ensure that there is safety for all Aucklanders via vaccination, and maybe that is something that we can actually agree on.

Hon Judith Collins: Is she saying, then, that she agrees with the National Party that we need to have a date of 1 December by which her Government needs to complete the vaccination programme that they promised to do this year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It would be difficult for me to know exactly what I would be agreeing with when, on 17 August, Dr Shane Reti said that they may need to go to 85, 90, or 95 percent; on 23 August, the Leader of the Opposition said a target of 70 to 75 percent; on 18 September, Chris Bishop said the first target should be 70 to 75 percent; and, actually, all on the same day of the 19th, Shane Reti said 90 to 95, Judith Collins said that they’d give a date by the end of November, and Chris Bishop said 85 to 90. So I’m not sure what I would be agreeing with.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, if she’s going to make up numbers like that, as she just did, perhaps she could answer—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Leader of the Opposition knows what she said was out of order, and therefore she will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Judith Collins: Yes, I withdraw and apologise. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Further supplementary?

Hon Judith Collins: Yes. So will she then announce on Friday a milestone by which time all COVID lockdowns will end, or will she continue to quote figures and dates and get things wrong?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To answer the second part of the question: no.

Hon Judith Collins: So at what vaccination rate will lockdown restrictions be lifted under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, we’ve already said that not only would we be speaking to the framework but also the triggers that we would be using on Friday. But I do note that the member has done both, which, again, I’m not entirely clear on whether the member believes a highly vaccinated environment is required or is simply an ambition, given she has three targets but also a date. I’m sure New Zealand would appreciate clarity on her opinion.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked for the Prime Minister’s view, not her view of our document.

SPEAKER: I’m not quite sure that was the question. I was convinced that the Prime Minister addressed the question at the beginning; whether the rest of it was helpful, I’m not sure. But we’ll go on to the next supplementary now.

Hon Judith Collins: Well, does the Prime Minister believe that a framework will be greeted by Aucklanders with certainty, given that it’s still just a framework that she’s talking about for Friday?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think, obviously, it would be best that we have that engagement after Friday and then the member will be able to ask a question perhaps with some more specificity. But I think what we can all agree with is that in the past, of course, lockdown and restrictions and the tools that we had meant that we were making every decision based on case numbers and the nature of an outbreak, and that has shaped New Zealand’s response to date. The ability to vaccinate and vaccinate broadly does give us more tools that enable us to build a framework to try and keep people safe but in a highly vaccinated environment. So that is what we’ll be looking to share more details around on Friday.

Hon Judith Collins: On Friday, will it be necessary for the Prime Minister to fly down from Auckland a film crew to film her pronouncement or will she find sufficient people in Wellington who can do the job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not entirely sure what the member is referring to. If it is the really important event of the Vaxathon, I’d have to say I think most New Zealanders thought that an event that brought about 130,000 people being vaccinated—that that would be something she supports. The way in which the filming of it was undertaken is not something any of these members in this House was engaged with but all of us support initiatives to get people vaccinated.

Hon Judith Collins: Did it make a difference to vaccination rates whether the film crew was able to come through as essential workers from Auckland or whether there were people in Wellington who might have done the job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not responsible for the staffing of Avalon Studios, but what we are responsible for is ensuring that as many people as possible are vaccinated. I thought, perhaps wrongly, that the Vaxathon was something that was broadly supported in this House.

Hon Judith Collins: Now that Auckland is in its third month of lockdown, does she regret spending so much of the COVID fund on things like a $500,000 grant to a book matchmaking website based in North America?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, decisions that are made around an innovation fund within the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is not something that I am personally determining. What I absolutely stand by is, unlike many other countries, we made a deliberate decision that because COVID-19 affects our artists and our creatives and those who rely on the gathering of people the most we specifically tested that the wage subsidy would be available to them. It has ensured the survival of our creative sector in a very difficult environment and we also, then, established a recovery package. The way that is administered sits with the Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The Government’s health-led approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and support for the economy has been reflected in the Crown financial accounts released last week. For the year to June 2021, the Crown accounts show the operating balance before gains and losses—the OBEGAL—was at a deficit of $4.6 billion. This was $10.6 billion better than had been forecast in the Budget in May. Net core Crown debt stood at 30 percent of GDP, $11.6 billion less than forecast and well below the average for advanced economies of 90 percent. In addition, the cost of servicing that debt remains very low by historic standards. With the Government’s books in better shape than expected, it does give us more options to respond to the ongoing effects of the pandemic, but we cannot afford to be complacent. We are still facing elevated levels of debt and deficit for some years to come, and we will need to invest our resources carefully in response.

Anna Lorck: What is the impact of the economy on the country’s tax take?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The stronger than expected economic environment saw core Crown tax revenue at $98 billion for the year to June 2021, $12.9 billion higher than the previous year and $6.4 billion higher than forecast in the Budget. This was across all tax types. With the country being in lower alert levels for much of the year, the strong labour market and consumer confidence drove these tax revenue increases. The focus on saving lives and livelihoods that has been the hallmark of the Government’s approach to COVID-19 has meant that the economy has bounced back better than almost anyone predicted. That strength has given us the fiscal headroom to support businesses and households when the Delta outbreak struck.

Anna Lorck: What constraints are there on the economy arising from the pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: While the economy’s performance has exceeded the expectations of commentators and forecasters, the Delta outbreak shows that the recovery is uneven for some sectors and regions. Globally, the pandemic continues to disrupt supply chains, which is, in turn, affecting the New Zealand economy. It is appropriate that the Government continues to take a balanced approach as we work through the uncertainty, investing heavily to support wellbeing, our transition to a low-carbon economy and to improved productivity, while all the while carefully managing resources with an eye to the long-term sustainability of the economy.

Question No. 3—Health

3. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Health: What is his response to Capital and Coast intensive care specialist Dr Paul Young, who has said, “I am afraid that your assertion that the number of staffed ICU beds has increased from 234 to 340 in the past 15 months is false” and that “If you are receiving advice that we have 340 staffed ICU beds you are receiving bad advice”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): My response to Dr Paul Young is a matter of public record. At 12.06 p.m. on 14 October 2021, I wrote “that is not what I said. In addition to 243 beds we call ‘ICU beds’, extra beds can be made available for ICU-level care staffed by surge trained nurses under supervision. DHBs advise they can lift the number to 320 to 340. [The] real issue is vaccination keeps people out of ICU.”

Dr Shane Reti: What does he say to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society, who reported there are, in fact, only 186 standing ICU beds in New Zealand that are staffed and not the numbers he is claiming?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I say not so much to that organisation but to that member is to read the full report that was provided by that organisation that said that there are up to 314 beds available for ICU and high-dependency unit (HDU) level care.

Dr Shane Reti: Does he understand that no one believes him when he says that new standing ICU beds have been added—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member cannot use that expression in relation to something that a Minister has just said in the House.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm there are only four standing ICU beds at Tai Rāwhiti; and, given its occupancy rate, how many community cases per day will it take for the standing ICU beds to be overwhelmed?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I get a daily report on the available ICU and HDU capacity for all hospitals. The reality is that it varies by a small margin each day, but the latest report I’ve had for Tai Rāwhiti is that there are six ICU and HDU beds available and, like most hospitals, not all are fully utilised at the time that that report of total capacity was given to me.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said lockdowns protect ICU beds, is his failure to build enough ICU beds the reason Auckland is still in level 3 lockdown; and is he then also responsible for the 1,000 postponed elective surgeries per week that he has described in answers to written questions due to the lockdown?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member is conflating a number of completely different things. The early part of the latest lockdown was a level 4 lockdown, and the member will well know that, typically, what happens is that hospitals then cease most planned care and put those procedures off. In Auckland in particular, because they’ve gone from level 4 and then down to level 3, there has been continued disruption of planned care and, indeed, some other procedures. Most DHBs have resumed planned care and other procedures. The Auckland hospitals have been able to refer some patients to other DHBs to get those procedures done, but the reality about pandemics and lockdowns is that they are disruptive to surgical procedures, and that has happened on this occasion.

Question No. 4—Energy and Resources

4. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. What action is the Government taking to reduce fossil fuel use by large industrial users?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Recently, I announced the second round of recipients of co-funding from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund. The fund is a partnership between Government and business to accelerate the decarbonisation of industrial process heat while creating jobs. Process heat makes up around a third of New Zealand’s overall energy use, and over half of processed heat is fossil fuelled, mainly by gas and coal. By working closely with large industrial users to transition away from fossil fuels we’re continuing to decarbonise our economy as part of our transition to a low emissions future.

Tangi Utikere: What will be the impact of this round of industrial decarbonisation funding?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: For New Zealand to achieve its ambitious climate goals we need to tackle the issue of emissions from our large industrial users. In the latest round, the Government is partnering with industry on more than 20 projects that will deliver an annual saving of 142,591 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, or 2.8 million tonnes over their lifetime. Across both funding rounds, the 39 projects funded will deliver savings of 6.6 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. This equates to 14 to 18 percent of the gross long-lived emissions reductions required from the Climate Commission’s first carbon budget for 2022 to 2025. This investment is another example of the Government’s commitment to tackling climate change. This is about futureproofing our planet and our economy.

Tangi Utikere: What are some examples of decarbonisation initiatives funded under the partnership?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’re working with McCain Foods in Timaru to convert their existing coal boilers to biomass fuel, which will reduce their carbon emissions by nearly 34,000 tonnes every year; and Meadow Mushrooms in Canterbury, who are working towards a goal of carbon-zero emissions by 2025. The project at Meadow Mushrooms will replace their diesel boiler. An electrode boiler will be assembled in New Zealand with many domestically-sourced components. This project will halve their carbon emissions.

David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of any reports that spot electricity prices are so high New Zealand Steel today is using diesel generators to run its potlines; and, whether she’s aware of that or not, what does she think that says about the true state of decarbonisation in industrial processes in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes, I am aware of reports of unusually high spot prices in our wholesale electricity market. What I think that says about what the future needs to be is that it needs to be decarbonised, because, of course, those high prices have been driven by increased coal use and increased gas use over this period of time.

Question No. 5—Health (Māori Health)

5. Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): E whakapono ana ia he rahi rawa ngā mahi a te kāwanatanga hei akiaki i te werohanga o te iwi Māori ki te kano ārai mate, inā hoki ki ngā rohe pēnei i Te Tairāwhiti me Te Tai Tokerau?

[Does he believe the Government is doing enough to lift Māori vaccination rates, particularly in rural areas including Tairāwhiti and Te Tai Tokerau?]

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ki te pātai—direct to the member’s question, the answer is yes, and in particular I share with the member some feedback while I was on the road, recently, from Geoff Milner, the chief executive of the Ngāti Hine Health Trust, the largest Māori health provider providing the vaccine in Northland. He says, “that he has never had such great support from central government, DHBs, GPs, Hauora, and pharmacy for our whānau on the ground.” I also quote Mr Reweti Ropiha, chief executive of Turanga Health, who said, “While we’ve had mobile services in Tairāwhiti for rural outreach for some time, following the Minister’s visit to Tairāwhiti, where he listened to our needs and followed up with support, we will now be able to reach more deeply into our rural communities.”

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Kia ora. He aha ngā kaupapa kua whakamaheretia motuhaketia mā te Māori kei te taiwhenua, ā, ka pēhea tā ngā kaupapa nei akiaki i ngā rōpū Māori ki te ārahi i te whakautu ki te mate nei?

[What outreach is planned specifically for rural Māori, and how will this empower Māori organisations to lead the response?]

Hon PEENI HENARE: Tēnā koe. Ki te pātai a te mema, he maha ngā rautaki me ngā mahere kua whakaritehia nei e mātou o te Kāwanatanga. Tuatahi ko te āhuatanga ki ngā pūtea. Tata ki te kotahi rau miriona tāra ka tukuna atu mō tēnei kaupapa. Tuarua ka wātea nei e mātou i ētahi o ngā huarahi ka āhei ngā ratonga hauora Māori ki te whakatutuki i ngā mahi tuku i te kano ārai mate. Anā, tuatoru ko te whakapakari ake i ngā ratonga hauora Māori kia āhei rātou te tuku i tēnei rongoā ki te Iwi Māori.

[To the member’s question, there are many strategies and plans that we, the Government, have prepared. Firstly, the aspects related to finance. Nearly $100 million has been released for this initiative. Secondly, we have made several avenues available to Māori health services to successfully administer the vaccine. And thirdly, to increase the capability of the Māori health services so that they are able to deliver this medication to the Māori people.]

Dr Elizabeth Kerekere: Ka tautokona e te Kāwanatanga tētahi rautaki e arahina ana e te Māori ki te whakautu i te horokukūtanga ki te kano ārai mate pēnei i tā Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā i marohi ai?

[Will the Government support a Māori-led approach to addressing vaccine hesitancy as recommended by Te Rōpū Whakakaupapa Urutā?]

Hon PEENI HENARE: Āe. I te tīmatanga o te whakaritenga o te mahere, i hui tahi mātou me ngā tohunga o Te Ao Māori mō tēnei take, ko ētahi kei runga i te rōpū kua kōrero mai nā te mema. Nō reira kua whakarongo mātou ki wā rātou kōrero, kua hui anō mātou ki ngā ratonga hauora Māori kia whakarongo ki ngā nawe me ngā kōrero kei runga i te papa. Nā konā mātou i whakarite ai i tō tātou mahere kia tuku ai i te kano ārai mate.

[Yes. At the beginning of the development of the plan, we met with the experts of the Māori community regarding this issue—some of them are on the group that the member spoke of. So we have listened to their feedback. We’ve also met with Māori health service providers to listen to their objections and the points made on the floor. That is why we developed our plan to deliver the vaccine.]

Teanau Tuiono: E taea ana e te Kāwanatanga te oati kei te whai rātou i te ara kia iti rawa ngā pānga māuiuitanga tae rā anō ki te wā e wātea ana te kano ārai mate, otirā kia tutuki rā anō te āraitanga tiketike o te tamariki Māori?

[Can the Government ensure that they are following the right paths to keep cases as low as possible until vaccinations are available for children and high coverage is achieved for tamariki Māori?]

Hon PEENI HENARE: I tēnei wā tonu kia tirohia e tātou katoa ki te āhuatanga ki wā tātou tamariki mokopuna, arā, ki ngā rangatahi. I tēnei wā tonu, kua tīmata ai tētahi mahere mā ngā rangatahi anō tērā kōrero e tukuna atu ki wā tātau rangatahi kia whakaratarata mai wā tātau rangatahi ki tēnei kano ārai mate. Engari, me kaua tātou e tukuna atu i ngā hēki katoa ki te pākete kotahi. Nō reira he maha ngā mahere, heoi anō ko tāku e mea atu ana koia rā tētahi. Mehemea e hiahia ana te mema i ētahi atu, a tēnā, horekau he raru ki ahau nei kia tukuna atu i ētahi atu mahere ki a ia.

[At this time, let us look at our children and youth. At this time, we have begun some initiatives for our youth. We have begun campaigning to our youth to encourage our youth to be vaccinated. But we cannot put all of our eggs in one basket. So there are many initiatives; I am merely saying that that is one. However, if the member would like, of course, it would be no problem for me to supply these initiatives to him.]

Teanau Tuiono: He aha ngā kōrero ki te whānau o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa? He aha te ara e whai ana rātou kia hīkina ngā nama ki roto i ērā whānau mō te whiwhi i te kano ārai mate?

[What are the details surrounding our Pasifika whānau and what are the measures they are taking to increase vaccination numbers within those families?]

Hon PEENI HENARE: He pātai pai tēnā. Kua whakapau werawera te Minita, a Minita Sio ki te tautoko ake i ngā tū whāinga o ngā hāhi, he mōhio nō tātou katoa i te kaha o ngā hāhi ki te whātoro atu ki ngā iwi moutere. Kua kōrero atu mātou katoa ki ngā mea pou kei roto i te hapori mō te hunga nō Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa kua whakaritehia anō e mātou i ētahi o ngā ratonga hauora mō te hunga nō ngā moutere ki te tuku i tēnei kano ārai mate. Engari me kaua tātou e pōhēhē kua oti noa ngā mahi. He nui tonu ngā mahi kei mua i a tātou, Māori mā, Ngāi Pasifika mā, ki te hiki i ngā nama, ngā tatauranga ka kitea nei e tātou.

[That is a good question. Minister Sio has been working hard to support the different goals of the church, because as we are aware, the church has significant influence within the Pasifika community. We have had discussions with the pillars within the community with respect to those from the Pacific community and have established health systems options for Pasifika to be vaccinated. But we should not be fooled that our job finishes here. There is still plenty of work to be done for Māori and for Pasifika to lift the numbers and statistics that we currently see.]

Question No. 6—Education

6. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What decisions has the Government made about onsite learning at schools in level 3 regions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Today, I announced that on-site learning at schools in level 3 regions will start from next Tuesday for years 11 to 13 students, which will allow them to prepare for end of year exams and complete NCEA assessments. The issue of school reopening is a complex one and it does require difficult trade-offs between improving education and increasing potential health risks for children and young people, many of whom cannot yet be vaccinated. Learners in this particular age group though, the senior secondary school age group, are able to be vaccinated and they’ll be required to wear masks, and the staff and volunteers working on-site will need a negative COVID-19 test before they’re able to attend. Further consideration is being given to years 1 to 10 at Cabinet next Tuesday.

Angela Roberts: What refinements, if any, have been made to public health requirements to support the return of years 11 to 13 students?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: A number of further refinements have been made as we continue to refine the public health measures for schools and early learning services. The following additional measures will be in place: face coverings will be required at school and on school transport for everyone over the age of 12; time outdoors for students and staff will be maximised and the rooms will be aired during breaks; exercise and singing will only take place outdoors; group meetings indoors, including assemblies and staff meetings, will be avoided; and, of course, staff need to return a negative test before they return to work on site. Staff who are not fully vaccinated will need to be tested weekly and it will be required for staff to be fully vaccinated by 1 January 2022. I’d also add that children and young people at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 should stay home unless they’re fully vaccinated; face coverings are mandatory for the staff and learners in years 9 to 13; and records must be kept for contact tracing purposes.

Angela Roberts: What is the Government doing to ensure students in alert level 3 areas get a fair chance at NCEA?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: While classroom teaching and learning have been disrupted by COVID-19, I know that students have been continuing to work hard while they’re learning from home. They deserve to have the opportunity to demonstrate what they’ve learnt during that time. NCEA and scholarship exams will be proceeding, but physical distancing will be maximised within the space that’s available with a minimum of 1.5 metres between desks. In Auckland, Waikato, and Northland, where they’ve experienced further disruption in term 4 of this year, when students are normally preparing for exams, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has confirmed that these students will be eligible for an unexpected event grade that will help to recognise the work that they have done. While students will be expected to attend exams where possible, the long-established unexpected event grade process means that they will receive the better of either their exam grade or the unexpected event grade.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: Will he adopt any of the measures proposed today by National in our Back in Business plan to quickly help the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for the opportunity to comment on his proposals. I am by nature an optimistic and positive person, and so, of course, I will look at the specific proposals he has put forward. But, sadly, his overall plan fails a basic economic equation. He thinks that it is possible to reduce revenue, increase spending, and slash debt levels all at the same time. Simply put, the plan does not add up. It would require an austerity approach that would see the slashing of critical public services. It would undermine all the hard work that New Zealanders have done in fighting COVID-19, in return for an untargeted tax cut of $4 a week. Beyond that, the plan has some basic facts wrong, including writing women out of employment statistics completely by only giving the unemployment number for men, and giving the wrong unemployment number for Māori unemployment. COVID-19 has been and is tough going for many businesses and people within the community and the Government will continue to support them and look for practical and achievable ways of enhancing this, including through the enhanced business support package we will release on Friday.

Andrew Bayly: Will he take up National’s plan to reduce the corporate tax rate for small businesses to 17.5 percent to reward them for sticking it through these tough times and to enable them to retain more cash?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, to begin with, obviously there’s one issue the member might want to think about with that particular element of his plan, which is obviously that if businesses are going to be paying corporate tax, they’re going to be making a profit and, therefore, he may be missing quite a few of the businesses that he actually thinks he wants to target. Secondly, it’s a bit hard to deal with individual parts of the plan when, for example, in order to reach the levels of debt that are proposed in the plan, $80 billion would have to come off the Government’s Budget over the forecast period. That would require significant cuts to core public services.

Andrew Bayly: Will he extend the loss carry-back scheme for the next two years so that the businesses that are currently struggling through 64 days of lockdown can keep more of their cash through this difficult period?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member is aware, the loss carry-back scheme was brought in by the Government last year and it was not continued with because the uptake of it was significantly lower than expected.

Andrew Bayly: Will he allow businesses to instantly write off up to $150,000 on new plant and equipment to encourage investment and to ensure New Zealand lifts its productivity?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We continue to look for ways to support businesses to invest particularly in the technology that will support them to be more productive. But taking any individual part of the member’s plan cannot get away from the fact that it simply does not add up.

Andrew Bayly: Will he commit to increasing the wage subsidy to cover at least the minimum wage now that businesses have been trapped in a lockdown for 64 days?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This proposal from the National Party highlights the problem with the overall plan. On one hand, we have Mr Woodhouse standing up in the House saying that we must cut back on expenditure, and, on the other hand, we have Mr Bayly saying “No, spend more. Spend billions of dollars more.” And then Mr Woodhouse pipes up again and says “You know what? We need net debt to go down to 25 percent.” They haven’t got it right. It’s inconsistent. It doesn’t add up. It’s not a plan. And, sadly, it’s a reminder of the 2020 election. Bring back Paul Goldsmith!

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

8. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement in relation to community cases of COVID-19 and Kiwis returning to New Zealand, “So it’s just about looking at those two different groups and making sure we’re consistent between the two”; if so, how many community cases are currently home isolating?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes, I do stand by the Prime Minister’s full statement, including the following aspects which have been missed by the member. “We are in a transition period … we’re piloting and we’re doing that both for positive community cases where it is appropriate, and we’re looking to do that for travellers where it is appropriate, and we’re also looking at things like shortened managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ).” In response to the second part of the member’s question, I’ve been advised by the Ministry of Health that, as at 9 a.m. this morning, there are currently 86 cases isolating at home following an assessment undertaken as to whether or not that person would be best placed in managed isolation or to be continued to be cared for in their home.

David Seymour: If there are 86 people with a positive test for COVID currently able to isolate at home, why can’t this Government let tens of thousands of Kiwis trapped overseas have a system where they can home-isolate now?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, many of those tens of thousands of Kiwis won’t be just travelling into Auckland, they’d be wanting to travel to other parts of New Zealand as well, which at the moment we’re not allowing home isolation in for COVID-positive cases, because there aren’t any COVID-positive cases in those communities. But, as the Prime Minister has indicated, we are in a transition period. The border settings will be changing, and that will include looking at the duration of MIQ and it will see greater use of home isolation.

David Seymour: Does the Minister know what conditions must be met in order that people coming to New Zealand can skip MIQ—if they’re able to get it—and isolate at home; and if he does know, can he just tell people now what those conditions are?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We continue to work through changes at the border. Specific decisions around the potential reduction in MIQ requirement and a potential increase in isolation at home have not yet been taken. We are currently allowing isolation at home for up to 150 business travellers. That process is under way. We will gain valuable lessons from that about how to make sure that process is as smooth as possible and that we lower the risks of that approach as much as possible. But, as I’ve indicated, and as the Prime Minister has indicated, I think we will see a greater proportion of people coming into the country isolating at home. One of the things that we do have to recognise, though, is at the moment there is a difference between Auckland and the rest of the country. It won’t stay that way for ever, but that is the situation at the moment.

David Seymour: Can the Minister please just tell the House what has to happen so that people trapped overseas can isolate at home the way he just admitted 86 people with COVID are doing in Auckland right now?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Well, I can give it a go but I’m not sure I’ll manage the same degree of theatrics as the member. As I’ve indicated, the Government is looking at expanding home isolation when it is safe to do so, including considering shortened MIQ stays—and potentially a mixture of both of them. Vaccination will play a role. One of the things that we have already announced is a requirement for all those coming in to New Zealand who are not New Zealand citizens to be fully vaccinated from 1 November. That was important to signal that early, because that will certainly be a requirement for home isolation for people coming into the country. We wanted to give people plenty of notice so that they can be ready for that. Things will be changing at the border as a result of the overall change in the risk profile that we’re seeing across the country.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has the Government made about providing certainty to working holiday and seasonal visa holders and employers for summer?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. The Government has recently announced we will extend working holiday visas and supplementary seasonal employment (SSE) work visa for six months to provide more certainty to employers and visa holders over the coming summer period. This offers the likes of the hort and vit sector the certainty they’ve been asking for going into this summer’s harvest season. This will also allow other employers, across a range of industries, to make use of the onshore workers while our border restrictions are in place.

Ibrahim Omer: Who will benefit from this announcement?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: More than 8,500 people on working holiday visas and SSE work visas that are due to expire between late December of this year and late June of next year will benefit from the six-month extension. They will also continue to have open work rights, allowing them to work in any sector, to help meet labour market demands where they exist. Also, their employers will benefit from this, and also anyone working in that sector downstream—the likes of other workers and customers—as well.

Ibrahim Omer: What other measures has the Government announced to support seasonal workers and their employers with the upcoming summer harvest season?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government stands ready to support our primary sector’s labour needs over the harvest season. I’ve continued to meet with the horticulture and viticulture sector leadership on a fortnightly basis throughout the pandemic, and we have made progress on key measures to support their industries through COVID so far. We have created exceptions to our closed border for Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workers, allowing the hort and viticulture sectors with 2,012 workers entering for the last summer harvest season—and increased the duration of essential skills visas and streamlined the application progress to provide more certainty to employers and visa holders.

Teanau Tuiono: Would including working holiday visa, RSE, and SSE visa holders, who have stuck with us through the pandemic, in the one-off residency visa provide certainty and contribute to ending exploitation?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The visa holders that the member mentions were only ever going to be here for short stays, and the Government has prioritised skilled, scarce, and settled visa holders for the one-off residency. But I’d also note to the member the impact that opening the resident visa up to the likes of RSE workers from the Pacific might have on their communities back in the Pacific if they were not to go home.

Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many fully vaccinated people, if any, have tested positive for COVID-19 in managed isolation and quarantine since 23 August 2021, and on what days in managed isolation and quarantine did they test positive?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’m advised that 19 fully vaccinated people have tested positive for COVID-19 who arrived from overseas into managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) between 24 August and 12 October, which is the latest date of data that I’ve got available for vaccination status. Three of these individuals tested positive on day zero, 10 on day three, four on day six, one on day eight, and one on day nine. For the sake of completeness, in addition to that, approximately 180 individuals have entered MIQ from the community and subsequently returned a positive test whilst in MIQ since 23 August.

Chris Bishop: With just two people who are fully vaccinated testing positive for COVID-19 in MIQ at day eight or beyond out of the over 6,000, I think, people who have been through MIQ since 23 August, does that not indicate that shorter MIQ periods are now appropriate for fully vaccinated travellers?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It does indicate that the Government should be considering that, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct that the managed isolation and quarantine system wanted to collect vaccination status data earlier than 23 August but the Ministry of Health did not agree?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: That issue has certainly not been raised with me up until now.

Chris Bishop: Well, why did the Government only start collecting the vaccination status of people in MIQ from 23 August onwards, when it’s pretty clear from what the Minister has just said that the data that we’ve collected since that date has been extremely useful in framing up policy parameters?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think there are probably a variety of reasons. We made the decision to start collecting data when we got to the point where we wanted to assess what difference vaccination was making on the rate of positive cases that we were having coming into the country, and that included introducing the additional testing requirement. So we introduced the additional testing requirement so that we could do exactly what the member has just asked us to do, which is chart out exactly where in that sort of 14-day cycle we were picking up the majority of cases, because one of the issues is at day zero, at day three, and then at day 12, it’s quite a big gap between the day three and the day 12, and so we wanted to see of those day 12s, could some of those be picked up earlier so that we can actually make those kind of informed decisions, both about the role vaccination might play, but also about the role a shortened MIQ might play in our future border settings.

Chris Bishop: Will fully vaccinated travellers with negative pre-departure tests be able to skip MIQ before Christmas this year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We haven’t made decisions on that at this point.

Question No. 11—Health

11. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement, “We must ensure maternity services and care better meet the needs of women and whānau, and achieve equitable outcomes for women, pēpi and whānau”?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Yes. I can assure you that safe, equitable, and sustainable maternity services are a priority for this Government, and I view this work as a key part of the health portfolio. A wide body of evidence tells us that the first thousand days from conception are particularly crucial for the health, development, and wellbeing of a child. Healthy pregnancy is an action in the Government’s programme of action that supports the Child and Youth Wellbeing Strategy. In July 2020, the Government announced funding that brought the total new investment in maternity services to $242 million over four years. This includes the following programmes of work: a $180 million maternity package comprised of $85 million for additional modules under the primary maternity services notice; $60 million allocated to support community maternity initiatives arising from any accepted recommendations of the health and disability system review; $35 million for the maternity action plan; $57 million over four years for cost and volume pressures in the notice; and $5.4 million to cover extra costs incurred by midwives related to COVID-19, including a $2,500 payment for lead maternity carers, midwives, and funding towards locum arrangements for COVID-19 - related leave. A further $8.056 million was also approved in the Budget for the cost and volume pressures in the notice, including $5 million for the Lead Maternity Care business contribution payment.

Brooke van Velden: Does she believe it is important that women who give birth have the support they need from their partner, family, and chosen support person?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Yes, when it is safe.

Brooke van Velden: Does she believe that restricting the ability for women who have given birth in hospitals at alert level 4 to have support persons with them ensures maternity care meets the needs of women and their whānau?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Thank you for that question. I think it’s a very important question and one which we need to work through carefully. A year ago, before I became an MP, I was a doctor in a tertiary hospital, an infectious diseases specialist having to make the decisions around granting exemptions to hospital visitor policies. I think the systems we have in place have to ensure that the women using the maternity unit can safely give birth with minimised threat of COVID-19, but also where an assessment is done on the specific circumstances, there are possibilities created where it is safe for people to be with their family at that time.

Brooke van Velden: Is she concerned about reports that women are choosing to leave hospital early, against medical advice, because their support person must leave the hospital within an hour of them giving birth?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Those reports have not been raised with me but, as I said earlier, I would hope that an assessment of safety is made in every individual case and where safe and possible within the resources available, an enabling approach is taken to having family present.

Brooke van Velden: Has she advocated for allowances to be made for pregnant women or their partners to be provided emergency managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) spaces to return to New Zealand, and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I frequently advocate on behalf of women in my role as a Cabinet Minister. In these situations I take into account women’s health needs to have support during the important time of giving birth, but, also, that the conditions in which women give birth have to be safe, and that is a function of our MIQ system.

Brooke van Velden: Does she think it is acceptable that pregnant New Zealand women are being forced to take the Government to court to get the maternity care and support that they need?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I am not aware of a proceeding for maternity care that is before the court. If the member is referring to a proceeding relating to the MIQ system, then that is a different matter that is before the courts at the moment.

