Wednesday, 27 October 2021

WEDNESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2021

WEDNESDAY, 27 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.

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

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

SPEAKER: No papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Meridy Boyd-Clark, requesting that the House ensure that all allied health professionals are included in the essential workforce and are therefore allowed to operate at all COVID-19 alert levels, and note that 12,879 people have signed an online petition in support of this.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Business Committee on the recommended sitting programme for 2022.

SPEAKER: The report is set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s announcement yesterday that vaccination will be required for all workers at businesses where customers need to show COVID-19 vaccination certificates, such as hospitality and close-contact businesses. I also stand by the Government’s announcement of a clearer and simplified risk assessment process for employers to follow when deciding whether they can require vaccinations for different types of work. To facilitate this, employers will be required to provide paid time off for workers to get vaccinated as well. This side of the House knows that in a pandemic, it is vital to have a clear, concise position on the use of vaccination certificates and on vaccine mandates.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree that Auckland is likely to be in level 3 lockdown for at least four more weeks; if not, how long?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I note that member has said that Auckland wouldn’t move into any changes under her plan until 1 December. What I would note is, actually, under the targets that we’ve set, there is the ability for Auckland to move, you know, potentially earlier if we see the double dose at 90 percent target reached by each DHB. As I’ve said, we’re now, I believe, roughly 10,000 first doses away, just under reaching that first dose target. Three weeks out from that, they’ll then likely be able to reach the second dose target.

Hon Judith Collins: When will she travel to Auckland to see for herself the impact that 71 days of continuous lockdown is having on Aucklanders?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I take that as, therefore, support from the Opposition for me to be not present here for a time, because that has been one of my concerns. If I were to do that, I then run the risk of not being present in this House and available as I’m called upon to be available for the ongoing scrutiny of the press as well. It is something we’ve given consideration to. The one thing I would say is that, equally, I would need to make sure that I’m following all the rules in Auckland. Most of the meetings I’d likely engage in I’m doing remotely here as well with business organisations and our public health providers. But it is something that I’m looking at.

Hon Judith Collins: When Auckland moves to the traffic light system, will the Auckland border be removed?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member may have heard me say on Friday, the traffic light system itself doesn’t incorporate the use of hard borders. We see the hard border we have at the moment as being a reflection of the transition that we’re in presently. It is helping to prevent the wider spread to areas that are currently COVID-free, which is why we’re maintaining it, but it is not, in our view, something that in the longer term, when we’re all in the traffic light system, is likely to be part of our long-term future.

Hon Judith Collins: How many weeks does she expect Tairāwhiti District Health Board—which is currently at 76 percent first dose—will take to reach 90 percent first dose?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I see that as of Tuesday, they are now at 77 percent. Of course, you have in that stat that it’s currently the DHB with the lowest first dose rate, but, of course, everyone in this House and, I think, all of us wish to see those vaccination rates move as quickly as possible. Some of the extra funding we are supplying but also extra support that we are providing from the centre we believe will continue to help make a difference. But it’s very difficult, with any certainty, to be able to model when those DHBs will hit that 90 percent, because so many things make a difference, including, for instance, the use of mandates or, for instance, the use of vaccine certificates.

Hon Judith Collins: When does she anticipate announcing an end date for her traffic light system?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m not sure that it would necessarily be wise, based on what we see with other countries, to put an end date on the use of public health measures. I notice that even, for instance, the UK, who have tended to be one of the more liberal managers of COVID-19, have still maintained the position that, given winter, they may yet move to what they’ve called their “Plan B”, which does bring some public health measures, including the possible use of vaccine certificates, back. So I do think that we would be wise to continue to wait and see what happens over the ongoing trajectory of the pandemic, particularly once countries who are vaccinated, with high rates, move into a winter period.

Hon Judith Collins: So what are the criteria for ending the lockdown in Waikato?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course, you’ll see with the low rates there that our ability to extinguish that outbreak continues to exist. What we want to make sure, though, in the meantime is that we don’t see that outbreak prolonged by contact—moving too quickly into levels that would create additional contacts. So there is a view that with our current rates of vaccination, we still have the ability to extinguish and then move into lower alert levels. But, of course, if you want the greatest certainty of all, it would be high vaccination and moving into the new traffic light system.

Hon Judith Collins: Why did she wait until month 20 of the pandemic to “set out a plan to accelerate Māori vaccination rates”, as she described it, and wouldn’t it have made more sense to have done that at the start of the vaccine roll-out, rather than near the end?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, the first thing I’d point out is the member is counting back to the beginning of a pandemic, when we didn’t even have vaccinations. The second point that I would make is that right from the very beginning, we have specifically funded Māori vaccination initiatives to support the roll-out. The additional funding that we announced on Friday is on top of the $87 million that was put specifically into such campaigns. The second point I would make is that we also, even when we had limited supply and we were working through a process of targeting those most at risk of mortality if they got COVID-19, we still then put specific vaccination doses aside for Māori providers, and we took a whānau-based approach, and we put in a lower age level for Counties Manukau, that we considered to be particularly at risk. So I actually completely reject the suggestion the member has made.

Hon Judith Collins: Then why has it been such an unmitigated failure?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I also reject that. That does a complete disservice to the providers, who have been working so hard across New Zealand to ensure that they reach everyone, including in our most rural and isolated communities. What is an indication of what we are able to do across every age group is what has happened with our over-65s and now, increasingly, our over-50s, where the rates there are high and strong. What we need collectively is to drive those same rates amongst our young rangatahi, and one of the issues we know is that they are more likely to be targeted by disinformation, and we all have a role to play on that.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is she proud of the fact that New Zealand’s vaccination programme has achieved a higher rate of vaccination than Australia, the US, the UK, Germany, Israel, and a whole host of other OECD nations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Yes. We should all acknowledge the rates that we’ve been able to achieve thus far. But, of course, New Zealand has always said we will base our pandemic response on our situation and on our population and on our values. Those all speak to the fact that we need an equitable roll-out and one that reaches different parts of the country. So if that member wants to take a position on equity, then you don’t pick a date to simply shift your settings; you actually work hard to ensure that you reach as many people as possible.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she believe that 60 out of 67 local councils are wrong to oppose her three waters plan?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I believe are the facts, and the facts say that 64 percent of councils do not have water revenues to meet the full cost of running water services and assets. I believe that 34,000 New Zealanders get sick from drinking water every year, and, in the 2019-2020 year, there were over 3,000 overflows from sewerage networks. No one would say that that is OK or right or can continue. We need a plan. It so happens that this Government is willing to progress one, even if members on the other side know nothing about what the opportunities or costs are other than to say they oppose it.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The export sector continues to support the recovery. Today, Statistics New Zealand reported exports of goods rose 10 percent to $4.4 billion in September compared with the same period a year ago. The main contribution came from dairy products, with gains in prices in sales of milk powder, butter, and cheese. Statistics New Zealand noted that this was a strong start to the export season, with this month having the strongest value for exports for any September month since 2013. The meat sector also contributed strongly, with sales rising 22 percent in a month.

Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on other parts of the export economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the dairy sector continues to support the economy. Yesterday, the dairy cooperative Fonterra increased and narrowed its milk price forecast range for the 2021-22 year to $7.90 to $8.90 per kilo of milk solids from $7.25 to $8.75. The mid-point rose from $8 to $8.40, which I can see the Opposition are welcoming. This would equal the highest milk price paid out in the 2013-2014 season. It shows the dairy sector is holding up well and would see Fonterra contribute around $30 billion to the economy. We thank the dairy sector for their contribution to the economy.

Barbara Edmonds: How are exporters adapting in response to the pandemic?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The 2021 ExportNZ DHL Export Barometer found that Kiwi exporters remain confident and optimistic as New Zealand continues to move through the pandemic. It shows that exporters have adapted to a volatile global environment by looking for opportunities for developing new products and services to increase export sales. Because of this, 51 percent of exporters saw an increase in their sales. The report also shows 62 percent expect international orders to increase, indicating a strong year ahead in 2022. While the survey shows exporters are mostly feeling optimistic, it also shows that they are facing challenges as we work through the global pandemic.

Question No. 3—ACC

3. BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Minister for ACC: Does she have confidence in the Accident Compensation Corporation?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Yes.

Brooke van Velden: Is she confident in ACC’s ability to keep New Zealanders’ information safe when it has been reported that ACC staff routinely accessed files that they were told not to?

Hon JAN TINETTI: Approximately 27,000 sensitive claims are actively managed by ACC each year. It is critical that ACC has enough appropriately trained staff with access to the right information available to support claimants. However, it is clear that ACC has work to do to reassure New Zealanders that their private information is safe. ACC has already been looking into staff access to sensitive claims information, and this work is ongoing.

Brooke van Velden: Does she believe it is appropriate that 1,414 ACC staff have access to sensitive claims information in light of the privacy breach reported today, and, if so, why?

Hon JAN TINETTI: I want to reiterate what was in my first answer, which is that we have in this country approximately 27,000 sensitive claims that are actively managed by ACC every year. It is important that we have enough trained people. When we’re dealing with 27,000 sensitive claims that are very complex in nature, it would make sense that we would have up to 1,400 people who would be appropriately trained to look into those claims.

Brooke van Velden: What is her response to an ACC employee who’s put off lodging their own sensitive claim because they do not believe their information would stay private, and who stated, “All of my providers that I’ve been talking to, therapists and things, they say, you know, it’s confidential information. But I work for ACC, so I know it’s not.”?

Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister: I am concerned about the claims that are coming forward and have noted that it is clear that ACC does have work to do to reassure New Zealanders that their private information is safe, and, as Minister, I have made it clear to ACC that privacy and culture are to be a priority. This will be in my next letter of expectations, which I will discuss with the new ACC chair, who is coming in in the next couple of weeks, along with the board chair. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat. I think most members think this is a very serious matter—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Indeed.

SPEAKER: —I’m on my feet, Mr Woodhouse—and I think the House should treat the matter with some respect. Has the Minister finished?

Brooke van Velden: What next steps, aside from simply writing a letter, will she take to ensure the privacy of sensitive claims information held by ACC to give people peace of mind and the dignity they deserve?

Hon JAN TINETTI: ACC is a Crown entity, and I am only able to direct its actions in very limited circumstances. However, I have made it clear to ACC that this is unacceptable, and I expect all ACC staff to respect claimants’ privacy. ACC has already been looking into staff access to sensitive claims information.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: How many businesses have closed as a result of the 71 days Auckland has been in lockdown, and does he believe that his enhanced business support package announced on 22 October 2021 will avoid further business closures prior to Auckland moving to the new COVID19 Protection Framework?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Information on company closures is not collected in the form that the member requests; however, using the Companies Office’s data on liquidations in the period leading up to 24 October 2021, liquidations have not been materially more than in 2020 or 2019. There were 34 company liquidations last week compared to 28 for the same week the last year, and over the period from 17 August until 24 October, liquidations have been roughly equal to the same period as in 2020. But the loss of businesses and jobs anywhere in the country amid COVID is a cause of concern. That’s why the Government has provided around $4.8 billion in economic support to protect jobs and livelihoods so far, with Auckland receiving an increasing share of that to recognise the extended restrictions that the region has been under.

In response to the second part of the member’s question, the enhanced business support package we announced as part of the move to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework recognises that it has been tough for those in Auckland. While the exact impact of the additional support cannot yet be quantified, it has been roundly welcomed by Auckland businesses and their representatives.

Andrew Bayly: How does he respond to Tourism Export Council of New Zealand chief executive Lynda Keene, who said that the Government’s plan, announced on Friday, is “utterly confusing and underwhelming”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Obviously, I don’t accept those claims. What we have is a plan that New Zealanders can get behind to get us to a 90 percent vaccination rate in every DHB—a clear set of guidelines for businesses as to how they’ll be able to operate at all three levels of the framework. That kind of clarity and certainty is welcomed, as opposed to the shambles in the Opposition.

Andrew Bayly: Why can’t struggling businesses apply for the increased Resurgence Support Payment as part of the applications that open this Friday, instead of having to wait until 12 November?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We covered this ground yesterday.

Andrew Bayly: But you didn’t answer it.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, we covered this ground yesterday, for the member. There is an application set to go on 29 October. We then make the system changes that enable the fortnightly payment on 12 November. It is the equivalent of a weekly payment of the Resurgence Support Payment, and I would note, something that has been welcomed by businesses and their representatives in Auckland.

Andrew Bayly: Why didn’t his package allow retail businesses with double vaccinated staff to open immediately to allow double vaccinated customers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, the plan very clearly outlines the way in which retail businesses can reopen at the different levels of the framework. The member will also be aware that as part of the step down that was announced earlier in the month that there is the ability for retail to open at the second part of that step down. We didn’t propose to change that. We’re moving forward on the basis of what has already been outlined.

Andrew Bayly: Wouldn’t the best thing for the country be to allow the 1 million fully vaccinated Aucklanders to get back to work, rather than continue to pay out billions of dollars in support payments until who knows how long?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The best thing for the country is to stick to the plan, and it’s the plan that has served New Zealanders incredibly well over the last 20 months. It’s the plan that’s seen us with unemployment down at 4 percent, with an economy growing better than most other countries in the OECD, with a level of debt lower than most other countries in the OECD, and, at the same time, protecting lives, with one of the lowest mortality rates. We’ve stuck to the plan on this side of the House.

Hon Stuart Nash: Is it true that as part of the business support package that you’re going to make $50 million available to around 10,000 small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) to have $3,000 worth of business support and around 7,500 SMEs $4,000 to implement that advice?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: That is, indeed, correct. The business advice package to be delivered through the Regional Business Partner Network programme is something that was asked for by businesses in Auckland, and the Government responded to that. I’d also note that alongside that, in part as a result of the advocacy of the member who asked the question, there is $10 million available in terms of mental health support for SMEs, which we know is an important issue. Altogether that is a package that has been welcomed by people across the board, including the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the Auckland Business Chamber of Commerce, who said that the Government had listened. That is what we’re doing on this side of the House.

Question No. 5—Local Government

5. RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Three Waters reform?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I confirmed that two decades of under-investment in three waters infrastructure will be responded to. The Government will create four publicly owned water entities to ensure that every New Zealander has access to affordable water services. This is an all-in approach that will achieve system-wide health and environmental benefits, address ongoing affordability issues for ratepayers, and align to Te Mana o te Wai aspirations. It will require legislation so that all communities benefit. The status quo is simply not viable. We have developed this model over four years, and we need to take action now. We’ve also heard the views of the sector and will establish a joint working group to further refine considerations relating to governance, representation, and accountability arrangements so that we can signal again that we continue to work constructively. I’m pleased this Government is prepared to tackle the long-term, serious challenges that will ensure the underpinning of regional growth and opportunity, certainty of employment, and, furthermore, investing in our waters infrastructure system.

Rachel Boyack: Why is this approach the best way to ensure New Zealanders are guaranteed safe and affordable three waters services?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Without action, New Zealanders are facing significant additional costs to maintain three waters infrastructure. Under the reforms, average household costs per annum by 2051 will be reduced by the following amounts: in Auckland, from $1,910 to be reduced to $800; in Whangārei, it could have been $4,060 without reform, but that will come down to $800; in Timaru, it could have been $5,030 without reform, but with reform such as that that we’re providing, $1,640; and the list goes on. It would be irresponsible to delay further and allow more communities to experience firsthand the consequences of water services that are simply not fit for purpose. No one council has the ability to fix this themselves, and we need to take a collective approach. It would also be irresponsible to pour taxpayers’ money into propping up a broken system, as those people on the other side of the House would have. Currently, 64 percent of councils do not have the revenue to cover their water services’ operating expenditures at the moment, let alone once infrastructure starts failing. Those New Zealanders who have had to deal with boiled water notices, closed beaches, burst pipes, and, tragically, in the case of Havelock North, serious illness and death arising from our three waters infrastructure know all too well why these changes are justified.

Rachel Boyack: What viable alternative proposals did she hear to the model the Government is pursuing?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: A vast amount of analysis and research has been undertaken since the Government began considering the case for three waters reform in mid-2017. All of that information is publicly available and a part of our regulatory impact statement. There are about 30 various models that were tested against the Government’s objectives. No other model would give us the range of benefits that the establishment of four entities does, which includes greater long-term financing arrangements; more sustainable, increased operational efficiencies; the ability to plan, fund, and deliver more resilient and reliable water infrastructure across regions and communities; developing and maintaining workforce capability and capacity. This model also ensures water services stay in public ownership. Assets will remain collectively owned by councils. I’ll say it again: assets will remain collectively owned—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think it’s fair to say that the Minister answered the question a minute or two ago.

David Seymour: Can the Minister explain in practical terms how the same pipes and pumping stations and treatment stations in Whangārei can cost $4,000 for the council to operate, per household, but only $800 under her reforms, and can she give the House an example of another public policy reform that has increased productivity five times by simply changing the governance structure?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That answer is fairly simple with the aggregated model that we are proposing. Economies of scale will be able to deliver far greater benefits, drawing and leveraging on assets across the whole of the entity A area, and that will certainly deliver valuable benefits to ratepayers in Whangārei.

Hon Eugenie Sage: What opportunity is there for real substantive change to the Government’s proposals, when the Government has only spent three weeks considering local government comments, and when the legislation is proposed for introduction within the next seven weeks?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Thank you for that question. This conversation with local government has taken place over four years of work, and during that time we have found that much of the information has been variable. We’ve needed to gather dense information sets from councils to be able to model out, in comparison with international exemplars as well as locally thought up models, what is the best way forward. This isn’t a conversation that’s happened over the last three weeks or eight weeks; it is a four-year conversation. Much of the feedback has already been foreshadowed in the joint working group that we have with local government. And, in fact, the announcement today of establishing a working group to continue to work with local government around the issues of governance, representation, accountability, and local voice only serves to demonstrate and highlight that many of those issues are areas that we can continue to work on.

Rachel Boyack: What feedback has the Minister heard about today’s announcement?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Well, it’s been pleasing to hear that there is still a very diverse view out there. However, let me remind the House that this issue is not simply about local elected representatives; it’s about the communities they serve and the benefits back to ratepayers. But if I go into many of the comments that have been provided, the Water New Zealand chief executive, Gillian Blythe, has said, “It’s been clear for a long time that there is an urgent and serious need to address issues of aging and poorly-performing infrastructure as well as poor service delivery in some parts of the country … The establishment of four professional entities to manage three waters will unlock many of the barriers that have led to serious infrastructure deficit across much of the country.” But if we look across the local government community: Porirua Mayor Anita Baker said, “I am pleased the Government has stepped up and made this decision as we owe residents and ratepayers the truth—and the truth is, without reform, the Council does not have the resources or borrowing capacity to deliver the 3 Waters to an acceptable standard. The cost of doing so is in the billions. Porirua City [Council] has already put aside $800 million over the next 30 years—and that’s not even half of what’s needed.” If I go down to the South, Dr Te Maire Tau, co-chair of Te Kura Taka Pini says, “The government’s reform of three waters will help ensure water services for communities that are safe, high quality, and equitable, while improving outcomes for the environment … It is common ground that the status quo is unsustainable for the health of not only our people, but also our environment and waterways,”.

Question No. 6—Climate Change

6. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister of Climate Change: Has he seen KPMG’s Net Zero Readiness Index 2021; if so, what is his message to New Zealand farmers, who have ranked first in the world for climate change readiness?

SPEAKER: I think the Minister can answer the question as it was written.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): In answer to the first part of the member’s question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, I’d like to echo the words of KPMG’s Global Head of Agribusiness, Ian Proudfoot, who said, “This ranking represents New Zealand’s high levels of forest biomass, low levels of food loss and our comparatively high number of agricultural clean tech companies. However, when you are first there is only one way you can move in subsequent surveys, unless we work harder, faster, and more collaboratively. There is still a lot of work to do, and with well-resourced countries only just behind us, there is no room for complacency.”

Mark Cameron: When does he believe the rest of New Zealand—that only ranked ninth in the world for climate change readiness—will catch up with rural New Zealand on climate change?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, as I have said many, many times in a number of forums, New Zealand has yet to see a sustained decline in our greenhouse gas emissions right across the economy, and, in fact, once we do start to see that sustained decline, we need to see that every year until we hit net zero. That just underscores the importance of the work that we’ve been doing over the course of the last four years to bend the curve of our emissions downwards over a sustained period of time.

Mark Cameron: Does he agree with the former leader of Greenpeace, who called for aggressive action on agriculture?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I do agree that we do need aggressive action right across the economy. Over the course of the last 30 years, New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions have risen when they should have fallen.

Mark Cameron: Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I may, Mr Speaker, that was quite a salient point about agriculture. I don’t think he addressed it. I think he was more obtuse in his answer.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the question was addressed, even if the member didn’t get the specific answer he wanted.

Mark Cameron: Is he aware that emissions from the agricultural sector—that have remained consistent over the last 20 years—are, in fact, lower than levels seen since 2005, according to data from the Ministry for the Environment, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Library?

Hon JAMES SHAW: I am aware of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions inventory, yes.

Mark Cameron: Will he be advocating for a split gas approach to better reflect New Zealand’s agricultural industry at COP26?

Hon JAMES SHAW: That’s not on the agenda, no.

Question No. 7—Building and Construction

7. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcement has she made about providing greater assurance for homeowners?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Yesterday I announced the Government will be introducing a new code of ethics for licenced building practitioners. These are building practitioners who carry out restricted building work, including work that is essential to the structure, weathertightness, and fire safety of residential buildings. We know that the vast majority of licenced building practitioners are already working to the highest professional and ethical standards. However, this code sets out new standards for practitioners to give the industry, consumers, and homeowners clarity on what is expected from those who are licenced. With the building consents at a record high for the sixth month in a row, New Zealanders need building practitioners who are trained, skilled, and accountable.

Greg O’Connor: What other changes is the Government making to improve the quality of building work in New Zealand and to better protect consumers?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This new code of ethics is part of a wider series of reforms to lift the efficiency and quality of building work in New Zealand. These include a stronger product certification scheme, a new information requirement for building products, and a new certification scheme for modular component manufacturers. These reforms will see a more efficient building system, a lift in the quality of building work, and lead to fairer outcomes if things go wrong.

Question No. 8—COVID-19 Response

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

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Yes. In particular, I stand by our action to mandate vaccination of workers in the health and disability, education, and corrections sectors, and for all workers at businesses where customers need to show COVID-19 vaccination certificates. This will help make our workplaces at particular risk from COVID-19 as safe as possible and give confidence to their staff and customers. On this side of the House, we are doing everything we can to support getting vaccination rates up across the country.

Chris Bishop: Has New Zealand ordered specific vials of Pfizer vaccine specifically tailored for 5- to 11-year-olds?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We are in conversations with Pfizer. As the director-general indicated this morning, a paediatric formulation of the vaccine has only been very recently—i.e., in the last day or so—approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA. I think every country will be looking at that, and in our conversations with Pfizer, the agreements that we have with Pfizer do secure us access to a paediatric dose if one should be developed.

Chris Bishop: Has he had any correspondence with Pfizer encouraging them to apply to Medsafe for approval of the vaccine for 5- to 11-year-olds?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven’t personally written to Pfizer. On this particular matter, I’m absolutely confident that Pfizer will submit the documentation, the application, to Medsafe in due course, quickly; I think they want to see the paediatric vaccination rolled out as soon as possible as well.

Chris Bishop: Why are fully vaccinated travellers with negative pre-departure tests still spending 14 days in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) in Auckland, while 562 people with COVID isolate at home in the community?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government will make further announcements on changes to our overall MIQ and border settings tomorrow; we’re working through some further details of that. One of the issues that we have to work through is that our international border operates across the whole country and not just Auckland.

Chris Bishop: Why does the New Zealand vaccination system not recognise vaccinations given overseas, and what is being done as a matter of urgency to sort out this problem, given impending mandates and certificates?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can provide an absolute assurance that before any requirements for vaccination certificates are put in place, people will be able to have vaccinations that they have received abroad recognised through the vaccination certificate system.

Question No. 9—ACC

9. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Does she have confidence in ACC’s ability to safeguard the privacy of claimants, including those who are survivors of sexual violence, in light of the privacy breach reported today?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for ACC: Yes.

Jan Logie: How can victims have confidence that ACC treats privacy seriously, when it took a whistle-blower going to the media for the agency to identify and then respond to a significant breach of privacy by a dozen staff, including a manager?

Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister, I was appalled when I was informed of this group. I have spoken to the acting chief executive and made it clear that this is unacceptable and I expect all ACC staff to respect claimants’ privacy. I’m advised the staff involved have been suspended. One of the acting chief executive’s senior leadership team is leading an investigation and will be reporting his findings directly to me. ACC has already been looking into staff access to sensitive claims information, but there is clearly more work to be done.

Jan Logie: What explanation has the Minister received for why ACC did not identify and respond to this breach earlier?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said in my previous answer, before this issue came to light ACC had already begun looking into staff access to sensitive claims information. ACC’s leadership team are taking this case very seriously. ACC’s acting chief executive contacted me yesterday to advise that ACC had received an email containing screenshots that appeared to show a group of current and former staff sharing claim information on social media. At that point, I made it clear that this is unacceptable and I expect all ACC staff to respect claimants’ privacy. He has moved quickly and decisively to suspend the staff involved. As I’ve said, one of his executive team is leading an investigation and will be reporting the findings directly to me. As this is now an employment matter under active investigation, it would not be appropriate for me to speak to any further details.

Jan Logie: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was useful information but didn’t seem to me to address the key point of why they didn’t pick it up themselves and it required the whistle-blower.

SPEAKER: I’ll ask the member to ask her question again.

Jan Logie: What explanation has the Minister received for why ACC did not identify and respond to this breach earlier?

Hon JAN TINETTI: As I pointed out, this is under active investigation at this point in time. That information will be directed completely back to the Minister at that point in time, in which time the Minister will be able to give a more fulsome answer.

Jan Logie: Can the Minister assure this House there have been no other instances of private information being shared in social media groups by ACC staff over the last five years?

Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister, I have not been made aware of any historic cases where private information has been shared on social media, and I have made it clear that I expect that all staff respect claimants’ privacy and are aware of their obligations under the Privacy Act and Health Information Privacy Code.

Jan Logie: Is it true that one of ACC’s strategic priorities is privacy and this has been a priority for many years?

Hon JAN TINETTI: It is my expectation, as it is of all New Zealanders, that all New Zealanders should expect that their documents and their privacy are respected by ACC at the utmost level.

Jan Logie: How can we have confidence in ACC doing an internal review of privacy when it supposedly has been a strategic priority for many years, they’ve been in trouble for privacy breaches before, and they are not picking up absolutely flagrant breaches of their own policy?

Hon JAN TINETTI: On behalf of the Minister, I am very concerned about this breach that has been reported in the media today and over previous weeks. In two weeks’ time, ACC’s new chief executive will begin her new role. I have made it clear to ACC that privacy and culture are to be a priority and this will be in my next letter of expectation, which I will discuss with her and the new board chair in coming weeks. If it is found that there is a systemic issue at ACC, I expect them to use whatever means necessary to fix it.

Question No. 10—Education (School Operations)

10. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What work is she progressing for students with the highest learning support needs?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): Last week I announced a review into students who are considered the highest need for learning support intervention. This review was one of the deliverables under priority area 4 of the Government’s Learning Support Action Plan 2019-2025. We know that some students aren’t getting the right support they need and when they need it. As a result it’s expected that 50,000 to 80,000 students are expected to benefit from the outcomes of this review. The Government is committed to barrier-free access to education for all students. This review will ensure all Kiwi kids are receiving the education they deserve.

Angela Roberts: Why is this review needed?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The learning support systems we have in place now were established over 20 years ago by the previous Labour Government, led by the Rt Hon Helen Clark, and haven’t been reviewed since then. This review has been widely called, from the education sector to parents and those in the disability sector. Fundamentally, this review is about addressing inequity in the education system for young people that have challenges with learning. At the moment, some learners are being excluded because their learning needs aren’t being met. As a Government, we have set our goal in education to build an inclusive education system, and that must include our most vulnerable learners.

Angela Roberts: What are the next steps for this work?

Hon JAN TINETTI: The terms of reference approved by Cabinet underwent extensive consultation with over 80 stakeholder groups to help us understand the nature of the issues relating to individualised learning supports and services. Most stakeholders indicated that the system needs to shift from the current deficit-based approach of accessing and receiving supports to a strength-based, mana-enhancing one. That is our goal. The Ministry of Education will now undergo further and wider consultation on the substance of the review over the next 12 months. Recommendations are due to the Government in 2022. I encourage all of those who wish to have a voice in the future of learning support services to actively engage in this work. More detail can be found on the Ministry of Education’s website.

Question No. 11—Local Government

11. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Yes, particularly my statement that there has been 10 years of under-investment in three waters infrastructure, and the case for change for our three waters infrastructure is too compelling to ignore. Without the new entities, we will continue to see a frail network and contaminated water. To delay will only push the problem on, increase future household costs, and put livelihoods at risk.

Nicola Willis: Will councils be issued shares in the new water entities, and, if not, how is this not simply State-sponsored theft?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll allow the—I mean, it is out of order, but I’ll—

Hon Members: Why?

SPEAKER: Of course it’s out of order. The idea that a bill passed by Parliament is State-sponsored theft is just ridiculous. The member can answer the first part of the question.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of the question—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, given the comment that you just made, I think it would be appropriate if you could point to the appropriate Standing Order that makes the second part of that question out of order.

SPEAKER: The member could start with irony.

David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order. Mr Speaker, it’s a widely held view in New Zealand that half the bills passed by Parliament are State-sponsored theft.

SPEAKER: Well, it might be the widely held view in the circle that the member moves in and it might be an increasing circle at the current time, but it’s not generally the case.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of the—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order.

SPEAKER: I hope the member’s not going to dispute my ruling.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes, Mr Speaker. Well, I want to just point out—

SPEAKER: Well, I just want to say to the members behind Mr Woodhouse, he’s at risk and they’re at risk too if they continue their noise.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. Mr Speaker, the definition of “irony”, according to my recollection, is a statement that usually means one thing intended to mean another. The question was very direct and had no double meaning.

SPEAKER: All right—OK. Well, the member’s used his last chance.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: To the first part of the question, in order to ensure a public ownership model of water service entities and to safeguard against privatisation, the design of these entities will not be of a shareholding nature or distribute dividends to councils. But let me be very clear: councils currently own water assets. Those assets will transfer and be collectively owned by councils under their respective entity.

Nicola Willis: How will local communities keep control of their water assets when her Government is confiscating those assets and handing over control to a complex smorgasbord of unelected appointees and officials?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member wants to perpetuate a myth of her own making. In fact, what the new water service entities will do is enable the ability to invest in waters infrastructure in a way that councils cannot currently do. What that will deliver is greater benefits to households, who will have the assurance that with reform, they will get not only a quality service but also the benefit of small and big regions alike being treated in a way where absolutely they will have safe drinking water. There will be improved environmental outcomes and there will be an assurance that alongside regional growth and opportunity, certainty of employment of those currently in the water industry and going forward under these reforms are guaranteed.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is it true that lack of investment in three waters infrastructure has been holding back housing developments, and does the Minister expect today’s announcement will improve the development of new housing across New Zealand?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and sadly the previous Government did nothing about this, so the legacy of under-investment was left as a too hard issue that was not addressed. And the total sum of that, as we know, is that three waters infrastructure now is in dire need of investment in order to enable housing—a priority of this Government. These reforms will certainly support that ambition, and ensure that we can continue to invest in housing so that our regions can grow and there will be further opportunities for our communities.

Nicola Willis: How much of the proposed entity A would Auckland Council own and therefore Auckland ratepayers have control over?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I announced today, the whole purpose of announcing the three waters working group is to further refine the governance, representation, and accountability arrangements which provide for local voice to be worked on. The simple answer is that there will be no shareholding or dividend opportunity under any of these entities, because we are giving an absolute assurance to ratepayers that this is a public model and that we are safeguarding against privatisation.

Nicola Willis: Why has she ignored most of New Zealand’s mayors and all those New Zealanders who have asked for three waters plans to be put on hold, and what is the point of a working group, when she intends to force these changes on councils regardless?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: We are not like the Opposition that when there are really hard issues and long-term challenges that need to be addressed, you kick the can down the road; you run away, close your eyes, and say, “Well, we won’t do anything.” The simple thing is to do nothing. The more difficult thing, which this Government is prepared to do, is address the long-term systemic challenges of under-investment in waters infrastructure. That’s why we’re acting.

Question No. 12—Workplace Relations and Safety

12. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding vaccination requirements for workforces?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response) on behalf of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: The Government announced yesterday a range of measures to help protect workplaces and workers from COVID-19. We’ve heard the calls from employers and employees to provide certainty on what roles need to be done by vaccinated workers under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. We’ve provided that certainty and we’re mandating vaccination for workers at businesses where customers need to show COVID-19 vaccine certificates. We know that these changes raise questions around what happens when mandated employees refuse to get vaccinated. And so, to provide clarity, a new four-week notice period will apply if people are terminated if they choose not to be vaccinated and their work requires vaccination.

Ibrahim Omer: Why are these requirements necessary?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Both customers and staff will want to have confidence that they are as safe as possible when going into situations where the risk of the virus spreading is high, such as gyms and bars. A number of businesses have already gone through a risk assessment process to mandate vaccinations in their workplace, but we’ve had calls from both businesses and unions to make this process as clear as possible. That’s why we’ll introduce a risk assessment process in law for employers to follow when deciding whether they can require vaccination for different types of work. This process will provide businesses with a clear and simplified legal framework to make decisions about requiring staff to be vaccinated or not.

Ibrahim Omer: What engagement and feedback has he had on the new proposals?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: We’ve been working closely with the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) and BusinessNZ, and we’ve had largely encouraging feedback since the announcement. BusinessNZ have said the feedback from business to the announcement has been overwhelmingly positive. The CTU supports the policy, and Richard Wagstaff, the president, is encouraging businesses to start talking to their people about it now. The Employers & Manufacturers Association was very supportive of the Government “listening to Business New Zealand and the CTU”, and the employment relations and safety manager there said, “It’s great to see them working together.” Retail NZ has also welcomed the greater certainty around vaccinations that has been signalled by the Government.

Urgent Debates Declined

ACC—Privacy Protections

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the privacy protections of ACC in light of revelations that ACC staff have shared clients’ details in a private social media group. A proposal to discuss a continuing problem or an accumulation of information is not one contemplated by Standing Order 399 in that it is not a particular case of recent occurrence—Speakers’ rulings 204/4-5 refer. The privacy protections of ACC appear to me to fall into this category in that they are an ongoing matter.

An urgent debate is a means by which the actions of a Government are examined. To date, the Government has not made any announcements in relation to the matter raised in the application—Speakers’ ruling 205/5 refers. The only action announced to date has been the ACC standing down 12 staff and beginning an investigation. It would not be appropriate to debate a staffing matter, which is a responsibility of the chief executive, in this House. The application is, therefore, declined.

Should the Government announce some further action in relation to the matter, I would consider a further application from the member.

General Debate

General Debate

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Last Friday, Aucklanders, in the midst of one of the most crushing lockdowns in the world, tuned in at half past 10 in the morning, and what they were looking for was a plan and some certainty. They were looking, actually, for a bit of hope. That’s what they tuned in to find. The Monday before, they got picnics; this time, they got platitudes—platitudes from the “podium of truth”.

Here is the plan—“the plan”—as I understand it. Once everyone gets to 90 percent double-vaccinated in every DHB, we go to the traffic light system; that would be orange. Aucklanders can go to the traffic light system of red, once all the three Auckland DHBs get to 90 percent, except for if the Government decides to allow the three step levels in advance of that. The South Island has to wait for everybody else, including Tai Rāwhiti to get to 90 percent, except for if we get to 29 November when the South Island may be able to go down steps earlier, and Wellington may also be able to go earlier. In fact, Auckland may be able to go earlier, if the Government decides. I hope that’s clear! That’s literally the plan.

When can Aucklanders leave the Auckland prison? I don’t know; neither does the Prime Minister—they have no idea. When do freedoms start to return? We have no idea. When will vaccine certificates be available that might let Aucklanders leave the Auckland prison? We don’t know. Last month, it was “They’ll be ready in November.” Then the website was updated and it became mid-November. Then somebody turned up at the 1 p.m. “podium of truth” and it was actually the end of November. Last week, the website got updated randomly and it became mid-December. Then an hour later, it changed to the end of the year, and now it’s back to November. When will they be available? I don’t know.

Grant Robertson’s got the solution, though: paper. It’s literally like the train system in Wellington when you get on and you use paper tickets. Grant’s system is this antiquated, 100-year-old technology of paper—simple paper—that will allow New Zealanders access to greater freedom. This is embarrassing. The certificates aren’t ready, we were late to order the vaccines, we were late to roll them out, and now we’re going to be late to give people the proof to actually allow freedoms.

Why are we here? Here’s the truth: the truth is the Government spent the first six months of this year in smug self-congratulation mode. They sat back and they said, “Look at us, aren’t we so amazing. We’ve got this big majority. We smashed COVID.” They looked at the Bloomberg rankings, and they took the international plaudits, and they sat back and they crossed their arms and said, “Aren’t we clever? We’ve done so well in New Zealand.”

And while all that was happening, the COVID virus was mutating, and Delta turned up, and it turns out that the vaccine roll-out that we were so proud of in December—remember when Chris Hipkins said we were at the front of the queue for the vaccine—it actually turns out we were one of the slowest in the developed world to roll out the vaccine. This is a public policy failure of epic proportions, and when there is an inevitable commission of inquiry, or royal commission, it needs to examine exactly why New Zealand spent the bulk of this year as the slowest country in the developed world to roll out game-changing revolutionary vaccines.

Because here’s the truth: when Delta turned up in August and escaped, 20 percent of New Zealand was fully vaccinated—20 percent. That is shameful, and there was no excuse for New Zealand not to have vaccinated earlier. It was a deliberate policy decision by Government. Why do I say that? Because I look at the words of the Prime Minister in April: “We can afford to take our time. We’re lower in the pecking order, and actually I support that.” That’s what she said. The Government was comfortable with the slowness. In fact, they published ads, they published Government-funded propaganda, that everyone got, saying, “We can afford to take our time.”

Here’s the truth: you’re only as good as what’s gone before, and you’re only as good as what comes next, and this Government was an epic failure when it came to vaccinations. We were slow to order, we were slow to roll it out, and we were slow to get going on vaccine certificates. And when Delta turned up, we weren’t ready. And I fear we are going to make the same mistakes when it comes to boosters and now 5- to 11-year-olds’ vaccine. This Government has failed—

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

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Well, it’s clear that in the caucus meeting yesterday when Chris Bishop got rolled on vaccine certificates, the booby prize was leading off the general debate with a call for the fact that you’re judged on what went before and what comes next. Well, I’m judging the National Party on what went before, what’s happening now, and if that’s what comes next, they’re in trouble.

I want to reiterate again the thanks of all members of this House to the people of Auckland and the people of Waikato for the work that they’re doing to ensure that the rest of New Zealand stays safe. I also want to especially acknowledge the progress that’s been made in all of the Auckland DHBs in reaching towards the target of 90 percent vaccination rates. There are now only 9,904 people who need to be vaccinated in one of those DHBs to reach that first dose of 90 percent and begin the next movement forward. That is fantastic progress and we want to thank every single person in that region who has done that.

Alongside that, the Government is putting more resources into supporting making sure New Zealanders get vaccinated. I want to particularly acknowledge our Māori health providers. They have been doing the heavy lifting around New Zealand to make sure we lift Māori vaccination rates. I believe we are making good progress there, but more needs to be done and that is why the Government established the $120 million fund that we did on Friday to push on, to push those rates up.

There are no easy decisions when it comes to COVID-19, and one of those was the one that the Government has made around vaccination mandates. But we know that it’s the right thing to do to provide certainty to businesses, certainty to workers, and certainty to New Zealanders about what is needed to keep them safe, and that is what the vaccine mandate has been all about.

Certainty is what matters here, but certainty was the one thing lacking from the Opposition’s response to vaccine mandates yesterday. By my count, in the last 24 hours the National Party have had four positions on vaccine mandates, and if you want this summed up, it’s the following quote from the Leader of the Opposition this morning: “If you look at the policy that we released about a month ago, it was very clear: 70, 75 percent, you can end nationwide lockdowns, but we’ve said you’ve got to get to 85 percent double vaccination rate across the country and then you get 80 percent in every DHB.” One interview: 70, 75, 80, 85. Will someone give me 90? Well, actually, we did, on this side of the House, but not over there because there is no clarity in that vaccine certificate position on that side of the House.

But perhaps we have a better insight into the Opposition’s position from an earlier interview today from the Leader of the Opposition when she said, referring to COVID, “Well, we just believe there needs to be an end time for this. There has to be some sort of, let’s say, when it finishes.” So we get on the phone and we give COVID a call and we say, “When are you finishing? When is it over?” Actually, I’d be quite surprised if COVID could keep up with the National Party’s positions on the vaccine certificate, so fast are they moving.

But this is what happens when it comes time to get your strategic advice about what to do on COVID-19, and you turn to the strategic geniuses in your caucus: Simeon Brown and Chris Penk! Because if they’re your strategic guides, you’re in trouble. And Chris Bishop, behind the mask, smiles, because he knows National is literally making this up as they go along. They made this decision at caucus yesterday about what to do about vaccine certificates. That’s why Judith Collins ended up with four positions in one day on vaccine certificates, because, actually, she didn’t listen to what Chris Bishop had been saying. He’s at least had some consistency when it comes to vaccine certificates and wanting them to be used. But not Judith Collins, not Chris Penk, not Simeon Brown. Now, Matthew Hooton, who knows a thing or two about this, has a name for the people in the National Party caucus that he uses to describe them. It’s not a word I would use, but the word is the “Taliban” inside the National Party caucus—the fundamentalists who come along every week to that caucus and push the National Party further and further away from where New Zealanders are.

Well, on this side of the House, we know that we have to give New Zealanders certainty. We have to give them confidence. We have had a plan from day one to save lives and livelihoods, and we have done that. One of the lowest mortality rates in the world, one of the lowest hospitalisation rates in the world, one of the lower unemployment rates in the world, and one of the higher rates of economic growth. This is not easy for anyone, especially those in Auckland, but if we stick to the plan New Zealand will come through this strong, and that is what the Government is leading.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to speak today about managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), and that’s because today was the day that we actually expected an announcement on the MIQ changes. Unfortunately, to the 1 million New Zealanders who are currently stuck overseas, today is just another let-down, another disappointment from this Government about not knowing when they can come home. I want to acknowledge the feelings of frustration that people must be feeling, looking online, checking to see whether there are allocations available, and wanting to know what the future will hold. Should they get a visa in another country or will they actually be able to come back home and taste the fresh air of New Zealand? There is no certainty, and I want to endorse a banner that we saw at the All Blacks game at the USA: MIQ does suck and we should let them come home.

The Government keeps talking about the team of 5 million, but really we are a team of 6 million. There are grandparents in New Zealand whose grandchildren will nearly be reaching the age of two, and they still will never have had a cuddle. They will never have been able to give them a kiss, and I think that is so unfortunate and unfair. There are parents who have been separated from their children and they can’t come back through the border. We know that there are people who have missed the births and funerals of their children and their family members. I cannot imagine the frustration they are feeling and I want to acknowledge that.

But I want to talk about two stories that have come to me. I’ve been talking with a woman who is pregnant in New Zealand, who has not had the support of her partner, who’s been stuck, locked out of the country. She was so stressed her midwife was worried for her baby. Her emergency allocation for her husband was declined. And so what did she do? She decided to take the Government to court and, lo and behold, what happened? He’s now got a spot in MIQ. That’s what you have to do to try and get an MIQ allocation; you have to take the Government to court. Is that acceptable? Absolutely not. We know of nine other couples in that exact situation. I have also been talking with a man whose wife is an ICU nurse, who cannot come back through the border. Her application has been declined when we have a skills shortage not just for nurses but ICU nurses—so desperately sought after for our COVID response. The Government has been slow off the mark. They’ve given 300 spaces per month for a specific allocation for health workers now; they should have had that months ago.

But we’re also in a very strange situation now where the Government is setting aside these specific allocations at a time when they’re saying there’s going to be another announcement. There is so much uncertainty—should people apply for these allocated positions when you can’t even do so on the websites yet, or should they wait, wait to see whether self-isolation will actually happen? ACT has been saying for months that we should allow fully vaccinated people who’ve had a negative pre-departure test the ability to come home back through the border and self-isolate at home. The Government has already allowed COVID-positive people here in New Zealand to be able to self-isolate at home. These are low-risk travellers. Why should there be any difference? We know an announcement is coming. What is the Government waiting for? We’ve been waiting for weeks and weeks.

The Government has had the world’s longest nap for over 18 months with no changes to MIQ. People need the certainty of knowing when they can come home because, quite frankly, it feels like they have abandoned New Zealanders. The Government is making it up as they go along, but we need to know that certainty, we need it for those people who are anxious and afraid of, in the case of pregnancy, whether they’ll have a support person in the country to help them through those first thousand days of their child’s life, or whether they will actually be able to have a job to come back to, or even whether their visas in another country will expire and they’ll have a place to come home to. It is unfair. We are a team of 6 million, not 5 million, and the Government should respect people and give them the certainty they need. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. My great-grandmother died in 1919 as a result of the influenza that raged across the globe shortly after World War I. That pandemic left my 11-year-old grandfather, his older brother, and his two younger brothers motherless. So my father never got to meet his grandmother, never got to give her a hug, taste her cooking, never got to get a telling off from her, never got to hear her stories. A pandemic took all of that away from my father because my great-grandmother never got the choice of having a vaccine, so our whakapapa could not be protected.

I hail from the little valley of Kāretu in the Bay of Islands and the name of our urupā, our cemetery there, is Pūhangahau. In Pūhangahau there is a strip of soil about 10 to 15 metres long full of unmarked graves and I remember asking my grandfather, “What are these—what’s happened here?” I remember him telling me that’s where the people who died in our valley during that pandemic were buried, and they died so quickly they didn’t have a chance to record the names or where those particular people were buried. So there are people lying in our urupā there in Kāretu whose names we don’t know and, as a result, whose whakapapa links to us we don’t know—and whakapapa is what connects Māoridom. It’s what connects me to Peeni Henare, it’s what connects me to Nanaia Mahuta, it’s what connects me to Dr Shane Reti, and it connects me to all the other Māori that are here in this Whare.

We as Māori talk about protecting whakapapa and I just want to quote from Haami Piripi. Haami Piripi is the rangatira from Te Rarawa. Haami was questioned by the anti-vax movement about the strong stance he’s taken around vaccination for the people of Te Rarawa. As a rangatira he stood up and he said, “What defines our identity as Māori is whakapapa. What we measure our survival as a people with, is whakapapa. What determines the health and wellbeing of our whānau and marae is whakapapa.” That is leadership. That is what being a rangatira is all about.