Question No. 12—Housing (Māori Housing)

12. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing): What recent announcements has he made about supporting Māori housing?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. On 28 September 2021, we launched MAIHI Ka Ora—The National Māori Housing Strategy, a strategy I am proud to be a part of. I say “part of” because this is a strategy that has come about through a true partnership with Māori: a document that articulates Māori aspirations, the role of the Crown, and the outcomes we will work together to achieve. Also, in Gisborne last week, together with my colleagues the Minister of Housing and the Minister for Māori Development, we launched Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga fund, which is a combination of investment funds from Budget 2021, and this investment is a total of $730 million for housing supply and infrastructure for Māori whānau.

Tāmati Coffey: How will the national Māori strategy and Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga fund strengthen housing aspirations for Māori?

Hon PEENI HENARE: This Government is committed to the vision that all whānau have safe, healthy, affordable homes with secure tenure, across the Māori housing continuum. Our National Māori Housing Strategy was described by Māori architectural designer and writer Jade Kake as a “game changer”. The purpose of the strategy is to provide strategic direction to current and future policy process and investment decisions that impact Māori housing. One of the priorities identified in the strategy is the need to grow and invest in Māori housing supply. Earlier in the year, we secured the largest investment Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga ever made towards Māori housing. Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga will include immediate housing supply and repairs but, more importantly, it will deliver support for Māori-led regional groups to scale up their housing developments over the next five to 10 years. In the development of the strategy, iwi and Māori have articulated clearly that we need to commit towards Māori-led local solutions. Whai Kāinga helps create that space to allow Māori housing solutions to thrive and, together, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Te Puni Kōkiri will move at pace to invest in an existing pipeline of Māori-led developments.

Tāmati Coffey: How can Māori and iwi groups access Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga investment?

Hon PEENI HENARE: That’s a very good question. Today, the project pathway of the Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga fund has gone live and is now open, and it can be found on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development website. The immediate focus is investments through the project pathway, with agencies working with iwi stakeholders to design a new programme approach to deliver Māori housing. Whānau, hapū, iwi, and Māori organisations with housing aspirations can now apply for Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga investment housing supply, repairs, papa kāinga, and capability. Whai Kāinga, Whai Oranga has two pathways for allocating investment: the project pathway, which will be open today and is nationwide; the programme pathway will open early next year, and this pathway focuses on delivery through regional partners. The initial focus is on regions such as the Tai Tokerau, Tai Rāwhiti, Heretaunga, Taranaki, and the central North Island, including Bay of Plenty and the Rotorua.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want to begin today with an acknowledgment of everybody in Auckland. It is tough going in Auckland at the moment. Aucklanders continue to do the hard yards on behalf of the whole country in fighting COVID-19. They are making a significant contribution to the overall public health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders. I acknowledge it’s not easygoing. I acknowledge that the period of restrictions that they have experienced has been difficult. That has manifested itself in a wide number of ways, and I think I want to, on behalf of the whole country, express our gratitude for what they have been doing in order to keep COVID-19 contained within Auckland at the moment, and I do want to thank them for that.

I’d also like to acknowledge that it’s World Cleaners Day, and I want to say a very warm thankyou to cleaners up and down the country for the work that they’re doing. In fact, cleaners have been at the forefront of our COVID-19 response and we should acknowledge that. We should acknowledge that they often work while we sleep, making sure that they are keeping us all safe, and they do that day in, day out, right the way through the year, even when we’re not dealing with COVID-19. So a big thankyou to our cleaners.

A big thankyou to everybody who’s working in the health system at the moment. I particularly want to pick out one group, the group that we saw a lot of on Saturday, and that is our vaccinating workforce, up and down the country, who have been doing everything they can to ensure that New Zealanders are provided with good, robust information so that they can make an informed decision to be vaccinated. There is absolutely no question that the pathway forward from here for New Zealand relies on a good, high rate of vaccination.

For those who currently sit on the fence or who are wavering, my message to them is this: stop delaying. Go and talk to someone who knows what they’re talking about. Don’t listen to what your friends might be saying or what someone that you’ve read on Facebook might be saying. Go and talk to your doctor. Talk to a nurse. Ring Healthline. Get some trusted advice and make an informed decision about being vaccinated, because we are all in this together, and the higher the rate of vaccination that we get, the greater the possibilities for all of us. Vaccination is incredibly important now.

We are already seeing the benefits of vaccination in Auckland. Some of the modelling is already showing the impact of a high rate of vaccination in Auckland and the effect that that’s having on the potential number of cases that we could be seeing on a daily basis if we did not have that. That is because Aucklanders have come forward. They currently sit first-equal with the Wellington region for the highest rates of vaccination in the country, and it’s having an effect. It is helping to suppress the number of cases that we are seeing in Auckland. [Interruption] I have to tell the member that the southern region’s got a bit of catching up to do, and I think Canterbury might have even overtaken them. So they’ve got a little bit of work to do down there in the deep South. But it is good to see vaccination rates across the country coming up, because, ultimately, that is a big part of our future—making sure that we have a highly vaccinated population throughout the country. And vaccination rates in every part of the country matter.

I want to again extend a message to the rest of New Zealand that at the moment, COVID-19 cases are contained within Auckland but it will not stay that way for ever. There will come a time when there won’t be a ring around Auckland any more, and I think those in Auckland want that to be sooner rather than later. That does mean that the rest of the country need to be prepared, and the best thing that they can do to be prepared is to get vaccinated. COVID-19 will find unvaccinated people. That has been the international experience of COVID-19, and it has been particularly so with Delta, which spreads faster and infects people much, much more quickly than previous variants of the virus. So there is an absolute degree of urgency here around vaccination. We need people to embrace the spirit of Super Saturday to keep that momentum going.

So my message to those who have either had one dose or have been fully vaccinated is you’ve still got a role to play here in convincing those who haven’t been vaccinated to come forward and be vaccinated. So when you’re coming forward for your second dose, or when people are coming forward for their second dose, if they could bring one unvaccinated person with them, then we will be one of the most vaccinated countries in the world very quickly. So that could happen, and we need New Zealanders to do that. We need to get those vaccination rates as high as we possibly can.

We have this opportunity. We’re seeing New Zealand’s vaccination rates continuing to grow day by day. I acknowledge the hard work of those on the front lines who are making that happen. I acknowledge the work of the people who are getting out there and making sure that people have got good information to make informed decisions. Vaccination is so huge for New Zealand’s future.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to join with the Minister, actually, in acknowledging the people of Auckland and in supporting the vaccine message. I’m not sure that the people of Auckland would so fondly acknowledge the Government and their ham-fisted response to the COVID outbreak.

I’ve been reflecting. In my 25 years as a rugby referee, I often refereed games where teams were ahead and then fell behind in the last 10 or 12 minutes of the game, to run around in a frantic frenzy to try and play catch-up. I would reflect that if they had that level of intensity through the 80 minutes of the game, maybe they wouldn’t have found themselves in that situation. I think that’s analogous to this Government, because they were cruising early in the second half of the COVID game. They thought they were best in class. They thought they didn’t need to worry about getting vaccine rates up sooner. In fact, they went from front of the queue to “Oh, other countries need it more.”, and then they found themselves behind on the scoreboard and they were scrambling.

Well, they were scrambling without a plan: no plan to open up, no plan to get our primary and intermediate kids back to school, no plan to ramp up our health system, no plan to roll out rapid antigen testing, no plan to use technology to track and trace, no plan to use electronic vaccine monitoring, and certainly no plan to recover this economy. Well, National has a plan, and I was proud to be part of the team that launched Back in Business this morning, National’s plan to save lives and livelihoods and unleash our economy. That plan increases support for workers and businesses, and it reduces spending by Government.

The Minister of Finance, in question time today, just couldn’t believe that was possible. Well, those rumours about how bad he was at maths at King’s High School in Dunedin are clearly true, because one of the things you do firstly in order to reduce spending is to reduce the impact of a lockdown. Get business back to work sooner so they can rely on their own merits, not on Government support. The second thing is to stop spending money on dumb stuff and on things that are completely unrelated to COVID. This Government has used COVID as the cloak for profligate spending on things that have tenuous or no links to the outbreak. We’ve gone through them before in this House: three waters, cameras on fishing boats, wallaby control, money for RNZ to compensate for lost revenue that they hadn’t actually lost.

Yesterday, thanks to Newsroom, we had this classic revelation that funding for the arts out of COVID is even disliked by the arts sector, shocked by half a million dollars to fund a match-making book site that’s “headed by an American wedding celebrant with close to zero knowledge of New Zealand literature [who] has been given a massive $500,000 grant from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage to ‘help Aotearoa audiences access books’.” I’d like to quote some of the people in that article, but I’m afraid that they use language that I can’t use in this House.

So the simple arithmetic is this: stop spending other people’s money on dumb stuff, because this Government thinks it knows how to spend Kiwis’ money better than Kiwis do. Let’s give them the chance to get back into business, to open up properly, to get dining out in the open, to use the vouchers that we would give them, to spend the tax-break money that we would give them, and to get back to normal. Yes, vaccine rates are important. Vaccine rates are our ticket out of here, and if the Government hadn’t mucked around all winter, we would be in a much better place. But I’m still confident and National is still confident that we can do that in order that we can open up before Christmas.

I should say that Mr Robertson, in criticising our opening up plan that was launched three weeks ago, said “Oh, well, there’s National. They’re going to give people COVID for Christmas.” Well, under this Government, they didn’t need to wait for Christmas to get COVID; the Government gave it to them during the October school holidays. There is a better way, and it involves much more energy. We’re now in the last 10 minutes of the game, and, thanks to the Government’s complacency, we are behind on the scoreboard. I’m confident we can get back to business. We can open business up. We can get them to stand on their own feet. We can save jobs. We can save livelihoods. We can improve their mental health. They just need a Government that cares, and that isn’t this one.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. And first can I just support the condolences to Sean Wainui and his family at this point in time—a truly tragic event and our thoughts and prayers are with them.

Back to the world of the living, and I want to support my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins in thanking Tāmaki-makau-rau for doing the heavy lifting. They have been in lockdown for a very long time. I meet with them daily to make sure that we can continue to support their efforts, not just to care for them but also to support their efforts to drive up vaccination rates amongst Māori, Pacific communities, and right across Tāmaki-makau-rau. The numbers there are strong, but we need them to continue to rise, which is why I used the term very carefully yesterday in the press conference: whānau ma, COVID-19 is on your doorstep, and we need you to wake up, we need you to seek the right information, the correct information from proper sources to make sure that you can make an informed decision to take the vaccine.

On the vaccine: Super Saturday, well, what an awesome day. I went out to Takapūwāhia and saw vaccines and rongoā Māori, hangi, rēwena bread, and the community all in the same place. What was just as important as the vaccine was the community spirit is alive and well, despite the pandemic trying to break it, despite some of the Opposition humbug trying to break it, the community spirit is super-strong. I just want to give a couple of numbers. Of course, just over 21,000 Māori received the vaccine on Super Saturday. Just about half of those are first dose, which is super-exciting. I want to congratulate my colleague the Hon Meka Whaitiri. Waipukurau: 17 percent of the Māori population there vaccinated on Super Saturday. Great work as a collective of the DHB, Māori health providers, local GPs, and local pharmacies, as well as the council—that’s how we do it. That’s how we roll and that’s how we’ll continue to get our numbers up.

I also want to acknowledge Te Tai Tokerau, where I come from. I miss that place, and I know they’ve been doing it a bit tough. They’ve been in lockdown too with Tāmaki-makau-rau over the past few weeks, but despite that, on Super Saturday, their people came out. In fact, of the top 10 vaccination sites in this country, Tai Tokerau takes four of them, and that’s absolutely awesome. I’d like to say it was after my visit there, but, none the less, I know that they all worked together to make sure that they can reach our Māori communities. I’m really, really thankful for the work that they do, from vaccinators to kaiāwhina, to those giving out the hangi, to those aunties and uncles and Māori wardens who are ushering our whānau into vaccination centres and into health clinics around this country.

I also want to thank our kuia and kaumātua. Their vaccination rates amongst our people are the highest, and that’s really important. Why? Because all of us look up to our elders like that. I am asking our kaumātua and kuia now to have those conversations with their whānau, to make sure that they can continue to protect their whānau, their hapū, and their iwi as we move forward into this pandemic. And I’m really excited that as we continue to grow our Māori vaccination rates, we can start engaging again as a community, like we saw on Saturday. The team of 5 million—well, guess what, baby! It was back, and it was back in fine form, and in particular for our Māori communities and our Pacific communities, and I’m super-excited about that.

Today, we heard from the National Party about Māori vaccination rates. When asked for a plan, they couldn’t come up with one. And given their deputy leader is a doctor, I suspect he’s now dressing in personal protective equipment to go around the country to try and vaccinate every Māori in this country. The National Party has not had a plan for Māori vaccination rates. In fact, I recall when we announced the Māori vaccination plan in March, they made it clear that it was separatist, that we couldn’t have that, that it was one country, that we were a team of 5 million, and now all of a sudden they want to jump on the old Māori hōiho. Well, I can tell you, if they’re looking for a target, the target that they’ve been trying to find for so long now—and they’ve flip-flopped between different members—is probably on their leader’s back. And I say that because despite the rantings and ravings from a number of their colleagues, from a number of their caucus, it was quite clear that they lack leadership. They’ve lacked leadership from the start of the pandemic, and they continue to lack leadership today. What we heard from Mr Woodhouse was nothing but business, business, business. What we’re saying on this side of the House is it is about whānau, it is about hauora, and it is about our communities growing back stronger and resilient into the future.

Finally, in the last eight seconds, in a moment of harikoa, I want to say happy birthday to my tuākana Whatitiri Te Wake in the press gallery—happy birthday, cuz.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. Today, National released the document Back in Business – National’s plan to save livelihoods and unleash our economy. To the last speaker, Peeni Henare, who was in the newspaper yesterday and today blaming Māori for not being vaccinated, actually our economy has people of every walk of life in New Zealand, who have done everything that his Government has asked, who have huge amounts of debt, who are losing their homes and their businesses—and he wants to be a bit political. I’ll let you what, you should have vaccinated more people, Mr Peeni Henare, rather than eating all of those hāngī yourself, because they were there to get others vaccinated.

On 21 March last year, we went into our first level 2 initially. Since then, New Zealand has been under level 2, 3, or 4 restrictions and lockdowns for 226 days—for 226 days, Kiwis have been locked away, have not been able to come out of their homes, have not been able to go to work, have not been able to run their businesses. Auckland has been in level 3 and 4 for 64 days, and when the Prime Minister finally gets around to it this Friday—if it is even her that will do it—to come out and talk about what the future holds for Auckland, it will be 66 days and counting.

Auckland, our largest city, the largest part of the economy: 220 days in restrictions since last year. It is no wonder that last week, when the Government announced further restrictions for the Waikato, because there were more cases, the Prime Minister didn’t bother to turn up and talk to Kiwis from the 1 o’clock platform; she went to Murupara to tell people to get vaccinated and to cook sausages. Well, I’ll tell you, to the people in Auckland, who are struggling because of being locked away, to every small business in the country that’s done what they’ve asked, who have got debt, who have had to sell their homes and borrow more just to survive, to the thousands of people in the South Island, who haven’t had a case of COVID for more than a year and they’re still under lockdown, that’s what they want from their Government: someone who can cook a good sausage sizzle in Murupara!

You see, today’s plan from National is a plan. The Government said it was the year of vaccination. We didn’t hear them at the beginning of the year telling Māori to get vaccinated; we heard them saying that we don’t have enough vaccines because others around the world are more important and they’re dying. Well, here we are today, businesses failing, New Zealanders struggling, and the Government still makes excuses. Today, National announced a plan that will support businesses, small businesses, tourists, and Kiwis who own and run those businesses and who have done what the Government asks. The first is a reduction for two years in the tax rate for small businesses to 17.5 percent—the same as the Māori incorporated tax rates—when businesses get back to being able to trade properly because the vaccination rate is up, because the Government has finally got around to doing that, and when the restrictions aren’t there, when the visitors from Auckland can travel again, and when people from overseas can safely come back. Kiwis will work hard. We think they deserve to keep more of their cash to pay off those debts that are vested in their businesses. What the finance Minister said was, oh no, he wants that, because he knows how to spend it better. We’re backing businesses here.

We’ve said we would extend the cashback system. A tourist business three years ago was making more money than most other businesses. Tourism was worth $41 billion to the economy, 400,000 people employed, many of them locked away in their homes right now because of the Government’s inaction. If a business today has a loss, a small business, they can carry that loss back and get cash from profits over the last four years, if they desperately need, in their business. We have announced the wage subsidy should continue to be available everywhere in New Zealand under level 2. In Auckland, the Government has said that won’t be the case, just when they need it the most. We’ve said that we would increase the tax bracket for our lowest earners so that they have a choice to go and decide what to spend their money on, and I would recommend to them to spend it on whatever they like, particularly local businesses, because every time they spend at a local business, they save a local job. The Government is not spending in that local business; they are taking your money, they are keeping it, they are borrowing from the future and spending it on things like—still—a cycle bridge over the Waitematā Harbour that they’ve ruled out but are still paying for, to plan for.

We’ve announced a “dine and discover” package: $100 per person in New Zealand over the age of 18 who has been vaccinated to spend in restaurants and in pubs and accommodation and tourism to pump money into those businesses, give them a shot in the arm, so that they are still there after we get back to normal. There is an insurance scheme for the events industry. The Government was asked to do one of these. They said no. The events industry is $20 million out of pocket. We have their back, as we have the back of every single small business in New Zealand. Small businesses are mum and dad Kiwis—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Through vaccinations we will secure New Zealand greater freedoms. We have rolled out the most effective vaccine to New Zealand, a vaccine that will prevent hospitalisations and deaths, a vaccine that has an exceptional safety profile, and due to the efforts of this Government and the team of 5 million, we are on track for very high rates of vaccination across the country. Announced yesterday was the plan that we will be able to vaccinate people with immune compromise with a third dose to make sure that those most vulnerable members of our community remain protected by vaccination because we have found in studies that sometimes they do not seroconvert in their first one or two doses. In addition, Minister Hipkins mentioned today that we anticipate the application from Pfizer for booster doses to go through our regulatory process next week so that we can ensure that this protection is sustained. Momentum is up in our vaccination campaign due to the efforts of this Government and the team of 5 million. On Super Saturday, we vaccinated over 2 percent of our population—a world-topping statistic.

But what I want to mention was the absolute stars of Super Saturday—our community providers. They go to parts of our community where no one else can. They reach the people the health system has for too long struggled to reach. I spent Super Saturday with my colleague Barbara Edmonds in Mana. We went to Maraeroa Marae. It was not like your standard vaccination clinic. In the wharenui they were practising rongoā, there was a hāngī outside. In the whare kai, the Māori Women’s Welfare League dished out advice and good cheer. In Cannons Creek, there was the atmosphere of the Creekfest down in “The Cage”, which is what they call the basketball court. Pacific health providers enjoyed music and dance and vaccinated the community. We had fun. We got to see the director-general’s dance moves. And while it was couched in the shtick of telethon, what the vaxathon achieved was it mobilised the community.

In particular, up and down the country, it mobilised the power of the aunties, and the aunties were out in force, waving flags in Auckland, waving people into the vaccination centre, making sure everyone felt that they fitted in and felt comfortable. In my own family, my mother, a retired teacher, got on the phone and called 60 former students to get vaccinated. Once again, we have reignited the power of the team of 5 million to look out for one another. Our hauora providers, our Pacific providers, community organisations—they were the stars of Super Saturday. Their success is an inspiration. It is them that we should look to for the solutions to the problems our health system faces in the future.

We have a way to go to make sure that everyone in New Zealand is protected, and it is so important to remember that in this pandemic, our success will be determined by reaching everyone. There will be no room in the hospital if there are pockets of people who are inadequately vaccinated. So by reaching everyone, that is how we secure access to health resources that will make sure that we continue to have a functioning health system that we value whether we ourselves are vaccinated or not. So I want to thank all the members of this House from both sides who participated in the Super Saturday event and all the community providers who brought their magic to making it a remarkable event and one that protected so many members of our community.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Well, clean water is also vital to human health, and I’d like to talk about the Government’s three waters proposals. So the Green Party strongly supports the Government’s commitment to improving the delivery of three waters services across the country. We recognise that good services for drinking water, for waste water, and for stormwater are provided in some areas, but not consistently around Aotearoa. We recognise that there are issues around affordability and there are infrastructure gaps which require significant investment.

We strongly supported improving the standards of drinking-water supply and waste-water treatment. We know that we need to prevent leakage from the drinking-water supply network, but also note that the volume that agriculture consumes for irrigation, our dairy farms use the equivalent of what 60 million consumers would use.

The Greens supported the new Water Services Act, which establishes the new regulatory regime overseen by Taumata Arowai to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to clean, healthy drinking water and the commitments in that legislation to supplying safe, healthy drinking water. We recognise that that legislation would see more investment in three waters services, particularly drinking water, and a much stronger regulatory and enforcement regime.

But we do have some concerns over the proposals to transfer service delivery infrastructure and all those functions and responsibilities to these super-regional entities by July 2024. One of the key risks is around stormwater in urban areas, and if that becomes disconnected from land-use planning, subdivision, and land-use development in new housing, because it is that development that strongly influences stormwater, the pattern of use, and the areas of hard surfaces—whether they be roofs or roads—and councils are increasingly recognising that how they deal with stormwater has potentially significant co-benefits for the community in providing areas for recreation and habitat.

In South-West Christchurch in Halswell, the Christchurch City Council has put a number of stormwater retention basins, which before they were even functioning properly people were walking around. They’ve really helped to smooth flood flows and prevent flooding in areas of Christchurch, like Heathcote, where that was traditionally a problem.

Another concern is the whole scale, pace, and timing of the change in three waters, which is occurring before we have seen major progress with the review of local government. Because three waters functions are a major part of councils’ functions, and the transfer of those to these four entities will have a major impact on the functioning of councils. But one of the key issues is the whole concern around ownership, accountability, and governance mechanisms. So we’ve got a very complicated, multi-layered approach to governance that is proposed, with quite a limited ability for local communities and their councils to influence or direct the new super-regional entities. There’s no direct link to them.

We certainly support stronger mana whenua involvement, but the notion of having a regional representative group which appoints a selection panel which then appoints a competency-based board is too disconnected from councils and communities.

So we’ve also got a major concern around the Government proposing that it be mandatory. It’s been proposed as a voluntary initiative, but Cabinet has provided the mandatory option as a fall-back position, and despite repeated questions to the Minister in the House, there has been a failure to rule out that this could be mandatory.

The Government really needs to engage with councils and the concerns and alternative governance and accountability proposals that they have put forward in the eight weeks to 1 October. It’s not just about refining what Government has proposed, but taking on board those concerns so that we get a real partnership between central and local government. That requires properly assessing those alternative service delivery and governance options.

We suggest that there could be a much stronger and closer look at the council-controlled organisation model, as has been used in Watercare, which is delivering services efficiently with a competency-based board, and has a much more direct council stake in ownership.

The assumption is that the changes will deliver 45 percent or more efficiencies compared to the status quo. We acknowledge that that argument was used with the move to Auckland as a unitary authority, but we’ve yet to see robust data showing that those efficiencies were achieved, and we think they can often be overstated, so we encourage the Government to engage.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, ngā mema katoa o te whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, greetings, and to all members in the House, greetings to you all.]

I too want to add my sincere condolences as expressed by my whanaunga Dr Elizabeth Kerekere to the Sean Wainui whānau of Whatatūtū, Te Aitanga-a-Māhaki. A very sad passing and I too want to add my acknowledgment to him and his whānau.

Super Saturday—130,000 vaccinations across the country; 21,700 Māori of which half and half were 50:50. This was a huge achievement and I too want to add my appreciation to all our health professionals, our Māori providers, our Hauora providers, our DHB staff for a mammoth effort. But we know this is only the beginning; we have much more work to do. And I thought it is important that we celebrate everyone’s effort across the country. I myself was on the ground in Te Tai Rāwhiti. I want to acknowledge Turanga Health. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Porou Hauora and, of course, Hauora Tairāwhiti, and the DHB, who ran clinics in and through the rohe of Te Tai Rāwhiti.

But what I wanted to touch on is acknowledging Super Saturday but also acknowledging the work prior to Super Saturday, and obviously the work that we need post - Super Saturday if we’re going to keep our Māori vaccination rates growing. Prior to lockdown, prior to the August lockdown, I visited all my clinics throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and I’ve got a big electorate from Wainuiōmata right up into the East Coast. I visited those clinics to ensure that I understood how our clinics were set up, how the vaccinators were resourced, how the people were coming in, and how they were awhi-ed and what experience they were having in those clinics, and to speak to the clinicians themselves around some of the challenges.

Every day since lockdown, I zoomed with my four electoral offices, where we examined the daily rates of vaccination across my four DHBs: Tairāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay, Wairarapa, and of course the Hutt Valley DHB, which is part of Capital and Coast. Every day, and to this day, we continue to do that, because it is so critical as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, with the high number of Māori that we’ve got across my electorate, that I’m informed as a local MP as to the challenges facing them.

I also met with every four of my DHBs before Super Saturday to ensure that they were really clear that I was there to lend a hand, not to take over but to ensure that a health response on the ground across my electorate was so critically important to lifting Māori vaccination rates. And every DHB chair and every chief executive engaged openly and were open to suggestions. My point to all of them was they needed to work with their Māori community. It needed to be a Māori-led response across my electorate, and I want to say they did take that on board and they continue to do that.

But not only that, we had the Prime Minister come into my electorate. Just when you’re trying to focus on getting rates, in comes the Prime Minister. There’s nothing like drawing the attention to the fact that we needed to lift Māori vaccination rates than having the PM in your electorate. So we had her at Wainuiōmata Marae where she engaged with Kōkiri Marae Services and Teresea and the team who are doing a stellar job out there. She then came to Flaxmere at Tōtara Health. She met with our Māori Hauoras at te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga. She went up to Wairoa and saw firsthand and engaged with the rangatahi about some of their concerns that they had around vaccination, and she openly answered the questions that they posed to her. It was then on to Gisborne to meet with the Hauoras in Gisborne, and then, of course, up the East Coast where she engaged with people on the ground.

For a Prime Minister who is running this country and leading us through this pandemic, I saw a side of the Prime Minister that was on the ground, talking with people, but also engaging people with vaccination hesitation. I saw that where she not only heard the concerns but also addressed in a very subtle way, with those people who may have turned up that weren’t contemplating being vaccinated—and the Prime Minister took them aside and had a word and that led to their vaccination. Who else in this House can say that they have done that? Have they found people who are hesitant? Have they walked into the clinics? Have they stood by them while they were phobic of needles and then just held their hands? That’s what we’ve got in this Prime Minister: not only leading the country but getting down amongst all our clinics and our patients, particularly our Māori vulnerable and convincing them to get vaccinated. I’m proud to be part of this Government, committed to raising Māori vaccination rates. We have more work to do.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much for the call. Three hundred and sixty-seven days ago, a number of us in this House were elected as new MPs, some on the list and some as electorate MPs. I’d like to acknowledge right across the House those who are new MPs. There are many things you learn in your first year as an MP. You learn what’s a good speech and what’s not a good speech. You learn what are good questions to ask and what are not good questions to ask. But one of the very key lessons that I learnt very quickly, and it is something that I know a lot of us in this House hold true to our heart, is that question: He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. On Super Saturday we saw our people come together for one cause: to raise vaccination rates. And we saw it right across the motu with 130,000 people who were vaccinated on that day.

The Capital and Coast District Health Board, which covers my electorate of Mana, they worked together with the Hutt Valley District Health Board. They had quite a unique perspective when it has come to vaccinations, right from the very start. They went straight from the community. They went to the Pacific Island churches and said, “Can you host a vaccination event in your church?” In July, we held EFKS church in Waihemo Street, Porirua East, in Waitangirua. This Super Saturday we saw events at Maraeroa Marae, Takapūwāhia Marae. We saw them in Cannons Creek. We saw the Pasifika youth event in Cannons Creek. We had over 13,500 doses in our DHB alone. So I’d like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Capital and Coast District Health Board team who have been leading this response: that’s Rachael Haggerty, Tagaloa Junior Ulu, and Chris Mitchell. For the way that they have reached out to our communities, the Capital and Coast District Health Board and Hutt Valley District Health Board have some of the highest Pacific and Māori vaccination rates in this country.

I’d like to also acknowledge our health providers on that particular day, and I’m going to list them, because it’s not very often you get to give that credibility to these health providers on the ground in Parliament: that’s Tū Ora and Ora Toa, our main primary health organisations; Maraeroa Marae, Porirua Union & Community Health Service, Pacific Health Plus, Mana Pharmacy, Mana Medical, Plimmerton Medical, Linden Surgery, Life Pharmacy in North City, and Coastlands in Kāpiti Coast, Team Medical, the Kāpiti community vaccination centre, Whakarongotai Marae. We also had the Institute of Environmental Science and Research in Kenepuru Drive in Porirua East who was doing a lot of the waste-water testing across the motu.

But the great thing about this was that Super Saturday saw the best in business as well. We had a number of businesses support our efforts in Mana, because, unfortunately, in the Wellington region, Mana has some of the lowest rates in some pockets in our electorate. So we saw the likes of Vodafone New Zealand, Uber Eats, Google, Capital GR, Pak ’N Save Porirua, New World, Cus Uniforms & Sportswear, and the New Zealand Māori Tourism Board. We even had the Pacific Island diplomatic corps come out, and what was interesting about them is I put the challenge to them at the opening ceremony of the Pasifika youth event, which was by youth and for youth. I put the challenge out to the corps saying, “I see you’ve got flat shoes on. Come door knock with me and my team.” So I acknowledge Papali’i Tommy Scanlan, who is the high commissioner from Samoa. He and his wife beat the streets with myself, with Minister Verrall, with Minister Faafoi, with our mayor, with a number of our councillors, and with a number of volunteers to knock on doors through Cannons Creek and Waitangirua to ask people the key question: what support do you need to be vaccinated? A number of them even needed transport or they needed in-home vaccinations, which we are organising with our health providers. So we thank you all for that work.

We also thank the 6,039 Pasifika people throughout the country who were vaccinated on that day. It’s not a competition but I must say the Samoans, there were about 3,642 of you that came out, so mālo fa‘afetai lava for that.

I just want to finish with a small contribution from a family who met the Prime Minister on Saturday. The father of the Risati family from Porirua East said, “On Saturday we’re part of a vast group of first vaccinators back home in Porirua, Cannons Creek. Obviously people have their reasons on why or why not to get vaccinated against COVID19 but as a family we had to do it, not for the incentives or what people call bribes but for the sheer fact that we have an immune-compromised child in Lachy, whose immune system isn’t strong enough to fight off anything that is out there in our community. The basic cold or flu-like symptoms that we take for granted can be fatal for Lachs. This was mainly for him to help him be protected because we cannot afford for him to get sick again.” COVID is here on our doorsteps. Let’s respond.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be able to talk about our super Super Saturday. I live in the beautiful Ōtepoti and spend a lot of time around the south of Te Waipounamu. But, like many members before me, including the member across the floor who is also a list MP based in Dunedin, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, I want to acknowledge the effort that Auckland is going to and how they are doing that for the entire country. I want to acknowledge how hard it is, particularly if you’ve got small children, to be in lockdown. So thank you to Auckland for doing that for the rest of us.

In terms of Super Saturday down south, I thought I’d start with talking about Queenstown and Wānaka, part of the Queenstown Lakes District Council (QLDC) rohe. Now Queenstown, they’re all about the vaccine in Queenstown, it turns out—they’re aiming for a 95 percent double vaccination ASAP. So they are already at, in the latest summary I saw, 94.6 percent with a single vaccination. Super Saturday also had a great—well, that’s for the whole of the QLDC, so Wānaka is part of that as well. They had a wonderful drive-through event that had lots of people there, and in Queenstown you were able to get your vaccine on a historic steamboat in the harbour there, and even get a coffee, which is great to see the community coming together to provide those sorts of opportunities.

So why is Queenstown so focused on getting such a high vaccine rate? Well, one of the reasons is that people like to visit Queenstown. It’s very beautiful, and the population there wants to be protected from those future visitors. On the other side of the coin, it’s a destination that wants people to come and visit. It’s very good to demonstrate that they have a very high vaccine uptake. So I’ve spoken to Mayor Jim Boult about this, and he’s very keen to get those 94.6 percent up to 95 percent and over, and then for them to get their second shot as soon as they can—after three weeks, of course. So we really want to let the visitors in and keep the COVID out.

There’s other parts of beautiful Otago as well, and I can’t touch on all of them because there’s so many, but in Central Otago there’s 87 percent have had their first vaccination and 72 percent are fully vaccinated. Waitaki at 81 percent single and 69 percent double. The media there noted that Timaru and Canterbury were beating them, so hopefully that’ll be changed around very quickly. In Waitaki on Super Saturday the Department of Conservation was offering rides to clinics, which I thought was quite innovative. Where I live, in Ōtepoti, there’s been 90 percent first vaccinations and 76 percent second. On Super Saturday, there were 75 sites around the southern region, which includes both Southland and Otago. The DHB tells me that at one of the places you could get your eyebrows waxed while you waited. There was 9,706 doses given, and 811 of those were given to Māori.

In Dunedin, where I live, I’d like to touch on the role that Te Kaika has played. This means “the village”, and it is a provider that opened in 2018; it’s a partnership between Ngāi Tahu and the University of Otago, and I was lucky to visit it with Minister Henare back in April to talk about the vaccine roll-out, particularly to our Māori and Pasifika communities. Now, Te Kaika is super-responsive, so from very early on in this current outbreak they were doing pop-ups in stadiums, they were doing pop-ups by the university, and now there’s a bus as well. All of this has been done in conjunction with the DHB; the university has been involved, and so has the council. So it’s been great to see, and that all cumulated on Saturday in The Octagon with, again, members from across the House turning up, the university being there, the museum offering scientific advice to people who were wanting it, and a whole lot of arts and community groups being involved, as well as businesses.

So I really want to finish by saying to those people who are not yet vaccinated or who have not yet had their second dose, to please do. The vaccination has amazing benefits for those who are vulnerable, and to enable letting those visitors back in and keeping COVID out. Thank you.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to talk about my home city of Auckland, because it seems that nobody in the Government is. Every Labour Party speaker has got up and told us how fantastic Super Saturday was. The fact is it really tells us that this Government is run like a PR agency. The optics matter more than the substance in their mind, and the cute thing is about these new backbench Labour MPs: I think they really believe it.

Well, let me just give you a few facts about Super Saturday: 39,000 first doses—that’s the number that that is; it’s the first doses that matter, because people eventually get their second dose. So the fact they got their second dose with a saussie is not actually an achievement; they were always going to get it. It’s the first doses that matter, and 39,000 first doses was the 21st best day in this vaccine “stroll-out”. And they call that a triumph. There were 20 days where more people got their first dose than the so-called Super Saturday with the saussies.

And then you might say: “Well, at least things are getting better because they’ve got some enthusiasm, and didn’t everyone come together well?” Well, here’s some more hard facts. If you take the first doses for the day since Super Saturday—and, remember, 39,000 on Saturday—how many on Sunday? Six thousand. How many on Monday? Ten thousand. How many on Tuesday? Ten thousand. Well, the facts are that that compares with the previous Sunday—6,000 plays 9,000. The previous Monday: 10,000 plays 15,000. The previous Tuesday: 10,000 plays 17,000. Every day since Super Saturday has been dramatically worse than the previous week for first vaccinations. And even when you count Super Saturday, the average of the last four days has been 15,000; the previous week, the average was 16,000. So we actually had better results in the last week than we have had this week of Super Saturday. That’s the hard reality.

Now, people listening at home, did they hear how that Labour backbench got a bit quiet? There it is: that’s the sound of the Labour backbench confronted with the facts, because they’ve drunk the kool aid, they believe in the marketing, they believe in the hype. Well, let me tell you: the people in Auckland going into their 65th day of lockdown under this Government, they don’t believe the hype any more. There are so many paradoxes and contradictions in this Government’s response to COVID. We had the Prime Minister stand up yesterday and say the vaccine “stroll-out” was going so well—was going so well. Well, riddle me this: how is it possible the Government’s doing such a great job on the vaccine “stroll-out” and we still have the highest restrictions in Auckland of any city in the world.

And then they say it’s too dangerous for Kiwis to come home—tens of thousands of people stuck offshore, separated from their families. As Brooke van Velden, our deputy leader, pointed out at question time, partners of pregnant women stuck overseas, they can’t get an exemption even to go through the 14 days of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). But do you know who does get to skip the 14 days? Gang members. We’re supposed to be bringing back health professionals. The Government said today there’d be 300 spots for them in December. What that tells me is they’re still going to be running MIQ in December, with the borders locked down. I’ve got a tip for those pharmacists that are health professionals. If they put down on the form that they’re drug dealers, they’ll get to skip MIQ, because that’s the fact; that’s the contradiction. And how is it possible that someone who’s double-vaxxed, a Kiwi trying to return home, has to go through 14 days of MIQ after a negative test, and that’s if they’re lucky to get a spot, but someone who has tested positive for COVID is allowed to isolate at home—and Chris Hipkins told us in question time there’s 86 people like that. What an insult to those Kiwis stuck offshore.

There’s so many paradoxes. The Government is so confident, so well ahead of the game, they’re planning everything so perfectly, but they can’t even tell us what they’re going to announce on Friday. They can’t tell us what happens next week, let alone next month. This is the most incompetent, hopeless Government in the history of New Zealand, and Auckland is paying the price.

TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Mr Speaker. I just want to bring it back to a positive note, because, hopefully, we are all in the same boat of trying to make sure we get people vaccinated, rather than trying to tear each other down.

In the Ōtaki electorate, we had a great Super Saturday. But actually, I just want to mimic some of what the others have said. It was the lead-up to it, as well as on the day. But on the day, the Ōtaki electorate managed 2,151 vaccinations. So we are small but mighty, and although that’s small, it starts to make a gain into where we need to get to.

In the Kāpiti area—so that is my southern area—we gave 351 first doses and 816 second doses. The Horowhenua area, which is in my northern area—we were able to give 417 first doses and 567 second doses. Overall, 70 percent of our Kāpiti Coast is fully vaccinated, and 62 percent of our Horowhenua people are vaccinated. We still have a way to go, but it was a community effort leading up to and as well as on Saturday, and even past that.

I want to be able to thank all the volunteers and the health providers that worked really tirelessly, but to just name a few, if I may, we had volunteers—about 10 of them—calling into the Ōtaki electorate. We were able to base at my office in Paraparaumu, and we went out and sign-waved with Tū Ora, the crew at Te Roto Drive in Paraparaumu. When we got there, it was just before 9 o’clock, and already there was a line out the door. That was amazing. The only incentive was a sausage sizzle if you wanted it. Other than that, people just wanted to get vaccinated to protect their community.

In Kāpiti youth service, with Rachel and the team there, they’ve been working really hard with our rangatahi in Paraparaumu. We had Hora Te Pai at Whakarongotai Marae in Waikanae, led by Di Tatana and her team. They’ve been working right through, only having Sundays off. Saturdays have been a bit quiet for them. I got there just before they opened and, again, they also had a line out the door. The only incentive was a kia ora for the aunties down there and being able to protect their whakapapa and get back to being able to do tikanga the way they know it for Māori.

We had the Waikanae Rugby Club doing their bit, standing up a COVID vaccination site. We had the Ōtaki Medical Centre, led by Kiwa, Adrian, and John and the team, and also joined by Bonnie Matehaere, who was doing some great work for the DHB and has been working nearly every day leading up to Super Saturday at Ngā Purapura, as well as being able to take a bus out to Ōtaki Beach and also being able to do Māori lands as well, which was fantastic.

We had the Horowhenua Community Practice team at Horowhenua Events Centre, and they’ve been continuously vaccinating and serving our community there with Sally Hall, via Averill and Sheree. We have the Pasifika team, led by Angelina Toeleiu, who’s doing an amazing job in Levin as well. We have our iwi’s Muaūpoko, led Tracey White. Ricky Fonoti is in there as well, and Kelly Tahiwi and the others. As well as Raukawa Whānau Ora, we had Dean and Dave at Horowhenua Donnelly Park flipping sausages, and they got a bit of a hand from Waimarama Taumaunu and her daughter Tiana, who turned up as well, which was great.

We had the Rapid Relief. We had Berrys pharmacy, Hamish pharmacy, Deseray, Paul, Deb Winiata at Te Awahou in Foxton, who have been going every day and did this Sunday as well. We had the Māori wardens up and down our coast. We had the Māori Women’s Welfare League going out there and nannies telling us about what’s happened before and to protect their whakapapa. We had businesses that had the mobile bus at their sites: Alliance Meats in Levin, Mainfreight, Woodhaven, Freshpork.

We still need to increase our vaccination levels, but we do that together, and Saturday in the Ōtaki electorate showed what community spirit meant and that we all need to do our bit. I understand the hesitancy. I understand people are a bit worried. Go and talk to somebody. Have a kōrero. Have a talanoa with someone you trust. But what I would say as a mum is my kids are too young to be vaccinated. They are 11, nine, and six. I want to do everything I can as a mum to protect my babies. I always will. But I am asking everybody to go out there and help me protect my babies too. Help us protect all those people who can’t be vaccinated.

This is a community effort. This isn’t about political gain. This isn’t about parties. This is about protecting Aotearoa. This is about the business communities who want to open coming together with our Māori communities, coming together with our Pasifika communities, coming together with our health providers. This is everybody doing their bit, and that’s what we’ve seen in the Ōtaki electorate on Super Saturday. That’s what we see in the Ōtaki electorate leading up to Super Saturday and beyond. Please help us protect all of Aotearoa. Please have a chat to who you need to. Help me protect my babies as a mamma. Kia ora.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): This week, an unusual thing happened in this Parliament. I, together with National Party leader, Judith Collins, stood on a stage with the Minister of Housing, Megan Woods, and the Minister for the Environment, David Parker, zooming in. The question has to be asked: why did that unusual thing happen? It happened because Judith Collins and our caucus are motivated by strong values, and we exist in the National Party to defend those values. We believe in a property-owning democracy; in ambition, success, individual freedom and choice; personal responsibility; competitive enterprise; rewards for achievement; strong families; caring communities; and limited Government.

It is those values that led us this week to support bold action on housing, because we cannot stand by while a generation gives up on the aspiration of home ownership. We cannot stand by while Government red tape and regulation constrains much-needed development. We cannot stand by while New Zealand families are robbed of the freedom and personal security that only affordable homes can provide.

We have watched in despair while Labour has attempted all sorts of things to address the housing emergency—banning foreign buyers, promising KiwiBuild homes, imposing new taxes. None of it has worked. The problems have only got worse, and through all of this, National has consistently argued that to address our housing problems, we must reform the Resource Management Act, we must get the red tape out of the way, we must allow land to be used for housing. That is why Judith Collins wrote to the Government in January and said, “We are here to help.” I believe that it was the desire to receive that help that motivated Ministers Woods and Parker to write back in June and say, “Please help us with these proposals.”

And that is what we did. I want to thank the Government for the work we did together to come up with a set of proposals that create a genuine right to build, that strengthen the property rights of existing property owners, that both enable large development on the edge of growing cities and enable, but not require, denser development in our major cities. The proposals we announced this week take power away from town planners and give it back to the people they serve. Yes, it is not a silver bullet—it will not wipe every tear from every eye—but it is a step forward.

And to those who say, “I just want a home and garden. I don’t want a townhouse.”, I say to you: no one will take your home and garden away; we’re going to keep building those. And to those who say, “But there is special heritage that must be protected.”, I say there are still provisions to allow that heritage to be protected. And to those who say, “Development needs to be sensible.”, I say there are still going to be limits for how much of the site can be covered and how high the buildings can be and how far they must be set back.

But, finally, to those thousands of New Zealanders who say to the members of this Parliament every week, “I need the choice to be able to buy an affordable home.”, I say to them: the proposals we have put forward this week will give you far more choices in the future.

I started this speech quoting Keith Holyoake, who spoke of our party’s aspiration for a property-owning democracy. Let me finish with the words of our party’s first leader, Adam Hamilton, who said, “Every encouragement should be given to those who give their best to provide for the needs of their own household. And it is by the development of the private citizen exercising his or her fullest freedom and responsibility that any State becomes great.” The policies put forward this week encourage those who work hard, save hard, and who want to have a stake in our economy through homeownership, and that is why we stood on stage with the Government this week.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) on behalf of Simeon Brown: I move, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

The purpose of this member’s bill is to prevent the most dangerous gang members from accessing firearms. And, in that regard, I would like to think, and I hope—and I believe, actually—that is a purpose supported by all members in this House. No one, certainly, can deny what a problem—what a crisis, in fact—this issue is. We have violence and shootings in New Zealand every other day. You only have to pick up any day’s paper and you will see the visceral harm and evidence of that harm, of the violence and the shootings. What’s more, it’s also undeniable now—and people used to mock this from the National Party—that that violence and those shootings are disproportionately from gangs and gang members.

So what will this bill do? It will empower the Commissioner of Police to issue firearms prohibition orders against gang members, with two requirements: where they are convicted, in the last decade, of serious violence, domestic violence, or firearms offending, and where the commissioner considers it in the public interest to ensure that the gang member doesn’t possess a firearm. The bill does a set of other important things, including that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order, or a gang member, then can no longer have a firearm, have access to a firearm, or be around them—say, at a gang pad or, indeed, anywhere else for that matter.

Now, at the select committee, a number of good suggestions were made. The committee has recommended a series of amendments, which, I think, turn this from—as is the case with most members’ bills—a member’s bill with a few flaws into one actually that is fit for purpose and very much not only worthy but urgently in need of passing. One issue is of some controversy, that of search powers, and the Police Association came along and they told us—and I thought their submission made perfect sense—that it is clear that, for this law to work and to be effective, search powers and the greatest warrantless search powers are needed. Now, of course, that will be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but there is a countervailing issue very much on the other side of the ledger that I say—and I think reasonable New Zealanders would understand—means that we need those search powers in this law, and that’s safety. That’s the need to ensure that New Zealanders aren’t harmed by people with guns and, more particularly, by gang members with guns, given that the evidence is clear about the proliferation of those guns and their violence. National is, and indeed I am, on the side of the safety of New Zealanders, unequivocally in that regard.

The reality is this: Labour is going to use its majority to vote down this bill, and I say to this House, I say to New Zealanders watching, that is a tragedy, and it will have tragic consequences. See, that violence and those shootings every other day are disproportionately by gangs, and sooner or later, mark my words, an innocent person will be killed in those shootings. We’ve seen Constable Matthew Hunt, a brave young man, in the line of duty killed by gang people with guns in West Auckland. And I note that and the tragedy of it and his brave service. But there will be civilians that will be killed as well if we don’t act. I just note that the first report to the first police Minister of this Labour Government, four years ago, made clear the need for firearms prohibition orders. Nothing has been done, but recently the Government has said, the Labour Party has said, it will introduce firearms prohibition order law soon—I think I’m right in saying before the end of the year. But the problem with that is this: this law is needed now. This is an urgent issue right now—in fact, it was last week, it was the month before, it was six months before, it was a year before—as the gangs and guns and the violence and the shootings and the harms have increased and increased exponentially in this country.

This bill, with the amendments recommended, would, as I’ve said, be a fit-for-purpose bill, and given the urgency, I ask Labour to pass it in this House—given that, as I understand it, they are not going to. Actually, the only reason I can see for them not to—certainly the primary reason that I can see for Labour not to pass this law—and I regret to say this, has to be politics and playing politics. And I say, actually, New Zealanders—many New Zealanders—have had a job done on them, where they think that Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government actually doesn’t do politics. They’re holier than thou; everything’s nice! It’s a very political Government, and it’s, basically, only politics that will see this law that everyone should be behind defeated today in this Parliament. I say that with sorrow, because there’s no primary, big reason that I can see why the Labour members wouldn’t vote for this bill, given they’re going to do substantially the same thing at a later time but don’t want to see the fine member Simeon Brown get the credit for it. I note, actually, just in that regard, in the remaining minutes, they wouldn’t give full police advice to the committee. They want to pass their own law, they say they support this, but they wouldn’t actually be involved with finding the answer in this bill.

Look, actually, the other conclusion I come to, regrettably again, is that Labour, for whatever reason, has a blind spot, a soft spot, when it comes to gangs, and that seems to be a motivation on this bill too. And if members over there—they’re very quiet. The reality is Willie Jackson, Marama Davidson—actually, other members of that Government—are meeting regularly with gangs. They are soft on gangs. And, as David Seymour was saying just before, we’ve seen it in this age of COVID, where everyone else gets prosecuted and warned by the Government. Anyone who has any kind of meeting with more than a few people ends up getting seen by the police and dealt with by the police. Anyone crossing borders—well, they’re not allowed and, if they do, they get dealt with and prosecuted by the police. But there’s one group in New Zealand where there seems to be no consequences whatever, and who are they? They’re patched gang members in this country—actually, the people, it seems on the evidence quite clearly, who are spreading COVID-19 across the borders in Auckland, through into Waikato and the King Country, up North, and also seem to be the only people who aren’t being named by the Government and shamed on the TV news, I might add. So we’ve seen they’re soft on gangs and COVID, and we’ve seen they’re soft on gangs in this bill.

I want to make these final couple of points. I just also want to note, in relation to guns, the concern I always had, and National always had, with what Labour has done in gun reform in the last small number of years—with the buy-back scheme, the register, and so on—and it is that all they’ll do is get at the good people, the law-abiding people who comply with the law anyway, and they’ve taken plenty of their guns, and then end up doing nothing about the multitude of illegal guns held by gangs in this country. And we see that with this bill today, actually. They’re happy to sock it to pistol clubs and anyone else with historic rifles, but they won’t do a single thing when it comes to gangs. [Interruption] Four years, Poto Williams, and this Government has done nothing when it comes to gangs and guns.

Finally, I want to commend the member who has brought this bill to the House, who’s worked very hard on it, very diligently, the MP for Pakuranga, Simeon Brown. He’s someone, unlike the Hon Poto Williams, who actually is prepared to face up to the problem we have with gangs in New Zealand, with their drug peddling, with their thuggery, and with the proliferation—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to take a call on this bill, and, as a member of the select committee who sat on this matter, I first want to start by thanking the 37 submitters who took the time to participate in our democracy. Of the 34 who produced serious or substantive submissions, I believe that it was 27 who profoundly disagreed with this bill, and, unfortunately, I must agree with them.

This bill is, frankly, a day late and a dollar short. It’s a day late in that the National Party had the opportunity to do something about this and they failed to vote for tougher penalties on gun crime, including taking guns off gangs, harsher penalties for those who push synthetic drugs, and tougher controls on returning terrorists, and, may we just remember, police numbers fell under the National Government. That is not the approach of this Government, but what we want to do is put together legislation that actually works, is comprehensive, and is going to actually sort the problem out—and that’s the other problem with this bill.

When I say it’s a dollar short, it’s a cheap shot and, like most cheap shots, you get what you pay for, and in this case it’s a bill that doesn’t have all the bits. So, as many of the submitters noted, for example, on the much-vaunted comment about a question of search powers, the bill begins by saying that there are going to be additional search powers introduced and then fails to do any such thing. This was quite a relief to the Attorney-General, who said that had such search powers been in the bill, then he might have had some serious questions. But since the member somehow forgot to actually put them in, it wasn’t a problem.

The Justice Committee gave huge consideration to this bill, and what we really noticed—and you can see it in the report—was that just about every single clause would have be amended to drag this bill into some semblance of order and relevance. But I want to take particular notice of one particular issue with it. When I say it’s a day late and a dollar short, I’ve mentioned the day late bit, but the dollar short bit is this total focus on gang membership.

Now, this Government is in no way—in no way—taking its foot off the pedal when it comes to gangs. We have made massive strides in addressing the actual issues with gangs and actually hitting them in the pocket, where it hurts. But this bill seems to think gangs are the only issue in the country. This bill sets out to only allow firearms prohibition orders against gang members. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but people who are not in gangs also commit gun crime. People who are in organised criminal groups that are not classified as gangs—they sometimes do it. Terrorists—now, there’s a group that under Mr Brown’s bill would not be subject to firearm prohibition orders, and this was a point made repeatedly by submitters.

If you’re going to create firearm prohibition orders—and we profoundly agree that you should—you need to actually make them do something. You need to actually produce a piece of legislation that’s going to have some longevity.

I don’t really see the point in a single-issue law. Why are we only targeting gang members with this piece of legislation? If you’re going to produce something as useful as a firearm prohibition order, then why can’t we make it for all the people who create problems with illegal firearms or with poor control of their guns? I don’t know. We could ask Simeon Brown. It really was something that was a continuing matter of concern for us, and it is a reason we just can’t support this.

But what we are going to do is bring in a piece of legislation that is fit for purpose and that will be comprehensive in the way this bill, sadly, simply isn’t. The bill that we are going to bring in at the end of this year, which is not a rushed matter—it’s been under consideration. There has been consultation going out for some time.

Chris Bishop: For four years.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Sometimes it’s worth doing something thorough, you see. Sometimes, it’s better than producing, as I say, a cheap piece of legislation that ain’t going to do nothing. So the bill that we’re going to produce instead is going to cover not only gang members with convictions—

Barbara Edmonds: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Just noting that one of the members doesn’t have their mask on. They’ve just put it on.

Hon Simon Bridges: I apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Emily Henderson.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So whereas Mr Brown’s well-intentioned but, frankly, a little bit sloppy bill only covers gang members with convictions, leaving large gaps on who will and won’t be covered, as I have said—gang members without convictions or people who are convicted of terrorist offences, for instance—the Government’s bill is going to look at the actions of the person, not the colour of their jacket. So we are going to include those who are convicted of serious firearm offences, serious violent offences, an offence of participation in organised criminal groups—section 98A of the Crimes Act—and terrorism-related offences. This is a bill that concentrates on where it actually matters—not the colour of the jacket, not the cheap shot, not the easy media message, but it’s actually dealing with the people who commit the crimes.

When I look at this, as an ex - Family Court lawyer, I think about all those women who are threatened and harmed by gun violence, who, according to Simeon Brown, don’t merit protection. It’s not OK.

The point of doing this is to do it well, surely. Otherwise, what’s the point of our salaries? We aren’t here to keep creating bits of legislation that then have to be added to and added to. We’re here to do our best job and to do it thoroughly and to do it comprehensively. That is what the Government is going to do, and what we are already doing for gangs or to gangs is similarly comprehensive.

So I would remind the members opposite of some of the things that we’ve done that they’ve, sadly—a day late and a dollar short. This Government has invested $450 million in the police since we came to office. That’s 700 police staff who are dedicated to organised crime-fighting, and the total police workforce is now over 14,000—more than they have ever had previously. Already, those numbers have allowed us to devote those organised police officers to operations such as Operation Tauwhiro, which was launched in February this year, and which is aimed at the disruption and prevention of firearms violence by criminal gangs—surprise, surprise. Since February, 1,091 firearms have been seized, along with $5.5 million in cash, and 940 people have been arrested in relation to firearms offences. The operation has been so effective in cracking down on gangs, it’s been extended for six months.

We are committed to a comprehensive package of moves. We are also going to bring in the criminal proceeds recovery Act to further enable us to crack down on gangs where they actually hurt; not taking cheap shots that generate headlines but do nothing—nothing—to actually address the problem.

You can do things on the basis of the colour of the cover of the book, or you can actually go through the pages and actually read all those long words and do something that is actually going to make a difference for this country. Unfortunately, Mr Brown’s bill is absolutely not fit for the purpose that it intends. It’s a pity. It’s a bit of a waste of our time, perhaps. It is not something where we feel there is any point in continuing to expend Government money cleaning it up. We’ve got a better option—we’re going to do it properly. For that reason, I just cannot commend this bill to this House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, goodness, gracious me. I mean, normally new MPs come to Parliament with a bit of humbleness. They come in with a bit of respect for the institution and respect for people who’ve gone before, but that speech is a perfect demonstration of why that member will be a one-term MP only. I mean, the arrogance displayed from the Government in response to this bill is quite extraordinary. The member who just spoke says the bill was a day late and a dollar short—the chutzpah of that member.

This Government has now been in for going on four years—in fact, it’s ticked over four years. For four years this Government has been promising firearms prohibition orders. One of the first things Stuart Nash did when he became the Minister of Police in 2017 was he issued a very ill-advised press release which was that the Government, the Labour - New Zealand First Government, was going to smash the gangs. And when he became the police Minister, it was all about going after organised crime, going after the gangs. Smash the gangs is what he said they were going to do, and he said that they were going to introduce firearm prohibition orders, because what the member who just spoke doesn’t realise is that there is a history to this issue.

So if you go all the way back to 2017 and the inquiry from the then Law and Order Committee into firearms in New Zealand, that bipartisan committee recommended that firearms prohibition orders be introduced. That went to Paula Bennett, National campaigned in 2017 on introducing firearms prohibition orders. Obviously, we lost the election, the Government changed. Stuart Nash says we’re all going to do it. So we put a bill in the ballot, and it was actually originally, back in 2018, in my name. The bill got pulled, it came up for its first reading, and we said to the Government, “Righty-ho, put your money where your mouth is. Here’s a bill. Back your words with actions. Vote for the bill.” They voted it down. OK, fair enough. New Government, they wanted to take some advice. And do you know what the excuse was then? Literally exactly the same language as Emily Henderson used, which is “This bill’s inadequate but we’ve got a good one coming, just wait.”

That was in 2018. Here we are, there’s only been another election that’s happened in the meantime. In fact, we’re a year after the election—almost at the tail-end of 2021, and what are Labour MPs saying? “Oh, this bill’s inadequate. We don’t like this bill, but, don’t worry, there’s a bill coming.” Well, we’re yet to see it. So for Emily Henderson to stand up and say this bill’s a day late, when this Government’s had four years to introduce a bill and get it to the committee is brazen.

So my bill was defeated in 2018. April 2019, we had another attempt, because people will remember there was the Christchurch attacks and Parliament moved very quickly to reform firearms legislation. And I wrote to Stuart Nash, and Simon Bridges wrote to Jacinda Ardern at the time, and we said, “While you’re having a go at sporting shooters”—because we all agreed that we wanted to take the semiautomatic high-powered weapons out of the hands of New Zealanders, everyone agreed on that, but the bill went too far in terms of sporting shooters and things like that. So we said, “Look, while you’re having a go at the hunting community and the sports shooting community, why don’t you have a go at the gangs at the same time? So have a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Here’s our firearms prohibition regime, drafted by the National Party. Take it. Insert it as an SOP into the firearms bill going through the Parliament.” So that was a very sensible suggestion. It was done in the spirit of bipartisanship and good faith. The Government said no. OK, fair enough.

Then 2020 rolls around and the bill gets pulled again. This time it’s in the hands of Brett Hudson—now it’s in the hands of Simeon Brown. And this time around New Zealand First—I think they could sense what was happening towards the election time—sends it off to select committee. The Government wasn’t very happy about it but there was nothing they could do about it. So the bill goes off to select committee with National and New Zealand First, and it’s sat there ever since. And the depressing thing about Emily Henderson’s speech is that the bill’s been at the committee since July 2020. It got pulled in February 2020, it’s been there since July, so it’s over a year now. The bill sat at the committee, and the committee, as I understand it, has worked hard under the chairwomanship of Ginny Andersen now and whoever the chair was prior to the election—they’ve worked hard to improve the bill. They’ve taken extensive advice is my understanding—I’m no longer a member of the committee—and they’ve improved the bill. There’s been a bunch of changes made to the bill. The committee’s worked hard on it. And here it comes back, we think the bill’s in decent shape to advance it to try and improve things substantively for the country, for all the reasons that my colleague Simon Bridges raises in terms of the impact of gangs on our community, and now we discover that the Labour Party, which has a Government majority, is going to vote against it.

It’s just, frankly, aggravating. And it would be OK if—well, it would be more tolerable, I suppose, if the Government had a bill before the House on the Order Paper that was about to come up or had it had already been sent to the committee; that would sort of be understandable, but they don’t. All we have is a press release from Kris Faafoi. And isn’t it funny, everything that the Government stuffs up in the justice space has Kris Faafoi’s fingerprints all over it these days: hate speech, conversion therapy, now this regime—the firearms regime. But anyway, all we have is a press release from Kris Faafoi and Minister Poto Williams saying there’s a bill coming. Well, literally, the Government has been issuing press releases and media statements about firearms prohibition orders for four years now.

I just did a quick Google search of police Minister and firearms prohibition orders and every time this bill gets talked about or the issue gets talked about, it’s really interesting. Normally what happens is the Labour backbench insult the whole idea. They talk about human rights and they talk about warrantless searches and they talk about how the bill’s an affront and we can’t possibly tolerate it, and then halfway through their speech they suddenly realise that they’re actually meant to be at least in favour, theoretically, of the concept, so they kind of start changing their mind and say, “Oh, but it’s just the way this one’s drafted. We don’t like this particular version of the bill.” Even though, as I say, the committee’s actually improved this.

So it’s aggravating, because this Government has had four years to do something about firearms prohibition orders and it’s not there. And Emily Henderson says, “I don’t think this issue can be boiled down to a single issue.”, and she is particularly upset that the bill, as drafted by Simeon Brown, focuses on gangs. Well, the interesting thing about the press release her own colleagues issued, Kris Faafoi and Poto Williams, is it’s all about gangs. So the Government’s own reason for being in favour of firearms prohibition orders is to take guns off gangs. So Emily Henderson might not like the fact that this bill just focuses on gangs, but the Government itself recognises that they are a big issue. I quote from the press release: “[We’ve got] to combat the influence of gangs and organised crime to help keep New Zealanders … safe.” Well, we completely agree. And the reality is Simon Bridges is completely right: it’s just raw politics here. This is not a decision made with anything other than politics in mind; it’s as simple as that. The bill is in good shape, the bill has gone through a select committee process—

Hon Poto Williams: No it wasn’t, that’s the point. It’s not in great shape.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Minister says the bill’s not in great shape. Well, I invite the Minister to do some work for once and introduce a bill that the Government’s been purportedly working on for four years. I will take seriously what the Minister says about this bill when the Government introduces their own bill, seriously. I will take seriously their complaints about it when they actually put their money where their mouth is and introduce their own legislation.