But, sadly, there are many Māori who are doing all they can to jeopardise whakapapa and they use the pretext of mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga to justify the unjustifiable. What price is the life of your nan or your mother or your brother, your niece, or your mokopuna? So they talk of Treaty rights but at the same time they neglect to talk about their Treaty responsibilities.

Now, my great-great-great-great-grandfather was a signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and he was a real rangatira in that he actually had a hapū behind him. But what were his responsibilities as a signatory to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? Well, first of all, the responsibility of a rangatira is to protect your hapū, protect your kāinga, protect wairua, protect the lives. So those people who hide behind rangatiratanga or mana motuhake to justify the reckless endangerment of whānau demean the very tikanga of tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. They wave the Māori flag and the flag of He Whakaputanga in the vain hope it lends a veneer of credibility to the stupidity.

So these days it seems a prerequisite to be called a leader is to have big mouth and a Facebook account. The gauge of a leader is no longer the prosperity and wellbeing of your tribe but instead the numbers of likes and retweets. Being a rangatira was an important, deep, and meaningful role; now it’s just a shallow social media presence by which to spread misinformation to the misguided.

I’m really concerned about the lack of leadership, the conspiracy theorists, and the COVID deniers. I’m concerned about them trying to break through Auckland into Waitangi and spread the misinformation and stupidity. They mistakenly believe that is their right but they are clearly forgetting about their responsibilities.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, next week, COP26 starts in Glasgow, and no doubt the Minister will be winging his way there next week, for the next couple of weeks. And he doesn’t seem to have much in mind—at least, of what he’s announced to us in New Zealand—about what we will commit to for our nationally determined commitment, or NDC, which we should have confirmed in 2019. But, never mind; I’m here to help. So today the National Party announced our plan for COP, and it has five parts. I’ll take you through it now.

The first part is the use of the split-gas approach in our NDC. We have, in our zero carbon bill, a split-gas approach and, yet, we heard the Minister say in question time today he’s not going to adopt that into our nationally determined commitment. So our NDC is going to have different goals to our legislation. It makes no sense, and the Minister really needs to get a grasp of his particular portfolio and sort this out, because it doesn’t make any sense to have two separate goals and pathways to meet our commitments.

The second is that our plan backs our farmers. We know in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report, which was published recently, GWP100—or global warming potential 100—which assesses the warming potential in terms of carbon dioxide, or carbon units, over 100 years, it doesn’t represent methane emissions very well. It totally underestimates it in the early part of methane’s life in the atmosphere, and it significantly overestimates it in the latter part of its time in the atmosphere. And what the IPCC found was, in fact, if we adopt a method of measurement which is GWP-star, in fact all New Zealand’s emissions in the agricultural sector need to reduce by is 10 percent by 2050—10 percent instead of 47 percent, as is in the legislation. So our agricultural sector will get there by business-as-usual improvements. This is great news for New Zealand as we don’t have to cut production to meet our goals.

We also need to open ourselves up for global carbon markets. Article 6 means that we can in fact—and the Paris Agreement will allow us to—do bilateral agreements if we can’t come to an agreement to establish global carbon markets. And there is a group of countries that are just philosophically opposed to setting up international carbon markets. International carbon markets make sense if you accept that global warming is an international problem, and I think it is; it is not confined to a country’s borders. So nor should it attempt to lower emissions either by reducing emissions in the first place or sequestering them. We should be able to be open for that.

We should also demand more of the large emitters. If all of the Paris signatories meet their commitments through to 2030, all we will reduce our emissions by is 1 percent—that’s global emissions by 1 percent if every Paris signatory meets their commitments. We need the other emitters, the large emitters that are not a part of Paris, to play their part, otherwise our efforts will be in vain. And we don’t want to do that: to sacrifice ourselves in the name of a global effort when not all the team are playing the same game, particularly when they have a far bigger impact.

And, of course, the last thing is to embrace new technology. New technology is coming out now that enables us to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and turn it into other things, either turned into fuel which can be burnt again or be turned into carbon products for construction. This technology is relatively new. It’s improving all the time, but already there are viable options that will reduce carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for $100 a tonne. In New Zealand, at the moment, we have, with our emissions trading scheme (ETS), our New Zealand units are over $65 a tonne. We’re almost at $100 a tonne. We should be looking at this new technology. As the Climate Change Commission found, we can get to net zero with the ETS on its own, but the one problem is the over-forestation in rural New Zealand, and this, international carbon markets and new technology, would help mitigate that issue. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Our Government is working and making great progress as we secure our economic recovery during this COVID-19 pandemic. A case in point: I want to talk today about the New Zealand - UK free-trade agreement (FTA) in principle which was announced last Thursday. That is a monumental deal which our Government has struck with our seventh-largest trading partner, which will open up so many new opportunities and increase wealth for our exporters and for New Zealand at large, and in particular the Māori economy.

This is a landmark free-trade agreement. I want to acknowledge Minister Damien O’Connor and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and their trade policy teams for the outstanding work that they have done in coming to this landmark agreement, because in the midst of how COVID is creating havoc around the world, we must continue to secure our economic future and we must be able to continue to forge free-trade agreements with our partners around the world to ensure that we can enjoy the standard of living that we all want to ensure is there for us and generations to come, and this is a key plank in our economic recovery.

Such a great deal for our exporters—97 percent of our current goods that we export to the UK. By the date that this FTA comes into force, they will be gone, and that means every dollar we save is a dollar we make. More money that goes into our pockets, more earnings for our companies, and more benefits that can be shared through our jobs and through production as a nation—outstanding. So this is a wonderful agreement, not only for our goods exporters, but right across our economy. It’s been lauded from groups from all sides of the political spectrum, all industries. Business, primary sector, Māori economy, exporters—they are lauding this deal because they know how important it is that we have these trade agreements with our partners around the world.

This is significant, this agreement, because with the UK, we have a shared history. We have shared values and a lot of our shared institutions that we have adopted here. So there is that history that we have. Of extra significance in this free-trade agreement is the fact that we have an indigenous chapter, a chapter which acknowledges the constitutional importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the role that Māori have in creating a future where Māori can participate and be more active and can benefit from these free-trade agreements with the UK, and the UK has agreed to that. So for us as a Government to make that a priority and to put that on the table and to ensure that our partners in the UK agree to that—that is a landmark. That is a landmark gain for us, and it’s a new era of collaboration that we have reached with our trade partners. It started in our North Asian agreement up in Taiwan, but we’ve taken it to a whole step further—a whole step further—with the UK agreement. So Māori are really excited by the future opportunities that this free-trade agreement presents for us.

There are so many benefits. It also goes into trade mark protection in the patents, copyrights, and trade marks field. It also goes into recognition of environmental concepts as well. Te Ao Māori, kaitiakitanga, mauri—those concepts are embedded now into this free-trade agreement. This is landmark.

This is landmark work that we are doing as a Government because we are committed to putting Māori having a true Treaty partnership and participation into the trade negotiation realm. That is reflected in the gains that we are achieving through these free-trade agreements and the ultimate benefits that will now accrue to the whole of New Zealand through our agreement.

So, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson said, this is the cherry on the top, this agreement. As far as the UK is concerned, they are absolutely thrilled that we have struck this agreement. Likewise, us here in Aotearoa New Zealand are equally thrilled because we know that we are going to be more wealthy as a result of these agreements. Just as we have achieved that, we are working at this stage with the EU as well. That agreement is just around the corner, so we are making great gains.

We are reconnecting, we are rebuilding, and we are recovering from COVID-19. These are great steps that we are making as a Government, and I am very proud of the work that we’re doing. Kia ora tātou.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I take my mask off, I’m conscious that under the protection of parliamentary privilege there’s much theatre that occurs in this House and there’s much that gets—some slug shots—passed and fired across the bow.

So today is Wednesday, 27 October, and in four days’ time, Sunday the 31st, is Halloween. That’s not something that’s so big here in New Zealand, but it is building and picking up momentum. I talk about Halloween because it’s a time for people who think that it’s fantasy and it’s fiction, but it’s very much based on a Celtic custom that dates back 2,000 years, Halloween being a holiday that’s celebrated on 31 October. It’s a time when there’s a Celtic festival. People light bonfires and wear costumes to ward off ghosts and evil spirits.

So here we are in these COVID-stricken times. I removed a mask. I talked about the theatre in Parliament. In the masquerade of Halloween—in the masking, the theatre, the dress-ups, the dressing downs, and the costumery that goes with it—the reality is that COVID-19 is not a fantasy or a fiction. For many, particularly those who have been in Auckland for 10 weeks nigh in lockdown, it’s a living nightmare. It’s a living nightmare because it’s impacting on people’s livelihoods, but it’s also affecting people’s lives. Mental health is an issue that is going to roll out in time more and more, probably a bit more quickly than the vaccination roll-out and uptake, that is a necessity and a requirement.

I come back to the theme of Halloween. Drawing on my Celtic ancestry, that is shared with many members of the House and also New Zealanders, we heard in the House several weeks ago the importance and significance of Matariki as a public holiday. So, Halloween—just dressing down and coming back to the cultural relevance and significance of it. The 1st of November is the celebration of a new year, and with that new year it marks the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter, a time of year that was often associated with human death.

Halloween and the fear that is amongst our living community, a living nightmare for Aucklanders, is COVID-19. I questioned the Associate Minister of Health for Māori health and Whānau Ora earlier this week, about the timeliness of the Government’s response to vaccinate our most vulnerable, our communities that suffer inequities, our Māori communities. This country went into lockdown on 24 March 2020. The Minister responded and tried to conflate and confuse by saying that I got it wrong. I didn’t get it wrong. To New Zealanders out there, we know that living in this COVID time, lockdown occurred on 24 March 2020. Why is it that the accelerated funding for Māori vaccination uptake was only announced on Friday, 22 October 2021—19 months later? I was not wrong, Minister. This has been a slow recognition. This has been a slow uptake by the Government to realise the significance and importance of treating and dealing with our living.

I come to Halloween also in terms of the theatre. Under the protection of parliamentary privilege, we had in the House, when there was a question posed, it was chipped in—a chipping in—by a Minister to divert and distract from the real issue, the living issue and the living nightmare for New Zealanders. Why is it that Māori are having the finger pointed at them and being blamed for the slow vaccine uptake?

There were a few shots from no lame duck in this House, directed towards an old Pem Bird—there was a bit of foul play that went in there. And speaking under the protection of parliamentary privilege, there was a bit of rucking going on and the slug shots were inappropriate. It’s right that our people question. It’s right that our people say we still have a choice. But it’s also right to promote the importance of vaccination and protecting our people.

So, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, I say, let’s lessen the slug shots and the firing across the bow; focus on the important things—less the theatre within this House; and the reality of the impact on New Zealanders’ lives.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. He Hōnore tēnei mōku te tū i tēnei ahiahi ki te kōrero i waenganui i a koutou i tēnei rā.

I a au e whakaaro ana he aha tētahi kōrero māku i tēnei rā e hiahia ana ahau ki te tautoko i ngā kōrero o taku matua, taku whanaunga, arā a Kelvin Davis. Tōna kōrero tino pā ki tōku ngākau. Pāpōuri hoki taku ngākau ki te whakarongo i āna kōrero hōhonu, tika hoki. Nō reira, e te whanaunga e Kelvin, tautoko ana ahau ō kupu, kei te kaha.

He rite tonu tōku kōrero e Te Māngai o Te Whare, ko taku tupuna tērā i mate i te tau 1918. 48 noa iho ōna tau. Tokowaru ana tamariki e toe ana. Tino pōuri taku maumahara i tērā kaupapa. Koirā tētahi o ngā tino take i haere ahau ki te wero i ahau anō. Ko taku tino take ko waku kōtiro, waku tamāhine Hihana Mairehau-Belle Te Tau o Taku Ate Prime, Heeni Hirere-June Te Kare o Ngā Wai Prime. Ko rāua te take i haere ahau ki te wero i ahau anō. Ko te take kāhore au e hiahia ana ahau kia pērā i taku tupuna i mate moata e toe ana tamariki. E hiahia ana ahau kia ora tonu ahau mō aku kōtiro, mō aku tamāhine, mō taku whānau whānui hoki me te hapori anō hoki. Nō reira e hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi ki te tini o ngā tāngata kua haere ki te wero. E mihi ana ki a koutou i haere mōu ake, mō tō whānau, mō Aotearoa whānui hoki.

E mihi hoki ana ki ngā tapuhi, ki ngā kaimahi, ki ngā hauora puta noa i Te Tai Tokerau, i Aotearoa hoki. E mahi kaha nei ki te tiaki i ngā tāngata i ngā hapori i ngā tāngata e haere ana ki te wero. Ahakoa whiti mai ana te rā i ngā rā tata ake nei e heke mai ana te ua, he āwhā, he waipuke hoki, kei reira tonu e mahi ana. Nō reira e mihi ana ki a rātou.

E tātou mā, e tōku iwi o Te Tai Tokerau. Kua takoto te mānuka. Ko te mahi nui kei mua i a tātou i tēnei wā kia eke ki tērā taumata o te 90 percent. I tēnei rā 19,000 anō tāngata e rapu ana tātou i tēnei wā kia haere ki te wero tuatahi. Ā muri mai i tēnā ko te wero tuarua. Engari, kaua e waiho mā ngā kaimahi o ngā hauora anake tērā mahi e kawe. He mahi mā tātou katoa e kawe. Mā mangu mā mā ka oti te mahi, nē? No reira, mā whero anō hoki. Nō reira, me kaha tātou katoa ki tautoko ki te tiaki i ō tātou hapori kia eke ki tērā taumata.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te kōrero, e Te Māngai o Te Whare, mō te kaupapa o te Super Shot Saturday. I hoki au ki taku ūkaipō, ki te tāone i tupu ake ahau, ara ki Moerewa. Ko te kaupapa i tēnei rā, ko tētahi o ngā kaupapa ko te pūtea, te pēke rānei, ko te kaupapa o te Rugby for Life. Mehemea ka haere mai ki te wero, ka hoatu tētahi te 10 tāra ki tō tīma. Te harikoa o ngā tāngata i tae mai i taua rā mō te kaupapa. Āe, i whiwhi te wero, engari i reira ki te whakaatu atu ki tō rātou hapori tō ratou aroha ki te hapori o Moerewa. Nō reira e mihi ana ki a Pamela-Anne Simon-Baragwanath, koia tētahi o ngā kaiwhakahaere. Te kaha o tērā wahine ki te akiaki ki te poipoi i ō tātou whānau i roto i Moerewa. Ko te hiahia ka tū anō he kaupapa pēra. Hei tētahi marama pea ka hoki mai rātou ki te wero mō te wero tuarua, ā, nō reira, kia kaha tonu tātou. Kua takoto te mānuka.

I roto i te 20 hēkona e toe ana, e hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi atu ki te Kāwana Tianara hou, ki a Kahurangi Cindy Kiro nā te mea nō roto o Ngāpuhi tēnei rangatira e mihi ana ki a ia. Tino harikoa te ngākau kua whiwhi ia i tērā tūranga hei painga mō tātou katoa, tēnā koe.

[Mr Speaker, greetings. It is my honour to stand and speak to you all this afternoon.

While I am thinking what I would like to say today, I would like to support the words of my senior and my relative Kelvin Davis. His words touched my heart and my heart was saddened to hear the depth and the truth of his words. Therefore to Kelvin, my relative, I support your words and your strength.

I am constantly talking about an ancestor of mine who died in 1918 at the age of only 48 years. Eight children were left behind. It is a very sad memory and one of the main reasons I got myself vaccinated. The main reason was my daughters, Hihana Mairehau-Belle Te Tau o Taku Ate Prime, Heeni Hirere-June Te Kare o Ngā Wai Prime. They are reason I got myself vaccinated. The reason being, I didn’t want to be like my ancestor and die early, leaving children behind. I want to live and be around for my daughters, for my wider family and for the community. Therefore, I want to acknowledge the many people who have been vaccinated, whether you did it for yourself, your family or for Aotearoa as a whole.

I want to also acknowledge the nurses, workers and health services all across Northland and the rest of Aoteoroa. These people work hard to look after the people in the communities and the people going to be vaccinated. Although the sun has been shining in the last few days, there has also been rain, storms and flooding. In spite of this they are still there, working. So I applaud them.

To my iwi in Northland. The gauntlet has been laid down. The big job in front of us right now is to reach that 90 percent threshold. Today, we are looking for 19,000 people to come and get their first vaccination. And following that, their second. But, don’t leave that job just to the health workers. We must all carry that load. With black and white, the work will be completed, will it not? Therefore, with red as well. Therefore, we should all stay strong to support the care of our communities so that we can reach that target.

I would like to talk about the Super Shot Saturday. I went home, to Moerewa, the town where I grew up. The theme for the day, one of themes for the day was financial under Rugby for Life. If you got vaccinated, your team would be given $10. People who came on the day were very pleased with this event. Yes, they got the vaccine, but it also showed their love for the Moerewa community. So, I congratulate Pamela-Anne Simon-Baragwanath, who was one of the organisers. She showed her strength in encouraging and nurturing our families in Moerewa. We hope there will be a repeat of this programme. In a month or so perhaps they will return to give the second doses, and so, stay strong everyone. The gauntlet has been laid down.

In the remaining 20 seconds, I want to acknowledge the new Governor General, Dame Cindy Kiro, because she heralds from Ngāpuhi. I am full of joy that she has been selected for this role which will be a benefit to us all. Greetings.]

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I’d like to say that last week I had the pleasure of being in the Education and Workforce Committee to review Te Pūkenga, but it certainly brought no pleasure at all.

Taking it back to 2018, the Minister of Education, Mr Chris Hipkins, started a review of the vocational education sector. Over a period of two years, a façade of consultation took place, which cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, for him to make a decision that was exactly the same as what he had promoted two years prior.

There are a number of things that the Minister said would happen when he merged the polytechnic sector, and there were a number of things that I said would happen. So let’s reveal who was right about what was going to come. So the Minister, Minister Hipkins, said that creating a head office for the vocational education sector would mean a very modest-sized head office. It would be “small”, “slim”, “nimble” were the words that the Minister used. I predicted it would be bloated; a bureaucracy that was slow, costly, and cumbersome.

So in the review, I had the opportunity to question what size the head office was. Well, sadly, the chief executive, who’s paid over $600,000 a year, couldn’t answer that question. He had to defer to one of his staff, who was able to tell us that 139 fulltime-equivalent staff were now in the head office of Te Pūkenga, at a cost of $11 million per year. Now, I guess “modest”, “small”, “slim” is all relative, and to a Minister that thinks nothing of seeing $12 billion of COVID money spent on things like wallaby constraining and cameras on fishing boats probably does see a head office of 139 people at a cost of $11 million as small and modest.

He also said that it would be nimble. He didn’t want it to be “administratively heavy” and “another layer of management”. Well, let’s see how that worked out when the $25 million announcement for mental health in tertiary education came to be distributed out. The announcement, in the middle of last year meant that in April this year Te Pūkenga signed up to an agreement to take some of that $25 million and distribute it out to their subsidiaries and to the students. So, how’s that going? Well now, 18 months after it was announced, two subsidiary companies have received some funding for mental health for students affected by COVID. Doesn’t sound nimble to me.

The Minister said he wanted the new head office to address viability issues in some of the subsidiaries. So I asked the chief executive how that was going. Sadly, he couldn’t tell me which subsidiaries had actually made a surplus or a deficit. When I asked him how he was going to manage the $11 million salary cost of his head office when the money ran out for setting up the institute—and to be clear, the Minister has said the funding is to support the establishment, $120 million to support the establishment. But the chief executive said, “Oh, he didn’t think there’d be a problem, there’d just be more money put into it.” So what viability issues has he fixed up? None. None at all.

We predicted that the successful Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand would subsidise those that weren’t successful. So an internal treasury function has been set up where the reserves from one polytechnic get lent to another. So I asked, where was the security for the lending institute? There is none; we’re all one entity. So where is the incentive for that money to be paid back?

What is the relevance of this? The relevance is, we’re facing three waters, the asset grab and centralisation of our council-owned assets. We are facing mergers of DHBs, and we should learn that actions speak much louder than words. It won’t save money. It won’t be nimble. It won’t have any democratic community input. And it certainly—

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

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise to take a moment in this debate, and I’m proud to follow the members of team Te Tai Tokerau: the Hon Kelvin Davis and my friend, colleague, and flatmate Willow-Jean Prime, because—

Hon Member: Name dropping.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON: —a little name dropping going on there—we in Te Tai Tokerau are facing a challenge, as Willow-Jean Prime said. We have 19,000 people to get us to the magic 90 percent of first vaccinations. Kelvin Davis spoke today about the importance of leadership and what true leadership is, and he spoke of rangatira tūpuna. I do not come from a line of rangatira. I come from a line of ordinary good people who did their best in hard and in good times. And it is to those people as well as to our rangatira that we have to look today to get those 19,000 Tai Tokerau people over the line and into the safe space where we want them so that we can all of us move on with our lives.

I am not known for my patience. One of the features of my childhood was the long car journeys from Whangārei to Wellington, where we were from, and back again. I vividly remember that last hour of the journey where all you wanted to do was “Is it over yet? Is it over yet?”, and all the time you wanted some magic Tardis to take you to that finishing line. So we would see Pukerua Bay or we would see the Brynderwyns over the hill. But the truth is every revolution of those wheels, bit by bit, takes us there, every gesture by every ordinary person.

On Super Saturday, I saw them: the nannies who had packed the sulky teenager in the back of the car and had driven him down, grumpy, but he was going for his vax; the nanny in Ngāti Hine health clinic on Walton Street, who had brought two of her granddaughters in, both of whom were nervous, but she had provided the aroha and the support to get them over the line and into the safe space; the mums, the dads, who turned up with their whole families in the back to go to Semenoff Stadium, where the nurses worked from 8 a.m. until 6 that night, in costume—I went back twice; never a smile faded from those faces—and those nurses who came out of retirement, like my friend Min, who has come out of her retirement and has retrained to vaccinate people. These are the small revolutions of the wheel that are going to get us in Te Tai Tokerau over that safe line.

I want to thank them. I want to thank the nurses out of retirement. I want to thank the doctors who today are out there vaccinating. I want to thank Max the retriever, who came out on Super Saturday with his purple ribbons to promote vaccinations. I want to thank St John and the rapid response team who fed everyone sausages—700 sausages they fed out. I want to recognise the Northland DHB, who have worked hard and tirelessly and creatively to try and help people to get over the line with more than 500 gifts on offer. Just saying to any Tai Tokerau people watching: right now it could be yours! Wonderful trips to some of our best tourist destinations. Just saying to anyone who later on when we reach that 90 percent can come in and sample those delights themselves.

I also want to thank those who have tirelessly and in their own time combated the misinformation on Facebook. The human brain’s got a tendency to doubt and to negativity, and people like Eileen McNaughton, for no good reason that I can understand other than good and other than leadership, has spent her time tirelessly unpicking the misinformation and reposting the good stuff and the real stuff. To those people I say thank you, because you are getting us over the line with those 19,000. I say thank you to Ian Pritchard—who about a week ago stood up a site called My Reason Why, because we were tired of hearing the misinformation and we wanted to hear each other’s love and aroha—and, on that site, the 503 people who as of today have posted, everyone says pretty much the same thing: “I did it for my whānau. I did it for my sister, my brother, my children. I did it for our community.” Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Mālō ni, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to acknowledge that it is Tokelau Language Week—Te Vaiaho o te Gagana Tokelau. The theme for this year is: “Tapui tau gagana ma tau aganuku, i te manaola ma te lautupuola which means Tokelau! Preserve your language and culture, to enhance spiritual and physical wellbeing.” So, first of all, I’d like to acknowledge all of our indigenous people’s communities that are on the front lines of climate change, and our whānau in Tokelau are definitely that as well—but also our indigenous relatives that are also in rainforests as well.

Like many things in this House, it starts with a report. I happened to come across this report, here, which was published by Greenpeace Indonesia, which is entitled Deceased Estate: Illegal palm oil wiping out Indonesia’s national forest. It revealed that illegal palm oil plantations have been destroying protected Indonesian rain forests and other habitats, and New Zealand’s industrial dairy sector is a major beneficiary.

Palm kernel expeller—or PKE—is a product of the palm oil industry. Since 2008, Fonterra has partnered with food producer Wilmar International, which, under the Agrifeeds brand, imports PKE as a supplementary for dairy cattle. A lot of environmentalists are really concerned about PKE because it encourages intensive dairying and then, of course, the runoff effects into our rivers and so on and so forth, as well. I just picked this up as well, which says “Canterbury ANZCO feedlot faces inspection”. And it has a really shocking picture of a whole lot of cows crowded on a muddy field. They are not eating grass; they are clearly eating some sort of supplementary feed like PKE.

This report really stuck out for me because I’d been there. I’ve been to the Borneo jungle. I was there about 15 years ago, as part of a UN capacity-building project. If people had seen what I’d seen, they’d be truly shocked to look at it from that other dimension. PKE does cause intensive dairying. There is all that runoff into our rivers, as well. We often get really focused on the domestic impacts, but there are international impacts as well.

One of the things that still pops up in my memory is: as we were flying on one of those really, really small planes—and it was a recently built plane, because previously you’d have to travel for weeks by river in order to actually get right into the highlands where I was travelling—and as we flew over, you could see the palm oil plantations. It was like they had mowed over the rainforests. And in that place there were these palm oil plantations where indigenous peoples used to live, where orangutan used to live, where all sorts of other wildlife used to live—life that has been there for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

Often, we try to think of this stuff as over there, but there are actual connections as well. I remember sitting in the longhouse, talking with some of the elders and reflecting on, “Hey, you’ve got a longhouse back in Aotearoa Zealand.” Māori, we have a big house. Noticing and looking at some of their patterns, they reminded me of whakairo on wharenui.

But also, as I was sitting around the fire, eating one night, somebody came out and talked to me, and they said, “Hey, we heard there’s a Māori within this group. Is there a Māori there?” And that happened to be me. He goes: “Our uncle wants to talk to you.” And I said, “OK. Fine.” So I’m sitting there and this uncle walks out of the forest and they had a translator, and they were like: “Hey, many, many years ago, there were soldiers that were in this forest—and our uncle, he was their guide for them and they sung him this song and for all of those years, for decades and decades and decades, he had no idea what this song was.” So I said, “Oh, OK. Well, I’ll do my best.” So they sang me that song, and that song was “Pokarekare Ana”. So this kaumātua had been waiting since, I think, 1964 for some random Māori—me—to show up in the forest and actually translate that song for him.

So the point of that, in terms of this debate, is that things are all connected—things are all connected. Just because something happens here, it shows up in a packet, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an impact somewhere else; it does have an impact. PKE is having a devastating impact on indigenous peoples and wildlife in the Borneo jungle. The way that we can really step into supporting indigenous peoples—recognising that we are a signatory to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is encouraging, for one thing, stopping the import of PKE but also looking to support the indigenous people’s communities who are deeply impacted by palm oil plantations in the Borneo jungle. Let’s not just look at the impacts here—and they are dire in terms of climate change; in terms of biodiversity loss; and, of course, looking at this picture here, animal welfare itself—but also the impacts on indigenous people’s communities in places like Indonesia—

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

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As the MP for New Plymouth I rise to reflect on the challenges, the opportunities, the hard times, the misinformation that faces us daily in my electorate, and I’m sure all around Aotearoa New Zealand.

I think of Colleen Tuuta, one of our leaders, one of our people who has much influence in our region. I rang her recently, to say “Colleen, I need your support, can you please get into our communities, encourage the vaccination, and make sure the people in your community are getting vaccinated?” She said “Glen, you know, I’ve never been a vaccinator. I’ve never gotten vaccinated”, and I said “What? I had no idea.” And she said, “For years it’s been something I’ve been against. But it’s different this time, COVID is different and the Delta variant is different.” And she said to me, “Glen, my sister is dying of cancer, and I realised I’ve got to do something to protect her.” She said, “Glen, it’s my tamariki who can’t get the vaccination that we must protect”, and so she said “Glen, I’ve made sure that our whole whānau, our whole household has been vaccinated. No one is allowed in or out of our house unless they’ve had the vaccine.” She’s a staunch advocate for the COVID-19 vaccination, and I’m glad that she’s on our side, making sure that we get our nation vaccinated.

Secondly, on Super Saturday, I had the opportunity to travel right across the electorate, and I met a woman who had a needle phobia. The lovely doctor and myself sat down with her to have a chat, because she had tried at least three times to get the vaccination, and she couldn’t. We sat, we had a conversation, and she said she just could not do this; she’d had bad experiences in her past. So we had the conversation, and thanks to the DHB—they do a Thursday morning clinic where it’s sensitive to those who maybe have different needs, whether they be abilities, whether they be sensory needs, and she was able to go there. I checked in with her this morning, and last Thursday she went in and got a first shot. She’s booked in for a second. I’m grateful for our DHBs supporting the vaccination roll-out, doing what they can for all of our communities.

Thirdly, I want to talk about our Waitara aunties, our wonderful Waitara aunties. Auntie power all the way. That’s right. From our Māori Women’s Welfare League they’ve joined forces with our Taranaki District Health Board to ensure that they were defenders of their kaumātua, they were defenders of their community, making sure that everyone was vaccinated. Our dear aunties, old Aunty Wiki and the wonderful Aunty Patsy, were out there—and they continue to be out there twice a week—with a bickie, with a cup of tea, with a kōrero and, of course, with a vaccination. Making it more accessible to those who may be hesitant, maybe those who are nervous. And I was listening to Aunty Patsy on the TV recently, and this is what she said: she said “Forget about me, forget about you—this is about us. This is about our community, our people, our whānau, but most importantly this is around and about our tamariki. Thank you Aunty Patsy, thank you Aunty Wiki for your support.

Finally, I want to speak around Todd Williams, Louie Knuxx, and it wouldn’t be often that Louie Knuxx would be mentioned in this House. He was on the Sunday programme—his whānau was on the Sunday programme just this Sunday gone. Sadly, he passed away a couple of months ago. It was my honour, my responsibility, to walk the whānau through their last moments with him, to bury him, to say farewell. And for me, that was a great honour to be there. But it was really sad to see that people got hold of this pro-vaccinator, of this young man who was working with young people, this young man who was a musician. This young man who had worked with START Taranaki, worked in Melbourne and worked in Auckland to support our rangatahi, and people were using his name to criticise vaccinations, to put it down. It was shameful, and to Brent and to Kerry, his parents, I thank you for lending him to us. Thank you for allowing him to be a voice in support of vaccination in his life, and now in his death.

For us, I’m grateful that as a Government we are supporting the vaccination roll-out, we’re supporting that this summer so that we can hope that businesses will be open, that we can hope that people are vaccinated so people can feel a little bit more normal. And so, to be a little bit selfish, for the sake of Todd Williams, of his whānau, of his friends, that we can just have a really big concert, bring our muso friends, bring our artist friends together to celebrate his life.

Thank you, Todd. Thank you, Colleen. Thank you, aunties.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Committees

Select Committees

Pae Ora Legislation Committee—Establishment

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the House establish a committee, to be called the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, to consider, and report on, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it; that the committee consist of eleven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour six, New Zealand National two, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one, ACT New Zealand one, and Te Paati Māori one; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The reason we are seeking to have a stand-alone committee, or a special committee, to consider this legislation is because it does two very important things. The first is, of course, it restructures the decision-making structure for our health system, a health system that has struggled to really deliver the needs for New Zealand for many years. It will be very health focused in that respect, and we expect a lot of people with an interest in the health system—which, frankly, is all of us, but a lot of people actively involved but otherwise connected to the health system—will want to have their say on those things about the health system and what might change about it.

But here’s the second thing that it does too: it makes some very important innovations, one of which is the legislation itself provides for the way the Crown will meet its Treaty obligations in a way that has not been provided for in any other piece of legislation. So it sets out a set of principles that are drawn from the Waitangi Tribunal principles that were a part of the interim report on the Wai 2575 inquiry into the health system.

It also establishes the Māori Health Authority, an independent statutory body to provide leadership and stewardship for the health of our Māori people as part of the expression of that Treaty partnership and the Crown’s obligations to Māori under the Treaty. As part of that, it also gives recognition to iwi Māori partnership boards, which are bodies that are in existence but have not been recognised in statute and, really, have not been well defined up until now. And, although the legislation doesn’t add a great deal to prescription, as I will foreshadow, actually, it will be the role of the Māori Health Authority—in its early stages, the interim body—to work with the existing iwi Māori partnership boards to put some meat on a lot of bones that are there and to give some texture and depth to what they do.

So the reason for a special committee is to make sure that we have a committee equipped to take those two very important and, I think, very dominant strands from the community as they and this House consider this piece of legislation. And so it will be the intention of the House, passing this motion, to draw from the existing membership of the Health Committee and also the existing membership of the Māori Affairs Committee to make up the committee that will consider this very important piece of legislation. So, on that basis, I commend this motion to the House.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion. I think it’s extremely important to set out for people who may be watching—for people who may wisely not have spent their life or much of it following parliamentary procedure—to just explain what’s actually happening here and why it’s important. This Parliament has passed many, many laws, and many of them, as the Minister just pointed out in his first reason for a new committee, have been very important. It goes without saying that Parliament passes laws that are important, some more important than others, but very important. The reason that he wants a totally different committee from the Health Committee to consider the health bill, as he just said, is that this bill is about meeting Treaty requirements, and it seems to follow that somehow it will not be possible for the current Health Committee to consider the legislation and think through the issues.

So, just to be clear, the Minister is asking Parliament to form a new committee to consider a piece of health legislation that is not the Health Committee, because the legislation is about meeting Treaty obligations. Well, a lot of people thought it was about healthcare, but he says it’s about Treaty obligations. And he wants to form a new Health Committee, or a Pae Ora Legislation Committee, actually, to consider this legislation, and it’s going to have some members from the Māori Affairs Committee and some members from the Health Committee. Why was it not possible for the Health Committee—the committee that has been appointed by Parliament to consider health matters—to do it? This is what it comes down to. This Government has bought into a belief system where a person’s membership of a group where their ethnic or other identity is more important than the common humanity that unites all people together. They are saying that if you’re not Māori, you maybe aren’t qualified to think about this Pae Ora bill, and the only way that it can be properly considered is if they decide to have a new committee that has more Māori people on it, because they have insights that other people don’t.

I wanted to get up and talk about this because it’s just a procedural motion. Forming a new committee is not usually an extraordinary thing. It’s been done before—for example, it was done for the Abortion Legislation Bill. But I’m not aware that there’s been a committee formed in this House because it was thought that some elected representatives were incapable of dealing with some matters based on their ethnic background. That’s what they seem to be saying. This is monumental, because the background of this country, New Zealand, is that people have come from all different places for all different reasons, coming towards one thing: they wanted opportunity, they wanted common humanity, and they wanted the chance for tomorrow to be better than today and to be born free and equal. Some people came to get away from the feudalism, from the class system of England of old, in order to have an egalitarian society where people are born free and equal and have opportunity. People have come here from the People’s Republic of China to get away from the oppressive Chinese Communist Party regime. People have come to this country from India to get away from the remnants of the caste system.

Mr Speaker says the debate is narrower than that—I don’t think it is. I think the fact is that today this Government is saying that there are more important things than the common humanity, that some MPs are more equal than others, and that we have to have a special committee to consider an issue relating to Treaty issues because the people on the Health Committee, because of their demographics, can’t do it. That’s what they’re saying. And where they’re taking us, within the confines of this Parliament and its procedures, is a massive shift. It’s what Elizabeth Rata from the University of Auckland says is the difference between a nation State filled with citizens born free and equal, on the one hand, and an ethno-state where you’ve actually got to look up your family tree to find out what your political rights are, on the other. That’s how significant this motion is.

I’d appeal to the people on the left. I’d appeal to, particularly, people on the old left, who remember a time when progressive politics in New Zealand was about fighting for our common humanity; fighting for a time, fighting for an ideal that each person is bound by a common humanity that’s more important than any superficial difference between individuals. That’s what the old left used to be, but today the new left wants to make identity everything. It wants to commodify people into identities and it wants to say that your superficial characteristics give you insights and capabilities and perspectives more important than being a member of the human race and sharing that common humanity.

And the next reason we oppose this motion is, as if that’s not bad enough, the way that this Parliament operates is that it slowly accumulates a series of precedents. It gradually accumulates the idea that what happened last time is a justification for what happens next time, perhaps with a mild extension. Well, the fact of the matter is that if we go down this pathway and we start saying that, actually, some members are better qualified, based on their demographic characteristics, to address a matter than others, then we are going to find ourselves in a very poor place. We’re going to find ourselves in a place where some members are not equally capable, and therefore some people who elect some members don’t have equal political rights. This comes back to this simple idea of—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now the member will now come back to the motion, not projections going forward. It is a narrow motion.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. But surely a reason to oppose a motion is concern for the precedence that it will set. I’m very much focused on the motion, but the effect it may have on Parliament and, actually, the effect it will have, because the precedent will be there, is surely—wouldn’t you agree, Mr Speaker?—relevant to this particular motion and the formation of this committee.

SPEAKER: If the member stays close to it.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah, well I’m staying very close to it, Mr Speaker.

We need to preserve the ideas that another Labour Prime Minister went to Paris and signed up to. I’ll appeal to the old left, liberal traditions of the Labour Party not to do this. Once upon a time a Labour Party Prime Minister went to Paris and signed a UN agreement, and I completely agree with it. I think that it was about 1947 or 1948. The Prime Minister, I think, was Peter Fraser, and the agreement was the United Nations Declaration of Universal Human Rights. And that declaration begins that all people—it actually said “all men”, but I’m sure they meant all people—are born free and equal. This motion that this Government is passing through Parliament is pregnant with the assumption that all people are not free and equal; that some are more equal than others, and that some are better able to consider how we get better healthcare, not based on the matters before them, not based on any particular expertise they may have, but based on background. There’s no other reason not to just send this to the perfectly capable Health Committee that considers every other matter in healthcare.

And I challenge the people on the other side to get up and defend this motion, because there are two ways that they can do it. They can either get up and say, “Yes, we believe that people aren’t born free and equal, that some people have a different perspective just based on their demographic background, and that those differences cannot be surmounted by thinking and learning.” If that’s their argument, that’s fine, but that’s very troubling. The other way is they could just be honest and dump this divisive motion. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I move, That all of the words in the motion after the word “called” be replaced with “the Epidemic Response Committee to inquire into, hear submissions, and report on the Government’s response to the COVID19 outbreak, that the committee consist of 11 members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour four, New Zealand National four, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one, ACT New Zealand one, and Te Paati Māori one, that the committee be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition or her delegate, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.”

This Parliament does need a special committee; it just doesn’t need the one that the Minister moving the motion provides. We have been going through a very, very concerning pandemic, and this Government is much more interested in shuffling the decks on the Titanic of the health system that they have overseen and run into the ground and then decides that one’s ethnic background is important enough to set up a special committee but the pandemic is not. Well, I disagree and I have had experience of special committees. I was the deputy chair of the Epidemic Response Committee and I can confirm, as most of the people who were in the House in the previous Parliament know, that special committees do have a place and have an important role to play. Derek Cheng of the New Zealand Herald reported shortly after that committee got up and running that if one looked at question time, one would get a pretty jaundiced view of Parliament, but looking at the Epidemic Response Committee that is the best democracy in action. It was actually quite a pity, having not concluded the business of that committee, for the Government to send a Minister down late one night and decide that the committee should be quietly deconstructed and disappeared.

So let’s look, though, at the arguments that could be put forward for a special committee. It might be, for example, that the Health Committee has such a volume of business that it cannot cope with a significant reform bill that is before it, and that’s certainly been a reason for setting up a previous special committee in the last 20 years or so—I think the ACC legislation around 1999 or 2000 went through that. Very helpfully, the clerks of the committee have just recently published an indicative work plan for the Health Committee; it ain’t that busy. I’m not being critical of my colleagues, who I know work very hard on that committee, but they have basically two items of business: it’s the annual reviews of the entities that are the responsibility of the Ministry of Health—

Chris Bishop: That’s going to be good.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: So that’ll be good. That’s pretty standard business as usual, and a plethora of petitions, which are important to the petitioner and potentially to the Parliament, but certainly not time bound. They have one bill—one bill—before it, which will be deliberated and reported back in the next couple of weeks. So it’s hardly a case of the committee being so busy.

Now, sometimes there are things that transcend the scope of a committee. I think abortion legislation had that. It had health elements, it had justice elements—it had a number of elements and that was an appropriate thing to do. I look at the Standing Orders, at Standing Order 189, “The subject select committees and their subject areas are”—and do members know what they say about the Health Committee? It has one word: “health”. So the Health Committee has one role: oversee health. So, if we look at the bill, what does the bill do?

Matt Doocey: Oh, it might be a health bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, it’s pretty controversial but it’s not that difficult. Mr Doocey has hit the nail on the head. He’s a genius; Waimakariri residents are very lucky to have him. It’s a health bill—ta-dum! It reforms and eliminates the 20 DHBs and a number of other structures and it establishes—wait for it—Health New Zealand.

Matt Doocey: Oh, it’s in the name.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I know, it’s a revelation! And, of course, it establishes a Māori Health Authority—Health Authority. Now, the fact that it has the word “Māori” in front of it and that it will be focused on that very important element of reducing and eliminating inequities in our health system does not in and of itself warrant this course of action. There were a number of other courses of action that could have been taken. The Health Committee and the Māori Affairs Committee actually convened jointly last year to consider the progress of the Government’s plan for Smokefree 2025. I think it was the first time possibly in history—the parliamentary history—that two select committees were joined together for that purpose and it went very well and it was encouraged. I’m not sure if it was actually in the Standing Orders report of that Parliament, but indeed I recall having conversations about that being a good practice, and which should be encouraged. Why on earth that wasn’t considered for this, rather than what Mr Seymour has described as a potentially dangerous, divisive, and precedent-setting step, simply beats me.

There was also the possibility, which goes on every single week, that people with a particular interest or expertise in the subject before the select committees get subbed on to the committees.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I know. Who knew? Who knew that a member of the Māori Affairs Committee could go on the Health Committee? Well, apparently that was beyond the wit of the Leader of the House and the Minister of Health, who have decided that that’s not the approach that they’ll take. And as well as not actually looking at that, they’re not very good at maths, because, of 11 members of the committee, the National Party is being asked to consider and vote on having two of its members on the Health Committee. I wonder what they thought that would be: one from the Health Committee; one from the Māori Affairs Committee? The maths does not stack; there should be at least three National Party members on this committee. I think the only other—I may be wrong—committee with 11 members already has three: that’s the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Health has 10 currently and three of those members are National Party members, so why on earth would the Health Committee be replaced by a special committee with increased numbers but fewer National Party members? I don’t think it’s actually a mathematical problem the Government has with National Party members; I think it’s another problem.

But the biggest problem with this is the incredibly poor signal it sends to the public of New Zealand that the Government believes that we are a House of Representatives and we need to look like the community we serve, but to consider that only certain people of a certain ethnic background or colour or culture can consider empathetically a bill that isn’t actually dedicated to that purpose—it has a much wider purpose, and that is the health of all New Zealanders—and can only be considered by a committee with a requisite number of people of a certain ethnic background creates an incredibly concerning precedent. I must say, in my wildest dreams, I never thought I would be speaking on a motion such as this. And it isn’t hyperbole or overstating the fact that when Martin Luther King Junior said that we should be judging people on the content of their character not the colour of their skin, he was referring to the risk that this in a Western democracy would be creeping insidiously into our Parliament.

Hon Andrew Little: What did Martin Luther King say about the Treaty of Waitangi, because you haven’t mentioned that once in your speech?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, oh, I see, OK—so now Martin Luther King isn’t a good enough for Andrew Little. Apparently, Andrew Little knows better about race relations than Martin Luther King Junior does. Well, that sums it up. We need a committee all right. We need special committees to report on very important issues in this country; it’s just not this one.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to call Dr Elizabeth Kerekere but before I do that, I’m going to indicate that we will continue debate on the motion and not on the amendment, because it has not been tabled. I want to say, as it was read, my inclination is that it is not in order, but I will consider that during the next speech.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. We strongly support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and its efforts to uphold the Government’s obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, through a complete restructure in the establishment of a Māori health authority. So we get, on the one hand, the creation of a new select committee as part of that kaupapa, especially that goal to have 50-50 Māori membership on that.

On the other hand, though, this is an administrative process, and so the question is: where is this really special bill going to be best looked after? So I stand here less to oppose the motion—although, I’m sorry, I have to—but more to uphold the mana of the Health Committee. It is often said in this House how hard the Health Committee works. We do this under an incredibly good chair, and we work really collaboratively across all of our parties. We have a strong culture, and the Green and Te Paati Māori reps are already Māori. So we’ve got two already in there, if you’re trying to get those numbers right there. And, of course, the rest can sub in, as we do already with any number of other bills that we have to deal with.

Also, it already is a 50-50 model, and if we don’t have a majority in the decision, then changes don’t matter—not that they don’t matter, but they don’t get voted. So we work primarily through consensus and I think that it’s a—I really, really enjoy that work, and the people that are there, I know, are there because they’re really, really committed to health. The bulk of us come from health backgrounds.

I guess I’m wondering why you would take away the biggest health bill that may come in any of our lifetimes away from the group that’s set up to deal with it. Even though, technically, if it happens, I will still be the Greens rep on it, but for me it comes down to mana—the mana of the Health Committee, the work it has always done, the work that we will always do, and I hope that it would still come back to there. And, if not, I will put a plug in that it should still be primarily led by the Health Committee leadership.

Nō reira, I don’t have any quotes from leaders overseas.

Hon Meka Whaitiri: Do your mana wahine one, whanaunga.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Yeah, mana wahine, Māori women, and just shout-out to all the people, though, who work for health. It is a big deal, this bill. It is a huge, huge thing for all of our people. We want the best people on that, and I’m just here to say I think the Health Committee is the best place to start. Kia ora.

SPEAKER: I am going to rule on the motion that has been put before me. This motion is to set up a committee to consider a specific bill, and related matters. It gives it a name, a purpose, and powers to that committee, and my ruling is that any amendment to it should not go completely outside, as this proposed amendment does, and to set up a committee to consider a completely different matter, as the member’s amendment does. If it, for example, changed the name, changed the membership, changed the powers, then that would be allowable as an amendment. But to set up something which is designed to deal with a bill, and something to do with a pandemic, is, in my opinion, just too far away. So I’m ruling the amendment out of order.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And can I just start by echoing Dr Kerekere, tautoko to what she said; this is a real attack on the mana of the Health Committee, which is chaired by Dr Liz Craig. And, look, I think it’s fair to say that Dr Craig and I have had our differences over the course of the year. Frankly, actually, I don’t really blame her for those differences. She’s actually a very diligent and erstwhile chair of the committee. I actually blame factors beyond her control for our differences.

David Seymour: Name them!