I mean, you sometimes—

Hon Scott Simpson: Until then it’s a Tui’s ad.

CHRIS BISHOP: Until then it’s a Tui’s ad.

Hon Member: Take a call, Poto.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we look forward to the Minister taking a call—looking forward to the Minister taking a call on it.

But the reality is, under this Government, as Greg O’Connor knows so well, because I’ve read his first reading—

Hon Simon Bridges: He’d be all right as police Minister.

CHRIS BISHOP: He would be all right as police Minister. I read his first reading speech on my legislation back in 2018, and Greg O’Connor talks at length with great verbosity about his time in the police and how bad gangs are, and how it’s really important we crack down on the gangs—we’ve got to take guns off the gangs, gangs are an affront to a dignified society and a civilised country, and I agree with Greg O’Connor. And the sad thing is he’s a member of a Government that has spent four years doing basically nothing about the gangs, and now we have gang membership and gang violence out of control. Gang membership’s increased more than 50 percent under this Government, and the Government doesn’t like being told about gang membership exploding because they say of the National Gang List, which is publicly available official data—that we’re not allowed to use it, and we’ve even got the Police Commissioner saying we shouldn’t publish it, which is just crazy. So now we have 8,000 gang members—the highest number of gang members ever—and they didn’t hand back the guns during the two amnesties. They didn’t hand back the guns then, they’ll never give back the guns. In fact, they’re on the record publicly saying they’re not going to give back the guns. The only alternative is for Parliament to pass legislation with teeth to make sure that the police can go and take them off them. This is a step forward. It’s a shame the Government doesn’t agree.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Just for anyone listening at home to the debate this afternoon that sort of might be tempted to believe some of the things they’re hearing, our prisons are full of gang members and gang associates and more are going in there every day. Now, I’m not going to stand here and rubbish—contradict—what’s been said by the Opposition, because that’s the problem with both firearms and gangs. They make very good, sexy speeches in the House, on both sides and for all hues of Government, but, unfortunately, if we believe that what we’re going to do here is all of a sudden have some mystical ability to diminish the power and influence of gangs, then we are wrong. What we will do, we will take a coordinated approach, a joined-up approach, a strategic approach which will ensure that we start at the recruiting level and we finish at the top level where people, relatively few people, are making a lot of money.

It’s important to understand how we reached this place and these are two things that come together: guns and gangs. Now, gangs have always been with us. They’ve been right through—you go to the back streets of the United Kingdom in the 1800s, in the Victorian age, there were gangs. There have always been. And the essence of gangs is a sphere of intimidation. It’s the ability to get someone else to go to jail for you, to get someone else to take a bullet, a knife, or what else for you. So it’s very important that we actually understand where the power of gangs comes from and, as I say, it comes from that sphere of intimidation. These gangs are also very hierarchal. So what we risk by taking a piecemeal approach to this, is that we will play at the edges, we will tinker at the edges, but we won’t actually be able to deal with the real issue, which no country has actually been able to do.

So in parallel with this, we’ve also had a firearm problem, which again has transcended Governments, and it’s important to understand how we’ve arrived at this because when we look at this bill or any other bill, we need to understand exactly what the problem is we’re trying to solve. Now, firearms became an issue—there will be those in the House who probably had firearms. Probably Mr McKelvie and myself may be the only ones under the old system where each firearm was actually licensed and actually it wasn’t the person who was licensed, it was the firearm. So going through the process of buying a firearm meant every firearm at some stage was seen by a police officer and would be recorded. So every firearm, someone was responsible for—it was very obvious who owned it. We could trace that back so the owner of the firearm had responsibility for it. That was a paper-based system.

Before computers, probably about five years too early, a decision was made that because the paper-based system had collapsed—and while you might be able to get some records locally for your local firearms, trying to do that nationally was pretty much impossible. So a decision was made, and I think most in retrospect would say the wrong decision was made, that firearms’ owners would be licensed instead. What that meant is that all of a sudden no one was responsible for individual firearms and so a plethora of firearms began entering the country. The police didn’t invest money in monitoring the firearms law and that got out of control as well and was shown up on several occasions. It was shown up by the shootings in Otago when, of course, we had the Aramoana shootings. Even on that occasion it showed that there was an individual who even though he should have been picked up by the system wasn’t and, worse still, he was able to buy as many firearms as he liked. That wasn’t fixed at the time as well as it could have been. There were a couple of changes made and again there were a couple of High Court cases where police attempted to control the numbers of firearms coming into the country. Unfortunately, the courts ordered against police and what was a trickle of firearms coming into the country became an absolute avalanche and to this day nobody knows how many firearms there are in this country.

In a previous iteration or a previous job I had we were pushing hard to get an inquiry into firearms in New Zealand and it took the shooting for four police officers in Kawerau before the then Minister, Judith Collins, agreed to actually have an inquiry. As the previous speaker, Mr Bishop, pointed out, some reasonable recommendations came from the select committee; unfortunately, the good ones were blocked by the New Zealand First representative and so what could have been an opportunity taken was actually missed.

So coming back to the bill, Madam Speaker, which I can see even with your mask on you are seeking me to do, it’s important to know what was happening with the gangs at the same time. Around about 2012 to 2013, the numbers of gangs started to rise, particularly the Mongrel Mob, and the Mongrel Mob were running the prisons. And what the other gangs realised was that they needed numbers, so the numbers of gang members needed to be increased by the other gangs so they could actually hold their own in prison. Across this also we had the 501s, where, despite the fact that we were getting on apparently quite well with the Government at the time, we then started to get planeloads of the worst of our criminals trained in Australia; they came and hit our shores. So we got the planets aligned quite badly for all these things to come together.

I come to the bill now and why this bill—[Interruption] Well, there are some things to commend it, and my previous opponent in Ōhāriu, Brett Hudson, was lucky enough to get this bill redrawn—there was a lot wrong with the bill and there still is because it is rather piecemeal. What is absolutely necessary and the reason I’ve arrived at this place speaking about firearms and gangs and putting them together is that just looking at either of these things in isolation simply will not work. I know in the past when I trained detectives, if you look at the Crimes Act and look at the Arms Act you’ll see some very similar pieces of legislation, because so often when we’ve arrived at this time, whoever’s been in Government, someone has come up, “We’ve got a problem, let’s pass another piece of legislation.” What you end up is some virtually identical pieces of legislation that again are relatively meaningless. Anyone who generally comes before the courts charged with a firearms offence associated with a crime generally gets a pretty good send off and there is legislation that enables a judge who is well informed to actually deal with it.

So what we really require now is the firearm protection orders need to be part of a broader piece of legislation, because I go back to what I said: the people who will be carrying the firearms, the people who have the firearms, the people who have got the violence convictions, they are not the ones who are going to be going to prison because they don’t actually carry the firearms—they don’t have them. I go back to what I said: the essence of gangs is that sphere of intimidation and the sphere of intimidation means that you can get people to go across some border for you into the Waikato to sell drugs to bring the money back with firearms, and apparently a bit of KFC as well, because if you are told to do that, you will do that even though it is actually a fraught activity. The chances of you getting caught are very high—and they were caught and many gang members are caught and, as I said before, that is why our prisons are actually full and getting fuller of gang members every day.

So this doesn’t require the next speaker to stand up here and lambast this Government, past Governments, future Governments for what they have and haven’t done because that will get us nowhere. You could go through Hansard and see that speeches like that have been made from time immemorial. What it does require is a well-thought-out, coordinated, joined-up piece of legislation that will incorporate much of what’s in this bill but will also incorporate good asset seizure, which will see gang members who turn up in a flash vehicle, a flash motorcycle, or anything flash, or with a hundred thousand dollars’ worth of jewellery on them—that that can be taken unless they can show that it was legally acquired. This is the type of joined-up legislation, these are the types of joined-up strategies that are going to be absolutely necessary so that those who succeed us in this House are making these same speeches in 25 years’ time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the second reading of this bill.

Of course, the Green Party policy on gun control has probably been the most comprehensive of any party in this House for many, many years. We’ve long supported making it illegal to own semi-automatic weapons, having a gun registration system, reducing the licensing period, and reviewing vetting procedures. And, of course, that really is the point, right? It’s all about reducing access to violent firearms that are capable of killing large numbers of people. The point of that approach is to reduce harm to our communities, not to try and scapegoat or blame one particular part of society over any other, because some of the worst shootings that we’ve had, that have affected innocent civilians in this country, have not in fact been from gang members; it’s been white supremacists or people with quite, you know, serious issues.

I think what we’re seeing with this bill, and what we’ve seen—it’s quite ironic listening to the National Party speakers on this bill, because they’re saying this bill is being voted down because of politics. The only reason they’re putting forward this bill is petty, superficial politics. Scaremongering—a systematic approach to criminal justice legislation from the National Party, dog-whistling with very racist undertones and overtones, not the slightest bit interested in effective legislation that would reduce access to firearms from anyone with criminal intent, but a specific, bespoke piece of legislation, dog-whistling by blaming gangs for all of the problems in this country rather than saying “Let’s take an effective and systematic approach and reduce harm in our communities caused by firearms no matter where it’s coming from, including white supremacists.” I would love to see that sort of approach from the National Party. I assume the ACT Party is going to get up and say something very similar to the National Party.

The list of 35 gangs that was originally put forward in this particular bill particularly focuses on Māori and Pacific populations. Those are not the only criminal groups that we need to prohibit from holding gun licences. And I think we learnt that in Christchurch. So just classic, race-baiting populist politics from the National Party, a useless piece of legislation again from the member Simeon Brown. It’s not the only useless bit of legislation targeting, specifically aimed at, gang members rather than taking an approach that would affect all criminals and all people who are causing harm in our communities to be pulled from the ballot. He’s been incredibly lucky in that respect.

But yeah, our criminal justice system has tended to create more problems than it’s solved. Of course, the National Party will never take an evidence-based approach to reducing harm in our communities. They prefer to appeal to tribalism, to scaremonger, to make sure that the good people sitting at home watching the news feel very, very afraid, rather than taking effective approaches to reduce harm in our community.

So the Green Party opposed this legislation at first reading. We oppose it at second reading. We look forward to it going away and for us to actually support the Government in an effective approach to criminal justice and to firearms prohibition that will actually reduce harm in our communities rather than dog-whistling to racists.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I enjoyed that speech from Julie Anne Genter; thank you very much. It’s important, I think, to just affirm what she said, which is that what’s needed here is not some chest beating, and she used the word, I think, “dog whistles” to a pretty vile image, which is of brown people in South Auckland, and that isn’t the problem here. Gangs across New Zealand come in all shapes and sizes. It’s a pity, and I hope I’m allowed to say this, in these unusual circumstances, that Mr Brown isn’t able to present his own bill here in the House, because I would very much like to be able to eyeball him across the room and say that we are tired of him, at every opportunity—even the opportunity when someone bought a prisoner a hamburger for a great kapa haka team performance; he leapt on that, and what a vile, vile approach to crime and justice that is.

No, what we want to do is to take a careful, a measured, and a balanced approach, and that’s an approach which isn’t just leaping at a moment’s notice onto firearms prohibition orders. Yes, there is something in it; yes, the approach and the theme is correct; but it’s not fit for purpose. This bill is simply not fit for purpose. This Government will be introducing work on firearm prohibition orders. The work it’s done on firearms is well known, and some of that work has been done with cooperation across the House, but there’s more work to do, and it isn’t just a knee-jerk reaction.

Look, the Justice Committee here—and I’ve got the select committee report—did a Herculean task; I’ve never seen so much red ink. But the fact of the matter is that you can’t make the proverbial silk purse out of a sow’s ear, and this bill, which, admittedly, I understand, wasn’t drafted by Mr Brown—it was Mr Hudson’s original bill—is just not a workable framework. I accept that, as I know as a humble backbencher, drafting a member’s bill doesn’t have the resources of Government, but that’s why the Minister needs to be given the space to properly prepare something which addresses all of the thorny issues, and there are thorny issues in firearms prohibition orders.

One of those which needs addressing is exactly who they extend to. What is the reach of a member of a criminal organisation? Is the trigger, for example, as I understand is in here, some kind of serious criminal offending, or should it extend a little bit further, perhaps? Should it extend to associates, people who are members of what is, essentially, a criminal organisation but have managed to escape the long arm of the law to date? That’s an inquiry that we need to have, and I suggest that it’s something where we need to perhaps look a little more carefully, because if the policy underpinning this is firearm safety, as it should be—and everyone’s policy is firearm safety—then we need to ask the question: where is the risk coming from? Is it coming from only those people who have done hard time—

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s coming from gangs.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —for criminal offences, or is it coming from a wider group of people, including—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, come on!

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —to the future mayor of Tauranga—recent recruits.

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It’s out of order to refer to a member who’s not in the House, and Jan Tinetti’s in the Beehive at the current time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I thank the member. That is not a point of order. While I’m on my feet, I just want to reflect on some of the behaviour and language that has been a feature of the last couple of interventions. I’m relying on Speaker’s ruling 44/2 to with regards to the use of the word “racist” being used in an insulting and demeaning way, and I note that towards the end of the Speaker’s ruling, “the presiding officer must make a judgment.” I’d just like to warn the House that in a couple of previous interventions, I believe that threshold was getting very close. I’m very confident that speeches to this debate in the future will not be skirting into that dangerous territory.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was, of course, in my earlier contribution, referring to my views of the underlying policies and not to the values of any member that may be involved in it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will resume his seat. I thank the member. I don’t need to be told and given an explanation of where I may have been wrong in my ruling. I have ruled; I am now inviting the member to continue with his speech.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So we absolutely need to look at the reach of these firearms prohibition orders, and, of course, we need to look at not only to whom they may attach—gangs, the gang associates—but also the locations involved. As the select committee rightly pointed out, and wrestled with, there are very much New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues about entry into premises, whether they be, you know, gang pads, if you like, gang houses, houses that are known resorts for gang members, or whether in fact they be ordinary residences. Of course, once we extend, if we look at extending, the reach to people who are gang associates, not necessarily convicted criminals, then we do have to think very carefully about the right to enter into premises.

Having said that, you know, the rights issues in respect of this legislation have to be seen against the background that there is no human right to carry a gun. This is not a right such as that entrenched in the American Constitution; this is a privilege which is conferred by the Arms Act, and therefore the granting of a license or the ability to obtain a licence, that this legislation if passed would take away—which a firearms provision order is—that is, essentially, a discretion, a benefit, extended by Government to citizens. It’s not the case to say that not having the right to bear a firearm is some fundamental breach of rights. However, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is, and that’s something which isn’t sufficiently worked through in the legislation before us. The balance must be carefully struck. The threshold, the evidential burden that needs to be shown before a police officer or other authorised person can enter into a residential premises must be high, and there must be a safety threshold.

But the other thing is this: that, standing alone, a piece of legislation like this doesn’t do it. It’s got to be part of an integrated response. We all know, I think, on both sides of the House, that gangs are not—they are the symptom, not the disease, and we absolutely have to address the disease as well, not only by addressing the activities of gangs but by the drivers of poverty, of alienation, and so on as well. This bill, if passed, wouldn’t do the job. It’s clunky, unworkable. In some places, it doesn’t go far enough; in other places, it doesn’t deal with human rights issues satisfactorily.

Look, obviously, all parties in the House want to work on this, from the Greens to the ACT Party. We do have different approaches, but the idea that we shouldn’t allow people who are known dangers to the community to have guns goes without saying. Absolutely we’re committed to it on this side of the House, and it’s great to know that it’ll be supported when a fully-fledged bill is introduced. But until we get to that stage, it’s no good putting a half a bill—a half a bill—into law, because it’s only going to create more work, and we know that you can’t build a strong house on a foundation of sand, and this would be a foundation of sand. It would be washed away; lawyers would drive a truck through it. It would be ineffective, and it would become a laughingstock. To be honest, it wouldn’t do justice even to Simeon Brown, so we’re actually doing him a favour here.

So, look, the fact of the matter is that there is work to do. It’s part of the wider programme of police and justice in the gangs sector. This is a bill which, arguably, shouldn’t have gone to select committee because it was never really going to work, but you probably couldn’t know that until the select committee did its work. I must say, to the chair of that select committee—done a fantastic job. Of course we’re following select committee advice when it said, “Look, we don’t think it should be passed, but if you must, here’s some tidy-ups.” The select committee itself came to that conclusion.

So, look, Simeon Brown’s had a fairly good run out of members’ bills, and I suspect we’re going to hear from him again in the not too distant future, but this isn’t one that should go any further. But I do look forward to discussing constructively a much more thorough, thoughtful, and well-planned-out firearms prohibition orders bill in the near future. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT, in place of our usual spokesperson on this particular bill—and our justice spokesperson—Nicole McKee, in support of the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2).

This is not a particularly complicated bill. It allows the police to stop gangs from getting guns; that’s what it allows them to do. It’s based on the simple premise that if you’re in a gang, you’re on the National Gang List, and you’re committing crimes, then you shouldn’t have a gun. The funny thing is that the Labour Party usually are the first to say that it’s a privilege to have a firearm—usually; they’re usually the first people to say that: it’s not a right, it’s a privilege, they’ll say. And yet they’re also now trying to say that they want to fight to maintain that privilege for gangs. They think it will be terrible to discriminate against people who are involved in organised crime. Now, I’m as much in favour of equality before the law and human rights as the next guy—in fact, I can claim to have done my bit for those causes at certain times; more than most—but the idea that being involved in organised crime and identified as such, being in the National Gang List, being convicted of a crime, doesn’t even remove what the Labour Party calls the privilege of having a firearm, is really quite extraordinary.

And you have to wonder why exactly they think that is. I’m mindful of your ruling a moment ago, Madam Speaker, that we shouldn’t have epithets or accusations of racism in Parliament, and I think that’s a very important thing that this House maintains that standard. But it was just so odd that the Labour Party members, two different Labour Party members, said that somehow this bill was racist. Well, that’s fascinating, because this bill doesn’t talk about race, at all; it doesn’t mention it. It says that if you do a couple of things, that, sadly, people from all ethnic backgrounds do—join a gang, get convicted of a crime—then you can have your firearm taken off you. But two Labour Party speakers got up on their hind legs in this House and said that somehow this legislation was racially motivated—although there’s no race mentioned in it.

How did they come to that conclusion? There’s two possible theories here: either the Labour Party were actually deliberately trying to impugn people who support this bill as having racial motives, even though they don’t, and they were doing that for political reasons—trying to impugn the character of others—or they genuinely believe that Māori and Pacific people, as they mention, are more likely to be members of gangs, and, therefore, if you follow their logic, it would be wrong to put firearm prohibition orders on gang members because it would affect more people who are Māori and Pacific.

Now, standing before you right now, I don’t even know what the ethnic breakdown of people on the National Gang List is, but I do find it deeply troubling that the Labour Party, by making those comments, was either trying to deliberately smear and impugn the character of people who are worried about gang violence and gang gun violence—that’s one possibility—or they genuinely do think in such a coloured world that they believe the ethnicity of people is somehow more important than basic, basic things that unite all humanity, such as not wanting organised crime in your community, and, if you have organised crime in your community, not wanting organised criminals with guns.

I just leave that there, but I think it speaks volumes about the politics of the Labour Party—the way that they approach this particular issue. I can see some of the Labour backbenchers looking very attentively, because they know better than me which one it was, and they’re not comfortable with it, and they shouldn’t be, and that’s because there’s some good people in the backbenches of the Labour Party—people with real thoughtfulness and conviction.

Now, the other problem with this Government’s approach—you know, the Government’s going to vote this legislation down—is that they have taken an approach to organised crime and guns that is incredibly disturbing to a lot of people. Just today, we’ve been debating the fact that if you are a gang member, you can end up isolating at home under the current COVID response. If, on the other hand, you are one of tens of thousands of Kiwis suffering in a variety of excruciating ways, separated from your family and your home and your business, and so on—in some cases, separated from your expectant wife—you are unable to come to New Zealand and home-isolate, but if you’re a gang you’re allowed to do it. It really is quite an extraordinary thing that this Government has taken an approach to gangs where their gang programme, or anti-gang programme, is called Operation Tauwhiro. Now, I asked the Prime Minister: did she know that Tauwhiro means to care for or nurture—and it turns out she didn’t. But, of course, somebody in the Government either couldn’t speak te reo Māori, couldn’t consult a te reo Māori dictionary, or generally thought the way to approach gangs was to care for and nurture them. And then they gave the gangs $2.75 million of money taken from the gangs for dealing drugs to help people—get this, Madam Speaker—get off drugs. I mean, this has got to be the most sophisticated money laundering programme that the New Zealand Government’s ever been involved in—but maybe just about anywhere.

Underpinning this Government and this Labour Party approach in the House today is an approach to gangs that says, “Actually, if there’s a privilege,” as they see firearm ownership, “then for a variety of quite twisted reasons, the gangs should have that privilege too.” And I think that is totally at odds with the values of the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who don’t want organised crime and don’t want armed organised criminals in their community.

But here’s the next thing: this is not only about gangs; it’s also about guns. This Parliament, shamefully, with the exception of one member, I might add, rushed through knee-jerk legislation in the wake of our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch, that would rate objectively as one of the least effective policies the Parliament has ever passed. Unfortunately, they banned a quarter of a million semi-automatic firearms, and they collected, in their so-called buy-back, around 60,000. So there’s 180,000 still out there, and the gangs have openly said, “We will not be retuning ours.” And it’s difficult to believe that due to that Government’s rushed, incoherent, knee-jerk response to a tragedy, a lot of those firearms that were banned but somehow didn’t appear at the buy-back—75 percent of them, actually—have ended up in the shootouts by gangs up and down this country.

So we’ve got a Government that is very poor at dealing with gangs, but also very poor at dealing with firearms policy. And I want to finish by suggesting a better way forward, which, funnily enough, Greg O’Connor, the member for Ōhāriu, actually suggested at the end of his speech. He said, “We need a. joined-up approach and we need to make sure that crime doesn’t pay for gangs.” So here’s ACT’s policy, and the Labour Party’s welcome to it for free; we’ve got so many ideas that we can actually afford to give good ideas to the Government for free—that’s how generous and filled with good ideas the ACT Party is. The National Party just announced a whole lot of ideas that they’ve got from ACT, and we’re prepared to do the same for Labour, because we’re just great people like that. We should say if you’re a gang member with an illegal firearm and you are found committing a third crime such as drug dealing, it’s open season on your assets, because last year there was $50 million of asset seizures on $500 million of P, and if the tax rate is 10 percent, no wonder business is booming. We’ve got to stop crime paying with a policy like that. This bill won’t do it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I first also add my voice to the voice of the Hon Chris Hipkins and acknowledge our cleaners. It’s cleaners day today. It’s a day to say thank you for the good work that they do not only in this Parliament but in this country. They are dignified people who do a dignified work for all of us.

I just want to start with gang culture and what’s wrong with it. I don’t think that in this House and beyond, anyone can deny the damage the gang culture can cause. The gang culture is damaging. It damages lives; it destroys lives. And this side of the House, this Government, rejects the idea that we allow gangs to destroy our communities. We have heard a lot about this Government being soft on crime, this Government being soft on gangs, but we reject this assertion.

The reason why we’re rejecting this bill—we’re not rejecting the principal idea of this bill, but this bill is flawed. This bill doesn’t do what the Opposition says it does. This bill is flawed because its focus is very narrow.

This bill went through the Justice Committee and it was debated thoroughly and about 37 people submitted on it. I just want to highlight a few points that were fleshed out by submissions. Amnesty International, for example, said that this bill has only focused “on gang membership and not organised crime or the most dangerous individuals more broadly”. This bill also “may exclude individuals who could be committing serious firearm offenses.” Under this bill, the 15 March terrorist wouldn’t be prohibited from owning a gun. So because of this and the many other issues in this bill, on this side of the House we’re saying that we’re opposing this bill today.

This Government has invested a record amount of money in growing our police. Since we came into power, our police force has increased to 14,000. Sometimes introducing legislation and chasing people through legislation or checking people or entering houses is not always the solution. We’ve got a police force that’s very capable, that’s well armed, that is fit to do their job and they are doing their job.

The reality is that this Government has never not been active in targeting gangs and the criminal leaders and getting them out of the streets. I think the evidence itself speaks loudly. Since we came into power, our communities are safer because we’re managing to put away a lot of criminals, and many of them are gang members. Yet this Government is being told that it’s soft on criminals, it’s soft on gangs—something that we reject. This Government has seized about $500 million in cash assets from gangs. Any soft Government doesn’t do this. Gangs and criminals, we don’t deny that they’re out there. We don’t deny that they are causing damage, but we’re also fighting them. We’re cracking down on them.

Also, fighting crimes should be multi-faceted. It shouldn’t be just by introducing one piece of legislation that’s narrowly focused. Actually, one of the problems with this bill is that it actually ignores if someone is not convicted they cannot be included in this. So even gang members who are not convicted of any crimes cannot be included in this bill. But we have an idea, like my colleague Emily Henderson said before. Within a few months we’re going to introduce a bill that’s comprehensive, that covers everyone, that covers everything, that takes away guns from anyone who poses a threat to our society, to our community. We can’t just pick up one thing and say we’ve got the solution. While we respect the member and the work that he put into this bill, this bill is not fit for purpose, so for that reason it’s not going to be accepted. Since Operation Tauwhiro launched in February, 1,091 firearms have been seized along with $5.5 million in cash and 940 people have been put behind bars for offences related to firearms.

I think the member before mentioned that this Government has said that owing a gun is a privilege; it’s not a right. That’s true. Because of that, anyone that uses a gun in this country and poses a threat to our community, to our society—we should have an ability to take the guns away from them. This Government is very clear that violent gangs and criminals don’t have a place in our society and they cannot continue to threaten and intimidate and exploit our communities. I would reiterate that gangs destroy lives but we will not let them destroy our communities.

We therefore oppose this bill and we will introduce our own legislation properly to implement the firearms prohibition orders regime very soon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Ian McKelvie.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. If there was ever a case for restricting speeches in member’s bills to five minutes, today has clearly been a great example of that. Having listened to some of the speeches, it can only distress you to think that this is a member’s day, where, effectively, members are entitled to bring bills to the House, and if they’re lucky enough, they get it drawn. To then be shot down, criticised—in fact, very unpleasantly criticised—by members of the Government I think is a disgrace. I also think that to attack other parties over a bill like this is a disgrace, on a members’ day.

I will now get on to the bill. We’ve got to go back in history a little bit to understand the genesis of this bill, and Chris Bishop touched on it earlier. I’ve sat in this Parliament for some time now, and I’ve sat on every gun inquiry and every gun select committee hearing there’s been in my time in Parliament.

The 2017 inquiry into firearms in gangs’ hands was mentioned earlier. One of the interesting things that came out of those recommendations—well there was two interesting things, actually. One was that there was a lot of discussion about firearms and how they got into the hands of gangs, the ownership of them; and there was also quite a lot of discussion around firearms prohibition orders. The ironic thing of that was that one party opposed all that stuff as it came out of the select committee back to the Minister, who at the time was Paula Bennett—that was New Zealand First, who then later supported this bill as it went back to the select committee. So there’s irony everywhere you look on this thing.

We then get to the very unfortunate Christchurch shooting and the gun legislation that was put through the House by the Government as a result of that, where, effectively, we took guns from all the honest people in New Zealand, from collectors, enthusiasts, farmers, hunters, ex-servicemen and –women and we left the guns with all the criminals in New Zealand. We made no attempt at that time to effectively buy those guns back. We offered them an amnesty—well, no criminals are going to walk into the police station with a gun, are they? So that was never going to happen. We could have, however, offered them the opportunity to sell those guns back, because we paid everyone else for their guns except for those people who didn’t have a licence. And so lots of these guns are held by people without firearms licences. Those guns are all still out in our community. And if you listen to the police estimates of the numbers of them, in excess of 200,000 of them still out in our community. I don’t doubt for a minute that the police didn’t understand how many guns the gangs held, so they weren’t counted in those numbers that we’ve dealt with. We then went into the second gun buy back, which was no more expensive and, in fact, cost more to run than they got, or paid out, in buy back for guns. So very fraught pieces of legislation have dealt with this.

We now come to the piece of legislation that Simeon Brown has had drawn out of the ballot some time ago, actually. In fact, Brett Hudson was the first person to put this bill in the ballot, and he was the police spokesman in the last National Opposition. Prior to that, Chris Bishop, of course, had that same role. So both of them have had significant experience in dealing with firearms prohibition orders. The bill that Chris Bishop had drawn was thrown out, and back into the House it comes, it gets sent to the select committee and comes back with some recommendations, and I don’t think any piece of legislation we ever put through this house is perfect, but at least it gave the Government and the police an opportunity to progress this bill in a manner that could have been some use.

Now, we’ve had a whole lot of criticism about why it would be no use, why it wouldn’t work—all the excuses under the sun as to why it wouldn’t work. But actually, a piece of legislation that goes through this House gets improved as it goes through a select committee process and gets improved again as it goes, sometimes, through the committee of the whole House, ends up as legislation. They are always implementable. Probably the worst example of one that wasn’t was the Resource Management Act, actually. That’s been a disaster right from the start. So it’s easy to have a bill that doesn’t work.

This bill, in my view, would have worked, would have played a role in getting to a point where at least the police would have had a tool. And the really interesting thing for me was the speech of Greg O’Connor, who spoke beautifully for 10 minutes on this—well, actually, spoke about three minutes on the bill and seven minutes on other things. He never once mentioned his opposition to the bill, and he couldn’t because he knew this bill had some merit to the police. So I’m disappointed that the bill is clearly not going to pass, but—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member’s time has expired.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I stand to take a call on the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2). As someone who has lived for many years in a community where there are gangs, and for someone who has spent many years in a community walking alongside whānau, alongside young people, trying to ensure that they don’t get drawn into the gangs, it’s really interesting to read this piece of legislation and to talk on this this afternoon. Very much, as I have been listening around the House to some of the contributions, it’s really got me thinking, because very much I want to be part of a Government—I want to be part of a Parliament—that is around empowering and protecting people. It is not just around waving a big stick, not just around putting more laws and regulations in place to punish people, but it’s how do we empower people to choose a different way and a different lifestyle.

Now, I was really disappointed to hear the leader of the ACT Party speak. I felt like he took out of context when he talked about Operation Tauwhiro. He played on te reo Māori when he was speaking on this, because my understanding—yeah, it’s very much the word means, and correct me if I’m wrong, to tend, to care for, absolutely, which is really, really important. But it’s also a word that can be used as “social worker”. As a noun, it’s a social worker, tauwhiro, I believe. So to say that this is some kind of namby-pamby care and love and just mucking around with the gangs isn’t true. This is around social work. This is around actually leaning in, engaging, and finding real life solutions when it comes to gangs, when it comes to guns.

I know in my community what I’ve seen with young people who have chosen the path, sadly, of engaging and—I find it hard to say, but—maybe finding their tribe, what seems to be their tribe, and where they’re accepted. It’s looking at ways that we can actually support, care, nurture, be social workers where they don’t become engaged with gangs, with guns, with violence, and those type of things. I was really pleased as I looked into Operation Tauwhiro and saw that it was focused on harm protection. It was also enforcement, but it was around that harm protection. Since the operation was launched just this year, in February, I see that they’ve seized, along with $5.5 million worth of cash, 1,991 firearms. Nine hundred and forty people have been arrested in relation to firearms offences.

An initiative like this with our police force is something that’s far more engaging and, hopefully, will ensure that gangs lose their steam, lose their power, and that guns—I guess everyone in this House would dream that one day we don’t have to have this conversation about guns because that is not something that we have within our communities. Sadly, we do, and, sadly, we have to look at ways to improve this. So I’m glad to see that, as I was reading through the bill and curious around the conversation that must have been had in the select committee, the conversations that must have been had as this legislation was worked through, the majority did not support the passing of this bill. But we here on this side of the Government are obviously looking at firearms prohibition orders that we’re working on that provide an extra tool for police to keep firearms out of the hands of our criminals.

So for me, I won’t be supporting this piece of legislation this afternoon. I appreciate the fact that the member Simeon Brown has put work in, and I just say let’s work together around how we can actually—things like Operation Tauwhiro, how we can actually, yeah, work with our gangs, not collude but work with them, to find solutions as social workers within our communities, as people who want the best for our tamariki, want the best for our rangatahi, and want to ensure that firearms are kept out of the hands of our gangs.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. While I didn’t sit on the select committee that heard this bill, the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2), I really appreciate the importance of stopping firearms falling into the hands of the wrong people. Because I think, if you look at the statistics, every month, police are called to 200 crimes where a firearm is involved, and every year one in five front-line officers is confronted by a firearm, and every year between 800 and 1,000 firearms are stolen, and they potentially end up on the black market and potentially in the hands of criminals. And so I think it’s really important to be thinking about what we can do in this area, and certainly in Invercargill what we are seeing is, just in the media, increasing reports of gun-related incidents and injuries. And also, if you look at the stats, the Far South has one of the highest rates in the country of illegal gun seizures across New Zealand. So it is an important issue, but I think my concern is that I’m not sure that this bill will actually achieve what it’s setting out to do, which is preventing the most dangerous gang members accessing firearms.

I think whenever I go and have a look at a bill that I’ve been asked to speak on, where I haven’t actually sat and heard the submissions, the first place I always go to is the select committee report, and when I went and had a look at the select committee report for this bill, I think there were two things that particularly stood out for me. One of the first ones was that, basically, the majority of the committee members didn’t actually recommend that the bill be passed. And, if you couple that with looking at the number of submitters there, 36 submitters made written submissions and, of those, the majority, again, didn’t support the bill. So 26 out of 34 didn’t support the bill and raised a number of concerns.

So that’s just one of the aspects, but the other thing that stood out to me was just the huge amount of amendments—so, looking through the actual text of the report, it was just a whole lot of comments about “This bit no longer applies because it’s covered elsewhere”, “Shift this to somewhere else”, “Amend it”—and, then you actually looked at the bill itself, the huge number of deletions and then extra information that had been introduced. And so, for me, thinking it through, this is a really important area, but looking at the huge number of changes that have been made didn’t inspire confidence in me that this bill would be actually doing what it was setting out to do. And so I think, in contrast, what the Government has already said is that we’ve got an ambitious firearms reform programme, and we want to go on and address this issue.

As other members in the House have mentioned, we will be introducing firearms prohibition orders, and what they’ll do is they will make it illegal for high-risk people to own firearms, because, again, we are really—it’s a priority to strengthen our action to combat the influence of gangs and organised crime on our communities. So this is where we’ve already got work under way. But I think what we’ve said is that we will be introducing this legislation by the end of the year, but, as other colleagues have raised, the issue with the current bill that’s before the House at the moment is it just doesn’t have that broad coverage that we think we would need. But our bill, the bill the Government would be introducing, wouldn’t just cover gangs; it would also cover a whole range of other offences and issues that would pose a threat to the community.

So I think looking at what’s been left out of the bill and what we would be including is those who have had serious firearms offences, serious violence offences, participation in organised crime, criminal groups—so some of the aspects covered by this bill—but also terrorism-related offences, because I think the issue we’ve got is, if we’re only focusing on one aspect, which this bill does around gangs, the problem is that then you may have to come back if you want to then introduce other aspects that may relate to people who are then convicted under terrorism legislation or other aspects. And it would be much better if you can actually start that and do it comprehensively from the outset, rather than focusing on just one aspect, which is what this bill does.

And I think the other thing that we need to be thinking about is how a bill in this area would actually fit in with the wider comprehensive approach that the Government has already got under way, because already we’ve done a lot of work in this area. We’ve banned military-style semiautomatic weapons, and that’s actually taken 60,000 prohibited firearms out of circulation, and that’s a huge number of firearms that could end up in the hands of gangs. So I think these are aspects that are not covered in this bill. And also we’ve implemented harsher penalties for gun crime and a tougher licensing system, which means that we can actually make sure that the guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. But I think the other thing is looking at what’s already covered by some of the legislation, because we’ve also strengthened the rules around determining who’s fit and proper for possessing firearms and who could be disqualified for holding a firearm. And already what we’ve got is affiliation with a criminal group is listed as making somebody ineligible for a firearms licence.

So just going into a little bit more of the detail of that in the current legislation, which is already covered, a member of the police may find a person not a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or an air gun if they’re satisfied—and then they list the criteria, and there’s a whole range of criteria there: so if they’ve already been charged and convicted by an offence that’s punishable by a term of imprisonment; had protection orders made under the family violence or domestic violence Act; and, particularly with reference to this bill, if a person is a member or has close affiliation with a gang or organised crime group. So there are aspects that have already been strengthened in the wider framework that the Government has put in place in this area, and I think the other thing is that there’s been a lot of discussion around the current Government’s approach to gangs and organised crime, but just again emphasising the huge amount of investment that has gone into getting more police on the ground and, basically, having those police being able to look at and focus on organised crime, with 700 officers to be focused on that.

So, moving forward, there’s been a big impact, and I come back about those stats I was quoting about the southern region having one of the most high rates of illegal gun seizure, and the impacts of Operation Tauwhiro, because, as it was launched in February, and since then we have had a huge number of firearms seized—so over 1,000 firearms have been seized as a result of that increased extra focus in that area. Over $5.5 million in cash assets has been seized, and 940 people have been arrested in relation to firearms offences. And just looking at some of our local media reporting, I think the comment was that that was why we were seeing those seizures of firearms down in the south, in those numbers, is because there’s been a real focus there on what’s happening.

So I think, just summing up, the issue is that we have actually as a Government got an ambitious firearms reform programme and that’s aimed at making sure, and will make sure, that firearms don’t get into the wrong hands. And we’ve already announced that we’ll be introducing firearms prohibition orders and that we’ll be introducing the legislation later in the year to address that. But what we talked about is the fact that we need that time to, basically, do a more comprehensive approach which looks at the broader range of offences that may well be included, as my colleague alluded to, and some of the submitters pointed out the fact that offences under terrorism Acts would not be included in the current bill. We need to think about that. But I think also, as my other colleague, Duncan Webb, was talking about, there’s then the issues in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that those discussions need to be worked through and we have to have the time to do that in a proper way. The sense, again, is that there just wasn’t the time or the ability to have that properly addressed in the context of this legislation.

And so I think, basically, this is a really important area, and I just think of the impact that the work already done in my own community of Invercargill, with the fact that we have had large numbers of firearms seized and the impact that that has in terms of the number of guns in the community, but I’m also thinking too that we need that broader approach that covers off all those areas that might need to be covered—that thinks of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications and the nuances there, and just makes sure that we’ve got the time to do that comprehensive approach. So, from my perspective, I think, just summing up, firearms ownership is a privilege rather than a right, but I also think that this bill that’s before the House at the moment doesn’t have the ability to take steps in the right direction. And so I unfortunately am unable to support this bill today. Thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): The National Party thinks gang members should not have guns. It’s a pretty simple position, but it’s one that members opposite are finding very troubling and very complex and very difficult. Well, we stand on this side of the House in proud support of Simeon Brown’s bill that would prevent the most dangerous gang members in New Zealand from accessing firearms, and that is a really simple position to take, because it’s our view that we should prevent gang members from using guns to harm other New Zealanders. But members opposite—they seem to take a different view.

I want to congratulate Simeon Brown, the member for Pakuranga, for bringing this bill to Parliament. It is a necessary piece of legislation. It is something that has been held up for many years by this Government, despite a strong recommendation in 2017 that something like this needed to happen, and Simeon Brown has been tenacious in his advocacy for it. Unlike members opposite, he has not bowed down and cowered to gang members, despite facing death threats from them. He has said no.

Gangs seek to perpetuate violence and to harm other New Zealanders, and we in the National Party won’t stand for it, because we stand for safe communities and we stand for upholding law and order. We actually also stand for the police having the tools they need to do their job, having the tools they need to enforce the law, and what this bill provides is an extra tool for the police by giving the Commissioner of Police the power to issue a firearms prohibition order against any gang member who in the past 10 years has been convicted of a serious violence offence. That is a tool that the police deserve and that they need to crack down on some of our community’s worst offenders.

Now, I just want to talk briefly about what gangs are, because there’s been a very philosophical discussion on the other side of the House about the virtues of gangs, and I want to remind people listening—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Nicola, that’s not true.

NICOLA WILLIS: Oh, Ayesha Verrall says, “No, that’s not true. We haven’t spoken of the virtue of gangs.” Well, she needs to go back and listen to Duncan Webb equating people in poverty with people in gangs, and saying that those are the conditions that lead to gang membership. Well, Duncan Webb should treat people in poverty with more respect, because just because you’re poor, it doesn’t mean you think you need to commit crime to get ahead. Actually, the vast majority of people in limited material circumstances don’t resort to crime and meth dealing and rape and assault and murder in order to further their own material circumstances. That’s actually what gangs do, and to equate that behaviour with poverty is wrong and we do not support it.

Gangs are organisations that exist for the purpose of using criminal activity for material gain. They use weapons and violence to intimidate and harm other New Zealanders.

I want to read to, particularly, the Labour Party members in the House tonight some headlines that really give you a sense of what gangs have been up to in our community lately. These are just headlines, by the way, from this year: “Brutal Christchurch murder: Mongrel Mob associates jailed, one for life, after ‘callous’ fatal hammer and knife attack”, “Pair become ‘cold and ruthless killers’ after involvement with the Mongrel Mob”, “The day a Mongrel Mob member opened fire on a cop, hit a taxi driver and carjacked two vehicles”, “Guns, bombs and ammo found at gang pad ‘for protection’ ”, “Patched Mongrel Mob members arrested on meth charges in Hamilton”, “Name suppression lifts for senior Waikato Mongrel Mob leader on drug charges”—and these are the people that members opposite want to cuddle up to and do a bit of “Kumbaya” with.

Well, we don’t want to do that on this side of the House. You would believe from the rhetoric opposite, and particularly, actually, I would say, from Julie Anne Genter, whose contribution was to say that those who speak out against gangs are dog-whistling and racist—well, actually, what she needs to remember is that these people described in these headlines are criminals, and we do not support them.

The numbers of gang members, in fact, have increased more than 50 percent under Labour, so the cuddling up approach isn’t working, is it? We’re not seeing fewer of them; we are seeing more of them.

I want to turn now to what this bill does, because it does things that are very practical, very pragmatic, and very sensible. It allows police to issue a firearms prohibition order against any gang member who in the past 10 years has been convicted of a serious violence offence, an offence under the domestic violence Act, or a firearms offence. Pretty sensible—I mean, why should someone who’s done that be able to get access to a gun? It does this to ensure they don’t get access to guns, it revokes firearms licences, and it also extends that power so that those who seek to become a gang member are also prevented from accessing guns.

For those who have had a firearms prohibition order served against them, it makes it a crime for them to access firearms or to visit places with guns. It also makes it an offence to knowingly supply someone with a gun, knowing that they have a firearms prohibition notice against them, and it provides the police with warrantless search powers so that they can practically enforce this law by searching for guns where they believe they are on premises where there’s someone with a firearms prohibition order against them.

Now, I want to particularly acknowledge the contribution of the Police Association in making this a better piece of law. They submitted to the Justice Committee on this. They made recommendations particularly about these search powers, and Simeon Brown has been very careful to incorporate those amendments into this bill.

But the members opposite, they would ignore the Police Association. They would ignore the people on the front line whose job it is to deal with these thugs. Well, National listens to them. We believe that they deserve the tools they need to do their job.

I just want to ask a couple of questions, one of which is: when members opposite talk about the fact that Labour really, truly, seriously wants to do something about this and that it’s coming soon, when is soon? I know Kris Faafoi has a very wide definition of the word “soon”. He uses it every time Erica Stanford asks a question about immigration—“Soon, soon.” But I’d be really interested to know what “soon” means, given members opposite have been promising they would do something about this for years, including, most recently, the Minister of Police, Poto Williams, announcing in May that she would be doing something.

Well, if members are so keen to do something, then what should happen is that they should adopt this bill that Simeon Brown has put forward in good faith. But, as my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges has said, the reason they won’t do that—the reason they’re not interested—is that they are putting politics ahead of the safety of our community and ahead of the needs of our police to have tools to enforce the law, and they are siding with the gangs rather than siding with the safety of New Zealanders.

So we oppose this bill. We believe that gangs—

Hon Member: You oppose it—what?

NICOLA WILLIS: —do no good in our communities, and we—

Hon Member: Hang on!

NICOLA WILLIS: Well, OK. So the members opposite think gangs do good in communities. So was that the Mongrel Mob member who was jailed for the fatal hammer attack, or was that the one who opened fire on a cop, hit a taxi driver, and carjacked the vehicle? We don’t think these are good things, and when people like that have access to guns, more harm can be done. So we don’t want to see gangs being able to do that. That’s why Simeon Brown has put forward this excellent piece of legislation, and it is my pleasure to support it.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, you know, it’s been an interesting night tonight. If there’s one thing after being on the Justice Committee is that Simeon Brown talks a big game. But the truth is that no one takes him that seriously. The truth is that this bill is similar; it talks a big game but it doesn’t deliver.

Before I go into the deficiencies of this bill—and I’ve got a good table on the deficiencies of the bill, even though we had a good crack at fixing it up at select committee—I’ll sort of recap where the debate got out. In the first two speakers from the National Party, give them their credit, they came out, Simon Bridges like a firecracker, they actually had some formative argument. So between Simon Bridges and Chris Bishop the main element of their argument this evening was that this bill has taken too long—it’s taken too long. From Chris Bishop we got a potted history of FPOs—or firearm prohibition orders—and he went through the different iterations the bill had been through. My memory goes back just a wee bit further than Chris Bishop’s. My memory goes back to 2008, when the National Government launched their Gang Action Plan. Back then, in 2008, lo and behold, firearm prohibition orders were in there too.

Along with that there were some other really interesting stuff in that action plan. Also, in there was something called “summer night lights”. I remember that, I think it was, Anne Tolley, who was the Minister of Police, went on a bit of a tiki tour around the world and visited countries that had gang problems like Los Angeles (LA) or Melbourne, to find out and do a bit of a stocktake on how we could address those problems here in New Zealand. My favourite was summer night lights. They went to LA and they saw that, you know, these bright and those big busy areas and dark parks, that’s where all the drug and the gang stuff was going on. They said “I know. We’ll come back to New Zealand and we’ll light up some places and do some festivals and stuff in the gang areas.” So the problem is that they didn’t figure out that if you go to Kaitāia and put up some night lights, well, people can go 2 kilometres up the road and you’re in a paddock. So it didn’t work that well. It didn’t work here.

But part of that stocktake was actually the truth of where firearm prohibition orders started and that was from Victoria and Melbourne that it was initially modelled on. So we talked a big game about those but they weren’t delivered on. At that time, you know, part of the reason why it got held up for nine years under the last National Government was that there were huge internal tensions within the National caucus regarding this very issue, firearm prohibition orders. I remember that absolute pearler that Paula Bennett came out with on The AM Show, where she declared that some people had fewer human rights than other people. I remember that quite clearly. I remember Bill English, he jumped in there quickly to fix that one up, and he clarified that Bennett’s mistake was, in fact, not National Party policy, and he referenced—he did actually acknowledge—that New Zealand has a Human Rights Act and said that it was enshrined in New Zealand’s law, whew.

So the truth is that National had nine years to pass firearm prohibition orders, which was policy under the last Government, and failed to do it. The main tenet of the argument tonight we are hearing from those members opposite is that we’ve not done it in four. So I think it is important that we stress that point.

I could go on, but I think we’ve got it. I think it’s important that we get this right—I think it’s important. Those comments around what were really causing issues under the last Government, it’s important we get it right here. That’s what this Government is doing. We will get it right. That is why Simeon’s bill doesn’t do it.

We had a really good look at it at select committee. We had a whole range of measures that we attempted to fix it up. But the reality was that it was munted. It was too broken to actually fix. The main problem, with the bill, first of all, was that he forgot to include search powers in it. So that was kind of like, if you’re going to look for a gun, you’d want to look for some search powers to be able to do that in the first place, but unfortunately that wasn’t included.

So once we’d fixed up the part about referring to maybe search and surveillance or search powers, we got onto the next main problem, which is quite fundamental to the bill and that’s why it is fundamentally flawed—that it only covers gang members with convictions. This is a big problem. You want to make it wider than just gang members with convictions because in the criminal world you do have clean skins. I’m sure Greg O’Connor will give you a great story about clean skins because he’s got many stories like that. So people without a criminal record that still work as operatives within the gang underworld is where a lot of your arms trade and illicit arms trade is happening. So from the very start you’re excluding some of those individuals that you want to include.

It would also exclude others, such as terrorists and other elements that we’ve seen in New Zealand that have a big problem with arms. So we would want to create a firearm prohibition regime that covers all of those areas, and that’s why this bill is fundamentally flawed. It needs to cover a broader range of offenders who pose a threat to our community, not just gang members. It’s important to say that this Government has a wider work programme on gangs. Our plan is focused on addressing those underlying causes of crime, not taking a trip to LA to put some night lights up in Kaitāia. Firearm prohibition orders form part of that plan. They form part of a wider group of measures.

Another really important part to say where FPOs will work is about some legislation that’s already been passed. This is a really important point. The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act introduces a new power to enable the seizure of assets of those associated with organised crime. So that’s going to the real nut of where the money is and being able to target that. That’s something that was, again, talked about by the previous National Government but never delivered upon. So by going for the cash, hitting them in the pocket, that has a far more significant impact upon long-term viable gang opportunities to make a criminal organisation viable, by making it easier for police to identify an object that has obviously been ascertained by illicit activities and being able to take that. That is where you’re actually going to see real long-term impact on gang activities; it’s financial.

But not to leave it there, the reality is that this Government has never been more active in targeting the gangs and criminal leaders, and getting them off the street. Let’s look at what’s been achieved in that four years. We’ve seen $450 million invested in our police service since we came into office. That has translated into 700 extra police staff. Those are focusing on absolutely looking at organised crime. As a result, we’ve seen a total workforce of the police to 14,000. That’s a significant increase of extra officers. Over 1,200 additional constabulary and authorised officers have been deployed on the streets since we came into office. Yes, we have seen $500 million in cash and assets that has been taken off our streets. If you want to translate that into how it’s done often in police is that’s the equivalent of $1.6 billion removed from the illicit economy, an economy that this Government is focused on shutting down. It will be doing that in far more broad sweeping and targeted ways than simply proposing to introduce a short stopgap measure like this bill does.

Since coming into Government this Government has seen operations like Operation Tauwhiro, which has been so successful with over $5.5 million in cash and assets and 940 people arrested. Also, it was so successful that it’s been extended for another six months. These are real efforts to target a complex problem, which is organised criminal groups that operate in New Zealand. This is not a simple problem that will be fixed overnight. This is most definitely not a problem that will be resolved by a short-stop measure such as this member’s bill that limits firearm prohibition orders to such a narrow group that it has limited scope to have real impact on the problem. We are focused on making sure New Zealand communities are safe. We will not let gangs destroy our communities. We will do that in a way that targets the underlying drivers of crime in New Zealand. There will be a bill in this House that has firearm prohibition orders, and we will do it properly. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Arms (Firearms Prohibition Orders) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 22 September.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, when the House was last considering this bill we’d just completed call No. 8, so it’s call No. 9. I understand the member for Rongotai will seek the call—Paul Eagle.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and what a pleasure it is to talk on the Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Look, the member who put this forward will know by now that we are opposing this bill—and for good reasons—and so we recapping on those just to bring you back into the fray after a short break. But really, I want to just step back and just look at the situation.

I know pre-COVID, certainly, there was a real dynamic around how we as a country manage freedom campers. They’d sort of got control of how they wanted to do things in their way, and no matter what part of New Zealand you were from, it talks about some of the more dominant areas in the South Island, for example, West Coast, Tasman, Christchurch, and, of course, Queenstown, Southland where those areas were just overrun. There was bad behaviour. It didn’t seem that local government had the tools and the know-how to sort things out. Vehicles from hire companies also weren’t equipped definitely with things like toilets and other sanitary conditions, and the good nature and conservation of New Zealand took care of that. Well, we all know what the locals said about that when they found suddenly their pristine coastlines and backyards were used as toilet blocks, etc. etc.

So the issue here is that whilst the direction is fully endorsed around this bill, the Government is intending to introduce its own legislation. And before you say “Hurry up, let’s get going.”, I was privileged enough to join the then Minister of Tourism, that was the Hon Kelvin Davis. He was part of a working group, a good one, too. It’s always hard to get local government and tourism authorities into a room. And then we had a very good conversation and I just happened to be with him for another project—he’s a busy Minister—so he said, “Come along.” and at that I learnt a few things. I learnt there that actually a lot of what’s being thought of, I think that on this side of the House we will do it a whole lot better. Plus, we’ll have the full round of consultation, which has been done. I know that the Minister’s intending to do further work with the COVID lens.

Hon Member: “Nashy”.

PAUL EAGLE: Yes, that’s the member for Napier, the Hon Stuart Nash.

But I was looking at the advances that have been made just in recent times and even the freedomcamping.org app or the website that all of you can have a look at and just quickly punch in, that is significantly more advanced than when this was first talked about. And so I want to thank the then Minister, the Hon Kelvin Davis, for actually looking at that data and technology pilot that provided some of that real-time information. Too often, we ignore what people say. Tourists, both domestic and international, said they wanted to know what spaces were free to ensure that they could go somewhere and do it right. They wanted to do the right thing, and this was the best thing about it.

Tourism New Zealand came on board with education campaigns, and I notice just at the bottom of that website you can see the Tourism Industry Aotearoa and the Tourism Industry New Zealand Trust. So that partnered up like they said they would. They took the problem with both hands and said, “We believe with this technology we can actually do things better. There was also talk about that free access to the self-contained vehicle standard, saving users money—and so a lot of what’s being proposed here. I know that the member will be thinking that’s not enough, but I know with the work that’s been done already, actually stuff has been delivered and it’s not the sort of thing that’s got a lot of rah-rah because most of us wouldn’t be in that segment of society that is hiring campervans, touring the country. Some of you might be in there. If you are, therefore you’ll know.

The other thing that the group said is “We need to know a bit more. We were caught short.”, and I say that in terms of the tourism industry sector. They were caught short on saying, “Look, the market just went out there.” As I said, they put the vehicles in place but we needed the data to say, “How do we make it a better experience for everyone?” So the direction gets a tick but we oppose this bill. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will return and I will return to the Chair at 7 p.m.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ka te rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. Members, before the dinner break, we were debating the Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Mr Eagle had just finished the call—and, I believe, Ginny Andersen.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be able to speak on the Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I have been asked to get as many puns as possible into this debate, but I will refrain, because we all know it’s wrong to take a dump on mother Nature, and we all agree on that. We are on the same page. So I will refrain from further juvenile references.

This bill amends the Freedom Camping Act 2011 to introduce stricter requirements around where freedom camping can take place. I always think of those signs I used to see as a kid where you’d travel around and they’d have a picture with “No dumping” written on it, and they would say it quite clearly, but I’m pretty sure they were referring to rubbish. But the same thing goes. You know, New Zealand has got a beautiful environment. It’s a gem. We should really respect Papatūānuku the way that she deserves to be.

I think the Minister responsible in this area has not minced his words one iota in the past when being asked publicly about his position regarding how our tourists who come to New Zealand treat the natural environment. So I think that while we’re pleased that the National Party endorses the general direction of where we’re heading on this issue, we still will, in fact, oppose this bill because we intend to introduce our own legislation and to do that in a way that improves the sustainability and cracks down on freedom camping in those areas, particularly where we know that they have been poorly behaved. There are certain hot spots across New Zealand where we know that there is loo paper and general rubbish associated with the known dumping turning up again and again and again.

So we know that it annoys the local people. We know that it degrades our natural environment, and, furthermore, it’s not necessarily the most productive way we can use New Zealand’s assets as a tourist destination. I think that, you know, one of the things we’ve seen through COVID is that while we have had to take a reset and had to shut our borders, this also provides a golden opportunity to try and do things better than what we’ve done before.

So what we’ve done already, the legislation that the Government will introduce will build on the Government’s earlier work to make freedom camping more sustainable. Some of that earlier work is establishing the Responsible Camping Working Group. I think there was an additional $25 million in 2008 to specifically identify more sustainable ways. As part of that, too, we’ve seen the introduction of a data technology pilot that has provided real-time information on the capacity of selected campsites to see where those strains in the existing system are and how we can mitigate risks in terms of camping grounds not having sufficient capacity to take tourists who are coming and hiring a campervan or a Jucy rental or one of those vans you see travelling around. Also providing free access to self-contained vehicles and saving users around $70 each to allow people to see what’s required for certification. We know that’s an important factor, if our vehicles are equipped to be self-contained.

But in addition to this, there’s also been commissioning of research, and that research is to better understand what we’re actually dealing with here. The profile, the value of visitors, both from domestic tourism and potential international tourists who go freedom camping throughout the summer. So we want to know exactly the profile we’re looking at in order to modify our system to best cope and to change, to dissuade those who are unable to treat the environment with the respect that it deserves.

This member does not have the appropriate bill and therefore we will not be supporting it further. It proposes measures that won’t address the real nub of the problem and it would give enforcement officers powers to inspect vehicles. We think more of a long-term approach that maximises tourist value in New Zealand is a far more beneficial way of addressing these issues. Therefore, I do not commend this bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve suffered my way through some of the presentations on this bill, being introduced several weeks ago, and it’s just come back for the end of its first and probably final reading, I gather. And I’ve heard nothing from the other side that actually made any sense at all or defended their position to oppose this bill. It’s innocuous; it’s such a simple solution. And even if the Minister did have plans to do something quite spectacular, which I very much doubt, because they’re not usually likely to produce anything spectacular, but it simply clarifies the situation for the Act that’s already in place.

Now, the Act originally—and it’s 10 years old now, so it was time it was modified. But over those 10 years there has been some glaring gaps in the rules around freedom camping. And the biggest one, of course, is proximity to a toilet. So this bill simply gives a distance from a toilet facility unless you are fully self-contained. So it clarifies that. And it also captures—and this is one of the glaring gaps in the original legislation—New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) land and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) land. So for areas that have the ribbon of State highway that runs through them, councils were unable to police those areas for freedom camping because the legislation didn’t allow for it. It also allows for the infringement notices to be revoked and handed on to the hirer of a vehicle, so that tidied up people who would exit the country without paying any infringements. It also allowed for LINZ and NZTA to provide or appoint their own enforcement officers and, as the member who sat down just said, to inspect whether a vehicle is fully self-contained, because quite often people use the defence that they have a bucket with a lid on it, and that is their full self-containment. This bill would have made it clear that that no longer is a good argument.

But I’m always amazed when this Government stands up to kick a really good piece of legislation to touch, because they always fall back on the fact that they know best, that only they can do things better, and we’ve been hearing it all day: “We don’t want to have a look at any of the legislation that’s coming forward from an Opposition party”, because they’re going to do it themselves, they’re going to do it better, and they’re always going to do it soon. Soon they’re going to announce lockdown measures, they’re soon going to announce their firearms legislation, they’re soon going to tell us what the education system is going to look like when we start coming out of lockdown. Soon we’re going to know, but we’ve got to wait for the pulpit of truth.

But anyway, as I said, this bill is not going to see the light of day. And the shame of it is that it was so looked forward to by the 140,000 members of the NZMCA—the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association—and even by Federated Farmers, whose rural membership would have dearly loved to have had this issue tidied up, because it does need tidying up. And if anyone who lives in the country—and I’m sure some of my colleagues here understand exactly what I’m talking about: when you live in the country and you see what a mess is left behind from freedom campers, you know the situation is urgent. And wouldn’t it be nice that when we open up the borders—once National’s opening up plan is introduced, which it gradually is, by the way. Has anyone noticed that? I think we’re up to the fifth point of National’s plan being adopted by the Government by stealth. And won’t it be great to have everything in place, ready for our visitors to come back into this country?

Now, I remember the Minister saying he was consulting widely. This bill has been around for 10 years. We’ve been hearing the feedback for 10 years. I doubt in the roadshows that he’s conducted over the past six months or a year—whatever it’s been—that he has heard anything new. The situation is really clear, the feedback has been really blunt, and if anyone wasn’t aware of it before today, they’ve had their feet on the desk, they’re asleep at the wheel, and have no idea about what’s going on in the real world. I’m really sad that this bill won’t be seeing the light of day.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 45

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

Noes 75

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill

First Reading

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

At its heart, this bill is about protecting our children from online harm. In any given week, New Zealand children and young people will spend more time online than they may well do with their mum, dad, or primary caregiver. So as the internet and its many, many platforms have become more prevalent in our lives, so have the dangers that are associated directly with it. Labour are committed to child wellbeing, and this includes protecting our children from harm. Online spaces are increasingly becoming an area where this harm can occur, and the law sometimes struggles to keep up with rapidly evolving technology and different platforms.

As online platforms become more popular with young people and it becomes harder for us as parents to monitor everything our kids are doing online, the opportunity for people to cause harm to our kids through the internet increases. The days of being taught about “stranger danger” and being careful when walking home from school have now changed to include the internet and the need to keep our children as safe as possible when they are online.

Netsafe and the Ministry for Women conducted a survey recently. In particular—they did this in partnership—they looked into the experiences of New Zealand teenagers, with online risk and harm in mind. The survey found that seven—seven—in 10 New Zealand teenagers have experienced at least one type of unwanted digital communication within the past year. It also found that nearly 19 percent of those teenagers surveyed experienced an unwanted digital communication that had a negative impact upon their daily activities. That 19 percent surveyed had been also asked for a nude or nearly nude image of themselves to be shared.

When we heard the submissions on Louisa Wall’s bill on stopping harmful digital communications, it really struck me the number of frank and fearless accounts we heard from young people whose lives had been really torn apart by the unwitting sharing of images of themselves where they were nude or nearly nude, and how that had played out not only to affect their own mental health but also their own confidence and even potential of securing a place of employment in the future.

This increasing trend is something that, as parents, we should take notice of, and, as lawmakers, these issues are something that we can respond to as well. This bill is designed to help to ensure that our justice system can respond appropriately to protect our young people from those who engage in acts online to harm people, and to harm young people in particular. It is based upon similar legislation that has been passed in Australia. The law in Australia was known as Carly’s Law; it was named after Carly as the result of the efforts of her mum—whose name is Sonya Ryan, an Adelaide mother—who campaigned for over a decade after her 15-year-old daughter was murdered after an online predator posed as a teenage boy.