CHRIS BISHOP: No, I won’t name them, because I’ll get into trouble. But she’s a very diligent chair, and this is an attack on her and the mana of the committee that I serve on alongside Dr Kerekere and other members. I think Dr Kerekere put it best: this is the paradigmatic piece of legislation in this Parliament to do with health reforms. In the Minister’s own words, it’s a once in a generation. Every 20 years or so, a Government turns around and does a big-bang reform of the health system, and we’ve come up to the 20-year mark—here we go; this is this Government’s attempt. In a funny sort of way, it actually reverses stuff that Labour did the last time they were in Government, which you will remember, Mr Speaker, from your time as a senior member of that Cabinet, back in the Clark administration. We’re sort of all the way around again to the abolition of DHBs, which were established by the Clark Government. So it’s a big-bang reform, it’s a massive piece of work, billions and billions of dollars of assets and operational expenditure and capital expenditure every year, and it’s not going to the Health Committee.

So one has to sit back and think: what is the point of the Health Committee if the Health Committee’s job is not to consider the big legislative reforms that the Government has put before the Parliament? It actually is ludicrous when you think about it. And, as Michael Woodhouse pointed out in his contribution, is the committee structurally incompetent to deal with the health reforms? No. Have we proven that we can work hard and conscientiously on difficult pieces of work? Yes; we’ve just dealt with the abortion safe areas legislation, which was a conscience issue people had very strong views on. We’ve just diligently sent that back to the House, or are about to, for consideration. We’ve just dealt with the drug-testing legislation, which, again, there are various views around the House on—some people find it controversial. We have diligently worked our way through that. We’ve dealt with various things to do with medicinal cannabis over the last 18 months or so. Off the top of my head, we have invigilated and investigated the Government’s pandemic response.

So this is not an incompetent committee; this is a committee that knows what it’s doing, with a second-term member of Parliament who is the chair—so someone who’s been through the committee before, knows what she’s doing as the chair, and has taken that experience into being the chairwoman of this Parliament, in her second term. It’s got a member in his third term—that’s me. It’s got Dr Shane Reti, who’s the deputy leader of the National Party and health spokesperson and a qualified doctor. In fact, to be honest, when you look across the Labour backbench—and I’m being very complimentary here about the Labour backbench—I think they’re all doctors. You’ve got Dr Liz Craig; you’ve got Dr Gaurav Sharma, who was a GP in Hamilton; you’ve got Dr Tracey McLellan, who is not a GP but has a doctorate—I believe it’s in psychology.

Hon Member: Emily Henderson.

CHRIS BISHOP: No, Emily Henderson is not a member of the Health Committee. Emily Henderson probably wishes she was a member, but she’s not. This is just the Health Committee. You’ve got Neru Leavasa—he’s a member. I think they’re all doctors. So get this: the Government, which has a whole variety of semi-talented backbenchers, new to the Parliament, who have health expertise, who are doctors, who know what they’re talking about—the Government is not sending the big-bang health reforms to that committee; it’s setting up a whole new committee! Well, how ludicrous is that when you think about it? This is not an incompetent committee. It knows what it’s doing. And it has specific expertise about the subject matter we’re debating, which is big reforms to the health system.

Now, in relation to the issue to do with the Māori Health Authority and the belief that we should have some special expertise on the committee, that can easily be dealt with through the ordinary status quo. Labour has members up the wazoo on the committee—I think they’ve got six members. They’re constantly coming and going! There’s a variety of people coming and going during the committee meetings. That’s totally fine. People bring on their own people. The National Party does the same. So the Labour Māori caucus, who, I know, are very concerned about this, can sub on to the committee. Again, this is not a Government which has a shortage of members on the backbench—as we know only so well. We have 33; the Government has 65. That’s double. There are a lot of new Labour Party backbenchers who can sub on to the committee, including from the Labour Māori caucus, if they wish to do so. It is just peculiar that we are going through the process of establishing a new committee.

And, when you think about it, we do this on very specific occasions. I’ve gone back and had a look at when the Parliament does this. It’s not used very often. We did it quite a lot in the first term of the last National Government. We did it for the emissions trading scheme, we did it for the Auckland governance reforms, and we did it for electoral legislation. So I would say they are an order of magnitude larger and justify, potentially, a special select committee. And the other thing is that they all have ramifications and aspects, with the possible exception of the electoral law thing, that crosscut multiple portfolios. So the emissions trading scheme—there’s an argument you could send it to the finance committee, there’s an argument you could send it to agriculture, there’s an argument you could send it to environment. And that’s the whole point; it cuts across so many different subject matter—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Government admin.

CHRIS BISHOP: Government admin, Michael Woodhouse points out. You know, it cuts across so many different areas, so Parliament has said, “Look, this is just too difficult. Let’s just establish a special select committee. ” Fair enough. Auckland governance—same thing. OK, look, you can make the argument it should go to the Local Government Committee, as it then was back in 2009. The Government of the day took the view that it was so big and so massive, and there were so many submissions—and I remember being here, I think, at 11.30 one night on a Saturday debating an endless amendment moved by the current Speaker, who was then—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: 30,000 SOPs.

CHRIS BISHOP: 30,000 Supplementary Order Papers. Those were the days! I wasn’t an MP, but I remember—

SPEAKER: Order! Interesting history, very important, but not relevant.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I was making the point that, in relation to Auckland governance, that is an order of magnitude bigger than the health reforms.

So Parliament doesn’t do this very often, and it needs a very good reason to establish special select committees. And I do not believe that the case has been made for that. This is not an incompetent select committee. This is a committee that knows what it is doing, that has expertise on the committee provided by many members of the committee, and they know what they’re doing, and it is just ludicrous that the Government thinks we need a special committee to consider big health reforms. We can do this job. That is what we are there for as a committee. The Health Committee is there to consider health matters. What does it say, and what message does it send, when the Parliament sets up a special committee to consider Government reforms to the health system but won’t set up a special select committee for the global pandemic that we’re enduring—COVID-19?

I have moved on multiple occasions, in a variety of different fora, for Parliament to set up or re-establish a form of the Epidemic Response Committee—I prefer to call it a COVID-19 committee—because that is genuinely an issue that crosscuts across multiple different subject matter committees and is of an order of magnitude of significance and importance that, I would say, warrants a special committee. And the Government, on multiple occasions, in a variety of different fora has said no. OK; that’s the Government prerogative. It’s unfortunate, actually, but that’s their prerogative. But yet here we are with the view that we need a special committee to consider the health reforms and the Health Committee can’t do it. One of the arguments that the Leader of the House has made is that he considers the Health Committee to be adequate enough to consider the global pandemic. Well, if the Health Committee is adequate enough to consider COVID19, which is of an order of magnitude more significant and more important than the health reforms, then surely we are adequate and competent enough to consider the Governments health reforms? So we will not support this motion. It is not needed. Let the Health Committee do its job.

SPEAKER: I am going to call Brooke van Velden, but I am going to warn the House that the last speech and the one before it were both internally repetitive and with large sections of irrelevant material. This is a very narrow debate, and I don’t want to be hearing the same arguments over and over again.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the motion to set up a special select committee to hear from submitters on this Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I’ve got a few reasons to do so, but the first reason is just the Health Committee is established in order to actually discuss health-related issues. I have to also acknowledge the speech that’s just come before us from Elizabeth Kerekere, acknowledging that a lot of the members of our committee do very, very diligent work. A number of them have a background in healthcare, and another number have a background as the health spokesperson of different parties. So I want to acknowledge the hard work that all of these members of the committees do.

But if I look at the specific numbers of the committee that the Government wishes to establish, they want to set up this new committee with 11 members—six from Labour, two from National, one from ACT, one from the Greens, and one from the Māori Party. Currently, you know, that doesn’t actually look too different. Under the current Health Committee—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m just going to remind Mr Bridges that he’s meant to be wearing a mask.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Whoopsie. Currently, the Health Committee has 12 members. You know, that’s not that different; that’s one member off. But our membership of the Health Committee is one ACT member, one Greens member, one Māori member, three National, and six Labour. So, really, the difference here is that we’ve gone from a committee that could, in fact, be 50-50 Labour and Opposition, if you take the Greens to be part of the Opposition outside of the membership, to a committee that can, for all intents and purposes, pass through the select committee with no Opposition voice whatsoever, because the majority of the committee will be Labour members.

I think that is rather disappointing, because if you look at what the select committees are actually supposed to be established to do, they are there to hear from submitters and to make changes to legislation where they see fit, so that the health departments and any other departments that need to be brought in to the debate can have their voices heard and have the debate that’s fulsome.

I think what is happening here is that this Government is just acknowledging, by establishing only 11 members, that they don’t actually want to hear any differing opinion in the select committee. They don’t actually want to hear from GPs who might have a different view. They don’t want to hear from the DHBs who might be disestablished. They might not actually want to make any changes to the legislation whatsoever. And in doing so, by putting a majority of Labour members in place, the Government Minister of Health, Andrew Little, will be able to pass through no changes whatsoever, even if they did need to be made based on the genuine concerns that come from submissions. I don’t think that is a good precedent to be setting in any case.

But the second point that I’d like to make is—and if you’d let me, I’ll read from the Standing Orders: Standing Order 187, and it’s about non-voting members. It says that “The Business Committee may appoint a member to serve on a select committee but without the right to vote on any question put to the committee or participate in any decision taken by leave of the committee. Such membership may be permanent, for a limited time, or for consideration of a particular matter. The Business Committee may end such an appointment.”

So I’d like the point to be made that it is quite possible that if the Government truly wishes there to be a different form of representation than proportional representation, which is supposed to be done under select committees—you know, we’re supposed to put in place select committee membership that the people voted for, representative of the people’s views; a diversity of viewpoint. If the Government would, in fact, wish to put in place a different proportionality of representation based on race, then why was this not brought to the Business Committee? I mean, if you look at that, the Business Committee may have actually said, “Well, it’s possible that we could appoint a number of members for a short time to look specifically at Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) and that it could be disestablished at the end of such appointment.”

I also note that the Standing Orders was changed recently to say that any person who’s a member of Parliament can actually just go on to a select committee and ask questions if they want to; you know, you don’t actually need to be a permanent member of the committee to do that. You can turn up and ask questions, and I’m sure Dr Liz Craig would be very willing to allow more scrutiny of any type of health bill under that particular manner.

I just reiterate that point that there are other avenues that we could have gone down to make sure that a health bill is recognised as a health bill, that proportional representation isn’t done away with, and that if other members want to join the Health Committee, they have a right and an obligation to do so if they truly believe they should be there. But the membership of this committee—being 11 members, with a Government majority that is different to the Health Committee—is put in place specifically so that the Minister of Health does not need to feel challenged on any aspect of the health reform by any members of his own party. I believe that this is a divisive change. It sets a negative precedent. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

SPEAKER: I see there’s a very senior member who’s seeking the call. I call the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I oppose this motion, and it’s worth just recounting what it does. It sets up a special, separate committee in relation to a special, separate Māori health authority that this bill is setting up, and, as I understand from what I heard on the television in my office, the reason that this special committee, this separate committee, rather than the Health Committee, is required is because the Government thinks that it is desirable to have Māori representatives in a disproportionate number listening to the debate and being part of the debate. I say that, actually, that is entirely wrong, and I want to flesh out why that is.

I’m a Māori man—right? My whakapapa through my grandmother Naku Joseph is Ngāti Maniapoto and it goes back, and I could probably get out the family tree and show that Nanaia Mahuta, who’s made some interesting decisions public today, is a distant relative. That is my whakapapa from a little marae, Kinohaku in Ōpārure, and I set that out because what I do accept for Māori—and dare I say it, I’m not looking at anyone in particular right at the moment, but Māori and Māori men do in disproportionate numbers have certain health conditions. That’s true, and I outed myself in my book recently—and I’m not doing a free advertorial here for National Identity—

SPEAKER: Oh, go for it.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —by Simon Bridges in all good bookstores. I’m not doing that. I made quite—

SPEAKER: What’s the website?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There isn’t one, but, you know, if you went to paperplus.co.nz or whitcoulls.co.nz, I’m sure you’d find it. Anyway, that’s not the point—that is not the point.

In that book, I made it quite clear that I have gout arthritis—right? That is something that people may associate with, I think, William Pitt the Younger and various other 17th century politicians in the United Kingdom, and they, disastrously, prescribed port, Mr Speaker, which, as you would know, I don’t partake in. But that was the situation then. So it’s not universally a Māori issue, but it is true that in New Zealand, a couple of hundred thousand - odd sufferers of gout arthritis, disproportionately, are Polynesian men: Māori and Pasifika males.

I have in my direct family a family member who suffered at birth from club feet. The wonders of modern medicine and our skill set mean that you would never know that, and he can function in the way that anyone else can. But that is another condition or issue where Māori are disproportionately affected, and I think I’m right in saying that some of that is genetic.

So I simply make the point that I’m Māori and there are health issues that I accept affect Māori in ways that are different and disproportionate as Māori. But let me tell the House what I as a Māori man with a Māori health ailment expect from a Māori health system, and I do want to bring this into this particular point of a separate committee, given it’s a separate Māori health system we are setting up. What do I want? What do I expect? I’ll tell you what I expect: I expect someone to fix the issue—a doctor who knows what they’re doing and is competent and will deal with it.

The point of that is at the moment, at the Mount Medical Centre in Tauranga, I go to a couple of doctors. One is Singaporean and one is from the United Kingdom, and the point simply is this: I don’t give a tuppence—to use another old-fashioned phrase—where they’ve come from or what their ethnicity is. As long as, medically, they know what they’re doing and they’re competent, that’s all that matters to me as a Māori man with particular Māori health ailments.

The point about that is that when it comes to this motion, which I think is strange and I think is wrong and hasn’t been thought through by the Government, is simply that the very same point I’d make about medical issues, as a Māori man, is also true when it comes to Parliament and select committee representation. I don’t actually think it makes any substantive difference, the ethnicity. What we want, fundamentally, is people on that committee who, yep, have empathy for the issues—and I’m sure there would be if it wasn’t going to this special committee but was going to another committee. There would be Māori—dare I say it, probably Māori men—on the committee.

But, ultimately, what we want, going through the issues in this bill, are competent people who know what they’re about, who have empathy, and who understand the issues at play. Whether it’s me with my health ailments, where I don’t need a Māori doctor to deal with those but I just want a competent one, or whether it’s this select committee, where we don’t need only Peeni Henare, Tāmati Coffey, and one or two others of Māori whakapapa, what we actually want is people with empathy and competence to deal with the issues.

The reality is there’s a committee that’s exactly right for this bill—it’s perfect in every single way—and that committee, of course, is the Health Committee, chaired by Dr Liz Craig. I emphasise the doctor there. In this House, we do give people their correct honorifics, generally speaking. But she is a doctor, and my clear understanding is that she is a medical doctor, and there are other medical doctors on that committee, probably of different ethnic make-ups and backgrounds. That, in the end, is good. It’s good to have diversity, some different perspectives, some different backgrounds.

But, actually, it’s not only wrong thinking, but I think it’s probably wrong to say, “You know what? This just has to be over here with Māori because it’s a Māori issue.” To me, that’s a segregated way to think about it. It’s segregated in the health system, in terms of the substance of this bill, but it’s also a wrongful approach when it comes to the actual parliamentary process. What it’s suggesting is that “for Māori, by Māori, only Māori” is the way to go, and I’ve never thought that was right. I think Chris Bishop, Ian McKelvie, the Hon Jan Tinetti—they would all also bring a perspective to this bill that would be right and it would be valid in this bill.

So I simply want to sum up by saying this. This bill is about a separate Māori health authority. This process in this motion is about a separate Māori select committee. I have some empathy for the fact that we would want Māori on this committee, but as a Māori with health issues who goes to any old doctor, I also say that—you know what?—it doesn’t need to be just that way, and having the right people with the competence, as the Health Committee does, is the right answer for this bill, with subbed-in Māori members.

If Tāmati Coffey wants to go along to that committee and be part of it, I’d certainly be happy having voting rights and being on that committee. But, actually, as the ACT member previously has said on this bill, even if that wasn’t the case, what is also true is that he could be there as a non-voting member who is able to ask questions and able to ensure that a certain perspective as a Māori man, and maybe there’s another member, a Māori woman that had a different perspective who should be there as well—he could do that.

So I think this is maybe from some good intent, but it is a wrong motion. It’s a motion that, just like this bill, shouldn’t have come forward, and certainly I, for one, as a Māori man, oppose it.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That the question be now put.

SPEAKER: Yes, I think the House is in a position now to decide the question.

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

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 53

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

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House establish a committee, to be called the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, to consider, and report on, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and any associated business that may be referred to it; that the committee consist of eleven members to be nominated by parties to the Speaker as follows: New Zealand Labour six, New Zealand National two, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand one, ACT New Zealand one, and Te Paati Māori one; and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington region during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Noes 53

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

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill

First Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Pae Ora Legislation Committee to consider the bill.

Today is a pretty momentous day for this House as it commences its work in a pretty fundamental reform of our health system. I found the last debate instructive, really, about the understanding about not so much the health system but the health outcomes in our country. The reality is that there is an extraordinary disparity of health outcome in this country, depending not only on who you are—and if you are Māori, you are much more likely to have worse health outcomes than pretty much anybody else in the population—but also about where you live. Where you live will also determine what access you get to many forms of healthcare and, therefore, what happens to you.

The system we have at the moment, which is the DHB system conceived, roughly 20 years ago, was an attempt to make sure that we have a health system that was as responsive as it could be to local needs but completely funded by the Government of the day. It is a system that has done OK, actually, in some respects and it has allowed hospitals to develop what they perceive as their needs for their community.

But, actually, over time, a problem has emerged: differences between DHBs, difference in performances, and also it is a system that has simply been incapable of keeping up with developments in technology. So we are now able, through good data and digital systems, to provide a lot of coordination, a lot of analysis, and a lot of understanding about what is happening in different parts of the country, and, indeed, across the population as a whole. But when you disaggregate decision making for a system for 5 million people into 20 different organisations, then we shouldn’t be surprised that disparities emerge and differences emerge and differentiation emerges and, then, people suffer the problem of access to different health services and, therefore, different health outcomes, depending on where you are in the country. So, in many respects, the way we live, what we do, and technology—all those things—have conspired to make the current system obsolete. It is no criticism of anybody in our current system that those circumstances have emerged, but that is what it is.

So it was important that we took the opportunity to reflect on that, and we did that with the Health and Disability System Review, which was chaired by Heather Simpson, and they reported. We’ve also had the benefit of the Waitangi Tribunal and the claim by Māori who took their claim to the tribunal, and what is known as the Wai 2575 claim, and we’ve had the benefit of the interim report of the Waitangi Tribunal reflecting on the health system and the extent to which it has served, or not served, the interests of Māori, and the extent, most importantly, to which it has been consistent with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

What was very interesting in the members who spoke opposite—with the exception of Elizabeth Kerekere—was the singular failure of any of those members who spoke to refer to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Crown has obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and they are very clear. This was part of the examination of the Waitangi Tribunal. It said very clearly that it is a system that has simply failed Māori in that the most kind of standout measure that you can see is life expectancy. On average, Māori men can expect to live seven years shorter than anybody else in the population. That tells you that there is something seriously wrong. The health system has not kept up with the needs of Māori, but, actually, we know it hasn’t kept up with the needs of much of the rest of the population either, but in other respects.

If ever there was any evidence about the problems and the challenges we have with the current health system, you’ve only got to look at the current COVID pandemic and, actually, the roll-out of the vaccination campaign to vaccinate as many as possible of the population. Why is it that for Māori there has been such a lag in the uptake of the vaccine? It is because of a whole bunch of factors that we know have always been there, but they have been exposed for all to see. We’ve had kaupapa Māori health services pressed into action, finally now getting the traction that the rest of the system couldn’t get, because we said—and with the leadership of my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare, with whom I have worked very closely on these reforms and on this bill. Finally, when Peeni Henare worked with those Māori health leaders, it actually started to get traction and it demonstrated something very important to us: that, actually, Māori health leaders know what is needed to make the gains and to make the difference.

So this legislation does some very important things. It takes the 20 DHBs that we have at the moment and puts them into one organisation. It has the benefits of coordination across the system as a whole; not 20 different decision makers in different parts of the country, but one decision maker that can plan across the system as whole, and that takes into account the fact that there is increased mobility of the population. Where you go to get your health treatment should not be significantly different depending on where you are in the country. This reform and this bill will allow us to do that with the establishment of Health New Zealand.

We will also establish the Māori Health Authority, not because, as some members have argued—and I get the culture wars that members like the Hon Simon Bridges want us to buy into, and David Seymour. They want these culture wars, and they’ll try some division and what have you. The Māori Health Authority does not set up a separate system; it is an independent statutory body that works hand in glove with Health New Zealand to make sure that their advocacy—that is to say the Māori Health Authority’s advocacy but also commissioning powers—makes sure that the needs of Māori are met in a way that they simply have not been for many, many years, and that we are seeing demonstrated time and again just in the last 20 months. That is why that is important.

The bill also gives statutory recognition to the iwi-Māori partnership boards, which have been around and have worked to varying degrees of efficacy in the time they’ve been around. They will be powered up through the leadership of the Māori Health Authority to make sure that that local iwi-Māori voice is heard so that when the commissioning decisions are made jointly between the Māori Health Authority and Health New Zealand that we have commissioned primary community care services that are relevant to the local population.

The bill provides for and requires Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to support the locality planning process. I know that many people have held on to the DHB boards and the elected boards and those boards to have been providing the ability to get local input to get great decisions made, but, actually, the evidence tells us the opposite. It hasn’t worked. We are not getting local voices making meaningful differences in local communities. Now, through the locality planning process, we would draw together the health providers in an area, the community representatives, and we can actually start to get health plans in locality areas that are relevant to those communities. That is what the bill will do.

So this bill is a very important reform and evolution of our health system. And then it will ensure greater accountability and transparency through things like the Government policy statement on health, the New Zealand Health Strategy, the New Zealand Health Charter that will govern the values of the workforce and the institutions in our health system. There will be some transparency. We will have a national public health agency; a discreet body within the ministry that will provide the nationwide leadership in public health that the ministry has through its director of public health, but, actually, a discreet agency providing that, because the other thing that the pandemic has shown is that we need nationwide and consistent coordination and a powering up of our public and population health approach to our health system.

I am confident that the changes that will be brought about because of this legislation will make a significant difference through the structure under which we make health decisions, resource allocation decisions, and policy decisions. It will help not only the hospital system and health policy but it will give greater emphasis and support to our primary and community care sector as well, which is so vital. If we are really going to change health outcomes, if we are really going to improve access for all New Zealanders, and improve health outcomes, actually we have to really beef up our primary community healthcare sector. This bill will allow us to do that through the establishment of Health New Zealand, through the stewardship and leadership of the Māori Health Authority, and the commissioning decisions that they have got to do through those bodies. I commend this bill to the House.

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

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to the first reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I am speaking on behalf of our health spokesperson, Dr Shane Reti, a good friend and colleague who’s up at the moment in the Far North vaccinating his people, and we wish him well.

I want to start off with two questions for Government MPs, and this is what I want to hear in their contributions today: which Labour MP went to their constituency in the election last year and said to their constituents “I’m standing to disestablish your DHB.” Which MP went to their constituency and said that? Oh good, two! OK, well I’m interested to hear what the others did. Only about 10 percent said they did—what did the other 90 percent do? I don’t think they knew, or I don’t think they told their constituents. [Laughter.]

The second question—and they’re laughing, because laughing is a good way of hiding fear. The second question is: what health outcome will be increased in the first year of this restructure? Every Labour MP, I want you to answer that question: name one health outcome metric that will be increased in the first year. Because I’ll tell you what, the health Minister Andrew Little still hasn’t answered that question, and questioning, for months. Because what’s interesting today, is we had the Hon Nanaia Mahuta with her steamroller going over the top of local authorities. And now we have Andrew Little on his wrecking ball, wreaking through DHBs. And they will tell the public it is because of the findings of the Health and Disability System Review. Let’s be very clear, the Heather Simpson review recommended reducing DHBs from five to 12, leaving five to 12 DHBs. It never found that they should take a wrecking ball to our DHBs.

Let’s be honest, who would believe this lot can deliver? Their track record—all I need to say is KiwiBuild, light rail, the Auckland Harbour Bridge, mental health. These guys do not have a track record. Now they’re saying to the public, “Let’s take a wrecking ball to the DHB system in the middle of a pandemic.” They’re saying to the public, “Trust us, we know what I’m doing.” And I’ll tell you what, the irony was not lost on the New Zealand public last Friday, when they announced the new COVID traffic light system premised on each DHB getting 90 percent vaccination coverage. The irony. I had several people reach out to me and say, “Here they are with a straight face talking about DHB jurisdictions when the following week they’re taking a wrecking ball to it.”

Because what we need to be—let’s be very clear here, this is ideological. This is centralised. This is socialist central planning. These guys fundamentally believe the country should be run out of Wellington. Running the country out of Wellington, running roughshod over local people’s views. Labour takes “local” out of “local people’s views”. Because what National believes in is strong communities. What we know about strong communities, our strong communities, they are our local economies. They employ our family, our neighbours, and our friends. Strong communities are the heart of local democracy and strong communities deliver local public services to our loved ones. These guys are taking a wrecking ball to the DHBs and to our local communities.

I want to share a story that some people might say actually validates the restructure, it is a story about the postcode lottery. I had a constituent reach out to me, a solo mother who was having a tumour taken out of her jaw. The Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) declined her jaw reconstruction. She was going to be left having to eat out of a straw and drooling. I made a representation to the CDHB because if she’d lived in other jurisdictions, she would have had it covered. The CDHB took that representation from their local MP and reversed their decision. That is what DHBs provide: local decision making. Labour is ripping that away.

Every New Zealander—rural, provincial, metropolitan—deserves the best world-class health services on their doorsteps. And you know what’s going to happen when they strip away the DHBs to a centralised national health service that localised control, that localised needs won’t be there. And how do I know? I actually worked for the British National Health Service (NHS) for 15 years. If you want to see an inefficient health system, go to the UK. And what’s interesting about the UK model is actually they’re moving away from a centralised model, they’re actually moving to foundation trust. I’ll quote what they say, the UK moving from a centralised National Health Service to NHS foundation trust, “The reform of NHS Trust is an important part of the United Kingdom Government’s programme to create a patient-led NHS with an internal market.” The stated purpose—and this is moving away from centralised to devolved into foundation trusts—is to devolve decision making from a centralised NHS to local communities in an effort to be more responsive to their needs and wishes. So here you have the UK with a centralised healthcare system moving away from that because they know it doesn’t provide a responsive health service.

Yet we are going the way, the other way, and you can see that in the language. Look at the regulatory impact system, “Government intervention is necessary to address these long standing issues,”—and indeed, “only Government”—it says “only Government can take the steps needed to reform the structure and operating model of the publicly-funded health system.” “Only Government.” And that’s where we differ, on this side of the House, because it’s not only Government, it’s the people that we represent—the local and strong communities and partnerships making those decisions. That’s what this reform will strip away. And what’s really concerning, if you look at the cost-benefit analysis, it’s basically bureaucrats before nurses. What they’re planning to do is reduce acute, unplanned admissions; reduce readmissions; and reduce length of stay—so in a nutshell, stop people coming into hospital and kick them out quicker.

Now, in some ways, you know, we can understand that assumption. It is expensive to have people in hospitals. But for all the cost of the reforms, hundreds of millions of dollars in a time of a pandemic when we could be putting that money into ICU beds, into ICU staff—Middlemore is sending people home at the moment who have got COVID because they’ve got no room—and here we are, embarking on the biggest health restructure probably in a generation. Timing. What’s interesting—when you look at the hundreds of millions of dollars they’re going to focus on this restructure in the middle of a pandemic—the benefits are evaluated at 1 percent of Vote Health. Even that, they’re not sure they’ll get there, they said probably “low to medium certainty.” Low to medium certainty of the biggest restructure, taking a wrecking ball to DHBs. Local people are going to lose local representation purely out of ideology. And what we’re finding out is that, potentially, down the track we might get a 1 percent return.

The Māori Health Authority. Māori, having a lower life expectancy in New Zealand is a blight on New Zealand. We should hang our heads in shame. But I would point out, what about people with mental health illness? Their life expectancy is 20 years shorter than the average New Zealander’s life expectancy. Where is the “Mental Health Authority”?

We’ve clearly outlined this restructure is not for New Zealanders. Thank you.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): I’m sure my childhood family doctor would be bitterly disappointed with that representation in the House. Dr Reti was a good family doctor, but I can tell you that what I’ve just heard today would be a poor representation of what’s actually happening in the health system and what needs to change.

I stand in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I stand in support of the actions taken by the Hon Andrew Little to make systemic changes to make sure that the health system delivers equity to our country, to make sure that the poor statistics that are impacting upon our people—when I say “our people”, yes, Māori people; yes, Pacific people; yes, disabled peoples; yes, people in rural communities. They need to change and the action being taken by this Government hasn’t started today; in fact it started a long time ago. Minister Little already talked about the Simpson review and the huge consultation that went on around the country. It became clear and evidenced in all of the submissions that the system needed to change and that’s what we’re proposing to do here today.

I’m excited. I’m excited because despite the assertions from that side of the House and the tip-toeing around Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that this bill actually delivers something that Māori communities and that Te Tiriti o Waitangi partner can look to with hope and aspiration. I find it interesting that on the other side of the House the National Party crow about their record for Treaty settlements but aren’t prepared to deal with the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi has not been met and the obligations within it, and that’s why we have the poor health outcomes for Māori people today.

This bill looks to address that. This bill looks to make sure that not only is equity in the system but accountability is too. It’s no good just being accountable to each other here in this House. It is important that the system that serves our communities is accountable to the communities. So the mere notion from that side of the House that we are taking away that local representation, I can tell you, is not true. In fact the iwi Māori partnership boards that are being proposed in this bill look to strengthen the way that we deliver those health outcomes and meet the health aspirations for our people locally is all in this bill. What it also does too is it makes sure that not only are those organisations accountable to Wellington and to the leaders in the health sector, they’re accountable ultimately to whānau. That’s ultimately what this is all about. It is about whānau and it is about wellbeing.

What we also saw is in Wai 2575 the evidence became clear that in order for us to make the changes in health, it had to be a fundamental shift and a systemic change, and that’s what this is offering us here today. But let me be clear that this is only the first reading of the bill. Under the process that was proposed by Minister Little, it is going to go through more debate, more rigour. We’re going to get our whānau and our community speaking up on this bill, and that’s important. We need to hear their voice. We want them to be engaged in this process so that the bill at the end of the process is the strongest bill it can be.

To answer the member’s question from the other side of the House, I stood on the election platform and said to those DHBs and to my health community and Māori health community in Tāmaki Makaurau: this has to change; it’s no longer good enough. That’s what we’re doing here and I’m excited that one year after the election, this bill is being introduced into the House and real change is under way.

We’ve already heard about the statistics that impact on Māori, and we can all, I’m sure, tell a story of a whānau member who has suffered those inequities through the health system, whether it was early testing for identification or whether or not it was falling through the cracks on the pathway to treatment or simply by the way they were treated by their health providers or by the health system. I won’t go into any of those stories, but I will encourage anyone who doubts that what’s happening in this bill and the proposed changes in this bill will make change and important change and positive change for our people to read the submissions to the Wai 2575 claim. In those submissions there are harrowing stories of inequity and the bad treatment of communities and people right across Aotearoa.

I’ve already spoken about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and strengthening Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I’m positive that we can find more equitable outcomes as it will hold not only Health New Zealand but also the Māori Health Authority to account, and that’s important. Our people have asked for this. And what I find interesting from the other side of the House is the health sector, despite all the pressures—and I want to thank them for the work that they do every day—even they’re calling for this change. The nurses, the kaimahi, the doctors, the GP clinics, all of them, the Māori health providers are calling for these changes. They acknowledge they’re working hard and they’re doing the mahi with respect to the COVID-19 response and the roll-out of our vaccination plan. But even they are hugely optimistic about this particular bill and the work that’s being done to restructure our health system.

I want to come to the Māori Health Authority. What was clear from our discussions with the community around the country on the Māori Health Authority was it couldn’t be an ivory tower in Wellington. They were quite clear with us on that. So too is the interim board that we’ve actually announced for the Māori Health Authority. So in order for us to make sure that the Māori Health Authority can continue to have its strong influence into our communities, the iwi Māori partnership boards are the way to do that. And I’ll tell you why. Because on a number of occasions in this House, I’ve stood up and if there’s one thing I can say about iwi Māori is they’re all different. Every iwi will say Ngāpuhi is different to us here in Te Arawa, or they’ll say Ngāti Kuri do things differently to Te Aupōuri, even though they’re neighbours. And what we’re hoping to do here with the iwi Māori partnership boards is to make sure that those local nuances are driven locally.

But in order to give them the most impactful plan in moving forward to meet Māori health aspirations, we must make sure that the Māori Health Authority can use all its levers and powers to make sure that the entire health system is delivering for our people. Because it’s no good just doing it there in the community, or it’s no good just doing it at GP clinics. It’s no good just doing it here in Wellington. What we also need is a Māori Health Authority to influence and engage with the systems that our people are engaging with.

It’s interesting that approximately 84 percent of the Māori population, when they are unwell, they go straight to the hospital. They don’t go to their primary GP, they don’t go to their primary health organisation. What they do is they go directly to the hospital. Therefore, we require a Māori Health Authority and iwi Māori partnership boards to have the most influence they can over that hospital to deliver the service for our people, to make sure it is equitable, to make sure that the service they receive when they go into that hospital is one that will see them get well and get better sooner rather than later.

Just in the last couple of minutes that I have, I want to encourage everybody who has already contributed to the passage for health reform to date, and for those who choose to or might choose to in the coming weeks and months—to make sure that your voice is heard, there are more engagement hui to be held right across the country. Minister Andrew Little is already on the road talking to our communities to make sure that they can continue to keep up to date and find their voice in this important process. I will be doing the same, and in order to do that to, have a kanohi ki te kanohi discussion, it’s important that colleagues, in particular my Government colleagues, do that in their communities so that their voices are heard.

Just finally, I find it interesting when Mr Doocey talked about DHBs and then going towards the traffic light system, and I’ll tell you why. Because what we’re saying is if they cared that much, then why haven’t the DHBs put their hand up to be held to account? They are publicly elected, many of them, and I want to encourage Mr Bridges to go back to the Bay of Plenty and ask them why their vaccination rates aren’t high enough. That’s just a clear example that the DHBs in this particular instance have tried their best—some of them haven’t tried their best. But ultimately the vaccination rates are a sign that what needs to change is the health system fundamentally and I’m proud that this particular bill will do that. I look forward to its passage, and I look forward to rigorous debate throughout its passage here in the House, and I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, here we go again. Twenty years ago, Labour came in, in 1999, and they had a great big new reform which was going to make the New Zealand health system the envy of the world. They said the National Government had run down the health system and underinvested, blah-blah-blah, you’ve heard it all before. Their great big, big bang reform was a structural change to the health system, and it’s called district health boards. We had 16 district health boards established round the country, and we had elections. It was Annette King’s—she was the Minister of Health—it was her big reform. We were going to elect locals to the district health boards. Unfortunately, we then saddled it with the single transferable vote election system, and I took great pride and pleasure in my time as Wellington City district health board resident, every—

Hon Simon Bridges: I was hoping you were about to tell me you’ve been on one of the boards.

CHRIS BISHOP: No, no, no. It was not my privilege, sadly, Simon Bridges. But every DHB election would come around, and I would go through the little booklet which gives you 250 words of meaningless nothing. I would always make sure that Sue Kedgley was ranked last in the district health board elections, and Helene Ritchie, who was, at various points, a Wellington City councillor—always made sure Helene Richie was ranked number 28. I then tried to find the competent people and I put them at one, two, and three—people with some sort of accountancy skills and things like that. I didn’t get to vote for you, sorry, Dr Verrall, because I’m in the Hutt Valley DHB now, obviously. But I tried to vote for competent people, and anyone who seemed nuts, like an anti-vaxxer or anti-fluoride or anything, they went last, but the person who always came last was Helene Richie.

Anyway, I digress away from the bill, which is to say we’ve sort of been here before, because 20 years ago, the answer was DHBs, and yet here we go again. Labour’s back in and their big bang reform now they’re unshackled from New Zealand First—and I have no time for Winston Peters, but it is true to say that the last Labour Government was stopped from doing some dumb stuff by New Zealand First. I mean, one thing they stopped them doing was this stupid retrospective property law changes, which we’re going to consider in the next bill before the House, but I don’t think they would have agreed to this. But anyway, here we are, unshackled by any essential governing party—and I don’t count the Greens as part of that governing arrangement because, as was demonstrated last week, in the bipartisan deal done between National and Labour over housing, no one cares what the Greens think anymore, actually, about much at all, frankly. No one really has any interest in what they have to say. So they’re there, but let’s face it, this is Labour’s ideological bill. So we’re going to get rid of DHBs and go back to the future.

Hon Member: They’ll bring them back in about another 15 years.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, in 30 years’ time, after the long next National Government’s finished its time and Matt Doocey and Harete Hipango and Nicola Willis and Simon Bridges and Maureen Pugh have been long-serving senior Ministers—

Hon Member: Government of excellence.

CHRIS BISHOP: —a Government of excellence—after Labour finally come back around the mulberry bush, they’ll probably bring it back again. Who knows? That’s the way these things tend to go.

But the reason I make that point—it sounds frivolous, and I’m being slightly frivolous, but it’s a serious point, which is that the health system endures this constant churn of reform, and Dr Verrall, who is a Minister, knows this all too well. Actually, reform is OK, as long as it meets the hurdle rate. The reason I say hurdle rate, or the threshold rate, is that it takes up an inordinate amount of time and money. In relation to these reforms, the Government has put forward on the table it’s going to cost $478 million. Now, let’s be generous and say that that’s an underestimate, and say it’s probably double. So let’s round up—I don’t think it’s being unfair—let’s say it’s the thick end of $1 billion. Now, you might say: what’s a $1 billion between me and some friends? Well 1 billion bucks is a lot of money. That is a lot of ICU beds. It’s a lot of hip operations. It’s a lot of GP surgeries. It’s a lot of primary care. It’s a lot of money in the health system. So you don’t just go throwing away a billion dollars—likely—but, sadly, that is the dead-weight cost of these reforms. That is literally money vaporised. It’s productivity, and it’s efficiency, and it’s the cost vaporised. That’s something we get nothing for.

Now, the Government would say, in the long term, the medium to long term, we do get more efficiencies and more reforms out of it. But I for one do not accept that is necessarily true. Actually, the analysis underlying the reforms says that as well, because if you read the cost-benefit analysis, this is prepared by the officials, no way to evaluate whether these reforms will deliver this outcome. Low to medium certainty. So these are reforms that are not based on a sound foundation.

I make the point that I’m not opposed to reform, and neither is the National Party—we’re not opposed to reforms. In fact, I would like to be part of a reforming administration, because, ultimately, I got into Parliament and into politics to improve things and make things better. That often means changing the status quo; that’s part and parcel of being here. But I’d simply say, in relation to structural reform of a major part of our economy and a major part of our society, the threshold rate for change is a high one; you have to be able to make the case. You just know what’s going to happen, anyone with any experience in the Wellington public sector knows what’s going to happen, because if I could be a little bit provocative and maybe a little bit pejorative towards the last National Government—and a guy I have a lot of time for, Steven Joyce—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

Now, you know, MBIE was brought together, the Department of Building and Housing; department—I can’t even remember the names—oh, the Ministry of Economic Development, the old MED—

Hon Member: Housing. Building.

CHRIS BISHOP: Housing. Building and housing. They brought all the agencies together, and lots of grand proclamations about what a great job it would do and it would be more efficient and it would join up Government and all the rest of it. All the things that, frankly, if you read the bureaucratic documents underlying these reforms, you’ll find, and nine years later, has it delivered on its promise? I don’t know, I think that’s probably an open question.

I’ll tell you what has happened though. Lots of rebranding, new buildings, new letterheads, new email addresses, new sector teams, lots of whiteboard meetings, lots of afternoon and morning teas, lots of—

Hon Member: Brainstorming.

CHRIS BISHOP: —blue-sky thinking sessions. Brainstorming sessions. Lots of that. That’s all fine, keeps people employed and occupied. But that’s actually not why we have MBIE. So I make the point: we’re going to get rid of all these DHBs, and you could already see it coming through in stories from the health system, which is morale. That’s the other big thing about change and managing change is that it affects people’s morale. So all of a sudden, everyone who works in the health system is always looking over their shoulder going, “What’s coming up behind me? What’s this next change the Government’s doing? Do I have a secure job in the next 12 months? What’s my pay going to be like? Who am I going to work for? Who’s my boss?”

Now, again, those changes can be justified, but that can be worth it, but you have to be really sure that, at the end of the day, in five years’ time or 10 years’ time, you’re going to get a health system where morale has been improved and you get efficiencies and get all the outcomes you want out of it. It’s not just me saying this. If you read any—or many—theories of business change management and structural reform in the business world, all of these problems are well known around morale from restructuring having a big effect around the efficiencies of change and restructured organisations often never really materialising. It’s not just me saying this; this is based on theory and evidence from the business world, as well.

So you can make a case for change, but you have to be really sure that we’re going to get the benefits, and I just simply say—in the final minute of my speech—will these reforms deliver more hip operations or less? It is not clear to me that we will get more operations out of it. Will these reforms mean better primary care in our communities? I do not believe the case has been made that they will. Will it mean more connected health resources, for Māori and Pasifika communities and harder to reach communities where there are health inequities and inequalities? I do not believe that that case has been made. It’s going to a committee, you never quite know, we are pretty firm in our opposition to this, but we’ll wait and see what the evidence shows. But at a time of a global pandemic, with very scant evidence for reform, the Government’s belief in this bill seems, frankly, heroically optimistic at best, and naively incompetent at worst. Sadly, I think it is more of the naively incompetent than the heroically optimistic.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to be speaking on the first reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill, but also to acknowledge the huge amount of work that’s gone into bringing the bill to the House to date. I just want to look back at the Health and Disability System Review, which we undertook in our first term, and just the huge and compelling need for change that it highlighted. So what it highlighted was just the significant amount of duplication of effort that was happening in the system. It talked about the postcode lottery in health. It talked about the huge inequities for different groups within the community for Māori and Pacific peoples, for those in rural communities, for those with disabilities, and those living in poorer areas. And it, basically, suggested that there was a compelling need for change.

I just think back to my own work, when I was working as a public health doctor, monitoring the health of our country’s children and young people before becoming an MP. I think one of the tasks I had to do was develop a consistent national framework for monitoring child and youth health around the country. What we really had to take a look at is what can you do centrally once and well versus what needs to happen at the local community level. I think, just an example, thinking through, you didn’t need 20 DHBs all doing an evidence-based review on what works in childhood obesity prevention, but you certainly did need to make sure that if you were going to implement anything on the ground, then you had local input, local engagement, and those that knew what was happening. So I think, basically, this bill gets the tension right about what we need to do centrally to provide that strategic direction, but also making sure that we get local input at the community level.

And just thinking also about some of the other examples of the need for change, drawing back to my previous work in monitoring child health. At one point we were just really grappling with a lack of information on children with chronic conditions and disabilities, so basically things like autism, epilepsy, and cerebral palsy. The problem was, if you don’t have information, then the DHBs can’t look at developing decent health services and plans for meeting the needs of those children and young people because there’s not any data there. The issue we were having was that most of the children with those chronic conditions were actually accessing their care either through their GP or in the outpatient setting. And in the outpatient setting, there was no coding of the diagnoses for people as they came in; so unlike hospital admission data, where you could look at thousands of children coming in for asthma and then think asthma’s a really important issue, therefore we need to plan services for children with asthma. Because there was a lack of information, these children were falling below the radar.

So what we went and did is had a talk to the DHBs and said, “Look, what are you doing to improve information access for these children and young people so that you can actually meet their health needs?” And one of the DHBs said, “Well, we’ve actually created this nice little system for coding in outpatients and we’ve got a couple of different broad, high-level diagnoses that we use.” Another DHB said, “We’ve got this amazing system we’ve developed over the last few years. We’ve got about 20 to 30 of the most common codes that we’ve looked at and we consistently can monitor that over a period of time.” Another one said, “Well, we actually use ICD-10, and so we’ve got access to thousands of codes.” And that was fine, they could get all their own information, but then when they went to actually talk to their neighbours and say, “Well, how do we do some joint planning here?”, there was no common information, there was no common language. And I think the other problem is then you couldn’t aggregate that up at the national level to actually figure out what was going on.

So the issue we’ve got is that’s just one little example, but it’s also happening across workforce planning; it’s also happening across how DHBs are planning that they manage the flow of patients with different conditions. And so there’s just this huge duplication of effort. And yet, all the time that DHBs are putting into that, they’re also grappling with, in the DHBs we were working with, thousands of kids coming in with potentially preventable conditions: asthma, pneumonia. They were working with workforce shortages—very big shortages—in terms of things like mental health staff, paediatric pathology, rheumatology, because there was no central, strategic direction. And so what we need is a health system that does things once and well where it’s efficient to do so centrally, but also incorporates that local level community involvement where you implement things on the ground. And I think this is where this bill achieves both and it creates that really great balance.

So what does this bill do? Well, firstly, what it does is it does disestablish our 20 existing DHBs, but it creates some new entities. So it creates Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. And, basically, Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority will work in partnership to plan, commission, and deliver health services across the country. So that common approach means we’re getting rid of a lot of the complexity and duplication in the system. Basically, the issue though is that in addition to that central approach, we’re also looking at localities and local communities. And so, basically, what it also develops is localities. So, basically, the Māori Health Authority and Health New Zealand will work together to define particular localities where we want to look at specific local planning. I think of my own DHB, the Southern DHB, and if you think about the health needs of those living in Dunedin, they’re very, very different to those living in Queenstown, to those living in Invercargill, and to those in rural Southland. I think that’s that ability to think through how do we look at different localities and plans for those communities and how we engage our local communities in that planning, and this bill takes that into account.

I think one of the other important things this bill does is it creates a public health agency within the Ministry of Health. And I think, when you look at the incredible significance of our public health response to COVID-19 and the way we’ve had that national-level planning, and also just acknowledging the huge input of our health professionals in the public health workforce, having a single public health agency within the Ministry of Health to coordinate that strategic leadership and approach is going to be incredible valuable moving forward.

The other thing I think is that what this bill will do is create a whole lot of strategic documents, which are going to be essential for making sure that we’ve got a consistent approach and that the priorities that we’ve got as a Government are implemented well across the country. So we’ve got a new Government policy statement in health, and that’s going to set out the Government’s overall direction, priorities, and objectives across the health system over three years. But it’s not just about the strategy, it also sets out the funding envelope as well and how the system’s actually going to deliver the outcomes and how that’s going to be monitored. Again, just doing a review, I remember during my public health days thinking through the approach we had previously where we had strategies, but none of them were actually funded, and so thinking through how effective they could be. So linking that in with funding, I think, is incredibly important.

It’s also got a New Zealand health plan. And what that will do is it provides a three-year costed plan that talks about and sets out those health services, how they’re going to be delivered within the Government across that three years. So again, just looking at that practical implementation.

And then also—I’ve already mentioned—locality plans, where we’re going to be looking at different localities and what those area’s health needs are and having some engagement with the local communities about what local communities see is their priority. Certainly where I’m based down in Invercargill, after-hours access to GP services, particularly free access for children after hours, is incredibly important as a local priority—so being able to have those conversations about how do we have the best configuration of health services in local communities.

Also there’s the New Zealand Health Charter, and what that’s going to be looking at is the common values, principles, and behaviours for the entities within the new system and also the people employed by them—so making sure that that’s very, very clear from the outset.

But also there are a range of things that won’t be changing. And so within the legislation, there are provisions to ensure that the New Zealand Blood and Organ Service and the Health Quality and Safety Commission can just continue on with their current functions, although making sure that they are subject to the accountability and monitoring requirements within the system.

So I think this is a substantial reform. I mean it’s obviously the most substantial reform that’s happened since DHBs were created back in the early 2000s. I think it’s going to continue to shape the health and access to health services for New Zealanders for years and years to come. But I also think, as I said before, it gets that balance right. So what it makes sure is that we’ve got a common strategic approach and we’re not spending a lot of time reinventing everything from the ground up 20 different times around the country; we’ve got a common approach, we do things once and well where we need to. The Māori Health Authority will provide the ability to work in partnership with Māori and to think about how health services for Māori communities are commissioned and delivered. And we’ve also got the capacity to make sure, within our localities, that there’s a level of local input into service delivery and planning. So I’m very, very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Thank you for this opportunity to support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. The restructure of our health system is a huge step forward, making the wellbeing of all New Zealanders a reality. It was 1985 when the Whare Tapa Whā model of Māori health was first published by Tā Mason Durie. It was a simple yet profound framework, four sides of a meeting house, each representing one aspect of health: taha wairua—our spirituality, our connectedness with all things; our hinengaro—our psychological, our mental health; our taha tinana—our physical selves, our bodily integrity; and taha whānau—our family health, because we are never just individuals. It was a holistic and intergenerational view of health. And, of course, it’s not the only Māori health model that’s been developed. A shout-out to the late Dr Rangimārie Turuki Rose Pere for the Te Wheke model, which I discovered as a young person and I used for many, many years. Te Whare Tapa Whā, though, is the most enduring model and the most well-known. Many have adapted it for use—and certainly I have as well in my creation of “Te Whare Takatāpui” model, which is a place of wellbeing for takatāpui people of diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics.

So Te Whare Tapa Whā was an integral part of He Korowai Oranga, the Māori Health Strategy, when that was first launched in November 2002. It set a new direction back then, new and shiny, an overarching framework to guide the Government and the health and disability sector on creating better health outcomes for Māori. The initial aim was Whānau Ora—that Māori families would be supported to achieve their maximum health and wellbeing. It was updated in 2014 with “Pae ora – healthy futures”. And, as they refreshed that strategy, so with the foundation of “Whānau ora – healthy families”, they added “Mauri ora – healthy individuals” and “Wai ora – healthy environments”. And so, for us, working in the health sector and working in our different ways in the community, around health and wellbeing, it felt like we had such high hopes, but we had so many crushing disappointments. Many of the people in this House have got health backgrounds, but you don’t need that to know about the huge disparities in Māori health.

During the annual review of the DHBs, when I was a baby member of the Health Committee and we were inundated with reports from around the country, I was horrified to see that in every health condition, in every DHB Māori were at the bottom. It was even worse to see that, when we were looking at the budgets those DHBs were spending, and despite most of them having dedicated strategies, in all manner of things going on with a Māori name, per health condition per person more money was spent on non-Māori than Māori. And this is the foundation of the struggle to get the last lot of our people vaccinated: that absolute core distrust of a health system that does not look after our people.

However—however—this new health system, we very much support it. We support its aim to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the most important evidence of which is the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. It was one of our priorities—Te Mātāwaka, our Māori caucus of the Greens—we announced at Waitangi this year, because in our consultations with tangata whenua they absolutely confirmed the need for this change but also to make sure that that authority was independent and adequately resourced. It was a stroke of genius to appoint Tā Mason Durie to come back and lead that development of that authority, as one of the most trusted Māori leaders we have ever had. But it must be really strange for him to create something 36 years ago—actually created 37, probably before—coming back in the hope that that vision might actually be closer at hand.

We note that the Māori Health Authority will commission kaupapa Māori services. So this a big deal alone. As one of many, many Māori who have sat on advisory boards in a range of different sectors, we know that usually there is no power and there is no money; so this here is a great start. We know that the Māori Health Authority will also co-commission with Health New Zealand, and this is important because most Māori don’t go to Māori providers. Partly, that’s because there are so few of them and they are not all over the country, but sometimes they choose for different reasons to support their local clinic. And so it really matters how the bulk of the health system is operating and what say the new Māori Health Authority will have over it. Being able to monitor the performance of a system for Māori is one thing, but being able to have actual power when you point out that something is wrong—that it actually gets fixed.

We note that the new agency will lead systems operations, planning, commissioning. Together with the Māori Health Authority, of course, they’re going to develop all manner of strategies and plans, which is how it should be. We want to make sure that those lead to direct work and that we’re not still, in a couple of years, writing plans and we haven’t actually made a change in people’s lives. We note that Health New Zealand will also establish localities to plan and commission primary community health services and engage with communities at the appropriate level. Now, you could say that locality seems to be very geographically termed. I have suggested to the Minister of Health and the Director-General of Health that we could have a rainbow locality—that even though it would be nationally based, it would enable a consistent approach to gender-affirming healthcare, for example, and to ensure that the things like the atrocious practice of gender normalising surgery on intersex infants never happens in this country again.

But we do support, also, the progressive expansion of the roles and functions of what is now the public health agency to enable it to advise, plan, and fund evidence-based health promotion services. We support those kinds of services that create supportive physical and social environments and empower communities to identify their own needs and be part of the solution. For this to be a transformational and visionary health system, it cannot be that you’re just telling people what to do; it is not going to work. People need to be empowered to take control of their own lives and their own bodies, and how they look after themselves, and given support when they need it.

Nicola Willis: Come join the centre right!

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Ha, ha! So we think that inside that, though, there must be a major focus on prevention. We can’t just always be dealing with people who are sick and need help right now—we must look after them, but let’s create a society that emphasises our wellbeing to such a degree that we can rely less and less on a publicly funded health system.

Now, local democracy is a core value for the Green Party. Our policy is that healthcare professionals, service users, our communities should be involved in planning and decision making on the issues that affect them. So the proposed replacement of DHB elections with appointed boards—we would still like to learn more about how that will work, but we prioritise those population groups with the greatest health needs, of course: Māori, elderly, women, children, Pasifika, refugee and asylum seekers, rainbow communities, of course people with low economic status, people with disabilities and rare disorders. All of this is part of ensuring better health outcomes for all of us. So community engagement, particularly as those localities are established and those locality plans are developed, the health and disability strategies are created, and the code of consumer participation is developed—we want to make sure that those consumer voices are heard.

Finally, I’ll conclude where I started, with a vision of health that is holistic and intergenerational, because the health sector cannot do it by itself. We note the stated objective of Health New Zealand: to encourage and maintain community participation in health improvement and service planning; to promote health and prevent, reduce, and delay ill health, including by collaborating with other social sector agencies to address the determinants of health. We hope this is indicative of a broader, collaborative approach. Whilst this needs to be defined and clarified, it’s very clear that our people cannot have good health unless they have a warm, dry home, a safe place to sleep, and enough money to live on.

Nā reira, kua eke te wā kia mārama me whakamana anō hoki te Kāwanatanga ki te tūāpapa o ngā tikanga Māori te tino rangatira me te manaakitanga i raro i te mana o Te Tiriti o Waitangi,

[Therefore, we have come to the time that the Government should be clear and give authority to foundational Māori protocols; self-management and care under the authority of the Treaty of Waitangi.]

Accordingly, we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 o’clock this evening.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. Members, when the House broke for dinner we were considering the first reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and I call Brooke van Velden.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker It’s my pleasure to rise tonight on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I want to take some time to acknowledge the health workers who have been working as our essential workers under the COVID crisis. You know, we have had so many months of nurses and doctors, GPs, people working in our hospitals and in our community care who have worn full personal protective equipment, who have sometimes left their families aside, and who have been wearing masks that have started to cut into their faces so that we can have healthcare and that we can have the essential services that we need under COVID. But I also want to take some time to acknowledge the hard work of people who weren’t considered our essential workers under COVID—and there are many people who are in our health workforce who aren’t considered essential workers. I think that’s wrong and I’m glad that the Government under alert level 3 has changed some of the rules so people can have their osteos and their physios, for example. We have a huge workforce of healthcare workers in New Zealand and I want to acknowledge all the hard work that they do.

But I want to come back to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and the reason why we’re having this discussion—and it’s because the Government has decided that we need a health reform. That’s coming after the health and disability review, which said that the system was fragmented and complex. We have unclear roles and misalignment of strategy, and it’s what we quite often refer to as the postcode lottery. You know, I constantly hear examples of people who are living in Southland who can’t get access to midwives, who travel for hours to try and get to the hospital, and who are giving birth on the sides of roads because they don’t have the facilities that they need in their areas for healthcare. We hear of farmers who can’t get mental health care in the areas that they live. We do have a very fragmented approach to healthcare in our country.

So the ACT Party also believes that the status quo isn’t acceptable. We have hospitals that are very run down. We have, essentially, Third World conditions, quite frankly, in some of our hospitals and people are languishing on waiting lists just for elective surgeries. It’s hard now under COVID but it was terrible even before that. We need a modern healthcare system that empowers people to get the healthcare that they truly need and deserve and we can do that by reducing bureaucracy and having a stronger focus on patient outcomes but it needs to be a greater collaboration between the public healthcare system and private provision. We would be happy if the Government adopted some of the ACT Party’s policies and ideas that I truly believe would help the healthcare system. We have publicly subsidised common elective surgeries—that’s a good idea. A national, fully integrated IT system across public healthcare for patient management—that’s another very good system. We need better security, if you see what’s happened under the Waikato data breach. We also need new hospitals. We need to allow for building arrangements for construction of new facilities under public-private partnerships. We also need a new mental health and addiction agency that is a centralised agency for all mental health and addiction across New Zealand.

The ACT Party opposes the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill because it doesn’t actually address any of those issues. We are the party of reform and of ideas, and I’ve stated the issues that I believe would actually create good reform and good ideas. So this bill, in particular, speaks to wanting to reduce the number of DHBs from 20 down to one. Now the ACT Party’s position was always that we should reduce from 20 to six and it’s because we believe that we do need to reduce bureaucracy. We do want to have a streamlined healthcare system and that’s a positive step forward but we cannot support this bill in good faith and that’s for two main reasons. One is it’s divisive—unnecessarily so for a healthcare system—and, two, is when it’s happening. So not only do we have set up under one entity, Health New Zealand, there is a separate entity that is being set up called the Māori Health Authority.

I want to acknowledge that New Zealand has a very complex arrangement with families. You know, there are a whole range of different structures and ethnicities and cultures, and there are over 260 different cultures and ethnicities within New Zealand. It shouldn’t be that we are dividing people based on their race; we should be giving people the healthcare they need based on their needs. I want to raise one particularly salient example and that’s that of my colleague Karen Chhour. I am talking about this with her permission, of course. You know, Karen is Māori. Her husband is Cambodian. She has four wonderful Cambodian/Māori/New Zealand children. Why should it be that her children are put in a position where they are pitting their different racial heritages against each other and having to pick which one of their heritages they place more weight on? We should be basing those children’s needs on their needs, not based on which race they particularly want to identify with.

There are inequities in our healthcare system that have to be addressed but there are vulnerabilities that exist in all communities. You can cut and slice and dice New Zealand in so many different ways but I do not believe it is helpful to try and slice and dice it based on our race. Whether you are Māori, whether you are a Pākehā New Zealander, Pasifika, Indian - New Zealand, Chinese - New Zealand—any form of New Zealand—everybody deserves good healthcare. But a racially-based and separate parallel Māori Health Authority is not the right way forward.

I acknowledge that when this announcement was made, the ACT Party said, “We have more than two races in New Zealand. What about the separate authority for Chinese New Zealanders? What about the separate one for Indian New Zealanders? What about the separate one for Pasifika New Zealanders?” And I was very happy to see that the Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, very quickly pointed out: where was any indication of Pasifika in the Government’s announcement? So, you know, he’s echoed our concerns, too. We oppose co-governance. It is divisive. It represents a serious departure from the idea that all New Zealanders have equal rights.

But the second reason that we oppose this bill is because we’re currently in a COVID crisis. Our DHBs have just been tasked with dealing with the pandemic, and we see the weight that the Government places on them because the new traffic light system specifically talks about the need for each DHB to get to 90 percent. We do not need more uncertainty at this time and we certainly don’t need more uncertainty in our healthcare system. That is the whole reason why we had lockdowns in the first place. We cannot in good faith agree with disestablishing the healthcare system in the middle of a pandemic. We’re talking about a weary and tired workforce, telling them that we’re going to disestablish their roles but we’re going to then replace them into new roles at a time when we’re asking them to be stable, certain, and show leadership in the community. I don’t think it’s right to give them that form of uncertainty at this time.

But this is also a little bit about implementation. When COVID came along, the Government forgot about community care. When Health New Zealand was started up with the interim board, the Government didn’t even put anybody from community care on it. It completely forgot it existed. I hope that these reforms go well because we do need a good functioning healthcare system going forward in New Zealand, but I certainly did not see that in the Government’s implementation of COVID response, and I hope that this is not what happens to the Health NZ and Māori Health Authority. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great pleasure and a really good opportunity tonight to take a call and to stand to speak in support of Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill tonight. I say this for a number of reasons, and I’m going to work my way through a couple of salient ones and, hopefully, make a couple of good points.

I think, at the moment, health is at the forefront of everybody’s mind. You know, everybody can understand that that’s rightly so. It’s something that’s particularly topical. We’ve just been through a series of events over the last 18 months which make that quite salient. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted, I think, just how critical public health is, and this bill, in particular, gives it the attention and the resources that it needs. A robust public health system is essential to the wellbeing of all New Zealanders, and a robust public health system is one which, I think, we can or should or would all agree is one that leaves no one behind.

Health outcomes have, for far too long, been an accident of birth and geography, a so-called postcode lottery that I’ve heard several members refer to. I think it’s really important that while we coin phrases like that, we make sure that we don’t trivialise or that we don’t gloss over what that actually means. It’s a postcode lottery: it means, quite simply, that for some individuals, depending on where they’re born and depending on who they are, they can have quite drastically different outcomes. And that’s not good enough.

So this Government is dedicated to creating a fair and equitable system, and a fair and equitable system that reflects and respects Aotearoa’s diversity. This bill will go a long way to ensuring that we have a health system that is fit for purpose in today’s expectations. Earlier on, we heard some prior contributions talk about the cyclical nature of reform, as if that was a bad thing or something that was there for derision. It’s just a matter of fact that the world changes and things do change, and sometimes we need to revisit and sometimes the right time for reform is now.

So this bill will go a long way to ensuring that we have a health system that is fit for purpose for today’s expectations, and one that achieves equity by raising standards for all. I think it’s particularly important to note that it’s raising standards for all, particularly those who have been disadvantaged in the past. To address the inequality in our health system, it was essential that we scrutinised existing arrangements. And, as has been spoken on several occasions tonight, we have 20 district health boards (DHBs), each one with a highly skilled—and I really want to emphasise this—highly dedicated workforce.

Over the years, I’ve had the pleasure and the opportunity, I suppose, to work with various kinds of groups within our very dedicated and very skilled health workforce—most recently, our amazing nurses, not only within the DHB system but within other aspects of our health sector. I greatly admire what they do. I’ve also had the opportunity to work with other groups within our health system, like our doctors, both clinical, research, medical scientists, our healthcare assistants, and our auxiliary workforce and our clerical, and various other people that support our amazing health system.

So I want to be really clear when I say that it’s the structural realities and the duplications inherent in our system that cause the impediments, not our highly skilled workforce. Due to that, we see a situation now where it’s just simply not resulted in a cohesive and consistent healthcare. And cohesion and consistency comes through unity, which is why the DHBs need to be replaced with Health New Zealand, a centralised authority that will take control and responsibility for our health system. This, of course, is entirely congruent with the key recommendations of the Simpson report released last year.

One thing I want to make very clear, also because of previous comments, is that communities will remain at the heart of the system. This is something that this side of the House knows only too well. We understand communities. Most of us come from a grassroots, organising, activist base. We understand what that means and what it actually means in reality. With the additions of locality networks, which the Minister of Health has described earlier on, each of which will be within the health sectors for regional divisions, that’s the means by which to ensure local voices are effectively heard. If anybody thinks that having a triennial election—and I think, as a member on the other side of the House mentioned earlier on, with the misfortunes of an STV system and all of the name recognition sort of criteria that almost certainly guarantees election—if that accounts for local representation, then we’re not doing things correctly.

Another key pillar of reform proposed by this bill that we’re discussing tonight is the establishment of a Māori Health Authority, which will ensure we give a strong voice and provide a vehicle for change for those many New Zealanders that are disadvantaged by the current arrangements. And despite earlier contributions, which I think tended to trivialise lived experience and tended to trivialise all of the planning, the governance, and the strategy—all of the work that goes into making sure that when a member, any particular member, rocks up to their GP and may not care who that GP is—it’s not indicative of all of the reality that goes into making sure a system is fair and equitable.

Who better to commission Māori health services, who better to monitor Māori health outcomes, and who better to develop Māori health policy, than Māori? Detractors will of course say that we’re creating some sort of two-tier system and favouring one group of people over another, but that’s trivial, it’s silly, and it’s simply not true. In fact, the opposite is true. The Māori Health Authority is a distinct entity, but it is one that will work in partnership with the other relevant entities as we take a much needed, more robust, holistic approach to health. Equality in health achieved by raising healthcare standards and accessibility to all New Zealanders is the intended outcome, and it’s the intended outcome of this bill. Indeed, it will be how this aspect of the bill will ultimately be judged.

This bill has significant ramifications for the Ministry of Health as well, as it now will focus and pivot towards more policy and performance monitoring. The ministry, I’m glad to see and feel very reassured by the Minister, will be appropriately resourced and strengthened to facilitate the implementation of these changes, and, you know, as other people have talked about, there were various other additions to the public health agencies and to make sure that we boosted those resources as well.

Even from my very brief outline, this is a significant piece of legislation with wide-reaching impacts on society. It has, accordingly, been prepared with a great deal of care, incorporating extremely valuable contributions from a wealth of experts, including Heather Simpson, as we’ve discussed previously, and the rest of her team; including the Waitangi Tribunal and a raft of primary- and community-based services and medical specialists. The Labour Party manifesto recognised that, over the last three years, we have made record investment in health, playing catch-up after years of neglect. This bill also supports to build us back better as we learn from our strong COVID-19 response and inculcate all of those lessons into the design of this new national health system; something to be really proud of.

I’d like to acknowledge the work of Minister Little, Minister Henare, Minister Verrall on this particularly really exciting piece of legislation. They’ve obviously consulted widely, they’ve listened to the key stakeholders, and they’ve considered a variety of viewpoints in the preparation of this bill, and it’s really evident in the quality of this bill. I said on numerous occasions—in response to a question earlier on in the night—I said on numerous occasions during the election campaign that we can’t keep doing health the same way as we have done and keep hoping for better outcomes. Something needs to change. So I will follow with great interest the progress of this bill through the House and through the select committee process. I have no hesitation at all and am in fact quite excited to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Penny Simmonds—five minutes.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Well, you have to admire the previous speaker Tracey McLellan’s optimism—like lambs to the slaughter. I rise to speak in opposition of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I spoke earlier today about the review of the vocational education sector, and you might say—and I’m sure Dr Webb will say—“Why is that relevant to the disestablishment of the DHBs and the setup of Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority?” It is relevant because it is an absolute prelude to what we are going to see in the health sector, and because actions speak much louder than words.

Three years ago, we heard exactly the same arguments from the Minister of Education about the vocational education sector, and then he gave exactly the same solutions. We heard that the lack of equity of performance for Māori was an issue in the vocational education sector, and it was. We heard that geographic location prevented equity of access. We heard about lack of equity of the disabled. And then we heard the same solutions: centralise, put it into a head office in the centre that can be controlled by the Government, because only the Government can solve these problems! We heard economies of scale would fix everything. Well, here we are.

Here is the review so far of what happened in the vocational education sector. It didn’t save money; it cost more and we are doing less with more. It is less efficient. It won’t be nimble; it will be bloated, cumbersome, slow, heavy, and bureaucratic—and so will the health sector be. It won’t address pockets where there are viability issues, because, quite frankly, there won’t be any accountability for anyone to be held accountable to do that. It won’t involve local community consultation. It will have some window-dressing local consultation but it won’t have any power. And here’s the big one: it won’t address equity issues for Māori. It hasn’t done it in the education sector and it won’t do it in the health sector.

I don’t know when this Government is going to understand that changing the packaging doesn’t change the content; different wrapping won’t change anything. It will cost lots of money, and that money will go to consultants. It won’t go to doctors or nurses. It won’t go to better care for patients. The only winners in this will be the consultants, just as they were in the vocational education sector. Now, it’s sad, but we have seen this little prelude of what is going to happen. We’ve seen lots of money being spent, lots of change around the packaging and the wrapping of it, but we haven’t seen anything substantial that helps the students—and we won’t see anything substantial that helps the patients.

I heard my colleague Matt Doocey say, earlier on today, speaking on this, that he challenged each Labour speaker to come up with what was going to be better and improved for patients, and they couldn’t come up with anything. I’ve waited and I’ve waited. There’s been lovely, theoretical “It’s going to make it so much more wonderful because it’s going to be centralised, and we’re all going to be so happy that it’s all being driven from the middle.”, but I didn’t hear one example of what will be better for the patients.

So you might say that it is not an exact replica of what is going to happen in the health sector. You might say that the mistakes that have been made with, say, KiwiBuild or light rail or bridges for walking and cycling are just a bit of a blip or a mistake; this one is the example of what happened when this Government actually made a change and centralised and it didn’t improve things for the students one little bit. It will do exactly the same thing for the health sector. We’ll be—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Sarah Pallett—five minutes.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill, a bill which, as we’ve heard, will protect, promote, and improve the health of New Zealanders, and will help to achieve equity by reducing health disparities among New Zealand population groups and, in particular, for Māori. Because, you know, we are only as healthy as the least healthy of our communities. It benefits us all to improve access to health services and to iron out the inequities experienced by Māori, by disabled, by Pasifika, and by rural communities, among others.

I heard Mr Doocey earlier refer to pae ora, this wonderful bill, as a wrecking ball, which was hyperbolic in the extreme. But actually, as an analogy, I can go with it, because coming from Christchurch, I know what you do with a building that’s munted. I know what you do with a building that has botched repairs, where we’ve tried our best over the years, where it’s old, it’s falling to bits, it’s not fit for purpose, sewage might be seeping through the walls. Do you know what we do? We dismantle it carefully. We save what we can save, those kauri doors and floors, those lovely window frames, and we build back better. That’s exactly what we intend to do here.

I’m going to speak here for a minute or two on the Māori Health Authority, and forgive me as a Pākehā woman who has come from the United Kingdom. But I’d like to address a few remarks to those few correspondents who feel that Māori somehow are being given special treatment. Because, quite frankly, you don’t want the health outcomes of our Māori whānau. Māori life expectancy is considerably lower than that of non-Māori. Mortality rates are higher for Māori than for non-Māori, at nearly all ages, and Māori health status remains unequal with non-Māori across all chronic infectious diseases, as well as injuries and including suicide. Now, the Treaty of Waitangi guarantees Māori equal access to national resources, and the Government has an obligation to ensure that Māori have at least the same level of health as non-Māori. Now, the Māori Health Authority will work, as my colleague Dr McLellan said, in partnership with Health New Zealand. But it’s not just Māori, Pasifika, disabled people, and rural people who will benefit.

A little bit about me: you probably know by now that I was a midwife before I entered Parliament and a midwifery lecturer. I’ve worked both in rural and remote rural communities as a community-based lead maternity carer, as well as in a busy central city hospital. I’ve seen the direct result of having multiple DHBs of various competencies that are unable to communicate with each other. I’ve seen the effects of having 20 DHBs all trying to do the same thing and using resources that should be better centralised. My colleague earlier, Dr Liz Craig, spoke of do it once, do it right. Don’t do it 20 times. Don’t use 20 times the resources. Let’s do it properly. In practice, for me, what it meant was that I could have a client in Canterbury and I could use the computer systems to input all their data into Canterbury District Health Board’s system. But if they headed to Southland for a holiday or a break and they needed urgent care, the systems were unable to communicate with each other. That’s just one really, really small piece of information and how we are negatively affected by the system that we have at the moment, and why it is that building that just has botched repairs once too many times.

So the DHBs, as we’ve heard, are going to be replaced by one national organisation. We’re going to have a new Māori Health Authority. We’re going to have a new public health agency. But this is all going to be done with a robust select committee process. I really look forward to hearing from the community and from the public about how we can make this piece of legislation the best possible legislation that we can because, quite frankly, that’s what we do, and we do it really well. I am personally extremely grateful for the forward thinking of these Ministers, Minister Little, Minister Henare, and Minister Verrall, who’s obviously involved too. They have been courageous enough to face up to the inefficiencies of the current system and the inequities that it produces. They are facing up to our Treaty obligations and creating a health system that will serve us all now and in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in support of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill and very much a pleasure to follow my colleague Sarah Pallett and the optimism that I hear from her in terms of what this change will mean for our country.

I want to start by acknowledging the Minister of Health, who effectively has introduced this bill to the House today and has set this on a particular path of reform that is really exciting. So to the Hon Andrew Little, I acknowledge him and his work. Can I also acknowledge the Associate Ministers, Minister Henare, Minister Verrall, and Minister Sio as well for the work that they have undertaken, because at the core and at their heart is really for the betterment and the good of our people, and I do want to acknowledge that.

What we’ve heard from members opposite is essentially—you know, we have Mr Doocey, we’ve had Miss Simmonds talk about how members on this side, and I’ll speak for myself, haven’t answered their questions. Well, I’ve got news for them. I’m not here to answer their questions. I’m here to answer the questions that my constituents and my communities have elected me to this Parliament to represent on their behalf, and the questions that they ask me are: what we are going to do as a Government to ensure that members of our Pasifika community are not dying younger, are not getting sicker, are not having illnesses that, quite frankly, can be set aside. Those are the questions. Those are the issues. That is the heart of the problem and what we are providing as a Government to our community, to our Māori, to our Pasifika, and to our disability communities are answers—answers that are long overdue.

This will provide an opportunity in—what?—20 years to reform the health sector in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is something that certainly my communities have been calling out for, for quite some time, and even though this is at an early stage they thank me and the Labour Government for wanting to do something about it, for wanting to act, for wanting to make sure that not another Pasifika person dies younger than they should. That’s the bottom line, that’s the reality of this bill, and that’s why I am absolutely proud to be part of a Government that seeks to deliver in that particular space.

We’ve heard a lot about the issues. Now, as members of this House we all experience those issues at a community roots level. In the conversations that we have out and about in our community, we hear about the inequity, we hear about those significant concerns that exist, we hear about the concerns for our Māori community, for our Pasifika community, for our rural community, and for our members of the disability community as well. Colleagues have referred to this postcode lottery. And when I think about number 4412, which is my local postcode, for Palmerston North, or 9481, which is the postcode as I understand it, for Palmerston in the South Island—let’s not get confused amongst the two—but someone, whether they are in that postcode or my postcode, shouldn’t be treated any differently. They should have equitable access to healthcare in Aotearoa New Zealand and this change is doing exactly that. These reforms will give the reform space the attention but also the resource that is expected and that is required as well.

When we reflect on the existing experience that—you know, people have certainly talked to me and I’m sure others in this House about the systemic failure. They talk about their experience. They talk about their inability to navigate the system. They talk about and share their experience in simply just wanting to give up because it’s not as easy as it should be. When we live in a society and we live amongst a community where people are making those sorts of decisions, then that is a sad indictment on the state of healthcare and health reform that’s required here in this country.

This will be a dedicated and a connected health service for all New Zealanders. But I acknowledge that this particular bill that’s before us at the moment has a particular focus on wanting to do something for our Māori, for our Pasifika, and for our disability communities as well. But that doesn’t mean that others will be left behind; far from it. Members in my community that talk to me about being able to access local services is a regular occasion. In actual fact, Palmerston North in terms of access to GPs to general practitioners, is amongst the worst in the country for my community. Now, these reforms in terms of the localised options in these locality plans that Dr Tracey McLellan touched on, will do something about that, and that’s just one part of this reform package.

The pleasing thing from my perspective is that this bill is based on a set of principles. As I made a contribution in the House last night around remuneration, I reflected on the fact that a good starting point is one where principles are front and centre. So when I look at what’s in clause 7 of the bill before us, the principles are outlined that “the health system should be equitable”, that it’s about an ability for Māori and other population groups to have access to services, to have equitable levels of service to achieve equitable health outcomes. I say to other members in this House, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with wanting to ensure that members in our community actually have access to services, that they actually receive equitable level of service, and that they have achieved equitable health outcomes? Absolutely nothing wrong with that. Those are the principles. Actually, there are more than that. There are a number of principles that are outlined in terms of decision-making opportunities, and it’s all contained in clause 7. I could go on.

In terms of my own local community, I think of the good folk at Te Tihi. I think of the people at Whakapai Hauora, the people at Te Waka Huia o Manawatū and the good work that they do and will continue to do with communities that otherwise could be seen as disadvantaged—communities that are large in terms of socio-economic deprivation. And I know that actually the work that they will continue to do will be better enhanced, will be better resourced, will allow for their communities of interest to be able to access good services because of the reforms that this particular bill and this particular Government have on the agenda. Because at the end of the day, it’s about removing barriers, right? It’s about ensuring that people can access what is a fundamental right, and that is access to public health here in New Zealand.

Colleagues have touched on the various reforms in the organs and, yes, there’s Health New Zealand, which has a long-term lens, working in partnership, as colleagues have said, with the Māori Health Authority, again with a longer-term lens focused on delivery of service, commissioning opportunities as well. But also, let’s not forget that the Ministry of Health has a revised dedicated focus in terms of policy development and policy advice, but also the Public Health Agency, which will be included within that ministry, as colleagues have touched on as well.

I have an education background, but when I started my first year in teaching actually was teaching senior health. And so I reflect on the contribution earlier this evening from Dr Kerekere, where she effectively referred back to, well, a few things, actually, but Te Whare Tapa Whā and the importance of all parts of our wellbeing and hauora in order for us to thrive and be contributing members of our community and our society. That’s what I want for members of my community. That’s what I want for the people that have put me here in this place. And that’s what this particular bill delivers: a dedicated connected health service for all New Zealanders, but at the same time, acknowledging that there are some in our community that are unable to access what is a primary right. It is a responsibility, I believe, of the State and therefore this Government to do something about it.

In conclusion, I just want to say that this reform, even though it’s 20 years in the making, is long overdue. It will make such a difference to my local community, my Pasifika community, my Māori community, and the wonderful people of the Manawatū. To see those individuals and Kiwis being able to avoid what are unavoidable inequities will be a huge, huge achievement and I look forward to seeing this bill progress through the select committee. I am sure that the select committee will hear from a number of members of the community and organisations and entities, and I hope that people do submit on it because, you know, the select committee will be open to that process. But as I say, this is a wonderful bill. It’s a great opportunity to do something to support what is a fundamental right of all people who call Aotearoa New Zealand their home.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In rising to take this call this evening, it’s with measured trepidation, considerable measured contemplation, because that’s just drawing and reflecting over the last three decades of my life of service and reflecting on the life of service of those who’ve gone before and those who are still here. So I make acknowledgment, particularly, to our Māori health sector pioneers: Dame Tariana Turia, Meihana Durie, and of course Professor Whatarangi Winiata. They are kaumātua who before my time here, I’ve had the privilege of being alongside them in learning. And of interest, this is about relationships. I am moving to the bill, because the bill is specifically premised on the divide between Māori and non-Māori. And the recognition of the status of the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. However, in that recognition, I’m mindful also that since 1840 there’s been an evolution of what the nature, the meaning, the relevance, and relationship that we as a nation of Aotearoa New Zealand, we as the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, have based fundamentally on that foundational document of our nation and our relationship as peoples.

I said I rise to take this call with measured trepidation, because I know that my people will judge me. But something also that I know is that my ancestors, my tūpuna, taught and passed on through the generations the importance of leadership, and with that the importance of values, and with that the importance of fearlessness in one’s advocacy and representation. And that is a tool passed to me that was shaped and honed in my learnings and in my application as a lawyer and as an advocate: one of fearlessness.

As is well-known, I am a member of the National Party and the National Party does not support this bill. I concur with that, and the reason I do is premised on my lifetime of experience, reality, and pragmatism. I am well aware over the decades, of the findings and the recommendations that have come from many in the way of legal jurisprudence and jurisdictions of the Waitangi Tribunal, but importantly the mātauranga and the whakaaro of my tūpuna and my ancestors. I draw on that also, importantly, because this bill is premised on a hope that this will address the disparity of health inequities in our nation for Māori. However, Māori are not the only peoples of this nation of Aotearoa.

My ancestry is as Māori. My ancestry is also as Pākehā. So I will just move back to the evolving nature and relationship of what the Treaty of Waitangi means. And I invite people in contemplation and further debate, and I invite respectful debate, irrespective of the differences that we may have in view and life experience—respectful debate, without scorn or without laughing or without diminishing. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill is a 94-page document. Well-intentioned, aspirational as it is, it is about recalibrating and resetting the framework of the delivery of health services within Aotearoa New Zealand to address and provide better health equities. I’m not convinced that it does.

And I say that I’m not convinced because—this is going to undoubtedly be passed into law because the Opposition does not have the numbers—it will bear out in time to show that despite the good intentions, it is not going to deliver the way that we hope and we aspire for it to do. Why do I say this? Back in 1998, along with my whanaunga Dame Tariana and her now deceased husband George, we embarked on setting about establishing the first Māori health provider in Aotearoa New Zealand: Te Oranganui iwi health authority. And I go to that medical health service to this very day and my children have done since they were born as well—28 years it’s been in existence. What has evolved over time too is well known is that Dame Tariana was the champion for Whānau Ora—the coleader of the Māori Party with the National Party. And we put that into the fabric and the fibre of the health sector of Aotearoa New Zealand as it is today. Whānau Ora is about delivering to our people at flax roots, ground level. Despite all the good intentions, the Māori Health Authority is a recalibration and a reframing of a bureaucratic institution standing alongside another public health authority. I am not convinced that that is the way to go. I have screeds of notes here before me, but I am speaking as I know it, and I will refer to those notes at another time.

But I say, I’m not convinced that this bill is going to calibrate the way that we would desire and hope that it does in addressing those health inequities in our nation. I’m not convinced because we’ve seen, during this COVID time, that the Ministry of Health has put the handbrake on the funding to go to the very people we know who know our communities, who know best to be resourced to provide and deliver to our people in the communities. Now, if it’s thought that a Māori Health Authority, which is going to be a bureaucratic institution that is going to be filled with the elite—it is going to be filled with more bureaucrats and it is going to take the pūtea, the funding, the money that is desperately needed to be rerouted directly to our people who are of the most vulnerable and of the most need. We’ve seen that during these COVID times and we’ve seen and we’ve heard the Minister direct his ministry to say that money goes directly to our service providers, our Māori communities, and our vulnerable on the ground. And they will be the ones to deliver. So really, we have hope, I have hope, but I am a person who’s based on pragmatism and reality and lived life experience.

There are other components to this bill that are important. Essentially, it establishes three entities: a Health New Zealand entity, which is the new Crown agency; a Māori Health Authority, which I’ve spoken to; and a Public Health Agency, which means is, effectively, the current Ministry of Health. The key message that comes at this point in time is we are in a crisis as a nation with our health crisis, but also our crisis as a nation in terms of what is our identity. What is our identity? Are we going down a pathway where we separate out? And I know full well the relevance and the significance of the relationship and the status and the standing of mana whenua of this nation, but I also know full well the relevance and the significance of those whom we stand alongside, and should we be going down separate pathways.

There will be robust and respectful debate that I invite on this, but I will invite also members, before we come back to the second reading of this bill—distinguished Professor Dame Anne Salmond, in her article she talks about how we could be designing a new institutional order, which is a big picture of Aotearoa, rather than Māori verse non-Māori. Look at provoking ways of imagining those relations and relationships that we have with each other. There is an opportunity to rethink identity in terms of whakapapa that includes other living systems and lifeforms. Whanganui, Te Awa Tupua, we are evidence of that in terms of the legal personification of our living life source of our awa and our river. And Dame Anne Salmond also talks about bringing together ideas of whakapapa and complex systems in designing new institutional forms of order in Aotearoa as well as relationships between people. I do not support this bill.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am overjoyed to be able to stand here and wrap up what’s been an interesting afternoon of debate. We’ve heard a lot from that side of the House—the side of the House that is not going to be supporting this bill. That side of the House that doesn’t want to talk about Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the partnership obligations that we have—

Harete Hipango: I just did.

TĀMATI COFFEY: —as a Government to be able to deliver—Yeah, one, one. I’ll give you that Harete, but you’re still opposing this and so for that reason I just need to acknowledge that actually everybody else on that side who has stood and spoken today has not acknowledged the partnership. Everybody is really keen to stand there and talk about Māori apparently taking over the system, talking about the inequity but not really talking about the nub of it, which is about partnership. This is about partnership.

Members over there, over on that side, challenged us and said “What’s going to change once this comes in?” I’ll tell you what’s going to change, Māori are going to have faith in our health system. I’ll say it again: what’s going to change? Māori are going to have faith in our health system. Because that very principle that this whole reform is based is the principle of partnership, but also the principle of rangatiratanga. Rangatiratanga that was signed up to in 1840, and for so long our Māori people have been waiting for that seat at the table. Not just as advisers, we don’t want to be advisers, we’re over being advisers, we want to see that the decision-making table—and I heard it before, Penny Simmonds stand up and talk about the tertiary sector. Hey, there’s work going on there. And, actually, we’re sitting there with Joseph Mooney—actually we’ve heard from the Ministry of Education and there’s some great work happening with Te Pūkenga. Why? Because the clause in their bill expects them to honour Te Tiriti. Honour Te Tiriti. This bill is going to revolutionise our health system, because what does it do? It encourages us, it actually mandates our health system to give effect to Te Tiriti. This all comes back to Te Tiriti, and for those people that don’t understand that, you really do need to have a lesson. And actually, those people that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

So what I want to do is I just want to talk for a moment, if you will, about once upon a time when we reformed our health system, back in the 80s, the early 80s. There was scepticism back then about what exactly our health system was doing for Māori. I want to acknowledge the Hui Whakaoranga, which happened in 1984. In 1984, there was a hui that was called, Māori showed up from all around the country—I want to acknowledge my colleague Nanaia Mahuta, whose mum was there and actually gave a presentation at the Hui Whakaoranga. So did Puti O’Brien, she came together to talk about the changes that were happening in small Māori communities that they said to the Ministry of Health and the Department of Education at the time “You need to get on board and help us to solve these issues.” Many of the conclusions that they reached back in 1984, the things that they were asking for are still valid now. They’re still valid now because we don’t have that equity in our health system. That’s why we did the review, that’s what the review told us, it told us that Māori were underserved by our current health system, it told us that we need to get rid of our DHBs and that we needed to have Māori sitting there in a partnership role giving them the rangatiratanga that they want over the health system.

I want to talk about some of the conclusions that were actually reached in that particular hui, and it was, as I say, it was very similar to the things that we’re talking about now and the things that we’re seeking to change. One of the conclusions: they want Māori people to be able to define health for themselves—1934, rangatiratanga. They wanted Māori to be able to identify their own specific health concerns and devise solutions to meet those—1984. They wanted to see health as part of who we are, where we’ve come from, where we’ve gone. They wanted to be able to involve taha wairua into our health system to make sure, to understand, to have a bit of cross-cultural understanding that actually te ao wairua is huge for our Māori people. This is really big—I want to tell a story about my dad, who was born without any skin. For two years he sat in the hospital, nobody knew what went wrong, it was my great-grandmother that called from the East Coast and said to my grandmother, “You’ve burnt some photos. You’ve burnt some photos and there’s a spell on him and you need to go back and you need to do a karakia and you need to fix it.” My nan did that and my dad’s skin started to grow back. Taha wairua is huge. The knowledge and the mātauranga that Māori have been denied for so long in our health system, has come to the fore through this bill.

This bill is going to change things, and it will change things instantly for our Māori people. They will see themselves reflected in the governing institutions, they will see themselves reflected in the governance board of the Māori Health Authority. They will understand that the health system is actually underpinned by rangatiratanga—the thing that we signed up to in 1840. The thing that we were crying out for in 1984 when Dame Whina Cooper stood there and said, at the Hui Whakaoranga, “We want more action.” We want more people to understand that, actually, Māori have got a valuable consideration and a valuable contribution to make. Not as advisers, but actual decision makers in this whole health system.

The fact that I’m going to die seven years younger than every other non-Māori person in this place is an absolute injustice. And yes, we should all hang our heads in shame about that. But do we just hang our heads? Or do we actually do something about it? Well, I’ll tell you what we’re doing: this Government is committed to doing something about it. We are going to do something about it. We brought this bill to the House. This is actually—this is not light, this has had hundreds of years behind it.

I acknowledge the signing of the treaty. I acknowledge the people that turned up to the Hui Whakaoranga back in 1984. I acknowledge the contribution from my colleague Elizabeth Kerekere when she talked about back in the day; Dr Meihana Durie and his te whare tapa whā model, and his want to be able to get that acknowledged in mainstream health. I want to acknowledge Dr Rose Pere with her wheke model from the Lake Waikaremoana, far off into the distance. She wanted everybody to understand that mātauranga Māori shouldn’t be separate to our health system and that actually te ao wairua is everything. And that’s the reason that there is so much distrust from many of our Māori in our hard to reach communities, because they don’t trust the health system. And actually, if COVID has taught us anything—if COVID has taught us anything—it should be teaching us that actually we need to turn that around. We need to be able to encourage our Māori to have faith in the system. How are they going to have faith in the system? We need to revolutionise it, and that’s what we’re attempting to do here. It’s not a complete revolution. We’re not throwing everything out and starting again. No, we have to work with what we’ve got, but we can tweak the systems and we can underlie it with some principles.

I know that, actually, the future looks bright for our health system. We need to, at every opportunity, encourage Māori to be able to create their own solutions for themselves. That’s what we’ve always wanted: by Māori for Māori. But actually, you know what? An extension of that. As my good colleague Meka Whaitiri talks about, “By Māori, for everyone.” Actually, that’s pretty cool because actually some of those concepts, some of those principles are actually worth considering. But for so long, Māori haven’t been at that table, and this is about to change that.

I want to acknowledge all of those iwi-DHB partnerships all around the country that have tried to put together a strategic plan and work towards common goals. But at the end of the day, the DHBs, they’re not doing a great job. That’s nothing to do with the workers that are actually working day in and day out in our healthcare system. That’s not their fault, it’s the system. And that’s what we need to change here. And that’s what we’re looking to do. We’re changing the system and we’re inserting Māori into this conversation like they should have been in this conversation in 1840. They weren’t there then. We weren’t there then. We’re here now.

For that reason, this is a significant piece of legislation. It will pass, but we want to make it the best possible legislation that it can be. So this is a karanga out there to everybody that’s listening via radio, via television. This is a call to those people that have ever experienced inequity in our health system to come forward and to put your submissions in, because we need to hear your voices. For so long, your voices have been quiet. For so long, you’ve been sending in your complaint letters. For so long, nobody’s been acknowledging you or seeing you. Well, today we see you. We hear you. We acknowledge you and we want you to contribute into this process. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be considered by the Pae Ora Legislation Committee.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Pae Ora Legislation Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stage of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, the third readings of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill, and the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Data and Statistics Bill; and the second readings of the Commerce Amendment Bill, the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill, the Organic Products Bill, and the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment Bill.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is in committee on the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. You’ll be aware, members, that this is a wide-ranging bill covering many principal Acts, so to enable more focused debate I want to indicate that we have a number of Ministers available to answer the questions on the amendments that they’re responsible for. I’m referring, of course, to the debate on clause 3. It would help the quality of the debate if members on all sides could, as far as possible, focus their questions for the Minister in the chair before we move on to the next Minister. The reason for that is that Ministers can only have one adviser at any one time in the Chamber, and if we mix the questions up too much, then we waste a lot of time swapping out advisers. Having said all that, I am here to adjudicate not to tell you what to do.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I just wonder if it might be helpful to the thorough examination of the various parts of the bill if you could indicate how it’s proposed that we go through the various schedules. This is an unusual bill in the sense that there’s only, I think, four clauses but a lot of schedules. It might just be helpful if we know exactly how it’s going to roll over the next however long.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. When we are addressing the issues raised in clause 3, we will be debating the amendments to the enactments and the debates on Schedules 1 to 8. So it may be the will of the committee that we move through schedules from 1 through to 8. Thank you for that.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order. I seek leave, in light of the unusual structure of the bill, for it to be divided into schedules so that each schedule be debated. I think that might make it much easier to know which Minister’s in the chair, which officials need to be here, and so on.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, leave is sought for that course of—just a moment, I’ll consult.

Thank you for that point of order, just to further clarify, the House is to debate in the committee stage the order in which the bill is written. Under clause 3, the schedules move from 1 through to 8. I’m proposing, and it is logical, that that is the way the debate will proceed, but thank you for that.

Now I need to be reminded of where I was. Clause 1. So we move now to clause 1. This is the debate on the title clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Clause 1 Title

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh, thank you very much. Look, I wasn’t intending to take a very long call on clause 1, which is the title—[Bell rung] Well, that didn’t take long! Goodness me!

Hon Kris Faafoi: Fair call.

CHRIS BISHOP: That hasn’t happened to me since year 9 debating! But in the spirit of what is, I think, soon going to come, I think that a more appropriate title for this bill would be the “COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Property Law Amendment) Legislation Bill 2021”, because what we have before us is a bill that seeks to retrospectively interfere in the sanctity of contract, and contracts signed in good faith by landlords and tenants, and seeks to reverse what the legal position was at that time, for reasons that have never been explicitly or convincingly articulated by the Government. In fact, about the best that the Minister has managed to do so far is that there’s been anecdotal feedback that this would be a good idea. That’s it—anecdata, basically. Kris Faafoi, who I’ve got a lot of time for—he’s a great guy. He’s not a bad medium-fast bowler in the parliamentary cricket team. He’s a good guy. Everyone likes “Faafs”; he’s a great guy. But, I’m sorry, running into some people in the Koru lounge and having a glass of orange juice over the socially distanced Air New Zealand buffet is not a good enough reason to retrospectively interfere in the sanctity of contract. It’s not. It’s just simply not.