The creation and enactment of Carly’s Law enabled enforcement agencies to take action against online predators before they have the opportunity to act. Making this addition to New Zealand’s law builds upon the existing offence of online grooming that was introduced by Labour back in 2005. When this law was passed it was noted, when I looked back on the speeches at the time, that those who offend against children are often habitual repeat offenders. This bill enables police to intervene earlier.

A recent case that we’ve seen in New Zealand, in a Hamilton instance, saw a school teacher who had messaged a student approximately 1,600 times, but, due to the difficulty in prosecuting or proving, it was difficult. Even in the judgment, it’s interesting to see comments around police’s actions. There is a requirement in that 2005 offence to have an element of sexual nature to the comments, and so, without that there, prosecution is made more difficult, even when proving intent may be able to be done. So the bill proposes to make a change to the Crimes Act 1961, and it adds two new offences designed to protect young people from online harm, and to increase the penalty for meeting a young person following sexual grooming.

The first offence inserted by the bill is digital communication for a person under 16 with intent to mislead, and it means that someone who is 18 years or older or who digitally communicates with someone who is under 16 with the intent to mislead them about their age or identity and then meets or arranges to meet with this young person, can now be imprisoned. Existing law provides that there is a requirement for sexual reference in communication, as previously mentioned, and this has made prosecution difficult in the past. This change sends a clear message that an adult impersonating a child with the intention of meeting someone is unacceptable in New Zealand.

The second offence inserted by the bill is “Digital communication with young person under 16 with intent to cause harm.” This new offence means that someone who is 18 years or older can be imprisoned if they digitally communicate with someone under the age of 16 while deliberately intending to cause harm to the young person or are reckless as to whether the young person is harmed. This change, as stated, will help police protect young people from others who set out via the internet to communicate with them in order to cause harm.

In both of these new offences, the change is specifically designed to assist police in doing their jobs. So the two new offences are both applicable in cases where the young person in question is, in fact, a police officer in an undercover or sting operation.

Finally, the bill increases the potential maximum sentence for an offence under section 131B of the Crimes Act, “Meeting a young person following sexual grooming, etc”. There is debate around penalties, and that is a debate that goes on. Look, I have some reservations, to be frank, regarding just outrightly increasing penalties, and I think that while offences against children and young people are serious and should carry serious penalties, I would like to hear comments—particularly from members of the public—at the next stage, at select committee, and also the advice from officials in relation to the proposals that have been made at this first reading stage.

Specifically criminalising this activity is part of the response to the problem, but I do want to note, for the record, that equally important is education to ensure that parents and caregivers, as well as children, are aware of the risks and aware of the steps that they can take to keep safe. That is why this bill builds upon the good work that this Government has been doing in this space, including great initiatives like funding the hugely popular Keep it Real Online campaign. The honourable Minister Jan Tinetti has done a fantastic job at championing that campaign so that not only young people but also their parents and caregivers are aware of those risks, and our legislative change that was debated just last night, in terms of films, videos, publications—these changes are helping to keep New Zealanders safe.

To sum up, I know that many parents are concerned about who their children are talking to online. This bill provides further protection for our kids under New Zealand law and sends a very clear message that an adult impersonating a child, with the intention of meeting someone, is unacceptable in New Zealand. I know that this is something that parents have called for, and I am pleased that this bill has the opportunity to be considered by the House and also by the Justice Committee. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): As a parent of young children, I really worry about the online world, and I’m sure that I’m far from alone. I’m sure that the kind of concerns that I have will be ones that, actually, the vast majority of parents in the modern world—with computers and all manner of devices—also have. We in our household, look, we try and limit screen time, but boy oh boy do the boys love their iPads and YouTube, and various other things they can access online. There’s a couple of issues, aren’t there? There’s the time they spend online and how much is appropriate and right for them there, and then there’s also the content that they’re accessing. The reality is that, in terms of that time, the evidence about what a lot of time online does for children and young people isn’t necessarily decisive—you’ll find that there’s multiple studies. I note Sir Peter Gluckman and his organisation connected to the University of Auckland has recently done a report on this. But I feel, personally, as a parent, that it can’t be entirely unproblematic. There has to be problems associated with a long time on devices, and it can’t be an unalloyed good in terms of what it’s doing to young brains, what it means for their attention span, their ability to concentrate on difficult, complex things at school and the like.

Then, of course, there’s also the issues not just in the time online, even if it’s nice, worthy stuff that kids and young people are looking at, there’s also the issue of the content that is being accessed. I would just note, in that regard, look there’s all manner of examples around the world, The Wall Street Journal in the last month or so has run an investigative series on Facebook and the work Facebook is doing to have an Instagram for kids. And, somehow, my recollection is The Wall Street Journal came across secret documents, or not public documents, and they made it quite clear that the research of Facebook itself shows all the mental health problems and various other issues—depression and esteem issues and harming and the like—that go along with social media, and the peer pressure that’s around that. People are saying that social media is the new tobacco, and if we could cast forward a few years, that may be so.

Then there’s, of course, when we think about content, the issues around clearly inappropriate, harmful content for our young—and I’m thinking, of course, of pornography, I’m thinking about extreme violence that can be accessed and, as the member in charge of this bill, Ginny Andersen, has said, “Look, we’re not monitoring our children and our teenagers 24/7.” So this is a real issue, and it doesn’t take much for a young one to—left unmonitored—find innocently enough they are on to harmful sites and the like that scare them and potentially scar them. So there are real worries about this whole area of online generally. And I, for one, want to protect my kids. I’m sure other parents want to protect theirs as long as we possibly can.

That brings me to this bill, which addresses the issues of unwanted digital communications and child exploitation. Sadly—in fact I’d probably use a stronger word than “sadly” and say “tragically”—it’s not uncommon for adults to try and contact children and young people online for bad purposes; and the purposes can include the procurement of graphic pictures through to the sexual grooming for actual sexual conduct that, again, the member has spoken of—whose bill this is in the name of. I’m sure the entire House stands as one in condemning such behaviour. This bill, if passed—it seems to me—would assist with adding criminal offences and criminal penalties for such terrible behaviour. I note what the member has said, “It’s based on Australian law”—that’s not always a bad thing and I’m sure, actually, to some extent copying what they’ve done is a good thing. I’ll be interested to see, at select committee, the experience a little way in—of Australia—given they have a similar law.

All of that means that National supports the intent of this bill. More than that, I think we support the substance of this bill. We’re going to be interested to hear submissions on it and go through those. I would simply make this constructive—I hope—point at this very early stage and without having gone through it and thought about it deeply and how this bill would relate, if passed, to the various other criminal laws that are already on Parliament’s books. I think, from a cursory glance at the offences that are created by this bill and the increased penalty in relation to offences against section 131B of, I think it’s the Crimes Act 1961, is it? It could be, actually, that what’s being done here should even go further. That the scope of what is in the bill isn’t actually enough to cover the various forms of practices, purposes that adults may try and have and do and effect against children, young people. So I certainly record, actually, it may be this bill could—within scope and without trying to do more than a member’s bill appropriately should—go further.

So I think this is an area where all New Zealanders—certainly parents—will be worried about what happens online, and I’ve tried to demonstrate there’s a raft of things that can go wrong in this department. This area of it: adults seeking out children, our young ones, for harm purposes is one such. And a very important area, as the survey results from Netsafe and the Ministry for Women that the member in charge of the bill has laid out, made clear: this is not some marginal thing on the sidelines. Actually, it’s a very real everyday issue, sadly, in New Zealand and around the West.

Given that, therefore National supports it at first reading. I’m sure we’ll actually support it all the way through, albeit we’ll be interested in the submissions, interested in ways we can improve it and potentially actually increase the range of this bill to make sure that actually more harm is prevented against our children.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Good to hear that we seem to have some consensus on this bill. Just a few points I’d like to make in sending it off to select committee, really. The first is it’s increasingly the case that there is an online world, and I mean that in a real sense, in the sense that there are young people in particular who live a life in the virtual world and have virtual relationships. That’s something which people who, when they were born, the internet didn’t exist and tapes were a pretty cool thing—that’s something which can be a little hard for us to comprehend. So I guess it’s a real challenge for us to wrestle with the fact that what goes on in that virtual world, whatever it might be, whether it’s across digital messaging or whether it’s on a gaming platform or wherever it might be, is as real to those people as what happens in what we would call day-to-day life. It’s against that background that we have to look at this bill, because relationships formed in that environment are extremely important and can be as rewarding or as damaging as any other relationship.

I do think it’s worth recognising that whilst we paint the picture of a total stranger in some darkened room with a keyboard grooming these young people, it’s equally as likely to be someone they’ve actually met. The member Ginny Andersen mentioned the schoolteacher who already has an existing relationship and therefore has a degree of trust. So we have to be extremely cautious there that we don’t simply presume that it’s someone who’s entirely unknown—in fact, statistics would suggest that’s not the case.

I guess there’s a couple of points I would invite the select committee to look at. We absolutely accept that an adult grooming a child, communicating with a child, and arranging to meet a child is wrong, and we also accept that there’s a role for the police to play in early intervention, in finding out who those people are. Given that they spend a lot of time and resources on intelligence, they often know who they should be looking for. My word of caution is this: that we want to be careful that we don’t create behaviours in people that they wouldn’t otherwise engage in—what in, kind of, common parlance would be called “entrapment”—that whilst a constable is entitled to engage in a conversation online with someone they think is engaging in risky and possibly illegal behaviour, we do not want them to initiate any inappropriate conduct or contact or in any way encourage it; it’s for them to be a recipient. So I would ask the select committee to just have a look at that section, reflect on the problem of entrapment, of enticing behaviour that wouldn’t otherwise occur, and make sure that there’s no place for that, that the law properly controls that activity—albeit, I’m sure, when a police officer might engage in it, it’s with good intent, but it’s creating an offence where one wouldn’t have existed but for the conduct, in fact, of the constable.

The other point is just the reasonable steps to find out whether a young person—there’s a defence section, subsection (3) of new section 126A: taking reasonable steps to determine whether the other person was over the age of 16 years, and having reasonable grounds. Now, I just want to recognise that what is reasonable can be a shifting standard in some ways, and I’d encourage that to be explored. That the behaviour we would expect of a 25-year-old or a 35-year-old is quite different from that we might expect of an 18-year-old. So that’s something I would hope the select committee would look at.

Of course, the member has referred to the sentencing question. Again, I’m always cautious of heavy sentences, and I see there’s an increased sentence here from seven to 10 years. I think that’s done on the basis of, kind of, equivalences or relativities within the different sections, trying to make sure that the most serious offence has the most serious penalty. Certainly, that’s something that is worth looking at, but good to see this is going to select committee. An excellent improvement to our law—I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill in the name of Ginny Andersen. I want to congratulate her for bringing another, I would say, very valuable piece of legislation to this House, and I say that with a little bit of envy in terms of your luck of getting these bills pulled.

But this is a really important conversation. It’s about the safety of our children at the heart of it. I’m very pleased that this Parliament is getting to spend time on that conversation. We know that Governments have previously been pretty slow to respond to digital harm, in particular, including online identity theft, revenge porn, online hate speech, racism, or extremism. We’re slow to catch up. The legislation feels as if there are many moving parts, in terms of protections. So this piece of legislation is discrete, it is fixing a small part of it, and I look forward to the conversation in the select committee looking at how that fits in the whole picture and exploring the detail of it.

So at the heart of this, it’s about addressing online grooming. There’s been a bit of discussion and a great speech from Ginny Andersen in introducing it. But I think it bears repeating that grooming really is when an adult tries to build a relationship with a young person so that they can sexually exploit them in some way. Doesn’t always have to be physical, sometimes it is actually just that act of trying to get the nude or almost-nude photo or provocative position from a child that can be used, in terms of images or videos, in ways that there cannot be consent because of the age of the young person, who I will call, for the purposes of this discussion, a child, because legally, that is what we’re talking about.

Quite often when we picture the idea of grooming, I know I have a certain image that comes into my head of a person that’s kind of got—no disrespect to anybody in this House, but the image that comes to my head is, kind of, sparse grey hair, a certain type—

Hon Member: Oh, Stuart! She singled you out!

JAN LOGIE: No disrespect. It’s just like, there’s an image, but the problem—and my point is, that that’s not the reality of people who engage in grooming. In actual fact, quite often the people who are engaging in grooming behaviour are not that much older than the children that they are targeting, yet, they are still taking advantage of a younger person. Netsafe gets a lot of complaints from young people seeking help for this issue—and I’ve just seen a member of the House put his hand over his hair and I just want to apologise for what my comments may have provoked. For any member in this House who feels that that was a description of them, it was not meant to be.

The current law criminalises grooming at the point where an offender arranges to meet a child with the intention of having sexual activity, whether or not the intended abuse occurs. This bill will update these offences to cover digital harm and grooming at the point where the offender arranges or meets up with the young person following online communications. There’s specific details in the bill that I won’t go into, but at the select committee, we’re pleased to be able to interrogate.

I do want to raise the concern around the increased penalties that do come with the bill, around imprisonment from seven to 10 years, because, actually, our system at the moment, at the heart we want people who cause sexual harm—we want early intervention before harm occurs and we want rehabilitation. There’s only a very, very tiny number of people who are not able to be rehabilitated. If we talk to the experts, they tell us it’s a tiny group, and we want to make sure that they’re held and protected; the rest we want to get help, and sadly our criminal justice system doesn’t really provide that rehabilitation at the moment, and actually, it can cause more harm by isolating and marginalising people, actually undermining their positive attachments. So I really do think that that is a part of the bill that we would like to look at, to ensure that it’s as strength-based as possible in protecting our kids.

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. I too would like to thank the member, Ginny Andersen, for bringing this important bill to the House, because it’s an issue that needs attention and debate, and needs to be addressed. It is important because it’s about children. Because, due to their age, vulnerability, and the fact that they can’t defend themselves, that makes this bill very important—and the fact that they can’t tell right from wrong. Because of that, we all agree on this. No one can argue today: children spend more time online than anywhere else, more than the time that they spend with their families, and their parents, their siblings. Because of that, we often hear stories of predators grooming young children with the intention to harm them. The danger is real. Online spaces are where it’s, increasingly, becoming an area where these harms occur.

This bill is an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961. It inserts two offences that are designed to protect young people from online harm and also increase the penalty for meeting young people for following sexual grooming. These two inserted offences are: new section 126A, “Digital communication with young person under 16 with intent to mislead”, and new section 126B, “Digital communication with young person under 16 with intent to cause harm”. This bill will help address some of the issues in this space and to protect children from online harm.

As the popularity of online platforms increases, the incidence of harm, particularly towards young people, also increases. The study showed that about 19 percent of teens experience unwanted or unwarranted digital communication that had a negative impact on their lives. This is the most common. Also, 19 percent of young people surveyed said that they have been asked to share their nude photo or nude image of themselves. These are sobering numbers, and really, in fact, it’s scary.

All the changes that we are discussing today are designed to help ensure that our justice system can protect our young people from those who engage in acts online to harm them. This bill increases the potential sentence that a judge might give, at their discretion, for an offence against section 131B of the Crimes Act—that meeting young people with intent to harm or with intent to sexually groom is an offence.

Labour is committed to protecting children from these harms. I look forward to listening to what the public has to say in select committee. I’m not a member of the Justice Committee, but I’m looking forward to reading what the members or the public have to say. It’s also heart-warming to see that we are all coming together in support of this bill, because it’s such an important issue. An important issue because some of us don’t even have any children, but we strongly feel about this. Like they said before, it’s about our young people who can’t defend themselves, who can’t differentiate right from wrong. The Hon Simon Bridges, before me, made a comment that this is a national issue, it’s also an issue in the West. In fact, this is a global issue. It’s not exclusive to the West; it’s everywhere. And, sadly, people who go around with the intention to harm young people are everywhere. They’re just evil, and the evil is everywhere. Again, I’d like to affirm that Labour is committed 100 percent to protecting our children. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT and in support of the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member for introducing this bill—a bill that is well overdue. It’s a bill that is necessary, as previous speakers have mentioned, and based on Australian legislation, brought about by the tragic case of Carly Ryan, a 15-year-old Australian girl. It is legislation New Zealand needs. Children as young as eight here are being groomed online, and young people not even in their teens pressured through social media and other avenues to provide inappropriate photos. They’re often too naive or too young to understand that these photos just don’t go away, and once sent can become viral on the international market. New ways are evolving with online games, smartphones, and websites designed just to appeal to children. New Zealand media indicates that during lockdowns these incidents rose, with more people preying online.

I’ve been contacted by teachers and parents concerned about this scourge. It’s become increasingly difficult for parents and schools to monitor online behaviour. The online safety tips, they are great advice, but if we look at a couple of them: number one, become friends with your child in any social network environment they create. And another one: ensure that you can always have access to your child’s phone to help them stay safe. Very sensible recommendations but, as any parent would know, very difficult. And schools throughout the country are constantly battling with students and their devices. Technology is changing quickly and legislation must keep up. Police need the tools if they’re going to prosecute. As a police youth aid officer, I dealt with too many of these cases—that was a few years ago, and it’s getting worse.

There are some questions that need clarifying in the bill, which I’m sure will be dealt with at select committee. Why we’re not using similar wording used in section 131B of the Crimes Act 1961, which outlines more clearly the acts which are actually criminal. We’d like it to be more specific as to the ingredients required for the crime. Intent is the main ingredient and it must be specific when new section 126A has a 10-year jail term for intent to mislead. As Duncan Webb said earlier on, that should be a huge deterrent for any potential unintended consequences, which need to be examined with a real high degree of scrutiny. We support the increase in penalty and note that this offence could fit into the three strikes regime, another deterrent for repetitive abuse. The current definition of a serious, violent offence in the Crimes Act would fit inside this bill. I am interested in where 17-year-olds fit into this legislation, and I’m sure this will be fully explained throughout the select committee process as well.

So the bill is necessary. Things are getting worse. Statistics are really awful—quite shameful. Police need the tools to prosecute and we must protect our most vulnerable kids. Well done to the member and ACT supports this bill at first reading. Thank you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. A real pleasure to stand and talk to this Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. I, firstly, want to acknowledge the member Ginny Andersen for another important bill being drawn out of the ballot again—also feeling a little bit like, “Hey, my turn next.” Nevertheless, I’m delighted that this bill has been pulled out of the ballot. This is a really thoughtful bill, I think, and as the member Ginny Andersen has said, there is some work to do in regards to this bill to firm up and perhaps look at the penalties etc. and comments that have been made from all members in this House have been very thoughtful and, I think, very useful.

One of the things that I particularly like about this piece of legislation is the carve-out, I guess we could call it, in regards to police being able to perform a duty in order to capture, perhaps, this grooming behaviour online. The member Dr Duncan Webb spoke about this and I certainly think that his points were particularly useful in this area. I think we also need to be very careful when we talk about these kinds of circumstances that we are very clear that this is harmful activity and getting away with it is something that has often occurred. So these sting operations that the police operate under are often as a result of many months of work and clear evidence.

I would just like to talk a little bit about the service in my community Tautoko Mai, which is a really great service that looks after the people who are victims, survivors of sexual violence etc. Now, the reason I want to raise this is to acknowledge a recent—well, somewhat recent—conference that I attended in Hamilton that Tautoko Mai put on. At this conference there was a speaker there that talked to us about digital harm and children and young people. Now, my children are older and so technology was probably not as available—they’re in their late 20s now. So I was flabbergasted to discover that there are all sorts of things that groom children and basically trick children into being harmed online; for example, something called porn parody, which is pornography which looks like—the example that we were given that was quite shocking to me was The Lego Movie. There’s a little statement on this item that you can click on that says, “This is porn parody.”, but actually if you were a child, you were just going into look at The Lego Movie, you’d click on that and you would see pornography—quite insidious, quite worrisome that these are the kinds of things that are happening in our online situation.

I’d also like to acknowledge this Netsafe report done alongside the Ministry for Women. I was quite dismayed to look at some of the statistics that they talk about. And I do recommend, if people have a chance, going to this NZ Teens and Digital Harm Report and having a good read of it. One of the things that I thought was particularly interesting was how young people dealt with the abuse, and I want to just acknowledge and perhaps ask the member, when the select committee is looking at this bill, to look at the responses for young people and to make sure that they don’t become responsible for dealing with these situations. A lot of these young people blocked the information, changed their username etc. I commend the bill.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a pleasure it is to talk to a bill, the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill, from a person who I’ve known for many years, and that’s the member for Hutt South, Ginny Andersen. I worked with her in the New Zealand Police, when we were there, and can I just say that she has an outstanding understanding of the justice sector, and the role she has in the chair is well deserved.

I’m thinking, as people speak and talk about this piece of work, that they reflect on the importance of children. Many of us have children, and no doubt all of us are thinking, “Aha! What does this mean?” I know, when I see my little six-year-old and his command of the iPad, it does make me worry. At the moment, I can see this game called Minecraft. I think it looks safe; I’m not too sure.

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s awesome.

PAUL EAGLE: The member for Christchurch Central says, “Awesome.” So it must be safe and good! But I’m not too sure, and I guess that’s the point: as a six-year-old like that can take such a command. These things just weren’t invented in our young age. And I heard someone talk about their perception of what someone looks like, and I was thinking, “Jeepers, it’s more and more looking like me!” But can I reassure you it’s not! I think that was the Green member. But what the Green member was saying was that it could really be anyone, and that’s the point here: that we’ve got children who have now a much better command of these things, probably better than their parents, but it’s an everyday part of their life. And even just going through this latest COVID response, our online learning and their further command and understanding of all things digital just increases. And I guess there’s a responsibility—I always think there’s a responsibility there to take the time to understand these things.

And I was talking to the electorate office secretary, or whatever they’re called now, Brian Dawson there in Newtown, and I was saying to him, “Look, I’m going to be speaking on this. What issues have we had?” And we were recounting a person in Hataitai, someone locally, who was quite astonished that there was this exchange of photos, just done on an iPhone, back and forward, and the worst thing is that their son and the parent of the daughter who came to the house and had this conversation didn’t think there was anything wrong at that time. But, actually, when they started working through it and then talking about the wider consequences, they realised that a whole lot could go wrong. I believe this bill, an important member’s bill, will certainly help in those conversations. And we have had quite some.

I know, when I talk to the principals—I’ve got seven secondary schools in the electorate. It’s a small electorate, geography wise, I do get out and talk to them, and I will talk about this. So, the member for Hutt South, when it goes back to the select committee, I will encourage them to make submissions, to talk to their leaders and to their technical and digital people on campus and say, “Look, here’s an opportunity to get this right.” And I believe there’s a lot more out there than what is being said. I think it brings deep shame on people when they find out something is going on, or they don’t quite know how to manage it. I think it’s a lot deeper, and some of my colleagues have actually hinted at that, saying, “Look, we just don’t know.” And there’s a survey there that’s been indicated, between Netsafe and the Ministry for Women, for example, that talks about the experiences of teenagers, and, in fact, seven out of 10 experience some sort of unwanted digital communication.

So that’s what the survey tells us. I believe it’s a lot more, and, I think, once this has the opportunity to get some air and for people to unpick it, the select committee will do a good job. And they will be busy because this will expose some of the things that I believe are hidden there, and this will do a good, decent job. So I commend this bill to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill through to select committee. I’ll start by congratulating Ginny Andersen on having this bill drawn and debated tonight in the House. It looks like consensus, at least supporting it through to select committee, from all parties, so well done.

This bill amends the Crimes Act, as we’ve heard, to provide for new offences relating to persons 18 years or older using electronic communications, such as social media platforms—which are increasingly used by people of all ages—to harm persons under 16, and it increases penalties for all those offences relating to sexual grooming of children online. Certainly, this is a growing issue, as most of the world now spends a lot of their time online, and certainly children spend a huge amount of time online these days, in various formats, and certainly their parents don’t always know what they’re up to online either. But there is an important issue here in that there are people who seek to contact young people with ill intent, and there needs to be some protection for those young people, and to send a clear message to those who have nefarious purposes in mind that there will be very serious consequences for them if they try to groom young people.

So this is a good step in sending that clear message to people who have the wrong intention. There are, of course, some issues that will no doubt need to be addressed. There’s always unforeseen consequences with every piece of legislation, and if there are any of those, I’m sure we’ll hear about those in the select committee. But on first reading, this looks like a well-thought-out piece of law.

I note that Crown Law, via the Attorney-General, has had a look at this. The first concern for anyone when there’s a potential restriction on communications is whether it will be consistent or inconsistent with the section 14 right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for freedom of expression. I note that the Attorney-General has said that any “enactment that criminalises communication will cause a prima facie inconsistency with s 14 of the [New Zealand] Bill of Rights … However, restricting the use of a digital communication in the manner proposed is a demonstrably justified limit on that freedom. [And] The purpose … is to ensure that vulnerable minors are not misled in their digital communications as to a person’s age or identity, such that it may lead to meeting with or a plan to meet with that person.” That certainly will be of concern to all right-thinking members of the community, that there are people who wish to communicate with a young person with an intention to meet with them. If someone who is an adult is intending to meet with a person under the age of 16, that is something that needs to be very strongly discouraged, which this bill certainly does.

I note that the Attorney-General has gone on to say that the “proposed restrictions on the right to freedom of expression are rationally connected with the broad objective expressed in the Explanatory note to the Bill, which is to address the incidences of harm experienced by young people in online platforms and to protect young people from harm online.” It’s to stop young people from receiving unwanted digital communications, and young people can be harmed by receiving unwanted digital communications, which causes a negative impact on their real-time activities, such as being contacted online by a stranger or being asked to share a nude or nearly nude image of themselves. This is something that—and Parliament wants to send a very clear signal to the community—will not be tolerated and will result in very serious consequences for anyone who inappropriately engages online.

This is a good bill on first reading. Look forward to seeing its progression through to select committee, and I commend it to the House.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Mr Speaker, it’s such a pleasure to stand and support this bill and to congratulate my colleague Ginny Andersen on bringing an elegant, simple, and perfectly formed bill before the House—one that actually addresses something quite significant. You know, our teens—and I’m the mum of four and auntie to a further 14 kids between the ages of two and 21 and the entire range of 19 grandchildren—they are so skilled. They outpace us so fast when it comes to digital technology. Who would have realised that such a range of lovely images of healthful fruit and vegetables apparently are not innocent in their expression. Who would have realised that Netflix, and that Minecraft with its zombies and killing of chickens, is out there. It masquerades as such a simple thing. Our children tell us that, no, no, they’re definitely not using the “kill” function on Minecraft, but they are because children are children—I’m just warning Mr Eagle here. I’m warning them because kids are the way they always have been: they outpace us on the technology, they wrap us round their little fingers, and they run in circles around our aged legs.

This bill addresses a really important aspect of that because while they are so darn clever, they are also just as naive and helpless and trusting as we were when we were kids. The romanticism and the hope in a young person, that they’ve met that special someone online or that they’ve struck up a deep and meaningful friendship or even just a nice chat with a nice person of their own age—they are so vulnerable. For all that they are clever and slick with the killing of the chickens and the goat murdering that goes on in that terrible Minecraft server, they are also still the naive young kids that we were when we were their age and they need that protection that this bill will give them.

Grooming is no joke. As a prosecutor and as a lawyer in the old days before I got this job a year ago, the reality of grooming of children for abuse is something that I had to deal with on a reasonably regular basis and it is very, very hard to recognise for the child concerned because it hits all those bases. It seems like friendship, it seems like affection, and it crosses those boundaries so carefully, and it is so blooming effective. Once it sets in, once the kid realises what’s really going on, the shame and the pain that it brings to them is so difficult to treat. This is just another medium whereby the unfortunate predators that we do have in our society can target our kids—kids who unfortunately are smarter than their parents when it comes to the Minecraft and all those other things—there’s something called Reddit, I understand, as well. They are smarter than us, they are better at these things than us, but we cannot as adults forget that, inside, they’re still the little wee people that we actually do understand as much as we do not understand the internet.

So I am delighted to see this bill. One of the interesting things that’s been quoted by some of our colleagues tonight is the studies that point to the incidence of targeting of our young people. It is really useful to have that data and to have that hard empirical evidence of the importance of this bill. That seven in 10 young teens are getting unwanted advances over the internet is something that should really worry us all. In the course of working on the harmful digital communications legislation, which can be seen as a kind of sister bill to this in some ways, we also heard about the prevalence of revenge porn when these things go wrong. Our kids are so vulnerable. I am so delighted that my colleague Ginny Andersen has seen fit to bring this bill forward because it is going to put a really important tool in our hands.

So in my final words on this matter—to my children, I know you’re watching, I know you’re using Minecraft on the killer mode. I am wise to you. Occasionally, mother really does know best and Auntie Ginny on this occasion has really got it nailed. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ginny Andersen in reply.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): How can I outdo that fantastic speech from the wonderful Dr Emily Henderson? Look, to wrap things up tonight, I’d like to give thanks to all members for their well-thought-through and well-delivered speeches tonight. It’s really heartening to have support from all the different parties represented in this House to take my bill to select committee. No members’ bill is ever perfect—well, some might be, but I acknowledge that there are parts of this that will need further work, potentially from advice that we receive through the submissions process, and also from advice that we may well receive from officials. I welcome that to strengthen the bill where it needs to be and to make sure it accurately reflects and works well with other elements of existing law and other policies in place that work towards protecting New Zealand’s children.

As a mum, I think of my children, and nothing strikes fear into my heart more than the thought of them coming to harm. I guess that’s the motivating factor, really, for me bringing this bill to the House, it is as a parent who wants my children to have full access to the knowledge and the availability of information and the wonderful opportunities for learning that the internet and this world hold, but at the same time I want to protect them from those who set out to do them harm by masquerading on the internet. So I look forward to taking this bill to the next stage and hearing the expert advice from those who come before us.

I’d like to close by acknowledging, first of all, New Zealand Police, who continue to do a fantastic job in this space, which is an incredibly difficult one to work at, whether you’re working with families who have been impacted from instances of online grooming or grooming in general, to those who have to work towards putting the case together and prosecuting, which can take hours upon hours that result in an unsuccessful outcome sometimes. A lot of hard work goes into making New Zealand as safe as possible.