And, as others have pointed out in the legal community and in the property world, in the commercial world, this puts everyone at risk, actually, because once you get down to the situation where the Government will go along and interfere in commercially negotiated contracts and just retrospectively change the law and override those contracts—it’s bad enough just overriding contracts; the legislature should be very wary about doing that on any level, at any time, but to do it retrospectively, to pretend that the law wasn’t what it said it was at the time, undermines certainty of the rule of law and undermines the sanctity of contract. And, to do that, you need a very good reason before you do it, and we have never had articulated, as I said before, from the Government a good reason as to why that is the case. And everyone has lined up in opposition to this—everyone. The Property Council, the Auckland District Law Society—nobody thinks it will work; everyone thinks it’s a bad idea. And we are yet to see from the Government a convincing rationale.

So I think a good title change would be the “COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Property Law Amendment) Legislation Bill 2021”. That is my opening contribution to what, I’m sure, will be a long and exhausting debating. Thank you, Madam Chair.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise to support my colleague Chris Bishop’s contribution, and his proposed change to the title. I think it should be called “COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Property Law) Legislation Bill”, because for reasons that Mr Bishop has outlined, that is the most significant part of this bill. Most of it is administrative, but what is far more significant is the idea that a contract that was signed under one set of laws will now be interpreted under a different set of law. You know, that’s never been the case. You are always judged for your actions on what the law was when the action occurred. The idea that you can have the goalposts moved and be judged under a different set of law, that’s quite extraordinary.

But I actually think that New Zealand, if we go down this path, is not going to get all of the benefits that come from this kind of legislation. I want to ask the Minister, you know, can he guarantee that once we start changing the law, retrospectively changing people’s contracts, I want him to guarantee that we’re going to be able to grow bananas in New Zealand, because actually, what would be better is if he can guarantee that, what we should do is call it the “COVID-19 Response Retrospective Property Law Banana Republic Bill”.

Now, that’s the truth. Because look, I mean, it’s bad having a country where the State’s got no restraints and goes all over the show and changes the law in a whole lot of different ways. You know, that’s a pretty bad way to live. It’s hard for people to invest with any certainty. It’s hard for people to raise any capital. But at least most places that have that sort of legal framework, they can grow plentiful bananas. That is one of life’s little compensations for poor legislation. So that is my opening contribution.

Some people will say, “You’re being a bit flippant.”, but let me just ask this question: how should people respond when you’ve got a Government that introduces legislation that shakes the pillars of law and property rights and the rule of law in this country, and does it based on the fact that they got advised over the Koru lounge? Then when they come out to say, “Oh, who was consulted?”, they say “The Auckland District Law Society (ALDS) were behind us on this.” I asked the Auckland District Law Society, and guess what! The ALDS know nothing about it, they say. That didn’t sound like consultation.

So unfortunately, we’ve actually got to a stage where the Government’s probably going to pass this. Sometimes the only way to deal with a Government that is so ridiculous is actually to ridicule it. You know, we should ridicule this Government. What they’re doing is damaging. They’re clearly too blind to see the damage that they’re doing. They’re not going to be, I suspect, persuaded by rational argument, so they are worthy of ridicule. This committee should say to this Government, “If you want to pass banana republic laws, then we’re going to change the title of your law to the ‘COVID-19 Retrospective Property Law Banana Republic Conversion Legislation Bill’”. That would be the logical thing to call it, and New Zealanders should be should be laughing, because if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry.

I just ask the question: how else are we going to make this Government see sense other than ridicule? That’s what they deserve. That is the start of this debate, and people like myself and my colleague here, Mark Cameron, he’s a farmer. Farmers are very interested in property rights. They make their living off the land, you know?

Mark Cameron: Oh, not when it gets taken off us.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, yeah. Their net living is made off the land, he says. You know, we actually look forward to getting into the serious details of this bill, but let’s just open by signalling that it’s actually a law at this time that deserves ridicule.

New Zealand has a very fine tradition of getting rid of bad policy by ridicule. What got rid of Muldoon in the end was actually that everybody laughed at him. He laughed for a long time [Laughs like Muldoon] and in the end everybody made fun of Muldoon. That is the New Zealand way to deal with ridiculous propositions from ridiculous Governments—it is to ridicule them, and that’s why this committee should tell the Government, “If you want to make such ridiculous laws, we are going to ridicule it, and we’re going to call your law a banana republic law.” With a bit of luck, if nothing else, even if it undermines the sanctity of contract, the rule of law, and property rights in Aotearoa New Zealand, at least we might get some bananas.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, my first question is: I didn’t think they served bananas in the Koru lounge. So I know this bill had its genesis in the Koru lounge, when Mr Faafoi was on one of his frequent trips around the country and came across some people who actually had some property interest and thought it might be quite a good idea to change it. But I certainly agree with Mr Bishop that it is a retrospective bill. So I personally—if I was in the Koru lounge, I wouldn’t like bananas; I’d like something like cherry tomatoes or even God’s given little green apples or something like that.

But in terms of this bill, it is certainly retrospective, and I think that after a COVID crisis hit this country back in March last year, this is where we’re getting to today. We’re debating this bill. We’re debating one of the principal elements that should have been addressed all those 18 months ago with the issue with property rights. The Government tried in the last term of Government and failed. Now, 18 months later, we’ve got this situation where we’re now applying a retrospective clause, and, actually, in a number of the issues in the schedules that we’re going to be discussing, there is an issue around how that retrospectiveness applies. So I think—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Could the member address clause 1, which is the title clause.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes. So I do agree with Mr Bishop. I think it should be the “COVID-19 Retrospective Bill” on a whole lot of fronts, because we’ve got a bill that deals with what 20 or 15 different Acts. I think the issue is that we should have done this a long, long time ago. We’re late to the job, and largely because we’ve got a Government that hasn’t got on with the job much sooner than it should have.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can’t resist taking a call on clause 1, as well. I have a slightly different perspective on it, though, and you’ll understand that when I’ve finished speaking. But my perspective on this is, really, when you think about life and you think about what is going on in the course of the legislation we are about to pass, my proposal is that we call it the “Rip Off the Old People Bill”, because, actually, when you think about what COVID has done to my generation—

David Seymour: The member’s got a conflict of interest!

IAN McKELVIE: —ha, ha! So have you!—it’s precluded us from going to our own funerals, it’s precluded us from all sorts of stuff. But the most—

David Seymour: You can go to your own funeral—you can go to your own funeral.

IAN McKELVIE: Yeah, but you don’t know you’re there! Ha, ha! You might not know that you’re gonna have one either! But the challenge for me is that what has happened to a lot of people—or our seniors, particularly, with respect to superannuation—is they’ve gone around the world for various reasons, a lot of them very good reasons, quite unsuspectingly, and have been trapped overseas and they get to the point where they want to come home, they can’t come home, the Government then cancels their superannuation, and they end up kind of adrift around the world.

The other thing, just with respect to the proposed name change I have, is I think that COVID has changed the world; this bill changes a lot of things that we’ve come to understand in this country and come to live with, and my generation are, frankly, the lucky generation. I don’t know what is going to happen for the next generation, because a lot of things have changed in recent times. But all the same, despite all that, I still think that it is worth a try and I think it is well worth looking at the title of this bill, and thinking that we should just change it to at least reflect some of the—not damages done, because who’s to know whether it is damage in the long term or not, but to reflect the position we’ve got to. Thank you, Madam Chair.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Alice in Wonderland is sort of where we are now with this as it goes down the rabbit hole, and I just want to reiterate the iterations from both Mr Seymour and Chris Bishop about retrospectivity. So here we go. I think we could quite happily call the title of this bill “COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill/The Rabbit Hole”. So there you are. It speaks of retrospectivity, and, unfortunately, this is the new norm for a Government out of touch.

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

KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Madam Chair, Speakers’ rulings are very clear: that a debate on a title clause cannot be used as a way in which to criticise the content of the bill. I’d ask for you to explain to the committee how the previous speeches have been ruled in order.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that point of order. The Chair is the sole judge of relevance. I am listening very carefully to the speeches, and the member may have noticed that I have reminded speakers to speak to that section of the bill, which, as you so rightly point out, is the title clause.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak on the title of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, and I support my colleague Mr Bishop’s call for it to be renamed the “COVID-19 Response (Retrospective Legislation) Bill”. The reason for that is that this does contain some key elements that create a retrospective change to some of our key contractual provisions.

The reason why we have a First World economy in this country is because we have the certainty of the rule of law. We have the certainty of contract and people who rely upon that are making the investment decisions, and from those investment decisions we have an effective economy. Without that, people will not invest. We will not have the certainty that people require to build a functional and effective economy, and I would speak to the other alternative name for this bill, which Mr Seymour alluded to, and we could call it the “Banana Republic Law Bill”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Chris Bishop’s tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 75

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We move now to clause 2, the debate on the commencement clause. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, I’m a bit troubled by clause 2, and I’m going to ask a Minister to get into the nitty gritty of the detail. Clause 2 has two subclauses. It’s all about the commencement. So clause 2(1) says, This Act comes into force on the day after it receives the Royal assent.” That’s perfectly standard. That’s a very sensible piece of legislation. Then it says, “However, section 3(2) and Schedule 8 come into force on 28 October 2021.”

Now, it’s the 27th today, and I can tell you now that this bill is not going to be passed today. So tomorrow we may get through the committee stage, although frankly the way things are going, we’re going to be here for quite a long time, I have to say. There’s a very chunky piece of legislation still to talk to, but we’ll wait and see—we’ll wait and see. We’ll see how much courage the Government’s got, because they’ve outlined a very long extended hours reading list. I think it was 15 bills Kris Faafoi read out. There’s no way they’re getting through all of them, but we’ll see.

So section 3 and Schedule 8—and Schedule 8 is in relation to Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment amendments. It’s a requirements for entities, modifications, and exemptions. It makes various class exemptions to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just—order! The member is addressing clause 2.

CHRIS BISHOP: Yep, that’s right, clause 2, the commencement clause of the bill. So what I’m seeking clarity on is section 3(2) and Schedule 8 come into force on 28 October. Now, it’s unlikely that the bill will be an Act by 28 October. In fact, it’s likely to be potentially after that. So I just seek guidance from the Minister as to what will happen in that circumstance if the bill is passed later than the 28th, i.e., early in November. Does that mean that section 3(2) and Schedule 8 are actually deemed to have come into force retrospectively as well? That’s the question.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I just thought it would be worth clarifying the understandings that were reached in respect of this debate at Business Committee, because Mr Bishop’s contribution really touched on the commencement in respect of Schedule 8, which is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and we have in the Chamber Ministers to address questions which other members have indicated would be asked and they were on at Schedule 5, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development; Schedule 6, the Ministry of Justice; and Schedule 7, the Ministry of Transport. Now, the parts referred to by Mr Bishop are technical amendments which are required to enable bodies corporate and companies to undertake business electronically, including various constitutional matters, so it’s appropriate to have a hard commencement date so that those businesses can do that retrospectively. But I’m not the Minister in charge—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member started off talking about an issue not necessarily related to clause 2 and criticising the previous speaker, which was ruled in order. So the member should get to his point on clause 2.

Hon Member: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, Dr Webb has the—

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you, Mr Chair—simply pointing out that the commencement date there is there so that the members who are organising bodies corporate and companies can undertake constitutional matters such as meetings and AGMs by electronic means.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I mean, it’s the most extraordinary contribution, for a Labour member to get up and, basically, give a speech that says “Nothing to see here.” I mean, actually, what he was saying, if people didn’t follow—what Duncan Webb, the Labour member for Christchurch Central, who just sat down, was saying is “You agreed not to ask any questions about this. It’s not fair.” Well, I’m sorry to say that, as a member of Parliament, he’s actually got a duty not to support whatever the Government that he hopes to one day be part of introduces, but to actually stand up and ask questions and scrutinise the laws being put forward on behalf of the New Zealand people. That’s what a representative democracy is, and I think it’s perfectly fair that we have—point of order, Mr Chair.

Mr Chair, members have had to not sit in the Chamber, due to the social distancing requirements, and we’ve got Duncan Webb and Andrew Little sitting so close to each other. Now, is it actually the case that members have to maintain social distancing at all times in the Chamber?

Hon Andrew Little: What a pathetic contribution.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! Points of order are heard in silence, and the Chair is on his feet to rule on the matter. It’s a very serious issue. I want to point out that every member should be aware of the rules during a sitting of the House. I also want to point out to members that the whip is the only one that really could justifiably be speaking to other members in that proximity. So I think it’s a clear warning to all members to be mindful of that. We’ve got a fairly full House for this bill, and I expect everyone to follow the rules. Thank you to David Seymour for bringing it up.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, thank you, Mr Chair. It’s very important. The person that people may have heard come through their microphones saying “What a pathetic contribution.”—that was the Minister of Health after he was reminded about the public health measures this Parliament has put in place. That was Andrew Little, the Minister of Health—

Hon Andrew Little: Still pathetic—still being pathetic.

DAVID SEYMOUR: And there he goes again. He’s yelling—he’s yelling—because he got caught out breaking the most basic provisions that he expects everyone—

Hon Andrew Little: What a stupid member. He’s got nothing to say—nothing to say.

DAVID SEYMOUR: We’ve got a lot to say, but we have to deal with the fact—we have to deal with the fact—that the Minister of Health is now shouting at me—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s been speaking for 19 seconds and has not yet spoken to the clause. So he should do that now.

DAVID SEYMOUR: That’s fair enough, Mr Chair. One minute in Heaven is better than two minutes in Heaven, as my good friends—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And let’s not—I’m going to knock that on the head now, OK? The member knows that making a comment on a ruling of the Chair is out of order. He knows that—well, he should know it—and therefore I don’t want that to happen again.

DAVID SEYMOUR: No, no, no. Well, OK, I won’t make any further comment, Mr Chair. But I think it is worth just noting that people have made a lot of sacrifices. This Parliament is half empty because people have to keep their distance, and the Minister of Health should know that.

But, on this retrospectivity, what clause 2 says is that the law comes into effect the day it receives the Royal assent, and what that means is that usually the Governor-General signs the law, usually several days after it has its third reading. Now, we still have this committee stage, and it looks like it may be a long night—just confidentially—

Joseph Mooney: Nothing confidential about that.

DAVID SEYMOUR: What was that, Joseph Mooney? Joseph Mooney says the secret’s out! Well, he’s a sophisticated man from the Deep South, and he’s probably got a few clues about what’s going on here. But, in any case, it won’t be passed today through the committee stage, and then it’s not going to be passed through the third reading in time. So here’s the question: if this law actually ends up getting passed after the 28th, then what happens in the time between 28 October, when it says the law comes into effect, and when the law is actually passed by Parliament? And this has some very interesting implications. Does it mean that our Parliament is now a rubber stamp and we just assume that Parliament is going to pass a law anyway, so you should start following the law on the 28th? Or are we a House of Representatives in a representative democracy—Mr Chair? Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, you’ve still got 57 seconds.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Chair, your clock is wrong, in that instance. But, in any case, this is very much what I’m talking about, Mr Chair. It ultimately comes back to a question of time. The question is: where exactly are we in the space-time continuum with this legislation? It’s not actually clear. I mean, first of all, you look at what’s happening to the clock; they don’t actually know how long I’ve been speaking at this point. The Clerk has just gone up to the Chair, and they’re fiddling with the clock, because this legislation actually reverses time! I mean, this is a deep, metaphysical issue, Mr Chair. We’ve got real problems if the law is passed after the law says it comes into play. Then at what point do people start following the law? At what point did my speech start? Where does it end? Nobody knows! We’ve actually ripped in half the space-time continuum with this poor lawmaking, and I’ve got a lot more to say about it.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair, while I have enjoyed the contributions of the member David Seymour around time travel, I would like to perhaps make sure, for the members who are concerned about clause 2(2), the fact that clause 2(2) that the members are referring to, about the date, which is tomorrow, is actually being deleted from the bill. So the last five minutes have been a complete waste of time, and I wish I could go back in time!

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): There we have it, in what the Minister, Kris Faafoi, just said. He said, “Actually, we don’t need to worry about that part of the bill because it’s going to be deleted from the bill.” And this, once again—this Minister sees this House, and these elected representatives, as a rubber stamp: “Don’t worry about what the legislation being presented actually says, because it’s going to be removed”—how does he know that? Well, presumably because the Government is now removing—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Read the bill!

DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, he just answered, “Read the bill.” Well, actually, the bill hasn’t removed it. This is what was reported back from the select committee. And then Duncan Webb, who—get this—is a law professor, a member of the profession committed to upholding the rule of law, says, “There’s an SOP that’s going to remove it.”

Well, let’s just talk a little bit about how it works. Actually, the law—or, at least, the statutes of New Zealand—are passed by a majority of this Parliament; until such a time, they’re just a bill. Now, what Kris Faafoi has just said, and what law professor Duncan Webb is trying to say, is, actually, that we shouldn’t debate what’s in the bill because they already know that Parliament’s not going to pass that part. Well, I think that’s an extraordinary admission about the approach that this Government takes to Parliament.

What they’re saying about this Parliament is that, actually, it doesn’t matter what anybody else voted for—if you didn’t vote for one of them, then it doesn’t matter; your voice doesn’t count. It doesn’t matter what Parliament debates and what it decides, because we’ve already decided what the law is. Now, that’s an interesting model of governance, and there’s certainly countries around the world where that’s a legitimate thing for a Minister to say, because in their particular political system, it’s certainly true that the parliamentarians are just a rubber stamp.

I think about our friends in Hong Kong—pretty tough time being in the Hong Kong legislature. Over there, the bosses and overlords from Beijing say, “This is what the Parliament’s going to pass today.”, and, lo and behold, that is what the Hong Kong legislature does pass these days. But there’s a problem with that: that’s not democracy, and that’s why it’s wrong to have a commencement clause that says, “It doesn’t matter what happens in the debate, it doesn’t matter what happens in the bill; actually, we think it’s going to be OK because we’ve already decided what Parliament’s going to do. Parliament’s a rubber stamp; Parliament’s a formality.”

Well, that’s not how representative democracy works, but who’d be surprised when you’ve got a Minister of Health who thinks it’s unfair to point out that he’s breaching the rules set down for the Speaker for the public health and protection of members of this Parliament. That’s what this clause is about, and that’s why if this Government was committed to democracy, if this Government was committed to a representative Parliament that is the highest lawmaker in this land, then they would take out the part of clause 2 that says, “We’re going to make this law come into effect, maybe before it’s even passed.” They would say, “The law only comes into effect after the Parliament passes it, after the representatives of the people that they work for pass the law. It doesn’t come into effect whenever we say it does because we already know what Parliament’s going to do.”—because Parliament is beneath their respect.

This is really an appeal for the members that are the most important in this—actually, the Labour backbench. They might be thinking, “You know, why are we here?” Well, if they can’t stand up for their rights and their duties as elected members, if they are just here to be part of a 65-strong rubber stamp, they might ask themselves why they came here. You know, there’s lots of jobs out there, a lot of them better paid—maybe not for them. There are a lot of jobs out there with greater privacy and better hours and less getting on flights that they could have had, that would probably be better for their work-life balance and many aspects of their lives than being part of a 65-person rubber stamp.

So I just say: if I was a backbencher in Labour, I’d be thinking, “Why am I here?” And I’d actually be starting—oh, where are they all, actually? Fair enough, maybe that’s the problem. Scott Simpson is just pointing out all the empty seats. Thank you very much.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m tempted, actually, after that contribution.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on behalf of the National Party in respect of clause 2. I think it is an extraordinary few minutes we’ve had in this Chamber tonight, where we’ve been talking about the commencement and there has been sort of a discussion about when this bill comes into force. There was some discussion from my colleague Chris Bishop and from David Seymour about clause 2(2) and Schedule 8 coming into force on 28 October 2021. So there was some discussion about the space-time continuum, and I notice we still have some issues with the clock.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I just note that the clock doesn’t appear to have begun yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. You can carry on and I’ll fix it.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Member: Limitless time.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I’d love to have limitless time—

Hon Member: Start again.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Ha! Should I start again, or?

Hon Member: Just go back in time!

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s your time you’re wasting.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I’ll go back in time. This is all about a retrospective piece of law, anyway, so, I guess, that’s apt for this evening that we’re going back in time, back and forth, and we don’t really know where in time we sit, which also appears to be what has happened with clause 2, where we had considerable discussion about this clause 2 and Schedule 8 coming into force on 28 October 2021, which is tomorrow. And then after significant conversation about that, Minister Kris Faafoi got up and said, “Oh, hang on. That’s been crossed out.”

Chris Bishop: But it hasn’t.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I hear from my colleague Chris Bishop that it hasn’t been crossed out. So the question is: what are we dealing with? This is emblematic of a Government which is making up a law on the fly and is just making it up as it goes along. I mean, how can anyone have any certainty—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member should know that he can’t make an accusation that someone is “making it up”. The member need only to look at Supplementary Order Paper 78 to know that he is not.

JOSEPH MOONEY: This is emblematic of a Government that is making law in a hurry, and it is making it in such a hurry that it doesn’t even know what it is doing. We have a Minister who tells us that a clause in the commencement has been crossed out, and yet we are hearing that it is actually not. So what papers have been tabled on this? This is utter confusion.

I wonder, if we look at Schedule 8, which clause 2 refers to coming into force on 28 October, I mean, has Schedule 8 been crossed out yet, or is that still happening? I mean, there’s so much uncertainty here that if no one in this Chamber can know what is going on, how on earth can the public understand what is going on? I mean, this is not a good way to make law. The Government really needs to step up its game and actually figure out when this law is commencing. I mean, it is a very simple question. How can you stuff up, quite frankly, clause 2 in a commencement section? Something so simple, and yet this Government can’t even get it right.

Mr Seymour has talked about Duncan Webb, and, you know, professor of law, and I have a lot of respect for that, coming from a legal background. But I have to say that Duncan Webb’s contribution when he got up to speak on clause 2 was less than stellar. I was confused. I’m glad that I wasn’t being taught by you, Duncan Webb, I think I would have been very confused as well, as I was this evening.

Hon Member: Maybe it’s the traffic lights!

JOSEPH MOONEY: Maybe it is just like the traffic lights: everyone is confused, no one knows what is going on. It is just like this commencement section. I mean, how on earth does anyone know what direction of travel we are going in? We can’t even get a commencement to clause 2 of this piece of legislation accurate.

So I certainly hope that we are going to hear some sensible contributions from the other side to actually clarify for us whether or not this subclause (2) of clause 2 is ruled in or out, and why have they suddenly just ruled it out, if they have? I mean, why didn’t they get this right at the beginning? I mean, this is an important piece of law. It is changing a very important piece of—the certainty of our legislation, for New Zealanders and so they can understand that when they sign up to a contract, they will be able to rely on the Government to maintain the sanctity of that contract. This is a key, crucial part of our system and our rule of law.

So this Government is showing that you can’t rely on it to protect the sanctity of contract, you can’t rely on it to get the commencement clause right, and you can’t rely on it to actually know what it’s doing. How on earth can the people of New Zealand know what’s right if the Government doesn’t know what’s going on? I mean, come on. You need to step up your game, members opposite, and do a better job for New Zealand.

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

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Clause 3 Amendments to enactments

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We now come to clause 3. This is the debate on the amendments to enactments and includes the debate on Schedules 1 through to 8. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Sorry, Mr Chair, when you were—I’m struggling how to phrase this without breaching the Standing Orders. The House has already resolved, I think, via consensus that we will move through the clause 3 schedules—which is, let’s face it, the substantive part of the bill—schedule by schedule, if that makes sense. So Schedule 1 is in relation to the Department of Internal Affairs amendments. Part 1 is the Gambling Act, so I think it would be helpful to deal with the Gambling Act amendments and then, potentially, move after that to the Local Electoral Act, and then so forth. We’ve sort of agreed on that, I think.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Speaking to that point of order, it was agreed that the order of debate would run through those schedules so that Ministers and their officials could be most efficiently used. But there wasn’t, I don’t think, an agreement that each schedule would be taken as a separate clause.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair, perhaps I can assist. I actually sought leave while the previous presiding officer was in the Chair for precisely the course of action that we would debate each schedule in turn. The presiding officer didn’t put the leave, saying that that was already her ruling, so we’ve all been working under the understanding that, indeed, we would separately debate each of the schedules, given that those are, effectively, for want of a better term, the parts of this particular piece of legislation. I would have insisted that the previous presiding officer put the leave had I not understood that she was saying she agreed with that course of action.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I want to thank all members for their contribution to this issue. I was fully aware of the ruling of the Hon Jacqui Dean. My understanding of what I heard was that we will go through clause 3 and the schedules. For the purpose of efficiency, we’ll deal with one schedule at a time, which I think would be, as I say, an efficient way of doing it, but there’ll be just one question at the end, passing all of clause 3 and the schedules. To do anything else would be contrary to the Standing Orders, and I think would have needed an instruction to the committee when we were still in the House. So if we can proceed as such, then we will go to Schedule 1.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Now, something very interesting has happened between the introduction of this bill and the select committee and the committee of the whole House, because as the bill was introduced, the Government sought an amendment, as part of this omnibus bill, to the Local Electoral Act, to replace section 73A(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and, essentially, give the Government, give themselves, the power to move local elections; not just once, as is the current law—and it’s going to remain the current law; just giving the game away—but they sought the power to move local elections out by six weeks, over and over and over again; not just in the year of the local body election that we’re talking about but for the year after the local body election as well.

So, for all those listening, just so you know, the Government turned up with this omnibus bill and it’s got about 20 different amendments to different pieces of legislation. Most of it’s rats and mice. Most of it’s sensible. I haven’t even bothered to dwell on the Gambling Act amendment, which allows various people to operate under level 2 and 3 lockdown restrictions—I haven’t dealt with that. But 20 pieces of legislation amended, an omnibus legislation, sent to the select committee with a shortened report-back time, this omnibus bill, and the Government just quietly thought that they would get away with the secret—or not secret but quiet little change, secretive little change—

Hon Member: Clandestine.

CHRIS BISHOP: —clandestine—clandestine; great Julia Deans song, great word—this clandestine little change to allow themselves the power to delay local body elections. And I’m pleased to say that the National Party was on to this. I’d like to take the credit for it myself, but it was actually Chris Penk, the shadow Attorney-General—sadly, in Auckland, so he can’t be with us, but he’s taking victory in absentia. He’s taking vicarious victory, because he cottoned on to this. And I remember he sent me a text. He said, “Have you got any idea what the Government’s chucked in this little bill?” I said, “Oh, no, I don’t yet. I’m just looking at it now.” He said, “They want the power to delay local elections, over and over and over again.” It’s just unbelievable. And I remember standing in this very position in the first reading of the bill, saying, “What is the rationale for this?” And I said, “We’re going to want to get into this in committee.” And that’s exactly what we did.

The Finance Committee, I’m pleased to say—very sensible members—got into this issue at the committee and said, “What is the rationale?” And the funny thing was, as it turns out, there isn’t one. I mean, there was this sort of confected concern about, you know, it might be very tricky to run an election under level 3 lockdown restrictions. I mean, that’s true up to a certain point, obviously, although let’s bear in mind local elections are postal votes; they are not, you know, go down and vote in person. Personally, I would like to bring voting in person back for local elections, but that’s beside the point.

But anyway, the good news, the excellent news, is the Government has, quietly, just backed down on this. Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 78 makes it very clear. By the way, SOP 78 is actually, I think, longer than the bill. So it’s a pretty poor process. And the Minister in the chair before was saying things like, “Oh, well, we’ve already made that change.” Actually, we haven’t, because the select committee bill that came back—because of the shortened report-back time, the select committee didn’t send back the bar 2 bill; it sent back the bar 1. So it’s un-amended at present; we’re making the amendments as we go, through this giant SOP—very poor process. But here we are, that’s the way we work.

But if you read SOP 78, Part 2, “Local Electoral Act 2001”, there we see the lines through every single paragraph and every single word. It’s all gone. So the Government has given up. They’ve given up on this secretive, clandestine little change, and I welcome that. But I have a question; in fact, I have two questions for the Minister in the chair. The first is—and bear in mind, we welcome the change—we need to know, I think it’s worth the committee’s time finding out, why the Government wanted to make this change. And then, secondly—and it’s related to the first question—why has the Government decided to not make the change? Because, for a period of weeks, it was critical, and now it turns out it isn’t. I suspect the reason is the Government’s decided that they’re in a big enough war with the local government sector already, with 60-odd councils opposing the misguided Three Waters reform process. I strongly suspect they’ve decided, “Well, let’s not add fuel to the already burning conflagration that is the Government’s relationship with the local government sector.” So that’s why they’ve quietly beaten a retreat, and we welcome that. But we need to know exactly how this happened in the first place. We welcome the Minister’s contribution to that.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): I’m very happy to answer the question put by the member, which was why this provision was made in the bill in the first place—why the provisions around local government elections were made in the first place and why they’ve been taken out.

This bill, of course, has been in the works for several months now, and when the bill was put together, we were in quite a different situation when it came to COVID-19, and we were preparing for that situation to potentially continue into the new year. It is now clear that it won’t and that we are entering a new phase of our COVID-19 response. Under our old settings, a delay in local government elections—as there was a delay in the general election last year—would have potentially been something that the Government may have had to consider; it now isn’t likely that we would have to do that. So the Government took the view that in the highly unlikely event there was a need to postpone or delay the local government elections because of COVID-19, the appropriate course of action would be to come back to the House at that point and produce a separate piece of legislation to enable that to happen.

So the Government took the view that while this may have been justified several months ago, potentially, it’s not now and is unlikely to be justified next year. And if it is justified next year, then the appropriate course of action at that time is to come back to the House to seek that.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I understand that there has been some debate about the way the debate on the schedules should be undertaken in the committee. So I thought it would be useful to share the agreement that was reached at the Business Committee by all parties who were at the Business Committee. Parties were invited to nominate which parts of the bill they wished to have Ministers available to answer questions on. The only response was from the National Opposition, from Mr Woodhouse, who indicated that they would like to debate the local government provisions, as has happened; the residential tenancies; and the commercial law provisions. No response was received from other parties.

So, on that basis, we have made sure those Ministers who have responsibility for those provisions are available here in the House. In terms of the local government provisions, the Minister of Local Government is not available, so I am here to answer the question, which was pretty much the only question that they’ve really asked about, which was why has it been deleted, which I have now done.

And, finally, I should say, if the agreement reached at the Business Committee is one that parties in the House no longer wish to sign up to, then the default is the Standing Orders, which is all provisions, all schedules, are taken as one question and one debate, up to the point where the Chair accepts a closure motion.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. Thank you. Thanks to the Leader of the House and “Acting Minister of Local Government” for that elucidation. I think it would’ve been helpful if that was made clear to members at the start of the committee stage debate by either a presiding officer or a senior Government member; that was not at all clear.

So, look, I suppose the situation is we find ourselves where we find ourselves, and we’re now getting well into the substance of the bill. We have the appropriate Ministers here, so I suggest we proceed on that basis.

David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I think we’ll proceed as we earlier discussed. My understanding is that there was a discussion but no agreement at Business Committee, and the Minister the Hon Chris Hipkins is correct. So we will proceed according to the Standing Orders. However, as I indicated earlier, for the purpose of efficiency, the committee seems to be of a mind to go through each schedule one by one. I think that’s still OK.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Chair. Could I just note what the Leader of the House has just said, that the Government can introduce laws to Parliament, try to pass them through, and Ministers only have to show up and answer for them if the Opposition specifically asks them to. The onus has never been on the Opposition to make sure Ministers show up and be accountable.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I can rule on that. The Minister in charge of this bill is the Hon Chris Hipkins; in actual fact he is the only one, or someone in his place, that needs to be here. My understanding was that the offer was made because of the broad nature of the issues covered within the schedules that other Ministers would be available to respond to members’ questions relating to those schedules. In actual fact, we can only have one Minister in the chair. As the Hon Chris Hipkins is that member, he is the Minister in the chair right now.

David Seymour: Speaking to that, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—

David Seymour: I take your point but we don’t normally amend 15 laws at once.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no—you’re not speaking to that. I’ve made the ruling, and the Standing Orders are very clear: if you have a contribution to clause 3—

David Seymour: Yeah, absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —then I’ll absolutely hear it.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just make the point, for people who may be listening, that this is a bill that’s amending 15 different laws at once. That’s quite extraordinary. That’s why you might actually expect Ministers to show up.

Hon James Shaw: It happens all the time—they’re called omnibus bills.

DAVID SEYMOUR: And James Shaw from the Green Party says, “Oh, no, it happens all the time.” Well, that shows the Green Party’s commitment to democratic lawmaking and accountability to the people. It’s sometimes helpful—

Hon James Shaw: Have you never met an omnibus bill before?

DAVID SEYMOUR: I sometimes—and he says, “Have you never met an omnibus bill before?” He joys in rapidly and unaccountably passing laws. He thinks it’s a good thing. Sometimes it’s helpful to be able to read these off-the-ball comments by people like James Shaw into the Hansard.

But I was just saying, in relation to clause 3, and particularly following up on the comments of Chris Bishop, relating to the Local Electoral Act section, and the subsequent deletion or proposed deletion under the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 78, and people can see there that what we’ve got is a piece of zebra legislation. It’s got so many stripes on it where they’ve struck out every word, because they’re deleting everything they said. There are horses in striped pyjamas running across the page, there’s so many stripes—it’s a zebra amendment. They’re deleting everything that was there before, and it raises the question that—and there’s Megan Woods, she’s chortling away. She loves a good zebra, and she knows that there’s something very wrong with this legislation.

The question that needs to be asked here is—and Chris Bishop asked it—why did the Government think it appropriate to reserve itself the power to indefinitely put back local government elections? Why, in the first instance, did it think that was necessary? And why has it now said that it doesn’t want to be able to delay, indefinitely, local government elections at a whim? Why? And the answer to that, Chris Hipkins, the Minister for COVID-19 Response just gave, well, he said that because the Government thought before that COVID would be much worse. Well, that’s the most extraordinary admission. It sounds as though what he was trying to say is, actually, that he thought maybe New Zealand would be locked down well into next year. We don’t have any local body elections scheduled until well into next year—next October, if I remember correctly. Is that really what the Government thought? And he says now everything’s better, we’re transitioning out. And I don’t know if what he’s trying to say is that the Government’s abandonment of the elimination strategy means that because we’re no longer using lockdowns and an approach of trying to achieve zero COVID in a Delta environment, he thinks, well, everything else is going to be going on, maybe local body elections can too. But if that’s what the Minister’s saying—that he seriously thought until a month ago that he was going to lockdown all of New Zealand for a year, and therefore we wouldn’t be able to have local body elections and might need to delay them next October—that is the most extraordinary admission.

But here’s another question: even if that were the case, I don’t think the answer holds water, even if that extraordinary admission was true, because what the Minister appears to be saying is that it would be impossible to have an election, to have democracy under any kind of COVID alert level restrictions. Now, remember, this is the same Minister who routinely gets up in the House and says that it’s quite possible to have a Parliament hosted over Zoom. He thinks it’s possible to have a Parliament over Zoom, but he doesn’t think it’s possible to have a postal ballot, a local body election—that can’t take place over Zoom. And you have to wonder why that is. Maybe he’s worried about the mail processing, the postage, but this is the same Minister that even under alert level 3 and even under alert level 4 conditions—the conditions that he seems to think might have gone all the way through to October—he’s trying to say that we couldn’t have had a postal ballot. But look at what alert level 4 allows. You can order all manner of things. You can order beer to be delivered at your apartment. So what he’s saying is that he thought it would be OK that alert level 4 or 3 were going to go through to next October, and that you’d still be able to order beer to your apartment but you wouldn’t be able to vote by post for your local council. None of that holds water, and I think we really need to get to the truth of why the Government wanted to do this and why it now doesn’t.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I stand on the presumption that we are able to speak on clause 3, which is Schedules 1 through 8. I’d like to speak directly to changes to the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA), as noted in Schedule 5, and just talk a little bit about the reason that we are here in this debate tonight.

Firstly, can I mihi to all of our colleagues, our whānau and friends, in Auckland and the Waikato, knowing that you are doing the hard mahi for all of us, that it is particularly difficult for you considering the lockdown level that you’re experiencing at this time, and my gratitude to you all for the work that you’re doing.

The changes that I’m signalling under Schedule 5 to the RTA have come about because of the experience that we had during the last major lockdown that we had, where the whole country was locked down and the experience of those people who were transitioning out of their rental residential properties and were unable to do so because of the public health restrictions that were imposed under level 3. What I’m proposing is the ability for tenancies to be put on hold when the country is at an alert level 4, which means that those people who are required to stay in place because of the public health order can do so, knowing that at the end of the alert level 4, when it drops down to level 3 or lower, that the period of their termination notice is then topped up by 28 days, which allows them the opportunity to seek to view and to move into a property should they need to.

Also, part of the changes we are seeking to make make it possible that tenancies that need to be terminated, particularly for antisocial behaviour, can continue to occur, and, in the case of boarding houses, that the usual period for notification and the application of that termination has been reduced to 48 hours. Those people who are in a residential tenancy agreement who are wanting to continue with their termination are able to do so. They do not need the 28-day top-up if that’s not required, if they’re able to move into their property on the resumption of alert level 3 or lower. The COVID termination order is able to be turned on or off by the Minister and the notification for the order coming to an end is given within seven days of that order finishing.

The other aspect of this is the changes to Schedule 5 also include the ability for the Tenancy Tribunal to continue to conduct hearings on the papers for 12 months after the bill is enacted. When we were first discussing the changes to the RTA, we were actually in the process of transitioning from level 4 to level 3. So the application for this particular part of the COVID measures will become apparent should the country go into alert level 4 again, and it is a mechanism that is a backstop for future process, should that be needed to go in place. So while it is currently not applicable—Heaven forbid we have to enact it—it may be available for those who need it in the future. It’s one of the things that we put into place during the last time we made some emergency measures. This time it was slightly different from the last iteration, and we’re hopeful that we don’t have to use it, but it’s a provision that’s in place should we need to.

Along with the other measures that this Government is taking, it’s clear that COVID has thrown up some interesting scenarios for us, and as a Government we have to be responsive to those—responsive at the time that they occur, but also anticipating what may occur into the future. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair—tēnā koe, thank you. It’s my first speech in this particular debate, and I am particularly pleased because I wanted to thank the Minister for her contribution, and I also wanted to speak to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which directly amends Schedule 5.

So, firstly, I just want to say that the Green Party is broadly supportive of the bill and that it’s been quite tiresome to listen to David Seymour’s stand-up comedy act this evening, as well as all the conspiracy theories about local elections. I think that if those parties to my right actually cared about local democracy and democracy, they would be supporting a further SOP from my colleague Golriz Ghahraman, SOP 69, which, of course, would ensure that those—

Hon Member: We are supporting it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Oh great, well that’s good. Great. Glad that you’re supporting it.

Hon Member: Maybe be a bit gracious.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I don’t know if the National Party is, but that’s good. It’s good, if you care about overseas voters having their right to vote extended when they haven’t been able to come home to New Zealand.

But back to Schedule 5 and the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act. We’re supportive of the direction and the intention of what the Minister has outlined, but we do think it should go further, and that’s why we’ve proposed an amendment that would also enable a rent freeze, so there could be no increase on rents while we’re in a situation of alert level 3 or 4, which was the case last year, in 2020. We think this is particularly important as there’s been such an extended period of time that Aucklanders have been in level 3 and level 4 and that those people who are the most vulnerable and who are renting are seriously struggling, particularly if they have relied on a benefit or if they have precarious or insecure work—if they weren’t on a full-time work contract they might not be eligible for the amount of wage subsidy that the Government is expecting will flow through and assist people in those difficult circumstances.

It’s pretty difficult to justify why landlords should be able to continue to put up rent if, during a period like this when, clearly, people don’t have the ability to find a new place to live; they don’t have the ability to go out and change where they’re living, necessarily, it’s definitely restricted; and their ability to earn an income is very much restricted. Of course, we have seen, in some parts of the country, quite extreme increases in rent over the past year. This is despite record-low interest rates. Yes, house prices have been rising, but that’s not necessarily a reason for rents to go up. It’s really important that we look after those who are in a situation of renting, because, I think, they are the people who are the worst off, really, in this whole pandemic. It’s the owners of property have done very, very well out of the stimulus that has led to huge increases in property values. The Government has put out a reasonable amount of financial support for businesses, as well as workers, and, of course, we think that financial support could go further for beneficiaries, in particular, or for those who are in those difficult circumstances. But the bare minimum, we think, of what could be done is just to ensure that a rental freeze would apply during a level 3 and level 4 lockdown.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry, I just want to make sure that the Minister in the chair is the Hon Chris Hipkins, or—I mean, we’re in an unusual situation because we can only have one, because if the Hon Kris Faafoi is now the Minister in the chair, then he will take precedence in getting the call. That’s what I’m saying.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I’m happy to take a call in reference to Schedule 6 in clause 3, a schedule which has been much talked about already in the first two-clause debate of this evening.

In this contribution, I want to begin by acknowledging Auckland and parts of the Waikato who are still finding themselves in alert level 3, and the businesses, especially, that are finding themselves in difficulty with the inability to access their premises in order to carry out their normal business. Can I acknowledge my own colleagues who have expressed to me the difficulty that their constituent businesses are feeling with the inability to access those properties, especially those in Auckland—the likes of Helen White, our list MP based in Auckland Central; Carmel Sepuloni in West Auckland. A number of our colleagues have been in touch to ensure that we give support and continued support and more support to those businesses who are finding themselves in a tussle or in a situation with their landlord where they can’t get any relief.

There has been a lot of talk already tonight about certainty and there is a dearth of certainty for some of those small businesses in Auckland, especially those who haven’t found their way to come to an arrangement with their landlord. I want to also acknowledge those landlords who have done the right thing by working with their tenants to make sure that they can find some form of rental relief, and the conversations that the Government has had would lead me to suggest that that is a large majority of landlords who have done that, and I do want to acknowledge them. A lot of them have either foregone rents, given rent relief, and, in some instances, have forgiven rent and also given support to the businesses because they see the long-term benefits of keeping those businesses up and running.

We are in a situation with the pandemic, where we’ve had a prolonged period of inability to access some of these premises for some of these businesses and, as I say, a minority of those tenants and their landlords, for some reason or another, have been unable to come to an arrangement of paying a fair portion of rent. Now, we believe, in order to give more certainty to those businesses, to make sure that they can keep their businesses up and running, to make sure that they can ensure that the investment that they have made into their business, to make sure that the staff and the suppliers for those businesses can continue to operate—that’s something that actually needs to be done. I would hazard a guess that, actually, members on this side and that side agree that there is a situation for those tenants at the moment. We will disagree about how it’s done. The National Party would prefer that the Government pony up 50 percent, and I’ll come to that at some stage. But I will agree with some of the members that there is a high threshold to what we have done, but we believe that the point of justification has arrived for that because if we don’t do that for the small number of businesses, there is a high certainty that they will fall over, that their employees will no longer have jobs. I would’ve thought that the members on that side of the Chamber would actually be sticking up for small businesses in those situations, to make sure that they could have more certainty, but they are not—

Hon Andrew Little: They’re funded by the big corporates, that’s why.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —but they are not.

So what this piece of legislation does—

Chris Bishop: Point of order. The Minister of Health, as a very senior member, has just made an extremely gratuitous and unparliamentary remark relating—it’s so outrageously offensive that I do not even wish to repeat it but I invite him to withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll ask the Hon Andrew Little to indicate whether that’s correct or not.

Hon Andrew Little: Mr Speaker, without knowing what the allegation specifically is, it’s a bit hard to respond to it. I think the member apparently took offence at my reference to some of the donors to the National Party. If that’s offensive in a democracy, then we are in a very, very difficult state.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. It is a breach of the Standing Orders—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, I’ll rule on it. I did not hear the comment and so I can’t make a ruling on whether it was in order or not in order. Every member is honourable, and the Hon Andrew Little has stated that he believes it was not out of order. Therefore I’m accepting his word on that. If you have another point of order, I’m happy to hear it.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, you’re not.

David Seymour: Fresh point of order.

Chris Bishop: New point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I’m on my feet so, yeah—I have made the ruling. That’s the end of it.

David Seymour: Point of order. A fresh point of order: when the Minister of Health, Andrew Little, most recently rose to his feet, he actually appeared to incriminate himself by indicating that he had imputed motives on the National Party due to their donors. Now, you know, as a fresh point of order, I’d say if he stands up and incriminates himself for breaching the Standing Orders, he should withdraw and apologise.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That is not a fresh point of order.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Point of order, Mr Chair.

Chris Bishop: Point of order—it’s a fresh point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, I’m hearing this one first. E noho. I’m hearing this point of order.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Mr Chair, I was just saying that when I was interrupted for that point of order, I was at a minute, 10 to go on the clock, and I see it’s run down, so just making sure you’re aware of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yep.

Chris Bishop: Point of order. There are longstanding Speakers’ rulings—I was trying to remember my original point. I refer you to 52/4, which goes all the way back to 1933, Speaker Statham: “A member may not (1) impute improper motives to the Government; (2) suggest that the Government received orders to put a bill through; (3) impute dishonesty to the Government; (4) suggest domination by outside bodies.” That applies equally to members of the Opposition. It is quite wrong to impute allegations in the sense that the Minister was making, and he gave himself away by admitting it.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Not in my opinion. I’ll reset the clock, just a minute.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Before that exchange, I was making the point that we are supporting small and medium sized enterprises who, at the moment, are finding it extremely difficult because they haven’t been able to come to an arrangement.

Now, this bill, or these changes to the Property Law Act, will give the ability—for those who don’t have a clause already in their leases—to come to some form of rent relief, the ability to do that. The changes that have come about through Supplementary Order Paper 78, under the Property Law Act, will ensure that revenue losses are taken into consideration when a fair proportion of rent relief is calculated, that there is an onus on parties to engage within 10 days when another party raises an issue with them, and there’s a retrospectivity issue of 18 August to ensure that this is meaningful for the businesses who have been finding things extremely difficult since this alert level change that was announced on 17 August.

Now, also a lot has been said about whether or not there is support for these measures, and I would like to say to those allegations that they don’t necessarily stack up. I have enjoyed engaging with the likes of the Property Council and the Auckland District Law Society, despite what they have said, to ensure that this bill is better.

What I want to make sure is a very clear message to those who are watching tonight—those small and medium sized enterprises who are up against the wall, who have no means of being able to come to a fair proportion of rent with their landlords at the moment, who don’t have any ability to do anything about that—is that the National Party and the ACT Party, the alleged champions of small and medium enterprise, are voting against this.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order, Mr Chair. I’ve been reflecting upon what you said before. I want to seek your ruling on whether it is now in order for members to say that members of Parliament act in a certain way because of outside influence. If that is correct—in particular, in relation to payment, and I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 53/2, Speaker Robertson in the Chair “It would be out of order to suggest that a member takes payment to act in a certain way, and the member must be careful not to do that.” That is precisely what the Minister alleged. And, if that is now the case, frankly, I worry about where that may lead, and I would invite you to reflect on that, because that is precisely what the Minister said.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): If the member is speaking about both the alleged interjection or the response to it, I’ve made a ruling, and I’m not inclined to go back on it. I will go back and have a look at it, to make sure that that ruling was in order to make. I believe it was, and, I guess, continued litigation of both the incident and my ruling, in my opinion, is out of order. But I will take that on board. There’s been, by my calculation, at least almost a dozen points of order in the last hour—a couple every five minutes. If I’ve got it wrong, then I will say that to the House and let you know. But, for the time being, Andrew Bayly.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m very reluctant to prolong this, but I might be able to assist. In my view, the Standing Orders are all still perfectly upstanding and upheld. The fact is that the member, who has subsequently departed, has said that he didn’t breach them, because he’s denied that he said any particular thing; so there’s no breach of the Standing Orders regardless of what he said. He said he didn’t, we take him at his word, the rules are still there, it’s still wrong to impugn improper motives on members—we’re all good to go!

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And I’m fairly sure that’s what I said that I would go and do, and that I would look at what my part of it was. This time, Mr Bayly, OK?

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to respond to that sanctimonious speech by the Minister Kris Faafoi just before about this issue around clause 6 of this bill. I find it incredibly rich that COVID struck our shores in March last year, and we immediately saw the financial impact of that on small businesses, and if anyone knew much about small businesses, they would know that wages are their highest costs in general, and the second-biggest component is rent.

Small businesses have been clamouring for support since March last year, and, here we are, this whole situation has arisen because, as a result of poor managed isolation and quarantine facilities, we have allowed COVID—this Government has allowed COVID—to enter our shores, and, as a result, our small businesses have been decimated in terms of cash. They’ve been decimated because they’ve been unable to trade as a result of Government-imposed lockdowns. And for the Minister to say that he’s standing up for small businesses 18 months after the first hit of COVID, I find incredibly rich.

And the solution that he is so keen to introduce under this bill is one that was proposed in the last Parliament, and, quite rightly, was refused by their partner in Government, New Zealand First, because of its poor design and its inappropriateness as a proposal. And here we are, now that the Government has a full and ultimate majority in this House, it is seeking to introduce the same piece of remedy to try and somehow help small businesses get around this issue of lack of cash. And I think the delay in the Government responding to this is appalling, and I think the Minister who’s just sat down has been incredibly tardy in trying to readdress a significant issue.

To that end, the solution itself is a very poor solution, for a number of reasons. The first one is that, first of all, it socialises the cost of the Government-imposed lockdown not from the Government to recompense small businesses but, actually, it socialises it and forces those costs on to landlords. And that, Mr Chair, I would suggest to you, is a form of social transfer from the Government to a group that the Government, for some reason, regards as a bank balance, and will have the ability to be able to pay and recompense and actually deal with this issue because they are deemed to be rich by the Labour Government. And, in fact, many of the landlords are not wealthy; many of the landlords will have borrowings on the property that they tenant to very good business owners. And yet this Government steadfastly has this view that they’re rich and therefore they should be the one writing out the cheque. That is the flaw in this whole proposal, and that is why New Zealand First, quite rightly, ruled it out in the last Parliament, and the Government should be ruling it out for that very reason.

The second thing about this bill is that it cuts to the sanctity of law—that is, people can have contracts of law, and yet this Government is running roughshod over legal rights between two parties that have entered into proper agreements—and lease agreements are proper agreements; they are often very lengthy and well defined and have established precedent. Yet, again, the Labour Government thinks it should stride in there and intercede itself in between what are viable and longstanding agreements, and yet, as part of that, transferring the cost to landlords.

The third thing is the definition around the law that is being proposed. Again, it is just as wonky as anything, because the first one is: what on earth is “a fair proportion”? And when you’re talking about tenants who have very, very little money and who are absolutely stressed to the max because they cannot trade, because the Government has imposed a lockdown on them—remember it is the Government who has imposed the lockdown, and therefore has made it impossible for them to trade—when they’re in that situation, it is highly unlikely that they have the money, the capability, the mental resources, and the resilience to be able to—[Time expired]

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Nice to have the chance to respond to some of the points made by the Opposition. So, if I get the logic of the member who just resumed his seat right, and looking at the policy that they have talked about, as I say, the majority of landlords and tenants in commercial situations have already come to some form of rent relief, so the parties have sorted them out themselves. With no intervention or assistance from the taxpayers, a majority of landlords and tenants have come to an amicable arrangement to make sure that they, given the COVID situation, have found a fair proportion of rent.

In the logic of the National Party, we should do away with that and, instead of trying to come to an arrangement between the two parties in the contract, we should load up the cost on taxpayers. Now, this does not make sense in terms of the plan that National outlined last week or the week before that, because that will then increase the impost on taxpayers at the same time that the National Party says it wants to be decreasing spending and reducing debt. So which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

So if you would clarify your position as to what we should do in this situation for the vast majority of tenants and landlords, whether or not you want them to sort it out between themselves and for them to figure out, given the situation that they may be in, both the landlord and the tenant, what a fair proportion of rent should be, and that it should be flexible in order to account for the situation that both parties are in. In some cases, the landlord may have a fair case that a reduction of 20 percent may be fair; in other cases it may be close to 100 percent that may be fair. You have to have the flexibility there, Mr Bayly, in order to make sure that you can account for those situations. But the situation is that either you let the parties sort this out amicably—and for the small number of contracts that don’t have a fair rent reduction clause, this is what this bill does. But it seems on the other side of the House, they want to instead load up the taxpayer for the impost for the inability to access the property. So which one is it? What do you want? Do you want to reduce debt and lower Government spending? Or do you want to load more debt up on taxpayers? The choice is yours.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, that’s a fascinating proposition that Minister Faafoi has just talked about. The issue is where a landlord has agreed, that will inevitably mean that the landlord has already given the tenant a discount, and so the situation is undisturbed. The issue with this proposal from the Government is one which is that if you are having a debate, it will be because the landlord will not want to give a discount. Therefore, by using terms such as “fair proportion”, that means that you’re inevitably in a dispute position, and that means that the tenant has, basically, got to go to the court or to arbitration to seek redress.

The issue is: how do you define “fair proportion”? And that is when you are in a situation where you’ve got a tenant who is highly stressed, has no money, and is in a difficult situation, and every week means that they will be losing more money. Therefore, you’re in a situation where this clause actually is unlikely to present much of an option, because in many cases a lot of these businesses have gone or will go to the wall, which we’re seeing in increasing numbers.

So that is the issue with this one. It’s that “fair proportion” is not well defined and will require time to be sorted, and, unfortunately, when you’re talking about these types of small businesses, they simply do not have time.

The other issue about this is that when you talk about the issue of fair proportion, it gives no guiding principles. It doesn’t confine it to small to medium sized businesses. It doesn’t link it to the wage subsidy scheme, which has been up to date, the way that the Government has implied it. Whether it’s the resurgence payment or wage subsidy, where there’s a specified reduction in income, there’s no specification around that.

The final thing is that it doesn’t relate to whether it’s income or capital. So you can imagine if someone went and got very smart lawyers, they could have a field day. That is why, again, the issue of the lack of clarity around this proposal that the Labour Government has put forward, and why New Zealand First undoubtedly refused to support it, is that it is a sham. It doesn’t actually achieve what it says it’s going to achieve. What it’s going to do is create a lot of work for lawyers and it’s going to take so long to actually work its way through that the benefit to these businesses that are crying out for cash today will be such that they do not get the benefit that they need immediately.

That is why we have proposed, to be absolutely clear, that if a company meets the requirement of a 40 percent or greater reduction in revenue, then it should be entitled to actually get support from the Government, because, after all, it’s the Government that has imposed the lockdown. It’s the Government that, through its actions, has led to that company not actually being in a position where it can trade, and that is the crying-out issue for small businesses, because it means they do not have access to cash. That is why we came up with a proposal that was specific, definitive, and also it gave the outcome where if there was a situation where a landlord had previously been incredibly generous, it could be resolved through arbitration in a quick manner.

Unfortunately, this proposal by the Labour Government does not achieve that. I can’t see why the Minister thinks that overnight we’re going to see a whole lot of businesses—and I suggest to him that there are a lot of businesses that are still crying out for cash—that are going to have any reliance that this is going to be achieved or resolved overnight, because every week that passes will mean that more companies fail in this business. I think this is the biggest shame about this whole thing.

This level of support from the Government has been woeful. We’re now into the 10th week, 263 days, of having Auckland businesses being in lockdown—this is one of the longest lockdowns of any city in the world—and yet this Government has sat around for 18 months and come up with a patsy solution to a major, major issue. As I’ve said before, rent is the second-highest cost for these small-business owners, and I think it is incumbent on this Government to actually come up with a meaningful solution to it, because you’ve been so woefully slow in trying to deal with this issue.

I look again at the Minister and suggest to him that maybe he should go to Auckland and go and see some of these people and just talk to them. Even the ones that have the 27.5 element in their agreement are still in trouble because a lot of landlords are saying, “You’ve still got access and we’re not going to listen to you, and we still want you to pay your rent.”

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Just want to make sure we take opportunities to answer questions from the members. You will notice, through the Supplementary Order Paper that is accompanying this reading, that there has been a clause added to ensure that revenue loss is taken into account for a tenant in that situation.

As I mentioned in an earlier contribution to the member, keeping the parameters of what a fair proportion of rent is broad, given the plethora of permutations that could come up for different situations—different tenants, sizes of tenants, their financial situation, also the financial situation of the landlord—is extremely important to make sure that we allow that flexibility.

The member also gave judgment on whether or not this is going to be effective for small and medium sized enterprises. What we have certainly seen is that there has been a constant trickle of correspondence and messages back to the Government that we’ve already seen a behavioural change in many landlords who have not been able to engage or, for one or other reason, to start engaging with those small and medium sized enterprises since the Government announced these changes about a month ago.

So what I would say is that is an early sign of success, is that we’re actually getting parties to the table to ensure some of these high fixed costs that can’t be met, when the access is an issue for those businesses, are starting to be addressed and dealing with the frustrations that those business owners have been feeling, especially in the last two months.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I want to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Kris Faafoi, and, in particular, on behalf of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who had put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that has made one of the changes that has been picked up by the Government to backdate the commercial tenancy arrangements to the start of this lockdown period. So that was very much welcome. My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick also has another Supplementary Order Paper—74—which would go back further, all the way back to 25 March 2020, the time in which we first went into lockdown, to give those small businesses who have been under financial duress the ability to negotiate with the landlords through the entire periods that have been affected by lockdowns.

I do have to laugh a bit at Mr Bayly’s contribution and how blatantly obvious the National and ACT Parties are at standing up for the rentiers and the landed gentry. I mean, really, did they just come over to New Zealand to set up a new feudal system where they are the owners of property after land theft from the indigenous people? I think so. Always speaking up in favour of law that was written by the colonisers, and standing up for the interests of the owners of property rather than the people who do the actual mahi and work that makes our economy go round.

So the Green Party has a number of Supplementary Order Papers on Schedule 5. The one I’ve already referred to is Supplementary Order Paper 74. I also just want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, alongside those Labour members, in representing the interests of small-business owners who have been treated quite poorly, in some cases, by their landlords.

I know Chlöe Swarbrick, in particular, as the member for Auckland Central, has been fighting for some of the businesses who rent in Elliott Stables. For two years, they have been fighting quite unfair treatment from the owner of that property. Yeah, I do find it quite amazing that Andrew Bayly refers to it as somehow socialising the losses, putting the cost on to those poor owners’ property, who have gained nothing in this past year, except a 25 percent to 50 percent increase in their capital values, which won’t be taxed. God forbid they should make some contribution to the collective, to the group, to all of us here in society, at a time when the economy is shut down—not because of the Government; the Government saved those businesses and those people by putting us into lockdown.

Andrew Bayly: No, they made them go broke.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That’s rather loud.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: It’s the pandemic, Mr Bayly, that shut down people’s ability to trade, not the Government. The Government actually reacted to protect people’s ability to trade. That is why Aotearoa New Zealand did so well in 2020, because we went into a lockdown, and the Government provided support to people and businesses that they were able to return to normal trade—a normal state that most countries in the world have not experienced since before March 2020. New Zealand was doing quite well and people were able to trade. And, of course, it was inevitable that it would happen again, that we would have a community spread, and that is very unfortunate but it was very difficult to avoid. As we’ve seen, no other jurisdiction, aside from Queensland—some of the jurisdictions which had been touted as managing it better than us—Singapore, Taiwan—have had extended community outbreaks before New Zealand did. Obviously, we see what is happening in New South Wales and Victoria. So, I mean, I do have to commend the Government for their management of the crisis last year. We do think that things could go further to rebalance in favour of the people, the working people, and the businesses, and away from the feudalism and the moneyed property owners, who somehow think they are entitled to keep extracting—

Nicola Willis: Entitled to hire people, pay their wages, create jobs, ugh!

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —excessive rents and never, never pay tax on their capital gains. You don’t pay tax on your capital gains, Nicola Willis, and you never will, thanks to your very effective Opposition. But that is, fundamentally, a structurally unfair aspect of our economy. It is feudalism. It is the case that owners who benefited from inheritance, no work of their own, a legacy of decades over a century of land theft, are able to profit, simply from owning property. And at a time when the entire economy is shut down, the National Party calls for the Government to both pay down debt and somehow subsidise the property owners so that they keep on making money at a time when their property values—[Time expired]

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to seek leave on the member’s behalf for an extension of time—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member knows he cannot do that.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Well, as much as we would all love to hear that continue, as that member digs her own grave, I see that Minister Faafoi welcomes the contribution from Julie Anne Genter, who, in that contribution, has denounced private enterprise—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: No, no, no—property ownership is not private enterprise.

NICOLA WILLIS: —denounced private enterprise as being feudalistic, who has denounced commercial endeavour, and has questioned the very basis—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Land theft, colonisation.

NICOLA WILLIS: —of business and its contribution to civil society in New Zealand. And what has provoked her to make these claims and ask these questions? It is Minister Faafoi’s amendments in this bill that have given her cause for hope that communism and socialism may yet replace private enterprise and endeavour in New Zealand. And is it any wonder that she has been given pause to ask those questions, when the bill we are debating in front of us retrospectively alters the terms of private contracts?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Sort of like the colonisers did with the tangata whenua of New Zealand.

NICOLA WILLIS: It takes the sanctity of the private contracts and all that it represents and it retrospectively puts the great hand of the State—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Can we calm down? It’s five minutes to 10.

NICOLA WILLIS: I’ll just note, for the members at home who may be watching the camera, that I have, I think, quite steadfastly ignored the constant barrage from the honourable member Julie Anne Genter throughout this contribution. She has much to say, and I would encourage those watching—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I dealt with the matter; no need to relitigate it.

NICOLA WILLIS: What we have here is the Government putting the mighty hand of the State into private contracts. And what we know is that this is something that this Government—so mightily enforced by the agents of socialism and communism on their left: the Greens—has contemplated in the past, did contemplate in the past when there were lockdowns, but rejected as a course of action. So it is right and proper that we ask what has changed that the Government now believes this is appropriate.

And I want to note a few things. I want to note that there has been no regulatory impact assessment of the impact these changes will have in terms of the precedent that they set in terms of the uncertainty that they introduce to those signing leases in the future, that this Government, with its great hand of the State, may, in future, choose to intervene and in any roughshod way. I note that there has not even been a cost-benefit analysis of this change. In fact, the Ministry of Justice, in the documents we are given access to in the House, notes that the reason they couldn’t conduct that cost-benefit analysis was that the size and the scale of the problem is not clear. So what we have is one of the grandest undermining of the principle on which commerce operates in this country, which is the basis of private contract, undermined in order to address a problem the scale and size of which is not even clear and for which costs and benefits of the intervention have not been assessed.

What we then have is this curious admission that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were asked for their input due to the need to consider international obligations. And I’ll just let you reflect on that, because what that suggests is that the gravity of this change is understood—it is understood as not only having implications here in our domestic market but it is understood to have implications for the way the rest of the world views this country, because, when we trade with other countries, it is very important that they think that this is a place where private contract is upheld. Members in this House know there are countries around the world where the arm of the State does reach down into business regularly, and we are nervous about those States, and business has difficulty in those States, and we here in New Zealand do not want to be one of them. So a very important principle is at stake.

Now, my colleague Andrew Bayly has put forward a very good alternative, and it is, frankly, lazy of members opposite to suggest that we don’t stand with those small businesses who are suffering, and to suggest that we don’t want to help them. We want to help them and we have offered constructive alternative ways in which the State could do that. But we do not think that it is justified to intervene into the sanctity of private contract, to do so retrospectively, to play to the Julie Anne Genters of this world, who would have New Zealanders believe that business, in and of itself, is a corrupt endeavour. We do not stand for that here. On this side of the House, we believe in commercial enterprise, we believe in contract, and we believe this clause is wrong.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! It’s come time for me to leave the Chair. The committee—[Interruption] I’m on my feet. Kia ora. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning for the extended sitting. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2021

(continued on Thursday, 28 October 2021)

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 3 Amendments to enactments (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. Mōrena mai tātou. Members, when we suspended last night we were debating clause 3 of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, which includes Schedules 1 to 8. Members had been focusing their questions, as far as possible, on the Minister in the chair before we moved to the next Minister. The reason for this is that Ministers can only have one adviser at a time in the Chamber and if we mix the questions around a little too much, we will waste time swapping out advisers. I need to let the committee know that Minister the Hon Poto Williams is available in the chair this morning until 9.30 a.m., so I suggest members address any questions relating to residential tenancies immediately, and then Minister Faafoi will be available to address questions relating to property law.

Can I ask the Ministers, that you’re remaining in the seats that you’re in for this first half hour so that members know that the Hon Poto Williams is the Minister in the chair.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Point of order. I’m just trying to make sure—so I have questions for Minister Faafoi. I’m sure this is abundantly obvious but I’m not going to do those now. I’m going to wait till 9.30. Is that the process?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): There were a number of points of order last evening during the committee stage. The Standing Orders stand. There was an attempt to try to be efficient in the way that we run the debate on clause 3, to try and help the debate under the restrictions of only allowing one adviser in the House at a time. However, members have taken it upon themselves to address the breadth of the eight schedules, so it’s really up to the members of the committee. The Government has advised that the Hon Poto Williams is available till 9.30, but if members want to address other issues, they’re absolutely entitled to.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Point of order. If I could just, perhaps, be helpful to the committee and suggest that I’m prepared to—well, I have a couple of issues I would like to raise in relation to the Schedule 5 discussion, and then I am available until 9.30. However, if members of the committee want to discuss other schedules, I am happy to use my time for the first part of the morning, and then allow other Ministers to take the chair, if that is useful to the committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s just a couple of things that I think could assist the committee stage this morning—and it may have been discussed last night; I’m not aware. One of the confusions is it’s not actually clear who the Minister in the chair is, because we don’t have the chair beside the Clerk. I wonder if it would be appropriate to designate a chair on the Government bench that would be the Minister in the chair so that we would know then how that order is going. It doesn’t need a prescribed—as we will do, say, for example, with the Budget Estimates review.

I should just finish by saying I did hear Minister Hipkins as Leader of the House saying there was a Business Committee agreement around which Ministers would be available. That’s not entirely my understanding. There was an invitation for parties to say who they would like to interrogate, but there was no agreement in respect of how clause 3 would go through, and you’re quite rightly saying that the Standing Orders prevail.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you for that contribution. The member on both counts is exactly correct. So I’m going to ask the Minister in the chair, if I can, and I would have to ask the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to move—that we designate these front two as the Minister in the chair. It will make my job a lot easier as well, and when—whoever’s in there is the Minister in the chair.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. Last night, there was a discussion around—I believe it was Speakers’ ruling 52/4—an allegation of an improper accusing of the members of the Opposition by Minister Little of their being controlled by those people who fund the National Party, or that was the allegation—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, I’m going to interrupt the member—

STUART SMITH: —and you were going to come back and rule on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah, that’s right. That was raised by Chris Bishop. I said I would come back to him, but I’m happy to let the committee know that I’ve been through both Hansard and watched the recording of how things progressed, and taken advice from the Clerk’s Office. I am happy that the ruling that I made was correct and I took the words of the members on both sides as being honourable, and that’s where the matter lies. Members have other avenues if they wish to pursue them, but not through points of order.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. First off, can I just say aroha nui to Christchurch for this morning waking up to the fact that we have two positive COVID cases in Christchurch. It really does bring home the reason that we are doing this mahi today: that our responses to COVID have to be swift, and there are some times when we are able to put in responses after the event, but there are some times when we are given the opportunity in which to prepare as a Government and as a Parliament and as local members of Parliament for things that may happen which are outside of our control. Unfortunately, sadly, we have had that experience happen to us in Christchurch today, knowing that we have to now make some decisions about how we move forward, to ensure that all of our communities are safe. So just aroha nui to our whānau and friends in Christchurch and across the Canterbury region.

I want to have the opportunity to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put up by the Hon Julie Anne Genter in relation to the changes to Schedule 5, the Residential Tenancies Act (RTA) changes. She made some really useful points, and I want to just say to her that the issues that she raised were issues that our officials also had as a part of the discussion and that Ministers also had an opportunity to discuss. The issues that she raises in SOP 70 are primarily about the changes that we make with regards to turning off the clock for terminations, for residential terminations, and then being able to allow for, once we are out of level 4 lockdown, a top up of 28 days for termination so that if, for whatever reason, tenants aren’t able to continue with being able to move to a new property, they are given a top-up period to allow them to go and seek new accommodation and view it.

The reason that we are not supporting the Hon Genter’s proposal about having that extended into level 3 is that, when we’re in an alert level 3 environment, it’s quite different to level 4 because, in level 3, you are able to go and view properties; you are able to make contact with potential landlords and view those properties, which is quite different from a level 4 setting, where you’re required to stay at home, you cannot view properties, you cannot actually move from your home—you’re actually required to stay at home. In level 3, those restrictions are lifted, you are able to view properties, and you are able to move into those properties. So, for that reason, we are not supporting the provisions as outlined in SOP 70.

The other matter that the Hon Genter raises is the matter of ceasing to have any rent increases in an alert level 4 environment. You may recall that, when we made changes to the RTA, one of the changes that we made was to limit the number of rent increases that a landlord could make on a property in any 12-month period to one. So, in any 12-month period, the landlord is only able to increase the rent once. So, for that reason, because you can only increase the rent once in a 12-month period, we thought that we don’t need to provide any extra support around rental increases, because those provisions have already been taken care of in a piece of work prior to this. So we are not supporting the SOP. However, we are very supportive of having this discussion, and I thank the Hon Genter for raising these matters with us and for her ongoing support of the RTA changes in Schedule 5 as part of this bill. Thank you, Mr Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, it looks like we’re going to start to get into a bit more detail, and so I acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Poto Williams, just giving a little bit of explanation around Schedule 5. There are a couple of areas I want to focus on. I’ll just deal with the first one, and then I’ll come back, and hopefully we can make this a little bit more interactive.

So the first one is just referring to Schedule 5 clause 6. As the Minister just said, a tenant may give notice to terminate a tenancy in the area under a provision of this Act, a termination date, but the tenant may, before the COVID-19 tenancy order ceases to apply to the area, give the landlord written notice of their intention to remain in the premises, in which case the termination notice, termination order, or agreement to terminate is of no effect and the tenancy continues as if the termination notice had not been given. And then, in clause 3, it now talks about 14 days—not the 28 days that the Minister just referred to.

So I suppose my first question is: if I’m a tenant, I’ve given the notice, I’ve given the landlord expectation that I’m going to leave, and then the COVID order comes in, what are the grounds for saying, “I just want to stay in there.”? Because, if it’s the case of wanting to get another premises or rental accommodation to move to, I can understand that, but, at the period prior to the COVID notice, I would assume most tenants have already lined up their next premises to move to. And, therefore, has the tenant got any right just to terminate that tenancy arrangement just because of the COVID order? Or is there a requirement that they can’t move because where they intended to go, for some reason, as a result of the COVID order, they can’t? Is there any discretion around that, or is it just an outright right for the tenant just to change their mind and say, “No, I’m not going to move anymore.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): There are two situations around terminations. There is one that is initiated by the landlord, and one that’s initiated by the tenant. I think the situation you’re talking about is a termination that is initiated by the tenant—so they’ve given notice to the landlord. And it may be for reasons due to COVID that the property that the tenant is moving to is no longer available. That does happen. So, in that situation, what the tenant is indicating is their decision to remain in the property that they currently hold.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Minister, but I suppose the question is: does there need to be just cause? Because, what I was suggesting before: if a tenant has already indicated they’re leaving, they would’ve thought about where they’re going to move to and all those sorts of issues, right? They probably would’ve booked the movers if they were going to go down that route, or whatever, right? They’re planned events. Now, a COVID order comes along—can the tenant just decide for whatever reason that they want to stay? Because if there’s a lack of discretion around that, that, I must admit, worries me a little bit, because I think, if there’s just cause, i.e., that their tenancy of the new arrangement has fallen over—that’s just cause, and I perfectly understand it. But that’s the issue I’m asking.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Yep, thank you. I think in a situation where a tenant has decided to move, that’s a situation that they’ve decided, and we don’t know what the reasons are for moving. It could be for another job, it could be they’re moving to a bigger property, smaller property—not sure, right? We don’t want to prescribe the reasons where a situation where a tenant is saying, you know, “I’ve got a situation that I was going to. That situation is now no longer possible. I want to stay in this house.” The landlord doesn’t lose out, because he continues to have a tenant renting his home. So in those situations, I’m not sure why a landlord would require just cause. They already have an agreement. What it means is that we don’t disadvantage the tenant, who may have reasons they are no longer able to take up a tenancy elsewhere. That could be loss of job. I mean, they could’ve been moving for a new job and not able to take it up because of a lost job. So we want to keep it as simple as possible where it’s a tenant-initiated termination, that, for whatever reason they’re not able to enact that termination, they should have the ability to stay in place.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, thank you, but I suppose there’s another way of looking at it, if I may suggest, Minister; that is, the landlord may have entered into a new tenancy arrangement. So we’ve got another family on the other side who are now being stymied because they had planned to move into the premises that the tenant indicated they were going to move out of. So what you may actually do is cause more social carnage because people cannot move into the rented accommodation, or the landlord may have gone down a route of selling the property, may have gone down the route of about to demolish it—you know, there’s a whole host of reasons that are all perfectly valid, so actually you may actually be causing more carnage. That’s why I’m asking this—if there must be just cause—otherwise someone might just decide they want to stay on for a while.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I’m just going to repeat the premise. This is a tenant-initiated termination we’re discussing here, not a landlord-initiated termination. A landlord-initiated termination would be for the reasons that you describe, where if they sold the house or they are going to demolish. This is a tenant-initiated termination. If there is another tenant who is going to move in, they too can talk to their landlord about staying in place. That’s the protection we’re putting in place for tenants.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you. Well, I suppose that’s covered under clause 9 of Schedule 5, I think—what the Minister is talking to. So this is “Certain discontinuation notices given by landlord before switching-on date are of no effect”, although some of that’s been struck out through the latest Supplementary Order Paper, I think. So this clause applies if a COVID-19 tenancy order is made for an area, and before the switching-on date, the landlord of a fixed-term tenancy may give notice. “The tenant may, by written notice given to the landlord before the end of the tenancy’s term, elect not to continue with the tenancy.” If the tenant makes an election, the tenancy terminates at the end of the fixed term. If the tenant does not make an election, the discontinuation notice is of no effect. This is where we get into the 28-day issue—although I must admit this area’s had a whole lot of changes to it, hasn’t it, Minister? So perhaps with all these changes—I see clause 3 has been struck out entirely—what is the difference, and how does the 28 days apply? Maybe that’s a good sort of start point on that.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I’m just checking with officials about that. That, I think, is about—I’ll just get some clarity on it—an order that the Tenancy Tribunal have issued. At the end of that period—the 14 days happens at the end of the matter that’s been heard by the Tenancy Tribunal. It’s not in regards to the 28-day top-up that happens at the end of a termination. So when we come back into level 3, a termination is then given a top-up of 28 days so that tenants are able to find another property and then able to move in. It occurs in a different situation, a different scenario. So it’s not a movement of the 28 days to 14. The confusion that you describe is not about the situation where we’re allowing a top-up of 28 days at the end of the level 4 period moving into level 3 on a termination order. This is specifically about an order that’s issued by the Tenancy Tribunal.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): I suppose that just raises the question why have a different period of 28 and 14 days, which is covered, essentially, under clause 10 of the Act—why the difference?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Because it’s a Tenancy Tribunal matter, the tenant may want to move sooner than the 28 days, so we’ve allowed that with the 14-day period.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Yeah, I suppose I must be misunderstanding clause 10, subclause (2): the landlord may terminate the tenancy by giving at least 28 days’ notice to the tenant within 28 days of a COVID-19 tenancy order ceasing to apply in that area. What I don’t see reference to is actually any Tribunal decision. That’s the bit I suppose I’m just struggling with.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take a call to fill the gap in because I can see the Minister would like to answer the question from Andrew Bayly. When you get to my age and you’ve got more numbers after your name than letters, you listen to things quite carefully, because you need to. I just want to ask a question with respect to a statement made by the Minister for COVID-19 Response last night, in response to his summary of why, effectively, the Government pulled all the clauses related to local government elections. In that summary where he talked about that, he talked about all the reasons why the Government have pulled that, and I accept the fact that the Christchurch situation may change today, but none the less the whole country’s situation could change at any time.

The reason I raise this is that he raised a lot of issues in his discussion around the reason for pulling the local government clauses out of this bill last night that, in my view, effectively make the whole bill null and void other than the property clauses, because, effectively, the reasons he used for getting rid of those clauses were the same reasons you could use for getting rid of every other clause in this bill other than the ones related to the property issue, which the Minister’s dealing with at the moment. So my question is: if that’s the case, why are we actually considering this bill at all other than these clauses related to the property sector?

I find it quite amazing that the Minister last night used all the reasons that I would have thought legitimately justified throwing this bill out, other than the clauses that the Minister’s currently dealing with. So that’s a question that I’ve got for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Poto Williams. I think it’s very odd that we continue to discuss this bill at all given those reasons that were given to us yesterday.

Now, I accept the fact that the situation in Christchurch could change. The situation in Bulls could change tomorrow; we don’t know that. It could change anywhere in New Zealand, and clearly the Government, as the Minister said very clearly last night, have adopted a different approach with respect to COVID since the bill was drawn up. So my question is: why in fact are we considering these issues at all given the answers that we were given last night in good faith by the Minister for COVID-19 Response. I don’t understand the reason we’d be doing that, and Parliament, in my view, deserves an answer to that very question.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you. I thank the member Ian McKelvie for that question; I’ll speak to that first and then I’ll come back to answer the member’s query on new section 10A.

It’s very clear the reason we put measures in place, in anticipation of what may happen. It’s our intention, all of us—I don’t think there’s any member in this House that doesn’t support the initiative to get super-high vaccination rates in this country, which will then permit the restrictions to be eased enough to move into a much freer way of operating. That’s what we intend. However, there’s no doubt that the last 18 months has taught us one lesson, and that is to expect the unexpected.

The Government has not taken the COVID alert system off the table. What we’ve indicated is our intention to move to the traffic light system when we get high vaccination rates, but none of us can predict what will happen in the next little while. None of us can predict what may happen going forward. Having the alert system sit, ready to be enacted should it be needed, is one of those options. As a Government, it’s prudent of us to make sure that we understand the situations we may find ourselves in. Moving into the traffic light system does allow us freedom, and that’s where we want to move, but that’s predicated on high vaccination rates. And that’s something that we’re getting really close to, but we’re not there yet. There are large portions of our community that we need an extra effort into, and if I’m thinking about Christchurch, I’m thinking about one of my own communities in Aranui, for whom we are doing a big vaccination drive this weekend to lift their vaccination rates.

So to the member’s question, we are making sure that we are covering off our bases. That’s why we have got this bill in the House.

Now, to speak to the member Andrew Bayly’s question about new section 10A, if I could be permitted, the explanation around that is when the COVID tenancies order (CTO) is revoked for an area, and a further order is switched on—which may happen; we may turn it off, and there may be an outbreak and we may have to turn it on again—in quick succession, in accordance with the COVID-19 public health order which restricts people from moving house being repealed and then quickly reinstated, the bill needs to provide that the restrictions in termination notice periods in Schedule 5 are able to be reapplied anew. The minor changes in the Supplementary Order Paper ensure that Schedule 5 applies afresh, and if a subsequent CTO is made in short succession, this provides landlords and tenants with clarity of the time frames for serving a termination notice, in the unlikely event of areas bouncing in and out of lockdowns, and CTOs being switched off and on again in quick succession.

There are two exceptions to a subsequent CTO applying afresh under new section 10A. Firstly, landlords will get a further 28-day period to serve a termination notice under clause 10(2). Clause 10(2) allows landlords to terminate fixed-term tenancies which have continued as periodic tenancies under a CTO by giving at least 28 days’ notice to a tenant within 28 days after the CTO ceases to apply. Secondly, tenants will not receive a further 14-day period to serve a termination notice under clause 6(1)(iii). Clause 6(1)(iii) allows tenants to terminate the tenancy by giving at least 14 days’ notice to a landlord, within 14 days after the CTO ceases to apply to that area. Where a tenant has reversed a Tenancy Tribunal—

Chris Bishop: Point of order. I’m sorry to interrupt the Minister, but just I’m conscious that at 9.30 there’s a national ShakeOut. Do you want to issue some instructions around what we’re required to do? Normally, Parliament wouldn’t be sitting at half past 9 on a Thursday, which is, I suspect, why it was set for then. But I’m conscious it’s a couple of minutes away. Maybe we should have some guidance about what we’re meant to do in a couple of minutes.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And very soon I will give that.

Andrew Bayly: Very soon?

Hon Member: We might not be prepared.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, I would have expected members to familiarise themselves with the whole aspect of it.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to finish that. If a landlord or a tenant did not issue such a termination notice within the initial 14- or 28-day period—

Debate interrupted.

ShakeOut 2021

ShakeOut 2021

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member. The committee is suspended until the bells ring again. Members, we are participating in ShakeOut 2021, the national earthquake drill. Members and staff move under the galleries or into the lobbies, then drop, cover, hold. If you cannot cover under your desk, then use the desk as a support and protect your head and neck for the next 45 seconds. Members, the Clerk will ring the bells. [Bells ring] Members, ShakeOut 2021 is now completed. The committee is resumed.

Bills

COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Clause 3 Amendments to enactments (continued)

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Well, that was something I never thought I’d do in Parliament. I think that was enjoyable.

I want to just refer back to remarks made by the Minister, in relation to the alert level system. Perhaps the Minister in the chair can elucidate further on the remarks made by the Associate Minister of Housing, who’s just made a contribution.

Very interesting language. The Minister in the chair said that this legislation reflects the Government’s—I’m paraphrasing, to be fair. She said this legislation reflects the Government’s changed approach to COVID, which is obviously a move away from pure elimination towards some sort of suppression strategy, and we’re now moving into a traffic light system—but that the Government would reserve itself the power to move back to an alert level framework. That is very interesting, because I don’t think we’ve actually ever heard that before from the Government, certainly not from the Prime Minister. So that raises a number of intriguing questions for the House, actually.

To be honest, I think we’re going to want to interrogate those issues over the next little while, because what does that mean in reality? So I suppose the question for the Minister in the chair now is: critically, under what circumstances would the Government revert away from a traffic light system operating in New Zealand and revert back to the alert level system? Now, there are some similarities between the two systems, and various commentators online have attempted to analyse what an orange traffic light for a particular region might mean in terms of the old system, in terms of alert levels. There’s been analogies drawn and parallels. It’s not completely the same, but there are some similarities. That would be quite tricky for people, I think, if we went to a traffic light system and then all of a sudden we went back to an alert level system. Look, people are discombobulated enough as it is, and, obviously, the good people of Canterbury, obviously, are anxious this morning with the news that there’s two COVID cases in Canterbury. We had the Blenheim case over the weekend. I know my good friend Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, has been in the media around that, and, you know, COVID’s now in the South Island and that’ll be concerning for people. There will be people in the South Island who’ve enjoyed a blessed year without COVID sitting there thinking, “Well, where’s all this going to go?” And they will be worried about that.

So, to return to the point, can the Minister elaborate further on his colleague’s remarks around under what circumstances the Government would seek to move back to an alert level system? Because that is quite a change from what the Prime Minister has said, and I think we deserve some clarity in the committee.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to actually talk a little bit about the Climate Change Response Act and how that is going to be impacted by this bill. Section 5X(2), inserted by clause 2, will replace 31 December 2021 with 31 May 2022. So this is around the response and the emissions reduction plan, and of course what I want to know is: this is going to have a material impact on our emissions reduction plan. So we start reducing our emissions as of 1 January 2022 for our first period. Now, we have a capped emissions trading scheme.

[Member gestures at Chamber clock] Mr Chair, I note my time seems to have flown by very quickly. I’m enjoying it a lot, but I didn’t think I’d already done four minutes, but there we go. Thank you. I do have that impact on some people sometimes though.

But getting back to the bill. So we have an emissions trading scheme, a capped emissions trading scheme. That means, by definition, we have a limited number of emissions certificates. Those certificates are required for every tonne of—one certificate is required for every tonne of emissions emitted. And so the Government has come out with a budget and that will limit the number of emissions—there’s a sinking lid—all the way through to 2050. It’s a great system, and will work incredibly well without most of us knowing it’s operating in the background.

However, before we get to May next year, we have an auction coming up of New Zealand Units (NZUs) on 1 December. We had an auction earlier in the year where we breached the cost containment reserve and more units were put into the market to cover that under the legislation. They have to be backed, and presumably they will be backed internationally. That means the Government will go into the international market, possibly the EU or some other country with an emissions trading scheme, a credible one. They’ll buy those certificates and they’ll shred them. That’s what we expect they’ll do. And that will then mean that emissions will be reduced elsewhere, effectively; we’re offsetting our emissions elsewhere, which is fine because actually the atmosphere covers the entire world and it doesn’t respect international borders.

However, we then have an auction coming up on 1 December, and then we have another one on 16 March, all before 31 May, and then immediately after that—on 31 May—on 15 June, there’s another auction. So you can see where we’re going here. We have a number of emissions certificates that will be auctioned well ahead of a settled emissions reduction plan. The emissions reduction plan has at last been released, or the draft one, and it was interesting in the select committee when I asked the officials, because in the preamble to this bill, it says quite clearly that the rationale for this change in this bill is that the consultation was delayed. In fact, the officials quite clearly said in select committee that the cause of this issue was the Ministers in Cabinet hadn’t actually made a decision. So it had nothing to do with COVID; it had all to do with the Government Ministers not coming to a decision and getting a draft emissions reduction plan out for consultation, and we would wonder why.

Clearly, there was some reason in the background. I’d like to know what that was, because it’s effectively what the Climate Change Commission put out in their report anyway. So it’s just a cut and paste. So what was the hold up in that? I’d like to know why, and I also want to know about the calculations and what informed those calculations around the emissions certificates that will be available next year in the first two auctions, because one will occur before 31 May and one will occur less than two weeks or two weeks after this legislation or this schedule comes into effect.

This is a very important issue, because the market is very sensitive to these things. These emissions certificates are not just traded when they are released into the market at an auction, they are traded daily through some markets. And I’ve just looked up a little earlier. We’ll go back a little bit. If we go back to just prior to the Climate Change Commission releasing their report, off the top of my head it’s something like $40 a tonne was the NZU price. Today it’s $65 and a bit of change. If we look out into next year, it’s $66 a tonne—that’s the futures market—and it’s through to $67 by 2026. So these things are being traded all the time.

Andrew Bayly: They’re likely to go higher than that, Stuart.

STUART SMITH: Well, they will go higher than that, and Mr Bayly’s quite correct. They will go higher than that. This is a market which is supply and demand. Unfortunately, the Government can control the volume or they can control the price, but they can’t control both. They’re controlling the volume at the moment and they’ve lost control of the price, and so this is incredibly important, and the market will settle on a price. They don’t go out there and collude on it. It’s just a simple supply and demand.

What we don’t know is how they’re going to react to this, because we need a clear pathway through to 31 May and we haven’t got one. So the market will then make decisions. Why this is so important—I’m sure the Minister in the chair, Mr Faafoi, would be very interested in this. Why this is so important is that decisions are being made right now by landowners about what’s the best use for their land, what’s the best return for them. And I can tell you at $70, Minister, at $70 a tonne, that makes carbon farming a lot more attractive than it does at $65. And actually, it’s on its way to $100, I believe, just we don’t know when.

So these things are incredibly important and it requires the market to be informed. This bill is quite clear on what it’s trying to achieve, but it misses the market completely, and really what we have is an information gap. I think there’s an opportunity for the Minister—and I note, Mr Chair, you said who is coming to be in the chair today as the Minister in the chair, and we don’t have the climate change Minister coming in. Mr Faafoi is going to be a good substitute for that. So I’m sure he’ll be all over this. I know that he’s incredibly interested in it. I can see he’s champing at the bit now to get up and tell us all about it.

But I urge you, even if he can’t do it just now, to get those officials on to it and come back to us with a really good answer, because we have the 1 December auction, we have the 16 March auction, and then we have immediately after this comes into effect, on 15 June, another auction. And as I said before, the Government can control the volume or they can control the price, but they can’t control both. They are controlling the volume. What are they doing to assess the volume, given that they haven’t got an approved emissions reduction plan? How are they putting that—is there a wet finger in the air exercise? Is it informed by what? It’s something I know I’m incredibly interested in, I’m sure the committee is incredibly interested in, but more importantly those actors in the market are interested in this, because if they don’t know, they will make their own calculations and those calculations won’t be informed by what the Government’s going to do, because they haven’t told them. So they will make those assessments themselves. If the price goes up by, let’s say, 50 percent, which it went up by more than that from the Climate Change Commission’s initial report, right through until now—if it did that again, that would have a massive impact on land use in New Zealand, where we’d see, and I think in Keith Woodford’s words, he’s a former professor at Lincoln University, we will see the largest land use change in 100 years.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I can’t substantively respond to some of the technical questions that the—sorry, I’ll take my mask off—member Stuart Smith has asked, but I would note some of the comments that he made around the time-change range in the bill and some of the comments he made around what officials may or may not have said as to why delays happen. It’s pretty obvious that the ability of the Government to progress some issues has been delayed by the COVID situation, and that’s not the only work programme that, unfortunately, has had delays to it. So all I can say to the member is that from the Government’s perspective, that is the reason why the date has been changed.

I think we’ve come to the point in the morning where we should resume the debate around Schedule 6 of the bill, around the changes to the Property Law Act. When the debate last night, on 27 October, came to an end, there was a mood in the House which I thought was unfitting for the situation that is out there in the market, around making this a landlords versus tenants tussle. I want to reiterate some of the comments that I made at the outset of this debate and thank both landlords and tenants, and the overwhelming number of those landlords and tenants, who have found within their current contracts, whether they have rent relief clauses or not—and my understanding from the discussions that I have had is that many do now—and have managed to come to an amicable arrangement to meet a fair proportion of rent. I want to reiterate some of the things that I said last night. Some landlords have foregone all rent; some landlords have foregone partial rent. I’ve heard the odd outlier story of some landlords who have not only foregone rent but also assisted financially some of their tenants, because of the longstanding relationship that they have but also in order to make sure that there is a tenant in the future when alert level settings can return to where those businesses can resume trading.

The situation we have with this bill and the changes that are made in the Supplementary Order Paper I believe strike the right balance, given the feedback to the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the select committee period, to ensure that some of the concerns that landlords had around making sure that there was an actual revenue loss on the part of a tenant are taken into consideration. Another change in the bill is making sure that there is an onus for engagement, because in many cases that are unsettled at this stage, one party has refused to engage with the other and tried to aggressively enforce the lease as it stands. Obviously, the debate will flow this morning about the decision around retrospectivity of 18 August, which is the effective date of the alert level change more recently.

I would again stress that there is an issue to fix. There are a number—and it is a minority, but still a significant number—of small and medium sized enterprises who are unable to come to an arrangement with their landlord on a fair proportion of rent. So there is an issue to deal with—

Andrew Bayly: Yeah, so what is it?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —and that is that many of those businesses—in the very electorate that the member Mr Bayly represents, and around the country—where there is an alert level setting which prevents them from physically being able to access their premises are up against the wall. We’ve heard about the stress. We’ve heard about the strain and the mental health impacts that the current alert levels have had on those businesses, and I want to acknowledge the work of the Deputy Prime Minister already in the assistance through the resurgence payments and the wage subsidy payments—$4.8 billion of resurgence payments and wage subsidy payments already to date, and we’re on the verge of, essentially, doubling the assistance that can be made to those businesses. Something needs to be done, and we believe it is a high bar that has been met and there is justification to make sure that those parties come together—

Andrew Bayly: Why didn’t you do it last year?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: —themselves and get to that fair proportion of rent. I hear Mr Bayly saying, “Well, why didn’t you do that last year?” So is Mr Bayly saying that he agrees with us doing it but we should’ve done it earlier, or does he think we shouldn’t have done it at all? Because Mr Bayly’s solution to this problem is to not get the parties involved together but to let the taxpayer pay 50 percent of the outstanding rent that may be at play. So I just want to outline the absurdity of that and some of the promises that the Opposition have made. Their plan is to increase support and reduce spending and reduce debt. Now, Mr Bayly, you can’t have it both ways. So why don’t you stand up here and say that your solution to this is making sure that taxpayers pay 50 percent of the outstanding rent, and that will come from taxpayers and that will increase debts under National, which makes your whole economic plan that you announced a couple of weeks ago a complete absurdity.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to ask the Minister some questions about the commercial leasing arrangements that he has in this bill. I want to start by outlining what I think’s a reasonable position and a position for the Opposition, which is that, actually, what he’s doing is an unprincipled interference in contract law.

We hear from the Minister about fairness all the time. Fairness this, fairness that, fairness everything—well, you know, we see it from them, don’t we? There’s fair pay, there’s fair wage—everything’s fair. I sometimes wonder if that’s spelled f-e-a-r, but, anyway, we won’t get into that in this bill. I just want to make the point that, actually, when Minister Faafoi, and, actually, any Minister or MP over that side, including the Prime Minister, uses the word “fair”—f-a-i-r—they’re using it politically and in no other way than that. Fairness is very much in the eye of the beholder. I’d go further: I’d say they’re weasel words from the Government.