I’d like to acknowledge all the parents. We’ve heard tonight so many accounts of the ongoing struggles that parents have on a daily basis with monitoring how much online activity children do, and how we make sure that they continue to keep themselves safe while learning and engaging on online platforms. Acknowledging that that is a heavy weight to bear as a parent and that continuing to communicate with our children and understanding what they’re doing each day is a good step in the right direction.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge young people in New Zealand—those young people that are growing up in an ever-changing world, whether that be through COVID19 or the internet and its way of expressing ourselves online. Unfortunately, one of the outcomes from COVID-19 has meant that, more than ever, we rely upon the internet for communication, and therefore we should remain as vigilant as ever to make sure we protect how our young people are engaging with each other and others within the community, and even in other countries. This bill provides further protection for our children in New Zealand, and it does it under New Zealand law. It sends a very clear message that an adult impersonating a child with the intent of meeting someone is not acceptable, and I look forward to taking this bill further to see that we can make it into law. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill

First Reading

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) on behalf of Louisa Wall: I move, That the Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

It is a privilege to stand again in this House tonight and to be able to bring the Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill to the House for its consideration at this first reading, and to do this on behalf of my colleague and friend Louisa Wall. I know that she has worked tirelessly on both developing the bill itself as well as building some support for it, and the bill being here today really is a testimony to her dedication and passion to make New Zealand a better place and a clear commitment on this issue in terms of the integrity of the fourth estate being protected. It’s sad that Louisa isn’t able to be here due to our current levels within New Zealand due to COVID-19. Can I just say that Louisa Wall may well go down in parliamentary history as one of the luckiest MPs ever with the members’ ballot. She’s been blessed with many bills, and this is just one of them. I’ll do my best, Lou, to channel you tonight.

I also know that she engaged with some experts in order to understand the issues that are at the heart of this bill. Included in those were John Edwards and Gavin Ellis, and she would like to thank them for their input to where this bill has got today.

In bringing this bill to the House today, also, gratitude needs to be given—the former member, and my former caucus colleague, the Hon Clare Curran has also had a key role in this bill being developed and reaching this current stage. She in fact developed the first draft of this bill when she was an MP, in consultation with a number of experts on the topic, on our country’s civil society. I do remember, too, being on the Justice Committee with Clare when this issue arose during the inquiry to the last general election.

At its core, this bill speaks to liberal democratic—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, we were going to support it!

GINNY ANDERSEN: —pay attention—recognised in the international law as a key principle underpinning press freedom. Journalists rely on source protection to gather and reveal information in the public interest from confidential sources. These sources may require to be anonymous, and that is important—so meaning that they can be protected from physical, economic, or professional reprisals in response to their revelations. On the fourth estate, to function effectively and to play out its role how it needs to, it is vital that our laws protect journalistic privilege to censure, to make sure that our press have the ability to function and to report freely without being impeded—also, sometimes critically, without the fear of or the threat of reprisal.

An important area of this law specifically is how it functions in the case of police. When a journalist’s premises or property are subject to a police search, protecting the identity of those sources must be a primary concern. As it stands, although New Zealand law currently references the importance of respecting journalistic privilege in the case of police searches, it contains a gap as to how this important protection is actually guaranteed. Although the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 identifies the existence of journalistic privilege, with particular reference to the protections laid out in the Evidence Act 2006, it contains no clear description as to the processes that should be followed when this issue of privilege arises.

This was a clear problem in the case of the police’s search of journalist Nicky Hager’s home and property in 2014, and this particular instance is the underlying driver of this bill in its design. According to the Independent Police Conduct Authority report on this situation, police policy at the time did not adequately set out the procedure officers needed to follow when applying for a search warrant or executing a search in relation to potentially privileged material. This combined with the lack of experience at the time in such matters, on the part of those officers involved, and the lack of legislative clarity to cause an “unwitting neglect of duty”, as quoted. The specific purpose of this bill is to clarify and strengthen this area of our law to make sure that this scenario does not happen again. This bill clearly addresses the existing gap in the law and the specific issues highlighted within the Hager case by reinforcing the Evidence Act and the Search and Surveillance Act in recognition of journalists’ duty to protect their sources from disclosure.

In the core of this bill are changes to the Search and Surveillance Act. As I’ve already mentioned, this bill was first developed by the Hon Clare Curran, and this section has largely been inherited from her previous work. The amendments in this part of the bill enshrine in law specific protections that will help ensure that journalistic privilege is upheld when police seek to use the powers contained within the Search and Surveillance Act to conduct searches or to obtain production orders. Broadly speaking, the changes addressed here are in three core issues that arose during the Hager case, and they were based on the former honourable member’s engagement with some of those involved, including Mr Hager himself as well as the legal and academic minds of those such as Steven Price, Felix Geiringer, Bruce Gray QC, and also Dr Peter Thompson.

For example, the changes will address the issues of disclosure for the judge or issuing officer when there is a target of a search warrant or production orders who is actually a journalist. The bill does this by clarifying that police must identify as part of their applications if they believe they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person is targeted as a journalist. Responding to one of the key issues in the Hager case, this removes any potential lack of clarity from the situation, and, also, it ensures the right to have this privilege protected by the courts when an application is made or enshrined in law.

Additionally, the bill’s amendments outline that there are some additional steps that must be taken when dealing with journalistic privilege in the case of search warrants or production orders. This means that in future cases, officers dealing with someone they think is a journalist have some clear guidance to follow as the minimum things that they need to do in order to protect journalistic privilege. This will help prevent scenarios such as those that arose in the Hager case from happening again. These changes were put into the bill more recently after the Hon Clare Curran passed the bill on to Louisa Wall and are intended to address the issues that have arisen as the definition of “journalist” for the purposes of evidence and police services.

In sum, this bill deals with issues that go right to the heart of the role of the media and journalism in our liberal democratic society. As I’ve outlined, it is vitally important that our laws adequately protect journalistic privilege to ensure that journalists, especially investigative journalists, can do their jobs. I am very pleased that this bill has the opportunity to be considered not only by this House but also by the Justice Committee. I know that this bill touches on some technical elements of the operation of law enforcement in New Zealand, and I look forward to hearing from the relevant departments and the public at select committee in regards to any improvements that can be made on this bill. On behalf of my parliamentary colleague and my dear friend Louisa Wall, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I was just reflecting, as the member was speaking—in a sense, for Louisa Wall—that any member of Parliament who’s been around a little while will have on occasion a sense of ambivalence around journalists. You know, we will from time to time have stories we think are somewhat unfair or don’t quite characterise things in quite the way they perhaps could. But, of course, the role of a journalist in bringing forward the truth, investigating significant matters, and holding the powerful to account is incredibly important and is, as Ginny Andersen said, an integral part of a liberal democratic society like New Zealand’s. Actually, it’s even more important, I would argue, in many other countries where they don’t have our democratic tradition.

But the point to make is simply that, yep, what members of Parliament do is significant and what journalists do is also significant. All it’s just reflecting, of course, is that members of Parliament in this House, we have privileges. We have the privilege, not recklessly or wantonly, but to speak truth to power and say things in this House without fear of defamation proceedings, for example. And that’s because of the importance of being able to speak out from time to time, and, really, just to say it again, the same is true for journalists. There’ll be times where they also should have privileges so that they can do their job fearlessly, not recklessly but fearlessly, and hold power to account and speak truth to power.

I’d just reflect, while I’m speaking generally about journalists, that of course we know, whenever we watch international news or read international newspapers, about the prosecutions, persecutions, in some cases deaths that befall journalists for doing their jobs. That of course is awful. We condemn it, and we stand up in favour of freedom for journalists to go about their significant jobs and play the significant part they play in societies around the world.

National’s going to support this bill at first reading. As with every member’s bill today, its intentions are good and there does seem to be a sense of a legislative gap here—as presented in the bill and its explanatory note—that’s right to fill. It does seem, is what I’m saying, that it’s right to fill the legislative gap that is done so by this bill.

The bill does, I think, two or three things. It amends the definition of a journalist in the Evidence Act so that it explicitly includes investigative journalists based on the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization—that is, UNESCO’s—position that investigative journalism crucially contributes to freedom of expression and media development. It also addresses questions that have arisen from a court decision by Justice Winkelmann, Chief Justice, by clarifying that books written by investigative journalists are covered by journalistic privilege, not just the media articles that journalists write. And, thirdly, it amends the Search and Surveillance Act to ensure that journalists’ sources are clearly protected in relation to production orders and police searches. It inserts clear requirements on police in these circumstances to ensure that protections are understood and upheld.

National will be interested in the submissions. On a bill like this, one would expect there to be some very interesting submissions from the Press Gallery, from various other journalistic entities and organisations, individual journalists, and also just the wider civil society that come along and give a view. I don’t think that all those submissions will speak as one. I think there will be different views, or shades, at least, of views presented.

So, in sum, National supports this bill at first reading. I do, though, just want to make mention of one caveat that National has. It’s questionable, and I think some of my colleagues would say it’s doubtful, that journalistic privilege should apply where the material in question is obtained by a crime. That may be the case in relation to a theft. I’m interested in the arguments we might hear at select committee, but it does seem to me that that’s a reasonably common-sense position that I’m taking. The bill doesn’t have an exemption or a carve-out in that instance and I think that would be an important thing in this bill and potentially important to secure National’s continued support for the bill.

I note that other privileges of all manner, when it comes to the evidence and search and surveillance and other criminal or associated laws, they often also have carve-outs. When we think of the privilege from defamation proceedings in this House—that has been whittled away at, over the years. There have been new aspects to that made. When I think of—and it’s been some time, I accept, since I’ve looked at these areas, but if I look at the priest confessor confessional situation, that’s not absolute. There are other areas where the privileges are—

Dr Duncan Webb: Husband and wife.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Husband and wife; that’s exactly right. You’re taking me back to law school, Dr Webb; it’s been a while. I don’t think any of those issues were ever once, in my several years as a prosecutor, actual, live cases. I doubt whether I ever had a priest telling me that they weren’t going to—actually, possibly in the cases of spouses, I must say. But anyway, I digress. So I’m simply making the point that we do think, actually, there probably is a caveat here that should apply in relation to this well-intentioned law.

I’d also just make the point more generally on this area of law that, look, the journalistic privilege was last strengthened by the last National-led Government in 2012—in fact, by the Hon Judith Collins as justice Minister—and that was through the 2012 search and surveillance law. And I would note, in relation to that, whilst I have said that I tend to accept there’s a gap here that this bill could profitably fill, that the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice both did say in 2017 that actually this area of law, after they’d reviewed it, was working generally pretty well.

I simply say that because I wouldn’t want to be standing here or give the impression that somehow I think we’re in a terrible position, that there’s urgent need for reform and that what has been and what continues to be the law today in this area of journalistic privilege is somehow incredibly short and unjust. I don’t think that. I think what is true, though, is there is a legislative gap we can fill, and that’s why we’re supporting this bill at first reading, because the rights of journalists and the ability for journalists to do their job fearfully—fearlessly, I should say—is critically important. With those comments I conclude my remarks.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): It’s a real pleasure to rise in support of this very important bill, and with my colleague Ginny, I say to our colleague Louisa—or as we now know her, “Lucky Lou”—this is a wonderful piece of legislation, and I’m just so delighted to be able to rise and speak in its favour.

You know, I had a wee look at the Law Commission’s recent report, report 128, where they say “Alongside these obligations to provide the public with reliable and accessible sources of information, the press was also charged with being the public’s ‘eyes and ears’ and, most critically, using their privileged access to provide an independent watch-dog on the exercise of state and other seats of power.” What a crucial role.

In an earlier speech to this House I invoked my children. For this one I want to invoke my dad. My dad was a defence counsel when I was a young child. He always impressed on us the importance of the criminal court as a way in which you hold the feet of the powerful to the fire and you test in the rights of the vulnerable. This fourth estate does exactly the same thing. It was also Dad who gave me books by brilliant investigative journalists like David Yallop, who wrote reasonable doubt, the Arthur Allan Thomas investigation. Who gave me—

Hon Member: That’s a great one.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: It is. Who gave me Donald Woods’ book on Steve Biko, which first gave me that sense of how a State could stray from the path of democracy and how journalists play a vital part in hauling us back and keeping us to the standards of morality. Of course he gave me the great Woodward and Bernstein’s amazing piece of investigative journalism. It is that sort of work that we are protecting today.

However, I do note Oscar Wilde said, “In the old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad”. I have to disagree with the great Oscar. The importance of investigative journalism, the importance of them in holding our feet to the fire, putting us on the rack, cannot be overestimated.

The situation we had with the extraordinary and wonderful Nicky Hager back in 2014 proves that we have a hole in our law and we need to fill it. It is Louisa Wall who has stepped in to make this piece of legislation come to fruition, or at least start to flower perhaps, to use a spring metaphor since that’s where we are.

In the era of social media rumours, falsehoods, in the era of super spin, in the era of alternate facts, in an era where we saw one of the world’s great democracies coming quite close to a kind of ersatz coup, so very recently, the importance of strong journalism, the importance of a free press who are able to get down and do the work and protect their sources in order to be able to do the work—the way in which they, in some ways, work with whistleblowers to become themselves whistleblowers—could not be more important to us.

So I am very, very grateful to have the opportunity as a member of Government to promote the freedom of press. I am very, very grateful to have a moment to celebrate the work of investigative journalists like Nicky Hager, like Donald Woods, like David Yallop, even like Woodward and Bernstein. It is a wonderful moment to be a fangirl of investigative journalists, and I most sincerely am a fangirl of this piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Fakaalofa lahi atu, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to congratulate the member Louisa Wall for pulling another one out of the hat, out of the jar. The luckiest member in history. I’m not a gambling person, but maybe if that member got a Lotto ticket, she’d be a winner. And also, probably, there’s, at least with the class of 2020, the second-luckiest member at pulling out another bill, Ginny Andersen.

We’re going to support this bill. It makes sense, the Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill. Our vision for the media is to make sure that we have a strong, diverse, accessible, and independent media, which is essential to effective democracy and to Aotearoa New Zealand’s social, cultural, economic, and environmental wellbeing. This bill will make two changes to improve the protections for journalists’ sources, to address the issues of the type that arose from the search of Nicky Hager’s house. One, amend the definition of “journalists” in the Evidence Act 2006 so that it explicitly includes investigative journalists. Two, clarify that books written by investigative journalists are covered by journalistic privilege, i.e., not just media articles. And, three, amend the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 to provide explicit protections for journalists’ sources when applying for a production order or applying for a search warrant or exercising a search warrant.

The issues arose out of this from the investigative journalist work of Nicky Hager. He’s written books, and I’m pretty sure some of us have read those books, around the House, such as Other People’s Wars, Hit and Run, and, of course, Dirty Politics. I wasn’t in Parliament then, but I do remember reading that book, Dirty Politics, and there was an all-star cast in that one. There’s an all-star cast with a bit of a legacy, maybe there’s a bit of a trilogy, and there may be a bit of a residue.

In December 2015, the then Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei complained to the authority, the Independent Police Conduct Authority, about the police’s search of Mr Hager’s property. She asked the authority to investigate a couple of things: whether there was any misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of police, the police’s decision not to disclose in their warrant applications of journalistic privilege issue, and the actions of officers who were involved in the decision-making process regarding the application of the warrant. It’s been referred to a couple of times tonight that the judgment—I mean, basically, they got told off. They got put in the naughty box. One of the findings that the authority had was, when interviewing the officers involved in drafting and executing the search warrant, the authority found that they had no experience in dealing with the journalistic privilege issues. So this is going to help clear it out, because sometimes with the cops you’ve got to really, really spell it out that, actually, you need to apply the law evenly: to the powerful as well as they do with the powerless. Sometimes you’ve got to spell it out, and this is what this will do.

Because we are living in the world of massive media companies like Facebook—and just last week we had a lot of articles around the whistleblower at Facebook; and Facebook is a $1 trillion company. And so we need to be able to protect those journalists. The type of power that those new social media companies—it should be something that we all worry about as well, because in many ways we’re all kind of prisoners of their algorithm. I mean, you don’t get on the news unless you say something outrageous. The journalists are kind of trapped into it as well: in order for them to reach their audiences, they’ve got to make sure that what they write is engaging on Facebook, engaging on Twitter, and all that kind of thing. In order for us to get our messages out to people, we’ve got to make sure that we do things that are engaging for them as well. So at the foundation of this is the question of power—the foundation of this is the question of power.

I look forward to the submissions that will come in to the select committee. I think there’s a lot of issues that could be teased out, because this is one example of, yes, we need to spell it out so they know what they’re doing when they’re going to people’s houses, what journalistic privilege actually looks like. But then there are actually all these underlying power issues that we need to spell out, in a whole lot of other circumstances, so that when the law is applied, the police can recognise where and when they should be applying it across the board, with the powerful but also with the powerless as well. So in that vein, we support this bill.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I think it was Julius Caesar who said, “I love treason but despise a traitor.” And, while it may not be directly related to journalism, I think the basis of this discussion—the basis of this case—is often about how people regard the information for which the issue is being discussed. I look at some of the most recent cases: the Pandora Papers, the Panama Papers; some of the more recent whistle-blowers: Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning—even going back as far as Watergate, which someone had alluded to before. And, in each of these cases, your views on the information obtained by the particular person will often be coloured by your views on what the effect is of the information that’s obtained. And so we go back to the genesis of this bill.

The genesis of this bill, of course, as mentioned by the previous speaker, Teanau Tuiono, was a raid—a search warrant in fact—executed on Nicky Hager in order to obtain information about the theft of emails. And that was, essentially, what was being investigated. What police were looking for was evidence of an offence, of theft—somewhat clumsily, as it turns out, if you look at the High Court judgment—and, to be fair to them, operating in an area which lacked clarity both in police operations and in the law. Ironically, if you do look at the judgment or look at the articles afterwards, what the police did miss when they were actually searching that premises was actually evidence of Edward Snowden’s papers, which were, evidently, at the address at the time. But, of course, that wasn’t what the Police were there for; they were looking for evidence of stolen emails.

So it goes back to your views on these matters will often be coloured by your views on the outcome. And so that’s why this bill is important. Even if you go looking for a definition of “journalist”, if you go to the Cambridge dictionary, they’ll say “A person who writes news stories or articles or broadcasts them on radio and television.” And that’s a relatively contemporary definition. It doesn’t mention anything about social media. It doesn’t mention anything about electronic media, which, of course, most of the information which is going to be disclosed, available, is now in an electronic form. Even the Webster dictionary defines it, a person engaged in journalism, as a writer who aims at a mass audience. Perhaps that’s just a little more accurate today, but, again, just looking for a definition of who is a journalist, which is, again, at the genesis of this bill.

So what this bill, of course, does is it ensures that, when police or any other authorities are looking for a search warrant, that they’re going to be conducting the search warrant, they must indicate that the subject of the search warrant, or the person whose address—or probably more likely their electronic devices are going to be searched—is actually a journalist and the investigation is a part of that journalist’s or part of that profession. And it certainly, at the same time, does expand just what a journalist is beyond those definitions which I gave. And that is important, because I go back to those various individuals I mentioned, the writer of the Dirty Politics book. These were certainly not written by people who were acting as journalists necessarily at the time. So what this bill will do is extend the protections available to those people—extend the protections available—and, more importantly, will give those conducting the investigation much better clarity about when they are on safe legal ground and when they’re not. And that alone should ensure, and I hope it will ensure, that, in future, information which does end up in the public will do so under much better guidelines. So I commend this bill to the House.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill for the first reading. I think that what the member in charge—I think it’s Louisa Wall—has brought is an interesting question. If we agree that journalists should have a protection of their sources in order that they can bring to light information that those in power would rather be kept secret, they must sometimes have to be able to defend their sources legally, or protect their sources. If they can’t, people may be less willing to give them information, and terrible scandals and abuses of power may go unreported, fester, and gradually corrupt this society. All of that makes perfect sense, that there should be some immunity—or as they call it in the law, “privilege”—for journalists to protect their sources.

What this piece of legislation does is widens the definition of who a journalist should be. And I have to say, the ACT Party is not entirely sold on whether that is a necessary or desirable thing. We certainly understand that the particular party that brought it forward—and the particular MP, who, it has to be said, has a chequered track record of producing legislation—has been very influenced by one particular person, and it’s not always a good idea to make a law because one particular person has influenced you, or to have a law written that almost seems to have been written for a particular person. Of course that person in question is Nicky Hager.

What the bill would do is say that if a person writes books that are original and reveal information that might not otherwise be revealed, then they should be given the protections, under the Evidence Act, of not having to reveal their sources in court; they should be given the protections, under the Search and Surveillance Act, that the Government—or at least any agent of the Government—seeking a warrant or issuing a warrant or searching or surveilling somebody should exercise the kind of caution they would exercise towards a journalist.

The question is, should somebody who writes books be included in that? I think there’s a few people who might say that if you wrote books, for example, with material that could only have come from a burglary, material that it turned out was stolen, and if you had some form at writing such books, then some people might ask, “Well, perhaps that person should be subject to the full force of the law.” Perhaps actually committing crimes to pry into people’s privacy is not something that could be included in journalism. And if the purpose of this particular bill is really to protect one person who’s an outlier, maybe it’s not so noble at all. That’s what we want to see tested at the select committee. We think that the freedoms of a free press are important enough to warrant putting through, but we have some real questions over whether this bill does it.

I found it rather amusing earlier, in the speeches by some of the Labour members—it was extraordinary—I heard the member from Whangārei, Dr Emily Henderson, in her Whangārei accent waxing lyrical about the ancient freedoms and the God-given rights that we should all have. Well, let’s just get a bit of perspective here. This is a Government which, at present, is rushing through—under urgency—legislation that retrospectively changes commercial contracts, going somewhere that no Government of either stripe in this Parliament has ever gone before. This is a Government that got into a spat, and I don’t mean that to be a pun, but a spat with a saliva-testing provider and is now producing legislation that says if you don’t sell it to us we’ll just come and take it. This is the Labour Party of high virtue that is trying to uphold the rule of law, and actually passes retrospective legislation—under urgency—that tries to take people’s property if they won’t sell it to them at a price they deserve. But when Nicky Hager writes a book and gets shaken down, they rush legislation into this House to try and uphold those high and mighty values.

This deserves to go into the select committee because journalistic freedom is worthy of upholding, but there’s some serious questions about whether that’s really what this is about from this Labour Party. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Just on that particular point of legislation, the people of Nelson love the commercial lease legislation, and I—

David Seymour: One-termer. You’ll be a one-termer.

RACHEL BOYACK: Well, just in response to the previous member, David Seymour, they do—they do. We’ve had many, many people in the retail and accommodation sectors struggling, small businesses struggling to pay their rent. These are businesses that are going to not survive. So by introducing that legislation, Mr Seymour—thank you for raising it tonight, it’s always good to talk about what we’re doing to support small business.

But, on the point of this legislation that’s introduced tonight, the Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill, it’s a wonderful night in Parliament when we can all speak almost in unison about the importance of journalism and that the House tonight is actually here tonight to stand up for the role that journalism plays in our society. I want to acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall, and former MP Clare Curran, who was the driving force behind this bill.

Look, journalists play an incredibly important role around our world, and recently, some members from across this House met with a group of journalists based in Myanmar about some of the struggles that they are facing as journalists to be able to put stories into the public domain about what is being faced in Myanmar. Recently we’ve also seen journalists on the front line in Afghanistan playing a critical role ensuring that the world sees what’s happening with the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan.

Journalists are good people. I have many friends who are journalists. They are very good people. They often go—“yes, yes, yes”, like the member opposite, and I hope we get to hear from her tonight. Journalists are good people. I have many friends who went into journalism wanting to do good, wanting to tell stories, wanting to help shape the narrative in the public that does good. I have a family member who is a journalist; my uncle is a journalist and known to a few people in this House. He’s my Uncle Nick, who writes for the Dominion Post—doesn’t write about me, thankfully. He could tell stories—well, he could tell a story—I’ll tell this story. He could tell a story about the time he convinced me to tell my primary school colleagues that he was a genius, which I dutifully did.

But, just getting onto the point about investigative journalism, my uncle, before he became a journalist, wrote books. He wrote books about the memories and experiences of our World War I veterans—fantastic books. While he didn’t need to protect the people he was writing about—they willingly told their stories—there are many people who do wish to tell their stories, often anonymously. One of the things that I’ve seen as an advocate over many years is people often wishing to speak truth to power, to tell their story in a way that gets the story out there but without putting them at risk. Often it’s been tenants wanting to put stories into the public domain about landlords, about difficulties they’ve had in their personal lives. I’m really, really grateful—one of the things I’m really, really grateful for is to the journalists that I’ve worked with who have actually been willing to tell those stories anonymously; make sure they were put out accurately but protected that person.

So there are two critical things that this bill does. The first is that it does expand the definition of journalist as we see it to include investigative journalism. But the other important element is that it does put clearer requirements on the police around how searches are conducted. So this bill is an important one for the House to look at. It’s important for the select committee to look at it and look at what improvements can be made. I look forward to its continued progression through the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just in speaking to this bill, I’d just like to acknowledge the significant role that both Clare Curran and Louisa Wall have had in bringing this to the House. I think like all of us in this job, we rely on the media to keep us up to date. In most situations, it’s quite clear where the sources of their information are coming from. So just thinking through the COVID-19 update at 1 p.m. in our local newspaper, the public views on certain things like a bridge that’s starting to fail or even a debate about where the sewage pond should go, it’s usually quite clear who’s saying what and how. You’ve got videos, you’ve often got press releases, you’ve got photos, and you’ve often got attributed quotes.

And so for most of the sort of things that we deal with day to day, it’s quite clear what’s happening. But there’s another range of stories where it’s actually a bit more sensitive, I think, for stories like where, potentially, someone’s investigating potentially a corrupt official, or those other kind of stories where, basically, journalists, often what they’re doing is they’re putting together pieces of information from a variety of different sources, and they’re trying to corroborate that. And often people will only step forward and disclose information with a clear understanding that they’re going to be able to do so anonymously, because often there’s a power imbalance and there’s a real fear of repercussions. I think many countries, including New Zealand, actually acknowledge and recognise this, and they do afford journalists some particular protections. And I think that’s because there’s the understanding that many things are in the public interest, but they wouldn’t be coming forward and being brought forward to the media unless those protections were available.

And I look at New Zealand and its own Evidence Act and I think it’s quite clear, just reading out some of the legislation there. It says, “If a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose the informant’s identity, neither the journalist nor [the] employer is compellable in a civil or criminal proceeding to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable that identity to be discovered.” I think that’s a really important protection that protects the freedom of the press to be able to report and investigate sensitive issues, but it also goes on and says it’s not without limit. It basically says that a judge of the High Court may order that this subsection does not apply, and then it goes on to talk about weighing up some factors in that respect. But pretty much by and large that protection is conferred.

And I think, when we look at the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, it does recognise journalistic privilege and it does reference the Evidence Act in that, but the problem we’ve got is it actually doesn’t spell it out in terms of how that might be implemented in the context of police searches. I think, as has already been discussed in the House tonight, of the situation around the police searches in 2014 of the journalist Nicky Hager and, basically, some of the limitations that were identified in that respect. And so a lot of the issues that are being addressed in this bill actually try and fill in some more clarity and some more detail in that practical application.

I think, firstly, what this bill does is that it actually basically expands the definition of a journalist to include investigative journalist, just reflecting the importance of investigative journalists in terms of that ability to be able to disclose information that’s in the public interest. And it basically goes on to clarify that investigative journalists include people who only publish books, because I think that’s just reflecting the whole ability to sit down and weigh up the evidence, multiple sources, doing that in a very in-depth and thorough way, and the importance of that.

But a few of the other areas that I think were felt to be needing clarification were around making sure that the judge is clear on those situations where there’s a production order that’s being applied for that a journalist may be involved. And so what, basically, this bill does is it puts in place a requirement that if somebody’s coming to apply for a production order, then they must clearly identify to the judge if they have reasonable grounds to believe that that person is a journalist. I think, then, that’s really important, that the judge can weigh that up in that context. And also if police are there, with a production order they need to make sure that the journalist, basically, is aware of their rights and has time to consider that. So this is a really important bill that fills in some of that finer detail and will go further in terms of protecting the freedom of the press, and I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I was just about to launch into the huge presumption that I was likely the only journalist in this Chamber, and then Ingrid Leary walked in, so I can no longer assume that position. But because of that—because of my experience as a journalist—that is why we are very pleased to support this bill this evening, primarily because it canvasses the very important issue of journalistic privilege. Although the Search and Surveillance Act currently in place does identify the existence of journalistic privilege, where it isn’t as clear is the description as to the processes to be followed when the issue of privilege arises. I do find it a little bit ironic that the person well known to us all who does tend to get a bit of a hard time from journalists is actually the person that went in to bat for extending the privileges and protections of journalists, and that is, of course, one Judith Collins.

But look, harking back to my own experience and the importance of being able to protect the anonymity of sources, I’ve actually lost count of the amount of times people would come to me with something really, really important that they wanted to discuss and felt was important for the public to be aware of but, for fear of my inability to give them an absolute guarantee and an assurance that they would be protected, they often declined in the end to give me privileged information.

So too are the issues for journalists who tend to write books, and this has been well played out in a number of high-profile cases now. Obviously, many speakers have referred to the Nicky Hager case, but there’s also the David Fisher case, where the Crown attempted to coerce him into revealing information that he had revealed on Kim Dotcom. There’s also the John Roughan case—

Chris Bishop: This is a blast from the past.

NICOLA GRIGG: —where lawyers for Bradley Ambrose attempted to secure recordings of interviews that he’d used to write his biography on Sir John Key. It’s funny, my colleague Chris Bishop talks about “blast from the past”. In researching this piece to talk tonight, I came across words I hadn’t heard of in a long time, you know, not only “Dirty Politics” but “Rawshark” and “Rawshank” and “Whale Oil”, and so on—and “teapot tapes” and all those things that, let me tell you, as a press secretary during that period, it was testing.

But actually, I spoke just before about David Fisher. He writes very succinctly about the lack of protection that journalists who write books currently have. And he does tell the story of the attempts to drag him in front of the courts to hand over the information that he had managed to glean for his own book. I quote him—he said, “there was no difference, in my mind, as to how I gathered the material for the book. I did interviews in the same way and wrote the book in the same way, [it was] just longer.” So that is one important aspect that this bill will seek to address.

So too will it seek to address the definition of a journalist in the Evidence Act to explicitly include the investigative journalists. It also amends the Search and Surveillance Act to ensure that journalists’ sources are clearly protected in relation to police searches, as Greg O’Connor has canvassed.

But despite how many of us in this Chamber may feel at times about our friends in the press gallery, we do believe in the importance of a free and well-functioning fourth estate and the importance it plays in New Zealand’s democracy. It’s important that sources—or, as they’re colloquially known as, whistleblowers—can feel free to engage with media to uncover matters of importance to New Zealanders, and that is a fundamental that I will always defend.

We do, however, have one slight reservation, and while we do support right now the intention of Part 2 of the bill, we do want to ensure that these provisions do not stand in the way of exceptional cases where the sources of information may have been obtained illegally. And while we tend to instinctively think of that as a robbery or a breaking and entering, of course we now have to expand that to the likes of hacking and data breaching.

So, finally, we are looking forward to the select committee process. We do want to hear the practitioners’ views on these matters, and, obviously, the academics will have a say, and probably the legal fraternity too. And so I do commend this bill to the House.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s my great privilege to rise this evening to speak in favour of the Protection of Journalists’ Sources Bill. I’d also like to begin by thanking and acknowledging my colleague and friend Louisa Wall, who is unable to be here to speak to her bill tonight, and also to acknowledge the Hon Clare Curran, who began this important piece of work. It is an important piece of work because the protection of sources and the support of our journalists is a key principle in securing freedom for the press, and why is it important? A lack of clarity at the moment in the law is enabling and facilitating incidents such as we saw with what we know now to be the unlawful search of investigative journalist Nicky Hager’s home.