I’ll give the Minister an example which I don’t think any reasonable person could say is fair, but it is exactly what his bill is going to lead to more and more of. It’s a real example of an elderly couple. One of them is 76 and one of them is 82. They own a commercial unit in Howick. It is their nest egg. It’s their big asset. It’s the thing that they supplement the superannuation rations with.

Following the Government’s announcement, they received an email from their tenants, who are a law firm, asking for a 50 percent rent—an outgoing reduction. The law firm’s got a good 11 or so staff who work there and who are all working from home, and the position of the elderly couple is that they simply cannot afford rent reduction or mediation or arbitration. They sit there, powerless, saying, “What can we do? What are we going to do?”, and yet that is exactly the situation that this Government is forcing on them in the name of fairness to the poor old renter, when the reality is that renters can be prosperous law firms. They can be multinationals like Amazon or they can be all manner of things, and yet he’s tilted, naively, it seems to me—and in the name of that weasel word “fairness”—the balance in favour of the renters throughout this, without thinking that through in any way, shape, or form.

I’d also just make the point, while I’m talking about this so-called fairness, that what we’ll also see—because we saw it the last time round we had lockdown, we will see a situation where renters right now, yes, they are doing it tough, some of them, very tough. They might be a purveyor of books or shampoo, or whatever it is, and it’ll be tough. But what will happen when the lockdown ends is that the next quarter and the quarter after that will be some of the best they’ve ever had, and there’s no clawback in this. The poor old landlord, who often is not the fat cat with 20 commercial buildings—and there’s a few of them; I acknowledge that—but there’ll be the little man and lady in Howick with one property, and they have no ability to claw back, even though the renters actually are doing very nicely, thank you very much. Yes, they had loss in the quarters of lockdown, and then not the others. This is a very simplistic, naive, and actually, I think, unprincipled approach here.

I’m going to ask the questions I want answered sequentially. I’m going to sit down and give the Minister an opportunity to answer them. The first is simply—there’s nothing tricky about this. It’s a simple sort of a thing I think we deserve to know, and that is: who has the Minister and his ministry consulted with over these aspects of the bill, and in what time frame did he do that?

The reason I ask is I have here—speaking of law firms—Minter Ellison’s submission to this truncated, shortened committee, saying, “We wish to record our concerns with the following features of the Proposed PLA Amendment, which we consider unnecessarily damage democratic and economic rights and freedoms … We say ‘unnecessarily damage’, because we think much of the harm associated with these features could have been prevented from a more transparent and accessible consultation and submission process.” So it could have been prevented. It wouldn’t have been as harmful, this law, in terms of that simplistic, naive approach I’ve talked about, with “a more transparent and accessible consultation and submission process.”

The New Zealand Law Society also go on to make a similar comment. Here’s what they say: “we are concerned at the very limited consultation period for this Bill. It seems to us a number of the matters in the Bill could have been anticipated earlier and a greater opportunity for response would provide more considered legislation.”

So who did the Minister or his ministry consult with and what was the time frame for that, and does he think it was remotely adequate?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for his questions. Can I first deal with some of the points he made in the first half of his speech. As I made the point last night, the changes to the bill will ensure that the revenue losses of the tenant have to be taken into consideration where the fair proportion is being calculated, whether that’s between the two parties themselves, or if they come to some form of arrangement through mediation, or if a decision by an arbitrator has been come to. So if it were the likes of a big Australian-owned bank or a company like Amazon, as Mr Bridges said, they would be in a much different position to some of the small retail shop owners who are really feeling the pinch. So we’ve heard some feedback from the likes of the Hospitality Association and retailers who are welcoming these changes, because it is those small retailers, small operations who are—I think, from my understanding of the situation—going to be benefiting from the changes in this bill. That is why these changes are being made.

I asked my officials to engage with the likes of the Auckland District Law Society and the Law Society—very quickly, actually—to make sure that these changes could be included in this bill. Because, if the Opposition hadn’t noticed, we’re into month 20 of a global pandemic and, you know, our businesses are under strain. In making sure that we give them the certainty from that, especially given the last lockdown or the lockdown that we’re currently experiencing, the time frames that the member was talking about would not have met some of the expectations of those who are needing help more urgently than that. The Government wasn’t prepared and we wanted to make sure it acted swiftly so we could give some certainty and hope for those small businesses to continue operating.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I love that last comment from the Minister, “We’ve acted swiftly.” So we’ve had a pandemic in place now for 20 months and only today we’re still even trying to pass a piece of legislation to address the prime issue that most small businesses are facing, which is they don’t have enough cash to meet the requirements of their business. So I think getting a lecture from this Minister about our proposals is quite something. I think, probably, what’s happened since last night, someone’s given the Minister a call, probably Mr Robertson, and said, “Oh, please tone it down about being too hard on the landlords because, actually, some of them have done a pretty good job.” So I can see the attitude that’s changed this morning from the Minister.

But the central issue, Minister—it is too late. It’s too late. The Minister should have been putting in place something last year. The lockdown started in March last year, we’re now heading into November. And the issue is the thousands of businesses that have already gone out of business because they haven’t had enough financial cash provided by the Government. I would just suggest to the Minister that I think in history people are going to look back at the response from this Government in terms of the support, particularly around this issue, and say, “This Government was woeful.”

Now, he mentioned that the retail association and some of the other hospitality associations were in support of their rent package. Well, I can say to the Minister, when I announced what is in my Supplementary Order Paper, which changes Schedule 1A, that when I suggested the rental support package with the Government fronting 50 percent for those businesses, those small business that had a 40 percent or greater decline in their revenue, they were highly supportive. In fact, I can tell the Minister that they are only giving tacit support to this package that was put up last year and refused by New Zealand First and now reintroduced, essentially, under the same terms. The only reason they’re supporting it—and they’ve told me that—is it’s the best option they’ve got on the table. It’s the only option that the Government’s given them. Of course they’ve got to support it, because there is nothing else on the table.

This Minister has never done anything to do—and actually provided any concrete changes for 18 months. He’s been missing in action—MIA in action. First of all, my first question is—the Minister makes these statements like, “We’ve heard that there’s a lot of people that are supporting this, have entered into arrangements.” First question is: what is the source of that data and how many businesses—what is the estimate of the number of businesses that have reached agreement with their landlord? That’s the first thing.

The second thing: I know that the Minister of Finance quoted 80 percent of businesses had the ADLS—Auckland District Law Society—clause 27.5. He made that comment at one point. Again, in talking to hospitality businesses and associations, retail association, Restaurant Association of New Zealand, they all say that the numbers are significantly less and they actually think it’s probably closer to between 20 and 40 percent who have got those Auckland District Law Society clauses. So I’d just be quite keen to actually see whether the Minister actually has any data to support any of those comments he made in his opening address.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I’m interested in the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act. This is being amended, I understand, to reduce mounting backlogs in the District Court caused by COVID-19 restrictions. I’m interested, having worked in this field for many years, what the difference is between the backlogs that were in the District Court prior to the beginning of 2020—i.e., before the pandemic began—and the backlog now? Because I know, having advised defendants on many occasions over the years that if they’re waiting for a jury trial, they may be waiting for 1 to 2 years, or even 3 years if there are some complications and pre-trial arguments that need to be argued prior to the matter being scheduled for a trial. So it’s very long and cumbersome. In fact, I tell defendants, “You’re getting on a train and you don’t know when the train is going to end. So just buckle in for a long ride.”

So my question is: how big a backlog are we looking at and how long is it going to take for that backlog to be processed; and what difference will it make for the High Court to be able to bring cases back from this court jurisdiction back into the High Court. I’m just looking at the wording of section 68A(1)—this is in Part 2 of Schedule 6—where it says that the High Court, when considering whether to bring this back to the High Court, on the judge’s own motion, may consider “a jury backlog arising out of particular circumstances”—and then it says, in (a)(iii)—“(for example, compliance with rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19);”. As I read that, the High Court’s being given jurisdiction to bring it back for any reason. It might be somewhere else, but I can’t see particular circumstances—they haven’t been defined. And it doesn’t seem to be specific just to the spread of COVID-19. So I would like to have some clarification, Minister, on that point.

There is another point, Minister, that we’ve just been talking about—landlords and tenants—and there’s a point I haven’t heard addressed yet, and that is saying, effectively, I think, that the assumption is that landlords are wealthier than tenants and therefore we need to socialise the costs to landlords. However, the primary outgoing for most landlords and the primary asset is actually owned by banks. I haven’t heard any discussion of what relief there is going to be for landlords in paying their rates, paying interest payments, and paying insurance. And, of course, any tenant, faced with a Government-mandated lockdown would say, “Look, I’ll take anything the Government will give me. If the Government’s going to get someone else to help me get through this, great.”, but my question is: has the Government actually looked at the cost to landlords and what the cost will be if they have to keep paying their interest payments yet don’t have the income coming in from the tenant to cover that interest? And therefore what economic carnage is the Government potentially setting up in the market for landlords who are unable to meet their interest payments to the banks given this intrusion by the Government into the contractual arrangements between the tenant and landlord?

It would seem, Minister, that the Government’s saying—and I’ve heard the Minister say today—“Look, this is a big cost. Someone’s got to bear it. We’re going to make the landlord bear it.” But I haven’t heard any discussion about how deep this dive goes. So if landlords start looking at having to collapse, is the next step for the Government going to be to look at the banks and say, “Actually, hang on. You have to make an agreement for a fair proportion of interest payments based on the rent that the tenant is paying to the landlord.”? Is this where the Government’s going? It would seem a logical journey to keep on socialising these costs further and further until we get to the point where we have some real problems in the market. With that, Minister, I’ll take a seat and I’ll be interested in your answers.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for the questions. Can I just remind the Opposition that the bill itself, for the parties affected, requires them to come to an arrangement around fair proportion. Fair proportion in one situation may be completely different in terms of its makeup, in terms of who bears more of the onus, than another situation. So there’s flexibility within the bill to make sure that the kinds of inequities—that certainly the Government wouldn’t like to see, in some of those situations—being considered and an arrangement being come to can be met in the numerous numbers of situations that you might have to look at.

To the questions that the member had around the Criminal Procedure Act, obviously with Auckland and a large part of the Waikato having been affected by alert level changes more recently, the likes of jury trials have been affected. There is a provision within this bill to allow more audiovisual links to be used in the likes of coroners’ hearings, etc. Obviously, the quantum of backlog of cases isn’t as serious as it was in the first lockdown, because the whole country was moving alert levels, but that is not to say that it is not significant, because the Auckland court system has been running at reduced levels. I don’t have the numbers on me, but I’d also note that my predecessor, the Hon Andrew Little, was able to ensure that more resources were given to the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary to ensure that there were resources to deal with some of the backlog. We’re assessing the backlog size now, and the question around how long it will take to deal with some of that backlog is still obviously a moot point while we’re still at the alert levels we are. We’re well aware that there are disruptions, and the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice is trying to make sure that it can prioritise and triage cases that can be dealt with. But, certainly, there will be a backlog that, when we return to alert levels, or amber or green traffic light system levels, the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice will make sure that we are dealing with it.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is actually for the Minister for Social Development and Employment, but I don’t believe she’s going to be down here, so I’m hoping the Minister in the chair, the Hon Kris Faafoi, will be able to—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member won’t refer to a member who is not in the House—absent from the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you for your advice on that. I’ve had a number of emails from my constituents, my retired constituents, who took the opportunity in the middle of the year, when the border was open, to go and see grandchildren in Australia. They had often not seen grandchildren that had been born or grandchildren that were young and they hadn’t seen them for nearly two years, and so they quickly popped over there when the window of opportunity was open but unfortunately got caught over there. I know that the Hon Louise Upston has also been made aware of this issue and in fact wrote to the Minister asking if leniency could be given to the superannuitants who were facing having their superannuation payments stopped because they were out of the country longer than is permitted.

So the Hon Louise Upston has tabled an amendment which enables those superannuitants who cannot get back to the country, through no fault of their own—and in fact have been unable to return to New Zealand because they’ve been unable to secure a managed isolation space, despite making all reasonable efforts to do so. We believe that this amendment would make a much fairer situation for our superannuitants who have been caught, through no fault of their own, over in Australia.

While they can apply at the moment for an exemption, it’s not a particularly easy process. I’ve been through the process myself, not as a superannuitant but as a parent of a child with a disability, when overseas is in the same situation. It isn’t a particularly easy process, and we know that the stress levels of a number of these retired folk who are out of the country are getting extremely high. They rely on their superannuation payments to live on, and they are concerned that they’re having to live off family if their superannuation payments are stopped, and they are concerned with the process of, essentially, having to go begging to have what is their entitlement continued.

The Hon Louise Upston has put forward this amendment, and we would like to know if the Government is going to support this amendment, because it seems a very reasonable thing to do—a very kind thing to do, in fact. If the Government is not going to support this amendment, we would be very keen to know why they want to continue this situation for our superannuitants who are caught, as we’ve said, through no fault of their own. Many of them are not as technologically savvy and so are not able to get on and stay on the internet and try and win one of the lottery managed isolation and quarantine rooms. They don’t perhaps have that level of technical ability, and so they are really being left in a very, very difficult situation, becoming very stressed by the situation, and it would be seen, I think, as a very sensible and reasonable thing for this Government to support the amendment that has been put forward in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to amend the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. Thank you, Madam Chair.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I’m still waiting for the Minister to stand up and provide some support to his comments about the number of parties he believes have reached agreement between the tenant and the landlord, because I think it’s a pretty important question to be asked. It’s great to be able to stand up and make claims like that in the Chamber, but unless there is supporting documentation or whatever, it’d be good to know what that is. Secondly, the issue around how many tenants does he believe—or property agreements does he believe have the Auckland District Law Society 27.5 clause. Because I think that underpins a lot of what he’s suggesting in this package.

So, I suppose, as I’ve said before, why has it taken so long to get to this point? But that’s a separate issue. I think the big thing that most people find troublesome about the proposed solution that was offered last year but never put in place with what the Labour Government is doing now, is it turns on this definition of “fair proportion”. I note that the Minister has said that there is an element that refers to revenue, but a definition of fear and a perception of fear is always different between parties, particularly if you’ve got two parties. And, as my colleague Joseph Mooney quite rightly pointed out, in some cases, contrary to the view of certain Labour members and certainly Miss Genter—she expressed last night that all landlords are, basically, rich people and they can afford to do everything, and, by the way, they should be shouldering the burden because they’re making lots of money anyway. It sort of detracts from reality, which is, in many cases, landlords do not have a lot of spare money. In fact, a lot of commercial property is actually owned by mums and dads who are seeking to get their income for their superannuation or whatever, and, in many cases, they actually have borrowings against it, and they are financially constrained as much as anyone during these lockdowns that the Government is imposing on New Zealanders.

So the definition of “fair proportion”—this is the issue, because, as I say, what is fair? If a landlord has previously been very supportive—and I know that many landlords have, where they’ve given vast discounts in the previous four lockdowns. And, of course, we’re now into our fifth lockdown. What is it—73 days, 74 days of the current lockdown? They may have given significant financial support to their tenants over the course of the last year and a half, but this lockdown, they may actually be in a situation where they cannot. Their bank’s saying to them, “Don’t do it, unless you want to mortgage up your house or whatever. We are worried about your income levels and we’re simply not in that situation.”

Now we’ve got a Government who thinks, “Oh, don’t worry about those arrangements at all being entered into. What we’re going to do is we’re going to go retrospective and just look at the current lockdown.” And they go back to 28 August, or whatever, and say, “Hey! Guys! You’ve got to re-negotiate something, because, you know, we just think it’s right.”, even though it does not take into account what’s gone on for the last year and a half. This is why it’s such a sloppy piece of lazy legislation that the Minister is proposing. So now you’ve got to debate what’s fair—fair in the context of what we’ve done in the last 18 months, fair in the context of what’s happened on this last lockdown. So that’s one issue.

One is, what’s revenue? Revenue is one measure, Minister, but I know you’re not from that background, but, actually, the only thing that really counts in business is profit and cash, and cash is probably the main one, actually, just to give them a bit of a helping hand. So talking about a loss of revenue—yes, it’s a good partial indicator. But what happens if you’ve got a large multinational who’s renting a property from a small mum and dad investor and their view on the decline on their revenue is quite strident? And, actually, they’re saying, “Well, we’ve lost 25 percent”, or whatever, because there’s no indication in the legislation, “We’ve lost 25 percent, so, therefore, we should have a 25 percent decline in our rent.” That sounds fair, doesn’t it? Actually, 25 percent reduction may actually not be in that situation, because they have been able to reduce their staff, or whatever, to try and deal with the issue. So this issue about fairness is one that strikes to the core of it.

I want to talk about a situation—I actually modelled this. This is a hairdresser in Papakura. I can tell you that during the last lockdowns—[Time expired]

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I’ll respond to some of the points that Mr Bayly has made, because I think I’ve substantively addressed some of them in the debate that has been going on both last night and this morning.

To make it very clear for the member, we have said to make sure, in the legislation, that revenue gets taken into account when a fair proportion—that doesn’t limit it to revenue alone, Mr Bayly. Now, we chose not to give guidelines in the legislation because there could be a whole range of gnarly situations, just like Mr Bayly has outlined this morning, that we don’t want to necessarily limit in the legislation—we want to give freedom around the calculations that we could come to because of the situations that may have to be dealt with.

The other point I want to speak about, Mr Bayly, is this: it’s not about renegotiation. If some parties already have the Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) clause in it and have come to a fair arrangement, then they’re sorted. I want to reiterate to those people at home: this piece of legislation will only apply to those who don’t have an ADLS clause in their contracts currently. So I just want to make sure we make that very clear.

In the conversations that I had with stakeholders from the beginning of this year—or late last year; my memory can’t serve me quite precisely—we had the likes of the Auckland District Law Society saying, “Actually, we think an overwhelming majority of the commercial landlords and tenants have actually got the clause within their contract.”, and I took weight from that. Then we have the likes of the Retailers Association and the Hospitality Association and other small business owners, who said, “Well, actually, it might not necessarily be the case.”

And, Mr Bayly, I think you’ve actually made a rod for your own back when you say that the likes of the Hospitality Association and the Restaurant Association believe that only 50 or 60 percent of their members have the ADLS clause in their contract, because that actually means the problem is bigger than we probably initially thought, so there’ll be more people who will be able to take benefit from this change—if they haven’t been able to come to an arrangement with their landlord. So which one is it, Mr Bayly? Is it 50 or 60 percent? Which number that you’re quoting from the Restaurant Association and the Hospitality Association is the right number? Because we had to balance up the likes of the ADLS, who said, “Actually, we think a majority of these clauses are within the contracts.”, and the likes of the Restaurant Association, who said, “Actually, our guys who can’t operate are up against the wall.” And the plain hard truth is: that is the truth. And you know that too, Mr Bayly, which is why your party wants to do something about this too. So there is a problem, and we are dealing with it, and the best way to deal with it is actually to get those parties together to come to a fair proportion of rent.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Just rising to speak again in support of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick’s Supplementary Order Paper 74, which would amend Schedule 6 to take it back to the very first lockdown, the beginning of the first lockdown—the definition of the “affected period” when we talk about commercial tenancies.

I do want to thank the Minister for his answers. I think that they’ve all been very reasonable, and we’re really pleased that the Government has picked up the amendment that Chlöe had proposed—Chlöe Swarbrick—to go back to the beginning of the current lockdown, but we think it would make sense to be able to take into account other periods of lockdown, when obviously people have been very constrained in their ability to trade goods and services during lockdowns, and that’s because of the global pandemic. The Government rightly intervened and gave us a huge period of time in which we were able to trade because we had such an effective lockdown in 2020, but there are still issues for those who have excessive rent in arrears. Of course, that’s not to impugn—I’m sure there are many landlords that have taken into account the difficult circumstances that people are in and they have come to agreements. But ultimately the law changes are set to protect everyone and set a kind of baseline for that so that—the good landlords are not punished by these changes; it’s the ones that ultimately are trying to seek excessive rents during periods when it’s just simply not possible.

I know the National Party is trying to mischaracterise my comments and say that it’s somehow personal. It’s not personal. What we’re talking about is a system and trying to make the system more fair. Everyone in our society has been affected by the pandemic. Everybody has had to make sacrifices. It’s really important that Government has been able to step in and protect the most vulnerable people, provide financial support. We agree with all of that. But ultimately a system that here in New Zealand sort of privileges investment in property over real work isn’t fair. That’s not to impugn anyone who has done that to get ahead, because, of course, people make decisions in the system as it is, and that makes sense in that context. But to stand there and say we should continue to keep the system unfair—to me, that’s really objectionable, and that’s of course what the National and the ACT Party are advocating for.

They can’t tell the difference between productive enterprise, which is creating goods and services for people—you know, building buildings and building new buildings is a productive thing. But simply owning it and earning excessive profits off that ownership is rentierism. I mean, anyone who has any grasp over the economy—[Multiple members interject] I think the difficulty for them is that they conflate what’s good for them as individuals with what’s good for society. Yes, it’s been possible to get ahead by owning property. That doesn’t mean that it’s good for the economy for a small number of people to continue earning greater returns.

In particular I think it’s objectionable that there’s no sort of asset tax, really—no capital gains tax, no asset tax—that reflects increases in asset values. That’s what’s being ignored here, is that—it’s not socialising the losses. Socialising the losses would be the Government bailing out the landlords, and the landlords walking away two or three years from now with massive capital gains that are then privatised from Government policy, which has been to support the economy. I know they really struggle with this concept. But when you look at what is productive in society, it’s trading goods and services, not owning something and extracting rents. Yes, you’re getting rich, but you’re actually taking away from the productive economy. I know that’s a struggle for people to accept if they personally have gotten wealthy through this particular means, but it’s not fair.

I think Joseph Mooney made a really good point about, well, what’s the banks’ role in all of this? Obviously, interest rates have been at record lows, so expenses haven’t been excessive. But there is a question about what role the banks should be playing. I know that the Government made some provision for mortgage relief during the time of the first lockdown, but I think probably we could have gone further on that.

The other amendment to Schedule 6 that I just wanted to speak to was the one around overseas voting rights. I do think it’s really important that the Government does take action on this issue. Even if managed isolation and quarantine opens up and there is more freedom to travel next year, there will have been an extended period of time in which New Zealanders residing overseas were not able to return to New Zealand. When things start to open up more, there are still going to be huge constraints in air travel—much more costly than it was several years ago. So I think it’s really incumbent on the Government to make sure that those New Zealanders who haven’t been able to return home because of the global pandemic still have the ability to participate in elections. That is why my colleague Golriz Ghahraman has moved—[Time expired]

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I might just take the opportunity to gather up a few issues that have been raised over the last couple of contributions. First, to the Hon Julie Anne Genter in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that she mentioned at the beginning of her speech. The Government is extremely proud of the way that the economy has bounced back after the initial lockdowns and, because of that, the period for the retrospectivity only goes back, obviously, to the beginning of this lockdown because we believe the strength of the economy for the initial lockdown has spoken for itself.

In terms of the last issue she raised around an SOP around overseas voting, as we have said before in the House during question time and in questions from media: we understand that the Justice Committee is going to be coming back with its report on the previous election and if that issue comes from the select committee, then we will consider it given the situation that we’re in, but we’re not making any commitment to what that might look like.

Also, finally, Penny Simmonds raised a question around New Zealand Superannuation and an SOP on the Table under the name of Louise Upston. I believe—and I’ve been advised that there is already some discretion within current legislation—the situation that she outlined at the beginning of her speech would have predominantly covered travel when the quarantine-free trans-Tasman bubble would have meant that the likes of grandparents who went offshore to go and see friends and family—I believe there is some discretion when the travel wasn’t for a long period of time and disruption wasn’t foreseeable, that the Ministry of Social Development takes a case-by-case approach into some of those issues, which is why we won’t be supporting the SOP that’s on the Table. So we believe there is a release valve for those cases already. So that should take care of that issue.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I actually wanted to rise and speak in support of the tabled amendment from Louise Upston that Penny Simmonds spoke to. I do think that we’re in a difficult situation if we’re relying on the Ministry of Social Development to rely on discretion and that probably a lot of people will be missing out. There’s certainly been a lot of difficulties experienced by people who found themselves in Australia or elsewhere and unable to access an income as they’ve been trapped overseas. The one difference that we would probably have with this tabled amendment is that we actually think that there’s probably a few too many hoops to jump through. It makes it bureaucratically complex. Just keep it simple, if you were entitled to super before and you found yourself in Australia due to COVID, then you’re eligible for super payments as long as you’re stuck there. I think that is a perfectly reasonable change and one that the Green Party will very much be supporting.

We are really looking forward to what the Justice Committee has to say. I do think that we don’t need to wait for that sort of report. If New Zealanders overseas haven’t been able to return home for over two years because of a global pandemic, they should still have the right to vote. We’re an absolute outlier in the world in terms of restricting citizen’s ability to vote when they’re residing overseas, and given that we’re a country where many people do go overseas for extended periods of time, then we think they still, absolutely, as citizens and people who pay attention to what’s happening here at home in Aotearoa New Zealand should have the right to participate in voting. As someone who was born in another country and as a citizen of another country, I can tell you that the United States doesn’t impose these sort of restrictions on people’s ability to vote, although I do have to file US taxes, which is an absolute nightmare. You guys have no idea how lucky we are here. If you’ve never seen US tax forms, they’re horrendous.

Then finally, just coming back to the points on the commercial tenancies—look, we just think, ultimately, that these sorts of provisions should go all the way back to the beginning of the first lockdown. Even though the economy did bounce back, it wasn’t in an equal way. There will be people, particularly in hospitality, who have really struggled and struggled during the period of the first lockdown and still haven’t been able to catch up, and so it just makes sense. When we suffer these sorts of, you know, global phenomenon like a global pandemic, where everybody is affected, we just want to make it as fair as possible for everyone to be able to carry on. Obviously, trade and many of the types of economic activity we were engaged in prior to the pandemic were restrained. Some types of economic activity have benefited from the pandemic. I’m sure Zoom has done really well out of it. Online meetings, delivery services—so some have done really, really well but it’s not totally equal. I think it’s just really important that we acknowledge that and our law acknowledges the changing circumstances and enables people to—I think what the Government’s proposed is really quite reasonable because it is just asking for tenants and landlords to come to an agreement and be able to consider how the changes with the lockdowns has affected them and come to a, sort of, fair proportion.

Finally, I think we’ve moved on from Schedule 5, but, of course, we do have Supplementary Order Paper 70, which is about residential tenancies. I know that the Minister spoke to that earlier this morning. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the changes to the Residential Tenancies Act have gone far enough. Certainly if you talk to tenants, advocacy groups, and tenants’ unions, renters are still in quite difficult circumstances. We haven’t gone far enough as a Government to provide protection and security for people renting with the Government’s changes to the Residential Tenancies Act. So we do think that it would be appropriate to have a rent freeze during any sort of level 3 or level 4 lockdown. Really, probably, we need to go quite a bit further with protections for residential renters, and that’s why the Green Party has been campaigning generally on rent controls, particularly during this time where we’re waiting for the supply of housing to catch up with demand. It’s created a situation where those who rent are in quite dire circumstances. Property owners are in quite good circumstances. They’ve got quite low interest rates to contend with. They have rapidly skyrocketing asset values, and if that continues, then they’ll be really well off. But as a society, we’re not well off if we have a group of people who are increasingly in difficult circumstances because they’re—[Bell rung]

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was really quite enjoying the previous speech from Julie Anne Genter. I’ve forgotten what chapter we’re up to on Das Kapital but we got a bit of a rundown on it. It wasn’t nearly as entertaining as her speech last night. I thought that was the cream on the cake, and I hope she can reach those heights again today.

I am still waiting to hear the explanation around the implications of the number of units that will be available in the market through the next year for the auctions of New Zealand Units. This is a really important market issue and that has not been addressed yet by the Minister. I realise it’s not the particular Minister in the chair’s role, but he’s had ample time to get advice on this. It is incredibly important. On 2 December 2020, this Parliament declared a climate emergency. We voted against it, and what we’ve said was because it’s not the type of thing you’d declare an emergency. The Government said it was. They were supported by the Greens—I don’t know which chapter that is in Das Kapital. But that emergency declaration has been followed by anything but urgency from the other side of the House.

This is an incredibly important issue, and the market needs to be informed. As Mr Bayly will know, market uncertainty will drive outcomes that will be undesirable. So the Minister has an opportunity to get some advice and let us know, because the market will be watching. I’m very interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but it’s not only me. There are all those actors out there, including landowners who may make decisions to convert their property to a carbon farm based on the assumptions or conclusions that they come to. This is an important issue, and as I said before I finished my last speech, as Keith Woodford said, we are facing the greatest land-use change in a century. Keith Woodford is very respected in rural sectors. He is a very learned man, and his analysis is, I think, right on the money, and the pun was intended, because it is driving all of us. This New Zealand Unit price is driving not just change in land use but change in rural communities. That potentially could lead to a greater environmental perverse outcome than the one we seek to solve. I think it’s incumbent on the Government, who has deemed it worthy to include in the bill the Climate Change Response Act amendment.

I heard the Minister say that he kind of tried to refute what the officials told us in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I’m sure my colleagues remember that, even the chair of the committee was there; I’m sure he heard it. It is quite concerning that it is really just about poor process on the part of Cabinet—not getting their backsides into gear on something that really shouldn’t have had any controversy, unless there’s something that they haven’t told us that was going on in the background. The emissions reduction plan is simply a cut-and-paste exercise from the Climate Change Commission’s report. There is nothing new in it. There’s nothing that’s earth-shattering, so why have Parliament’s time here debating something that’s now caused more uncertainty, more uncertainty in the market, which drives, potentially, perverse outcomes not just for those people who are seeking to offset their emissions but those people that are making day-to-day decisions on what they’re going to do with their land and how they are going to react in the future? These things are long-term issues. They’re not going to be sitting around on their hands until 31 May next year to make some of these decisions. They have to put them in motion now. They have to seek advice. It’s a long process, and by then those things will be set in stone.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we’ve had a bit of a go on Schedule 6, but I just want to finish off before I start turning to some of the other schedules. The first thing is, I know the Minister is not very good with numbers, but no one ever quoted, and I certainly didn’t quote—

Hon Kris Faafoi: What about the employment numbers? Ha, ha!

ANDREW BAYLY: —anything to do—3.8 percent for male unemployment, 4.2 for female, and 4.0, right? So Auckland District Law Society—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Stop using Goldie’s calculator!

ANDREW BAYLY: —I didn’t hear and didn’t quote anyone who said that Auckland District Law Society, 27.5, was 50 to 60 percent. I don’t know where you’ve plucked that number. You obviously didn’t listen. What I suggested to him, the association said it was between 20 and 40 percent. But the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! I am ready for the member to now address the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY: But the issue is, even with the Auckland District Law Society clause, which underpins the approach that the Government wants to take, there are issues with that because the definition of “Can I enter the premises or not?” is one of the core parts of that. So, for instance, we heard from Michael LeRoy-Dyson, who is a business owner in Auckland, who owns the Attic Backpackers. He has one of those clauses, and yet there’s still a dispute with his landlord because the landlord is saying, because you can physically enter the premises, you should be required to pay the rent. And so now you’re back down into this situation. This is the whole thing about fair proportion. The issue about fair proportion, and the proposal that the Government has put up, is that if you’ve got disputing landlords and tenants, it doesn’t matter what you say, if you just use a bland, holistic approach, one that’s ill defined—which this is—you’re going to lead to a whole lot of issues. And that is simply—we arrive 18 months later, because the Minister hasn’t been able to actually put forward a proposal that means anything. Eighteen months later, the situation we’re talking about now is that there are disputes between landlords and tenants, and we’ve got a Government that wants to ride roughshod over that and put up a solution that actually makes it quite difficult for warring landlords and tenants. Yet the Government’s view is: “We’ll just impose the ability to go back and you can be retrospective about it.” I think that aspect of it is totally wrong.

But the question I now want to ask, because I’m not sure that it’s been addressed, is: given that we’re in a dispute situation, there’s clearly a landlord and a tenant that has not been able to resolve it, and that’s why you’ve chosen to do—why the Minister’s chosen to do this change.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The Speaker has not chosen.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah, I realised that. The Minister has chosen to put up this clause. What is the ability to actually resolve this matter quickly? If there’s a dispute over fair proportion, what happens next? Because, obviously, there will be a long situation where there’s been a dispute around that. Does the landlord or does the tenant have to go to mediation? Do they have to go to arbitration? Who pays for that? Is there any money? Because when this proposal was put up last year, there was an amount of money set aside for it, I think, $40 million, of which, I think, only a few thousand was actually drawn down. What is the situation? Because again, I’ll remind the Minister, these are situations where these businesses are burning cash or probably burnt through all their cash. They are running out of cash. They don’t have time. They certainly don’t have money to go to expensive mediation or arbitration processes, or, in fact, be able to take their case to law, to courts.

So what is the support that the Government’s offering to put up to help these processes be resolved quickly? And is there any monetary support to that? And are there any time limits on the amount of time that the arbitrators or the mediators have to take to resolve this? Or is it just that we’ll leave it up to it and hope the process works that way throughout? And, in the meantime, the businesses go broke if they can’t pay their rent. So it’d be very, very useful if the Minister can be a bit more clear about it, because I think the time of this is going to lead to more businesses going broke when they shouldn’t be if there was a proper proposal put up to support them with their rent check.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Madam Chair, thank you. It’d be really useful if the member would actually read the bill, because the subsequent changes from the select committee, given the stand-off situation we have with some landlords and tenants, has within it an amendment which requires an onus: if a party engages, the other party has to respond within 10 days. We did that to make sure that things actually move. The purpose of this bill is not to get to arbitration, but it is a backstop if those parties cannot meet an arrangement to get to a fair proportion of rent.

Andrew Bayly: They’re already in dispute, so they’re unlikely to.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: In the alternative world that Mr Bayly lives in, we should just leave things as they are and have a stand-off where nothing happens and businesses go to the wall.

Andrew Bayly: No, not at all.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, it is. That’s exactly the situation that you’re pointing out. So if you want to get traction on the situation that is happening now for those who don’t have the ability to come to a fair arrangement with either the landlord or the tenant, the change that we’ve made in Supplementary Order Paper 78, around the onus to engage, will do that, because if we don’t, then you’re straight off to arbitration. Again, I want to reiterate: arbitration is the backstop if the parties cannot come to an arrangement. We do not want that to happen. And as, I think, some of the members opposite and some of the stakeholders that we have met—there has been an overwhelming number of landlords and tenants who have been able to come to an arrangement. So the question is—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask the member sitting towards the back of the House to replace her mask.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I was just drinking water.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Sorry, I lost my train of thought there.

Andrew Bayly: What happens after the 10 days?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The point is not to get to arbitration; the point is to get to the point where a majority of other landlords and tenants have already got to, Mr Bayly, without needing the legislation, which is why the legislation is necessary. And, again, in your alternate world, we just leave things as they are and leave the stand-off in place, which will mean, Mr Bayly, that the small and medium enterprises that you claim to be fighting for here will continue to have the difficulties that they have had since 18 August, and many are stressed out and worried and have mental health problems—as members opposite all know as well—and something needs to be done.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’ve been listening very carefully to the debate since I assumed the Chair. I was advised, when I came into the Chair, that the debate was relevant, was traversing a number of issues, and was lively. I’m going to keep the debate going for a little longer. I’m mindful that there are a number of statutes and a plethora of clauses which are being amended by this bill. But I am looking for new material, I’m not looking for repetition, and I’m also looking for relevance.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Point of order, Madam Chair. I appreciate we’ve got the Minister, and it’s good that he is here in the chair. We were under the understanding that we were going to have revolving Ministers. I think there’s been a bit of reluctance from our side to—going into new territory—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. [Interruption] Thank you. Not having been in the Chair at the time—probably no excuse—I’m not aware of an arrangement of that nature, so what I’m going to do is just take a moment to see if I can satisfy what you’re asking for. Thank you, members, for your patience. Before we proceed with the committee, I’m satisfied that Ministers have been available to take questions. There is still a Minister in the Chamber, in the chair, who is actively addressing questions raised by the committee. We will continue on that basis.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, thank you for that elucidation. I just want to return now to Schedule 5, which is the termination for antisocial behaviour. With the previous Minister in the chair, we were traversing some of the issues in this part of the bill, and we were talking about the difference between the 28 and the 14 days. But I just want to talk to them and get some advice from the Minister around the termination for antisocial behaviour.

As the Minister will be aware, if there’s a COVID-19 tenancy order that applies to an area, the landlords of a tenancy in the area can apply for an order terminating a tenancy on the ground of antisocial behaviour. Then, in subclause (3), it talks about how the tribunal must not make the order if it’s satisfied that doing so would be unfair because of the circumstances in which the behaviour occurred—for example, circumstances of family violence—or the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant, which is—that second bit, obviously, is pretty significant.

Perhaps the Minister can help in regard—first of all, whilst I think everyone understands the need to make sure that if a COVID order is in place, tenants are protected and we don’t see tenants being thrown out on to the street during a situation where it’s difficult for them to find new premises or they just literally haven’t made arrangements where to go and are unable to cross borders if they were still in place—those types of arrangements. So I think the principle of that we all understand.

But this issue around termination for antisocial behaviour—and, unfortunately, there are many examples of this. So just a couple of specific questions. The first thing is: if we were in a COVID-19 order situation, how long would it take to get a decision—and whether, in fact, the tribunal is going to sit? Because we’ve seen, for instance, the Ministry of Transport, in certain instances; Waka Kotahi, in many instances with licensing—just to name some Government agencies that are literally in the situation where they’re not prepared to do a certain amount of work because of COVID restrictions. I just want to make sure that there’s clarity around, if we’re in a COVID lockdown, whether the tribunal would sit—and how long would they take to respond to those types of issues?

The second one is: what does it mean, “the impact that terminating the tenancy would have on the tenant”? Because if it is simply that the antisocial behaviour is being condoned in any way, that would be pretty concerning. So I’m trying to understand what is the criteria around when you would not be able to get rid of a tenant for antisocial behaviour because of the impact terminating that tenancy would have on the tenant—what does that mean?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): One of the, I think, significant things about any law that comes through this Parliament is that we want to have a sense that, actually, there has been, in the absence of Ministers competently looking at the issues, a good not just process but substantive analysis by the Government departments and agencies concerned. And I want to ask the Minister a specific, I think, straight question that hasn’t been addressed so far in the committee in relation to the commercial leases aspect of this. But I just want to flesh out the point that I made: in good laws, certainly the path that I’m familiar with as a former Government Minister, there would be a series of, you might call them “hoops”, but processes to go through, regulatory impact statements, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) reports, various memoranda, legal reports about the necessity, the desirability of a law change, the scale of the issue, the problems, some data, and some evidence base on which to do it. And this is a Government that talks the talk about evidence, says that it’s all about it, and “Leave this to the experts.”—we’ve had epidemiologists up the wazoo giving us their views of life and the cosmos, in this country, but, actually, I don’t know—

Hon Andrew Little: That member says to ask them.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, the reality is this, Andrew Little: epidemiologists aren’t economists. They actually aren’t, in all cases, public health experts. They aren’t, in all cases, educationalists, who understand the ramifications of policies in a broader sense. And that’s, frankly, Andrew Little, what’s been missing so badly from this Government with lockdown—a situation where all that’s going on is reliance on a few epidemiologists and a guy called Ashley Bloomfield, and no understanding of the very real downsides of lockdowns and the Government’s strict approach. But I digress.

I come back to the point that we want to see some good process and substance in making laws. And my concern overall, actually, is that this Government has got away from that. I worry about the Public Service and the strength and weakness, actually, of them—that they don’t stand up to that, and that those processes have been eroded. And, in relation to the commercial rents aspect—

Hon Andrew Little: That member has never worried about the Public Service.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: See, again, Andrew Little chips that I have no regard for those things. I don’t make the mistake that he makes—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Stop taking the bait! Hook, line, and sinker!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, there’s 10 minutes to fill here—there’s 10 minutes to fill here, Kris Faafoi. I don’t make the mistake of equating quality and quantity as the same thing. You see, Andrew Little thinks, if he employs another 10,000 public servants, which is what Labour’s done, actually, over the last four years, that somehow that makes a better response. Often times, it actually makes things worse. I’d rather fewer, well-paid, quality public servants. But the point I wanted to make is this—

Hon Andrew Little: The National Government ran it down.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: He says that we ran it down. Well, actually, inequality’s got worse, housing’s got worse, no roads have been built, and nothing’s happened in public transport—I could keep going on. Public services are worse. We’ve got less surgeries in our hospitals—that was even before COVID; so I don’t think that case made it.

But my question to Minister Faafoi is simply this: whether he has had any advice and whether he knows the size, the scale, the quantum of the potential rent relief here. Or is he just flying in the dark? Does he literally have no radar, no scanning, no ability to know what is happening here? So I want to know the answer to that. And I would note, on my wider point around whether or not there’s been any analysis, any regulatory impact about this from the Ministry of Justice, from Crown Law, from DPMC and the like, this is what DPMC says—and this is an important point that has not been made in this debate so far—the DPMC disclosure statement states that they don’t know the size and scale of the problem or how many commercial leases this will impact.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think most of the questions that the member Simon Bridges has just asked have already have been asked in the debate, so I’ll let him read the Hansard if he wants the answer. I do think Mr Bayly asked a reasonable question around Schedule 5, so to answer his question about whether or not a tribunal in a case of antisocial behaviour will meet, the answer to that question is yes. They will meet in lockdown situations and, obviously, given the nature of the situation, will come to a timely decision, given the situation.

Andrew Bayly: What does that mean?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Well, because the tribunal always has to deal with different issues; some are more urgent than others. If you’ve got a situation around safety of either current tenants or a landlord, then it could—and I’m pretty sure it would triage the situation to make sure that there is a timely outcome as opposed to it being prolonged. So there’s an answer for Mr Bayly’s question around Schedule 5.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I want to ask you some questions about Schedule 6, “Part 1: Amendment to Coroners Act 2006”, which is about the Coroners Act. The reason why I have come to questions upon this is because I spent a couple of years working for the coroner in Rotorua when I was a little bit younger. I am also quite aware that we have a huge delay in coroner hearings being heard at the moment, so much so that I’ve heard of, in particular, one family who have been waiting over eight years. I see that in Part 1 of the Coroners Act, you’re wanting to introduce the use of audiovisual links in order for those families to be able to progress the coroner’s hearings.

What concerns me about this is while it’s great to be able to progress and keep it going so we don’t increase that backlog, to do so over audiovisual is quite cold in some circumstances, especially with tragic deaths. I just wonder whether or not the Minister, in bringing forward this remote participation use in Part 1, new subsections 102A(1) and (2)—whether or not, Minister, we would have something available for the families that go through audiovisual set up to help them and to address any questions or concerns they have about the process, but, more importantly, some support services for those families within their homes as well.

Hearing some of the information that can be heard during a coroner’s hearing can be very, very distressing for many families, and the concerns that I have, Minister, is that families will be sitting in their homes alone. Sometimes some of them are just single parents or a sibling that has no support going through the process when it’s audiovisual. So while I do appreciate the fact that we’re wanting to ensure that we don’t have a backlog, or we don’t add to the backlog that we already have, that we are actually able to support those families, have them ask and get answers to questions, and I also wonder at what cost that would be. Thank you.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to make sure I respond to Nicole McKee’s question around Part 1 of Schedule 6, around amendments to the Coroners Act. At the moment, the coroner’s office already uses audiovisual links, but it doesn’t have any reference within the legislation to enable it to do that. So, in a technical sense, we’re just making sure that we have within that piece of legislation the legal coverage to undertake audiovisual link hearings.

I do take the member’s point, and I have asked that the coroner’s office does take the likes of cultural issues, sensitivities, into account when deciding whether or not an audiovisual link hearing is appropriate. I guess—and I don’t want to get into the substantive debate, because this is obviously very narrow within the legislation—that there are issues with delays, but making sure that we have the ability to move through some of these hearings in a sensitive way is important, and the use of audiovisual links, where geographical distances might be a problem for some parties to not be at hearings physically, is a way to deal with those issues sensitively, but also make sure we keep momentum in dealing with the cases that are before the coroner at the moment.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora, Thank you, Mr Chair. Mr Chair, I’ve been rising to seek a call all morning, and thank you for accepting my call.

My question is addressing Schedule 6 within clause 3, which is the Coroners Act, but also the Criminal Procedure Act. So my question posed to the Minister in the chair, Kris Faafoi, noting that these are proposed amendments to a COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill, here we have, Minister, an amendment proposed to the Coroners Act for the use of audiovisual links. I put it—in fact, I invite the Minister to answer the question: is this deemed sufficient purposefully for a COVID-19 response, or is this a bit of a monster mash, bearing in mind we’ve got Halloween on Sunday, where this is a melting pot of a whole lot of convenient instruments and adjustments being made to omnibus bills under the guise, under the mask, under the masquerade, of COVID-19? So my question, Minister, is: yes, audiovisual links are required as a necessity to make more efficient and streamlined, in the interests of justice, the public’s access to justice, but, Minister, really, is this a COVID-19 urgent crisis management measure response?

Before the Minister rises to answer that question, I move now to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011—again a COVID-19 response amendment, this is. Would the Minister please answer and clarify the proposed clause 4 for the insertion of section 68A where a High Court judge may reconsider orders made under section 68 in certain circumstances? What are those certain circumstances? Also, I draw to the Minister’s attention section 68A, which is under clause 4 as the proposed amendment, section 68A(1)(iii), “a jury backlog arising out of particular circumstances (for example, compliance with rules to prevent the spread of COVID-19;)”. Minister, in the drafting of this legislation—and I’m aware that this bill was rushed through under urgency, addressing amendments affecting 16 separate pieces of legislation plus one set of regulations, rushed through under urgency to the Justice Committee for two weeks—two weeks of hearings of submissions only—and here we are before the committee debating the specifics of what are meant to be COVID-19 response amendments.

So, please, Minister, clarity and clarification, because lawyers require specifics. Otherwise, these matters have to be determined by the judge. There is ambiguity, as I have highlighted. What is the difference between certain circumstances and then particular circumstance, for example—and, again, specific reference under, as I said, section 68A(1), clause 4, which outlines the specificity of a COVID-19 response? So before the Minister rises, I’ve highlighted the ambiguity that has been associated with the fact that this has been rushed through, and here we are. Our public requires—our public deserves, and on behalf of the public, we demand—clarity for this COVID-19 response legislation. Halloween is on Sunday—this is a monster mash, Minister.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Well, happy Halloween to that member Harete Hipango for Sunday. Can I thank her for paraphrasing the question that her colleague Joseph Mooney asked earlier in the morning. The measures within the Criminal Procedure Act changes and also the Coroners Act changes are, in essence, to be made—as I mentioned to Nicole McKee in the question that she asked earlier—to make sure that within the legislation we have the ability to undertake an audiovisual link hearing for the Coroners Act, which is already happening as we speak, but does not necessarily have the legislative mandate in order for that to happen. So that is a clarification within law to make sure that that can continue.

As I mentioned to Mr Mooney earlier in the debate this morning, there have been delays with court backlogs and cases, predominantly in the Waikato and Auckland areas. Those members who may be from the legal fraternity from that area will know some of the judiciary that serve the likes of the Waikato and other courts, may also base themselves in Auckland as well. So the ability to move people across the border for cases, both for the representation of people appearing before court or the judiciary, during the lockdown has obviously necessitated changes to court programmes, and cases have been put off.

The changes that the member refers to give the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice the flexibility to make decisions which will be predominantly related to COVID-related backlogs but also in the circumstances that the member talked about. If there’s an issue that needs to be brought before the court with more urgency because of an issue of complexity before the case or for any other issue, the judiciary has the ability and the flexibility to do that.

We want to make sure, as Mr Mooney mentioned earlier this morning, that any backlogs that result from alert level changes that necessitate cases being put off, we can deal with that swiftly, not just because we want to make sure that the backlog is dealt with but there are human beings in the middle of these cases as well that we want to make sure they’ve got certainty, and having some flexibility as to how High Court judges can deal with or bring in cases within their purview may be able to increase the capacity of the throughput of cases in the system. If the member thinks, as she may have been alluding to in her question, that there’s anything more to it than that, then I think she might also be having a few thoughts that don’t match the reality.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move, That the question be now put.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Point of order, please, Mr Chair. The point of order is that there’s been an allegation or an assertion made by the Minister—as the speaker addressed the House—that I have a distortion of what reality is. I take exception to that, Mr Chair, and would invite the Chair to deem whether that is the case or not.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That’s not a point of order. [Multiple members interject] Order!

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just very quickly, to clarify, to speak to Supplementary Order Paper 80, tabled in the name of David Seymour, Schedule 6. In the explanatory note, I’m sure you can all see, it speaks to the retrospectivity. Just to clarify, and maybe the Minister can shed some light on it, and as an example, clarity in and around—and I’m just going to offer an anecdote here—laws that were historically not in place. Someone catches a fish, and by virtue the law is changed. Is there a prosecutorial reality, contractual obligations, between a tenant and a landlord that what was in place has since changed—is the premise of this legislation that far-reaching? Can he speak with clarity to that, please?

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I am tempted to accept it. I’m not going to, but I will give the call to Chris Bishop, and I would expect some new material. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’m conscious that we are potentially approaching the tail end of this elongated debate. But I thank the Chair’s indulgence, because I do have a very serious question that I want to ventilate for the House, for the Minister, and it’s to do with the retrospectivity in relation to the property law changes in Schedule 6 of the bill.

Hon Member: Didn’t we do this last night and this morning?

CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, we did do it last night and this morning, but the reason we did it last night and this morning is that it is a massive change to property law and the House is doing its diligent job in interrogating why the Government wants to make retrospective changes to commercial contracts between tenants and landlords. So, yes, we did spend quite a bit of time on it last night, and yes, we’re spending quite a bit of time on it this morning, but we make no apology for that. I’ll tell you why: because in this party, we believe in the rule of law. In this party, we believe in the sanctity of contract. In this party, we believe that the Parliament should not just go around willy-nilly changing the status quo in contracts retrospectively. We don’t believe that the Parliament should do that without proper interrogation as to why it is doing it.

I come to the issue, which is the bill as it was introduced—new section 245F(2) extended the retrospective application of the amendments to 28 September 2021, so it’s about a month ago. So, OK, that’s a month. That’s not ideal. As I’ve indicated, retrospective law is, in principle, a bad thing. But what we have here now is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 78, which, as I pointed out last night, is actually about as big as the Government bill in the first place, and it has to be that big because the select committee didn’t have enough time to do a bar 2 version of the bill. We only had two weeks at the select committee, so now we’ve got this big SOP. The SOP, which is SOP 78—

Hon Member: Zigzag SOP.

CHRIS BISHOP: —it’s a zigzag SOP—extends the retrospectivity back to 18 August 2021. So, you know, just kind of by the flip of a pen, basically, we’ve gone back another—what’s that, 28 September to—so another five weeks, five and a half, six weeks. Just by the flick of a pen by some drafter in the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO)—

Hon Poto Williams: Where’s the new material?

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the new material is exactly what I’m talking about, thank you, Minister. The new material is exactly what I’m talking about, and I know Poto Williams can’t get her head around why retrospective law is a bad idea. It’s pretty embarrassing that the police Minister doesn’t understand why retrospective lawmaking is a bad thing, given she’s actually partly responsible for the rule of law in this country. But her performance so far as police Minister has given no indication she’s got her head around those issues.

But we had 28 September, now we’re going back to 18 August. So just with a flick of the pen, with the PCO’s drafting instructions and the drafter’s pen, the law has changed retrospectively by another five weeks. Frankly, the flippancy with which members opposite treat this issue is outrageous. It’s embarrassing. This is not a flippant issue. This is not a frivolous issue. This is not something to just say, “Oh, well, the National Party, you know—ha ha, you guys, you lost and there you are just objecting. Get with the programme, guys.”, which seems to be their attitude. This is a serious issue. Retrospective law is bad. Retrospective criminal law is appalling—and this is not criminal—but retrospective law in the civil context, in the ordinary non-criminal context is also not good, and there has to be a good reason for it.

It was bad enough that it was 28 September 2021. Here we are legislating at the committee of the whole House stage, and the Government wants to bring it back even further to 18 August 2021. I’ve read the submissions to the select committee and I’ve read the commentary of some of the law firms that have made comment about this, and there is a genuine issue in question as to why the retrospective application goes all the way back to 18 August. It’s a legitimate, genuine issue, and we need to know why the original bill said 28 September and the new SOP, or the SOP on the floor of the House, in relation to the amendments, goes all the way back to 18 August. So I want to know from the Minister why we are going back another five weeks. Thank you.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move, That the question be now put.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Oh, Mr Chair. Whew! Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s great to have a neighbour in the chair—obviously it works. I’ve counted, actually. I’ve done 34 squats and one drop, hold, and cover this morning to get this call. I don’t want to waste the committee’s time—I don’t want to waste the committee’s time. But I want to go back to a point that was raised earlier about discretion.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry. Sorry to interrupt the member. Just want to remind the Minister in the chair, he’s not meant to be interjecting from the chair. [Members groan] Yeah, or commenting while I’m giving a ruling—yeah, same thing.

IAN McKELVIE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Great to see discipline. Sorry, Mr Chair. I want to go back to a point that was raised by the Minister earlier with respect to discretion and the very good amendment tabled by the member for Taupō in Louise Upston. In any piece of legislation there are winners and losers. In this case, and this amendment sums it up beautifully, there are losers in this piece of legislation, in that our superannuitants have, effectively, been left out of the legislation. The Minister used the excuse that they were left out on the basis of discretion. He would know from his immigration portfolio that discretion is not widely used by officials, particularly when Ministers give directions it’s not to be used. So that’s the reason for this amendment. Because if, in fact, this amendment becomes law, then it’s very easy to interpret it. But if this amendment is left out of the law and left to the discretion of people, it creates the issue that Penny Simmonds raised earlier, where some people are able to deal with exclusion and are able to question it and get a result, and some people are not. It becomes quite unfair.

We do have a large number of both superannuitants and veterans who have been, effectively, locked out of the system, completely against their own choice. In other words, they have either been overseas at the time of a COVID lockdown or they’ve made the choice to go overseas, quite legitimately, as did thousands of other people. The difference between the thousands of other people and the superannuitants is that the superannuitants, once their time is up, they no longer have access to their entitled income. I think that’s a big challenge for us. I think this amendment specifically talks about amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, and it only talks about people who are excluded from, effectively, their ability to comply with the law by the Government dictating that the country has locked down and they cannot return to New Zealand.

I think the argument for this amendment to be included in this Act, as it goes through Parliament, is compelling for the reason I just talked about earlier, and that if, in fact, it’s left to the discretion of officials, those officials are all going to make different decisions, because we’ve got to understand that there’s a very large number of people dealing with what is a very large part of our Government operation in the superannuation scheme and the number of superannuitants, some 900,000 of us, that they have to deal with annually. So I think there’s a very strong argument to be made in favour of Louise Upston’s amendment because I think that if we don’t insert something like this in law it leaves all those people at the discretion of officials, and they don’t have the confidence or, necessarily, the ability to deal with that discretion as many younger and more—I was going to say more capable, but they’ll be certainly very capable people, but people who are, I guess, more au fait with modern technology and things like that are.

So I want to ask the Minister, why, in fact, the bill specifically excludes these people, or doesn’t specifically exclude them, why it excludes perfectly law abiding senior citizens when if they were included in the bill it would enable them—they’d be effectively protected. I don’t for a minute think we’re asking for anything other than protection for these superannuitants on the basis of them being excluded from New Zealand for the reason of the COVID lockdown. So I think it would be reasonable for the Minister to answer that question. I know he did address this topic a bit earlier, but I don’t accept that discretion is the best method to deal with this issue under.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Clause 3 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly’s amendment to insert new Schedule 1A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 33

New Zealand National 33.

Noes 85

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston’s tabled amendment to insert new Schedule 1A be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Chris Penk’s tabled amendment to insert new Schedule 1A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

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

Noes 65

New Zealand Labour 65.

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 43, Noes 75.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments to Schedule 5 set out on Supplementary Paper 70 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 10

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 43, Noes 75.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Golriz Ghahraman’s amendment to insert new Part 2A in Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 43

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

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 10, Noes 108.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chlöe Swarbrick’s amendment to clause 9 of Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 73 is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 78 agreed by the committee. Chlöe Swarbrick’s amendment to clause 9 of Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 74 is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee. Andrew Bayly’s amendment to delete Part 4 of Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 77 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. David Seymour’s amendment to delete Part 4 of Schedule 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 80 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 6 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 7 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 75

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

Noes 45

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

Schedule 7 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister’s amendment deleting Schedule 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 78 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I will report this bill with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m very thankful to the diligence and support of the House as this somewhat minor—not minor but—these few changes to the current mental health Act have been passed through this House. This is a response to the findings of the He Ara Oranga inquiral report of a couple of years ago that said that the mental health Act, in its current form, is out of date. It has provisions in it that are capable of seeing people’s human rights being breached. It called for a full overhaul of that piece of legislation, and that work is under way, but in the meantime it said that there are some provisions that would benefit from immediate attention, and so this bill has been about making sure that we deal with those very few pieces of that legislation that are problematic, and which changes now mean that those who are in the system or entering the mental health system, often when their decision-making capacity is compromised, can do so on the basis that their basic human rights and dignity will not continue to be breached. The House has been, as I say, very supportive of that.

So this bill does a number of things. It means that the provision that, effectively, allows for indefinite compulsory treatment orders is repealed, and so compulsory treatment orders do need to be periodically reviewed. It also means that provisions that were put in place at the beginning of the pandemic last year that allow family members to attend consultations with those who have been admitted under the Act to a mental health facility can attend by audiovisual link (AVL). The select committee, I think, applied very good scrutiny on that and said that, look, that has been very helpful and was a helpful measure, as an emergency measure, at the beginning of the pandemic, but we do need to make sure that when AVL technology is being used for these consultations that it is being done so because it is the only practical or effective way to make sure that the consultation proceeds. Ordinarily, somebody ought to have a family member or a support person present with them physically. So now a specialist who is evaluating whether AV technology should be used has to record the reasons for that and the number of occasions on which consultations and representations are made using AV technology now has to be recorded.

There’s a further provision that allows, particularly forensic, mental health patients who need to be transported and who may be a risk to themselves or others to be able to be transported with appropriate and proportionate restraints being applied. That was a gap in the current legislation, and so that can now happen that those who are responsible for transporting those patients can do so with some confidence that they can use appropriate restraints and will have the protection of the law. Then there’s some technical changes that the bill makes.

But the broader context is that we are changing the law completely. The consultation work on that law change has now started, and that has gone out to the community for feedback, and I expect, certainly by the end of next year, we’ll be in a position to know the magnitude and extent of changes that need to happen for a modern, 21st century piece of legislation that respects the rights and dignity of those who suffer the ill-health of acute mental health issues, who are incapacitated and can’t make decisions for themselves, who need those decisions to be taken by others, including under these sorts of orders, but who can do so with appropriate and modern protections in it. That’s the direction that we’re heading. This bill is a step on that way and part of the broader improvement in mental health generally that this Government has embarked on since it took office four years ago.

So, on that basis, I once again acknowledge the work of the House, the support of the House, in their examination of this bill, and getting us to the stage that we can make these changes and continue the important journey that I know we all, every member of this House, share about the need to improve our mental health services and our mental health capability in this country. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

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

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. Fair to say a quite technical bill, quite perfunctory. We are now at the third reading. I think the bill is in a good shape, going through the legislative process.

I’d like to acknowledge my colleagues in all parties on the Health Committee. We heard a number of submissions and were able to make a number of amendments based on the feedback that we received. I think the points of this bill have been well canvassed over the second and the third readings. And we did go through clause by clause in the committee of the whole House.

What I would point out—and it is one of the first points in the legislative statement, and we heard it from the Minister of Health this morning—is about this bill being a small step and part of one of the 38 recommendations, of course, part of He Ara Oranga. There was 40 recommendations in the Government’s mental health and addictions inquiry. One of those 38 recommendations was for the repeal and the replacement of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, and I agree with the Minister—one of the few things we probably do—when he said it is a small step; a very small step. Because, literally, this Government’s been in power now for four years. They raised a lot of expectation in mental health. They encouraged thousands of New Zealanders to come along and tell their personal, tragic, and heartfelt stories. They promised them a lot and turned that into a report, of which they accepted 38 recommendations, yet, four years on, three years after the inquiry, the recommendation that’s pointed to in the repeal and replacement of the mental health Act on this legislative statement has still not even been started. The Minister said “Things are on track.” Well, this bill was a bit of a stocking-filler—let’s be honest—to look as though you’re kind of doing something in that space.

But, interesting enough, when we looked at the theme of the submissions, one of the biggest themes that came back through the submissions was people saying, “When are you going to start the repeal and replacement of the mental health Act?”, and, of course, because of that and the large outcry from the submissions, what did the Government do? Well, about a week ago, they opened a public consultation on the repeal and the replacement of the mental health Act. [Interruption] Well, I am speaking to the bill, Mr Speaker, because it is part of—

SPEAKER: I’m now going to draw the member back to the bill. The third reading debate is a debate on the bill as it emerges from the committee stage. It’s not about what might be relevant submissions to a select committee or it’s not a broad-ranging debate like a second reading debate. The speech that he’s making now would be perfectly valid at that stage, but this is quite a narrow debate. As I’ve said, it’s on this bill, not on other bills, and not on what’s not in the bill. It’s on the bill as it emerges.

MATT DOOCEY: Point of order, Mr Speaker. When I look at the legislative statement for the third reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, the first point is about the repeal and replacement, and goes on about that within this bill, and that is exactly what I’m speaking to—the legislative statement.

SPEAKER: I will be listening very carefully to the member. He hasn’t convinced me yet, but I’ll be liberal with him for a minute.

MATT DOOCEY: So I’ll bring that point to a close, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: That’s a good idea, I think.

MATT DOOCEY: I think it’s very well canvassed that this Government raised expectations, accepted a lot of recommendations, but, actually, hasn’t followed through. In this bill, when you look at it, it has been signalled to start the repeal and replacement, but, in fact, with the public consultation only just starting, we know that’s a long way off, and I would encourage the Government to stick to what they agreed and actually bring that legislation, as promised to New Zealanders, sooner rather than later.

This bill will go some way, I think, into improving technology in supporting some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders, those with lifelong and severe, enduring mental illness. Quite often at the moment, we’re kind of quite focused on chasing the new, shiny stuff around supporting middle New Zealand—early intervention; mild to moderate—and sometimes at the expense of those New Zealanders who will have to live with lifelong, severe, and enduring mental illness for the rest of their lives. I think one thing we can do, and that this bill will allow, is the increased use of audiovisual link—or AVL—technology. That will allow these vulnerable New Zealanders to, (a) get timely assessment and treatment through the use of AVL but also allow them to include their family and their loved ones in that process.

There has been a lot of discussion along the course of this bill around ensuring the use of that AVL is right and appropriate. I suppose the last thing we want is the use of AVL being primarily driven by, maybe, more the workforce side, around efficiency of time, and what we want to make sure is that the use of AVL is introduced and used on an individual, case by case basis, it’s actually for the benefit of that patient. That’s why it’s good to see in this bill there are enhanced safeguards for the use of things like AVL, where the decision points of why the mental health professional would want to use AVL now has to be recorded, and also that will have to be reported to the director-general of mental health and will be looked to be published, so the public can understand the use of AVL going forward.

That whole principle of safeguards, reporting, and publishing also flows into another key part of this Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, and that was around the use for special patients and it is looking at how we transport them safely. I think we’re looking at a restraint plan for some of those special patients. Again, we wouldn’t want restraint management plans to be seen as a default. We would want to see it on a case by case basis, and probably more in exceptional terms. I think, when we’re advocating and legislating for the increased use of force and restraint, we, unfortunately, know that at times with mental health patients, there might be times, for their own safety and for the safety of people around them, that these restraints will need to be used, but I think it is important that we do have the safeguards around this as well for ensuring it is used in a way that is appropriate and for the safety of the individual as well.

Another thing this bill brings forward in its third reading is around the sunset clauses that were brought in under COVID. We know we all had to respond very differently at the height of the COVID restrictions—and, dare I say it, for some of our colleagues who are in Auckland and the Waikato region at the moment, they’re still dealing with the lockdowns—and, of course, we’d like to acknowledge our mental health and our wider health workforce, who are working in some very trying times to give people the most appropriate treatment in a time of restrictions as well.

One, I think, of the most important parts of this bill is the elimination of indefinite treatment orders. And I think it would probably surprise a lot of New Zealanders that some vulnerable New Zealanders were on indefinite treatment orders. Basically, they were put on an order and just left. And I don’t think anyone would agree, once they were aware of that practice, that that was right. I think that it is right that this bill will enact that every 12 months, for someone who is on a compulsory treatment order, this will need to be reviewed to ensure that, for that person, it’s the most appropriate treatment order for them, either compulsory or voluntary.

But, most importantly, I think that what we want to see—and this is why it’s important we move to repealing and replacing the mental health Act—is that vulnerable New Zealanders with lifelong, severe, and enduring mental illness are put at the heart of their care planning, and we make sure that the care planning around them, the resources they get, actually support them to go on and live the life that they choose, and, hopefully, a life that they can be a productive member of society.

So, I think, in summary, Madam Speaker Dean—it’s nice to see you in the Chair—this is a very small, technical, perfunctory bill that has done well out of the legislative process. But, ultimately, what we want to see from this Government is less stocking-fillers, more actions. They promised a lot in mental health, and now they need to start delivering.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to stand and speak to the third and final reading of this bill, which makes a number of really important but small changes in advance of the wider repeal and replacement of the Act. Just talking about the replacement of the Act, I’m really pleased to see that consultation is under way, and, basically, that will go right through till 28 January next year, because it’s important we take the time to get that right, because it goes to the heart of a lot of really crucial issues like informed consent and engaging patients in their own decision making. And we need to make sure we’ve got adequate public input for that.

Just on this third and final reading, I’d like to thank all of the people that made submissions on the bill, because it resulted in a number of changes, and also the officials that worked with the Health Committee to get it to this point. While it’s quite a brief and technical bill, basically, if we’re eliminating indefinite treatment orders, we’re making changes to the way special patients are transported, and we’re extending the use of AV technology, but with appropriate safeguards, it’s going to make a real difference to the patients that come under the care of this bill. So it’s a really important bill, and I’m happy to commend it to the House.

HARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a privilege for me to be able to rise to take a call on the third reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. And I say that it’s a privilege because, having practised as a lawyer and also as a district inspector monitoring the mental health units for a number of years, I would never have thought that I would be speaking in Parliament and having a voice to amendments, and appropriate amendments, to this bill. They’re appropriate because the tangata whaiora, the in-patients, community-based but also in the detention units, many of whom I know—and, when I go home and I see some of those people amongst our community, it is a privilege, because I know that they’re getting the appropriate care that they are required to have, and it is a privilege that, at some stage of the journey they were on, I was able to help facilitate that. So, as a member of Parliament, I’m helping to facilitate that now with the passage of this bill into law at its third reading.

A little bit of history, in terms of the process. The first reading occurred on 6 April of this year, the second reading on 28 September, and here we are today, on—is it 28, 29, October? I’ve lost track of time—28 October.

Chris Bishop: Through the looking glass.

HARETE HIPANGO: And this bill came—through the looking glass before the Health Committee, and the members there were dealing with 53 submissions; 15 of those had been heard. The bill has come about as a result of the inquiry, which was reported back in November of 2018, He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction. The repeals that are recommended of certain provisions within this bill, but also amendments, have come about from that.

When I addressed the House last, on the second reading, I recollected the memory that I had back in 2017, when the lead of this review, Ron Paterson—and I mentioned that he was a former law professor of mine and he was a former commissioner for the health and disability sector. He came to Whanganui with the panel, and I sat quietly at the back, and I observed and I listened. There were a number of people who I had helped through their journey, in my journey as a lawyer and a district inspector, who were present at that review. So I sat and I listened, and I reflected on some of the hardships and the afflictions that people continued to endure, because of the imposition of the restraints and constraints of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, but also because of the lack of access to support in mental health. And so I reflect on what my colleague Matt Doocey has said. The Government came into power in 2017, and, despite the aspirations, the rhetoric, the good intention, there’s been little effect—real quality, practical effect. So may we see that that changes for the better.

Coming back to the bill, it addresses three core components, in terms of the amendments that are proposed. The first is, effectively, addressing, dispensing, doing away with, indefinite compulsory treatment orders. The making of a compulsory treatment order’s on an application, and that is heard before a judge. Often, the judge will go to the mental health facility for the hearing of that, and that requires that those persons who are not in-patients, are based in the community, are having to be transported. They either make their way themselves—and that’s a difficulty for many of our people, having access to the services, because they don’t have the means to access that, either physically by way of vehicle, or having the support of others alongside them in that journey.

So the amendment that is proposed in this legislation is doing away with indefinite compulsory treatment orders. When a compulsory treatment order is made, it’s either on the basis that the person is going to be able to be positioned and looked after and live within the community, and if they’re not, then detained within an in-patient unit. So there are two types of compulsory treatment orders. Irrespective of the nature of that, it’s required that there’s a review every six months. The first review comes about after six months, and then, if that order is to be extended, it will for another six months, then it comes back for the second review.

Once upon a time—still, until this bill is passed into law—it used to be indefinite. And that indefinite element—again, I’ve talked about the inability of people to access services. So it would often come about that the indefinite nature of the Act would be that people would be left under that compulsory treatment status, and it was about how they were able to access the services that they were deserved of. The only time that that indefinite order would be done away with was if a lawyer, who was on the journey with that particular patient, and that’s what I used to do, would take instructions and give advice to apply to the court for what was called a section 76 review to do away with the indefinite nature of that order. This amendment now says that it’s only in place for six months—for six months—and then for 12 months, no longer an indefinite nature. That is quite a significant change for the tangata whaiora, the people who have been under these orders, because it was a stigma for them. They felt the burden of carrying that stigma, of being an indefinite compulsory treatment patient.

I move to the next element of significant amendments to this bill, and that’s to do with the use of audiovisual link technology where appropriate. Now, I’ve talked about when we have patients who are community-based, and they struggle not only with day-to-day living in the mental health affliction but they struggle with accessing or getting to the venues that they need for the service support and the treatment. The audiovisual link will facilitate those of our people in the community who are under compulsory treatment orders and support.

But there are restrictions and limitations, and it’s important for members of the public and members of the House to know and to realise that this is a specialist area of law. This is a specialist area of practice, and it requires special people serving in that area, and our mental health judges are those people. The mental health judges—again, when I practised, appearing before the mental health judges, there were often difficulties in having members of the community being brought to the mental health unit. The court hearings, in the main, would occur at the facilities where our people were being treated, rather than the expectation of them being taken to a court house. So the judges would set up and go to the people where the need was to be met. The audiovisual link will only come about as a means to facilitate, as is necessary, for those in the community who have access to the technology, the devices, to be able to stream or to beam in. So this is about streamlining and to make it more efficient.

The third element of the bill is to do with those of our patients, our people, who have been brought before the court on a criminal charge, and because of the nature of their mental disorder and a finding by the criminal court to declare the level of cognition, their mental capacity, as being either unfit or declared insane—special patients with that status are placed into what is called a forensic unit. That is a special mental health unit for persons who have been charged with a criminal offence and detained especially in a forensic unit for that treatment. The third element is talking about the transportation of special patients from this forensic unit either to a parole board hearing or to the court where the criminal proceedings are before the court. Now, I speak about the distinction because I worked as a criminal lawyer and I also worked as a mental health lawyer, both very specialised areas of law, but the two do interweave and interlap. This bill will address the transportation of special patients only and the requirement for the special transportation plan to do that, and that there will be people who are specially trained to facilitate, again, access to justice.

This is a bill that’s been in the motions for way too long. The review occurred, the recommendations have been made. There is more to come. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s been a privilege to be involved in the passage of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill since it was first introduced in March. As has been said, it has been widely supported across the House, and it was largely supported during the select committee process, with many passionate and some very moving submissions. So I want to acknowledge those people that took the time to make those submissions.

The bill has been polished into the final form that we speak to now. The intent of this bill is to bring an outdated piece of legislation into the 21st century, helping to secure the human rights, improve the safety, and safeguard the privacy of some pretty vulnerable New Zealanders. Through the elimination of what is most definitely discriminatory indefinite treatment orders, we can achieve that for at least some of the more than 2,500 individuals who experience a mental health issue at any given time.

At the most fundamental level, I think legislation should in some way just improve people’s lives, make lives better for people. And it’s satisfying, I suppose, in that sense, to speak for the final time in support of this bill that really clearly fulfils those obligations. So, on that basis, I do not hesitate to commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. It’s a pleasure to stand in support of this final reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. I speak on behalf of my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who joined the Health Committee to support this bill through this process.

I particularly want to acknowledge, even though this is a small piece of legislation, my colleagues in the suicide prevention sector who will be relieved that this is going through. I want to just say in the context, when we consider Te Whare Tapa Whā, the Māori health model, this particularly relates to the taha hinengaro, our psychological and mental wellbeing, but also our taha wairua, our spirituality and our connectedness to all things in the universe—because the Greens realise that interconnectedness is critical when we’re talking about the mental health and wellbeing of our people. So whether it’s a warm, dry home, enough income to live on, enough food to eat, a life free from violence and harm, access to healthcare and support people when they need it, acceptance of diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics—but a safe place to go when you’re in a mental health crisis that is not your local jail.

We also await the overhaul of the mental health system. We’re very excited that the Government has announced that consultation is now open. We will be strongly encouraging people to submit into that process.

So this bill eliminates the human rights violation of indefinite orders, that particularly discriminate against Māori people. It provides safer transport processes, makes more transparent use of audiovisual technology, which can be useful in assessment and making sure there’s whānau support when kanohi ki te kanohi is not possible, but also they must be accountable for that use. We very much support that, and removing the COVID sunset clause.

So, while we await the overhaul of the entire system, this is a small but important step forward, and we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the third and final reading of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. This is a small and technical bill that I’ve had the pleasure of being part of as part of the Health Committee. It does a range of small, technical amendments. One is to eliminate the indefinite treatment order, another to minimise risk of harm to the patient and members of the public and staff when transporting people under orders from place A to place B, and also removing the sunset date for the technical amendment that was done under the COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Act.

I want to start off by talking a little bit about the indefinite treatment order removal. This was because He Ara Oranga report stated that we needed to be more consistent with our international human rights obligations—and I agree that we do need to do that. I’ve had the privilege of being able to visit people who are held under indefinite treatment orders and I’ve seen firsthand what that looks like, and I want to acknowledge the hard work that our carers and our mental health workforce do. I’ve seen people who genuinely become like family to people under those treatment orders—people who have worked there for 10-plus years who have known these people through their entire stays. It’s such a privilege to see how much support they give on any given day but also to see, I guess, the love that they are showing to New Zealanders to be in that position and providing that support, and I really want to acknowledge the difficult task it is to care for people who are our most vulnerable New Zealanders. I think it is right that we have eliminated the indefinite treatment order, because I do believe that we do need to align ourselves with our human rights obligations.

Secondly, when it comes to the special patient transport it is a very difficult situation to be in, where you are trying to uphold the safety of a person who is vulnerable, who may not necessarily have mental capacity, and also members of the public and other members of staff. I think it is right that we have defined how it is possible to use restraint to minimise harm to people in all aspects.

The third part about removing the sunset date for COVID-19 emergency amendments is an interesting one for me because it’s not often that the ACT Party has supported a COVID-19 response piece of legislation. But this is a very particular matter, and that was because it was about audiovisual technology. And I think it was really important that in COVID times we actually allowed for people to go through normal processes to have assessments and to use new forms of technology. And so that’s why I think this is also another very important step.

Finally, I would just like to acknowledge the people who took the time to submit in the select committee process. It is very hard at any stage of a parliamentary cycle to engage with legislation, but it’s also very hard when you’re talking about mental health. A lot of people struggle not only just to explain the experiences that they’ve had themselves or experiences that they’ve seen from their families with family and friends but to do so with members of Parliament—and to come to Parliament and to do Zoom with people, I think that is very brave. And I want to acknowledge the support that we should all show to people who go through the mental health system and to the family and friends, because mental health does not just affect one person; it affects everybody in society. And so, on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill. As a member of the Health Committee, I’d just like to add my grateful thanks to the submitters who very courageously, in some instances, and at personal cost, submitted to make this piece of legislation even better. Some of the things that we did—obviously, make changes, as we do in select committee to make this legislation even better. One of the things we did was requiring the reasons for audiovisual technology use to be recorded, which was something that we heard several submissions on. We’re going to be requiring practitioners to report the reasons for the use of audiovisual link technology to the Director of Area Mental Health Services, and these can be included in the quarterly reports by the director of mental health, and this will be so that it doesn’t become a default option.

This is a good piece of legislation which addresses some pressing issues whilst we continue the work on repeal and replacement of the Mental Health Act. I commend it to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Bishop—five-minute call.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’ve got to say, it’s very disappointing to see Government members who spent quite a deal of time making merry politically over the issue of mental health in previous years—not so much these days, actually, because the record’s got so much worse, but members opposite who have spent quite a bit of time making political hay out of mental health—not even bother to take one-minute long calls on a bill to improve the system. But, you know, that’s their decision and one that, I suspect, they will regret, but there we go.

This is a sensible bill, as our spokesperson, Matt Doocey, has outlined, and the National Party is supporting it. I think Brooke van Velden also made a useful contribution to the debate on the third reading. I agree with the things that she said in her very useful speech. This is all about improving individual rights and the safety of patients and the public. It’s a reasonably short bill, but one that will make sensible improvements.

It is, of course, part of the Government’s response to He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction. It’s just worth nothing that the context with which this bill comes in has been a frustrating one, I think, for both the Opposition here now but also Oppositions in the past—of course, now the Government. I think it would be fair to say, taking politics out of the situation—

Hon Member: Good.

CHRIS BISHOP: —for a moment. Well, the member opposite says “Good.”, but that was not the attitude of the Labour Party to mental health for a good deal of time. I remember, as a new MP sitting in the Parliament as a new backbencher, watching the Hon Annette King weaponise the suffering of patients in the mental health system and callously using their bad experiences against the Government of the day, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, and prior to that, the Hon Tony Ryall. So it’s a little bit rich, I have to say, for Labour members now to say that we’ve got to depoliticise mental health—a little bit rich—but I welcome the commitment.

I was making the point about how He Ara Oranga came as a response to, I think, a deep-seated sense in the community that mental health had gone awry and that despite Governments’—“Governments” plural—efforts to improve the system, that just had not happened. The Minister of Health himself has said various things like, “I pump in all this money and nothing seems to change.”, and that was the experience of the last National Government as well. Sometimes it’s not so much about the quantum—in fact, it’s deeply ironic, because we always used to say to the Minister, “It’s not so much about the quantum; it’s about what you do with it, and, of course, the structures and the systems in place.” And we were told for a very long period of time that, you know, the funding was all the issue. Now the Minister, who was the Opposition spokesperson, he says, “Oh, it’s actually not about so much the money; it’s about how you do it.”, which, of course, is the point right from the start.

So He Ara Oranga was a good-faith attempt, and it’s been a very long period of time. And, of course, this is part of the work programme to make changes, but there’s so much more to do, as I’m sure you are aware, and all members will be aware of as well.

Just yesterday, I sat on the Health Committee as we heard a petition from Brooke Lacey, a very courageous and remarkable young woman, actually, who I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know a little bit just in the last few months about her experiences with the health system. Honestly, no one who would listen to her story would think that we don’t have so many more changes that need to be made in New Zealand.

I know, in fairness to the Government, there is at least a good intention there. Whether or not that good intention translates into good policy and practice is an open question, but one that we will continue to interrogate on this side of the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Barbara Edmonds—five minutes.

BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Mālō ni, Madam Speaker. In my electorate of Mana, we had the largest psychiatric hospital in the country in operation from 1887 to 2007, and the saying “if walls could speak” springs to mind. This bill is evidence that something had to change. He Ara Oranga was evidence that something had to change. The stories shared in the House today are evidence that something had to change.

These amendments in the bill are intended to improve the protection of individual rights, the safety of patients and the public, and to enable the Act to work more effectively. We don’t need to take long calls on this side of the House, because we know change is needed. There is consensus across the House. So, therefore, I lend my support to this bill and I commend it to the House.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): I also believe that we need to move this with urgency and speak as quickly as possible on what is a very important part of this in protecting the individual rights and safety of patients and the public. When we do this, we know that we’re doing it from across the House; it has been widely supported. And it was good to hear earlier from the other side that they think that this bill is in good shape. And with that as well, I will commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to speak in support of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill in its final reading. It’s a privilege to speak alongside my National Party colleagues with such wealth of experience in this area: Matt Doocey a mental health practitioner, and Harete—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! With apologies to the member, could those two members on my left please observe social distancing. Thank you.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Also, I acknowledge Harete Hipango, who has significant experience as a lawyer practising in this area.

Like my colleague Chris Bishop, I also regret that the Government speakers have not been able to maintain more than a few minutes speaking on this matter, which is incredibly important to people of New Zealand, and particularly a Government that campaigned so vigorously on mental health issues.

I agree that this bill has small but significant changes in it, but those changes relate, really, to those with the most significant and enduring mental health conditions. And we, really, are seeing mental health across a whole wide range of communities and levels of severity skyrocketing and ballooning out times waiting for services. So, yes, we certainly support these changes, but they should be seen in that context of a Government that promised much and has delivered little in this area, a country that is grappling with significant mental health issues, and an Act that needs much wider repeal and replacing than these minor adjustments.

I don’t want to say “minor” and take away any of the importance of the changes in this. They certainly are important, and like others who have spoken today from the Health Committee, it was a privilege to listen to the submitters, both the service providers who submitted and also the users of services. It was a really salient reminder of just how personal these changes will be for people. I think back to one of the submitters, a young gentleman who had been under a compulsory treatment order for four years, and his submission spoke of the loss of hope that that gave him, being in a compulsory treatment order that was indefinite. We can only imagine that indefinite situation, seeping hope out of your being that there is no review period. So I think about how, when this bill is passed, what a sense of hope it will give to that individual, and I think we should take much pride in that.

Many of the submitters talked about how it is a breach of human rights to have had the indefinite treatment orders, and certainly we can see when we look at the impact that it has had on individuals. So I think that is one of the most significant parts, to ensure that any compulsory treatment order is reviewed on a 12-month period, and that wasn’t without some discussion. There were a number of submitters who would have liked to have seen that a six-monthly period review. I think, probably, with the discussion that went on, we feel we came to the right place being a 12-month duration, and certainly that’ll be something that we should be looking at when the full repeal and replacement comes into place. Hopefully, we will have had a chance to see how that 12-month review period has been working.

The other part of it that there was a considerable amount of discussion around was the transportation of special patients and the need to use restraint at some times to ensure that it was the safest and least restrictive way to maintain both the patient’s safety but also staff and public safety. As you can imagine, the use of restraint is not something that any of us would want to see be used lightly, and it is something that caused considerable discussion, around the severity, the use of it, the regularity. I think that, again, through those discussions on the Health Committee, we came to a good compromise.

The other matter that, of course, COVID has made us all look at is how often we do need to be in person and how feasible it is to use audiovisual links. Again, quite an amount of discussion on what might seem a simple amendment but, listening to the submitters, obviously family that might be in rural areas, that it was quite difficult for them to attend some of the assessment meetings. This was going to add an ability for them to be present and be present in support of their friends and family. Again, it was good to be able to relate that back at a very personal level when one of the submitters spoke about how, during their assessment several years ago, they were entirely alone and how hopeless that made them feel.

So, yes, certainly, audiovisual links are a valuable and important tool, not only for the patient but also for family or caregiver support for the patient. But our conversations and our discussions around it were very much that this must not be a default place because of staffing issues or budget issues or convenience issues for officials. It must definitely be patient- and patient family - and caregiver-centred so that it is not being used as a convenience to officials but rather as an enabling opportunity for families and for the patients. So we were pleased, again, to have got to a good place there, where a requirement for reporting on how often, and the reasons why, the audiovisual was used instead of in-person assessments, and also that that reporting will be taken to a higher level to be able to look right across the country to see that there is consistency in the use of that across the country. So that gave us an element of trust that this would be used in an appropriate way.

So it was certainly a bill that had a small number of changes but very important changes that we know will make a very significant difference to people whose lives are being impacted by this. But it should not be lost that it really is small, minor changes in the context of an Act that needs significant repeal and replacement in a time when our country is experiencing an incredible issue with mental health, with the skyrocketing numbers and with the waiting times and access to services. So we do commend this bill to the House, but we do it in the hope that it will be sooner rather than later that we see the full repeal and replacement of the Act. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great privilege to stand and take the final call on this very important bill, third and final reading. Many have reflected today on the significant mahi, very personal mahi, that has gone into this bill and the development of it—the submitters and the members of the select committee. I acknowledge you and your work.

This legislation is immediate and so impactful, as many of you have said very eloquently. It improves our ability to take care of our most vulnerable. That unity that we’ve seen in the House today, I think, shows that today we say to our most vulnerable and those who care for them: we see you. And the other thing that I think would be really important to do as the last speaker is to look forward. I’m really pleased to hear the support across the House to stand collectively and do this very important work to build a new mental health Act that has mana, it has aroha and human rights at the heart of it, so I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Voting

Correction—COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order. Sorry, Madam Speaker. It’s come to my attention that the way the National Party voted on—I know this is slightly unusual. But the way the National Party voted in relation to Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) from the COVID-19 management measures bill, there was a bit of confusion about two SOPs from the Green Party. Essentially, what I’m seeking leave of the House to do is to change our vote in relation to the two SOPs and flip from one to the other.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): OK. So in relation to SOP 70, which is the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s SOP, National voted in favour of it and we want to vote against it, and in relation to SOP 69, which is the SOP in the name of Golriz Ghahraman, National voted against but we wish to vote in favour of it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Bills

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Films, Videos, and Publications (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m just going to ask the member to say that motion again, please, from the beginning.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I present a legislative statement on the Films, Videos, and Publications (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI: I move that the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classifications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! With apologies to the Minister.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Have I got it wrong, Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Can I invite the Minister—[Passes paper to the Hon Jan Tinetti] In fact, I will need it back, but—

Chris Bishop: Oh, come on.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I don’t need any assistance, thank you, from that member.

Hon JAN TINETTI: It’s such a long title, Madam Speaker. Ha, ha!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Is the Minister there yet with—

Hon JAN TINETTI: So what were the words that were missing, Madam Speaker? It’s such a long title. So Madam Speaker, do you want me to start that again?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon Jan Tinetti—“I move”.

Hon JAN TINETTI: OK. I present a legislative statement—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The motion—“I move”.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): “Amendment Bill” be now read a third time.

Hon JAN TINETTI: OK. Thank you, Madam Speaker. You can see that we’ve struggled with this title the whole way through this bill, and I will say that every single member in this House in the second reading has had exactly the same issue, and I think it even made it to RNZ’s The House, because the title is so long.

Chris Bishop: I think this one’s coming too.

Hon JAN TINETTI: I think you might be right, Mr Bishop.

This bill’s objective is to ensure that Government, internet service providers, and online content hosts can swiftly and consistently take action against objectionable material—that is the worst type of material that is already illegal in New Zealand—by updating the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, and, as I pointed out in the committee of the whole House, that’s what this very long titled bill will fold into after this bill goes through its third reading.

I’ve already spoken extensively in the House about the importance of this bill and the changes it will implement to keep New Zealanders safe online, so my third and final speech on this bill is going to be quite brief. Material that is considered objectionable in New Zealand includes child exploitation material and violent extremism or terrorism content. We know that viewing objectionable content can be extremely harmful and distressing, regardless of whether or not viewing the content was intentional or forewarned. Sadly, this is what we saw as the horrific events of the March 15 terror attacks in Christchurch unfolded as they were live streamed. In the days that followed, thousands of links to the video of the live stream appeared on social media. More than 6,000 people contacted the national mental health centre in the days that followed of the attacks, showing the trauma that those who witnessed the video—the trauma and harm that it caused to them.

This tragedy starkly highlighted the gaps and inefficiencies in our current classification Act and how important it is for the Government to have the right tools to stop such content from being uploaded and spread. The bill addresses this by making it a criminal offence to knowingly live stream objectionable content. It enables the chief censor to make interim classification assessments in urgent situations for content that is likely to be objectionable, which means that enforcement agencies and online content hosts will have the legal certainty they need to move faster and remove objectionable content.

The bill also enables authorised inspectors to issue takedown notices for online content hosts to remove objectionable material on their sites, which gives officials the tools required to combat the posting of this content. Finally, the bill will close a loophole by ensuring the safe harbour provisions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 will not apply to objectionable material online. This bill is important as it will allow the Government to act swiftly if future such incidents occur. It will mean New Zealanders can be better protected from the harms that we know viewing this type of content can cause.

Before I conclude, I’d like to acknowledge the former Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Tracey Martin, for her work of instigating this bill. I’d also like to once again give my huge amount of appreciation to the Governance and Administration Committee and to all the individuals and groups who took the time to submit on the bill. Their careful consideration and valuable recommendations on this bill have led to its improvement.

I would also like to thank the Department of Internal Affairs and the officials that were involved in the work on this bill. It was important work and they worked tirelessly to get it to this stage. For the final time, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, before we move on, we have a correction to a vote taken during the committee stage of the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill. The vote on Chris Penk’s tabled amendment inserting new Schedule 1A was wrongly announced as Ayes 43, Noes 75. The correct result is Ayes 53, Noes 65. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

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

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. The Minister was quite correct in that this has been quite a mouthful of a title of a bill for quite some time. I was just reflecting on the time that Tangi Utikere and I, as chair and deputy chair of the Governance and Administration Committee, were charged with making a video when submissions were opened. I think we got to about three takes before we got it right. So it’s been a pretty long name and it takes up quite some time in terms of making the speeches.

But I would like to thank Minister Tinetti, and I know it’s been acknowledged that the Governance and Administration Committee did some good work around this. I would like to acknowledge Melissa Lee also, who is in Auckland at this time and isn’t in the House, who was part of that process. Just to say that it was much easier working with a piece of legislation when a Minister is willing to work with a committee to make things better.

We all came to the House at various times in our careers, but we all came with the intention of making good legislation. This is a largely improved bill because of the way that the Minister dealt with the committee and acknowledged that there was a problem around the filter. It needs to be acknowledged that in the first reading of this bill, there was really only the Labour Party who were in support of it, and now we’ve actually got to the stage where we’ve made a lot of progress across the House and it’s good to be able to go out there and say that we support this because we’ve worked to a space where the legislation is much, much better. Now, I’m not a technical person, as Melissa Lee is, and I know that Melissa will say that there are some parts of this bill that technically could be improved, and I know there’s still some questions around how we interrelate globally in this space, but what I would like to say is it is very much improved.

I also note that in this process the Department of Internal Affairs were fantastic as we went through this bill. There was such an openness to provide us with information as we needed it. I also would like to acknowledge the people who do the work in censoring some of this awful stuff that people choose to put online—for goodness knows what reason they do it. We have some dedicated people in our society who spend their time having to watch some of this stuff or see it to protect the rest of us and particularly our children from it. It’s really important that we give credit to those people, because at night when they go home, they need to switch off, and sometimes it must be quite hard seeing what they actually see.

The other group I would like to acknowledge in this is the Christchurch community, and particularly the Muslim community where the genesis of this bill started, in terms of what they went through; no one should ever have to experience what they went through. But the fact that not only did they experience it, but they had this awful live streaming that went alongside of it. That is just something that, you know, most of us, while we can sympathise with them, would actually not have any idea what their families are still going through and will continue to go through for ever.

Just also, while I’m mentioning Christchurch at the moment, I sort of note the time and it’s heading up towards 5 minutes to 1. I know that we’ve got a couple of COVID cases down in Christchurch and just thinking about announcements for this afternoon, it does seem to be that the Auckland community’s doing it tough at the moment, taking the lion’s share. The Waikato communities are also doing their share through COVID, and if I think about the Christchurch community and everything that they’ve been through, it’s been quite a tough time. So I wish them well and I hope that the South Island’s state comes quickly into control around COVID and that we can get on top of this and, hopefully, that it doesn’t lead to anything much bigger.

Thank you, Minister, for removing the filter. We’re a party over here who does believe in free speech, and I know that that really concerned a lot of people in the process of this bill. That was a biggie, and that was the deal that got us over the line in this bill. And the other thing I will mention just before I close on this one is that we were also concerned about the word “objectionable”, but it is defined in law, because in this day and age people are offended by different things and it would be a shame to get into a society where “objectionable” is too loose. But we’re satisfied that it’s set in the law and it is an extremely high bar and it’s not something that’s just going to be used at a whim. It’s going to only be used for extremely objectionable, abhorrent, terrible material such as, you know, what happened with Christchurch.

So thank you again, Minister. I’m not going to labour the name of the bill one more time. I’m just going to say at this point in time—

Hon Jan Tinetti: Say it again.

BARBARA KURIGER: Say it again. OK, I’ll say it one more time for good measure, because once it’s passed, the name actually will—well, it’s an amendment so we’re never going to have to say it again. So I commend the Films, Videos, and Publications (Urgent Interim Classification and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)