This particular bill will seek to address that by explicitly including investigative journalists in the definition of “journalist”, which has not been included so far in any legislation, and I’m just going to read from the bill. So we have here that the definition of “journalist” is “a person who in the normal course of that person’s work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium; and”—and this is the key point for investigative journalists, although I’m stepping away from the definition here—“includes an investigative journalist who publishes work, including books, of in-depth inquiry and original research into matters of public interest that may not otherwise be disclosed.”

At this point, I just want to stand in my strong support of investigative journalism. Rather than dismissing it somewhat offhandedly, as we heard a little earlier, as just writing a book—and here, I’m not referring to my colleague across the way, Nicola Grigg, but to a previous speaker, so that I’m not misunderstood—investigative journalism is extraordinarily important, and I would like to reflect to the work done by local colleagues such as Alison Mau with the #MeTooNZ work that she’s done that’s brought such important issues to the forefront of our minds. But if I cross what we used to call the Ditch, when I lived in the UK, looking at the work of our Pulitzer Prize winners, we’ve seen them changing a Senate race by revealing a candidate’s sexual harassment of teenage girls. We’ve seen them revealing mass bribery. We’ve seen them reveal rogue police narcotic squads, reveal congressional corruption, and neglect in protected care. So the work that they do is extraordinarily important, and it’s extremely critical that we make sure that that’s protected.

How are we going to do it? Well, in this bill, we’re going to be requiring that the police have to identify if a person is a journalist or if the information that they’re seeking is related to a journalist. They also have to include an explanation of the rights of journalistic privilege and give the journalist reasonable time to respond to a—I’ve got “to a production order” and I was about to say “protection order”, but it’s to a “production order”—production order before seeking a search warrant.

I was kind of interested, because I’m not a lawyer, and I, unfortunately, won’t be on the select committee, but I wasn’t sure what a production order was, so I looked it up. It, basically, was made under section 74 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, which requires a person or organisation such as a business to produce documents to enforcement agencies as evidential material of a specified offence.

Why is it so important that we protect these sources and that we enable journalists to do so? Well, I think there’s one pretty critical reason, and that’s that if you don’t do it—and it is the responsibility of the journalist—you’re very unlikely to gain the trust of anyone ever again. Nobody is going to talk to you any more. But, more seriously, those sources may have really serious cause to fear reprisals, either physical, economic, or professional.

So, in closing, I’d just like to highlight again the importance of protecting and supporting our journalists, and including investigative journalists, and making sure that we continue to support the important work that sits around our freedom of the press. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ginny Andersen, in reply.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s been a privilege to take this bill through its first reading on behalf of Louisa Wall, and it’s also been a privilege to hear the speeches from all sides of the House in looking to see that this bill will proceed into the next stage, which is at select committee, at Justice Committee. I’m also looking forward to hearing the submissions that we’re likely to receive, not only from members of the public but also from journalists, from those media sources, from those who take a role in the fourth estate, to see their views and understand how this can factor into this potential law change that we could be seeing through here in second and third reading.

To conclude, the bill deals with issues that go right to the very heart of the role of media and journalism in a liberal democratic society here in New Zealand. It is so important—vitally important, in fact—that our laws adequately protect journalistic privilege to ensure that our journalists, especially investigative journalists, can do their jobs. I was once told as a member and given advice that a good member’s bill is a simple one, a concise one, one that tackles a simple issue that can be tidied up. Well, Louisa Wall clearly did not take that advice. Her members’ bills have been bold and brave. They have tackled many significant issues. They have indeed become law in New Zealand. This bill makes no change to that pattern. So I would like to acknowledge her hard work in tackling the big issues and bringing issues such as this, that go to the heart of our liberal democracy, to the House to be debated.

Our fourth estate—to function effectively, it’s important that we make sure our laws protect journalistic privilege, to ensure that our press have the ability to function and report freely without fear. That’s important to this very building and how we operate as a Parliament as well. As it stands, although New Zealand’s law references the importance of respecting journalistic privilege and also the case of police searches, it does, as identified, contain a gap in the law currently about how this important protection is actually guaranteed. Although the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 and also the existence of journalistic privilege with reference to protections that are laid out in the Evidence Act 2006, there is no clear description as to the processes to be followed when this issue of privilege arises, and that is what this bill does.

This bill addresses the gap in the law and the specific issues highlighted in the Hager case by reinforcing the Evidence Act and the Search and Surveillance Act in recognition of journalists’ duty to protect their sources from disclosure. This is a good bill. I look forward to the submissions. I look forward to the next process, and I commend it on behalf of my colleague Louisa Wall to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Bills

Plain Language Bill

First Reading

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move, That the Plain Language Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

The Plain Language Bill promotes the use of plain language in official documents and websites. The purpose of the bill is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Public Service by requiring their communications to be clear and accessible to the public. I would like to begin by acknowledging the original sponsor and drafter of this bill, my colleague the Hon Chris Hipkins, and former member of this House Charles Chauvel, who assisted with the drafting. This bill was inspired by the Plain Writing Act 2010 in the United States. The bill in the United States requires the US Federal Government to write all new publications, forms, and publicly distributed documents in a clear, concise, well-organised manner that follows the best practices of plain language writing.

As a new MP, I was asked to take on this bill, and there is a reason that I was delighted to do so. Fifteen years ago, I was a fresh, young graduate starting my professional career in a small public sector agency in Wellington called the Leadership Development Centre. I was given a role in communications, despite having no formal training in this type of work. Instead, I had spent quite a few years at university, where I had learnt to pad out my essays in order to reach the required word count. My boss, Bruce Anderson, who was a pedant and a former teacher of English, used to red-pen my letters and documents, and I soon learnt the importance of brevity and clarity. I was sent on some plain English courses with an organisation in Wellington called the Write Group. Now called Write Ltd, the team at Write, led by founder Lynda Harris, work with organisations to make their written messages clear. The training they gave me helped undo the habits I had developed at university and gave me the writing tools I needed to communicate clearly.

One of the criticisms often put forward against plain language is that by using plain language, we dumb down our communications. This is actually not the case. The best way to explain why plain language is so necessary is to use a real-life example. This one comes from the New Zealand Transport Agency’s 2017 annual report: “Transform the Transport Agency establishes a deliberate change management approach to successfully transition the Transport Agency to the refreshed strategy and the new ways of working. It drives improved organisational effectiveness through tenacious alignment of strategy to business planning, resource allocation and performance measurement. It embeds our new DNA and the shift required to ensure we are customer focused, collaborative, curious, and seeking innovation and value for money in all we do.” In other words, “We are going to improve our customer service and spend our money carefully.”

I could easily fill a full 10-minute speech with examples like that one. While there are some funny examples, there is a serious side to this bill. The Plain Language Bill is important because clear information from Government organisations is a basic democratic right. The bill will make it easier for members of the public to engage with public sector agencies. New Zealand is at its best when we can all understand and easily participate in our democracy. Every day, Government agencies are engaged in communication with the public. When Government agencies are explaining services, benefits, or how to comply with requirements, they should use plain language and avoid jargon. Plain language that the intended reader can easily understand after one reading is the aim of this bill.

As an electorate MP, I’ve seen and read documents, brought to me by constituents, that are difficult to understand. I’m sure that this is an issue that every MP in this House has experienced. I am particularly aware of the need for letters and other written documents to be easily understood by people who have English as their second language. For example, migrants who are seeking to obtain visas or New Zealand residency have the right to receive letters from Immigration that are easily understood. I recently had a journalist ring me and read me a letter that a migrant with English as a second language had received from a Government agency. It took the journalist and I about three goes to figure out what the letter said.

This bill will make a real difference to how our Government agencies communicate with the public. The Plain Language Bill requires a reporting agency to use plain language and ensure that all relevant documents for which it is responsible use plain language. A relevant document means a document that is necessary to obtain a service or file a tax return, provides information about any benefit or service, or explains to the public how to comply with a requirement the Public Service administers or enforces. The definition of “plain language” in the bill means language that the intended reader can easily understand after one reading and is clear, concise, and well organised, and follows recognised guidelines of plain language writing.

The Public Service Commissioner may issue guidance on how reporting agencies may comply with the plain language requirements under this Act. The commissioner will be required to consult with reporting agencies when developing plain language guidance. Agencies will be required to appoint a plain language officer, who will have responsibility for training agency employees, dealing with complaints or requests from the public, and ensuring that the agency complies with the law. Members of the public will be able to raise concerns about documents with the plain language officer. This is an important component of the bill. If a member of the public receives a letter that is difficult to understand, they will be able to raise it with the agency’s plain language officer.

The bill also requires agencies to report to the Public Service Commissioner on their compliance and progress using plain language. No later than six months after this Act comes into force, a reporting agency must report to the commissioner on compliance with the bill. Agencies will then be required to report annually to the public sector commissioner on their compliance. There are some things that are specifically not included in the bill. Nothing in this bill affects Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016, the Māori Language Act 2016, or the New Zealand Sign Language Act 2006. This is an important distinction to note. My bill is not designed to undermine the importance of te reo Māori or New Zealand Sign Language as official languages of Aotearoa New Zealand.

I must apologise to all those who have written to me asking for my bill to include our local councils. While this bill does not include local councils, I would encourage councils to strive to include plain language guidance in their documents. Since my bill was drawn, I’ve received a number of supportive emails and messages from people working in the plain language sector or who have worked in Government agencies and been frustrated with the language used. Plain language experts in New Zealand have expressed their excitement at the bill being drawn from the ballot. I received the following email from a constituent who was appointed to a voluntary board of a Government agency in my region, and here is what she said: “The paperwork was littered—absolutely littered—with acronyms. At a meeting, I got fed up with it all, and the response was to offer me the acronym dictionary. Yes, there was such a thing.”

As this bill progresses to select committee, I am keen to hear from members of the public about how this bill will improve their lives and their interactions with Government. I am also keen to hear from plain language experts about how we can make the law work better. It is a privilege to be able to guide this small but important bill through the House, and I thank my colleagues for their support. I commend the Plain Language Bill to the House.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, I was doing my best not to laugh during that contribution. Look, I feel sorry for the member who’s sponsoring this bill, Rachel Boyack, because she’s a diligent and conscientious and hard-working member who has been landed with one of the stupidest bills that will come before the Parliament this term—I mean, it really is. You just have to read the bill that she’s proposed to realise some of the stupidity that the Parliament is now going to have to waste its time dealing with at the Governance and Administration Committee, as I’m sure the bill is going to end up there.

Now, I remember when this bill was drafted, because I was working in the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s office at the time, and one of my jobs was to monitor the legislation that backbench members of the Opposition were putting forward. And suddenly, one day, the Plain Language Bill appeared in the members’ ballot, in the name of the now Hon Chris Hipkins. And I remember thinking, “What on earth is this? The Plain Language Bill?” I remember reading it, and this was about 11 years ago now, and I remember thinking, “This is crazy.” I kid you not, the bill proposes that reporting agencies—so Public Service agencies; the entirety of the civil service—and Crown agents, so that’s NZQA, the Tertiary Education Commission—there’s a whole list of them; you can look them up in the Crown Entities Act. We’re talking about thousands of people working at different agencies. The bill literary proposes that every reporting agency has to appoint a plain language officer—a plain language officer; “1 or more individuals”. Their job is to educate agency employees regarding the requirements of the Act—and it’s worth noting that the Act is literally 11 clauses; so that won’t take very long—deal with complaints or requests from the public regarding their compliance, and ensure the agency complies with the provisions of the Act.

So all of the Public Service is going to have to spend time finding plain language officers inside the civil service, jobs-worthy schemes—it’s like a make-work scheme for civil servants and public servants inside the Public Service. I mean, it’s ridiculous enough that every corridor of every department in every building in Wellington has to have a fire warden and all the rest of it, and then endless meetings to discuss all that stuff, but, no, no, now we’re going to have to have, literally, plain language officers, who, no doubt, will have sort of monthly meetings to sit around and talk about how they can make one acronym into elongated words, or something like that. I mean, it’s just actually comical. So Rachel Boyack has had this bill landed on her, and I don’t believe her when she says, “I’m really excited the bill’s been drawn. I’m really excited about it.”

Look, I know how this works, right? To the Labour backbenchers, I know how this works. Here’s how it works: you’re in Government, you’re not allowed to do anything controversial from the backbench, because, if it was controversial and it was a good thing to do, the Government would be doing it. If it’s a good bill and it should be advanced by the Government, a Minister will do it, right? I know that’s how it works; it’s totally understandable. So Government backbenchers have to come up with bills that are discreet, small, make no difference whatsoever, but are just controversial enough that they might indulge the support of the House and make their way to select committee. And, basically, in Government we used to call them “ballot stuffers”. They’re bills to stuff the ballot that won’t get in the way of Government Ministers actually doing their work. I know that’s how it works, because that’s how we ended up the left luggage bill that caused a lot of mirth and derision in the last Parliament. So I know that’s how it works, right?

And this bill is a classic ballot stuffer. It’s a bill that Chris Hipkins has dreamt up in Opposition 10 years ago—and then, by the way, he took out of the ballot for quite a long time, probably because he one day picked it up and looked at it and went, “Well, actually, I’m a serious political figure, and I want to be a frontbench Minister in the next Labour Government. Is it really a good idea to put to my name a bill that requires the appointment of plain language officers and, without any enforcement mechanism whatsoever, says that a whole swath of the Public Service have to issue six-monthly reports to the Public Service Commissioner on whether or not they’re using plain language or not, and requires training to staff on plain language and all sorts of other stupid, waste of time, jobs-worthy ideas?” So Chris Hipkins said, “Actually, I think I’ll just take a rain check on this one. I’ll put this one in the bottom drawer and, when we get into Government and I’m on the front bench, some poor sap backbencher is going to end up with this bill.”

And now here we are; Labour’s won Government—and, by the way, this wasn’t in the ballot, as far as I can recall, in the last term of Parliament.

Hon Member: Yes, it was.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it was? Well, that’s even worse. It was. He actually did. And so here we are: Rachel Boyack wasn’t in the last Parliament, she’s become an MP, she’s won the marginal seat of Nelson—congratulations. Here she is in Parliament. She hasn’t come up with an idea for a member’s bill, and they’re doing the whip-round in the Labour caucus and Rachel Boyack has drawn the short straw and picked up the Plain Language Bill. It’s been put into the ballot, and I reckon she was secretly sitting there and going, “I really hope that bill doesn’t get drawn, because then I’m going to have to turn up and pretend that I’m excited about it, and I’m going to have to put out all these press releases and say it’s a great idea. Oh, I hope it doesn’t get drawn.” And then it got drawn. And now here we are, on a Wednesday night, coming towards the end of the year, debating and spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer money debating this stupid piece of legislation that’s going to go to committee. And now we’re going to have the Governance and Administration Committee—I don’t know how busy they are, but they’re going to have to indulge this endless rigmarole of this stupid bill. I’ll make a prediction right now: the bill will not pass into law, because eventually the Government is going to come to its senses and Ministers are going to realise it’s a complete waste of time.

Why is it a dumb idea? Firstly—firstly—it is not needed. I mean, if Ministers want the civil service to engage in plain language writing in documents that go out to the public, I’m not opposed to that, obviously; I’m in favour of simple, clear, and concise writing. You do not need to pass a Plain Language Act to make that the reality; in fact, it’s likely to have the opposite effect. We do not have to waste Parliament’s time passing legislation to say that that is the law. There are endless ways for Ministers to do that. They can write letters of expectation. They can write various statutory documents that go to a variety of the Public Service agencies we’re talking about here. They can write letters of expectation to the chairs that are involved or to the Public Service chief executives. They can just actually direct it, and I don’t know if this story’s public or not, but it’s about to be: when Gerry Brownlee was the Minister of Defence—I think this is on the public record—endless briefing notes with acronym soup and he said, “Well, this is pointless. You’ve got 15 different acronyms on one page. You’ve got to sort this out.” And he just made them sort it out. That’s what an effective Minister can do. You see, this bill is not needed—that’s the first point.

The second point is there is no enforcement mechanism in here. And Rachel Boyack says “Oh, it’s going to make a real difference. We’re going to enforce plain language.” How? There’s nothing in there. It’s just a series of feel-good statements. It just means that we have to have a plain language officer. Every reporting agency has to have one of them. They have to educate people. They’ve got to deal with complaints. They have to make reports to the Public Service Commissioner. Oh, we’ve got to issue guidance! The Public Service Commissioner can issue guidance on how reporting language may—not “must” by the way; it’s not a “must”. It’s not a didactic imperative; it’s a “may”. So they’ve given a little bit of discretion. How generous of the member to give some discretion to the commissioner! I reckon the commissioner will choose to do so, though. The commissioner may issue guidance on how reporting—and that’s it. It’s literally 11 clauses. The first four are the perambulatory ones—the title, the commencement, the purpose, the interpretation, and it binds the Crown. So, actually, in reality, it’s six clauses. That’s it. It’s only, like, four pages. It’s a 3½-page, 4 if you’re luck, bill. There’s no enforcement mechanism, there’s no way of making language more accessible and cleaner and simpler. There’s nothing in there. There’s literally nothing in there. There’s no enforcement mechanism. What is the penalty for the poor Public Service officer who writes a briefing note that the Minister doesn’t understand? What’s the penalty? What’s the Minister going to do? Ring up the Public Service Commissioner and say, “Mr Smith, I got this briefing note and I did not understand it. You need to punish him or her.” I mean, is that what’s going to happen? No, obviously it’s not what’s going to happen. It’s ridiculous. There’s no enforcement mechanism.

So it’s not needed. There’s no enforcement mechanism. It’s just a make-work scheme inside the Public Service. Frankly, the Public Service have better things to do with their time than spend their life coming up with plain language documents or plain language officers and reporting up to the plain language commissar inside the Public Service agency they’re talking about. They should have much better things to do with their time than that. This bill is one of the stupidest bills to come before Parliament. We will oppose it because we oppose over-burdensome regulation, including for the Public Service. Rachel Boyack is a hard-working and diligent MP, but I feel sorry that she has ended up with this dog of a bill.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Wow! I rise to support this piece of plain language legislation. And I guess, in listening to our previous speaker, when he’s used words like “stupidity” and “dumb ideas”, I’m not sure what school he may have gone to, what university he may have gone to, but, for some of us, we need plain language, not because of our intelligence but because we live in a different world. Not a world that’s based in Wellington, not a world that’s based here in Parliament or in universities or in high-class boarding schools, but people who just live real lives. So I find it offensive that he would say that this is a stupid piece of legislation, and I believe that we need to ensure that we have plain language wherever we go.

Now, language is always evolving, always changing. It’s responding to human needs. And I’m guessing that Chris Bishop doesn’t want to respond to human needs, he just wants to have his own little beltway life with his own language and way he operates. But as language evolves and as it spreads around, it creates different areas and different spaces, and, whether it be in law, whether it be the marketplace, whether it be learning or religion, whether it be in politics or in the Public Service or in storytelling, it’s always reshaping and reforming to fit in with what’s going on within the culture of the time.

Now, having language means you’re able to communicate, having language means that others can understand you, and hopefully you can understand others—I didn’t quite understand that last speech, but that’s OK. But language, when you have it, becomes more powerful when it’s understood by a wider community. Power grows when we can communicate with more people in more spaces. The question I have this evening, and the question I have for Chris Bishop is: “Who is the language serving when it comes to our Public Service, when it comes to what’s happening within Government—who is the language serving?” And often it’s serving the bureaucrats, the politicians, it’s actually not serving the people. And for me, I came into this House to serve the people and ensure that people understand.

Now, I have a quote here from an accessibility activist who talks about “Language is not only a key component of communication, it is also a key aspect of identity. The words you choose to use become part of who you are. Through language, you become part of the community that speaks that language … The more you master a language, the more powerful your connection with your community [becomes].” And I think, when I read this quote, I think about my early life in community development. I remember speaking with a young woman and she was going through a Government department, and she actually wanted to fess up because she was living with her partner and she hadn’t declared it. But she was talking to me one day, and I said, “Well, good, fess up. It’s always nice when you do that. Why haven’t you already?” And she said it was too hard, and I said, “What do you mean?” “Well,” she said, “I’ve got this form I’ve got to fill out and I don’t understand it; it’s 13 pages long. That’s why I haven’t bothered declaring that I’m living with my partner that I shouldn’t be living with and getting this payment.” So we went through it, the complexities of it, because it wasn’t in plain language as it should be.

Also in my work with young people—and how often we are negotiating different services within the Public Service—and often it’s sitting down with them and spending time, which I’m not sure if the previous speaker has done in terms of working through different forms when you’re interfacing with Government agencies.

So for me, this isn’t stupid legislation. This is a brilliant idea because, for me, the people I connect with and work with need plain language, because language is power. And often we like to retain that power. That’s why we don’t want, maybe, this piece of legislation to pass, because maybe, in this House, we might lose some of our power. I want to thank Rachel Boyack for sponsoring this bill. I look forward to seeing it go through the first reading and go to select committee, just to ensure that all people in Aotearoa New Zealand have access, all people in our nation are able to understand, to communicate, and that the language of this House, the language of the Public Service, serves everyone in our nation.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and take a call on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Plain Language Bill. While she may not have written the bill, I would like to congratulate the member Rachel Boyack for getting it drawn and for this opportunity to marshal it through the Parliament, because that is a really special experience.

This is a piece of legislation that the Greens believe will make a real difference. I understand that the National Party member, Chris Bishop, talked about this as a “dog of a bill”. Well, I would see it as a golden retriever of a bill: a really cute, fluffy bill that actually is going to be committed to supporting New Zealanders in being able to find their way around our systems. That is something to celebrate, being a bit of a dog fan as I am. I do just feel like Mr Bishop’s speech was just a little bit mean, to be honest. It was pretty kind of blunt, and it did feel to me like, as an ex - university debater, he was throwing his privilege around like a giant red flag—even to the point of saying it’s bad enough we have fire wardens. Personally, I can’t quite imagine feeling safe in a place where there are not fire wardens; I thought that was pretty much a basic. And saying that “Ministers can do this; this is not required by legislation”: I can’t quite imagine what Chris Finlayson’s direction for plain language would look like, because, I’ve got to say, his speeches in the House were not my understanding of plain language.

The point of this bill is to get the consistency and to recognise that plain language writing is a skill. Anybody who has managed to get through our university system has been trained in writing in a particular way that is actually inaccessible for most New Zealanders, and most of the people in our Public Service come out of our university system. I remember that translation of going into the community and standing aside and sitting beside people, and young people in particular, and trying to talk with them and explain things after I came out of university. It was a massive education for me. To think that a Minister can provide feedback and, suddenly, the entire Public Service is going to have the skills to be able to write simply, in a way that is understandable for people with English as a second language or whatever their literacy skill is, is magical thinking. It requires active support to learn that skill, and that is what this bill is recognising. It really is quite seriously true.

I will say, as well, that this bill—we are very supportive of it, because it’s critically important that New Zealanders understand their rights and their obligations, and our Public Service is the conduit and the communicator of those things. We need the interactions between people and the State to be really as easy to interact with as possible. A lot of marginalisation comes from a sense of disenfranchisement through not understanding what on earth the Government is doing or is expecting of them. We hear from a huge number of beneficiaries who have been sanctioned—that they’ve been sanctioned and they didn’t even know that they weren’t allowed to do whatever it was that they were sanctioned for. We are not—the evidence is very clear—communicating to people in a way that they understand what people’s rights are and what we expect of them in return, and we need to step up to do that better.

I do think this bill possibly could go wider. And I really feel for, particularly, you know, friends who are deaf, who are really struggling with the lack of access to New Zealand Sign Language, the fact that we don’t have enough interpreters, that at Parliament hardly ever do we get that interpretation happening, let alone our Public Service organisations providing easy-read material. Most of our political parties are not doing that either. We need to step up for everybody in this country, because it’s core to feeling like we are part of this team of 5 million. We have to be able to understand each other. This is a good start, and the Greens are happy to support it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table the 10 pages of guidelines issued by the Hon Chris Finlayson in 2014, headlined “Finlayson embarks on a jargon jihad”.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection?

Hon Member: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): There is no objection.

Chris Bishop: I think she said yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Does Labour want to take its call?

Chris Bishop: I think she said yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh. There is objection. So Labour doesn’t want its call?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise this evening on behalf of ACT to speak on this bill. So the purpose of this bill, according to the text here, says, “The purpose of this Act is to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Public Service by requiring their communications to be clear and accessible to the public.” Well, that sounds like a great idea. I think we probably needed that on 4 October when the Prime Minister announced the Government’s phased approach to reducing alert levels in Auckland, which is apparently going to give way to a traffic light system anyway. So you never know, actually, this bill could do some damage—it could be a problem for the Government, especially as the wheels of the well-oiled PR machine slowly start to fall off. I also can’t quite tell if this is a good or a bad thing for taxpayers in the long run, with Labour spending something like $300 million since 2017 on spin doctors. They might even need more with this, so a little bit of a worry there.

Definition in the bill: “plain language means language that—(a) the intended reader can easily understand after 1 reading;”. Well, thank you for clarifying that, and also thank you to the member sponsoring this bill for pointing out that this doesn’t include New Zealand Sign Language. That was an important point that we needed, I think, somehow.

In Part 2, clause 6(1) “A reporting agency must ensure that all relevant documents for which it is responsible use plain language.” The problem with all of this with simplifying language is that we can create different meanings and different interpretations and all sorts of different standards from Government, and the last thing we want to do is cause confusion. In clause 8—Chris Bishop has already landed on this a little bit—the plain language officers: “A reporting agency must appoint … plain language officers”. What a fantastic sounding bureaucrat, honestly! And no later than six months after this Act the reporting agency must report to the commissioner its appointment of a plain language officer. And I just think, “What, on every Government agency, and how many will they actually need within six months?” I mean we’ve got a bit of a skills shortage right now, don’t you realise. It might actually be quite hard to find people to do this. So, I mean, just imagine the amount of unnecessary red tape that this bill, if it becomes an Act, will cause.

I just wanted to also touch on the issue around migrants and English as a second language. Look, I think that’s a well-meaning thought, but, frankly, I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I’ve worked with migrants for years, not just here, of course, but also in an immigration law firm, and I’ve read countless letters from Immigration New Zealand. Admittedly they are a little bit convoluted at times, and that’s being generous, but this bill will not solve that. Those one-on-one or transactional letters from Immigration New Zealand are usually case officers or immigration managers to clients. There is no way this bill, with its plain language standard and its plain language officers, is going to change that. There are thousands of letters and emails sent every day. I think it’s just such a nonsense argument to use the letters from Immigration New Zealand to justify this.

But in any case, this bill has been floating around for years. I kind of hoped that it would come here to die. And I agree with Chris Bishop, I think this is just one of the stupidest bills I’ve ever read. We oppose this bill. Thank you.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Plain Language Bill. I want to begin by congratulating my colleague and friend Rachel Boyack on having her first member’s bill drawn from the ballot. I know, contrary to views expressed by members opposite, she is genuinely excited to have this bill drawn and I’m genuinely excited to be supporting her on this bill.

See, I remember back in my law school days—where they do teach plain English there now—and in the first year we were told that historically drafters were paid per word. It’s how we ended up with many long, convoluted, and complex pieces of law that somebody in the street just can’t understand without legal training or help. It’s how we ended up with phrases like “null and void” and “common practice”. Both words mean the same thing, either one would do, but why use just one when you could get paid for two!

There are laws in effect today that were still drafted under those times, and I believe if you expect people to follow the laws, then they need to be able to read them, understand them so they know their rights, their obligations, and what’s expected of them. They should be able to be understood easily at a glance with one read through by somebody in the street. I support this bill because it will go some way towards achieving that goal by promoting the use of plain language in official documents and on official websites.

As the member, my colleague Rachel Boyack, said earlier, every day Government agencies are communicating key messages to people in our communities, to the general public. And when they are providing information about their services, as I said, individuals need to clearly know what their rights and responsibilities are. So that means that the onus is on those agencies communicating the messages to keep those messages clear, concise, and as simple as possible. That way, New Zealanders can easily understand and participate in our democracy.

Plain language, as discussed tonight, is about using simple, clear, concise language that is well ordered and easy to understand. But take this sentence, for example, “It was a written notice by a tenant given pursuant to the lease agreement.” It’s much simpler to say, “The tenant gave notice under the lease agreement.” See, that sentence has been shortened by five words and used words that are easier to understand without losing any of the meaning. There are lots of examples in official documents and on websites where multiple words are used where just one would be sufficient. For example, “a number of” could simply be out as “some”. Likewise, there are lots of examples of words which could be simplified in plain English standards: “accorded” could become “given”, “adjacent to” could simply become “next to”, “adversely impact” could become “hurt” or “harmed”. You get the idea; the list goes on and on and on.

Like many other MPs in this House, I too have helped many constituents who’ve walked into my office struggling to understand the documents that they’ve been provided with by our public sector agencies. That is why we need this bill. We need plain language so as our democracy is accessible to everyone in our communities. I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’m not sure that the Opposition members understand the purpose of this bill. It’s about creating a culture of plain language. That is clearly what has been missing in the Public Service. Official information is a way that the public can scrutinise us as parliamentarians and can access Government services. It is a democratic right. And what this bill does is it goes some way to busting the bureaucracy that so many of us in this House frequently complain of. I can’t tell you how many constituents have come to my electorate in Taieri, needing support just to understand documents that are coming out of Government agencies—important documents relating to housing, relating to immigration, to social welfare, to driver licences, there are so many examples I could give you. And these are not just immigrants who are coming, and second language speakers, these are also people with a good command of first language English who simply cannot understand many of these documents.

As Jan Logie mentioned, plain language writing is a skill. And, in fact, I believe that the culture of unplain or complex language in bureaucracies is part of the risk averse nature that happens when officials are needing to be able to make sure they cover all their bases in advice to Ministers or to other members of this House. But that is not the right language to be using for constituents who need clear, simple advice that doesn’t cover every caveat, that just simply says, “In order to do (a), you need to do (b).” That is why that culture has emerged.

There is a desire to have plain language in the Public Service, but unless people within the service lead on it, unless there is somebody who actually takes that responsibility and leads, it won’t happen, hence the need to appoint the officers. They need to take responsibility, they need to socialise it because a culture change cannot happen without socialisation, and people need to be trained. And yes, there is accountability, because they will be accountable to the people who write in and complain; they will need to respond when the plain English rule isn’t followed.

My colleague Glen Bennett very ably pointed out the real problem that this is trying to resolve. And it may sound trite, and I apologise to people at home who may feel a little belittled by some of the comments from the Opposition, because what this is about is that when complex language means that people don’t understand, those people don’t have access, and those who don’t have access aren’t included, and if they aren’t included then we don’t have a democracy that works. It also sends a very clear message to people from those communities that they are not welcome in governance roles; that the governance rules are only for the elite, only for the educated, only for the privileged.

I’d like to commend my colleague Rachel Boyack for taking on this important bill and also for ring-fencing te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language. Those languages have their own mana, they have their own cadence, their own wairua. They don’t need this bill, but we do, and we need it to make sure that our society is accessible and inclusive to everybody. The plain language of the sniggers and chortles from the Opposition tonight speaks for itself. It is the language of privilege and elitism. I commend this bill to the House and I am so grateful to my colleague Rachel Boyack for taking this stand. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.